NOTICE: The preceding time I posted a version of this book I said it would be the last one I would post on my Webpage and the Internet in general, but that version had many small blemishes that needed to be corrected. Even now, after making many of those corrections, the footnotes involve excessive repetition because I had originally decided they should serve the function of a glossary. The reasons for this are that often the same term is rendered in different ways according to context; that different terms are often rendered in the same way; and that I did not want the reader to have to stop reading to go to the end of the book in order to consult a glossary for finding out what was the term that was rendered in a certain way. The version that will be published on paper will have to go through an editor who will change the methodology, probably preparing a glossary that will appear at the end of the book, so that the terms in Sanskrit, Tibetan, Pāli, Chinese and so on will not have to be given again and again in footnotes and endnotes. Moreover, probably the editor will remove some of the explanations in the notes that deal with secondary matters. So this version is the most definitive one among those that have the footnotes and endnotes complete, and hence it will remain posted after the printed version appears. 1 Elías Capriles BUDDHISM AND DZOGCHEN: THE DOCTRINE OF THE BUDDHA AND THE SUPREME VEHICLE OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM PART ONE BUDDHISM: A DZOGCHEN OUTLOOK 3 Composition courtesy of: Center for Studies on Africa and Asia, Faculty of Humanities and Education, University of the Andes, Mérida, Venezuela Composed in Times 12. Title: Buddhism and Dzogchen Author: Elias-Manuel Capriles-Arias New text produced by Elías Capriles, based on the English translation of an earlier book in Spanish by the same author, carried out by Judith Daugherty and Elias Capriles It is prohibited to reproduce any section of this work, by any means, without the expressed consent of the author, given in writing; it is permitted, on the other hand, to summarize and quote for the purpose of study, provided that the names of the author, the translators and the publisher are always mentioned. © 2003 by Elias-Manuel Capriles-Arias This revised ed., last one to be uploaded to this Webpage for free downloading: @ 2016 by Elias-Manuel Capriles-Arias 4 This book is dedicated to Kyabjés H.H. Dudjom Jigdräl Yeshe Dorje and Thinle Norbu, who were the source of my Dzogchen practice, and to Kyabjé Namkhai Norbu, who communicates the Dzogchen teachings in what I believe was the original way of so doing and the one most suitable for our time—including an ancient way of structuring the teachings that had fallen into disuse—and from whom I expect to receive the teachings I still require. To the three of them I express my heartfelt thanks. I also extend my heartfelt thanks to Kyabjé H.H. Dilgo Khyentse, from whom I received so many transmissions and teachings and whose confidence in rigpa was a great help for my practice. I extend them to Kyabjé Dodrub Chen for his empowerments, lungs and the discussion of Jigme Lingpa’s Seng ge’i nga ro. And to Kyabjé Chatral Yeshe Dorje for an apposite surprise empowerment and for his loving care and his invaluable help when devotees of the infamous Gyälpo Shugten accused me of wreaking havoc by means of black magic. a b c d e f g h 1 In Mérida, Venezuela, on May 30, 2016 Elías Capriles a b c d e f g h Wylie, sKyabs rje bDud ’joms ’jigs ’bral ye shes rdo rje. Wylie, sKyabs rje (gDung bras) Phrin las nor bu. Wylie, sKyabs rje Nam mkha’i nor bu. Wylie, sKyabs rje Dil mgo mkhyen brtse. Wylie, sKyabs rje rDo grub chen. Wylie, dbang bskur. Wylie, sKyabs rje Bya ’bral ye shes rdo rje. Wylie, rGyal po Shugs ldan. 5 INTRODUCTION Each time someone joined our Sunday meditation group, I felt obliged to explain the theoretical basis of the practice: the Four Noble Truths; the division of the Buddhist Way into three principal Paths that Nub Namkhai Nyingpo outlined in his bKa’ thang sde lnga (which was then revealed as a terma by tertön Orgyen Lingpa ), that Nubchen Sangye Yeshe reproduced in his bSam gtan mig sgron (which was written over a millennium ago but had been lost for centuries, until a copy was found in the twentieth century), and that Chögyal Namkhai Norbu diffused in our time; the continuum of Base, Path and Fruit in Dzogchen Atiyoga; the three series of teachings of this vehicle; etc. Therefore, in order to save time and energy, I decided to write a booklet with these explanations. However, as I proceeded, the text became longer and more complex, and at some point I realized I was writing a book. Understanding that doing so would force me to systematize my own comprehension of the teachings and fill in whichever blanks that could turn up, and realizing that there were no likes to the book I was writing, and that therefore it could be very useful to Westerners who are interested in Dzogchen, I decided to continue to work on it in order to make it suitable for publication. From the moment I met my Tibetan teachers, I have given priority to practice over scholarship. In fact, when, in 1977, Chime Rigdzin Rinpoche invited me to study under him at Vishvabharati University in Shantiniketan, West Bengal, India, I opted for going into strict retreat in the mountains of Nepal instead, where until December 1982 I spent most of my time intensively practicing the Dzogchen Series of pith instructions on the basis of the teachings by both H.H. Dudjom Rinpoche and his eldest son, Thinle Norbu Rinpoche. Accordingly, my aim in writing this book is to provide a sound theoretical foundation to those who seriously want to devote themselves to the practice, and hence all explanations in it were structured in the way I thought most convenient for making clear the essence of the fundamental practice and preventing distortions in its application. a2 b 3 c d e4 f g h i j k Wylie, gNubs Nam mkha’i snying po. Wylie, gter ma. Wylie, gter ston. Wylie, O rgyan gling pa. Wylie, gNubs chen Sangs rgyas ye shes. Wylie, Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu. Wylie, rdzogs chen (contraction of rdzogs pa chen po); language of Oḍḍiyāna, santimaha (diacritics omitted due to unawareness of the exact pronunciation of that language); Skt. mahāsaṅdhi. Wylie, ’Chi med rig ’dzin rin po che. Skt. Upadeśavarga; Tib. Menngagde or Menngaggyide (Wylie, man ngag [gyi] sde). Wylie, bDud ’joms rin po che. Wylie, Phrin las nor bu rin po che. a b c d e f g h i j k 7 However, my intellectual idiosyncrasy made me want to explain everything and to do so in ways that are normal to my mentality but which others may find abstract and abstruse, and as such difficult to follow. And, in fact, upon seeing the final product, I realized that understanding some passages of the book might be found difficult by readers who are not sufficiently acquainted with abstract thinking. Nevertheless, the idea was to make the book useful to both neophytes and expert practitioners. Since neophytes and in general those who are to devote themselves to the practice rather than become Buddhologists and/or Tibetologists should not be required to memorize a great deal of terms in foreign languages, I took care of offering translations and/or explanations whenever I used a Sanskrit or Tibetan term for the first time. So that expert practitioners and scholars could find in the work a generous source of specialized information, and, at the same time, neophytes and those who have no intention to become scholars could acquire a wider, more global understanding of the book’s topics, I decided to include extensive notes explaining specific points of the regular text more exhaustively and relating them to other aspects of the teachings (often indicating why one translation was chosen instead of other, more common ones, and frequently discussing the latter’s etymology and the meaning they have in philosophical and ordinary language). It was in the summer of 1998 and as a result of a little more than a month of work, that the first draft in Spanish came forth; however, the text still needed careful polishing, and its extension was a fraction of the current version in the English language. Then, in September 1998, in Madrid, I taught a course on the Base level of the Santi Maha Sangha training designed by Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche. Antonio Gómez Ceto, who was among those who attended the course, told me that the project seemed worthwhile and took the draft to Antonio Pacheco Fuentes, who at the time managed Ediciones La Llave (then in Vitoria, Spain), and after examination by the Publishers’ manager and then by its owner (noted Gestalt and transpersonal psychologist Claudio Naranjo), it was decided to publish it. This led me to further improve the text, which I did during the summer of 1999; however, the publishers insisted that the book should not become too long, and that it should be ready shortly; therefore, I was unable to polish the original Spanish text to the degree I would have desired. Two years after its publication in Spanish, I decided to translate the book into English, enlarging it and polishing it so that, while still being meant for practitioners and being useful to neophytes, it would provide more prepared practitioners and scholars with a more comprehensive explanation of the topics covered. Since at the time I was busy with other editorial projects, I posted an announcement asking for a translator. A few people replied, among whom I chose Judith Daugherty, from Oregon, USA, who in a relatively short time produced an English version of the whole book. I began working on Part One, which I expanded and polished considerably, until I realized that it would fill a whole volume. Therefore, I decided to divide the book into a number of tomes, according to the large that Parts Two and Three would reach in the English version. Though I have not yet prepared the English version of Parts II and III, and hence I do not know whether they will fit in one volume, I assume that they will be compressed together in Vol. II. This would not necessarily mean that the book will have only two volumes, for in early 2015 it occurred to me that, when I receive permission to make public the texts of instructions on the a a Capriles (2000). 8 practices of the Dzogchen Series of pith instructions that I have authored, I might add an extra tome, which I assume would be Vol. III and which would be a restricted circulation book featuring the texts in question. a In this new English version of the first of the three parts into which the original book in Spanish was divided, I tried to express as precisely as possible the essence of the teachings, while at the same time providing ample background information, for I had the impression that, among the Dzogchen books that have been published in the West, those intended to allow the reader to understand the essence of the teaching did not abound in information, and most of those that contained an enormous quantity of information did not weave these facts into a global vision conveying the essence of Dzogchen and clearly showing this teaching’s place in the Buddhist universe. The fact that, with very few exceptions, quotations in the book were taken from works in Western languages, was not the fruit of a preconceived didactic decision but of fortuitous circumstances. The title, Buddhism and Dzogchen, may seem strange, since the connection of two nouns by means of a copulative conjunction implies that the nouns refer to two separate and different things—and hence it may be taken to mean I take Buddhism to be one thing and Dzogchen to be quite another. However, this is not the case: I chose this title because of the way the work is structured: Part One, titled “Buddhism: A Dzogchen Outlook,” is devoted to Buddhism as an indivisible system involving a set of Paths, vehicles and schools, among which Dzogchen Atiyoga is the supreme Path or vehicle. In this volume all of these Paths, vehicles and schools are discussed from the perspective of the Dzogchen teachings. Part Two, called “Dzogchen: A Buddhist Outlook,” discusses Dzogchen from the standpoint of Buddhism, in an attempt to convey the essence of Buddhist Dzogchen. Part Three, named “Treading the Path: One Principle and Various Practices,” on the basis of a discussion of the general principle of all Buddhist practices, describes some of the specific practices pertaining to the Dzogchen teachings and/or based on Dzogchen principles, and disserts on the integration of the Path as a whole into daily life in a way that combines the various Paths and vehicles of the Ancient (Nyingma ) Tibetan Buddhist tradition. 5 b Part One, which together with this Introduction constitutes the present Volume, draws an outline of Buddhism as an indivisible whole of Paths, vehicles and schools, expressing the common ground of all of the latter, and the specificities of each of them. In particular, it emphasizes the special features that tell the Dzogchen teaching apart from the other Buddhist teachings and vehicles, and discusses the relationships between topics, vehicles and Paths I deem necessary for conveying a sound intellectual comprehension of the general Buddhist Path and the specific Dzogchen Path. And since the teaching that defines the essence of Buddhism, allowing one to grasp the reasons why one would do well to devote oneself to the practice of Buddhism, and that is at the root of all Buddhist Paths, is that of the Four Noble Truths—the first one that Śākyamuni Buddha offered after Awakening—it is in terms of this teaching that I have structured most of this Part One of Buddhism and Dzogchen. This I have done in a sui generis way that resulted from relating 6 a b Tib. Menngagde or Menngaggyide (Wylie, man ngag [gyi] sde); Skt. Upadeśavarga. Wylie, rNying ma. 9 the Buddhist teachings with my own experience, rather than in the ways that were customary in Tibet, which describe in great details the diverse sufferings attributed to each realm and sub-realm, and that emphasize in particular the sufferings characteristic of each of the hells posited in the Buddhist teachings. As a rule, Buddhist traditions discuss the schools that flourished in the cultural milieu in which they developed, but not those that arose and/or unfolded in other cultural milieus. However, in our time, the main cultural traits and religions of most cultural milieus may be known by all, and are indeed known to scholars and practitioners, in the entire world. In fact, there is a wide diffusion of the varieties of Theravāda Buddhism that developed in Southeast Asia and in Śrī Laṅkā, of some of the Mahāyāna schools of China, Vietnam, Korea and Japan [among which most diffused worldwide is obviously Chán Buddhism], and of the traditions of Tibet, Bhutan, Mongolia and Nepal, which teach most existing vehicles and schools, but emphasize the Tantric teachings of the Vajrayāna. Therefore, rather than circumscribing the discussion of schools to those that are well known in Tibet, I am also offering brief descriptions of Theravāda Buddhism, and of most Chinese schools of the Mahāyāna, on the basis of the research and studies that I have carried out during the last decades—which are also the source of a large part of the rest of the relationships that are established in the book (some of them not very well known in the West). The classification of the vehicles and the very structure of the book are based on the ancient division of the nine Buddhist vehicles listed by the Nyingmapas into Path of Renunciation, Path of Transformation and Path of Spontaneous Liberation, which was taught in Tibet during the First Dissemination of the Doctrine and codified at the time by Nub Namkhai Nyingpo and, subsequently, by Nubchen Sangye Yeshe —and which in our time was propagated in the West by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu, who, possessing the necessary capacity, courage and uprightness, set out to restore the teachings to their original form. As noted above, this classification, which I deem most suitable for our age, came to us through two early Tibetan Buddhist works: (1) Namkhai Nyingpo’s bKa’ thang sde lnga, which during the first dissemination of the Dharma in Tibet was concealed as a terma or spiritual treasure to be revealed when the proper time would come for it to be taught and practiced, and which in the thirteenth century was revealed by tertön Orgyen Lingpa; and (2) Nubchen Sangye Yeshe’s bSam gtan mig sgron, which was written not so long after the former and which was rediscovered in the twentieth century after having been out of circulation for a long time due to a lack of available copies. It must be emphasized that the Samten Migdrön reproduces verbatim a great deal of passages of from the Kathang Dennga as revealed by Orgyen Lingpa, and that since the copy of it rediscovered in the twentieth century was very old, it is most likely to have been spared from alterations—all of which strongly suggests that the classification in question was established in Tibet at the time of a7 b c d e f g h i 8 9 a b c d e f g h i Skt. Sthaviravāda. 禪; Wade-Giles, Ch’an ; Jap. ぜん (hiragana) / Zen (romaji); Korean, 선 (Seon); Viet. Thiền. Wylie, rNying ma pa: the “Ancient Ones.” Tib. spong lam. Tib. sgyur lam. Tib. grol lam. Wylie, gNubs nam mkha’i snying po. Wylie, gNubs chen sangs rgyas ye shes. Wylie, gter ma. 2 10 the first dissemination of the Buddha-dharma (eight century CE), and that the accusations that Orgyen Lingpa’s infamous critics made against this most venerable and realized tertön (widely regarded as the Awake individual who was reborn as such the highest number of times in Tibet) were utterly baseless. Moreover, it suggests that it was the political and cultural dominance of the Newer—i.e. Sarmapa—schools that caused the Ancient or Nyingmapa Tradition to stop making use of its ancient threefold classification of its nine vehicles and adopt the one it shared with the Sarmapa or Newer schools—namely the one that divided those vehicles into Hīnayāna, Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna. The Bön tradition also has a classification of vehicles into Path of Renunciation, Path of Transformation, and Path of Self-liberation. However, the Path of Renunciation was nonexistent in pre-Buddhist Bön: the current Bön tradition, which H.H. the Dalai Lama recognizes as the fifth Buddhist School of Tibet (the sixth being the Jonangpa ), absorbed the Path of Renunciation from the Buddhism established in Tibet during the first Millennium B.C.E. Therefore, it must have absorbed the threefold division of Paths we are concerned with from first dissemination (i.e., Nyingma) Buddhism—which once more would attest to the fact that the division in question comes from pre-Sarma times, and would lend weight to the correct view that Orgyen Lingpa’s terma really came from the time of Padmasambhava. a Part Two of the book focuses on the Buddhist Dzogchen teachings themselves, which constitute the Supreme Vehicle of Buddhism, but which, rather than having been taught directly by the nirmāṇakāya Śākyamuni, were transmitted by a lay manifestation of this nirmāṇakāya foretold in the Buddhist scriptures, called Prahevajra (in Tibetan, Garab Dorje ), who appeared several centuries after the time of Śākyamuni in the land of Oḍḍiyāna (which according to Chögyal Namkhai Norbu and most Nyingma Lamas and scholars corresponds to or encompasses the Swat valley in present day Pakistan ). In this part of the book, the Base, Path and Fruit of Ati Dzogpa Chenpo are discussed in terms of the threefold divisions into which each of them is classified. Likewise, the three series of teachings making up the Atiyogatantra—the Series of [the essence or nature of] mind, the Series of space and the Series of pith instructions —are discussed, with the focus on the last of these series, which is the only one that I have intensively practiced and feel entitled to discuss in some detail on the basis of my own experience, and which in our time is the one that is most widely practiced—likely because of the incontrovertible fact that, for those in whom it works, it is most effective in this time of degeneration. 10 b 11 c d e 12 a b c d e Wylie, jo nang pa. dga’ rab rdo rje. Tib. Sems sde; Skt. Cittavarga. Tib. kLong sde; Skt. Abhyantaravarga. Tib. Man ngag [gyi] sde; Skt. Upadeśavarga. 11 The three aspects of the Base and the three forms of manifestation of the third aspect, which is energy, the three series of Dzogchen teachings, Yantra Yoga / adhisāra and the cycle of day and night, were discussed principally on the basis of teachings transmitted by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu in Venezuela (many of which I had collected in The Path of Self-liberation and our Total Plenitude and Perfection, which I compiled and edited in Spanish but which has not been published and will not be published). For their part, many of the explanations of the characteristics of the different Vehicles and the differences among them provided in Part One of the book, are based on the Base Level of the Santi Maha Samgha training devised by the same Master—to which I expect the present work may serve both as a key and as a complement. However, some specific explanations come from the teachings I received from Dungse Thinley Norbu Rinpoche in Nepal during the second half of the 1970s and beginning of the 1980s. At any rate, the final criterion in terms of which the teachings were arranged and expounded was the one followed by Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche and, in particular, that of his Santi Maha Sangha training. And, as already noted, this is owing to the fact that I recognize in the teachings of this Master the way of transmitting both Buddhism and Dzogchen that corresponds to our time. Finally, as stated above, Part Three of the book discusses the general principle of all Buddhist practice in terms of the dynamics of the maṇḍala, and then examines various practices proper to the Dzogchen Path as well as practices of other Paths of the Ancient or Nyingmapa Tibetan Buddhist tradition that are subsidiary to the practice of Dzogchen, and the combination of all of these practices in that which Chögyal Namkhai Norbu calls “the cycle of day and night,” which involves that which tradition calls “carrying the six gatherings on the Path” —where the “gatherings” are the object, sense and consciousness of each of the six senses that Buddhism acknowledges (the five “outer” ones—namely the ones universally acknowledged in the West—and the “inner” one that is awareness of “mental phenomena”) and which is intended to allow practitioners to turn all activities and experiences into the Path (including that of the second clear light that shines after falling asleep or dying, and, should one fail to recognize the light in question or should one recognize it but then lose awareness of it and begin to dream, recognize as such the experience of dreaming ). Specific topics dealt with in this part are the practice of Yantra a b 13 c d e f14 The term “energy” renders the Tibetan thugs rje (lit. soft and noble heart), which is one of the Tibetan terms that render the Skt. karuṇā (the other one being snying rje; Ch. 悲 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bēi; Wade-Giles, pei —lit. sadness or mercy]), which is rendered as “compassion.” After Awakening, a Buddha continues to live solely as the function of nonreferential compassion. The Base, which is the Buddha-nature and which is what we (are) in truth, is the true, ultimate, birthless, deathless Buddha. Since the energy aspect of the Base is unobstructedness and continued appearance, so long as experience continues to arise through us, it is the true Buddha that is continuing to give rise to experience—the energy aspect—in us, doing so because of compassion (even when we are unaware of this and feel “thrown” [Ger. Geworfen, in Heidegger’s sense] in the world). This is the reason why in the Dzogchen teachings the aspect that, following Chögyal Namkhai Norbu, I am rendering as energy, is called the compassion aspect. Tib. ‘phrul ’khor. Wylie, rNying ma pa. Tib. tshogs drug lam khyer. Cf. Thinley Norbu (1977, pp. 54-56; in the Shambhala ed. pp. 96 et seq.). Skt. prabhāsvara or ābhāsvarā; Pāli pabhassara; Tib. ’od gsal; Ch. 光明 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, guāngmíng; WadeGiles, kuang -ming ). Skt. svapana; Tib. rmi lam. a 1 b c d e 1 2 f 12 Yoga / adhisāra, the ritual consumption of meat and alcohol, the meaning and functions of the guardians and the practices related to them, and the practice of Chö. Both in Part Two of the book and in some passages of Part One, the discussion of the practice of the Dzogchen Series of pith instructions—and in particular of Tekchö —is based on my own, direct experience of the practice. For its part, the discussion of the specific principle of Thögel, those points of the explanation of the four Chogzhag which do not simply follow explanations by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu (such as the interpretation of the Gyamtso Chogzhag in the context of Tekchö as absolutely panoramic awareness that, nonetheless, does not precludes the pupil’s movements that normally are at the root of the singling out of objects), and so on, were directly inferred from my own experience of the Thubthik and the Nyingthik. Assuming that the realizations and learning that obtain during the practice of the Series of pith instructions might serve for understanding the basic principles of other practices, in Part Two I explained the Four Yogas or Naljor Zhi of the Dzogchen Semdé in the tradition of Kham as a process of panoramification of attention culminating in the definitive surpassing of attention, exertion and practice itself, and the Selwai Da or “clarity symbol” of the Dzogchen Longdé in reference to panoramic awareness, even though in order to facilitate the arising of visions of rölpa energy practitioners are taught to concentrate on specific points in space. Since it would be extremely unfortunate and nefarious to corrupt the teachings by introducing misinterpretations and illegitimate extrapolations, before making these explanations public, I consulted the Master Namkhai Norbu, who reassured me saying that it was fine to include them, although it would be good to indicate that they were derived from my own practice of the teachings. As noted above, in this English version of the book, Parts II and III will be found in Volume II, which, like the present volume, will be available to the general public. As also noted, then an extra volume might be added: Volume III, which, if it were published, would directly expound teachings on the Series of pith instructions and as such would be a restricted circulation book. In fact, among other texts, the volume in question would include a piece of writing explaining introductory practices of the Dzogchen Series of pith instructions titled Practices with Space and Sound, and two texts of instructions on Tekchö: [1] the recent, short text I called Concise Upadeśa for a Ḍākinī, and [2] a longer book called The Source of Danger is Fear, which contains instructions based on the way different delusive situations and delusions I faced during my Nepal mountain retreats in the second half of the 1970s and the first years of the 1980s resolved themselves). a b c d e f g15 h i j k 16 l m 17 a b c d e f g h i j k l m Wylie, gcod. Wylie, khregs chod. Wylie, thod rgal. Wylie, cog bzhag bzhi. Wylie, rgya mtsho cog bzhag. Wylie, thugs thig. The thugs in thugs thig is a synonym of the snying in snying thig. Wylie, snying thig. Wylie, rnal ’byor bzhi. Wylie, khams. Wylie, gsal ba’i brda. Wylie, rol pa. Tib. Menngagde or Menngaggyide (Wylie, man ngag [gyi] sde); Skt. Upadeśavarga. Tib. Menngagde or Menngaggyide (Wylie, man ngag [gyi] sde); Skt. Upadeśavarga. 13 With respect to my practice, around 1976 or 1977 I attended the transmissions of Dudjom Lingpa’s Treasures and of the Dudjom Tersar that Kyabjé Dudjom Jigdräl Yeshe Dorje offered in Boudhanath (Nepal). Shortly thereafter I received from Dudjom Rinpoche’s eldest son, Kyabjé Dungse Thinley Norbu, teachings on his father’s book on the practice of Tekchö in mountain retreat and general counsels on how to optimize this practice, and then, when I was about to go into retreat to practice these teachings and went to say goodbye to Kyabjé Dudjom Jigdräl Yeshe Dorje and ask for his blessings, he said I had to come back the next day to receive specific private instructions for retreat from this great Master—which I earnestly and eagerly did. Later on, vajra brother Mathieu Ricard offered me a copy of Tulku Thöndup’s rough translation of Jigme Lingpa’s The Lion’s Roar, which seemed to perfectly explain some of the experiences I had gone through in the practice. Since Dodrub Chen Rinpoche was regarded as the main holder of Jigme Lingpa’s lineage and we were receiving from him the lung of the Rinchen Terdzö and other teachings, I was advised to request from him private teachings on the book in question. However, he said that, rather than this, I should ask him whichever questions I had concerning the book’s meaning. Though I felt I had no real doubts about it, yet I had to make some questions, I made the ones that came to my mind—and his replies confirmed my understanding. On the basis of all of the above teachings, I made of Tekchö (in the context of the Thubthik and the Nyingthik) my principal practice, which I carried out intensively while I was in strict retreat in cabins and caves in the heights of the Himalayas (where I spent most of the time from 1977 until December of 1982)—concerning which toward the end of the 1970’s I wrote one of the books that might become part of a hypothetical Vol. III (namely The Source of Danger is Fear ) and which I have consistently tried to keep in daily life, even though this has proved very difficult since I returned to the West. a b c18 d e f g h i Wylie, bdud ’joms gling pa. Wylie, bDud ’joms gter gsar: the “new treasure of Dudjom” revealed by Jigdräl Yeshe Dorje (’Jigs bral ye shes rdo rje). Wylie, sKyabs rje bDud ’joms rin po che, ’jigs ’bral ye shes rdo rje. Wylie, sKyabs rje (gDung bras) Phrin las nor bu rin po che. I am referring to Dudjom Rinpoche’s Ri chos bslab bya nyams len dmar khrid go bder brjod pa grub pa’i bcud len, the official English translation of which is Dudjom Rinpoche (1979; trans. by M. Ricard on the basis of instructions by gDung sras Phrin las nor bu rin po che and Tulku Thöndup). There is an earlier translation (1978; trans. by J. Reynolds), which was the one I initially used, even though Dudjom Rinpoche advised me not to assume it to be correct. Wylie, sPrul sku Don grub. Tib. Seng ge’i nga ro. In 2015, Snow Lion published a translation of this text by David Christensen, with a translation by the same scholar of an excellent oral commentary offered by sMyo shul mkhan po ’Jam dbyangs rdo rje (in Nyoshul Khenpo, 2015, pp. 135-215), while Shambhala published another great translation by gDung sras Phrin las nor bu rin po che (in Dungse Thinle Norbu, 2015, pp. 75-88). Previously to that, Wisdom had published a translation by Sam van Schaik (2004, pp. 225-234). However, the versions on which I based my practice were a detailed, unpublished literal rendering by Tulku Thöndup that did not read smoothly but that effectively provided a sound basis for my practice (indeed, it was one of the greatest keys to its development) and a simplified translation by Chögyam Trungpa (1972). Capriles (1989). Though I might have failed to acknowledge this in the book, the discussion of tensions and meta-tensions in sPrul sku Don grub (Tulku Thöndup’s) version of Jigme Lingpa’s The Lion’s Roar was one of the keys both to my practice and to the book under discussion. a b c d e f g h i 14 As noted in the dedication and acknowledgements, of the greatest importance to me were also the transmissions I received from Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche in Boudhanath (Nepal) and Clement Town (HP, India), which featured the Rin chen gter mdzod and other important collections of termas, as well as the rNying ma bka’ ma, but the consequentiality of which lay mainly in the influence of that Master’s imposing Dzogchen Presence (even though I received from the Master in question personalized Dzogchen teachings as well). And from Dodrub Chen Rinpoche and Chatral Sangye Dorje Rinpoche I received key transmissions and lungs, as well as most useful practical advice and, from the latter, personal help as well. a 19 b20 c 21 I am immeasurably obliged to all the above Masters for their teachings, and in particular to the late Kyabjé Dudjom Yeshe Dorje and the late Kyabjé Dungse Thinle Norbu for being the source of my current Dzogchen practice; to the late Kyabjé Dilgo Khyentse, mainly for the above mentioned reasons; and to Kyabjé Namkhai Norbu for all that was mentioned above, for the teachings I still expect to receive from him, for his repeated visits to Venezuela (in which he has always given teachings that have proven extremely suitable both for the general public and for my own person), for shepherding me over the years, and for replying to emails and answering the few questions I still had in connection to the contents of this book. (Note that the names of these Masters were here listed in the order in which I met them and received teachings and / or transmissions from them.) On a different plane, I must also express deep gratitude to Judy Daugherty, who worked hard and against the clock in translating my Budismo y dzogchén into English; to Professor Rowena Hill, who carried out a careful revision of the English after Judy completed the translation; and to Carey Gregory, who revised the changes I made to the text shortly after Professor Hill’s correction—none of whom, it must be noted, ever asked for pecuniary remuneration. However, in 2014—several years after Ms. Gregory’s correction—I undertook a complete overhauling of the text that left hardly any sentence untouched, and hence none else than myself is to be held responsible for the English. Special thanks are due to Elio Guarisco for the research concerning the number of levels (Skt. bhūmi; Tib. sa) posited in different Anuttarayogatantras, for helping me find important phrases containing the term khorsum (’khor gsum, which renders the Sanskrit trimaṇḍala and which I consistently render as directional threefold thought structure), and the origin of the terms drodok and drotakpa (sgro ’dogs and sgro btags pa, which render the Sanskrit terms samāropa and adhyāropa); to Adriano Clemente for his help with the Ba’i ro ’dra ’bag’s explanation of the origin of the outer Tantras; to Dr. Jim Valby for revising the Tibetan terms and to him and Edgar M. Cooke and for their valuable help with the Bibliography; to Victor Klimov for carefully proofreading an old version of the book, pointing out a key omission in the explanation of gdangs energy, and for other important contributions; to Jinavamsa (Mitchell Ginsberg) for proofreading a previous version of the text and making an important suggestion; and to David Meyer for having sent me his personal copy of Guenther, 1977 (which I needed to cite in the present book and other a b c Wylie, Dil mgo mKhyen brtse rin po che. Wylie, rDo grub chen rin po che. Wylie, Bya ’bral Sangs rgyas rdo rje rin po che. 15 works). As in the case of the above Vajra sisters, none of them asked for a pecuniary remuneration. Finally, a special recognition is owed to Santi Maha Samgha and Yantra Yoga teacher Grisha Mokhin for freely offering me the webpage in which an old version of this book was originally published and for the wonderful—and equally free—work in preparing that webpage. 22 Elías Capriles Puerto Escondido, Mexico, April 16, 2019 16 METHODOLOGY AND TIPS FOR READING THIS BOOK Notes Though it would be more comfortable for the reader to have all notes at the foot of the page, the length of many of my explanatory notes made it practically impossible for me to place them there. Therefore, I decided to divide the notes into two classes: (a) Footnotes, which offer the Wylie transliteration of Tibetan terms and often the Sanskrit, Pāḷi or Oḍḍiyāna language term rendered by a Tibetan word, or the ideograms and Wade-Giles transliteration of Chinese terms (for the regular text has terms in Hànyǔ Pīnyīn), and other information that does not justify leaving the page in order to consult an endnote elsewhere. (Among the Three Promulgations that the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra distinguishes in Buddha Śākyamuni’s teachings, which are the basis of the Buddhist Path of Renunciation, the teachings of the First, which the Mahāyāna and other higher vehicles classify as Hīnayāna—meaning “Narrow Vehicle”—and which include the teaching on the Four Noble Truths, make up the earliest Buddhist Canon, written in Pāḷi. However, in this book, except in selected passages dealing specifically with teachings of the Pāḷi Canon or the Theravāda, when explaining these doctrines I use the Sanskrit equivalents of the original terms, providing the Pāḷi original and the Tibetan translation in a note the first time a term is used. Also note that in the case of many Dzogchen terms and phrases the original term or phrase in Oḍḍiyāna language or the relevant Prakrit [prākṛta], or in Sanskrit, is unknown and hence cannot be offered; when this is the case, only the Tibetan term or phrase is offered.) (b) Endnotes, which contain elucidations of passages of the regular text and thus nearly serve the traditional function of an auto-commentary. However, since the endnotes are often quite complex, reading them one by one during the initial reading of the book could make it hard for some readers to follow the thread of the regular text. Therefore, each reader will have to find her or his own way to interweave the two parallel texts that coexist in the work (one viable method would be to first read the regular text with the footnotes nonstop, and then read the endnotes, relating them with the passages of the regular text they supplement or elucidate). Since this book is the result of interpreting, in terms of my personal experience of the practice, a way of explaining the whole of the Buddhist teachings that was in disuse for centuries, the correct way to relate the information contained here to that conveyed by other books on the same subject, would not be through adding the one to the other. On the a23 24 Skt. dharmacakra; Pāli dhammacakka; Tib. chos kyi ’khor lo; Ch. 法輪 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎlún; Wade-Giles, fa -lun ). a 3 2 contrary, in some cases it may also be useful to contrast the ideas in this book with those in most other books. Moreover, as already noted, my intent is not to produce an abstruse treatise incomprehensible to anyone lacking a quite broad academic background in the field of Tibetan Buddhism; contrariwise, with an eye on the practice, I intend to allow whoever may read this book to truly understand what the Dzogchen teachings are; how their validity is proven and their special qualities are recognized; and how they relate to our life and experience, as well as to other Buddhist systems. Nevertheless, due to my philosophical training and idiosyncratic mentality some readers could find the book’s arguments difficult to follow. Finally, I have also tried to rectify some inaccurate information diffused in some of the books published in the West about Dzogchen and the rest of the teachings of the Nyingmapa or “Old School” of Tibetan Buddhism. 25 Terminology and Titles of Eastern Texts When Buddhist canonical sources and treatises were rendered into Tibetan at the time of the First Dissemination of Buddhism in the Land of the Snows, this was made by a team of translators, many of whom had become highly realized yogīs and accomplished scholars, who worked coordinately under the supervision of the greatest Masters. Thus, not only did they manage to render the true purport of the texts, favoring the meaning over the letter, but they often ameliorated the works in such a way as to make their truest and most profound sense clearer, and devised translations the etymology of which was often more accurate than that of the original terms in Sanskrit and Prakrits (prākṛta)—including the language of Oḍḍiyāna. This would be the ideal way to render the Buddhist texts into Western languages and to write original treatises in these languages. However, Western translators and authors are far from being like those Tibetan translators: not only do we seldom have any genuine realization, but sometimes it even happens that we do not work under the guide and supervision of a genuine Master. Moreover, it seems that quite frequently translators are unaware of the technical senses of Western philosophical terms, and often they disregard the etymology of the terms they choose. Therefore, the latter are often clumsy and misleading. Throughout the years I have constantly modified my translation of the different Eastern terms, keeping the focus on their various etymological and especially experiential meanings (and particularly on their truest and most profound meanings), and by the same token on the etymologies and the philosophical and psychological meanings of the Western terms that seem to be suitable candidates to render them—all while keeping in mind the relations between the etymologies of Eastern and Western terms. Since I do not claim to be like those Tibetan translators of old, and I am keenly aware of the limitations both of current Western translations and of the terms I myself devise, as well as of my own scholarship, I am compelled to emphasize the fact that neither the terminology I use nor my explanations of the dharma are definitive and that both are open to change. Moreover, some—or in some cases all—of the acceptations of a given Eastern term have quite precise synonyms with which they can be soundly replaced. Thus rather than trying to establish fixed standard translations for all terms, I use the terms that so far I deem aptest to express the meaning I believe a given term expresses in a particular context, and sometimes may use the same term to render two different Eastern words. At any rate, it is likely that in 26 27 18 future editions of this book I will further modify the terminology, as the process of devising more precise terms is still going on, and I will be taking into account the feedback I may receive from my current teacher, Chögyal Namkhai Norbu, and from readers, including lay ones, Tibetologists and Buddhologists. Examples of terms that have such a wide range of meanings that greatly vary according to the context that it seems nearly impossible to devise a fixed translation for them are dharmakāya, saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya. One could render dharmakāya as, say, essential, empty dimension—or, modifying a rather felicitous term employed in Guarisco, Clemente & Valby (2013), as “dimension of Truth” —but then one would be overlooking the fact that in a more specific sense that the term has in the Dzogchen Series of Pith Instructions, it refers to the true condition of all of those phenomena we regard as mental (e.g. thoughts, memories, phantasies, images of the imagination). Alternatively, it would be possible to render the term as, say, true condition of the mental dimension, but then one would be overlooking that the term also refers to the essential, empty, true dimension of all entities. And one would face a similar problem if one tries to find a fixed translation for terms such as saṃbhogakāya, nirmāṇakāya and other polysemic, key Buddhist terms—this being the reason why I have strongly objected to some of the fixed translation of such terms offered by Western scholars in the past. And nonetheless translators continue to devise their own idiosyncratic translations for Eastern Buddhist terms, often distorting their most profound experiential and philosophical meanings. Furthermore, since the different translations and original works fail to employ a homogeneous terminology (some works leave key terms in Sanskrit or Tibetan, whereas others offer different renderings for the same terms), it may be very difficult for readers to understand correctly the various layers of meanings of the translations or treatises they are studying. Therefore, I keep the original Sanskrit or Tibetan term—according to which is best known in the West—when naming the referents of widely polysemic terms such as dharmakāya, saṃbhogakāya, nirmāṇakāya and so on—and hence throughout this book the reader will find quite a few words in Sanskrit and in Tibetan. However, again and again I will explain their meaning, no matter how redundant the text may become, for I do not want readers to have to memorize a long list of words in languages strange to them: as noted in the first section of this Introduction, my intent is that readers may easily understand the meaning of the explanations and relate them to their own experience and life. At any rate, it must be noted that whenever I use terms that etymologically and/or lexicographically have a dualistic meaning in order to refer to the surpassing of dualistic delusion, I capitalize them. For example, in standard English the noun “contemplation” refers to the action of placing attention on some material or spiritual phenomenon, which is a function of the subject/object duality and the mind that, according to the Dzogchen teachings, are the very core of human delusion; therefore, whenever I use this noun for referring to the continuity of the unveiling of our true, nondual condition, I capitalize it, writing it as “Contemplation.” Likewise, “presence” designates an undistracted dualistic a b 28 29 c They used “dimension of reality,” which I understand in the sense of “True dimension” or “dimension of Truth” (which I prefer, because the etymology of “reality” derives from the Latin res-rei, meaning “thing” or “fact,” and the Latin rere, meaning “to think”—and things and thinking are the dimension of delusion rather than the dimension of Truth understood as antonym of delusion. rDzogs chen men ngag [gyi] sde; Skt, Mahāsaṅdhi Upadeśavarga. παρουσία. a b c 19 attention, as corresponds to the Platonic, etymological definition of the term, which is “being before” (in the sense of “being in front of”); therefore, whenever I use it to refer to the absence of distraction regarding the patency of our true condition, beyond delusion and hence beyond dualism, I capitalize it, writing it as “Presence” (and often specifying that this so-called Presence is “immediate,” “absolute” or “instant:” the first term makes the point that in the Presence in question sensa are not mediated by the filter of concepts; the second, that there is freedom from relative concepts and therefore freedom from the subject-object duality; and the third because, unlike perception, this condition does not involve the lapse necessary for conceptual recognition to occur). And the same applies to terms such as Awareness, Truth, Refuge, Behavior and so on: when I write them with a capital letter, I am using them to refer to the nondual condition free from delusion or error. As to the innovations in my rendering of Tibetan terms in the present version of this book, it must be noted that the Tibetan term rangdröl (rang grol) is now rendered as spontaneous liberation rather than self-liberation, and the Tibetan term lhundrub (lhun grub) as spontaneous perfection, spontaneous arising, spontaneous rectification, selfactualization, self-rectification, spontaneous accomplishment, uncontrived systemic loops, all-achieving unhindered actionless action, etc., or simply spontaneity (according to the context) rather than self-perfection. The first change was due to the fact that self-liberation was often understood in an utterly wrong sense as “liberation by one’s own action” or “liberation by one’s own power” (as different from liberation from the power of another), both of which are the very opposite of what the term really stands for: a liberation that is not caused by any action and that is therefore beyond the dichotomy “power of one’s own self / power of something other than one’s own self.” The second change was due to the fact that the prefix self does not seem to add any new content to the concepts of perfection and perfect (unless we said “self-perfected,” but then the term would suggest that perfection, rather than being inherent in our original condition, arose at some point later on—which is not the case), whereas the adjective “spontaneous” adds two important ideas: from the standpoint of the Base, that perfection is not the product of someone’s action; from the standpoint of the Path, that the term also refers to the spontaneous arising of the visions of rölpa energy (a term that will be explained in the main body of the book), or to those spontaneous self-rectifying processes beyond action that lead to spontaneously accomplished, full Awakening. As to the noun Dzogchen, though the term is most often translated as “Great Perfection” or “Great Completion,” I think it might be more appropriately rendered as “total plenitude / completeness and perfection.” In fact, as explained in Part Two of this book, Dzogchen is the contraction of “dzogpa chenpo.” “Dzogpa” means complete, full or perfect; for example, a glass of water full to the brim is “dzogpa,” but the same applies to an action that has been perfectly performed. Although “chenpo” is as a rule rendered as great, Dzogchen Master Chögyal Namkhai Norbu has remarked that, in the compound term “Dzogchen,” “chenpo” does not have a relative meaning—as does the word “great,” since there may be different degrees of greatness—but an absolute meaning, as is the case a b c d e a b c d e Tib. rang ngo: one’s own face or true condition. Wylie, rol pa. I am currently rendering this term as “visionary, corrective energy.” Wylie, rdzogs chen. Wylie, rdzogs pa chen po. Wylie, chos rgyal nam mkha’i nor bu. 20 with the word “total.” It is because of this that I have decided to take some license and render the Tibetan word “Dzogchen” as “total plenitude / completeness and perfection.” Finally, I was compelled to coin a set of neologisms, which must be defined and explained at this point so that readers will not be puzzled when they come upon them. In the translations of Dzogchen texts into Western languages we often find phrases such as “recognizing thoughts as the dharmakāya,” “recognizing the true condition, essence or nature of thoughts,” “recognizing the true condition of visions and experiences,” etc. This is quite imprecise, for that which is understood by “recognition” is the perception of a dynamic, with the naked eye analog and certainly holistic sensory configuration / pattern in terms of a static (i.e. unchanging during cognition), digital and fragmentary concept that, since that which it interprets is ever-changing, with the naked eye analog and at any rate holistic, fails to correspond to it—so that recognizing objects amounts to utterly distorting them. In fact, the Tibetan phrases that in translations of Dzogchen texts are rendered as “recognition,” “recognizing” and so on, include rangngo shepa, ngo shepa, and so on, which, rather than having the sense of “recognition,” refer to the spontaneous dissolution of that which we call “recognition” or of whichever other thought may be manifest at the time, the very instant when a nonconceptual and therefore nondual primordial Gnosis nakedly reveals the dharmakāya that (is) the true condition of the dang form of manifestation of energy—the stuff of all that we refer to as “mental,” including thoughts, imagination, memory and fantasy, which in this book I am rendering as “energy of the sphere of the mental” and which is the mental aspect of the Base —and that in a more general sense is the true condition both of ourselves and of the whole of reality, for it is the true condition of the primordial purity / essence aspect of the Base. In fact, recognizing thoughts would amount to masquerading as dharma practice that which would be no more than a more elaborate form of the ignorance cum delusion that the Buddhist teachings call avidyā. This is the reason why I had to coin a set of neologisms comprising the noun reGnition, the verb to reGnize, and so on: so that readers are clear that in these cases, rather than referring to what is usually understood by recognition, I am referring to the selfdissolution of recognition. And this is also the reason why Jigme Lingpa wrote in The a b c d e f g Skt. saṃjñā; Tib.’du shes; Ch. 想 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiǎng; Wade-Giles, hsiang ). This must be distinguished from the Gelug idea that in logical refutation there is a need to identify (Tib. ngos bzung) the negandum, because instead of refuting existence that which must be refuted is the illusion of hypostatic or inherent existence as conceived by rJe Tsong kha pa, to whom this illusion is other than the object itself—which they refer to as the “mere existent” (cf. Chöphel & Capriles, unpublished 1; Capriles, unpublished 1). However, in some cases the Nyingmapa use ngos bzung to refer to that which I am rendering as reGnition. Skt. lakṣaṇa; Tib. mtshan nyid; Ch. 相 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiāng; Wade-Giles, hsiang ). Wylie, rang ngo shes pa, which I often render as self-reGnition. Wylie, ngo shes pa. As shown below in the regular text, the terms ngo shes pa, rang ngo shes pa and, in the context of Dzogchen, ngos bzung, refer to that which I call reGnition (of the dharmakāya or of the essence or primordial purity aspect of the Base), or self-reGnition, since that which reGnizes and that which is reGnized are one and the same condition. (As stated in another footnote, the term ngos bzung is quite ambiguous, for it is the term that refers to the dGe lug conceptual, dualistic identification of the object of negation in logical refutations (what the dGe lug pas call hypostatic or inherent existence, as different from a purported “mere existence” that in their view must not be refuted; cf. Chöphel & Capriles, unpublished 1; Capriles, unpublished 1). Skt. jñāna; Tib. ye shes; Ch. 智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhì; Wade-Giles, chih ; Jap. chi). Wylie, gdangs. More generally speaking, terms such as rang ngo shes pa and ngo shes pa, are applied when a nonconceptual and therefore nondual primordial Gnosis makes rigpa patent and operative. a 3 b 1 c d e 4 f g g 21 Lion’s Roar that so long as thoughts do not manifest coincidently with the dharmakāya (i.e. so long as the contents of thought are charged with the illusion of substance / selfexistence, truth, importance and objective existence—which is what I call hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of thought—and hence the contents of discursive thoughts appear to be facts or to be true of false), “it is too early to label all thoughts as dharmakāya.” (The antecedents and shortcomings of the noun reGnition, the verb to reGnize, and so on are discussed in the note the reference mark for which stands at the end of this paragraph—which also explains the reasons why I use the terms Awake awareness, nonconceptual and therefore nondual Awake awareness, and absolute Presence or instant Presence, for rendering the Tibetan term rigpa. ) A similar problem presents itself regarding translation of the titles of canonical sources and treatises. Tibetan translations used a single rendering of the titles of dharma books translated by the scholar-yogins of the Nyingma (ancient) period, and hence upon hearing or reading the Tibetan title all scholars automatically knew which was the text being referred to. Contrariwise, each Western translator devises his or her own translation of the titles, not only of the work she or he translates, but also of the canonical sources and treatises quoted or mentioned in that work—all without trying to find a consensus or agreement with the rest of the translators and scholars. I am aware that for the different forms of Buddhism to become firmly established in the West, a consensus terminology and consensus titles for all canonical sources and treatises will have to be devised, but I doubt that, at least for the time being, terms and titles may be found that will be universally agreed upon by all translators and scholars. If in spite of this I devised my own English titles for the works I refer to, many readers could fail to identify the work or mistake it for the title of another book as devised by a noted translator or scholar, and I would do no more than add to the existing Buddhist Babel. Hence in most cases I opted for keeping the titles of works in the work’s original language, even though this is far from what I deem ideal. I hope in the near future a correct terminology may be established and an ample consensus about it may be reached, and translations in Western languages of the titles of canonical sources, treatises and commentaries will be universally agreed upon. a b 30 Words Within Parentheses An awareness or gnosis that, being free from hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized conceptualization, is therefore free from the subject-object duality, cannot be awareness of this or of that. In fact, in such cases the preposition of has no referent—and yet its use is required by the grammar of our languages. Since J.-P. Sartre faced this very problem in L’être et le néant (Sartre, 1980) when he posited a conscience non-thétique, non-positionelle et non-reflexive (de) conscience (non-thetic, non-positional and nonreflexive awareness (of) consciousness) and other related terms, and solved it by placing the preposition “de” (“of”) within parentheses, I will adopt the convention he established and, throughout the regular text and the notes of this book, whenever I deal with the Tib. Seng ge’i nga ro. This is the rendering of the statement in a simplified version of the text by Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche (1972, p. 23). Alternative translations in Thinle Norbu (2015, p. 78); Nyoshul Khenpo (2015, pp. 139 and 179: “it is premature to label thoughts as dharmakāya”); van Schaik (2004, p. 227). a b 22 different instances of nondual awareness, I will place the preposition “of” within parentheses (for a thorough explanation of this, cf. Capriles, 2007a, vol. I). Likewise, concepts are defined genus proximum or inclusion in a wider genus and differentia specifica or exclusion of a class within the wider genus—the latter being that which ācārya Dignāga, founder of the Buddhist Pramāṇavāda tradition, referred to as apoha, meaning exclusion, or anyāpoha, meaning exclusion of other (in the elementary school definition of human being as a rational animal, “animal” is the genus proximum or immediate wider genus and “irrational” is the differentia specifica or excluded class within the wider genus). Since there can be no genus wider than the true condition of all phenomena, Dzogchen-qua-Base or however we may call that which ourselves and the whole universe (are) in truth, and since the condition in question cannot and indeed does not exclude anything, no concept can fit it. Not even the most general of concepts, which is that of being, can fit it; nor can the negation of that concept, which is nonbeing, fit it; nor can the combination of both of the former in the phrase “being and nonbeing” fit it (even though someone could think that this properly defines that which is becoming and hence has not yet come to be, yet may not be said not to be); nor can the exclusion of both concepts expressed by the phrase “neither being nor nonbeing” fit it—the latter two possibilities having the extra flaw of contravening the laws of the excluded middle and of noncontradiction and having no advantage, for both are conceptual formulae incapable of fitting that which is not comprised in any genus and does not exclude any class). This is the reason why the condition in question may not be properly said to be, not to be, to be and not to be, or neither to be nor not to be and in general nothing can be thought or said about it—which can only be realized when conceptual understanding, which is said to be like the clouds that conceal the sun, collapses and the true condition, which is said to be like the sun, shines in all its splendor. The same applies to nonstatic nirvāṇa or Dzogchen-qua-Path / Dzogchen-quaFruit, or however we call the direct, nonconceptual and hence nondual disclosure of the true condition of all phenomena—or, which is the same, of Dzogchen-qua-Base: of that which I have been calling simply the Base. To begin with, the disclosure of the Base as Dzogchen-qua-Path or in Dzogchen-qua-Fruit, being nonconceptual and hence nondual, may not be differentiated from the Base. And, what is even more significant, in this disclosure the delusive phenomenon called being (cf. Capriles, 2007a, Vol. I) does not manifest—and hence the term “being,” if it were used in this context, would have no referent. Without the phenomenon of being there can be no nonbeing, for the latter is a secondary process negation that is superimposed on the delusive phenomenon of being; therefore, the term nonbeing would also lack a referent. And the same would apply to “being and nonbeing” and to “neither being nor nonbeing.” (For a thorough explanation of 31 a b c d e Tib. sel ba; 除 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chú; Wade-Giles, ch’u ) or 遮除 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēchú; Wade-Giles, che ch’u ). Tib. gzhan sel; Ch. 他感排除 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tā gǎn páichú; Wade-Giles, t’a -kan p’ai -ch’u ). Another possibility, though far less likely: 他者的遮除 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tāzhědí zhēchú; Wade-Giles, t’a -che -ti che ch’u ). Skt. dharmatā; Tib. chos nyid; Ch. 法性 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎxìng; Wade-Giles, fa -hsing ). Skt. apratiṣṭhitanirvāṇa; Tib. mi gnas pa’i myang ’das; Ch. 無住涅槃 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúzhù nièpán; WadeGiles, wu -chu nieh -p’an ). Cf. Freud (trans. J. Strachey 1954); Bateson, 1972; Fenichell, 1945; Capriles, 1977, 1986, 1994, 2007a Vol. II; 2013b, Vol. II. a 2 1 2 b 1 3 2 2 1 2 c 3 d 2 4 4 2 e 23 4 3 2 1 what the phenomenon of being is, and of why it is a delusive appearance manifesting only in saṃsāra, cf. Capriles, 2007a, vol. I; for the reasons why if there is no being there can be no nonbeing, cf. the same book, and also Chöphel & Capriles, 2014). Therefore, throughout the regular text and the notes of this book, I deal with all the verbal forms of the verb to be and with the noun being in the same way in which I deal with the proposition of: just as I place the latter within parentheses whenever it has no referent yet its use is required by the norms of language, I place the verbal forms of to be and the noun being within parentheses whenever they have no fitting referent yet their use is required by the norms of language. a Translation and Romanization System and Pronunciation of Eastern Names and Terms Terms in Sanskrit—just like those in Pāḷi and Oḍḍiyāna language (and Arabic and Persian, if and when these languages are used), as well as those in the Hànyǔ Pīnyīn Romanization of Northern Chinese / Han Speech (which, since it has become standard, is the one used in this book, though I also offer the Wade-Giles in notes)—are written in italics except in the case of proper nouns, which I write in regular font style. However, Tibetan terms, when used in the regular text, are written in a phonetic approximation in regular script, with the Wyllie transliteration in a footnote in italics (or, in endnotes, within parentheses after the phonetic approximation), at least the first time a term is used. b Tibetan Terms Tibetan terms, when inserted in the regular text, are transliterated in what I deem to be a phonetic approximation to the two best known Tibetan pronunciations, in regular font style, and at least the first time a Tibetan term is used in a page or section, I offer the Wyllie transliteration in a footnote in italics. When the phonetic approximation is not inserted in the regular text, at least the first time the term’s translation is used in a page or section, it is offered in a footnote in regular font style, followed by the Wyllie transliteration of the term written in italics. In endnotes, the first time a term is used in a note I write the Wyllie within parentheses right after the phonetic approximation. Concerning the phonetic approximation to Tibetan I am using here, in general “ö” sounds like in German (i.e. like a French “e”): molding the lips as though one were to pronounce an “o,” one pronounces an “ai” (i.e. a Spanish or Italian “e,” or a French “é”). “Ü” is pronounced like in German (i.e. like a French “u”): placing the lips as though one were to pronounce a “u,” one pronounces an “ee” (i.e. one pronounces the sound “i” in Latin languages in general). The sound of “zh” is a bit like that of a “sh,” but is much closer to that of a French “j,” that of a Slovenian or Croatian “ž” or a Cyrillic “Ж,” or that of a Buenos Aires “y.” Like in Sanskrit transliteration, the combination “ph,” rather than sounding close to an “f”, stands for an aspirated “p,” and the combination “th,” rather than indicating a sound somehow standing between “d” and “z,” stands for an aspirated “t.” (The aspirated “ch” Tib.’khor ba; Ch. 輪迴 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, lúnhuí; Wade-Giles, lun -hui ) or ⽣死輪迴 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shēngsǐ lúnhuí; Wade-Giles, sheng -ssu lun -hui ). “Phonetic writing of the language of the Han people.” a 2 1 3 2 2 b 24 2 and “ts” are written here in the same way as the non-aspirated “ch” and “ts,” for otherwise slightly informed readers would not recognize words such as Tekchö, 2which would appear as Tekch’ö or Tekchhö, or Tsering, which would appear as Ts’ering or Tshering, etc.) In particular, so that the English-speaking layman may imitate at least to a small extent both the pronunciation of Central Tibet and that of Kham, she or he must bear in mind the following: when in my phonetic spelling “y” appears after “g,” “k” or “kh,” a Central Tibetan will pronounce the syllable as a “gy,” “ky” or “khy,” but a Khampa may pronounce it as “gjy,” “kjy” or “khjy” (placing a greater or lesser emphasis on the “j” according to the varieties of Khampa pronunciation and the combination of letters). For example, a Central Tibetan will pronounce the combination “ghye” as “ghye,” but a Khampa may pronounce it as “ghjye,” and a Central Tibetan will pronounce “khy” as “khy,” but a Khampa may pronounce it almost as “jee.” For its part, the letter “ä” may be pronounced as “a,” as “ai” (i.e. like a Spanish or an Italian “e,” or like a French “é”), or somewhere between the two sounds, according to the origin of the individual. (Amdo pronunciation differs from Central Tibet’s even greatly than that of Kham, but since it is rare in the West and I have no experience of it whatsoever, I have overlooked it here.) Finally, the genitive termination a’i was rendered throughout as “ai,” to be pronounced “ai” or “ie” according to the pronunciation of the region of Tibet one may choose to follow (“ai” in Central Tibetan, and “ie” in Khampa). Note that whenever I place the letter “e” at the end of a word, it is because it must be pronounced rather than remain mute; its sound should be like that of a Spanish or an Italian “e,” or like a French “é.” a b Sanskrit Transliteration As to the Sanskrit transliteration, to begin with, it must be noted that vowels may have a long or a short pronunciation, and that the long sound—which is twice as long as the short one and modulated—is indicated by placing a dash over the vowel (ā, ī, ō, ū). The vowels e, ai, o and au, when placed at the end of a word, rather than being pronounced as e, ai, or o, are pronounced as long sounds even though they do not have the diacritical dash mark, and the final a is in most cases mute. A dot placed under certain letters indicates the cerebral sound, which is made by pointing the tip of the tongue towards the top of the head as the sound is produced (in the case of the ṛ, this makes it sound almost as ri). There are three sibilants, distinguished from each other by diacritical marks: the acute accent placed over an s (ś), indicates the palatal s, which is pronounced as sha; the dot placed under an s (ṣ) indicates the cerebral s, which is pronounced with the tongue placed towards the top of the head, which it occurs to me would be somewhat similar to the sound of a ssh (somehow between s and sh); finally, there is the dental s, which bears no diacritical mark and is pronounced as an English s. A dot placed above the guttural n (ṅ) indicates it should be pronounced as the Portuguese õa, in which the sound n is replaced by the nasalization of the preceding vowel. The tilde placed over the palatal n (ñ) indicates it must be pronounced as a Spanish ñ (i.e. as a French or Italian gn, a Catalan ny, a Portuguese nh, etc.). The final diacritical marks are the dot placed under the letter h (ḥ), which is known as visarga and indicates an echo of the preceding vowel (which is only sounded at the end of a stanza and a b Wylie, khregs chod. Wylie, khams. 25 not in mid verse), but which I have omitted in this book, and the dot placed above the letter m, indicating a sound known as anusvāra, which for general purposes may be ignored and hence is as a rule omitted in this book. The last aid to pronunciation is the use of the aspirate sound employed with most of the consonants; among the gutturals, for example, there is kh and gh, where the h indicates that the k or g should be aspirated; among the palatals there is ch and jh, in which the h has the same function as in the case of the gutturals; etc. It must be noted that in citations I keep the spellings of Sanskrit the authors cited chose, even though in other occasions I replace their translations for the ones I have adopted here. It must be noted that, with regard to the Middle Way system of tenets, I decided to idiosyncratically spell its name as Madhyamaka when it is used as a noun, and as Madhyamika when it is used as an adjective. Hànyǔ Pīnyīn Transliteration of Northern Chinese (Han Speech) The correspondence between Roman letters and sounds in this system is often sui generis, as it tends to occur with transliteration in general. To begin with, the aspiration distinction between b, d, g and p, t, k is similar to that of English (where the first and second sets are also distinguished by voicing), but differs from that of French. Z and c also have that distinction; however, the first may sound to the untrained ear as similar to “dz” and the second similar to “ts.” From s, z, c come the digraphs sh, zh, ch by analogy with English sh, ch. Although this introduces the combination zh, which tends to be roughly as in Tibetan, it is internally consistent in what regards the way the two series are related, and reminds the trained reader that many Chinese pronounce sh, zh, ch as s, z, c. In the x, j, q series, the Pinyin use of x is similar to its use in Portuguese, Galician, Catalan, Basque and Maltese—i.e. like a more sibilant and softer “sh”—and the Pinyin q is akin to its value in Albanian, as both Pinyin and Albanian pronunciations of the character may sound similar to a ch to the untrained ear. Pinyin vowels are pronounced in a way that is similar to that of vowels in the Latin languages. As to the tones, these are: The first tone (Flat or High Level Tone) is represented with a macron (¯) added to the pinyin vowel: ā ē ī ō ū ǖ Ē Ī Ō Ū Ǖ The second tone (Rising or High-Rising Tone) is denoted by an acute accent (ˊ): á éíóúǘÁÉÍÓÚǗ The third tone (Falling-Rising or Low Tone) is marked by a caron or háček (ˇ). It is not the rounded breve (˘), though a breve is sometimes substituted due to font limitations: ǎěǐǒǔǚǍĚǏǑǓǙ The fourth tone (Falling or High-Falling Tone, which, besides, is shorter than the former) is represented with a grave accent (ˋ): à è ì ò ù ǜ À È Ì Ò Ù Ǜ The fifth tone (Neutral Tone) is represented with a normal vowel without any accent mark: a (ɑ) e i o u ü A E I O U Ü I will not discuss here the pronunciation of initial and final clusters of letters that represent single sounds—or that of medial sounds, for that matter. Information on this, and further instructions on the pronunciation of Pinyin phonemes in terms of English approximations, are given in Wikipedia’s Pinyin entry, to which I direct the reader who wants to attempt to achieve a more precise pronunciation. Quotations from Tibetan and Sanskrit Texts 26 In some of the quotations from Tibetan texts and Tibetan translations of Sanskrit texts included in this book, so that the reader may verify the meaning of the passage cited, I refer to at least one of the sources in English where it appears. However, for the sake of homogeneity, self-consistency and clarity I use the terminology adopted in this book, trying to make the translation close enough to the one in the indicated sources as to allow the reader to identify the passage. In such cases, the indication of the source reads, “corresponding yet not identical translation available in…” Reiterations and repetition The reader will find reiterations and repetitions. Part of them are due to the fact that I apply what Alan Watts called the “goldsmith technique” of hitting repeatedly on the same point or on nearly the same point, as this helps assimilate the ideas conveyed. 27 PART I BUDDHISM A DZOGCHEN OUTLOOK 29 PREAMBLE PLACING BUDDHISM IN CONTEXT: THE FORMS OF BUDDHISM CURRENTLY EXISTING WORLDWIDE 31 In writing this book, my basic interest has been to allow the reader: (1) to realize, in her or his own experience, how the ordinary human condition is pervaded by lack of plenitude, discomfort, disappointment and suffering; (2) to discover the cause of this problem; (3) to get an idea of what happens when both the cause and the problems it yields are uprooted; and (4) to understand the ways in which this uprooting may be achieved, and in particular to understand the way of Dzogchen and the reasons why it is the most effective to that aim, at least for people with the necessary capacities. In short, my interest is practical rather than theoretical. However, this Preamble has to offer a panorama of the different kinds of Buddhism currently existing in our world and outline the way they developed, so that the reader may place in perspective the rest of the book, which is based on a very specific type of Buddhism. So I excuse myself for beginning the book with a rather technical, theoretical Preamble, which I deemed necessary for placing the Buddhist teachings in context. Whoever find this Preamble irrelevant, too technical or boring, will do well in skipping it and going directly to Chapter I, which discusses the Four Noble Truths of the Buddha in an experiential way I deem most relevant in our time. There is consensus among present day historians that the proto-Indo-Europeans, Kurgans or Aryans were rustic warriors who initiated their expansion from the Caucasus (most likely from a strip of land extending from a small stretch of the Western coast of the Caspian sea to a longer stretch of the northern shores of the Black sea) or other nearby regions, and occupied Northern India around 1,500 BD (even though some contacts between them and the peoples who were already established in India may have already taken place beginning around 2,000 BCE.) At the time, the Indus valley hosted the still peaceful and egalitarian Harrapan civilization—whose language was related to the Elamite and whose spirituality seems to have involved nondual doctrines and body-celebrating practices for spiritual liberation and mystic communion—which had thrived for many centuries. Likewise, in the heights and slopes of the Himalayas peoples speaking Tibeto-Burman languages that later on seem to have developed had a close relationship with the Harrapans and whom I suspect may have been the source of the latter’s’ spiritual doctrines and practices have been shown to have settled since around 4000 BCE. On the basis of the Ṛg Veda’s description of battles between the Indo-Europeans (“peoples with skins the color of wheat”) and dark-skinned settlers of India, and of the arguments whereby Mortimer Wheeler substantiated his theory that the marks on thirty-seven skeletons found in different places in Mohenjo-Daro showed that the people who left those 32 a b33 c 34 35 d36 Ceruti & Bocchi (1993), Beckwith (2009), Bryant (2011), etc. This assertion is based on the genetic studies reported in Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi & Piazza (1994), and in works such as Renfrew (1987) and Mukherjee, Nebel, Oppenheim & Majumder (2001). This has been “demonstrated” by David McAlpin; cf. Bocchi & Ceruti (1993). Zhao, M., Kong, Q. P., Wang, H. W., Peng, M. S., Xie, X. D., Wang, W. Z. et al. (2009). a b c d 33 skeletons behind had been killed, it was asserted that the Indo-Europeans confronted and overpowered the Harrapans. However, when Kenneth Kennedy thoroughly examined those skeletons in 1994, he found the marks on the skulls that Wheeler took for evidence of warfare to have been actually caused by erosion —and no other remains appeared that would lend weight to the hypothesis of a direct destruction of the civilization in question by warring proto-Indo-European invaders. The theory that the Harrapan civilization was extinguished because the inhabitants of its towns abandoned them voluntarily caused historians to hypothesize that urban life had come to a halt for some time in the Indian subcontinent. However, David Gordon White cited research by scientists that, he claimed, “emphatically demonstrated” that Vedic religion is partially derived from the religion of the Indus Valley civilization. And in fact, current archaeological data suggest that the material culture called Late Harrapan may have persisted until at least ca. 1000–900 BCE and that it was partially contemporaneous with the Painted Grey Ware culture. Harvard archaeologist Richard Meadow showed that the late Harrapan settlement of Pirak thrived nonstop from 1800 BCE to the time of the invasion of Alexander the Great in 325 BCE—thus substantiating the influence of the old civilization on the Indian culture and religion that developed after the proto-Indo-European invasions. At any rate, it is clear that the Indo-Europeans prevailed over the peoples that were previously established in the Indian subcontinent, imposing their religion on them—even though it seems that later on, as it frequently happens, the spirituality of the conquered gradually infiltrated the religion of the conquerors. In fact, the prevailing view is that the proto-Indo-European worldview and religion were dualistic, antisomatic and anti-erotic, sexist and casteist. They were at the root of the orthodox darśanas or systems of tenets that posited a substantial dualism between soul and nature, and revealed a brazen sexism, a blatant antisomatism, and a strong revulsion against the erotic and the sexual—such as the couple consisting of the Sāṃkhya of Kapila and the Yoga of Patañjali, and the one consisting of the Nyāya and the Vaiśeṣika. And were also at the root of the first three Vedas, which did not feature either nondual views or mystical Communion—among which the Ṛg Veda justified warfare against the Harrapans as well as the cast system. On the other hand, as John Marshall’s analysis of the art of the Harrapian Civilization suggested, the latter’s worldview and spirituality was Śaiva and therefore nondualistic, celebratory of the body and its impulses (which were used to achieve a state of Communion in the disclosure of the true condition of all human beings and all other phenomena) and egalitarian—politically, for no figures of kings appear in Harrapan art, as well as socially, economically, sexually and concerning gender issues. On the basis of this view, it is natural to conclude that current Indian spiritual systems arose as Harrapan spirituality gradually infiltrated Indo-European religion, and that the nondual pre-IndoEuropean spirituality and worldview began to surface in the teachings of Buddhism, the mystical Monism of the Atharvaveda, the Vedānta Sūtra and the Upaniṣads. (Note that according to Christopher I. Beckwith, the roots of Buddhism were Saka rather than Indian, a b c d e 37 38 f a b c d e f Bryant (2001). Lawler (2008). Knipe (1991). Lawler (2008). John Marshall (1931, pp. 48–78). Beckwith (2015). 34 and Buddhism pre-dated Brahmanism, which in his view absorbed from Buddhism both the ideal of Awakening and the nondual views associated with this ideal. ) At any rate, on the basis of recent historical research some scholars have concluded that the Upaniṣads could not be older than the historical Buddha, whereas, as noted above, on the basis of other recent findings authors such as Beckwith have claimed that the story of the Buddha has been shown to be the oldest religious story in India, and concluded that other religious-philosophical traditions arose at a later date and reconfigured themselves so as to make their followers believe they were older than, or at least as old as, Buddhism. In fact, according to the authors in question, Brahmanism had not yet become established in India at the time of the historical Buddha, and the latter’s teachings, rather than reactions to the tenets and achievements of Brahmanism, would have been reactions against the tenets of early Zoroastrianism, which would have come to prevail in Gandhāra and Sindh and which would have been common lore in Magadha, where the historical Buddha purportedly attained Awakening. These authors also assert Brahmanism to have been composed under the influence of Zoroastrianism. However, above it was suggested that the Harrapans had a spiritual philosophy and practice, which most likely was Śaiva and as such nondualistic, celebratory of the body and its impulses and egalitarian. If it were correct that aspects of this spirituality surfaced in the earliest Buddhist teachings, as well as in the Atharvaveda, the Vedānta Sūtra and the Upaniṣads, then it would be clear that it was reborn with different degrees of contamination by dualism. The point is that casteism, sexism, antisomatism and revulsion against Eros and sexuality cannot be manifestations of a truly nondual philosophy and religion, for these attitudes are based on—and hence confirm, sustain and intensify—a belief in the purported hypostatic, inherent otherness and unworthiness of a whole set of phenomena. Christopher Beckwith claims that there is no evidence that the teachings offered by the historical Buddha involved all of the beliefs and norms of behavior that are found in the Pāḷi Hīnayāna and Sanskrit Mahāyāna Canons—i.e., in what he refers to as “normative Buddhism.” What is a fact, however, is that both of the Canons in question were codified long after Śākyamuni’s decease. At any rate, the Pāḷi Canon (the earliest Buddhist Canon, which will be briefly discussed below)—seems to have assimilated some of the dualistic and 39 a b c d e f Cf. Bronkhorst (1986). In a posterior book the same author (Bronkhorst, 2007, p. 358) claimed that “In the middle of the third century BC, it was Mazdeism, rather than Brahmanism, which predominated in the region between Kandahar and Taxila.” Beckwith, 2015. Cf. As Beckwith (2015) notes, in Ghosh’s (ed. 1990) survey of Indian architecture/sculpture, no Jaina figures are registered prior to the so-called “Indian Middle Ages,” except for one mentioned by B. Lal, which in his view is untenable because of the attributed date. Mette (1995), in spite of being pro-Jain, acknowledges that there are no significant remains of early Jain art. For a résumé of these claims and their sustentation by different scholars, cf. Beckwith (2015). Beckwith (2015) notes that Herodotus lists the Gandhārans among those who fought on behalf of the Persians (because of their having been conquered by them); for further, weighty evidence showing Zoroastrianism to have prevailed in Gandhāra and Magadha, cf. Briant (1996: 50, 777-8, 370); Bronkhorst (2007: 358) and in general Bronkhorst (2007, 2011). Beckwith (2015: 9 et seq.). Bronkhorst (2007) claims that the ideas of karma and rebirth, which do not appear in the Ṛg Veda, appeared in Indian thought at the time of the Buddha because he lived in the area of “Greater Magadha” (roughly the Ganges basin) where the ideas were native to the region. However, as will be shown below, the Himalayan-Harrapan influence should not be discarded. Beckwith (2015, passim). a b c d e f 35 antisomatic prejudices of Indo-European origin ubiquitous among ordinary Indians. And the Upaniṣads obviously integrated all of them: sexism (they take for granted the exclusion of women from spiritual practice and fail to condemn the satī or ritual immolation of widows by jumping into the funerary pyre of their husbands or by other means), casteism (only high caste males could devote themselves to the spiritual quest), and antisomatism and revulsion against eroticism and sexuality (spiritual practitioners had to become brahmacārins). And if it were correct that Harrapo-Dravidian spirituality had been a nondual, body-celebrating, egalitarian mysticism of Communion, then their spirituality would have surfaced in their pure form in Tantrism and, in particular, in the Buddhist Tantrism of the Vajrayāna and in Dzogchen —which, as noted above, according to the records developed in the country known as Oḍḍiyāna. The latter is not surprising, for it was to be expected that the practices and doctrines of the peoples on the heights and slopes of the Himalayas and the Harrapans would have retained a purer form in the regions that were not conquered by the Indo-Europeans and in the places where Brahmanism did not come to prevail—or, to a much lesser extent, in the underground oral traditions of places where Brahmanism prevailed (in India proper, the Purāṇas retained the pre-Indo-European lore, yet minted it in the dualistic mold of IndoEuropean ideology so as to turn it into the common currency of the Hindu unillustrated populace). According to official Buddhist records, the Buddha Śākyamuni was born prince Siddhārtha Gautama and lived in the sixth and fifth centuries BC (on the basis of those records, his lifetime has been dated 563-483 BC ), long after Brahmanism had already consolidated, the caste system had been successfully imposed, and the mystics called ṛṣi or Seers had codified the early Upaniṣads. However, as noted above, there is no evidence that religious and philosophical systems other than Buddhism had consolidated at the time of Śākyamuni—whether he lived as dated by tradition or centuries or decades after that, as some unorthodox scholars are suggesting. More strikingly, as stated in an endnote to a previous paragraph, C. I. Beckwith has claimed that the historical Buddha was a Saka (an Eastern Scyntian) rather than an Indian prince, and that it was in Scyntian thought that lay the roots of the Buddha’s teachings. According to his theory, rather than Śākyamuni or “Sage of the Śākya [clan]” the historical Buddha’s title could have initially been Sakamuni or “Sage of the Sakas”—which would have become Śakamuni in Gāndhāri prākṛta (even though this title, as Beckwith himself acknowledges, is unattested in genuine Mauryan inscriptions) and, later on, in Sanskrit, would have become Śākyamuni. According to this view, at a later time he would have been presented as an Indian prince in order to make his teachings more palatable to the Indians. At any rate, the traditional story of the Buddha Śākyamuni’s spiritual strife leading to his Awakening and teaching is most significant, regardless of its historic veracity or falsity. It tells us that astrologists had predicted that the purported princely member of the Kṣatriya caste would become a Cakravartin—a term that may refer either to a universal monarch or to an Awake sage who reintroduces into the human world the doctrines and a b 40 41 42 43 c d e44 45 a b c d e Ibidem. Wylie, rDzogs chen; the complete word is rDzogs pa chen po. Beckwith (2015). Beckwith (2015); Baums (2009); Bareau (1987). Beckwith (2015, pp. 1 et seq.; also appendix C) 36 practices leading to Awakening after these have disappeared. Since his father was a king, the latter obsessively tried to avert the arising of spiritual interests in the little prince in order to get him to become a king who would extend his kingdom into an ample empire and become a political Cakravartin—and hence his parents raised him the way they believed fittest to preclude him from reflecting on the meaning of life or engaging in a spiritual quest. In fact, they kept him entertained by making him unceasingly engage in sports that by the same token were a training to make of him a great warrior, they glutted him with pleasures, and they insulated him from the hardships of life. However, in spite of this—or perhaps to a certain extent because of this —Siddhārtha Gautama came to experience an unremitting sensation of existential lack, an overwhelming sensation of missing the point and a haunting uneasiness—thus realizing the inherently suffering character of the human reality. And this realization compelled him to engage in a search for the meaning of human existence and for the way of putting an end—not only in himself, but in others as well—to that sense of lack, of missing the point and of uneasiness, and to the recurrent suffering to which all human beings are subjected. This search led him to leave home, abandoning his wife and newborn child, his five hundred secondary consorts, his royal dishes, his choice luxuries and his royal privileges, in order to wander as a mendicant ascetic seeking suitable spiritual preceptors. The two gurus among the many who, according to the story, were offering their services in India at the time, and whom, on account of their purported spiritual attainments, the royal ascetic successively followed—Arāḍhā Kālāma and Udraka Rāmaputra (or Rāmaputro)—entered the formless absorptions, in which the figure-ground division temporarily dissolves, but which, being fabricated, produced, contrived, intentional, induced, conditioned, and /or compounded, are characterized by impermanence. In particular, Udraka would regularly enter the highest of the four formless absorptions, called “the dominion wherein there is neither perception nor absence of perception” or “the Peak of Experience,” in which gross discrimination is left behind and there is only the subtlest of discriminations. However, the two pseudo-Masters would repeatedly fall from their “highs” and be possessed by the afflictions, manifesting coarse passions. This caused him to realize that the liberation he was pursuing could not lie in inducing or producing absorptions, for as just noted all that is fabricated, produced, contrived, intentional, conditioned, induced, and/or compounded is impermanent and prone to beget suffering—and hence could not provide either himself or the countless beings embraced by his compassion with a definitive solution to what he had come to perceive as the “problem of life.” The future Buddha Śākyamuni would have to find for himself such definitive solution—which, as he was quick to realize, could only lie in the nonfabricated, a 46 b c d e f Skt. and Pāḷi, bodhi; Tib. byang chub; Chin. 菩提 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn pútí; Wade-Giles, p’u -t’i ); Jap. bodai. Though the etymology of the Sanskrit term requires it to be rendered as Awakening, and the term’s sense corresponds to this etymology, it and its equivalents most often translated as Enlightenment. Skt. ārūpyāvacaradhyāna; Pāli arūpāvacarajhāna; Tib. gzugs med na spyod pa’i bsam gtan; Ch. 無⾊界定 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúsèjiè dìng; Wade-Giles, wu -se -chieh ting ). Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). Skt. anityatā; Pāḷi anicca; Tib. mi rtag pa; Ch. 無常 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúcháng; Wade-Giles wu -ch’ang ; Jap. mujō; Korean: 무상 musang: the condition of being impermanent [Skt. anitya]). Skt. naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāsamāpatti; Tib. ’du shes med ’du shes med min gyi snyoms ’jug; Ch. ⾮想⾮⾮想處 定 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fēixiǎng fēifēixiǎng chùdìng; Wade-Giles, fei -hsiang fei -fei -hsiang ch’u -ting ) Skt. bhavāgra; Tib. srid rtse or srid pa’i rtse mo; Ch. 有頂天 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒudǐngtiān; Wade-Giles, yu ting -t’ien ). a 2 2 b 2 4 4 4 c 3 d 2 2 2 e 1 f 3 1 1 3 4 4 3 3 1 37 unproduced, uncontrived, unintentional, uninduced, unconditioned, and / or uncompounded bare realization of the nonfabricated, unproduced, uncontrived, unintentional, uninduced, unconditioned and / or uncompounded true condition of all sentient beings and all phenomena. To make a long story short, after many vicissitudes, the mendicant prince sat down under the Bodhi tree and decided not to get up again until Awakening would dawn on him. It is said that Māra, the demon—representing the principle of confusion and deceit in the human mind—sent a host of demons to terrorize him, and later on his daughters to seduce him, but the future Buddha remained impassive, subsequently entering a deep absorption in which there were neither ideation nor a subject-object duality, but which clearly was not the Awakening he sought. When the morning star arose, its presence Awoke Siddhārtha Gautama from his absorption, into the true condition both of his own self and of the whole of reality: he had become the Buddha or “Awake One” of our era. According to the established story, instead of claiming that he had discovered a hitherto unknown truth, Śākyamuni said that he had found the truth “of the ṛṣis (Seers) of antiquity.” And, intent on preventing deviations like the ones he observed in his teachers, the Buddha dissociated himself from the Vedic tenets and taught a new doctrine that made it clear that all that was fabricated, produced, conditioned, contrived, intentional, induced, configured and /or compounded, was impermanent and prone to yield suffering: sooner or later it would dissolve and hence, rather than offering a definitive salvation from suffering, it would become a new source of suffering. Therefore, as noted above, the irreversible and definitive liberation he sought and finally obtained could lie solely in the uncompounded, unconditioned, unoriginated, unproduced, uninduced, unborn and uncontrived, which alone was free from both suffering and impermanence. He put forward the negative concept of anātman, nairātmya or ātma nāsti, negating the purported true existence, not only of the individual soul or jivātman, but also of a universal God or substance —thus contradicting a traditional, pivotal religious concept, which according to tradition was the Vedic concept of ātman (soul or self), but which Beckwith and others have identified as the supreme Zoroastrian god. The negative concept in question was effective to prevent the deviation into which his teachers had incurred, which lay in taking a pseudo-totality as object and then identifying with it in order to obscure the delusive subject-object duality, thereby coming to believe this to be the unveiling of absolute reality. This deviation, however, could have been a b c 47 d e 48 f g Pāḷi asaṅkhata; Skt. asaṃskṛta; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu -wei ). Skt. apsarā[ḥ]; Pāḷi accharā; Tib. chu skyes mo; Ch. 天女 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tiānnǚ; Wade-Giles, t’ien-nü). In Brahmanic mythology, the apsarasaḥ are not daughters of Māra, but dancing heavenly nymphs (their name means “between [the clouds’] vapors”), consorts of the gandharvas, who are heavenly musicians that feed on odors and who live in an illusory city. The absorption was a type of kun gzhi lung ma bstan: a state that technically pertains to saṃsāra but in which saṃsāra is not actively functioning (since there is no subject-object duality there can be no acceptance, rejection or indifference, and thus it is as though the wheel had momentarily come to a halt). Skt. anityatā; Pāḷi anicca; Tib. mi rtag pa; Chin. 無常 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúcháng; Wade-Giles wu -ch’ang ; Japanese: mujō); Korean, 무상 musang. Pāḷi, anatta; Tib. bdag med; Ch. 無我 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwǒ; Wade-Giles, wu -wo ). Beckwith (2015). Skt. grāhyagrāhakavikalpa; Tib. gzung ba dang ’dzin pa’i rnam par rtog pa; Ch. 所取能取分別 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, suǒqǔ néngqǔ fēnbié; Wade-Giles, so -ch’ü neng -ch’ü fen -pieh ). The duality in question may be called by the Skt. grāhaka-grāhya (Tib. gzung ’dzin or ’dzin gzung); viṣayi-viṣaya or artha (Tib. chos can - yul or don) and dharmin-jñeya (Tib. chos can or yul can - shes bya). a 2 2 b c d 2 e 2 f g 3 3 2 3 38 1 2 3 2 furthered by the Upaniṣads’ view of all entities as being comparable to utensils made of clay, and of their true reality as the clay common to all of them rather than the distinctive features of each, but not by belief in the supreme Zoroastrian god—a fact that could be taken to undermine the just mentioned theories put forward by Beckwith and others. Furthermore, if Vedic limitations were already in place, he transgressed them, for in the order he founded he admitted individuals of all castes and of both genders. At any rate, no matter what was it that the Buddha was reacting against, there is no doubt that if we view Buddhism as a religion, it is a fully separate and independent one. However, as shown by the following excerpt from the Kālāma Sutta (a canonical source belonging to what the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra referred to as the First Promulgation or dharmacakra), its critical attitude is more proper to philosophy: 49 a Do not believe in the strength of traditions, however much they may have been honored for many generations and in many places; do not believe anything because many people speak of it; do not believe in the power of sages of old times; do not believe that which you yourselves have imagined, thinking that a god has inspired you. Believe nothing that depends solely on the authority of your teachers or priests. After investigation, believe that which you yourselves have tested and found reasonable, and that is for your good and that of others. THE THREE PROMULGATIONS, THE MAHĀYĀNA OR “WIDER VEHICLE,” AND THE CHINESE AND TIBETAN SCHOOLS The Mahāyāna’s Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra classified the teachings that Śākyamuni Buddha taught on the nirmāṇakāya (i.e., physical) level, either directly from his mouth or through the mouths of the great bodhisattvas, into the renowned “three Promulgations of a cycle of teachings ” . The First Promulgation, which commenced with the sermon found in the Dharmacakrapravartanasūtra, in which the Four Noble Truths were expounded, is the source of the totality of the teachings of what the Mahāyāna calls the Hīnayāna, and the canonical texts gathered in the Pāḷi Canon, though accepted by the Mahāyāna as genuine teachings of the Buddha, are regarded by the various schools and streams of the Ample Vehicle or Mahāyāna as having a provisional meaning and thus requiring interpretation. Obviously, this is not the opinion of the schools the Mahāyāna classified as Hīnayāna— including the Theravāda, based on the Pāḷi Canon, which is the only one of those schools that continues to exist and be followed in our time—for according to all of them the canonical texts belonging to this Promulgation were the only ones the Buddha Śākyamuni ever taught. b c d e f g h Skt. Kālāmasūtra. As will be shown in a section near the end of this volume, most of the Mahāyānasūtras were not spoken by Śākyamuni but by the great bodhisattvas, who spoke thanks to Śākyamuni’s empowerment. Skt. cakra; Pāḷi cakka; Tib. ’khor lo; Ch. 輪 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, lún; wade-Giles, lun ). Skt. dharma; Pāḷi dhamma; Tib. chos; Ch. 法 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎ; Wade-Giles, fa ; Jap. hō). Skt. triparivartadharmacakrapravartana; Tib. chos ’khor [rim pa] gsum. Skt. dharmacakra; Pāli dhammacakka; Tib. chos kyi ’khor lo; Ch. 法輪 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎlún; Wade-Giles, fa lun ). Pāḷi Dhammachakkappavattanasutta; Tib. chos ’khor bskor ba’i mdo; Ch. 轉 法 輪 經 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhuǎnfǎlún jīng; Wade-Giles, chuan -fa -lun ching ). Skt. neyārtha; Tib. drang don; Ch. 不了義 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùliǎoyì; Wade-Giles, pu -liao -i ). a b c 2 d 3 e f 3 2 g 3 3 2 1 h 4 39 3 4 In the Second Promulgation, which took place at Vulture’s Peak, near Rajghir, in what nowadays is the Indian state of Bihar, Śākyamuni Buddha, as a rule speaking through the higher bodhisattvas accompanying him, taught the Prajñāpāramitā: the discriminative wisdom leading from “this shore” (saṃsāra) to the “other shore” (Buddhahood). Some texts remark that Śākyamuni knew that his immediate disciples in the Buddhist order, who had taken the vows of monks and nuns, were śrāvakas or “listeners”—i.e., had the lower kind of Hīnayāna capacities—and thus would have experienced panic before the teachings proclaiming the absolute emptiness of self-existence (i.e., absolute insubstantiality) of all phenomena contained in the Mahāyāna’s Prajñāpāramitā teachings, which probably would have scared them away from the dharma. And that this was the reason why in the First Promulgation he had to teach the watered down, relativized notion of emptiness of selfexistence or selflessness that circumscribed them to sentient beings, and had to leave the Prajñāpāramitā teachings in the custody of the nāgas, for them to be revealed later on by the Mahāyāna philosopher and Chán and Dzogchen Master Nāgārjuna —who according to most Western scholars of today lived at the beginning of the Christian era (according to most Western scholars, around the second century AD). In the Third Promulgation, which occurred in Malayagirī (in Sri Laṅkā), Vajrāsana (presently Bodh Gaya) and Vaiśālī, Śākyamuni taught sūtras that, rather than positing a selfexisting, external material world and setting out to discuss the nature of that world, emphasized the practice of yoga and all that had to do with mind and experience. As I have noted elsewhere (Capriles, upcoming definitive edition in print of electronic publication 2004), these sūtras, rather than putting forward a merely intellectual theory of reality, based themselves on Śākyamuni’s Awakening and yogic experience in order to provide a sound basis for effective yogic practice. This is the reason why, generally speaking, those Tibetan Schools that stress learning, scholarship and dialectics over and above yogic practice, such as the Gelugpa , regard the canonical texts of this Promulgation as having provisional meaning and those of the Second Promulgation as having definitive meaning, whereas the Schools that emphasize yogic practice over and above learning, scholarship and dialectics, such as the Nyingmapa , regard them as having definitive meaning and those of the Second a b c d 50 51 52 e f g h “This shore” it that of the experience marked by the basic delusion that characterizes “sentient beings;” the “other shore” corresponds to the “Awake” state that characterizes Buddhas or “Awake Ones.” These concepts will be explained in further detail later on in this volume, when the Mahāyāna proclamation of their nonduality is discussed. I.e. irrational dread before the emptiness of all human beings and nonhuman entities that is revealed by the intuitions of totality (Greek, pan [πάν]), and that ancient Greeks associated with the presence of the god Pan (Πάν) that was easy to feel in the wilderness. Skt. śūnyatā; Pāḷi, suññata; Tib. stong pa nyid; Chin. 空 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, kòng; Wade-Giles, k’ung ; Jap. ku). Note that the Taoist and Chán concept of 無 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wú; Wade-Giles, wu ; Jap. mu), seems to bear some similitude with the Sanskrit śūnya and with the Dzogchen concept of the essence or ngo bo aspect of the Base or gzhi (cf. Capriles, 2007a, Vol. I). However, the Sanskrit and the Tibetan are rendered into Chinese as 空 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, kòng or kōng; Wade-Giles, k’ung or k’ung ); for example, ⼤空 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dàkōng; WadeGiles, ta -k’ung ) renders the Skt. mahāśūnya and the Tibetan stong pa chen po. Skt. svabhāvaśūnyatā or prakṛtiśūnyatā; Tib. rang bzhin gyi stong pa nyid—except for rJe Tsong kha pa, who preferred rang bzhin gyis ma grub pa; Ch. ⾃性空 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìngkòng; Wade–Giles, tzu -hsing -k’ung ; Jap. jishōkū). Wylie, dge lugs pa. Skt. neyartha; Tib. drang don; Ch. 不了義 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùliǎoyì; Wade-Giles, pu -liao -i ). Skt. nītārtha; Tib. nges don; Ch. 了義 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, liǎoyì; Wade-Giles, liao -i ). Wylie, rNying ma pa. a b c 4 2 4 4 1 1 d 4 e f 4 g 3 h 40 4 3 4 4 4 Promulgation as having provisional meaning—or, in some cases, view both as having definitive meaning. However, I have long noted that all texts, whether they may be correctly said to have a provisional meaning or a definitive meaning, have a provisional meaning when compared with the primordial gnosis that nonconceptually and hence nondually reveals the true condition of ourselves and all phenomena—so that from this standpoint all expressions in terms of words have a provisional meaning, and only the state of rigpa, inconceivable in terms of concepts or symbols, and inexpressible by means of symbols or words, has a truly definitive meaning—and also that in each of the three Promulgations, some sūtras contain teachings of a more “inner” character, whereas others emphasize teachings of a more “outer” character. Then recently I came upon a passage from a Tantra revealed by the great tertön Dudjom Lingpa that states precisely this fact: a b c 53 d ... the teachings for the sake of disciples consist of (1) the signless dharmakāya, which is the ultimate of definitive meaning, and (2) discussions of names and objects as if they existed with their own characteristics, by which you are trapped in the cage of signs, and which have relative, or provisional, meanings. e f The First Promulgation and the Schools Based on It The first teaching of the Buddha—which initiated what the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra constitute the first “Promulgation of a cycle of teachings” —was that of the Four Noble Truths, expressed as follows in the Pāḷi Canon: (1) Human life is characterized by duḥkha : dissatisfaction and suffering. (2) The cause of duḥkha (i.e. dissatisfaction and suffering) is tṛṣṇā : a basic craving that is called kāmatṛṣṇā when it takes the form of craving for pleasure, bhavatṛṣṇā or thirst-for-existence in the case of the basic compulsion to assert, confirm and maintain oneself as an inherently existent, all-important, separate individual, and to fill the concomitant sensation of lack, or vibhavatṛṣṇā when—for example in practitioners of Buddhism—this thirst or craving turns toward self-annihilation in static nirvāṇa . (3) If the cause of dissatisfaction and suffering is uprooted, the latter come to an end in nirvāṇa, which involves the cessation of the basic craving that is tṛṣṇā, and of the dissatisfaction and g h i j k l m Wylie, rig pa; Skt. vidyā; Pāḷi vijjā; Ch. 明 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, míng; Wade-Giles, ming ). Skt. acintya; Pāli: acinteya, acintiya; Tib. bsam yas or bsam gyis mi khyab pa; Ch. 佛學辭彙 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fóxué cíhuì; Wade-Gilles, fo -hsüueh tz’u -hui ). Skt. avācya (also aśasta); Tib. smrar med pa; Ch. 不⾔説 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùyánshuō?). Dag snang ye shes drva la las gnas lugs rang byung gi rgyud rdo rje’i snying po. Alternative translation in Dudjom Lingpa (2015, Vol. III, p. 115). Skt. neyartha; Tib. drang don; Ch. 不了義 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùliǎoyì; Wade-Giles, pu -liao -i ). Skt. nītārtha; Tib. nges don; Ch. 了義 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, liǎoyì; Wade-Giles, liao -i ). Skt. dharmacakra; Pāli dhammacakka; Tib. chos kyi ’khor lo; Ch. 法輪 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎlún; Wade-Giles, fa lun ). Pāḷi dukkha; Tib. sdug bsngal; Ch. 苦 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn kū; Wade-Giles k’u ; Jap. Rōmaji, ku; Korean, ko). Pāli taṇhā; Tib. sred pa; Ch. 愛 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, ài; Wade-Giles, ai ; Jap. ai; Kor. ae). Pāḷi kāmataṇhā; Tib. ’dod chags kyi sred pa; Ch. 欲愛 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yùài; Wade-Giles, yü -ai ). Pāḷi bhavataṇhā; Tib. srid pa’i sred pa; Ch. 有愛 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuài; Wade-Giles, yu -ai ). Pāḷi vibhavataṇhā; Tib. med pa’i sred pa; Ch. 無有愛 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúyǒuài; Wade-Giles, wu -yu -ai ). Pāḷi nibbāna; Tib. myang ’das or mya ngan [las] ’das pa; Ch. 涅盘 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn nièpán; Wade-Giles, nieh p’an ); Jap. nehan; etc. a 2 b 2 2 2 4 c d e 4 f 3 3 4 4 g 3 2 h 1 i 4 j 4 k 3 l 4 4 2 m 3 4 4 2 41 suffering that issue from that craving. (4) There is a way leading to this end, which is mārga : the Path for putting an end to our basic craving, and therefore to dissatisfaction and suffering, by extinguishing all of these in the attainment of nirvāṇa. As noted above, the teachings of this Promulgation contains the canonical sources of all of the schools that the Mahāyāna classes under the heading Hīnayāna or “Narrow Vehicle”—including the Theravāda (“Adhering to the [doctrine of the] Elders”), which is the only school of this vehicle existing independently in our time and which prevails in a vast area of Southeast Asia (including Laos, Kampuchea, most of Myanmar and Thailand, and part of Vietnam) and in part of Sri Laṅkā. As will be shown below, in Tibet and its ambit of cultural influence, the doctrines of two Sanskrit schools of the Hīnayāna—the Vaibhāṣika and the Sautrāntika, which no longer exist as independent schools—have been taught until our days as part of the curricula of Buddhist philosophy in Tibetan Buddhist schools that do not adhere to the Hīnayāna. The aim of the Hīnayāna is the attainment of individual liberation with respect to the duḥkha (dissatisfaction and suffering) that is the First Noble Truth and to the duḥkha-ridden existence known as saṃsāra or “cyclic existence” (a concept that will be explained later on), to be achieved by means of the cessation of the basic craving that it regards as the Second Noble Truth and of the concomitant illusion of being a substantial, separate individual. This is one of the reasons why later codifications—namely the scriptures of the Second and Third Promulgations—and all the schools based on them referred to the Buddhism taught in the First Promulgation and the schools based on it as the Hīnayāna or Narrow Vehicle, designating themselves as the Mahāyāna or Ample Vehicle: that the latter emphasize the fact that, rather than being centered mainly in a selfish search for personal liberation with respect to suffering, practitioners must give precedence to working for the liberation of the totality of sentient beings (in fact, it is said that the bodhisattva, who is the archetypal practitioner of this type of Buddhism, refuses to enter nirvāṇa for as long as all other beings have not entered it). The second reason is that the latter privilege the nature of intentions over that of human acts, and hence the individual has a greater freedom of choice and responsibility. Indivisible from the above is the fact that, whereas the Hīnayāna seeks a nirvāṇa that may often be a passive condition such as the one called nirodhasamāpatti, in which no thoughts arise and in which there is no subject-object duality (for the subject-object duality results from the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of thought), the Mahāyāna seeks an irreversible nonstatic nirvāṇa that is endowed with the special capacity 54 a b55 c56 d57 58 e f Pāḷi, magga; Tib. lam; Ch. 道 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dào; Wade-Giles, tao ). Skt. Sthaviravāda; Tib. gnas brtan sde pa; Ch. 上座部 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shàngzuòbù; Wade-Giles, shang -tso pu ). If I complete and publish the definitive version on paper of my book The Four Philosophical Schools of the Sūtrayāna Traditionally Taught in Tibet: With Reference to the Dzogchen Teachings, it will feature a review of the two schools in question. saṃsāra is both Skt. and Pāḷi; Tib. khor ba; Ch. 輪迴 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, lúnhuí; Wade-Giles, lun -hui ) or ⽣死輪 迴 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shēngsǐ lúnhuí; Wade-Giles, sheng -ssu lun -hui ). nirodhasamāpatti is Skt. and Pāḷi; Tib. ’gog pa’i snyoms ’jug; Ch. 滅盡定 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, mièjìndìng; WadeGiles, mie -jing -ding ). Skt. apratiṣṭhitanirvāṇa; Tib. mi gnas pa’i myang ’das; Ch. 無住涅槃 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúzhù nièpán; WadeGiles, wu -chu nieh -p’an ). a 4 b 4 4 c d 2 1 e 4 4 4 f 2 4 4 2 42 3 2 2 2 4 called Buddha-omniscience that has the power to supremely benefit sentient beings. Some Mahāyāna scriptures, emphasizing the idea that the Fruit of the Hīnayāna is no more than an individual liberation from suffering and hence from transmigration, claim that the Fruit in question results from fully neutralizing passional delusive obstructions, emphasizing the fact that the Fruit of the Mahāyāna is perfect Buddhahood, which involves a consummate capacity to help others and requires cognitive delusive obstructions to be fully neutralized as well— and thus making the point that the Mahāyāna goes much further than the Hīnayāna. However, as will be shown in a subsequent chapter, some Mahāyāna canonical sources and treatises assert all forms of Hīnayāna nirvāṇa to be, not a final resting place and a definitive freedom from saṃsāra, but a provisional resting place from which one will have to be reborn in order to enter the Mahāyāna Path from its inception if one is ever to reach final release—which is only offered by the nonstatic nirvāṇa of the Mahāyāna. And the above is for its part indivisible from the fact that, whereas the Hīnayāna negates the existence of an independent, unitary “I” or soul, asserting the “I” to be no more than an illusion produced by the interaction of five aggregates —form or material form; sensation (including mental sensation) or feeling; recognition or perception; habitual mental formations that act as impulses that move the mind; and consciousness or apperception —it does not acknowledge the emptiness or nonexistence of entities other than the “I,” including the five aggregates. With regard to “material objects,” it implicitly negated their independent, unitary existence by reducing them to aggregates of self-existing infinitesimal particles, yet it viewed these particles as existing absolutely or ultimately; as to consciousness, it viewed it as a succession of instantaneous events of consciousness, each of which has no duration whatsoever yet exists absolutely or ultimately. In contrast, the Mahāyāna negates the hypostatic, inherent, absolute or ultimate, independent, unitary existence of infinitesimal particles, and those Mahāyāna Sūtras and treatises that posit instants of consciousness explicitly negate that these instants exist in a hypostatic, inherent, absolute or ultimate, independent manner. The point is that, for the Mahāyāna, emptiness of self-being or absence of an independent self-nature is neither circumscribed to human individuals nor realized solely by showing what we take for a unitary “I” to be an illusion produced by the interaction of the five aggregates, for the Mahāyāna makes it clear that also entities other than the “I”—including the five aggregates—are utterly empty of selfexistence, independent self-nature or substance, for as just noted, with regard to material entities, those texts that posit infinitesimal particles assert them to be empty of self-existence, a b c d e f g h i59 60 j k Skt. sarvākārajñatā; Tib. rnam pa thams chad mkhyen pa; Ch. ⼀切種智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yīqièzhǒng zhì; WadeGiles i -ch’ieh -chung chih ). Skt. kleśāvaraṇa; Pāḷi kilesāvaraṇa; Tib. nyon [mongs pa’i] sgrib [pa]; Ch. 煩 惱 障 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fánnǎozhàng; Wade-Giles, fan -nao -chang ). Skt. jñeyāvaraṇa; Pāḷi ñeyyavāvaraṇa; Tib. shes [bya’i] sgrib [pa]; Ch. 所知障 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn suǒzhīzhàng; Wade-Giles so -chih -chang ). Skt. skandha; Pāli khandha; Tib. phung po; Ch. 蘊 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yùn; Wade-Giles, yün ). Skt. and Pāli rūpa; Tib. gzugs; Ch. ⾊ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sè; Wade-Giles, se ). Skt. and Pāli vedanā; Tib. tshor ba; Ch. 受 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shòu; Wade-Giles, shou ). Skt. saṃjñā; Pāli saññā; Tib.’du shes; Ch. 想 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiǎng; Wade-Giles, hsiang ). Skt. saṁskāra; Pāli saṅkhāra; Tib.’du byed; ⾏ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíng Wade-Giles, hsing ). Skt. vijñāna; Pāli viññāṇa; Tib. rnam shes or rnam par shes pa; 識 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shí; Wade-Giles, shih ). Skt. svabhāvaśūnyatā; Tib. rang bzhing gyis stong pa nyid; Ch. ⾃性空 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìngkòng; Wade– Giles, tzu -hsing -k’ung ; Jap. jishōkū). Skt. nairātmya; Tib. bdag med; 無我 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwǒ; Wade-Giles, wu -wo ). a 1 4 3 4 b 2 3 4 c 3 1 4 d 4 e 4 f 4 g 3 h 2 i 2 j 4 4 4 k 2 43 3 independent self-nature or substance, and with regard to consciousness, those texts that posit them instants of consciousness also assert them to be empty. 61 Pāḷi Schools Based on the First Promulgation: The Theravāda School According to the accounts of the evolution of the Buddhist tradition based on the First Promulgation, eighteen different Schools arose through successive divisions of the original trunk of that tradition. Vinītadeva—who according to Damien Keown (2003, p. 84) relied too much on earlier Sarvāstivādin works—tells us that the first division gave rise to four schools: the Sarvāstivāda, the Saṃmitīya, the Mahāsāṃghika and the Sthavira, which then subdivided. However, Bhāvaviveka, following the Sthaviras, tells us that the first division was twofold and offers a list of the schools that sprung from those two that does not at all coincide with Vinītadeva’s—whereas the Mahāvaṁsa, a Ceylonese Theravadin chronicle, on the basis of the same first initial twofold division reported by the Sthaviras and Bhāvaviveka, offers a totally different list. At any rate, the Theravāda School, which as noted above is the only independently existing Hīnayāna school, is not one of the initial eighteen schools of Buddhism based on the Pāḷi Canon (First Promulgation)—nor are the two Sanskrit Hīnayāna schools studied in Tibetan curricula (namely the Vaibhāṣika and Sautrāntika), which are recorded in all extant Tibetan sources, as well as in all modern Indian sources. It is claimed that the Theravāda developed in the Sthavira (also called Mahāsthavira or Āryasthavira) School, and that is was founded by Moggaliputta Tissa in the “Council of the Pāḷi School” that King Aśoka allegedly urged him to organize and that is believed to have finally convened around 244 BC. It is asserted that the Council that Moggaliputta Tissa summoned excluded the monks opposed to his theses, whose views were refuted in the Kathāvatthu (ascribed to him, but of unknown authorship, this book was subsequently incorporated to the Theravāda Abhidharma). At any rate, in Ceylon the Mahāvihāravāsin / Mahāvihāravādin monks adopted the new doctrine. Later on, the Theravāda purportedly divided into the Mahīśāsaka (from which according to some accounts the Dharmaguptaka sprung) and the Kāśyapīya. Since neither the Theravāda, nor the eighteen earliest schools of Buddhism, were ever taught in the Land of the Snows, they are not recurrently mentioned in Tibetan texts. In particular, even though the former has a less realistic view of infinitesimal particles than most Sarvāstivādin or “realistic” authors or groups of authors, doxographers—including modern Indian ones such as, for example, Radhakrishnan (1923 / 1929)—often classify it among the latter. In fact, according to the Theravāda school, “physical” entities are made of infinitesimal particles, but these infinitesimal particles, rather than being static units existing in a concrete and discrete manner, are dynamic processes. For its part, all that is “mental” is constituted by indivisible mental factors or events, which according to this school—and contrarily to the Vaibhāṣika view—are not in diametrical opposition to the “physical” world. Finally, like all Buddhist Schools, it asserts the individual or “self” to be nothing more than an illusion produced by the interaction of the above-listed five aggregates. The Theravāda posited two types of space: the one that manifests between solid bodies and the space that is perceived in meditation. The second type of space is neither a 62 a b 63 c a b c To see these lists, cf. Cornu (2001 pp. 175-176). Including Radhakrishnan, S. (1923 / 1929). Skt. skandha; Pāli khandha; Tib. phung po; Ch. 蘊 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yùn; Wade-Giles, yün ). 4 44 reality nor an abstraction having no correlate in experience. The Atthasālinī (a treatise attributed to Bhadantācariya Buddhaghoṣa [fifth century C.E.] which comments on the Dhammasaṅgaṇi 6[First Book of the Abhidhammapiṭaka ]) states: a b The infinitude of space is a sphere in the sense of being a basis for a meditative experience with all the psychological functions that sustain it or that somehow support it. The reader interested in further exploring the Theravāda is directed to the English language publications of that school, which will no doubt be more faithful to its views than whatever a practitioner of other Buddhist traditions may write about it. c Sanskrit Schools Based on the First Promulgation Though the extant texts of the First Promulgation are best known in their Pāḷi form, there are Sanskrit versions of many of them. In fact, not all of the philosophical schools that the Mahāyāna categorizes as Hīnayāna either based themselves on Pāḷi texts or wrote their treatises in this language. On the contrary, some of them had the whole of their literature in Sanskrit. And yet all Hīnayāna schools have been based on the same principles, which are the ones expressed in the Pāḷi Canon and which contrast with those which are proper to the Mahāyāna. One of the initial eighteen schools was the Āryasarvāstivāda —namely “adhering to realism,” even though originally it was not as realistic as it came to be with the passing of time. It was from this school that developed the two Sanskrit Hīnayāna schools of tenets that, since the arrival of Buddhism in Tibet until our days, have been taught uninterruptedly in that country among students and practitioners of the Mahāyāna and the Vajrayāna: the Vaibhāṣika and the Sautrāntika tenet systems, which are the only Hīnayāna philosophical and meditative traditions taught in Tibet, and the only two Hīnayāna systems with which most Tibetan teachers and scholars are familiar. As a matter of fact, the Pāḷi scriptures and commentaries were unknown in Tibet. For example, the Dhammapāda itself came to be known in Tibet only after scholar-lama Gendün Chöphel produced a Tibetan version of it in the first half of the twentieth century—and until the diaspora of the mid-twentieth century the relatively few Tibetans who were aware of the existence of the Theravāda School had a very vague idea—if any at all—of its views and practices. To offer an exhaustive account of the tenets and practices of the Vaibhāṣika and Sautrāntika Schools is beyond the scope of this book, and, moreover, it would be utterly d e f The title of this text is in Pāḷi. This is the Pāḷi name of this piṭaka. For example, those published by the Maha Bodhi Society in Calcutta, India; those published in the countries in which the Theravāda prevails; and the growing number of those published in the West. Tib. [’Phags pa] thams cad yod par smra ba; Ch. [聖] 說⼀切有部 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, [Shèng] Shuōyīqièyǒu bù; Wade-Giles, [Sheng ] Shuo -i -ch’ieh -yu pu / [聖] 薩婆多部 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, [Shèng] Sàpóduō bù; Wade-Giles, [Sheng ] Sa -p’o -to pu ). Skt. Dharmapāda; Tib. Chos kyi tshigs su bcad pa; Ch. 法句經 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Fǎjù jīng; Wade-Giles, Fa chü ching ). Skt. Sthaviravāda; Tib. gNas brtan sde pa; Ch. 上座部 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shàngzuòbù; Wade-Giles, shang -tso pu ). a b c d 4 4 4 2 1 1 1 4 3 4 4 e 3 4 1 f 4 4 45 4 useless, since many books in Western languages discuss them, and I myself would discuss them if I find the time to complete the definitive version on paper of a work in progress that I had to interrupt (Capriles, 2004). However, a very brief summary of these two schools may be outlined as follows: The Vaibhāṣika School The Sanskrit name Vaibhāṣika derives from the fact that it is the school of “those who adhere to the Vibhāṣa,” for it is based on the two great Sarvāstivāda Commentaries to the Abhidharma, which are the Vibhāṣa and the Mahāvibhāṣa. This school accepts the Abhidharma as the word of Buddha, for they hold it to have been authored by arhats (realized ones in the traditions that the Mahāyāna classes as Hīnayāna) and therefore assert all that is contained in it to have been unerringly distilled from the sermons of Śākyamuni collected in the sūtras. For its part, the Tibetan translation of the term etymologically means Proponents of Particular Substances—which is applied to them due to their asserting the phenomena of the three times (past, present and future) to exist as discrete, concrete particular substances, and which is appropriate to designate the school, for Sarvāstivāda (which as just noted means adhering to realism) was the term applied to all the schools of tenets that, like the Vaibhāṣikas, posit a plurality of substances. The substances that the Vaibhāṣikas posit are of two kinds: (1) Material, which consist in the indivisible particles of the four obstructive elements that according to them constitute all physical bodies, which for their part are separated from each other by the sole nonobstructive element, which is space, and do not disaggregate because they are drawn and held together by karma or wind, and (2) mental, which are the indivisible moments of consciousness they posit. Most essentially, their realism consists in the fact that they hold the indivisible particles they posit to exist materialiter, substantialiter and discretely, without depending on cognition. Finally, their lineage of monastic vows, which has the only one that exists in Tibet, common to all Tibetan Buddhist Schools, is that of the Mūlasarvāstivāda —a school that, according to the Chinese monk Yìjìng, was an offshoot of the Sarvāstivāda, but which according to the Tibetan Sakya Master, Butön, used the name as an homage to the Sarvāstivāda because the latter was held to be the “root” (mūla) of all Buddhist schools. a b c d e f g64 h i j k l m This title may be rendered as “Detailed Explanation.” This title may be rendered as “Great Detailed Explanation.” Skt. arhat, arhan or arihan; Pāḷi: arahant or arahā; Tib. dgra bco; Ch. 阿羅漢 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, āluóhàn; WadeGiles, a -luo -han ), often shortened to 羅漢 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, luóhàn; Wade-Giles, luo -han ). Tib. bye brag [tu] smra ba [rnams], or simply Tib. bye mar. Tib. rdzas kyi bye brag. Skt. ākāśa; Tib. nam mkha’; Ch. 虚空 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xūkōng; Wade-Giles, hsü -k’ung ). Skt. vāyu; Pāḷi vāyu or vāyo; Tib. rlung; Ch. ⾵⼤ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fēngdà; Wade-Giles, feng -ta ). i.e. materially. i.e. substantially. Tib. gzhi thams cad yod par smra ba. 義淨; Wade-Giles I -ching (635–713 CE). Wylie, Bu ston rin chen grub (1290-1364). Butön, renowned Sakya Master and historian, was the eleventh Abbot of Shalu Monastery. Cook (1992 p. 237). a b c 1 2 4 2 4 d e f 1 g 1 h i j k 1 4 4 l m 46 4 The Sautrāntika School The Sautrāntikas—i.e., the followers of the Sutantra School—seem to have quit the Āryasarvāstivāda School in Kashmir around 150 BC. Their name responds to the fact that they rejected the Abhidharmapiṭaka of the Sarvāstivādins and its doctrine of the “all is” and adhered solely to the Sūtrapiṭaka. They were also called Dārṣṭāntika or Exemplifiers, for they taught the whole of their doctrines by means of examples. There were two classes of Sautrāntikas: (1) Those who followed the Abhidharmakośa by Vasubandhu and hence adhered to Abhidharma-based treatises and negated the existence of nondual self-awareness and awareness (of) consciousness, thus being partly similar to the Vaibhāṣikas—especially in their conception of the two truths (namely the relative and the absolute), and in their positing indivisible elementary particles and instants of awareness. However, their particles differed from those of the Vaibhāṣikas in that, though they were supposed to be external to human experience, they were asserted not to exist materialiter: they held them to be the same as space, for both were viewed as no more than notions—which explains how was it possible for them to negate the intervals between particles propounded by the Vaibhāṣikas, and yet assert these particles not to touch each other (even though they are perceived as touching, like the pages of a book), and shows them not to have been realist. (2) The reformed, who adhered to logic. Since they followed the Pramāṇaviniścaya by the epistemologist and logician Dharmakīrti, they posited what is usually rendered as nondual self-awareness and awareness (of) consciousness, as well as two kinds of entities or objects: (a) Ontological objects, which were made up of elementary particles and which were held to be ultimately existent but ever-changing and in this sense impermanent, and (b) Epistemological objects, which were held to be unreal but unchanging and in this sense permanent. Because in perception objects of kind (a) are always understood in terms of objects of kind (b), knowledge is erroneous: it involves the error of taking the epistemological objects, which are mental constructs that do not change during cognition, for physical, extended, effective sensory configurations / patterns / collections of characteristics —or, which is the same, for physical entities—that are constantly changing. a65 b 66 c67 d e f The Second and Third Promulgations and the Schools Based on Them According to the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra and Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra, which are the sūtras that posit the three promulgations described above, the Second Promulgation Both self-awareness and awareness (of) consciousness are referred to by the Sanskrit terms svasaṃvedana and svasaṃvitti(ḥ), by the Tibetan term rang rig and by the Chinese terms ⾃證 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìzhèng; WadeGiles, tzu -cheng ) and ⾃覺 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìjué; Wade-Giles, tzu -chüeh ). Skt. ākāśa; Tib. nam mkha’; Ch. 虚空 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xūkōng; Wade-Giles, hsü -k’ung ). Skt. svasaṃvedana or svasaṃvitti[ḥ]; Tib. rang rig; Ch. ⾃證 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìzhèng; Wade-Giles, tzu -cheng ) / ⾃覺 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìjué; Wade-Giles, tzu -chüeh ). Skt. viplava; Tib. bslad pa; Ch. 迷亂 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, míluàn; Wade-Giles, mi -luan ). Skt. bhrānti; Tib. ’phrul; Ch. 亂 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, luàn; Wade-Giles, luan ). Skt. lakṣaṇa; Tib. mtshan nyid; Ch. 相 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiāng; Wade-Giles, hsiang ). a 4 4 4 2 b 1 1 c 4 4 2 d 2 e 4 4 f 1 47 4 teaches emptiness as an antidote to the substantialism that plagues the Hīnayāna, whereas the Third is intended as an antidote to attachment to emptiness for those beings who, under the influence of the Second Promulgation sūtras and related literature, became attached to the notion of emptiness. Moreover, it is the sūtras of the Third Promulgation that, among all the sūtras of the Three Promulgations, show most clearly that the Fruit of Buddhahood is not something to be produced, created, contrived, conditioned or compounded, for it is those sūtras that teach our true condition to be the Buddha-nature —even though they do not unambiguously assert this nature to have always been fully actual, for sometimes they use the example of the sun that is always shining even though it may be covered by clouds, but sometimes they employ examples like that of a seed that requires a set of contributory conditions to give rise to a plant that will at some point give rise to a fruit (which in this example represents Buddhahood). At least when the Buddha-nature is conceived as Buddhahood in act (as in the example of the sun), Buddhahood as the Fruit of the Buddhist Path is seen as being no more than the nonfabricated, uncompounded, unproduced, uncontrived, unconditioned, uninduced, uncreated, irreversible disclosure of the Buddha-nature and the nonfabricated, unproduced, uninduced, uncontrived, unconditioned, uncreated, irreversible rectification of our misperception of the Buddha-nature. Because of all of this, the Nyingmapas claim that the Third Promulgation was the one that conveyed the most definitive Buddhist teachings and as such was the “highest” ones among all three. a Schools Based on the Second Promulgation Uma Rangtongpa The Collection of Madhyamika Reasonings by the incomparable Master Nāgārjuna and the writings of the latter's direct disciple, Āryadeva, which explain and clarify Second Promulgation sutras, gave rise to the view that later on was called Uma Rangtongpa or Madhyamaka Positing the Emptiness of Self-Existence —on the basis of which a series of scholars and Masters over the centuries gave rise to that which later on was regarded as the various Uma Rangtongpa systems of tenets, beginning with the writings of Madhyamika philosopher Buddhapālita, who lived several centuries after Āryadeva. At any rate, with the passing of time Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva came to be referred to as Madhyamikas of the Model Texts, due to their being the authors of the original texts of Madhyamaka. b 68 c69 d Skt. tathāgatagarbha or sugatagarbha; Tib. de [bzhin] gshegs [pa’i] snying po; Chin. 如來藏 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, rúláizàng; Wade-Giles, ju -lai -tsang ) / Skt. buddhatā, buddhadhātu or buddhatva; Tib. sangs rgyas kyi khams; Ch. 佛性 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fóxìng; Wade-Giles fo -hsing ). Takakuso (3d. ed. 1956) gives Buddha-svabhāva as the Sanskrit for “Buddha-nature.” Skt. Yuktikāya; Tib. [dbU ma] rigs tshogs. Skt. svabhāvaśūnyatā or prakṛtiśūnyatā; Tib. rang [bzhing gyis] stong [pa nyid] (Tsong kha pa preferred rang bzhin gyis ma grub pa); Ch. ⾃性空 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìngkòng; Wade–Giles, tzu -hsing -k’ung ; Jap. jishōkū). The Wylie for Rangtongpa is Rang stong pa. Tib. gzung phyi mo’i dbu ma pa. They were contrasted with the partisan Madhyamikas (Tib. phyogs ’dzin pa’i dbu ma pa). a 2 2 4 2 4 b c 4 d 48 4 4 The sūtras of the Second Promulgation stressed the fact that an essential aspect of the unawareness cum delusion that Buddhism called avidyā lay in taking the insubstantial as being substantial, the dependent as existing inherently, the relative as absolute, and so on. Intent on clarifying the nature of this delusion, in many treatises Madhyamika Masters explained emptiness as the lack of self-existence and substance of all phenomena, including those phenomena that have consciousness and are human individuals, and the phenomena that lack consciousness and only appear as object. All Madhyamikas of emptiness of self-existence acknowledge subject and object to be co-emergent appearances / interdependent arisings, yet some subschools of this branch of Madhyamaka do not explicitly concern themselves with the problem of the oneness or plurality of consciousness. However, all Madhyamikas in the Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism and many in other non-Gelug schools agree that the mental subject that seems to be at a distance from its objects is a mere appearance produced by the reification of the most subtle of thoughts (which, however, is posited in Third Promulgation Sūtras and in the Tantras), the name of which I render as threefold directional thought structure, and which conceives a subject (a perceiver, agent, thinker, etc.), an object (of perception, of action, of thinking, etc.), and a process in between (a perception, an action, a thinking, etc.). In fact, according to Nyingma Madhyamaka in general, that which we experience as an individual consciousness is no more than an ever-arising, ever-dissolving appearance produced by the energy play of a single, universal, primordial, nondual Awake awareness, and at the same time a differentiated function of that single, universal, primordial, nondual Awake awareness: the single essence of mind / nature of mind, which has been be compared to a mirror and to a LED screen (the former simile being traditional, whereas the second is one I introduced in order to complement and balance the traditional one), manifests as manifold streams of consciousness occupying a different position in the screen and having different perspectives on the phenomena that appear in the screen—each manifesting an ever-arising, ever-dissolving illusory mental subject that seems to be the possessor (or sometimes the victim, etc.) of the reflectiveness and motility of the energy of the nondual Awareness that the mirror or LED screen illustrates. At any rate, all Mahāyāna Buddhist systems agree that the appearance of a mental subject at a distance from what is experienced as object is a gross delusion. (A more detailed discussion of this will be postponed until the section in which that discussion will be most pertinent.) a 70 b c d e 71 f g Pāḷi: avijjā; Tib. ma rig pa; Ch. 無明 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúmíng; Wade-Giles, wu -ming ). Tib. dbU ma rang stong pa, which may be rendered into Sanskrit as Svabhāvaśūnyatā Madhyamaka or Prakṛtiśūnyatā Madhyamaka. Skt. pratītyasamutpāda; Tib. rten [cing] ’brel [bar]; Ch. 因緣 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yīnyuán; Wade-Giles, yin yüan ). Skt. trimaṇḍala; Tib.’khor gsum; Ch. 三輪 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn sānlún; Wade-Giles, san -lun ). Skt. cittatā or citta eva; Tib. sems nyid; Ch. ⼼ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xīn; Wade-Giles, hsin ). Note, however, that this Chinese term also renders the Skt. citta and the Tib. sem (Wylie, sems), which are defined in contrast with cittatā or citta eva, and with sems nyid, respectively. Skt. saṃtāna; Tib. sems rgyud or rgyun; Ch. 相續 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiāngxù; Wade-Giles, hsiang -hsü ); in general used as ⼼相續 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xīnxiāngxù; Wade-Giles hsin -hsiang -hsü ). The term “energy” renders the Tibetan thugs rje (lit. soft and noble heart), which is one of the Tibetan terms that render the Skt. karuṇā (the other one being snying rje; Ch. 悲 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bēi; Wade-Giles, pei —lit. sadness or mercy]), usually rendered as compassion. The concept of the energy aspect of the Base pertains to the Dzogchen teachings and will be explained when these teachings are discussed. a 2 2 b c 1 2 d 1 e 2 1 f 1 1 1 4 4 g 1 49 On the other hand, all subschools of this branch of Madhyamaka are concerned with the deconstruction of that which is experienced as object. Thoughts are digital and as such are discontinuous and divisive, whereas the “territory” of our sensory continuum is with the naked eye analog, and as such are continuous and in themselves undivided. Therefore, even though current science considers sensa to result from organismic processes, with regard to our conceptual perception of them they may be referred to as the given. As substantiated in the endnote the reference mark for which is at the end of this paragraph, neurology has “shown” our sensa (the luminosity that allows us to see, the sonority that allows us to hear, etc.) to be produced by our brains—or, more precisely, by universal, primordial, nondual Awake awareness —and to be incapable of resembling in any way the external reality that both realists and Kant assumed that they convey to us—and hence not to be given in the sense of not depending on anything other than themselves to appear as they appear. However, from this it does not follow that we are forbidden to emphasize the fact that our sensa are with the naked eye analog and as such continuous, whereas our perceptions of segments of the continuum of sensation in terms of contents of thought are digital and therefore discontinuous—and that from this it follows that the latter can never correspond precisely to the former, and that whenever we perceive the former in terms of the latter or believe that a description of the former in terms of latter is exact, we are under a gross delusion. Nonetheless, since Wilfrid Sellars denounced the idea of the given as a myth, and stated that one of the things that has at times been held to be given is sense contents, various researchers and theorists in the fields of spirituality, mysticism, religious studies and transpersonal psychology have delegitimized the key distinction between naked sensa and perception. Until very recently, when critiques led Spanish theorist Jorge Ferrer to review his theories (Ferrer, 2017), in spite of condemning foundationalist theories of perception (which are the main target of Sellars’ critique), he paradoxically produced a foundationalist theory, for he clearly implied sensa to be digital, discontinuous and discrete, thus positing entities that therefore could be used as foundations in a foundational theory of truth —and implicitly using them for this purpose, for on the basis of his claim that sensory differences are given in the moderate sense I give the term, he negated the viewless view of the higher forms of Buddhism that he ascribes to the so-called perennial philosophy, thus implicitly validating the perceptions of common sense and thus falling into the myth of the given right as Sellars defined it. The big paradox is that he did so while claiming that the superiority of his perspective lay in the purported “fact” that it was inclusive of all spiritual systems— among which he explicitly, repeatedly listed Buddhism. These contradictions by Sellars’ followers are discussed in greater detail in the endnote the reference mark for which lies at the end of this paragraph, and in even greater detail in an Appendix to Capriles (2013d). At any rate, since (as shown in endnotes 77 and 79) maps in terms of thought are by nature digital and as such discontinuous and divisive, whereas the territory of our sensory continuum is supposed to be analog and as such continuous and in itself undivided, absolutely 72 a 73 b 74 c d 75 Kant (this English version, 1996) posited an external reality, yet acknowledged that it did not resemble in any way our experience of it: it was the nondimensional Ding-an-sich or thing-in-itself, which also lacked sensory characteristics. Sellars (1997). E.g. Ferrer & Sherman (2008, eds. 2008). E.g. Ferrer (2002, 2008). For my refutation of Ferrer’s views—including his assertion of the purportedly digital and discontinuous character of sensa—cf. Capriles (2013d, Appendix III). For a brief yet conclusive excerpt of that refutation, cf. also endnote 75 to this book. a b c d 50 no perception in terms of thoughts can fit precisely the territory it interprets, and nothing that can be asserted with regard to any region of reality or any entity can precisely correspond to it or exhaust it. However, the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of and clinging to our deluded thoughts—the supersubtle ones and the subtle ones involved in perception and the coarse ones involved in reflection—makes us experience the sensory continuum that we interpret as a universe, which as just noted is with the naked eye analog, continuous and in itself undivided, as being digital, discontinuous and inherently divided. Likewise, whereas the segments we single out in the sensory continuum / universe are systemically interconnected, we perceive them as being disconnected or mechanically connected, etc. Since all of this involves experiencing something as it (is) not, it is a delusion. In fact, the reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of the supersubtle thought I render as threefold directional thought structure makes us experience our mental stream / Gnitive capacity as a consciousness or soul lying at a distance from the physical world (this being the basis of Descartes’ mistaken belief that the mind is a soul— i.e. a substantial res cogitans—inherently other than the extended, physical universe, and that the latter is a substantial a res extensa), and the combination of this with the reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of subtle thoughts gives rise to the illusion that one is a self-existent self possessing a self-existent, separate consciousness, and to the concomitant illusion that other human beings are also self-existent selves possessing selfexistent, separate consciousnesses. And our experience of the plethora of segments that our mental functions single out in the sensory field / physical universe as being in themselves separate entities, as being in themselves the subtle thoughts in terms of which we perceive them (a table, a pot, etc.), and as inherently possessing such and such qualities, etc.—in brief, our experience of the continuum of sensa / the physical universe as a plethora of self-existent phenomena of one or another kind, each having its respective inherent, individual qualities— is produced by the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of subtle thoughts. (I have discussed this in detail elsewhere [Capriles, 1977, 1986, 2007 Vol. I, etc.] and I will be briefly discuss it in a subsequent section of this book). All of these illusions are functions, aspects or effects of the second and third of the aspects or types of the unawareness cum delusion called avidyā in the most common classification of avidyā in the Dzogchen teachings—which will be discussed in the following chapter, in the context of the Mahāyāna interpretation of the Four Noble Truths that posits avidyā as the source both of saṃsāra and of the suffering inherent in the latter. In order to block the functioning of the conceptual mind responsible both for the deluded perception of the territory—which with the naked eye is analog—in terms of digital conceptual maps made up of the supersubtle threefold directional thought structure, or intuitive, subtle thoughts, and of discursive, abstract thoughts, Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva— and, centuries later, Buddhapālita, and subsequently Candrakīrti and those who followed him over the centuries—set out to consistently refute the beliefs of common sense and the a b c d These are the ones that the Dzogchen teachings and Dignāga and Dharmakīrti’s Pramāṇavāda call by the Skt. arthasāmānya; the Tib. don spyi; and the Ch. 總義 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngyì; Wade-Giles, tsung -i ) These are the ones that both the Dzogchen teachings and Dignāga refer to by the Skt. śabdasāmānya (Tib. sgra spyi; Ch. 論聲總 [simplified 论声总] [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, lùnshēngzǒng; Wade-Giles, lun -sheng -tsung ]). Skt. trimaṇḍala; Tib.’khor gsum; Ch. 三輪 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānlùn; Wade-Giles, san -lun )… These are the ones that the Dzogchen teachings and Dignāga and Dharmakīrti’s Pramāṇavāda call by the Skt. arthasāmānya; the Tib. don spyi; the Ch. 總義 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngyì; Wade-Giles, tsung -i )… a 3 4 b 4 c 1 1 4 d 3 51 4 3 statements that common sense, religion and philosophy (including other Buddhist Schools) make regarding reality. When the functioning of the conceptual mind is blocked, the possibility arises that all aspects or types of avidyā instantly dissolve in a spontaneous way and the true condition of ourselves and all phenomena becomes fully patent. The Svātantrika and Prāsaṅgika Subschools and the Varieties of Svātantrika: Svātantrika-Sautrāntika and Svātantrika-Yogācāra Shortly after the time of Buddhapālita, Bhāvaviveka, Bhāviveka or Bhavya asserted this approach to have been excellent for the founding fathers or, which is the same, for the Madhyamikas of the Model Texts, yet not to be appropriate for their interpreters of later times: on the grounds that it had become necessary to draw positive conclusions from the former’s refutations, he charged against Buddhapālita for having failed to do so, all while doing it himself in his own writings. However, subsequently Candrakīrti charged against Bhāvaviveka and, defending the view of Buddhapālita, chastised Bhāvaviveka for having done away with the true method of Madhyamaka and thus deprived this school from its liberating, Awakening power. And he was right, for the original method of Madhyamaka lay in frustrating the mind’s attempts to grasp at concepts or conceptual worldviews and take them as the truth concerning reality, so that conceptual knowledge would collapse and this would offer an opportunity to the absolute condition to reveal itself beyond concepts— whereas, contrariwise, offering the mind views to grasp at would sustain the deluded mind and thus prevent this collapse from occurring. In Tibet, some scholars and Masters began retrospectively referring to those who, beginning with Candrakīrti (or in some cases with Buddhapālita), anew applied the original Madhyamaka method, by the label Prāsaṅgikas or “adherents of prāsaṅga (i.e., of reductio ad absurdum)”—including in this category the great Indian philosopher and practitioner Śāntideva. Contrariwise, they referred to all of those who called themselves Madhyamikas yet drew autonomous theses and syllogisms from Madhyamaka refutations, as Svātantrika or “adherents of svātantra (i.e., of autonomous theses and syllogisms).” With the passing of time, these labels became customary in the Land of the Snows, and scholars forgot that they were a nearly total Tibetan creation (the term Svātantrika was used a couple of times in Indian Master Jayānanda’s Madhyamakāvatāraṭīkā to refer to advocates of a position he saw Candrakīrti as opposing. ). Among Svātantrikas some assimilated views proper to the Sautrāntika School of the Hīnayāna, and hence Tibetans referred to them as SvātantrikaSautrāntika-Madhyamikas, whereas others assimilated teachings of the Third Promulgation and were called Svātantrika-Yogācāra-Madhyamikas (for details see Capriles, 2014, and, should I have time to prepare a definitive edition of Capriles, electronic publication 2004, possibly this edition as well). 76 77 a 78 Schools Based on the Third Promulgation Lower Interpretations of the Third Promulgation: a Cabezón (2003, p. 292). 52 Yogācāra / Cittamātra a b Maitreya, Asaṅga, and the latter’s brother, Vasubandhu, all of whom are classified as Madhyamikas by the Nyingmapas and quite a few adherents of other Tibetan Buddhist Schools except for the Gelugpa, wrote different classes of treatises interpreting the sūtras of the Third Promulgation. Among these interpreters, Maitreya is traditionally identified as the Buddha of the future, whom Asaṅga would have visited in the Tuṣita Heaven, yet most Western scholars identify him as Asaṅga’s main human teacher, who received the epithet of Ajita and who purportedly was also called Maitreyanātha. Asaṅga is often identified by Tibetan Buddhist tradition as one of the Two Charioteers or Promulgators (the other one being Nāgārjuna), and regarded as one of the most important philosophers of Mahāyāna Buddhism. And Vasubandhu was Asaṅga’s younger brother, who according to prevalent tradition had been a Hīnayāna teacher until his conversion to the Mahāyāna views of his elder brother, Asaṅga. These three teachers produced what seem to be quite different categories of interpretation, among which the lowest one was codified in the Cittamātra (Mind-Only), Vijñānavāda (Adhering to Consciousness) or Vijñaptimātra (Representation-Only) School— which most scholars identify with the Yogācāra School, though some are of the opinion that the label Cittamātra refers to the views expounded in the outermost, lowest treatises by these authors, whereas Yogācāra refers to the views expounded in the middling treatises by the same authors. All Tibetan Masters agree that the Yogācāra / Cittamātra School(s) is/are philosophically inferior to Nāgārjuna’s Madhyamaka school. Independently of the above, the names Cittamātra, Vijñānavāda and Vijñaptimātra are due to the fact that, according to the interpretation of Third Promulgation Canonical Sources referred to by those names, there is no physical world external to and independent from mind and experiencing, for all there is, is mind or experiencing—and all phenomena of human experience are illusory in the sense of being merely representation or information (vijñaptimātra), and in the sense of being dependent—their dependence lying on their being conditioned by other factors. Note that, although there is no way to prove that all there is, is experience, it is evident that if there were an independent, physical basis of experience, it would be rather like Kant’s thing-in-itself, for it would have no dimensionality or sensory characteristics (cf. the arguments put forward by Bishop Berkeley and those developed by Bertrand Russell in endnote 195). Rather than reducing the whole of human experience and Buddhic metaexperience to only two truths—the relative and the absolute—Third Promulgation canonical sources posit three natures, which in those sources and in the treatises of the Cittamātra / Yogācāra School are called: c d79 80 e81 f g Tib. rNal ’byor spyod pa ba; Ch. 瑜伽⾏派 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yúqiéxíng pài; Wade-Giles, yü -ch’ieh -hsing p’ai ). Tib. Sems tsam pa; Ch. 唯⼼ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wéixīn; Wade-Giles, wei -hsin ). Pāli Tusita; Tib. dGa’ ldan; Ch. 兜率天 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, doūshuaì tiān; Wade-Giles, tou -shuai t’ien ). Ajita (Tib. Mi pham) means “unconquered” and is a common epithet of the bodhisattva Maitreya, who is prophesized to become the Buddha of the future. Cf. Chöphel & Capriles (unpublished); Capriles (unpublished 1). Should I prepare and publish the definitive version of Capriles (electronic publication 2004), it would feature a discussion of the view of the Yogācāra School in relation to those of the other schools of the Sūtrayāna Path of Renunciation, and of the relation of those views to those of the Dzogchen Atiyoga (and to some extent to those of the Tantras of transformation). Ding-an-sich. a 2 b 2 c 1 d e f g 53 2 2 1 4 1 4 (1) The absolutely true nature, which is emptiness, and which is said to be a condition in which the object perceived and the perceiving subject / consciousness, both of which belong to (2) the dependent nature, are undifferentiated; this nature is classified into the incontrovertible, absolutely true nature and the unchanging, absolutely true nature. (2) The dependent nature, which is held to be correct relative truth, for it is asserted not to be conditioned by the activity of the imagination and not to involve distortions of the senses or other delusory activities, and therefore it is compared to seeing a rope as a rope; it is subdivided into pure dependence, which includes all of the (meta)phenomena of nonstatic nirvāṇa, and impure dependence, which includes all of the phenomena of saṃsāra. (3) The imaginary imputational nature is held to be deluded relative truth, which involves being mistaken with regard to the nature of entities, and as such is compared to seeing a rope as a snake; though experiences in dreams, hallucinations, optical illusions and so on fall under this category, the valid phenomena of dependent nature also serve as the basis for it when recognized in terms of delusive concepts put forward by the imagination and hence perceived as this or that type of object, as permanent and as existing outside the mind, etc., for the ensuing delusive perception of the phenomena of dependent nature is held to be itself an experience of imaginary nature. These canonical sources and schools posit the same six consciousnesses or avenues of consciousness that are posited by the whole of Buddhism—those of the five senses and the one that perceives mental phenomena—yet adds two other ones to these six, which are the defiled-defiling consciousness that is the source of delusion and of the ensuing passions, and the store-consciousness that carries all memories and propensities but that, rather than a static receptacle, is a dynamic stream of consciousness. There is much more to say with regard to the Yogācāra / Cittamātra School(s), but this is not the place to discuss in detail the various philosophical schools of the Mahāyāna. a b 82 c d e f School(s) Based on Both Promulgations: Uma Zhentongpa and Mahāmadhyamaka The Third Promulgation Tathāgatagarbhasūtras and, among Second Promulgation sūtras, the Śatasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitāsūtra, together with Tantras such as Kālacakra and Hevajra, and with the higher interpretations of the Tathāgatagarbhasūtras and of Śatasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā by Maitreya, Asaṅga and Vasubandhu, as well as with the views that Second Promulgation interpreter Nāgārjuna expressed in his Stavakāya, and in g Skt. pariniṣpanna; Tib. yongs grub; Ch. 圓成實性 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yuánchéng shíxìng; Wade-Giles, yüan ch’eng shih -hsing ). Skt. paratantra; Tib. gzhan dbang; Ch. 依他起性 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yītā qǐxìng; Wade-Giles, i -ta ch’i -hsing ). Skt. parikalpita[h]; Tib. kun [tu] brtags [pa]; Ch. 遍計所執性 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, biànjì suǒzhí xìng; Wade-Giles, pien -chi so -chih hsing ). Skt. kliṣṭamanovijñāna; Tib. nyon yid kyi rnam shes or nyon mongs pa can gyi yid kyi rnam par shes pa; Ch. 末那識 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, mònà shì; Wade-Giles, mo -na shih ). Skt. ālayavijñāna; Tib. kun gzhi rnam [par] shes [pa]; Ch. 阿賴耶識 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, ālàiyē shí; Wade-Giles, a -lai -yeh shih ) or 藏識 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zàngshì; Wade-Giles, tsang -shih ). Skt. saṃtāna; Pāli santāna; Tib. sems rgyud or rgyun; Ch. 相續 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiāngxù; Wade-Giles, hsiang hsü ); in general used as ⼼相續 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xīnxiāngxù; Wade-Giles hsin -hsiang -hsü ). Tib. bsTod tshogs. a 2 2 2 4 b 1 1 3 4 c 4 4 3 2 4 d 4 4 4 e 1 4 1 4 4 4 f 1 4 1 g 54 1 4 particular in the Dharmadhātustava, expressed a conception of emptiness as emptiness as absence of substances other than the Buddha-nature, or than the true condition of phenomena, or than thatness / thusness, or than the dharmakāya. This conception of emptiness may be called emptiness of alien substances, and it is complementary to the emptiness of self-existence posited in many sūtras, which serves as the basis of the Uma Rangtongpa subschools of Madhyamaka, for the emptiness of alien substances implies that there are no substances or self-existent entities, for all there (is), (is) the Buddha-nature, the true condition of phenomena, thatness / thusness, or the dharmakāya. This emptiness of alien substances is the core of the interpretation of Madhyamaka that ethnic Tibetan Dölpopa Sherab Gyaltsen, the principal philosopher in the Jonangpa School and most famous champion of emptiness of alien substances (though not the first scholar-yogin to have defended this view of emptiness in Tibet), christened subtle, inner Madhyamaka. Although Dölpopa used the terms Uma Zhentongpa and Mahāmadhyamaka or Great Madhyamaka as synonyms, here I am keeping the term Uma Zhentongpa for the views of Dölpopa just as he expressed them in his writings, and have appropriated the term Mahāmadhyamaka to refer to my own reformulation of the view Dölpopa designated by that name, so as to fit what I view as the supreme interpretation of Buddhist philosophy (the great Tibetan scholar-yogin Jamgön Ju Mipham or Jamgön Mipham Jamyang Namgyal Gyamtso —one of the most influential Tibetan Masters—used the term Mahāmadhyamaka to refer to a Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamaka view that incorporated the Pramāṇavāda concept of self-awareness / awareness [of] consciousness and some elements from the sūtras of the Third Promulgation; however, my reformulation of Mahāmadhyamaka is nearer Dölpopa’s view than was Mipham’s—the main difference with Dölpopa’s lying in my insistence that the condition that is free from substances other than the absolute could not be existent, for it is beyond the four extremes of being, nonbeing, both and neither, and if it is not existent, far less could it be self-existent). According to Dölpopa and to Mahāmadhyamaka as I have redefined it, phenomenal existence in its totality is unconditioned, unproduced, nonfabricated, uncompounded and / or uncontrived, yet our experience of it is produced, conditioned, fabricated, compounded and a b c d e f g h i j k 83 l m n 84 o Tib. Chos dbyings bstod pa. Skt. śūnyatā; Tib. stong pa nyid; Ch. 空 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, kòng; Wade–Giles, k’ung ); Jap. kū. Skt. tathāgatagarbha or sugatagarbha; Tib. de [bzhin] gshegs [pa’i] snying po; Chin. 如來藏 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, rúláizàng; Wade-Giles, ju -lai -tsang ) / Skt. buddhatā, buddhadhātu or buddhatva; Tib. sangs rgyas kyi khams; Ch. 佛性 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fóxìng; Wade-Giles fo -hsing ). Skt. dharmatā; Tib. chos nyid; Ch. 法性 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎxìng; Wade-Giles, fa -hsing ). Skt. tathatā; Tib. de bzhin nyid; Chin. 眞如 [性] (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēnrú [xìng]; Wade-Giles, chen -ju [hsing ]). Tib. chos sku; Ch. 法⾝ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎshēn; Wade-Giles, fa -shen ). Emptiness thus understood is called in Tib. gzhan gyi dngos po stong pa nyid, which may be rendered into Skt. as paraśūnyatā or pararūpaśūnyatā, and into English as emptiness of extraneous or alien substances. Skt. svabhāvaśūnyatā or prakṛtiśūnyatā; Tib. rang bzhing [gyi] stong pa nyid; Chin. ⾃性空 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìngkòng; Wade–Giles, tzu -hsing -k’ung ; Jap. jishōkū). Wylie, dbU ma rang stong pa, which may be rendered into Skt. as Svabhāvaśūnyatā Madhyamaka and / or as Prakṛtiśūnyatā Madhyamaka. Wylie, Dol po pa Shes rab rgyal mtshan (1292–1361). Wylie, Jo nang pa. Wylie, dbU ma gzhan stong pa. Wylie, dbU ma chen po. ’Ju mi pham rgya mtsho or ’Jam mgon mi pham rnam rgyal rgya mtsho: 1846–1912. Pāḷi asaṅkhata; Skt. asaṃskṛta; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu -wei ). a b 4 c 2 2 4 2 4 d 3 e 4 1 f 3 2 4 1 g h 4 4 4 i j k l m n o 2 55 2 / or contrived by our perceptual mechanisms and in particular by our deluded thoughts, which we confuse with what they interpret—and as a result of this we come to live in the wholly produced, conditioned, fabricated, compounded and / or contrived sphere known as the wheel (saṃsāra), which involves recurrent ascension into less unpleasant conditioned states and descent into more painful ones—all of which, however, are characterized by lack of plenitude and suffering, even though in the highest ones the latter are eluded for very long periods. a b The Two Mahāyāna Promulgations and the Nonverbal Transmission of nondual Awake awareness: Gradual, Sudden and Eclectic Mahāyāna In the opinion of the present author, the simplest classification of the Mahāyāna in its totality would be the following: (1) Gradual, which in Indian Buddhism comprised the two main schools mentioned above: Yogācāra and Madhyamaka. The gradual Mahāyāna in general is based on the progressive development of the Mind of Awakening by means of the practices of the bodhicitta of intention—which consists mainly in the training in the “Four Immeasurable Catalysts of Awakening” —and the bodhicitta of action—which lies in the training in the Six or Ten Pāramitās. In this approach, which places a quite strong emphasis on training in the practice of śamatha or mental pacification and subsequently in that of vipaśyanā or insight (the latter being always associated in one way or another with mental movements), realization as such consists in the manifestation of absolute wisdom —which the Uma Rangtongpa Subschools explain as the direct, nonconceptual, nondual realization of emptiness of self-nature or substance —inseparable from compassion. In this approach, the bodhisattva goes through five paths and ten or eleven levels, as shown in the diagram below: c d e f g h i j k Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). If I get the time to produce the definitive version on paper of Capriles [electronic publication 2004], in it the schools of tenets discussed here, as well as their sub-schools, will be reviewed in far greater detail. Skt. bodhicitta; Tib. byang chub [kyi] sems; Ch. 菩提⼼, (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, pútíxīn; Wade-Giles, p’u -t’i -hsin ; Jap. bodaishin). Skt. caturaprameya; Tib. tshad med bzhi. śamatha is the Sanskrit; Pāḷi samatha; Tib. zhi gnas; Chin. ⽌ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhǐ; Wade-Giles, chih ); Jap: shi. vipaśyanā is the Sanskrit; Pāḷi vipassanā; Tib. lhag mthong; Chin. 觀 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, guān; Wade-Giles, kuan ); Jap: kan. i.e. absolute prajñā (Tib. shes rab; Ch. 般若 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn bōrě; Wade-Giles, po -je ]). dbU ma rang stong pa, which may be rendered into Sanskrit as Svabhāvaśūnyatā Madhyamaka. Skt. svabhāvaśūnyatā or prakṛtiśūnyatā; Tib. rang bzhing [gyi] stong pa nyid; Ch. ⾃性空 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìngkòng; Wade–Giles, tzu -hsing -k’ung ; Jap. jishōkū). Skt. mārga(ḥ); Pāḷi magga; Tib. lam; 道 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dào; Wade-Giles tao ). Skt. bhūmi; Tib. sa; Ch. 地 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dì; Wade-Giles, ti ). a 3 2 b c 2 d e 3 f 1 g 1 h i 4 4 4 j 4 k 4 56 3 2 1 PATHS LEVELS This system, rather than trying to produce the qualities of realization by means of imitative methods and gradual trainings, resorts to quite distinctive skillful means aimed at enabling the spontaneous, sudden unveiling of absolute wisdom, which according to this system involves the simultaneous manifestation of calm and insight (these two being inseparable in the meditation proper to this school) and in which all the qualities of the Mahāyāna are inherent—so that realization of the wisdom in question naturally and effortlessly gives rise to those qualities. a85 b c d i.e. absolute prajñā (Tib. shes rab); Ch. 般若 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bōrě; Wade-Giles, po -je ). Absolute prajñā is the same as primordial gnosis (Skt. jñāna; Pāḷi ñaṇa; Tib. ye shes; Ch. 智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhì; Wade-Giles, chih ; Jap. chi). Skt. śamatha; Pāḷi: samatha; Tib. zhi gnas; Ch. ⽌ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhǐ; Wade-Giles, chih ; Jap: shi). Skt. vipaśyanā; Pāḷi vipassanā; Tib. lhag mthong; Ch. 觀 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, guān; Wade-Giles, kuan ; Jap. kan). This is why the practice is called ⽌觀 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhǐguān; Wade-Giles, chih -kuan ; Jap: shi kan), and also 童蒙⽌觀 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tóngméng zhǐguān; Wade-Giles, t’ung -meng chih -kuan ). a 1 3 4 b 3 c 1 d 3 2 57 2 3 1 1 (3) Eclectic, including Chinese Mahāyāna schools such as, for example, Huáyán, Tiāntái and Nirvāṇa, which combine the teachings and methods of gradual Mahāyāna with those of sudden Mahāyāna. Some deem these schools to be extinct, on the grounds that, to a very great extent, they have lost their essence; however, I have no evidence that would allow me to ascertain whether or not this is so. Although, as noted above, the sūtras of the Second and Third Promulgation are the canonical basis of the Indian-originated Gradual Mahāyāna, which stresses the gradual development of the relative mind-of-Awakening, as will be shown later on, some of the sūtras of both the Second and Third Promulgations contain elements that lend themselves to a “Sudden Awakening” interpretation. Moreover, the gradual tradition based on the scriptures and the sudden one based on the nonverbal, nonconceptual transmission of Awake awareness are not adhered to by two totally separate Buddhist communities, for the two creators of the Madhyamaka School (Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva), as well as one of the founders of the Yogācāra School (Vasubandhu), are listed among the links in the transmission of the school conveying the sudden method, which will be considered in a later chapter. a b c d 86 e The Chinese and Far-Eastern Mahāyāna 87 Although Chinese Buddhists like to refer to China as “the land of Mahāyāna,” and although this section is titled “The Chinese and Far-Eastern Mahāyāna,” actually not only the Mahāyāna schools, but also some Hīnayāna schools were established in that country. Therefore, we are obliged to make reference to the latter—which to my knowledge are the following: (1 and 2) The Pítán School, Pítánzōng or Abhidharma School, and the Jùshè School, Jùshèzōng or Kośa School, which were based on the Sarvāstivādin Abhidharma. The first— the Pítán—was based on the translations of Dharmottara’s Abdidharmahṛdaya and Dharmatrāta’s Samyuktābhidharmahṛdaya, whereas the latter had as its main source the noted Abhidharmakośa by Vasubandhu, which, according to the story that is traditional in Tibet, he authored while he was adhering to the Sarvāstivāda School of the Hīnayāna—i.e., before being converted to the Mahāyāna by his elder brother, Asaṅga. Therefore, both schools gave continuity to the Sarvāstivāda School of the Indian Hīnayāna, which holds the doctrine of “all exists” and which I have discussed elsewhere. In Japan, these two schools had their continuity in the Japanese Kośa School. f g 88 h Huáyánzōng (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn); 華嚴宗; Wade-Giles, Hua -yan Tsung ; Jap. Kegon-shū Tiāntái Zōng (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn); 天台宗; Wade-Giles, T’ien -t’ai Tsung ; Jap. Tendai-shū. Nièpánzōng (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn); 涅槃宗; Wade-Giles, Nieh -p’an Tsung ; Jap. Nehan-shū. Skt. bodhicitta; Tib. byang chub sems or byang chub kyi sems; Ch. 菩提⼼ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, pútíxīn; WadeGiles, p’u -t’i -hsin ; Jap. bodaishin). Cf. the section on the Sudden Mahāyāna in a subsequent chapter of this book and the notes to that section. 毘曇宗; Wade-Giles, P’i -t’an Tsung . 俱舍宗; Wade-Giles, Chü -she Tsung . Capriles (2004). I deleted that book from my Webpage because of its flaws. Therefore I ask whoever may be interested in consulting it, to wait for the definitive version that will be published on paper if I ever finish the definitive version of the text. a 2 b c 2 d 2 2 1 e f g 2 1 2 2 4 1 4 1 h 58 1 2 1 2 1 (3) The Chéngshí School, Chéngshízōng or Perfection of Truth School, which was based on the homonymous treatise by Harivarman—the text known in Chinese as Chéngshílùn —and which had its continuity in the Japanese Jojitsu School. This school gave continuity to the Indian Sautrāntika School of the Hīnayāna, briefly discussed in the preceding section and discussed in greater detail elsewhere. (4) The Lù School, Lǜzōng or Vinaya School, which was based specifically on the Vinayapiṭaka’s teachings on discipline, morality and behavior, and which held the strict observation of the rules of monastic life to be most important. Like Jizang, the systematizer of the Sānlùn School, Dàoxuān, founder of the Lù School, condemned the treatise by Harivarman on which the Chéngshí School was based as a Hīnayāna treatise; nevertheless, scholars correctly categorize the Lù School as a Hīnayāna school, for the Vinayapiṭaka sets up inflexible rules of behavior that cannot be violated, thus being based on the principle of vows proper to the Hīnayāna and by the same token being the basis of that principle—as different from the principle of training on the basis of noble intentions that, as will be shown in a subsequent section, is the principle of the Mahāyāna, and which obliges those having Hīnayāna vows to infringe them if this is necessary for benefitting sentient beings and leading them along the Path. Indeed, the Vinaya is an inherently Hīnayāna section of the Tripiṭaka, and, moreover, the specific Vinaya that the Lǜzōng adhered to was that of the Dharmaguptaka school of the Hīnayāna. In China and the Far East, Mahāyāna schools proliferated, reaching a much higher number than in India—with each of them offering its own, divergent list of Śākyamuni’s successive Promulgations of teachings, and/or of classes into which Buddhist canonical texts should be divided. It must be noted, however, that among the schools that regarded themselves as Mahāyāna, in China various scholars regarded as quasi-Mahāyāna those that gave continuity to the only two Indian Mahāyāna philosophical schools—and they saw some independent monks in the same light. The schools in question are: (1) The Sānlùn School, Sānlùnzōng or Three Treatises School, which was the Chinese Madhyamaka School and which was so called because it was based on Chinese translations of three Indian treatises—namely Nāgārjuna’s Madhyamakaśāstra (Chin. Zhōnglùn ) or Prajñānāmamūlamadhyamakakārikā and Dvādaśadvāraśāstra (Chin. Shí'èrménlùn ) as rendered into Chinese by Kumārajīva, and Āryadeva’s Śata[ka]śāstra or Treatise in Onehundred [stanzas] (Chin. Bǎilùn ). The Sānlùn School posited Three Promulgations: (1) The one in which the Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra was taught; (2) since Śākyamuni’s disciples failed to understand the teaching in question, he was forced to bestow the many teachings that a b c d e f 89 g h i 90 a b j 成實宗; Wade-Giles, Ch’eng -shih Tsung . 成實論; Wade-Giles, Ch’eng -shih Lun . This book is not extant in Sanskrit; in the Harivarman entry of Keown 2 2 2 2 1 4 & Prebish (2010), Charles Hallisey reconstructed its name as Tattvasiddhiśāstra or Satyasiddhiśāstra. Capriles (2004). I deleted that book from my Webpage because of its flaws. Therefore I ask whoever may be interested in consulting it, to wait for the definitive version that will be published on paper if I ever finish the definitive version of the text. 律宗; Wade-Giles, Lü Tsung . 道宣; Wade-Giles, Tao -hsüuan . Cf. Charles Hallisey, “Harivarman” entry in Keown & Prebish (2010). 三論宗; Wade-Giles, San -lun Tsung . 中論; Wade-Giles, Chung -lun . ⼗⼆⾨論; Wade-Giles, Shih -erh -men -lun . 百論; Wade-Giles, Pai -lun . c d 4 e 1 2 1 f g 1 h 4 1 i j 2 3 1 4 4 2 4 4 59 constituted this new phase, including all doctrines of the Hīnayāna and most of the Mahāyāna; (3) then Śākyamuni’s’s disciples became ready for higher teachings, and so the Awake One was able to proceed into this final, definitive phase by teaching the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Sūtra or Lotus Sūtra. In Japan this school was called Sanron and in Korea Samnon. (Note that a Four Treatises School or Sìlùnzōng, which incorporated into this school’s threefold canon the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra that the Chinese attribute to Nāgārjuna and that was also translated by Kumārajīva, had a brief existence in China.) (2) The Fǎxiàng School or Fǎxiàngzōng —also called Wéishízōng or Consciousness-Only School, and Wéishí Yújiāxíng Pài or Consciousness-Only Yogācāra School (or, in Japan, Hosso)—gave continuity in China to the Yogācāra School. Established by Xuánzàng and his main disciple, Kuījī, this school derived from the Shèlùn School or Shèlùnzōng, which later on it replaced (the Shèlùnzōng was based on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha by Asaṅga or, more exactly, on Vasubandhu’s commentary on the book in question, but it disappeared some time after Xuánzàng made a new translation of those texts and founded his Fǎxiàng School). The prestige of this school diminished considerably after the Táng dynasty. (3) Note that a whole class of Chinese Buddhists simply regarded themselves as Masters of the Tripiṭaka or Triple Basket—namely the collection of Buddhist canonical teachings, which will be explained in a subsequent chapter and which is so called because those teachings were classified into three sets: the Sūtrapiṭaka, containing the teachings on view and meditation; the Abhidharmapiṭaka, containing teachings on cosmology, epistemology, psychology and so on, and the Vinayapiṭaka, containing the sets of rules for the different types of Buddhist ordination. However, the Chinese Tripiṭaka does not only contain the canonical texts of the Sūtrayāna Path of Renunciation that conform the Sanskrit (and as such Mahāyāna) Tripiṭaka, but also incorporated the commentaries by Chinese Masters. Although I am listing the Tripiṭaka as though it were a school, no Chinese ever established such a school, and hence no such school is listed in the treatises by Chinese Buddhologists and historians, or those by modern Western scholars. Then, there are the schools that the Chinese regard as fully Mahāyāna, which have been considered by Western scholars to be indigenous of China, since no solid proof of their existence in India has been found so far (the only school of which there is some, though scant, evidence that it existed in India, is the Chán School; cf. Dumoulin, 2005): (1) The Chán School or Chánzōng which transmits the Mahāyāna’s Sudden Path, which, in the case of individuals who have the appropriate capacity, is far more rapid and efficient than the gradual Path of the same vehicle. This school will be reviewed in some detail in dealing a b 91 c d e f g h i92 j 93 k a b c d e f g h i j k 四論宗; Wade-Giles, Ssu -lun Tsung . Chin. ⼤智度論; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Dàzhìdùlùn; Wade-Giles, Ta -shih -tu Lun . 法相宗; Wade-Giles, Fa -hsiang Tsung ; Jap. Hossō-shǔ. 唯識宗; Wade-Giles, Wei -shih Tsung . 唯識瑜伽⾏派; Wade-Giles, Wei -shih Yü -chi -hsing P’ai . ⽞奘; Wade-Giles, Hsüan -tsang . 窺基; Wade-Giles, K’uei -chi . 摂論宗; Wade-Giles, She -lun Tsung . Ch. 唐朝; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Tángcháo; Wade-Giles T’ang -ch’ao . Pāḷi: Suttapiṭaka; Tib. mDo’i sde snod; Ch. 經藏 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Jīngzàng; Wade-Giles, Ching -tsang . 禪宗; Wade-Giles, Ch’an -tsung ; Jap. ぜんしゅう(hiragana) / Zen-shū (romaji); Korean, 성종 (Seonjong); 4 4 1 4 3 2 2 2 4 4 1 2 2 4 1 2 2 1 2 4 4 1 1 4 4 1 2 2 1 2 1 Viet. Thiền Tông. 60 4 with the various vehicles (Skt. yāna) of the Sūtrayāna Path of Renunciation, for it makes up the sudden subvehicle of the Mahāyāna, and hence it will not be discussed at this point. (2) The Huáyán School or Huáyánzōng, based on the Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra and the other Vaipulyasūtras (which include the Gaṇḍavyūha), at some point absorbed the Dìlùnzōng or Daśabhūmikā School, based on Vasubandhu’s Daśabhūmikabhāşya (since the latter was a commentary to the Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra’s Daśabhūmikasūtra chapter, the absorption of this school by the Huáyán School was to be expected). Since the Huáyán School possessed and applied the Mahāyāna's gradual teachings as well as the sudden ones transmitted by the Chán school, combining them skillfully, it designated its own amalgamation of views and practices as the round or total method. This school classifies the teachings of Śākyamuni, mainly on the basis of their content and not so much of the periods in which they were offered, in the following way: (i) the doctrines of the Hīnayāna, contained in the āgamas; (ii) the elemental doctrine of the Mahāyāna, contained in the Chinese schools which gave continuity to the Madhyamaka and Yogācāra schools of Buddhism; (iii) the definitive doctrine of the Mahāyāna, transmitted by the Tiāntái school; (iv) the “sudden” doctrine, consisting in Chán, and (v) the “round” or “total” doctrine of the Mahāyāna, which is that of the Huáyán school. (3) The Tiāntái School, Tiāntáizōng, or School of the Heavenly Dais, which also accepted the validity both of the sudden method (which it attributed to the Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra) and of the gradual one (which it attributed to the āgamas, the Vaipulyasūtras and the Prajñāpāramitāsūtras), and placed a great emphasis on the inseparability or the circular combination of the meditation practices of śamatha and vipaśyanā , was based on the Lotus Sūtra or Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra, but also on the Mahāśamathavipaśyanāsūtra and a couple of Chinese commentaries (like other Chinese schools, it also incorporated the teachings of the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra). This school divides the Buddha’s teaching into five periods and eight doctrines, the periods being: (i) that of the Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra, in which it was established that the universe was the manifestation of the absolute, and which contains the round or total method that comprises the gradual method of the Mahāyāna as well as the sudden one of this same vehicle; (ii) that of the āgamas, consisting of the four (or five if the Kṣudraka Āgama or Lesser Āgama is included) main collections of Hīnayāna discourses of Śākyamuni—which were translated from the Pāḷi and inserted in the Sanskrit Tripiṭaka—which he taught upon verifying that his students had not grasped the meaning of what he proclaimed in the first period; (3) that of the Vaipulyasūtras, or the most extensive sūtras of the Mahāyāna (excluding those that are specifically included in another category), which contains all the doctrines, as the first step of this vehicle; (4) that of the sūtras of the Prajñāpāramitā, which teach the absolute emptiness / insubstantiality of all dharmas (phenomena), rejecting the ideas of substantial distinction and acquisition (as though for selecting students), and by the same token negate final truth to emptiness itself; and (5) that of the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra and the Lotus (Saddharmapuṇḍarīka) Sūtra—the latter of which contains the final Buddhic truth, beyond the division into gradual and swift methods, a b c d e 94 f a b c d e f 華嚴宗; Wade-Giles, Hua -yan Tsung ; Jap. Kegon-shū. 地論宗; Wade-Giles, Ti -lun Tsung . 天台宗; Wade-Giles, T’ien -t’ai tsung ; Jap. Tendai-shū. Pāḷi: samatha; Tib. zhi gnas; Chin. ⽌ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhǐ; Wade-Giles, chih ; Jap: shi). Pāḷi: vipassanā Tib. lhag mthong; Chin. 觀 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, guān; Wade-Giles, kuan ; Jap: kan). Pāḷi, nikāya; Tib. lung; Ch. 阿鋡 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, āhán; Wade-Giles, a -han ; Jap. agon). 2 2 4 1 4 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 61 2 and asserts the vehicles of śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas and bodhisattvas to be merely expedient, provisional teachings, while asserting the only true vehicle to be the Buddhavehicle. With the passing of time this school assimilated teachings from the Tantric or “Secret School”—the Mìzōng —to such an extent that it may be said to have become a quasi-Tantric or even a fully Tantric School; however, since it was originally non-Tantric, here I list it among the Mahāyāna Schools of China and the Far-East. This tradition is also known by the name Tángmì or “Esoteric of the Táng (dynasty)” and also as the Hànmì Mìzōng or “Secret Buddhism of the Hàn Transmission.” (4) The Jìngtǔ School, Jìngtǔzōng or Pure Land School, had its canonical basis in the sūtras Sukhāvatīvyūha, Amitābha and Amitāyurdhyāna. Although it is generally thought to merely provide methods for achieving rebirth in the Pure Land of Amitābha (which would lead us to view it in the best of cases as a gradual School), D. T. Suzuki affirmed that in Japan a greater number of individuals attained a sudden, first satori (provisional, sudden Awakening) by means of the practices of this school than through those of Chán or of Japanese Zen. Tibetan Master Chögyam Trungpa asserted this school to have transmitted the teaching that Tibetans know as phowa or transference of consciousness. (5) The Nirvāṇa School, Nièpán School or Nièpánzōng, based on interpretations of the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra, which was often accused of conceiving the absolute in personal or substantialistic terms, also accepted the concept of sudden Awakening. In particular, Master Zhú Dàoshēng placed a strong emphasis on the fact that, according to this sūtra, sudden Awakening was possible even for the icchantika, who are those who have cut all wholesome roots in themselves. Shortly thereafter, a Sanskrit copy of the sūtra in question was introduced and translated that also put forward the doctrine of sudden Awakening, and people were surprised to learn that it confirmed that Master's theory. The Nirvāṇa School also classified the canonical teachings in terms of periods, but posited as the last one that in which the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra was taught, since this sūtra’s title is due to the fact that it was purportedly the last and final teaching of Śākyamuni, taught during the day and the evening immediately preceding his “great decease,” and on these grounds it held it to constitute his final and definitive teaching. Although this school and the sūtra at its root were not so popular in China, the doctrine of Buddha-nature and of the dharmakāya it teaches pervaded the whole of the Chinese Mahāyāna. It must be noted that the southern branch of this school was absorbed by the Tiāntái School or Tiāntáizōng. a b c d 95 e f 96 g 97 h i j a b c d 密宗; Wade-Giles, Mi -tsung . 唐密; Wade-Giles, T’ang -mi . 漢傳密宗; Wade-Giles, Han -mi mi -tsung . 淨 ⼟ 宗 ; Wade-Giles, Ching -t’u Tsung ; Jap. Jōdo-shū or Jōdo bukkyō; Korean, Jeongtojong (정토종); 4 1 2 4 4 4 4 4 1 3 1 Vietnamese, Tịnh Độ Tông. Wylie, pho ba. 涅槃宗; Wade-Giles, Nieh -p’an -tsung . 竺道⽣; Wade-Giles, Chu Tao -sheng . Skt. Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra; Tib. Yongs su mya ngan las ’das pa chen po mdo; Ch. ⼤(般)涅槃經 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Dà[bān] Nièpánjīng; Wade-Giles, Ta [-pan ]) Nieh -p’an -ching ; Jap. Daihatsunehangyō. Skt. mahāparinirvāṇa[m]; Tib. yongs su mya ngan las ’das pa chen po; Ch. ⼤(般)涅槃 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dà[bān] nièpán; Wade-Giles, ta [-pan ]) nieh -p’an ; Jap. daihatsunehan. Skt. tathāgatagarbha or sugatagarbha; Tib. de [bzhin] gshegs [pa’i] snying po; Chin. 如來藏 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, rúláizàng; Wade-Giles, ju -lai -tsang ) / Skt. buddhatā, buddhadhātu or buddhatva; Tib. sangs rgyas kyi khams; Ch. 佛性 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fóxìng; Wade-Giles fo -hsing ). e f 4 g 2 2 1 4 1 h 4 1 4 i 4 1 4 2 j 2 2 4 2 4 62 2 1 To conclude this brief review of the non-Tantric schools of the Far East, it must be noted that, in the thirteenth century CE, in Japan, a sect arose which, like the Tiāntái School, has the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra as its source, and which bears the name of the monk who established its doctrine, Nichiren Shōnin (1222-1282), who belonged to the Tendai-shū but who, following what he took to be a spontaneous Awakening resulting from the understanding of the sūtra in question, decided that the whole of the teachings that, on the basis of his own true, authentic Awakening, the Buddha offered on meditation and on practice in general were superfluous, and insisted in doing away with them, for in his view all that was needed to attain the Fruit of the Buddha-vehicle was to maintain the behavior of the bodhisattva, recite the sūtra in question as much as possible, and venerate the “Three Great Mysteries:” (1) The gohonzon or “object of worship,” which in this sect is the moji-maṇḍala or maṇḍala gohonzon, namely the scroll Nichiren inscribed with the five Chinese characters of the daimoku, which stands for Buddha’s truth, lying at the center and representing the stūpa of the Seven Precious Materials featured in the Lotus Sūtra, with the names of various bodhisattvas and other beings surrounding it in concentric circles: it is facing a copy of the gohonzon that chanting and worship are practiced. (2) The daimoku, which, in order to purify body, speech and mind and in lieu of the Refuge formula, is to be recited as though it were a mantra or dhāraṇī, in particular while facing the gohonzon. And (3) the kaidan, which in all monastic Buddhist schools was the ordination platform, but which here is the place where the gohonzon is placed (whether the original one that is kept on Mount Minobu, or the copy possessed by the devotee). Although Nichiren did not formally quit the Tendai School nor did he formally found a school, paradoxically he decreed the schools that applied the practices that Śākyamuni taught to be heretical, and dreamed of establishing in his country what he fancied to be the true doctrine of the Buddha, which was no other than his own concoction. Convinced patriot, Nichiren made the kaidan stand for Japan, for he fancied Japan as the center of this purportedly “genuine doctrine of the Buddha,” from where he expected it to irradiate to the whole world, so as to produce a universal Buddhic empire. The different sects established by five of Nichiren’s six senior disciples over time became amalgamated into one school, called the Nichiren School or Nichiren-shū. The remaining senior disciple, Nikkō, deemed the practices of the other disciples to have degenerated, as they did not have the gohonzon as a b c d e f g h i a j ⽇蓮聖⼈; his disciples called him ⽇蓮⼤聖⼈ or Nichiren Daishōnin (⼤ or dai meaning “great”). 天台宗 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Tiāntáizōng; Wade-Giles, T’ien -t’ai tsung ). b 1 2 1 御本尊. ⽂字曼荼羅. These inscribed papers or tablets are regarded as maṇḍalas. 曼荼羅御本尊. 題⺫: nam-myoho-renge-kyo (namu myōhō renge kyō, where namu is the Japanization of the Sanskrit namo, which means praise or hail but has the connotation of devoting one’s life to, and myoho-renge-kyo is the Japanese name of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka). The practice of recitation of this phrase is called shōdai (唱題). Powers (2000, p. 202) notes that the Nichiren-Shōshū declared the gohonzong of the Sōka Gakkai to be invalid and only the one it keeps to be an authentic basis for chanting and worship, and “excommunicated” the Sōka Gakkai; however, later on the two organizations seem to have made peace. 戒壇. ⽇蓮宗. ⽇興 (1246–1333). c d e f g h i j 63 their sole object of worship, for in their temples they also placed Buddha statues and other objects of worship, and hence he founded the Nichiren-Shōshū or “True Nichiren School,” venerating Nichiren as the “Buddha of final times.” Much later, in the twentieth century, Fujī Nichidatsu, known as Fujī Gurujī (who was so inimical to Tantrism that he claimed that the Tantric doctrines caused the ruin of Tibet), founded the monastic sect Nipponzan-Myōhōji-Daisangha, whereas two laymen founded two lay sects: the Risshō Kōsei Kai and the Sōka Gakkai International or Society for the creation of value. The last of these arose within the Nichiren-Shōshū as its peripheral lay branch, and has been accused of tightly controlling its members’ activities and acquaintances and engaging in dubious activities to preclude affiliates from leaving the sect —a policy that was not this sect’s own invention, for it is founded on Nichiren teachings on shakubuku, rendered character by character as “break and subdue,” or in a less literal way as “forced conversion.” In Japan, this lay school established its own, anticommunist political party, which in spite of its pacifism is widely categorized as an extreme right party. Thus it is not at all surprising that in 1969 University Professor Fujiwara Hirotatsu published the book I Denounce the Soka Gakkai, in which he acrimoniously criticized the Gakkai, calling it “fascist” and comparing it to the early Nazi party. Paradoxically, a sect that has done away with nearly the whole of the Buddhist teachings and practices, that has led its members to adopt as their principal practice the recitation of nam-myoho-renge-kyo—most commonly as a means to achieve worldly aims (often financial, thus contradicting the Buddhist principle that riches, rather than yielding happiness, beget worries )—and that applies to its affiliates methods that have been likened to those of the Nazis, refers to itself as the only true Buddhism, while categorizing Zen (Chán) as “ridiculous” and asserting the Theravāda to be unable to solve the current problems of society. (For further details see the endnote. ) With the passing of time, the majority of Chinese Buddhist schools degenerated and serious practice was replaced by mere speculation. Exceptions to this tendency could be found in the Tibetan traditions in China, which were renewed every now and then by great Masters (as did in the twentieth century the great Kagyupa Master of Mahāmudrā and Dzogchen, Bo Gangkar Rinpoche ), and in Chán or Zen, which, beginning at the end of the nineteenth century and until more than halfway through the twentieth century, experienced a splendid revival thanks to the work of the incomparable patriarch Xūyún Dàshī (who, by the way, made two visits to Tibet: one before his sudden Awakening and another one after the event in question). a b c d e f g h 98 99 i j k a b c d ⽇蓮正宗. 藤井⽇達. ⽇本⼭妙法寺⼤僧伽. ⽴正佼成会; until June 1960, ⼤⽇本⽴正交成会: Dai-Nippon Risshō Kōsei Kai 創価学会. Gardini, Walter (1995, pp. 148-158); cf. the endnote at the end of the paragraph for a wider bibliography. 折伏. This term comes from the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra, but Nichiren gave it a meaning radically different from the one it has in the sūtra. Ibidem. Wylie, bKa’ brgyud pa. Wylie, ’Bo gangs dkar rin po che: the precious teacher from White Glacier Mountain of ’Bo. 虛雲⼤師; Wade-Giles: Hsu -yun Ta -shih : Great Master Empty Cloud (1840–1959). e f g h i j k 1 2 4 1 64 The Tantric Schools of Central and East Asia All currently existent schools of Tibetan Buddhism, including the Bön tradition, contain, transmit and apply the teachings of both the Sūtrayāna—including the Hīnayāna and the Mahāyāna—and the totality of those of the Tantrayāna, Mantrayāna or Vajrayāna, either in their Newer Schools version (which feature four Tantric vehicles) or their Ancient School form (which counts six Tantric vehicles). The same is not the case with the first and main Tantric School of China and Japan—the Mìzōng —because, although it is a fully-fledged Tantric School, it transmits only those Tantras that in Tibet the Newer Translations call lower and the Ancient Translations refer to as outer. Let us begin with the latter. The Mìzōng or Mi School resulted from the fusion of two lineages, namely: (1) that of the Garbhadhātu Maṇḍala, introduced directly from Oḍḍiyāna, via Kashmir and Tibet, by Śubhakarasiṃha, and having the Mahāvairocanatantra as its main scripture (and in fact, the lineage may also be referred to by the name of this Tantra), and (2) that of the Vajradhātu Maṇḍala, which stressed the practice of the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha, a Tantra of the Yogatantra class called introduced by the Indian Master Vajrabodhi after reaching China by sea. Then Amoghavajra, who had studied with Vajrabodhi in Java and followed him to China, was commissioned by his teacher to go to Śri Laṅka to find and fetch important scriptures there, and on his return to the “Empire of the Center, “ after his teacher’s demise, he studied the Garbhadhātu Maṇḍala, thus unifying the two lineages just mentioned, and translated one hundred and ten texts, which filled one hundred and forty three volumes. These two lineages passed from Amoghavajra to Huìguǒ, root teacher of Kūkai (whom the Japanese regard as an emanation of Amoghavajra), who for his part brought this unified tradition to Japan, where he founded the Shingon-shū or Mantra School. With regard to the Tibetan schools, firstly it must be noted that Buddhism was established in Tibet by means of two main “disseminations of the doctrine,” each of which was based on a different series of translations: (1) The first propagation, carried out in the second half of the eight century CE, initially by Mahāguru Padmasambhava, Dzogchen Master Vimalamitra and abbot-scholar Śāntarakṣita, created the need for translators who would be able to render into Tibetan the whole of the Sanskrit and prākṛta Buddhist Canon. Hence a group of their students were sent to India to learn Sanskrit and to Oḍḍiyāna to fetch texts and receive teachings, among whom foremost was translator-yogin Bairotsana —who, together with the yoginī Yeshe Tsogyäl and an important group of their fellow students were also instrumental in the diffusion of the a b c 100 d101 e f g 102 h i j k l Tib. Sarmapa (Wylie, gSar ma pa). Tib. Nyingmapa (Wylie, rNying ma pa). 密宗; Wade-Giles, Mi Tsung . Ch. 善無畏三蔵; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Shànwúwèi Sāncáng; Wade-Giles, Shan -wu -wei San -ts’ang; Jap. ZenmuiSanzō. ⼤毘盧遮那成佛神變加持經; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Dà Pílúzhēnà Chéngfó Shénbiàn Jiāchí Jīng; Wade-Giles, Ta -p’i lu -che -na ch’eng -fo shen -pien chia -ch’ih ching . ⾦剛頂經; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Jīngāngdǐngjīng; Wade-Giles, Chin -kang -ting Ching; Jap. Kongōchōkyō. Ch. ⾦剛智; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Jīngāngzhì; Wade-Giles, Chin -kang -chih ; Jap. Kongouchi. Ch. 惠果; Wade-Giles, Hui -kuo . 空海. 真⾔宗; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Zhēnyánzōng; Wade-Giles, Chen -yan Tsung . Tib. sNga dar. Skt. Vairocana; Berotsana is the Tibetan pronunciation of his name. a b c 4 1 d 4 e 4 1 4 2 1 4 2 2 2 4 1 2 1 f 1 g h 2 1 1 4 3 1 4 3 i j 1 k l 65 2 1 2 Buddhist teachings—and upon their return to Tibet set out to work in government-sponsored translation centers that produced the corpus of works that is currently known as the Old Translations. (2) The second propagation, based on the Newer Translations initiated in the tenth and eleventh centuries CE by the influential translator Rinchen Zangpo, and then carried on by Drogmi Śākya Yeshe and his disciples, Marpa Chökyi Lodrö, the school associated with Atīśa Dīpaṅkara Śrijñāna and the region of Guge-Purang, the school of Central Tibet and many individual translators. These produced new renderings of an ample series of original Buddhist canonical sources and commentaries that served as the basis of the Newer or Sarmapa schools, among which the main ones were initially the Kadampa , the Kagyupa, the Sakyapa and, a little later, the Jonangpa . Finally, Je Tsongkhapa founded the Gelugpa School, which absorbed the Kadampa School and which, since the time of the “Great Fifth” Dalai Lama, has been the school of the rulers of Tibet. After the second dissemination and the establishment of the Sarmapa Schools, in order to distinguish the sum of doctrines and practices established in Tibet during the first dissemination from the newer forms of Buddhism, and the practitioners of the former from those of the latter, the doctrines, practices and practitioners of first dissemination received the name of Ancient or Nyingmapa. Unlike the Newer or Sarmapa schools, this tradition was not structured vertically or subject to the authority of a hierarch. However, after the forced exile of many Tibetan Masters in the second half of the twentieth century, H.H. the fourteenth Dalai Lama advised the Nyingmapa to name a head—who, however, unlike the hierarchs of the Sarmapa schools, is given no authority to regulate the way in which other Nyingma Masters teach or practice. The currently existing Tibetan Schools possess the teachings of the two Hīnayāna vehicles (the Śrāvakayāna and the Pratyekabuddhayāna), those of the gradual Mahāyāna (or Bodhisattvayāna), those of all the Outer or Lower Tantras (Kriyātantra, Ubhayatantra or Cāryatantra, and Yogatantra), a greater or lesser part of the Inner or Higher Tantras (in the case of the Sarmapa [adhering to the Newer Translations], the Anuttarayogatantras, and in that of the Nyingmapa [adhering to the Ancient Translations], the Mahāyogatantras and Anuyogatantras)—as well as the Atiyogatantras, which convey the Dzogchen teachings (in fact, when the term Dzogchen is to be understood as referring to a vehicle or path, it is a synonym of Atiyogatantra). Nevertheless, the teachings of all the Nyingma Tantras and in particular those of Atiyogatantra, despite having been diffused in the Nyingma period, are nowadays practiced in all traditions. a b c d e f 103 g104 h j i k l Tib. sNga ’gyur. Tib. Phyi dar. Tib. Phyi ’gyur, or, sometimes, gSar ’gyur. Wylie, Rin chen bzang po (958-1055), who travelled to Kashmir, where he studied with his main teacher, Śrāddhakaravarman, and then proceeded to [other parts of] India and studied with several important teachers. Wylie, Brog mi Śākya ye shes (994-1078? / 993-1074? / 993-1077?). Wylie, Mar pa chos kyi blo gros, known as Mar pa lo tsa ba or Marpa the Translator (1012-1097). Wylie, Gu ge pu rangs. Wylie, gSar ma pa. Wylie, bKa’ gdams pa. Wylie, Sa skya pa. Wylie, Jo nang pa. Wylie, rJe Tsong kha pa (1357-1419). a b c d e f g h i j k l 66 In our time the Tibetan Schools are: (1) the Nyingmapa; (2) the Sakyapa; (3) the Kagyupa; (4) the Gelugpa; (5) the Jonangpa; and (6) the Bön —for the Fourteenth Dalai Lama classed the last two as the fifth and sixth Tibetan Buddhist School, respectively (in the case of Bön, its being regarded as a Buddhist School is due to the fact that it assimilated the totality of the Buddhist teachings). Sometimes Chöd is classed as a school, but I do not know of any current institution that declare itself to pertain to a tradition of this name, and currently those who practice Chöd are nearly all Nyingmapas and Kagyüpas; likewise, the Kadampas were an important school, but they were extinguished after being assimilated by the Gelug School. A splinter group of the Gelug sect practicing demon-worship constituted itself as a sect toward the end of the twentieth century, which calls itself New Kadampas—and hence below it will be listed as pseudo-Kadampa. (1) As shown above, the Nyingmapas originally were not a school. Buddhism might have made its first inroads into Tibet at the time of King Lhatotori Nyentsen, for Tibetan annals cryptically say that termas (spiritual treasures) rained on the roof of the royal palace. Much later, the Chinese Emperor and the Nepalese King sent one of their daughters each as wives to King Songtsen Gampo, and with each wife an assemblage of Buddhist monks was sent to Tibet (Chinese in the case of the Chinese wife, and Nepalese and perhaps also Indian in the case of the Nepalese wife) —all of whom probably introduced as much as possible their respective doctrines to the court. However, Buddhism was definitively established at the time of King Trisong Detsen by Indian Master Śāntarakṣita, Oḍḍiyāna-born Mahāguru Padmasambhava and the latter’s Tibetan disciples (including those in the school of great translators), Dzogchen Master Vimalamitra, and an assemblage of Chinese Hvashans (Chán Masters of the Northern School). The teachings that arrived at the time included all existing Buddhist vehicles: the two Hīnayāna vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna), the gradual Mahāyāna (or Bodhisattvayāna), the sudden Mahāyāna (in the form of the Northern Chán School), all the Outer Tantras (namely Kriyātantra, Ubhayatantra and Yogatantra), the ancient Inner Tantras (Mahāyogatantra and Anuyogatantra), and the universal ancestor and source of all vehicles, the Atiyogatantra (Dzogchen as a vehicle or path)—the highest vehicle, which is customarily classed among the Inner Tantras, even though its functional principle different from that of those Inner Tantras based on the principle of transformation, for the principle of this vehicle is spontaneous liberation. In fact, it was during the Nyingma or Ancient diffusion that the Buddhist Dzogchen teachings were introduced into Tibet—where the seminal, rudimentary Dzogchen teachings pertaining to the pre-Buddhist Bön tradition of Zhang Zhung existed already. Because of a c d e b f g h i j 105 k l 106 Wylie, rNying ma pa. Wylie, Sa skya pa. Wylie, bKa’ brgyud pa. Wylie, dGe lugs pa. Wylie, Jo nang pa. Wylie, Bon. Wylie, gCod. Wylie, Lha tho tho ri gnyan btsan, where lha (deity) was a title. Wylie, gter ma. Wylie, Srong btsan sgam po. Wylie, Khri srong lde btsan. This is how gNubs chen sangs rgyas ye shes refers to Dzogchen-qua-vehicle (i.e. to Atiyogatantra) in his bSam gtan mig sgron. a b c d e f g h i j k l 67 this, the two ancient works mentioned in the Introduction that also will be discussed below contrast the Atiyoga with Tantra, classifying the Buddhist teachings into Sūtra or Path of Renunciation, Tantra or Path of Transformation and Dzogchen Ati or Path of Spontaneous Liberation. As noted repeatedly, the Nyingmapas were not a school because there were no other schools in contrast with which they could be seen as a school and thus were seen simply as Buddhists, and because they did not have a hierarch. It was after the Sarmapa or Newer Schools were established, beginning nearly three centuries after the time of King Trisong Detsen, that in contrast with those newer schools the Nyingmapa came to be viewed as a school. However, unlike the rest of Tibetan schools, the Nyingmapa continued without a hierarch until the Fourteenth Kundün —the current Dalai Lama—asked the Nyingma lamas in India to elect a hierarch, as having one would be useful after the diaspora, and Kyabjé Dudjom Yeshe Dorje was designated hierarch of the School. The last hierarch known to me at the time of writing this was Taklung Tsetrul Rinpoche, who passed on in December 2015. (2) The Sakya School is founded on the teachings Drogmi Śākya Yeshe brought to Tibet from India in the eleventh century CE. Sakyapa Drakpa Gyaltsen wrote in Chronicle of the Indic Masters (in Davidson, 2008, p. 166): a b c d e f 107 g (He) first went to Nepal and entered into the door of mantra through (the teacher) Bhāro Hamthung. Then he went to India itself and, realizing that the Ācārya Ratnākaraśānti was both greatly renowned and learned, he heard extensively the Vinaya, Prajñāpāramitā, and mantra. Then having gone to the eastern part of India, he encountered Bhikṣu Vīravajra, who was the greatest direct disciple of Durjayacāndra, who himself had held the lineage of Ācārya Virūpa’s own disciple, Ḍombiheruka. From Bhikṣu Vīravajra he heard extensively the mantra material of the three tantras of Hevajra, complete in all their branches. He also requested the many instruction manuals of Acintyakrama and so forth, so that he heard the “Lamdré without the fundamental text” (rtsa med lam ’bras) as well. In this way, Dromki lived in India for twelve years and became a great translator. On his return to Tibet, he was sought by Konchok Gyalpo , who received his lineage and in 1073 founded Sakya Monastery (also known as Pal Sakya or “Pale Earth” because of the color of the hills). The tradition was officially, properly established by the “Five Venerable Supreme Sakya Masters,” the first of whom was Konchok Gyalpo's grandson, Sachen Kunga Nyingpo. Sakya Paṇḍita, Rongtönpa, Gorampa and Śākya Chokden were h i j a b c d e f g h i j k l m n k l Tib. sPong lam. Tib. sGyur lam. Tib. Grol lam. Wylie, sKu mdun. Wylie, bDud ’joms rin po che, ’jigs ’bral ye shes rdo rje (1904-1987). Wylie, sTag lung rtse sprul rin po che (1926-2015). Wylie, Brog mi Śākya ye shes (994-1078? / 993-1074? / 993-1077?). Wylie, ’Khon dkon mchog rgyal po (1034-1102). Wylie, dPal sa skya. Wylie, Sa chen kun dga’ snying po. Sapaṇ: Sa skya paṇ ḍi ta kun dga’ rgyal mtshan (1182–1251). Wylie, Rong ston shes bya kun rig (1367-1449). Go rams pa bsod nams seng ge (1429-89). Wylie, gSer mdog paṇ chen Śākya mchog ldan (1427/1428-1507/1508). 68 m n possibly the most important Sakya scholars prior to the rise of the Rimé movement. This school gives great importance to learning and erudition, even though it is also centered on Tantric practice; its most distinctive teachings are the above-mentioned Lamdré teachings. It is ruled by a hereditary dynasty and its head is called the Sakya Tridzin —lit. Sakya Throne Holder—who currently is Ngawang Kunga Tegchen Palbar. (3) The Kagyu School is founded on the teachings Marpa Chökyi Lodrö imported from India into Tibet. After studying Sanskrit with Drogmi Śākya Yeshe (Tibetan source of the Sakya tradition), Marpa went to Nepal, where he studied with two prominent students of Nāropā, and then travelled to India, where he studied with the mahāsiddhas Nāropā and Maitrīpa and other important Indian Masters. After overcoming some initial problems his practice lineage was transmitted to Milarepa, who transmitted it to Gampopa (source of the monastic lineage, as he was a Kadampa monk) and Rechungpa (source of the repa or lay tummo lineage). Gampopa was the teacher of Düsum Khyenpa, the first Karmapa, who initiated the practice of recognizing “reincarnations” by leaving instructions for the finding and identification of the second Karmapa. Initially this school emphasized Tantric and Mahāmudrā practice and did not care much for scholarship, but with the passing of time study acquired greater importance. Originally its main practice was the noted Six Yogas of Nāropā and Six Yogas of Niguma (the latter, mainly among the Shangpa Kagyus ), though the school soon began to absorb Nyingma teachings, to the extent that presently both its philosophy and practice are hardly distinguishable from those of the Nyingma School. The hierarchs of all Kagyu schools are the Karmapas—the current one being the seventeenth, who according to H.H. the Dalai Lama and most high lamas of all schools is Orgyen Thinle Dorje, though a group of high lamas recognized another candidate, namely Thinle Thaye Dorje —there being currently a conciliating trend that asserts the two of them to be tulkus of the Karmapa. (4) The Gelug School was founded by Je Tsongkhapa, who was ordained as a layman by the Fourth Karmapa, Rölpai Dorje, and then was ordained as a novice by Chöje Dhöndup Rinchen. Still at an early age he received the empowerments of Cakrasaṃvara, Hevajra and Yamāntaka; then he studied the Vinaya and the Six Yogas of Nāropā, and received the Kālacakratantra and the Kagyu practice of Mahāmudrā. His full ordination took place in the Sakya tradition. He studied Madhyamaka with the noted Sakya lama Remdawa, and from a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Wylie, Sa skya khri ’dzin. Wylie, Ngag dbang kun dga’ theg chen dpal ’bar. Wylie, Mar pa chos kyi blo gros, A.K.A. Marpa Lotsawa (Wylie, mar pa lo tsa ba) or Marpa the Translator (1012-1097). Maitrīpāda, also known as Advayavajra and as Maitrīgupta. Wylie, rJe btsun mi la ras pa (c. 1052–c. 1135). Wylie, Ras chung rdo rje grags pa (1083/4-1161). Wylie, Dus gsum mkhyen pa (1110–1193) Wylie, Shangs pa bka’ brgyud, founded by Khedrub Khyungpo Naljor (Wylie, mKhas grub Khyung po rnal ’byor, 990-1139). Wylie, O rgyan phrin las rdo rje, b. June 26, 1985. Wylie, Phrin las ’mtha yas rdo rje, b. May 6, 1983, Wylie, rJe Tsong kha pa, also referred to as rJe rin po che (1357–1419). Skt. and Pāli, upāsaka; Tib. dge bsnyen [pa]; Ch. 優婆塞 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yōupósāi; Wade-Giles, yu -p’o -sai ). Skt. śramaṇera; Pāli sāmaṇera; Tib. dge tshul; Ch. 沙彌 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shāmí; Wade-Giles, sha -mi ). Wylie, Chos rje don ’grub rin chen. Skt. bhikṣu; Pāḷi bhikkhu; Tib. dge slong; Ch. 和尚 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, héshàng; Wade-Giles, he -shang ). Wylie, Red mda’ ba gzhon nu blo gros (1349–1412). a b c d e f g h i j k l 1 m 2 1 2 n o 1 p 69 4 1 him and Zhönnu Lodrö he received Sakya Paṇḍita’s tradition of Dharmakīrti’s Pramāṇavārttika—which, however, he assimilated in terms of Chapa’s peculiar reading. He followed all the courses at Drikung Monastery (of the Drikung Kagyu) and received all Kadam lineages, as well as the main Sarma Tantras (as well as certain Nyingma Tantras). He structured his Lamrim teachings on the basis of those transmitted by Atīśa Dīpaṅkara Śrijñāna, and placed so much emphasis on the observation of monastic discipline that eventually the Kadampa tradition founded by Atīśa’s disciple, Dromtönpa, became absorbed in the school he founded. However, in his interpretation of the philosophy of PrāsaṅgikaMadhyamaka he departed from the understanding of both Atīśa and his own teacher, Remdawa, giving rise to a wholly unconventional interpretation of these teachings that made him an object of veneration to his followers and an object of criticism to those who adhered to the traditional interpretations. At any rate, he is one of the few Tibetan Lamas who have been recognized as emanations of Mañjuśrī, the bodhisattva of wisdom. As to the way this school came to power in Tibet, the Gushri Khan was so impressed by the spiritual attainments of the Great Fifth Dalai Lama that he made him the ruler of the Land of the Snows, to be succeeded by the successive Dalai Lamas, who ever since upheld power in Tibet (however, as it is well-known, in the mid-twentieth century Tibet was invaded and annexed by the Chinese, and until the present the current Dalai Lama has been in exile and the country has been under Chinese rule). (5) Due to political reasons, the Jonangpa School was declared heretical by the Fifth Dalai Lama, as a result of which most of its monasteries were taken over by the Gelug School (the Fourteenth Dalai Lama himself has explained the political reasons at the root of these acts ). However, I class them as the fifth school because recently, in an extremely remote region of the Himalayas, a group of monasteries was discovered where the teachings of this school had been uninterruptedly practiced since ancient times—and hence the school is still alive—and because the present, Fourteenth Dalai Lama, validated its claims to orthodoxy by acknowledging it to be the fifth Buddhist School of Tibet. (6) In pre-Buddhist times the Bön School was the religion of Zhang Zhung (its center of irradiation lay in what is currently Western Tibet) and then of most of what later on was known as Tibet. Its teachings are structured in terms of the so-called Nine Ways of Bön, of which the summit is the ninth Path—the Dzogchen of Yungdrung Bön, consisting of the teachings and transmission of Zhang Zhung Nyengyü. Lopön Tenzin Namdak tells us that according to the Southern Treasures the nine ways are: (i) The Way of the Shen of Prediction, which includes divination, astrology, various rituals, and medical diagnosis. (ii) The Way of the Shen of the Phenomenal World, which includes rituals dealing with communication with external forces such as rituals of protection, invocation, ransom of the soul and life-force, and repelling negative, harmful energies. (iii) The Way of the Shen of Manifestation, which a b108 c 109 d e f g Wylie, gZhon nu blo gros. Wylie, Phya pa chos kyi seng ge (1109-1169). Dromtön Gyalwai Jungney (Wylie, ’Brom ston pa rgyal ba’i ’byung gnas: 1004/1005–1064). The actual word is theg pa, which is usually rendered as “vehicle” rather than “Way.” Yung drung bon, where the first two words mean both svāstika and “unchanging,” and are also the name of Mount Yung drung Gu tzeg (“Edifice of Nine Svāstikas”)—namely Mount Kailāśā. Wylie, Zhang zhung snyen rgyud. Wylie, sLob dpon bsTan ’dzin rnam dag (in Lopön Tenzin Namdak, 2006, pp. 15-20), a very important, high Bönpo lama. a b c d e f g 70 includes venerating a deity or master and then applying mantras and mudras in order to accomplish a goal such as requesting assistance from natural energies. (iv) The Way of the Shen of Existence, which is mainly focused on methods to promote longevity and rituals for the dead. (v) The Way of the Virtuous Lay Practitioners, which establishes the proper conduct of lay people who have taken vows. (vi) The Way of the Fully Ordained, which establishes the proper conduct for those who are fully ordained practitioners. (vii) The Way of the White AH, which is primarily focused on Tantric practice using visualization. (viii) The Way of the Primordial Shen, primarily focused upon higher tantric practice. And (ix) The Unsurpassed Way, which is primarily focused upon the practice of Dzogchen, and as such does not rely upon antidotes, ritual or practice with a meditational deity, for it is concerned with the realization of the true condition of one’s own mind. The same source tells us that according to the Central Treasures the nine ways roughly correspond to those of the Nyingmapa, with one exception: the Bodhisattvayāna, which in the system of the Nyingmapa is the third vehicle from bottom to top, is divided into what could be called Cittamātrin Bodhisattvayāna, which in this system constitutes the third vehicle, and what could be called Madhyamaka Bodhisattvayāna, which in this system is the four vehicle; and the Yogatantrayāna, Mahāyogatantrayāna and Anuyogatantrayāna, which in the Nyingma system constitute the sixth, seventh and eighth systems, respectively, in this system are compressed into the seventh and eighth vehicles. (It must be noted that apart from the manners in which the Nine Ways are described in the Southern and the Central Treasures there are other alternative classifications; for example, the one offered by Snellgrove is a wholly different one. ) As already stated in an endnote, the Bön of our time absorbed the whole of the books of Buddhism, including the canonical sources and the treatises, and as the nature of the nine ways clearly show, it has the same final aim as Buddhism—and hence it is fully justified to class it as a Buddhist School. (pseudo-7) Toward the end of the twentieth century, a splinter group of the Gelug School established itself as a new pseudo-Buddhist Tibetan sect that is actually a cult of demonworshippers that has among its principal aims the exclusion from Tibet (and, were it possible, from the World) of Schools different from their own, and that in order to draw potential followers into its fold teaches practices for the achievement of worldly, temporary benefits (among which economic ones seem to be foremost). At the time of the Great Fifth Dalai Lama, Drakpa Gyaltsen, a rival who vied for recognition as the tulku (i.e. the “reincarnation”) of the Fourth Dalai Lama, developed a virulent grudge toward the Great Fifth as a result of the latter’s recognition as the Dalai Lama, and finally died in doubtful circumstances harboring so much hatred in his heart that he was purportedly reborn as an evil spirit of the gyalpo class called Shugden. Although this gyalpo was not regarded as one of the guardians of the Gelug School (for centuries he did not appear in tangkhas [painting scrolls mounted on dyed brocade] among the guardians of the School), in the first half of the twentieth century a powerful Gelug lama called Phawongkha elevated him to the status of main guardian of his tradition and made him the object of a cult that used him for maintaining Gelug supremacy in Tibet and destroying those that he saw as enemies of his school, those who he saw as upholding heresies—and especially the Gelug lamas who practiced non-Gelug 110 a 111 b c d a b c d Wylie, Drags pa rgyal mtshan. This is not the same individual as the great Sa skya pa Master of the same name. Wylie, rgyal po. Wylie, Shugs ldan. Wylie, Pha bong kha. 71 doctrines and, especially, those who practiced Dzogchen and/or other Nyingma teachings. Stephan Beyer (1988, p. 239) writes: ...many eastern Tibetans remember him (Phawongkha) with loathing as the great persecutor of the “ancient” sect, devoting himself to the destruction throughout K’am of images of the Precious Guru and the burning of “ancient” books and paintings. a In the early twentieth century, Zangmar Togden, who formerly had followed and practiced Nyingma teachings under the Master Drugu Sakyasrī, fell under the spell of Phawongkha’s personality, and therefore when he became regent of a Nyingma monastery called Kajegon, which had been built by a Gelug lama (ibidem): b c d He tried to force the monks of Kajegon (who were technically under his authority) to perform the Gelug rituals, and when they obstinately continued to refuse he called in the government police on a trumped-up charge of treason. They raided Kajegon, broke its images, made a fire of its books and paintings, and beat its monks with sticks. The head monk... ...tried to stop them; while one policeman threatened him with a stick, another shot him in the back... Phawongkha’s main disciple was Trijang Rinpoche, the Junior Tutor to H.H. the present (Fourteenth) Dalai Lama, who strongly promoted the cult of Shugden, making it prevail among exiled Gelug lamas, and getting the present Dalai Lama to perform rituals to the evil spirit in the belief that he was truly an Awake guardian, even though the spirit was a sworn enemy of the Dalai Lamas that had been regularly used to undermine their power. When the current Dalai Lama learned what the Shugden cult really was, he initially ceased performing the practices linked to the evil spirit and at some point forbid performance of those practices inside Gelug monasteries. Devotees of the gyalpo reacted by abandoning the Gelug School and creating a pseudo-Buddhist sect they called New Kadampa Tradition (choosing this name because after the birth of the Gelug School the Kadampa Tradition was somehow assimilated by the former, which became the upholder of the Kadampa values of monastic purity). Of course the new sect did not publicly reveal its true colors, advertising itself as a Buddhist School emphasizing compassion and all the other Buddhist virtues, while beguiling its followers with worldly achievements through the practice of the spirit that the founder of the new sect declared divine in both essence and appearance and adored in many ways. And, indeed, though the practice of the spirit in the long run drives followers insane, because initially they obtain riches, power and many of the things they pray for, the sect has been the fastest growing “Buddhist” school in some Western countries, where followers are unaware of the heinous crimes allegedly committed in the name of what they mistakenly see as their deity—and in particular of the recent murder by multiple stabbing, in an orgy of blood, of one of the Dalai Lama’s closest collaborators and two of his monks. The Newsweek article reporting the crime read (Clifton & Miller, 1997): a b c d In the system of phonetic transliteration used here, Kham (Wylie, khams). Wylie, Zangs dmar rtogs ldan. Wylie, Gru gu. Wylie, bKa’ brgyad dgon. 72 ... in an interview with NEWSWEEK earlier this month, the Dalai Lama expressed his worries about the Dorje Shugden. “That cult is actually destroying the freedom of religious thought,” he said. “Say I want to practice Nyingma. They say this Protector will harm me. Now, that’s an obstacle to religious freedom. I am trying to promote the tradition of coexistence, but the Shugdens say you should not even touch a Red Hat document. That teaching totally contradicts my efforts.” The split grew angry early last year. The Dalai Lama issued a call to all Tibetan Buddhists to avoid the Shugdens. He warned against the cult’s extremism and against public worship of their idol. The article then describes the murders themselves (ibidem): Three members of the Dalai Lama’s inner circle were brutally slain on the night of Feb 4 in a bedroom just a few hundred yards from His Holiness’s exile residence in the northern Indian city of Dharamsala. The next morning monks found the Dalai Lama’s close friend and confidant 70-year-old Lobsang Gyatso, dead on his bed. Two young monks, Ngawang Lodoe and the Dalai Lama’s Chinese-language interpreter, Lobsang Ngawang, died within hours of the attack. Each victim had been stabbed 15 to 20 times, leaving the walls of the small monk’s chamber splattered with blood. Police believe it was the work of five to eight attackers. But who, exactly? Cash and gilded Buddhist statues were left at the scene, ruling out robbers. And what kind of criminal would commit such carnage in this famed sanctuary of the gentlest religion? The savagery of the attack immediately steered police to search for fanatics of some kind. So did the death threats that followed against 14 more members of the Dalai Lama’s entourage. Now Indian police believe the murders were committed by an obscure Buddhist sect that takes its name and inspiration from a minor but ferocious Tibetan deity: Dorje Shugden... ...Indian police have formally questioned at least five Shugden followers, and were canvassing Tibetan-refugee neighborhoods in New Delhi last week, seeking clues to what they describe as a well-organized murder plot. “I think there’s no doubt that Shugden was behind the killings,” says Robert Thurman, America's foremost Buddhist scholar and an old friend of the Dalai Lama’s. “The three were stabbed repeatedly and cut up in a way that was like an exorcism.” Particularly worrying is the fact that, since the present Dalai Lama became the new sect’s arch-enemy, and the Chinese government also regards the great Master and leader as its most dangerous foe, at some point a principal ally of the new sect and his followers established a impious alliance with the Chinese government that has allowed it to become the fastest growing religious group in the Land of the Snows and to have built the greatest number of monasteries in the last decades. Furthermore, the sect is also growing in the West, for as Clifton & Miller report (ibidem): It’s the fastest growing Buddhist sect in Britain, where it now has about 3,000 members, a thriving publishing business in London and mansions that double as “Dharma Centers” all over the country. It has also been denounced by the London press and the Dalai Lama as a cult that fleeces its own followers. “Nobody would pray to Buddha for better business, but they go to Shugden for such favors – and this is where it has become like spirit worship,” the Dalai Lama told NEWSWEEK. “This is a great pity – a tragedy...” NKT founder Kelsang... ...has denied allegations that he is a fraud of a monk who never went on a religious retreat and who has made a personal fortune in the “millions of pounds.” He insists that any profits go to his Dharma Centers and that he lives modestly on a 3250 stipend each month. Yet there is no denying the crude mix of spiritual and commercial themes pitched 73 on the sect’s Internet Web site. A current bulletin explains that “accumulating merit” is vital to “become an enlightened being” and that helping the Dharma Centers “flourish” is a great way to accumulate merit. “So,” the bulletin offers, “if you are in the market for some merit (and who isn’t) here is a perfect opportunity.” There follows a price list: 23,000 ($4,800) for an NKT shrine cabinet, 22,000 for an NKT Buddha statue, 230 for “a teacup and saucer for Geshe-La” (Kelsang’s honorific title). “Shugden appeals to crazies by offering instant gratification,” says Thurman... “Once you get involved, you’re told you have to devote your lives to the cult, because the god gets very angry if you don’t attend to him every day. It’s really bad stuff, the way they’re draining money out of people.” The results of the police investigation on the triple murder and of the enquiry by a reporter of leading Italian newspaper La Repubblica, as well as valuable information about the impious alliance in question, are all available in Bultrini (2013); cf. also the Newsweek article on the triple murder cited above in Clifton & Miller, 1997. To conclude this chapter, it must be noted that this book is written from a Nyingma standpointless standpoint; more specifically, and as stated in the Introduction, its viewless views, classifications of vehicles and so on are as described in Nub Namkhai Nyingpo’s Kathang Dennga (a treasure teaching revealed by Orgyen Lingpa of Yarjé ) and Nubchen Sangye Yeshe’s Samten Migdrön, and as taught in our time by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu. a b c f a b c d e f g d g Wylie, gNubs nam mkha’i snying po. Wylie, bKa’ thang sde lnga. Tib. gter ma. Wylie, O rgyan gling pa. Wylie, Yar rje. Wylie, gNubs chen sangs rgyas ye shes. Wylie, bSam gtan mig sgron. 74 e CHAPTER I AN EXPERIENTIAL EXPLANATION OF THE MAHĀYĀNA VERSION OF THE FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS (FEATURING TWO DZOGCHEN CLASSIFICATIONS OF AVIDYĀ) 75 In Mahāyāna terms, the Four Truths may be explained as follows: (1) Life is duḥkha: lack of plenitude, dissatisfaction, discomfort, frustration and recurrent pain and suffering. In the way of explaining duḥkha there are no significant differences between the Narrow Vehicle—i.e. the Hīnayāna—and the Ampler Vehicle—i.e. the Mahāyāna. However, according to the Mahāyāna, in the Hīnayāna the main motivation to practice is to free oneself from duḥkha, whereas in the Mahāyāna we aspire to obtain an active wisdom that allows us to help all beings liberate themselves from duḥkha. (2) We have seen that, according to the original version of the Four Noble Truths in the Pāḷi Canon, the cause of duḥkha is tṛṣṇā: a basic craving that recurrently manifests as a thirst for pleasure, which always involves both the impulse to confirm ourselves as substantial individuals and the longing to fill a powerful existential lack, and which in the case of people with Hīnayāna propensities may manifest as thirst for extinction. However, the Pāḷi Canon also teaches the twelve links of interdependent origination that constitute the pratītyasamutpāda, in which tṛṣṇā is the eighth link, whereas the first is avidyā: although the chain is circular—i.e., the twelfth link is for its part the cause of the first—the fact that avidyā is the first shows that Śākyamuni wanted to emphasize the fact that avidyā sets in motion all the other ones, including tṛṣṇā—thus implying avidyā to be the deepest root of duḥkha. This explains why, upon considering the Four Noble Truths, the Mahāyāna often stresses the fact that the tṛṣṇā or craving that, according to the Hīnayāna, is the Second Truth, for its part had a cause, which is the unawareness cum delusion called avidyā, which consists in being unaware of the true, single nature of all subjects and objects, and taking each of them to be a self-existing, substantial entity, so that what is dependent is taken to be independent, what is empty of self-existence is taken to be self-existent, what is insubstantial is taken to be substantial, the relative is taken to be absolute, the unsatisfactory is believed to have the potential of providing satisfaction, and so on. For example, regarding the Madhyamaka Prāsaṅgika view on this point, Je Tsongkhapa stressed the explanation according to which the root of saṃsāra (i.e. of cyclic existence) is the basic delusion called avidyā; that this delusion is of two types, namely the misconception and delusory experience of the nature and status of the human individual and the misconception and delusory experience of the nature and status of phenomena other a b c112 d e 113 f114 Skt. kāmatṛṣṇā; Pāḷi kāmataṇhā; Tib. ’dod chags kyi sred pa; Ch. 欲愛 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yùài; Wade-Giles, yü -ai ). Skt. bhavatṛṣṇā; Pāḷi bhavataṇhā; Tib. srid pa’i sred pa; Ch. 有愛 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuài; Wade-Giles, yu ai ). Skt. vibhavatṛṣṇā; Pāḷi vibhavataṇhā; Tib. med pa’i sred pa; Ch. 無有愛 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúyǒuài; WadeGiles, wu -yu -ai ). Pāḷi and Skt. nidāna; Tib. ’brel; Ch. 尼陀那 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, nítuónà; Wade-Giles, ni -t’o -na ). Pāḷi, paṭiccasamuppāda; Tib. rten ’brel, rten cing ’brel bar or rten cing ’brel bar ’byung ba; Ch. 因緣 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yīnyuán; Wade-Giles, yin -yüan ). Pāḷi: avijjā; Tib. ma rig pa; Ch. 無明 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúmíng; Wade-Giles, wu -ming ). a 4 4 b 3 4 c 2 3 4 d 2 2 e 1 2 f 2 77 2 4 than the human individual (including the five aggregates or skandhas that interact in the production of the misconception and delusory experience of the nature of the human individual); that the misconception and delusory experience of the nature of the human individual depends on the misconception and delusory experience of the nature of the aggregates (which as just noted are themselves phenomena-that-are-not-persons); and that this does not imply that there are two roots of cyclic existence, for both misconceptions / delusory experiences are exactly the same in nature—which he explained as a conception and experience of hypostatic / inherent existence, where actually there is no such mode of existence. In the chapter on the Second Noble Truth the reasons why Madhyamaka asserts that truth to be avidyā rather than tṛṣṇā will be discussed in greater detail. (3) The nirvāṇa that, according to the original teaching, is the Third Truth, can no longer be conceived as a mere cessation of suffering, for in the Mahāyāna one primarily seeks and at some point obtains the active wisdom called Buddha-omniscience, which besides putting an end to avidyā and therefore to duḥkha in the individual, allows him or her to help all beings achieve Awakening or freedom from suffering. This aim of the Mahāyāna is called anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi or Total Unsurpassable Awakening, and it lies in the achievement of irreversible nonstatic nirvāṇa. (4) There is a Path leading to the achievement of the Third Truth, and therefore to the eradication of the first two Truths. Both the Buddhism of the First Promulgation (the one the Mahāyāna calls Hīnayāna) and the Mahāyāna, which together make up the Path of Renunciation, explain this truth in terms of the Eightfold Noble Path, which consists of right understanding, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration. However, since there is a big difference between the different Buddhist Paths and vehicles in what regards the manner of treading the Path, in this book I will explain the Fourth Noble Truth in terms of the classification into three Paths and nine Vehicles established in Tibet during the Ancient or Nyingma dissemination of Buddhism. 115 a b c d h e i f g j Skt. sarvākārajñatā; Tib. rnam pa thams chad mkhyen pa; Ch. ⼀切種智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yīqièzhǒng zhì; Wade-Giles i -ch’ieh -chung chih ). Skt. apratiṣṭhitanirvāṇa; Tib. mi gnas pa’i myang ’das; Ch. 無住涅槃 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúzhù nièpán; WadeGiles, wu -chu nieh -p’an ). Skt. samyagdṛṣṭi; Pāḷi sammādiṭṭhi; Tib. yang dag pa’i lta ba; Ch. 正⾒ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhèngjiàn; WadeGiles, cheng -chien ). Skt. samyaksaṃkalpa; Pāḷi sammāsaṅkappa; Tib. yang dag pa’i rtog pa; Ch. 正思惟 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhèngsīwéi; Wade-Giles, cheng -ssu -wei ). Skt. samyagvāc; Pāḷi sammāvācā; Tib. yang dag pa’i ngag; Ch. 正語 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhèngyǔ; Wade-Giles, cheng -yü ). Skt. samyakkarmānta; Pāḷi sammākammanta; Tib. yang dag pa’i las kyi mtha’; Ch. 正業 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhèngyè; Wade-Giles, cheng -yeh ). Skt. samyagājīva; Pāḷi sammājīva; Tib. yang dag pa’i ’tsho ba; Ch. 正命 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhèngmìng; WadeGiles, cheng -ming ). Skt. samyagvyāyāma; Pāḷi sammāvāyāma; Tib. yang dag pa’i rtsol ba; Ch. 正 精 進 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhèngjīngjìn; Wade-Giles, cheng -ching -chin ). Skt. samyaksmṛti; Pāḷi sammāsati; Tib. yang dag pa’i dran pa; Ch. 正念 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhèngniàn; WadeGiles, cheng -nien ). Skt. samyaksamādhi; Pāḷi sammāsamādhi; Tib. yang dag pa’i ting nge ’dzin; Ch. 正定 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhèngdìng; Wade-Giles, cheng -ting ). a 1 4 3 4 b 2 4 4 2 c 4 4 d 4 1 2 e 4 3 f 4 4 g 4 4 h 4 1 4 i 4 4 j 4 4 78 It must be emphasized that, no matter to what extent the teaching on the Four Noble Truths may be successfully adapted to the views and realizations of the vehicles that are classed higher in the taxonomy of the three Paths and nine vehicles, it is a characteristically Hīnayāna teaching, designed to appeal to those who can understand suffering and all that pertains to the level of body, and who will naturally wish to rid themselves of suffering, but who might not understand or respond enthusiastically to “higher” forms of Buddhism: they may be afraid of emptiness as taught in the Mahāyāna and be reluctant to face dangers and hardships to help others free themselves from suffering—and, even more so, they may be unable to understand the level of energy that is the essence of the Vajrayāna and the level of mind that is the essence of Dzogchen qua vehicle or Path (i.e., the Atiyogatantrayāna ). Nevertheless, I am certain that experiential elucidations of the Four Noble Truths undertaken from the standpoint of the higher Paths and vehicles placed in the context of everyday experience in contemporary societies may be a most valuable tool for motivating people having the proper capacities, to study and practice the higher Paths and vehicles as well. 116 a Skt. Ādiyogatantrayāna; here no diacritical signs are placed on terms in the language of Oḍḍiyāna (e.g. Atiyogatantrayāna) because the pronunciation of that language is unknown. a 79 MAHĀYĀNA VERSION OF THE FIRST NOBLE TRUTH The Three Types of Duḥkha We have seen that the first noble truth is duḥkha. In order to fully understand what this duḥkha is, it is best to begin by explaining it in terms of the three types of duḥkha that the Buddha Śākyamuni described in Saṃyutta Nikāya 38.14, and which are described in Sanskrit literature as well (Vasubandhu discussed them in Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, VI, of the Vaibhāṣika School of the Hīnayāna), including the one pertaining to the Mahāyāna (Candrakīrti did so in the Bodhisattvayogācāracatuḥśatakaṭīkā), and also in Tibetan works (Gampopa described them in the Jewel Ornament of Liberation; Longchenpa in the commentary on The Great Perfection: The Nature of Mind, the Easer of Weariness called the Great Chariot; etc.). The contemporary Tibetan Master, Chögyal Namkhai Norbu (1999/2001, pp. 42-43) briefly summarized these three as follows (terminology adapted to the one used here): 117 a b …even though it may seem that at times in the karmic dimension of saṃsāra there is fleeting happiness, in reality beings of the three lower states (the hell realm, the preta realm and the animal realm) are afflicted with the ‘duḥkha of suffering’ or ‘double suffering’, like a leper who is also struck by bubonic plague; the beings of the three higher states (the realm of gods, the realm of anti-gods and the human realm) are tormented by the ‘duḥkha of change’, like a bee [that previously was happily flying around but then is] trapped in a jar [thereby becoming very agitated]; and all beings dominated by a distorted perception of reality are subject to the ‘allpervading conditioning duḥkha,’ transmigrating infinitely like the turning of the paddles of a water mill... (Note by E.C.: the various spheres and realms or psychological states are listed and briefly explained below, and in the note the reference mark for which stands at the end of this paragraph as well.) Normally, the duḥkha of suffering or double suffering is explained first—as done in the above passage—for it is the most evident, being that which we normally call suffering, and is the easiest to explain. Then the duḥkha of change is explained, as it is also quite evident and easy to explain. And finally there goes the explanation of all-pervading duḥkha, existential suffering, duḥkha of being tossed by mental impulses, or duḥkha inherent in the c a b c Tib. Dam chos yid bzhin nor bu thar pa rin po che’i rgyan [dang zhal gdams rin po che phreng ba]. Tib. rDzogs pa chen po sems nyid ngal gso’i grel pa shing rta chen po. Skt. saṁskāra; Pāḷi saṃkhāra; Tib.’du byed; Ch. 行 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíng; Wade-Giles, hsing ). 2 81 fabricated, produced, contrived, conditioned, and /or compounded,” which is the least evident—for we are constantly eluding it and mistakenly attributing it to misplaced causes and random, fortuitous circumstances. However, below the three types of duḥkha will be explained in a sequence contrary to the traditional one, because in the explanation of the Second Noble Truth they will be related to the way in which active saṃsāra arises from the dormant, neutral samsaric condition that the Dzogchen teachings refer to as the base-of-all, and to the different types or aspects of avidyā enumerated in the most common classification offered by the Dzogchen teachings—among which the first, which is inborn in sentient beings, is the condition of possibility of active saṃsāra and hence of duḥkha, the second, which is the first to arise as active saṃsāra arises from the base-of-all, is the main cause of all-pervading duḥkha, existential suffering, duḥkha of being tossed by mental impulses, or duḥkha inherent in the fabricated, produced, contrived, conditioned, configured and /or compounded, and the third, which is the second to arise as active saṃsāra arises from the base-of-all, is the cause of the second and third types of duḥkha. For its part, the third aspect or type of avidyā in an alternative classification also found in the Dzogchen teachings, is that which perpetuates all three types of duḥkha. a Duḥkha of Being Tossed by Mental Impulses (saṁskāra), Duḥkha Inherent in the Fabricated, Produced, Contrived, Conditioned, Configured, and /or Compounded: Existential Suffering or “All-Pervading Duḥkha” b That which is called all-pervading duḥkha, existential suffering, duḥkha of being tossed by mental impulses, or duḥkha inherent in the fabricated, produced, contrived, conditioned, configured and/or compounded,” has as its most characteristic manifestation the relentless lack of plenitude issuing from the illusory sundering of our primordial completeness that occurs upon the arising of the illusory subject-object cleavage. Why then do the Buddhist texts call it suffering of mental impulses? Because it is an irrational mental impulse—a saṁskāra—that gives rise to the subject-object duality—i.e. the grasper and the grasped, conditions of possibility of grasping at appearances—and hence to the error of taking as an external reality the sensory continua of the five senses that are universally listed in the West, and it is an irrational mental impulse that that then gives rise to the basic disturbing attitude referred to by the Sanskrit term ahaṃkāra and the Tibetan ngadzin, which here I am rendering as self-grasping, but which also involves selfaffirmation and self-preoccupation, and which conceives an I or me as experiencer, wouldbe controller and somehow owner of what is cognized. Therefore, it is an irrational mental impulse—a saṁskāra—that gives rise to the feeling of incompletude inherent in the illusory sundering of totality by the subject-object split and to the lack of plenitude inherent in c d e Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). Pāḷi saṃkhāra-dukkha; Skt. saṁskāraduḥkhatā; Tib. ’du byed kyi sdug bsngal; Ch. ⾏苦 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíngkǔ; Wade-Giles, hsing -k’u ). Lit. “distress inherent in being tossed about by habitual mental formations / impulses that set the mind in motion” (Skt. saṁskāra; Pāli saṅkhāra; Tib.’du byed; Ch. ⾏ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíng Wade-Giles, hsing ). Skt. saṁskāra; Pāḷi saṃkhāra; Tib. ’du byed; Ch. 行 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíng; Wade-Giles, hsing ). Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). Wylie, nga ’dzin. a 3 2 3 2 b 2 3 2 c 2 d e 82 experiencing oneself as a mental subject separate from the continuum of the sensa / of the energy that makes up the physical universe. And it is an irrational mental impulse that gives rise to self-grasping / self-affirmation / self-preoccupation and hence to the distress inherent in it. As may be clearly seen in a terma teaching revealed by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu, the first experience to manifest as active saṃsāra arises from the dimension of the base-ofall, before any segment of the continuum of sensa is singled out for perception, is a formless condition. And as follows from the same terma teaching and as will be shown below, the formless contemplations and formless realms involve a subtle manifestation of the subjectobject duality. Because of the latter, even though in the formless realms the all-pervading duḥkha / existential suffering is subsequently eluded through the subject’s identification with the seemingly infinite object of the experience, the neutral feeling that is experienced in the so-called peak of saṃsāra —i.e. the highest of the four formless realms—that results from accumulated karma of immobility is rightly regarded as a manifestation of this type of duḥkha. In fact, a formless state arises in the process whereby active saṃsāra arises from the neutral condition of the base-of-all, the instant when the reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of the supersubtle thought I call the threefold directional thought-structure begets the subject-object duality and the continuum that at that point appears as object is objectified and grasped at in terms of a subtle concept. And as soon as the illusion arises of being a mental subject standing at a distance from single nature of all entities and that I often illustrate with the sensory continuum and / or with the energy continuum that according to Einstein’s Field Theory constitutes the whole universe, we experience a feeling of incompletude: of lack of wholeness and plenitude. Or, to express it in a different way, as soon as the consciousness having the illusory mental subject as its core arises and experiences itself as being at a distance from the continuum of sensa, it experiences the lack of the plenitude of that continuum. However, the formless states that manifest as active saṃsāra arises from the baseof-all do so for an extremely brief instant. In order to dwell in a formless absorption for a longer time we must establish that which is called karma of immobility. Some Buddhist texts clearly imply that meditators who, by resting in formless absorptions, have created a sufficient karma of immobility, can then take birth in the sphere of formlessness. (It must be noted, however, that this distinction between dwelling in a formless absorption and taking birth in the formless realms is not a Buddhist dogma, for, as the excerpt from the a b 118 c d e 119 f lTa ba blo ’das chen po’i gnad byang, rendered as The Main Points of the View Totally Beyond the Conceptual Mind. In Longsal Teachings Volume Four. Arcidosso, GR, Italy: Shang Shung Edizioni. Tib. kun gzhi khams. The translation by A. Clemente (cf. the preceding footnote) renders this term as “AllGround element.” This is a neutral condition (Tib. lung ma bstan) in the sense that, even though it pertains to saṃsāra, the latter is dormant, so that neither saṃsāra nor nirvāṇa are active (like a car in neutral gear, which does not move either ahead or backwards). Skt. bhavāgra; Tib. srid [pa’i] rtse [mo]; Ch. 有頂天 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒudǐngtiān; Wade-Giles, yu -ting t’ien ). Skt. āninjyakarma (also aniñjanakarman); Pāḷi aniñjitakamma; Tib. mi gyo ba’i las; Ch. 不動業 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùdòng yè; Wade-Giles, pu -tung yeh ). Skt. trimaṇḍala; Tib.’khor gsum; Ch. 三輪 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānlùn; Wade-Giles, san -lun ). Skt. āninjyakarma; Pāḷi aniñjitakamma; Tib. mi gyo ba’i las; Ch. 不動業 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùdòng yè; WadeGiles, pu -tung yeh ). a b c 3 1 d 4 4 4 e 1 f 4 4 4 83 4 3 Kālāma Sutta cited in the Preamble makes it clear, Buddhism has no dogmas—and hence the literal understanding of rebirth could not be a dogma. In fact, those who refuse to adopt beliefs about the afterlife see the formless absorptions and realms as being one and the same thing—for in that case it is valid to say that when we dwell in a formless absorption we have taken rebirth in a formless realm.) Since such states are produced by action / karma and they depend on secondary conditions, they are transient—they will come to an end when the karma is exhausted or when the secondary conditions that allow them to endure are replaced by other secondary conditions. And since they are tainted by unawareness of the true conditions and by the confusion of concepts with what they interpret, they involve the mixture of unawareness and delusion referred to as avidyā. It is true that in the formless absorptions and realms the coarse passions and the associated feeling tones are not experienced, yet rather than meaning that they are beyond saṃsāra, this means that this sphere is “tainted by a neutral mental feeling-tone” and that it represents the highest region of saṃsāra. In fact, the absence of changes and passions in such conditions may be mistaken for the attainment of irreversible imperturbability, and hence for a Refuge from suffering—yet, as just noted, they are transient and hence they offer no more than a temporary respite from suffering. Moreover, it is certain that in post-meditation extreme pride will be experienced from the meditator’s mistaken belief that he or she has attained Awakening, or at least that he or she has attained a temporary state of absolute truth while on the Path—and hence, though they do not involve any passion, they create the cause for the passions to manifest again. In order to clearly understand and contextualize the above, the reader must know which are the various spheres and realms / psychological states that Buddhism posits. To begin with, there are three spheres: (1) The sphere of sensuality, which is the sphere in which ourselves and most other beings usually spend our everyday life, and which is tainted by the passions, which are the main forces that drive our actions, thoughts and experiences in this sphere. (2) The sphere of form, in which we are immutably concentrated on a particular form and hence the passions have no hold on us, and which may be attained as the fruit of intensive practice of one of the four contemplative absorptions / four absorptions with form, or of remaining for a considerable time in the state that the Dzogchen teachings refer to as the consciousness of the base-of-all and that will be discussed below. And, a b120 c d e f g h Skt. Kālāmasūtra. Tib. zab cas kyi btang snyoms. Skt. tridhātu, traidhātuka, traidhātukāvacara, triloka or trilokadhātu; Pāḷi, tiloka; Tib. [’jig rten gyi] khams gsum; Ch. 三界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānjiè; Wade-Giles, san -chieh ). Pāḷi and Skt. kāmadhātu or kāmaloka; Tib. dod pa’i khams; Ch. 欲界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yùjiè; Wade-Giles, yü chieh ). Skt. rūpadhātu; Pāli, rūpaloka; Tib. gzugs khams; Ch. ⾊界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sèjiè; Wade-Giles, se -chieh ). Skt. catvāridhyāna; Pāḷi cattārijhāna; Tib. bsam gtan bzhi; Ch. 四禅 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sìchán; Wade-Giles, ssu -ch’an ) or 四種禪 (simplified 四种禅) (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sìzhǒng chán; Wade-Giles, ssu -chung ch’an ). Skt. rūpāvacaradhyāna; Pāli rūpāvacarajhāna; Tib. gzugs na spyod pa’i bsam gtan; Ch. ⾊界定 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sèjiè dìng; Wade-Giles, se -chieh ting ). Tib. kun gzhi rnam [par] shes [pa]; Skt. ālayavijñāna; Ch. 阿賴耶識 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, ālàiyē shí; Wade-Giles, a -lai -yeh shih ) or 藏識 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zàngshì; Wade-Giles, tsang -shih ). The meaning of the term in this context contrasts with the one it has in Third Promulgation sutras, the commentaries to these sūtras and the literature of the Mind-only (Skt. Cittamātra; Tib. Sems tsam pa; Ch. 唯⼼ [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wéixīn; Wade-Giles, a b c 1 4 d 4 4 e 4 4 f 4 2 4 g 4 4 4 h 1 4 1 4 4 84 4 3 2 (3) The sphere of formlessness, in which the figure-ground division dissolves and awareness embraces a seemingly limitless expanse, yet there continues to be a mental subject that perceives this seemingly limitless expanse, mistaking it for the dharmadhātu, and thus believing that it has realized the true condition. However, the subject-object split is obliterated—in the sense of being concealed, rather than in that of disappearing—by the mental subject’s identification with one of the four possible, standard conceptualizations of the infinitude that it perceives as object. As noted above, although in this sphere the coarse passions and the concomitant feeling tones do not manifest (this being the reason why the supreme condition of this sphere is said to be “tainted by a neutral feeling tone”), a posteriori a paramount, intoxicating pride is experienced because of having achieved them and taken them to be the genuine transcendence of saṃsāra. This sphere, which as noted above is attained through the practice of the formless absorptions , or by remaining for very long time in the neutral condition of the base-of-all, has four subdivisions, each of which is, as already noted, attained through the practice of one of the four formless absorptions. However, the detailed discussion of this will be carried out below. (Note that higher bodhisattvas, even if they develop the absorptions, are not reborn in realms of the formless sphere, for they know how to allow delusion to liberate itself). As noted in the preceding paragraphs, access to the samsaric spheres of form and formlessness is dependent on the accumulation of karma of immobility, which is neither the good karma that is based on good intended actions (and on acceptance of the good) within the sphere of sensuality, nor the bad karma that is based on evil-intended actions within the same sphere, nor the neutral karma that is based on actions based on intentions that are neither good nor bad within the same sphere. In fact, the karma of immobility may result from remaining for long periods in one of the absorptions of form, or in the consciousness of the base-of-all—in which case such karma is the cause of rebirth in the sphere of form—or from remaining for long periods in one of the four absorptions of formlessness, or in the neutral condition of the base-of-all—in which case such karma is the cause of rebirth in one of the four realms of the sphere of formlessness. In which realm of these spheres one will be reborn will depend on the features of one’s meditation and, in particular, on the conceptualization of the object of the absorption one engages oneself in. For the time being we have sufficiently discussed the spheres of formlessness and form, but there is still much to say about sphere of sensuality, which comprises six realms a b c d e wei -hsin ]) and/or Yogācāra (Tib. rNal ’byor spyod pa ba; Ch. 瑜伽⾏派 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yúqiéxíng pài; WadeGiles, yü -ch’ieh -hsing p’ai ]) school(s). Skt. ārūpyadhātu [also arūpaloka and ārūpyāvacara]; Pāli, arūpaloka; Tib. gzugs med pa’i khams; Ch. 無 ⾊界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúsèjiè; Wade-Giles, wu -se -chieh ). Tib. zag bcas kyi btang snyoms. This is proper to the peak of existence. These four are referred to by the Skt. [catur] ārūpyāvacaradhyāna, the Pāli [catu] arūpāvacarajhāna, the Tib. gzugs med na spyod pa’i bsam gtan [bzhi], the Ch. [四] 無⾊界定 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, [sì] wú-sè-jiè dìng; Wade-Giles, [ssu ] wu -se -chieh ting ), and often also by the Skt. [catur] ārūpyasamāpatti, the Pāli [catu] arūpāsamāpatti; the Tib. gzugs med pa’i snyoms ’jug [bzhi], or the Ch. 四空定 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sìkōng dìng; Wade-Giles, ssu -k’ung ting ). This is the reason why these realms are referred to by the Skt. caturārūpyadhātu (also [catur]arūpaloka and [catur]ārūpyāvacara); the Tib. gzugs med khams pa’i gnas bzhi; and the Ch. 四無⾊界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sì wúsèjiè; Wade-Giles, ssu wu -se -chieh ). Skt. āninjyakarma[n] (or aniñjanakarma{n}); Pāḷi aniñjitakamma; Tib. mi gyo ba’i las; Ch. 不動業 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùdòng yè; Wade-Giles, pu -tung yeh ). 2 1 2 2 2 4 a 2 4 4 b c 4 4 2 4 1 4 4 4 d 4 2 4 4 e 4 4 4 85 or psychological states of samsaric experience : (1) the realm of the gods; (2) the realm of antigods or titans; (3) the realm of humans; (4) the realm of animals; (5) the realm of craving spirits (sometimes called Tantaluses); and (6) the realm of the non-eternal hells / purgatories. It may be said that, of these, the realm of the gods is the only one that is not circumscribed to the sphere of sensuality—for its lower regions may be said to pertain to the sphere in question but its middle regions may be said to correspond to the sphere of form and its highest regions may be said to correspond to the formless sphere. Even though all of us regard ourselves as human, we constantly migrate from one samsaric psychological state or realm to another—most often, though not always, within the sphere of sensuality, with extremely short passages through the other two—for our ways of experiencing, our attitudes and the ensuing qualities of our experience, as well as our interests, are always changing. In fact, when we are possessed by anger, hatred or malevolence, we may be said to have taken birth in the realm of the non-eternal hells or purgatories. When we avoid the full, clear awareness of our situation in order not to be disturbed and act in terms of habits (as in what J.-P. Sartre [1980/1969] called attitude of indifference toward others ) and try to achieve our aims in unawareness of context, and in general whenever we take refuge in ignorance, we may be said to have taken birth in the realm of animals. When we find ourselves in a psychological state in which we are possessed by intense craving or by a compulsion to possess, we may be said to have taken transmigrating infinitely like the turning of the paddles of a water mill birth in the realm of the craving spirits or Tantaluses. When we are in a psychological state in which we are passionate, yet we have the capacity of employing our intelligence to question our experience in order to proceed on the Path of Awakening, we are in the human realm. When we find ourselves in a psychological state in which we are always struggling for status, power or position, in which we principally experience envy and/or jealousy, or in which intrigue is our main interest, we may be said to have taken birth in the realm of antigods or titans. When we find ourselves in a psychological state in which we are possessed by pride, or in which we are attached to one or another kind of pleasure, in which we feel we have achieved and have realized ourselves, or in which we are clinging to our current position, etc. we may be said to have taken birth in the realm of gods of sensuality (and, obviously, when we are in a state of concentration on a figure we have taken birth in the realm of the a c b d e f g h Skt. sadgati or sadloka; Pāli chagati or chaloka; Tib. ’jig rten gyi khams drug; 六趣 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, liùqù; Wade-Giles, liu -ch’ü ). Skt. and Pāli devagati / suragati / devaloka / devagati; Tib. lha ’gro ba; Ch. 天趣 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tiān qù; Wade-Giles, t’ien ch’ü ). Skt. and Pāli asuragati / asuraloka; Tib. lha ma yin ’gro ba; Ch. 阿修羅 趣 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, āxiūluó qù; WadeGiles, a -hsiu -luo ch’ü ). Skt. manuṣyagati / manuṣyaloka; Pāli manussagati / manussaloka; Tib. mi ’gro ba; Ch. ⼈ 趣 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, rén qù; Wade-Giles, jen -ch’ü ). Skt. tiryagyonigati / tiryagyoniloka; Pāli tiracchānagati / tiracchānaloka; Tib. dud ’gro ’gro ba; Ch. 畜⽣ 趣 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chùshēng qù; Wade-Giles, ch’u -sheng ch’ü ). Note that the animals as such are referred to by the Skt tiryak (also tiryaścīna and tiryañc). Skt. pretagati / pretaloka; Pāli petagati / petaloka; Tib. yi dvags ’gro ba; Ch. 餓⻤ 趣 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, èguǐ qù; Wade-Giles, o -kuei ch’ü ). Skt. narakagati / narakaloka; Pāli nerayikagati / nerayikagati; Tib. dmyal ba’i ’gro ba; Ch. 地獄趣有情趣 or 地獄趣衆⽣趣 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dìyù yoǔqíng qù or dìyù zhòngshēng qù; Wade-Giles, ti -yü yu -ch’ing ch’ü or ti -yü chung -sheng ch’ü ). Sartre (1980/1969). a 4 4 b 1 4 2 4 c 1 1 d 2 4 e 4 1 4 f 4 3 4 g 4 4 4 4 1 4 h 86 4 3 2 4 gods of form, whereas remaining in an absorption that goes beyond the figure-ground division signifies that we have taken birth in the realm of the gods of formlessness). Finally, access to the six realms of the sphere of sensuality or of the passions depends on the accumulation of the six corresponding kinds of good, bad or neutral karma within that same sphere. It is essential to emphasize the fact that, in order to tread a genuine Path leading to Awakening and liberation, we must keep to the human realm. Obviously we will lose this condition whenever we are possessed by different passions and thereby take birth in other psychological realms, but in order to effectively practice Buddhism and move ahead on the Path we must have the capacity to recover our human quality each and every time we do so. At any rate, the above reference to uninterrupted transmigration explains why all pervading duḥkha, which in canonical texts is called duḥkha of being tossed by irrational impulses, is compared with transmigrating infinitely like the turning of the paddles of a water mill: even though in transmigration we repeatedly meet all three types of duḥkha, transmigration itself is impelled by the irrational impulses that Buddhism calls saṃskāras, and the fact that there is no respite from transmigration and the duḥkha inherent in it is rightly seen as a paradigmatic example of all-pervading duḥkha. However, Vasubandhu, in Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, VI, offered us a simile of all pervading duḥkha that likens it to a hair or a filament of wool, the normal individual to the palm of a hand and the higher bodhisattva to the eyeball, and noted that in the palm of the hand the hair can remain undetected indefinitely, but in the eyeball, where its presence stings, thus being evident and unbearable (i.e. becoming duḥkha of suffering), it has to be removed immediately. I particularly like this simile because it most precisely illustrates the manifestation of this type of duḥkha as the unremitting feeling of incompleteness and lack of plenitude inherent in the rupture of the totality that we are by the arising of the subject-object duality, plus the discomfort that arises from rejecting this feeling that will be discussed below—and also mos clearly illustrates the difference between this kind of duḥkha and the other two kinds of duḥkha enumerated in the Buddhist teachings. Back to the relationship between this feeling of incompleteness / lack of plenitude and the process of arising of active saṃsāra from the neutral condition of the base-of-all, as active saṃsāra continues to develop, the formless condition is interrupted by the state that the Dzogchen teachings call consciousness of the base-of-all, which is then followed by a condition with form, which is then followed by what the Dzogchen teachings call consciousness of the passions, which it then followed by a condition of sensuality—and then, unless we have created karma of immobility for rebirth in the reams of formlessness or form, by unceasing transmigration within the sphere of sensuality. At this point the feeling of incompleteness / lack of plenitude, which was bearable so long as it was eluded / ignored, since it radically contrasts with the seeming wholeness that preceded it, will cause us to judge it as uncomfortable and automatically reject it—which will beget the discomfort or displeasure that ensues from rejection, which for its part is a case of the duḥkha of suffering that will be discussed last, but which for practical purposes we may regard it as the second main element of the all-pervading duḥkha / existential suffering / duḥkha inherent in the fabricated, produced, induced, conditioned, configured or compounded / duḥkha of irrational impulses. It is also important to note that this shows that each of the three types of duḥkha yields another type of duḥkha. 121 87 However, common sense tells us that some qualities and/or intensities of sensation are inherently pleasurable, others are inherently painful and yet others inherently neutral. Then why do I say that displeasure ensues from rejection of experience, that pleasure is the result of acceptance of experience, or that a neutral feeling issues from indifference to experience? This is what the Stoics asserted, probably on the basis of teachings received from the Cynics, and what I myself have corroborated in my experience. In Buddhist terms, it could be said that pain in general results, rather than from the quality or intensity of a sensation, or than from the inherently negative qualities of an external object, etc., from rejection of experience seemingly by the dualistic consciousness having the illusory mental subject as its core (so-called physical pain issuing from the rejection of so-called physical sensations, and so-called mental pain occurring when an abstract subtle thought elicits rejection of experience in general—including mental sensations—and this rejection is then justified by chains of discursive thoughts, or when the concept, judgment or idea that an “external” object is ugly, evil, etc., elicits rejection). That pleasure, for its part, rather than arising from the quality or intensity of a sensation, is produced by acceptance of experience, seemingly by the dualistic consciousness having the illusory mental subject as its core (socalled physical pleasure, from acceptance of so-called physical sensations; so-called mental pleasure, when abstract subtle thoughts elicit acceptance of experience in general— including mental sensations—and this acceptance is subsequently justified by chains of discursive thoughts, or from the acceptance elicited by the perception of an “external” object as beautiful, good, etc.). And that neutral sensations are the result of indifference toward experience in general and to sensations in particular, rather than of the quality or intensity of a sensation. In order to make my pre-graduate philosophy students at the University understand and accept the above assertion, I often asked them, “what would the heterosexual males present here reply if someone proposed to let you choose the forty-nine most attractive maidens you can find, for them to caress your naked body all over with goose feathers with the aim of making you experience as much pleasure as possible?” As a rule, those among them who replied would say something like, “I’d love it.” Then I used to retort, “but they would go on uninterruptedly for forty-nine days and nights.” For as long as the man accepts the sensations produced by the feathers, they will be pleasurable; however, as soon as he becomes exasperated and rejects them, this rejection will make him experience them as unbearably unpleasant. Thus initially he will most likely feel most pleasurable sensations, but as the caresses go on uninterruptedly for long hours—or, in the case of someone who has effectively trained to develop forbearance, for entire days and nights—at some point he will be pushed over the edge by the monotony and uninterruptedness of the sensations and physically or mentally yell, “stop it”—thereby turning the caresses into an unbearable torture. Since his rejection will increase exponentially as time passes without the caresses stopping, with the passing of time the sensation will get ever worse. And, interestingly, this will occur even though the feathers are so soft that at no point whatsoever will they irritate the skin, and therefore the quality and intensity of the elicited sensation will not change even by a hair’s breadth. Thus it is clear that, although we have inborn propensities to accept the qualities and intensities of sensation that may further health or perpetuate the species (among other things), and to reject those that harm our bodies, it is not the quality or the intensity of the sensation that makes it pleasant or unpleasant: the decisive factor that causes it to be one 122 123 88 way or the other is whether it seems that the mental subject accepts it or rejects it. Otherwise, how would it be possible for a masochist to enjoy being whipped, to the extent of paying a prostitute to beat him with an instrument that most human beings dread, and that most humans would be willing to pay to avoid? (Other examples are offered in the endnote the reference mark for which stands at the end of this sentence. ) At any rate, once the subject-object duality arises from the neutral base-of-all, and with it active saṃsāra begins to develop, we are ineluctably experience unremitting allpervading duḥkha / duḥkha of irrational impulses / duḥkha inherent in the fabricated, produced, contrived, conditioned, configured, and / or compounded. According to the Buddhist teachings of all promulgations and all vehicles and paths, whatever is fabricated, contrived, conditioned, compounded, configured and / or produced is impermanent and subject to duḥkha. However, the particular type of duḥkha called all-pervading duḥkha, duḥkha of irrational impulses, or duḥkha inherent in the fabricated, produced, contrived, conditioned, configured, and/or compounded, which is said to be a neutral feeling that is followed by a painful sensation, has as a central feature the feeling of incompleteness or lack of plenitude that, no matter the sphere or realm we find ourselves in, pervades the experience of those of us who are possessed by the unawareness of the true condition of reality cum distorted perception of reality that the Buddhist teachings call avidyā and that is the source of our fabricated, produced, contrived, conditioned, configured, and / or compounded experience. So long as we manage to ignore the feelings inherent in this type of duḥkha we experience them as a neutral feeling, yet after the arising of the sphere of sensuality at some point we will experience discomfort and uneasiness. Sentient beings in the formless sphere experience only a neutral sensation, but from the moment at which they foresee their fall onwards they experience that which the teachings call duḥkha of change— but that, once the individual is actually, actively suffering, may be said to have turned into duḥkha of suffering. However, even in the human realm in which currently we dwell—which, as shown above, is one of the six realms of the sphere of sensuality, which are the ones in which all three types of duḥkha are experienced—we manage to go on with our lives, for in those lapses in which we accept our objects, pleasure momentarily replaces discomfort—even though an underlying lack of plenitude will always persist so long as the subject-object split continues to be manifest—and when we cannot turn discomfort into pleasure in this way, as a rule we manage to elude awareness of the lack of plenitude and the discomfort by attributing them to contingent causes (we tell ourselves that the sense of lack is the lack of this or that object, or of pleasure, or of the love of the person that most often elicits an endorphin shot in us, or of wealth and status, or of not having gained the admiration of many people, etc.—and that the ever present discomfort is due to boredom or other contingent circumstances) and ignoring it by setting our attention on distracting aims, expectations, activities (often, in doing our best to obtain the missing object we associated the sense of lack with), and so on. This is why this type of duḥkha is said to be a neutral feeling, and to remain so even when we are not dwelling in the spheres of formlessness and form. 124 125 126 a b Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ): fabricated, produced, contrived, conditioned, configured, and / or compounded. Pāḷi and Skt. kāmadhātu or kāmaloka; Tib. dod pa’i khams; Ch. 欲界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yùjiè; Wade-Giles, yü chieh ). a 3 b 2 4 4 89 In fact, this duḥkha is what all beings in saṃsāra constantly strive to elude by the means considered in the following section of this chapter and other works of mine. The reason why Vasubandhu compared normal individuals to the palm of the hand and allpervading duḥkha to a hair or filament of wool is because normal individuals succeed to a considerable extent in eluding this all-pervading feeling of incompletude, lack, discomfort and uneasiness, and so long as they manage to do so, they do not have any chance of ridding themselves of it. In fact, their condition is comparable to that of an individual who clings to and tries to climb a rope in order to avoid being burned by a thin layer of burning hay lying half way between his or her body and a pond’s water, thus repeatedly having the feet burnt and experiencing an unremitting sting and ache in the hands, rather than letting go of the rope and going through the fire so swiftly that she or he would not be burned at all, and then safely diving into the water. Higher bodhisattvas, on the other hand, find it impossible to effectively elude the feelings of lack, discomfort and uneasiness produced by the distorted perception of reality that is the source of conditioned experience, partly because they have become keenly aware of the dynamics of elusion described below and, very often, also in part because a heightened energetic volume determining the scope of awareness (Tib. thigle, which renders the Sanskrit bindu but here has an acceptation to some extent akin to that of the Sanskrit kuṇḍalinī) has made the boundaries of their focus of conscious attention more permeable and thus undermined their capacity to elude the incompleteness, lack and discomfort, and possibly because of other reasons as well—all of which give rise to what Buddhist texts refer to as “a deficiency in those conditions that tend to produce and sustain birth and death” (for an evaluation in depth, cf. Capriles, 2007a vols. I and II). Therefore, they are like the individual who lets go of the rope and dives into the water unharmed. In fact, this is one of the reasons why they are the only ones that have the opportunity to uproot the cause of that feeling and attain Awakening. a b 127 Duḥkha of change or duḥkha of impermanence c The “duḥkha of change” (often rendered as duḥkha of impermanence) in spite of being experienced by all beings, is said to be distinctive of higher realms / psychological states. As shown above, the gods of the formless realms—and in particular those on the peak of saṃsāra —even though they are subject to that subtlest yet unremitting type of duḥkha that here is being called all-pervading duḥkha, duḥkha of irrational impulses or duḥkha inherent in the fabricated, produced, induced, conditioned, contrived, intentional and/or compounded, manage to completely elude the duḥkha of suffering. However, they come to experience coarser suffering again when they foresee their fall from their godly condition and the destiny that awaits them, for as a rule the highest realms are followed by the lowest realms / psychological states, and in particular by the realm or psychological d Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ): fabricated, produced, contrived, conditioned, configured, and / or compounded. Wylie, thig le. Skt. vipariṇāmaduḥkhatā; Pāḷi vipariṇāmadukkha; Tib. ’gyur ba’i sdug bsngal; Ch. 壞苦 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, huàikǔ; Wade-Giles, huai k’u ). Skt. bhavāgra; Tib. srid [pa’i] rtse [mo]; Ch. 有頂天 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒudǐngtiān; Wade-Giles, yu -ting t’ien ). a 3 2 b c 4 3 d 3 1 90 3 state of purgatories (impermanent hells): this is what is called the duḥkha of change. The reason why they fall from the gods’ realm directly to the purgatories is that, while they are still in the formless realms, they become aware that they are about to fall, and hence they worry about it and begin to reject their experience. Since they have grown disaccustomed to suffering during what they experienced as aeons in the highest realms, upon meeting suffering again they feel compelled to reject it with greater impetus than ever, making their experience become quite painful. And because they have such a high energetic volume determining the scope of awareness —for the raise of the volume in question is that which allows consciousness to encompass the whole sensory field rather than taking a segment as figure and leaving the rest as ground—the sensations issuing from their rejection will become unbearably painful, and hence they will be rejected with even greater impetus, which will give rise to even further rejection. This will unleash a positive—i.e. autocatalytic —feedback loop of rejection and pain that will give rise to a strong hellish experience—this being probably the reason why the teachings affirm that upon falling from formless realms individuals are likely to take rebirth in the purgatories (impermanent hells). Moreover, since those who “descend” from panoramic states have become used to the ampleness and seeming limitlessness of their experience, when they find themselves once again within the narrow limits to which they had been confined before their ascent— i.e. to the narrow, tunnel-like consciousness of the sphere of sensuality—very likely they will suffer claustrophobia, to which they will react with forceful rejection. This is the reason why the suffering of change is compared to a bee that, after being in boundless space, is confined to the claustrophobic dimension of a small jar. However, once the individual is in hell, that which she or he is experience is not to the duḥkha of change, but the duḥkha of suffering (which will be discussed next)—which shows that the purported limits among the three types of duḥkha are hazy, if they may be said to exist at all. It must be noted that the autocatalytic dynamics of suffering mentioned in this paragraph, which cause suffering to increase from its own feedback, will be discussed in greater detail in Part III, Vol. II of this book in terms of the dynamics of the maṇḍala (it was also discussed in some detail, and roughly in the same terms, in Capriles, 2013b and elsewhere). Keep in mind that, as stated at the beginning of this subsection, the fact that the duḥkha of change is illustrated with the fall of the gods does not mean that only the gods experience this kind of suffering: we all experience it constantly to the extent that we develop attachment to people, possessions, status, rang, pleasure, and, in general, to all we may become attached to, for ineluctably we will lose the object of our attachment at some point and this will make us suffer. a b c128 129 d Duḥkha of Suffering of Double Duḥkha e Skt. naraka; Pāli nerayika; Tib. dmyal ba; Ch. 地獄有情 or 地獄衆⽣ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dìyù yoǔqíng or dìyù zhòngshēng; Wade-Giles, ti -yü yu -ch’ing or ti -yü chung -sheng ). Eons; i.e. cosmic time cycles: Skt. kalpa; Pāḷi kappa; Tib. bskal pa; Ch. 劫 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn jié; Wade-Giles chieh ; jap. gō). Tib. thig le, which in this sense is similar in meaning to the Skt. kuṇḍalinī. Skt. naraka; Tib. dmyal ba; Ch. 地獄 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dìyù; Wade-Giles, ti -yü ). Skt. duḥkhaduḥkhatā; Pāḷi dukkhadukkhatā; Tib. sdug bsngal gyi sdug bsngal; Ch. 苦苦 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn kǔkǔ; Wade-Giles k’u -k’u ). a 4 4 3 2 4 4 4 1 b 2 c d 4 e 3 3 91 4 Finally, the “duḥkha of suffering” or “double suffering” is the suffering that most people refer to by the term, which is characteristic of lower realms. It is a misfortune that falls on top of a misfortune, resulting in a double misfortune, which as such is illustrated with a leper who is struck by bubonic plague: it may be inferred that leprosy stands for the all-pervading duḥkha inherent in conditioned existence, and the bubonic plague for the duḥkha of suffering that is no other than the suffering of facing the pain, illness, dejection, sadness, depression and so on that recurrently strikes us beings confined to saṃsāra— though the leprosy could also stand for having to face what we usually regard as painful or unpleasant, and the bubonic plague for our rejection of it, which makes it, not merely unpleasant or painful, but unbearable. a Dealing with the Above Threefold Duḥkha So far it has been sufficiently emphasized that normal individuals are possessed by avidyā, and that avidyā involves unawareness and delusion. If, in agreement with Alfred Korzybski’s (1973) semantics and the soundest trends of phenomenological, existential psychology and psychiatry (as established, for example, in the works of R. D. Laing and D. E. Cooper), we establish the criterion for sanity to be a correct and accurate perception of reality and the criterion for insanity to be a deluded, distorting perception of it, we have to conclude that experience conditioned by avidyā is utterly insane. Moreover, if we adopt A. Korzybski’s (1973) and A. J. Ayer’s (1952, p. 50) criteria for scientific correctness—which could be subsumed under the proposition that the achievement of the scientist’s aims and a correct prediction of the future could demonstrate scientific knowledge to be correct—as shown below, we will have to conclude that experience, thought and action conditioned by avidyā could well be the most dangerous of mental illnesses, for it is the only mental illness that could cause the extinction of our human species and perhaps even of all species on this planet—and that, moreover, could do so even in the course of the current century. Moreover, the delusion inherent in normality is twofold or threefold, for it involves being deluded, and at the same time being deluded about the fact that one is deluded and about the fact that one’s existence is pervaded by suffering. Therefore, there can be no doubt, not only that normality is not sanity, but that it is the diametral opposite of sanity. In fact, in order not to despair in face of the ineluctable presence of the sensation of lack inherent in our apparently separate existence and the discomfort and uneasiness it elicits, and thus to be able to keep going on with our lives even though our experience is marked by duḥkha, whenever we become aware of all-pervading duḥkha, we attribute it to a contingent cause and try to remove it by removing that purported cause, or try to ignore it by diverting our awareness from it into one or another distractive activity—in this way succeeding most of the time in eluding duḥkha. In short, that which allows us to go on with our lives is the psychological mechanisms inherent in normality, which allow us to divert our sight; deceive ourselves; invent hopes, expectations, projects, illusions and so on; etc. When the aspect of all-pervading duḥkha that we become aware of is the lack of completeness or plenitude that arises from the illusory sundering of the continuum of plenitude that is our true nature, we instantly tell ourselves that the lack is a lack of this or 130 a Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). 3 92 2 that object and, convincing ourselves that obtaining what we think we need will fill it, set out to procure the object or to procure the means for obtaining it. For example, we have seen a new model of smart phone—or computer, car, motorcycle or whatever—and as we feel the lack we assume that it is the lack of the object and fancy that obtaining and possessing it will fill the lack. Consequently, we dismiss the sensation, thinking that it is transitory and that it will come to an end when we achieve our aim—and, indeed, so long as we strive to obtain the money to acquire the object, or to obtain it by other means, we succeed in eluding the sensation of lack a great deal of the time. When we do obtain the object we had been striving to obtain, its possession may intoxicate us for a few hours or perhaps even for brief periods during a few days (for example, if I buy the latest model dream car, I could become momentarily inebriated by its new car smell, its beauty, its smoothness and its power, or by pretending that everybody is looking at me in such a marvelous piece of machinery, etc.). However, it will not take long for the sensation of lack to slip again into our conscious awareness—at which point we will no longer be able to elude it by concentrating on the means to obtain the object, for we already own it, nor will we be able to deceive ourselves thinking that its possession will fill the lack. Thus, we will have to fancy that the lack is the lack of another object, and deceive ourselves by denying what experience has taught us: that the possession of no object whatsoever will possibly fill the lack. (Actually, some people have a strong realization of this right on obtaining the object of their longing. For example, I knew a Venezuelan man who was an artisan and who, having never owned a car, decided to save the product of his work in order to buy the car of his dreams. By making and selling very fine handicrafts, finally he managed to buy the brand-new car of his dreams. However, he told me later on that the unhappiest moment of his life was when he got the car and sat on the driving seat, for he realized that possession of the car could not fill the lack he had expected it to fill.) A clear example of the dynamics under discussion is that of children who have been excited for weeks by the expectation receiving gifts on Christmas day. When the day comes and they receive their new toys, they will play with them, but after a while they will feel empty, as enjoyment of the gifts fails to provide them with the real fulfillment and satisfaction they expected—and now they have no expectations to get excited about. Furthermore, if the children get many expensive gifts it may be worse than if they receive few inexpensive ones, for in the latter case they may believe that their disappointment is due to the fact that the gifts were few and cheap, but in the former one, they may begin to intuit that gifts, toys and possessions cannot produce true satisfaction. It is to the extent that we believe that possession or enjoyment of certain objects will allow us to recover the plenitude we have lost, that we project greater or lesser value on those objects —though this also depends on the object’s price, for we tend to prize our potential possessions according to their market prices, which for their part determine the grade of difficulty we face in procuring them. And, as noted above, in many cases the value of these objects is also intimately linked to the value that, according to our belief, its possession will bestow on us in the eyes of others. However, as shown above, believing that the possession of something will result in an experience of plenitude could hardly be less in line with reality. Since the sensation of incompleteness and lack derives from the illusory rupture of the undivided totality of our true condition or, to express it differently, from the illusion that we are separate from the plenitude of the continuum of sensation that we experience as the physical universe, and since the possession of physical objects 131 132 133 93 confirms and maintains the illusion that we are distinct and separate from what we possess (as well as from the rest of the continuum of sensation or “physical world”), possessing objects can only confirm and reinforce the sensation of lack. Furthermore, so long as we are in saṃsāra, whatever we possess will become a source of worry and strife. This is the reason why Patrul Rinpoche said, “if you have a packet of tea, you have a problem the size of a packet of tea; if you have a goat, you have a problem the size of a goat; if you have a horse, you have a problem the size of a horse.” If you have no car, you do not have to worry about a car; if you have an old car, you have that much to worry about; if you have a new, very expensive car, you have a far greater source of worry. If you have a lot of expensive stock exchange shares, you have a really great source of worry. Another strategy we resort to in order to try to fill our sensation of lack, consists in attempting to get others to project a high degree of value on us in in the hope of filling with this value the sense of lack that results from the illusory sundering of completeness and plenitude produced by our illusion of separateness. One of the means that we use to try to get others to value us consists in adapting ourselves to our society or social group and embodying the values shared by their members, so that the value that they have placed on those values will be projected on us. Nevertheless, we will never be able to get all of those whose opinions we mind, to continually hold us in high esteem—or, even less so, to admire us so much as to see us as being value itself. Furthermore, the more we come to depend on being recognized by others, the more anxiety we will experience on facing the possibility of being ignored, rejected, slighted, judged negatively or hated—even though many come to prefer being hated or despised than being ignored. Among the above strategies for filling our sense of lack, a most common one is romantic involvement. Imagine I am a heterosexual man and I am walking the streets and cross an attractive girl and our eyes meet and I get a dopamine shot that makes me feel like I am floating. It is likely that I will fancy that if I get involved romantically with that girl I will always feel the way I felt while crossing her. And imagine something similar happened to the girl when she crossed me. Then a few days later we meet at a party, and hence both of us, each in his or her own way, will try to catch the other’s interest and get her or him romantically involved. When we get in a relationship, we will begin to secrete endorphins, which will somewhat sedate our sense of lack and our existential suffering—which, however, will come at the cost of dependence. Moreover, unless we are sadists or masochists, we will feel the need to be the most valuable and important person for our partner, as we will think that it is the value and the importance that that other projects on us that fills our sense of lack. Of course, in order to believe this, it is necessary that we become infatuated with that person, projecting on her or him a high value—which will happen automatically if the person in question has elicited the dopamine shot in us and, once we are in a relationship, we regularly maintain a high endorphin secretion, since we will take the associated feelings as a proof of the uniqueness and specialty of the other person— which is necessary for us to be able to take seriously the value that she or he may project onto us. This is the reason why normally we need our partner to be worthy—or at least not to be unworthy—in terms of our standards and values (at the very least, not to be mad, stupid, ignorant or have another fault that would reduce her or his value in our eyes): since a 134 135 a Wylie, dPal sprul rin po che (in full, Dza dPal sprul ’jigs med chos kyi dbang po rin po che). 94 otherwise the person would have no worth whatsoever, and her or his evaluation of us could be mistaken, in our eyes the value that she or he project onto us would not be worth anything. On the contrary, the value that someone who we really believe has a high value and who we really believe is not mistaken, we will surely believe “is worth a lot”. Thus, lovers who are neither sadist nor masochists strongly need their partner to value them over everything else, but in order to value the value the other projects on them they also need to value their partner. To the extent that this is so, in some sense what both lovers value is first of all their own self, and each of them somehow incurs in self-deceit when he or she thinks that his or her partner values him or her more than anything. However, this is not something that we calculate and plan, for otherwise the strategy would not work, as we would be fully aware that our potential partner is not so special after all and that a crucial aim in our relationship is to fill our sense of lack with the value projected by her or him. As just noted, all of this happens naturally as a result of the initial attraction that elicited the dopamine shot, and of the subsequent, regular secretion of endorphins. And in fact, it is the secretion of endorphins that is mostly responsible for the attachment lovers feel to each other— whereas it is the interruption of the secretion of endorphins after the rupture of a relationship that is responsible for the withdrawal symptoms that are taken for the suffering of separation. The reason why the other elicits the dopamine shot is so hard to identify because as a rule it is a karmic one, which is related to parental figures. At any rate, the effect of the dopamine and the subsequent effect of the endorphins may be so powerful as to allow lovers embraced under the rain not to feel cold or experience any discomfort. However, this does not last for very long: it has been determined that the extraordinary production of endorphins associated with falling in love does not last, in the best of cases, over four years. Besides, just as happened to the evil witch in Snow White’s story, our infatuation and the associated secretion of dopamine and subsequently of endorphins will have made us dependent on the person that elicits that secretion and that works as the magic mirror that constantly tells us we are the most special person. Consequently, according to karmic causes and circumstances, it is possible that, instead of obtaining security, we give rise to a continual anxiety as to whether or not we are still the most valuable and precious person for our partner, and as to whether she or he may come to value someone else more than she or he values us. And since we have no way to probe the depths of another human being’s consciousness, we will never be able to be sure we are truly the most important, most special and most valuable for her or him. It is due to all of this, and to many other things that we do not have space to consider here, that the project of filling the basic existential lack issuing from delusion by falling in love and getting the other to fall in love with us is doomed to failure. An example of the above was offered by Marcel Proust in his noted seven-volume novel À la recherche du temps perdu, where (in the second tome, À l’ombre des jeunes filles en fleurs) the narrator falls in love with Albertine Simonet. Then, when he wins her love he begins to doubt of her “virtue,” and then begins to suspect her of being a lesbian (he began to see homosexuality all around him in tome four, Sodome et Gomorrhe), and fearing she might find a girl she will desire and value more than she desires and values him, he invites her to live with him in his absent parents’ apartment while getting their common friend, Andrée, to follow her wherever she goes in order to check that she is not engaging in lesbian adventures, and trying to keep her inside so as to reduce the chances that she may meet a 136 137 138 139 140 141 95 girl she may desire and value more than she desires and values him (this is the subject of the fifth tome of the work, La prisonnière). However, by trying to keep her inside and spying on her to keep her from desiring and valuing someone else more than she desires and values him, he is giving her to understand that he is not worth much and is not really desirable. So he becomes extremely apprehensive that she may see through the windows some girl she desires and values more than she desires and values him—thus starting a positive feedback loop of jealousy, insecurity and apprehension. She begins to seem tired and sad of being in this situation, until finally she gets fed up with it and leaves him. Then in the sixth tome, La fugitive, later renamed Albertine disparue, she finally decides to go back to him, but dies before so doing. The search for fame can be a way of trying to achieve what falling in love failed to deliver, by reducing dependence on a single individual through multiplying the sources of valorization of one’s self, in the belief that if we depend on many magic mirrors, it will not matter so much what one of them reflects. Moreover, one pursuing fame, fancies that if many people adore her or him, she or he will be more valuable than if she or he were prized by a single person, as though she or he were thus able to assimilate the sum of the value that each of her or his admirers project one her or him—and may also think that it is less likely for many people to be mistaken than it is for a single person, and hence that one’s worth will be more certain if many people prize or adore one. Moreover, even the most common and least special people can get someone to esteem them in a special way and become their partner, but fame can only be obtained if one is very special in some sense or in some activity or walk of life. However, just as in the preceding instances, this selfdeception, instead of putting an end to the lack, will cause it to increase: in this case, it will make it grow proportionally to the number of people with whose adoration we try to fill the lack. Moreover, as individuals become accustomed to fame, the latter gradually loses its power to cause them to deflect their attention from their sense of lack (which, as just noted, has not been overcome, but, contrariwise, has been made to grow); therefore, they need their fame to continue to increase without ever reaching a ceiling. Furthermore, they become more and more addicted to the recognition received from others: I guess most of us have seen some celebrity arrive at a public place showing signs of being worried about whether or not he or she is being recognized by those present. And when negative sides of famous people are made public, they often suffer a nervous breakdown (as happened to Elizabeth Taylor as a result of the publication of the book written by journalist Kitty Kelly after passing herself off as a household assistant at Taylor’s home). Fame, let us repeat, is a whirlpool that increases our inner void to the extent that, in order to fill it, we need the value projected by an ever-greater number of people: the greater quantity of something we need to fill a hole, the bigger the hole that we were trying to fill will have become. The same happens with our association with individuals valued by many, with belonging to groups that many value, and so on. To the extent that we think these things will endow us with value in the eyes of others (whom we value insofar as they value the same individuals, groups, etc. as we do), we value and pursue them. Nevertheless, they will not provide us with stable value and happiness, for, among other things: (1) Not all human beings value the same objects, individuals and groups, and hence in order to be valued by some, we will have to be despised by others. (2) As shown above, pleasure is the result of acceptance, which is interdependent with rejection and cannot be sustained indefinitely; once we become accustomed to the positive estimation of the human entity designated by 142 143 96 our name, habituation will cause us to stop accepting this object, and so we will become indifferent towards it—which will produce a neutral feeling that later we will interpret as boredom and consequently we will reject, experiencing the displeasure that results from rejection. Thus, we will migrate through the six psychological realms of the cycle of indifference, rejection and acceptance that Buddhists call saṃsāra. (3) At each instant we will feel threatened by the possibility of losing what we have become attached to, and our attachments will thus become a source of anxiety and anguish. And so on. Pleasure is another of the privileged means through which we try to fill our lack, and by the same token try to replace the associated sensation of uneasiness or discomfort with that of pleasure. Pleasure is one of the three main types of vedanā or sensation, whether “physical” (direct object of a sensory perception) or “mental” (the sensation in the center of the body at the level of the heart that colors, so to speak, the perceptions of all of the six senses, included those of the mental consciousness) which are the pleasant or sukha, the unpleasant or duḥkha and the neutral or aduḥkhāsukha (aduḥkha asukha). Since all of us value whatever we believe will fill this lack, and all of us find pleasure specially rewarding, we value it very highly. Pleasure could be classified into sensualDionysian, aesthetic-Apollonian, and transpersonal-Brahmic —the latter, if and when transpersonal states involve pleasure, which then is asserted to be “of a purely mental kind.” The Buddhist teachings of the Path of Renunciation and those of the Tantric Path of Transformation and of the Path of Spontaneous Liberation grade these types of pleasure in opposite ways, and individual people grade them according to their respective conditionings and propensities. However, no matter which of the preceding three types of pleasure we prefer, all of us value the objects, persons or activities on which we depend for obtaining pleasure proportionally to our appraisement of the latter. The first of the above three kinds of pleasure is easiest to explain because, while we experience it, the object of consciousness is the sensation of pleasure itself—which in this case is of the kind that the teachings call “physical sensation” rather than of the kind they refer to as “mental sensation”. As given to understand above, sensations that go beyond certain levels of intensity (quantity) and/or that exhibit certain characteristics (quality) are indicative of either damage or danger to the organism, and hence we have an inborn tendency to reject them, as a result of which we experience them as unpleasant or altogether painful. Sensations within certain ranges of intensity and/or exhibiting certain qualities indicate benefit to the organism and/or accompany activities that perpetuate the species (and, this should not be underestimated, may unleash mystical experiences), and therefore a b c d e f 144 145 146 147 g h Skt. vedanā; Pāli vedanā; Tib. tshor ba; Ch. 受 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shòu; Wade-Giles, shou ). Skt. and Pāli kāyikī vedanā; Tib. lus kyi tshor; Ch. 身受 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn shēnshòu; Wade-Giles, shen -shou ). Skt. and Pāli caitasikī vedanā; Tib. sems kyi tshor; Ch. 心受 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn xīnshòu; Wade-Giles, hsin shou ). Pāḷi sukha [vedanā]; Tib. bde ba [tshor ba]; Ch. 樂 [受] (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, lè [shòu]; Wade-Giles, le [shou ]). Also 安樂, 安穩, 富樂, 快, 快樂, 悅, 所樂, 曬罽, 極樂, 樂, 樂受. Pāḷi: dukkha [vedanā]; Tib. dugngäl (sdug bsngal [tshor ba]); Ch. 苦 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn kū [shòu]; Wade-Giles k’u [shou ]; jap. rōmaji, ku; Kor. ko). Pāḷi: adukkha-m-asukhā [vedanā]; Tib. btang snyoms [tshor ba]; Ch. 不苦不樂 [受] (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn bùkǔ-bùlè [shòu]; Wade-Giles, pu -k’u pu -le [shou ]). Skt. and Pāli kāyikī vedanā; Tib. lus kyi tshor; Ch. 身受 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn shēnshòu; Wade-Giles, shen -shou ). Skt. and Pāli caitasikī vedanā; Tib. sems kyi tshor; Ch. 心受 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn xīnshòu; Wade-Giles, hsin shou ). a 4 b 1 4 c 1 4 d 4 4 e 1 4 f 4 3 4 4 4 g 1 h 4 1 4 97 we have an innate tendency to accept them, as a result of which we experience them as pleasurable. And sensations below a given threshold of intensity and/or exhibiting certain qualities are neither harmful nor necessary or beneficial, and therefore we have a natural tendency to be indifferent to them—as a result of which we experience them as neutral. It cannot be emphasized too much that, even though we have a natural tendency to accept some kinds of sensations, reject other types and remain indifferent to still other types, in themselves none of these sensations is unpleasant, pleasant or neutral: that which makes them be unpleasant, pleasant or neutral, is our rejection, acceptance or indifference, respectively. Since there is no way that our acceptance may be sustained uninterruptedly, it is clear that sensual pleasures are ephemeral. Furthermore, most of them are not so intense as to absorb us completely, altogether making us forget our sensation of lack. Some of us intuit that erotic pleasure could be sufficiently intense as to make our lack dissolve—and indeed in one of the Buddhist Paths that will be discussed below a sustained experience of the most intense erotic pleasure possible is used as the means to temporarily dissolve the illusion of separateness and the feeling of lack inherent in it. However, this is not what happens when erotic relations are undertaken outside the context of yogic practice. The first contact with the other person (for example, holding hands) is pleasurable, but not intense enough as to dissolve the essential sensation of lack, or even as to absorb our attention uninterruptedly over a long period. Therefore, after the first contact, we engage in cumulative interaction in an attempt to intensify the pleasure derived from it: since every new act by the parties gives them a little more pleasure, but not enough to fill their lack, both parts undertake new actions in order to increase the pleasure, engaging in ever-increasing activity. As this happens, attention is diverted from the present and kept on the expectations of a future, while the now eludes the parts at each instant. Therefore, when they finally reach the instant of maximum pleasure in the ephemeral moment of climax, they are so focused on the imagined future and distanced from the now as to maintain the insurmountable abyss that separates all of us from the bare, full experience of pleasure. The paradox involved is that so long as we experience ourselves as separate selves we are compelled to affirm our existence as such, and hence in all our attempts to reach plenitude and satisfaction, at the same time we try with all our strength to maintain the illusion of separateness and selfhood that bars us from attaining them. Therefore, also at the moment of climax we are compelled to experience it as a separate consciousness—for we feel that otherwise we would not be experiencing the pleasure, which would not be experienced by anyone—and maintain the subject-object gap that keeps us at a distance from pleasure and thus forestalls fusion in total pleasure. In fact, as we grasp the ensuing pleasure, which can hardly reach the intensity we dreamed of, it escapes us like sand from the grip that tries to seize it, and immediately we have to face our lack. If, in spite of the ensuing disappointment, both partners manage to believe that the lack can be filled by the pleasure of ordinary intercourse, and the male has the energy to undertake another coitus, it will likely be less satisfactory to the partners than the preceding one, for having accustomed themselves to the degrees of pleasure they experienced a while ago, they will be satisfied to an even lesser extent by those same degrees of pleasure. If the couple has the financial means, they might possibly try to evade a 148 An interaction in which the increase of the activity of one party elicits an increase in the activity of the other, which elicits an increase of activity in the first, and so on, in such a way that the activity of both parties increases interdependently. a 98 their disappointment and attempt to fill their lack by eating out; otherwise, they could go to the movies or tune on the TV—or simply seek forgetfulness in sleep. It was probably due to repeated experience of this dynamic that Augustine of Hippo said that after coitus all animals are sorrowful. The point is that plenitude is only unconcealed in the disclosure of the undivided completeness of our true condition, in which the continuum of Space-Time-Awareness is uninterrupted, for there is no illusory subject that feels to be at a distance from its objects, and the now is not divided into past, present and future. However, the moment there arises the subject-object duality, the undivided completeness of our true condition is illusorily sundered, and the subject is doomed to experience lack of the plenitude of completeness. As we will see in the next chapter, thus arises the present (the etymological meaning of which is “being before”), for the illusory mental subject experiences itself as being at a distance from the undivided now. If then we pursue a future climax of pleasure, we assert and confirm the illusion of being at a distance from the now, thus sustaining our illusion of being at a distance from the physical universe and thus from the plenitude inherent in undivided totality—and thus maintaining our experience of lack of plenitude. Of course, this does not mean that ordinary sex cannot yield pleasure. What I am trying to say is that the pleasure of ordinary sex is so insignificant when compared with what one may expect erotic pleasure to be, that it may be altogether frustrating (this being the reason why Alan Watts went so far as to compare ordinary orgasm with a “ventral sneeze”), and is utterly insignificant in relation to pleasure that may be attained in erotic mystical relations. However, as a rule, people believe the pleasure of ordinary sex to be the only erotic pleasure possible, and thus most people content themselves with it rather than trying to change their way to face erotic relations and erotic pleasure—just as most people manage to ignore and remain indifferent to, and therefore elude, the all-pervading duḥkha that the Buddhist teachings refer to as saṁskāra duḥkhatā. In fact, as shown above, a great deal of the time we actually manage to elude all-pervading duḥkha, yet by rejecting the sensations that our inborn tropisms and drives lead us to reject and the sensations that the process of socialization in our society taught us to reject, we repeatedly give rise to the duḥkha of suffering that the Buddhist teachings call duḥkhaduḥkhatā —which, since it is plain pain, we further reject, magnifying it and thus eliciting further rejection, in this way giving rise to a positive feedback loop of pain (i.e., a loop of pain that increases from its own feedback). And, conversely, as just shown, by maintaining ourselves as subjects and trying to grasp total pleasure as object, we minify it, causing total pleasure to elude us. Indeed, as will be shown below, the ordinary experience of saṃsāra is subject to that which Émile Coué de la Châtaigneraie (Brooks, 1922) and, later on, Alan Watts (1951) called the “reverse law” (and which the latter also referred to as the “law of inverted effect”). And, indeed, it could hardly be more frustrating. Aesthetic and transpersonal pleasure are different from sensual pleasure, because while we experience them the direct object of experience is not the sensation itself: in the case of aesthetic pleasure, the direct object of experience is a form, and in the case of the 149 a b Pāḷi saṃkhāra-dukkha; Tib. ’du byed kyi sdug bsngal; Ch. ⾏苦 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíngkǔ; Wade-Giles, hsing k’u ). Pāḷi dukkhadukkhatā; Tib. sdug bsngal gyi sdug bsngal; Ch. 苦苦 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn kǔkǔ; Wade-Giles k’u -k’u ). a 2 3 b 3 99 3 transpersonal pleasure experienced in some samsaric formless contemplations, the direct object of experience is what appears to be an infinitude or the like. Now, in perception we always experience the object in terms of a subtle thought of the kind that Dignāga and then Dharmakīrti referred to by a Sanskrit term that, in the context of their systems, is often rendered as mental image, and which in the context of the Dzogchen teachings may be rendered as universal, abstract concept of an entity [resulting from a mental synthesis] which conveys a meaning, which is hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized by virtue of a vibratory activity that seems to have its core in the center of the body at the level of the heart. This vibration is the basis of the mental factor / mental event that the Buddhist Abhidharma calls mental sensation or feeling-tone, which colors all experiences and which manifests more pronouncedly in the center of the body at the level of the heart. The reason for this is that, since consciousness can neither have two different objects nor adopt two different attitudes toward an object simultaneously, when we accept the direct object of perception, this attitude embraces all potential objects, and thus automatically we accept the whole of the continuum in which the object was singled out; since this continuum includes all of our sensations, we indirectly accept the feeling-tone / mental sensation that sustains and colors experience—which, for the reasons shown above, our acceptance makes us experience as pleasant. Let us consider the aesthetic appreciation of a work of art. If we like the work, the above dynamic will give rise to a pleasant feeling-tone / mental sensation in connection with its perception, and the experience of a pleasant feeling-tone / mental sensation in connection with the contemplation of the work of art will automatically be interpreted as irrefutable proof of the inherent (rather than culturally conditioned) and objective (rather than depending on the tastes and conditioning of the individual) beauty of the object. On the other hand, when we dislike the object of aesthetic appreciation, we automatically reject the continuum wherein we single out objects, which includes all sensations, and hence we automatically reject our sensations—and rejection of the feeling-tone / mental sensation that with each thought and each concept-tainted experience is felt in the center of the body at the level of the heart makes us experience it as unpleasant. Finally, when we neither like nor dislike the object of aesthetic appreciation, we remain indifferent to it, and hence we automatically remain indifferent to the continuum of potential objects, including the socalled feeling-tone / mental sensation—thus experiencing the latter as neutral). Back to the example of the aesthetic appreciation of a work of art that we like and the appreciation of which therefore elicits a pleasant feeling-tone / mental sensation that is a 150 b c d151 e f 152 Skt. caturārūpyasamāpatti; Tib. gzugs med pa’i snyoms ’jug bzhi; Ch. 四空定 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sìkōng dìng; Wade-Giles, ssu -k’ung ting ); more precisely, the four ārūpyāvacaradhyāna (Pāli arūpāvacarajhāna; Tib. gzugs med na spyod pa’i bsam gtan; Ch. 無⾊界定 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúsèjiè dìng; Wade-Giles, wu -se -chieh ting ]). (Four ārūpyāvacaradhyāna: Tib. gzugs med na spyod pa’i bsam gtan bzhi; Ch. 四無⾊界定 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sì wú-sè-jiè dìng; Wade-Giles, ssu wu -se -chieh ting ]). Skt. saṃjñā; Pāli saññā; Tib. ’du shes; Ch. 想 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiǎng; Wade-Giles, hsiang ). Skt. arthasāmānya; Tib. don spyi; Ch. 總義 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngyì; Wade-Giles, tsung -i ). This is a modification of the translation used in Berzin (2001). Skt. caitta or caitasika; Pāli cetasika; Tib. sems byung; Ch. ⼼所 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xīnsuǒ; Wade-Giles, hsin so ). This is one type of that which is called by the Pāḷi and Skt. vedanā, the Tib. tshor ba and the Ch. 受 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shòu; Wade-Giles, shou ): it is that which is referred to by the Skt. and Pāli caitasikī vedanā, the Tib. sems kyi tshor, and the Ch. 心受 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn xīnshòu; Wade-Giles, hsin -shou ). a 4 1 4 2 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 b 3 c 3 4 d e 1 3 f 4 1 100 4 then experienced as the proof of the work’s objective beauty and value, it is important to note that, if we are forced to contemplate it indefinitely, at some point we will get so used to the object that we will cease accepting it and thus will become indifferent to it—upon which, since we have also become indifferent to the feeling-tone / mental sensation, the latter will become neutral. Then at some point we will tire of the monotony of the situation, with its neutral feeling-tone / mental sensation, developing irritation, and thus will reject it, thus indirectly rejecting the feeling-tone / mental sensation and thus making it become unpleasant: at this point we will be unable to appreciate the object’s beauty, and we will feel that the work of art has become a nuisance. (For a more detailed discussion of this, see my book Estética primordial y arte visionario. ) The same that applies to aesthetic appreciation will apply to the four absorptions with form and to the sphere of form in general. However, if in experiences of the sphere in question the energetic volume determining the scope of awareness is sufficiently high and other circumstances are present, the ensuing discomfort will be far more pronounced, and thus it will absorb our attention, becoming its direct object and eliciting rejection—which will make the feeling all the more painful, eliciting further rejection and thus giving rise to a positive feedback loop of ever-increasing suffering. Indeed, this is one of the reasons why—as will be shown below in this volume and in greater detail in Volume II of this book (and in Vol. III if it were published)—the dynamic of this sphere is the key catalyst of the most advanced Dzogchen practices. In the case of the contemplation of space in formless meditation, and in general in all four contemplations of formlessness, as a result of having accumulated enough karma of immobility we do not react to the subtle object consisting in the infinitude appearing as object with the coarse acceptance-attachment-desire or the coarse rejection-aversion that in the sphere of sensuality manifest as what we call the passions. However, it may happen that in some formless absorptions there seems to be a very subtle acceptance-attachment that produces very subtle, lasting pleasure. Whichever the case, as will be shown later on, the karma that allows us to maintain the contemplation sooner or later will be exhausted, and most likely before that some of the contributory conditions necessary for maintaining the contemplation could also change—for example, we may encounter disturbing stimuli, receive negative projections, or tire of the relative monotony of the object and the feelingtone, and at some point come to reject it, etc. At any rate, if we conceptualize the state of formlessness as the supreme spiritual realization or in other superlatively positive ways, for a while this may turn the feeling-tone / mental sensation that appears most clearly in the center of the body at the level of the heart into the pleasurable sensation characteristic of pride. a b c 153 d e f Capriles (2000b). Skt. rūpāvacaradhyāna; Pāli rūpāvacarajhāna; Tib. gzugs na spyod pa’i bsam gtan; Ch. ⾊界定 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sèjiè dìng; Wade-Giles, se -chieh ting ). Tib. thig le, which in this sense is similar in meaning to the Skt. kuṇḍalinī. Skt. ārūpa; Tib. gzugs med; Ch. 無⾊ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúsè; Wade-Giles, wu -se ). ārūpyāvacaradhyāna; Pāli arūpāvacarajhāna; Tib. gzugs med na spyod pa’i bsam gtan; Ch. 無⾊界定 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúsèjiè dìng; Wade-Giles, wu -se -chieh ting ). (Four ārūpyāvacaradhyāna: Tib. gzugs med na spyod pa’i bsam gtan bzhi; Ch. 四無⾊界定 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sì wúsèjiè dìng; Wade-Giles, ssu wu -se -chieh ting ]). Skt. āninjyakarma; Pāḷi aniñjitakamma; Tib. mi gyo ba’i las; Ch. 不動業 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùdòng yè; WadeGiles, pu -tung yeh ). a b 4 4 4 c d 2 4 e 2 4 4 4 4 4 f 4 4 4 101 2 4 4 Conversely, if we are beings of lower capacities, and before the formless condition we have a glimpse of the emptiness of the total, empty expanse where all “physical” and “mental” phenomena manifest—the dharmadhātu—this may give rise to an experience of panic (irrational dread before the totality that in Greek mythology was represented with the god Pan, which is glimpsed when our attention becomes more panoramic). Therefore, even though birth in the formless realms is the product of the karma of immobility and the feeling tone in those realms is a neutral one, according to propensities, some transient experiences of seemingly formless infinitudes may produce pleasure or pain—and if the result is pain, as one rejects it in a panoramic condition in which there is no way to shield the pain, the latter will increase from its own feedback, in an autocatalytic loop. At any rate, no matter how long we manage to remain in the formless realms with the neutral feeling tone or mental feeling produced by the karma of immobility, it is a fact that no attitude whatsoever can be everlastingly sustained, for attitudes are contrived, intentional, produced, fabricated and conditioned —and hence at some point our neutral attitude will be replaced either by acceptance or rejection, upon which we will fall from our “high.” Since the neutral feeling tone of the trance of formlessness is concomitant with the relaxation of tension and serenity proper to the absorption, one might expect this relaxation and serenity to prevent the manifestation of the drive to reject the object, or to mollify it if it happened to manifest. However, at some point the changeless quality of the experience may elicit irritation / rejection, and once irritation / rejection is elicited, the opposite will ineluctably happen: since at that point we will have become utterly unaccustomed to discomfort, the rejection the latter elicits will be much stronger, and since formless absorptions involve a high energetic volume determining the scope of awareness and the wide scope of awareness undermines our capacity to shun ego-dystonic contents and in general whatever we need to shun, including discomfort, upon meeting the discomfort issuing from rejection we will reject it with our whole being, giving rise to a positive feedback loop of rejection and suffering. Despite the fact that neutral transpersonal-Brahmic states, being conditioned and transient, pertain to saṃsāra, and despite the fact that the Buddhist teachings warn that a number of deluded beings try to fill their basic sensation of lack with sense of oneness and totality that they hope such states will provide, and subsequently try to fill it with the pride of believing they had a high spiritual attainment, in a chapter below we will see that (as analyzed in far greater detail in other works of mine) transpersonal and “integral” psychologies view most transpersonal and holistic or holotropic states in the same light. In a b c d In this book the term “expanse” renders the Skt. dharmadhātu, the Pāḷi dhammadhātu, the Tib. chos dbyings; the Ch. 法界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, făjiè; Wade-Giles, fa -chieh ), etc.—except when it designates the subtle object of the formless absorptions (Skt. ārūpyāvacaradhyāna; Pāli arūpāvacarajhāna; Tib. gzugs med na spyod pa’i bsam gtan; Ch. 無⾊界定 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúsèjiè dìng; Wade-Giles, wu -se -chieh ting ]). However, the term expanse will not always be used alone: I will often use “expanse of the true condition of phenomena;” “expanse of phenomena;” “total, empty expanse where all ‘physical’ and ‘mental’ phenomena appear;” “total, intrinsically empty expanse of the dharmadhātu; total empty expanse of the dharmadhātu;” “empty expanse;” etc. Skt. āninjyakarma; Pāḷi aniñjitakamma; Tib. mi gyo ba’i las; Ch. 不動業 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùdòng yè; WadeGiles, pu -tung yeh ). Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ): fabricated, produced, contrived, conditioned, configured, and / or compounded. Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). a 3 4 2 4 4 4 b 4 4 4 c 3 d 3 102 2 2 fact, they see all of them as equally furthering our progress on the path to true sanity or, in some cases, even take them as ends in themselves, failing to make the clear distinction between: (1) transpersonal-Brahmic conditioned states located in the highest tier of the wheel of saṃsāra (and as such pertaining to functional saṃsāra); (2) the transpersonal condition called dimension of the base-of-all, in which neither saṃsāra nor nirvāṇa are active, but which technically also pertains to saṃsāra; and (3) the conditions of nonstatic nirvāṇa that are valued in higher Buddhist Paths—including the Awakening / liberation which is the aim of higher Buddhism and other genuine, nondual mystical traditions, and the Contemplation state of bodhisattvas, yogins and siddhas, which if followed by a state of post-Contemplation but which reveals the true condition of ourselves and all entities and which progressively neutralizes samsaric propensities. Therefore, those who wrongly believe these and other related trends of Western psychology to be genuine spiritual Paths become unable to follow the only Path leading to Awakening or liberation, which lies in Seeing through contrived, produced, conditioned, created states into the uncompounded, unproduced, unborn, unconditioned true condition. We have seen that pleasure is interdependent with pain and maintains itself only so long as consciousness can continue to accept its object, and we have seen that since we cannot uninterruptedly maintain acceptance, it is a rule that sooner or later pleasure will be replaced by pain. In fact, so long as we experience ourselves as subjects separate from our objects, we will have no alternatives apart of accepting them, experiencing pleasure; rejecting them, experiencing pain; or remaining indifferent toward them, experiencing a neutral sensation. Since these are the only three possible attitudes of apparently separate consciousnesses, and since it is impossible to uninterruptedly maintain an attitude of acceptance, each act of acceptance and therefore each pleasure will become the cause of a later rejection and therefore of a subsequent pain. Thus we are doomed to a self-sustaining alternation of pleasure, pain and neutral sensations—all of which manifest in a dimension characterized by the underlying lack of plenitude that results from the illusion of being at a distance from the now and from the continuum of plenitude that the single, true condition of all entities is. It has been noted that another most important aspect of all-pervading duḥkha is discomfort and uneasiness—which may be produced by negatively judging and thereby rejecting that lack of completeness or plenitude, or by negatively judging and thereby rejecting or the monotony of a situation, etc. In the second case, as soon as we experience monotony, we reject it, giving rise to discomfort and uneasiness, and, conversely, as soon as we experience this discomfort and uneasiness, we tell ourselves that its cause is that we are bored with the monotony in question—in which case we may seek for distractions or pleasures and so on—or that we are facing some other unpleasant situation or object—in which case we do whatever we can in order to change our circumstances. As to the strategy of seeking distractions, we may also resort to it upon becoming aware of the lack, for deep down we know well that we will never succeed in filling our lack with possessions, with the value projected by others, with “physical,” “aesthetic” or “mental” pleasure, and so on—and hence we try to at least elude it together with the disturbances that accompany it (which together make up the “all-pervasive suffering”) by a b c a b c Skt. and Pāḷi samāhita; Tib. mnyam bzhag; Ch. 等引 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, děngyǐn; Wade-Giles, teng -yin ). Pāḷi saṅkhata; Skt. saṃskṛta; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wéi; Wade-Giles, wei ). Pāḷi asaṅkhata; Skt. asaṃskṛta; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu -wei ). 3 3 2 2 103 2 undertaking activities that divert our attention from it (and from all three types of suffering, for that matter). Now, if the distractive activity we engage in is a game, a sport, etc., for it to absorb our attention we will have to believe that we are pursuing the object of the activity rather than the activity itself. As Pascal pointed out, rather than obtaining the hare’s meat, what hunters want is to run after the animal in order to find distraction from their distress; however, in order to pursue it, they have to make themselves believe that what they want is to get the hare itself. Likewise, what gamblers really want is to forget the miseries of saṃsāra by concentrating on the roulette (or the slot machine, or the cards, etc.); however, in order to do so they have to make themselves believe that what they want is to win the prize. And so on. (In fact, if you want to ruin the fun of a hunter, give him or her the hare and tell him or her to stay home; if you want to ruin the fun of a gambler, give him or her the main prize and tell him or her to keep away from the casino. And so on.) Pascal also tells us that people may be eager even to go to war, for the adventure will allow them to escape the monotony of their existence. For example, the feudal lord asks his serfs to prepare for a war expedition. The serfs may be afraid and worried of the dangers of going to war, yet they are so fed up with their everyday life and activities that they happily assume the adventure. Then they experience the suffering of sleeping in the bare earth with all its pebbles, walking all day, being cold and exhausted, facing the fear of battle, having friends killed or wounded, and perhaps being wounded themselves. All the while, they comfort themselves with the memories of their usual peaceful life, of the warmth of their huts, their hot meals, their comparatively comfortable beds, the erotic relations they have with their wives, their spending time with the rest of the family by the fire, and so on. If they don’t die and manage to survive the war and return home, they may be really pleased of having all that they missed during the expedition. However, the next day or the day after that they will no longer enjoy all the things and activities that pleased them on returning home, and will become so bored and miserable that, if the feudal lord asks them to prepare for war and follow him in his new adventure, they will happily leave their everyday existence and undertake the new challenge. Furthermore, if we feel we are inherently Christian, Jew, atheist or Buddhist, we will always be worried about what people may think of Jesus and the Christians, of Jews, of atheists, or of Buddha and the Buddhists—and when what we feel we are is insulted, we will get offended and suffer, and we might even be willing to fight and thus run the risk of suffering blows, pain, bruises, wounds and even death, or to cause any of these damages to our opponent and thereby create negative karmic consequences and probably face jail and/or guilt. Moreover, if we defeat our adversary and yet are not brought to jail and fail to experience guilt, we will remain dissatisfied as well, since we will never be able to convince him that we are right, and he will continue to have a negative opinion of Christians, Jews, atheists or Buddhists. This dynamic is at the root of conflicts between groups, and in particular of wars—which, given the quality and quantity of our present weapons, in the best of cases drastically accelerates the process of self-destruction of our species or, in the worst of cases, might cause the immediate destruction of our species and perhaps of nearly all life on our planet. Thus Juddi Krishnamurti was right when he asserted that, so long as we are this or that (which, as will be shown in the next chapter, in the context of this book means “so long as we feel we are inherently this or that,” which results from hypostasizing a a Pascal (1962). 104 / reifying / valorizing [positively, negatively or neutrally] the concept or idea of being this or that), we are responsible for wars and confrontations between groups, with all their negative—and possibly Apocalyptic—consequences. As shown above, it is quite common to try to fill our lack by trying to get others to appreciate us, engaging in the dialectics of the lover and the beloved described by J.-P. Sartre (1980/1969). However, others who have been victims of customary violence (by parents and/or by peers, etc.), in whom anger predominates over desire, who are rougher and cruder, who feel that wanting to be loved and appreciated is a sign of weakness, or who, having failed to get others to admire and love them, are convinced they cannot get others to appreciate them, may engage in the Hegelian dialectics of the master and the slave — attempting to dominate and subject others to their power, get others to fear them or fawn on them—or in sadomasochism in the Sartrean sense of the term—engaging in relationships in which one of the sides gets the better of the other or treats the other as worthless or despicable, etc. As a rule, a strategy for trying to fill the essential lack that is the motor of saṃsāra is to try to obtain a position of power allowing us to feel privileged in relation to others and to use our privileged status as proof of our pretended happiness and comfort—and, more basically, of our supposedly inherent value. However, all of those who set out to prevail over others through coarse or subtle aggression spend their lives struggling against others to keep their position or conquer a higher one, and since rejection begets pain, whoever takes this path is doomed to again and again experience the hell inherent in the bare experience of aversion (of which pride is a transformation). In general, by concentrating on the objects of our desire, hatred, envy, pride and so on, and by clinging to the habits allowing us to elude awareness of whatever disturbs us, we elude the fully conscious realization of the dissatisfaction, the frustration, the tension, the anxiety, the continuous missing the point and, in short, the suffering inherent in these disturbing emotions. Furthermore, since in order to go on with our normal lives we have to elude the fact that those lives are inherently dissatisfactory, we manage to forget many of the unhappy memories of our past, and to privilege remembrance of our most pleasant moments—so that, as experiments in the 1950s showed, pleasant experiences are more easily remembered than unpleasant ones.” It is solely because of the psychological mechanisms whereby we manage to elude a great deal of the undesirable consequences of delusion, and to remember pleasant experiences and forget a large part of the unpleasant ones experienced in the past, and so on, that in spite of the lack of plenitude and the dissatisfaction that characterizes all our experiences, and despite the recurrent pain and the repeated frustration that we have to face again and again, we succeed in going on with our projects, our activities and our lives. As shown in the discussion of the duḥkha of suffering, when we have experiences that we feel compelled to reject, this rejection makes our sensations painful, and whenever we experience pain, we increase it by rejecting it and wanting to get rid of it, activating a positive feedback loop that causes suffering to autocatalytically increase from its own feedback: to the degree that pain increases, our rejection of it increases, which makes our pain increase proportionally, which causes our rejection to increase. On the other hand, when we have experiences that we are driven to accept, acceptance makes our sensations 154 a b 155 156 157 158 a b Hegel (this English ed. J. Baille trans. 1955). Sartre (1969/1980). 105 pleasurable; however, when we experience pleasure, we are unable to fully enjoy it, for our attempts to fully grasp it and enjoy it to its fullness maintains the subject-object gap that forestalls us from fusing into the pleasure and sustains the lack of plenitude inherent in this gap. Moreover, if the drive to intensify it, or the fear that it will come to an end too soon, come into play, they will give rise to anxiety and avidity, which distract us from the pleasure and may disrupt the acceptance that is the root of pleasure. For their part, neutral sensations are soon interpreted as boredom and, consequently, rejected, causing them to cease to be neutral and become a nuisance. Thus our drives forestall the attainment of the total pleasure we intuit we could attain and we aspire to attain, our rejection of neutral sensations makes them unpleasant, and our rejection of suffering multiplies it. In fact, our lives are like turning wheels, for acceptance makes us ascend—though even when we are high up we face an underlying lack of plenitude and a lingering uneasiness—and then rejection makes us descend: no wonder that Buddhism refers to the existence that is marked by the first two Noble Truths as saṃsāra or “the wheel.” And as noted above, even when we ascend to paradisiac experiences of sensuality, form or formlessness, since there is no way to uninterruptedly continue to accept our experience or remain indifferent to it, they will not last forever—and when rejection manifests we will fall to the bottom of the wheel. Moreover, as shown repeatedly, the lack of plenitude and uneasiness proper to all-pervading duḥkha underlies both pleasant and unpleasant experiences. Among other things, the term karma refers to: (1) intentional and self-conscious action; (2) the propensities such action establishes; and (3) the causes this action creates for ripening future results. Buddhism classifies the karma accumulated in the sphere of sensuality into good, bad and neutral. And it asserts the karma of immobility that is the type of karma that is the cause for birth in the form and formless realms to be the result of absorption in formless conditions (such as the formless absorptions and, in Dzogchen teachings, the neutral condition of the base-of-all) and conditions of form (such as the absorptions in form and, in the Dzogchen teachings, the consciousness of the base-of-all), respectively. So long as an individual cannot go beyond karma, he or she must strive to avoid creating negative karmas, which are those actions that in the present are harmful to others (and may be harmful to oneself as well) and that in the future will give rise to unpleasant experiences in the agent who accumulated them and possibly in others as well. However, by its inherent nature, karma—no matter whether positive, negative or neutral, including that of immobility—produces effects and, as shown repeatedly, whatever is produced / contrived / configured / compounded or conditioned is impermanent and conceals and distorts our unconditioned / unproduced / uncompounded / unmade true condition, sustaining saṃsāra. Therefore, positive karma and karma of immobility, just as much as a b c d e Tib. ’khor ba; Ch. 輪迴 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, lúnhuí; Wade-Giles, lun -hui ) or ⽣死輪迴 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shēngsǐ lúnhuí; Wade-Giles, sheng -ssu lun -hui ). Skt. āninjyakarma; Pāḷi aniñjitakamma; Tib. mi gyo ba’i las; Ch. 不動業 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùdòng yè; WadeGiles, pu -tung yeh ). Pāḷi and Skt. rūpadhātu and ārūpyadhātu, or rūpaloka and Pāḷi arūpaloka; Tib. gzugs [med pa’i] khams; Ch. ⾊界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sèjiè; Wade-Giles, se -chieh ) and 無⾊界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúsèjiè; Wade-Giles, wu -se chieh ). Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). Skt. asaṃskṛta; Pāḷi, asaṅkhata; Tib. du ma byas; Ch. 無爲 asaṃskṛta (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu -wei ). a 2 1 3 2 2 2 b 4 4 4 c 4 4 2 4 d 3 e 2 2 106 2 4 negative and ordinary neutral karma, confirm and maintain the basic human delusion at the root of saṃsāra that Buddhism has the function of uprooting. In fact, by the very nature of spinning wheels, whichever point of the wheel that at some time goes up will have to come down later on; therefore, avoiding bad karmas and producing only good karmas or karma of immobility would not be a definitive solution to our problems, for it will cause us to go up, only to come down again at some point. These problems will be definitively overcome only when our illusion of separate agency and our compounded, conditioned, made and fabricated experience of phenomena as compounded, conditioned and arisen, is finally uprooted through repeated reGnition—i.e. direct realization, free from the subjectobject duality, and from recognition of a collection of characteristics in terms of a concept —(of) the true, uncompounded, unconditioned and unmade nature of ourselves and all phenomena: only thus will we overcome karma itself, putting an end to the spinning of the wheel of saṃsāra. (Westerners may harbor doubts that positive and negative karma are actually the cause of future pleasant and unpleasant experiences, but in a subsequent section of this volume it will be shown that it is possible to prove at least part of the workings of karma.) A person enjoying high status in the realm of sensuality is not truly “better off” than another suffering a low one. It may be very true that poverty-stricken people have a greater quantity of so-called “physical” sufferings than do wealthier people, but it is at least equally true that the latter have a great deal of so-called “mental” ones, for they constantly worry about the results of their financial operations, about the oscillations of the stock exchange, and so on—and, just like everyone else, at any moment they can have an accident or illness and thus have to experience extraordinary levels of so-called “physical” pain as well. And the same applies to beings in the realms of the gods of sensuality, of form or of formlessness: if we ascend to a higher place due to a combination of karma and apparently desirable turns of fortune, when the time comes for the wheel of saṃsāra to turn we will experience a far more vertiginous and pronounced fall—for we will plunge from a higher point in the wheel, possibly to the lowest point. And when we face states of the lower part of the wheel, being unaccustomed to them, we will reject them with greater impetus—which will give rise to the positive feedback loop that makes them ever more unpleasant. This is the reason why Blaise Pascal noted that the existence of the peasant, for example, is less prone to conflict than that of the sovereign: a159 160 161 b c The great and the small have the same accidents, the same sorrows and the same passions; however, the former is on the periphery of the wheel, whereas the latter is more near the center and thus is less agitated by the same movements. Whether we are kings or beggars, good or bad looking, healthy or ill, loved or repudiated by most people, what we do whenever we try to reach plenitude by the usual means is to maintain our lack of plenitude, put ourselves in the hands of others (as we cause our well-being to depend on their capricious judgments about us), and constantly suffer due to the impossibility of obtaining the satisfaction we pursue. I could go on with the Tibetan: khor ba; Ch. 輪迴 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, lúnhuí; Wade-Giles, lun -hui ) or ⽣死輪迴 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shēngsǐ lúnhuí; Wade-Giles, sheng -ssu lun -hui ). Pāḷi and Skt. kāmadhātu or kāmaloka; Tib. dod pa’i khams; Ch. 欲界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yùjiè; Wade-Giles, yü chieh ). Pascal (1962, thought 223). a 2 1 3 2 2 2 b 4 4 c 107 description of the reasons why the normal existence of the individual possessed by the delusion called avidyā or marigpa involves unremitting lack of plenitude, dissatisfaction, discomfort, and recurrent frustration and suffering—in short, duḥkha—but I think that in contexts such as this, brevity could make arguments have a greater impact. What is really essential is that we understand that, so long as the delusion called avidyā persists—which in the context of this explanation is the Second Noble Truth: the cause of duḥkha—we will never reach complete plenitude, absolute value, total pleasure or true happiness, and will face continuous subtle duḥkha and recurrent coarse duḥkha, having no way to put an end to duḥkha. In fact, so long as we remain under the illusion of being substantial entities, separate from the rest of the universe—thus illusorily disrupting the wholeness of our true condition—and hence of being distanced from the plenitude of the continuum that the single nature of all entities, we will be constantly experiencing illusory lack of plenitude, and we will have to repeatedly face objects and situations that elicit rejection. Therefore, duḥkha in all of its forms will be ineluctable. There are many original Buddhist texts that one can consult in order to deepen one’s understanding of the first Noble Truth. In addition, there are Western texts based on Buddhism that consider it in great detail (including Chapter 1 of my book Qué somos y adónde vamos). And even in Western works that make no reference to Buddhism (such as for example Blaise Pascal’s Thoughts and Jean-Paul Sartre’s Being and Nothingness), we can find fine explanations that allow us get a better grasping of the first Noble Truth. 162 108 MAHĀYĀNA VERSION OF THE SECOND NOBLE TRUTH As we have seen, here I am following one of the ways in which the Mahāyāna and other “higher vehicles” explain the cause of duḥkha—namely the one that identifies that cause as being avidyā—which, as shown above, already the Hīnayāna teaching of the chain of interdependent origination acknowledges to be the ultimate cause of the tṛṣṇā or craving which for the Hīnayāna is the cause of duḥkha. In this chapter, I will explain the term on the basis of the various types or aspects of avidyā discussed in two threefold Dzogchen classifications. For these classifications—and indeed for the whole book—to be properly understood, it is mandatory to describe the three main types of thought distinguished by the Dzogchen teachings. These are the following: (A) Coarse thoughts. As I understand the term throughout this book, the paradigmatic coarse thoughts are the ones that both the Dzogchen teachings and the philosopher ācārya Dignāga referred to by the Sanskrit term śabdasāmānya, which in a Dzogchen context I will render here as word sound patterns [resulting from mental syntheses] that convey meanings. These thoughts, which are the ones used in discursive thinking and which therefore could be called “discursive thoughts, ” are models obtained by abstracting the patterns of the sound of words (i.e. divesting the latter of some of the characteristics of an individual’s voice, such as pitch, accent and so on) and by the same token associating them to a referent, whether general (e.g. a class) or particular (e.g. an individual), which then the imagination uses to form inner dialogues that serve as the basis for conveying chains of meaning—which, for their part, beside allowing us to deal with worldly matters, serve for conceiving dharma teachings, reasoning about reality and establishing, proving and refuting theses, determining the truth or falsity of the subtle thoughts that will be defined next, making those subtle thoughts more specific, relating the latter among themselves, etc. And yet when hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized and thus taken to be inherently true or false, these coarse thoughts become sources of delusion. (B) Subtle thoughts. These are what the Dzogchen teachings and philosophers Dignāga and Dharmakīrti referred to by the Sanskrit term arthasāmānya, which in a Dzogchen context a b 163 c 164 d Skt. pratītyasamutpāda; Pāḷi, paticcasamuppāda; Tib. rten ’brel, rten cing ’brel bar or rten cing ’brel bar ’byung ba; Ch. 因緣 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yīnyuán; Wade-Giles, yin -yüan ). For more types of thought distinguished by these teachings, cf. Berzin (2001)—who, however, overlooks the one I render as threefold directional thought-structure (Skt. trimaṇḍala; Tib. ’khor gsum; Ch. 三輪 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn sānlún; Wade-Giles, san -lun ]). Tib. sgra spyi; Ch. 論聲總 (simplified 论声总) (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, lùnshēngzǒng; Wade-Giles, lun -sheng -tsung ). Tib. don spyi; Ch. 總義 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngyì; Wade-Giles, tsung -i ). a 1 2 b 1 2 c 4 d 3 109 4 1 3 I will render here as universal, abstract concepts of entities [resulting from mental syntheses] that convey meanings: these thoughts have the function of providing us with the instantaneous, mute comprehension of the essence of singled-out sensory patterns / configurations / collections of characteristics or of their reproduction by the imagination in the form of mental images, and as noted both in the Dzogchen teachings and in various Western, twentieth century epistemological works, they also recur again and again in the mental dialogues occurring in terms of coarse, discursive thoughts, as crucial elements of understanding. Therefore, they are at the root of knowledge and perception, including, (a) that which rationalist Descartes, empiricist Locke and other Western philosophers referred to as “intuitive knowledge,” but which, contrarily to Descartes’ view, rather than being a source of indubitable truth, when hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized, begets delusion, and (b) that which Locke called “sensitive knowledge,” which H. H. Price and others call “recognition,” etc., and which constitutes the core of sensory perception—but which, contrarily to general belief, rather than being an indubitable truth, when taken to correspond precisely to what it interprets, or confused with the latter, is the source of delusion. In fact, (1) When these thoughts are hypostasized / absolutized / reified / valorized [positively, negatively or neutrally] in perception, thinking and action we understand their referents to be in themselves separate and to be in themselves that which the content of thought established them to be (a beautiful lady, a vase, a jar), there is delusion, for they are not so in themselves; they are so only in terms of the knowledge that establishes them to be so, and from a different perspective or on a different logical type they may be validly established to be something else, and particularly their opposites. (Moreover, Dharmakīrti, source of nearly all of the views of Svātantrika Madhyamikas in what regards logic and epistemology—and who according to some scholars both in Tibet and India was himself a Svātantrika —despite the emphasis he placed on correct logic and on “instrumental / valid cognitions,” made it clear that these thoughts, since they are synthetic mental phenomena / nominalist universals of the kind ācārya Dignāga had called abstracted general configurations / collections of characteristics, which as such are no more than mental constructs and which do not change during cognition, were erroneous, and asserted all human cognitions of relative entities to be deluded, for they involve the error of taking these mental constructs that do not change during cognition for physical, extended, effective/actual, ever-changing sensory patterns / configurations / collections of characteristics —i.e. physical entities—and accounted for this delusion by developing what Tillemans called a theory of unconscious error.) (2) When they are hypostasized as they repeatedly arise in chains of discursive thoughts for establishing and connecting meanings, we experience the coarse thoughts that are their referents as being in themselves true, and the reasonings and conclusions reached thanks to them as being inherently true or false— which is also a delusion, for thoughts may be true from one standpoint or on a certain logical type, yet false from another standpoint or on different logical types: this is why the Buddhas 165 a 166 167 168b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h Skt. lakṣaṇa; Pāḷi lakkhaṇa; Tib. mtshan nyid; Ch. 相 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiāng; Wade-Giles, hsiang ). Sharma (1987). Skt. pramāṇa; Tib. tshad ma; Ch. 量 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, liàng [or liáng]; Wade-Giles, liang [or liang ]). Skt. sāmānyalakṣaṇa; Tib. spyi mtshan; Ch. 共相 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, gòngxiàng; Wade-Giles, kung -hsiang ). Skt. viplava; Tib. bslad pa; Ch. 迷亂 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, míluàn; Wade-Giles, mi -luan ). Skt. bhrānti; Tib. ’phrul; Ch. 亂 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, luàn; Wade-Giles, luan ). Skt. lakṣaṇa; Tib. mtshan nyid; Ch. 相 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiāng; Wade-Giles, hsiang ). Tillemans (1995). 1 4 2 4 2 4 4 1 110 4 do not have views of their own, and yet put forward views for others to uphold —or, in other words, their statements are all of the kind referred to as reasons acknowledged by the opponent only: they are made without taking them to be true, or, which is the same, are made as other-directed assertions. (C) Super-subtle thoughts. Last, the paradigmatic supersubtle thought is the one that conceives and establishes a dualistic, linear, directional threefold structure of experience, and that the Dzogchen and Tantric teachings, and Third Promulgation Sūtras, designate by the Sanskrit term trimaṇḍala, which here I render as threefold directional thoughtstructure. This thought consists in the notion that there is a perceiver, a perception and something perceived; a doer, a doing and an action; a thinker, a thinking and thoughts that are thought; etc. The hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of this thought-structure produces the subject-object duality, and is the pivot of dimensionality. Having clarified the above, it will be easy to understand the explanation of the two threefold Dzogchen classifications of avidyā and their combination in the paragraphs that follow, where (1) indicates the first aspect of avidyā in both classifications; (2) and (3) indicate, respectively, the second and third aspects or types of avidyā in the most widely diffused classification, whereas (2-3)—which combines (2) and (3)—indicates the second type of avidyā in the least-known of the two classifications, which from now on I will call “alternative classification,” and (4) identifies the third aspect or type of avidyā in the alternative classification. (1) The first type of avidyā in both classifications corresponds to the etymology of both the Sanskrit term and its Tibetan translation, marigpa, at least in the context of the Dzogchen teachings to which these classifications of avidyā pertain, for etymologically marigpa is the negation of rigpa, just as avidyā is the negation of vidyā—although, it must be noted, the negative prefix in marigpa is not the one used in normal categorical negation. In fact, the Dzogchen teachings acknowledge that all phenomena manifest by virtue of a nondual Awake self-awareness that is referred to as the nature of mind and that is symbolized by Samantabhadra and Samantabhadri in mystical-erotic union—which is at the root of and is the true condition of all cognitions, samsaric or nirvanic, and of all of the phenomena that manifest through that awareness. In those teachings the term rig pa refers specifically to the disclosure (of) the true condition of the nonconceptual, nondual Awake self-awareness a b c d e 169 f g 170 h i Skt. svamata; Tib. rang lugs. Skt. paramata; Tib. gzhan lugs. Skt. praprasiddhānumāna; Tib. gzhan grags kyi rjes su dpag pa / gzhan la grags pa’i rjes dpag. Tib. gzhan ngo khas len: these are assertions propounding reasonings based on what others and only others take as established (Skt. paraprasiddha; Tib. gzhan grags kyi rjes su dpag pa, etc.) Tib. ’khor gsum; Ch. 三輪 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānlùn; Wade-Giles, san -lun ). Wylie, ma rig pa; Pāḷi: avijjā; Ch. 無明 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúmíng; Wade-Giles, wu -ming ). Wylie, rig pa; Pāḷi vijjā; Ch. 明 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, míng; Wade-Giles, ming ). I am using “nondual Base-awareness” and “nature of mind” to render the same term: Skt. cittatā or citta eva; Tib. semnyi (Wylie, sems nyid). In the Dzogchen teachings, also Skt. bodhicitta; Tib. byang chub sems. Tib. kun bzang dgongs pa: primordial state of Samantabhadra / Samantabhadri. Note that the term gongpa is the honorific for bsam pa, meaning “thought” or “intention,” yet in the Dzogchen teachings it refers to the wisdom mind of Buddhas, or of higher (Skt. ārya; Tib. ’phags pa; Ch. 聖 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shèng; Wade-Giles, sheng ]) bodhisattvas in their Contemplation state (Skt. samāhita; Tib. mnyam bzhag; Ch. 等引 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, děngyǐn; Wade-Giles, teng -yin ]), both of whom are beyond thought and intention in the ordinary sense of the terms. a b c d e 1 4 f 2 g 2 h i 4 3 3 111 2 called nature of mind—which is the awareness through which all phenomena manifest and which is the true condition of all of the phenomena that manifest through it: rigpa (is) nondual Awake self-awareness when nonconceptually and therefore nondually selfreGnized, in such a way as to make this nondual awareness’ own face patent and by the same token remove all that hinders its functionality. These terms also denote the referent of the Tibetan term rang rig in the Dzogchen teachings (of which rigpa may also be seen as an elision), which renders the Skt. terms svasaṃvedana and svasaṃvittiḥ but which in these teachings refers to the sudden disclosure of the Awake awareness that is nonconceptually and therefore nondually aware (of) itself and (of) its own Awake condition. (It is important to emphasize the contrast between the reGnition proper to Dzogchen and that which in general Buddhism is termed recognition, which was explained in endnote 33 to this book: whereas the latter may be defined as the understanding of singled-out sensa in terms of a content of thought—normally of a reified / hypostasized / absolutized / valorized subtle thought that manifests as object due to the reification / hypostatization / valorization of the supersubtle thought that I call threefold directional thought structure —the reGnition in question involves the instantaneous dissolution of all forms of recognition.) Now it can be understood that this aspect or type of avidyā, which here I will call innate beclouding of primordial nondual Awake awareness or, figuratively, unawareness, consists in the concealment of the true condition of the awareness in question, and with it of the true condition of both the individual and all sentient beings and phenomena that are not sentient beings—i.e., of what the Dzogchen teachings call the Base and that above was referred to as Dzogchen-qua-Base—by the element of stupefaction in Tibetan called mongcha, which has always been flowing with the mental continuum of those sentient beings who have never realized the true condition in question, and which is what beclouds the self-reGnition of this condition’s naked “face” —which, as already noted, when it (is) not beclouded, is called rigpa. This means that so long as this type of avidyā or marigpa is a b c171 d 172 e f g h i j k l Skt. niṣprapañca; Tib. spros bral; Ch. 不戲論 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùxìlùn; Wade-Giles, pu -hsi -lun ) or Skt. aprapañca; Tib. spros [pa] med [pa]; Ch. 無戲論 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúxìlùn; Wade-Giles, wu-hsi-lun). In properly Dzogchen terminology, Tib. la bzla ba. For a definition and justification of this term, cf. the section “Terminology and Titles of Eastern Texts.” Tib. rang ngo shes pa. Ch. ⾃證 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìzhèng; Wade-Giles, tzu -cheng ) / ⾃覺 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìjué; Wade-Giles, tzu chüeh ). Skt. saṃjñā; Pāli saññā; Tib. ’du shes; Ch. 想 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiǎng; Wade-Giles, hsiang ). Skt. arthasāmānya; Tib. don spyi; Ch. 總義 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngyì; Wade-Giles, tsung -i ). Modifying a translation devised by Alex Berzin (2001), I render this term as universal, abstract concept of an entity [resulting from a mental synthesis] that conveys a meaning. Skt. trimaṇḍala; Tib. ’khor gsum; Ch. 三輪 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānlùn; Wade-Giles, san -lun ). Tib. rgyu bdag nyid gcig pa’i ma rig pa; cf. Longchenpa, 1976, p. 24, and Cornu, 2001, p. 62. Wylie, rmongs cha. Wylie, rang ngo shes pa. For the reason for inventing the neologisms reGnition, reGnize and so on, see the discussion of the terminology chosen above in the section “Terminology and Titles of Eastern Texts,” and the endnote the reference mark for which is next to the reference mark to this footnote. Tib. gcer mthong. Wylie, rig pa; the term renders the Sanskrit term vidyā, although it is also short for rangrig (Wylie, rang rig; Skt. svasaṃvedana or svasaṃvittiḥ; Ch. ⾃證 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìzhèng; Wade-Giles, tzu -cheng ] / ⾃覺 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìjué; Wade-Giles, tzu -chüeh ]) as understood in the Dzogchen teachings, in which it refers to the patency of the nonconceptual and hence nondual Awake awareness that is the essence or nature of mind as it a 2 4 4 b c d 4 4 4 2 e 3 f 3 g 1 4 4 h i j k l 4 4 2 112 4 manifest, vidyā or rigpa—or which is the same, nonstatic nirvāṇa—in which the selfreGnition in question reveals the true condition of the Base, cannot occur. All that involves this first aspect or type of avidyā technically pertains to saṃsāra, yet the mere arising of this aspect or type of avidyā, in the absence of the other two types or aspects of avidyā, gives rise to a condition of static, passive saṃsāra. For saṃsāra to become active, so that we go up and down in that wheel, avidyā in others of the senses the term has in this classification would have to manifest. When this first type or aspect of avidyā occurs alone, without the other two types or aspects manifesting, there arises the neutral condition of the base-of-all that was briefly discussed in a previous section of this book (which, according to conditions and circumstances may be called “dimension of the base-of-all,” “base-of-all carrying propensities,” etc.), which is nonconceptual and hence nondual, for avidyā has not yet manifested as the illusion of a subject-object chasm or as the illusion of a multiplicity of substances—or as the delusion that consists in taking the chasm and the multiplicity in question as given, self-existent realities. However, this aspect or type of avidyā is certainly not circumscribed to the neutral condition of the base-of-all, for after saṃsāra has become operative as a result of the arising of avidyā in sense (2) and then of avidyā in the other senses discussed here, it continues to be manifest. As already suggested, this type of avidyā is inborn and in beings that have not realized their true condition it has never, ever dissolved; on the other hand, when a superior bodhisattva moves from the absolute truth of the Contemplation state to the state of mitigated, lucid relative truth proper to post-Contemplation, it is the first type of avidyā to occur. Early translators rendered the Tibetan term that, in the classification adopted here, designates this aspect or type of avidyā, as spontaneous illusion. (2) The second type of avidyā in the most widespread threefold Dzogchen classification, which is the first to manifest when operative saṃsāra (as different from the non-operative or passive saṃsāra that consists in the neutral condition of the base-of-all) arises from the neutral condition of the base-of-all, and which in that classification is the second aspect of avidyā, was rendered by early translators as spontaneous illusion. The basic phenomenon of this type of avidyā is the illusory duality of a grasper and a grasped or an apprehender and something apprehended —i.e. the subject-object duality, condition of possibility of 173 a b c d 174 e f 175 g h i j becomes patent and operative in Buddhas and in the Contemplation state (Skt. samāhita; Tib. mnyam bzhag; Ch. 等引 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, děngyǐn; Wade-Giles, teng -yin ]) of superior bodhisattvas, siddhas, etc. Tib. gzhi’i gnas lugs. Tib. kun gzhi lung ma bstan. Tib. kun gzhi khams. Tib. bag chags kyi kun gzhi. Skt. samāhita; Tib. mnyam bzhag; Ch. 等引 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, děngyǐn; Wade-Giles, teng -yin ). Skt. pṛṣṭhalabdha; Tib. rjes thob; Ch. 後得 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, hòudé; Wade-Giles, hou -te ). In the classification adopted here, the Tibetan for this aspect or type of avidyā is lhan cig skyes pa’i ma rig pa. (Cf. Longchenpa, 1975a, p. 51; 1976, pp. 24 and 122 note 10 [the latter from Khandro Yangthik (mKha’ ’gro yang thig), part III, p. 117 of edition used by the translator], and Cornu, 2001, p. 62). cf. Longchenpa, 1975a, p. 51; 1976, pp. 24 and 122 note 10 (the latter from Khandro Yangthik [mKha’ ’gro yang thig], part III, p. 117 of edition used by the translator), and Cornu, 2001, p. 62. The Tibetan for this type or type of avidyā is lhan cig skyes pa’i ma rig pa. Skt. grāhyagrāhakavikalpa; Tib. gzung ba dang ’dzin pa’i rnam par rtog pa; Ch. 所取能取分別 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, suǒqǔ néngqǔ fēnbié; Wade-Giles, so -ch’ü neng -ch’ü fen -pieh ), which gives rise to the duality of grāhaka-grāhya (Tib. gzung ’dzin). Ger. Bedingungen der Möglichkeit; the term is being used in a nonKantian way. 3 3 a b c d e 3 f 4 g h i 3 3 2 j 113 3 1 2 2 3 grasping at objects —which results from hypostasizing / reifying / valorizing the supersubtle thought referred to as threefold directional thought structure. (3) The third aspect or type of avidyā in the most diffused classification is the second type or aspect of avidyā to occur when active saṃsāra arises from the base-of-all. Referred to as imaginative delusion, it involves a fully-fledged illusion of selfhood in the individual and of self-existent plurality in the world, for the subtle concept of an I is superimposed on the illusory subject that is one of the poles of dualistic knowledge and that of a self-existing entity is superimposed on the object that is the other pole of knowledge—giving rise to an overpowering urge to confirm the existence of the I in question and gratify its acquisitiveness by singling out segments of the continuum of what appears as object (which at this stage are wrongly perceived as being self-existing, external entities), having contact with them, and reacting to their presence with different emotional attitudes. In general, this type of avidyā may be reduced to the apparitional-imputational delusion that consists in experiencing a plurality of entities and experiencing these entities in terms of the hypostatized / reified / absolutized / valorized subtle concepts that establish what they are— a delusion which is absent both in (1) and in (2). A more in-depth discussion of senses (2) and (3) in the most widespread classification is provided in the note the reference mark for which stands at the end of this sentence. (2-3) In the alternative threefold Dzogchen classification, the second aspect or type of avidyā, which can only come up on the basis of the unawareness which is the first sense of avidyā in both classifications, and which is the combination of the second and third aspects or types of avidyā in the most widespread classification, may be called mix-up, as it consists in a basic, experiential mix-up that causes us to perceive everything distortedly: awareness, on the one hand, and the host of phenomena that arise through it, on the other, are experienced as being inherently different and separate from each other; the territory of the given, which with the naked eye is analog and is in all respects holistic, is experienced as though it were the digital, fragmentary maps of thought that, because of the essential discrepancy between the former and the latter, are simply unable to match it; the dependent / insubstantial is experienced as independent / substantial / self-existent; the relative is experienced as absolute; the impermanent is experienced as permanent; that which lacks importance and value is experienced as having inherent, positive or negative value and importance (or else as not having any value and importance); that which cannot provide satisfaction is mistakenly experienced as having the power to provide satisfaction; etc. This combination of the second and third aspects or types of avidyā in the most widespread classification is the basic human contradiction, for it makes us perceive everything inversely and thereby generates the dynamic of inverted effect or backward law briefly discussed below in this section on the Second Noble Truth (which I dealt with in greater detail in previous works [Capriles, 1990, 2001]): by the same token it begets lack of plenitude and attempts to attain plenitude that keep plenitude away, suffering and attempts a b176 c 177 d 178 e 179 Tib. phyin ci log par ’dzin pa. Skt. trimaṇḍala; Tib. ’khor gsum; Ch. 三輪 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānlùn; Wade-Giles, san -lun ): lit. threefold maṇḍala or three spheres; for an explanation, see below. cf. Longchenpa, 1976, pp. 24 and 123 note 11, and Cornu, 2001, p. 62. The Tibetan for this aspect or type of avidyā is kun tu brtags pa’i ma rig pa. Skt. vyabhīcāra / vyakūla; Tib. ’phrul pa. Cf. endnote 67. a b 1 c d e 114 4 to stop suffering that perpetuate and exacerbate suffering, yearning for pleasure and attempts to obtain pleasure that keep pleasure away, self-hindering and attempts to attain skillfulness that beget and accentuate self-impediment, evil and strategies for achieving goodness that perpetuate and boost evil, and so on—and, in particular, toward the end of the dark (or black) age 6in which we find ourselves, it gives rise to the project of scientifictechnological dominion over the ecosystem that, in purportedly trying to create an Eden, has taken our human species to the brink of extinction. (4) The fourth aspect of avidyā in this combined classification is the third aspect of avidyā in the alternative threefold classification—which can only come up in people under the power of the unawareness that is the first aspect of avidyā and the mix-up that is sense (23) of avidyā, and which is proper to the condition our civilization refers to as normality— and it may be called meta-mix-up, as it consists in taking the mix-up produced by aspects or types (2) and (3) of avidyā in the most widespread classification, for a perfectly sound perception of an objective, self-existing reality: it results from ignoring the fact that the appearance of dualism and of a self and a multiplicity of entities as ultimately true and important, which arises by virtue of avidyā (2) and (3), is false and baseless. The second and third types of avidyā could not fully manifest without this fourth type, which is the condition for the second and third aspects or types of avidyā to continue to deceive us unchallenged, for if it were not operative, the contradiction inherent in the latter would turn into conflict—which for its part would offer a possibility of altogether eradicating avidyā. In fact, this is why it is said that in order to escape from jail first we have to realize that we are in jail, and why in Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, VI, Vasubandhu, having represented allpervading duḥkha with a hair, said that ordinary human beings are like the palm of the hand, which is insensitive to the hair, whereas superior bodhisattvas have become like the globe of the eye, where the hair stings, compelling them to remove it by removing the avidyā at its root. Since this aspect or type of avidyā has the function of sustaining the contradiction inherent in the combination of avidyā (2) and (3), it may be said to produce a meta-contradiction. The reason why I have consistently left the term avidyā in Sanskrit rather than translating it, is that each of the senses of avidyā is so distinct from the others that it is not possible to refer to all of them by the same English word—and in fact, different words had to be used in the above explanation of its aspects or types. However, the combination of all aspects, which is what in general the Mahāyāna, Vajrayāna and Atiyogatantrayāna understand by avidyā, may be properly rendered as unawareness cum delusion, or even simply as delusion. Though the Greek term lethe literally means forgetfulness and may also convey the sense of “concealment,” so that its etymological meaning seems to express the first of the senses of the term avidyā, I reckon that the Ionian philosopher Heraclitus a b 180 c 181 d 182 e 183 Skt. kaliyuga; Tib. rtsod ldan [gyi dus]; Ch. 爭⾾時 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēngdòu shí; Wade-Giles, cheng -tou shih ). Tib. mi shes pa. Skt. saṁskāraduḥkhatā; Tib.’du byed kyi sdug bsngal; Ch. ⾏苦 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíngkǔ; Wade-Giles, hsing k’u ). The Sanskrit equivalent of this term would be Ādiyogatantrayāna; since the term Atiyogatantrayana is in Oḍḍiyāna language, and the pronunciation and hence the diacritics to be used in the transliteration of its terms are unknown (at least to this writer), I simply skip the diacritical marks. λήθη. a 1 4 2 b c 2 3 d e 115 used the term to refer to the unawareness cum delusion that the Mahāyāna calls avidyā— and hence elsewhere I have used it as a synonym of avidyā as a whole and rendered it as delusion. At any rate, it may be useful to emphasize the fact that so long as the first aspect of avidyā (1) is the only one affecting human experience and the other ones have not become active, the individual remains in the neutral condition of the base-of-all, which involves unawareness of the true condition of ourselves, all sentient beings and all phenomena which are not sentient beings; when, on the top of (1), the combination of (2) and (3) is affecting human experience, saṃsāra is actively functioning; and when (4) is effectively functioning and hence all aspects or types of avidyā are affecting human experience, saṃsāra is not only fully operative, but is also able to function and to persist unchallenged. All types or aspects of avidyā, except for the first (which, as already noted, is the condition of possibility of all other ones), result from charging concepts with an illusion of objective existence, substance or self-existence, truth, importance, etc. In fact, as suggested at the beginning of this book, the mental subject and the perception of sensa as object—i.e. the subject-object duality—that are inherent in operative saṃsāra result from charging the content of the super-subtle thought I am referring to as “threefold directional thoughtstructure” with the illusion of objective existence, substance or self-existence, truth and importance. Likewise, the illusion of objective existence, substance or self-existence, truth and importance of the countless sentient beings and entities that are not sentient beings that we constantly single out and perceive in terms of intuitive thoughts —whether of the kind Kant called concepts of the Understanding, of the kind he called ideas of Reason or of the kind he called judgments of the Capacity of Judgment—depends on charging the content of those thoughts with the illusion of objective existence, substance, self-existence, importance and truth. And the illusion of truth or falsehood of discursive thoughts and the reasonings that are created when these thoughts link, forming chains, depends on charging the content of discursive thoughts with the illusion of truth, importance, independent existence, substance and self-existence. This is what here I am calling hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of thought, which is produced by a vibratory activity that seems to have its seat, or be concentrated, in the center of the chest at the level of the heart. This hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of thought is at the root of the mix-up produced by avidyā (2), (3) and (4), thus being the cause of operative saṃsāra. In fact, when the vibratory activity described above charges thoughts with an illusion of importance, value, objectiveness and truth, it can happen that: (a) we experience their purely imaginary contents as being self-existing entities—as happens when the reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of the supersubtle thought referred to as threefold directional thought-structure gives rise to the experience of there being a mental subject separate and independent from its objects; (b) we confuse them with the territory they interpret and take them to be in themselves separate and to be entities-inthemselves—as occurs with subtle thoughts in sensory perception; or (c) we take them be 184 a b c Skt. trimaṇḍala; Tib. ’khor gsum; Ch. 三輪 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānlùn; Wade-Giles, san -lun ): lit. threefold maṇḍala (Skt.) or three spheres (Tib.); for an explanation, see below. Skt. arthasāmānya; Tib. don spyi; Ch. 總事 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngshì; Wade-Giles, tsung -shih ) or 總義 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngyì; Wade-Giles, tsung -i ). Skt. arthasāmānya; Tib. don spyi; Ch. 總事 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngshì; Wade-Giles, tsung -shih ) or 總義 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngyì; Wade-Giles, tsung -i ). a 1 b 3 4 3 4 c 116 4 3 4 3 4 the absolute truth—or, after instant reflection, something absolutely false—about whatever the thoughts interpret—as happens with coarse thoughts in discursive thinking. When, in experiences of the realm of sensuality, this hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of thought becomes stronger, and hence the sensation in the center of the chest associated with the vibratory function at the root of delusion becomes more conspicuous to an ordinary individual, all while the impulses to act in troubling or unruly ways become more powerful and compelling, it is said that one is being affected by a passion. It is also worth noting that, when the activity in question valorizes / reifies / hypostasizes / valorizes being and existence, it gives rise to the belief in the substantiality and self-existence of all entities; when it valorizes / reifies / hypostasizes / valorizes the negation of being and existence, it gives rise to the denial of karma and its effects, the denial of the need to respect relative reality, etc.—and when these two are developed into systems of beliefs, they give rise to the extreme beliefs of substantialism / eternalism and nihilism / annihilationism, respectively (among which the latter are more detrimental, for people can use it to justify harming others in order to obtain what one sees as their own good). In terms of the Mahāmadhyamaka sub-school of Madhyamaka philosophy, it may be said that the factor of stupefaction at the root of the first type or aspect of avidyā veils or conceals the unmade, uncompounded, unconditioned and unborn true nature of the whole of reality, and that the other two types or aspects of avidyā superimpose a deluded vision / experience on the true, primordial condition that is decidedly made, fabricated, created, induced, contrived, intentional, born, compounded and / or conditioned, so that whatever is fabricated and conditioned becomes the ruling principle of human life. At any rate, it is important to emphasize the fact that the various schools of the Hīnayāna and the Mahāyāna (and the Vajrayāna) entertain very different views concerning what is unmade, uncontrived, uncompounded and unconditioned, and what is fabricated, induced, made, contrived, compounded and conditioned—some of which will turn up in the chapters that follow. It must be noted, however, that on the Path of Renunciation (the Hīnayāna and the Mahāyāna), to which the Four Noble Truths pertain, the Abhidharmapiṭaka—the piṭaka or “basket” containing the teachings that deal with cosmology, psychology, epistemology etc.—uses the terms vidyā and rig pa in the sense of “branch of learning” or “science” (in fact, the pañcavidyā or rig pa’i gnas lnga are the five sciences or five branches of knowledge). Consequently, in the context of that particular piṭaka the terms avidyā and 185 a b c d e 186 f g h i j 187 Pāḷi and Skt. kāmadhātu or kāmaloka; Tib. dod pa’i khams; Ch. 欲界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yùjiè; Wade-Giles, yü chieh ). Skt. vedanā; Pāli vedanā; Tib. tshor ba; Ch. 受 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shòu; Wade-Giles, shou ). In this context, this term is rendered as “mental sensation.” Skt. kleśa; Pāḷi kilesa; Tib. nyon mongs; Ch. 煩腦 (simplified, 煩惱) (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fánnǎo; Wade-Giles, fan -nao ). Skt. samāropa; Tib. sgro btags pa or sgro ’dogs; Ch. 增益 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zēngyì; Wade-Giles, cheng -i ). Skt. apavāda; Tib. skur [pa] ’debs [pa]; Ch. 損減 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sǔnjiǎn; Wade-Giles, sun -chien ). Pāḷi asaṅkhata; Skt. asaṃskṛta; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu -wei ). Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). A more in-depth discussion of some of those conceptions is to be found in Chöphel & Capriles, unpublished 1; Capriles, unpublished 1; Capriles, 2013b—and should I complete it, in the upcoming corrected and improved version of Capriles, electronic publication 2004. Ch. 明 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, míng; Wade-Giles, ming ). Ch. 五明 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wǔmíng; Wade-Giles, wu -ming ). a 4 4 b 4 c 2 3 d 1 e 3 f 2 g 3 h i j 2 3 2 117 4 3 2 2 ma rig pa, composed by a privative prefix and the term vidyā or rig pa, should have roughly the sense the noun “ignorance” has in English. However, this is far removed from the senses the terms have in the exposition of the Four Noble Truths or in any other of the texts that pertain to the Sūtra section—the Sūtrapiṭaka—of the Path of Renunciation or, even more so, from the senses they have in the tantras of the Path of Transformation or the tantras of the Path of Spontaneous Liberation of the Continuity Vehicle of Primordial Discovery of the True Condition. In fact, in all such texts the referent of the terms is a compound of (a) unawareness or ignorance of the true condition of human individuals and all phenomena that are not human beings—the impediment to directly reGnize the true, single condition of all subjects and objects that is the first aspect or type or avidyā in the main Dzogchen classifications, which serves as the basis for the development of the other senses or aspects of avidyā and ma rig pa—and (b) a distorted perception of reality involving the second and third of the senses or aspects of avidyā in the Dzogchen classification given precedence in this book, which makes us experience subjects and objects as intrinsically separate, substantial, inherently existing, absolutely true entities. Since the etymological senses of avidyā and ma rig pa are lack of vidyā or rig pa, since the first sense or type of avidyā or ma rig pa in the Dzogchen teachings is ignorance or unawareness of our true condition (which is also a key element of the sense of avidyā in the Mahāyāna and the Vajrayāna), and since the meaning of avidyā or ma rig pa in the just discussed context of the Abhidharma is that of lack of knowledge, “ignorance” is the most usual translation of the term in translations to Western languages. However, since this translation does not at all express the full meaning of the term in contexts other than that of the Abhidharma, it will be consistently and systematically kept out of this book. In fact, it should be crystal clear by now that the second and third senses of avidyā in Dzogchen teachings are, rather than ignorance, distortions of the true condition of reality. And it should also be crystal clear that in “normal” individuals the unawareness cum delusion called avidyā also involves the inability to realize that one is both unaware (of the true condition of one’s self and all phenomena) and deluded—this being the last of the senses of the term avidyā in the fourfold combined classification expounded above. In order to get a better grasp of the reason why the Mahāyāna often identifies the primary cause of duḥkha and hence the Second Truth as avidyā rather than tṛṣṇā, it must be emphasized that the single true condition of all entities, including both awareness and all its contents (and among the latter also those that, once delusion becomes active, appear to us as object, or as external to us), is an undivided continuum having no empty spaces or gaps that as such may be characterized in terms of completeness and plenitude (as shown below, this is so regardless of whether we conceive this continuum as a physical universe and interpret it in terms of the current theories in physics, whether we imagine the whole of reality as a continuum of “mental stuff,” or whether we refuse to interpret it one way or the other). As noted above, the instant there arises the illusion that a mental subject is at a distance from the undivided continuum in which objects are then singled out, and we feel a b c 188 189 Ch. 無明 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúmíng; Wade-Giles, wu -ming ). The same applies to its Tibetan translation, marigpa (Wylie, ma rig pa). language of Oḍḍiyāna, Atiyogatantrayana (the diacritic signs were omitted, as the precise pronunciation of the language of Oḍḍiyāna is unknown); Skt. Ādiyogatantrayāna; in Tib. Atiyoga is gdod ma’i rnal ’byor; Tantra is rgyud and vehicle is theg pa. a 2 2 b c 118 that we are the mental subject that seems to lie in an internal dimension and seems to be inherently separate from the “physical” external dimension, it appears as though the undivided whole consisting of awareness and its contents had been sundered, and hence the absolute completeness and plenitude of the undivided continuum is disrupted in our experience —as a result of which the consciousness that has the illusory mental subject as its core feels the lack of the completeness and plenitude of that undivided whole. Since this sensation of lack is not only at the root of the lack of plenitude and completeness that makes up the core of all-pervading duḥkha, but is also at the root of the basic craving or thirst that tṛṣṇā is, it is clear that tṛṣṇā and the lack of plenitude and completeness that makes up the core of all-pervading duḥkha arise as a consequence of avidyā in sense (2) of the ones described above (a fact that, as noted in a previous section, was acknowledged in the teaching of the pratītyasamutpāda, in which tṛṣṇā is the eighth link or nidāna and avidyā the first)—whereas, as will be shown below, the discomfort and uneasiness that are the most constant manifestations of the duḥkha of suffering, and the duḥkha of suffering and the duḥkha of change in general, issue from avidyā in sense (2-3)—i.e., from a combination of senses (2) and (3). But on what grounds is it being claimed that all subjects and objects result from the illusory sundering of an undivided substratum that constitutes a continuum and that comprises both our own awareness and the whole of its contents? Quite a few years ago I wrote a book discussing many of the existing and the possible philosophical positions regarding the constitution and nature of all that we experience, on the one hand, and of the one who experiences, on the other. Though it is impossible to consider such a complex matter in a few short paragraphs, I quote below from an extremely condensed paper I left unfinished in order to concentrate on writing the series of books in English of which the present one is part: a b 190 c 191 d e f g (1) Realists and materialists posit the existence of a physical universe, which common sense regards as external to and independent from human perception. Among such people, those who believe that the sciences discover the precise structure and function of reality as a rule take consensually accepted theories in the field of physics to be a faithful description of the reality they interpret. Albert Einstein’s Field Theory pictured the universe as a single energy field: a continuum without interruptions or empty spaces that therefore may be aptly characterized as 192 Wylie, nang dbyings. Wylie, phyi dbyings. Skt. saṁskāra duḥkhatā; Pāḷi saṃkhāra-dukkha; Tib. ’du byed kyi sdug bsngal; Ch. ⾏苦 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíngkǔ; Wade-Giles, hsing -k’u ): one of the three types of duḥkha. Skt. duḥkhaduḥkhatā; Pāḷi dukkhadukkhatā; Tib. sdug bsngal gyi sdug bsngal; Ch. 苦苦 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn kǔkǔ; Wade-Giles k’u -k’u ): another of the three types of duḥkha. Skt. vipariṇāmaduḥkhatā; Pāḷi vipariṇāmadukkha; Tib. ’gyur ba’i sdug bsngal; Ch. 壞苦 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, huàikǔ; Wade-Giles, huai k’u ): the remaining one among the three types of duḥkha. Capriles, Elías, 1986. I plan to further elaborate and refine the said discussion in an upcoming work, which I intend to be more sophisticated and precise than the former. I had begun preparing a paper for the South-American Conference on Philosophy that took place in October 2002 in Caracas, Venezuela, but then I decided that, rather than attending the Conference, I would finish preparing an enlarged, enriched, revised and corrected English translation of Budismo y dzogchén (the enlarged and corrected First Part of which the reader has in his or her hands in the English language), would complete the correction of Capriles, Elías, electronic publication 2007, 3 vols. and would write Capriles, Elías, electronic publication 2004. So I stopped writing the paper, which I was just beginning, but kept this quotation, which seemed to fit here. a b c 2 3 d 3 3 e 4 3 f g 119 absolute plenitude. Later theories, including Super-Unification hypotheses and Recognition Physics—the latter including David Bohm’s Holonomic Theory, etc.—lend even more weight to this vision of the universe as a continuum without inherent or substantial divisions, which being devoid of interruptions or empty spaces is free of multiplicity—a vision that, if correct, would imply that our perception of the cosmos as a multiplicity of substances is an error or delusion. In those who take the discoveries of the sciences to be true, the above conception may serve as an antidote to the belief that material entities are self-existent and substantial; now we must offer them an antidote to the belief that mental phenomena are manifestations of a substance different from the universal energy field. Nineteenth century tanner and Volksphilosoph Joseph Dietzgen (who according to Engels discovered materialistic dialectics independently of Marx), asserted all mental phenomena— including consciousness, the mental subject, dreams, perceptions and so on—to be material. No doubt, mental phenomena have to be made of something, and it would be absurd to think that they consist of something inherently, absolutely other than and separate from the energy field that is viewed as the prima materia of the physical universe, for an absolutely, inherently nonphysical, non-extended substance could not exchange information with the material brain (the dualistic assertion of the supposed existence of two wholly different substances, one mental and the other one physical, which as such would pertain to two substantially different orders of reality, would reintroduce the insurmountable philosophical problem René Descartes faced when he tried to explain how the res cogitans communicated with the res extensa). Since Einstein’s Field Theory asserted the universe to be a single energy field, and post-Einsteinian physics has further developed in this direction, at first sight this could seem to be congruent with current physical theories. At any rate, it is a fact that the realist and the materialist would be far more consistent if they asserted dreams, perceptions and psychic experiences in general, as well as consciousness and the mental subject, to be part of the universal energy field, and thus acknowledge that it is a delusion for the mental subject to feel different and separate from the physical world. However, if there were nothing non-material, the very concept of matter would lose its specific difference or counter-concept —i.e. that in contrast with which it is defined—and thus would become an empty concept: this is the reason why, on the basis of Einsteinian physics, Swiss Empirio-Criticist philosopher Avenarius asserted both the physical and the mental to be made up of a stuff that is neither one nor the other —which is clearly the only really sensible option—and why in the US Alfred North Whitehead put forward a philosophical conception that was intended to do away with the matter-mind divide (also Ernst Haeckel, Avenarius’ elder, had posited a non-idealistic monism, and so had done other thinkers). (2) Extreme idealists claim that there is no physical world external to and independent from human experience, and therefore that all entities are made of the stuff mental experiences are made of. Those who uphold this theory must acknowledge that sensa are a continuum, and that awareness of sensa cannot be at a distance from sensa, for sensa manifest in awareness: there being no reasons for believing the stuff in question to have interruptions or empty spaces, such thinkers are implicitly positing a continuum just like Einstein’s—the only difference being that a 193 194 b c d 195 e Engels (1994). Latin, differentia specifica; roughly equivalent to the Skt. apoha (Tib. sel ba; Ch. 除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chú; Wade-Giles, ch’u ] or 遮除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēchú; Wade-Giles, che -ch’u ]) or, more precisely, anyāpoha (Tib. gzhan sel; Ch. seems to be 他感排除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tā gǎn páichú; Wade-Giles, t’a -kan p’ai -ch’u ]). German, Gegenbegrief; Skt. pratipakṣa; Tib. gnyen po; Ch. 對治 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, duìzhì; Wade-Giles, tui chih ). Carstanjen (2014). Whitehead (1979). a b 2 1 2 1 c 3 2 2 4 4 d e 120 in their view the continuum in question is psychical rather that physical. In fact, if they accepted science, extreme idealists necessarily would have to conclude that Einstein produced his theory on the basis of the study of his own experience, and therefore that it would be the latter that, if Einstein’s methods and conclusions were sound, would constitute a continuum. The conclusion would be the same as in (1): if a view like this one was correct, then the entities that we categorize as “material” would be part of a continuum and would not at all be substantial or self-existent, and the mental subject and other mental phenomena also would be part of that continuum. Therefore, it would be a delusion to perceive physical entities as being self-existent, and it would be equally delusory for the mental subject to feel different and separate from the so-called physical world. Just like the view indicated as (1), the view indicated as (2) asserts what we regard as physical and what we regard as psychical to be made of the same stuff—and since everything would be made of this stuff and thus everything would be this stuff, it would lack a specific difference and a proximate genus. In other words, it would lack a counter-concept that would allow it to be defined in terms of that which the Pramāṇavāda tradition initiated by Dignāga referred to as exclusion of other —and hence it would absurd to call it either “physical” or “mental.” And, in fact, currently, several leading physicists are suggesting that both what is called “physical” and what is called “mental” are manifestations of a basic stuff that may not be said to be either physical or mental. (3) Pyrrhonism, skepticism, critical phenomenalism and phenomenology agree on the imperative to maintain a suspension of judgment (which each of them conceives in its own particular way) regarding the purported existence of an objective world external to and independent from experience (and hence also with regard to the allegedly substantial separation between mind and matter, etc.). This is due to the fact that they have become fully aware that, regardless of whether or not there is a universe external to and independent from human perception, all we can know is our own experience—and, as noted above and as substantiated in the endnote the reference mark for which is at the end of this paragraph, certainly if there is something external to experience, it cannot have any of the characteristics proper to experience—such as form, color, sound and other sensory qualities, or even spatiality. And since it is evident that experience must be made of a single stuff (so to speak), and since it is equally evident that such stuff would have to be a continuum, those who hold views of these kinds should agree that it is a delusion to perceive physical entities as inherently separate and self-existent, and that it would be equally delusory for the mental subject to feel inherently different and separate from the entities that appear to it as object. (4) The Dzogchen teachings assert all phenomena to be manifestations of a continuum of basic energy, which in saṃsāra manifests as two apparently separate dimensions, but in nirvāṇa manifests as a single, continuous, indivisible dimension. In fact, in active saṃsāra, as a result of the arising of the form of manifestation of energy called tsel —a term that in this context may be rendered as projective, apparently substantial energy—one’s “internal” condition (which was 196 a b197 c d 198 e 199 200 f Latin, differentia specifica; roughly equivalent to the Skt. apoha (Tib. sel ba; Ch. 除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chú; Wade-Giles, ch’u ] or 遮除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēchú; Wade-Giles, che -ch’u ]) or, more precisely, anyāpoha (Tib. gzhan sel; Ch. seems to be 他感排除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tā gǎn páichú; Wade-Giles, t’a -kan p’ai -ch’u ]). Latin, genus proximum: the immediately ampler genus that includes the class determined by the specific difference (that which the class excludes within the same genus). German, Gegenbegrief; Skt. pratipakṣa; Tib. gnyen po; Ch. 對治 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, duìzhì; Wade-Giles, tui chih ). Tib. gzhan sel; Ch. 他感排除 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tā gǎn páichú; Wade-Giles, t’a -kan p’ai -ch’u ). Another possibility, though less likely: 他者的遮除 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tāzhědí zhēchú; Wade-Giles, t’a -che -ti che -ch’u ). epoché (εποχή). Wylie, rtsal. a 2 1 2 1 3 2 2 b c 4 4 d 1 3 2 1 e f 121 2 3 2 1 2 originally free from the internal-external divide and which in truth continues to be free from that divide) manifests in a seemingly external way as the creative energy of nonconceptual and as such nondual Awake, undistorted awareness—i.e. of the essence or nature of mind, or rigpa of the Base —and hence the phenomena of the tsel form of manifestation of energy, which include all of what we wrongly experience as a self-existing “physical” world, appear to lie in an external dimension, and to be self-existent (i.e. hypostatically, inherently existent)—whereas in truth they do not exist in this way, for they are baseless appearances. For their part, the phenomena of the form of energy called dang —a term that in this context may be rendered as energy of the sphere of all that is mental—which include all thoughts and all that we regard as “mental phenomena,” and which in themselves are neither internal nor external, in active saṃsāra seem to lie in an internal dimension. Contrariwise, in nirvāṇa the appearance of the existence of two different dimensions, one internal and the other external, simply does not arise. Therefore, in terms of this conception it would be utterly absurd to ask whether one of the three options discussed above is correct and the others are wrong: since both what we experience as internal and what we experience as external are forms of manifestation of a basic energy that in truth is a single continuum, it would be absurd to claim that there is a physical universe of which thought is part, and it would not be totally precise to posit a mental universe of which the apparently physical universe is a projection. Likewise, it would be utterly absurd to posit an inherently existing external world that we may be either capable or incapable of knowing. Even though this Dzogchen way of explaining cannot be demonstrated by logical proof, it is demonstrated by realization. In fact, in nonstatic nirvāṇa we realize that there was always a single continuum of energy, which in saṃsāra manifested as though there were two different dimensions, one internal and the other one external. a b c d e f g h201 Within the single, indivisible cognitive apparatus of deluded beings the teachings of the Abhidharmapiṭaka discern two aspects: mind, which they define as consciousness or awareness of a form, and a series of mental factors or mental events involved in the cognition of that form. With regard to the former, the Abhidharmakośa (a Hīnayāna text by Vasubandhu) declares, “consciousness is a selecting awareness,” and “perception (involves) a process of singling out.” This refers to the occurrences that take place after consciousness, by virtue of the reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of the threefold directional thought structure, comes to experience itself as separate from the rest of the continuum that the single true condition of all entities (is): upon facing the continuum of what appears as object, another apparent split takes place in our experience, i j 202 k l m Tib. cir snang rang yin. Tib. rig pa’i rtsal. Skt. cittatā; Tib. sems nyid. Tib. gzhi’i rig pa. Tib. phyi dbyings, where phyi means external and dbyings means dimension. Tib. ma yin pa’i chos lugs. Wylie, gdangs. Tib. nang dbyings, where nang means internal and ying (Wylie, dbyings) means dimension. Skt. citta; Tib. sems; Ch. ⼼ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xīn; Wade-Giles, hsin ). Note, however, that this Chinese term also renders the Skt. cittatā and citta eva and the Tib. semnyi (Wylie, sems nyid), which are defined in contrast with the Skt. citta and the Tib. sems. Skt. caitta or caitasika; Pāli cetasika; Tib. sems byung; Ch. ⼼所 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xīnsuǒ; Wade-Giles, hsin so ). Guenther & Kawamura (trans. 1975). Ibidem. Skt. trimaṇḍala; Tib. ’khor gsum; Ch. 三輪 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānlùn; Wade-Giles, san -lun ). a b c d e f g h i 1 j 1 3 k l m 1 122 4 whereby the continuum of what appears as object is divided into figure and ground. In fact, our attention circumscribes itself to one segment of the sensory field that we find interesting among those that seem to maintain their configuration and that we are used to associate with one of our concepts, singling it out as figure and taking it as object, while leaving the rest of the field sunk in a sort of penumbra of awareness, whereby it becomes background. Then the mental factor / event called recognition or perception comes into play, causing us to grasp the segment that was singled out in terms of the corresponding concept. (The tendency to single out, within the ever-changing totality of sense-data, segments of this totality that maintain a certain continuity of pattern, is the function of a pre-conceptual interest that in adults is as a rule determined by a concept and that is the precondition for the subsequent application of the concept in question so as to give rise to the recognition / perception of the object. Hence, it is clear that perception is an active process driven by impulses and (pre-)concepts in our own psyche rather than consisting in the passive reception of data [as both Aristotle and Lenin, among other Western thinkers, wrongly believed].) Though the continuum of what appears as object was split by our own mental functions, we fall under the illusion that this split is inherent in a given reality that we take to be self-existent and objective, and thus we think that the figure is a substantial, selfexistent entity, in itself separate from all that was turned into background. And we wrongly take the figure to be inherently and absolutely the mental concept in terms of which we have perceived it—i.e. we believe that the segment we have singled out is inherently, absolutely a dog, a house, this or that human individual, etc. These mistaken appearances are produced by the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of the intuitive thoughts in terms of which we recognize the segments of the sensory field that our mental functions successively single out. We also may recognize qualities in the object, and conclude that the “entity” we face has such or such inherent qualities. According to the qualities that we recognize, it may happen that we come to a positive, negative or neutral judgment—e.g. that the object is good, bad or neutral, or beautiful, ugly or middling, etc.—which in turn will give rise a pleasant, unpleasant of neutral feeling-tone, respectively, by the same token endowing our object with positive, negative or neutral value—which we then believe to be inherent in the object. In fact, as we have seen, so long as we experience ourselves as mental subjects at a distance of our objects, we are doomed to accept them / endow them with positive value, experiencing a fleeting pleasure (for the attitude of acceptance involved embraces the whole of our experience, including the “mental sensation” that in each and every perception arises in the center of the body at the level of the heart, which thereby becomes pleasurable); reject them / endow them with negative value, having an unpleasant feeling (for the same thing happens with rejection); or remain indifferent to them and not endow them with value of either sign, deriving a neutral sensation (also because of the same reason). Whichever the case, the underlying feeling of lack that derives from experiencing ourselves as being at a distance from the plenitude of the undivided continuum of our true nature will mar a b203 204 c d 205 206 207 I.e. subtle thoughts: universal, abstract concepts of entities [resulting from mental syntheses] that convey meanings (Skt. arthasāmānya; Tib. don spyi; Ch. 總義 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngyì; Wade-Giles, tsung -i ]). Skt. saṃjñā; Pāli saññā; Tib. ’du shes; Ch. 想 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiǎng; Wade-Giles, hsiang ). Aristotle, this English ed. 1991. Ulianov (Lenin) (this English ed. 1977). a 3 b 3 c d 123 4 whichever pleasant states arise and worsen whichever unpleasant states manifest—which is compared to a leper who catches the bubonic plague. Furthermore, our judgment of the qualities of our objects will elicit the arousal of the afflictions or passions, the number of which, according to the way in which we divide the continuum, may range between three (in which case they are called the three poisons ) and eighty-four thousand. In fact, we are driven to try to appropriate those objects we deem desirable, or, conversely, to try to keep at bay or destroy those we find annoying or threatening: no wonder that the current exacerbation of avidyā is at the root of all individual, social and intersocial conflicts, and is the deepest cause of ecological crisis. It has been repeatedly noted that the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of the “directional threefold thought structure” illusorily splits the continuum of our awareness and its contents by giving rise to the appearance of there being an experiencer-doer, an experience or action, and an object that is experienced or acted upon. The experiencer-doer is what I have been calling the mental subject, which we regard as the core of our being and which we conceive it as a soul, mind or consciousness—i.e. as an intrinsically separate, autonomous and independent source of perception, thought and action, inherently different from the “material” world and from “other souls, minds or consciousnesses.” However, rather than an intrinsically, absolutely separate, autonomous and independent source of perception, thought and action, and a self-existent receiver of experiences inherently different from latter, from the “material” world and from “other souls or minds,” the subject is no more than an illusion produced by the reification of the thought in question. This is why the crazy wisdom aspect of Padmasambhava, Orgyen Dorje Trolö, asked the great tertön Dudjom Lingpa in a vision he had in a dream: a b c d Hum Hum! Supreme being, Vajra of [Nondual Awake Awareness or] Rigpa Hum Hum! do you understand the common thread of the three realms of saṃsāra Hum Hum! as dualistic grasping at the apprehender and the apprehended? Hum Hum! Do you understand both the object and the [mental] subject Hum Hum! as two thoughts [that are extremes of a single thought-structure]? Furthermore, as emphasized below, the delusion called avidyā involves believing consciousness and intelligence to be functions of this illusory, apparently separate mental subject, rather than being functions of the Gnitive / intelligent aspect of the single nature of all entities, as is in truth the case. e Skt. kleśa; Pāḷi kilesa; Tib. nyon mongs; Ch. 煩惱 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fánnǎo; Wade-Giles, fan -nao ). Skt. triviṣa; Tibetan: dug gsum; Ch. 三毒 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sāndú, Wade-Giles, san -tu ); also called the three unwholesome roots (Skt. akuśalamūla; Pāli akusalamūla; Tib. mi dge ba’i rtsa gsum; Ch. 三不善 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sān bùshàn; Wade-Giles, san pu -shan ]): the three root kleśas, which are (1) bewilderment and mental dullness / obfuscation (Skt. and Pāli moha; Tib. gti mug; Ch. 癡 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chī; Wade-Giles, ch’ih ]); (2) avidity or strong desire (Skt. and Pāli lobha; Tib. chags pa; Ch. 貪 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tān; Wade-Giles, t’an ]) as different from the other two main defilements (rather than as the force behind all defilements); and (3) aversion (Skt. dveṣa; Pāḷi dosa; Tib. zhe sdang; Ch. 瞋 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chēn; Wade-Giles ch’en ]). Wylie, O rgyan rdo rje gro lod. The foolish dharma of an idiot clothed in mud and feathers (Tib. rMongs pa’i blun chos ’dag gos bya spu can), in Dudjom Lingpa (2015, p. 151). The phrase within brackets in the last line is my own addition. “Gnitive” is a neologism obtained by deleting the prefix “co-,” which implies duality in general and in particular the subject-object duality, from the adjective “cognitive.” a 2 b 1 1 4 3 2 4 1 1 1 c d e 124 We have seen that all Buddhist schools (including those of the Hīnayāna that fail to assert the utter absence of a self-nature in phenomena that are not human beings ) denounced as a delusion the belief and feeling that we are hypostatically existing, selfsufficient, substantial selves. Moreover, as higher Buddhist paths, vehicles and schools point out, the nonexistence of the self implies that thinking is not something the mental subject does. In fact, the mental subject, rather than a soul or hypostatically / inherently existing self, is an empty appearance that arises together with its objects by virtue of the stream of creativity that gives rise to all appearances, including thoughts. The root Tantra of Mahāyoga, the Guhyagarbha, reads: 208 209 a Amazing! From the sugatagarbha are emanated one’s own thoughts and actions. Various bodies and enjoyments, places, miseries, and so on, each grasped as “I” and “mine.” Bound by no one, there are no fetters, nor is there anyone who is bound. By grasping at thoughts as oneself, one’s bonds are deliberately tied in space. b And Nyoshul Khenpo, commenting on Jigme Lingpa’s The Lions’ Roar, tells us: c Jigme Lingpa also mentions here the “thinker,” the one who [is supposed to] give rise to thoughts. The “thinker” cannot be grasped by (...) attention as an object of attention. This is because there is no [mental] subject. There isn’t any thinker. d In fact, thought is the unobstructed play and display of the energy aspect of the Base and, in particular, of the dang mode of manifestation of this energy—that which in this book I refer to as “energy of the sphere of all that is mental”—the true condition of which is the dharmakāya (the Buddha-mind), or that which the Dzogchen teachings refer to as transparent, unimpeded primordial gnosis or wisdom. In Tibetan, rölpa means both “play” and “display,” and therefore many of the texts dealing with the practice of Tekchö e f g h i j Lama Chönam & Sangye Khandro (trans. 2011, p. 41). Also in Dudjom Lingpa (2015, Vol. I, p. 89). The Skt. terms tathāgatagarbha and sugatagarbha (Tib. de [bzhin] gshegs [pa’i] snying po; Chin. 如來藏 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, rúláizàng; Wade-Giles, ju-lai-tsang]) refer to the kernel or matrix of Buddhahood, or Buddhanature. Nyosul Khenpo (Wylie, sMyo sul mkhan po) (2015, p. 165). The citation was adapted to the terminology of this book and explanatory phrases were inserted between brackets. Tib. skye mkhan. Tib. rol pa ’gags med, or simply rol pa: play or display. The term “energy” renders the Tibetan thugs rje (lit. soft and noble heart), which is one of the Tibetan terms that render the Skt. karuṇā (the other one being snying rje; Ch. 悲 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bēi; Wade-Giles, pei —lit. sadness or mercy]), usually rendered as compassion. The reason why this term is used is explained in a footnote to the Introduction. Wylie, gdangs. Tib. ye shes zang thal. Wylie, rol pa; Skt. līlā. alternatively, the composite term rol pa ’gags med may be found. Wylie, khregs chod. a b c d e f 1 g h i j 125 (belonging to the Series of Secret oral Instructions ) and many texts of the Series of [Nature of] Mind emphasize the fact that thoughts are actually the play and display of primordial gnosis or wisdom. It must be clear, however, that in these cases the term rölpa does not refer to the self-luminous, immaterial visions of the rölpa mode of manifestation of energy— which here I am calling “visionary, corrective energy”—that manifest in the intermediate state of the true condition of phenomena and in the practices of Thögäl and the Yangthik (or Yangti )—both belonging to the Series of Secret Oral Instructions—and that may also manifest while practicing the Series of Space . In fact, in texts on Tekchö and in texts of the Series of the [Nature of] Mind, it would be a grave error to understand the term rölpa as referring to the rölpa form of energy manifestation that here I am calling visionary, corrective energy, for the self-luminous, immaterial visions of rölpa energy—which will be discussed in greater detail below—do not manifest in either of these two practices. Back to the discussion of the illusory character of that particular thought, or pole of the threefold directional thought-structure, that I am calling the “mental subject,” it may be added that since antiquity some non-Buddhist, Western philosophers denounced the delusion in question. To begin with, the purportedly younger Greek contemporary of Śākyamuni, Heraclitus of Ephesus, wrote: a b c d e f g h i210 …Although the logos [or universal intelligence] is [the single and] common [nature of all intellects], the majority [of human beings] live as if they had a separate and personal intellect [of their own]. Over two thousand two hundred years after Heraclitus, Scottish philosopher David Hume asserted our belief in the substantiality of the “I” to be nothing but an illusion, and explained this illusion in terms of the concept of a “bundle.” A short time after Hume, Georg Cristoph Lichtenberg stated: 211 212 [It would be better to use an impersonal formula and, rather than saying I think,] to say “there is thinking,” just as one says “there is lightening.” For his part, twentieth century Mexican poet Octavio Paz wrote, j213 “…las voces que me piensan al pensarlas. Soy la sombra que arrojan mis palabras…” (“…the voices that think me as I think them; I am the shadow projected by my words…”). Skt. Upadeśavarga; Tib. Menngagde (Wylie, man ngag sde) or Menngagguide (Wylie, man ngag gyi sde). Skt. Cittavarga; Tib. Semdé (Wylie, sems sde). Skt. dharmatāntarābhava (dharmatā antarābhava); Tib. chos nyid bar do. Wylie, thod rgal. Wylie yang thig—where thig is the root of the word thig le. Wylie, yang ti: this is a synonym of Yangthik, which is the term I privilege in this book. Skt. Abhyantaravarga; Tib. Longdé (Wylie, klong sde). Skt. trimaṇḍala; Tib. ’khor gsum; Ch. 三輪 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānlùn; Wade-Giles, san -lun ). Fragment DK 2, Marcovich 23 (cf. Marcovich, 1967, and Marcovich, 1968.) Translation based on Kirk & Raven, with additions and using “intellect” (1966, Spanish 1970). Instead of “particular intellect,” Cappelletti has “particular understanding” (Cappelletti, A. J. 1972; cf. also: Cappelletti, A. J. 1969), whereas Diels gives us “private understanding.” Paz, O. (1978, p. 44). a b c d e f g h 1 i j 126 4 The illusion that we are intrinsically separate, autonomous, independent sources of perception, thought and action, substantially, hypostatically different from the “material world” and from “other souls or minds,” implies a considerable degree of anguish, insofar as our own destiny and the destiny of the individuals and objects that we value can often depend on the decisions that we, as seemingly separate sources of decision and action, have to make again and again throughout our lives—and these decisions may yield well-being or distress, success or failure, and even life or death. Since anguish is painful and distressing, as shown by twentieth-century Existential and Existentialist philosophy, once it arises we have to elude it—which we do through a plethora of means. Moreover, in the long run the evolution of delusion exacerbates the illusion of being at a distance from the “physical world,” yielding antisomatism, which is one of the key attitudes at the root of that which Gregory Bateson called “conscious purpose versus Nature” and therefore of ecological crisis. Moreover, this evolution of delusion also exacerbates the fragmentation of our perception, producing and then exacerbating the systemic ignorance and erroneous perception that in the Udāna of the Pāḷi Canon and the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra of the Mahāyāna the Buddha Śākyamuni illustrated with the parable of the blind men with the elephant that will be discussed below—which is the other cardinal element at the root of ecological crisis. At any rate, Madhyamika philosophers did a good job in refuting the purported inherently separate existence of entities, and the Mahāyāna in general has striven to show that there is no multiplicity of substances. On the basis of their refutations, throughout this book I have used expressions that suggest that phenomena in their totality are a single universal continuum on the basis of which delusory mental activity produces the illusion of substantial multiplicity. However, it was not my intention to lead my readers into the mistaken conclusion that all that exists is a universal substance, or that the true condition of ourselves and all phenomena is a substantial oneness—which would contradict a most basic principle of Buddhism and in particular of Madhyamaka, which is that no concept whatsoever can fit the true condition of reality, and that negation must be nonimplicative / absolute, which means that it should not lead one to cling to the opposite concept. As noted in a previous section, this is the reason why Second Promulgation canonical texts, Madhyamaka philosophy, and even many sūtras of the Pāḷi Canon, negate oneness by the same token as multiplicity, and nonbeing by the same token as being. The point is that the true condition of ourselves and the rest of phenomena cannot fit any concept, positive or negative, for it does not exclude anything whatsoever, whereas, as noted repeatedly, concepts are defined by that which Dignāga called exclusion or exclusion-of-other. Or, in terms of Western epistemology and logic, they are defined by proximate genus —i.e. 214 a b c d 215 e f g Bateson, Gregory (1968; reprinted in Bateson, Gregory, 1972). See Capriles, Elías (electronic publication 2004). Skt. prasajyapratiṣedha; Tib. med dgag. Skt. dharmacakra; Pāli dhammacakka; Tib. chos kyi ’khor lo; Ch. 法輪 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎlún; Wade-Giles, fa -lun ). Skt. apoha; Tib. sel ba; 除 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chú; Wade-Giles, ch’u ) or 遮除 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēchú; WadeGiles, che -ch’u ). Skt. anyāpoha; Tib. gzhan sel; Ch. 他感排除 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tā gǎn páichú; Wade-Giles, t’a -kan p’ai -ch’u ). Latin, genus proximum. a b c d 3 2 e 2 1 2 f 1 g 127 3 2 2 inclusion in the immediately ampler genus—and specific difference —exclusion of all other classes within the same genus. And since that which has no limits and excludes nothing cannot be contained in that which has limits and excludes something, the true condition of our selves and all other phenomena is inconceivable, inexpressible, and unfit to be shown by analogy. In fact, as stated repeatedly throughout this book, concepts are digital and as such discontinuous, whereas the fields of the five senses seem to be continuous. Moreover, the same may seem to apply to the energy field that according to contemporary physics is the universe—for neither a layer of nothingness nor a layer of a substance other than the energyfield separates entities, including quanta and quarks, from the rest of the energy-field (the reason why in previous mentions of the analog-continuous/digital discontinuous discrepancy I referred to sensory fields as continuous yet did not refer in the same way to the purported physical reality that sensa are supposed to be based on, was that I wanted to avoid the problem of quanta that is roughly discussed in the endnote the reference mark for which follows the immediately next closing parenthesis). Therefore, the fields of the five senses are utterly distorted when perceived in terms of concepts. In fact, as noted repeatedly, to realize the true condition of ourselves and the rest of phenomena the filter of super-subtle and subtle thoughts through which perception occurs needs to collapse together with the unawareness of the true condition that is the first sense or aspect of avidyā or marigpa in the Dzogchen teachings, so as to leave room for the nonconceptual and hence nondual primordial gnosis that makes that true condition nakedly patent. This is why a Tantra revealed by Dudjom Lingpa reads: a b c 216 d e Because all of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa is not other than the nature of the ground sugatagarbha, it is free of the extreme of diversity. Because all the phenomena of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa arise distinctly and not merged together, it is free from the extreme of unity. As noted in a previous section and substantiated in endnote 75, neurology claims to have “shown” our sensa (the luminosity that allows us to see, the sonority that allows us to hear, etc.) to be produced by our brains—the Dzogchen teachings would say instead, and far more correctly, “by nondual Awake awareness as the Base of all experience”—and not Latin, differentia specifica; roughly equivalent to the Skt. apoha (Tib. sel ba; 除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chú; WadeGiles, ch’u ] or 遮除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēchú; Wade-Giles, che -ch’u ]) or, more precisely, anyāpoha (Tib. gzhan sel; Ch. seems to be 他感排除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tā gǎn páichú; Wade-Giles, t’a -kan p’ai -ch’u ]). Skt. acintya; Pāli acinteya, acintiya; Tib. bsam yas or bsam gyis mi khyab pa; Ch. 佛學辭彙 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fóxué cíhuì; Wade-Gilles, fo -hsüueh tz’u -hui ). Skt. avācya; Tib. smrar med pa; Ch. 不可说物 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùkěshuō wù; Wade-Gilles, pu -k’e -shuo wu ) / Skt. anabhilāpya; Tib. brjod [du] med [pa]; Ch. 不可說 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùkěshuō; Wade-Gilles, pu -k’e shuo ). Skt. jñāna; Pāḷi, ñaṇa; Tib. ye shes; Ch. 智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhì; Wade-Giles, chih ; Jap. chi). As will be shown below in the regular text, in one of the main senses of the term primordial gnosis is te name given to an event of rigpa. The Awake Vision of Samantabhadra (etc.). Tib. Ka dag rdzogs pa chen po’i klong mdzod zab mo/ ma bcos rdzogs ldan rang byung gi sangs rgyas/ kun tu bzang po’i dgongs pa lag pa’i mthil du brkam nas lhag ger bstan pa/ dgongs brda snyan brgyud chig rdzogs kyi man ngag bka’ rgya ma. In Vol. 17 of Collected works of the emanated great treasures, the secret, profound treasures of Dudjom Lingpa (Thinpu, Bhutan: Kuenzang Wangdue). Translation in Dudjom Lingpa, Vol. I (2015); passage in p. 174. a 2 1 2 1 3 2 2 b 2 2 2 4 c 4 3 1 4 1 d 4 e 128 4 3 to resemble in any way the external reality that both realists and Kantians assume they convey to us. Therefore, they may not be said to be given, if by given we understand that they do not depend on anything other than themselves to appear as they appear. However, from this it does not follow that we are forbidden to emphasize the above noted fact that (at least with the naked eye) our sensory fields are analog and as such continuous (cf. endnote 75), whereas our perception of segments of the continuum of sensation in terms of contents of thought are digital and therefore discontinuous—and that from this it follows that the latter can never correspond precisely to the former, and that whenever we perceive the former in terms of the latter or believe that a description of the former in terms of latter is exact, we are under a gross delusion. The above is the reason why, throughout the Buddhist teachings, the fact that all possible assertions must necessarily be false and hence one must have no views of one’s own has always been emphasized: in the Pāḷi Canon, the Aṭṭhakavagga explicitly makes this point, and the same do many canonical texts and commentaries of the Mahāyāna—a vehicle that places a greatest emphasis on this fact and is most consistent in this regard: in particular, the writings of Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva, founders of Madhyamaka, do this in a most clear way and, among the various subsequent interpretations of Madhyamaka, this is done most especially by the Prāsaṅgika and Mahāmadhyamaka subschools). In particular, the Prāsaṅgikas have emphasized the fact that Awake individuals have no views of their own and that therefore all they teach is solely for others who still cling to views: their statements, rather than being based on something they themselves take as established —i.e., rather than being self-directed —are reasonings based on what the interlocutors take as established and as such are other-directed. Such statements and reasoning may either lead the interlocutors’ conceptual mind to collapse, or lead interlocutors to provisionally adopt a viewpoint that may help them tread the Path that leads to that collapse. Because of the above, Buddhism uses the form of reasoning that the Greeks call tetralemma and that Sanskrit Buddhism calls catuṣkoṭi, which was very likely imported from early Buddhism and which consists in negating four main alternative possibilities regarding a topic (for example, that something is, that it is not, that is both is and is not, and that it neither is nor is not; that something arises from another, that it arises from itself, that it arises from both itself and another, and that it arises from neither itself nor another; etc.). In fact, the type of reasoning in question is used repeatedly in texts of the Pāḷi Canon, even though more elaborate forms of it appear in the Mahāyāna Canon —its most elaborate and sophisticated forms, and most frequent occurrences, being those found in the Madhyamaka a 217 b c d e f g h i j k218 219 220 Kant posited an external reality, yet acknowledged that it did not resemble in any way our experience of it: it was the nondimensional Ding-an-sich or thing-in-itself, which also lacked sensory characteristics. View of one’s own: Skt. svamata; Tib. rang lugs. Fifth book of the Sutta Nipāta subsection of the Khuddaka Nikāya, in the Pāḷi Canon (cf. Beckwith, 2015, p. 37). Skt. svamata; Tib. rang lugs. Skt.. paramata; Tib. gzhan lugs. Skt. svaprasiddha; Tib. rang la grags pa: opposite of Skr. paraprasiddha; Tib. gzhang la grags pa or gzhan grags kyi rjes su dpag pa. Tib. rang rgyud du khas len. Skt. paraprasiddha; Tib. gzhan grags kyi rjes su dpag pa or gzhang la grags pa. Tib. gzhan ngo khas len. τετραλῆμμα. Tib. mu bzhi or mtha’ bzhi; Ch. 四句分別 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sìjù fēnbié; Wade-Giles, ssu -chü fen -pieh ). a b c d e f g h i j k 4 129 4 1 2 School. (The negation of four extreme positions is not intended to be taken as a philosophical position or thesis that reason should adhere to or which should be subjected to logical analysis, but as one of the most effective forms of nonimplicative, absolute negation : the type of negation that does not lead deluded mind to conceive an alternative thesis, but that, contrariwise, can pull the conceptual carpet from under the mind’s feet so that the mind may collapse and the true condition of ourselves and all other phenomena may be unconcealed utterly beyond concepts—and therefore without a subject-object duality and beyond the logic ruling the concatenation of thoughts). a 221 Even though the next few paragraphs will be a little more difficult to read, at this point it is useful to go a little further beyond the Mahāyāna and consider the arising of the delusion called avidyā by combining the concepts of a tradition associated with the Kālacakra Tantra that Tibetan Lama Tarthang Tulku expounded in Time, Space and Knowledge, with the characteristically Dzogchen concept of the Base as our own original condition of Dzogchen—a term that is most often rendered as “Great Perfection” or “Great Completion,” but which, as noted in the note on Methodology and Tips for Reading this Book at the beginning of this volume, and as it will be explained in greater detail in Part II of the book, I think might be more precisely rendered as “total plenitude (or completeness) and perfection.” In fact, our original condition of total plenitude and completeness (Dzogchen) may also be referred to as total space-time-awareness. This does not signify that space, time and awareness are three different and separate aspects of this condition. Rather, the reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of the threefold directional thoughtstructure brings about the illusory rupture of this condition in our experience, giving rise to the subject-object chasm and, by the same token, to the illusion that space and time are “dimensions” inherently separate from one another, and independent from human knowledge—which is henceforth experienced as a property of the separate mental subject. When this happens, the second aspect or type of avidyā in the most widespread classification has become operative, and hence we have a combination of senses one and two of avidyā in that classification. When the absolutization / hypostatization / reification / valorization of those subtle thoughts that here I am calling universal, abstract concepts of entities [resulting from a mental synthesis] which convey meanings gives rise to the third aspect or type of avidyā, we have a fully-fledged case of the illusion denounced by Heraclitus, for one wrongly experiences oneself as a soul or mind (the mental subject) that is experienced as the agent of thought and action and the recipient of perceptions, and as inherently separated, both from other subjects and from the spatial continuum and all the potential objects in it. Then we feel compelled to fill the sense of lack inherent in the second aspect or type of avidyā by the means discussed in the analysis of the First Noble Truth, and in general to confirm our existence and gratify our acquisitiveness by singling out segments of the continuum of what appears as object (which at this stage are wrongly perceived as being self-existing, external entities), having contact with them, and reacting to their presence with different emotional attitudes. As noted above, thus arise the passions b c a b c Skt. prasajyapratiṣedha; Tib. med dgag. Tarthang Tulku, 1977a. Skt. arthasāmānya; Tib. don spyi; Ch. 總義 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngyì; Wade-Giles, tsung -i ). 3 130 4 or afflictions that may lead us to try to appropriate (so to speak) those objects and sentient beings that we deem desirable, or, conversely, to try to keep at bay or destroy those we find annoying or menacing—which is the root of all individual, social and intersocial conflicts, and the deepest cause of ecological crisis. The point is that the second aspect or type of avidyā in the most widespread Dzogchen classification produces an illusory sundering of the indivisible Total Space-TimeAwareness inherent in our original condition of total plenitude and completeness (Dzogchen, when the emphasis is placed on its primordial purity aspect): the nondual awareness or gnosis that is the essence or nature of mind illusorily splits into the two poles of dualistic knowledge, which are the subject and the object. Thus there arises the illusion that there is a mental subject that is in itself separate from the spatial continuum of potential objects and from the temporal continuum that can be properly called nowness: this is the mental subject that, as Heraclitus rightly suggested, we erroneously experience as a separate source of cognition, thought and action. This illusory sundering of our original condition of total completeness and plenitude introduces the illusion of a hiatus, breach or gap: we experience ourselves as though we were at a distance from the absolute plenitude of the continuum in which all entities manifest and that all entities are, giving rise to: (1) the illusion that the spatial dimension is different and separate from the time dimension; (2) the illusion that we are a nonspatial, immaterial, mental, spiritual entity facing an alien spatial, material universe; and (3) the experience of ourselves as being a distance from the absolute completeness and plenitude of the indivisible “now,” thus giving rise to the illusion of finding ourselves in an inapprehensible moment that seems to separate the future from the past, which is inherent in the temporal dimension. As noted in the section on Terminology and Titles of Eastern Texts, Plato rightly remarked that the etymology of the term “present” is “being before,” and in fact the illusory hiatus, break or gap that arises when the illusory fracture of total space-time-awareness occurs, manifests in the temporal plane as the present that artificially separates the future from the past, whereas in the spatial plane it manifests as the illusion of being before (i.e., of facing, of being at a distance from) the “physical” world. This is the reason why I have decided to use the term “present” only when the illusion that one is at a distance both from the Now and from the “physical universe” is manifest. Thus, from a temporal perspective, it may be said that the present is the illusory nothingness or illusory gap constituted by the imaginary instant that illusorily separates the past from the future—an instant that seems to have no duration whatsoever, and that therefore is nothing: it is no more than the illusion of a nothingness, vacuum or lack. On the contrary, the Now is the absolute plenitude and completeness that involves no separation between the past and the future. In fact, if we were to fully realize the Now, ceasing to experience ourselves as though we were at a distance from it, there would be absolute plenitude and completeness—just as is the case, spatially, with the totality of our own true condition (which, in terms of the above “option [1]” may be represented with the single a b c 222 d 223 e 224 Skt. kleśa; Pāḷi kilesa; Tib. nyon mongs; Ch. 煩惱 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fánnǎo; Wade-Giles, fan -nao ). Tib. ka dag; hypothesized Skt. kaśuddha. Skt. advayajñāna; Tib. gnyis su med pa’i ye shes; Ch. 不⼆智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bù’èrzhì; Wade-Giles, pu -erh shih ). (Note that the Chinese is uncertain.) Skt. cittatā or citta eva; Tib. sems nyid. Ancient (politonic) Greek: παρουσία (parousia). a 2 3 b c 4 4 d e 131 4 energy field that, according to Einstein and physics after him, the universe is). In Dzogchen terms, the Now (is) what is called the “fourth time” (in contrast with the three times, which are the future, the present and the past) but which is actually the only time, which is timeless because when it manifests in human experience the division into three times does not manifest—and hence there is a timeless eternity. Contrariwise, the present, being an illusory distance with respect to the Now, is the experience of lack that results from experiencing ourselves as separate from our own condition of total plenitude and completeness. Likewise, from a spatial perspective the illusion of a hiatus or gap corresponds to the “crossing point” of the lines of the three spatial dimensions (“place”)—that is, to the point where there seems to lie the illusory, apparently separate, mental subject. Although this “crossing point” does not occupy any space or time whatsoever, qua reference point it is the conditio sine qua non of spatial perception (Descartes conceived the res cogitans as a soul that did not occupy any space, precisely because he took the illusory mental subject, which does not occupy any space, to be a substantial and immortal soul ). Finally, when considered from a spatiotemporal perspective (i.e., from that of the combination of space and time), the illusion of a hiatus or gap corresponds to the crossing point of the lines of the three spatial dimensions (“place”) and the line of the dimension of time (“moment”) in the experience of any given individual. Although this crossing point does not occupy any space or time whatsoever, qua reference point it is the conditio sine qua non of spatiotemporal perception: it is the center from which the three dimensions of space seem to fan out, and the center that separates the past from the future. The feeling of lack that issues from experiencing ourselves as though we were at a distance from the uninterrupted plenitude of the continuum of total space, as well as from the uninterrupted plenitude of total time manifesting as the Now, is the root of both the lack that is at the core of all-pervading duḥkha / duḥkha of the conditioned, and of tṛṣṇā (craving, avidity and thirst), which consists in the urge to fill up the lack in question and as such involves also the works of the third aspect or type of avidyā, as explained above. And, as also noted above, then we attempt to accomplish the task that tṛṣṇā imposes on us through a plethora of means that prevent us from achieving our goal, for all of them affirm and sustain the illusion that we are intrinsically separate entities that is the very root of the sensation of lack. Paradoxically, it is the basic delusion at the root of tṛṣṇā that gives rise to the compulsion for the mental subject to assert itself as an existent—which is that which the Dzogchen teachings call “self-affirmation” or “self-preoccupation,” —for it is upon experiencing the “crossing point” of the lines of the three spatial dimensions (“place”) and the line of the dimension of time (“moment”), which is nothing at all, as though it were an apparently separate mental subject, and experiencing the object of consciousness as other, that the compulsion for the latter to assert itself as an absolutely true and important entity arises. Then the third aspect or type of avidyā manifests as both the object and the subject are experienced in terms of absolutized / hypostasized / reified / valorized subtle thoughts of the type that I am calling universal, abstract concepts of entities [resulting from a mental synthesis] which convey meanings —upon which the subject’s compulsion to assert itself as an absolutely true and important entity no longer manifests solely in the drive to experience, possess, cling to, struggle against (etc.) an absolutely true and important object, 225 a 226 b 227 Skt. ahaṃkāra; Tib. ngar ’dzin / Skt. ātmagraha; Tib. bdag ’dzin; Ch. 我執 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wǒzhí; WadeGiles, wo -chih ) or 我慢 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wǒmàn; Wade-Giles, wo -man ). Skt. arthasāmānya; Tib. don spyi; Ch. 總義 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngyì; Wade-Giles, tsung -i ). a 3 2 3 b 4 3 132 4 for it also manifests as the drive to be recognized as an ultimately important and valuable individual (an importance and value that according to the relationship between the individual’s propensities and his or her upbringing and personal history may take on a positive or negative sign). Whatever the case, according to the Dzogchen teachings this “self-affirmation” or “self-preoccupation” has a key role in the development of active saṃsāra. a Now, avidyā is the cause, not only of tṛṣṇā and of duḥkha, but of human evil as well. As I have explained in other works and hinted above, basic delusion, which implies believing ourselves to be substantial, intrinsically separate selves or egos, progressively develops as the aeon or cosmic time cycle evolves, and with the passing of time it comes to beget unmitigated selfishness / egotism: an interest in ourselves and lack of concern for others (especially if they are not close to us) that causes us to be ready to harm them in all possible ways in order to obtain what we erroneously believe will lead to our own benefit. It was owing to the generalization of evil as a result of this exacerbation of selfishness / egotism that it became necessary to decree religious, moral and legal norms banning those courses of behavior that are harmful to others. However, this “solution” cannot beget true virtue, for the latter can only arise from the dissolution of selfishness or egotism, which can only come about as a result of the dissolution of our illusion of being substantial selves or egos. In fact, straitjacketing the ego-delusion would be like tying a camel in the desert: when it is free, the animal stays quiet, but when tethered, it ceaselessly pulls and jumps trying to set itself free. Moreover, the attempt to achieve virtue implies that it is not inherent in us, but something external that we must obtain; consequently, it will only keep us at a distance from it. Something worse happens in the case of the drive to destroy evil: since this drive is a manifestation of hatred, which is evil, it reinforces the evil in us, making it doubly evil and perverse. Worse still, when directed against the “sinner” and the “perverse:” b c 228 d “…the worst [acts of] violence are misconstrued as acts of piety.” Consequently, everyone is willing to commit atrocities toward the convict much worse than the ones supposedly committed by the alleged criminal —and may even stone the adulteress to death. In general, we distance ourselves from virtue by trying to possess it and we exacerbate evil by trying to destroy it. In fact, it is the archetype that Jung called the shadow and the dynamic of this shadow described by Gestalt psychology, that lead us to see all that we intuit in ourselves and that we have been made to hate and despise, as the identity of others, and to feel compelled to punish and possibly even destroy the shadow by punishing and possibly even destroying those individuals on whom we project it. (Note, however, that I radically reject Jung’s explanation of the phylogeny of the shadow. ) 229 230 231 Skt. ahaṃkāra; Tib. ngar ’dzin / Skt. ātmagraha; Tib. bdag ’dzin; Ch. 我執 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wǒzhí; WadeGiles, wo -chih ) or 我慢 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wǒmàn; Wade-Giles, wo -man ). Capriles (1994; 2000b; etc.). Skt kalpa; Pāḷi kappa; Tib. bskal pa; Ch. 劫波 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jiébō; Wade-Giles, chieh -po ) or simply 劫 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jié; Wade-Giles chieh ; jap. gō). Ravignant (1972, Spanish 1978). a 3 2 3 4 b c 2 2 d 133 1 Furthermore, the unawareness and delusion called avidyā or marigpa is the root of the self-consciousness that is at the root of the self-interference that hinders all our acts, making them imprecise and imperfect. As expressed in the English rhyme: a The centipede was happy, quite, until the toad for fun or maybe it was out of spite, asked, “Pray, which leg goes after which?” which wrought his mind to such a pitch he lay demented in a ditch forgetting how to run. The self-encumbering that this rhyme expresses is the consequence of the split that characterizes the deluded human psyche, wherein one aspect must control, govern and direct another aspect that is therefore controlled, governed or directed. Someone who by means of intense self-conscious training has developed a skill to a considerable extent and who therefore can let the habit made during her or his training take over, so long as the supersubtle thought called threefold directional thought structure is not hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized, and hence undivided, unhindered awareness is not split into the two poles of knowledge—i.e. into a subject that pays attention and an object of attention—will suffer no impediment whatsoever. However, the instant when undivided awareness illusorily splits into subject and object, and the subject self-consciously reflects on what it deems to be its own actions, appraising, judging and controlling them, the unhindered, masterful, perfect flow of unselfconscious spontaneity of nondual primordial awareness is impeded and spoiled. The ensuing encumbering will particularly spoil one’s performance if, as one carries it out, one continuously gives rise to wavering through constantly judging and trying to correct one’s performance. The point is that, in selfconscious action, at the very moment of acting, consciousness takes as object the entity it perceives as the agent (i.e. the individual who is acting), establishing with it that which Sartre called “a link of being” —whereby the subject momentarily becomes an object, thus interfering with its subjectivity and capacity to act, and in this way spoiling what it views as its performance. Or, more simply: self-control based on an inner split interferes with the perfect yet spontaneous and nondual control inherent in the spontaneous, nondual flow of awareness proper to the state of rigpa. The above is the reason why no gymnast, no matter how she may have perfected her skills, has ever been able to obtain a perfect punctuation—i.e. a 10.0 —in all of the competitions in which she has taken part: Nadia Comăneci obtained that punctuation seven times in the Olympic Games of 1976, and other two gymnasts achieved a perfect performance after that, but neither she nor any other gymnast has been able to repeat it in all occasions. Beginners have to perform again and again with total self-consciousness, for as Gregory Bateson noted, only in this way can they establish a habit. However, they begin to do things well when the habit is so ingrained that the performance will happen automatically while their self-consciousness is temporarily suspended—and thus it can 232 b 233 c d a b c d In Watts (1956). Sartre (1980/1969). Until 2006, 10 was the score indicating a perfect performance with no perceivable error whatsoever. The Logical Categories of Learning and Communication, in Bateson (1971). 134 approach perfection. However, it is always possible that doubt will creep in, causing a wavering that taints the performance: the thought of disappointing the trainer and the population of their country, a doubt as to the performer’s capacity, etc., may cause selfconsciousness to arise and taint the performance. Gymnasts, dancers, artisans, plastic artists and in general members of all professions that depend on the body’s performance, may temporarily “let go” and carry out their activity masterfully, yet so long as they are under the power of avidyā and, consequently, find themselves inwardly split, they are prone to suffer impediment due to the controlling subject trying to direct, control and correct their artistic or sportive performance as they carry it out, and thus impeding the spontaneous creative flow of the true, single nature of all entities. Therefore, not only happiness, but also consummate performance in arts, crafts, sports, practical matters and everyday life, is hindered by the delusion called avidyā. A delusion is a distorted perception of reality. Someone who, being deluded with regard to the direction of cardinal points, tries to go north, at a given moment could as well discover that she or he is going south. As we have seen, this happens all the time in our daily lives, as so often our attempts to get pleasure result in pain, the actions whereby we intend to achieve happiness give rise to unhappiness, what we do obtain security produces insecurity, and so on. In fact, the essential human delusion called avidyā produces an inverted dynamic that often causes us to achieve with our actions the very opposite of what we intend to accomplish—which Émile Coué de la Châtaigneraie called the “reverse law” and which later on Alan Watts referred to as “law of inverted effect” or “reverse law”. The great Dzogchen Master Vimalamitra provided us with an excellent example of this law in the Three Sections of the Letters of the Five Spaces, where he noted that all the happiness of saṃsāra, even if it momentarily appears as such, is in reality only suffering, maturing in the same way as the effects of eating an appetizing but poisonous fruit: again and again the appetizing aspect of the fruits of saṃsāra beguile us into gobbling them, and yet we fail to learn from the ensuing stomachaches. In The Precious Vase: Instructions on the Base of Santi Maha Samgha, Chögyal Namkhai Norbu explains the examples with which the mahāsiddha Sarahapāda illustrated this law: a b 234 c d Not knowing what to accept and what to reject, even though we crave happiness we obtain only sorrow, like a moth that, attracted by a flame, dives into it and is burnt alive; or like a bee that, due to its attachment to nectar, sucks a flower and cannot disengage from it, dying trapped inside; or like a deer killed by hunters while it listens to the sound of the flute; like fish that, attached to the taste of the food on the fisherman’s hook, die on the hot sand; like an elephant that, craving e f g h i Brooks (1922). Watts (1951). Vimalamitra / Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo (’Jam dbyangs mKhyen brtse' dbang po), Tibetan Text 2, p. 6, 6. Quoted in Namkhai Norbu (1999/2001, p. 41). Namkhai Norbu (1999/2001, p. 44). The citation is from the Thun mong gi sngon ’gro sems sbyong rnam pa bdun gyi don khrid thar pa’i them skas zhes bya ba by ’Jigs med gling pa (published by Ngag dbang bzod pa, Delhi 1973; the text is on instructions on the practice of the seven mind trainings.) The moth represents the sense of sight. The bee represents the sense of smell. The deer represents the sense of hearing. The fish represents the sense of taste. The elephant represents the sense of touch. a b c d e f g h i 135 contact with something cool, goes into a muddy pool and dies because it cannot get out. In fact the Treasury of the Dohās (Do ha mdzod) says: “Observe the deeds of the fish, the moth, the elephant, the bee and the deer, [each of which brings about its own suffering through attachment to objects of one of the five senses]! […]” From the Three Sections of the Letters of the Five Spaces (op. 3: p. 7, 1): a “There is no end to all the various secondary causes, just like following the mirage of a spring of water.” In fact all the beings that transmigrate through the power of karma, whether they are born in the higher or lower states, are in fact beguiled and dominated by the diverse secondary causes so whichever actions they perform become a cause of suffering. They are never content with what they do and there is nothing on which they can really rely... It is this dynamic that is at the root of the current ecological crisis: by trying, like the architects of Babel, to reach Heaven by building a material structure (which in this case consists in the whole of modern science and technology), we have given rise to a hell on earth and have come to the edge of the abyss of our own extinction. In fact, the most upright and regardful scientists on the planet have warned that, if current trends of human action on the biosphere are maintained, ecological crisis will very likely put an end to life on our planet, or at least disrupt human society—most likely during the current century. Our way of life sacrifices future generations in their entirety and countless members of present generations in exchange for an apparent comfort that only a bunch of “privileged ones” can attain, but that does not provide even this bunch with any degree of genuine happiness. Like all other members of our technological civilization, those who live in opulence and/or wield power are always beset by dissatisfaction, anxiety and neurosis, and have no access to the nonconceptual unveiling of the nondual Flow of our true nature that makes life truly Meaningful. In terms of Pascal’s simile, those who live in opulence and wield power lie at the top of the realm of sensuality in the wheel of saṃsāra, spinning near the outermost point of the section of the wheel occupied by the realm in question—this being the reason why, when the wheel’s turnings bring them up, they lie near the very top of that realm. However, since they lie near the outermost extreme of the realm in question, they will be made to fall far more precipitously by the wheel’s turnings—and, when they reach the bottom, they will find themselves very near the wheel’s lowest place. The project of Modernity is a product of the exacerbation of the unawareness cum delusion called avidyā, for the exacerbation of what Gestalt philosophy and psychology call the figure-ground mind causes us to perceive the figure singled out by our perception as though it were in itself separate, disconnected and isolated from what we perceive as background or environment, giving rise to an extreme perceptual fragmentation resulting in a lack of overall understanding of a universe that, in itself, is an indivisible continuum in 235 236 b Klong lnga’i yi ge dum bu gsum pa (Man ngag thams cad kyi rgyal po klong lnga’i yi ge dum bu gsum pa), a teaching transmitted by Vimalamitra to lCe btsun Sen ge dbang phyug (XI c.) and rediscovered as a gter ma by ’Jam dbyangs mkhyen brtse’i dbang po (1820-1892). Published by Dam chos smon lam, Delhi 1975. (The root text of the lCe btsun snying thig.) Pascal (1962). a b 136 which all parts we may single out are intricately interconnected and hence mutually interdependent. In fact, according to the Udāna (third book of the Khuddaka Nikāya in the Pāḷi Canon that contains the First Promulgation sermons, basis of the Hīnayāna), the Prajñāpāramitāsūtras (Second Promulgation), many Third Promulgation canonic texts, the philosophy of Nāgārjuna and many other of the great Mahāyāna Masters, and most of the Vajrayāna and Dzogchen Ati, this grave lack of holistic, overall understanding of the indivisible universal continuum and network of interdependences is a central aspect of the basic human delusion called avidyā. K. Venkata Ramanan paraphrases the explanation that the Prajñāpāramitāśāstra, which the Chinese attribute to Nāgārjuna, gives of this key aspect of delusion (Venkata Ramanan, 1966, pp. 107-108): 237 We select from out of the presented only the aspects of our interest and neglect the rest; to the rest that is neglected we become first indifferent and then blind; in our blindness, we claim completeness for the aspects we have selected. We seize them as absolute, we cling to them as complete truth... While the intellectual analysis of the presented content into its different aspects is conducive to and necessary for a comprehensive understanding, analysis is miscarried if the fragmentary This fragmentation and lack of overall understanding may be illustrated with the fable of the six blind men and the elephant told in the Udāna, third book of the Khuddaka Nikāya in the Pāḷi Canon, basis of Hīnayāna Buddhism: the one who held the elephant’s head asserted the object to be like a pot; the one who held the ear claimed that it was like a winnowing fan; etc.: each of them held so firmly to his partial view, taking it to be an accurate, absolute view of totality, that they could not come to an agreement as to the nature of the object they faced. Roughly the same parable is told in the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra, pertaining to the Sanskrit Canon of Mahāyāna Buddhism, as follows: a b The king assembled many blind men and, [making them face] an elephant, commanded, “Describe [this object’s] particular characteristics.” Those among them who felt the elephant’s nose said that [the object] resembled an iron hook. Those who felt the eyes said that [it] resembled bowls. Those who felt the ears said [it] resembled winnowing baskets. Those who felt the back said it resembled a sedan chair, and those who felt the tail said it resembled a string. Indeed, though [their description responded to the parts of the] elephant [they touched], they were lacking in overall understanding... In a modified version of this story popularized by Ṣūfī poets in Islamic countries, the conclusions as to what the animal was were adapted to the local civilization: the one who took hold of its trunk said it was a hose; the one who seized its ear thought it was a fan; the one who put his hand on its back decided it was a throne; the one who clasped its leg concluded it was a pillar... To this we add one element Tathāgatagarbhasūtra version of the fable and say that the man who placed his hand on the eye took it to be a bowl, and then incorporate two new elements into the story and say that the one who grabbed a tusk c P.T.S. (pp. 66-68); Ramanan (1966, pp. 49-50; reference in note 138 to Ch. I, p. 344). Tibetan Text 3, quoted in Dudjom Rinpoche (English 1991, vol. I, p. 295). The parts in parentheses are those I modified in order to make the text more comprehensible in the context in which it is being used. . ‫ﺻﻮِﻓﻲ‬ ُ a b c 137 took it for a giant iron hook, and the one who grasped its tail threw it away in terror, believing it to be a snake. The gradual exacerbation of avidyā—the essential human delusion—as time goes on, by carrying to its logical extreme our sensation of being entities inherently separate and independent from the rest of nature, together with our fragmentary perception of the universe as though it were the sum of intrinsically separate, self-existent and unconnected entities, has made us more deluded than the men with the elephant, as well as extremely noxious. In the last several centuries, in particular, it produced the project of modernity, based on the myth of progress, which led us to develop and implement the technological project aimed at destroying the parts of the world that annoyed us and to appropriate those that pleased us, which has seriously impaired the functionality of the global ecosystem of which we are parts and on which our survival as a species depends. A noted Western author illustrated this by saying that our incapacity to grasp the unity of the coin of life has led us to develop and apply powerful corrosives in order to destroy the side that we deemed undesirable—death, illness, pain, troubles, etc.—and protect the side we deemed desirable—life, health, pleasure, comfort, etc.… And pointed that these corrosives, by boring a hole through the coin, now are on the verge of destroying the side we were intent on preserving. In order to illustrate the narrow and fragmentary state of consciousness inherent in avidyā that an oral tradition associated with the Kālacakratantra calls “small space-timeknowledge,” which is concomitant with the condition of fully fledged avidyā / delusion proper to “normality” and with a quite low energetic volume determining the scope of awareness, following the late Kyabjé Dungse Thinle Norbu we could modify a Daoist (Taoist) and Buddhist story and use as an example a frog that, having been confined all its life to the water at the bottom of a well, believed the sky to be a small blue circle, and that— like the ones in the story told by Dza Patrul Rinpoche, the Chinese proverb and Chapter 17 of the Zhuāngzǐ —could not accept the existence of the ocean. Gregory Bateson rightly noted that when this type of consciousness perceives an arch, it does not realize it to be part of a circuit; as the well-known proverb puts it, we simply cannot see the forest for the trees. Consequently, when we feel that an arch bothers us, we aim our technological weapons against it, destroying the circuit of which the arch is a part: trying to burn the tree in front of us, we set fire to the forest, thus causing our own destruction. In fact, according to the cyclical theory of human evolution and history Buddhist Tantrism and Dzogchen share with other systems of thought, Eastern as well as GrecoRoman, the delusion called avidyā, and with it the fragmentary perception that prevents the coming into function of systemic wisdom, has been developing progressively since time 238 239 a240 b c d e241 f Cf. Tarthang Tulku (1977a). Tib. thig le; Skt. bindu. Note that the meaning of thigle when used in this sense is roughly akin to that of the Skt. kuṇḍalinī. sKyabs rje gDung sras Phrin las Nor bu rin po che. Personal communication. Wylie, bSod rgyal rin po che (in Sogyal Rinpoché, 1995). 莊⼦ ; Wade-Giles, Chuang Tzu. In Chuang Tzu (1968, pp. 107-8). The Chinese, Korean and Japanese proverb goes: “The frog in the well knows nothing of the great ocean” (井底之蛙, 不知⼤海). The Watson translation of the chapter is in the Web at the URL http://www.terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu1.html#17. Gregory Bateson (1972). a b c d e f 138 immemorial. In the primordial Golden Age, Era of Truth or Age of Perfection the true nature of ourselves and the whole universe was fully evident a great deal of the time, and while it was, the behavior of human beings was the spontaneous, selfless flow of that nature, which as such impartially accomplished the benefit of all—and when the nature in question was concealed, like a drawer from which a fine perfume has just been removed, the fragrance of that nature still made those beings naturally accomplish the benefit of all. However, with the passing of time the progressive development of basic human delusion made the true condition of all entities more and more veiled, even though initially the veil would easily draw itself at the time of sacred rituals and festivals. And then at some point humankind as a whole lost the capacity to shed the veil even at the time of sacred rituals and festivals—as a result of which deluded, selfish action came to prevail, and our species progressively turned ever more ignorant and wicked. It was no other than this what Lǎozǐ expressed in a noted chapter of the Dàodéjīng: 242 a b c d When the dào is lost, we still have its virtue; when its virtue is lost, we have humane attitudes; having lost humanity, we develop righteousness; having lost righteousness, [only] propriety and ritual remain. e243 This progressive development of delusion impelled the process of degeneration that followed its course one era after another, producing the process described by Lǎozǐ until, at the end of the Iron Age, Era of Darkness or Dark Age, in which we presently find ourselves, it gave rise to the myth of progress and the modern project of creating a techno-scientific Eden, which gave rise to the ecological crisis that has taken us to the brink of our own extinction—making it evident that the state of mind at the root of the project was marred by delusion. In this way, the delusion called avidyā, which as noted above has been developing during the entire aeon or cosmic time cycle, completed its experiential reductio ad absurdum, showing itself for what it is and proving unviable; therefore, now we have the opportunity to eradicate it as a species and thus to recover the systemic wisdom and basic virtue it impeded. Only if we succeed in so doing will we have real possibilities of avoiding extinction as a species and, by the same token, entering a new era of plenitude and fulfillment—which shows that E. F. Schumacher was right when he stated: f g 244 h Skt. satyayuga; Tib. bden ldan; ⿈⾦時代 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, huángjīn shídài; Wade-Giles, huang -chin shih tai ). Skt. kṛtayuga; Tib. rdzogs ldan; 圆满時 (abridged 圆满时) (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yuánmǎn shí; Wade-Giles, yüan man shih ). ⽼⼦; Wade-Giles, Lao-tzu. 道德經; Wade-Giles, Tao-te-ching. 德 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dé; Wade-Giles, te ). Skt. kaliyuga; Tib. rtsod ldan [gyi dus]; Ch. 爭⾾時 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēngdòu shí; Wade-Giles, cheng -tou shih ). Skt. kalpa; Pāḷi kappa; Tib. bskal pa; Ch. 劫波 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jiébō; Wade-Giles, chieh -po ) or simply 劫 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jié; Wade-Giles chieh ; Jap. gō). However, in terms of Hinduism, we may be talking of subcycle, of the kind referred to as mahāyuga, of which there are 1000 in a kalpa and 71 in a manvantara (Manuantara). Schumacher, E. F. (1973). a 2 1 2 4 b 2 3 3 c d e 2 f 1 2 g 2 2 h 139 1 4 We can say today that man is far too clever to be able to survive without wisdom. No one is really working for peace unless he is working primarily for the restoration of wisdom. No doubt, the recovery of easy, widespread access to the nonconceptual, nondual primordial gnosis that makes the true condition of ourselves and all phenomena patent (in that which Buddhism refers to as Contemplation ), and the maintenance with responsible awareness of the ensuing systemic wisdom when this primordial gnosis is concealed (i.e. in that which Buddhism calls post-Contemplation ), are necessary conditions for the survival of humankind. In fact, if these conditions were met on a sufficiently large scale, not only would our species survive, but it would recover a condition roughly like the one that prevailed in the so-called Golden Age, Era of Truth or Age of Perfection —which, the Kālacakratantra predicts, would characterize the upcoming, final millennium of our species. So that the relevance of Buddhism to the present predicament of humankind and its function in making the survival of our species beyond the current century possible and the possible ushering in of a new age of plenitude, harmony and collaboration may be fully appreciated, I find it fitting to explain the ecological crisis in terms of the Four Noble Truths: (1) The ecological crisis is so grave that, if everything goes on as it is currently going, initially human society would be disrupted, at a later stage our species would most likely be annihilated, and finally most if not all species could become extinct on this planet—likely within the current century. Meanwhile, the economy and, what is worse, our very means of subsistence would be disrupted, natural disasters would occur far more often and be much graver, our existence would become ever more miserable, and an increasing number of human beings would be incapable of adapting to the social and biological environment—which would give rise to generalized despair and suffering, and extremely high levels of stress, neurosis and psychosis, as well as of serious illnesses and suicides. (2) There is a primary cause of the ecological crisis, which is the exacerbation of avidyā and in particular two by-products of this exacerbation: (i) the intensification of our sense of inherent separation from the rest of the ecosystem—which has increased so much as to have become a sense of being in opposition with regard to it—and from other human beings—which has increased to the degree at which we perceive most human beings as rivals to dominate or tools to use and exploit—and the consequent exacerbation of selfishness; and (ii) the exacerbation of the perceptual fragmentation that the Buddha Śākyamuni illustrated with the tale of the men with the elephant. When we feel inherently separate from and opposed to the rest of the human species, sooner or later we give rise to the religious, social, economic, racial and ideological divisions, within as well as among a b c 245 d e Skt. samāhita; Tib. mnyam bzhag; Ch. 等引 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, děngyǐn; Wade-Giles, teng -yin ). Skt. saṃprajanya; Tib. shes bzhin; Ch. 正知 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhèngzhī; Wade-Giles, cheng -chih ). The dualistic presence (or mindfulness) of sensible conscientiousness / responsible awareness, so that the latter is not lost because of distraction, is smṛtisaṃprajanya (Pāḷi satisampajañña; Tib. dran pa dang shes bzhin; Ch. 正念慧 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhèngniànhuì; Wade-Giles, cheng -nien -hui ]). Skt. pṛṣṭhalabdha; Tib. rjes thob; Ch. 後得 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, hòudé; Wade-Giles, hou -te ). Skt. satyayuga; Tib. bden ldan; Ch. ⿈⾦時代 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, huángjīn shídài; Wade-Giles, huang -chin shih -tai ). Skt. kṛtayuga; Tib. rdzogs ldan; 圆满時 (abridged 圆满时) (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yuánmǎn shí; Wade-Giles, yüan man shih ). a 3 b 3 4 4 c 4 4 4 d 1 2 2 2 1 4 e 2 3 3 140 societies, which are at the root of injustices and conflicts. If we feel inherently separate from the rest of the ecosystem, being unaware of our ecological interdependence, we are likely to wish to destroy the aspects of nature that disturb us and appropriate those we believe will endow us with comfort, pleasure and security—and hence we give rise to the technological project that has destroyed the systems on which life depends. (3) There is a solution to the ecological crisis, which lies in the eradication of its primary cause—the basic human delusion called avidyā—and of its secondary causes—the technological project of domination and exploitation of nature and of other human beings, the consumerism that this project brought about, and the deep underlying political, economic and social inequality. (4) The Buddhist Path (among those of other genuine Awakening traditions) can eradicate the causes of ecological crisis and restore an era of communitarian, harmonious social organization based on the systemic wisdom that frees us from the urge to obtain ever more manipulative knowledge, and allows us to use the knowledge we already have in ways beneficial to the biosphere as a whole, and to all beings without distinctions. All of this shows that fully developed avidyā, as a delusion, is not milder than the ones that mainstream psychiatrists have described as a result of the observation of their psychotic patients. Madhyamika-Prāsaṅgika Master Candrakīrti recounted the fable of a king that consulted a famous astrologer, who predicted that a rainfall of “maddening water” would contaminate all water sources, reservoirs and tanks in his kingdom, driving insane all of those who drank the water. The king warned his ministers and subjects, so that everyone would prepare a protected supply of water and thus could avoid drinking the deranging water. However, the subjects, being less wealthy, built smaller reservoirs and thus exhausted their reserves more rapidly, and therefore at some point had to drink contaminated water. Since the king and the ministers did not behave like the subjects who had drunk the maddening water, the latter concluded that they had become insane. When the ministers finished up their reserves, which were bigger than the subjects’ yet quite smaller than the king’s, they also had to drink the deranging water—upon which the rest of the subjects “realized” that the ministers were back to normal, and that the only one still insane was the king. Since now both the people and his ministers coincided that the king was insane, in order to keep his kingdom and to avoid being impeached and put into an asylum, the king had no option but to drink the contaminated water—upon which all human beings in the kingdom once again perceived everyone else as being sane. In the same way, seventeenth century French thinker Blaise Pascal likened what we call “normality” unto a psychological disorder. And ex-Frankfurt philosopher, social psychologist and transpersonal forerunner Erich Fromm suggested that our societies as a whole are way far from sanity: a 246 247 248 Just as there is a folie à deux there is a folie à millions. The fact that millions of people share the same vices does not make these vices virtues, the fact that they share so many errors does not make the errors to be truths, and the fact that millions of people share the same form of mental pathology does not make these people sane. Candrakīrti (Chandrakirti), Bodhisattvayogācāracatuḥśatakaṭīkā III.22. (Tib. dbU ma bzhi brgya pa’i ’grel pa, or Byang chub sems dpa’i rnal ’byor spyod pa gzhi brgya pa’i rgya cher ’grel pa): a Commentary to the Catuḥśataka by Āryadeva (Tib. bZhi brgya pa). Cf. Gendün Chöphel (dGe ’dun chos ’phel), dbU ma’i zab gdad snying por dril ba’i legs bshad klu sgrub dgongs rgyan. In Chöphel & Capriles (unpublished). This story of crazy water is also told in Trungpa (1976). Besides, it is widely used in Sufism; cf. Shah (this ed. 1991). a 141 Back to Candrakīrti, although he expressed his idea in terms of a parable, the underlying criterion for distinguishing between sanity and insanity was whether or not there was delusion, and if there was, to what degree was it manifest: absolute sanity would consist in the absence of delusion; relative sanity in a significant watering down of delusion; and insanity in complete delusion. The criterion is not so different from that of Alfred Korzybski, for it lends itself to a conception of insanity as delusion and sanity as right, undeluded awareness, rather than circumscribing insanity to that which psychiatry diagnoses as psychosis. In fact, according to Korzybski there is sanity when there is a structural fit between our reactions to the world and what is actually going on in the world, and insanity when there is no such fit—which may seem to roughly correspond to the criterion of pramāṇa in Dharmakīrti, whose criterion was expressed by Dunne as follows (words in brackets are my own additions): a 249 b c d Dharmakīrti’s notion of a cognition’s instrumentality (pramāṇa, also rendered as validity ) rests on the cognition’s trustworthiness or reliability, and that trustworthiness is largely constituted by one’s accomplishment of a goal through the knowledge supplied by that cognition. e Dharmakīrti’s criterion, however, is based on immediate effects rather than longterm effects, which are most often those that contradict the agent’s intentions—this being the reason why he could take cognitions to be instrumental or valid. In fact, our actions are often instrumental to our most immediate aims: the first times we apply a pesticide we may manage to exterminate most of the mosquitoes in a swamp, and only in the long run, after its repeated application, do we realize that our drinking water has become polluted, that anura and other species have been exterminated, that the poison has ran through the food chain and accumulated on the animals we feed on, that mosquitoes have developed resistance to the poison, etc. Aware of Hume’s law (cf. the endnote the reference mark for which is appended at the end of this paragraph) and of the accumulated objections to the purported absolute validity of scientific knowledge of scores of subsequent epistemologists, in order to validate the sciences, A. J. Ayer devised the criterion according to which “We are entitled to have faith in our procedure just so long as it does the work it is designed to do—that is, enables us to predict future experience, and so to control our environment” (a criterion with which, in his criticism of metaphysics in the pejorative sense of the term, M. Johnston coincided). However, Ayer overlooked the law of reverse effect proper to our ordinary f g h Korzybski (1973). Tib. tshad ma; Ch. 量 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, liàng [or liáng]; Wade-Giles, liang [or liang ]). John Dunne (2004) renders this term as instrumentality; however, Ernst Steinkellner (throughout his works; for example, 1994) and most other translators translate it as validity. Philosopher, epistemologist and logician in the Mahāyāna Buddhist Pramāṇavāda tradition founded by Ācārya Dignāga, of whom he was an indirect disciple. Most doxographers view these two philosophers as Cittamātrins, yet some have found very good reasons to class them as Svātantrika-Yogācāra-Madhyamikas. Dunne (2004, p. 246). The words within parentheses are my own clarification. Cf. Capriles (1994, 2007, 2012, 2013c). Ayer (1952, p. 50). Johnston (1993). a b 4 c d e f g h 142 2 condition, for in trying to control our environment with the declared aim of creating an artificial Eden and kill death and pain, the sciences and the technology based on them, rather than achieving their declared aim, have produced a hellish chaos and taken us to the brink of our extinction—and, moreover, at no moment did they foresee this outcome. Hence Ayer’s criterion, and by implication Korzybski’s and Dharmakīrti’s, rather than validating, invalidates the sciences as well as the technology they allowed us to develop (which as Marcuse noted, are inseparable aspects of the same intent)—and, more amply, the reliability of all purportedly valid / instrumental means of knowledge. Korzybski differs from Prāsaṅgika, however, in that the latter does not assume the existence of the inherently existent particular phenomena that would be indispensable for something to be actually going on in the world. Moreover, in Korzybski’s view, the sciences could achieve the structural fit defining sanity, for in terms of his renowned map-territory analogy, the map is not the territory but, when correct, it has a structure similar to that of the territory that allows it to be useful in dealing with the latter. However, as repeatedly noted throughout this book, the maps of thought are digital and therefore discontinuous (they pertain to that which Freud called secondary process) as well as fragmentary, whereas the sensory territory—at least with the naked eye—is analog and as such continuous, as well as holistic in nature; therefore, it is impossible for the former to correspond precisely to the latter. In various works I illustrated the impossibility of our digital maps to correspond precisely to the analog territory they interpret with a series of examples; here suffice to mention the mismatch between a digital photograph and the analog reality it is intended to replicate: though the mismatch may be imperceptible when the number of dpi is very high, if we zoom in repeatedly, we will see a combination of colored squares bearing no resemblance with the continuous reality photographed. Since the digital, discontinuous, lineal and fragmentary cannot in any way match what is analog, continuous, holistic and intricately interconnected, when we believe that our perception in terms of the contents of thought corresponds precisely to the sensory territory, we are under a gross delusion. And, besides, only truly sane scientists could produce really useful sciences and derived technologies. So long as space-time-awareness is not total, there is delusion, which is the only valid criterion for diagnosing insanity, and which implies the consequences that derive from a distorted or inverted perception of reality: a greater or lesser degree of men-with-theelephant effect, of frog-in-the-well effect, of self-impeded centipede effect, and so on. a 250 b 251 a b Marcuse (1965). Freud (trans. J. Strachey, 1954). 143 MAHĀYĀNA VERSION OF THE THIRD NOBLE TRUTH As we have seen, in the Canon Pāḷi and in the whole of the Hīnayāna the Third Noble Truth is nirvāṇa, whereas in the Mahāyāna Canon and in all higher vehicles it consists in Buddhahood—i.e. in the irreversible establishment of nonstatic nirvāṇa. According to canonical texts of the First Promulgation and to the Theravāda and Vātsīputrīya schools of the Hīnayāna, nirvāṇa alone is unproduced, uncreated, nonfabricated, uncontrived, unintentional, uncompounded and unconditioned, for all samsaric phenomena are produced, and/or created, and/or fabricated, and/or contrived, and/or intentional, and/or compounded, and/or conditioned. The Sarvāstivādins, which also pertain to the Hīnayāna, for their part hold that all that is produced, and/or created, and/or fabricated, and/or contrived, and/or intentional, and/or compounded, and/or conditioned, exhibits the four characteristics listed in most of their Abhidharma texts, including Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, as being common to all that pertains to the category we are concerned with: arising / birth; subsistence / maturation; decay / senescence; and impermanence—the latter referring in this context to disintegration / death. However, this list was produced because the Sarvāstivādins needed to explain how those factors that the school asserted to subsist through past, present, and future, nonetheless seemed to undergo change. The general Buddhist explanation is different from that of the Sarvāstivādins: namely that all that originates from the conjunction of causes and conditions, or from interdependent arisings, is produced, and/or created, and/or fabricated, and/or contrived, and/or intentional, and/or compounded, and/or conditioned—and hence impermanent. And since all that arises does so as the result of the conjunction of causes and conditions, or of interdependent arisings, it should be a b c d e f g h252 i Skt. apratiṣṭhitanirvāṇa; Tib. mi gnas pa’i myang ’das; Ch. 無住涅槃 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúzhù nièpán; Wade-Giles, wu -chu nieh -p’an ). Skt. asaṃskṛta; Pāḷi asaṅkhata; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無爲 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu wei ). Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). Skt. saṃskṛtalakṣaṇa / caturlakṣaṇa; Tib ’du byas kyi mtshan nyid bzhi; Ch. 四相 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sìxiāng; Wade-Giles, ssu -hsiang ). Skt. and Pāḷi jāti[ḥ]; Tib. skye ba; Ch. ⽣ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shēng; Wade-Giles, sheng ). Skt. sthiti; Pāḷi ṭhiti; Tib. gnas pa; Ch. 住 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhù; Wade-Giles, chu ). Skt. and Pāḷi jarā; Tib. rga ba; Ch. ⽼ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, lǎo; Wade-Giles, lao ). “Senescence” is the process of aging with the decay it entails. Skt. anityatā; Pāḷi anicca; Tib. mi rtag pa; Ch. 無常 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúcháng; Wade-Giles wu -ch’ang ): the condition of being impermanent (Skt. anitya). Same as preceding footnote. a 2 4 4 2 b 2 2 c 3 2 d 4 1 e 1 f 4 g 3 h 2 i 145 2 evident that all that arises pertains to the category of the produced, and/or created, and/or fabricated, and/or contrived, and/or intentional, and/or compounded, and/or conditioned. And, in fact, it is logically evident that all that has a beginning necessarily must have an end. The paradox is that according to the Hīnayāna in general, nirvāṇa arises at some point—which contradictorily and absurdly implies that, like the whole of the phenomena of saṃsāra, nirvāṇa and the metaphenomena of nirvāṇa must be arisen, and/or produced, and/or created, and/or fabricated, and/or contrived, and/or intentional, and/or compounded, and/or conditioned—which for its part would imply that they are impermanent and therefore subject to suffering. As noted in a previous section, none of the Buddhist teachings was taught as the Buddha’s own view: all of them were taught as views for others to uphold —or, in other words, as reasons acknowledged by the opponent only (for the one who makes them does not take them to be true) or other-directed assertions. This, however, does not mean that all Buddhist teachings are equally valid, for some texts express meanings that are provisional with regard to those in texts that are asserted to be of definitive meaning with regard to the former. And according to the Mahāyānasūtras the texts of the First Promulgation were all of provisional meaning, for they were intended to help beings of lower capacity assimilate those among the principles of the Buddha dharma that, rather than scaring them away from it, would allow them to establish a positive relationship with it. (The categories of provisional and definitive meaning are applied to canonical sources only; the teachings of schools are classified simply into lower and higher. Hence the schools of the Sanskrit Hīnayāna that posit several types of unmade, unconditioned, uncompounded or uncontrived phenomena, as well as the Cittamātra School of the Mahāyāna, which does the same, because their teachings are addressed to beings of lower capacity, are “lower” schools—even though all Mahāyāna schools, including the Cittamātra, are much “higher” than all Hīnayāna schools.) However, the Buddhist teachings as a rule claim that saṃsāra has no beginning yet has an end, whereas nirvāṇa has a beginning but no end. This seems contradictory, and in order to understand why it is not so it is mandatory to resort to the teachings of higher vehicles and paths, beginning, from lower to higher, with the Tathāgatagarbha doctrine of the homonymous sūtras and related commentaries; then going a step higher with the doctrines of the vajra vehicles; and reaching the peak with those of Dzogchen Atiyoga. In fact, contradicting the views of the First Promulgation canonical texts and the Hīnayāna with regard to the produced, and/or compounded, and/or conditioned, and/or contrived, and the unconditioned, uncompounded, uncontrived and unmade, the Tathāgatagarbhasūtras and related commentaries assert all entities of both saṃsāra and nirvāṇa to share a single nature—namely the unmade, uncompounded, unborn, unconditioned, unproduced and uncontrived Awake Buddha-nature. However, in the 253 254 a b c d e f 255 256 Skt. svamata; Tib. rang lugs. Skt. paramata; Tib. gzhan lugs. Skt. praprasiddhānumāna; Tib. gzhan grags kyi rjes su dpag pa or gzhan la grags pa’i rjes dpag. Tib. gzhan ngo khas len: these are assertions propounding reasonings based on what others and only others take as established (Skt. paraprasiddha; Tib. gzhan grags kyi rjes su dpag pa, etc.) Skt. neyārtha; Tib. drang don; Ch. 不了義 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùliǎoyì; Wade-Giles, pu -liao -i ). Skt. nītārtha; Tib. nges don; Ch. 了義 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, liǎoyì; Wade-Giles, liao -i ). a b c d e 4 f 3 146 4 3 4 sūtras and commentaries in question a doctrine of Buddha-nature as potency is mixed with the doctrine of the Buddha-nature as act. For example, in the most acclaimed of all such commentaries—namely the Ratnagotravibhāga or Uttaratantraśāstra —one of the examples illustrating the Awake Buddha-nature is that of the sun that has never ceased shining (meaning that the Buddha-nature is always actual Buddhahood) yet is temporally covered by clouds—where the latter stand for our delusive obstructions and karmic propensities, and in particular for the hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized contents of thought that in saṃsāra conceal and obstruct the Buddha-nature, which is not produced by causes and conditions and therefore is not impermanent. Moreover, the rūpakāya (i.e. the nirmāṇakāya plus the saṃbhogakāya) is said to be immanent in the dharmakāya rather than having to be produced by completing the collection of merits, as stated by many Mahāyāna sources. However, others of the examples clearly imply that Buddhahood arises from causes and conditions, which for its part implies that the Buddha-nature is not actual Buddhahood—one of these representing the Buddha-nature with a seed and the attainment of Buddhahood with the fruit of a tree. And if Buddhahood were to arise from causes and conditions then it would be produced, and/or created, and/or fabricated, and/or contrived, and/or intentional, and/or compounded, and/or conditioned—and therefore impermanent and subject to suffering. (Note that among the philosophical interpretations of these scriptures, the soundest is Mahāmadhyamaka’s—at least if this term is understood in the way I do in a recent work and a probable future one, in which the absence of substances other than the true condition of ourselves and the whole of reality posited by this school is not taken to imply that the condition in question is existent or, far less, hypostatically / inherently existent. The reason why this is so is probably that rather than being based solely on Mahāyāna sources it is also based on Vajrayāna texts.) Also the Vajra vehicles in general agree that the produced, and/or created, and/or fabricated, and/or contrived, and/or intentional, and/or compounded, and/or conditioned, rather than being the sensory basis of our experience (which could be said to be given in a sense discussed in a previous section of this book), is the experience of phenomena proper to saṃsāra, which is conditioned by the avidyā that both conceals and distorts the true, common nature of all phenomena of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, of all subjects and all objects, and in general of all experiences. In fact, they refer to the true, unproduced, uncreated, non-fabricated, uncontrived, unintentional, uncompounded and unconditioned condition of both saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, as the Vajra-nature, in which according to these vehicles all of the aspects of Buddhahood and qualities of nirvāṇa are a b c d e 257 f Tib. rGyud bla ma; Skt. title in full: Ratnagotravibhāgamahāyānauttaratantra. According to Tibetan sources, the root verses are by Maitreya[nātha] (Tib. Byams pa [mgon po] and the commentary by Asaṅga; according to Chinese sources, both texts are by Sthiramati. Skt. āvaraṇa; Tib. sgrib pa; Ch. 遮障 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēzhàng; Wade-Giles, che -chang ). Skt. vāsanā Tib. bag chags; Ch. 氣習 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, qìxí; Wade-Giles, ch’i -hsi ) or 習氣 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíqì; Wade-Giles, hsi -ch’i ). Skt. puṇya; Pāḷi puñña; Tib. bsod nams; Ch. 福 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fú; Wade-Giles, fu ). Capriles (unpublished 1), in Chöphel & Capriles (unpublished), and the upcoming revised and corrected, definitive edition in print of Capriles (2004), should it be prepared and published. Skt. asaṃskṛta; Pāḷi asaṅkhata; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無爲 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu wei ). a b 1 c 4 2 4 2 4 d 2 e f 2 2 147 inherent —thus fitting the example of the sun that is covered by the clouds rather than that of the seed, the tree and the fruit. In fact, it is because nonstatic nirvāṇa is the reGnition and unhindered, masterful functioning (of) the unproduced, uncreated, nonfabricated, uncontrived, unintentional, uncompounded, unconditioned, unborn true condition of everything, which has been manifest and actual since beginningless time independently of its being concealed and hindered in saṃsāra or its being evident and unhindered in nirvāṇa, that when nonstatic nirvāṇa consolidates in a definitive and irreversible manner—i.e., when it is what the Mahāyāna calls unsurpassable, complete Awakening —it offers a true, definitive, irreversible solution to the distressful cycle that is saṃsāra. Hence the Tantric conception of the Vajra-nature is clearly superior to that of the Buddha-nature as explained in the Tathāgatagarbhasūtras and the related commentaries. As to the outer Tantric vehicles (Kriyātantra, Ubhayatantra / Cāryatantra and Yogatantra), based on the principle of outer purification, the deity is deemed to be the manifestation, on the relative plane, of the absolute nature of the dharmakāya beyond birth and cessation, and so the relative is a manifestation of the unproduced, uncreated, non-fabricated, uncontrived, unintentional, uncompounded and unconditioned nature and the very basis of the Path, rather than being merely an impure, conditioned vision to be overcome. However, their method is based on the principle of purification, which undeniably implies the nature in question to be tainted and in need of purification when in saṃsāra. This is evidenced by their practices, which involve consuming only so-called “white” foodstuffs (thus avoiding many substances deemed impure), bathing and changing closes several times a day, and so on—which, by the way, also reinforces the illusory dualisms of self and other, of pure and impure, etc. For their part, inner yet middling Tantric vehicles based on the principle of transformation (in the ancient or Nyingma tradition, Mahāyogatantra; in the Newer or Sarma traditions, Anuttarayogatantra) deem our vision to be impure and teach us to artificially transform it into pure vision, and require that the passions be transformed into the facets of primordial gnosis that they originally are—thus implying that in order to attain Awakening it is imperative to change the natural way of manifesting of the Vajranature. Moreover, they require that great efforts be made on the Path in order to reach the Fruit, thus implying our actionless and effortless, self-perfect, spontaneous condition of total completeness / plenitude and perfection (i.e. of Dzogchen) to be attained through effort and hence involving a discontinuity as well as an incongruity between the nature of the Path and that of the Fruit. And if there is no continuity—or, worse still, is there is an incongruity—between Base, Path and Fruit, then there is no Tantra—i.e. there is no 258 a b c d e Skt. asaṃskṛta; Pāḷi asaṅkhata; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無爲 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu wei ). Pāli and Skt. ajāta; Tib. ma skyes or skyes med. Nāgārjuna used mainly the term unorigination (Skt. anutpāda [synonym of anutpatti]; Tib. ma skyes pa; Ch. 無⽣ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúshēng; Wade-Giles, wu sheng ). Skt. apratiṣṭhitanirvāṇa; Tib. mi gnas pa’i myang ’das; Ch. 無住涅槃 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúzhù nièpán; Wade-Giles, wu -chu nieh -p’an ). Skt. anuttarāsamyaksaṃbodhi; Tib. yang dag par yongs su rdzogs pa’i byang chub; Ch. 阿耨多罗三藐三 菩提 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, ānòuduōluó sānmiǎo sānpútí; Wade-Giles, a -nou -to -luo san -miao san -p’u -t’i ). Ubhayatantra is this vehicle’s Skt. name in the ancient or rNying ma system, whereas Cāryatantra is its Skt. name in the Newer or gSar ma schools. a 2 2 b 2 1 c 2 4 4 2 d 1 e 148 4 1 2 1 3 1 2 2 continuity —and the Fruit is something that newly arises. And this for its part implies that the Fruit is produced, and/or created, and/or fabricated, and/or contrived, and/or intentional, and/or compounded, and/or conditioned), and therefore impermanent and subject to suffering. Finally, the highest Tantric vehicle of transformation in the ancient or Nyingma tradition, which is called Anuyogatantra, conceives the Buddha-nature exactly in the same way as the teachings of Dzogchen Atiyoga, which as will be shown in due time distinguish two or three aspects in it—which, when two of them are distinguished, are primordial purity, which is emptiness, and spontaneous perfection, the latter of which implies that all is naturally perfect as it (is) and also that involves perfect spontaneous processes, including those of self-correction or self-rectification that will be considered below. It is asserted that the methods of this vehicle, like Dzogchen Atiyoga, make use of the spontaneous perfection / spontaneous arising / spontaneous rectification / spontaneous accomplishment aspect of the Base, and that this is the reason why visualization is applied in an instantaneous way. However, also in this case there is the idea that one’s vision is impure and that it must be artificially transformed into pure vision, and that the passions are impure and must be artificially transformed into the facets of primordial gnosis that they originally are—which implies that in order to attain Awakening it is imperative to change Vajra-nature’s natural way of manifesting. Moreover, its methods are based on action rather than on the principle of spontaneous perfection works in Dzogchen Atiyoga, which is that of actionless systemic activities, and the Fruit is viewed as the result of a cause. And this involves a problem similar to that of the middling Tantric vehicles: they imply our actionless, effortless, self-perfect, spontaneous condition of total completeness / plenitude and perfection (i.e. of Dzogchen) to be attained by action, which introduces a discontinuity as well as an incongruity between the nature of the Path and that of the Fruit. And, once more, if there is no continuity—or, worse still, is there is an incongruity—between Base, Path and Fruit, then there is no Tantra—i.e. there is no continuity—and the Fruit must be something that newly arises and that therefore must be produced, and/or created, and/or fabricated, and/or contrived, and/or intentional, and/or compounded, and/or conditioned —thus being impermanent and subject to suffering. The above is no more than a brief summary of the views of the main Buddhist vehicles, which will be reviewed in some detail in the discussion of the Fourth Noble Truth, where it will be shown that Dzogchen Atiyoga is based on a perfect awareness that the Buddha-nature qua Base and qua Path, and not only qua Fruit—(is) actual Buddhahood; that this vehicle warns that the latter cannot be made to manifest as the a b c d e f The Skt. term Tantra means “woof.” However, its Tibetan translation is rgyud, which is the term for the woolen threads used for stringing Buddhist rosaries, making carpets and so on, and which has the sense of “continuity.” Moreover, both the Skt. and Tib. terms imply the sense of the Skt. word prabandha, which refers to luminosity, and hence Tantra is a “continuity of luminosity.” For its part, the best-known Chinese is ⺫次 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, mùcì; Wade-Giles, mu -tz’u ); according to the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism (López & Buswell, 2014), the Ch. is 檀特羅 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tántèluó; Wade-Giles, t’an -t’e -luo ). Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). Tib. ka dag; hypothesized Skt. kaśuddha. Tib. lhun grub; Skt. nirābogha or anābogha. Tib. lhun grub; Skt. nirābogha or anābogha. Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). a 4 4 2 b 4 2 3 2 c d e f 3 149 2 Fruit by means of purification, transformation, effort or action, in which case it would be produced, and/or created, and/or fabricated, and/or contrived, and/or intentional, and/or compounded, and/or conditioned. In fact, only Dzogchen Atiyoga achieves the Fruit of Buddhahood by means that at no point involve purification, transformation or action, for all of its methods are based on the principle of spontaneous perfection / spontaneous arising / spontaneous rectification / spontaneous accomplishment that is free from action: spontaneous systemic activities are activated that lead the hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized contents of the main three types of thought to selfliberate each and every time they arise, the instant they arise, until all propensities for them to arise are neutralized or burned out and hence saṃsāra arises no more. Likewise, in this vehicle and path the general Buddhist principle according to which saṃsāra has no beginning but has an end, whereas nirvāṇa has a beginning but no end, is shown not to be a contradiction: the Base (is) the Buddha-nature that (is) our true condition and that since beginningless time has been in the condition of nonstatic nirvāṇa, yet since beginningless time it has been concealed by temporary, delusive obstructions and karmic propensities. It is then that there is a need for a Path, which in Dzogchen lies simply in the spontaneous liberation into rigpa of the hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized contents of the main three types of thought, which progressively neutralizes all delusive obstructions and karmic propensities, so that in the long run they disappear—upon which saṃsāra ceases and the Fruit is attained. However, saṃsāra never existed, as all phenomena of saṃsāra are illusory and the Base has always been in a condition of nonstatic nirvāṇa; therefore, the cessation of saṃsāra happens only illusorily and by no means in truth—yet it is stated in a for-others way (i.e. as others’ view, or as reasons acknowledged by the opponent only, or as other-directed assertions ), and hence without taking the statement to be true, that saṃsāra has come to an end. Likewise, when nonstatic nirvāṇa arises, it does not really arise, as it (had been) always inherent in the Base, which since beginningless time had been in the condition of nonstatic nirvāṇa—yet it is stated in a for-others way (i.e. as others’ view, or as reasons acknowledged by the opponent only, or as other-directed assertions ), and hence without taking the statement to be true, that at that point in time the would-be Buddhas Awaken, attaining Buddhahood. In spite of the above, Buddhist vehicles lower than Dzogchen Atiyoga do work as means for attaining their Fruits, for they all involve tricks (so to speak) that make a b c d e f g h i j k Tib. lhun grub; Skt. nirābogha or anābogha. Skt. āvaraṇa; Tib. sgrib pa; Ch. 遮障 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēzhàng; Wade-Giles, che -chang ). Skt. vāsanā; Tib. bag chags; Ch. 氣習 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, qìxí; Wade-Giles, ch’i -hsi ) or 習氣 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíqì; Wade-Giles, hsi -ch’i ). Skt. āvaraṇa; Tib. sgrib pa; Ch. 遮障 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēzhàng; Wade-Giles, che -chang ). Skt. vāsanā; Tib. bag chags; Ch. 氣習 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, qìxí; Wade-Giles, ch’i -hsi ) or 習氣 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíqì; Wade-Giles, hsi -ch’i ). Skt. paramata; Tib. gzhan lugs. Skt. praprasiddhānumāna; Tib. gzhan grags kyi rjes su dpag pa / gzhan la grags pa’i rjes dpag. Tib. gzhan ngo khas len: these are assertions propounding reasonings based on what others and only others take as established (Skt. paraprasiddha; Tib. gzhan grags kyi rjes su dpag pa). Skt. paramata; Tib. gzhan lugs. Skt. praprasiddhānumāna; Tib. gzhan grags kyi rjes su dpag pa / gzhan la grags pa’i rjes dpag. Tib. gzhan ngo khas len: these are assertions propounding reasonings based on what others and only others take as established (Skt. paraprasiddha; Tib. gzhan grags kyi rjes su dpag pa). a b c 2 4 2 4 2 4 1 4 4 d e 2 1 4 f g h i j k 150 avidyā trip and collapse—upon which it is possible that the Buddha-nature be revealed spontaneously. This means that, even though each vehicle has its own principle, which will be discussed in the consideration of the Fourth Noble Truth, when they achieve the Fruit they are intended to achieve, they all do so on the basis of the principle of spontaneous liberation—which, as noted in the discussion of Śākyamuni’s story, was how the historical Buddha’s Awakening took place, for he saw the morning star, without any idea that this would be a door to his Awakening, and the Fruit manifested spontaneously, as is proper to Dzogchen Atiyoga. However, whereas Śākyamuni had to wait for luminosity to arise whenever it would, Dzogchen Ati practitioners, rather than waiting for luminosity to arise, apply methods that work as contributory conditions that facilitate the spontaneous arising of inherent luminosity. a However, all of the above will be considered where it pertains, which is the discussion of the Fourth Noble Truth. With regard to the Third Truth, which, as noted above, in all higher vehicles is held to be Buddhahood—i.e. unsurpassable, complete Awakening—it must be noted that it involves that which is often rendered as Buddhaomniscience, which for its part involves two primordial gnoses that, in a Mahāyāna context, may be suitably rendered as gnosis that reveals the true condition —for it is the awareness that reveals, without concepts and hence in the absence of the subject-object divide, the true condition of phenomena —and gnosis of variety —which refers to awareness of the countless distinctions at the root of the multiplicity of phenomena and which, when it is fully developed, allows the individual to know all that there is to be known in the deluded realm of relative truth, including the relations between the true condition of ourselves and all phenomena, which (is) absolute, and each relative phenomenon, and between the different relative phenomena. The point is that, since the various vehicles have different aims, and since the Path has to be congruent with the Fruit, naturally they differ as to the methods to be applied in order to achieve their aims. However, in all “higher vehicles” the purpose of self is accomplished by means of the gnosis that reveals the true condition, which nonconceptually and hence nondually unveils the unproduced, uncreated, uncontrived, non-fabricated, unintentional, uncompounded and unconditioned original single nature of all that which in saṃsāra appears as produced, and/or created, and/or fabricated, and/or contrived, and/or intentional, and/or compounded, and/or conditioned, for each and every time this happens, the mix of unawareness and delusion called avidyā and the duḥkha inherent in it dissolves and the propensities for the two of them to arise are neutralized to a small extent—and hence in the long run both of them are totally neutralized or burned out. For its part, the purpose of others is accomplished by the gradual development, as a result of the repeated occurrence of the gnosis that reveals the true condition, of the gnosis of variety that allows Buddhas to help all sentient beings b c d e 259 Tib. rang byung rang gsal. sarvākārajñatā; Tib. rnam pa thams chad mkhyen pa; Ch. ⼀切種智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yīqièzhǒng zhì; Wade-Giles i -ch’ieh -chung chih ). Skt. yathāvadbhāvikajñāna; Tib. ji lta ba mkhyen pa’i ye shes; Ch. 如理智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, rúlǐzhì; WadeGiles, ju -li -chih ). Skt. dharmatā; Tib. chos nyid; Ch. 法性 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎxìng; Wade-Giles, fa -hsing ). Skt. yāvadbhāvikajñāna; Tib. ji snyed pa mkhyen pa’i ye shes; Ch. 如量智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, rúliángzhì; Wade-Giles, ju -liang -chih ). a b 1 4 3 4 c 2 3 4 d 3 e 2 2 4 151 4 overcome both avidyā and duḥkha. Beginning with the Third Path and First Level of the bodhisattva Path and prior to the attainment of the Fruit of Buddhahood, these two gnosis alternate, for the gnosis that reveals the true condition occurs in—or constitutes—the Contemplation state of a higher bodhisattva, a yogin, a siddha or a mahāsiddha, whereas the gnosis of variety occurs and gradually develops in the post-Contemplation state: although the true condition cannot be remembered, for it is realized when perception in terms of concepts (which depend on memory) dissolves—and, moreover, as noted repeatedly, no concept can embrace the true condition—the fluid alternation of the Contemplation and postContemplation states results in a profound post-Contemplation understanding of the relationship between the true condition and all the delusive, relative phenomena of saṃsāra, and among each of the multifarious phenomena of saṃsāra and the rest, while by the same token yielding an operative wisdom that is not subject to the law of reverse effect considered above: this fluid alternation results in that which Gregory Bateson called Learning III and which yields the relative systemic wisdom, with its knowledge of relationships and high operative capabilities, that is proper to the gnosis of variety. Moreover, the gnosis that reveals the true condition unveils the emptiness of those phenomena that are not human beings, which is the conditio sine qua non of Mahāyāna realizations—for otherwise the scope of wisdom would be limited by the belief in the self-existence of those phenomena. It is when Buddhahood is attained as a result of all the learning and unlearning achieved by the above means, that the two gnoses manifest simultaneously. However, contrarily to the views of one revered Tibetan Master and his disciples, the fact that the gnosis of variety functions in Buddhas does not imply that absolute truth and relative truth manifest simultaneously and that therefore Buddhas perceive relative phenomena or that their awareness involves a subject-object duality: a Buddha does not perceive sentient beings to be helped, does not perceive a Buddha that helps beings, and does not perceive an action of helping, for his or her acts are of the kind called “action and fruit of action devoid of the threefold directional thought-structure,” which does not involve the subject-object duality—and hence the teachings that arise in response to the needs of others are offered without taking their contents as either true or false: they are offered as others’ view (i.e. without own view ) and as such they are that which is known as otherdirected assertions. Thus the gnosis that reveals the true condition is indispensable for achieving not a b c d 260 e f g h Skt. samāhita; Tib. mnyam bzhag; Ch. 等引 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, děngyǐn; Wade-Giles, teng -yin ). Skt. āryabodhisattva; Tib. byang ’phags or byang chub sems dpa’ ’phags pa: one who has attained or surpassed the Third Path—that of Seeing (Skt. darśanamārga; Tib. mthong lam) or the first level—the one called Joyous (Skt. pramuditābhūmi Tib. rab tu dga’ ba’i sa). Āryabodhisattvas constitute the āryasaṃgha (Tib. ’phags pa’i dge ’dun; Ch. 聖眾 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shèngzhòng; Wade-Giles, sheng -chung ) or 聖僧 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shèngsēng; Wade-Giles, sheng -seng ). Skt. pṛṣṭhalabdha; Tib. rjes thob; Ch. 後得 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, hòudé; Wade-Giles, hou -te ). The Logical Categories of Learning and Communication, in Bateson (1971). Tib. ’khor gsum rnam par mi rtog pa’i las dang ’bras bu. Skt. paramata; Tib. gzhan lugs. Skt. svamata; Tib. rang lugs. Tib. gzhan ngo khas len: assertions propounding reasonings based on what others and only others take as established (Skt. paraprasiddha; Tib. gzhan grags kyi rjes su dpag pa), etc. They are defined in contrast with reasonings that express what the proponent him or herself takes as established (Skt. svaprasiddha). a 3 3 b 4 4 c 1 4 d e f g h 152 2 4 only the benefit of self, but the benefit of others as well, because as noted above it is the constant repetition of this gnosis that gradually dissolves the avidyā that distorts our experience and that hence just too often causes us to achieve the opposite of what we intend to achieve, while by the same token yielding Learning III and therefore an allembracing knowledge and relative systemic wisdom, with its extraordinary capacity to masterfully manage relative reality. In brief, the deluded cannot lead the deluded beyond delusion, for when the blind leads the blind, both can fall into any abyss. As we have seen, so far as we are affected by the basic delusion called avidyā, we experience ourselves as separate, autonomous, substantial nuclei of consciousness at a distance from the continuum of absolute plenitude and completeness that is the single nature of all entities—as a result of which we experience the lack of plenitude and completeness that is a central element in the duḥkha that is the First Noble Truth, and value all that we imagine may fill our lack. Contrariwise, Awake Ones, who do not feel they are nuclei of consciousness at a distance from our common, original condition of total plenitude and completeness (Dzogchen when its primordial purity aspect is emphasized), and who therefore (are) themselves absolute plenitude and value, do not attribute any special value to any entity, activity or condition. In fact, when the Mongol emperor of China Godan Khan asked the Master Sakya Paṇḍita who was the richest person in Tibet, the Lama answered with the name of a yogin who lived naked in a cave in the mountains, whose only possession was a small provision of roasted barley flour, for this yogin was free from the sensation of lack that is inherent in delusion. After a Nepalese disciple offered Guru Chöwang six Tibetan ounces of gold powder, the Master threw the powder into the air above a rushing stream, saying “what should I want gold for, when the whole world is gold for me?” Thus it is not difficult to see that progress on the Path of Awakening would allow people to feel totally fulfilled and attain absolute plenitude in frugality—which is an ecological must for our species to survive its present predicament. As Padmasambhava of Oḍḍiyāna put it: 261 a 262 b A man is satisfied not by the quantity of food, but by the absence of greed. We have also seen that, so far as we are affected by avidyā, we take ourselves to be separate, autonomous and substantial nuclei of consciousness that, on the basis of our own selfish interests, or of a set of values that is supposed to check the drives that issue from these selfish interests and keep society from becoming a war of each against all, must choose a conduct to adopt and then dualistically and contrivedly implement this choice. This is the root cause of evil, for, as we have seen, the illusion of being separate selves automatically begets selfishness, which begets evil impulses that then are made doubly evil by the archetype and dynamics of the shadow discussed above, and that then must be contained—yet being subject to the law of reverse effect, our attempts to contain or destroy evil reinforce it; etc. As we have also seen, it also gives rise to selfimpediment, for the subject interferes with its subjectivity by establishing a link of being (cf. endnote 236) with the entity that is acting, which it takes as object; it judges the individual’s performance and tries to control and correct it while it is carried out; etc. 263 a b Sapaṇ: Sakya Paṇḍita Kunga Gyaltsen (Wylie, Sa skya paṇ ḍi ta Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan): 1182–1251 As told by Ye shes mtsho rgyal (in Yeshe Tsogyäl, English, 1978). 153 Moreover, it is a source of anguish, which in contrast with the fear of facing unwanted events that do not depend on oneself, J.-P. Sartre defined as fear in face of one’s freedom: it is fear of producing unwanted events as a result of one’s decisions (which according to Sartre we elude by means of the self-deceit he called bad faith). Etc. Contrariwise, Awake individuals no longer believe themselves to be nuclei of experience and agency separate from the flow of the single, true nature of all entities; therefore, they no longer control their behavior dualistically and hence become selfless channels allowing for the free manifestation of the consummate flow of our original condition of total perfection (Dzogchen, when its spontaneous perfection aspect is emphasized). Since they are free from both selfishness and the “reverse law” that causes beings to give rise to evil through their attempts to avert evil and give rise to good, and since they have no dualistic self-consciousness and hence are not subject to self-hindering, their behavior is beneficial to all sentient beings. Since a Buddha is an open channel for the unobstructed flow of the spontaneity of our true condition, which is no longer subject to the possibility of self-encumbering, her or his actions are consummately, unsurpassably skillful. Thus if one who has this realization is experienced in art or craftsmanship, he or she will be able to produce incomparable works of art or handicrafts without being subject to the possibility of selfencumbering. The Zhuāngzǐ expresses this as follows: 264 a b Chuí the artisan was able to draw circles by hand better than with the compass. His fingers seemed to accommodate so easily to the thing on which he was working that he didn’t need to focus his attention. His mental faculties thus remained one (i.e. integrated) and thus suffered no impediment. c If the artisan had needed to focus his attention on the object he was working on, and on the hands he was working with, and had needed to use his attention to control his activity, like the centipede of the poem cited in the previous chapter, he would have suffered self-obstruction. Another example from the same source is that of a butcher (sometimes rendered as cook) who never had to sharpen his knife, for it always cut the meat through the joints without even scraping or touching the bones. At any rate, the one who has become firmly established in the Awake state, becoming an unimpeded channel for the spontaneous flow of the selfless activities issuing from the true, single nature of all entities, will not be obstructed by self-consciousness even when he or she is observed by the most fastidious, critical, severe, respected and fearsome witness. If, as in the above examples, such an individual is skillful in craftsmanship or in a plastic art, he or she will be able to produce masterpieces right before the witness’ eyes. If an accomplished musician, she or he will perform better than the gods. Concerning the second of the above-mentioned results of Awakening—the fact that we get rid both of the evil that issues from selfishness and of the further evil resulting from trying to contain the evil that issues from selfishness—the ex-president of India, S. Radhakrishnan, stated: 265 266 d a 莊⼦; Wade-Giles, Chuang -tzu . 1 3 Giles (1980; in the Chinese ed. of 1926, p. 242). Quoted in Watts (1956, p. 46). For a more recent version see Watson, B. (trans. 1968). 倕; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Chuí; Wade-Giles, Ch’ui . This is the name of the artisan. Radhakrishnan, S. (1923/1929, Vol. I, pp. 228-9). b c 2 d 154 Laws and regulations are necessary for [common human beings]. But for those who have risen above their selfish egos… there is no possibility of evil doing in them… Till the spiritual life is won, the law of morality appears to be an external command which man has to obey with effort and pain. But when the light is obtained it becomes the internal life of the spirit, working itself out unconsciously and spontaneously. The saint’s action is an absolute surrender to the spontaneity of spirit, and is not an unwilling obedience to externally imposed laws. We have the free outpouring of an unselfish spirit that does not calculate the rewards of action or the penalties of omission. Since the Awake Ones are fully aware that so long as we believe ourselves to be separate selves and experience ourselves as such we are possessed by selfishness, and know very well that our attempts to contain the ensuing evil tends to potentiate this evil, rather than providing us with moral guidelines their priority is to facilitate the unveiling in each of us of the universal, nondual, original condition of total plenitude / completeness and perfection (Dzogchen), the spontaneity of which consummately responds to the needs of self and others, flawlessly accomplishing whatever is needed. Thus, there can be no doubt that only progress on the Path of Awakening would give rise to a truly virtuous conduct—which in Taoism is said to flow as a function of the dé of the dào —which, if generalized throughout our species, would allow it to enter a new Golden Age, Era of Perfection or Age of Truth or the final millennium, akin to the Golden Age, Era of Perfection or Age of Truth, prophesized in the Kālacakratantra. The point is that, as noted above, Buddha-activity is a natural function of the spontaneous perfection aspect of Dzogchen-qua-Base that works as action and fruit of action devoid of the threefold thought-structure, which therefore does not involve the subject-object duality and thus is free from self-consciousness, intention or contrivance and is consummately skillful because it is not subject to the self-encumbering proper to self-conscious, intentional action—and which, being free from selfishness and from saṃsāra’s “reverse law,” effectively fulfills the purpose of both self and others (and thus corresponding to the spontaneous flow of selfless activities that Taoism and Chán Buddhism call action through nonaction ). As the term makes it clear, activities of this kind simply cannot be contrivedly achieved or intentionally produced, for they are unproduced, uncreated, non-fabricated, uncontrived, unintentional, uncompounded and unconditioned: they naturally flow when our unproduced, uncreated, non-fabricated, uncontrived, unintentional, uncompounded and unconditioned, original condition of a b c d e f g h a b 道; Wade-Giles, te . 德; Wade-Giles, tao . 2 4 kṛtayuga (Tib. rdzogs ldan; Ch. 圆满時 (abridged 圆满时) (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yuánmǎn shí; Wade-Giles, yüan -man shih ) or satyayuga (Tib. bden ldan; Ch. ⿈⾦時代 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, huángjīn shídài; Wade-Giles, huang -chin shih -tai ]). Tib. lhun grub; Skt. nirābogha or anābogha. Tib.’khor gsum rnam par mi rtog pa’i las dang ’bras bu. 為無為; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wéiwúwéi; Wade-Giles, wei -wu -wei . Skt. asaṃskṛta; Pāḷi asaṅkhata; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無爲 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu wei ). Skt. asaṃskṛta; Pāḷi asaṅkhata; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無爲 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu wei ). c 2 3 2 3 1 2 4 d e f 2 g 2 2 2 2 h 2 2 155 total completeness / plenitude and perfection is neither veiled nor obstructed by the basic delusion called avidyā, which is the source of all contrivance and intentionality. To conclude, it must be clear by now that Awakening, being free of selfishness, is not subject to the short-sighted drive proper to ordinary, deluded people, that leads us to appropriate whatever we think would benefit us, to destroy whatever we believe could harm us, etc. In fact, as noted above, advancement on the Path of Awakening gradually mitigates our sense of lack, whereas Awakening yields absolute plenitude no matter how frugal our way of life may be. Likewise, advancement on the Path gradually mitigates the drive to destroy what is ordinarily experienced as threatening, and Awakening puts an end to perception of phenomena as other to ourselves and of ourselves as beings threatened by threatening phenomena and hence puts to the drive to destroy elements of the worldwide ecosystem. And since it involves Total Space-Time-Awareness, Awakening is absolutely free from the perceptual fragmentation illustrated with the story of the men and the elephant and the rest of the parables discussed in the preceding chapter. Therefore, the generalization of development on the Path of Awakening would remove the deepest causes of ecological crisis. a AWAKENING VS TRANSPERSONAL, HOLOTROPIC AND NEARLY HOLISTIC COUNTERFEITS In the very brief story of Śākyamuni’s life told in the first chapter of this book it was noted that according to tradition the two teachers he successively followed had developed the ability to enter states of experiential, seeming infinitudes that may be very easily mistaken for the Third Noble Truth, and that they actually mistook for it, and had developed the capacity to dwell in those states for limited periods that, due to the expansion of their space-time-awareness, they experienced as exceedingly long—and that the would-be Buddha successively quit those two teachers precisely because he realized that, just as not all that glitters is gold, not all the results of yogic practices and spiritual meditations were the Awakening he sought. Therefore, in order to help others avert mistaking such produced, and/or created, and/or fabricated, and/or intentional, and/or compounded, and/or conditioned, and/or contrived, samsaric absorptions for Awakening, it was necessary for him to show very precisely what these produced, and/or fabricated, and/or contrived, and/or intentional, and/or compounded, and/or conditioned, and/or created states are like, and that because of this they were impermanent and subject to suffering—thus showing how do they differ from anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi or unsurpassable, total Awakening, which is how he called the non-fabricated, uncontrived, unintentional, uncompounded, unproduced, uncreated, unconditioned and therefore definitive, irreversible disclosure of the total completeness and plenitude inherent in our uncaused, unproduced, uncreated, nonb c d Tib. Dzogchen or Dzogpa Chenpo (Wylie, rdzogs [pa] chen [po]), which renders the term Santimaha (in Oḍḍiyāna language) and purportedly also renders the Skt. Mahāsaṅdhi. Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). Tib. yang dag par yongs su rdzogs pa’i byang chub; Ch. 阿耨多罗三藐三菩提 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, ānòuduōluó sānmiǎo sānpútí; Wade-Giles, a -nou -to -luo san -miao san -p’u -t’i ). Skt. asaṃskṛta; Pāḷi asaṅkhata; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無爲 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu wei ). a b 3 2 c 1 4 1 2 1 3 d 1 2 2 2 2 156 fabricated, uncontrived, unintentional, uncompounded and unconditioned original condition, and the unhindered, consummate functionality of the spontaneous perfection of this condition. To this end, the first step must be to learn to distinguish between: (1) That which Buddhists call “Awakening,” which consists in the irreversible manifestation of nonstatic nirvāṇa and therefore involves the irreversible cessation of suffering together with the omniscience that allows the individual to definitely help sentient beings in the ultimate sense. (2) Those transpersonal, holotropic states of the neutral condition of the base-ofall that pertain to saṃsāra because our experience is affected by the first aspect of avidyā in the two different classifications that appear in the Dzogchen teachings, and hence the precious human birth is spent in a condition where primordial gnosis and systemic wisdom are lacking, and there is no possibility of Awakening or of dharma practice, and no way to help sentient beings—yet saṃsāra is not actively functioning, as there is no reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of the contents of thought and hence the other types or aspects of avidyā in either of the Dzogchen classifications are not yet manifest, so that there is no subject-object duality and hence no ascending or descending in the wheel of saṃsāra. And (3) Those transpersonal, holotropic states that pertain to fully active saṃsāra, which are produced and therefore conditioned, and involve all three or four aspects or types of the combination of unawareness and delusion called avidyā. Let us discuss these conditions in greater detail: (1) The condition of Supreme Sanity that Buddhists call “Awakening” consists in the irreversible reGnition of the “face” of the Awake, nondual self-awareness that the Dzogchen teachings call rigpa, which therefore involves the disclosure and perfect functionality of our original, true condition of total completeness / plenitude and total perfection. For this to be clearly understood, it must be remembered that all Buddhist paths and vehicles must necessarily have three aspects, which are the Base, the Path and the Fruit—which, however, are differently explained in the diverse vehicles. As it will be shown in the section on Dzogchen Atiyoga of the elucidation of the Path, the Base is the nondual Awake, undistorted awareness called nature of mind / essence of mind with all its unlimited manifesting power, yet without excluding the manifested—which, however, although appearing, is in truth nonexistent. For its part, rigpa—a term that is most conspicuous in the Dzogchen teachings—refers to the disclosure, while on the Path or as the Fruit, (of) the true condition of both the nondual Awake awareness through which all phenomena manifest—that which is called the nature or essence of mind—and the phenomena that manifest through it, and the unhindered functionality of the nondual Awake awareness in question. The point is that the Base can either be concealed and obstructed by avidyā / marigpa or unconcealed as vidyā / rigpa; when it is concealed and obstructed, and therefore we are subject to all the distress and shortcomings that constitute the First Noble Truth, we need a Path for removing these and attaining the Fruit in which they manifest no more. In Dzogchen, the Path is no other than the a b c Skt. apratiṣṭhitanirvāṇa; Tib. mi gnas pa’i myang ’das; Ch. 無住涅槃 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúzhù nièpán; Wade-Giles, wu -chu nieh -p’an ). Tib. rang ngo shes pa. Skt. cittatā or citta eva; Tib. sems nyid. a 2 4 4 2 b c 157 disclosure and functionality of rigpa for limited periods while the impediments and stains at the root of avidyā and duḥkha have not yet been totally neutralized or burned out, and the Fruit is no other than the irreversible disclosure and unhindered functionality of the nondual Awareness that (is) the nature or essence of mind and that constitutes the Base. When manifest, rigpa, or the dharmakāya (the mental aspect of Buddhahood), functions as an all-liberating single gnosis. This is so because the dharmakāya works like a maṇi pearl or crystal ball to which none of what is reflected in it can adhere and linger. The point is that, without self-grasping / self-preoccupation and without the duality of a grasper and a grasped, understanding and experience in terms of reified / hypostasized / valorized / absolutized thoughts dissolve and therefore all thoughts, of all of the three types discussed in a previous section of this book, self-liberate. This is the case with: (A) coarse or discursive thoughts, which in Dzogchen contexts I render as word sound patterns resulting from mental syntheses that convey meanings, and that in the context of the Mahāyāna were identified and explained by ācārya Dignāga; (B) subtle or intuitive thoughts, which in Dzogchen contexts I render as universal concepts of entities, qualities, etc. [resulting from mental syntheses] and conveying meanings, and that in the context of the Mahāyāna were identified by Dignāga and Dharmakīrti; [C] the supersubtle thought that here I render as threefold directional thought structure and that is explicitly identified in Dzogchen and Tantric teachings as well as in Third Promulgation sūtras such as the Laṅkāvatāra. In fact, it is when there is self-grasping / self-preoccupation, and when there is a grasper that holds to the contents of thought as the grasped, that thoughts leave traces and elicit further thoughts, and hence find their continuity in the latter—and it is when the grasper and the grasped dissolve upon the reGnition of the true condition of thought as rigpa / the dharmakāya, that thoughts of all types self-liberate and thus do not establish propensities. Moreover, each and every time they self-liberate, propensities are partially neutralized (as noted above, the degree to which the latter are neutralized depends on the intensity of emotional involvement in the moment that immediately precedes their self-liberation and the height of the energetic volume determining the scope of awareness ). It is important to note that, although the term “rigpa” is often taken for a synonym of “primordial gnosis,” in the Dzogchen a b c d e f g h267 Tib. gcig shes kun grol. I use the term “gnosis” to refer to Gnitive events that are not co-gnitive because they do not involve the subject-object duality, and in particular to those that reveal the true condition of ourselves and all phenomena in a nonconceptual and hence nondual way. However, the term could also be applied to conceptual, dualistic cognitive events, for they arise in a nonconceptual, nondual gnosis, introducing the illusion of substantial dualism and plurality. Skt. ahaṃkāra; Tib. ngar ’dzin / Skt. ātmagraha; Tib. bdag ’dzin; Ch. 我執 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wǒzhí; WadeGiles, wo -chih ) or 我慢 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wǒmàn; Wade-Giles, wo -man ). Skt. grāhaka-grāhya; Tib. ’dzin gzung. This duality arises by virtue of Skt. grāhyagrāhakavikalpa; Tib. gzung ba dang ’dzin pa’i rnam par rtog pa; Ch. 所取能取分別 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, suǒqǔ néngqǔ fēnbié; WadeGiles, so -ch’ü neng -ch’ü fen -pieh ). Skt. śabdasāmānya; Tib. sgra spyi; Ch. 論聲總 (simplified 论声总) (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, lùnshēngzǒng; WadeGiles, lun -sheng -tsung ). Both Dignāga and the Dzogchen teachings use this same term. Skt. arthasāmānya; Tib. don spyi; Ch. 總義 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngyì; Wade-Giles, tsung -i ). Dignāga, Dharmakīrti and the Dzogchen teachings use this same term. Skt. trimaṇḍala; Tib. ’khor gsum; Ch. 三輪 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānlùn; Wade-Giles, san -lun ). Tib. thigle (thig le). Skt. jñāna; Tib. ye shes; Ch. 智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhì; Wade-Giles, chih ; Jap. chi). a b 3 2 3 4 c 3 3 2 3 1 2 d 4 1 3 e 3 f 1 g h 4 158 4 4 teachings rigpa refers mainly to the all-liberating single gnosis that does not arise or cease and that reveals itself in the countless events of primordial gnosis that occur on the Dzogchen Path: rigpa is not an event; those events in which rigpa becomes patent and exhibits its all-liberating quality are that which is as a rule called primordial gnosis— this being the reason why it is said that there is a single rigpa yet there are manifold primordial gnoses. So far, I have been referring to rigpa as the Tibetan translation of vidyā. This is due to the fact that I have been explaining it in contrast with avidyā, which in Tibetan is marigpa—even though, as explained above, the negative prefix ma in marigpa is not the one used in normal categorical negation. And since the Tibetan term marigpa had to be explained in relation to rigpa, I circumscribed myself to the Sanskrit vidyā as the Sanskrit term rendered as rigpa. However, rigpa is more often said to be a contraction of the Tibetan term rangrig (in full, rangi rigpa ), which renders the Sanskrit terms svasaṃvedana and svasaṃvitti[ḥ]. In Dignāga and Dharmakīrti’s Pramāṇavāda (which, as already noted, belongs to the Sūtrayāna ), these terms can refer to: (i) The nondual, nonreflexive, nonpositional and nonthetic Awake awareness wherein and whereby all appearances manifest, as in a mirror or LED screen, which may be said to be a self-awareness if it is made clear that it is so in the nondualistic sense of being a nondual awareness (of) both awareness itself and (of) the appearances that manifest in it and by means of it. In nonstatic nirvāṇa, this awareness reflects the true, Awake, nondually self-aware condition of itself, while at the same time reflecting the appearances that manifest in it and by means of it, without the slightest distortion whatsoever. In passive saṃsāra—i.e. in the neutral condition of the base-of-all—it is unaware of the true condition in question, even though it does not reflect delusive appearances. And in active saṃsāra it reflects delusive, dualistic appearances that are conditioned by hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized thoughts—but even then, while the dualistic consciousness having the illusory mental subject as its core it totally deluded, that Awake awareness (is) in itself utterly nonconceptual and undeluded. (ii) The nonconceptual, nondual, undistorted self-awareness (of) the true condition of both that nondual awareness itself and the appearances that manifest in it and through it—which is no other than the nondual Awake awareness called rigpa that manifests in Awakening and in the Contemplation state of higher practitioners; and (iii) The dualistic, reflexive self-consciousness which is aware that one is perceiving, or acting, or thinking, etc. and which therefore includes all types of apperception and of reflexive consciousness. For a detailed discussion of these three senses of rangrig, and a b c d e f g h Tib. gcig shes kun grol. Tib. rig pa gcig pu. Wylie, rang [gi] rig [pa]. Tib. mDo’i theg pa. Skt. apratiṣṭhitanirvāṇa; Tib. mi gnas pa’i myang ’das; Ch. 無住涅槃 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúzhù nièpán; Wade-Giles, wu -chu nieh -p’an . Skt. samāhita; Tib. mnyam bzhag; Ch. 等引 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, děngyǐn; Wade-Giles, teng -yin ). Skt. ārya; Tib. ’phags pa; Ch. 聖 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shèng; Wade-Giles, sheng ). This term was seemingly coined by Descartes, but it was Kant who placed the greatest emphasis on it. It refers to the awareness that one is perceiving. a b c d e 2 4 4 2 f 3 g 4 h 159 3 references to the relevant explanations by Pramāṇavāda master Śākyabuddhi, cf. Capriles, Introductory Study, in Chöphel & Capriles (unpublished 1). In the Dzogchen teachings, however, the term rangrig as a rule refers to the nondual self-awareness that becomes patent in the state of Dzogchen and that reveals the true condition of reality, thus roughly corresponding to sense (ii) among those the term has in the Pramāṇavāda (at least according to Śākyabuddhi). This is also roughly the sense of term “naturally manifest primordial gnosis that (is) individually realized through the spontaneous awareness of the primordial, true condition” in probably all versions of the Nyingma and Kagyu Mahāmadhyamaka and Madhyamaka Prāsaṅgika systems of tenets (including my own ), in which the phrase individually realized—which render the prefix prat in Sanskrit and so so in Tibetan—may in general be taken to refer to the fact that rigpa manifests in an individual’s mental stream without this necessarily affecting other mental streams, which continue to be affected, possessed and conditioned by avidyā. The same may be said of the Sanskrit prefix prat and the Tibetan prefix so so, which as noted above I am rendering as individually realized, in the term here rendered as individually realized primordial gnosis of spontaneous Awake awareness (rigpa). However, in the more specific explanations of this phrase offered by Tibetan Masters, the prefixes in question are sometimes said to have a twofold meaning: (1) that the Awake awareness in question is aware (of) all the distinct sensory data without mixing them up, and (2) more important, that rigpa can only be realized by the primordial gnosis that occurs in ourselves and not by virtue of anything external, including the introduction offered by a teacher or the latter’s blessings. At any rate, the latter sense implies the general one offered above—namely that when Awake awareness manifests / is unconcealed in us, it does so only in our mental stream, without affecting other individuals. And indirectly it may be taken to imply that the realization of rigpa is completely genuine and certain when we can have access to it without depending on a Master’s Introduction or blessings. However, some Western teachers and scholars have understood the prefix so so or individually realized as negating that a single universal awareness manifests in and as all mental streams and is the latter’s true condition, dismissing whichever reference is made to a single universal awareness as a Mind-only influenced misunderstanding and distortion. In this way, they feel justified to overlook the abundant statements that run throughout the Tantras of the Series of [the Nature of] Mind asserting all sentient beings and all other phenomena to issue from the single source of all experience that they refer a b c d e f g Skt. pratisaṃvid (Dorje & Kapstein, in Dudjom Rinpoche, 1991), pratyātmagati, pratyātmādhigama or pratyātmavid (Brunnhölzl, in Nāgārjuna & IIId Karmapa, 2007); Tib. so so rang gi rig pa. Capriles, Introductory Study, in Chöphel & Capriles (unpublished). Skt. saṃtāna; Tib. sems rgyud or rgyun; Ch. 相續 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiāngxù; Wade-Giles, hsiang -hsü ); in general used as ⼼相續 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xīnxiāngxù; Wade-Giles hsin -hsiang -hsü ). Skt. pratyātmavedanīyajñāna; Tib. so so rang rig pa’i ye shes. Cf. for example Brunnhölzl, in Nāgārjuna & IIId Karmapa, 2007, pp. 64-65. Skt. Cittamātra; Tib. Sems tsam pa ; Ch. 唯⼼ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wéixīn; Wade-Giles, wei -hsin ): the Mindonly school of the Mahāyāna. Tib. Sems sde rgyud; Skt. Cittavargatantras. a b c 1 1 1 4 d e f 2 g 160 1 4 to as All Creating King or Kunje Gyalpo (a name that Namkhai Norbu & Clemente [1997 / 1999] render as Supreme Source) and to continue to be that same All Creating King throughout their existence. For a series of cites from the All Creating King Tantra or Supreme Source Tantra and many of other Tantras and texts of the Dzogchen Semdé, see the endnote the reference mark for which is at the end of this paragraph. Nevertheless, it is not only the Semdé Tantras, but Tantras of all three series of Dzogchen teachings that make the point that there is no plurality either of minds or of phenomena other than minds. Even Dzogchen Tantras pertaining to the Series of Pith instructions make the point that the nonconceptual, nondual Awake awareness is not multiple—outright contradicting those who have misinterpreted the sense of the words individually realized in terms such as individually realized primordial gnosis of rigpa. A Tantra of the Series of Pith instructions, The mirror of the heart of Vajrasattva, makes this point in a crystal clear way: a 268 b c d In the system of Ati, the Great Perfection, when one thing is perfect, all is perfect and beyond all conventions. Since there is no sacred commitment to keep, all lacks integrate themselves in the single, [sole] spontaneous Awake awareness. Of a fathomless profundity, it is free from all conventional expressions. Immutable, it embraces everything within its awareness. (Being a) single, [sole spontaneous Awake awareness], it could not be multiple; it is the supreme Wisdom mind; (being a) unity disengaged from all things, [its] luminosity, which is nothing in particular, is the saṃbhogakāya. Obviously, the above should not be taken to mean that there are no manifold mental streams—just as it should not be taken to signify that there is no plurality of mental streams, yet there is an endless plurality of phenomena other than awareness. As Longchen Rabjampa puts it: e Everything is subsumed within all-inclusive Awake awareness. Since there is no phenomenon that is not included in Awake awareness, the true condition of all phenomena is that of Awake awareness. Although at first sight the above may seem equal or similar to the Mind-only view, it is utterly different from it. As Longchen Rabjampa expresses it: f Let me clearly outline the distinction [between Mind-only and Dzogchen]. In general, when the world of appearances and possibilities, whether [as] saṃsāra or nirvāṇa, is explained to Wylie, Kun byed rgyal po; Skt. Kularāja or Kulayarāja (the original was in Oḍḍiyāna prākṛta, for which no diacritic marks have been created, as its pronunciation is unknown today—and hence in that language I will write the name as Kularaja). Skt. Upadeśavarga; Tib. Menngag[gyi]de (Wylie, men ngag [gyi] sde). Tib. so so; Skt. prat. Tib. rDo rje sems dpa’ snying gi me long. Translation based on the French rendering by Philippe Cornu (1995, p. 53). This is one of the stanzas of the root text of kLong chen pa’s Treasure text (Tib. gter ma), the Chos dbyings mdzod. In Longchen Rabjam (2001a, p. 21, and 2001b, p. 53) Longchen Rabjam (1998, pp. 84-87); the translation was adapted to the terminology used in this book. a b c d e f 161 be Awake awareness, what is meant is that phenomena are alike [in that they do not waver from the single awareness] and manifest naturally as the play or display, projective energy and adornment of that awareness. [On the basis of this, in Tantras of the Series of the Nature of Mind phenomena have been metaphorically said] to be mind, just as one uses the name ‘sun’ to refer to the rays of the sun when one says, ‘Sit in the midday sun’. At any rate, there should be no doubt that there is no plurality of awarenesses, for all Buddhist teachings, from those of the Mahāyāna through those of Dzogchen Ati, unambiguously state that there is only one dharmakāya, although there are countless rūpakāyas (saṃbhogakāyas and nirmāṇakāyas)—which implies that there is a single, universal nondual Awake awareness, even though it manifests as countless mental streams. This point becomes utterly clear in the following passage of a Tantra revealed by Dudjom Lingpa: a b ... my yāna does not misleadingly assert the existence of things that do not exist. Rather, it determines that all appearances are identityless, nonobjective, and merely delusive appearances—they are revealed as the single Base. So understand this! If each sentient being existed autonomously, then the Buddhas would exist like that, too. In that case, they would be ascertained as being multiple rather than as a single Base. The same Tantra reads at an earlier point: c Rigpa is the self-arising Buddha. Since Buddha is no other than the state of rigpa, if in each sentient being and in each Buddha there were a separate rigpa, the Buddhas would be manifold rather than (being) a single Base, as the above passage tells us. Therefore, the misconceptions of those who claim that there are manifold rigpas are refuted: in whoever realizes rigpa, they are refuted by experience; as shown above, they are refuted by logic; and as also shown above, they are refuted by scriptural authority. There can be no doubt, thus, that such misconceptions are utterly groundless and cannot be sustained! In the context of the Dzogchen Community, we can consider the following passage of The Crystal and The Way of Light by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu: d The Base, or Zhi in Tibetan, is the term used to denote the fundamental ground of existence, both at the universal level and at the level of the individual, both being essentially the same; to realize the one is to realize the other. If you realize yourself, you realize the nature of the universe. We have previously referred to the primordial state, experienced in Skt. saṃtāna; Tib. sems rgyud or rgyun; Ch. 相續 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiāngxù; Wade-Giles, hsiang -hsü ); in general used as ⼼相續 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xīnxiāngxù; Wade-Giles hsin -hsiang -hsü ). The Awake Vision of Samantabhadra (etc.). Tib. Ka dag rdzogs pa chen po’i klong mdzod zab mo/ ma bcos rdzogs ldan rang byung gi sangs rgyas/ kun tu bzang po’i dgongs pa lag pa’i mthil du brkam nas lhag ger bstan pa/ dgongs brda snyan brgyud chig rdzogs kyi man ngag bka’ rgya ma. In Vol. 17 of Collected works of the emanated great treasures, the secret, profound treasures of Dudjom Lingpa (Thinpu, Bhutan: Kuenzang Wangdue). Translation in Dudjom Lingpa, Vol. I (2015); passage in p. 200. The translation was adapted to the terminology used in this book. Ibidem. Translation in Dudjom Lingpa, Vol. I (2015); passage in p. 170. The translation was adapted to the terminology used in this book. d Namkhai Norbu (2001, pp. 89-90). The italics are my own. a 1 1 b c 162 1 4 4 non-dual contemplation, and it is in this state that the individual regains the experience of identity with the Base. It is called the Base because it is the base of all phenomena and because, being uncreated, ever pure and self-perfected, it is not something that has to be constructed. Although it is the uncreated and indestructible Base of the existence of each and every individual, it remains hidden to the experience of every being affected by the illusion of dualism: when this happens, it is temporarily obscured by the ‘clouds’ constituted by negative mental states in mutual interaction—for example, passions such as attachment and aversion—which arise from the basic ignorance of dualistic vision. However, the Base should not be objectified and considered as a self-existing entity; it is the insubstantial State or condition which serves as the basis of all entities and individuals, of which the ordinary individual is unaware but which is fully manifest in the realized individual. And also: a In the Dzogchen teachings, it is considered that the primordial state, which is beyond time, and beyond creation and destruction, is the fundamentally pure base of all existence, both at the universal and the individual levels. It is the inherent nature of the primordial state to manifest as light, which in tum manifests as the five colors, the essences of the elements. The essences of the elements interact (as explained in the Bon cosmology) to produce the elements themselves, which make up both the individual's body and the whole material dimension. The universe is thus understood as the spontaneously arising play of the energy of the primordial state, and may be enjoyed as such by an individual who remains integrated with his or her essential inherent condition, in the self-liberating, self-perfected state, the state of Dzogchen. Clearly, what the above passages are saying is that the Base, or the essence or nature of mind, is universal in that it (is) comparable to a single universal mirror where all phenomena in the universe manifest as reflections—i.e. as the Base’s energy—yet each of us experiences this single universal Base and the phenomena that the example compares with reflections, from a different perspective in space and time, which is that of the seemingly separate mental subject that seems to be the core of our seemingly separate mental stream—all mental streams and subjects being illusory manifestations and perspectives of the single universal awareness represented with the universal mirror’s reflectant capacity. It is as though each mental stream were a thread, each point of which—i.e., each instant / mental subject—occupied a different spatial position in the mirror, both with regard to the phenomena that manifest as object, and with regard to each of the instants / mental subjects of the other mental streams (so that different mental streams cannot perceive simultaneously from the same point in space, and each mental stream Awakens in the moment at which it Awakens and in the place where it Awakens, independently from the time and place at which other mental streams Awaken). And, nonetheless, each of the mental streams knows and acts by virtue of the reflectant capacity and the motility of the single, universal mirror, so that the plurality of mental streams / mental subjects is a mere illusion—yet one that produces effects, and that therefore possesses actuality. As noted above, each instant of each mental stream is what I am referring to as the mental subject, and these mental subjects are also insubstantial, empty reflections in the single mirror: this is the reason why the essence or nature of mind is compared with a mirror and [deluded] mind is referred to as “the one reflected.” The difference between a Namkhai Norbu (2001, p. 93). The italics are my own. 163 the reflections I m calling “mental subjects” and the ones that appear as object and that seem to be spatial and to have qualities of the senses (color-form, and/or sound, and/or tactile sensation, and/or flavor, and/or smell), is that mental subjects are appearances of dang energy—a form of manifestation of energy that will be explained in the discussion of Dzogchen-Atiyoga, where I refer to it as “energy of the sphere of the mental”—that as such are not spatial and have no sensory qualities whatsoever (i.e. have no color-form, no sound, no tactile sensation, no flavor and no smell). This will be better understood once the three forms of manifestation of energy are discussed in the consideration of Dzogchen Atiyoga. As also noted, the example of the mirror should not be taken to imply a passive theory of perception, like those upheld by Western philosophers from Aristotle through Lenin, or to imply the existence of phenomena external to the mirror that are reflected in it. It was as an antidote to these misunderstandings that the example of the LED screen was used above—even though this example also fails in that it seems to imply that the nature or essence of mind is conditioned by a system and/or a program. To conclude the above terminological discussion, it must be kept in mind that the term rigpa has many synonyms, including ordinary awareness, natural condition of mind, and so on. Moreover, the terms I render as Base rigpa or rigpa qua Base are near synonyms of nature or essence of mind, for they refer to the all-embracing, pure element of nonconceptual and hence nondual Awake awareness inherent in the Base’s Gnitiveness called nature or essence of mind. (As shown above, in the Abhidharma the term rigpa has the sense of field of knowledge or science, as when the five fields of knowledge are listed). For its part, the terms I am rendering as primordial gnosis—namely the Skt. jñāna and the Tibetan yeshe —not only refer to events of rigpa, for a Base primordial gnosis, of which all primordial gnoses are manifestations, is also posited. Moreover, the term may even refer to conceptual wisdom, or even to conceptual knowledge: in the case of the collection of wisdom that is one of the two collections that according to the Mahāyāna must give rise to Buddhahood, the term rendered as wisdom is jñāna or yeshe, yet in this case the term refers to conceptual knwledge. Likewise, the term I am rendering as all-liberating single gnosis is the one Chögyal Namkhai Norbu often renders as “know one, know all,” because this Gnosis is the center of a spontaneous Dzogchen maṇḍala, and whoever is established in that center becomes aware of the relation between the center and all peripheral objects of knowledge, as well as of the functionality of those objects, and thus may become “all-knowing” —this being the a b c d e f g 269 h i j Tib. sems kyi gnas lugs: this is why the phrase rig pa sems kyi gnas lugs is used. Tib. gzhi’i rig pa or gzhir gnas kyi rig pa. Skt. cittatā or citta eva; Tib. sems nyid. Skt. pañcavidyā; Tib. rig pa'i gnas lnga; Ch. 五明 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wǔmíng; Wade-Giles, wu -ming ). Wylie, ye shes; Pāḷi ñaṇa; Ch. 智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhì; Wade-Giles, chih ; Jap. chi). Tib. gzhi’i ye shes; Skt. āśrayajñāna. Skt. jñānasaṃbhāra; Tib. ye shes kyi tshogs; Ch. 智慧資糧 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhìhuìzīliáng; Wade-Giles, chih -hui tzu -liang ). Tib. gcig shes kun grol. Tib. lhun grub; Skt. anābogha or nirābogha. Tib. kun mkhyen [pa]; Skt. sarvajña; Ch. ⼀切智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yīqiēzhì; Wade-Giles, i -ch’ieh -chih ) or 薩婆若 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sàpóruò; Wade-Giles, sa -p’o -jo ). a b c d 3 e 2 4 f g 4 4 1 2 h i j 1 4 2 164 4 1 4 source of the gnosis of variety that is one of the two aspects of Buddha-omniscience that manifest uninterruptedly in Buddhas but that, as noted above, before irreversible Buddhahood is attained, manifests in the post-Contemplation of superior practitioners. As a Tantra revealed by Dudjom Lingpa puts it: a b c d e There are two types of primordial gnosis: manifest primordial gnosis and primordial gnosis as Path. The former truly knows and actualizes the nature of thatness / suchness, [in the Sūtrayāna referred to as absolute reality]. The latter makes awareness rests in its own nature, wide-open and naked, and indefinable, without being modified by the intellect, mentation or concepts. Thus, its essence is empty, its nature is luminous, and its energy [lit. compassion] is naturally unimpeded and liberated, so that it does not enter into objects. By familiarizing yourself with this, words and meanings flow forth in the expanse, [which you spontaneously] understand, and without reliance on training, you have a limitless ability to compose commentaries and melodic verses. This is a creative expression of such wisdom. However, if you feel proud and cling to this ability, your wisdom will decline and you will stray from the Path. This is like being on the verge of acquiring great wealth but then losing it to a thief. When inconceivable sublime qualities flow forth from the expanse, make sure you do not succumb to pitfalls and errors! Mentation is the basis of the mind, and because it is modified and caught up in the experiences of rejecting and accepting, it is important not to take it as the Path. Primordial gnosis entails not doing anything. Recognize this as the authentic Path. f The point in the warning is that the understanding and qualities in question flow forth from the universal, selfless, nondual Awake awareness that is called essence or nature of mind, whereas, as noted above, the mind that has the illusory mental subject as its core is no more than a baseless appearance in the nature of mind, comparable to a nonspatial reflection in a primordial mirror. If one believes that the qualities of the mirror pertain to the illusory, seemingly separate subject that is the core of mind and hence of delusion, this switch from the perspective of rigpa to that of mind blocks the flow of Skt. yāvadbhāvikajñāna; Tib. ji snyed pa mkhyen pa’i ye shes; Ch. 如量智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, rúliángzhì; Wade-Giles, ju -liang -chih ). Skt. sarvākārajñatā; Tib. rnam pa thams chad mkhyen pa; Ch. ⼀切種智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yīqièzhǒng zhì; Wade-Giles i -ch’ieh -chung chih ). Skt. pṛṣṭhalabdha; Tib. rjes thob; Ch. 後得 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, hòudé; Wade-Giles, hou -te ). Skt. ārya; Tib. ’phags pa; Ch. 聖 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shèng; Wade-Giles, sheng ). The Awake Vision of Samantabhadra (etc.). Tib. Ka dag rdzogs pa chen po’i klong mdzod zab mo/ ma bcos rdzogs ldan rang byung gi sangs rgyas/ kun tu bzang po’i dgongs pa lag pa’i mthil du brkam nas lhag ger bstan pa/ dgongs brda snyan brgyud chig rdzogs kyi man ngag bka’ rgya ma. In Vol. 17 of Collected works of the emanated great treasures, the secret, profound treasures of Dudjom Lingpa (Thinpu, Bhutan: Kuenzang Wangdue). Translation in Dudjom Lingpa, Vol. I (2015); passage in p. 191. The translation was adapted to the terminology used in this book. In this book the term expanse renders the Skt. dharmadhātu, the Tib. chos dbyings; the Ch. 法界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, făjiè; Wade-Giles, fa -chieh ), etc.—except when it designates the subtle object of the formless absorptions (Skt. ārūpyasamāpatti; Tib. gzugs med pa’i snyoms ’jug; Ch. 無⾊界定 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wú-sèjiè dìng; Wade-Giles, ssu wu -se -chieh ting ], or Skt. ārūpyāvacaradhyāna; Pāli arūpāvacarajhāna; Tib. gzugs med na spyod pa’i bsam gtan; Ch. 無⾊界定 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúsèjiè dìng; Wade-Giles, wu -se chieh ting ]). However, the term expanse will not always be used alone: I will often use expanse of the true condition of phenomena; expanse of phenomena; total, empty expanse where all “physical” and “mental” phenomena appear; total, intrinsically empty expanse of the dharmadhātu; total empty expanse of the dharmadhātu; empty expanse; etc. a 2 2 4 b 1 4 3 4 c 4 d 2 4 e f 3 4 2 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 165 4 qualities, and hence one loses them and, on the contrary, becomes possessed by the demon of selfhood and hence loaded and weighted down with hybris, pride and arrogance. Back to the discussion of the three different types of transpersonal, holotropic or holistic conditions enumerated and described above, it should be clear by now that the fact that rigpa lies in the disclosure of our original condition of total completeness / plenitude and perfection and the dissolution of understanding in terms of hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized thoughts does not at all mean that rigpa is the mere cessation of all thoughts in a condition in which awareness is arrested and the voice and body are in repose. Though the Hīnayāna views as a type of nirvāṇa the condition called absorption of cessation (of mental activity) wherein all the activity of awareness ceases, the Mahāyāna and higher vehicles acknowledge that condition to be no more than a temporary repose, and emphasize the fact that, if one who has achieved it is to attain Awakening, she or he will have to be reborn in order to tread a higher path from the beginning. In fact, contrarily to conditions of cessation of active awareness, the nonconceptual and therefore nondual reGnition (of) rigpa’s own face involves the vivid, sparkling, roaring patency of the Base—i.e. of our true, original condition of total completeness / plenitude and perfection—and, once it consolidates, it involves a total freedom of awareness that unselfconsciously, spontaneously manifests myriads of actionless activities that benefit countless nonexistent sentient beings. According to the Dzogchen teachings, the above-mentioned absorption of cessation (of mental activity) is an instance of the neutral states discussed above under (2), which as such involves the first of the meanings of the terms avidyā and marigpa—which negate vidyā or rigpa and refers to the concealment of the true condition of the Base as this nature manifests upon Awakening. I said once it consolidates because, in nearly all cases, the initial disclosure of our original, true condition is not irreversible and for a long period will not become irreversible, as the propensities for all aspects or types of avidyā to occur will make them arise to obscure, distort and hinder the true, original condition in question. As will be shown in the discussion of Dzogchen Atiyoga, when rigpa becomes manifest for limited periods, it is what here I am calling rigpa-qua-Path: rigpa as it arises while the practitioner is on the Path. It is in this case that states of Contemplation and postContemplation alternate, the former involving the gnosis that reveals the true condition and the latter involving an ever-developing gnosis of variety. In the practice of Dzogchen, each and every time hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized thoughts self-liberate as rigpa becomes patent, the propensities for those thoughts to be reified / hypostasized / absolutized / valorized is neutralized to a certain extent—the extent depending partly on the intensity of the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization in question at the time of the thoughts’ self-liberation and partly on how a b c 270 ὕβρις. Skt. & Pāḷi, nirodhasamāpatti; Tib. ’gog pa’i snyoms ’jug; Ch. 滅盡定 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, mièjìndìng; WadeGiles, mie -jing -ding ). The Ratnagotravibhāga or Uttaratantraśāstra (Tib. rGyud bla ma) by Maitreya-Asaṅga (or, according to the Chinese, by Sthiramati), which is a distillate of the essence of the various Tathāgatagarbhasūtras of the Third Promulgation, emphasizes this fact, claiming that whichever arhat that attains nirodhasamāpatti will have to be reborn and enter the Mahāyāna Path from the beginning. a b 4 4 4 c 166 high is the energetic volume determining the scope of awareness defined above—and therefore in the long run all of the propensities for the reification / hypostatization / valorization / absolutization of thought are totally neutralized, so that no aspect or type of avidyā manifests again to conceal, distort or obstruct our true, original condition of total completeness / plenitude and perfection. It is at this point that rigpa may be referred to as rigpa-qua-Fruit, and that Total, Unsurpassable Awakening, may be said to have been attained. As a result of this, the three aspects of the Base listed in the Dzogchen teachings are effectively realized as the three kāyas of Buddhahood and fully actualized as such (which, however, takes place sequentially, beginning with the realization of the ngowo aspect of the Base and the dang form of manifestation of energy as dharmakāya)—and finally the absolutely free, spontaneous activity of primordial awareness that does not fall into dualism is never again concealed or hindered. However, an in-depth discussion of the Path can only be undertaken in the consideration of the Fourth Noble Truth, and hence in this discussion of the Fruit it is enough to emphasize that rigpa (is) our original Awake, nondual self-awareness when nonconceptually and hence nondually self-reGnized in such a way as to make this nondual awareness’ own face patent, removing all and everything that may hinder its functionality. And that the Fruit is the irreversible estabilization of rigpa in and as Buddhahood, wherein the two gnoses—the gnosis that discloses the true condition and the gnosis of variety —manifest simultaneously, because one is beyond the divide into a state of Contemplation and one of post-Contemplation. (2) The neutral states marked by avidyā in the first of the senses the terms have in the threefold classification adopted here, are those wherein the nondual self-awareness inherent in the Base is obscured by a contingent, beclouding element of stupefaction, so that the ensuing unawareness prevents it from making “its own face” patent and from manifesting its all-liberating and all-accomplishing nature. In fact, in these states the first aspect or sense of avidyā in the Dzogchen teachings forestalls the self-reGition of the Base’s inherent nondual self-awareness that these teachings call rigpa or rangrig, and hence—even though the rigpa of the Base or Base rigpa is always manifest, and though the second and third aspects or senses of avidyā have manifested as yet—it may be said a 271 b c d e272 f g h i j k Skt. anuttarāsamyaksaṃbodhi; Tib. yang dag par yongs su rdzogs pa’i byang chub; Ch. 阿耨多罗三藐三 菩提 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, ānòuduōluó sānmiǎo sānpútí; Wade-Giles, a -nou -to -luo san -miao san -p’u -t’i ). a 1 4 1 2 1 3 1 2 2 Wylie, ngo bo; this is one of the Tibetan renderings of the Skt. svābhāva, the other being rangzhin (Wylie, rang bzhin); Ch. ⾃性 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìng; Wade–Giles, tzu -hsing ; Jap. jishō). Skt. niṣprapañca; Tib. spros bral; Ch. 不戲論 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùxìlùn; Wade-Giles, pu -hsi -lun ) or Skt. aprapañca; Tib. spros [pa] med [pa]; Ch. 無戲論 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúxìlùn; Wade-Giles, wu -hsi -lun ). In properly Dzogchen terminology, Tib. la dawa (Wylie, la bzla ba). For a definition and justification of this term, cf. the section “Terminology and Titles of Eastern Texts.” Tib. rang ngo shes pa. Skt. yathāvadbhāvikajñāna; Tib. ji lta ba mkhyen pa’i ye shes; Ch. 如理智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, rúlǐzhì; WadeGiles, ju -li -chih ). Skt. yāvadbhāvikajñāna; Tib. ji snyed pa mkhyen pa’i ye shes; Ch. 如量智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, rúliángzhì; Wade-Giles, ju -liang -chih ). Skt. samāhita; Tib. mnyam bzhag; Ch. 等引 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, děngyǐn; Wade-Giles, teng -yin ). Skt. pṛṣṭhalabdha; Tib. rjes thob; Ch. 後得 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, hòudé; Wade-Giles, hou -te ). Tib. lung ma bstan. Tib. rmongs cha. b 4 4 c 2 4 2 d e f 2 3 4 g 2 2 4 h 3 i 4 j k 167 2 3 4 4 4 that in them there is no rigpa, and, moreover, they are certainly within saṃsāra. Therefore, there is neither the delusive subject-object duality as such, which is the second aspect or type of avidyā in the Dzogchen classification privileged in this book and which is produced by reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of the threefold directional thought-structure (Longchen Rabjam says that in the neutral condition of the base-of-all there is a grasper and a grasped—which implies that also the second aspect or type of avidyā taints that condition), nor the third aspect or type of avidyā, which includes the delusive perception of entities as self-existing / substantial produced by the reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of subtle / intuitive thoughts, and the illusion that coarse / discursive thoughts are inherently true or false that results from the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of those thoughts. In brief, in this condition it is as yet absent the delusion lying in the perception of the nondual as dual, the insubstantial as substantial, the dependent as independent, the relative as absolute, the compounded / produced / created / fabricated / conditioned / contrived / intentional as uncreated / non-fabricated / unproduced / uncompounded / unconditioned / unintentional / uncontrived, that which lacks value and importance as having inherent value and importance, the unsatisfactory as having the capacity of providing satisfaction and so on. In ordinary individuals, the Base that is both the source and true condition of all phenomena of saṃsāra and metaphenomena of nirvāṇa and that is primordially pure and spontaneously perfect has always been flowing with the contingent, beclouding element of stupefaction mentioned above, and hence: (a) its inherent nondual Awake self-awareness (i.e. its Base rigpa / rigpa-qua-Base ) has always been obscured, for that beclouding element of stupefaction has always forestalled the unconcealment of “its own face” in the states of rigpa-qua-Path or rigpa-qua-Fruit; and (b) its spontaneous perfection has always been impeded. When this is the case, the Dzogchen teachings use the various terms used to name those samsaric phenomenal conditions in which saṃsāra is not active, all of which comprise the above-discussed phrase base-of-all. Though in all such cases the term base-of-all has a phenomenal—and, in terms of my own terminology, also a [meta]phenomenological sense —this usage of the term does not contradict its usage as the name of the mental stream that contains and carries all karmic a b273 c d e f 274 g h i j k l m Skt. trimaṇḍala; Tib.’khor gsum; Ch. 三輪 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānlùn; Wade-Giles, san -lun ). Cf. endnote 263. Skt. arthasāmānya; Tib. don spyi; Ch. 總事 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngshì; Wade-Giles, tsung -shih ) or 總義 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngyì; Wade-Giles, tsung -i ). Skt. śabdasāmānya; Tib. sgra spyi; Ch. 論聲總 (simplified 论声总) (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, lùnshēngzǒng; WadeGiles, lun -sheng -tsung ). Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). Skt. asaṃskṛta; Pāḷi asaṅkhata; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無爲 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu wei ). Tib. ka dag; hypothesized Skt. kaśuddha. Tib. lhun grub; Skt. nirābogha or anābogha. Tib. rmongs cha. At this point, this obscuring element is what is called rgyu bdag nyid gcig pa’i ma rig pa. Tib. gzhi’i rig pa or gzhir gnas kyi rig pa. Tib. kun gzhi; Skt. ālaya; Ch. 来源 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, láiyuán; Wade-Giles, lai -yüan ). Capriles, 2007a Vol. II, 2013b. Also used in other of my works. Skt. saṃtāna; Tib. rgyun, sems rgyud or simply rgyud. a 1 4 b c 3 3 4 4 d 4 1 3 e 3 f 2 2 2 g h i j k 2 l m 168 2 traces / propensities from one moment to the next and from one life to the next, for the latter manifests phenomenally as well (and this is the case not only in the Dzogchen teachings, which identify conditions called “base-of-all of variegated traces or propensities” and “base-of-all carrying propensities,” but even in some Mahāyāna texts, such as the Triṃśikā by Vasubandhu, which uses the term base-of-all to refer to phenomenal conditions). The above is of the utmost importance because, since the states referred to by the term base-of-all are characterized by nonconceptuality, clarity or luminosity and bliss, they are easily mistaken for the dharmakāya (the Mind aspect of Buddhahood, which, as noted above, is the first level of Awakening on the Path of Ati Dzogpa Chenpo)— and, indeed, Jigme Lingpa (one of the most famous Dzogchen Masters of the second millennium CE) prophesized that in our time many yogins would incur in this grave error, thus blocking their progress on the Path. The states in question may be of very different types; one of them is the highest realization of the Yoga and Sāṃkhya Hindu darśanas, which they call samādhi and define as a condition in which one is at the same time fully awake and fully asleep; another one is the condition that Hīnayāna Buddhists call meditative absorption of cesation and that they regard as one type of nirvāṇa; yet another comprises the states where all sensa are manifest yet there is no active (co)Gnition; another is the lapse between two thoughts; yet another is the unconsciousness that precedes the arising of limitless luminosity after falling asleep or dying; another may be the first of the two manifestations of limitless luminosity after falling asleep or dying; another one is the unconsciousness that occurs after fainting; etc. A Tantra revealed by Dudjom Lingpa, after explaining the facets of primordial gnosis inherent in the Base that is the true condition of reality, goes on to say: 275 a b c d 276 e f 277 g Ignorance of the true condition is ascertained to be the cause of delusion. How? Mere ignorance of the true condition of the displays of the all-pervasive Base works as the cause. As this [ignorance] becomes somewhat fortified, it dwells as the actual base-of-all, which is formless like space—a blank, unthinking void. Entering this state corresponds to states such as fainting; abiding in meditative absorptions [and] meditative experiences induced by the contemplations; becoming engulfed in the base-of-all in a condition of deep sleep in which appearances have dissolved into the space of awareness; and reaching the point of death at h i Tib. bag chags sna tshogs pa’i kun gzhi. Tib. bag chags kyi kun gzhi. sKyabs rje gDung sras Phrin las nor bu rin po che, personal teaching. sMyo shul mkhan po (in Nyoshul Khenpo, 2015, p. 55) thus comments that in order to practice the snying thig or Essence of Potentiality teachings of the Dzogchen Series of pith instructions we must learn to distinguish between base-of-all (Tib. kun gzhi) and dharmakāya (Tib. chos sku). Wylie, ’Jigs med gling pa. Tib. ting nge ’dzin; Ch. 三昧 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānmèi; Wade-Giles, san -mei ). Skt. nirodhasamāpatti (Skt. & Pāḷi); Tib. ’gog pa’i snyoms ’jug; Ch. 滅盡定 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, mièjìndìng; Wade-Giles, mie -jing -ding ). Dag snang ye shes drva la las gnas lugs rang byung gi rgyud rdo rje’i snying po. Alternative translation in Dudjom Lingpa (2015, Vol. III, p. 67). Skt. samāpatti; Tib. snyoms ’jug; Ch. 等⾄ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, děngzhì; Wade-Giles, teng -chih ) / 正受 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhèngshòu; Wade-Giles, cheng -shou ). Skt. dhyāna; Pāli jhāna; Tib. bsam gtan; Ch. 禪 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chán; Wade-Giles, ch’an ). a b c d e 1 4 f 4 4 4 g h 3 4 4 4 i 2 169 which all appearances have vanished. This is called the actual base-of-all; free of clinging to experiences conditioned by the intellect and mentation, one is absorbed in a formless, basic [space]. Longchenpa describes four different instances of the base-of-all (the phrases within brackets were inserted by the author of this book): a There are [different levels of] gnition which have no connection with liberation [from saṃsāra] and which are in the state of the base-of-all. They are (a) the gnition which is in the state of absorption, a stable absorption of tranquility, (b) the gnition which is in the absorption (of) clarity and no-thought, stable and [involving] a partial insight, and (c) the gnition which is [a] gross gnition arisen after (the appearances [of would-be]) objects with the dominant conditions, the six sense faculties. The virtuous, bad [or neither one nor the other] karmas accumulated through those three kinds of gnitions delude beings [and respectively result] in the formless realm, [the] form realm or [the] realm [of sensuality] .... The reason is that they do not lead to liberation and do not transcend the [duality of] apprehender and apprehended. Here the state of absorption of no-thought is the apprehended and absorption on that one pointedly without wavering is the apprehender. b c d 278 Though Longchenpa refers to a duality of apprehended and apprehender, in the base-of-all that duality has not yet manifested as the duality of subject and object, for it does so only when the threefold directional thought structure is reified / hypostasized / absolutized / valorized and thus the second aspect or type of avidyā—the one called spontaneous illusion —manifests. In fact, as noted in the final section of the discussion of the Second Noble Truth, nearly all Dzogchen termas revealed in the last seven centuries, including ones revealed by Longchenpa and Jigme Lingpa, seem to imply that the only aspect or type of avidyā that is manifest in the phenomenal conditions of the base-of-all is the one I rendered as innate beclouding of primordial, nonconceptual and hence nondual Awake awareness or, figuratively, unawareness. The following is an example of Longchenpa distinguishing between the delusion of enjoying objects (or suffering because of them), the thought of a subject and the consciousnesses of the senses: e f g h Mind has three aspects: mind (sems), which is the [awareness of the base-of-all]; thought [and in particular the conception of a mental subject] (yid), which enters into everything and Alternative translation by sPrul sku Don grub in Tulku Thöndup (1996, pp. 223-4). The term “is” is within parentheses for the reasons explained in the Introduction. Tib. shes pa. I used the term Gnition instead of cognition because the prefix “co” implies the subjectobject duality, which is absent in all forms of the base-of-all. Tib. lhag mthong; Skt. vipaśyanā; Pāḷi vipassanā; Ch. 觀 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, guān [seemingly also guàn]; Wade-Giles, kuan ; Jap. kan). Tib. bdag rkyen. cf. Longchenpa (1975a, p. 51; 1976, pp. 24 and 122 note 10 [the latter from Khandro Yangthik (mKha’ ’gro yang thig), part III, p. 117 of edition used by the translator]), and Cornu (2001, p. 62). The Tibetan for this type or type of avidyā is lhan cig skyes pa’i ma rig pa. Tib. rgyu bdag nyid gcig pa’i ma rig pa; cf. Longchenpa, 1976, p. 24, and Cornu, 2001, p. 62. Tib. yid; Skt. manas; Ch. 意 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yì; Wade-Giles, i ). In Tshig don rin po che’i mdzod, 60b/3, as abridged by Tulku Thöndup (1996, p. 213) and edited by Harold Talbott (as always, I adapted the translation to the terminology used in this book). a b c 1 d e f g 4 h 170 enjoys the objects; consciousness (rnam shes), which is the consciousness of the six [sense doors]. These three are cognitions of one [mental phenomenon], which is rooted in [unawareness (of) its own true condition and that begets the] five poisons [which are the five main passions]. It is also worth pointing out that the “neutral base-of-all” does not occur solely in absorptions; it also recurs again and again in normal, everyday human experience— in which, however, it usually goes unnoticed. Finally, it is also important to note that the term base-of-all not always refers to a samsaric condition, for some Bönpo teachers use it to refer to the Base—i.e. to Dzogchen-qua-Base—and, moreover, inherent in the baseof-all is an aspect of rigpa: the Awake or pure aspect of what is called the linking-up base-of-all (a term that in some works refers solely to this Awake or pure aspect of rigpa inherent in the base-of-all ). Finally, it is worth noting that the term “neutral” in “neutral Base-of-all” may be said to have a twofold sense: on the one side it has an ethical sense, which is the one that is normally emphasized, for in the condition in question no sense of good or bad obtains (this being the reason why the karma of immobility that results from resting in the boundless condition of awareness proper to this condition, and that causes rebirth in the formless realms, is viewed as a type of neutral karma), and on the other it has a sense similar to the one the term has in the phrase “neutral gear,” for just like in neutral gear a car moves neither forward nor backward, in the neutral base-of-all neither nirvāṇa nor saṃsāra is active (even though technically the base-of-all, since it involves one of the aspects or types of avidyā, lies within saṃsāra). (3) Among transpersonal, holotropic experiences and realms that, being produced, contrived and conditioned by all the aspects and types of avidyā, pertain to active saṃsāra, most significant are the four formless absorptions and matching four realms of the formless sphere. It should be clear by now that these experiences and realms, which according to Buddhist teachings are the summit of conditioned, cyclic existence (i.e. of saṃsāra), are characterized by a major expansion of the focus of conscious attention and hence by an increased space-time-knowledge—and that therefore, just as happens with the neutral condition of the base-of-all, they may be mistaken for the Total Space-Time-Awareness proper to nonstatic nirvāṇa. a b c d e f g Tib. kun gzhi lung ma bstan. Tib. sbyor ba don gyi kun gzhi. Cf. sPrul sku Don grub (in Tulku Thöndup, 1996, p. 216), who cites Longchen Rabjampa’s rDzogs pa chen po sems nyid ngal gso’i ’grel ba shing rta chen po, vol. I, 80a/1. It is in this work where the term linking-up base-of-all or sbyor ba don gyi kun gzhi refers solely to the rigpa inherent in the Base. Namely in the work by kLong chen pa cited in the immediately preceding footnote. Skt. āninjyakarma; Pāḷi aniñjitakamma; Tib. mi gyo ba’i las; Ch. 不動業 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùdòng yè; Wade-Giles, pu -tung yeh ). Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). Skt. caturārūpyasamāpatti; Tib. gzugs med pa’i snyoms ’jug bzhi; Ch. 四空定 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sìkōng dìng; Wade-Giles, ssu -k’ung ting ) or, perhaps slightly more precisely, four ārūpyāvacaradhyāna; Pāli arūpāvacarajhāna; Tib. gzugs med na spyod pa’i bsam gtan; Ch. 無⾊界定 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúsèjiè dìng; Wade-Giles, wu -se -chieh ting ). (Four ārūpyāvacaradhyāna: Tib. gzugs med na spyod pa’i bsam gtan bzhi; Ch. 四無⾊界定 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sì wú-sè-jiè dìng; Wade-Giles, ssu wu -se -chieh ting ]). Skt. ārūpyadhātu; Pāli, arūpaloka; Tib. gzugs med pa’i khams; Ch. 無⾊界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúsèjiè; Wade-Giles, wu -se -chieh ). a b c d 4 4 4 e 3 f 4 2 4 1 4 4 4 4 g 2 4 4 171 2 4 4 4 2 Formless states arise when, immediately following an occurrence of (2) the baseof-all, reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of the threefold directional thought-structure turns the seeming infinitude proper to that condition into a proto-object (at which point it is no longer a real infinitude, for it excludes the protosubject), and hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of different subtle concepts makes us experience either: (i) an infinitude of space; (ii) an infinitude of the consciousness that is perceiving that infinitude and that seems to be one with it; (iii) something that, being infinite, cannot be embraced by any concept and is hence inconceivable; or (iv) something that cannot be conceived even as inconceivable, but that for this very reason is conceptualized as not not this and not not that. Although in this sphere the coarse passions do not arise, a posteriori the mental subject derives pride from identifying with whichever of the four possible conceptualizations occurred in the corresponding individual’s experience. As a Tantra revealed by Dudjom Lingpa put it: a b c d e f g [The base-of-all, despite obscuring the true condition of the Base,] is not a gloom-like covering of darkness, but it is likened to darkness because it obscures “your own face.” In reality, it abides as a blank, immaterial vacuity in which there are no thoughts of anything. There are four ways of grasping at this: as space-like, as nothingness, as neither existence nor nonexistence, and as boundless consciousness [in an] obscured [form]. Subtle grasping of your own consciousness weaves them into the base-of-all, and when this stabilizes, you are led astray in these four ways and get stuck in them. Those who remain in a blank, unthinking vacuity create the causes for [rebirth in a state that is] devoid of discernment. By firmly establishing oneself in the neutral condition of the base-of-all or in one of the above four absorptions, one may then take birth in the corresponding realm among Skt. trimaṇḍala; Tib. ’khor gsum; Ch. 三輪 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānlùn; Wade-Giles, san -lun ). Skt. arthasāmānya; Tib. don spyi; Ch. 總事 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngshì; Wade-Giles, tsung -shih ) or 總義 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngyì; Wade-Giles, tsung -i ). The first of the four formless absorptions (ārūpyasamāpatti or ārūpasamādhi) is (1) the dominion of the infinitude of space (Skt. ākāśānantyasamāpatti; Tib. nam mkha’ mtha’ yas snyoms ’jug; Ch. 空無邊處定 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, kōng wúbiān chùdìng; Wade-Giles, k’ung wu -pien ch’u -ting ]). The second of the four formless absorptions is (2) the dominion of the infinitude of consciousness (Skt. vijñānantyasamāpatti; Tib. rnam shes mtha’ yas snyoms ’jug; Ch. 識無邊處定 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shì wúbiān chùdìng; Wade-Giles, shih wu -pien ch’u -ting ). The third is (3) the dominion where there are no “whats” (Skt. ākiñcanyasamāpatti; Tib. ci yang med pa’i snyoms ’jug; Ch. 無所有處定 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wú suǒyǒu chùdìng; Wade-Giles, wu so -yu ch’u -ting ]). The fourth is (4) the dominion in which there is neither perception nor absence of perception (Skt. naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāsamāpatti; Tib.’du shes med ’du shes med min gyi snyoms ’jug; Ch. ⾮想⾮⾮想處 定 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fēixiǎng fēifēixiǎng chùdìng; Wade-Giles, fei -hsiang fei -fei -hsiang ch’u -ting ), also called “Peak of Experience” (Skt. bhavāgra; Tib. srid [pa’i] rtse [mo]; Ch. 有頂天 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒudǐngtiān; Wade-Giles, yu -ting -t’ien ]): cf. Capriles (2013a, note 75 and Vol. II, note 187). In the fourth formless absorption gross discrimination is left behind and there is only the subtlest of discriminations. The Awake Vision of Samantabhadra (etc.). Tib. Ka dag rdzogs pa chen po’i klong mdzod zab mo/ ma bcos rdzogs ldan rang byung gi sangs rgyas/ kun tu bzang po’i dgongs pa lag pa’i mthil du brkam nas lhag ger bstan pa/ dgongs brda snyan brgyud chig rdzogs kyi man ngag bka’ rgya ma. In Vol. 17 of Collected works of the emanated great treasures, the secret, profound treasures of Dudjom Lingpa (Thinpu, Bhutan: Kuenzang Wangdue). Translation in Dudjom Lingpa, Vol. I (2015); passage in p. 190. The translation was adapted to the terminology used in this book. a 1 4 b 3 3 4 4 c 1 3 1 4 4 d 4 3 1 4 4 e 2 3 3 4 4 f 1 3 3 1 g 172 3 1 1 3 4 4 the four formless realms, corresponding to the four sections of the formless sphere: (1) activity field of the infinitude of space; (2) activity field of the infinitude of consciousness; (3) activity field where there are no “whats;” and (4) activity field where is neither perception nor its absence —this highest of all samsaric realms being also called “Peak of Experience.” Since, as already suggested, the time dimension is directly proportional to the space dimensions, in these realms time is experienced as flowing in an extremely slow way, and hence the stays in these realms are experienced as lasting for extremely long periods. However, even some experiences that do not involve the expansion of the focus of conscious attention or an increased space-time-knowledge—such as, for example, the noted four contemplations with form (which correspond to the realms of the sphere of form) and states that correspond to conditions within the gods’ realms of the sphere of desire —often become the spurious aims of misguided spiritual practice. a b c d e f g h i 279 In terms of the general, common psycho-cosmology of Buddhism discussed in a previous chapter of this book, most of the experience of sentient beings belongs to the samsaric “sphere of sensuality,” which just like the “sphere of form” involves the figureground division that results from the circumscription of conscious attention to one segment of the sensory field that is perceived as figure, while the rest of the field is engulfed in a kind of penumbra of attention, becoming background—yet unlike the sphere of form, that of sensuality involves recurring, ceaseless emotional reactions of the mental subject toward its objects whereby the former tries to assert and confirm its own existence as an absolutely true and extremely important entity. Thus, this sphere is j Skt. caturārūpyadhātu; Tib. gzugs med khams pa’i gnas bzhi; Ch. 四無⾊界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sì wúsèjiè; Wade-Giles, ssu wu -se -chieh ); may also be [catur] arūpaloka or [catur] ārūpyāvacara. In the Chinese translation of the Kṣitigarbha Bodhisattva Pūrvapraṇidhāna Sūtra (Ch. 地藏菩薩本願經淺 ), these realms are also rendered by the Chinese names 四空處 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sì kōngchù; Wade-Giles, ssu k’ung -ch’u ), 四空天 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sì kōngtiān; Wade-Giles, ssu k’ung -t’ien ). Skt. ārūpyadhātu; Pāḷi, arūpaloka; Tib. gzugs med pa’i khams; Ch. 無⾊界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúsèjiè; Wade-Giles, wu -se -chieh ); also arūpaloka or ārūpyāvacara. Skt. ākāśānantyāyatana; Pāḷi ākāsānañcāyatana; Tib. nam mkha’ mtha’ yas skye mched; Ch. 空無邊處 定 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, kōng wúbiān chù; Wade-Giles, k’ung wu -pien ch’u ). Skt. vijñānānantyāyatana; Pāḷi viññāṇañcāyatana; Tib. rnam shes mtha ’yas skye mched; Ch. 識無邊處 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shì wúbiān chù; Wade-Giles, shih wu -pien ch’u ). Skt. ākiñcaniyāyatana; Pāḷi ākiñcaññāyatana; Tib. ci yang med pa’i skye mched; Ch. 無所有處 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wú suǒyǒu chù; Wade-Giles, wu so -yu ch’u ). Skt. naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana; Pāḷi nevasaññānāsaññāyatana; Tib. ’du shes med ’du shes med min skye mched; Ch. ⾮想⾮⾮想處 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fēixiǎng fēifēixiǎng chù; Wade-Giles, fei -hsiang fei -fei hsiang ch’u ). Skt. bhavāgra; Tib. srid rtse or srid pa’i rtse mo; Ch. 有頂天 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒudǐngtiān; Wade-Giles, yu -ting -t’ien ). Skt. caturdhyāna or [four] rūpādhyāna; Pāli catujhāna or [four] rūpājhāna; Tib. gzugs khams kyi bsam gtan bzhi; Ch. 四定 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sìdìng; Wade-Giles, ssu -ting ) or 四禪 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sìchán; WadeGiles, ssu -ch’an ). Also rūpāvacaradhyāna; Pāli rūpāvacarajhāna; Tib. gzugs na spyod pa’i bsam gtan; Ch. ⾊界定 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sèjiè dìng; Wade-Giles, se -chieh ting ). Skt. devagati / suragati / devaloka / devagati; Tib. lha ’gro ba; Ch. 天趣 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tiān qù; WadeGiles, t’ien ch’ü ). Pāḷi and Skt. kāmadhātu or kāmaloka; Tib. dod pa’i khams; Ch. 欲界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yùjiè; Wade-Giles, yü -chieh ). a 4 2 4 4 4 1 4 4 1 1 b 2 4 4 c 1 3 1 4 d 4 3 1 4 e 2 3 3 4 f 1 3 4 g 3 3 1 h 4 4 4 i 1 4 j 4 4 2 4 173 4 4 3 1 1 conditioned by the passions, and in it pleasure is of the sensual kind. In particular, by intensifying sensual pleasure and making it more stable—which can be achieved by a misuse and distortion of Tantric practices with consort—some beings of this sphere climb to the higher regions of the sphere of sensuality, achieving contemplations that correspond to those of the gods realms and in particular of the “gods of sensuality,” and that serve as a cause for rebirth in the “realm of the gods of sensuality.” As shown in the same previous section, the sphere that is immediately higher to that of sensuality is the “sphere of form,” which may be said to lie in its entirety within the realms of the gods, and the characteristics of which are to some extent comparable to those of the experiences of aesthetic appreciation reviewed in a previous chapter, yet are stabilized by means of karma of immovility. Experiences that correspond to those of the sphere under consideration often result from grasping at one of the initial stages in the development of active saṃsāra from the neutral condition of the base-of-all as described in some Dzogchen teachings, yet stable contemplations of this sphere often result from deviations in the practice, such as developing attachment to visualizations of the Tantric stage of generation or creation or other concentrations that involve the figure / ground divide. In particular, the contemplations that correspond to the various realms of the gods of this sphere may serve as a cause for rebirth in those realms (another cause for such rebirths was described above in a cite from Longchenpa). At any rate, both the contemplations and the realms in question, like those of sensuality, involve the figure / ground divide resulting from the circumscription of conscious attention at a given time, to one segment of the sensory field that is perceived as figure, while the rest of the field is engulfed in a kind of “penumbra of attention” and thus comes to constitute the ground. However, unlike the states of the sphere of sensuality, the contemplations and states of the realms of form do not involve coarse passions. However, in the most advanced Dzogchen practices—namely those of Thögel and the Yangthik that will be discussed below—the dynamic of the sphere of form may be the key catalyst for optimizing the spontaneous liberation of delusion, for it has been rightly said that “The sphere of form is an ocean of vibration that becomes ever more turbulent as one moves away from its peaceful profundities; sensitive to the slightest tremor of pain or displeasure, the impulses [that are proper to this sphere] formulate their own antidote to disharmony.” In fact, in the aforementioned practices visions of light manifest that, when the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of thought is active and hence dualism is manifest, are perceived within the samsaric sphere of form; then the dynamic of the ocean of vibration that becomes ever more turbulent as one moves away from its peaceful profundities, due to sensitivity to the slightest tremor of pain or displeasure, activate the impulses proper to this sphere that, as the quotation a b c d 280 e f Skt. devagati / suragati / devaloka / suraloka; Tib. lha ’gro ba; Ch. 天趣 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tiān qù; WadeGiles, t’ien -ch’ü ). Skt. rūpadhātu; Pāli, rūpaloka; Tib. gzugs khams; Ch. ⾊界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sèjiè; Wade-Giles, se -chieh ). Skt. devagati / suragati / devaloka / devagati; Tib. lha ’gro ba; Ch. 天趣 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tiān qù; WadeGiles, t’ien -ch’ü ). Skt. āninjyakarma (also aniñjanakarman); Pāḷi aniñjitakamma; Tib. mi gyo ba’i las; Ch. 不動業 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùdòng yè; Wade-Giles, pu -tung yeh ). Skt. utpattikrama; Tib. bskyed rim; Ch. ⽣起次第 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shēngqǐ cìdì; Wade-Giles, sheng -ch’i tz’u -ti ). Padmasambhava and others (1973; Italian, 1977, p. 15). a 1 4 b 4 4 c 1 4 d 4 4 4 e 1 4 4 f 174 3 notes, “formulate their own antidote to disharmony.” How this happens will be considered in the discussion of the practices in question. At any rate, it must be kept in mind that this potential function of the sphere of form can only lead to spontaneous liberation in duly prepared individuals: undertaking practices such as Thögel or the Yangthik without having developed a sufficient capacity of spontaneous liberation by means of Tekchö practice, rather than resulting in advance on the Path of Awakening, would only create great trouble potentially resulting in great harm. The sphere that the vehicles and schools of the Buddhist Path of Renunciation deem highest and that may be regarded as the highest region of the realms of the gods is the “formless sphere.” The contemplations that correspond to the realms of this sphere are reached when, being still conditioned by the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of the contents of thoughts at the root of basic human delusion, our scope of consciousness—and therefore our space-time-awareness—is enlarged and hence experiences arise that do not involve a narrow focus of conscious attention and thus may be said to be holotropic, and the individual’s sense of self is not circumscribed to the entity designated by the individual’s name and hence may be said to be transpersonal. As a result, rather than attaining the state of supreme sanity that Buddhists call Awakening, we obtain a conditioned, impermanent experience of the highest realms of cyclic existence or saṃsāra, the core of which continues to be avidyā in all of the senses of the term discussed in this book. The point is that the progressive panoramification of consciousness in deluded individuals, which causes the scope of conscious attention and space-time-knowledge to widen, at some point may produce the illusion that the figure-background division has collapsed, inducing transpersonal, holotropic experiences of seeming oneness and totality that are conditioned by the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of the threefold directional thought structure and of intuitive / subtle thoughts. Since in those cases the mental subject will tend to identify (so to speak ) with the pseudo-totality that is perceived, it will obtain the illusion of having become one with the object and thus having gone beyond the subject-object duality. Since transpersonal experiences of this kind cause delusion and saṃsāra to become amplest, quietest and conflict-free for a very long length of time, so long as deluded individuals dwell in the formless sphere it will be hardly possible for them to overcome delusion and saṃsāra—and if, on the top, in their post-meditation they wrongly believe they have overcome saṃsāra and attained nirvāṇa, it will be absolutely impossible for them to move from saṃsāra to nirvāṇa. a b281 282 283 284 The supreme sanity that results from successful Buddhist practice is nos only free from the first aspect or type of avidyā, but from all three aspects or types. And this Wylie, thod rgal, which, as noted by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu, etymologically conveys the idea of instantly crossing over a mountain pass, yet here I render as “swift transition.” Another acceptation of the Tibetan term’s etymology, favored by mKhan po dPal ldan shes rab (Khenpo Palden Sherab); cf. Wilkinson (2016, p. 83, note 21) is “to move beyond the skull,” which may be rendered as “project from the head [to the space] in front of it” insofar as the practice involves the projection of the luminosity that, originating in the heart, ascends and shines in the eyes, being projected in front of the skull as “rays” which may appear as thigles (thig le) with deities inside them. Skt. ārūpyadhātu; Pāli, arūpaloka; Tib. gzugs med pa’i khams; Ch. 無⾊界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúsèjiè; Wade-Giles, wu -se -chieh ). a b 2 4 4 175 implies that it is also free from conditioning by any of the three types of hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized thought discussed in a previous chapter: coarse, subtle/intuitive, and super-subtle. To explain the latter point in terms of the image used by Alfred Korzybski, when hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of the three main types of thoughts is active, the maps consisting of thoughts and chains of thoughts are confused with the territory of the given; on the contrary, when rigpa manifests, all of those thoughts self-liberate—and when we reach supreme sanity the confusion in question no longer happens. In particular, in the case of the noted supersubtle thought called threefold directional thought-structure, when it is no longer hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized that distortion of the given which is the subject-object duality no longer manifests. In the case of subtle, intuitive thoughts, when no longer hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized, the field of sensa, which with the naked eye is analog and hence continuous, is no longer distorted by being experienced in digital and therefore discontinuous terms. And in the case of coarse, discursive thoughts, when not hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized, we do not believe that a given thought or chain of thoughts is absolutely correct and true concerning what it interprets, and that the opposite thought or chain of thoughts is absolutely incorrect and false. An advanced practitioner of Dzogchen Atiyoga simply remains in the state of nondual Awake, undistorted awareness called rigpa that makes patent and functional the all-liberating single gnosis inherent in the state in question, so that hypostasized / reified / valorized thoughts of all possible types liberate themselves spontaneously as they arise. If the individual is not fully realized and at some point thoughts of one of the already discussed main three types fail to liberate themselves spontaneously, he or she will look into their essence (which is the dharmakāya that she or he has already become familiar with ), thus offering those thoughts a chance to liberate themselves simultaneously with the mind perceiving them, in the bare disclosure of the state of rigpa by a nonconceptual and hence nondual primordial gnosis. In particular, if a Dzogchen practitioner who is not yet fully realized enters a conditioned transpersonal, holotropic sphere—for example, having an experience that corresponds to one of the formless realms —he or she will instantly realize his or her experience to be tinged by the three types of thought, and thus will look at these thoughts so as to reGnize their stuff, which is the mode of manifestation of energy that the Dzogchen teachings call dang, and in this way reGnize a b c d e f 285 g h i Korzybski (2d. ed. 1941). Cf. endnote 67. Skt. arthasāmānya; Tib. don spyi; Ch. 總義 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngyì; Wade-Giles, tsung -i ), which in a Dzogchen context I render as universal, abstract concept of an entity [resulting from a mental synthesis] conveying a meaning. Skt. śabdasāmānya; Tib. sgra spyi; Ch. 論聲總 (simplified 论声总) (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, lùnshēngzǒng; WadeGiles, lun -sheng -tsung ). In Dzogchen contexts I render this term as word sound patterns [resulting from mental syntheses] that convey meanings. Tib. gcig shes kun grol. Tib. ngo bo: the first of the three aspects of the Base / Dzogchen-qua-Base. I.e. one of the four realms of the formless sphere (Skt. ārūpyadhātu; Pāli, arūpaloka; Tib. gzugs med pa’i khams; Ch. 無⾊界 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúsèjiè; Wade-Giles, wu -se -chieh ]). Tib. thugs rje: the third of the three aspects of the Base / Dzogchen-qua-Base. Wylie, gdangs. a b c 3 d 4 1 3 e f g 2 h i 176 4 4 4 their essence—upon which the dharmakāya is instantly revealed as they liberate themselves spontaneously in the patency of the state of rigpa. Therefore, as shown in a recent four-volume book of mine, in the provisional versions of a three-volume book, and in several of my papers and book chapters, the experiences of whichever level or realm among those described by transpersonal and integral psychologists such as Stanislav Grof, Ken Wilber and so on, will be instances of delusion that pertain to active saṃsāra if tinged and conditioned by super-subtle, intuitive or discursive hypostasized / reified / valorized thoughts, and will pertain to dormant saṃsāra if they are free from all types of thought yet the first sense or aspect of avidyā conceals the true condition of ourselves and the whole universe. However, so far transpersonal and so-called integral psychologies do not have distinguished these three possibilities, among which, as it was shown earlier in this chapter, it is imperative to discriminate: (1) Awakening or nirvāṇa, wherein one is not conditioned by any of the possible types of hypostasized / reified / valorized thought; (2) states technically pertaining to saṃsāra and hence excluding nirvāṇa wherein, nevertheless, saṃsāra is nor actively functioning; and (3) samsaric transpersonal experiences of cosmic oneness and so on involving a partial enlargement of the scope of conscious awareness (i.e. of space-time-knowledge), yet being tinged and conditioned by thoughts. Moreover, the earlier works by Maslow and others seemed to view so-called peak experiences as ends in themselves, and although this pioneer of transpersonal psychology warned against this in his later works, laymen influenced by transpersonal and related psychologies, and even transpersonal, integral and related psychologists themselves, all too often pursue samsaric, thought-tinged transpersonal highs that then are succeeded by lows, or states wherein neither saṃsāra nor nirvāṇa are active. And the same occurs to followers of some Hindu spiritual systems, including those of the Sāṃkhya and Yoga darśanas. In particular, as shown in the discussion of the First Noble Truth, in thoughttinged and hence conditioned, samsaric transpersonal states, the delusive identification (so to speak) with a subtle, intuitive conceptualization of oneness, whether or not it is subsequently expressed in terms of a concatenation of discursive thoughts such as “all is One,” or with a subtle, intuitive conceptualization of infinity, etc., subsequently may give rise to a sense of power and supremeness, causing the individual to adhere to those thoughts, and making it almost impossible for him or her to recognize saṃsāra as such. It is therefore possible that the individual may succeed in making such states relatively stable and come to believe that by so doing he or she has gone beyond the ego—in which case he or she might go so far as to attain what Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche called “the totally demonic state of complete egohood.” In fact, in order to free ourselves from saṃsāra, rather than climbing peaks or resting on plateaus and clinging to them, we need to have direct access to the unconditioned all-liberating single gnosis in which all samsaric, thought-tinged experiences—including peaks, plateaus, valleys and deep pits—liberate themselves spontaneously upon arising. a b c 286 287 d Capriles (2013abcd). Capriles (2007a Vol. II). The ones in the Reference section that have the terms transpersonal or metatranspersonal in the title or subtitle, and others that are not listed there. Tib. gcig shes kun grol. a b c d 177 If individuals cease identifying (so to speak) with the limited entities designated by their names, yet come to identify (so to speak) with something far more extensive, though they may believe that they are getting rid of their egos, in truth they will be enlarging and reinforcing those egos. This is precisely what happens in the four realms or absorptions of the formless sphere. In fact, (1) in the lowest, which is the “infinitude of space,” the figure-ground division seems to have totally dissolved; all that previously was perceived as substantial entities is experienced as limitless space, beyond obstructions or variety, and one identifies (so to speak) with what seems to be an infinitude of space—subsequently taking pride in this grandiose identity. (2) In the “infinitude of consciousness,” which may be entered when, having perceived the previous state as gross and having surpassed it by means of stabilizing meditation, the meditator dwells on the subtle thought that the seeming infinitude appearing as object is the seemingly limitless, unchanging, absolute, pure, undifferentiated and peaceful consciousness that is apprehending it—subsequently taking pride in this grandiose identity. (3) In the “infinitude of nothingness,” which is the result of perceiving the previous state as gross and surpassing it by cultivating a mental state in which only nothingness appears, there is no idea of anything positive—space, consciousness or anything else—yet the threefold directional thought structure is still hypostasized / reified / valorized and one identifies (so to speak) with the seeming infinitude of nothingness—subsequently taking pride in this grandiose identity. (4) In the highest formless realm, which is the “infinitude of neither recognition nor non-recognition,” also referred to as “peak of existence”, and which results from perceiving the previous state as gross and then surpassing it by transcending coarse discrimination between nothingness and not-nothingness, recognition and non-recognition, etc., one is not free from hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of the threefold directional thought structure and of subtle thoughts, and therefore one identifies (so to speak) with the subtle concept appearing as object that establishes the impossibility to conceptualize one’s identity in any possible way—subsequently taking pride in this grandiose identity. As a realm in which one takes rebirth, this “peak of existence” is said to involve extremely long lifespans in which nothing unpleasant is perceived and discrimination is only of the subtlest kind. As suggested above, the exceptional length of this lifespan is due to the fact that, of all conditioned states, this is the one in which space-time-awareness is largest: it because time is so ample, that one’s lifetime is experienced as being exceedingly long. 288 a b c d e f I.e. one of the four realms or absorptions of the formless sphere (Skt. ārūpyadhātu; Pāli, arūpaloka; Tib. gzugs med pa’i khams; Ch. 無⾊界 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúsèjiè; Wade-Giles, wu -se -chieh ]). Skt. ākāśānantyasamāpatti; Tib. nam mkha’ mtha’ yas snyoms ’jug; Ch. 空無邊處定 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, kōng wúbiān chùdìng; Wade-Giles, k’ung wu -pien ch’u -ting ). Skt. vijñānantyasamāpatti; Tib. rnam shes mtha’ yas snyoms ’jug; Ch. 識無邊處定 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shì wúbiān chùdìng; Wade-Giles, shih wu -pien ch’u -ting ). ākiñcanyasamāpatti; Tib. ci yang med pa’i snyoms ’jug; Ch. 無所有處定 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wú suǒyǒu chùdìng; Wade-Giles, wu so -yu ch’u -ting ). Skt. naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāsamāpatti; Tib.’du shes med ’du shes med min gyi snyoms ’jug; Ch. ⾮想⾮⾮ 想處定 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fēixiǎng fēifēixiǎng chùdìng; Wade-Giles, fei -hsiang fei -fei -hsiang ch’u -ting ). Skt. bhavāgra; Tib. srid rtse or srid pa’i rtse mo; Ch. 有頂天 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒudǐngtiān; Wade-Giles, yu -ting -t’ien ). a 2 4 4 b 1 3 1 4 4 c 4 3 1 4 4 d 2 3 3 4 4 e 1 f 3 3 1 178 3 1 1 3 4 4 In short, unlike other systems of psychology, transpersonal psychology agrees with Buddhism that sanity or mental health cannot lie in “normality,” understood as a functional adaptation to a socially sanctioned, socially conditioned pseudo-reality not involving too high levels of conflict. However, as clearly shown by Candrakīrti’s fable of the maddening water told above in this book, Buddhism is far nearer the criterion of sanity and insanity shared by some beacons of antipsychiatry in the ample sense of the term, which is of the kind I call [meta]phenomenological: the Buddhist criterion for determining true sanity and true insanity is the absence or presence of the compound of (i) unawareness of the true condition of ourselves and all phenomena and (ii) delusion. In fact, (a) true sanity consists in the eradication of saṃsāra and the attainment and irreversible stabilization of nonstatic nirvāṇa; (b) partial sanity lies in the alternation of absolute truth or rigpa during the Contemplation state of higher bodhisattvas, yogins, siddhas, etc., and mitigated delusion during their state of post-Contemplation; and (c) insanity ranges from normality to psychosis. Thus, Buddhism is in stark contrast with those naïve, unsophisticated systems of transpersonal and integral psychology that attribute the same value to all sorts of unspecific, generic transpersonal and holotropic experience. Actually, the fact that neither transpersonal, holotropic experiences within the bounds of saṃsāra, nor transpersonal, holotropic experiences in which saṃsāra is not active but which technically pertain to saṃsāra, either constitute true sanity or are the means to achieve true sanity, cannot be emphasized too much. The Dzogchen Kunzang Lama reads: 289 a b c d e By practicing a meditative absorption in which no sense of good and evil obtains and conceiving this state as liberation, they are born as gods of the sphere beyond perception and lack of perception and stay in this absorption for many great aeons. But when the karma that gave rise to this state becomes exhausted, on account of their erroneous view (of setting out to build a constructed / conditioned state that as such is transient and pertains to saṃsāra, and mistaking it for liberation), they are reborn in the lower realms of existence. Hence this state is an unfavorable condition for practicing the dharma. 290 As noted in a previous chapter, dwelling in such “highs” causes us to become disaccustomed to the discomfort and suffering proper to lower realms, and so when the “fuel” consisting of the actions and habits—that is, the karma—that allowed us to climb to the highest samsaric realm is exhausted, or when the secondary causes or contributory conditions that allowed us to remain therein are no longer present, and therefore we “fall” to lower spheres involving a smaller space-time-knowledge and coarser sensations and thoughts to which we are no longer accustomed, we will reject these frantically— and since the very high energetic volume determining the scope of awareness that f291 Skt. samāhita; Tib. mnyam bzhag; Ch. 等引 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, děngyǐn; Wade-Giles, teng -yin ). Skt. āryabodhisattva; Tib. byang ’phags or byang chub sems dpa’ ’phags pa. Term not used in Chinese, except in titles of canonical texts, where is it is rendered as 聖菩薩 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shèng púsà; WadeGiles, sheng p’u-sa; Skt. pṛṣṭhalabdha; Tib. rjes thob; Ch. 後得 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, hòudé; Wade-Giles, hou -te ). rdzogs chen kun bzang bla ma. This quote from the rDzogs chen kun bzang bla ma was taken from Capriles (1977). Since the precise location of the extract in the original text and the latter’s data were not provided in that old text of mine (which was not written according to any established academic methodology), it is not currently available. The same quote was reproduced in Capriles (electronic publication 2007, 3 vols.) and elsewhere. Tib. thig le—in this sense, somewhat akin to the Skt. kuṇḍalinī. a 3 b 4 c 4 d e f 179 2 3 sustains such formless conditions impairs the mechanisms of elusion (Laing) or repression (Freud), by so doing we might well give rise to the experience of one of the most painful realms of existence. The “Great Fifth” Dalai Lama wrote: 292 a The King of Meditations Sūtra (Samādhirājasūtra) says: “Though they cultivate those [absorptions of the peak of existence and so forth], they do not destroy the discrimination of self. Therefore, the afflictions return, and they are thoroughly disturbed—as in the case of the cultivation of the concentrations by Udraka Rāmaputra.” Through the force of not having abandoned the conception of inherent existence, they are disturbed again by the afflictions, as in the case of the forder Udraka Rāmaputra. They again fall into a consciousness of lower states. Therefore, how could it be that trainees who are beings of greatest capacity would seek worldly special insight that only suppresses manifest afflictions? b In fact, ascent to “higher realms” through application of spiritual methods or other activities or circumstances has been compared to an arrow shot upwards. Since the arrow climbs by the impetus of the limited energy of the action of shooting and since the force of gravity attracts it downwards, sooner or later it will have to fall. Chán (Zen) Buddhist Master Yǒngjiā Xuánjué wrote: c “When the force that drives the arrow is spent it will fall back to the ground and its ascent will only have created adverse karma for the times to come.” Traditionally, those who, through application of spiritual techniques, ascended to the “formless sphere,” were compared to birds taking flight whose shadow grew in size as they rose, but who eventually have to come down. Nowadays, we can replace the birds with airplanes and note that the planes’ shadows represent such people’s perception or understanding of themselves in terms of hypostasized / reified / valorized / absolutized supersubtle, subtle and coarse thoughts that causes them to (illusorily) become a particular ego or “I” (i.e., here the term “shadow” does not have the meaning it has in Jung’s psychology). The plane rises and stays up in the air thanks to the fuel that feeds its engines—which represents the actions at the base of wholesome habits—and the contributory circumstances that allow it to stay up in the air—which in the case of formless spiritual “highs” may comprise an especially calm environment, admiration from disciples, grade of personal fame, absence of adverse opinions, etc... and, in some cases, even objects or substances. As the plane ascends, its shadow becomes larger and Fifth Dalai Lama, English 1974. Quoted in Capriles (1977) and then reproduced in Capriles (electronic publication 2007, 3 vols.). The original read “concentrations” instead of “absorptions.” I.e., ford-maker. The Sanskrit term in the translation was tirthaka (a case of tīrthika, which is the Buddhist term for those who believe in the existence of a truly existing, substantial individual self, and which is often rendered as “heretic.” Since those who climb to the formless realms are forgers of Awakening, in previous versions of this book I emended the translation, replacing forder with forger). Yoka Daishi / Taisen Deshimaru (Spanish 1981). (Yōka Daishi and Yōka Genkaku are the Japanese pronunciations of 永嘉⽞覺—the name of Yǒngjiā Xuánjué [Wade-Giles Yung -chia Hsüan -chüeh ], one of the five Chinese spiritual heirs of Huìnéng [惠能: Wade-Giles, Hui -neng ; Cantonese—Huìnéng’s own language—Wai -nang , often rendered as Wei-lang; Jap. Enō], the sixth patriarch of Chán [禪; Wade-Giles, Ch’an ; Jap. hiragana ぜん / romaji Zen; Korean, 선: Seon; Viet. Thiền].) a b c 3 4 6 4 2 180 2 1 2 2 less distinct, until, when the plane has reached a certain altitude, the shadow seems to have disappeared: such people reach the formless sphere when their delusory sense-ofself has expanded to the point of embracing the entire cosmos. Finally, at some point they come to dwell on the thought of the impossibility of defining the seemingly limitless condition with which they identify, achieving the illusion that their sense of self has dissolved and coming to believe that they are “beings who have transcended the notionof-self.” It is at this point that they have come to dwell in the peak of cyclic, conditioned existence. Even though, while they dwell in that condition, their sense-of-self—i.e. the airplane’s shadow—remains invisible, it does not disappear. And since no aircraft can fly ceaselessly—for it carries a limited quantity of fuel, and at some time unfavorable conditions will replace the favorable ones that allow it to fly—sooner or later it will have to descend and, once again, its shadow will be confined to its usual tight limits: the individual will feel again confined to a narrow identity. As noted above, while such individuals are still in the formless realms, they become aware that they are about to fall, and hence their worry makes them reject their experience, giving rise to suffering. Because they had grown totally disaccustomed to suffering while staying in the highest realms for periods experienced as aeons, upon meeting suffering again they feel compelled to reject it with greater impetus than ever— which makes their experience more painful than ever. And because they have a quite high energetic volume determining the scope of awareness —for the height of the volume in question was that which allowed their deluded consciousness to encompass the whole sensory field rather than taking a limited segment as figure and leaving the rest as ground—the painful character of their sensations and feeling-tone will be felt in its nakedness. This, for its part, will make them reject those sensations and feeling-tone with even greater impetus—which will make them even more painful, which for its part will elicit even further rejection. Thus, a positive feedback loop—i.e., a systemic autocatalysis —of rejection and pain is unleashed that will generate a terrible hellish experience. This is most probably the reason why the teachings affirm that upon falling from the formless realms sentient beings are very likely to take rebirth in purgatories (impermanent hells). Moreover, since people who “descend” from such panoramic states have become used to the ampleness, seeming limitlessness of their experience, when they find themselves once again confined to the narrow limits to which they had been confined before their ascent to the formless realms—i.e. to the narrow, tunnel-like consciousness proper to the sphere of sensuality—they will very likely experience claustrophobia, to which they will react with forceful rejection. As also noted above, this is the reason why the suffering of change is compared to a bee that, after being in boundless space, is confined to the claustrophobic dimension of a small jar. a b c 293 d Skt. bhavāgra; Tib. srid rtse or srid pa’i rtse mo; Ch. 有頂天 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒudǐngtiān; Wade-Giles, yu -ting -t’ien ). Eons; i.e. cosmic time cycles: Skt. kalpa; Pāḷi kappa; Tib. bskal pa; Ch. 劫 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn jié; WadeGiles chieh ; jap. gō). Tib. thig le, which in this sense is similar in meaning to the Skt. kuṇḍalinī. Skt. naraka; Tib. dmyal ba; Ch. 地獄 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dìyù; Wade-Giles, ti -yü ). a 3 3 1 b 2 c d 4 181 4 The fuel that allows one to climb to spiritual heights and sustains the “high” thus achieved is the repeated action that establishes the wholesome habits or attitudes at the root of the ensuing condition. Buddhists call it “principal cause” and compare it to the seed from which a plant sprouts and grows, while comparing the “contributory conditions” —which, as remarked above, include the environment and so on, and in some cases may even include the action of objects or substances—to light, moisture, earth, heat, etc. When the fuel is used up or the conditions change—in terms of the metaphor, when the airplane’s fuel is exhausted or when atmospheric or mechanical conditions make it impossible for it to keep flying—the individual will again have to face the narrow limits of her or his identity. Just as the karma of immobility that is the main cause of birth in formless and form realms is at some point exhausted, so is the good karma resulting from our wellmeaning, good actions. This is why it was stated that the solution to our problems could not lie simply in avoiding bad actions and accumulating good ones. Whenever we act in an intentional, self-conscious manner, for an instant our consciousness takes as its object the entity that is acting (the individual with its aspects of body, voice, mind, qualities and activities), accepting it when, according to our natural sensitivity and the synthetic moral criterion conditioning us (in terms of Freud’s second topic, the superego), the action is “good,” rejecting it when it is “bad,” and remaining indifferent when it is “neutral.” This is why lie detectors work: when someone lies, for an instant consciousness rejects the lying self, and this rejection produces a subtle contraction or spasm that is registered by the machine. Now, each and every act that, being deemed bad, causes consciousness to reject the purported agent, will establish propensities for rejection—which, since rejection begets pain, are propensities for future experiences of pain (and which, when the necessary contributory conditions are present, will certainly give rise to hellish rebirths ). At any rate, all kinds of intentional, self-conscious action affirm and sustain the illusion of a separate agent-perceiver that is the very core of the compound of unawareness and delusion called avidyā, maintaining saṃsāra. And since it is impossible for the seemingly separate agent-perceiver to accept experience continuously, acceptance will sooner or later give rise to rejection—and thus every ascent to “higher realms” will result in a later descent to “lower” ones. This may allow us to clearly understand why the definitive uprooting of suffering cannot be achieved by abandoning bad actions / karmas and accumulating good ones, and hence why it requires overcoming action itself—or in other words, freeing oneself from karma in general. The same applies to helping others, which is the core of Mahāyāna practice: so long as we are not Awake, our capacity to help others will be insignificant, and due to a b c 294 d e f 295 296 297 298 Skt. karma; Tib. las; Ch. for karma is 業 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yè; Wade-Giles yeh ). (Also ⽺⽯ [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yángshí; Wade-Giles, yang -shih ] and 業障 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yè-zhàng; Wade-Giles, yeh -chang ]). Ch. for action is 举动 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jǔdòng; Wade-Giles, chü -tung ). Skt. and Pāḷi hetu; Tib. rgyu; Ch. 因 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn yīn; Wade-Giles yin ). Skt. pratyaya; Pāḷi paccaya; Tib. rkyen; Ch. 緣 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn yuán; Wade-Giles yuan ). Skt. āninjyakarma; Pāḷi aniñjitakamma; Tib. mi gyo ba’i las; Ch. 不動業 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùdòng yè; Wade-Giles, pu -tung yeh ). Skt. and Pāḷi hetu; Tib. rgyu; Ch. 因 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn yīn; Wade-Giles yin ). Skt. karma; Tib. las; Ch. for karma is 業 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yè; Wade-Giles yeh ). (Also ⽺⽯ [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yángshí; Wade-Giles, yang -shih ] and 業障 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yè-zhàng; Wade-Giles, yeh -chang ]). Ch. for action is 举动 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jǔdòng; Wade-Giles, chü -tung ). a 4 2 2 4 3 4 4 b 1 c 2 d 4 4 4 e 1 f 4 2 2 4 3 182 4 4 the “law of inverted effect” we may harm them while trying to help them. Elsewhere I have quoted the following stanza by Thogme Zangpo: a The gods of this world are not yet free from sorrow, for caught in saṃsāra, some day they must fall. If they’re bound as we are, how can they protect us? How can someone in prison free anyone else? Only the eradication of avidyā will uproot duḥkha and put an end to the cyclic, revolving human existence that Buddhists call “the wheel” (saṃsāra), by the same token allowing us to achieve the two wisdoms of omniscience. In fact, we will be able to attain irreversible plenitude and perfection, and stop being at the mercy of others and of adventitious circumstances, if and only if, by practicing the methods for Awakening and liberation transmitted by a genuine, millenary wisdom-tradition, we finally obtain the irreversible dissolution of the veil that conceals our true condition and of the delusion that distorts this condition and that has as its core our apparently separate, dissatisfied, ever-frustrated dualistic consciousness—thus becoming established in the absolute plenitude and completeness of our original, true condition. This cannot be brought to pass from one day to the next, yet it can be attained at some point if one treads the selfliberating Path that lies in the repeated dissolution of delusion that progressively neutralizes the propensity for the latter to manifest and endows our lives with everincreasing meaning, making us feel ever more complete and experience ever less selfencumbering—and at the end putting an end to craving in general and to craving/thirstfor-existence in particular, all while making the two wisdoms proper to omniscience fully develop in us until they arise simultaneously and irreversibly, as we become established in the absolute plenitude of Awakening. The fact that, so long as we are possessed by the delusion called avidyā, we are doomed to endure constant lack of plenitude, dissatisfaction, discomfort, frustration, and recurrent pain and suffering, does not imply that we must abandon our current profession and habitual activities and way of life. When we consider the various Paths and vehicles of the Old or Nyingmapa tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, we will see that it is only in the context of the Path of Renunciation that some individuals (those who decide to become monks or nuns) need to radically modify their way of life. In higher vehicles, even though practitioners need to be aware that no human activity can be totally satisfactory in and of itself, it is not necessary for them to renounce possessions, spouse, pleasures, renown, and so on. In particular, in the higher vehicles of the Path of Transformation and in the Path of Self-Liberation that will be discussed below, erotic relationships and erotic pleasure, as well as moderate consumption of alcohol and meat and other activities that the Path of Renunciation abhors, can be important elements of the Path to Awakening. Likewise, for those practitioners who fulfill the necessary requirements and who have received from their teachers the mandate to teach others, to write books and so on, to do so may be of the greatest importance. In fact, that which Buddhist b c 299 Quoted in Capriles (1977 [the data of the text from which the quotation was taken were lost]). Then cited in Capriles (electronic publication 2007, 3 vols.). Pāḷi, taṇhā; Skt. tṛṣṇā; Tib. sred pa; Ch. 愛 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, nài; Wade-Giles, nai ). Skt. bhavātṛṣnā; Pāḷi bhavataṇhā; Tib. srid pa’i sred pa; Ch. 有愛 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuài; Wade-Giles, yu -ai ). a b 4 c 3 4 183 practitioners must achieve is the total uprooting of delusion, so that the whole of their activities are approached in a radically different way, and so that they discover a plenitude that, unlike the most intense and sustained pleasure, is truly fulfilling. To conclude this discussion, in the Mahāyāna and higher vehicles it is certainly not enough with wanting to free ourselves from suffering; we must have a call to work for the Awakening of all other beings rooted in equanimous universal compassion— which is an antidote to the selfishness of yearning to free ourselves alone from the sufferings of saṃsāra, which reinforces the cause of these sufferings, of which a central aspect is the illusion of being separate and independent sentient beings, and the feeling that we are the center of the universe with the egotism inherent in it. Therefore, in these vehicles practitioners are required to uproot the self-cherishing that makes us impervious to the sufferings and needs of others, and our motivation should not be merely to achieve our own freedom with regard to duḥkha and the wheel of saṃsāra, but to effectively help all beings liberate themselves from these two. However, if one is to help others effectively liberate themselves from duḥkha and the wheel of saṃsāra, one must have become free from these two by ridding oneself of their cause, which is the basic delusion called avidyā. In fact, this delusion causes us to confuse the cardinal points, and hence so long as we are under its power we cannot lead others to the safe haven of nirvāṇa: when the blind follow the blind, all fall together into the abyss. 184 THE FOURTH NOBLE TRUTH AND THE THREE MAIN PATHS OF BUDDHISM The Fourth Noble Truth, which, as we have seen, is the Path allowing the individual to overcome the first two Truths and attain the Third, was originally explained—and on the Path of Renunciation consisting of the Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna it is regularly explained—in terms of the “Eightfold Noble Path,” consisting of the following eight elements: (1) right view, consisting in adherence to key Buddhist concepts such as the Four Noble Truths, dependent origination, cause-and-effect and so on, and in uprooting all wrong views; (2) right thought, consisting in cultivation of a mental attitude centered in following the Buddhist Path to its final destination; (3) right speech, consisting in avoiding harsh words, lying, slander and gossip, and cultivating their opposites; (4) right disciplined behavior, consisting in acting in accordance with whichever precepts one has taken on; (5) right livelihood, consisting in the avoidance of occupations harmful to beings; (6) right effort or diligence, consisting in doing good and avoiding evil, adopting a mind-set aiming at liberation from saṃsāra, and implementing the practices prescribed to this aim; (7) right presence, collectedness or mindfulness, consisting in maintaining constant awareness and presence of mind and regulating one’s behavior with it; and (8) right meditative absorption, consisting in a good capacity to fix the mind on an object resulting from the previous aspects, which should allow one to develop the four absorptions of the rūpa loka or rūpadhātu and, finally, attain liberation. a b c d e f g h i Skt. āryāṣṭāṅgamārga; Pāḷi ariyāṭṭhaṅgikamagga / ariyoaṭṭhaṅgikomaggo; Tib. ’phags pa’i lam yan lag brgyad; Ch. ⼋正道 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bāzhèngdào; Wade-Giles, pa -cheng -tao ). Skt. samyagdṛṣṭi; Pāḷi sammādiṭṭhi; Tib. yang dag pa’i lta ba; Ch. 正⾒ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhèngjiàn; Wade-Giles, cheng -chien ). Skt. samyaksaṃkalpa; Pāḷi sammāsaṅkappa; Tib. yang dag pa’i rtog pa; Ch. 正思惟 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhèngsīwéi; Wade-Giles, cheng -ssu -wei ). Skt. samyagvāc; Pāḷi sammāvācā; Tib., yang dag pa’i ngag; Ch. 正語 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhèngyǔ; WadeGiles, cheng -yü ). Skt. samyakkarmānta; Pāḷi sammākammanta; Tib. yang dag pa’i las kyi mtha’; Ch. 正業 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhèngyè; Wade-Giles, cheng -yeh ). Skt. samyagājīva; Pāḷi sammājīva; Tib. yang dag pa’i ’tsho ba; Ch. 正命 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhèngmìng; Wade-Giles, cheng -ming ). Skt. samyagvyāyāma; Pāḷi sammāvāyāma; Tib. yang dag pa’i rtsol ba; Ch. 正精進 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhèngjīngjìn; Wade-Giles, cheng -ching -chin ). Skt. samyaksmṛti; Pāḷi sammāsati; Tib. yang dag pa’i dran pa; Ch. 正念 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhèngniàn; Wade-Giles, cheng -nien ). Skt. samyaksamādhi; Pāḷi sammāsamādhi; Tib. yang dag pa’i ting nge ’dzin; Ch. 正定 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhèngdìng; Wade-Giles, cheng -ting ). a 1 b 4 4 c 4 1 2 d 4 3 e 4 4 f 4 4 g 4 1 4 h 4 4 i 4 4 185 4 4 Considering the Path in general rather than the above eight aspects (which, if taken literally, apply quite precisely to the Path of Renunciation of the Sūtrayāna, but not so precisely to the other two Paths that will be considered later on), it was already noted that according to the Theravāda, nirvāṇa is nonfabricated, unconditioned, unproduced, uncontrived, uncompounded and /or unconfigured —and, in fact, in its view it is the only dharma in this category. Since this implies that it cannot be built, contrived, constructed, produced or achieved through conditioning practices, the Atthasālinī—a Theravāda treatise attributed to Bhadantācariya Buddhaghoṣa (fifth century C.E.) that comments on the Dhammasaṅgaṇi (Book I of the Abhidhamma Pitaka )—contrasts the path of constructing / counterfeiting (which in Judeo-Christian lore is comparable to building the tower of Babel in order to reach Heaven), with the Path of dismantling whatever is fabricated, and/or produced, and/or contrived, and/or conditioned, and/or configured, and/or compounded. In fact, the text clearly tells us that the way to demolish birth and death, so that we may become established in the timeless sphere of the unborn, uncreated and indestructible condition, which is nirvāṇa, is through undoing all that is made and conditioned and that as such belongs to saṃsāra, “by bringing about a deficiency in those conditions which tend to produce birth and death.” The treatise in question reads: a b c d e300 f While healthy attitudes and meditative practices confined to the three [samsaric] worlds [which are that of sensuality, that of form and that of formlessness] build up and make grow birth and death in a never-ending circle and are therefore called building-up practices, it is not so with this meditation. Just as if a man were to erect a wall eighteen cubits high, while another man were to take a hammer and to break down and demolish any part as it gets erected, so this meditation sets about to break down and demolish death and rebirth that have been built up by healthy attitudes and meditative practices confined to the three worlds, by bringing about a deficiency in those conditions which tend to produce birth and death. This is why this meditation is called “the tearing down one” (apacayagāmi). The simile of the man with a hammer should not lead us to believe that the Path must be based on effort and struggle, for the excerpt itself, in spite of belonging to the Hīnayāna, right after offering the example of demolishing delusion with the hammer of Buddhist practice, clarifies that, rather than to actively set out to destroy all that is compounded, and/or produced, and/or fabricated, and/or contrived, and/or intentional, and/or induced, and/or conditioned, the essential point is to bring about a deficiency in the conditions that tend to actively produce the compounded, and/or conditioned, and/or produced, and/or fabricated, and/or contrived, and/or intentional, and/or induced, and that hence give rise to birth (which on the psychological plane consists in taking on a new produced / contrived / compounded / conditioned state of mind) and Pāḷi nibbāna; Tib. mya ngan las ’das pa or myang ’das; Ch. 涅盘 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, nièpán; Wade-Giles, nieh -p’an ); Jap. nehan; etc.. Pāḷi asaṅkhata; Skt. asaṃskṛta; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu wei ). The title of this text is in Pāḷi. d This is the Pāḷi name of this piṭaka. Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). Attributed to Buddhaghoṣa, Atthasālinī; in Guenther (1957, 2d. Ed. 1974). a 4 2 b 2 2 c e 3 f 186 2 death (which on the psychological plane consists in the cessation of one of such states of mind). The psychological mechanisms at the root of that which Freud referred to as repression and that, on the basis of the Sartrean concept of bad faith, Ronald Laing called elusion, keep us from becoming aware that lack of plenitude, dissatisfaction, uneasiness and discomfort are inherent in in our habitual condition (so that we cannot overcome them so long as this condition persists), and that the condition in question also gives rise to recurrent frustration, pain and suffering. Therefore, the persistence of that condition depends on the effectivity of those mechanisms, which in turn depends on the rather impermeable character of the boundaries of the focus of our conscious attention. Therefore, in order to overcome delusion and the duḥkha inherent in it, in those with the necessary capacities, an obstruction of the psychological mechanisms at the root of repression or elusion may be of great help to experientially realize that the hair of duḥkha pervades the totality of our experience, for this causes us to cease to be like the palm of a hand and become like an eye. In fact, the jail of our mental mechanisms has invisible walls, and in order to escape from jail, first of all we will have to see the walls. For us to be cured from an illness, first of all we will have to realize we are ill. In order to escape from a house in flames, first of all we will have to realize that the house is burning. Likewise, in order to put an end to saṃsāra, we will have to realize that we are in saṃsāra, come to understand what the defects of saṃsāra are, and come to know that there is a condition different from saṃsāra that does not involve the defects of the latter. And, no doubt, an increase the energetic volume that determines the scope of awareness may help achieve this. The Mahāyāna is equally aware that nirvāṇa—which in this case is nonstatic nirvāṇa, which from the Mahāyāna’ perspective is the true, fully fledged nirvāṇa— cannot be constructed, built or produced, for then it would be another fabricated, produced, contrived, conditioned, configured, and /or compounded state, and hence it subscribes to the notion that the Path could by no means lie solely in producing states through training in meditative practices, in producing qualities through imitation, and so on. However, as noted above, according to the higher interpretations of the two Promulgations that make up the doctrinal basis of the Wider Vehicle, it is not only nirvāṇa that is nonfabricated, unconditioned, unproduced, uncreated, uncompounded, uncontrived, and /or unconfigured: the true condition of all phenomena of saṃsāra is equally nonfabricated, unconditioned, unproduced, uncontrived, uncompounded and /or unconfigured—yet avidyā makes us have illusory fabricated, produced, contrived, conditioned, configured, and /or compounded experiences of that which in itself is unconditioned and unmade, thereby giving rise to the infernal Ferris wheel that brings about recurring frustration and suffering and that involves constant lack of plenitude and discomfort called saṃsāra. In particular, as noted above, the Tathāgatagarbhasūtras and commentaries, and in particular the Ratnagotravibhāga or Uttaratantraśāstra —which the Tibetans attribute to Maitreya and the Chinese to Sthiramati—combines two conceptions of the a b a b Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). Tib. rGyud bla ma. 3 187 2 Buddha-nature: one that is causal and gives the impresion that Buddhahood is produced, created, fabricated, contrived, induced, conditioned and/or compounded, whereas the other makes it clear that this is not at all the case. The first is that of the Buddha-nature as a seed that depends on contributory conditions to sprout and give rise to a tree, which in turn will bear the fruit that stands for Buddhahood, whereas the second, championed by the Mahāmadhyamaka philosophical school and in full agreement with the Tantras, compares Buddhahood to the sun that has always being shining in the sky, even though in saṃsāra it is covered by the passing clouds that conceal the Buddha-nature—the clouds standing for hypostasized / reified / valorized / absolutized thoughts, for our delusive obstructions, for our propensities and, in the Dzogchen teachings, also for the three aspects or types of avidyā. As just noted, this second view is shared by the higher Tantras, but, as previously cautioned, only the Dzogchen teachings explain it and apply it in a perfect, noncontradictory way. At any rate, it is a fact that since beginningless time Buddhahood has been actual with its three kāyas and the totality of the qualities of Awakening, as the Base of both saṃsāra and nirvāṇa—yet has been hidden and obstructed in saṃsāra and has become evident and unobstructed to those who fully attain nonstatic nirvāṇa. Thus for Mahāmadhyamaka and the Vajra Vehicles, but most thoroughly for the Dzogchen teachings, the True Path must necessarily consist in repeatedly seeing through the spurious, produced, fabricated, contrived, conditioned, configured and /or compounded experiences of saṃsāra, into the unmade, unproduced, uncontrived, nonfabricated, unconditioned, uncompounded and /or unconfigured Buddha-nature that is the Base and true condition of all that there is—thereby progressively freeing ourselves from their grip on us (which to some extent could be compared to freeing ourselves from the grip of a nightmare by recognizing it to be only a dream). This outright contradicts the Theravāda view according to which only nirvāṇa is unmade and unconditioned—which clearly implies that it would be impossible to discover the unmade and unconditioned by apprehending the true nature of the phenomena of saṃsāra. However, the views of Mahāmadhyamaka and Dzogchen also imply that, as the Atthasālinī rightly asserted, a pivotal element of the Path consists in bringing about a deficiency in those conditions that produce birth and death—for impairing the mechanisms that produce the conditioned and made is the very key to seeing through the conditioned and made, into its unconditioned and unmade nature. This is what, in his Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, VI, Vasubandhu implied when he compared saṃsāra’s all-pervading duḥkha to a hair, the normal individual to the palm of a hand and the bodhisattva or individual en route to Awakening to the eyeball, and declared that in a b c 301 d Skt. buddhatā / buddhadhātu / buddhatva; Tib. sangs rgyas kyi khams; Ch. 佛性 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fóxìng; Wade-Giles fo -hsing ). Skt. tathāgatagarbha / sugatagarbha (kernel or matrix of Buddhahood); Tib. de bzhin gshegs pa’i snying po / de gshegs snying po; Ch. 如來藏 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, rúláizàng; Wade-Giles, ju -lai -tsang ). Skt. Buddha-svabhāva; Ch. 真如 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhènrú; Wade-Giles, chen-ju); Jap. shinnyo. Etc. Skt. āvaraṇa; Tib. sgrib pa; Ch. 遮障 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēzhàng; Wade-Giles, che -chang ). These are of two kinds that will be discussed later on in the regular text. Skt. vāsanā; Tib. bag chags; Ch. 氣習 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, qìxí; Wade-Giles, ch’i -hsi ) or 習氣 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíqì; Wade-Giles, hsi -ch’i ). Skt. saṁskāraduḥkhatā; Pāḷi saṃkhāra-dukkha; Tib.’du byed kyi sdug bsngal; Ch. ⾏苦 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíngkǔ; Wade-Giles, hsing -k’u ). a 2 2 2 4 4 b 1 c 4 2 4 d 2 3 188 4 2 the palm of the hand the hair can remain undetected indefinitely, but in the eyeball, where its presence becomes evident and unbearable, it cannot persist for long: being like the eyeball stands for having deficient mechanisms for concealing duḥkha and hence lacking the conditions for indefinitely continuing in the round of birth and death, oblivious to the suffering this entails. As already stated, the image Buddhaghoṣa chose to illustrate a pivotal element of the Path in the above quoted passage is that of actively and intentionally destroying what, being built and conditioned, was spurious, would not be used by the Dzogchen teachings: though they agree to the fact that nirvāṇa cannot be built or constructed, they would by no means agree to presenting the undoing of saṃsāra as a process based on continuous action by the spurious mental subject—even though the passage rightly explains that it is actually a matter of “bringing about a deficiency in those conditions which tend to produce birth and death,” thus implicitly acknowledging that the hammer image is an imperfect simile that was resorted to for lack of a more precise one. In fact, in Dzogchen practice our seeing through the spurious, produced, fabricated, contrived, induced, conditioned, configured and/or compounded samsaric experiences, into the unmade, unproduced, uncontrived, nonfabricated, unconditioned and/or uncompounded Base, is utterly free from action, intention and contrivance— and, in fact, only in this case it is this seeing through also truly unmade, unproduced, uncontrived, nonfabricated, unconditioned, uncompounded and / or unconfigured— and hence what it reveals is also the unmade, unproduced, uncontrived, uninduced, nonfabricated, unconditioned and/or uncompounded. Dzogchen practice achieves this by means of the skillful, masterful use it makes of the spontaneous perfection / spontaneous arising / spontaneous rectification / spontaneous accomplishment aspect of the Base, which is unlike the contrived methods of other paths and vehicles, and unrivaled by the latter. Nevertheless, once more it must be emphasized that, no matter which vehicle one may be practicing, whenever such seeing through occurs, it does so beyond action, intention or contrivance, for only in this way can the seeing through in question take place. Moreover, also some Buddhist traditions other than Dzogchen make the same point—including one Mahāyānasūtra, some Mahāmadhyamika texts, the whole of the Sudden Mahāyāna and various Vajrayāna sources. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra, for example, reads: a b c The bodhisattva Punyakṣetra declared, “It is dualistic to consider actions meritorious, sinful, or neutral. The non-undertaking of meritorious, sinful, and neutral actions is not dualistic. The intrinsic nature of all such actions is emptiness, wherein ultimately there is neither merit, nor sin, nor neutrality, nor action itself. The nonaccomplishment of such actions is the entrance into nonduality.” Action must necessarily be meritorious, sinful, or neutral, and hence asking us not to undertake actions of any of these three kinds is an invitation to go beyond action. Skt. nirābogha or anābogha; Tib. lhun grub. i.e. Ch. 禪 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Chán; Wade-Giles, Ch’an; Jap. ぜん (hiragana) / Zen (romaji); Korean, 선 / Seon; Viet. Thiền: Chán Buddhism. Thurman (1976); this online version, p. 58. This translation was made from the Tibetan version. In order to keep the methodology of this book I emended “Punyakshetra” as Punyakṣetra. a b c 189 In the Introduction to an online version of the above-cited translation of the same sūtra we read: a The secret lies in nonduality: the nongrasping and nonrejecting, the destruction and nondestruction, the nonaction and non-nonaction. In fact, as remarked at the end of the last chapter, intentional, self-conscious action, since it affirms and sustains the illusion of a separate agent-perceiver that is the core of the second aspect / type of the delusion called avidyā, maintains saṃsāra: this is why the definitive uprooting of suffering necessarily involves going beyond action, or, in other words, transcending karma. It was also noted that action is by definition made, produced and contrived (it is something we do) and conditioned and conditioning (when we act we are conditioned by our karma and we create more conditioning karma): it is the main cause that, given a set of contributory conditions, will produce an effect—which, being produced, necessarily will be conditioned and made (note that this applies to whichever psychological states may be produced in this way). In fact, as the teachings most clearly note, all that arises from causes and contributory conditions is spurious, produced, fabricated, contrived, conditioned and / or compounded. The reason why to use action in order to eliminate delusion would maintain delusion, may be clearly illustrated with the story of how Huìnéng became the sixth patriarch of Chán Buddhism in China. The fifth patriarch, Hóngrěn, had already recognized Huìnéng’s qualities; however, beside being a newcomer, the latter was an illiterate woodcutter and a “barbarian” from Guǎngdōng (Canton), whereas the rest of the monks were of noble extraction and were accomplished scholars, and therefore it would have been dangerous for his safety—as well as for his own development on the Path—if he had celebrated his realization from the very outset of their relationship. Thus, he dismissed the statement of realization by which Huì introduced himself and sent him to work in the kitchen, taking good care that no one would come to know the newcomer already had some realization and was en route to becoming an outstanding practitioner and realized Master. When the time came for the fifth patriarch to prepare his succession, he called for a poetry contest, saying that the winner would obtain the Patriarchy. The poem by Shénxiù, the most renowned scholar and meditator in the b c d e f g h i j k http://honsing.com/Vimalaintro.pdf, p. 6. This version reads: “Sutra translated by Robert A. F. Thurman; Commentaries by Hon Sing Lee and Chiew Hoon Goh.” Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). Pāḷi and Skt. hetu; Tib. rgyu; Ch. 因 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn yīn; Wade-Giles yin ). Pāḷi paccaya; Skt. pratyaya; Tib. rkyen; Ch. 緣 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn yuán; Wade-Giles yuan ). Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). Cf. the preceding footnote. 惠能; Wade-Giles, Hui -neng ; Cantonese (Huìnéng’s own language) Wai -nang (often rendered as Weilang); Jap. Enō. With posthumous title: Dàjiàn Huìnéng (⼤鑒惠能; Wade-Giles Ta -chien Hui -neng ; Jap. Daikan Enō). 弘忍 (Wade-Giles, Hung -jen ). With honorific, posthumous title: ⼤満弘忍 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn: Dàmǎn Hóngrěn; Wade-Giles Ta -men Hung -jen ; Japanese: Daiman Gunin or Daiman Konin). 廣東: Wade-Giles, Kwang -tung ; Jyutping, Gwong dung. 神秀; Wade-Giles, Shen -hsiu ; Jap. Jinshū. a b 3 2 c 3 2 3 2 d 1 e 2 f g h 4 2 6 4 4 i 2 3 4 j k 3 3 2 2 1 3 2 4 190 1 4 4 2 monastery, was praised so profusely by Hóngrěn that nobody dared to compete against him. Since Huìnéng was illiterate, he had been unable either to participate in the contest or to read the poem by the erudite monk; consequently, so that the future sixth patriarch would become aware of its contents, Hóngrěn asked for it to be written on a wall and for everyone to recite it. The poem said: a Our body is the bodhi-tree; a brilliant mirror is our mind. Keep cleaning the mirror to guarantee that no dust its reflectiveness will blind. Upon hearing Shénxiù’s poem, Huìnéng knew the author still had not reached the level of realization of the Fifth Patriarch, and found himself compelled to reply with a poem that demonstrated that, even though Hóngrěn would still not recognize him owing to the danger from the envy and jealousy of the scholars in the face of the success of a barbarian, illiterate woodcutter, he had a far more correct understanding of the Path than the renowned scholar-monk. His reply read: b There has never been a bodhi-tree, nor has there been a mirror-mind; since everything is substance-free no dust our true nature may blind! The point is that each and every action of the spurious subject that appears to be a separate and autonomous source of thought and action affirms and sustains the illusion of its existence, and so if the action of cleaning the mirror is to be carried out ceaselessly, the subject will maintain itself endlessly, and the true condition of both ourselves and the whole universe will forever continue to be concealed. Furthermore, if we try to remove something, it is because we believe it truly exists, and to the extent that we endeavor to remove it, we confirm and maintain the illusion of its existence. Consequently, the effects of implementing Shénxiù’s teaching would be like those of cleaning a mirror with a dirty rag: the more we cleaned it, the dirtier it would become. For his part, Huìnéng proposed using emptiness as an antidote to the delusion that lies in taking the mental subject and its objects to be self-existent—which is a perfectly Mahāyāna strategy, yet is not consistent with the principle of Dzogchen. In terms of the example of the mirror, the strategy of the Semdé series of Dzogchen teachings consists recognizing all reflections and apparent taints in it as reflections that occur clearly without existing anywhere, outwardly or inwardly, and that are the play c d e This is a free rendering of the poem, made for it to nearly rhyme. This is also a free rendering of the poem, made for it to nearly rhyme; the original said that, since the mirror is void, the dust has nowhere to alight. Wylie, sems sde. Longchen Rabjam (2001, p. 156). Tib. rol pa; Skt. līlā (also lalita [dance], or ḍana). It is most important to understand that, in the context of the teachings of the Dzogchen Series of Mind (Tib. Sems sde; Skt. Cittavarga), as well as in the context of Tekchö (Wylie, khregs chod), no methods are applied to cause the arising of the visions of rölpa energy that appear and that are the basis of the practice in Thögäl (Wylie, Thod rgal) and the Yang ti / Yang thig, pertaining to the Series of Pith Instructions (Tib. Menngagde [Wylie, Man ngag sde; Skt. a b c d e 191 (or display ) of the energy of the mirror itself—which as such do not have a nature different from that of the latter, of which they are not at a distance—and thus realize the true condition of the mirror, all the reflections and all the seeming stains, which is primordially pure and spontaneously perfect. The Tekchö teachings of the Dzogchen Series of pith instructions, for their part, teach us to look right in the face of whichever reified / hypostasized / valorized / absolutized thought may arise—whether coarse, subtle or supersubtle—so as to see the stuff of which it is made—i.e., the energy that makes up thought, which is of the kind that the Dzogchen teachings call dang and which is one of the forms of manifestation of the energy aspect of our nonfabricated, unmade, unconditioned, uncompounded, unproduced, uncontrived and unconfigured original, true condition, which at the outset of the Path revealed itself in Direct Introduction (see Part Two of this book)—and thus reGnize that stuff rather than perceiving it as object in terms of hypostasized / reified / valorized / absolutized contents of thought. The true condition of dang energy is said to be the dharmakāya, or a transparent, unimpeded, unobstructed primordial gnosis, and since as stated repeatedly the dharmakāya or gnosis in question (is) an all-liberating single gnosis, its reGnition instantly results in the spontaneous liberation of the hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized thoughts that had been conditioning our experience. (This must be done no matter which of the three types of thought is being absolutized / hypostasized / reified / valorized and no matter how intensely it is being charged with an illusion of truth, absoluteness and value by the vibratory activity at the root of the reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of thought—those that are most intensely charged being those that give rise to stronger reactions, and that therefore give rise to the passions that the Path of Renunciation views as poisons that a b c d e f g h i j k l m 302 n Upadeśavarga]), and that also may arise and be functional in practices of the Dzogchen Series of Space (Tib. Longdé [Wylie, kLong sde]; Skt. Abhyantaravarga). In the context of texts of the Dzogchen Series of Mind, as well as of those of Tekchö, the term rölpa is used to refer to the fact that thoughts and other appearances of gdang energy are the play (and display) of primordial gnosis, or of the dharmakāya, or of rigpa, or of wisdom, etc. Cf. the preceding footnote. The term “energy” renders the Tibetan thugs rje (lit. soft and noble heart), which is one of the Tibetan terms that render the Skt. karuṇā (the other one being snying rje; Ch. 悲 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bēi; WadeGiles, pei —lit. sadness or mercy]), usually rendered as compassion. The reason why this term is used is explained in a footnote to the Introduction. Tib. ka dag; hypothesized Skt. kaśuddha. Tib. lhun grub; Skt. nirābogha or anābogha. Wylie, khregs chod. Tib. Menngagde (Wylie, Man ngag sde); Skt. Upadeśavarga. Wylie, gdangs. Tib. thugs rje, which corresponds to the Skt. term karuṇā and which refers to one of the three aspects of the Base that were mentioned above in the regular text and that later on will be discussed in detail in that same text. Skt. asaṃskṛta; Pāḷi asaṅkhata; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無爲 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu wei ). Tib. thog tu. Tib. ngo sprad pa or ngo sprad. “Direct Introduction” is thus thog tu ngo sprad or thog tu ngo sprad pa. Tib. ye shes zang thal. Tib. gcig shes kun grol. Tib. spong lam. a b 1 c d e f g h i 2 2 j k l m n 192 must be eliminated: they are all to be reGnized the moment they arise, so that they instantly self-liberate.) Another Chán (Zen) story that illustrates why true spiritual realization cannot result from action or in any way be produced is that of the dialog between Mǎzǔ Dàoyī, who at the time was still an ordinary practitioner, and Chán Master Nányuè Huáiràng, his future teacher: a b c Mǎ was sitting in meditation when Huáiràng arrived and asked him what the aim of sitting in meditation was. Mǎ replied: “To become a Buddha.” Huáiràng picked up a tile and began to polish it. When Mǎ asked what he was doing, he answered: “I am making a mirror.” Mǎ asked: “And how could polishing a tile make a mirror?” Huáiràng replied: “And how could one become a Buddha by sitting in meditation?” The principle behind the above examples may be expressed in the renowned words of the Śūraṅgamasūtra: d303 If the causal basis is false, its fruit will be false, and the search for the Buddha’s Awakening will lead to failure. Although the Mahāyāna is a causal vehicle and the sūtra is making its point in terms of causality (it posits a “causal basis” and “its fruit”), from the standpoint of Mahāmadhyamaka and of the Sudden Mahāyāna (Chán) the sūtra’s statement may be understood as warning us that actions, activities and so on, since they are conditioned and made and in turn they condition and produce, cannot beget nirvāṇa, recognized by all forms of Buddhism to be unconditioned and unproduced. In fact, whichever fruit may be borne by production and/or conditioning will be spurious and false. Worse still, in the gradual Cause-based vehicles the Fruit is held to be the effect of a cause the nature of which is dissimilar from that of the expected effect. In the gradual Mahāyāna, for example, the dharmakāya or Buddha-mind, which is utterly beyond the intellect and free from thoughts, is supposed to be produced by completing the collection of conceptual knowledge (although the term rendered as wisdom is jñāna, in this context it refers to conceptual knowledge), and the rūpakāya is supposed to be produced by e f g h i a b ⾺祖道⼀; Wade-Giles, Ma -tsu Tao -i ; Jap. Baso Dōitsu. 南嶽懷讓; Wade-Giles, Nan -yüeh Huai -jang ; Jap. Nangaku Ejō. 3 3 2 4 4 1 2 4 Adapted from Suzuki, D. T. French 1940/1943, 1972 (vol. I), pp. 277-278, and Watts, A. W. 1956. Cited in various works of mine, including Capriles (2013b). Luk, Charles, AKA upāsaka Lü Kuan Yu (trans. 1973). Skt. Hetuyāna; Tib. rGyu’i theg pa. Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). Pāḷi asaṅkhata; Skt. asaṃskṛta; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu wei ). Skt. Phalayāna; Tib. ’Bras bu’i theg pa. Pāḷi ñaṇa; Tib. ye shes; Ch. 智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhì; Wade-Giles, chih ; Jap. chi). c d e f 3 g 2 2 2 h i 4 193 completing the collection of merits. However, the nature of these two collections cold hardly be more dissimilar from that of the two kāyas. In the Fruit-based vehicles of the Vajrayāna Path of Transformation, the Fruit is supposed to be attained by taking the Fruit as cause. However, and uncaused Fruit cannot be attained by means of causality. Moreover, the cause is not actually the Fruit; the cause is supposed to be an initial example of primordial gnosis that mimics the true primordial gnosis that makes rigpa patent and that repeatedly arises on the Path and constantly occurs as the Fruit, and the Fruit is supposed to be attained by developing that initial example of primordial gnosis. Therefore, as noted above in this book, the continuity that is supposed to be the meaning of tantra is missing—and not only is it missing, but the nature of the example of primordial gnosis is definitely dissimilar from that of the true primordial gnosis that makes rigpa patent. Therefore, the fruit is implicitly held to be produced by causes and conditions—and all that is produced by causes and conditions is fabricated, conditioned, produced, contrived, configured and/or compounded. Hence even the Vajrayāna Path of Transformation, in spite of being Fruit-based, is blocked and marred by causality. The above explains why most effective, swift and direct is the vehicle that is wholly beyond the cause-effect relation and that as such cannot be considered to be based either on a cause or a Fruit: Dzogchen Atiyoga, in which realization is attained through the repeated, spontaneous dissolution (i.e. “liberation”) of all thoughts, and in particular of the one that seems to be a separate nucleus of thought, perception and action—rather than as an effect of the actions that illusory nucleous seems to carry out. It has been sufficiently emphasized that all that is created, and/or conditioned, and/or induced, and/or contrived, and/or compounded, may be produced by creating the main cause and arranging the contributory conditions, but Awakening, since it (is) the unconditioned realization of the unconditioned nature, can only result from the spontaneous liberation of delusion, which cannot be produced, induced or arranged. Dudjom Rinpoche wrote that during the Second Promulgation of the transmitted precepts, Śākyamuni did not reveal the structure of the fundamental reality, though he did extensively teach the inconceivable, abiding nature (i.e., the dharmakāya’s basic, primordial emptiness) without referring to elaborately conceived symbols, and that during the Third Promulgation, though he did reveal the structure of the fundamental reality, he did not teach the characteristic Path through which it is actualized. In fact, the Path through which the structure of the fundamental reality is actualized is that of Ati Dzogpa Chenpo. a b c d e 304 f g h Skt. puṇyasaṃbhāra; Tib. bsod nams kyi tshogs; Ch. [宿] 福德資糧 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, [sù] fúdé zīliáng; Wade-Giles, [su ] fu -te tzu -liang ). Skt. phalayāna; Tib. ’bras bu’i theg pa. Tib. dpe yi ye shes. Skt. hetu; Tib. rgyu; Ch. 因 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yīn; Wade-Giles yin ). Skt. phala; Tib. ’bras bu; Ch. 果 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, guǒ; Wade-Giles kuo ). Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch., 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). Skt. asaṃskṛta; Pāḷi, asaṅkhata; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無爲 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu wei ). Dudjom Rinpoche (1991, vol. I, pp. 300-301). a 4 2 2 1 2 b c d 1 e 3 f 3 g 2 2 2 h 194 After the explanations in the preceding chapter and those provided so far in this chapter, the fact that merely entering the transpersonal, holotropic sphere cannot give rise to the true, absolute sanity Buddhism calls Awakening must have become crystal clear. Clinging to a seemingly limitless condition that seems to embrace the whole universe proves that one is under the yoke of the reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of thought: since in nontranspersonal, nonholotropic states this reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization most of the time produces a greater or lesser degree of pain, one may try to elude this pain by clinging to transpersonal, holotropic states. Nothing like this happens when one is no longer subject to the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of thought, without which no experience whatsoever would involve suffering, and there is no conception of an “I” that must elude suffering. True sanity and freedom that cannot be hampered are only possible when the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of thoughts that produces the experiences of the different realms has been eradicated. On the Dzogchen Path, in order to achieve this, no matter what experience we face or what conditions we find ourselves in, no reified / hypostasized / absolutized / valorized thought is allowed to take hold of us or carry us away—whether it is a discursive thought that may link up with other such thoughts and trap us in a circle of confusion, passion and delusion, an intuitive thought such as those that play the leading role in sensory perception or abstract understanding and that are at the root of all the passions, or the threefold directional thought structure which is at the root of the illusory subject-object duality and which is the condition of possibility of the passions. As will be shown in Part II of this book, practitioners of Tekchö (the practice with dang energy / energy of the sphere of the mental belonging to the Pith instructions series of Dzogchen teachings, which we are wisely advised to fully master before undertaking practices with rölpa energy such as Thögäl and the Yangti or Yangthik), the instant they notice that they have been deceived by a thought and that thus they are therefore facing a fabricated, and/or contrived, and/or conditioned, and/or configured, and/or induced, and/or compounded, baseless, deceitful experience, they look into the stuff of the thought in order to nakedtly reGnize its uncompounded / unproduced / nonfabricated / uncontrived / unconditioned / unconfigured true condition, thereby creating the conditions for the spontaneous liberation of the thought by virtue of the nondual, all-liberating single gnosis of the inconceivable, nonfabricated, uncreated, uncontrived, unconditioned dharmakāya that is the true condition of dang energy—i.e. the true condition of the stuff of all thoughts and mental phenomena—and in general of the awareness that a b c d e f g h Skt. śabdasāmānya; Tib. sgra spyi; Ch. 論聲總 (simplified 论声总) (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, lùnshēngzǒng; Wade-Giles, lun -sheng -tsung ). Skt. arthasāmānya; Tib. don spyi; Ch. 總事 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngshì; Wade-Giles, tsung -shih ) or 總義 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngyì; Wade-Giles, tsung -i ). Skt. trimaṇḍala; Tib. ’khor gsum; Ch. 三輪 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānlùn; Wade-Giles, san -lun ). Wylie, khregs chod. Wylie, gdangs. Skt. Upadeśavarga; Tib. menngag[gyi]de (Wylie, man ngag [gyi] sde). Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). Pāḷi asaṅkhata; Skt. asaṃskṛta; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu wei ). a 4 1 3 b 3 3 4 4 c 1 4 d e f g 3 h 2 2 2 195 above was compared to a mirror. This spontaneous dissolution of delusion in a nonconceptual, nondual disclosure of our own original condition of total plentitude and perfection may be aptly compared to waking up from a dream or to the removal of a veil. The Twofold Lineage of Awakening In the Introduction, in the discussion of the First Noble Truth, in the analysis of the Second Truth and in the elucidation of the Third, I tried to clarify the concepts of the Base that is the Buddha-nature qua actuality rather than the Buddha-nature qua mere potentiality, of the aspects of the Base, and of the base-of-all—in each case in a different context. At this point, it is imperative to discuss the same concepts in the context of the Path, so as to make it clear that only the Path that is not based on creating anything that was not there since beginningless time, and that is utterly beyond action and hence beyond causality, can yield the true Fruit of Buddhahood. Since Buddhahood is fully actual in and as the Base that is the Buddha-nature, the process of Awakening consists in removing all of that which in saṃsāra obscures and impedes that nature. In the Tathāgatagarbhasūtras (which, as we know, pertain to the Third promulgation) and the treatises based on them, this is explained in terms of the concept of lineage. Longchen Rabjam writes in the Shingta Chenpo: a When one is a living being, in the suchness or thatness of one’s mind one possesses [both] the perfections of the virtues of the form dimension [(rūpakāya) of Buddhahood] in its aspect of appearances and the virtues of the dharmakāya in its aspect as emptiness. However, [the Buddha-nature] has been obscured by defilements and its [inherent] virtues have become manifestatively [impeded and] blurred. [Because of this] it is called Buddhanature or lineage. When one becomes a Buddha, one will be [utterly] free from all obscurations [and all impediments]. So it is called Awakening. The difference is just whether the capability of the nature of awareness is fully manifested [or not]. We do not assert that [Buddhahood] is the arising or development of a new virtue that did not exist when one was [an ordinary] sentient being, for the nature is changeless. b c d The texts that use the concept of lineage, divide the latter into two aspects: the “naturally manifest lineage” and the “developing lineage.” Drime Öser writes in the Dzogpa Chenpo Semnyi Ngälso: e f g h Wylie, rdzogs pa chen po sems nyid ngal gso’i ’grel ba shing rta chen po, vol. I, 99b/3 (cited in Tulku Thöndup, 1996, p, 238; I replaced some terms for the ones used in this book: terms and phrases within brackets are my own additions or modifications). Skt. dhātu; Tib khams or dbyings, according to the case; Ch. 界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jiè; Wade-Giles, chieh ) or 法界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎjiè; Wade-Giles, fa - chieh ) according to the case. Tib. rigs. Tib. nus pa. Tib. rang bzhin gnas rigs. Tib. rgyas ’gyur gyi rigs. Wylie, Dri med ’od zer. Wylie, rdzogs pa chen po sems nyid ngal gso. a b 4 3 4 c d e f g h 196 The basis of virtues is the lineage which (is) the luminous natural state of awareness, the immaculate nature, and that is the “naturally manifest lineage.” The appearance aspect of the [true essence or nature] is the two bodies, which have been characterized by nine examples. It is the essence or nature of primordially manifest energy / compassion, and it is the “developing lineage.” This was said by the Bliss-gone (Buddha). a b c d Since the Mahāyāna is a causal vehicle, it teaches the view according to which the two dimensions of Buddhahood, which are the two great dimensions that (are) the dharmakāya and the rūpakāya—the latter being the form dimension, consisting of the saṃbhogakāya and the nirmāṇakāya—are causal results of the two accumulations: the dharmakāya is viewed as the fruit of the accumulation of knowledge (even though it is called accumulation of primordial gnosis, in this case the latter term is to be understood as conceptual knowledge), and the rūpakāya is presented as the fruit of the accumulation of merits. If this were taken literally, then Buddhahood would be fabricated, caused, contrived, conditioned and/or compounded and hence it would be impermanent and subject to suffering. However, the so-called Tathāgatagarbhasūtras of the Third promulgation and the treatises based on them suggest that this is not the case, for the two accumulations are inherent in the Buddha-nature qua Base and as such are not created, fabricated, produced, or compounded—a fact that is even more clearly emphasized in the Tantras of Transformation. In order to make our primordial Buddhahood free from all that obscures it and impedes it, one is said to depend on the twofold lineage that was outlined in a citation above and that Longchen Rabjam further explained and subdivided in the Shingta Chenpo: e f g There are two divisions [in the lineage: (a) The naturally manifest lineage, which [has (been) primordially manifest, and (b) the developed lineage, which is generated depending on the cleansing of the adventitious defilements. (1) In the naturally [manifest lineage there are two aspects]: (a) The naturally manifest lineage of the absolute nature of phenomena, which (is) emptiness free from all fabrications, the essence or nature of mind, and the cause of the svabhāvikāya. (b) The naturally manifest lineage of phenomena, which is the cause of h i j k Tib. rigs. Tib. rang bzhin. Tib. khams. Tib. snang cha. Skt. jñānasaṃbhāra; Tib. ye shes kyi tshogs; Ch. 智慧資糧 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhìhuìzīliáng; Wade-Giles, chih -hui -tzu -liang ). puṇyasaṃbhāra; Tib. bsod nams kyi tshogs; Ch. [宿] 福德資糧 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, [sù] fúdé zīliáng; WadeGiles, fu -te tzu -liang ). (The prefix 宿 [sù] means former and need not be used.) g Wylie, rdzogs pa chen po sems nyid ngal gso’i ’grel ba shing rta chen po, vol. I, 101a/3 (cited in Tulku Thöndup, 1996, p, 239; I replaced some terms for the ones used in this book: terms and phrases within brackets are my own additions or modifications). Tib. rang bzhin gnas rigs. Tib. bsgrub pa’i rigs. Tib. chos nyid. Tib. sems nyid. a b c d e 4 4 1 2 f 2 2 1 2 h i j k 197 freedom of the form dimension [which is the rūpakāya]. They abide as phenomena [(i.e. appearances)] and their true condition [(i.e. emptiness)] since primordial time … (2) The developed lineage: through training in the development of the mind of Awakening and so on, the skillful means and wisdom of the path of application or path of preparation and the dual accumulation [which consists in] the accumulation of merit and [the accumulation] of primordial gnosis, perfect one into the naturally manifest lineage. a At any rate, both of the above aspects are explained in terms of causality, and whatever is causal necessarily yields contrived / fabricated / produced / conditioned and/or compounded fruits, and thus pertain to and perpetuate saṃsāra. This is why throughout this book emphasis has been laid on the fact that Awakening always occurs utterly beyond the cause-effect relation, even when it occurs on cause-based vehicles (it was noted that even though the historical Buddha, Śākyamuni, praticed an extreme form of the Path of Renunciation, his Awakening was spontaneous, free from effort and action), or on the causality-ridden vehicles of the Path of Transformation that are classified within the Fruit-based vehicle. In fact, the above lineages are based on the “base-of-all of variegated traces or propensities,” (for the “absolute base-of-all of linking, or absolute linking-up base-ofall” is a neutral state which is the foundation of the aspect of action and the root foundation that connects [one] to saṃsāra and nirvāṇa through different deeds, and which pertains to the “base-of-all of variegated traces or propensities”), and all that arises through this aspect of the base-of-all pertains to saṃsāra. And, as emphasized throughout this volume, nonstatic nirvāṇa cannot be caused, and hence no deed can make it appear: it (is) uncontrived / nonfabricated / unproduced / unconditioned and uncompounded, and for it to appear the illusory doer must dissolve, so that one goes beyond action and therefore beyond karma. Longchenpa writes in Ch. IV of the Dzogpa Chenpo Semnyi Ngalsoi Drelwa Shingta Chenpo: b c d e f g h i “[The base-of-all of traces or propensities ] is not the basis of the [true condition] [or of its full patency and unhindered functioning in nonstatic nirvāṇa]. So it does not act other than as merely the basis of (becoming) [Awake] through the training on the [produced, conditioned,] compounded [and/or contrived] bodhisattva path of accumulation of merits j k l Skt. prayogamārga[ḥ]; Tib. sbyor lam; Ch. 加⾏道 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jiāxíng dào; Wade-Giles tzu -liang tao ; J. kegy ōdō; K. kahaeng to). Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). a 1 2 4 b c d 3 2 Skt. hetuyāna; Tib. rgyu’i theg pa. Skt. phalayāna; Tib. ’bras bu’i theg pa. Tib. bag chags sna tshogs pa’i kun gzhi. Tib. sbyor ba don gyi kun gzhi. Skt. karma; Tib. las; Ch. 業 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yè; Wade-Giles yeh ). Skt. asaṃskṛta; Pāḷi, asaṅkhata; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無爲 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu wei ). Wylie, rdzogs pa chen po sems nyid ngal gso’i ’grel ba shing rta chen po, vol. I, 97a/6 (cited in Tulku Thöndup, 1996, p, 236; I replaced some terms for the ones used in this book: terms and phrases within brackets are my own additions or modifications). Tib. bag chags sna tshogs pa’i kun gzhi. Tib. khams. Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi: saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). e f g 4 h 2 2 i j k l 3 198 2 and wisdom. [The two] (accumulations) belong to the category of ‘the Truth of the Path,’ and they are delusory and temporary, because of their being based on the [base-of-all of traces or propensities].” a Then Longchenpa goes on to explain that a training based on traces or propensities can be harmful to traces or propensities in the same way that a fire based on wax or wood burns the wax or wood itself. However, for this to occur, the practice must be applied in the sphere of absolute truth. As Longchen Rabjam expresses it in the Shingta Chenpo: b Samsaric beings perceive [virtuous deeds] as substantial and as having characteristics. However, for [liberative virtues, to lead to Awakening], from the beginning of the training [there must] be no perception [either of the virtues or of the trainee] as substantial or as having characteristics. [Trainees must] be free from the concepts of merits and demerits, and [must] have the essence of emptiness and compassion. According to Longchenpa: c “...later on, the antidotes, the means of purification, [as well as the two accumulations] themselves, will also be burned down because they are virtues imagined by the [deluded] mind.” However, the above is a view proper to the causal vehicles, and in particular to the cause-based vehicles, which is utterly transcended by the training of the Series of Pith Instructions of Dzogchen, and in particular by the practice of Thögel, which is totally based on the spontaneous perfection / spontaneously rectifying / spontaneously accomplishing aspect of the Base, and hence on pure nonaction. This is the reason why a treasure teaching revealed by Dudjom Lingpa reads: d In short, even if you strive diligently in this phase of these practices for a long time, taking the mind [which is based on the base-of-all and is produced and/or conditioned etc.] as the path this does not bring you even a hair’s breadth closer to the paths of liberation and omniscience, and your life will certainly have been spent in vain! So understand this, you fortunate people. Skt. saṃbhāramārga[ḥ]; Tib. tshogs lam; Ch. 資糧道 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zīliáng dào; Wade-Giles tzu liang tao ). b Wylie, rdzogs pa chen po sems nyid ngal gso’i ’grel ba shing rta chen po, vol. I, 101a/3 (cited in Tulku Thöndup, 1996, p, 239; I replaced some terms for the ones used in this book: terms and phrases within brackets are my own additions or modifications). Ibidem. In Dag snang ye shes drva ba las | ka dag kun to bzang mo’i dbyings | lhun grub rdzogs pa chen po’i mdzod | shes rig rdo rje rnon po’i rgyud | gsang chen snags kyi yang bcud, in vol. 17 of Collected Works, as rendered in Dudjom Lingpa (2015, Vol. I, pp. 30-1) (phrases within brackets are my own explanatory additions). a 1 2 4 c d 199 For his part, the late Dudjom Rinpoche emphasized the fact that: a The Sugata (Buddha), during the Intermediate [i.e. the Second] Promulgation of the transmitted precepts, did not reveal the structure of fundamental reality, though he did extensively teach the inconceivable, abiding nature without referring to symbols of elaborate conception. And, during the Final [i.e. the Third] Promulgation [which comprises the Tathāgatagarbhasūtras], though he did reveal the structure of the fundamental reality, he did not teach the characteristic Path through which it is actualized. Therefore, the conclusive intent of the Two Promulgators [(Nāgārjuna and Asaṅga)], actually abides without contradiction in the nature of Dzogpa Chenpo. b Then Dudjom Rinpoche went on the explain and refute the approaches of all vehicles, including the means of the Path of Transformation that involve practices with either channels, currents and energy potential, or a secret consort, that yield fabricated / contrived / produced / conditioned and/or compounded bliss, and finally concludes: c d Without realizing the natural and utterly pure wisdom [proper to] Dzogpa Chenpo, by such attainments the aspects of the Truth of the Path do not transcend the contrived / fabricated / produced / conditioned and/or compounded fundamental virtues attained by the ideas and scrutiny of discrete recollections and thought. These aspects include the three vows, the six transcendences and the creation and completion or perfection stages which refer all to objects of the intellect, and their various means whereby the mass of conflictive emotions are [respectively] renounced by śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, obstructed by bodhisattvas, and transmuted into the Path by the secret mantra and so on. e f g h The Threefold Division of the Path In recent centuries, all Tibetan traditions have divided the Path into the same three paths—namely, Hīnayāna, Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna—and yet the vehicles into which these three paths are divided in the two main traditions have not been exactly the same. To begin with, the tradition that after the arrival of the Newer or Sarmapa i Dudjom Rinpoche (1991, Vol. I, pp. 300-301). As always, the terminology was adapted to the one used in this book. Skt. pariniṣpanna; Tib. yongs grub; 圓成實性 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yuánchéng shíxìng; Wade-Giles, yüan ch’eng shih -hsing ). Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). Dudjom Rinpoche (1991, Vol. I, pp. 302). As always, the terminology was adapted to the one used in this book. Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). The three [sets of] vows are (1) those of the Prātimokṣa for the Hīnayāna level; (2) those of the Bodhisattva for the gradual Mahāyāna level and (3) the samayas of Vidyādharas for Tantric vehicles. Strictly speaking, however, the principle of vows is exclusive to the Hīnayāna, and so when three vows are spoken of this is either because the principle in question is being borrowed from the Hīnayāna by other vehicles, or because the terminology is borrowed even though the principle is not. Skt. paramita; Tib. phar phyin or, in full, pha rol tu phyin pa; Ch. 波羅蜜 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bōluómì; Wade-Giles, po -luo -mi ). Respectively, (1) Skt. utpattikrama; Tib. bskyed rim; Ch. ⽣起次第 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shēngqǐ cìdì; WadeGiles, sheng -ch’i tz’u -ti ); and (2) Skt. saṃpannakrama, niṣpannakrama or utpannakrama; Tib. rdzogs rim; Ch. 圓滿次第 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yuánmǎn cìdì; Wade-Giles, yüan -man tz’u -ti ). Wylie, gSar ma pa. a b 2 2 2 4 c 3 2 3 2 d e f g 1 2 4 h 1 3 4 4 2 i 200 3 4 4 Schools came to be called called Ancient or Nyingmapa, has nine vehicles, whereas the Newer ones have only seven vehicles, of which the lower six are identical to the lower six of the Ancient tradition and the seventh has a very similar principle to the seventh of the Ancient tradition, but the eighth and nineth vehicles of the Ancient tradition have no equivalent in the Newer ones. However, as stated in the Introduction, in this book I will explain the Path in terms of a perhaps older, certainly more natural and self-consistent division taught in Tibet during the first dissemination that also classifies the nine vehicles Path of the Ancient or Nyingmapa tradition into three paths—yet these paths are not Hīnayāna, Mahāyāna, and Vajrayāna, but the ones that were enumerated and scantly explained tpoward the beginning of this book: Path of Renunciation, Path of Transformation, and Path of Self-Liberation or Spontaneous Liberation. This ancient way of classifying the Buddhist paths is based on the Buddhist view of both the individual and Buddhahood as having the three aspects which are: body or material dimension, the Awake aspect of which is the nirmāṇakāya; voice or energy circulation, the Awake aspect of which is the saṃbhogakāya; and mind, the Awake aspect of which is the dharmakāya. And, in fact, according to the two extant ancient works that teach this classification—namely the Kathang Denga by Namkhai Nyingpo and Nubchen Sangye Yeshe’s Samten Migdrön —each path has its source in one of the three kāyas and is more directly related to one of the three aspects of the individual: the Path of Renunciation has its source in the nirmāṇakāya Śākyamuni; the Path of Transformation has its source in the saṃbhogakāya; and the Path of SelfLiberation or Spontaneous Liberation has its source in the dharmakāya (note that, contrariwise, those texts that include Ati Dzogpa Chenpo within the Vajrayāna, claim that the former, like the rest of the latter, has its source in the saṃbhogakāya ). This threefold Buddhist Path containing nine vehicles was originally taught in Oḍḍiyāna, which at some point researchers identified as Odisha (formerly Orissa) in North-Eastern India—even though references to the country placed it North-West of Central India—but later on Giuseppe Tucci (1940) identified as the Swat Valley in today’s North-Western Pakistan—a conclusion that most researchers and teachers, including Chögyal Namkhai Norbu, have adopted. It must also be noted that in 1970 Tucci reported findings by the Italian Archeological mission that seemed to suggest that Oḍḍiyāna was an area far wider than the Swat Valley—in which case Dza Petrul Rinpoche would have been right when he identified Oḍḍiyāna as a region right in the middle between Chitral, Gilgit and Swat that included what is currently North-eastern Kashmir (note that Tucci did not draw this or any other conclusion from those archeological findings). In fact, Oḍḍiyāna could have included the greater Ladakh region (though Ladakh itself is part of India, a great deal of North-Eastern Kashmir is now under the control of Pakistan) and possibly even reached as far as Mount Kailāśā to the East and Chitral and Gilgit to the West —and perhaps, in the latter direction, even Eastern Afghanistan, though it seems more likely that the Buddhist remains unearthed in Eastern Afghanistan would have been part of the land that was known as Śambhala. a b c 305 306 307 a b c Wylie, rNying ma pa. (gNubs) Nam mkha’i snying po’s bKa’ thang sde lnga. gNubs chen sangs rgyas ye shes’ bSam gtan mig sgron. 201 It seems that in Oḍḍiyāna the threefold Buddhist Path under discussion did not include the Anuyoga, as the latter purportedly originated in the country that Tibetans call Drusha. At any rate, the three-path, nine-vehicle system in question, which was established in Tibet in the eighth century CE, constitutes the most complete, natural and self-consistent system of Buddhism that has come to us. It is the most complete because its nine vehicles comprise the widest variety of views and methods, each responding to the capacities and propensities of a different type of individual. It is the most natural and self-consistent because: (a) each of the paths responds to one of the three aspects of the individual and has its source in one of the three kāyas (aspects or dimensions) or Buddhahood (which is not the case with the division into Hīnayāna, Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna, for the latter seems to have arisen to a great extent as a result of historical conditions); and (b) the principles proper to each of these paths are clearer and more distinct than those of the better-known classification—an example of which being the fact that the latter subsumes the principle of self-liberation or spontaneous liberation proper to Dzogchen Atiyoga and that of transformation proper to the rest of the Tantras under a single path. As briefly noted in a previous chapter, these three paths are: (1) The Path of Renunciation, called the Sūtra Vehicle or Sūtrayāna, which is the cause-based vehicle, vehicle of philosophical characteristics, or cause-based vehicle of [discrimination of] characteristics. Based mainly on the level of the body / coarse material level, this path was taught by the nirmāṇakāya Śākyamuni and is subdivided into Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna. On this path one is supposed to attain the Fruit when causes come to fruition due to the concurrence of secondary conditions. Moreover, as noted above, the Fruit sought is incongruous with the cause, for its nature is utterly dissimilar from that of the latter. For example, in the Mahāyāna the form dimension or rūpakāya must be produced by completing the collection of merits, the nature of which is of a nature absolutely dissimilar from that of the Fruit that it is supposed to bear. For its part, the dharmakāya is equally incongruous with its purported cause: whereas the former is a primordial gnosis totally free from conceptuality and its actuality liberates all thoughts, as noted above, the wisdom that must be gathered to produce the collection of wisdom, in spite of being referred to as primordial gnosis, is actually intellectual, conceptual knowledge. In fact, the Mahāyāna is such a slow path that some of its own canonical sources claim that in that vehicle the Fruit is attained at the term of three immeasurable time cycles / aeons. The principle of renunciation corresponds mainly to the level of the body, for the practitioner must either avoid the physical phenomena that elicit the passions (in a b c d e f g h i Wylie, bru sha. According to Chögyal Namkhai Norbu, the current republic of Kyrgyzstan. Tib. spong lam. Skt. Hetuyāna; Tib. rgyu’i theg pa. Skt. Lakṣaṇayāna; Tib. mtshan nyid theg pa. Skt. Hetulakṣaṇayāna; Tib. rgyu mtshan nyid/phyi’i theg pa. Skt. hetu; Tib. rgyu; Ch. 因 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn yīn; Wade-Giles yin ). Skt. pratyaya; Tib. rkyen; Ch. 緣 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn yuán; Wade-Giles yuan ). Skt. puṇya; Pāḷi puñña; Tib. bsod nams; Ch. 福 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fú; Wade-Giles, fu ). Skt. kalpa; Pāḷi kappa; Tib. bskal pa; Ch. 劫 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn jié; Wade-Giles chieh ; jap. gō). One of the measures for a kalpa is 3.420.000.000 years; however, in this case each kalpa is immeasurable. a b c d e f 1 g 2 h 2 i 2 202 the Hīnayāna) or neutralize the passions those phenomena elicit (in the Mahāyāna), and strictly regulate her or his behavior (in the case of the Hīnayāna, by taking vows; in that of the Mahāyāna, by undertaking a training) in ways that have a concrete physical correspondent (for example, wearing the habits of a monk or of a nun in the case of a fully commited Hīnayāna practitioner, or the white clothes of a householder in that of the Hīnayāna layman and even of practitioners of the Mahāyāna that apply the system of vows). Likewise, it involves viewing many aspects of life as inherently noxious and unworkable. Moreover, the source of this path is also at the level of the body, for the true condition of the body is the nirmāṇakāya, and this Path arose through the nirmāṇakāya Śākyamuni by means the three successive “Promulgations of a cycle of teachings” discussed in a previous chapter. Finally, the vows are valid only so long as the physical body keeps alive and while the individual is awake (for example, monks are forbidden from all types of sex, but they will have no problem with their vows if they have a “wet dream” or its equivalent in a female). This Path is easiest to understand and apply because the level of the body is the most concrete and tangible aspect of existence, which all beings can perceive through the senses and experience through sensations that all of us are very familiar with—such as the various types of pain and suffering that Śākyamuni explained in the context of the Four Noble Truths (which are the most basic and general teaching of this Path). In it, the passions are viewed as poisons, and the stimuli that potentially activate them as venomous snakes to be warded off. Perhaps it could be said that its functional principle consists in preventing the arousal of the passions, their taking hold of us and their dragging us into chain reactions, and in progressively developing the mental calm and capacity of introspection necessary in order to apply the essential methods of the specific vehicle of this Path that we have set out to practice, so that by so doing we may have the opportunity to attain the condition that vehicle regards as the unconditioned, unmade and definitive realization. To conclude, according to one Vajrayāna interpretation of this Path, its Fruit or point of arrival is the realization of emptiness. In the Hīnayāna, the realization in question is circumscribed to the emptiness of human beings, for as explained in a previous chapter, although physical phenomena are disassembled into collections of infinitesimal particles, the particles in question are deemed to exist absolutely (i.e. to be absolute truth), and although mental streams are dissasembled into a sequence of instants, those instants are deemed to exist absolutely. In the Mahāyāna, realization of emptiness is thorough, for not only human beings are deemed to be absolutely empty: also the infinitesimal particles that according to the Hīnayāna and many Mahāyāna texts make up physical phenomena and the instants of consciousness that purportedly make up mental streams are deemed to be utterly, absolutely empty. As briefly noted a b c d 308 309 In the case of a fully ordained monk, Skt. bhikṣu; Pāḷi bhikkhu; Tib. dge slong; Ch. 和尚 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, héshàng; Wade-Giles, he -shang ). In the case of a fully ordained nun, Skt. bhikṣuṇī; Pāḷi bhikkhuni; Tib. dge slong ma; Ch. ⽐丘尼 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bǐqiūní; Wade-Giles pi -ch’iu -ni ). In the case of a male, Skt. and Pāli, upāsaka; Tib. dge bsnyen; Ch. 優婆塞 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yōupósāi; Wade-Giles, yu -p’o -sai ); in the case of a female, Skt. and Pāli, upāsikā; Tib. dge bsnyen ma; Ch. 優婆 夷 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yōupóyí; Wade-Giles, yu -p’o -i ). Skt. dharmacakra; Pāli dhammacakka; Tib. chos kyi ’khor lo; Ch. 法輪 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎlún; WadeGiles, fa -lun ). a 1 4 b 3 1 2 c 1 2 1 1 2 2 d 3 2 203 in a previous section, the subschools of Madhyamaka Rangtongpa, in particular, understand emptiness as being in all cases the absence of self-existence or inherent / hypostatic existence (or, simply, existence) of entities. a b (2) The Path of Transformation, referred to as Immutable / Indestructible Vehicle or Vajrayāna, Continuity [of Luminosity] vehicle or Tantrayāna, Secret Mantra vehicle or Guhyamantrayāna, or Fruit-based vehicle. Based mainly on the level of the voice / subtle energy, it arose through saṃbhogakāya manifestations, and it is classified into outer and inner Tantras (among the latter, with the exclusion of Atiyogatantra). On this path, the Fruit is supposed to be attained as a result of the unfolding of what is called primordial gnosis of the example —but which is actually an example of that which the true primordial gnosis (is)—rather than as an effect of causes utterly incongruous with the Fruit that must be catalyzed by a set of contributory conditions. The example of primordial gnosis is so named because it is an experience that, even though it is not the actual nonconceptual, nondual primordial gnosis that reveals the true condition of ourselves and all phenomena, aptly exemplifies it. This, however, shows this path to be equally defective: how could an imitation of something develop to become that actual something? The explanation is that the “example of primordial gnosis” may appear in the Tantric empowerment, but this would be possible only through the Master’s blessings, which for their part could enable one to receive those of the lineage—and these two could for their part enable one to receive those of the Buddha-nature. And if one maintains a pure and sincere devotion, one could at some point receive the blessings that would allow the actual primordial gnosis to become actual. This would be possible because blessings, just like the actual primordial gnosis, can neither be attained through the action of the illusory mental subject, nor be produced, contrived, fabricated, induced and so on—yet devotion may be the trigger that allow both the blessings and the primordial gnosis to arise spontaneously and coincidentally in the manner proper to Dzogchen. This is the reason why, as will be explained in the discussion of Refuge, on this Path realization totally depends on the blessings of the Master, which for their part depend on the quality of one’s relationship with him or her. This Path is said to be related principally to the voice, which is literally true because it emphasizes the pronunciation of mantras. However, on a deeper level the voice represents our subtle energy, of which the vibrations that make up our voice are a perceptible aspect. Moreover, just like the voice, our subtle energy is connected to breathing, and is the link between body and mind. On this Path, first of all we have to modify our vision, which is a function of the clarity of the nature or rangzhin aspect of c d e f g h Skt. svabhāvaśūnyatā; Tib. rang bzhin [gyi] stong pa nyid; Ch. ⾃性空 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìngkòng; Wade–Giles, tzu -hsing -k’ung ; Jap. jishōkū). Skt. prakṛtiśūnyatā or svabhāvaśūnyatā; Tib. rang bzhin [gyi] stong pa nyid; Ch. ⾃性空 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìngkòng; Wade–Giles, tzu -hsing -k’ung ; Jap. jishōkū). Tib. sgyur lam. Skt. Vajrayāna; Tib. rdo rje’i theg pa; Ch. ⾦剛乘 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jīngāng shèng; Wade-Giles, chin kang sheng ). Tib. rgyud kyi theg pa. Skt. Guhyamantrayāna; Tib. gsang sngags theg pa. Skt. Phalayāna; Tib. ’bras bu theg pa. Tib. dpe yi ye shes. a 4 4 4 b 4 4 4 c d 1 1 4 e f g h 204 the Base, the true condition of which is the saṃbhogakāya. Subsequently we have to work on and with the organism’s subtle energy system, which as just noted is the link between body and mind, and the true condition of which is the saṃbhogakāya. And since the subtle energy in question does not disappear while we sleep and does not come to an end with the death of the body, the Tantric promise or samaya that characterizes this Path does not come to an end upon the death of the physical body, and must be observed also during sleep (for example, a practitioner who has made the promise of retaining the seed-essence must also do so during sleep, and hence while dreaming of sex must keep awareness that the dream is a dream and, should he be about to lose the seed-essence, retain it with the physical body rather than trying to do so with the body of dream). It is most important to keep in mind, however, that in this context the term energy does not have the same sense it has when Chögyal Namkhai Norbu— or myself following the Master—uses it to refer to the third aspect of the Base, for in the latter context “energy” renders the Tibetan term thukje and refers to the unobstructed, all-pervasive, uninterrupted flow of exprience, the true condition of which is the nirmāṇakāya rather than the saṃbhogakāya. The level of subtle energy (in the sense of link between body and mind) is far more difficult to apprehend and understand than that of the body, for ordinary people cannot perceive it through the senses. Chögyal Namkhai Norbu often resorts to the example of seeing a person far away coming toward us: we will be able to recognize the individual if we can see his or her physical form, gait and gestures, etc. but as a rule we cannot see his or her energy. Therefore, this Path requires a much higher capacity than the Path of Renunciation, which works with a level of reality that is perceivable to ordinary human beings; in order to practice the Path of Transformation and bring it to fruition, one must have the capacity to apprehend, or somehow work with, the subtle luminous dimension of the essence of elements—which makes up the pure vision into which, on this path, one’s impure vision must be transformed. This Path was communicated to humans through the visionary level of energy / voice, which in the state of rigpa corresponds to the saṃbhogakāya, for the initial human links in the transmission of the various Tantras received the transmission and the respective methods through manifestations of this dimension, aspect or kāya of Buddhahood (this being so regardless of whether the manifestations in question were generated by Śākyamuni in order to instruct disciples of higher capacity, as asserted in accounts appended to Anuttarayogatantras of the Newer Translations, or whether the Mahāyoga arose spontaneously in greatly realized adepts in Oḍḍiyāna and the 310 a b c d 311 312 313 e f The term “energy” renders the Tibetan thugs rje (lit. soft and noble heart), which is one of the Tibetan terms that render the Skt. karuṇā (the other one being snying rje; Ch. 悲 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bēi; WadeGiles, pei —lit. sadness or mercy]), usually rendered as compassion. The reason why this term is used is explained in a footnote to the Introduction. Wylie, ma ’gags pa, ’gag med or even ma ’gags. Wylie, kun khyab. Wylie, ma ’gags pa, ’gag med or even ma ’gags. I.e. the Anuttarayogatantra (note that some Sarmapa Anuttarayogatantras are also Mahāyogatantras of the Nyingmapa). Skt. mahāsiddhas; Tib. sgrub chen; Ch. ⼤聖 (simplified, ⼤圣) (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dàshèng; Wade-Giles, ta -sheng ). a 1 b c d e f 4 4 205 Anuyoga arose spontaneously in greatly realized adepts in the country called Drusha in Tibetan—which Chögyal Namkhai Norbu identifies as the current Kyrgyz Republic or Republic of Kyrgyzstan—as asserted in the accounts associated with some Tantras of the Ancient Translations). As an example of the general principle of transforming vision common to the Path of Purification of the outer Tantras and the Path of Transformation of the inner Tantras, consider the perception that someone is creating problems for us. In the outer Tantras we transform our vision so as to see ourselves in a pure dimension of male and female Buddhas, ḍākas and ḍākinīs, and so on—and since we are fully aware that Buddhas, ḍākas and ḍākinīs, and so on, never harbor bad intentions or harm others, we cease perceiving an aggression and an aggressor. Since, moreover, we are aware that the individual creating the probems, ourselves and the problems are insubstantial and empty, in no way could we get angry at the person that we were perceiving as a source of problems—a fact that was illustrated with the example of the magician and the illusory lady dancer Śāntideva offered in Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra (which will be discussed below). In the practice of the Inner Tantras of Transformation—i.e. in that of the Path of Transformation properly speaking, as distinct from the Path of Purification of the outer Tantras—the passions, even though they are especially intense phenomena of delusion and hence of conditioned, distorted vision, are the means par excellence for realizing the unproduced, nonfabricated, uncontrived, uninduced, unconditioned, uncompounded nature that the Dzogchen teachings call the Base. For example, if we are possessed by a strong anger, applying the principle of the Anuyoga through visualization, we instantly transform ourselves into a wrathful saṃbhogakāya deity as big as the whole universe, so that there is nothing external to us. The anger may be allowed to increase to the point of making ourselves and the whole universe tremble; however, since in our visualization there is nothing external to the deity we are, there is a possibility that we no longer harbor the notion that some external entity harmed, threatened or offended us (etc.), and that, since all passions are attitudes of a subject to an object, anger may be reverted into its true, original condition—namely the nondual clarity of the mirror-like primordial gnosis. For this to become actual and real rather than remaining in the realm of fantasy or pretence we must apply an oral instruction that here I will explain in terms of the symbolism that represents the nature of mind as a mirror and our experiences as reflections in the mirror: we use this most powerful experience of clarity as a reflection that may allow us to discover that in which and by virtue of which it appears, which is the nature of mind that is represented with the mirror. This, of course, requires a higher capacity a b c 314 d e f Wylie, bru sha. Skt. Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu wei ). Pāḷi asaṅkhata; Skt. asaṃskṛta; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu wei ). Namkhai Norbu (Clemente trans. 1986, p. 35). Skt. ādarśajñāna or mahādarśajñāna; Tib. me long lta bu’i ye shes; Ch. ⼤圓鏡智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dàyuánjìng zhì; Wade-Giles, ta -yüan -ching chih ). One of the five facets of primordial gnosis (Skt. pañcajñāna; Tib. ye shes lnga; Ch. 五智 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wǔzhì; Wade-Giles, wu -chih ]). Skt. ādarśa; Tib. me long; Ch. 圓鏡 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yuánjìng; Wade-Giles, yüan -ching ). a b 3 2 c 2 2 d e 4 2 4 4 3 f 4 2 206 4 than does the method of renunciation: practitioners of the Sūtrayāna who lack this capacity are quite right to be afraid to let their anger develop and, on the contrary, apply methods to cause it to subside, for if they allow it to develop, the passion could lead them to harm both themselves and others. Thus in order to become a Tantric practitioner we must have the capacity to let anger, or whichever passion arises, develop and increase without becoming obfuscated by it, maintaining the capacity to apply the corresponding methods—so that we may use the anger as a vehicle to realize the true condition of the Base. The same applies to all passions, but as will be shown in a subsequent section, the use of erotic desire in yab-yum practice is the preeminent use of a passion on this path, since it may result in very powerful illusory experiences of all three of the main classes employed in the higher vehicles: (a) that of pleasure, which corresponds to the level of the body and which may become total pleasure due to the retention of the seedessence and the spontaneous or forceful generation of heat; (b) that of clarity, which corresponds to the level of energy or voice, which arises through visualizing oneself and one’s consort as a divine couple, and which may become an actual, self-luminous vision as a result of the increase in the energetic volume determining the scope of awareness that for its part may result from the retention of the seed-essence in combination with erotic arousal and erotic engagement, and in many cases also with work with energy channels/configurations, energy winds and energy potential; and (c) that of emptiness, corresponding to the level of mind, which also can become apparent as a result of the panoramification of the scope of awareness, for in the limitless space of the undivided sensory continuum it is obvious that phenomena, rather than being substantial, inherently separate entities, are segments of a totality that in the ordinary, “normal” condition are singled out for perception. However, if the practitioners lack the due capacity, they will feel compelled to increase the sensation of pleasure in the ordinary way and hence will likely end up losing the seed-essence without obtaining any of the experiences of the practice, thus losing the possibility of obtaining results from the method they had set out to apply. The use of the venom of the passions in order to neutralize the delusion of which the passions are particularly intense episodes, thereby attaining the most precious object of human yearning, which is Awakening, has been compared to the manufacture of anti-snake serum out of snake venom, to the homeopathic principle of healing syndromes through a particular way of applying the agents that normally induce them, and to the transformation of poisons into medicines or of coarse metals into precious ones through alchemical means. This is always a risky business—a fact that the teachings of this vehicle illustrate with the risk involved in turning mākṣika mercury (or other toxic metals and pyrites) into rāsayana medicines. 315 a 316 b317 c d e f 318 yab means father and yum means mother; yab-yum refers to coitus, which in this case is an important yogic practice. Skt. nāḍī-prāṇavāyu-bindu; Tib. rtsa-rlung-thig le. Expressed by the Latin sentence similia similibus curantur. Skt. visa; Tib. dug. Skt. dhātu. Tib. bcud kyi len; Ch. 取味 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, qǔwèi; Wade-Giles, ch’ü -wei ). a b c d e f 3 207 4 At any rate, the above shows why it is said that on this Path the passions are like firewood and wisdom is like fire, and that the more wood, the greater the fire. In fact, on this path realization depends on two factors: rakta or blood of passion, represented with human menstrual blood, and amṛta or nectar that makes it possible to turn any passion into detached wisdom, symbolized by human semen. Finally, it must be noted that the starting point of this Path is the realization of emptiness that, according to many explanations, is the point of arrival of the Path of Renunciation (but which here may be obtained directly by the means proper to this vehicle), and the arrival point is the initial realization of rigpa (disclosure of Awake Awareness) that is the starting point of the Path of Spontaneous Liberation. a b 319 320 (3) The Path of Spontaneous Liberation, called the “continuity vehicle of primordial yoga” or Atiyogatantrayāna, which is neither Cause-based not Fruit-based, for it is the vehicle beyong cause and effect (and yet works that divide the Buddhist Path into Hīnayāna, Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna, as a rule place it within the Phalayāna). Based mainly on the level of the mind, according to the Kathang Denga by Namkhai Nyingpo and Nubchen Sangye Yeshe’s Samten Migdrön —though not so according to those texts that do not distinguish Ati Dzogpa Chenpo from the rest of the Vajrayāna —this path and vehicle arose directly from the dharmakāya. It features three series of teachings, namely: Series of [the essence or nature of] mind; Series of space; and Series of pith instructions —the latter being often referred to by its Sanskrit name, which is Upadeśavarga. In all of the vehicles that bear the suffix yoga—which are those supposed to allow practitioners to reGnize in this lifetime that which the Dzogchen teachings call the Base—this suffix, rather than meaning union, as it does in Sanskrit, has a sense that corresponds to the etymology of its Tibetan translation, which, as explained in a subsequent section, is [nonconceptual and thus nondual realization of our] original, unmodified condition: it designates the nonconceptual and hence nondual disclosure of the single natural, true condition of ourselves and all sentient beings and all other phenomena—which, since it excludes nothing and is free from duality, allows for neither union nor separation. The Path of Dzogchen Atiyoga, however, rather than having the reGnition in question as its final goal, begins with that reGnition (in which c d e f g h 321 i j k l m Tib. rak ta; Ch. ⼥⾎ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, nǔxiē; Wade-Giles, nu -hsieh ). Pāli amata; Tib. bdud rtsi or ’chi med; Ch. ⽢露 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, gānlòu; Wade-Giles, kan -lou ). As a medicine or elixir, Tib. bdud rtsi sman; as elixir or medicine of attainment, Tib. bdud rtsi sman grub. Tib. grol lam. Atiyogatantrayāna is language of Oḍḍiyāna; its Sanskrit equivalent is Ādiyogatantrayāna; Tib. shin tu rnal ’byor gyi rgyud kyi theg pa. Skt. Hetuyāna; Tib. rGyu’i theg pa. Skt. Phalayāna; Tib. ’Bras bu’i theg pa. (gNubs) Nam mkha’i snying po’s bKa’ thang sde lnga. gNubs chen Sangs rgyas ye shes’ bSam gtan mig sgron. Tib. Sems sde; Skt. Cittavarga. Tib. kLong sde; Skt. Abhyantaravarga. Tib. Man ngag sde or Man ngag gyi sde; Skt. Upadeśavarga. The Skt. yoga is supposed to derive from yug, which refers to the yoke that unites the oxen to the cart. The Tibetan translation of yoga is rnal ’byor: rnal ma means original, unmodified condition (of something, whereas ’byor ba means “to possess.” a 3 b 1 1 c d e f g h i j k l m 208 4 the emphasis is on the Base’s essence aspect), for the disclosure of the Base / of rigpa is that path’s entrance door—referred to as Direct Introduction to the Base or Direct introduction to rigpa. This is so because the practice of Dzogchen lies in the repeated reGnition (of) the Base / actualization of rigpa, and therefore it can unfold only after this initial reGnition. This Path is chiefly related to the mind—or more specifically, to the mind’s true nature, which is the nondual Awake awareness called nature or essence of mind, or Base dharmakāya, the realization of which is called rigpa—and hence it does not require us either to avoid some kinds of entity at the physical level, as does the Path of Renunciation, or to transform our impure vision into pure vision at the level of energy (i.e. as the link between body and mind), as does the Path of Transformation in the amplest sense of the term in which it includes both the Path of Purification of the outer Tantras and the Path of Transformation properly speaking, which is the one communicated by the inner Tantras. The passions arise and develop when, within the compass of the sphere of sensuality, contents of thought are reified / hypostasized / absolutized / valorized in a particularly intense way by the vibratory activity that has its core in the center of the trunk at the level of the heart, begetting an energetically charged, particularly intense attitude of a mental subject toward an object. As noted repeatedly, the true condition of thought and of the whole of perceivable reality is the nondual Awake awareness called nature or essence of mind, which therefore does not exclude anything; when the true condition of that nondual awareness is reGnized, it is rigpa / dharmakāya; and this rigpa / dharmakāya is intrinsically all-liberating—this being the reason why it is called or all-liberating single gnosis. Because of this, it suffices to reGnize the true condition of the thoughts at the root of the passions for rigpa / dharmakāya to become patent and thought to liberate itself spontaneously together with all associated tensions. Furthermore, so long as rigpa / dharmakāya is apparent, whichever thought of any class (whether of the three classes discussed in this book or of any of the other ones posited by the Dzogchen teachings) may begin to arise, will instantly liberate itself spontaneously like a drawing on water, and therefore will not conceal or distort the unmade and unconditioned essence of all reality. However, this does not mean that our practice depends on the arousal of the passions, as, on the contrary, is the case on the Path of Transformation: whichever thought-tinged and as such conditioned experience may conceal the unconditioned essence will dissolve spontaneously upon reGnizing the thought’s true condition. Since the level of mind is far subtler than the level of energy, treading this Path requires a sizably higher capacity than treading the Path of Transformation. Furthermore, because on the Path of Transformation previously to realization we are not so completely and directly aware of our own potentiality, we have to purify our dimension and attain realization by the power of a deity received from the Master, a b c 322 d Tib. ngo bo, which renders one of the meanings of the Skt. svabhāva (Ch. ⾃性 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìng; Wade-Giles, tzu -hsing ; Jap. jishō]). Tib. gzhi dang ngo phrod pa. Skt. cittatā or citta eva; Tib. sems nyid. Tib. gcig shes kun grol. In Tibetan primordial gnosis is called ye shes (Skt. jñāna; Ch. 智 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhì; Wade-Giles, chih ; Jap. chi]); gcig shes means “single (or unique) gnosis,” and kun grol means “all liberating.” a 4 4 b c d 4 209 which in spite of being an embodiment of our own potentiality, works as a mediator so that the latter may manifest its purifying / Awakening power. Contrariwise, on the Path of Spontaneous Liberation, since we are directly aware (of) our own potentiality, we can purify our dimension and attain realization directly through it, without a need for it to assume the guise of a deity. For example, in the Dzogchen Series of pith instructions there are two levels of practice, which are Tekchö and Thögel. In the practice of Tekchö all delusions are directly purified through the reGnition (of) the true condition of the essence or the stuff of thought discussed above—its essence being the essence aspect of the Base, which is its primordial purity (= emptiness) and which was reGnized in our Direct Introduction, and, its stuff being the dang form of manifestation of the energy aspect of the Base, the true condition of which is the dharmakāya, mind aspect of Buddhahood. The very instant we realize that we have fallen under the sway of delusion, we look right into whichever thought is present and reGnize its essence and stuff, whereupon the dharmakāya becomes apparent and the thought instantly liberates itself spontaneously. In a subsequent stage, in the practice of Thögel, the other two aspects of the Base must be integrated into this reGnition, by means that will only bear the expected results if repeated self-liberation of thoughts and passions in a quite intensive, highenergy practice of Tekchö—ideally reinforced by repeated self-liberation of dread and anguish while applying the practice of Chöd in the way it was traditionally applied in Tibet—has endowed us with a sufficiently high capacity of spontaneous liberation. (Below I will succintly review the practice of Thögel and briefly explain its principle, in a way similar to the one in which I explained it in Capriles, 2013, Vol. II, and then will discuss it in greater detail in subsequent volumes of this book.) As noted repeatedly, contradicting the texts that teach in terms of the threefold division of the Path into Hīnayāna, Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna, the two extant Buddhist texts that convey the threefold classification of the Path I follow here—Nub Namkhai Nyingpo’s Katang Dennga (revealed in the fourteenth century CE by the great tertön Orgyen Lingpa) and Nubchen Sangye Yeshe’s Samten Migdrön—affirm that the first link of transmission in the human dimension received this Path directly through the true condition of level of mind: the unadorned state of dharmakāya (since Dzogchen works at the level of mind, there was no need for the first human links to have visions that thereafter would become methods of the practice). In fact, as it should be clear by now, Dzogchen practice takes place mainly at the level of mind, even though its most a b d c e f g 323 h i j Tib. Man ngag sde. Wylie, Khregs chod. Wylie, Thod rgal. Tib. ngo bo, which is one of the Tibetan renderings of the Skt. svabhāva (Ch. ⾃性 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìng; Wade-Giles, tzu -hsing ; Jap. jishō]). Tib. ka dag; hypothesized Skt. kaśuddha. Wylie, gdangs: the gdangs form of manifestation of the energy or aspect of the Base. The term “energy” renders the Tibetan thugs rje (lit. soft and noble heart), which is one of the Tibetan terms that render the Skt. karuṇā (the other one being snying rje; Ch. 悲 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bēi; WadeGiles, pei —lit. sadness or mercy]), usually rendered as compassion. Tib. bsre ba. Wylie, gter ston: Revealer of spiritual treasures. Not the Base dharmakāya, but the dharmakāya properly speaking—namely as realized on the Path and Fruit. a b c d 4 4 e f g 1 h i j 210 advanced stages (and in particular the above mentioned practices of Thögel and the Yangthik ) involve the most consummate use of the visionary level of energy/voice— which, unlike the use of energy/voice on the Path of Transformation, is not based on intention, contrivance or effort (moreover, as will be shown below, that which the Tantras of Transformation posit as the final, supreme realization is what they call svabhāvikāya, but the Dzogchen teachings rightly view it as the dharmakāya ): it is based on the principle called spontaneous perfection / spontaneous arising / spontaneous rectification / spontaneous accomplishment, which is utterly beyond action, and which has the function of expanding the realization of the dharmakāya into the most thorough, complete realization of the trikāya (i.e. of full Buddhahood) that may be attained through any spiritual Path. In fact, as will be noted below, the final realization attained through the Dzogchen Path goes a long way beyond the final realizations of the Path of Transformation. Furthermore, the principle of spontaneous perfection or pure spontaneity is not limited only to the advanced stages of the Path: though some of the explanations in previous paragraphs may have given the reader the mistaken idea that in it the practitioner causes the liberation of thoughts and experiences by looking into their stuff / true nature and so on, the truth is the very opposite: as the term spontaneous liberation makes it clear, on this Path the liberation of delusions occurs spontaneously in such a way that it becomes evident that it cannot be caused—which is the reason why this vehicle is beyond the principle of cause and effect. However, this emphasis in nonaction is not circumscribed to Dzogchen: as the above cite of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra preaching nonaction makes it clear, even some Mahāyāna sūtras make the point that action affirms and sustains the delusive appearance of a hypostatically, inherently existing being that is acting. However, the emphasis on spontaneity instead of action is not suited to beings of lower capacities, as it could lead them into a state of apathy rather than spurring them to practice the teachings, and hence instead of directly preaching nonaction, in the First Promulgation Buddha Śākyamuni circumscribed himself to noting that in Buddhist practitioners the craving that according to that Promulgation is the Second Noble Truth and as such is the cause of duḥkha could turn into craving for extinction in nirvāṇa —which paradoxically would sustain saṃsāra. (In the brief discussion of Thögäl and the Yangthik/Yangti below the principle of spontaneous perfection / spontaneous arising / spontaneous rectification / spontaneous accomplishment or lhundrub, which is the main reason why the Atiyogatantra is utterly beyond cause and effect, will be discussed in greater detail, and then it will be extensively discussed in Part Two of this book.) Since, just as happens with the level of energy, the mind does not end upon the death of the physical body, the commitment of this Path (which consists in the four or a 324 b 325 326 c d e f Wylie, Yang thig. Tib. lhun grub; Skt. nirābogha or anābogha. Chinese, 無為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu -wei ). Skt. tṛṣṇā; Pāḷi, taṇhā; Tib. sred pa; Ch. 愛 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, nài; Wade-Giles, nai ). Skt. vibhavatṛṣṇā; Pāḷi vibhavataṇhā; Tib. med pa’i sred pa; Ch. 無有愛 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúyǒuài; Wade-Giles, wu -yu -ai ). Skt. samaya; Tib. dam tshig; Ch. 三摩耶 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānmóyé; Wade-Giles, san -mo -ye ). a b c 2 d 2 4 e 2 3 4 f 1 211 2 2 ten absences that will be considered in a subsequent chapter) does not come to an end at the term of this human life and does not become inactive during sleep. On this Path the starting point is the realization of rigpa (disclosure of Awake Awareness) that is the arrival point of the Path of Transformation, and the point of arrival is the exhaustion of saṃsāra, involving the definitive uprooting of the subjectobject duality and of the illusion of a chasm separating an internal dimension from an external dimension, which results in realizations such as the rainbow body, the body of infinitesimal particles, the body of light or the body of light of total transference, which are exclusive to this supreme Path of Ati Dzogpa Chenpo. Thus it is easy to understand why it is said that the Path of Spontaneous Liberation may lead those with the appropriate capacities to a more thorough Awakening in a shorter time. However, the fact that the starting point of the Path of Transformation is the point of arrival of the Path of Renunciation, and that the starting point of the Path of Spontaneous Liberation is the point of arrival of the Path of Transformation, does not mean that we have to practice the three Paths successively, following each to the end before we can approach the next. On the contrary, if we have the right capacity we can enter directly the Path of Spontaneous Liberation through Direct introduction to the state of rigpa without previously having followed any other Path. And if we lack the capacity necessary for practicing this Path, this does not mean that we are doomed not to do so in this lifetime, for we can develop the capacity by applying the methods to this aim found in the Dzogchen teachings. Conversely, if we have the required capacity but at any given moment this Path is not working for us, we apply whichever method of the Path of Transformation or of the Path of Renunciation will be effective in the situation we are facing. 327 a b c d In terms of contemporary science, perhaps it may be said that the Sūtrayāna Path of Renunciation works mainly with the three types of concepts discussed above and the digital logic that (in people who have suffered no brain damage) is mainly associated with the left cerebral hemisphere, in order to directly effect the changes we want to carry out—which is not the most effective method, for all that depends on this kind of functioning is subject to the “reverse law” or “law of inverted effect” that has already been considered and that results from the inverted reading by the analog primary process of the digital language of secondary process (for example, since the former’s code does not entertain negation, primary process reads as affirmations our secondary process negations). For its part, the Vajrayāna Path of Transformation is based mainly on modifying our vision, which also involves the use of concepts, yet acts more directly on the right brain hemisphere that in healthy people as a rule has an analog functioning—a strategy that is far more skillful as a means to transform one’s psyche. However, on the Mahāyāna level of the Path of Renunciation, Madhyamaka in general—except in Je Tsongkhapa’s interpretation of Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamaka—has the aim of leading beyond understanding in terms of the contents of all three classes of thoughts, and in the inner or higher Tantra of the Path of Transformation, once more e a b c d e Tib. ’ja’ lus. Tib. lus rdul phran du dengs. Tib. ’od kyi sku or ’od phung. Tib. ’pho ba chen po. Wylie, rJe Tsong kha pa: 1357-1419. 212 except in the interpretation of Anuttarayogatantra by Je Tsongkhapa (who in one specific point of based himself on Marpa Lotsawa ), the practice in general is intended to lead beyond understanding in terms of the contents of all three classes of thoughts— being more effective to this aim than the Mahāyāna. However, it is the Atiyogatantrayāna Path of Spontaneous Liberation that, from the outset of the Path, achieves the spontaneous dissolution of all thoughts and, in the long run, exhausts the potentiality for understanding and experiencing in terms of hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized thoughts. Moreover, one of the key principles of this Path is the skillful activation of the reverse law or law of reverse effect so that spontaneous selfrectifying (lhundrub) loops are unleashed that lead delusion to its reductio ad absurdum and subsequent spontaneous liberation—which is the most skillful and direct method of Buddhism, leading to the most complete realization in the shortest time. a 328 329 SCHEMA OF THE PATHS AND VEHICLES To conclude this introduction to the Fourth Noble Truth, it is necessary to arrange Namkhai Nyingpo’s and Nubchen Sangye Yeshe’s classification of the nine vehicles of the Nyingmapa plus the Sudden Mahāyāna (which was also considered by these two Masters and authors) into Path of Renunciation, Path of Transformation and Path of Spontaneous Liberation, in a schematic way that may allow the reader to fully grasp it. The totality of possible vehicles is classified into: (A) the mundane vehicle, the aim of which is merely to improve the quality of samsaric existence, and (B) supramundane vehicles, the aim of which is to lead the practitioner beyond saṃsāra. The supramundane vehicles are classified as follows: (1) Śrāvakayāna Hīnayāna Hetuyāna or Causal Vehicle (2) Pratyekabuddhayāna Path of Renunciation (3a) Bodhisattvayāna Mahāyāna (3b) Sudden Mahāyāna (Chán / Zen) Outer Tantras (Path of Purification) Phalayāna or Fruit-Based Vehicle b 330 Path of Transformation Inner Tantras (Path of (7) Mahāyogatantrayāna Transformation (8) Anuyogatantrayāna stricto sensu) Vehicle a (4) Kriyātantrayāna (5) Ubhayatantrayāna (6) Yogatantrayāna Mind series Wylie, dMar pa lo tsā ba: 1012–1095/1097. Tib. Sems sde; Skt. Cittavarga. 213 b Beyond Cause -Fruit Relation Path of Spontaneous Liberation (9) Atiyogatantrayāna (Dzogchen qua Path) Space series Secret oral instruction series b a b Tib. kLong sde; Skt. Abhyantaravarga. Tib. Man ngag [gyi] sde; Skt. Upadeśavarga. 214 a THE PATH OF RENUNCIATION CONSISTING OF THE CAUSAL VEHICLES a As we have seen, the Path of Renunciation is what is known as the Sūtra Vehicle or Sūtrayāna, in which the stimuli that activate the passions are seen as venomous snakes to ward off. The reason why this Path views the defiling emotions as poisons is that, if the individual does not exert effective self-restraint and allows them to be aroused and well up, they could lead him or her to commit negative actions of speech and body that would be harmful to others—as well as to the agent him or herself, who as a result will have to go through the suffering involved in the experiences of the lower realms or psychological states (i.e. that of purgatory [noneternal-hell], that of Tantalized ghosts or pretas and that of animals). Moreover, quite often the emotions are themselves negative actions of the sphere of mind—and, at any rate, the emotions are upsetting states of mind that establish propensities for the further occurrence of such states, which would keep the practitioner in a state of agitation, and by the same token bar her or him from gradualy developing the detachment, mental calm and capacity for introspection that are necessary for applying the most essential methods of the vehicle of the Path of Renunciation that she or he has set out to practice. The canonical teachings of the gradual vehicles of the Path of Renunciation—the Śrāvakayāna and the Bodhisattvayāna or Gradual Mahāyāna—are contained, respectively, in the Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna versions of the Tripiṭaka or “triple basket” of Buddhist teachings—which, when the term is understood lato sensu, comprises the Sūtrapiṭaka, the Abhidharmapiṭaka, the Vinayapiṭaka, and the Tripiṭaka in the term’s narrowest sense. The sūtras transmit teachings on the theoretical view and training in Contemplation. The Abhidharma, for its part, explains the functionality of human experience in fields that range from physics to psychology and epistemology. Finally, the Vinaya has to do with training in the rules of morality and discipline. After their codification, the teachings of these three “baskets” were expounded and supplemented with the prominent teachers who produced the commentaries or śāstras and other texts of greater or lesser importance. The gradual teachings of the Path of Renunciation or Sūtrayāna divide the way into five successive paths, which are: (1) the path of accumulation, (2) the path of preparation 331 332 333 334 b c Skt. Hetuyāna; Tib. rgyu’i theg pa. mārga(ḥ); Pāḷi magga; Tib. lam; Ch. 道 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dào; Wade-Giles tao ). Skt. saṃbhāramārga[ḥ]; Tib. tshogs lam; Ch. 資糧道 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zīliáng dào; Wade-Giles tzu -liang tao ): “path of accumulation” or “path of equipment.” a b 4 c 1 4 215 2 or path of application, (3) the path of Vision, (4) the path of Contemplation, and (5) the path of no more learning. The accumulation of merits and wise knowledge, as well as the “thorough abandonings” whereby four factors are developed through meditation and moral training, are the essence of the path of accumulation. The path of preparation or application, as its name suggests, prepares the practitioner to enter the supramundane (i.e., nirvāṇic) sphere that is accessed on the next path, by allowing him or her to overcome the fear that bars entrance to it—and by the same token closes the doors to lower realms. The path of Vision, being the first supramundane path, represents the entrance to the Path in a truer and more thorough sense; in the Hīnayāna this is marked by the transition from blind faith in the Four Noble Truths to the actual, true understanding of these Truths, whereby the individual becomes a “stream enterer;” in the Mahāyāna, entrance to this path—which corresponds to the first bodhisattva level —is gained when emptiness is realized in a nonconceptual and therefore nondual way and absolute mind-of-Awakening qua indivisibility of emptiness and compassion becomes apparent. The path of Contemplation involves the gradual unfoldment of the partial realization obtained in the previous path, which in the Mahāyāna involves the progressive development from the second bodhisattva level to the tenth. Finally, the path of no more learning is the attainment of the final Fruit of the Path one is following; if one is a follower of the Mahāyāna, one becomes a Samyaksambuddha or fully Awake One. Although the gradual forms of the Path of Renunciation—the Śrāvakayāna and the Bodhisattvayāna, which are the ones that divide the Way into five paths—are effective in leading to their respective Fruits, they are far more arduous and slower than the vehicles of the Path of Transformation and than the Path of Spontaneous Liberation—and even than the sudden or abrupt vehicles within the Path of Renunciation. For example, as noted above, in the Mahāyāna the Fruit is purportedly attained at the term of three immeasurable time cycles / aeons —a “nearly eternal” (if the phrase were logically acceptable), incalculably long time. a b c d e 335 f g h i The Vehicles of the Path of Renunciation of the Sūtrayāna Skt. prayogamārga[ḥ]; Tib. sbyor lam; Ch. 加⾏道 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jiāxíng dào; Wade-Giles tzu -liang tao ): “path of preparation” or “path of application.” Skt. darśanamārga[ḥ]; Tib. mthong lam; Ch. ⾒道 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jiàndào; Wade-Giles chien -tao ): path of Seeing or path of Presence. Skt. bhāvanāmārga[ḥ]; Tib. bsgom lam; Ch. 修道 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiūdào; Wade-Giles hsiu -tao ): path of Contemplation. Skt. aśaikṣamārga[ḥ]; Tib. mi slob pa’i lam; Ch. 無學道 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúxuédào; Wade-Giles wu -hsüueh tao ): path of no more learning. samyakprahāṇa; Pāḷi sammappadhāna; Tib. yang dag par spong ba; Ch. 四正勤 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sìzhèngqín; Wade-Giles, ssu -cheng -ch’in ). Skt. srotaāpanna, srotāpanna or śrotāpanna; Pāḷi sotāpanna; Tib. rgyun du zhugs pa; Ch. 預流[果] (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yùliú [guǒ]; Wade-Giles, yü -liu [kuo ]) / 須陀洹 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xūtuóhuán; Wade-Giles, hsü -t’o huan ). Skt. bhūmi; Tib. sa; Ch. 地 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dì; Wade-Giles, ti ). Skt. bodhicitta; Tib. byang chub sems or byang chub kyi sems; Ch. 菩提⼼ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, pútíxīn; WadeGiles, p’u -t’i -hsin ; Jap. bodaishin). Skt. kalpa; Pāḷi kappa; Tib. bskal pa; Ch. 劫 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn jié; Wade-Giles chieh ; jap. gō). One of the various measures for a kalpa is 3.420.000.000 years; however, in this case the kalpas are immeasurable. a 1 b 2 4 c 1 d 4 4 4 2 2 4 e 4 4 2 f 4 2 3 1 2 g 4 h 2 2 1 i 2 216 2 It is clear by now that the Mahāyāna and higher vehicles classify the vehicles that constitute the Path of Renunciation, Vehicle of the Sūtras or Cause-based vehicle, into Hīnayāna or Narrow Vehicle and Mahāyāna or Wider Vehicle, and that the Hīnayāna is subdivided into the Vehicle of the śrāvakas or Śrāvakayāna and the Vehicle of the pratyekabuddhas or Pratyekabuddhayāna—and that the Kathang Dennga and the Samten Migdrön (the extant Nyingma Buddhist texts that expound the classification of Buddhist Paths in terms of the Paths of Renunciation, Transformation and Spontaneous Liberation) subdivide the Mahāyāna into the gradual vehicle of bodhisattvas or Bodhisattvayāna and the sudden Mahāyāna, which corresponds to the Dhyāna, Chán or Zen school. As the preceding section’s last sentence implied, within the Hīnayāna the Pratyekabuddhayāna is swifter and leads to a more thorough realization than the Śrāvakayāna, and within the Mahāyāna the Sudden vehicle (Chán) is swifter than the Bodhisattvayāna or gradual Mahāyāna. As noted above, in Tibetan Buddhism, the first three vehicles of the Sūtrayāna listed above—i.e. all the vehicles of the Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna with the exception of the sudden Mahāyāna, which are the ones listed in the Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna sections of all ninefold Nyingma classifications of the supramundane Path (the Path that leads beyond saṃsāra) except for those expounded in the Kathang Dennga and the Samten Migdrön—are also known as the vehicles of philosophical characteristics. In The Precious Vase, Chögyal Namkhai Norbu quotes Rongzompa’s explanation of this term: a b c d336 e The tradition that mainly teaches the [various] characteristics [of the phenomena of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa] is called the Philosophical Characteristics Vehicle. In fact it discloses the general and particular characteristics [of phenomena, and in particular] the characteristics of the [impure] dimension of the emotions and those of the totally purified dimension and so on. Thus, concerning their approach to teaching and application, these vehicles may be said to be based on intellectual discrimination between this and that, and therefore on the conditioned and made, rather than on directly entering the unmade and unconditioned dimension and thus going beyond discrimination. However, all vehicles of philosophical characteristics must have their own methods for gaining access to the unconditioned and unmade (in the case of the Mahāyāna and higher vehicles, by Seeing into it through the conditioned and made), for otherwise they would not be deemed actual Buddhist vehicles. Finally, it must be noted that the Lotus Sūtra or Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra teaches that the three vehicles of philosophical characteristics are makeshift only. 337 THE HĪNAYĀNA Tib. spong lam. Skt. Sūtrayāna; Tib. mDo’i theg pa. c Skt. Hetuyāna; Tib. rGyu’i theg pa. 禪宗 (Wade-Giles, Ch’an -tsung ); Jap. ぜんしゅう(hiragana) / Zen-shū (romaji); Korean, 성종 / Seonjong; Viet. Thiền Tông. Tibetan Text 4, p. 197, 1. Cited in Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal], 1999/2001. I altered the translation found in the cited work to express more precisely what I see as the meaning of the passage. a b d 2 1 e 217 With respect to the Hīnayāna, it is fitting to point out that each of its two vehicles is appropriate for a different type of individual and culminates in a different type of Fruit: (a) The Śrāvakayāna is the vehicle of the śrāvakas or “listeners,” who constantly follow a Buddha or a practitioner with greater experience than themselves, applying the teachings they receive in order to stop the causes of duḥkha and their effects, and thus transform themselves into arhats or realized ones of this vehicle. (b) The Pratyekabuddhayāna is the vehicle of the pratyekabuddhas or “solitary realizers,” who in the Buddhist spiritual hierarchy occupy a place superior to that of the śrāvakas who have reached the state of arhat, but inferior to that of a Buddha. In fact, although the title pratyekabuddha contains the term “buddha,” the “solitary realizer” does neither have the distinctive qualities nor exhibit the characteristic traits of the perfect and totally Awake One, such as Buddha-omniscience, the ten powers, the four confidences or fearlessnesses, the eighteen special qualities or distinct attributes of the Buddha, the major and minor marks, and so on. (According to the Sūtrayāna, in each different age there is only one perfect and totally Awake One, who in our age is Buddha Śākyamuni; according to the higher vehicles, in each age there may be countless perfect and totally Awake Ones, for all human beings have the potentiality to reach the definitive Fruit of the Ample vehicle, which is full Buddhahood.) a 338 b c 339 340 341 342 Essence of the View of Śrāvakas 343 Concerning the definition of the term śrāvaka, Chögyal Namkhai Norbu quotes Rongzompa: d The term śrāvaka stands for ‘listeners,’ and in fact the śrāvakas are so called because, unlike the pratyekabuddhas, they cannot waive receiving teachings from a teacher, for in order to realize the Fruit they need the basis of a teacher’s teachings. At times the term ‘śrāvaka’ is interpreted to mean ‘listen and propagate’ because, unlike the pratyekabuddhas, the śrāvakas transmit to others [the knowledge of] the Fruit they have accomplished [and the Path they have followed]. According to the śrāvakas, of the non-Buddhist theories that Buddhism regard as extremist, those that assert substantiality and/or eternity imply an exaggeration of the truth (i.e. an overestimation ) and as such we can compare them to mistaking a rope for a snake, whereas those that assert total nonexistence imply a degradation of the truth (i.e. an underestimation ) and as such may be compared to mistaking a snake for a rope—which is far more dangerous, for taking a rope for a snake may elicit dread, but taking a snake for a rope may cause one to fall victim to the snake’s venom. e f 344 Skt. arahant Pāḷi arhat Tib. dgra bcom pa; Ch. 阿羅漢 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, āluóhàn; Wade-Giles, a -luo -han ), often shortened to 羅漢 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, luóhàn; Wade-Giles, luo -han ). anuttarā samyaksambudha; Tib. yang dag par rdzogs pa’i sangs rgyas; Ch. 正 遍 知 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhèngbiànzhī; Wade-Giles, cheng -pien -chih ). Skt. sarvākārajñatā; Tib. rnam pa thams chad mkhyen pa; Ch. ⼀切種智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yīqièzhǒng zhì; Wade-Giles i -ch’ieh -chung chih ). Tibetan Text 4, p. 198, 2. Cited in Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal], 1999/2001. The phrase “and the Path they have followed” is my own addition. Skt. samāropa; Tib. sgro btags pa or sgro ’dogs; Ch. 增益 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zēngyì; Wade-Giles, cheng -i ). Skt. apavāda; Tib. skur [pa] ’debs [pa]; Ch. 損減 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sǔnjiǎn; Wade-Giles, sun -chien ). a 1 2 2 4 4 b 4 4 1 c 1 4 3 4 d e 1 f 3 218 3 4 What the śrāvakas deem absolutely true are the instants of consciousness, and the infinitesimal particles of the four elements (solid-static, liquid-cool, gazeous-windy and igneous-hot) that in their view make up the five aggregates (form / material form; “mental” o “physical” sensation / feeling; recognition / perception; habitual mental formations / impulses that move the mind; and consciousness / apperception ), twelve sense bases (the six external constituents, which are the fields of the six sense objects wherein objects are singled out, plus the six internal constituents, which are the six sense organs), and eighteen sense constituents (the twelve sense bases just enumerated, plus the consciousness of the six senses ). By meditating successively on each of the Four Noble Truths, from the first to the fourth, they progressively realize the four Fruits or four types of result: streamenterer, once-returner, nonreturner and arhant. Concerning schools of thought, in principle the śrāvakas may adhere to any of the eighteen schools of the Hīnayāna, or to any of the other schools of this vehicle, such as the Vaibhāṣika, the Sautrāntika, the Theravāda and so on. However, in our time śrāvakas in their totality belong to the Theravāda School, which prevails in Sri Laṅkā, Burma, Thailand, Laos, Kampuchea and part of Vietnam. In Tibet, in particular, from the first dissemination of Buddhism the śrāvakas were usually associated with the Sarvāstivāda or realistic Vaibhāṣika view and with the slightly less realistic Sautrāntika view, which were the two Hīnayāna schools of thought taught in the land of the snows. In fact, although some Sarmapa texts have associated the view of the Sautrāntikas with the vehicle of the pratyekabuddhas, most Nyingma treatises, and even Tantras, make it clear that the Sautrāntika is one of the philosophical schools of the śrāvakas; for example, the Rigpa Rangshar Tantra of the Dzogchen Series of Pith Instructions reads: a b c d e f g 345 h 346 347 i j k l 348 m 349 n o In the Śrāvaka Vehicle the entrance gate consists of the four Truths… Within [this Vehicle] there exist two streams: the Vaibhāṣikas and the Sautrāntikas. Skt. skandha; Pāḷi khandha; Tib. phung po; Ch. 蘊 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yùn; Wade-Giles, yün ). Skt. and Pāli rūpa; Tib. gzugs; Ch. ⾊ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sè; Wade-Giles, se ). Skt. and Pāli vedanā; Tib. tshor ba; Ch. 受 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shòu; Wade-Giles, shou ). Skt. saṃjñā; Pāli saññā; Tib. ’du shes; Ch. 想 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiǎng; Wade-Giles, hsiang ). Skt. saṃskāra; Pāli saṅkhāra; Tib. ’du byed; ⾏ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíng Wade-Giles, hsing ) Skt. vijñāna; Pāli viññāṇa; Tib. rnam shes / rnam par shes pa; 識 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shí; Wade-Giles, shih ). Skt. āyatana; Tib. skye mched; Ch. 處 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chǔ; Wade-Giles, ch’u ). Skt. dhātu; Tib khams; Ch. 界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jiè; Wade-Giles, chieh ). Skt. srotaāpanna, srotāpanna or śrotāpanna; Pāḷi sotāpanna; Tib. rgyun du zhugs pa; Ch. 預流[果] (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yùliú [guǒ]; Wade-Giles, yü -liu [kuo ]) / 須陀洹 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xūtuóhuán; Wade-Giles, hsü -t’o huan ). Pāḷi: sakadāgāmī; Skt. sakṛdāgāmin; Tib. lan gcig phy ir ’ong ba; Ch. ⼀來 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yīlái; WadeGiles, i -lai ); 斯陀含 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sītuóhán; Wade-Giles, ssu -t’o -han ). Pāḷi: anāgāmī; Skt. anāgāmin; Tib. phy ir mi ’ong ba; Ch. 阿那含 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, anàhán; Wade-Giles, a na -han / 不還 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùhuán; Wade-Giles, pu -huan / 不來 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùlái; Wade-Giles, pu lai ). Pāḷi: arhat; Tib. dgra bcom pa; Ch. 阿羅漢 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, āluóhàn; Wade-Giles, a -luo -han ), often shortened to 羅漢 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, luóhàn; Wade-Giles, luo -han ). Tib. sNga dar. Tib. Man ngag [gyi] sde; Skt. Upadeśavarga. Tibetan Text 5, p. 507, 4. Cited in Namkhai Norbu (1999/2001, p. 152). a 4 b 4 c 4 d 3 e 2 f 2 g 3 h 4 i 4 2 3 1 2 2 j 1 2 1 2 2 k 5 4 2 4 2 4 2 l 1 2 m n o 219 3 2 3 The Śrāvakayāna designates those who reach the third path (which, as we have already seen, is that of Vision) as “stream-enterers.” On the fourth path (which, as we have seen, is that of Contemplation), the śrāvakas gradually free themselves from the sensual desires proper to the sphere of sensuality: when they overcome the six strongest degrees of desire among the nine enumerated, they are known as “once returners;” when they have transcended the three remaining degrees of desire, they come to be known as “nonreturners.” Finally, when they have also freed themselves from the illusion of absolute existence with respect to the sphere of form and the sphere of formlessness, they reach the final path, which means that they have obtained the fruit that they view as liberation. The practice of this vehicle has been explained in terms of the Four Noble Truths as “eliminating the cause, the effects are cleared.” However, as the Kunje Gyälpo puts it: a b c d e f g h Coining the terms “cause and effect,” some believe that by eliminating both virtue and negativities they can release themselves from this world: however, this merely shows complacency in accepting and rejecting… Followers of the vehicles based on cause and effect [hold diverse views about the nature] of existence. [The śrāvakas] deem it poison and form the concept of “renunciation.” When desire and aversion arise, [the śrāvakas] deem [the five sense objects] to be the cause of the passions and of suffering. Consequently, they try to eliminate them, even though precisely these five natural objects are self-arisen wisdom. Being unable to eliminate them in less than three kalpas, they continue to transmigrate in the three worlds (kama, rūpa and ārūpa). In fact, in the discussion of the Mahāyāna below, it will be shown that canonical sources of the Mahāyāna such as the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra assert the nirvāṇa of the Hīnayāna not to be the true Hīnayāna that offers final release, whereas that compendium of the Tathāgatagarbhasūtras called Ratnagotravibhāga or Uttaratantraśāstra (which the Tibetans ascribe to Maitreya [Maitreyanātha] and the Chinese to Sthiramati) claims that i Skt. srotaāpanna, srotāpanna or śrotāpanna; Pāḷi sotāpanna; Tib. rgyun du zhugs pa; Ch. 預流[果] (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yùliú [guǒ]; Wade-Giles, yü -liu [kuo ]) / 須陀洹 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xūtuóhuán; Wade-Giles, hsü -t’o huan ). Pāḷi and Skt. kāmadhātu or kāmaloka; Tib. dod pa’i khams; Ch. 欲界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yùjiè; Wade-Giles, yü chieh ). Pāḷi: sakadāgāmī; Skt. sakṛdāgāmin; Tib. lan gcig phy ir ’ong ba; Ch. ⼀來 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yīlái; WadeGiles, i -lai ); 斯陀含 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sītuóhán; Wade-Giles, ssu -t’o -han ). Pāḷi: anāgāmī; Skt. anāgāmin; Tib. phy ir mi ’ong ba; Ch. 阿那含 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, anàhán; Wade-Giles, a na -han / 不還 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùhuán; Wade-Giles, pu -huan / 不來 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùlái; Wade-Giles, pu lai ). Skt. rūpadhātu; Pāli, rūpaloka; Tib. gzugs khams; Ch. ⾊界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sèjiè; Wade-Giles, se -chieh ). I.e. one of the four realms of the formless sphere (Skt. ārūpyadhātu; Pāli, arūpaloka; Tib. gzugs med pa’i khams; Ch. 無⾊界 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúsèjiè; Wade-Giles, wu -se -chieh ]). This is the result known in Pāḷi as arhat, in Sanskrit as arahant, in Tibetan as dgra bcom pa and in Chinese as 阿羅漢 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, āluóhàn; Wade-Giles, a -luo -han )—often shortened to 羅漢 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, luóhàn; Wade-Giles, luo -han ). Namkhai Norbu and Clemente (English 1999, pp. 169, 151, 182). Tib. rGyud bla ma. a 4 2 3 1 2 2 b 4 4 c 1 2 1 2 2 d 5 4 2 4 2 4 2 e 4 f 2 g 1 2 2 3 h i 220 3 4 4 4 according to the Wider Vehicle of Renunciation śrāvakas do no obtain a definitive Fruit, and that should they develop the thought-of-Awakening, in order to proceed to full Awakening they would have to enter the Mahāyāna Path from the very beginning. Essence of the View of Pratyekabuddhas Just like the śrāvakas, the pratyekabuddhas assert that, among the non-Buddhist theories that Buddhism regard as extremist, those that assert substantiality and/or eternity imply an exaggeration of the truth (i.e. an overestimation ) and as such we can compare them to mistaking a rope for a snake, whereas those that assert total nonexistence imply a degradation of the truth (i.e. an underestimation ) and, as we have seen, as such may be compared to mistaking a snake for a rope. According to most texts of the Mahāyāna and higher vehicles, both śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas overcome all impediments to individual liberation because they fully realize the nonexistence of human beings; however, some of the most renowned among those texts assert that the pratyekabuddhas hold the belief that the supposedly internal, subjective consciousness genuinely does indeed exist—which, since the illusory mental subject that is the core of dualistic consciousness is perhaps the main element or aspect of the illusion of selfhood in human beings, would make their realization of nonexistence of human beings partial, to say the least. For example, the Abhisamayālaṃkāra, authored by Maitreyanātha, reads: a b 350 c d Since they renounce the idea of objects but they do not renounce the subject, one must know the Path genuinely subsumed therein to be that of a rhinoceros-like recipient (i.e. of a pratyekabuddha) It is said that they renounce the idea of objects because, unlike the śrāvakas, who do not realize the nonexistence of phenomena other than human beings to any degree whatsoever and therefore do not succeed in overcoming any of the obstructions to omniscience, the pratyekabuddhas have as their characteristic feature the understanding of the absence of independent being in the aggregate of form (one of the five skandhas) and in part of the constituents of all of those phenomena that are not human beings (which means that, unlike the śrāvakas, they realize the emptiness of at least some elements or aspects of entities that are not human beings ). Therefore, it is asserted that they abandon the coarser obstructions to omniscience but not so the subtler ones, which are overcome only by means of the Mahāyāna and superior vehicles, where practitioners fully realize the emptiness of phenomena that are not human beings. This is why the Rigpa Rangshar Tantra of the Dzogchen Series of Instructions reads: 351 e f “In the sūtra system of the pratyekabuddhas a b c d e f Skt. samāropa; Tib. sgro btags pa or sgro ’dogs; Ch. 增益 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zēngyì; Wade-Giles, cheng -i ). Skt. apavāda; Tib. skur [pa] ’debs [pa]; Ch. 損減 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sǔnjiǎn; Wade-Giles, sun -chien ). Dudjom Rinpoche (English 1991, vol. I, p. 159). Quoted ibidem. Tib. Man ngag sde or Man ngag gyi sde; Skt. Upadeśavarga. Tibetan Text 5, p. 510, 6. Cited in Namkhai Norbu (1999/2001, p. 154). 1 3 221 3 4 the entrance gate consists of the twelve links of interdependence. The view consists in understanding the absence of identity of the human being and of one half of the phenomena that are not human beings.” 352 Concerning the meaning of the name pratyekabuddha, Chögyal Namkhai Norbu quotes Rongzompa’s commentary : a The pratyekabuddhas [or solitary Buddhas] are so called because [in order] to accomplish the Fruit, unlike the śrāvakas they do not follow the oral teachings of a teacher and above all they do not communicate to others with words the dharma they attain [(though they do so by means of gestures)]. At times it is explained that they are so called because, unlike the bodhisattvas, they do not generate the aspiration to attain enlightenment for the benefit of many beings, but aspire solely to their own liberation. According to a further explanation, the terms prata and buddha mean ‘secondary cause’ and ‘understanding,’ [respectively], because, after having accumulated merit [and wisdom] for countless kalpas [(aeons)] by means of a secondary cause, the pratyekabuddhas finally realize the state of Awakening; or because, understanding the secondary causes that underpin the twelve links of interdependence, such as the secondary cause of ignorance producing mental formations and so on, they attain realization. Thus, they do understand secondary causes. Of course, what they realize is not the Awakening of a Buddha, but the partial realization of a pratyekabuddha. At any rate, since it is said that Śākyamuni did not teach the Pratyekabuddhayāna directly, and since pratyekabuddhas abstain from offering verbal teachings, the precise origin of this vehicle is unknown. However, the twelve links of interdependent origination, which beyond doubt were taught by Śākyamuni, and the understanding of which is at the root of the realization of pratyekabuddhas, may be explained as follows: (A) The first three, which are the determining causes, are: (1) Avidyā, which Tsongkhapa and Gorampa interpreted differently: for the former it is the conception and experience of entities as truly existent (which according to the view expressed in this book depends on the previous and underlying unawareness of our true condition); for the second, the first link is passional delusive obstruction, whereas the conception and experience in question—which are what I am calling cognitive delusive obstruction —are the cause of the twelve links. At any rate, the said conception and experience are the source of both duḥkha and the round of suffering that the Buddha called saṃsāra, b c d e f g 353 Tibetan Text 4, p. 198, 5. Cited in Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal], 1999/2001, p. 154. Some of the phrases and words within brackets are my own explanatory additions, while others were introduced by the translator. Pāḷi and Skt. nidāna; Tib. ’brel; Ch. 尼陀那 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, nítuónà; Wade-Giles, ni -t’o -na ). Skt. pratītyasamutpāda; Tib. rten [cing] ’brel [bar]; Ch. 因緣 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yīnyuán; Wade-Giles, yin yüan ). Namkhai Norbu (1999/2001, p. 153). Pāḷi avijjā; Skt. avidyā; Tib. ma rig pa; 無明 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúmíng; Wade-Giles, wu -ming ). Skt. kleśāvaraṇa; Pāḷi: kilesāvaraṇa; Tib. nyon [mongs pa’i] sgrib [pa]; Ch. 煩腦障 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fánnǎo zhàng; Wade-Giles, fan -nao chang ). jñeyāvaraṇa; Pāḷi: ñeyyavāvaraṇa; Tib. shes [bya’i] sgrib [pa]; Ch. 所知障 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sǔozhī zhàng; Wade-Giles, so -chih chang ). a b 2 2 4 c 1 2 d e 2 f 2 3 4 g 3 1 4 222 2 (2) Repetitive mental formations, and (3) Consciousness; (B) The four links that are the result of the determining causes are: (4) Name-and-form, (5) Sense bases, (6) Contact, and (7) Sensation; (C) The three links that are the causes of existence are: (8) Desire, (9) Attachment, and (10) Becoming. (D) The two links that are the result of the causes of existence are: (11) birth, and (12) old-age-and-death. The Pratyekabuddhayāna considers that a realized individual of this vehicle has accumulated an immeasurably greater quantity of merit than the śrāvaka, and asserts that there are two types of solitary realizers: (1) Rhinoceros-like solitary realizers, who are the ones with the highest capacity, who live in times when no manifest Buddha is teaching, and who go alone to live in the forest, reaching liberation without the help of a teacher or spiritual friend by meditating on the twelve links of interdependent origination or twelve nidāna of the pratītyasamutpāda in reverse order. They are self-ordained monks and obtain parinirvana (term that refers to the physical death of a realized individual) four days after reaching realization. (2) Those who live when a Buddha is teaching and therefore do not have to go to the forest, and who are ordained as monks in the regular way. The realizations of both types of solitary realizers are higher than those of a śrāvaka. And although their paths are deemed to be equivalent to those of the śrāvakas, in this vehicle titles such as “stream enterer,” “once returner” and “nonreturner” are not used. An example of (1) a rhinoceros-like solitary realizer—who as such lived at a time when there was neither Buddha, nor teaching, nor community of practitioners, and who a b c d e f g h i j k l 354 m n o Pāḷi, saṅkhāra; Skt. saṁskāra; Tib. ’du byed; Ch. ⾏ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíng; Wade-Giles, hsing ) Pāḷi, viññāṇa; Skt. vijñāna; Tib. rnam shes; Ch. 識 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shí; Wade-Giles, shih ). Pāḷi and Skt. nāmarūpa; Tib. ming gzugs; Ch. 名⾊ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, míngsè; Wade-Giles, ming -se ). Pāḷi and Skt. ṣaḍāyatana; Tib. skye mched; Ch. 六⼊ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, liùrù; Wade-Giles, liu -ju ). Pāḷi phassa; Skt. sparśa; Tib. reg pa; Ch. 觸 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chù; Wade-Giles, ch’u ). Pāḷi and Skt. vedanā; Tib. tshor ba; Ch. 受 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shòu; Wade-Giles, shou ). Pāḷi, taṇhā; Skt. tṛṣṇā; Tib. sred pa; Ch. 愛 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, nài; Wade-Giles, nai ). Pāḷi and Skt. upādāna; Tib. len pa; Ch. 取 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, qǔ; Wade-Giles, ch’ü ). This attachment has as its object the aggregates—and hence it is referred to by the Sanskrit term upādānaskandha. Pāḷi and Skt. bhava; Tib. srid pa; Ch. 有 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒu; Wade-Giles, yu ). Pāḷi and Skt. jāti; Tib. skyed ba; Ch. ⽣ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shēng; Wade-Giles, sheng ). Pāḷi and Skt. jarāmaraṇa; Tib. rga shi; Ch. ⽼死 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, lǎosǐ; Wade-Giles, lao -ssu ). Pāḷi paccekabuddha; Skt. pratyekabuddha; Tib. rang sangs rgyas; Ch. 獨覺 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dújué; WadeGiles, tu -chüeh ). Tib. sangs rgyas; Ch. 佛 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fó; Wade-Giles, fo ). Skt. dharma; Pāḷi dhamma; Tib. chos; Ch. 法 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎ; Wade-Giles, fa ; Jap. hō). Skt. saṃgha; Pāḷi: saṅgha; Tib. dge ’dun; Ch. 僧伽 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sēngjiā; Wade-Giles, seng -chia ). a 2 b 2 c 2 d 4 e 4 4 4 f 4 g 4 h 3 i 3 j 1 k 3 3 l 2 2 m 2 n 2 o 1 223 1 attained realization by meditating on the twelve links of interdependent origination in reverse order—is that of the one who spontaneously identified the twelve links after finding a skeleton. This finding led him to think of old age and death, the twelfth link, and then to identify birth as the cause of old age and death—these two being “the links that constitute the result of the causes of existence.” Then he went on to identify the tenth link, becoming, followed by the ninth, attachment to the aggregates, and the eighth, desire or craving— these being “the three links that constitute the causes of existence.” Then he managed to identify the seventh link, sensation, followed by the sixth, sensory contact, and then by the fifth, sense bases, and the fourth, name-and-form—these being “the four links that constitute the result of the determining causes.” Immediately he identified the third link, consciousness, then the second, repetitive mental formations, and finally the first, avidyā— these being “the first three links, which constitute the determining causes.” Thus that individual identified the twelve links and, by meditating on them, attained the realization of a solitary realizer without having received teachings in that lifetime. With regard to the pratyekabuddhas, the Kunje Gyälpo states: a When the five objects of the single, natural condition manifest, due to desire and aversion [the pratyekabuddhas] deem them to be the cause of saṃsāra. Consequently, they try to eliminate them, even though in reality precisely these are self-arisen wisdom. Thus, unsuccessful for many kalpas, they continue to transmigrate in the three worlds. Even though the fundamental nature, pure and total Awake awareness, is one alone, [the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas] speak of the Four Noble Truths concerning suffering and its origin. Affirming that the origin of suffering is the cause of rebirth in the three lower states, they forsake the fundamental nature that is pure and total Awake awareness. Thus, not understanding the fundamental nature, they forsake it. THE MAHĀYĀNA We have seen that according to the Hīnayāna human beings do not exist truly and independently as selves, but except for the Pratyekabuddhayāna, which as shown above does so in part, this vehicle does not affirm the lack of true existence and independent selfnature of phenomena that are not human beings. Failing to realize the emptiness of so many phenomena causes wisdom to be limited and hindered by the idea of something nonempty and obstructing—which is directly related to the fact that the Hīnayāna is said to lead to individual liberation, but not to the irreversible liberation and the unimpeded capacity to help others proper to Unsurpassable, Complete Awakening, in which an allembracing, unimpeded wisdom is inherent that is the essence of what is rendered as 355 b Namkhai Norbu and Adriano Clemente (English 1999, pp. 183, 177). I have modified the terminology in order to make it agree with the one used throughout this book. Skt. anuttarāsamyaksaṃbodhi; Tib. yang dag par yongs su rdzogs pa’i byang chub; Ch. 阿耨多罗三藐三菩 提 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, ānòuduōluó sānmiǎo sānpútí; Wade-Giles, a -nou -to -luo san -miao san -p’u -t’i ). a b 1 224 4 1 2 1 3 1 2 2 “omniscience “ and which is held to be exclusive to Buddhahood, final goal of the Mahāyāna and other higher vehicles. Conversely, the fact that the Mahāyāna is intended to lead to the so-called “omniscience” of Buddhahood is directly related to its realization of the nonexistence of a self-nature or substance both in human beings and in phenomena that are not human beings—this aim and this realization being indivisible from the Mahāyāna aspiration to Awaken with a view to helping all beings be definitively liberated from suffering. Finally, Tsongkhapa claimed that Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamaka made it clear that, so long as one took each of the five aggregates —which are phenomena that are not human beings—as being hypostatically / inherently existent, one cannot fully realize the human self to be empty of hypostatic / inherent existence, and hence realized beings of the Hīnayāna do not fully realize even the emptiness of human beings. At any rate, as shown in a previous section, many Mahāyāna canonical sources and treatises assert all forms of Hīnayāna nirvāṇa to be, not the final resting place that represents definitive freedom from saṃsāra, but a provisional resting place from which one will have to be reborn in order to enter the Mahāyāna Path from its inception if one is ever to reach the final release of Buddhahood in the nonstatic nirvāṇa of the Mahāyāna. Elsewhere I wrote: a 356 b c The Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra does note that arhats (both śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas) eliminate suffering through realizing the selflessness of human beings and purifying passional delusive obstructions and thus attain a nirvāṇa that consists in an absorption of cessation. However, as will be shown below, canonical sources that include the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra and commentaries on it such as the noted Ratnagotravibhāga or Uttaratantraśāstra make it clear that in arhats the potentialities for rebirth have not been exhausted, and that in order to proceed to Buddhahood and thus exhaust them arhats will have to enter the Mahāyāna Path from the very beginning. At any rate... the Mahāyāna [surpasses] this, for it realizes the selflessness of phenomena other than human individuals and removes not only passional delusive obstructions but cognitive delusion as well. Thus, not only does it truly put a definitive end to transmigration, but it also leads to Buddhaomniscience and thus has the power of leading all beings to Awakening… d e f In fact, a variety of Mahāyāna sources and associated oral explanatory traditions negate that nirodhasamāpatti—or arhatship in general, for that matter—is a definitive, individual liberation from suffering. For example, the words of Śākyamuni Buddha (trans. from the Chinese, K. C. Oon; undated; the commentator introduced passages in brackets on the basis of oral tradition, and I myself introduced some short explanations so that the reader could make up the sense without reading the previous passages of the Sūtra) in the following excerpt from the Vajrasamādhisūtra of the Mahāyāna make it clear that according to the Ample Vehicle nirodhasamāpatti is a deviation from the Path of Awakening taking one to Skt. sarvākārajñatā; Tib. rnam pa thams chad mkhyen pa; Ch. ⼀切種智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yīqièzhǒng zhì; Wade-Giles i -ch’ieh -chung chih ). Skt. skandha; Pāḷi khandha; Tib. phung po; Ch. 蘊 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yùn; Wade-Giles, yün ). Capriles (2014). Skt. kleśāvaraṇa; Tib. nyon [mongs pa’i] sgrib [pa]; Ch. 煩惱障 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fánnǎozhàng; Wade-Giles, fan -nao -chang ). Skt. & Pāḷi nirodhasamāpatti; Tib. ’gog pa’i snyoms ’jug; Ch. 滅盡定 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, mièjìndìng; WadeGiles, mie -jing -ding ). Skt. sarvākārajñatā; Tib. rnam pa thams chad mkhyen pa; Ch. ⼀切種智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yīqièzhǒng zhì; Wade-Giles i -ch’ieh -chung chih ). a 1 4 3 4 b 4 c d 2 3 4 e 4 4 4 f 1 4 3 4 225 the highest of the realms of formlessness, which is the one involving neither perception nor lack of it and which is the peak of saṃsāra: a b So it is. Followers of the two [dualistic, lesser] vehicles [which are the Śrāvakayāna and the Pratyekabudhhayāna] are attached to mental absorption (samādhi) [as a means] to gain the samādhi-body [through the trance of cessation, whereby they attain the samsaric formless absorption of neither perception nor non-perception]. As far as the Single-bhūmi [of Buddhahood] or the sea of [the Absolute] void is concerned, they are like alcoholics who are drunk and unable to sober up, [and hence] continuing through countless tests, they are unable to attain Awakening (...) until the liquor has dissipated off, [and so] they [can] finally wake up. They will then be able to cultivate the practices [spoken of in this Sūtra], eventually attaining the body of Buddhahood. When a person abandons the [status of] icchantika (which is that of a person blocked from attaining Awakening), he will be able to access the six practices. Along the path of practice, his mind is purified [by awareness of tathatā] and he definitely [comes to] Know. The power of his diamond-like wisdom renders him [immune to spiritual retrogression]. He ferries sentient beings across to liberation with boundless mercy and compassion. c d As a matter of fact, the different Buddhist vehicles and schools use the term nirvāṇa to refer to different conditions. In particular, the higher Buddhist vehicles contrast what the Hīnayāna refers to by that term with their own forms of nonstatic nirvāṇa —which, once delusion has been irreversibly eradicated together with its propensities, and Buddha-omniscience has been obtained, are called Unsurpassable, Complete Awakening. True enough, the authenticity of the Vajrasamādhisūtra (and by implication of associated explanatory oral traditions) has been questioned, but other, unquestioned canonical sources are in full coincidence with it. For example, Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra III.5—a passage from a canonical source pertaining to the same Promulgation on which, however, no shadow of doubt has ever been casted by adherents of the Mahāyāna—reads: e f g 357 h Lord, not only the Arhats and the Pratyekabuddhas have fear, but also, that being the case, both have a remainder of rebirth nature and are eventually reborn. They have a remainder of resort; they are not pure. They have not finished with karma; hence they have many needs. Besides, they have many natures to be eliminated; and because those are not eliminated, the Arhats and the Pratyekabuddhas are far away from the Nirvāṇa realm. Lord, what is called ‘Nirvāṇa’ is a means belonging to the Tathāgatas. This sūtra proceeds to explain why only the Buddhas have attained nirvāṇa, noting (in III.1112) that the Cessation of Suffering, the only one of the Four Noble Truths that is Skt. naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana; Pāḷi nevasaññānāsaññāyatana; Tib. ’du shes med ’du shes med min skye mched; Ch. ⾮想⾮⾮想處 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fēixiǎng fēifēixiǎng chù; Wade-Giles, fei -hsiang fei -fei -hsiang ch’u ). Skt. bhavāgra; Tib. srid rtse or srid pa’i rtse mo; Ch. 有頂天 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒudǐngtiān; Wade-Giles, yu ting -t’ien ). Skt. & Pāḷi nirodhasamāpatti; Tib. ’gog pa’i snyoms ’jug; Ch. 滅盡定 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, mièjìndìng; WadeGiles, mie -jing -ding ). Skt. kāya; Tib. sku; Ch. ⾝ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shēn; Wade-Giles, shen ). Skt. apratiṣṭhitanirvāṇa; Tib. mi gnas pa’i mya ngan ’das [pa]; Ch. 無住涅槃 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúzhù nièpán; Wade-Giles, wu -chu nieh -p’an ). Skt. sarvākārajñatā; Tib. rnam pa thams chad mkhyen pa; Ch. ⼀切種智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yīqièzhǒng zhì; Wade-Giles i -ch’ieh -chung chih ). Skt. anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi; Tib. yang dag par yongs su rdzogs pa’i byang chub; Ch. 阿耨多罗三藐三菩 提 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, ānòuduōluó sānmiǎo sānpútí; Wade-Giles, a -nou -to -luo san -miao san -p’u -t’i ). Wayman & Wayman (1990, pp. 80-1). a 1 3 1 1 3 4 b 3 3 1 c 4 4 4 d 1 e 2 4 4 2 f 1 4 3 4 g 1 h 226 4 1 2 1 3 1 2 2 uncompounded / unconditioned / unproduced / uncontrived, “being beyond the object of perception of all sentient beings, is inconceivable and is not in the domain of knowledge of any śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha.” In fact (in III.5) this same canonical source states that only the victory of a Buddha gains the dharmakāya, which is superior to all the worlds and which cannot conceivable be witnessed by any sentient being, and then makes it clear that the dharmakāya is beyond the reach of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas. And Maitreya and Asaṅga’s honored Ratnagotravibhāga or Uttaratantraśāstra VIII.7.206, which is based mainly on the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanādasūtra, summarizes all that this canonical source says in this regard by stating that the dharmakāya may not be compared with ordinary phenomena because the latter are emotionally tainted, and that it cannot be compared with the fruition of the Hīnayāna Path —a form of which is nirodhasamāpatti. a b c d 358 e In fact, in general all Mahāyāna philosophers and doxographers of Tibet have warned that arhatship (the highest Hīnayāna realization, a form of which is nirodhasamāpatti) is not final nirvāṇa. Ju Mipham, for example, writes: f Arhatship is not final Nirvāṇa because the obscurations of the various patterns of existence have not yet been completely removed; because the radiant light which is the very nature of mind [and which in the case of arhats has not shone forth] is what constitutes Buddhahood; because the obscurations are incidental; because even if the activity of ideation may be stopped while the obscurations have not yet been removed, the cause for the arising of mind and [the whole of] existence is still there; and because the two requisites [which are merit and wisdom] as the cause for final Awakening must be acquired. Actually, nirodhasamāpatti is an instance of the neutral condition of the base-of-all, and as shown in various works of mine, when subsequently to the occurrence of the base-of-all the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of the threefold directional thought structure ... gives rise to the subject-object duality, the subject takes the ensuing pseudototality as object, giving rise to a samsaric formless absorption. Outside the Hīnayāna, the only Buddhist school that posits states of gnitive nirodha as unconditioned and uncompounded is the Cittamātra philosophical School of the Mahāyāna, which, however, does not deem any deep absorption excluding sense data to constitute realization, for it is based on Mahāyāna Sūtras (specifically, on those of the Third Promulgation), according to which Awakening involves a complete, panoramic, nondual awareness (of) the senses, as well as what is generally translated as “omniscience.” Moreover, in the Mahāyāna, Third Promulgation literature, in particular, places a special emphasis on the fact that dwelling in absorptions in which one is cut from the senses is a major pitfall to avoid: this is the reason why the Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra repeatedly warns against dwelling in such conditions (one g h 359 i 360 j k l Pāḷi asaṅkhata; Skt. asaṃskṛta; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu -wei ). ibidem, pp. 100-1. ibidem, p. 90. Tib. rGyud bla ma. cf. e.g. mKhan chen Khra ’gu (Khenchen Thrangu; K. & K. Holmes, trans., 1994, p.121). In Guenther (1976, p. 29); the terminology was adapted to the one used in this book Tib. kun gzhi lung ma bstan. Capriles (2000a, 2003, 2007a Vol. II, 2013abc). Skt. asaṃskṛta; Pāḷi, asaṅkhata; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無爲 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu -wei ). Skt. samādhi; Tib. ting nge ’dzin; Ch. 三昧 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānmèi; Wade-Giles, san -mei ). Skt. sarvākārajñatā; Tib. rnam pa thams chad mkhyen pa; Ch. ⼀切種智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yīqièzhǒng zhì; Wade-Giles i -ch’ieh -chung chih ). Luk (1972). a 2 2 b c d e f g h i 2 j 1 k 1 4 3 4 l 227 4 2 of these warnings being the episode in which various male bodhisattvas strive to awaken a young female bodhisattva from absorption, until finally a young, handsome though as yet inexpert male bodhisattva succeeds in so doing), and why the Samādhirājasūtra repeatedly warns against dwelling in absorptions in general. It is generally held that the term Hīnayāna or “Narrow vehicle” was coined due to the fact that in this vehicle we work primarily for our own liberation from suffering, rather than working principally for the release of all sentient beings. Though this is correct and true, the “narrow” character of the Hīnayāna also lies in the fact that this vehicle is more strictly based on the principle of renunciation, which requires that a set of vows be adopted by virtue of which one commits oneself to avoiding many different actions—which has been compared to treading a narrow path between a cliff and a precipice, in which one has to place one’s feet exactly on the way drawn by one’s vows or fall down the abyss. For its part, the Mahāyāna’s “wider” character is not only due to the fact that one works primarily for the salvation of all beings, but also to the fact that it is more properly based on the principle of training, which implies the commitment to contravene any prohibition and go beyond one’s own limits if that is necessary to benefit others (and there is some guarantee that the effects of one’s course of action will be positive), and thus it is like an expressway in which one may freely change lane according to the requirements of circumstances—the first and the second point being indivisible, since as just noted one can contravene prohibitions only with the aim of benefiting beings and if one has the certitude that one’s action will actually do so. Likewise, while the principle of the Hīnayāna consists in withdrawing from the stimuli that activate the passions, which is achieved far more easily if one adopts the monastic lifestyle, the gradual Mahāyāna does no require practitioners to become monks or nuns—all the great male bodhisattvas in the Mahāyānasūtras are laymen, and female ones are laywomen—and places the emphasis on the application of antidotes in order to neutralize the passions that are already in the process of being activated. (This is so because in the gradual Mahāyāna, the principle of training consists in trying to produce the qualities of Awakening through the application of antidotes to the vices or defects that are their opposites—which widely differs from the principle of the sudden Mahāyāna, for the latter views the qualities of Awakening as arising spontaneously as a result of Awakening itself.) For example, a Hīnayāna monk or nun avoids the arousal of desire by eluding people of the opposite sex, and tries to avert the arousal of anger by keeping from engaging in worldly dealings. Contrariwise, a Mahāyāna layman or laywoman lives in the world; if “unlawful” lust and desire arises in their mind toward another human being, and awareness of emptiness as an antidote fails to make the lust subside, they will resort to a coarser antidote and try to neutralize it by visualizing the other human being as though they could see through her or his body and perceive a heap of bones, muscles, fat, blood, mucus, mucosa, organs, gastric juices, excrement and so on; if they get angry at someone who wronged them, and awareness of emptiness as an antidote fails to make the anger subside, in order to neutralize it they will resolrt to a coarser antidote and try to develop compassion a 361 b c a b c d d This allegory appears in one of the books by Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche, which I am now unable to identify. Skt. svayaṃbhū; Tib. rang byung. Skt. and Pāli, upāsaka; Tib. dge bsnyen; Ch. 優婆塞 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yōupósāi; Wade-Giles, yu -p’o -sai ). Skt. and Pāli, upāsikā; Tib. dge bsnyen ma; Ch. 優婆夷 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yōupóyí; Wade-Giles, yu -p’o -i ). 1 2 1 228 1 2 2 toward the person by thinking that she or he did so because he or she is possessed by avidyā and, as a result, is suffering in saṃsāra. The principle behind this is that a single mind cannot simultaneously entertain two different attitudes to an object, and thus that disgust puts and end to desire, just as compassion puts an end to anger, etc. In fact, one can practice the Bodhisattva Path with considerable ease without radically having to change one’s way of life, as shown by the lifestyle of the great lay practitioner, the Licchavi Vimalakīrti, hero of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra: all it requires is that one checks one’s intention before acting, and modifies one’s intention and action if one discovers that the motivation is selfish. This, of course, requires higher capacity than the practice of the Hīnayāna, since for acting in this way it is necessary to have the capacity to detect all attempts to deceive oneself by disguising a selfish motivation as an altruistic one. Furthermore, since the goal of the Mahāyāna is the attainment of Buddhahood, this vehicle developed the doctrines concerning this final Fruit far beyond the scope they had in the Hīnayāna. In previous chapters and sections the terms dharmakāya, saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya, the two latter of which are utterly nonexistent in the Hīnayāna, recurred frequently. These are proper to the Mahāyāna, the Vajrayāna and Ati Dzogpa Chenpo, all of which distinguish these three (and often four or five) aspects and dimensions in the undivided continuum of Buddhahood. According to the Mahāyāna, in particular, and as suggested in the discussion of the term individually realized primordial gnosis of rigpa and other terms involving the Skt. prefix prat and the Tib. prefix so so, the dharmakāya or mental aspect of Buddhahood is the same for all Buddhas (and, it must be added, for all sentient beings as well, as held by both the Tathāgatagarbhasūtras and the Theravāda’s Dhammakāya movement in Thailand), while the other two—the saṃbhogakāya or energy aspect (symbolized by the voice) and the nirmāṇakāya or material aspect—which together conform the rūpakāya or “form aspect,” are what distinguish each Buddha (and also each sentient being) from the others. (As will be shown in a subsequent chapter, the Pith instructions Series of Dzogchen teachings and in particular the Nyingthik teachings understand these kāyas in a distinctive way.) As we have seen in previous chapters, the Mahāyāna is subdivided into the gradual Path of bodhisattvas or Bodhisattvayāna, and the sudden Mahāyāna. a362 b c 363 d e Essence of the View of the Gradual Path of Bodhisattvas According to the Rigpa Rangshar Tantra, in the bodhisattva vehicle the entrance consists in the two truths: the absolute and the relative. As Padmasambhava noted, on the level of absolute truth all phenomena of saṃsāra and metaphenomena of nirvāṇa lack self-existence or substance. Yet, at the relative level they appear like a magical illusion, f g 364 Luk, Charles AKA upāsaka Lü Kuan Yu (translator, 1972). Skt. pratyātmavedanīyajñāna; Tib. so so rang rig pa’i ye shes. Skt. Sthaviravāda; Tib. gnas brtan sde pa; Ch. 上座部 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shàngzuòbù; Wade-Giles, shang -tso pu ). Skt. Upadeśavarga; Tib. Man ngag sde or Man ngag gyi sde. Wylie, snying thig. Tibetan Text 5, p. 512, 5. Cited in Namkhai Norbu (1999/2001, p. 157). Tibetan Text 6, p. 163,2. Cited in Namkhai Norbu (1999/2001, p. 155). a b c 4 4 d e f g 229 4 with their own distinct characteristics. Followers of this vehicle claim that by practicing the ten transcendences they progress through the ten levels and at the end reach supreme Awakening. Rongzompa remarks that bodhisattvas are so called because they “aspire with great courage” (one of the meanings of sattva ) to Awakening (i.e. bodhi ) and are stable in their intention, or because the objects of their interest are Awakening and sentient beings. Any being (which here is the meaning of sattva) having the mind-of-Awakening, defined as the union of discriminative wisdom and compassion, is a bodhisattva. In the Mahāyāna, the gradual Path is based on the step-by-step development of the “mind-of-Awakening” by means of the practices of the bodhicitta of intention and the bodhicitta of action —all of which are based on the antidotic principle characteristic of the vehicle in question, for both the four trainings of the bodhicitta of intention and the six or ten trainings of the bodhicitta of action are antidotic means for neutralizing ingrained samsaric propensities. Regarding these two bodhicitta trainings, Chögyal Namkhai Norbu writes (Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal], 1999/2001, p. 108): a b c d e f g h i j There are in fact two ways to enact bodhicitta, respectively of intention and in action (Note by A. Clemente: in Tibetan smon pa sems bskyed and ’jug pa sems bskyed [respectively]). ‘Bodhicitta of intention’, linked to meditation on the Four Immeasurables, is based on an aspiration that is similar to that of a person who wants to travel in a certain country. ‘Bodhicitta in action,’ on the other hand, consists in actually developing the true conduct of a bodhisattva through [the] gradual training in the pāramitās or ‘perfections’ that will be explained below. Thus, whoever cultivates this is comparable to a person who, after having planned a journey, finally sets off. By means of the two bodhicittas, of intention and in action, you should train with great zeal to enable pure bodhicitta to arise within you. The principal elements of the bodhicitta of intention are those called the “four immeasurable catalysts of Awakening,” which, when listed in the order in which they are presented by a Nyingmapa tradition that at some point was recorded by Andzam Drugpa, k Skt. pāramitā; Tib. phar phyin or, in full, pha rol tu phyin pa; Ch. 波羅蜜 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bōluómì; WadeGiles, po -luo -mi ). Skt. bhūmi; Tib. sa; Ch. 地 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dì; Wade-Giles, ti ). Tibetan Text 4, pp. 199, 5 and 200, 2. Cited in Namkhai Norbu (1999/2001, p. 157). Pāli satta; Tib. sems can, Ch. 有情 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuqíng; Wade-Giles, yu -ch’ing ) or 衆⽣ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhòngshēng; Wade-Giles, chung -sheng ). Pāḷi, bodhi; Tib. byang chub; Ch. 菩提 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, pútí; Wade-Giles, p’u -t’i ); Jap. bodai. Skt. bodhicitta; Tib. byang chub sems or byang chub kyi sems; Ch. 菩提⼼, (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, pútíxīn; WadeGiles, p’u -t’i -hsin ; Jap. bodaishin). Skt. prajñā; Tib. shes rab; Pāḷi pañña; Ch. 般若 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bōrě; Wade-Giles, po -je ). Pāḷi and Skt. karuṇā; Tib. snying rje (snying means “heart,” while rje may be translated as “soft and noble”); Ch. 悲 (lit. “sadness” or “mercy;” Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bēi; Wade-Giles, pei ). Skt. praṇidhicittotpāda; Tib. smon pa’i sems bskyed; Ch. 願菩提⼼ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yuàn pútíxīn; Wade-Giles, yüan p’u -t’i -hsin ). Skt. prasthānacittotpāda; Tib. ’jug pa’i sems bskyed; Ch. ⾏菩提⼼ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíng pútíxīn; Wade-Giles, hsing p’u -t’i -hsin ). For the division between these two types of bodhicitta, cf. Namkhai Norbu (1999/2001, p. 108). Skt. apramāṇa; Pāḷi appamaññā; Tib. tshangs gnas bzhi; also called by the Skt. catvāri brahmavihārā; Tib. tshad med bzhi; Ch. 四無量⼼ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sì wúliàng xīn; Wade-Giles, ssu wu -liang hsin ). a 1 2 4 b 4 c d 3 4 2 1 e 2 2 f 2 2 1 g 1 3 h 1 i 4 2 2 1 j 2 2 2 1 k 4 230 2 4 1 are: (1) equanimity, (2) love or loving kindness, (3) compassion, and (4) sympathetic joy or rejoicing for the good actions, qualities and positive circumstances of others—each of which is an antidote to one of our deeply ingrained samsaric propensities. Note that this order in which the Immeasurables were listed here is different from the one taught by Atiśa Dīpaṃkaraśrījñāna, because Nyingmapas insist that unless the first immeasurable that is developed is equanimity, love, compassion and rejoicing will fall into partiality and therefore will not be immeasurable. At any rate, these four Immeasurables are antidotes to some of our most ingrained wayward mental attitudes. The bodhicitta of action consists of the six or ten pāramitās or “transcendences;” when six of them are enumerated, these are: (1) generosity, (2) discipline or virtuous conduct, (3) forbearance or patience, (4) perseverance, (5) stable mental absorption, and (6) discriminating wisdom. When, in connection to the ten bodhisattva stages, ten transcendences are enumerated, the following four are added: (7) method o skillful means, (8) aspiration, (9) power or strength, and (10) primordial gnosis. It must be noted that when only six pāramitās are listed, the seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth are subsumed under the sixth (so that discriminating wisdom includes primordial gnosis and so on). One most clear example of this is the tenth pāramitā: when only six pāramitās are listed, the sixth, which is that of prajñā, is divided into relative prajñā, which in this case is discriminating wisdom, which as such is based on thought, and absolute prajñā, which does not discriminate because it is utterly beyond the intellect. When ten pāramitās are listed, then primordial gnosis or jñāna is the wisdom that does not discriminate because it is utterly beyond the intellect. (However, this subject is not so simple and hence will be discussed in a b c d 365 366 e f g h i j k l m n o p367 Pāli: uppekkhā; Skt. upekṣā; Tib. btang snyoms; Ch. 捨 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shě; Wade-Giles, she ). Pāli: mettā; Skt. maitrī; Tib. byams pa; Ch. 慈 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, cí; Wade-Giles, tz’u ). Pāḷi and Skt. karuṇā; Tib. snying rje (snying means “heart,” while rje may be translated as “soft and noble”); Ch. 悲 (lit. “sadness” or “mercy;” Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bēi; Wade-Giles, pei ). Pāḷi and Skt. mudita; Tib. dga’ ba, 喜 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xǐ; Wade-Giles, hsi ). Tib. phar phyin or, in full, pha rol tu phyin pa; Ch. 波羅蜜 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bōluómì; Wade-Giles, po- luo mi ). Skt. dānapāramitā; Tib. sbyin pa phar phyin; Ch 布施 (波羅蜜) (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùshī bōluómì; Wade-Giles, po -shih po- luo -mi ). Skt. śīlapāramitā; Tib. tshul khrims phar phyin; Ch. 持戒 (波羅蜜) (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chíjiè bōluómì; WadeGiles, ch’ih -chieh po- luo -mi ). Skt. kṣāntipāramitā; Tib. bzod pa phar phyin; Ch. 忍辱 (波羅蜜) (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, rěnrǔ bōluómì; Wade-Giles, jen -ju po- luo -mi ). Skt. vīryapāramitā; Tib. brtson ’grus phar phyin; Ch. 精進 (波羅蜜) (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jīngjìn bōluómì; WadeGiles, ching -chin po- luo -mi ). Skt. dhyānapāramitā; Tib. bsam gtan phar phyin; Ch. 禪定 (波羅蜜) (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chándìng bōluómì; Wade-Giles, ch’an -ting po- luo -mi ). Skt. prajñāpāramitā; Tib. shes rab phar phyin; Ch. 般若 (波羅蜜) (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bōrě bōluómì; Wade-Giles, po -je po- luo -mi ). Skt. bhūmi; Tib. sa; Ch. 地 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dì; Wade-Giles, ti ). Skt. upāyapāramitā; Tib. thabs phar phyin; Ch. ⽅便 (波羅蜜) (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fāngbiàn bōluómì; WadeGiles, fang -pien po- luo -mi ). Skt. praṇidhānapāramitā; Tib. smon lam phar phyin; Ch. 願 (波羅蜜) (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yuàn bōluómì; WadeGiles, yüan po- luo -mi ). Skt. balapāramitā; Tib. stobs phar phyin; Ch. ⼒ (波羅蜜) (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, lì bōluómì; Wade-Giles, li po- luo mi ). Skt. jñānapāramitā; Tib. ye shes phar phyin; Ch. 智(波羅蜜); Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhì bōluómì; Wade-Giles, chih po- luo -mi ). a 3 b 2 c 1 d 3 e 1 2 1 2 4 f 4 1 1 2 4 g 2 4 1 2 4 h 3 3 1 2 4 i 1 4 1 2 4 j 2 4 1 2 4 k 1 3 1 2 4 l 4 m 1 4 1 2 4 n 4 1 2 4 o 4 4 p 4 1 2 4 231 greater detail below.) At any rate, these six—or ten—elements of application are antidotes to our inveterate, wayward modes of conduct. It is well known that in the Mahāyāna and higher vehicles the Path and the Fruit are explained in terms of the inseparability of discriminating wisdom and skillful means / method, known in Sanskrit as prajñōpāya. The vehicle whereby one moves forward to Awakening may be compared to a plane—the traditional simile is a bird—and these two aspects may be compared to the two wings necessary for the plane to fly: one may have had an initial insight into or spark of prajñā wisdom, but if one lacks method, that insight is useless—and, moreover, it may be dangerous, for a partial glimpse of emptiness may make one conclude that there are no beings to be damaged by one’s actions and no karma to accumulate with one’s actions, and thus fall into nihilism, becoming like a drunken elephant who tramples on others (and if this happened, it would show one never had true wisdom). In fact, if there is no method this means there is no true prajñā wisdom, since from true prajñā wisdom skillful means arise spontaneously—and, conversely, if there is no wisdom there can be no method, as only true wisdom can know what can lead beings to Awakening and only from true wisdom can spontaneous activities effective in leading others to Awakening arise. It is significant that method or skillful means are a function of compassion, and that the Mahāyāna defines the mind of Awakening as the inseparability of emptiness and compassion. Moreover, the Mahāyāna, the Vajrayāna, and even quite a few Dzogchen texts, assert Awakening to be the result of the two accumulations or stores —that of merit and that of wise knowledge —which for their part are related to the six transcendences and the above discussed, indissoluble pair consisting of method and wisdom. In The Precious Vase Chögyal Namkhai Norbu draws these relations in a simplified way in which the first five transcendences correspond to method and result in the accumulation of merit, while the sixth, which is itself the counterpart of method—prajñā wisdom itself—results in the accumulation of wise knowledge. Nevertheless, in Maitreya’s Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra the relationship is a bit more complex: 368 a b c d e f g h i j [The transcendences of] generosity and disciplined virtuous conduct Skt. prajñā; Tib. shes rab; Pāḷi pañña; Ch. 般若 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bōrě; Wade-Giles, po -je ). Skt. upāya; Tib. thabs; Ch. ⽅便 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fāngbiàn; Wade-Giles, fang -pien ). Ch. 般若⽅便 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bōrě fāngbiàn; Wade-Giles, po -je fang -pien ). Skt. karman, in the sense of manaskarman (Tib. thugs kyi phrin las; Ch. 意業 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yìyè; WadeGiles, i -yeh ]) or kāyakarman (Tib. sku’i phrin las). Skt. bodhicitta; Tib. byang chub sems or byang chub kyi sems; Ch. 菩提⼼ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, pútíxīn; WadeGiles, p’u -t’i -hsin ; Jap. bodaishin). Skt. dvisaṃbhāra; Tib. tshogs gnyis; Ch. ⼆資糧 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, èrzīliáng; Wade-Giles, erh -tzu -liang ). Skt. puṇyasaṃbhāra; Tib. bsod nams kyi tshogs; Ch. [宿] 福德資糧 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, [sù] fúdé zīliáng; WadeGiles, fu -te tzu -liang ). The prefix 宿 sù means former and need not be used. Skt. jñānasaṃbhāra; Tib. ye shes kyi tshogs; Ch. [宿] 智慧資糧 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhìhuì zīliáng; Wade-Giles, chih -hui tzu -liang ). The prefix 宿 sù means former and need not be used. I did not render jñāna as primordial gnosis because in this case the term refers to having knowledge and a correct, wise understanding of that knowledge. Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal] (1999/2001). In Kongtrul (2007, p. 169); the terminology was adapted to the one used in this book. a 1 b 1 c 1 3 1 3 4 4 d 4 4 e 2 2 1 f 4 g 2 2 1 2 h 4 4 1 2 i j 232 1 2 contribute to the store of merit, and [that of prajñā] wisdom contributes to the store of wise knowledge; the other three [contribute] to both. [However,] the [first] five can also belong to the store of wise knowledge. a b In his Sheja Kunkhyab Jamgön Kongtrul explains the last line of the passage by Maitreya, all while coinciding with the view expressed by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu: c d Thus it is said that [the six transcendences or pāramitās encompass] the two stores. One alternative explanation is that when [the first five transcendences] are embraced by gnosis, they become the store of wise knowledge. Another is that since the first five [transcendences] are method and the sixth is wisdom, [all transcendences] are contained within [the pair of] method and wisdom. It must be emphasized, however, that—as the Tathāgatagarbhasūtras of the Third Promulgation rightly note—the dharmakāya does not arise as a result of the accumulation of wise knowledge, and the rūpakāya (saṃbhogakāya plus nirmāṇakāya) does not arise as a result of the accumulation of merits, for both accumulations are inherent in the Buddhanature qua Base as dharmakāya qua Base and rūpakāya qua Base, respectively. Longchen Rabjam writes: e f g h The spontaneously accomplished rūpakāya and dharmakāya, appearances and emptiness, the twofold accumulation, skillful means and wisdom, Contemplation and post-Contemplation, the unfabricated and natural five kāyas and primordial gnoses, are spontaneously perfect in the state of rigpa, without grasping at perception or mind. Another pair of complementary aspects emphasized by the Mahāyāna, as well as by the Vajrayāna and quite a few Dzogchen texts, is the one consisting of emptiness and compassion. This pair is intimately related to the one consisting of method and wisdom, for emptiness may be said to be somehow the content of prajñā wisdom, whereas method may be viewed as the function of compassion—so that compassion is the actual source of Skt. puṇyasaṃbhāra; Skt. bsod nams kyi tshogs; Ch. 福德資糧 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fúdézīliáng; Wade-Giles, fu te tzu -liang ). Skt. jñānasaṃbhāra; Tib. ye shes kyi tshogs. Ch. 智慧資糧 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhìhuìzīliáng; Wade-Giles, chih hui tzu -liang ). Wylie, shes bya kun khyab: All-Embracing Encyclopedia, Frameworks of Buddhist Philosophy (Kongtrul, 2007, p. 169). Shes bya kun khyab is the name given by ’Jam dbyangs mkhyen brtse’i dbang po (Jamyang Khyentse Wamgpo) to the conglomerate of the encyclopedia written by Kongtrul and the auto-commentary. However, the name had already been given to the root text by Kongtrul’s root teacher, Lama Karme Ngedön. In Kongtrul (2007, p. 169); the terminology was adapted to the one used in this book. Skt. jñānasaṃbhāra; Tib. ye shes kyi tshogs; Ch. 智慧資糧 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhìhuìzīliáng; Wade-Giles, chih hui -tzu -liang ). However, when this accumulation is practiced relatively, contrivedly, causally, or in a conditioning way or fabricating way (Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ]), that which is accumulated is mere, sterile knowledge. Skt. puṇyasaṃbhāra; Tib. bsod nams kyi tshogs; Ch. [宿] 福德資糧 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, [sù] fúdé zīliáng; WadeGiles, fu -te tzu -liang ). The prefix 宿 sù means former and need not be used. Skt. buddhatā / buddhadhātu / buddhatva; Tib. sangs rgyas kyi khams; Ch. 佛性 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fóxìng; Wade-Giles fo -hsing ). rDzogs pa chen po sems nyid rang grol, signed as Drime Öser (Wylie, Dri med ’od zer). Alternative translation by sPrul sku Don grub, in Tulku Thöndup (1996, pp. 320-321). a 2 2 1 2 b 4 4 1 2 4 1 2 c d e 4 3 2 f 2 2 1 2 g 2 4 h 233 method. As noted above, prajñā wisdom (as different from primordial gnosis ) may be either relative—in which case it would be properly called discriminating wisdom—or absolute—in which case the adjective discriminating may not be properly used in its regard, for (being) the nonconceptual and hence nondual realization of the true condition of both the individual and the whole universe, it simply does not discriminate. Likewise, compassion may be of the relative, referential type that is developed as one of the four Immeasurables and that involves the misconception that truly existing sentient beings experience truly existing suffering, or nonreferential, in which case it cannot be produced through training, for it can only arise spontaneously from realization of absolute prajñā wisdom after the third Path / first level of the bodhisattva Path are reached (however, it is sometimes claimed that training in referential compassion may work as a contributory condition fovoring the uncaused, uncontrived, unconditioned arising of nonreferential compassion). Relative prajñā wisdom, which develops step by step on the gradual Path, is one of the fifty-one mental factors or mental events that, according to the teachings of the Abhidharma, occur in the conditioned, delusory states of saṃsāra: it is the intelligence that allows for the correct comprehension of the teachings and that correct understanding itself. The relative mind-of-Awakening or bodhicitta, involving relative prajñā wisdom, referential compassion and the whole of the qualities that arise from the practice of the methods of the bodhicitta of intention and the bodhicitta of action, lies basically in the bodhisattva’s aspiration to attain Buddhahood in order to truly benefit sentient beings, and its arising marks the practitioner’s entrance into the bodhisattva Path. This modality of mind-of-Awakening is progressively developed from the very outset of the Path through an intentional, conditioned and conditioning practice of the four Immeasurables of the bodhicitta of intention and the six or ten transcendences of the bodhicitta of action. For its part, the absolute prajñā wisdom of the Prajñāpāramitāsūtras is, as noted above, the unmade, unproduced, uncontrived, unconditioned nonconceptual and hence nondual gnosis that directly and nakedly reveals the absolute truth and by the same token demonstrates that there is no inherent, absolute or substantial existence either in entities that are human beings or in entities that are not human beings, dissolving (initially for a while) the delusion called avidyā or marigpa, saṃsāra and the idea of a “me” or an “us.” In the Bodhisattvayāna, it is said to arise in the context of the practices for developing the transcendence or pāramitā of discriminative prajñā wisdom and the related practices of insight meditation. The above definition of absolute prajñā is the same as the standard definition of the primordial gnosis that is the tenth transcendence in the tenfold schema and that is also a recurrent concept in Third Promulgation sūtras. However, by delving further into this terminology we find that, when the levels are associated with the ten transcendences, a b 369 c d e f g Skt. jñāna; Pāḷi ñaṇa; Tib. ye shes; Ch. 智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhì; Wade-Giles, chih ; Jap. chi). Skt. asaṃskṛta; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無爲 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu -wei ). Skt. caitasika (sometimes, caitta); Pāḷi cetasika; Tib. sems byung; Ch. ⼼所 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xīnsuǒ; WadeGiles, hsin -so ). Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). Skt. asaṃskṛta; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無爲 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu -wei ). Pāḷi, vipassana; Skt. vipaśyanā; Tib. lhag mthong; Ch. 觀 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, guān; Wade-Giles, kuan ; Jap. kan). Skt. jñāna; Tib. ye shes; 智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhì; Wade-Giles, chih ); Jap. chi. a 4 b 2 2 2 2 c 1 3 d 3 e f 2 1 g 4 234 absolute prajñā wisdom is supposed to arise when the first level is attained, whereas primordial gnosis is held to be perfected on the tenth level only. In fact, primordial gnosis functions beyond the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of the supersubtle concept called threefold directional thought structure —and hence transcends not only the passional delusive obstructions, but also the cognitive delusive obstructions (two concepts that will be discussed below)—and involves an accurate awareness of the subtlest expressions of delusion that makes the latter’s liberation possible. And yet the distinction between the two is not clear, for the above cited passage from Kongtrul the Great tells us that: a b c d e [For there to be] genuinely method / skillful means [our practice of all transcendences must] be embraced by the gnosis that is free from [reification of] the threefold directional thoughtstructure. f This is why the true cultivation of bodhicitta is that of ultimate bodhicitta, which a Tantra revealed by Dudjom Lingpa describes as follows: g As for cultivating bodhicitta, cultivate ultimate bodhicitta as follows: What we call mind is the narrow-minded, confining grasping at self that causes you to cling to pleasure, [reject] pain and [indulge in] indifference [to what you view as neutral], and to regard all objects as existing with their own characteristics. Desires and cravings arise in an unbroken stream from such a mind. So all appearances and mindsets involving grasping at appearances as truly existent are to be understood with prajñā wisdom, and concepts of self and the dualistic appearances [that arise from] reification are to be subjugated until they disappear. Then the actualization of identitylessness in the form of the consummation of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, free of activity and conceptual fabrication, is called the cultivation of bodhicitta by which you enter the womb of the true condition. This is the fruition of all ways of cultivating bodhicitta and is the most sublime of all dharmas. First, to realize bodhicitta, the ascertainment with prajñā wisdom of the true condition of all of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa is called aspirational bodhicitta. In the end, realizing the displays of the consummation of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa is called engaged bodhicitta. Some people, when they speak of generating bodhicitta, fail to realize this key point and claim to accomplish its cause by aspiring for the fruitional bodhicitta. They speak of cultivating a mere aspiration—which [as such] is not bodhicitta—as an object of conceptualization. Such talk is like giving a boy’s name to a mere fetus [the sex of which is unknown] in a pregnant woman’s womb; they do not have even the faintest realization of engaged bodhicitta. Skt. bhūmi; Tib. sa; 地 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dì; Wade-Giles, ti ). Skt. trimaṇḍala; Tib. ’khor gsum; Ch. 三輪 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānlùn; Wade-Giles, san -lun . Skt. kleśāvaraṇa; Tib. nyon [mongs pa’i] sgrib [pa]; Ch. 煩惱障 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fánnǎozhàng; Wade-Giles, fan -nao -chang ). Skt. jñeyāvaraṇa; Pāḷi: ñeyyavāvaraṇa; Tib. shes [bya’i] sgrib [pa]; Ch. 所知障 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn suǒzhīzhàng; Wade-Giles so -chih -chang ). Kongtrul (2007, p. 170); terminology adapted to the one used in this book. Skt. upāya; Tib. thabs; Ch. ⽅便 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fāngbiàn; Wade-Giles, fang -pien ). “Genuinely method / skillful means” here renders the Tib. thabs dam pa: supreme method. Dag snang ye shes drva la las gnas lugs rang byung gi rgyud rdo rje’i snying po. Alternative translation in Dudjom Lingpa (2015, Vol. III, p. 115). a 4 b 1 c 2 3 4 d 3 1 4 e f 1 g 235 4 4 Taking as cause a relative and as such deluded (as the etymology of the Sanskrit and Tibetan terms for relative make clear, relative truth is always deluded [un]truth) and produced / contrived / compounded / conditioned framework, those who were berated by Dudjom Lingpa aspire at obtaining the absolute, undeluded, unproduced / uncontrived / uncompounded / unconditioned true condition of all phenomena as effect, and thus fail, for just like only apples may be yielded by an apple tree, only produced / compounded / contrived / conditioned results can issue from what is produced / contrived / compounded / conditioned. Moreover, the example itself fails because a tree yielding fruits implies causality, and causality is confined to relative, deluded truth—which it therefore sustains. And nonetheless, so long as we have not realized engaged, fruitional bodhicitta, applying the practice of produced / contrived / compounded / conditioned aspirational bodhicitta is better than remaining idle. (Note that, when the text tells us that “concepts of self and the dualistic appearances [arising from] reification are to be subjugated until they disappear,” this should not be understood to mean that one should repress or obstruct such concepts and appearances—which would be wrong even in the context of the Bodhisattvayāna. Below it will be shown that on each of the levels posited by the Bodhisattvayāna one of the transcendences is perfected, and since the above shows that for perfecting each of the transcendences the practices involved must be pervaded by the primordial gnosis that is utterly free from the reification of the threefold directional thought-structure, the gnosis in question must be functional from the very outset of the Path. However, this can actually occur only in the context of the Dzogchen Path. As we have seen, the gradual vehicles of the Sūtrayāna, which are the Śrāvakayāna and the Bodhisattvayāna, posit five paths. In the Bodhisattvayāna, these are explained as follows: (1) The path of accumulation is entered upon generation of relative mind-ofAwakening; its essence lies in the accumulation of merits and wisdom, as well as in the thorough abandonings whereby four factors of virtue are developed through meditation and moral training. (2) The path of preparation or application is attained when the union of mental pacification and insight is achieved, and it involves going through four levels which culminate with overcoming the fear of emptiness that bars the way to the next path, and a b c d e f g h i 370 j k Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). Pāḷi, asaṅkhata; Skr. asaṃskṛta; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無爲 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu -wei ). Skt. bhūmi; Tib. sa; Ch. 地 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dì; Wade-Giles, ti ). Skt. mārga[ḥ]; Pāḷi, magga; Tib. lam; Ch. 道 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dào; Wade-Giles tao ). Skt. saṃbhāramārga; Tib. tshogs lam; Ch. 資糧道 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zīliáng dào; Wade-Giles tzu -liang tao ). Skt. bodhicitta; Tib. byang chub [kyi] sems; Ch. 菩提⼼ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, pútíxīn; Wade-Giles, p’u -t’i -hsin ; Jap. bodaishin). Skt. puṇya; Tib. bsod nams; Ch. 福 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fú; Wade-Giles, fu ). In this context the traditional term is jñāna (Tib. ye shes; Ch. 智 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhì; Wade-Giles, chih ; Jap. chi]), which then does not refer to the nonconceptual, nondual primordial gnosis whereby rigpa becomes patent and operative, but to having knowledge and a correct, wise understanding of that knowledge—and hence it may roughly correspond to relative prajñā (Tib. shes rab; Ch. 般若 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bōrě; Wade-Giles, po -je ]). Skt. samyakprahāṇa; Pāḷi sammappadhāna; Tib. yang dag par spong ba; Ch. 四正勤 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sìzhèngqín; Wade-Giles, ssu -cheng -ch’in ). Skt. prayogamārga; Tib. sbyor lam; 加⾏道 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jiāxíng dào; Wade-Giles tzu -liang tao ). Skt. śamathavipaśyanāyuganaddha; Tib. zhi gnas lhag mthong zung ’jug; Ch. ⽌觀雙運 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhǐguān shuāngyùn; Wade-Giles, chih -kuan shuang -yün ). a 3 2 b 2 c 2 4 d 4 e 1 f 2 2 g 4 2 1 2 h 4 1 3 i 4 4 2 j 1 k 3 1 1 236 4 2 4 closing the doors to lower realms. (3) The path of Vision, as suggested, is the entrance to the Path in a truer and more thorough sense than the one in which one is said to enter it when one decides to tread the bodhisattva Path and sets out to develop the relative mindof-Awakening; in the Bodhisattvayāna, this is said to mean one has directly realized the ultimate truth and thus has begun Seeing through the conditioned, produced, made and compounded into its unconditioned, unproduced, unmade and uncompounded nature, which is the essence of the Path in the truest sense of the word (for it is this that allows one to effectively proceed toward Buddhahood); if all is auspicious, one will have had at least an initial glimpse of the absolute mind-of-Awakening which, as noted above, lies in the indivisibility of emptiness and compassion. (4) The path of Contemplation involves the development of the realization obtained in the previous path; in it, repeatedly Seeing through the conditioned and made contents of experience into the unconditioned and unmade nature, is supposed to make one gradually progress from the second to the tenth level, and gradually consolidate the mind-of-Awakening. However, as noted above, the genuine primordial gnosis is supposed to really become actual only on the tenth bodhisattva level. (5) Finally, the path of no-more-learning is said to lie in the attainment of the final Fruit that consists in Complete, Irreversible Awakening, whereby one has the status of Fully Awake Buddha. The last three of the above paths are for their part divided into ten or eleven levels according to whether or not Buddhahood is viewed as a level: (3) The arising of absolute prajñā marks the transition to the path of Vision, corresponding to (i) the first level, known as joyous, in which one perfects the transcendence of generosity. (4) Levels two to ten, which are divisions of the path of Contemplation, are: (ii) stainless, in which one perfects the transcendence of discipline or virtuous conduct; (iii) illuminating, in which one 371 a b 372 c d e f g h i j 373 k l m n o Skt. darśanamārga; Tib. mthong lam; Ch. ⾒道 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jiàndào; Wade-Giles chien -tao ). Skt. bodhicitta; Tib. byang chub [kyi] sems; Ch. 菩提⼼ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, pútíxīn; Wade-Giles, p’u -t’i -hsin ; Jap. bodaishin). Skt. bhāvanāmārga; Tib. sgom [pa’i] lam; Ch. 修道 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiūdào; Wade-Giles hsiu -tao ). Skt. bhūmi; Tib. sa; Ch. 地 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dì; Wade-Giles, ti ). Skt. jñāna; Pāḷi ñaṇa; Tib. ye shes; Ch. 智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhì; Wade-Giles, chih ; Jap. chi). Skt. bhūmi; Tib. sa; Ch. 地 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dì; Wade-Giles, ti ). Skt. aśaikṣāmārga[ḥ]; Tib. mi slob pa’i lam or thar phyin pa’i lam; Ch. 無學道 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúxuédào; Wade-Giles wu -hsüueh tao ). Skt. anuttarāsamyaksaṃbodhi; Tib. yang dag par yongs su rdzogs pa’i byang chub; Ch. 阿耨多罗三藐三菩 提 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, ānòuduōluó sānmiǎo sānpútí; Wade-Giles, a -nou -to -luo san -miaou san -p’u -t’i ; Jap. anokutarasanmyakusanbodai). Skt. anuttarā samyaksaṃbuddha; Tib. yang dag par rdzogs pa’i sangs rgyas; Ch. 正遍知 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhèngbiànzhī; Wade-Giles, cheng -pien -chih ). Skt. bhūmi; Tib. sa; 地 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dì; Wade-Giles, ti ). Skt. pramuditā[bhūmi]; Tib. rab tu dga’ ba[’i sa]; Ch. 歡喜地 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, huānxǐ [dì]; Wade-Giles, huan hsi [ti ]). Skt. dāna[pāramitā]; Tib. sbyin pa [phar phyin]; Ch 布施 [波羅蜜] (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùshī bōluómì; WadeGiles, po -shih po -luo -mi ). Skt. vimala[bhūmi]; Tib. dri ma med pa[’i sa]; Ch. 離垢地 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, lígòu [dì]; Wade-Giles, li -kou [ti ]). Skt. śīla[pāramitā]; Tib. tshul khrims [phar phyin]; Ch. 持戒 [波羅蜜] (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chíjiè bōluómì; WadeGiles, ch’ih -chieh po -luo -mi ). Skt. prabhākarī[bhūmi]; Tib. ’od byed[’i sa]; Ch. 發光地 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fāguāng [dì]; Wade-Giles, fa kuang [ti ]). a 4 4 b 2 c 1 d 2 1 4 4 e 4 f 4 g 2 2 4 h 1 4 1 2 1 3 1 2 2 i 4 4 1 j 4 k 1 3 4 l 4 1 1 2 4 m 2 4 4 n 2 4 1 2 4 o 1 1 4 237 perfects the transcendence of patience or forbearance; (iv) flaming, in which one perfects the transcendence of perseverance: (v) difficult to achieve, in which one perfects the transcendence of absorption or contemplative stability; (vi) manifest or realized, in which one perfects the transcendence of discriminative wisdom; (vii) far gone, in which one perfects the transcendence of method or skillful means; (viii) immovable, in which one perfects the transcendence of aspiration; (ix) supreme intelligence, in which one perfects the transcendence of power or strength; and (x) cloud of dharma, in which one perfects the transcendence of primordial gnosis. (5) Finally, (xi) the eleventh bhūmi, known as allpervading light, in which all transcendences have been perfected, corresponds to the path of no-more learning and hence to the attainment of Buddhahood. (Note that most canonical sources and commentaries list only ten levels, for the eleventh level is rightly viewed as the state beyond all levels.) Thus, in a very general way, it may be said that in the Bodhisattvayāna access to the path of Vision and the corresponding first bhūmi—the “joyful”—occurs after relative prajñā has been successfully developed and then, at some point, absolute prajñā wisdom arises, nonconceptually and hence nondually revealing the content of prajñā, which is emptiness —even though, as shown in the correspondences between the transcendences and the levels, the transcendence of wisdom fully matures on the sixth level. In this regard, we must keep in mind that emptiness is understood differently by the different philosophical a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q Skt. kṣānti[pāramitā]; Tib. bzod pa [phar phyin]; Ch. 忍辱 [波羅蜜] (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, rěnrǔ bōluómì; WadeGiles, jen3-ju3 po1-luo2-mi4). Skt. arciṣmatī[bhūmi]; Tib. ’od ’phro ba[’i sa]; 焰慧地 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yànhuì [dì]; Wade-Giles, yen -hui [ti ]). Skt. vīrya[pāramitā]; Tib. brtson ’grus [phar phyin]; Ch. 精進 [波羅蜜] (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jīngjìn bōluómì; Wade-Giles, ching1-chin4 po1-luo2-mi4). Skt. sudurjayā[bhūmi]; Tib. sbyang dka’ ba[’i sa]; Ch. 難勝地 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, nánshèng [dì]; Wade-Giles, nan -sheng [ti ]). Skt. dhyāna[pāramitā]; Tib. bsam gtan [phar phyin]; Ch. 禪定 [波羅蜜] (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chándìng bōluómì; Wade-Giles, ch’an2-ting4 po1-luo2-mi4). Skt. abhimukhī[bhūmi]; Tib. mngon du byed pa[’i sa]; Ch. 現前地 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiànqián [dì]; Wade-Giles, hsien -ch’ien [ti ]). Skt. prajñā[pāramitā]; Tib. shes rab [phar phyin]; Ch. 般若 [波羅蜜] (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bōrě bōluómì; WadeGiles, po -je po -luo -mi ). Skt. dūraṅgamā[bhūmi]; Tib. ring du song ba[’i sa]; 遠⾏地 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yuǎnxíng [dì]; Wade-Giles, yüan -hsing [ti ]). Skt. upāya[pāramitā]; Tib. thabs [phar phyin]; Ch. ⽅便 [波羅蜜] (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fāngbiàn bōluómì; WadeGiles, fang -pien po- luo -mi ). Skt. acalā[bhūmi]; Tib. mi gyo ba[’i sa]; Ch. 不動地 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùdòng [di ]; Wade-Giles, pu -tung [ti ]). Skt. praṇidhāna[pāramitā]; Tib. smon lam [phar phyin]; Ch. 願 [波羅蜜] (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yuàn bōluómì; Wade-Giles, yüan po- luo -mi ). Skt. sādhumatī[bhūmi]; Tib. legs pa’i blo gros[’i sa]; 善慧地 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shànhuì [di ]; Wade-Giles, shan -hui [ti ]. Skt. bala[pāramitā]; Tib. stobs [phar phyin]; Ch. ⼒ [波羅蜜] (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, lì bōluómì; Wade-Giles, li poluo -mi ). Skt. dharmameghā[bhūmi]; Tib. chos kyi sprin pa[’i sa]; Ch. 法雲地 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fāyún [dì]; Wade-Giles, fa -yün [ti ]. Skt. jñāna[pāramitā]; Tib. ye shes [phar phyin]; Ch. 智 [波羅蜜] (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhì bōluómì; Wade-Giles, chih po- luo -mi ). Skt. samantaprabhā[bhūmi]; Tib. kun tu ’od [’i sa] or tathāgata[bhūmi]; Ch. 如來地 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, rúlái [dì]; Wade-Giles, ju -lai [ti ]. Skt. śūnyatā; Tib. stong pa nyid; Ch. 空 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, kòng; Wade-Giles, k’ung ; Jap. kū). a b 4 4 4 c d 2 4 4 e f 4 2 4 g 1 3 1 2 4 h 3 2 4 i 1 4 1 2 4 j 4 4 4 4 k 4 1 2 4 l 4 4 4 4 m 4 1 2 4 n 1 2 4 o 4 1 2 4 p 2 2 4 q 4 238 schools of the Mahāyāna; the schools that the Tibetans classify as Uma Rangtongpa (Prāsaṅgika and Svātantrika) understand it as “absence of self-nature” —which for its part may be defined as the insubstantiality of all of the phenomena that individuals possessed by the delusion called avidyā experience and wrongly consider to be substantial, which according to the original forms of these schools must be realized beyond interpretations and perceptions in terms of contents of thought. This is the very viewless view championed by the Nyingmapa, who agree that all phenomena lack self-nature and substance, yet emphasize the fact that the true condition of reality, which here I am calling emptiness, does not involve affirmation or negation—for these are conceptual interpretations, and Madhyamaka has always stressed the fact that the condition in question is inconceivable, inexpressible, and can only be realized through the primordial gnosis that (is) utterly free from conceptual fabrications. In fact, the Nyingmapas are aware that reducing emptiness to a mere absence would be an instance of nihilism; that identifying absolute truth with such an absence would make this truth incapable of accounting for Awakening, or even for the continuous arising of phenomena (for then they would be like the sons of a barren woman, whom can never come into existence); and that taking that absence as a path would make Awakening unattainable. In fact, the absolute truth consists in the reGnition, in the absence of mental constructs, of the insubstantial, essenceless true condition of both mind and its objects in which space and awareness are indivisible—which is properly expressed as indivisibility of emptiness and appearances, or of emptiness and awareness. (For a thorough discussion of the error that of identifying ultimate truth with an absence, cf. Chöphel & Capriles, unpublished 1.) It must be noted, however, that the above correspondences between the ten levels and the ten transcendences—like all dharma teachings transmitted by realized Masters— were posited as views for others that the ones who offered them, aware that conceptual maps cannot fit exactly the territory of the given, did not grasp as a view of their own. Thus, they should not be taken to be absolutely true or perfectly precise. Also the above explanation of the relationship between prajñā wisdom and primordial gnosis—which was not given by a realized Master—is not to be taken to be absolutely true or perfectly precise. All this is evinced by the above noted facts that insight into the absolute truth by means of prajñā wisdom is supposed to be the landmark of the first level or bhūmi; that nonetheless prajñā wisdom is associated with the sixth level or bhūmi; that although the primordial gnosis that is free from the threefold directional thought-structure is supposed to occur only a b 374 c d e f g h Wylie, dbu ma rang stong pa; tentative Skt. rendering: Svabhāvaśūnyatā Madhyamaka or Prakṛtiśūnyatā Madhyamaka. Skt. svabhāvaśūnyatā or prakṛtiśūnyatā; Tib. ngo bo nyid stong pa nyid or rang bzhin gyi stong pa nyid; Ch. ⾃性空 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìngkòng; Wade–Giles, tzu -hsing -k’ung ; Jap. jishōkū). Skt. acintya; Pāli: acinteya, acintiya; Tib. bsam yas or bsam gyis mi khyab pa; Ch. 佛學辭彙 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fóxué cíhuì; Wade-Gilles, fo -hsüueh tz’u -hui ). Skt. avācya; Tib. smrar med pa; Ch. 不可说物 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùkěshuō wù; Wade-Gilles, pu -k’e -shuo wu ) / Skt. anabhilāpya; Tib. brjod med or brjod du med pa; Ch. 不可說 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùkěshuō; Wade-Gilles, pu -k’e -shuo ). Skt. jñāna; Pāḷi ñaṇa; Tib. ye shes; Ch. 智; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhì; Wade-Giles, chih ; Jap. chi. Skt. niṣprapañca; Tib. spros bral; Ch. 不戲論 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùxìlùn; Wade-Giles, pu -hsi -lun ) or Skt. aprapañca; Tib. spros [pa] med [pa]; Ch. 無戲論 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúxìlùn; Wade-Giles, wu-hsi-lun). In properly Dzogchen terminology, Tib. la bzla ba. Skt. paramata; Tib. gzhan lugs. Skt. svamata; Tib. rang lugs. a b 4 4 4 c 2 2 2 4 d 4 4 3 3 1 1 e 4 f 2 g h 239 4 4 4 on reaching the tenth level, it is stated that all transcendences must be practiced without the structure in question been involved; or that the difference between primordial gnosis and the absolute prajñā wisdom that is supposed to have arisen previously is not easy to understand. As noted above, according to the Bodhisattvayāna, on the first and second paths the bodhisattva who reaches the path of Vision and the corresponding first level must have developed relative, referential compassion and the other qualities that make up the conditioned aspects of the four Immeasurables and the six or ten pāramitās. However, it is upon the nonconceptual and therefore nondual discovery of emptiness that marks the transition to the path of Seeing and that represents the upsurge of absolute prajñā, that the absolute, nonreferential compassion that embraces all beings may spontaneously begin to flow: this is the reason why emptiness and nonreferential compassion are said to be inseparable, and why absolute bodhicitta, which as noted lies in their inseparability, is said to first arise on the path of Vision and the corresponding “joyful” level. It may seem absurd that one should experience compassion while Seeing that ultimately there are no beings and there is no suffering; however, what is called nonreferential compassion is an all-embracing warmth, empathy and responsiveness that arises spontaneously from the direct realization of absolute truth by means of absolute prajñā, and hence absolute prajñā and nonreferential compassion may be said to be a single reality, comparable to the single moon that a squinting fool or drunkard perceives as two moons. Absolute truth was already, albeit briefly, discussed, and was said to consist in the bare, nonconceptual and hence nondual, patency of the true condition of ourselves and all other phenomena. All phenomena (including both the objects of the mind and the mind itself—which, contradicting common sense, is phenomenal, for it exists only insofar as it appears, even though it does so “indirectly and implicitly” ) result from the reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of the contents of thought. In fact, as noted repeatedly, both the mental subject that seems to be other than its objects and the false appearance that there is something objective that appears as object are produced by the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of the supersubtle, threefold directional thought-structure. And the appearance of entities, together with the illusion that they are in themselves this or that, results from the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of the contents of subtle thoughts. Since hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of the contents of thought is inoperative in the condition of absolute truth, in the truth in question neither the subject-object duality nor the myriad entities arise: although the sensory basis of what ordinarily we experience as phenomena continues to arise, the segments that on being singled-out are normally grasped as this or that entity are not grasped as such. And yet Buddhas manage reality far more effectively than deluded beings, for the former have the two gnoses or wisdoms of omniscience—the one that nonconceptually realizes the true condition of phenomena and the one that apprehends the variety of phenomena and their functionality without perceiving them as entities-in-themselves—and is free from the self-encumbering that above was illustrated with the centipede rhyme. a 375 376 b c Skt. bhūmi; Tib. sa; Ch. 地 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dì; Wade-Giles, ti ). Skt. trimaṇḍala; Tib. ’khor gsum; Ch. 三輪 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānlùn; Wade-Giles, san -lun ). Skt. arthasāmānya; Tib. don spyi; Ch. 總事 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngshì; Wade-Giles, tsung -shih ) or 總義 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngyì; Wade-Giles, tsung -i ). a 4 b 1 c 4 3 3 4 240 4 In fact, as Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamikas acknowledge, entities are perceived only in relative truth, which (as all Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamikas, except for Je Tsongkhapa and his followers, acknowledge) is in all cases deluded pseudo-truth. As Gendün Chöphel put it: 377 a Early translators rendered into Tibetan the Sanskrit term saṃvṛti, which [etymologically] means “obscuration to correctness” or “thoroughly confused,” as kun rdzob, which literally means “allconcealed” (Note by E.C.: and which is the term that Gelug translators render as “conventional” and non-Gelug translators render as “relative”). Since [the experience of relative truth is] deluded, we must understand relative truth as “mistaken truth.” The point is that the relative realm, in which we perceive a myriad entities as existing and doing so hypostatically / inherently even though they are utterly insubstantial and have no existence whatsoever, is a function of avidyā, involving unawareness of the true condition of ourselves and all other phenomena and hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of the contents of thought, which gives rise to the deluded perception of self-existent entities having inherent qualities and inherent (positive, negative or neutral) value where there are actually none and makes us take the empty as existent, the relative as absolute, the dependent as independent, the put as given, the impermanent as permanent, that which cannot provide satisfaction as being capable of providing it, the produced / contrived / compounded / conditioned as unproduced / uncontrived / uncompounded / unconditioned, etc.—this being the delusion that is the root of the gloomygo-round called saṃsāra. It is on the basis of the bodhisattva’s progress through the paths and levels that we must understand the classifications of the different types of “truth” that PrāsaṅgikaMadhyamaka philosophy posits—inverted relative truth, correct relative truth (these first two being actually pseudo-truth), provisional absolute truth and definitive absolute truth (properly called truth, since neither of them does involve delusion). In fact, inverted relative truth corresponds to the experience of those who have not yet reached the third path/first level of the bodhisattva career, for they are totally possessed by delusion and, unaware that they are deluded, they take their delusory perceptions and conceptual interpretations to be perfectly sound. Correct relative truth is all that appears in the post-Contemplation state of the superior bodhisattva on the third and fourth paths (i.e., from the first to the tenth bhūmi); though in this condition entities are still perceived as existing absolutely and substantially, this false appearance is lighter or milder than in the normal individual, as there is some awareness of the apparitional nature of those entities—which becomes more and more pronounced as the superior bodhisattva advances through the levels. Provisional absolute truth—which should not be confused with what is called figurative, conceptual b c d e f g h378 i a b c d e f g h i Chöphel & Capriles (unpublished); Capriles (unpublished 1). Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). Pāḷi, asaṅkhata; Skr. asaṃskṛta; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無爲 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu -wei ). Skt. mārga; Tib. lam; Ch. 道 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dào; Wade-Giles tao ). Skt. bhūmi; Tib. sa; Ch. 地 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dì; Wade-Giles, ti ). Skt. mithyāsaṃvṛtisatya; Tib. log pa’i kun rdzob bden pa. Skt. tathyasaṃvṛtisatya; Tib. yang dag kun rdzob bden pa. Skt. pṛṣṭhalabdha; Tib. rjes thob; Ch. 後得 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, hòudé; Wade-Giles, hou -te ). Skt. bhūmi; Tib. sa; Ch. 地 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dì; Wade-Giles, ti ). 3 2 2 4 4 4 4 241 2 2 ultimate truth, which is no more than a delusive product of the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of thought, even though it has a function on the Path— corresponds to the Contemplation state of superior bodhisattvas on the third and fourth paths, for in this state they have a bare, direct apprehension of the dharmatā—i.e. the true, unmade, unconditioned, uncompounded nature of the whole of reality. Finally, definitive absolute truth is circunscribed to Buddhas, who are those that have become established on the fifth path / eleventh level. (For a far more lengthy discussion of this cf. the Introductory Study, in Chöphel & Capriles, unpublished 1.) The bodhisattva’s development through the levels on the gradual Path may also be understood in terms of the overcoming of the two types of obstacles that keep beings in saṃsāra and prevent Awakening. The first obstacle—which is irreversibly eliminated on passing from the seventh to the eighth level —is passional delusive obstructions, and consists in the welling up of coarse passions upon the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of the contents of thought in experiences proper to the realm of sensuality. The second obstacle—which lasts until the attainment of Buddhahood, for it is irreversibly eliminated only on passing from the tenth to the eleventh level—is cognitive delusive obstructions, which may be exemplified by the case of an archer who, upon shooting, takes his own self as object and knows it as shooting, thereby giving rise to a slight jerk that deflects the arrow (which occurs because there is a conceptualization of self as shooting, which makes the mental subject become its object for an instant, which momentarily hinders the perfect spontaneity of the Base’s spontaneous perfection aspect). These cognitive delusive obstructions underly passional delusive obstructions so long as the latter is active, as shown by the fact that we ordinary beings suffer to a lower or greater the above kind of impediment as we act, and by the fact that also the traces of the delusion of passions after practice has removed the latter are deemed to be part of cognitive delusive obstruction. In fact, in Bodhicaryāvatāra / Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra IX 30-31, Śāntideva compared passional delusive obstructions to the lust the illusory, sexy and gracious lady dancer created by a magician at a magic show arouses in spectators, and likened cognitive delusion to the subtler lust the same illusory dancer arouses in the magician himself despite his being aware that she is not a “real woman.” Once the two types of obstacles are totally overcome, the individual becomes established in what this vehicle views as its supreme realization: Buddhahood itself. Although the concept of primordial purity is proper to the Dzogchen teachings and is not used in the Mahāyāna, from the standpoint of the Mahāyāna it is easy to understand the reason why the term is used in the Dzogchen teachings. On the Path of Renunciation the passions are seen as impurities and as venoms that create causes for bad rebirths and that in this life create greater sufferings. And the passions well up in response to our perceptions of substantiality and self-existence in experiences proper to the realm of a b379 c d380 381 e382 383 384 Skt. aparyāyaparamārtha; Tib. rnam grangs ma yin pa’i don dam. In contrast with this pseudo-absolute, true absolute truth is referred to by the Skt. term paryāyaparamārtha (Tib. rnam grangs pa’i don dam). Skt. samāhita; Tib. mnyam bzhag; Ch. 等引 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, děngyǐn; Wade-Giles, teng -yin ). Skt. bhūmi; Tib. sa; Ch. 地 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dì; Wade-Giles, ti ). Skt. kleśāvaraṇa; Tib. nyon [mongs pa’i] sgrib [pa]; Ch. 煩惱障 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fánnǎozhàng; Wade-Giles, fan -nao -chang ). Skt. jñeyāvaraṇa; Pāḷi: ñeyyavāvaraṇa; Tib. shes [bya’i] sgrib [pa]; Ch. 所知障 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn suǒzhīzhàng; Wade-Giles so -chih -chang ). a b 3 c 4 d 2 3 4 e 3 1 4 242 3 sensuality—which may be illustrated with the above example of the illusory lady dancer created by a magician. As already explained, in the Mahāyāna, after going through the first two of the five bodhisattva paths (the path of accumulation and that of preparation or application ) the path of Seeing is reached as absolute truth is Seen in the initial occurrence of the Contemplation state of the higher bodhisattva. On this third path and the corresponding bodhisattva level, which is the first, called the joyful, and on the first six levels of the next path, which is that of Contemplation (namely levels 2 through 7), experience in post-Contemplation is still conditioned by passional delusive obstructions and hence when one sees a given entity one still believes firmly in it from the heart, even though one’s insight into emptiness in the Contemplation state evinced the fact that this belief is mistaken, for there is simply no entity there. With the development of the practice this impression that there is a truly established entity gradually fades away, until the point at which passional delusive obstructions are totally neutralized and hence the transition from the seventh to the eighth level on the path of Contemplation may be said to have taken place. From this moment onwards, when one sees a given entity, one still perceives it as that entity—and hence there is still delusion— but one no longer believes in it firmly from the heart as before. Hence the two delusive obstructions, rather than being utterly different things, are degrees and aspects of the delusion that arises from hypostasizing / reifying / absolutizing / valorizing both the supersubtle thought called threefold directional thought structure and subtle / intuitive thoughts (i.e., universal, abstract concepts of entities [resulting from mental syntheses] that convey meanings )—and their neutralization is a gradual process. As I showed elsewhere in terms of an explanation by Gorampa, cognitive delusive obstructions are so called because they lie in perceiving the subject-object duality as both given and absolutely existent, and entities both as being inherently entities and as being a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Skt. saṃbhāramārga; Tib. tshogs lam; Ch. 資糧道 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zīliáng dào; Wade-Giles tzu -liang tao ). Skt. prayogamārga; Tib. sbyor lam; 加⾏道 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jiāxíng dào; Wade-Giles tzu -liang tao ). Skt. darśanamārga; Tib. mthong lam; Ch. ⾒道 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jiàndào; Wade-Giles chien -tao ). Skt. samāhita; Tib. mnyam bzhag; Ch. 等引 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, děngyǐn; Wade-Giles, teng -yin ). Skt. bhūmi; Tib. sa; Ch. 地 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dì; Wade-Giles, ti ). Skt. pramuditā[bhūmi]; Tib. rab tu dga’ ba[’i sa]; Ch. 歡喜地 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, huānxǐ [dì]; Wade-Giles, huan hsi [ti ]). Skt. bhāvanāmārga; Tib. sgom [pa’i] lam; Ch. 修道 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiūdào; Wade-Giles hsiu -tao ). Skt. pṛṣṭhalabdha; Tib. rjes thob; Ch. 後得 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, hòudé; Wade-Giles, hou -te ). Skt. kleśāvaraṇa; Tib. nyon [mongs pa’i] sgrib [pa]; Ch. 煩惱障 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fánnǎozhàng; Wade-Giles, fan -nao -chang ). Skt. trimaṇḍala; Tib. ’khor gsum; Ch. 三輪 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānlùn; Wade-Giles, san -lun ). Skt. arthasāmānya; Tib. don spyi; Ch. 總義 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngyì; Wade-Giles, tsung -i ) Cf. comment to ¶ 229 of Gendün Chöphel’s Ludrub Gonggyen (dbU ma’i zab gdad snying por dril ba’i legs bshad klu sgrub dgongs rgyan), in Capriles (unpublished 1). The Sakya Master and philosopher Gorampa Sönam Sengge (Wylie, Go rams pa bSod nams seng ge: 142989). jñeyāvaraṇa; Pāḷi: ñeyyavāvaraṇa; Tib. shes [bya’i] sgrib [pa]; Ch. 所知障 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sǔozhī zhàng; Wade-Giles, so -chih chang ). Roughly rendered into Third Promulgation categories, as “being dependent nature” (Skt. paratantra; Tib. gzhan dbang; Ch. 依他起性 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yītā qǐxìng; Wade-Giles, i -ta ch’i -hsing ]). However, contrarily to Mind-Only views, the dependent nature is delusive: delusion is not circumscribed to the imaginary imputational nature. a 1 b 1 c 4 d 3 e 2 2 4 4 4 3 4 f 1 3 4 g 1 h 4 2 i 2 3 4 j 1 k 4 3 l m n 3 1 4 o 1 243 1 3 4 4 4 inherently what human conventions establish them to be: after the arising of the subjectobject duality by virtue of the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of the threefold directional thought-structure and the automatic perception of this duality as given and absolute, the singling out of segments of the sensory continuum and the ensuing perception of them in terms of hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized intuitive / subtle thoughts (i.e., of universal, abstract concepts of entities resulting from mental syntheses that convey meanings) makes us experience each of the segments in question as an inherently separate entity and as intrinsically this or that entity. It is when the intensity of the reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization both of the threefold directional thought-structure and of a subtle / intuitive thought surpasses a threshold of intensity, charging them with a particularly strong illusion of truth, absoluteness and importance, that the firm belief from the heart that there is something inherently external to us and that this something is this or that entity arises—and with it arises the firm belief from the heart that one thing is good and another bad, that one thing is beautiful and another ugly, that one thing is pleasant and another unpleasant, that one thing is virtuous and another evil, that one thing is beneficial and another harmful, etc. Thus arises the realm of sensuality, and those extremely intense, overpowering attitudes of the dualistic consciousness toward its objects that we designate as passions are elicited. In fact, unless repeated realization of emptiness progressively neutralizes our belief in the givenness, objectivity, absoluteness and truth of the subject-object duality and the myriad entities of our experience, gradually weakening our belief in the goodness or the badness/evilness, beauty or ugliness, pleasantness or unpleasantness, advantageousness or harmfulness of entities, so that our experience ceases carrying weight and strongly conditioning us, under certain conditions the passions—those highly charged attitudes of a subject toward an object perceived as inherently positive or negative—will continue to toss us about. Even though at this point we are not discussing Dzogchen, but the Mahāyāna, the above will allow us to understand the reason why the Dzogchen teachings refer to the emptiness aspect of the Base as primordial purity: the reason is that, as it follows from the above, those impurities which are the passions do not well up when emptiness is perfectly apparent. Likewise, it is because manifestation and the functionality of the manifest are spontaneous and unobstructed, that the manifestation aspect of the Base is referred to as spontaneous perfection. Back to the Mahāyāna, the assertion that upon the transition to the eighth level passional delusive obstructions cease to occur does not mean that there is a sudden turnabout. Since the distinction between the two types of delusions is one of strength, the point at which the strength of the basic human delusion has weakened or been enfeebled to the point at which the delusion in question should be called cognitive delusion is not marked by any extraordinary occurrence. Moreover, though a heterosexual man no longer believes firmly from the heart that the delicious dish is a delicious dish and the beautiful, attractive a b c d Roughly rendered into Third Promulgation categories, as “being imaginary imputational nature” (Skt. parikalpita; Tib. kun [tu] brtags [pa]; Ch. 遍計所執性 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, biànjì suǒzhí xìng; Wade-Giles, pien chi so -chih hsing ]). Pāḷi and Skt. kāmadhātu or kāmaloka; Tib. dod pa’i khams; Ch. 欲界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yùjiè; Wade-Giles, yü chieh ) Tib. ka dag; hypothesized Skt. kaśuddha. Skt. nirābogha or anābogha; Tib. lhun grub. a 4 4 3 2 4 b 4 4 c d 244 woman is a beautiful, attractive woman, still subtle craving or lust wells up in him: this is why Śāntideva compared cognitive delusion to the lust that the illusory dancer arouses in the magician who conjured her, as different from the one she arouses in the spectators who are unaware that the image is a mere illusion. As to the relationship between the two vehicles of the Hīnayāna and the gradual Mahāyāna, the following are the “seven superiorities of the Bodhisattvayāna”: (1) Attention directed to Mahāyāna Scriptures (2) Practice for one’s realization and that of others (3) Wisdom of understanding the twofold absence of self-nature (4) Perseverance in engagement (5) Skill in method (6) Perfection of the supreme qualities of the Buddhas (7) Spontaneous and uninterrupted spiritual activities As to the relationship between the gradual Mahāyāna and Dzogchen Ati, regarding the Bodhisattvayāna, the Kunje Gyälpo of the Dzogchen [Nature of] Mind series (wherein the term bodhicitta is a synonym of nature of mind / Base awareness ) reads: a b c d In the sūtras of the Bodhisattvayāna, with the intention [of attaining] the [eleventh] level of total light through the concepts and analysis of the two truths, it is asserted that the ultimate nature is emptiness like space. [Conversely,] the great bliss of Atiyoga is the bodhicitta free from concepts and analysis. The [view with] concepts and analysis in Dzogpa Chenpo is a diversion to the sūtras. e The Sudden Mahāyāna: The Dùnmén or Tönmun Tradition f g The sudden or abrupt Mahāyāna emphasizes the point that the true entrance to the Path occurs with a flash of Awakening that can only be attained suddenly and that it calls “full, immediate disclosure [of the true condition of ourselves and all phenomena]”—this being the reason why its approach is called sudden Awakening approach, even though the noted h385 i j Tib. phrin las; Skt. karman, in the sense of manaskarman (Tib. thugs kyi phrin las; Ch. 意業 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yìyè; Wade-Giles, i -yeh ]) or kāyakarman (Tib. sku’i phrin las). Tib. Sems sde; Skt. Cittavarga. Skt. cittatā or citta eva; Tib. sems nyid. Namkhai Norbu and Adriano Clemente (English 1999, p. 179); Dudjom Rinpoche (English 1991, vol. I, pp. 295-296); sPrul sku Don grub, in Tulku Thöndup (1996, 1st ed. 1989, p. 95). I have synthesized these translations and modified the terminology in order to make it agree with the one used throughout this book. Note that in the Dzogchen [Nature of] Mind series (Tib. Sems sde; Skt. Cittavarga) the term bodhicitta is a synonym of nature of mind / Base awareness (Skt. cittatā or citta eva; Tib. sems nyid). This is the Chinese name: Ch. 頓⾨ (simplified: 顿⻔; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dùnmén; Wade-Giles, tun -men ). This is the Tibetan name (Wylie, ston mun). Ch. 頓⾨ (simplified: 顿⻔: dùnmén; Wade-Giles, tun -men ); Tib. ston mun. Ch. 頓悟 (simplified 顿悟; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dùnwù; Wade-Giles, tun -wu ). Ch. 頓教 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dùnjiào; Wade-Giles, tun -chiao ). a 4 4 b c d e f 4 g h 4 2 i j 4 4 4 245 4 2 Platform Sūtra of the Sixth Patriarch clearly states that, rather than a sudden school, what there are, is suddenist people. As documented in The Blue Cliff Record, in ancient China, Chán monks, after the initial events of Sudden Awakening, would go into retreat in the wilderness in the company of a less advanced monk, who would attend to them and by the same token learn from them. This is the tradition that was given continuity in Korea by Master Jinul, who insisted that Sudden Awakening was quite easy to reach, but that thereon practice had to be continued in order to eradicate the lingering effect of habit energies, and who called this tradition Sudden Awakening and Gradual Cultivation (in Korea a rather nihilistic, rival school, which referred to its own approach as Sudden Awakening and Sudden Cultivation, opposed this approach on the false grounds that, after completing the struggle to reach the difficult stage of Awakening, cultivation was no longer necessary). In Japan, in Rinzai Zen the aspirant has to “solve” a series of kōans —the “solution” involving in each case a satori. Would delusion not arise again after the initial satori, further kōans would be superfluous—yet as a rule this is not the case. (This does not mean that nirvāṇa, which is beyond time, is transient. If we represented our true, timeless condition with the sun, and the fleeting obscurations that give rise to the delusive experience that involves time, with clouds that cover the sun, we could say that, when the clouds disperse, there is a timeless realization of our timeless true condition. However, when they cover the sun again, the experience of time is reactivated—and hence from the standpoint of time we may contradictorily, improperly speak of “the period during which we were beyond time” (the phrase is defective because at the time there is no illusory I, and because the concept of “period” implies that of time). According to the Platform Sūtra of the Sixth Patriarch, both the approach and the tradition of Chán go back to the “Silent Sermon” in which, instead of preaching to his audience as usual, Śākyamuni held a flower in his hand and kept silent, gazing toward his disciples in the state that makes the Fruit of Buddhahood evident. It is said that although no one else understood what was going on, the bright Mahākāśyapa instantly “entered” the Buddha’s state—thus receiving the latter’s “transmission of [the essence of] mind”—and smiled. This was the outset of what Chán calls “a transmission parallel to that of the scriptures, yet independent from it.” Tradition ascribes the following poem to patriarch Bodhidharma, though contemporary scholars believe originated in the Táng Dinasty: a b c d e f g h i 教外別傳 jiào wài bié zhuàn A special [separate] transmission outside the teachings, 不⽴⽂字 bú lì wén zì [that] does not depend on written words, Platform Sūtra of the Sixth Patriarch (Ch. 壇經 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Tánjīng; Wade-Giles, T’an -ching ], 六祖壇 經 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Liùzǔtánjīng; Wade-Giles, Liu -tsu T’an -ching ], which abbreviate 六祖⼤師法寶壇經 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Liùzǔdàshī fábǎotánjīng; Wade-Giles, Liu -tsu -ta -shih Fa -pao -t’an -ching ]; full title: 南宗 頓教最上⼤乘摩訶般若波羅蜜經六祖惠能⼤師於韶州⼤梵寺施法壇經). Cleary & Cleary (1977). Chin. 悟; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn: wù; Wade-Giles, wu ; Jap. satori. 1158-1210 AD. Cf. Ven. Jikwan (Pub.), & Ven. Hyechong (Ed.) (2007). Chin. 公案; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, gōng’àn; Wade-Giles kung -an . Pāḷi, Mahākassapa; Tib. Od srung Chen po; Ch. 摩訶迦葉 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Móhējiāyè; Wade-Giles, Mo -he Chia -yeh ). 禪; Wade-Giles, Ch’an; Skt. Dhyāna; Jap. ぜん (Hiragana) / Zen (Romaji); Korean, 선 (Seon); Viet. Thiền. 唐朝; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Táng Cháo; Wade–Giles: T’ang Ch’ao . The verse was taken from Piya Tan (2009) and modified according to my own understanding. a 2 4 3 2 4 1 1 3 4 1 2 3 2 1 b c 4 d e f 1 4 g 3 1 4 h i 2 246 2 1 直指⼈⼼ zhí zhĭ rén xīn directly points to the nature of mind, 見性成佛 jiàn xìng chéng fó [for] Seeing one’s nature and [thus] becoming Buddha. Despite its claim of being a living transmission beyond doctrinal sources, Chán dearly cherishes those sūtras of the Second and Third Promulgations that, while being among the canonical sources of the Indian gradual Mahāyāna, nonetheless contain many elements that lend themselves to a “sudden” interpretation, for the Chinese Sudden School regards them as evidence that its teachings and transmission go back to Śākyamuni Buddha. They comprise Second Promulgation sūtras: the Prajñāpāramitāhṛdayasūtra (Essence of the Prajñāpāramitāsūtras or Essential Prajñāpāramitāsūtra) is recited daily in Chán / Zen monasteries, and according to the Platform Sūtra of the Sixth Patriarch, the Sixth Patriarch, Wei-lang, had his initial flash or Awakening upon listening to a passage of the Vajracchedikā—which is so appreciated by this school that when its most important text, which is the Platform Sūtra of the Sixth Patriarch, was initially published in English translation, the Vajracchedikā was included in the same volume. And they include Third Promulgation sūtras as well: the Laṅkāvatārasūtra, an extremely essential source, provides an explanation of the mental events supposed to be behind instantaneous Awakening. The Śūraṅgamasūtra among other things lists the methods whereby the great bodhisattvas attained Awakening; some of the methods described, and in particular that of Avalokiteśvara, are effective for Introducing the absolute condition in an instantaneous way. As stated in a previous section, the Buddhāvataṃsaka refers to an instantaneous method by means of which disciples of the greatest capacity can grasp in an immediate way the true condition of themselves and everything that exists, and also the Nirvāṇa and the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka contain sudden elements—which led the Chinese schools based on them to posit and teach both a gradual Path and an instantaneous one. Chán and its offsprings outside China also hold in great esteem the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, which refers to non-action. These, however, are not the only sūtras to provide a doctrinal basis to sudden Awakening. Nubchen Sangye Yeshe’s Samten Migdrön (57-29a, 2) reads: a b c d e386 f387 g From the very beginning, without alternation one engages directly in attaining the absolute unborn state. The Prajñāpāramitāsūtra states: “From the very beginning, the moment one generates bodhicitta, one must aim for total omniscience.” And, further: “As soon as they have generated bodhicitta, beginners must engage assiduously in training themselves [to apprehend] all dharmas nonconceptually.” 禪; Wade-Giles, Ch’an; Skt. Dhyāna; Jap. ぜん (hiragana) / Zen (romaji); Korean, 선 (Seon); Viet. Thiền. Ch. 壇經 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Tánjīng; Wade-Giles, T’an -ching ), 六祖壇經 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Liùzǔtánjīng; WadeGiles, Liu -tsu T’an -ching ), which abbreviate 六祖⼤師法寶壇經 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Liùzǔdàshī fábǎotánjīng; Wade-Giles, Liu -tsu -ta -shih Fa -pao -t’an -ching ); full title: 南宗頓教最上⼤乘摩訶般若波羅蜜經六祖惠能⼤ 師於韶州⼤梵寺施法壇經. His name was 惠能, which in Cantonese is Wai -nang ; however, in the West that Cantonese name is best a b 2 4 3 2 4 c 1 1 3 4 1 2 3 2 1 6 4 known as Wei-lang (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Huìnéng; Wade-Giles, Hui -neng ; Jap. Enō). Ch. 頓悟 (simplified 顿悟; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dùnwù; Wade-Giles, tun -wu ). Wong Mou-Lam & A. F. Price (transl. 1969). Thurman (1976); Luk (1972). Wylie, bSam gtan mig sgron. 4 d 2 4 e f g 247 4 Furthermore, the Peak Sūtra reads: “If from the beginning one cultivates [the direct, nonconceptual] understanding [of the state] that transcends birth and cessation, in the end one obtains the Fruit that transcends birth and cessation.” a The above assertion that, in spite of being a transmission independent of canonical texts, Chán in some way relies on the sūtras, is confirmed by the following passage from the Samten Migdrön (118-59b, 4), which also provides a brief explanation of the view of the Northern version of the so-called sudden Mahāyāna tradition: b The understanding of the view [is explained] by the example of someone who, having reached the top of a very high mountain, enjoys a global panorama. In fact, it is deemed that from the beginning both the objects of analysis and the analyzing [mind] are the reality of the ultimate and unborn nature of phenomena, and that this reality cannot be [the result] of a quest. This understanding is comparable to reaching the summit of Mount Meru, king of mountains, whence one can see all the smaller mountains even without expressly looking at them. But this does not mean that one does not rely on a Master and on the fundamental sūtras: it is precisely on the basis of their [teachings] that one explains [the view] through reasoning and scriptural quotations. This understanding of the view is defined in three points: 1) Recognizing that the state beyond action has no limits [is the] essence of the View. 2) Recognizing that in the absolute condition of nonduality everything is equal [is the] essence of the absolute [truth]. 3) Recognizing that, since everything is already present in this state, there is no [sense] in hoping for the Fruit, [is the essence] of Awakening. This view is elucidated through logical reasoning and scriptures. [We find a fine example of logical reasoning] in the Instructions on Mind (Semlön ): “First of all one must properly understand that (the mind) can arise only with dependence on an object and that, [analogously,] an object can only arise with dependence on the mind [that perceives it]: the knowable and the knower are thus interdependent. Therefore that which appears and seems to exist without interruption is a manifestation of method, while the true condition of everything, devoid of an own-nature, is prajñā wisdom. c d e The above passage also confirms that, in Chán, practitioners rely on a Master. In fact, also this distinguishes the Sudden School from the Gradual Mahāyāna: in the latter, the figure of the Master is nonexistent, for what there is, is spiritual friends—elders that are part of the saṃgha or Community and that, in the case of monks and nuns, are of two kinds: the spiritual friend that instructs the nun or monk in discipline, and the spiritual friend that instructs the nun or monk in meditation and view. Contrariwise, in the Sudden School, f Tib. Tsug Torgyi Do (Wylie, gtsug gtor gyi mdo). This could well be the Uṣṇīṣavijayadhāraṇīsūtra (Ch. 佛 頂尊勝陀羅尼經 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Fódǐng Zūnshèng Tuóluóní Jīng; Wade-Giles, Fo -ting tsun -sheng t’o -lo -ni a 2 3 1 2 2 2 ching ]), from which the Sarvadurgatipariśodhanatantra allegedly developed—a maṇḍala of which was widely used in Dùnhuáng (敦煌; Wade-Giles, Tun -huang ; also known as 燉煌). Wylie, bsam gtan mig sgron. This passage is 118-59b, 4, as cited in a restricted circulation book by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu that I abstain from mentioning (with slight adaptations in this version). I cite it because the passage itself need not be restricted. Wylie, (Byang chub) sems lon. Skt. upāya; Tib. thabs; Ch. ⽅便 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fāngbiàn; Wade-Giles, fang -pien ). Tib. shes rab; Ch. 般若 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bōrě; Wade-Giles, po -je ). Pāḷi: saṅgha; Tib. dge ’dun; Ch. 僧伽 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sēngjiā; Wade-Giles, seng -chia ). 1 4 2 b c d 1 e 1 f 4 3 1 248 1 allegedly until our time, in each generation at least one of the most gifted, capable students has received the transmission of the Awake state from his Master in a chain that purportedly goes back to Śākyamuni himself. According to the Platform Sūtra of the Sixth Patriarch, from Mahākāśyapa—who received the transmission from Śākyamuni during the so-called “Silent Sermon˝—that transmission was passed down in India for quite a few generations, counting among its links some of the most decisive and renowned teachers of the gradual Mahāyāna, such as Aśvaghoṣa (according to some, he belonged to the Hīnayāna, but according to others, he was the author of the renowned proto-Yogācāra treatise, Discourse on the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna ), Nāgārjuna (the founder of the Madhyamaka School), Āryadeva (Nāgārjuna’s disciple and associate, in the Sūtra called Kānadeva), and Vasubandhu (who, in collaboration with his brother, Asaṅga, and his brother’s teacher, Maitreya, founders of the Yogācāra School, helped develop the latter system). Then at some point the transmission reached Bodhidharma, who traveled to China, where he communicated it to his Chinese disciple, Dàzǔ Huìkě, thus creating the conditions for it to continue to be passed down among Chinese Masters. The patriarchate came to an end with Wei-lang, for more than one of his disciples in the Southern School obtained the realization that enabled them to receive from the Master, and to convey to their own top disciples, the transmission of [the essence of] mind—so that it could be carried down to future generations. However, his rival, Shénxiù, did not accept his Master’s decision and set himself up as successor, in this way founding the Northern School—Chinese Masters of which carried that alternative transmission to Tibet, where they passed it to Tibetan disciples (however, under the pretext that the representative of the Sudden School had lost the purported debate of Samye and that as a consequence that School had been declared heretical, this school was banned in Tibet—even though the earliest sources discussing the alleged debate agree that the King proclaimed the Chán Master as the winner). For their part, students from Korea, Japan and Vietnam went to China, where they received the transmission of the Southern School, carrying that transmission to their own countries, where they passed it down to their respective top disciples. Then, in the twentieth century the transmission of [the essence of] mind of the Southern School purportedly began to be received by Westerners as well. The fact that some of the most important Masters of the gradual Mahāyāna—and, among the earlier links, also of the Hīnayāna, beginning with Mahākāśyapa—were links in the transmission lineage of the Sudden School suggests that Chán or Zen was the inner practice, or one of the inner practices, of many Indian Masters who officially taught the Gradual System. Also the lineages of Chán and Dzogchen had quite a few links in common; for example, as stated in an endnote to a previous section, according to Yudra a 388 389 b c d e 390 Skt. Mahāyānaśraddhotpādaśāstra; Ch. ⼤乘起信論 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Dàshèng qǐxìn lùn; Wade-Giles, Ta sheng ch’i -hsin lun ). ⼤祖慧可 (487–593); Wade-Giles, Ta -tsu Hui -k’e ; Japanese: Taiso Eka. Dàzǔ (⼤祖) is a title meaning Great Forefather; his proper name was 慧可 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Huìkě; Wade–Giles: Hui -k’e ). As stated in a previous footnote, his name was 惠能 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Huìnéng; Wade-Giles, Hui -neng ; Jap. Enō), which in Cantonese is read as Wai -nang ; however, in the West this Cantonese name is best known as Wei-lang. 神秀; Wade-Giles, Shen -hsiu ; Jap. Jinshū. For the bibliographic sources, cf. the regular text of this book below. a 2 2 3 4 4 b 4 3 4 3 4 c 4 6 d 3 2 4 4 e 249 2 Nyingpo’s noted Bairo Dradak, the Menngag Shethab of the Bairo Gyu Bum, and other texts, Nāgārjuna was a link in the transmission of Dzogchen Ati—which, like Chán, is not a gradual system (even though in both systems the nongradual and the gradual coexist) but which goes absolutely beyond Chán, for the latter is the apex of the lowest path (that of Renunciation), whereas Dzogchen Ati is the highest path. And the same applies to Āryadeva, for Pawo Tsuglag Threngwa’s Feast for the Erudite cites both Nāgārjuna and his associate and disciple, Āryadeva—who according to this text attained the rainbow body after having received Dzogchen teachings from Mañjuśrīmitra the Younger—as links in one of the two lines of transmission that originated from Garab Dorje, source of the current transmission of Buddhist Dzogchen. The same happened in Tibet, where, among the early Nyingmapas, Namkhai Nyingpo was a Master of both Chán and Dzogchen, whereas Aro Yeshe Jungne was the seventh link in both the Tibetan Chán and Dzogchen lineages. Even the Anuyoga could possibly share a key link with Ch’an, for Dharmabodhi is listed as a key link in the transmission of the Anuyoga, and Tarthang Tulku identified that Master as Bodhidharma (so that Chán and the Anuyoga would share a link only if this Bodhidharma were the Master who carried Chán Buddhism to China and whom Tibetans call Dharmottara). Finally, as noted in a previous section, in China some of the most renowned Chán Masters were at the same time patriarchs or important Masters in schools such as the Jìngtǔzōng (Pure Land), the Huáyánzōng or the Tiāntáizōng. As we have seen, two of the characteristics of the gradual Mahāyāna are: (1) Through the practices of the bodhicitta of intention and the bodhicitta of action one trains to gradually produce the qualities that constitute relative bodhicitta, which signifies that initially these are fabricated, contrived, conditioned and made. However, in training in the bodhicitta of action the most essential practice is that of analysis aimed at realizing emptiness through the absolute prajñā that Sees through the conditioned and fabricated into the unconditioned and unborn: it is in this way that in this vehicle practitioners are supposed to obtain the initial access to the state of Contemplation and that absolute bodhicitta is supposed to arise, establishing the “cause” for the subsequent actualization of the dharmakāya. a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Wylie, g.Yu sgra snying po. Wylie, rJe btsun thams cad mkhyen pa bai ro tsa na’i rnam tar ’dra ’bag chen mo. Wylie, Man ngag bshad thabs. Hundred Thousand Tantras of Bairotsana (Wylie, bai ro rgyud ’bum), vol. Ka, pp. 134-172. Including, for example, the Sems sde bco brgyad kyi dgongs pa rig ’dzin rnams kyis rdo rje’i glur bzhengs pa; in the Ngagyur Kama [Wylie, snga ’gyur bka’ ma], vol. Tsa [Sichuan]. dPa’ bo gtsug lag phreng ba (1504–1566), the second Nenang Pawo, a Tibetan historian belonging to the Karma Kagyu (kar ma bka’ brgyud) School. Tib. Chos ’byung mkhas pa’i dga’ ston, p. 568. Wylie, dga’ rab rdo rje. The info on Pawo Tsuglag Threngwa (dPa’ bo gtsug lag phreng ba) was taken from cf. Norbu, Namkhai (Italian 1988); the rest of the info may be found in Namkhai Norbu and Adriano Clemente (English 1999). Wylie, A ro ye shes ’byung gnas. Tarthang Tulku (Rev. Ed. 1991, p. 224; original Ed. 1977b). 淨⼟宗; Wade-Giles, Ching-t’u-tsung; Jap. Jōdo-shū or Jōdo bukkyō. Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). Pāḷi asaṅkhata; Skt. asaṃskṛta; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu -wei ). Skt. samāhita; Tib. mnyam bzhag; Ch. 等引 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, děngyǐn; Wade-Giles, teng -yin ). a b c d e f g h i j k l m 3 n 2 2 o 3 250 3 2 (2) In superior bodhisattvas, the state of Contemplation in which absolute truth is evident is said to alternate with that of post-Contemplation, wherein relative truth and delusion arise anew, but in which, since Contemplation has reduced the power of delusion and the apparitional character of relative truth has become to some extent evident, this truth is said to be “correct” rather than “inverted.” In this condition one must continue to work on the relative plane in order to develop the qualities of the bodhisattvas and accumulate the merits that, according to this system, when the time comes, will give rise to the rūpakāya (the sum of saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya), and hence one will attain full Buddhahood for the benefit of others. Contrariwise, two basic characteristics of the Sudden system are: (1) Initially one has an instantaneous flash of the unborn / nonfabricated / uncontrived / unconditioned Awake state and from repeated realization of this realization progressive familiarity with it develops, while the qualities proper to Awakening arise and develop spontaneously rather than having to be developed by means of conditioning practices that produce fabricated / conditioned / contrived results. In fact, in this system, even though one is exhorted to work for the benefit of others, on the grounds that action can only give rise to the fabricated and conditioned, and therefore to the spurious, one is not made to work on the intentional development of the virtues associated with relative bodhicitta so as to proceed gradually through the five paths and eleven levels. On the contrary, these virtues (including the four Immeasurables of the bodhicitta of intention and the six or ten transcendences of the bodhicitta of action) should arise spontaneously as a result of the repeated arising of absolute prajñā and the ensuing familiarization with the uncontrived, nonfabricated and unconditioned condition. Consequently, this tradition is based almost exclusively on the means that favor the sudden arising of what occasionally Chán Buddhists have called the “great body of prajñā” —namely the dharmakāya—and the means that help make this prajñā stable. Once absolute prajñā has become stable, the “great use of prajñā” may arise in the form of the spontaneous skillful means typical of Chán or Zen (apparently untimely actions, unexpected answers and so on). (2) As remarked in the first of the above two quotations from the Samten Migdrön, in one’s practice there should be no alternation of the two truths—even though this is most difficult to achieve. What this means that, as noted above, one engages completely in the practices that lead to discovering the absolute condition, and then in stabilizing the absolute unborn state, without alternating with the practices of the relative bodhicitta, for one must recognize the unborn state in the very moment of standing up after a session of sitting Contemplation, and thereafter awareness should not be allowed to wander into the relative: the state of Contemplation must not alternate with a post-Contemplation state of so-called “correct relative truth.” a b c d 391 e 392 Skt. āryabodhisattva; Tib. byang [chub sems dpa’] ’phags [pa]: one who has attained or surpassed the path of Seeing (Skt. darśanamārga; Tib. mthong lam; Ch. ⾒道 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jiàndào; Wade-Giles chien -tao ; Jap. kendō) or the equivalent first level, called the Joyous (Skt. pramuditābhūmi; Tib. rab tu dga’ ba’i sa; Ch. 歡喜地 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, huānxǐ (dì); Wade-Giles, huan -hsi (ti )]). Skt. pṛṣṭhalabdha; Tib. rjes thob; Ch. 後得 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, hòudé; Wade-Giles, hou -te ). Pāḷi asaṅkhata; Skt. asaṃskṛta; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu -wei ). Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). Skt. upāya; Tib. thabs; Ch. ⽅便 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fāngbiàn; Wade-Giles, fang -pien ). a 4 1 3 4 b 4 2 c 2 d 3 e 1 251 4 4 2 2 As stated repeatedly, in China, Chán Buddhism split into the Southern School of the Cantonese Wei-lang, —whose name is pronounced Huìnéng in the language of the Hàn, official language of China, and who was the official successor to the Fifth Patriarch, Hóngrěn —and the Northern School of the formerly utmost scholar and meditation leader of Hóngrěn’s monastery, Shénxiù, which originated as Shénxiù and many noblemen and scholars refused to recognize the barbarian and illiterate Wei-lang as the Sixth Patriarch. The Southern School accuses the Northern School of falling into the deviation of quietism as a result of Shénxiù having been unable to gain insight into the great body of prajñā. However, the alleged difference between the Northern and Southern Schools of Chinese Chán Buddhism, if it exists at all, may well be somewhat similar to the one that exists in present-day Japan between the Rinzai and the Sōtō Schools. The first approach—that of the Southern School and in particular of the Línjìzōng and its Japanese heir, the Rinzai-shū (which seems to be the only one that maintains this approach in Japan)—lies in causing the basic contradiction inherent in the dualistic state to turn into extreme conflict, impeding the functioning of this state, while at the same time creating conditions that facilitate a spontaneous, sudden collapse of dualism and delusion in an instant disclosure of the Awake state. If this occurs, the yogi clearly distinguishes saṃsāra from nirvāṇa all while being endowed with a capacity for the sudden liberation of intense samsaric experiences. In present-day Japan this approach, based on the spontaneous unfolding of self-rectifying loops inbuilt in the inborn human system, and in which Awakening itself is not attained through the principle of renunciation (even though the whole Path is applied in the context of the Path of Renunciation), emphasizes kōan riddles and dokusan, and during meditation sits the yogis in rows facing each other. The second approach—that of the Sōtō School—is the one that the Japanese call mokusho Zen, which rather than being centered on seeking such a sudden breakthrough, has as its core the practice named shikantaza, which lies in dwelling in the absorptions that this type of Zen asserts to be the very state of Buddhahood—just like according to Shénxiù’s Northern School in China and Tibet the wisdom that must become apparent in the sessions of sitting Contemplation and that must keep its continuity after the end of the session is the dharmakāya itself rather than the cause for the subsequent discovery of the dharmakāya. Meditators sit in rows, but rather than facing the other row they face a blank wall. At any rate, in Chán as a whole the rūpakāya is held to arise spontaneously from realization and stabilization of the dharmakāya, rather than being the outcome of the accumulation of merits in the relative condition—and, at any rate, Śākyamuni stated in a sūtra that staying a b c 393 d 394 e f395 g h396 i As stated in previous footnotes, Wei-lang is the way his name in Cantonese is best known in the West. His name was 惠能 (Cantonese, Wai -nang ; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Huìnéng; Wade-Giles, Hui -neng ; Jap. Enō). 弘忍; Wade-Giles, Hun -jen (with honorific title, ⼤満弘忍; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Dàmǎn Hóngrěn; Wade-Giles, Ta -men Hung -jen ; Japanese: Daiman Gunin or Daiman Konin—where Dàmǎn [⼤満] is the honorific title, which may signify great complete one, totally satisfied one, etc.). 神秀; Wade-Giles, Shen -hsiu ; Jap. Jinshū. 临济宗; Wade-Giles, Lin -chi Tsung . 公案; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, gōng’àn; Wade-Giles kung -an . 獨參; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dúcān; Wade-Giles, tu -ts’an . Ch. 默照禅; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, mòzhào chán; Wade-Giles, mo -chao ch’an . 只管打坐: Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhǐguǎndǎzuò; Wade-Giles, chih -kuan ta -tso . 神秀; Wade-Giles, Shen -hsiu ; Jap. Jinshū. a 6 b 2 4 c 3 2 4 4 3 3 2 d 4 2 4 1 e 1 f 2 4 1 g 4 4 h 3 3 i 2 4 252 2 3 4 2 in Contemplation for the time an ant takes to walk from the tip of the nose to the forefront creates far more merits than countless aeons of good deeds. With regard to the second approach, however, it must be noted that since the state meditators dwell in was not attained by means of an instant breakthrough resulting in a clear contrast of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, they do not have a guarantee that the state they are dwelling in is in fact the absolute truth of the Mahāyāna: with that approach, it is just too easy to take samsaric absorptions wherein neither saṃsāra nor nirvāṇa are active, such as the neutral base-of-all, or even the subsequent grasping at this condition and the ensuing absorptions of the formless sphere, for Buddhahood itself. Hence the superiority of the first method, which as pointed out by Roshi of Sōtō Zen Shunryū Suzuki (who settled and passed away in California), in Japan is called the Path of the Younger Brother—for in that country the younger brother is held to be brighter / of keener intelligence than the elder one— whereas the Sōtō method is called the Path of the Elder Brother. Many Masters of both the Rinzai and Sōtō schools—including the late Suzuki Roshi—however, combine both methods, and apply skillful means such as the dialogues that, on being recorded, are referred to by the Chinese name wèndá and the Japanese mondō, meaning questions and answers, as well as those seemingly strange acts that as skillful means have the function of pulling the carpet from under their interlocutors’ feet, giving them an opportunity to have instantaneous access to the Awake state—which so often was the occasion for the sudden Awakening of their disciples. Among the above dialogues, some involve a radical interpretation of reality from the standpoint of emptiness as a means to “pull the carpet” in the way explained above. For example, upon meeting Bodhidharma, emperor Wǔ of Liáng asked him: “I have built temples and ordained monks; what merit is in this?” The patriarch replied “no merit.” Such statements have led Tibetan teachers, particularly in the Gelug School, to accuse the Chán or Zen tradition of nihilism on the grounds that it teaches good and evil to be equal, disregards the accumulation of merits, and so on. However, such statements by Chán and Zen Masters are other-directed assertions, which they pronounce as skillful means by virtue of their great use of prajñā, and which should lead the interlocutor beyond views and into the Awake state, rather than being meant as dogmas to uphold. In fact, the records and writings of Chán and Zen make it crystal clear that it is in the state of absolute truth that there are no good and evil and nor merits to accumulate, and thus enjoin those who are possessed by delusion and dualism to carefully observe the law of cause and effect. As a sample, consider the following passages of the Platform Sūtra of the Sixth Patriarch (some terms were replaced by the ones used in this book): a b c d e 397 f 398 399 400 g401 “Learned audience, please follow me and repeat together what I say: Tib. kun gzhi lung ma bstan. I.e. one of the four realms of the formless sphere (Skt. ārūpyadhātu; Pāli, arūpaloka; Tib. gzugs med pa’i khams; Ch. 無⾊界 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúsèjiè; Wade-Giles, wu -se -chieh ]). Suzuki (Ed. T. Dixon, 1980). 問答; Wade-Giles, wen -ta . Skt. upāya; Tib. thabs; Ch. ⽅便 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fāngbiàn; Wade-Giles, fang -pien ). Ch. 梁武帝 (464–549); Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Liángwǔdì; Wade-Giles, Liang -wu -ti (personal name 蕭衍 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Xiāoyǎn; Wade-Giles, Hsiao -yan ], courtesy name 叔達 [Shūdá; Wade-Giles, Shu -ta ], nickname 練 兒 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Liàn’ér; Wade-Giles, Lien -erh ]). Wong Mou-Lam and A. F. Price (trans. 1969, sixth chapter, “On Repentance,” pp. 50-51). a b 2 4 4 c d 4 2 e 1 f 2 1 3 3 4 4 1 4 2 g 253 2 “May we, disciples and so on, be always free from the taints of ignorance and delusion. We repent of all our faults and evil deeds committed under delusion or in ignorance. May they be expiated at once and may they never arise again. “May we be always free from the taints of arrogance and dishonesty (asatya). We repent of all our arrogant behavior and dishonest dealings in the past. May they be expiated at once and may they never arise again. “May we be always free from the taints of envy and jealousy. We repent of all our sins and evil deeds committed in an envious or jealous spirit. May they be expiated at once and may they never arise again. “Learned audience, this is what we call ‘formless chànhuǐ’ (‘formless repentance’). Now what is the meaning of chàn? Chàn refers to the repentance of past sins. To repent of all our past sins and evil deeds committed under delusion, ignorance, arrogance, dishonesty, jealousy, or envy, etc. so as to put an end to all of them is called chàn. Huǐ refers to that spect of repentance that concerns our future conduct. Having realized the nature of our transgression [we make a vow] that hereafter we will put an end to all kinds of evil committed under delusion, ignorance, arrogance, dishonesty, jealousy, or envy, and that we shall never commit evil deeds again. This is huǐ. “On account of ignorance and delusion, common people do not realize that in repentance they have not only to feel sorrow for their past nonvirtuous actions, but also to refrain from committing them in the future. Since they take no heed of their future conduct they commit new nonvirtuous actions before the past ones are expiated. How can we call this ‘repentance’?” a The misgivings of many Tibetan teachers (especially among the Sarmapas —i.e., the members of the Schools established in Tibet in the second millennium CE) regarding Chán are not only due to their making statements from the absolute standpoint as skillful means, but are also to a great extent a consequence of the above-mentioned, purported ninth century debate of Samye, which is reputed to have pitted Kamalaśīla, the disciple of Śāntarakṣita who represented the Indian gradual Mahāyāna (and in particular one of the two streams of what in recent centuries Tibetans have referred to as the MadhyamakaSvātantrika-Yogācāra School), against a Chinese teacher referred to in the records as Hwashan Mahāyāna, representing the Sudden Mahāyāna of Shénxiù’s Northern School. The Sarmapas have regularly attributed victory to Kamalaśīla; however, among the Nyingmapas or Ancient Ones this attribution is far from universal. In fact, the most ancient text dealing with the debate, which is the Lopön Thangyig, written shortly after the time of the event and then concealed as a terma or “treasure teaching,” like the texts dealing with the event that remained buried in Dùnhuáng for over a millennium and then were taken to light by the expeditions led by Aurel Stein, Paul Pelliot and others at the outset of the twentieth century CE, decidedly assert the King to have declared the Chinese Chán Master as the victor in his debate with Kamalaśīla. On the other hand, the earliest of the texts that b c d e f g a b c d e f g Ch. 懺悔 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chànhuǐ; Wade-Giles, ch’an -hui ). Wylie, gSar ma pa. 神秀; Wade-Giles, Shen -hsiu ; Jap. Jinshū. Wylie, rNying ma pa. Wylie, blo pon thang yig. Wylie, gter ma. 敦煌; Wade-Giles, Tun -huang [also 燉煌]; simplified, 炖煌. 4 2 4 4 2 254 3 402 have Kamalaśīla as the victor—namely Butön’s History of the Dharma —was written several centuries after the supposed event and, given the author’s persuasion, may have based his judgment on an ideologically and / or politically biased tradition. Likewise, Namkhai Nyingpo’s Kathang Denga, written during the First Diffusion of Buddhism in Tibet, shortly after the debate, and Nubchen Sangye Yeshe’s Samten Migdrön, written not long after the former, tell us that provided that the practitioner has an adequate capacity, the Sudden Path of the Mahāyāna (consisting in Chán Buddhism) is swifter and more effective than the gradual one. Moreover, as José Ignacio Cabezón (2007) has reminded us, the Khatang Denga states that following the debate the King opted for “the Madhyamaka,” which the text equates with the Chán suddenist view, and portrays Kamalaśīla’s doctrinal / philosophical position as the inferior one. The Samten Migdrön, for its part, does exactly the same thing. Cabezón (2007, pp. 20-21) writes (note that his translation has “simultaneist” instead of “suddenist”): a b c d 403 While it is true that most of our sources concerning the dispute between the gradualist and suddenist camps at Bsam yas are historical rather than polemical, there do exist several early texts (or portions of texts) that deal with the doctrinal issues of the debate. Taken together, these works give us a broad picture of the controversy. Representative of the gradualist side, there is Kamalaśīla’s Bhāvanākrama (Stages of Meditation). Written in Sanskrit, and in three parts, it was translated into Tibetan. It is especially the third of these Bhāvanākramas that, although it never mentions Hwa Shang by name, takes up (…) the position of Hwa Shang’s school with the goal of refuting it. From the Chinese side, one might mention a Chinese text recovered at Dùnhuáng, Wang Hsi’s Ratification of the True Principles of the Great Vehicle of Sudden Awakening (Tun wu ta cheng cheng li chueh ), a work that delineates and defends the views of Hwa shang and declares him the victor in the debate. Also representative of the simultaneist position are the twelfth and thirteenth chapters of the Bka’ thang sDe lnga (The narrative of the five groups), a treasure text (gter ma) that, while not compiled/discovered until the fourteenth century, appears to be derived from early traditions, so that one must agree with Tucci that the work “preserves many old fragments pieced together.” An exposition and defense of the suddenist position, it states that the king opted for “the Madhyamaka,” but then goes on to equate that Madhyamaka with the [Chinese] suddenist view. The text clearly portrays Kamalaśīla as having the inferior philosophical/doctrinal position. This and other works like the Eye-Lamp of Dhyāna (Bsam gtan mig sgron), allow us to piece together the controversy from various viewpoints. e f The Kathang Denga was hidden as a terma and revealed in the fourteenth century by the great Revealer Orgyen Lingpa of Yarjé, but because the division of the Path into Path of Renunciation, Path of Transformation and Path of Spontaneous Liberation was no longer familiar to Tibetan Masters, because of the book’s quite positive evaluation of the g h i Wylie, Bu ston. Tib. Chöjung (Wylie, chos ’byung). Cf. Obermiller, E. (1999). Wylie, bKa’ thang sde lnga: The Narrative of the Five Groups. Wylie, bSam gtan mig sgron: The Eye-Lamp of Contemplation. ⺩錫 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Wángxí; Wade-Giles, Wang -hsi ). 頓悟⼤乘正理決 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Dùnwù dàchéng zhènglǐ jué; Wade-Giles, Tun -wu ta -cheng cheng -li chueh ): Wángxí’s memoir. Wylie, gter ma. Wylie, O rgyan gling pa. Wylie, Yar rje. a b c d e 2 2 f 4 2 g h i 255 4 4 2 4 3 Sudden Mahāyāna, and so on, critics arose that claimed that the book was a forgery. However, the Samten Migdrön, which reproduces verbatim very long passages from the Kathang Denga of from sources that were also quoted in the latter book, and which was written not long after the former, was rediscovered in the twentieth century after having been out of circulation for a long time due to the scarcity of available copies—which is solid evidence of the fact that the Kathang Denga was not compiled in the fourteenth century by Orgyen Lingpa, as J. I. Cabezón, under the influence of those who, intent on preserving what now appears to be the myth of Kamalaśīla’s victory, seems to suggest. Nyang Nyima Özer, for his part, did not offer value judgments on the debate, nor did he compare the two schools. However, in his Chöjung Metog Nyingpo he stated that in his time the practitioners of Chán were increasing, and offered an account of what, according to the Suddenists, were the main points of the sudden approach, in such a way as to give a clear impression that he vouched for the effectivity of their system. At any rate, the two most highly reputed Nyingma Masters of the last six hundred years defended the Hwashan, explicitly or implicitly ascribing victory to him. In fact, the great Dzogchen Master Longchen Rabjampa wrote: a b c a d Although it did not enter the minds of those with an inferior kind of intelligence, what the great teacher Hva-shan said at the time (of the alleged Samye debate) was a factual statement. a Herbert Guenther (1977, p. 140, note 2) tells us that, for his part, the great Dzogchen Master Jigme Lingpa: e f … openly defends the Hva-shan and declares that what is alleged to be the defect of the Hva-shan’s teaching is actually the quintessence of the Prajñāpāramitā works. As they are the words of the Buddha, only the Buddha himself can decide if Hva-shan understood them correctly or not. However, when Jigme Lingpa compares Chán with Dzogchen, he does not sound so supportive of the Hwashan’s view and method: g Cabezón uses Pinyin for Dùnhuáng and approximate Wade-Giles for Wángxí (⺩錫) and his Dùnwù dàchéng zhènglǐ jué (頓悟⼤聖正理咏). Wylie, Nyang Nyi ma ’od zer: twelfth century. Wylie, Chos ’byung me tog snying po. In sDe gsum snying po’i don ’grel gnas lugs rin po che’i mdzod ces ’bya ’ba’i grel pa, folio 31a; quoted in Guenther (1977, p. 140, note 2). Guenther (1977, p. 140, note 2). ’Jigs med gling pa (Jigme Lingpa) said so in Kun mkhyen zhal lung bdud rtsi’i thigs pa (for the full title see footnote after next)—a commentary to the gNas lugs rdo rje’i tshig rkang— folio 6b. Wylie, ’Jigs med gling pa. Rig ’dzin mkha’ ’gro dgyes pa’i gsang gtam/ yid dpyod grub mtha’ ’jig pa’i tho lu ma/ snying phyung lag mthil bkram pa’i man ngag/ gsang bdag dga’ rab dpa’ bo’i thol glu/ kun mkhyen zhal lung bdud brtsi’i thigs pa. In (1985) The collected works of Jigme Lingpa, Derge edition, 9 vols. Gangtok: Pema Thinley for Dodrub Chen Rinpoché, vol. 8, pp. 663-80. Cited in van Schaik (2004, p. 212). I tried to follow van Schaik’s translation, but had to partly adapt the terminology to the one used in this book and add explicative additions, or conventions proper to this book, which were all inserted within brackets. a b c d e f g 256 Hashang is without the essential points that differentiate between the objectifying mind and the directly penetrating, non-objectifying gnosis. Because of this, since all memory, thought, and perception are stopped in an indeterminate state of awareness that does not differentiate between the phases of mind and gnosis, he falls at once into the extreme of ignorance that is like unconsciousness or a heavy sleep. In the Great Perfection ([Dzogchen]), because we do not astray from analyzing conceptual, objectifying mind with nonobjectifying gnosis, [uncontrived] awareness [(of) nonconceptual, nondual] self-awareness neutralizes conceptual imputations in a state that is like a polished crystal ball. Then, without emptying or filling up, or any change, one resides in the realized awareness [(of)] the vast, spacious expanse, free from limitations. So there is nothing similar between these two. a This statement does not contradict the preceding one, for it refers to the way Chán from the Northern School and Dzogchen may be compared, rather than referring to the way the Sudden and Gradual approaches within the Mahāyāna may be compared, and it fully agrees with the criticisms of the Sudden Mahāyāna in comparison with Dzogchen in all books that consider the Sudden Mahāyāna superior to the Gradual Mahāyāna—including both the Kathang Denga and the Samten Migdrön. And, even more interestingly, it is similar to the implicit criticism of the quietism of the Northern School of Chán in the main text of the Southern School of Chán, which is the Platform Sūtra of the Sixth Patriarch (some terms were replaced by the ones used in this book): b People under delusion believe obstinately in dharmalakṣaṇa (phenomena / sensory patterns / configurations / collections of characteristics) and so they are stubborn in having their own way of interpreting the “samādhi of specific mode,” which they define as “sitting quietly and continuously without letting any idea arise in the mind.” Such an interpretation would rank us with inanimate objects, and is a stumbling block to the right Path, which must be kept open. Should we free our mind from attachment to all “things,” the Path [would] become clear; otherwise, we put ourselves under restraint. If that interpretation, “sitting quietly and continuously, etc.” were correct, [what would be the reason] why [as told in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra] on one occasion Śāripūtra was reprimanded by Vimalakīrti for sitting quietly in the woods? Learned audience, some teachers of meditation instruct their disciples to keep a watch on their mind for tranquility, so that it will cease from activity. Henceforth the disciples give up all exertion of mind. Ignorant persons become insane from having too much confidence in such instruction. Such cases are not rare, and it is a great mistake to teach others to do this... To keep our mind free from defilement under all circumstances is called wúniàn (nonconceptuality). Our mind should stand aloof from circumstances, and on no account should we allow them to influence the function of our mind. But it is a great mistake to suppress our mind from all thinking; for even if we succeed in getting rid of all thoughts, and die immediately thereafter, still we shall be reincarnated elsewhere. Mark this, treaders of the Path. It is bad enough for a man to commit blunders from not knowing the meaning of the In this book the term expanse (which in general will not be used alone) renders the Skt. dharmadhātu, the Tib. chos dbyings; the Ch. 法界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, făjiè; Wade-Giles, fa -chieh ), etc.—except when it designates the subtle object of the formless absorptions (Skt. ārūpyāvacaradhyāna; Pāli arūpāvacarajhāna; Tib. gzugs med na spyod pa’i bsam gtan; Ch. 無⾊界定 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúsèjiè dìng; Wade-Giles, wu -se -chieh ting ]). Wong-Mou-Lam, 1969, pp. 43-45; note that the translator rendered wúniàn (無念; Wade-Giles wu -nien ) as idea-less-ness rather than non-conceptuality. a 3 4 2 b 4 4 2 257 4 4 dharma, but how much worse would it be to encourage others to follow suit? Being deluded, he Sees not, and in addition he blasphemes the Buddhist Canon. Therefore, we take wúniàn (non-conceptuality) as our object. Even though the above text might be at least partly addressed to Shénxiù and/or his Northern School disciples, the Northern School might have shed its initial quietist deviation, for copies of the above text turned up in the Dùnhuáng library, and at any rate in order to judge one must refer to extant transcriptions of the debate. As to the opinions traditional Tibetans and contemporary Western scholars have on Chán and the purported Samye debate, ponder on the following passage by John Reynolds: a b c With the discovery of the Tun Huang library in [the twentieth] century, our view of this debate changed radically. At Tun Huang a number of Chinese and Tibetan texts turned up which presented the Chinese side of this famous debate. These texts have been translated and studied by Paul Demiéville (1952), and it appears that many modern Western readers prefer the presentation by the Hwashan of his side of the debate to that represented by Kamalaśīla in his Bhāvanākrama (in Tucci, Minor Buddhist Texts, parts 1 and 2). The doctrinal issues involved in this supposed debate between Indian Madhyamika and Chinese Chan have greatly interested Western scholars, but now it seems doubtful that a debate ever took place in the sense of a direct face-to-face confrontation between Kamalaśīla and the Hvashan. Rather, it appears that King Tisong Detsan, himself a rather literate and learned man, wrote to various authorities and solicited their views on the Dharma. To judge from the Tun Huang finds, the king seemed to have been quite satisfied with the Hvashan’s replies. The exclusion of Chan from Tibet seemed to have more to do with politics than with doctrine, such as fear at the court of Chinese political influence or the defeat of some pro-Chinese party among the ministers of the king. The attitudes of the Tibetan Lamas from the eleventh century until today toward Chan have been, by and large, exceedingly negative, except for certain Nyingmapas like Longchenpa and Urgyan Lingpa… What accurate knowledge Tibetan Lama-scholars do have of Chan is largely drawn from Nubchen Sangye Yeshe’s bSan-gtan mig-sgron (ninth century CE), and the description reflects a type of Northern Chan prevalent in Central Asia only in the eighth and ninth centuries. Carmen Meinert offers several sources for each of us to carry out her or his own analysis of the relationship between Chán / sudden Mahāyāna and the Bodhisattvayāna / gradual Mahāyāna: d A lot of recent research has been done concerning the reliability of historical material about the great debate of bSam yas and thus concerning the question whether the debate can be regarded as an actual historical event at all. D. Seyfort Ruegg also provides a comprehensive bibliography in this field in his footnotes (cf. Buddha-nature, Mind and the Problem of Gradualism in a Comparative Perspective, London: School of Oriental and African Studies, 1989[b]). For earlier research concerning the debate cf. also Paul Demiéville, Le concile de Lhasa, reprint, 1 edition 1952, Paris: Collège de France, Institut des Hautes Études Chinoises, 1987; Giuseppe Tucci, Minor Buddhist Texts II, Rome, st a b c d 神秀; Wade-Giles, Shen -hsiu ; Jap. Jinshū. 2 4 cf. Demiéville (1952). Reynolds (1996, pp. 222-223). Meinert (2003, pp. 179-180, n. 13). 258 Is.M.E.O., 1958; Ueyama, Daishun, “The Study of Tibetan Ch’an Manuscripts Recovered from Tun Huang: A Review of the Field and its Prospects,” in: L. Lancaster/W. Lai (ed.) Early Chán in China and Tibet, Berkeley: Berkeley Buddhist Studies Series, 1983, 327-350 and L. Gómez, “The Direct and Gradual Approaches of Zen Master Mahāyāna: Fragments of the Teaching of Mo-ho-yet,” in: M. Gimello/P. N. Gregory (ed.), Studies in Ch’an and Hua-yen, Studies in East Asian Buddhism No. 1, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1983[a], 69-168. Despite the uncertainties surrounding the question of whether the debate ever actually took place, a symbolic meaning was attached to it in the course of Tibetan history that gave rise to discussions up to the present. Concerning the arguments of Heshang Moheyan and of Kamalasila cf. Dunwu dacheng zhenglijue 顿悟⼤乘正理决 [Ratification of the True Principle of the Mahāyāna Teachings of Sudden Awakening], P. chin. 4646 (copy edited by Rao Zongyi (Jao Tsung-I) 饒宗頤 in: “Wangxi Dunwu dacheng zhengli jue xushuo bing jiaoji ⺩喜顿悟⼤乘正理决叙说丙胶机 ［Preface and Notes to Wang Xi’s Dunwu dacheng zhengli jue dacheng zhengli jue (Ratification of the True principle of the Mahayana Teachings of Sudden Awakening)]”, in Chongji xuebao 冲击学报 Chung Chi Journal] 9/2 (1970), 127-148) and “sGom pa’i rim pa [Stages of Meditation (Third Bhāvanākrama)]”, by Kamalaśīla, translated by Prajnāvarma and Ye shes sde, in: TT. 102, no; 5312; 60b.8-74b.4.” a b c d It must also be noted that though the sudden Mahāyāna is a vehicle of the Path of Renunciation, and though, as we have seen, according to the most essential text of Chán it originated directly from the nirmāṇakāya Śākyamuni, the monastic precepts and lineage of ordination of Chán and Zen monks and nuns is not that of the Vinaya: this is why there is no impediment to their tilling land in order to be self-sustaining rather than depending on the labor of others, and also why it is so common in modern Japan to find Zen Masters who, despite being monks, have taken a spouse. In fact, as we have also seen, in Chán the bodhisattva Vimalakīrti, hero of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra, who was a layman and who had more than one consort, often is held up as the model of ideal conduct. The presentation of each of the vehicles in Part One of this book concludes with a quotation from the Kunje Gyälpo, root Tantra of the Dzogchen Semdé, in which the main drawback of the vehicle being dealt with is denounced. Since this Tantra does not refer to the sudden Mahāyāna, this section will use instead the comments that Namkhai Nyingpo— a consummate practitioner of the gradual Mahāyāna, Chán, the inner Tantras of the Path of Transformation, and Dzogchen Atiyoga—made while comparing Chán with Dzogchen Ati. In his Kathang Dennga, this renowned Master—who had mastered the Contemplation that, according to the sudden Mahāyāna, is the very state of Buddhahood corresponding to the final realization of the gradual Mahāyāna—asserted Chán or Zen Contemplation to be somewhat partial towards emptiness, which implied that it involved a certain degree of directionality, and therefore was not at all the same as the condition of Total Space-TimeAwareness in which the Vajra nature becomes perfectly evident, which is the condition of total completeness / plenitude and perfection called Dzogchen. Namkhai Nyingpo illustrated this with two examples. The first is that of a hen pecking at grain; though it may seem that the hen is looking at the ground, it is actually e Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Dùnwù dàchéng zhènglǐ jué; Wade-Giles, Tun -wu ta -ch’eng cheng -li chüeh . Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Ráozōngyí; Wade-Giles, Jao -tsung -i . Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Wángxǐ dùnwù dàchéng zhènglǐ jué xùshuō bǐng jiāo jī; Wade-Giles, Wang -hsi Tun -wu ta -ch’eng cheng -li chüeh hsü -shuo ping chiao chi . Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Chōngjí xuébào; Wade-Giles, Ch’ung -chi hsüueh -pao . Thurman, Robert (1976); Luk, Charles (Upāsaka Lü Kuan Yu) (trans. 1972). a 4 b 2 1 4 4 2 c 3 2 2 4 d 4 2 2 4 3 2 4 1 3 1 1 1 e 259 2 2 4 3 4 4 looking at the grains. The second is that of a person threading a needle; though it may seem that the person is looking at the sky, he or she is actually looking at the eye of the needle. The similes are not exact because the ground and the sky are objects of the mind, yet they are being used to illustrate the condition beyond the subject-object duality called Dzogchen, characterized by Total Space-Time-Awareness and by a total absence of any directionality of consciousness. Though it may seem that the practitioner of Chán or Zen finds him or her self in this condition, the truth is that there is still a certain degree of directionality, a partiality towards emptiness that veils the indivisibility of the two aspects of the Base— namely primordial purity (which is emptiness) and spontaneous perfection (the side of appearances and movement). However, it is hard to imagine that when a genuine satori takes place, say, in the context of Rinzai practice, or an authentic wù in the context of practices such as the ones taught by the incomparable nineteenth-twentieth century Chán Master Xūyún Dàshī (who used to instruct his students to, in places of great turmoil, stop and look at the mind; who made meditators run like mad and suddenly, instantly stop and look at the mind; and who visited Tibet on two occasions and met Dzogchen Masters), the ensuing realization may involve a marked partiality toward emptiness. And yet this does not mean than Chán and Zen can lead to the same result as Dzogchen: I cannot tell to what degree Chán or Zen can make the realization that arises in satori or wù stable or whether or not it can give rise to an uninterrupted, irreversible realization, for that system does not have methods for catalyzing the spontaneous liberation of delusion so this liberation occurs each and every time delusion arises, such as those of Tekchö , and even less so does it have the methods of Thögel, which are based on luminosity and the principle of spontaneous perfection / actualization / rectification / accomplishment, and have the function of activating the propensities for aversion , in a context where the energetic volume determining the scope of awareness is extremely high and in which, in those with a sufficient capacity of spontaneous liberation, aversion—and delusion in general, of which aversion is just one of the many particular forms—is forced to liberate itself spontaneously in an immediate way, so that the wrathful dynamic of the dharmatā may rapidly burn out saṃsāra. At any rate, it is well known that so far no Chán Master has exhibited any of the realizations of the Atiyoga that involve dissolution of the physical body when the selfless activities characteristic of fully Awake Ones have been completed. a b c d e f g 404 h i j k405 l 406 Tib. ka dag; hypothesized Skt. kaśuddha. Tib. lhun grub; Skt. nirābogha or anābogha. 悟 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wù; Wade-Giles wu ; Jap. satori). 臨濟; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Línjì; Wade-Giles, Lin -chi . 悟 (Wade-Giles wu ; Jap. satori). 虛雲⼤師 ; Wade-Giles: Hsu -yun Ta -shih ; English, Empty Cloud (1840–1959), for Dàshī ( ⼤師 ) is a honorific title meaning great or high Master. Cf. Chang (1970). Wylie, khregs chod. Wylie, thod rgal. Tib. lhun grub; Skt. nirābogha or anābogha. Tib. zhe sdang; Skt. dveṣa; Pāḷi dosa; Ch. 瞋 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chēn; Wade-Giles ch’en ). Tib. thig le, which renders the Skt. bindu but in this context has a sense somewhat akin to that of the Skt. kuṇḍalinī. a b c 4 d e f 2 4 4 1 2 4 1 g h i j k 1 l 260 YOGA No reference has been made so far to the practice of physical yoga. This is due to the fact that such a practice is not part of any of the vehicles of the Path of Renunciation. Though the name of the Yogācāra school of Mahāyāna Buddhism means “Conduct of yoga,” the yoga to which the name refers does not involve physical exercises. And the same applies to the instructions of the Northern School of Chán Buddhism that refer to its practitioners as yogis and to their practice as yoga, but which do not teach any physical exercises. a CONCLUSION To end this brief consideration of the Path of Renunciation, it may be observed that, in vehicles in which the explicit objective is to overcome dualism, as is the case with the Mahāyāna, a method that starts from the prejudice according to which one must avoid a series of entities, activities and psychological states, does not appear to be the most direct and effective, for the idea of something to avoid might sustain and reinforce the illusion of a substantial dualism between the one who avoids and what is avoided, between good and bad, etc., and might cause one’s own self to be implicitly taken to be substantial and absolutely important—which would reinforce the self-grasping / self-affirmation / selfpreoccupation and the illusion of substantiality that all of the Buddhist Mahāyāna and all vehicles must lead practitioners to overcome. In the Instantaneous / Sudden Mahāyāna, which here has been presented as the supreme form of the Sūtrayāna, the emphasis placed on renunciation seems to be lesser than in the Hīnayāna and even than in the gradual Mahāyāna; in fact, various texts of Chán or Zen entreat us to apprehend the primordial purity of every thing and of every state that may arise in our experience. However, the above objections do not imply that this Path is not effective; if it were not, the Buddha would not have taught it as a mārga or Path to Awakening. As we have seen, in this Path realization is not attained through renunciation, which is only the precondition for a practitioner on this path to be able to correctly apply the methods that may result in the uncontrived, unproduced, uninduced, unconditioned becoming apparent of the unconditioned and unmade. It has been through the latter methods that practitioners have usually attained the Fruit of the vehicle they were applying—just as it was through a spontaneous liberation, rather than through the principle of renunciation, that the Buddha Śākyamuni attained Awakening. Therefore, the Path of Renunciation is actually effective and, in the case of individuals who possess the capacity that corresponds to the practice of one of the vehicles or schools contained in it, but not the capacity necessary for the practice of the vehicles of the Paths of Transformation and Spontaneous Liberation, the vehicle or school of the Path of Renunciation corresponding to her or his capacity can be “superior” 407 b c d Tib. rnal ’byor spyod pa ba; Ch. 瑜伽⾏派 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yúqiéxíng pài; Wade-Giles, yü -ch’ieh -hsing p’ai ). Skt. asaṃskṛta; Pāḷi, asaṅkhata; Tib. du ma byas; Ch. 無爲 asaṃskṛta (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu -wei ). Skt. asaṃskṛta; Pāḷi, asaṅkhata; Tib. du ma byas; Ch. 無爲 asaṃskṛta (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu -wei ). Tib. rang grol; Skt. svamukti. a 2 4 b 2 2 2 2 c d 261 2 2 to the latter, in the sense of being swifter and more effective for the purpose of reaching a given degree of spiritual realization. 262 THE PATH OF TRANSFORMATION OR “TANTRIC VEHICLE”408 In a broad sense, the Path of Transformation consists of the various vehicles that make up the Vajra vehicle (Vajrayāna ), Continuity vehicle (Tantrayāna ), Secret Mantra vehicle (Guhyamantrayāna ) or Fruit-based vehicle (Phalayāna ). a b 409 c d e The Etymology and Meaning of “Tantra” Although the Sanskrit term Tantra has the acceptation of weft or woof (i.e. of woven fabric), its meaning within Buddhism is closely linked to that of the Sanskrit word prabandha, which means both continuity and luminosity. This is reflected by the Tibetan word used to translate both the Sanskrit term Tantra and the Sanskrit term prabandha, which is gyü: a term that in everyday language means “thread,” but which in the context of the Tantric and Dzogchen teachings has the twofold sense of “continuity” and “luminosity.” Jamgön Kongtrul the Great wrote: f g h i Skt. yāna; Tib. theg pa; Ch. 乘 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shèng; Wade-Giles, sheng ) or 衍 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǎn; Wade-Giles, yen ). Tib. rDo rje’i theg pa; Ch. ⾦剛乘 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jīngāng shèng; Wade-Giles, chin -kang sheng ). Tib. rGyud kyi theg pa. Tib. gSang sngags kyi theg pa. Tib. ’Bras bu’i theg pa. The terms “luminous” and “luminosity” (Pāḷi pabhassara; Skt. prabhāsvara; Tib. ’od gsal; Ch. 光明 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, guāngmíng; Wade-Giles, kuang -ming ]) are visual metaphors for the Gnitiveness inherent in the Base and the latter’s capacity to give rise to sensa through all the six senses. The visual metaphor is used because awareness may become apparent as pure luminosity, and because in Buddhism vision is deemed to be the first and foremost of the senses. Other Skt. terms for “luminosity” are, for example, prabhāsvaratā, prabhāsvaratva, bhāsvaratva, bhāsvarā, ābhāsvarā. The earliest reference to the mind as luminous in Buddhism might be the one in the Aṅguttaranikāya of the Pāḷi Canon. The term rgyud also renders the Sanskrit terms saṃtāna (“mental stream;” usually translated to Tib. as rgyun or as sems rgyud; Ch. 相續 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiāngxù; Wade-Giles, hsiang -hsü ]), saṃtati (similar to saṃtāna), jāti (normally rendered as skye ba: birth) and anvaya (directly, following, connection, male descendant, lineage, family, succession, inheritance, drift, tenor, negative implication [in logic; e.g. “when there is no (longer a) pot, there is clay”]). Wylie, rgyud. For its part, the best-known Chinese is ⺫次 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, mùcì; Wade-Giles, mu tz’u ); the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism (López & Buswell, 2014) gives us 檀特羅 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tántèluó; Wade-Giles, t’an -t’e -luo ). Tibetan Text 11, A: vol. 2, p. 613, 2. Quoted in Namkhai Norbu (1999, 2001, p. 161). a 4 3 b 1 1 4 c d e f 1 2 g 1 h 4 4 4 2 4 2 i 263 The word gyü (Tantra) refers precisely to bodhicitta-Samantabhadra that has no beginning or end and that shines with luminous natural clarity. It ‘continues” because from beginningless time until the attainment of Awakening it is always present without any interruption whatsoever. In this context, the term bodhicitta has the meaning given it in the inner Tantras of the Nyingmapa, as well as in the Nature of Mind series of Dzogchen, and yet it is defined in a way that corresponds to that of the absolute bodhicitta of the Mahāyāna. The reason for this is that in this context bodhicitta is the awareness inherent in the Base that (is) the true condition of all reality: Buddhahood, not as potency, but as full actuality. It is for this reason that it may be explained exactly in the same way as the absolute bodhicitta of the Mahāyāna: as the indivisibility of emptiness—which is its primordial purity or essence aspect and corresponds to the dharmakāya-qua-Base—and compassion —the term that Chögyal Namkhai Norbu renders as energy and that corresponds to the nirmāṇakāya-qua-Base and as such is one of the two aspects of the spontaneous perfection aspect, which is the rūpakāyaqua-Base. (The reason why the Base’s unobstructed, uninterrupted manifestation is called compassion is explained in the elucidation of the concept of the Base in the chapter on Dzogchen.) For his part, Samantabhadra is the primordial Buddha, the nondual Awake awareness that is the true condition or nature of mind, the self-reGnizing nature of which is what the Dzogchen teachings call nondual Awake awareness—rigpa or rangrig, though these terms are mostly used when this self-reGnizing nature of the true condition or nature of mind becomes patent upon the dissolution of the three aspects or types of avidyā. In fact, in the base-of-all qua neutral condition (which as noted above pertains to saṃsāra, although in that condition saṃsāra is not active) and also throughout active saṃsāra, the true nature / essence of this nondual Awake awareness is veiled by what is usually called a contingent, beclouding element of stupefaction, whereas in nirvāṇa it is self-reGnized, so that its “own face” (so to speak) becomes patent. The etymological sense of Samantabhadra is All-Good, which is to be understood in the sense of all is viable: both on the Tantric Path of Transformation and on the Ati Path of Spontaneous Liberation, none of what arises in saṃsāra is considered useless, or rejected or repressed on the grounds that it is impossible to incorporate into the Path. Quite to the contrary, that which occurs in a b c d e f g h i j k Tib. Sems sde; Skt. Cittavarga. Tib. ka dag; hypothesized Skt. kaśuddha. Tib. ngo bo. Tib. thugs rje; Skt. karuṇā. Skt. anābogha or nirābogha; Tib. lhun grub. Skt. cittatā or citta eva; Tib. sems nyid. Wylie, rig pa. Wylie, rang rig; Skt. svasaṃvedana or svasaṃvittiḥ; Ch. ⾃證 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìzhèng; Wade-Giles, tzu -cheng ) / ⾃覺 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìjué; Wade-Giles, tzu -chüeh ). Note that in Dzogchen this term is used only when all three types or aspects of avidyā have dissolved and the true condition of the Base is fully patent. Tib. kun gzhi lung ma bstan. Tib. rmongs cha. Tib. rang ngo shes pa. a b c d e f g h 4 4 4 i j k 264 2 saṃsāra is viewed as viable in that it can be turned into the Path: this is, indeed, the reason why in the Dzogchen teachings there is a key practice called “carrying the six gatherings on the Path to liberation.” Therefore, Bodhicitta-Samantabhadra is the single, true condition of both what we call “ourselves” and the whole of reality. From the temporal standpoint, the luminous continuity of the manifestation of this true condition is compared to a rosary in which the beads (which represent thoughts or thought-tinged experiences) and the empty spaces between beads in which there is only thread (which represent the spaces between one thought and the next, or one thought-tinged experience and the next) unceasingly succeed each other. Tantrism emphasizes the continuity of luminosity because in it one deals equanimously with this succession of beads (our different experiences) and spaces between them: one must neither negate or repress the beads in order to affirm the empty, blank or unformed spaces between beads, nor disclaim the spaces in order to affirm the beads: what one must do is to reGnize the true condition of the continuity of luminosity / awareness that gives rise to both and that both (are) in truth, and which (is) empty but at the same time “luminous” in the sense of “giving rise to experience.” In fact, even though all experiences are essentially empty—for they lack self-existence / substance—experiences never stop arising. This is one of the reasons why the Anuyoga and Atiyoga Tantras explain our true condition in terms of the two indivisible aspects which are primordial purity, consisting in emptiness, and spontaneous perfection, lying in the perfect, unhindered functionality of reality (and including the spontaneous arising of visions and the wrathful self-rectifying dynamic of rölpa energy that will be briefly discussed on explaining the practices of Thögäl and the Yangti or Yangthik, and then in greater detail in Vol. II of this book). However, the reason why the Path of Transformation is designated by a term meaning continuity is not only the above. An equally important reason for this is that in the Tantras the continuity of the Base, the Path and the Fruit is posited: the Base is the Buddha-nature, the Path is the disclosure of the Buddha-nature, and the Fruit is attained when the Buddha-nature is no longer concealed at any moment of one’s life. In other words, this Path is Fruit-based rather than cause-based. a 410 b c 411 d e f g h Cf. Thinley Norbu Rinpoche (1977). As stated in a previous footnote, the term “luminous” (Tib. ’od gsal) is used as a visual metaphor for the Base’s capacity to give rise to sensa through all the six senses; in terms of the Dzogchen explanation of three aspects of the Base, it is the rang bzhin aspect—a term that renders one of the various meanings of the Skt. term svabhāva (Ch. ⾃性 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìng; Wade-Giles, tzu -hsing ; Jap. jishō]). Tib. ka dag; hypothesized Skt. kaśuddha. Tib. lhun grub; Skt. nirābogha or anābogha. Tib. rang snang. Tib. phrin las drag po, which is the wrathful (Tib. khro bo) dynamic of the intermediate state of the true condition of phenomena (Skt. dharmatā antarābhava; Tib. chos nyid bar do; Ch. 法性中有 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎxìng zhōngyǒu; Wade-Giles, fa -hsing chung -yu ]). Skt. phalayāna; Tib. ’bras bu’i theg pa. Skt. hetuyāna; Tib. rgyu’i theg pa. a b 4 c d e f 3 4 1 g h 265 3 4 With regard to the terms Vajrayāna or Immutable / Indestructible Vehicle and Vehicle of Secret Mantra, a Tantra revealed by Dudjom Lingpa reads: a Because it is the great secret of all the jinas (Buddhas) it is secret, and because it is the pinnacle of all the yānas it is called mantra. It is called vajra because rigpa, the womb of Buddhahood (sugatagarbha), is endowed with the seven vajra qualities. As to the sense of the particle vajra in the compounded term Vajrayāna, in general Sanskrit vajra means both diamond and thunderbolt (the purported shaft or bolt that in Āryan mythology was believed to be the agent of destruction in a flash of lightening accompanied by thunder). In the term Vajrayāna the particle has the sense of immutability and indestructibility—thus symbolizing the true condition of reality and, particularly, the Buddha-nature as viewed and explained in the Tantras, thus coinciding with one of the acceptations of the particle Tantra in the compound noun Tantrayāna. In particular, as stated in the Tantra revealed by Dudjom Lingpa, the particle refers to the fact that the womb of Buddhahood (sugatagarbha) is endowed with the seven vajra qualities, which are: invulnerability or uncuttability, indestructibility, true establishment (which as shown in the footnote does not imply true existence), incorruptibility, stability, unobstructibility and invincibility. In the Vajrayāna, the term vajra also refers to a ritual utensil—in terms of which the principle of Transformation proper to this Path will be explained below— which is held in the right hand, which symbolizes the true vajra and which pairs with a bell or tilbu that is held in the left hand and ringed with it. In the latter sense, the vajra stands for prajñā and the bell for method or skillful means. And as to the sense of the term secret mantra in the name Vehicle of Secret Mantra, it refers to the fact, referred to in a previous section, that initially Tantric transmissions arose through the saṃbhogakāya—the voice or energy and visionary aspect of Buddhahood—and works mainly on that level—the repetition of mantras b c d e f g h i j k l The Awake Vision of Samantabhadra (etc.). Tib. Ka dag rdzogs pa chen po’i klong mdzod zab mo/ ma bcos rdzogs ldan rang byung gi sangs rgyas/ kun tu bzang po’i dgongs pa lag pa’i mthil du brkam nas lhag ger bstan pa/ dgongs brda snyan brgyud chig rdzogs kyi man ngag bka’ rgya ma. In Vol. 17 of Collected works of the emanated great treasures, the secret, profound treasures of Dudjom Lingpa (Thinpu, Bhutan: Kuenzang Wangdue). Translation in Dudjom Lingpa, Vol. I (2015); passage in p. 178. The translation was adapted to the terminology used in this book. Tib. rdo rje; Ch. ⾦剛 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jīngāng; Wade-Giles, chin -kang ). Tib. rdo rje’i chos bdun. Tib. mi chod pa. Tib. mi shigs pa. Tib. bden pa. This vajra quality does not imply an assertion of true existence, for the vajra condition is beyond the four extremes of existence, nonexistence, both and neither—and if is cannot be asserted to be existent far less could it be asserted to be truly existent. Hence the term “true establishment” means that what the term vajra refers to is not an entity of deluded relative truth, but the true condition of all phenomena, including ourselves. Tib. sra ba. Tib. brtan pa. Tib. thogs pa med pa. Tib. mi pham pa. Skt. guhyamantra; Tib. gsang sngags. Skt. Guhyamantrayāna; Tib. gsang sngags kyi theg pa. a b 1 c d e f g h i j k l 266 1 being an essential element of the practice. In fact, whereas the Path of Renunciation arose through the nirmāṇakāya Śākyamuni, who taught it in his physical body, and works mainly at the level of the body—as shown above, in it certain objects are to be avoided, and the Hīnayāna vows and the Mahāyāna compromise of training are lost at death and suspended during sleep—the Path of Transformation arose through the level of energy or voice, which does not end with death, and hence the related commitments (which will be discussed in a subsequent section) do not dissolve at death and are not suspended during sleep. The way in which the Path of Transformation arose through the visionary / energetic level of Buddhahood—the saṃbhogakāya—is explained differently by the Nyingmapas and the Sarmapas: According to the Nyingmapas, a great yogin gained access to the state of rigpa while simultaneously having a vision of herself/himself as a deity—which on this Path is called an experience of clarity—in coincidence with an experience of total pleasure arisen while in union with a consort or when a spontaneously arisen way of breathing became operative—which the Path in question refers to as an experience of sensation—and with an experience of emptiness facilitated by a high energetic volume determining the scope of awareness. In this way, the individual became a greatly realized adept. Now, since his or her disciples lacked the capacity to be directly introduced into rigpa, she or he taught them ways to obtain the same three experiences and, with them as a basis, question their experience so as to create the conditions for the self-disclosure of rigpa (for example, teaching them to try to find the mental subject that experiences them as object, or to try to find the Gnitive capacity or power by means of which and in which they arise, etc.). According to stories in some of the Tantras of the Sarmapas, the origin of the Tantras was Śākyamuni, but not in his nirmāṇakāya form: because he was a monk and could not manifest either in yab-yum or wrathfully on the physical plane, he manifested as a saṃbhogakāya deity in order to communicate the teaching. a The Principle of Tantra Chögyal Namkhai Norbu follows the tradition of illustrating the principle of the Path of Transformation with a five-pointed ritual Vajra—a metallic ritual object in the center of which there is a sphere from which five points spread to each of its two sides, as bidimensionally diagrammed below: Skt. mahāsiddha; Tib. sgrub chen; Ch. ⼤聖 (simplified, ⼤圣) (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dàshèng; Wade-Giles, ta -sheng ): great adept, adept with great power(s). a 4 4 267 The sphere at the center is a thigle, which stands for the dharmakāya—mind aspect or dimension of Buddhahood. Since the Buddha-nature is the true, absolute nature or condition of ourselves and the whole of reality, it represents the nature or condition in question—which as such may be understood qua Base, qua Path or qua Fruit. Qua-Base it is the true, absolute nature or condition of the totality of reality, which does not exclude anything—the symbol being used because a sphere has no angles or corners, which represent limits and, by implication, contents of thought. As put in a Tantra revealed by Dudjom Lingpa: a b c It is called sphere, for it roundly encompasses all things, while transcending all the edges and corners of the intellect, mentation, and thought; and it is called sole or single because it is none other than the essential nature of all of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. d For his part, Dudjom Lingpa’s disciple, Pema Tashi put it the following way Wylie, thig le; Skt. bindu (also Skt. tilaka). Skt. tathāgatagarbha or sugatagarbha; Tib. de [bzhin] gshegs [pa’i] snying po; Chin. 如來藏 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, rúláizàng; Wade-Giles, ju -lai -tsang ) / Skt. buddhatā, buddhadhātu or buddhatva; Tib. sangs rgyas kyi khams; Ch. 佛性 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fóxìng; Wade-Giles fo -hsing ). The Awake Vision of Samantabhadra (etc.). Tib. Ka dag rdzogs pa chen po’i klong mdzod zab mo/ ma bcos rdzogs ldan rang byung gi sangs rgyas/ kun tu bzang po’i dgongs pa lag pa’i mthil du brkam nas lhag ger bstan pa/ dgongs brda snyan brgyud chig rdzogs kyi man ngag bka’ rgya ma. In Vol. 17 of Collected works of the emanated great treasures, the secret, profound treasures of Dudjom Lingpa (Thinpu, Bhutan: Kuenzang Wangdue). Translation in Dudjom Lingpa, Vol. I (2015); passage in p. 179. Skt. bindu; Tib. thig le. a b 2 2 4 2 c d 268 4 in his Commentary to the Tantra Sherig dorje nönpoi gyü —another of the Tantras revealed by Dudjom Lingpa: a b ...the single (or sole) sphere is called sphere because it transcends the edges and corners of concepts, and it is called single (or sole) because it (is) the one taste of the whole of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. c The reason why all contents of thought are limits (edges and corners) may be explained in terms of Greek and Western logic and epistemology or in terms of Buddhist logic and epistemology. In terms of the first tradition contents of thought are limits because they all have a differentia specifica (i.e., the second element in the definition is the concept’s contrast with something that it excludes) and a genus proximum (i.e., the first element in the definition is the ampler genus in which the concept is included, but this genus is also defined by exclusion of other genera) — the classical example of this being the elementary school definition of human beings as “rational animals:” animal is the genus proximum because human beings are a class within this genus (yet animal is defined by exclusion of vegetal and mineral—and nowadays also of other genera); rational is the differentiam specificam because rationality is supposed to be what distinguishes human beings from other animals. Since the true condition of reality has no limits, it cannot have either differentia specifica or genus proximum—and therefore it simply cannot be contained in any thought. In terms of Pramāṇavāda philosophy, concepts are defined by exclusion / elimination or, more precisely, by the mental exclusion / elimination of other; to explain this simply, they are what is left when all that is not themselves is excluded or set apart. Since the true condition of reality has no limits, it does not exclude anything and hence may not be defined or understood in terms of any content of thought. In conclusion, both ways of producing a difinition amount to the same. And if qua Base the Buddha-nature and the dharmakāya cannot be properly understood in terms of concepts or explained in terms of words, then Qua-Path and qua-Fruit Buddha-nature and dharmakāya are obviously a direct, nonconceptual and hence nondual, inexpressible realization: a condition in which the illusory limits introduced by concepts have dissolved. At any rate, in the symbolism of the vajra: (1) As noted above, the sphere at the center stands for the dharmakāya that in this context (is) the true condition of ourselves and the whole of reality. 412 d e The Commentary is Pema Tashi’s (Wylie, Pad ma bkra shis) Shes rig rdo rje rnon po’i rgyud kyi ’grel chung don gsal snying po. In Dudjom Lingpa (2015), pp. 39-138. The passage is in p. 88; my rendering of the passage differs from the one found in the book in question. Wylie, shes rig rdo rje rnon po’i rgyud. The Tib. rgyud renders the Skt. Tantra. For its part, the bestknown Chinese is ⺫次 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, mùcì; Wade-Giles, mu -tz’u ); the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism (López & Buswell, 2014) gives us 檀特羅 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tántèluó; Wade-Giles, t’an -t’e luo ). Tib. thig le nyag gcig. Skt. apoha; Tib. sel ba; 除 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chú; Wade-Giles, ch’u ) or 遮除 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēchú; Wade-Giles, che -ch’u ) Skt. anyāpoha; Tib. gzhan sel; Ch. seems to be 他感排除 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tā gǎn páichú; Wade-Giles, t’a -kan p’ai -ch’u ). a b 4 4 2 2 c d 2 1 2 e 1 3 2 2 269 4 (2) The five upper points stand: (a) for the saṃbhogakāya, which in this context is a visionary reality made of pure light of the five colors that represent the essences of the five elements, without the slightest trace of materiality or substantiality—the pure vision into which, on the Path of Transformation, our impure vision of reality as material and substantial is to be transformed—and (b) for the five facets of primordial gnosis into which, as will be shown below, the five coarse passions are to be transformed on this path. (3) The five lower points stand for: (a) the nirmāṇakāya which, in this particular context, represents our impure vision of the five elements as coarse and material and the whole of reality as material and substantial, and (b) the five basic passions that on this path must be transformed into the corresponding facets of primordial gnosis. However, the above meanings of the three kāyas are circumscribed to the context of this particular explanation of the Path of Transformation. In elucidating the Path of Spontaneous Liberation it will be shown that, on the Series of Pith Instructions of that path: (i) The term nirmāṇakāya may have a very different meaning and refer to the highest level of realization possible, when the practitioner becomes integrated with the physical reality, or when a body of light is achieved as a result of the practices of Thögel and the Yangti / Yangthik. (ii) The term saṃbhogakāya may refer to an intermediate realization on the Path, and though it also refers to a visionary reality made of pure light, without the slightest trace of materiality or substantiality, rather than this visionary reality appearing as the result of contrivedly transforming one’s vision, it spontaneously manifests in the intermediate state of the true condition of reality: that visionary reality is the saṃbhogakāya when the true condition of the visions of pure light is reGnized and the subjectobject duality instantly dissolves—which is the means whereby, in the practices of Thögäl and the Yangti / Yangthik, in which one gains access to this intermediate state while the body is still alive, saṃsāra is rapidly exhausted. And (iii) The term dharmakāya indicates the true condition of all that is mental, as it becomes apparent in the practice of Tekchö each time the true condition of thought is reGnized—thus being the initial level of realization. a b c d e f Skt. Upadeśavarga; Tib. Man ngag [gyi] sde. Wylie, thod rgal, which in Tibetan refers to going over a mountain pass to the other side of the mountain, and which gives its name to this practice because through it one can go very swiftly from one way of experiencing—namely that proper to saṃsāra—to a wholly different one—namely that of nonstatic nirvāṇa. Tib. rang snang. Skt. dharmatāntarābhava; Tib. chos nyid bar do; Ch. 法性中有 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎxìng zhōngyǒu; Wade-Giles, fa -hsing chung -yu ). Wylie, thod rgal, which in Tibetan refers to going over a mountain pass to the other side of the mountain, and which gives its name to this practice because through it one can go very swiftly from one way of experiencing—namely that proper to saṃsāra—to a wholly different one—namely that of nonstatic nirvāṇa. Wylie, yang ti or yang thig. a b c d 3 4 1 3 e f 270 The vehicles of this Path are classified, on the basis of the principles on which they are based, under two different headings: (1) One that in the Nyingmapa or Ancient School is called outer Tantras and in the Newer or Sarmapa schools is called lower Tantras, which refer to what is widely known as Path of Purification, and which comprise: (a) the Kriyātantra, (b) the Ubhayatantra (called Cāryatantra in the Newer or Sarmapa schools), and (c) the Yogatantra, and (2) Another one that in the Old or Nyingmapa School is called inner Tantras and that in the Newer or Sarmapa schools is called higher Tantras, which refer to what is known as Path of Transformation properly speaking, and which in the Nyingma tradition consist of three Tantric vehicles (of which in this section only the two lower ones will be discussed, as the third, the Atiyogatantra, will be studied in the discussion of the Path of Spontaneous Liberation)—whereas in the Sarmapa schools it consists in the Anuttarayogatantra (which is subdivided into father, mother and neutral Tantras). Note that some treatises list Yogatantra as pertaining to the Path of Transformation properly speaking; however, it actually combines elements of the Path of Purification with elements of that of Transformation, and as shown below, though this vehicle may be said to apply the method of transformation, it does not do so directly, like the Anuttarayogatantra of the Sarmapa or the Mahāyogatantra and the Anuyogatantra or the Nyingmapa. Well, the principle of the Path of Transformation in general—including the Path of Purification and that of Transformation properly speaking—may be said to lie in transforming our impure vision of the five elements as material and substantial into the essence of the five elements, which is colored light, so as to experience the universe as an immaterial palace, maṇḍala or Buddha-field, and the beings in it as male and female Buddhas and so on. For its part, that of the Path of Transformation properly speaking (i.e., that of the higher vehicles of this Path) includes the same principle, yet is not circumscribed to it, for beside requiring that impure vision be transformed into pure vision, it requires that the five coarse passions be transformed into the five facets of primordial gnosis. In fact, on the Path of Purification, a basic principle at work is that if we perceive beings as male and female Buddhas and the whole of the environment as a Buddha-field, this pure perception will avert the welling up of the passions: the latter well up in response to our perception of beings and things as material and substantial, and therefore if we perceive all beings and things as immaterial and insubstantial the coarse passions will not well up so easily or powerfully. Moreover, whatever a male or female Buddha does is known to be skillful means arising from primordial gnosis with the function of leading beings to Awakening, and hence if we perceive those humans we relate to as Buddhas, we cannot react to their actions with anger. Etc. a b c d e f Skt. yāna; Tib. theg pa; Ch. 乘 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shèng; Wade-Giles, sheng ) or 衍 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǎn; Wade-Giles, yen ). Tib. Bya rgyud [theg pa]. Tib. U pa’i rgyud [theg pa]. Tib. sPyod rgyud [theg pa]. Tib. rNal ’byor rgyud [theg pa]. Personal communication by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu. (Email sent on Sunday, April 6, 2003.) a 4 3 b c d e f 271 On the Path of Transformation properly speaking (the paradigmatic instance of which is the Path of Method of the inner Tantras), the transformation of the poison of the passions into the corresponding facets of primordial gnosis in order to attain the most precious aim a human being can seek, which is Buddhahood, is compared to the alchemic use of poisons in the elaboration of medicines (in particular, to the use of the mākṣika mercury [or other toxic metals and pyrites] in the preparation of rāsayana medicines)—which, as the teachings in question warn, always involves some risk. In the West, this simile has been replaced for that of the homeopathic use of the agents that induce the different syndromes for curing those syndromes, and that of manufacturing anti-snake serum from snake venom—the latter one being more precise, as extracting snake venom involves a considerable risk. Another traditional, most relevant simile for the principle of this Path is that of firewood and fire: the passions are compared to firewood and primordial gnoses are compared to fire—and it is noted that the greater the quantity of firewood, the greater the fire will be. In fact, the more the passions arise, the more energy and raw material one has for applying the method of transformation, and hence the faster will one obtain the Fruit. However, this will work only if we manage to transform the passions into the corresponding primordial wisdoms, for otherwise we will to no more than further develop the passions and thus increase our negative karma and make our saṃsāra heavier. Moreover, this could make us break our Tantric samaya and thus create karma for the worst rebirth possible (such as the one in the so-called vajra purgatory). Thus, it is easy to see why the examples of the use of mākṣika mercury in the preparation of medicines or of the anti-venom serum are used. South and Central Asian lore involves the belief that if a male peacock eats poisons, rather than suffering harm, its plumage will become brighter. Therefore, those with a successful practice of the Path of Transformation are also compared to male peacocks, while the passions are likened to poisons, and the development of the corresponding facets of primordial gnosis is represented with the brightening of a peacock’s plumage—for the more the passions arise and well up, provided that they are successfully transformed into the corresponding facets of primordial gnosis, the more the latter will develop. (The poisons may also represent alcohol, for on this path the latter, if properly used rather than abused, may help catalyze the development of primordial gnosis.) The principle that makes this path possible is that, as shown in terms of the example of the vajra, according to the Tantras the true nature of each of them is a facet of primordial gnosis, into which it should be transformed. These natures are described, from the standpoint of Dzogchen Atiyoga, in a Tantra revealed by Dudjom Lingpa: a b c d 413 e f Skt. upāyamārga; Tib. thabs lam. Skt. visa; Tib. dug. Skt. dhātu. Tib. bcud [kyi] len; Ch. 取味 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, qǔwèi; Wade-Giles, ch’ü -wei ). Tib. dam tshig; Ch. 三昧耶 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānmèiyé; Wade-Giles, san -mei -yeh ). The Awake Vision of Samantabhadra (etc.). Tib. Ka dag rdzogs pa chen po’i klong mdzod zab mo/ ma bcos rdzogs ldan rang byung gi sangs rgyas/ kun tu bzang po’i dgongs pa lag pa’i mthil du brkam nas lhag ger bstan pa/ dgongs brda snyan brgyud chig rdzogs kyi man ngag bka’ rgya ma. In Vol. 17 of Collected works of the emanated great treasures, the secret, profound treasures of Dudjom Lingpa a b c d 3 e 4 1 f 272 4 2 Oh son of the family, this very Base (is) said to be of the five facets of primordial gnosis. It is like this: The primordial gnosis of the absolute space of phenomena is so called because all phenomena are naturally present in all-pervasive absolute space, the essential nature of which is primordially empty. Mirror-like primordial gnosis is so called because the absolute nature is self-illuminated and free of obscuring veils. The primordial gnosis of equality is so called because all of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa is equal in the great purity and equality of the absolute space of phenomena. Discerning primordial gnosis is so called because unimpeded total primordial gnosis is fully aware of the inner glow. Allaccomplishing primordial gnosis refers to the thorough accomplishment of self-emergent purity and freedom. These are not established as being separate. Rather, they (are) merely conventional names attributed to the total, profound, luminous primordial gnosis that is manifest in the nature of the primordial Base, the sugatagarbha. They are not separate of different. The empty aspect of the Base's absolute space is indigo; its stainless aspect is white; its majestic, sublime qualities are yellow; its freedom from contamination by faults is red; and its perfect spontaneous rectification is merely named green. a b c d e f And also: g h (Thinpu, Bhutan: Kuenzang Wangdue). Translation in Dudjom Lingpa, Vol. I (2015); passage in p. 177. The terminology was adapted to the one used in this book. The term “primordial gnosis of the absolute space of phenomena” renders “Primordial gnosis of the dharmadhātu:” dharmadhātu[svabhāva]jñāna, dharmadhātu[prakṛti]jñāna, or dharmadhātujñāna; Tib. chos [kyi] dbyings [kyi] ye shes; Ch. 法界體性智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎjiè tǐxìngzhì; Wade-Giles, fa chieh t’i hsing chih ). (Also tathatājñāna, meaning primordial gnosis of thatness / thusness, where thatness / thusness renders the Skt. tathatā, the Tib. de bzhin nyid and the Ch. 眞如 [性] (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēnrú [xìng]; Wade-Giles, chen -ju [hsing ]). It is the non-conceptual and hence nondual primordial gnosis that is the universal substrate of the other four gnoses. Skt. ādarśajñāna or mahādarśajñāna; Tib. me long lta bu’i ye shes; Ch. ⼤圓鏡智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dàyuánjìng zhì; Wade-Giles, ta -yüan -ching chih ). Skt. samatājñāna; Tib. mnyan [pa] nyid [kyi] ye shes; Ch. 平等性智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, píngděng xìng zhì; Wade-Giles, p’ing -teng hsing chih ): primordial gnosis of sameness, which apprehends the common substratum of all phenomena (Skt. dharmas; Tib. chos; Ch. 法 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎ; WadeGiles, fa ; Jap. hō). Skt. pratyavekṣaṇajñāna; Tib. so sor [rtog pa’i] ye shes; Ch. 妙觀察智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, miào guānchá zhì; Wade-Giles, miao kuan -ch’a chih ): discriminating primordial gnosis revealing the specificity / uniqueness of each phenomenon (i.e. of each dharma: Tib. chos; Ch. 法 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎ; WadeGiles, fa ; Jap. hō). kṛtyanuṣṭhānajñāna; Tib. bya [ba] grub [pa’i] ye shes; Ch. 成所作智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chéng suǒzuò zhì; Wade-Giles, ch’eng so -tso chih ): primordial gnosis accomplishing activities, which “spontaneously and unobstructedly carries out all that has to be done for the welfare of beings, by manifesting in all directions.” Tib. ye gzhi. A synonym of tathāgatagarbha: Tib. de [bzhin] gshegs [pa’i] snying po; Chin. 如來藏 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, rúláizàng; Wade-Giles, ju -lai -tsang ). The Awake Vision of Samantabhadra (etc.). Tib. Ka dag rdzogs pa chen po’i klong mdzod zab mo/ ma bcos rdzogs ldan rang byung gi sangs rgyas/ kun tu bzang po’i dgongs pa lag pa’i mthil du brkam nas lhag ger bstan pa/ dgongs brda snyan brgyud chig rdzogs kyi man ngag bka’ rgya ma. In Vol. 17 of Collected works of the emanated great treasures, the secret, profound treasures of Dudjom Lingpa (Thinpu, Bhutan: Kuenzang Wangdue). Translation in Dudjom Lingpa, Vol. I (2015); passage in p. 185. The terminology was adapted to the one used in this book. a 3 4 3 4 4 1 2 4 b 4 2 4 4 c 2 3 4 4 3 d 4 1 2 4 3 e 2 3 4 4 f g 2 2 4 h 273 There are five obscurations that veil the inner glow of primordial gnosis: the unawareness [inherent in] the base-of-all veils the dharmakāya. The obscuration of afflictive mentation veils the inner glow of self-perfection’s [spontaneous rectification]. The obscuration of mentation veils wisdom. The obscuration of consciousness veils primordial gnosis. The obscuration of dualistic grasping veils the authentic Path. Due to the veiling effects of these obscurations, the five radiances that obscure primordial gnosis ... appear as the indigo radiance of the [primordial gnosis of the] absolute space of phenomena, the white radiance of mirror-like primordial gnosis, the yellow radiance of the primordial gnosis of equality, the red radiance of the discerning primordial gnosis, and the green radiance of the all-accomplishing primordial gnosis. The creative expression of the first is apparitional-imputational delusion; of the second, is aversion [and hatred]; of the third is pride; of the fourth, attachment; and of the fifth is envy. a b The above relationship between facets of primordial gnosis and colors is the same as in the Tantric system of Guhyasamājatantra, according to which the true nature of unawareness, ignorance and dullness is the primordial gnosis of the absolute space of phenomena or all-encompassing primordial gnosis; that of anger or ire is the mirror-like primordial gnosis; that of pride is the primordial gnosis of equality; that of desire is discerning primordial gnosis; and that of jealousy and envy is allaccomplishing primordial gnosis —an equivalence between passions, gnoses and c414 d e f g415 The term “primordial gnosis of the absolute space of phenomena” renders “Primordial gnosis of the dharmadhātu:” dharmadhātu[svabhāva]jñāna, dharmadhātu[prakṛti]jñāna, or dharmadhātujñāna; Tib. chos [kyi] dbyings [kyi] ye shes; Ch. 法界體性智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎjiè tǐxìngzhì; Wade-Giles, fa chieh t’i hsing chih ). It is the non-conceptual and hence nondual primordial gnosis that is the universal substrate of the other four gnoses. Skt. bhrānti; Tib. ’khrul pa; Ch. 亂 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, luàn; Wade-Giles, luan ): erroneous cognition. In Dharmakīrti the term refers to error (of taking an abstracted general pattern for a hypostatic particular). In Āryadeva it designates the error inherent in avidyā. In Dzogchen it refers to the fact that perceiving the phenomena of our own awareness as separate from and other than ourselves is a delusion (Tib. rang gi snang ba gzhan du bsungs nas ’khrul pa yod red): the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of subtle thoughts / universal, abstract concept of an entity [resulting from a mental synthesis] (Skt. arthasāmānya; Tib. don spyi; Ch. 總義 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngyì; Wade-Giles, tsung -i ]), in combination with the previously manifested reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of the super-subtle directional thought structure (Skt. trimaṇḍala; Tib.’khor gsum; Ch. 三輪 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānlùn; Wade-Giles, san -lun ], gives rise to the illusion of there being a selfexistent self and self-existent phenomena other than the self. Then one is under the power of the three types of delusion (Tib. ma rig pa gsum). The term “primordial gnosis of the absolute space of phenomena” renders the Tib. chos [kyi] dbyings [kyi] ye shes, which refers to the non-conceptual and hence nondual primordial gnosis that is the universal substrate of the other four gnoses. Skt. ādarśajñāna or mahādarśajñāna; Tib. me long lta bu’i ye shes; Ch. ⼤圓鏡智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dàyuánjìng zhì; Wade-Giles, ta -yüan -ching chih ). Skt. samatājñāna; Tib. mnyan [pa] nyid [kyi] ye shes; Ch. 平等性智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, píngděng xìng zhì; Wade-Giles, p’ing -teng hsing chih ): primordial gnosis of sameness, which apprehends the common substratum of all phenomena. Skt. pratyavekṣaṇajñāna; Tib. so sor [rtog pa’i] ye shes; Ch. 妙觀察智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, miào guānchá zhì; Wade-Giles, miao kuan -ch’a chih : discriminating primordial gnosis revealing the specificity / uniqueness of each phenomenon. kṛtyanuṣṭhānajñāna; Tib. bya [ba] grub [pa’i] ye shes; Ch. 成所作智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chéng suǒzuò zhì; Wade-Giles, ch’eng so -tso chih ): primordial gnosis accomplishing activities—“spontaneously and unobstructedly carrying out all that has to be done for the welfare of beings, by becoming operative a 3 4 3 4 4 b 4 3 4 1 4 c d 4 2 4 4 e 2 3 4 4 f 4 1 2 4 g 2 3 4 4 274 colors that, it is important to remark, is far from being universal, for some other Tantras and many terma systems have different systems of equivalences. At any rate, according to this system, it is because one feels vulnerable or panics before the panoramic space of awareness that one concentrates on a small section of totality while ignoring the rest, like a pig running toward food while ignoring everything else. It is due to feeling separate from the luminosity of the Base that one feels hurt by its shining forth and reacts to it with aversion, like a baby snake when approached in its nest or burrow. The subject-object duality implies acceptance and rejection, which for their part imply higher (as acceptance makes one ascend) and lower (as rejection makes one descend), and thus a drive to occupy a high position in order to derive a good feeling from it makes one disregard and ignore primordial equality in order to feel superior to that which at that point one perceives as other. It is because of discrimination that one feels attraction, cupidity and lust toward a human individual one find attractive but not toward the hosepipe, the grass or the grasshoppers in the yard. And when others occupy a high position and we occupy a low one, or when one fails to successfully, masterfully deal with life situations and communications, etc., one feels envy of those who do so and may be willing to resort to conspiracy and intrigue in order to take their place. Therefore, on the Tantric Path of Transformation we transform the passions into that which they originally were and against which one reacted due to the dualistic belief in subject and object, self and other-than-self, and the associated experience (whereas in Dzogchen Atiyoga, as will be shown in the respective section of this book, one simply reGnizes the original condition that one had fled into the corresponding passion). The above is possible because in each and every passion we can distinguish two or more moments: the initial one, in which it is “pure,” and one or more later ones, in which it becomes “impure.” Let us take as an example being abused with words or deeds and the anger that this may trigger. In the moment immediately following the aggression, the energy aroused results in greater clarity that evinces the true, nondual condition of awareness that is represented with a mirror and this makes thoughts dissolve. In the following moment, the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of the threefold directional thought structure and of subtle / intuitive thoughts makes us perceive the situation as external to us and as threatening, yet the intuitive and discursive thoughts that had been distracting us before the event are no longer there, and therefore we apprehend the situation with greater precision—and, if needed, we can better defend ourselves—while no new discursive thoughts arise. In the following moments, however, both intuitive and discursive thoughts arise once more, at this point expressing indignation against the aggressor, ideas of revenge and so on, which are charged with and supported by the energy aroused by the abuse—distracting us, obfuscating us and possibly driving us to strike back. By instantaneously visualizing ourselves (in the manner of the Anuyoga, which will be discussed below) as a wrathful deity the size of the whole universe, so that there is nothing external with regard to us, we can revert the passion to its first, a in all directions.” Pan-ic: “irrational” dread of totality (πάν, symbolized by the god Pan [Πάν]), for glimpsing totality implies glimpsing the insubstantiality of all potential parts. a 275 “pure” moment, so that the energy released by what otherwise might have led us to harm others and ourselves, may be used to keep the visualization present and thus obtain a powerful experience of clarity. This powerful experience is accompanied by a strong experience of sensation—the feeling tone that is stronger in the center of the chest at the level of the heart—and an experience of emptiness—the latter because one has a clear awareness that the deity and the whole of the experience is empty, and possibly because of an increased energetic volume determining the scope of awareness. In terms of the simile of the mirror for the nature or essence of mind and of reflections in the mirror for experiences, we must use these powerful reflections in order to discover the nature of the mirror, which cannot be known directly, as it is not a form that may appear as object, yet can be discovered through the reflections that appear in it: rather than directing one’s attention to the reflections, we look into that in which and whereby they appear. Or we simply look into what appears to be a separate, independent experiencer of the experience: the mental subject that arises due to the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of the threefold thought-structure, and which always appears indirectly and implicitly, as it cannot appear directly and explicitly (which is how objects appear to the subject). Because of the impossibility of perceiving nondual awareness as object, or of knowing the mental subject directly and explicitly as though it were an object, the attempt to carry out either of these actions is likely to short-circuit dualism, making it impossible for the latter to sustain itself and hence for the passion to well up (for all passions are attitudes of a subject toward an object and therefore without the subject-object duality they cannot be aroused)—which, for its part, may become the occasion for a spontaneous, uncaused reGnition of the nondual Awake awareness that is the nature of mind to occur. Should this happen while there is a sufficiently high energetic volume determining the scope of awareness, and immediately after a situation involving enough emotional intensity, and then reccur a number of times, it would endow us with certainty both as to the true condition of ourselves and all phenomena and as to the method whereby this initial realization occurred—and, by the same token, would neutralize delusory propensities, albeit to a very small extent. Then, a moment afterwards, dualism will arise again, but rather than having accumulated hellish karma, through our practice we would have neutralized to a small extent our karmic propensities for hellish experiences—or, in case the nature of mind had not been reGnized (for reGnition simply cannot be produced or contrived), at least we would not have accumulated any hellish karma. However, the paradigmatic type of practice in the perfection or completion stage of this path consists in the use of erotic arousal and pleasure—often including sexual union—as a skillful means or method for attaining the primordial gnosis of total pleasure and emptiness. In the Anuyoga the pleasure that is the basis of this gnosis is aroused through two alternative means, which are: (a) The one which works with the “upper doors,” in which great bliss or total pleasure is obtained by means of tummo practice: while maintaining a visualization a b c Skt. saṃpannakrama, niṣpannakrama or utpannakrama; Tib. rdzogs rim; Ch. 圓滿次第 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yuánmǎn cìdì; Wade-Giles, yüan -man tz’u -ti ). Skt. upāya; Tib. thabs; Ch. ⽅便 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fāngbiàn; Wade-Giles, fang -pien ). Wylie, gtum mo; Skt. caṇḍālī; Ch. 旃陀利 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhāntuólì; Wade-Giles, chan -t’o -li ). a 2 3 4 b 4 1 c 4 1 276 2 4 created through an instantaneous development stage, one inhales in a specific way and injects the air in the central channel, pressing the air from above and pulling it from below in the “vase retention,” and retaining it for as long as it is comfortable while visualizing that this vase works as a bellows, with the female energy igniting a fire in the navel cakra that generates actual heat, and this heat ascending through the “central channel” so as to “melt” the male ambrosia visualized in the form of a male syllable at the crown of the head—so that the molten ambrosia may descend successively through the cakras and channels, giving rise to progressive degrees of pleasure (a method that in most people will only work if they have mastered the Four Profound Applications of yantra yoga, comprising the prāṇāyāma designated as rhythmic breathing as a means to develop the capacity to retain their breath for a sufficient lapse, and the five yantras, which are: the Snake for open hold, the Curved or Crescent Knife for directed hold, the Purbhu Dagger for closed hold, the Dog for contracted hold, and the Spider for empty hold); and (b) The one that makes use of the “lower entrances,” in which both the heat and ensuing pleasure arise spontaneously as a result of erotic-mystic union with a suitable Tantric consort in practitioners that have learned to retain the seed-essence and happen to spontaneously receive the blessings that make this possible (which, by the way, happens in the same way as in the upper doors method: as a result of the heat, the ambrosia or nectar melts and descends successively through the cakras and channels, giving rise to the progressive degrees of pleasure). Both methods are often combined in the Inner Tantras of Transformation—as well as in Dzogchen, in which the practices based on pleasure and emptiness are secondary ones and in which the above combination of upper and lower doors is applyied in a particular way that will not be discussed here. At any rate, just like anger, erotic desire has successive moments: a first one, which is one of pure sensation, that is, one in which the sensation has not yet been perceived in terms of a concept—but that may be said to be based on discrimination because it is aroused by certain objects and not by others. At this point, there is not a b c d e f g h j i k l m Skt. utpattikrama; Tib. bskyed rim; Ch. ⽣起次第 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shēngqǐ cìdì; Wade-Giles, sheng ch’i tz’u -ti ). Tib. rlung bum can; Skt. kumbhaka. Skt. avadhūtī; Tib. [rtsa] dbu ma; Ch. 中脉 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhōngmài; Wade-Giles, chung -mai ). Skt. amṛta; Pāli amata; Tib. bdud rtsi (also ’chi med); Ch. ⽢露 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, gānlòu; Wade-Giles, kan -lou ). In the Tib. bdud rtsi, bdud refers to disease that harms or threatens life and strength, while rtsi in medical usage means antidote. Tib. Zab mo ’byor ba bzhi ldan. Tib. sBrul. Tib. Gri gug. Tib. Phur bu. Tib. Khyi. Tib. sDom. Cf. Chögyal Namkhai Norbu (2008, pp. 139-188). This is the method applied in the Dzogchen Community, which does not belong to the Path of Transformation, for it pertains to the yantra yoga of the translator Bairotsana—a secondary or auxiliary practice on the Path of Spontaneous Liberation. Skt. bindu; Tib. thig le—which in this case is the sexual bindu or thig le. It is a method for gaining access to the state of rigpa and thus being able to apply the main practice of Dzogchen Ati, which is that of remaining in rigpa. a 1 3 4 4 b c 1 d 1 4 e f g h i j k l m 277 4 yet any craving or any grasping. The next moment the sensation is perceived, in terms of supersubtle and subtle thoughts, as external to the mental subject and as pleasurable, and strong grasping arises. As soon as one gets used to the degree of sensation elicited and thus becomes indifferent to it, which makes it become neutral, the energy aroused by the experience is diverted to support thoughts of craving for ever increasing pleasure in the hope that it intensifies itself toward a peak at which one intuits that one could dissolve in total pleasure—yet normally this dissolution cannot be achieved, for one feels compelled to maintain oneself as a seemingly separate mental subject in order to continue to be the sentient being that enjoys the pleasure. If the method is properly applied and one receives the blessings, however, one can have the three powerful experiences, which are those of: (a) Sensation, which, whether obtained through the method of the upper doors, through that of the lower doors, or through the combination of both, depends on heat and develops in a sequence of increasing degrees of pleasure as the nectar or ambrosia successively reaches lower and lower cakras—this pleasure being, even in its initial degree, incomparably more intense and prolonged than any pleasure that people ordinarily experience—and therefore in this case the experience of sensation is incomparably more intense than in the above transformation of anger into mirror-like primordial gnosis. (b) Clarity, which consists in the vivid presence of the visualization. And (c) Emptiness, which in this case is not merely the awareness that the deity and the whole experience are empty that must pervade practices of visualization in general, for the experience of emptiness is greatly enhanced by the panoramic scope of awareness resulting from the increase of the energetic volume produced by erotic arousal with retention of the seed-essence. This is so because this panoramic scope makes it impossible for the practitioner’s mental functions to single out figures for cognition while leaving the rest of the sensory field in a “penumbra of attention”— which would be necessary for experiencing the singled-out figure as being in itself detached from the ground, and thus wronly experience it as existing substantially, independently, and in itself separate from the rest of the field. The coincident occurrence of these three very powerful and prolonged experiences may be employed in the way that was explained in the discussion of the transformation of anger—in this case with greater possibilities of reaching the intended result, as the experiences of pleasure and emptiness are likely to be far more powerful and prolonged. However, the danger inherent in this practice is far greater than in the case of anger, for it is much more difficult not to cling to pleasure than it is not to cling to the image of a deity—and in both cases clinging to the experience would make the practice fail and produce unintended, negative results. In Mahāyoga, there is also a method based on the upper doors, a method that is based on the lower doors, and a method based on the combination of the two, as means for realizing the primordial gnosis of the inseparability of pleasure and emptiness. However, in Mahāyoga the visualization is to be applied gradually and a b c 416 Skt. udgrahaṇa; Tib. ’dzin pa; Ch. 執持 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhíchí; Wade-Giles, chih -ch’ih ). Energetic volume determining the scope of awareness; Tib. thig le. This referent of term is similar to that of kuṇḍalinī in Hindu Tantra. I have explained this in detail in Capriles (2013abcd). a 2 b c 278 2 dissolved at the end, and a far greater emphasis is placed on the details of the visualization, among other things. Therefore, it can hardly be applied in those moments when situations of everyday life make the passions well-up, which is when it can be most useful—even though to apply it during fixed sessions of practice can also result in realization of the primordial gnosis in question. THE OUTER OR LOWER TANTRAS The outer or lower Tantras are practiced equally in all the schools of Tibet and its zone of cultural influence—in the Ancient or Nyingmapa School as much as in the Newer or Sarmapa schools. They (or practices with an analogous principle) are also applied in the Chinese Mìzōng School and in its Japanese offshoot, which, as shown above, is the Shingon School (note that, in Japan, Saichō inserted the practices of this tradition in the Tendai School, which originally was not Tantric). As remarked above, the three Tantras called outer in the Nyingma School or lower in the Sarma Schools— the first two of which constitute the Path of Purification, and the last of which somehow combines the Path of Purification with that of Transformation—are Kriyātantra, Ubhayatantra (called Cāryatantra in the Newer / Sarmapa schools), and Yogatantra. The basis of the Path of Purification is the realization that phenomena that appear on the relative level such as the five aggregates (material form, sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness), the twelve sense bases (the six outer constituents, which are the fields of the six senses wherein objects are singled out, and the six inner constituents, corresponding to the six sense organs), and the eighteen sense constituents (the just enumerated twelve sense bases, plus the six modes of sensory consciousness or “six consciousnesses”), are subject to being purified, and that the ultimate sphere, consisting in the naturally pure nature of mind, is the basis of the purification. One manifests an outwardly pure livelihood and a b c d e f g h i 417 j a b 密宗; Wade-Giles, Mi-tsung: cf. the section on the schools of China and the Far East. Ch. and Kanji 天台宗 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Tiāntái Zōng; Wade-Giles, T’ien -t’ai Tsung ; Jap. Romaji, 1 2 1 Tendai-shū). Tib. Kriyātantrayāna: Tib. Bya [ba’i] rgyud [kyi theg pa]. Tib. U pa’i rgyud [kyi theg pa]; Ubhayatantrayāna. Tib. sPyod rgyud [kyi theg pa]; Cāryatantrayāna. Tib. rNal ’byor rgyud [kyi theg pa]; Yogatantrayāna. Skt. skandha; Pāḷi khandha; Tib. phung po; Ch. 蘊 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yùn; Wade-Giles, yün ). Skt. āyatana; Tib. skye mched; Ch. 處 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chǔ; Wade-Giles, ch’u ). Twelve sense bases: Skt. dvādaśāyatana; Tib. skye mched bcu gnyis; Ch. ⼗⼆處 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shíèr chǔ; Wade-Giles, shih -erh ch’u ). Skt. dhātu; Tib khams; Ch. 界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jiè; Wade-Giles, chieh ). Eighteen dhātus: Skt. aṣṭadaśadhātu; Tib. khams bcu brgyad; Ch. ⼗⼋界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shíbā jiè; Wade-Giles, shih -pa chieh ). See Tibetan Text 22, f. 60, p. 34b 4. Quoted by sPrul sku Don grub, in Tulku Thöndup (1996 [1st ed. 1989], p. 15). c d e f g 4 h 3 2 4 3 i 4 2 4 j 279 1 applies as the Path the meditation on the thatness or suchness of deities, with whom one relates in one way or another according to the level of outer Tantra one is practicing. The superiority of the outer Tantras with regard to all forms of the Sūtrayāna Path of Renunciation, including the sudden Mahāyāna, is said to lie mainly in two facts: 1) The outer Tantras make very clearly the point that our true condition is what they call the Vajra-nature, which comprises the three kāyas of Buddhahood and that has always been actual. As noted repeatedly, in the Mahāyāna we find the concept of Buddha-nature in Tathāgatagarbhasūtras such as the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanāda and the Dhāraṇīrajā and in treatises such as the Ratnagotravibhāga or Uttaratantra, which is based on the just mentioned sūtras, and which, as already noted, Tibetans ascribe to Maitreya / Maitreyanātha and the Chinese to Sthiramati. However, as also noted repeatedly, not all the examples used to illustrate the Buddha-nature in those sūtras and in this treatise suggest that it is fully actual: whereas one of the examples is that of the sun that is always shining, even though sometimes it is covered by the clouds— thus making it clear that (i) the Buddha-nature does not arise and does not dissolve and hence it is not created by causes and conditions, and (ii) it (is) always actual even though it is often concealed by the adventitious obstacles which are the reified / hypostasized / absolutized / valorized contents of thought that in saṃsāra conceal it—others of the examples, like the one that compares the Buddha-nature with a seed and actual Buddhahood with a fruit, imply the Buddha-nature not to be actual Buddhahood, and imply the latter to arise from causes and conditions. The vajra, instead, as shown above is endowed with the seven vajra qualities, which are: invulnerability or uncuttability, indestructibility, true establishment (which as shown in a footnote does not signifly true existence), incorruptibility, stability, unobstructibility and invincibility. Therefore, the Vajra-nature represents an immutable, unalterable, stable condition that is utterly beyond causality and beyond the duality of potency and actuality. Therefore, it is self-evident that the conception of the Vajra-nature is superior to that of the Buddha-nature in the Mahāyāna sources under consideration. a b c d e f g j h i k Skt. tathatā; Tib. de bzhin nyid; Chin. 眞如 [性] (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēnrú [xìng]; Wade-Giles, chen -ju [hsing ]). A more frequent rendering of the same term: Skt. tathatā; Tib. de bzhin nyid; Chin. 眞如 [性] (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēnrú [xìng]; Wade-Giles, chen -ju [hsing ]). Tib. Gyü Lama (Wylie, rgyud bla ma). Tib. rdo rje’i chos bdun. Tib. mi chod pa. Tib. mi shigs pa. Tib. bden pa. This vajra quality does not imply an assertion of true existence, for the vajra condition is beyond the four extremes of existence, nonexistence, both and neither—and if is cannot be asserted to be existent far less could it be asserted to be truly existent. Hence the term “true establishment” means that what the term vajra refers to is not an entity of deluded relative truth, but the true condition of all phenomena, including ourselves. Tib. sra ba. Tib. brtan pa. Tib. thogs pa med pa. Tib. mi pham pa. a 1 4 b 1 2 4 c d e f g h i j k 280 2 2) In the outer Tantras the deity is the manifestation, on the relative plane, of the absolute nature of the dharmakāya beyond birth and cessation, and so the relative is the manifestation of the unconditioned nature and the very basis of the Path, rather than being merely an impure, conditioned vision to be overcome. Practice is thus based on the clarity aspect of nondual Awake awareness (i.e. on what the Dzogchen teachings and the inner Tantras in general call the spontaneous perfection aspect of the Base), which is not intentionally activated in the Sūtrayāna (in which clarity is something that may be or not be bestowed by the Buddhas in form of rays of light that Awaken the bodhisattva from an absorption, offering him or her the possibility to attain Buddhahood). Thus, it is stated that by means of the ordinary siddhis you do not renounce the relative, and that by means of the supreme siddhi you realize that the absolute is not something to achieve. a b Essence of the View of Kriyātantra c In the absolute sphere there is neither birth nor cessation. Recognizing this absolute in the relative form of the deity, on the relative plane practitioners meditate on it; therefore, as noted above, the relative is valuable rather than being viewed as an impure vision to overcome. Followers of this system assert that in it realization is achieved mainly by means of the combined power of ritual objects and requisites, together with primary and secondary factors of realization: the image of the deity, the symbol of the state of Awakened Mind, recitation of the mantra, the norms of cleanliness, and observance of the astrological calendar, with propitious days and constellations, etc. Thus it is said that the entrance gate is the three purities (purity of deity and maṇḍala, purity of ritual objects and substances, and purity of mantras and concentration), the ablutions and the norms of cleanliness; that the samaya involves reciting the mantra, not drinking the same water as those who break the samaya, and always behaving without distraction; that the ritual action consists in engaging in the three purities; that the view is based on the relationship between deity and practitioner as being respectively lord and subject; that the things to renounce are meat, fish, garlic and other specific vegetables that are used mainly as seasoning and that the Sāṃkhya and other Hindu systems regard as tamasic, and alcoholic beverages; and that there is attachment to the standard practice of concentration on the deity. There are two types of Kriyā: Kriyā that mainly applies purity, and Kriyā that mainly applies concentration. 418 Kriyā that Mainly Applies Purity Tib. lhun grub; Skt. nirābogha or anābogha. This 3d point reproduces a quotation of Tibetan Text 12 cited in Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal], 1999/2001, p. 165. This section is a summary of the corresponding section in Namkhai Norbu (1999/2001, pp. 163-166), which contains quotations from Tibetan Text 6, p. 19, 6; from Tibetan Text 5, p. 515, 5; and from Tibetan Text 12, p. 130, 5. In general, material has been taken from all these texts in the elaboration of this section. a b c 281 Starting with the performance of ritual ablutions three times a day and other norms of cleanliness, and consuming the three white substances and three sweet substances, practitioners meditate on their own body as the form of the deity. The superiority of this system over the lower vehicles lies in the fact that everything that appears on the relative plane, without being deemed true, is brought into the Path by means of the three concentrations, which are: (a) Concentration on the state of Body as the form of deity: All phenomena of form are recognized as the deity of form: without renouncing form, practitioners no longer remain within the conceptual consideration of the limits of unity and multiplicity. (b) Concentration on the state of Voice as seed syllable: All audible phenomena are recognized as the deity of sound, and so all sounds become the recitation of mantra. No longer within the conceptual limits of arising and ceasing, each and every sound is heard as the sound of the deity. (c) Concentration on the state of Mind as symbolic attribute: All thinking and all thoughts are recognized as being the meditation deity, and hence thoughts do not deviate from meditative stability; it is said that nonetheless the practitioner does not remain within the limits of the dependently arisen, ordinary relative condition, for nothing arisen, originated, constructed, contrived, intentional, conditioned, made or compounded exists even in the relative sphere. Regarding the yidam wisdom deity as lord, with awareness that it is the manifestation of the absolute plane, and the practitioner as servant in the form of the promise deity, it is said that interruptions abate and siddhis are obtained. The ordinary siddhis imply that the practitioner does not renounce the relative, and the supreme siddhi consists in understanding that the absolute is not something to achieve a b c d Kriyā that Mainly Relies on Concentration By means of the stage of generation or creation and the subtle stage of completion or perfection, the practitioner meditates on the deity visualizing the radiation and reabsorption of light rays. Thus, he or she comes to concentrate on forms, sounds and thoughts as the Body, Voice and Mind of the deity. e f g The Dzogchen View of Kriyā Tib. dkar gsum: yoghurt, milk and butter. Namkhai Norbu (1999/2001, note 139). Tib. mngar gsum: sugar, molasses and honey. Namkhai Norbu (1999/2001, note 140). Skt. jñānasattva; Tib. ye shes pa or ye shes sems dpa’; Ch. 智慧薩埵 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhìhuì sàduǒ; Wade-Giles, chih -hui sa -to ). Skt. samayasattva; Tib. dam tshig pa or dam thsig sems dpa’; Ch. 三昧耶薩埵 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānmèiyé sàduǒ; Wade-Giles, san -mei -yeh sa -to ). Skt. utpattikrama; Tib. bskyed rim; Ch. ⽣起次第 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shēngqǐ cìdì; Wade-Giles, sheng ch’i tz’u -ti ). Skt. saṃpannakrama, niṣpannakrama or utpannakrama; Tib. rdzogs rim; Ch. 圓滿次第 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yuánmǎn cìdì; Wade-Giles, yüan -man tz’u -ti ). Tib. ’phro ’du; also ’phro ’dus and ’phro bsdus. a b c 4 4 4 3 d 1 4 2 4 3 e 1 3 4 4 f 2 3 4 g 282 4 With regard to the Kriyātantrayāna, the Kunje Gyälpo reads: a Followers of Kriyātantra, intending to attain the state of Vajradhāra, enter through the doors of the three purities, and remain with the consideration of a pure subject and a pure object. [Conversely,] the total bliss of Atiyoga is the pure and total Awake awareness free from [the duality of] apprehended and apprehender. That which transcends subject and object is hindered by Kriyā: conceiving total completeness / plenitude and perfection in terms of subject and object amounts to falling into the misleading deviation of Kriyā practitioners. Essence of the View of Ubhaya / Cārya Tantra b In the absolute sphere there is neither birth nor cessation. Recognizing this absolute in the form of the deity, on the relative plane practitioners meditate on it, and so the relative has value and is recognized to be the non-arisen, unconditioned, uncreated, uncontrived, umpompounded true condition rather than being an impure vision to overcome. Practitioners of this system assert that in this way realization is achieved, by virtue both of the concentration based on the “four characteristic conditions” and of the conjoined power of the ritual objects and requisites together with primary and secondary factors of realization (as explained in the section on Kriyā) and so on. Because the Ubhaya or “vehicle of the Tantra of both (Kriyā and Yoga)” applies the behavior of Kriyā and has the same view as Yogatantra, it is called “the neutral vehicle.” While practitioners of Kriyā see the relationship between deity and practitioner as being like the one that obtains between lord and subject, and practitioners of Yoga must recognize the deity as being the nature or essence of their own mind, practitioners of Ubhaya see the deity as an elder brother or an elder dharma friend. After having purified body, voice and mind by means of ablutions and the norms of cleanliness, by visualizing the five factors of realization and so on its adherents practice the sādhana of the Supreme Maṇḍala, etc. In conclusion, the means of realization in Ubhaya are: (a) The five factors of realization that will be explained in the section on Yogatantra. (b) The concentration that has four characteristic conditions, which are: visualizing oneself in the form of the deity; the deity in front of oneself; the syllables of the mantra residing in one’s heart and in the deity’s heart symbolizing inseparability; and recitation of the mantra. (c) The ritual objects and requisites and the power of the primary and secondary c 419 Namkhai Norbu and Clemente (English 1999, p. 179). See also Dudjom Rinpoche (English 1991, vol. I, p. 296); sPrul sku Don grub, in Tulku Thöndup (1996, 1st ed. 1989, pp. 95-96). I have modified the terminology in order to make it agree with the one used throughout this book. This section is a summary of the corresponding section in Namkhai Norbu (1999/2001, pp. 166-167). The section contains quotations from Tibetan Text 6, p. 19, 7; from Tibetan Text 5, p. 516, 4; and from Tibetan Text 12, p. 132, 4. Material has been taken from all these texts in the preparation of this section. Pāḷi asaṅkhata; Skt. asaṃskṛta; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu wei ). a b c 2 2 283 factors. Practitioners of this system assert that all of this enables realization of the absolute state beyond birth and cessation. The Dzogchen View of Ubhaya With regard to the Ubhayatantrayāna, the Kunje Gyälpo reads: a Followers of Ubhaya[tantra] base their conduct on the principle of Kriyā[tantra] and their view and practice on the principle of Yoga[tantra]; [since this prevents them from] integrating view and behavior, they cannot grasp the meaning of nonduality. The total bliss of Atiyoga is pure and total nondual awareness. That which is nondual is hindered by Ubhaya: conceiving total completeness / plenitude and perfection in dualistic terms amounts to falling into the misleading deviation of the followers of Ubhaya. Essence of the View of Yogatantra b According to this highest outer Tantric vehicle of the view and conduct of self-control (as distinct from the inner Tantric vehicles of the view of method), without ascribing fundamental importance to external ritual exercises, practitioners meditate on the male and female deities that represent the absolute, unconditioned, unfabricated, uncontrived, uncompounded state beyond birth and cessation, and practice concentration aimed at making their own state as totally pure as that of the deities. In fact, the name of this vehicle, which in Tibetan is Naljor, as stated in a previous section with regard to Atiyoga, is to be understood in terms of the etymology of the Tibetan term, which is “[direct realization of our] original, unmodified condition.” This is so because in this vehicle the aim is to discover that one’s own mind is the deity—or, in other words, that one’s own mind is in truth the unconditioned and utterly pure nondual Awake awareness called nature-of-mind, which (is) the absolute condition and which in the practices of this vehicle manifests as the deity. In fact, as noted above, this is the sense of vajra in the term Vajrayāna, as applied when it refers to the Paths of purification and transformation. Practitioners of this system assert that realization is thus achieved mainly through the yoga in which one meditates on the four mudras of the forms of the realized ones. The entrance gate consists in the five factors of realization; the View involves the initial view of the deity and oneself as being like friends or brothers and 420 c d e f Namkhai Norbu and Clemente (English 1999, p. 179). See also Dudjom Rinpoche (English 1991, vol. I, pp. 296); Alternative translation by sPrul sku Don grub, in Tulku Thöndup (1996, 1st ed. 1989, p. 96). I have modified the terminology in order to make it agree with the one used throughout this book. This section is a summary of the corresponding section in Namkhai Norbu (1999/2001, pp. 166-167). The section contains quotations from Tibetan Text 6, p. 20, 1; from Tibetan Text 5, p. 516, 6; and from Tibetan Text 12, p. 133,1. Material has been taken from all these texts in the elaboration of this section. Wylie, rnal ’byor. rnal ma means original, unmodified condition (of something), whereas ’byor ba means “to possess.” Skt. cittatā or citta eva; Tib. sems nyid. This reference to the meaning of the term vajra as used on the Paths in question was incorporated from a personal communication by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu (email received on April 6, 2003). a b c d e f 284 the final recognition that one’s own mind is the deity; the samaya to observe includes the three objects concerning which one must not fail (not failing the Yidam, not failing one’s teacher and spiritual companions, and not failing one’s own mind); and the conduct is supposed to transcend acceptance and rejection—even though in the practices of this vehicle one does not at all engage physically in behaviors that in the Path of Renunciation are regarded as “impure.” Since conduct is supposed to transcend acceptance and rejection, and since objects of visualization include deities in yab-yum that arouse passion and at the same time provide means for transforming it, this vehicle is not circumscribed to the Path of Purification, but contains elements of the Path of Transformation as well. However, as shown by the fact that yab-yum is visualized rather than applied physically, this vehicle does not apply the methods of transformation directly. This system can be subdivided into: the system that mainly applies action, and the system that mainly applies meditation. a The System that Mainly Applies Action Here one performs the ritual actions (1) of Supreme Action or (2) of the Supreme Maṇḍala. (1) Is subdivided into: (a) minor action, in which realization is sought by means of one of the ritual practices and which thus involves assiduous worship through offerings, tormas, fire rites, recitation of the essential mantra and so on; and (b) supreme action, in which these rituals are practiced as secondary factors for realization of the maṇḍala (e.g. performing torma and fire rites five or six times is deemed to enable obtainment of the realization sought). (2) Practitioners of the Supreme Maṇḍala maintain that by means of rituals encompassing all that is applied from the earth consecration rite as the base of the maṇḍala up to receiving the initiation, the individual can attain Awakening. 421 The System that Mainly Applies Concentration Here, after having carried out the initial meditation of preparation and then the meditation of total purity, whether one meditates on a deity or a maṇḍala, it is necessary to develop the visualization by means of the five factors of realization, which are: (1) The factor of realization of method and prajñā by means of the sun and moon seat that derives from meditation on the sun and moon one on the top of the other on a lotus seat; (2) the factor of realization of the purity of the sense bases by means of the form of the Body complete with ornaments; (3) the factor of realization of the sounds, words and names by means of the cakra of vowels and consonants of the Voice; (4) the factor of realization in the dimension of one’s specific Buddha family by means of the symbolic attributes of the mind such as the vajra, the wheel, the jewel and so on; (5) the factor of realization of the purity of the ultimate nature of phenomena by means of the pure deity of primordial gnosis or jñānasattva. b 422 Wylie yid dam (probably a contraction of yid kyi dam tshig: samaya of mind or non-Jungian archetypal forms [with which] samaya [is kept]); Skt. devatā or, more precisely, iṣṭadevatā (where iṣṭa means “cherished” or “revered”). Skt. āli-kāli. a b 285 Practitioners of this system claim that by meditating on the above five, on the outer level the five aggregates and five elements are purified, on the inner level karma and the five emotions are purified, and on the secret level the five objects and five senses are purified—and that thereby one realizes the state of Awakening of the five Families. Meditating on the Yidam and oneself as two siblings or friends and having as the aim of the practice the recognition that one’s own mind is the deity, one learns not to expect anything from the deity because the siddhis issue from oneself, and not to expect anything bad from oneself as one’s own mind possesses the nature of the deity and the capacity for the manifestation of the latter’s illusory body. Acknowledging the nonduality between the deity to visualize and oneself, not even the names of relative and absolute any longer exist. These are the reasons for the superiority of this system over the lower vehicles. Engaging in these practices and in the meditation on the four symbols, which are the commitment symbol, the dharma symbol, the action symbol, and the total symbol, it is possible, according to the view of this system, to achieve the supreme state of the absolute beyond birth and cessation. Concerning the four mudras, it must be noted that the aspect of the Body is the total symbol, the aspect of the Voice is the dharma symbol, the aspect of the Mind is the commitment symbol, and the accomplishment of the actions of radiation and reabsorption etc. is the action symbol. By means of these, the true, unconditioned, unfabricated, unborn, uncontrived, uncompounded true nature of one’s own three doors (body, speech and mind) is supposed to be realized as these are meditated upon as the essence of the deity’s Body, Voice, Mind and Activities. Note that with regard to the mahāmudrā, Rongzompa remarks that it is the characteristic symbol of the Body and that it is called “great” because it serves greatly as the cause for remembering the deity and having its presence, and says that according to others it is called “great” because it represents a b c d e Skt. catu[ḥ]mudra; Tib. phyag rgya bzhi of Yogatantra and the inner tantras (as different from the caturmudra (Tib. phyag rgya bzhi) of general Buddhism, which are the “four distinctive signs of the Buddhist teachings.” Skt. samayamudrā; Tib. dam tshig gi phyag rgya; Ch. 三摩耶印 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānmóyé yìn; WadeGiles, san -mo -yeh yin ). Note that the Chinese translation renders the Tib. phyag rgya and Skt. mudra as seal rather than symbol, which according to Chögyal Namkhai Norbu is the correct sense of the Tibetan term. Skt. dharmamudrā; Tib. chos kyi phyag rgya; Ch. 法印 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎyìn; Wade-Giles, fa -yin ). Note that the Chinese translation renders the Tib. phyag rgya and Skt. mudra as seal rather than symbol, which according to Chögyal Namkhai Norbu is the correct sense of the Tibetan term. Skt. karmamudrā; Tib. las kyi phyag rgya; Ch. 事業⼿印 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shìyèshǒu yìn; Wade-Giles, shih -yeh -shou yin ). Note that the Chinese translation renders the Tib. phyag rgya and Skt. mudra as seal rather than symbol, which according to Chögyal Namkhai Norbu is the correct sense of the Tibetan term. Skt. mahāmudrā; Tib. phyag rgya chen po; Ch. ⼤印 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dàyìn; Wade-Giles, ta -yin ) / ⼤ ⼿印 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dàshǒuyìn; Wade-Giles ta -shou yin ). Lit, great symbol, in the context of the inner Tantras Chögyal Namkhai Norbu renders it as total symbol because it is a condition wherein all is symbol, for there is no real, discrete, or self-existent referent. Even though here we are dealing with an outer Tantra, I kept Ch.N.N.’s terminology in order to avoid confusion. Note that the Chinese translation renders the Tib. phyag rgya and Skt. mudra as seal rather than symbol, which according to Chögyal Namkhai Norbu is the correct sense of the Tibetan term. a b 1 2 2 4 c 3 4 d 4 4 3 4 e 4 4 286 3 4 4 the base of the other mudrās; however, Chögyal Namkhai Norbu notes that in the case of the realization of the Inner Tantras, the prefix mahā has the sense of “total,” because “great” is a relative term—it can be greater or less great—whereas total is an absolute sense, and that mahāmudrā is the condition in which all is symbol, so that there is nothing concrete to which symbols point. This will be discussed on the relevant sections of this book. a A Dzogchen Note Concerning Yogatantra With regard to the Yogatantrayāna, the Kunje Gyälpo reads: b Followers of Yoga[tantra], aspiring to the Beautifully Arrayed [pure land], And having undertaken [the trainings] with and without characteristics mainly practice [in terms of] the four mudras. [Consequently] they cannot apply the principle “beyond acceptance and rejection.” [Conversely,] the total bliss of Atiyoga is pure and total Awake awareness beyond acceptance and rejection. The state [that becomes evident when one is] beyond acceptance and rejection is hindered by Yoga[tantra]: [incurring in] acceptance and rejection with regard to total completeness / plenitude and perfection amounts to falling into the misleading deviation of the followers of Yoga[tantra]. THE INNER OR HIGHER TANTRAS Finally, the Nyingmapas refer to two the highest categories of Tantras of the Path of Transformation in a broad sense, which make up the Path of Transformation in the narrow, proper sense of the term, by the label “inner Tantras,” whereas the Sarmapas call them “higher Tantras.” After their eradication from what nowadays are Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan and the Hindustan as a whole (India and Pakistan, including Oḍḍiyāna)—a process that in India culminated in the early second millennium CE—the Tantras of this category continued to be transmitted solely within the schools established in Tibet and its zone of cultural influence: according to most scholars, they are supposed not to be part of the lore of the Mìzōng (i.e. the Chinese Mì School) and/or its Japanese offshoot, the Shingon School. It is in this category that the differences between the Newer or Sarmapa system and the Ancient or Nyingmapa system are most significant. To begin with, the Sarmapas have a single category of what they call higher Tantra, which is Anuttarayogatantra, whereas the Nyingmapas have three categories of what they call inner Tantra, the lower two of which—namely the Mahāyogatantra and the Anuyogatantra—make up the Nyingma Path of Transformation properly speaking. 423 c d Tibetan Text 4, p. 239, 6; cited in Namkhai Norbu (1999/2001, p. 170). Namkhai Norbu and Clemente (English 1999, p. 179). See also Dudjom Rinpoche (English 1991, vol. I, p. 296); sPrul sku Don grub, in Tulku Thöndup (1996, 1st ed. 1989, p. 96). I have modified the terminology in order to make it agree with the one used throughout this book. 密宗; Wade-Giles, Mi -tsung . 真⾔宗: Shingon-shū. Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Zhēnyánzōng; Wade-Giles, Chen -yan Tsung . a b c 4 1 d 1 287 2 1 Of these, only Mahāyoga may be said to somewhat and somehow correspond to the Anuttarayoga—the terms somewhat and somehow being used to emphasize the fact that this correspondence is loose and far from being precise. The Anuyogatantra is decidedly “higher” than both the Mahāyogatantras and the Anuttarayogatantras, both because it emphasises the principle of spontaneous perfection (for example, the transformation practiced in this vehicle is instantaneous rather than gradual) and because it emphasizes the stage of completion / perfection, which is the one that in these vehicles may lead to realization. Other reasons for its superiority will be discussed below. Finally, the Atiyogatantra is not based on the principle of transformation and therefore our sources do not classify it as belonging to the Path of Transformation of the Vajrayāna: they regard it as a path in its own right, which is none other than the Path of Spontaneous Liberation that will be considered in the next chapter (and, more thoroughly, in the second tome of this book—and the third should I finally compile it and publish it)—which is the Path that makes the most skillful and thorough use possible of the spontaneous perfection / actualization / rectification / accomplishment aspect of the Base. a The Higher Tantra of the Sarmapa: Anuttarayogatantra b Among others, the Anuttarayogatantra of the Sarmapa and Mahāyogatantra of the Nyingmapa share the following characteristics: (1) in both vehicles, there is a “Path of Liberation” and a “Path of Method,” the latter of which comprises (a) a creation or generation stage in which one generates the visualization of oneself as the deity and of one’s dimension as the maṇḍala of the deity, training to perceive the totality of phenomenal existence as the maṇḍala in question, and (b) a perfection / completion stage in which one contemplates total bliss indivisible from emptiness; and (2) in both vehicles, the transformation whereby, on the Path of Method, one visualizes oneself as a deity, is practiced in a gradual manner and dissolved at the end of the practice. In the generation stage, after inducing a state of undifferentiated, artificial emptiness on pronouncing the svabhāvamantra, from that emptiness one gradually builds up the visualization, and as one works with the latter the emphasis is on the inseparability of clarity (which in these vehicles consists in the visualization) and c424 d425 e f Skt. saṃpannakrama, niṣpannakrama or utpannakrama; Tib. rdzogs rim; Ch. 圓滿次第 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yuánmǎn cìdì; Wade-Giles, yüan -man tz’u -ti ). Though in this section I expound the Anuttarayogatantras in my own way, in it I have included a considerable quantity of material from both the section on the Anuttarayogatantras and the section on the difference between the three classes of Anuttarayogatantras in Namkhai Norbu (1999/2001, pp. 171-174). In Mahāyoga, grol lam; in Anuttarayoga, thar lam: I use the same English words because grol ba and thar pa are synonyms. Tib. thabs lam; the term is used equally in Mahāyoga and Anuttarayoga. Skt. utpattikrama; Tib. bskyed rim; Ch. ⽣起次第 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shēngqǐ cìdì; Wade-Giles, sheng ch’i tz’u -ti ). Skt. saṃpannakrama, niṣpannakrama or utpannakrama; Tib. rdzogs rim; Ch. 圓滿次第 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yuánmǎn cìdì; Wade-Giles, yüan -man tz’u -ti ). a 2 3 4 4 b c d e 1 3 4 4 f 2 3 4 288 4 emptiness (the deity and the rest of the elements of the transformation are to be visualized as being intangible, like a rainbow, and as lacking an independent selfnature). According to the practitioners of this system, in the perfection / completion stage, by means of specific practices one gains access to the primordial gnosis of total pleasure or primordial gnosis of absolute bliss indivisible from emptiness. This is achieved by means of two alternative trainings, which were briefly discussed above: (a) the one that works with the “upper doors,” in which total bliss indivisible from emptiness is obtained by means of practices of tsa-lung-thigle associated with yantra yoga that generate heat in the navel cakra, which ascends through the “central channel” and “melts” the amrita or ambrosia that is visualized at the crown of the head, so that the molten amrita may descend successively through the cakras and channels, giving rise to progressive degrees of pleasure, and (b) the one that makes use of the “lower entrances,” in which heat and the ensuing total bliss arise spontaneously as a result of erotic-mystic union with the Tantric consort. In both cases, however, total bliss or pleasure is achieved depending on the generation of heat, and will not occur without the latter. Beside inducing, in one of the ways discussed in the preceding paragraph, a powerful experience of pleasure, the practices of the completion / perfection stage significantly heighten the energetic volume determining the scope of awareness —or, in the terminology that preponderated in Hinduism, they awaken the kuṇḍalinī. For its part, this widens the focus of attention, as it makes it more panoramic and permeable—which facilitates an experiential, albeit conceptual and as such relative realization of the emptiness and insubstantiality of all entities—which, however, is to be used as the basis for the reGnition of the true condition of ourselves, all sentient beings and all phenomena other than sentient beings. At any rate, it makes the bliss arise indivisibly from the experience of emptiness. Moreover, since in the creation / generation stage one had obtained an experience of clarity by visualizing oneself as a deity and the universe as the deity’s dimension, and since this visualization is maintained while applying practices of the completion / perfection stage, and hence the experience of clarity continues to be apparent (and due to the increase of the energetic volume it might even turn into a self-luminous vision), those three experiences will occur coincidently and thus can be skillfully used as powerful reflections in a mirror for discovering the latter’s true condition. Moreover, since the flow of total pleasure / bliss is experienced from the perspective of panoramic awareness as space-like, it becomes difficult to confine it into limits and therefore to localize it and objectify it—which reputedly makes it possible for one to realize the true meaning of the absence of characteristics equal to 426 a b c d Wylie, rtsa / rlung / thig le: “structural pathways,” “circulating energy” and “energy potential” (also meaning in this context “energetic volume determining the scope of awareness”). Tib. ’khrul ’khor, which literally corresponds to the Skt. adhisāra and refers to something that is set in motion—like, for example, an engine. Tib. thig le. The concept expressed by the Sanskrit kuṇḍalinī is intimately related to that expressed by the Tibetan term thig le—yet this Tibetan term, rather than rendering the Skt. kuṇḍalinī, renders the Skt. bindu. a b c d 289 space, and thus to achieve the final goal of this vehicle. In fact, the ungraspability of the flow of bliss in a panoramic perspective—or at least with a permeable focus of attention—together with the prescribed questioning of this and the other powerful experiences obtained in this stage, makes it possible for the delusion called avidyā, with its inherent illusion of self-existence / substantiality, to spontaneously dissolve in the nondual primordial gnosis that reveals the true, unconditioned and unmade condition of our selves and of the entire universe. Moreover, according to followers of this vehicle, total pleasure will assuage the vibratory activity at the root of the hypostatization / absolutization / reification / valorization of the contents of thought that gives rise to the illusion of hypostatic / inherent existence and to craving, thereby assuaging the latter two as well. In the inner or higher Tantras in general there is even more emphasis than in the Mahāyāna, on the key role that the indivisibility of (1) method or skillful means and (2) prajñā plays on the Path. However, in this context the term prajñā has a wider sense than in the Mahāyāna, as it also has the implied meaning of “energy.” The pair consisting of method and prajñā is the basis of a most essential taxonomy of the Anuttarayogatantras of the Sarmapa schools: the one that divides them into father Tantras, mother Tantras and nondual Tantras. In fact, the Nyingma criterion for telling whether we are dealing with a father Tantra or a mother Tantra is whether method or prajñā are predominant in it, and that for telling whether the Tantra is nondual is that method and prajñā are balanced: if method preponderates, we are dealing with a father Tantra; if prajñā has the upper hand, we are dealing with a mother Tantra; if neither preponderates, we are dealing with a nondual Tantra. In Summary of the Wish-fulfilling Treasury Ju Mipham states: a b c d e f g h As antidote to the poisons of the three emotions and in conformity with the capacities of individuals etc. the Tantras are subdivided into father, mother and nondual. The father Tantras of [Anuttarā]yoga are those Tantras which [place a greater] emphasis [on] the creation stage or kyerim [than on the completion / perfection stage or dzogrim, stressing] the sundry ritual actions linked to it in connection with secondary practices; [which teach the practice of] the Illusory Wisdom Body in relation to [the aspects of] vision [and] method; [which teach that] the completion stage or dzogrim [is to be practiced] in relation to prāṇa, and [which teach] ‘direct action’ [as the specific action]. They have been transmitted mainly for individuals of irascible character and who love elaborate external activities (i.e. for individuals of lower capacity [among those with the capacity to practice higher Tantra]). 427 i 428 These lines on the flow of bliss combine short extracts from various quotations incorporated to Namkhai Norbu (1999/2001, pp. 210-212), with oral teachings the same Master has offered in retreats, and elements of my own experience. Pāḷi, taṇhā; Skt. tṛṣṇā; Tib. sred pa; Ch. 愛 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, nài; Wade-Giles, nai ). Skt. upāya; Tib. thabs; Ch. ⽅便 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fāngbiàn; Wade-Giles, fang -pien ). Tib. shes rab; Ch. 般若 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bōrě; Wade-Giles, po -je ). Tib. pha rgyud. Tib. ma rgyud. Tib. gnyis med kyi rgyud. Tibetan text 20, p. 992, 2. Cited in Namkhai Norbu (1999/2001, pp. 172-173). Or prāṇavāyu; Pāḷi, pāṇa; Tib. rlung. a b 4 c 1 d 1 e f g h i 290 3 4 The mother Tantras of [Anuttarā]yoga are those Tantras which place greater emphasis on the dzogrim [or completion / perfection] stage than on the kyerim [or creation / generation stage]; [which favor] the aspect of prajñā and of emptiness [over] that of method; [which teach] the yoga of the Clear Light as the means of realization; [which] with regard to the Path of Method [stress the] experiences of pleasure [to be obtained] by means of [the secret instructions on] melting and reabsorbing the seedessence; and [which teach] ‘conquest’ as the specific action. These have been transmitted mainly for those [individuals] of a passionate nature who are able to practice the specific methods [that are to be] applied within their own bodies—that is, [for] individuals of medium capacity. Finally, the nondual Tantras are those Tantras in which there is balance between the aspects of method and prajñā, as well as between the kyerim and dzogrim stages (i.e., between the stage of generation / creation and that of completion / perfection), and, above all, which consider that our [own natural] state of rigpa-bodhicitta, the single sphere of total wisdom of purity and equality, is the ultimate nature of all phenomena. They are intended for individuals dominated by ignorance and endowed with the higher capacity to apply the principle of freedom from effort. 429 430 431 432 Thus in father Tantras the generation or creation stage predominates over the stage of completion or perfection, and correspondingly clarity is emphasized over pleasure, so that no details of the visualization must be neglected; in the completion stage—some crucial practices of which, in this particular vehicle, are said to be impracticable for women—practice is mainly concerned with prāṇa, and in addition the yoga of the illusory body is applied, which consists in imagining (with the help of a brass mirror and a candle) that one’s own body is intangible, like a ghost or a reflection. Conversely, in mother Tantras the completion stage preponderates and there is no need to emphasize the details of the visualization to the same degree as in the father Tantras, for in that stage sensation / feeling is more central than clarity, and this does not only apply to the pleasure that must arise, but also to the visualization, in which the feeling of being the deity is more important than the details of the visualization. In these Tantras, the completion stage is mainly concerned with the seed-essence and kuṇḍalinī —which naturally go together, for retention of the seedessence may help raise the energetic volume determining the scope of awareness and hence the kuṇḍalinī (note that the Tibetan name that I am rendering as energetic volume determining the scope of awareness is the same one I am rendering as seedessence —the masculine manifestation of which, in the form of bindu, is to be melted and reabsorbed in order to obtain the experiences of pleasure). And, in addition, one must apply the practice of clear light, which consists in remaining in limitless and formless luminosity. While the method aspect predominates in father Tantras and the wisdom aspect does so in mother Tantras, in nondual Tantras these two aspects are balanced. As Chögyal Namkhai Norbu points out, in the Kālacakratantra and the realization ensuing from its practice, there is no preponderance of either the method aspect or the a b 433 c a b c Skt. bindu; Tib. thig le. The meaning of this term is intimately related to that of the Tibetan term thig le. Namkhai Norbu (1988). 291 prajñā aspect, and therefore this realization is called “the level of realization of the neutral condition of Vajrasattva,” and that Tantra is praised as the king of all the different kinds of Anuttarayogatantra. The same Master-scholar also points out that the teaching of nondual Tantras contemplates the practice of method and prajñā and of the generation/creation and completion/perfection stages in the equanimity of the pure dimension, “the total wisdom of the unequalled thigle or single sphere (own natural state of rigpa-bodhicitta), the primordial state that is the foundation of all phenomena of existence.” Furthermore, whereas in other Anuttarayogatantras the wisdom state of the fourth initiation is barely mentioned in a veiled manner, in a nondual Tantra such as the Kālacakra, it is shown openly and clearly. (Note that Je Tsongkhapa negated the existence of the category of nondual Tantra, which apart from the Kālacakra includes the Mañjuśrīnāmasaṃgīti—which among the Sarma Tantras is roughly as highly regarded as the Kālacakra.) In spite of the coincidences between the Anuttarayogatantra of the Newer or Sarmapa schools and the Mahāyogatantra of the Old or Nyingmapa School listed at the beginning of this section, and of the fact that both classes of Tantra share some root texts, including the Guhyasamājatantra, which for the Sarmapas is a father Tantra, and the Śrīcandraguhyatilakanāmamahātantrarāja, those two systems are far from identical. To begin with, as Chögyal Namkhai Norbu has noted, the basic principle of the paradigmatic Mahāyogatantra—the Guhyagarbha, which is the one that summarizes the contents of all Mahāyogatantras—does not at all correspond to that of the Father Anuttarayogatantras or that of the Mother Anuttarayogatantras. In the section on Mahāyoga it will not be difficult to corroborate that the only class of Anuttarayogatantras that the paradigmatic Mahāyogatantras resemble is the nondual Anuttarayogatantras: most of the features of nondual Tantras outlined in the above quotation from Ju Mipham apply to the paradigmatic Mahāyogatantras, in which “there is balance between the aspects of method and prajñā and between the stages of development and completion or perfection,” and which “mainly consider that one’s state of rigpa-bodhicitta, the single sphere of the total primordial gnosis of purity and equality, is the absolute, true condition of all phenomena.” However, this similarity was established by emphasizing what the two systems have in common, but there are many differences between them. For example: (a) Mahāyogatantras are not classified into father and mother Tantras. (b) In Mahāyoga there exists the view that the true maṇḍala is spontaneously perfect and self-actualizing, being no other than the true condition itself in which cause and fruit are indivisible and in which all a b c d 434 e f g Tib. [Pel] Sangwa Düpa Gyü (Wylie, [dPal] gSang ba ’dus pa rgyud). English translation: Assembly of Secrets. Tib. Dasang Thigle [Tsawai] Gyü (Wylie, Zla gsang thig le [rtsa ba’i] rgyud). English translation: Root Tantra of the Essence of the Secret Moon. Ibidem. Tib. Sangwa Nyingpo Gyü (Wylie, gsang ba snying po rgyud); English translation: Essence of Secrets. This Tantra is also called Net of the Magical Manifestation of Vajrasattva (Tib. rDo rje sems dpa’ sgyu ’phrul draw ba). Tib. thig le nyag gcig. Keep in mind that the term sphere (thig le) refers to the true condition of all phenomena, which cannot be comprised by any concept. Skt. anābogha or nirābogha; Tib. lhun grub. Skt. anābogha or nirābogha; Tib. lhun grub. a b c d e f g 292 sentient beings have always been Awake—of which the sand maṇḍala used in the initiation is a mere symbolic image. (c) In Mahāyoga there are two Series, which are that of Sādhanās or Drubde and that of Tantras or Gyüde (the former involving eight deities, each of which is the core of one sādhanā). At any rate, it is a fact that some Masters, including Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoché and Tarthang Tulku, have been so radical as to unambiguously declare that the Anuttarayogatantras lie midway between the outer Tantras and the inner Tantras of the Nyingmapa. a b c d435 The Inner Tantras of the Nyingmapa 1. Mahāyogatantra e In the first paragraph on the Anuttarayogatantra, some of the characteristics common to that class of Sarmapa Tantras and to the Nyingma Mahāyogatantras were outlined—including (1) that the “Path of Method” comprises (a) a creation / generation stage in which one “spreads emptiness everywhere” (i.e. a concept of emptiness is superimposed on what is taken to be a substantial reality, thus adding an extra layer to the onion of delusion) while reciting the svabhāvamantra and in which from this emptiness one transforms into the deity in a gradual manner, and (b) a perfection / completion stage at the end of which the visualization must be dissolved, and (2) that in the perfection / completion stage one gains access to the primordial gnosis of total pleasure or absolute bliss indivisible from emptiness by means of two alternative trainings: that of the “upper doors” and that of the “lower entrances” (cf. the three first paragraphs of the section on the Anuttarayogatantra). Then in the passage on the father, mother and nondual Anuttarayogatantras, some of the differences between the principles of Mahāyoga and Anuttarayoga were outlined: Mahāyogatantras are not classified into father and mother Tantras; their principle is similar to that of the nondual Tantras, although in Mahāyoga there exists the view that the true maṇḍala is spontaneously perfect and self-actualizing [of the true condition], being no other than the true condition itself in which cause and fruit are indivisible and in which all sentient beings have always been Awake—of which the sand maṇḍala used in the initiation is a mere symbolic image. f g h 436 i j k Wylie, sgrub sde. Wylie, rgyud sde. Trungpa (1981, p. 125; cf. also p. 92). Tarthang Tulku (1977b, pp. 172-173); also in Tarthang Tulku (1991, p. 165). Though in this section I expound the Mahāyogatantras my own way, I include a considerable quantity of material from the Mahāyogatantra section in Namkhai Norbu (1999/2001, Part II, section 2.8.10.4, “The Four branches of Approach and Attainment,” pp. 208-213). Tib. thabs lam; the term is used equally in Mahāyoga and Anuttarayoga. Skt. utpattikrama; Tib. bskyed rim; Ch. ⽣起次第 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shēngqǐ cìdì; Wade-Giles, sheng ch’i tz’u -ti ). Nonliteral translation for the Tib. stong nyid rgyas ’debs su shor ba and also stong ltas rgyas ’debs. Skt. saṃpannakrama, niṣpannakrama or utpannakrama; Tib. rdzogs rim; Ch. 圓滿次第 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yuánmǎn cìdì; Wade-Giles, yüan -man tz’u -ti ). Skt. anābogha or nirābogha; Tib. lhun grub. Skt. anābogha or nirābogha; Tib. lhun grub. a b c d e f g 1 3 4 4 h i 2 3 4 j k 293 4 In Mahāyoga—and also in the Anuttarayogatantras—the Path is structured on a model of death, intermediate state and rebirth that is supposed to purify these (not so that they become smoother or lighter, but in order to outright liberate the yogins from them and the suffering they involve), and that somehow and somewhat imitates the structure and function of the spontaneous deconditioning experiences that occur once access is gained to the intermediate state of the true condition of phenomena while the “physical body” is alive, in which systemic loops—especially those of positive feedback—inherent in the human system are unleashed that are the supreme manifestation qua Path of the highest sense of the term lhundrub—which I render, according to context, as spontaneous perfection, spontaneous arising, spontaneous rectification or spontaneous accomplishment —in Ati Dzogpa Chenpo. However, although the Mahāyogatantras and the Anuttarayogatantras are structured in this way, with some exceptions they do not comprise practices directly based on the principle of spontaneous perfection / spontaneous arising / spontaneous rectification / spontaneous accomplishment proper to Ati Dzogpa Chenpo. As noted above, in Mahāyoga, but not so in Anuttarayoga, two sections or series of teachings exist, which are the Series of Sādhanas or Drubde and the Series of Tantras or Gyüde . The first, which has come to us through two different lines of transmission—that of the long linear transmission or kama and that of the short transmission through treasure-teachings or terma —is circumscribed to the Path of Method, whereas the second, just like the Anuttarayogatantras in their totality, is divided into a Path of Method and a Path of Liberation,. Finally, as will be shown below, in the Mahāyogatantras (among which, as noted in the preceding section, the Guhyasamāja and the Śrīcandraguhyatilakanāmamahātantrarāja are also counted among the Anuttarayogatantras of the Sarmapa, even though the Nyingma and the Sarma versions are different ), the Fruit is called Dzogchen, and the Vajra nature is explained in terms of properly Dzogchen concepts—using terms such as rigpa and rangrig as understood in Dzogchen, distinguishing the aspects of primordial purity and spontaneous perfection, etc.—that the Anuttarayogatantras in general (including the Sarmapa of Newer version of the two Tantras that Sarma Anuttarayoga shares with Nyingma Mahāyoga) fail to offer. With regard to the method of “creation,” after having applied gradually the three Contemplations, in these Tantras one mentally creates the maṇḍala step by step and one is said to attain self-realization by means of this meditation. The three a b c d e437 f g h i 438 j k 439 Skt. antarābhava; Tib. bar do; Ch. 中有 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhōngyǒu; Wade-Giles, chung -yu ) / 中陰 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhōngyīn; Wade-Giles, chung -yin ). Skt. dharmatā antarābhava; Tib. chos nyid bar do; Ch. 法性中有 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎxìng zhōngyǒu; Wade-Giles, fa -hsing chung -yu ). Skt. anābogha or nirābogha; Tib. lhun grub. Skt. anābogha or nirābogha; Tib. lhun grub. An exception to this might be the practice of the Intermediate State in the Six Yogas of Nāropā and the Six Yogas of Niguma, which are related to Sarma Anuttarayogatantra. Wylie, sgrub sde. Wylie, rgyud sde. Wylie, bka’ ma. Wylie, gter ma. These two forms of transmission—kama and terma—will be explained later on. Tib. Sangwa Düpa (Wylie, gsang ba ’dus pa). Tib. Dasang Thigle Gyü (Wylie, zla gsang thig le rgyud). a 1 1 1 b 3 4 1 3 c d e f g h i j k 294 3 Contemplations are: (1) Concentration on the essential nature; (2) Contemplation of total vision; and (3) Contemplation of the cause. (1) The concentration on the essential nature consists in abiding in a state of equanimous Contemplation free of thoughts, in a pure and limpid condition that is all pervading, like space. (2) The contemplation of total vision corresponds to the arising of an impartial compassion, which is like a magical illusion, towards all beings that fail to understand the essential nature (who nonetheless are realized to be equally illusory), and then staying clearly and undistractedly in this state of Contemplation. (3) The contemplation of the cause, which depends on the two preceding ones, consists in visualizing a syllable (for example, the letter HUM) as the essence of the wisdom of the state of rigpa, like a fish jumping out of clear water. Here we meditate on the three divine manifestations (sattva) that emanate from the syllable HUM, one within the other. Thus, it is usually said that in the Mahāyoga the entrance door is the three Contemplations; that understanding the view means recognizing whatever appears as the male and female deities; that the basic samayas to keep concern the body, voice and mind; and that the Fruit is the state of method and prajñā beyond union and separation (as method and prajñā are not two different things that may unite or separate). We have seen that, despite the fact that both in Mahāyoga and Anuttarayoga the training in contemplation involves building the maṇḍala in a gradual manner, Mahāyoga is often held to be utterly beyond Anuttarayoga, in which case the latter is held to lie between the outer Tantras and the inner Tantras of the Nyingmapa. We have also seen that one of the reasons for this is that in Mahāyoga there exists the view that the true maṇḍala is spontaneously perfect / self-actualizing / self-rectifying and consists in the true nature in which cause and fruit are inseparable and wherein all beings have always been Awake—of which the maṇḍala of sand used in the initiation is a mere symbolic image. The fact that all beings have always been Awake is called Awakening in nature, in which there are three stages: the paternal and maternal causes for the existence of a being, consisting of the sperm, the ovum and consciousness; the physical and mental elements that produce the body structure; and the body-mind system as support for the maṇḍala of deities. Then there is Awakening in understanding, which refers to the levels of the vidyādharas, when one really understands the original condition and therefore the fact that all beings have always been Awake. Finally, there is Awakening in realization, which is the actual realization of the Awake condition beyond all interpretations in terms of concepts and therefore beyond the subject-object duality. Note that the last type of Awakening is, according to the Mahāyogatantrayāna, the actualization and becoming apparent of absolute truth qua Fruit. This vehicle, like the Yogācāra and the Mahāmadhyamaka schools of the Mahāyāna and like the Chinese Tiāntáizōng or Tiāntái school, posits three truths, which are not the same in the different schools or vehicles. (However, the comparison 440 a b a b c Tib. lhun grub; Skt. nirābogha or anābogha. 華嚴宗; Wade-Giles, T’ien -t’ai -tsung . 華嚴 (simplified: 天台); Wade-Giles, T’ien -t’ai . 1 2 1 1 2 295 c of the three truths of the Mahāyoga with those of the three schools just mentioned is beyond the scope of this book.) The Mahāyogatantra involves thirteen levels rather than eleven, which, as noted in a previous section, is their number in the Mahāyāna according to the most widely taught classification in Tibetan Buddhism. In this inner Tantric vehicle, it is asserted that, although all phenomena and all beings are already Awake, in order to effectively realize this one has to train one’s mind for the three levels of Awakening proper to Mahāyoga, which are the eleventh, the twelfth and the thirteenth. To train for the level of total light (the eleventh, which in the Mahāyāna is the last and is said to correspond to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi), rather than undertaking the progressive Sutric training that allows one to proceed through the first four paths and the first ten levels, one directly practices the nonconceptual Contemplation of the essential nature. To become familiar with the level of the lotus —the twelfth—one meditates on the inseparability of prajñā and compassion through the Contemplation of total vision. Finally, to become familiar with the Level of the Great Accumulation of the Cakra of Letters or, more precisely, of the Level of the Great Accumulation of the Immutable maṇḍala —the last, which is the thirteenth—one meditates on the seedsyllable of the Contemplation of the cause in order to then gradually create the maṇḍala and become familiar with it. One could legitimately wonder how it is possible to arrive at the unveiling of the unconditioned and unmade by means of methods that involve the creation or a new reality that, being the result of creation, is necessarily made—and thus come to question the alleged superiority of Mahāyoga even over the Hīnayāna, which, as we have seen, taught the “tearing-down one” as an essential meditation. The reply of a practitioner of Mahāyoga would be that according to this vehicle the true condition of all forms is the deity, the true condition of all sounds is mantra, and the true condition of mind is the samādhi of thatness, and that therefore the reality one creates is merely a way of acknowledging our original condition, so that one is not superimposing anything on it. Furthermore, a practitioner of this vehicle would note that by consciously constructing the visualization of the deity in the maṇḍala one becomes familiar with the mechanisms whereby one had always built up ordinary reality, and thus gains some control of the process involved. More important, such a practitioner would note that by means of the completion stage one gains direct insight into the unconditioned and unmade, for the essence of the completion stage lies precisely in Seeing through the reality one has created into the unborn nature. Moreover, it is an incontrovertible fact that the practices of the completion stage can increase the kuṇḍalinī and the related energetic volume determining the scope of awareness —which, as will be shown in Vol. II of this book, may allow the unmade / unconditioned / uncontrived / uncompounded to unveil more easily and then to be a b c 441 d e f Skt. bhūmi; Tib. sa; Ch. 地 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dì; Wade-Giles, ti ). Tib. ma chags pad ma can gyi sa. Tib. yi ge ’khor lo tshogs chen gyi sa. Pāḷi, apacayagāmi. Skt. tathatā; Tib. de bzhin nyid; Chin. 眞如 [性] (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēnrú [xìng]; Wade-Giles, chen -ju [hsing ]). Tib. thig le. a 4 b c d e 1 4 f 296 2 more clearly evident, and at the same time can make the process of neutralization or eradication of the karmic propensities at the root of saṃsāra far more powerful and effective. This is directly related to the fact that in Mahāyoga the Path is structured on a model of death, intermediate state and rebirth that somehow mimics the structure and function of the supreme, spontaneous deconditioning experiences that result from the unleashing of systemic loops inherent in the human reality, as corresponds to the highest sense of the term spontaneous perfection / actualization / rectification / accomplishment in Atiyogatantra. All this shows incontrovertibly that the power of this vehicle to unveil the unconditioned and uncompounded, as well as to neutralize samsaric conditionings, is much greater than those of all “lower” vehicles. (For a far more thorough explanation of Mahāyoga, the reader is directed to Dudjom Rinpoche, English 1991, vol. 1, pp. 276-283.) Nevertheless, the Kunje Gyälpo, root Tantra of the Nature of Mind series of Dzogchen teachings, outlines the essential drawback of Mahāyogatantra (which is also the essential drawback of the Anuttarayogatantra of the Sarmapas) as follows: a b c d Followers of Mahāyoga aspire to [the realization] of Vajradhāra: having entered the Path of Method and prajñā they practice the four [branches] of approach and attainment in the maṇḍala of the purity of their own mind. The total bliss of Atiyoga is pure and total Awake awareness beyond effort. [The state that is evident] when there is no striving is hindered by Mahāyoga. Applying effort to attain total completeness / plenitude and perfection amounts to falling into the misleading deviation of followers of Mahāyoga. 442 2. Anuyogatantra e As we have seen, in the Ancient or Nyingmapa School, Mahāyoga is not the sole inner Tantric vehicle belonging to the Path of Transformation. In addition to it, there is the Anuyogatantra, which has no equivalent—whether exact or rough— among the Newer schools, and that is considered to be “superior,” both to the Sarma Anuttarayogatantra, and to the Nyingma Mahāyogatantra. However, just like the Anuttarayogatantra and the Mahāyogatantra, the Anuyogatantra contains two Paths, which are that of method and that of liberation. f 443 Skt. antarābhava; Tib. bar do; Ch. 中有 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhōngyǒu; Wade-Giles, chung -yu ) / 中陰 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhōngyīn; Wade-Giles, chung -yin ). Tib. lhun grub; Skt. nirābogha or anābogha. Skt. Cittavarga; Tib. Sems sde. In this particular case the terms citta and sems are short for the Skt. bodhicitta and the Tib. byang chub sems—both of them in the Dzogchen sense—or the Skt. cittatā / citta eva and the Tib. sems nyid. Namkhai Norbu (1999/2001, p. 214). See also Namkhai Norbu and Adriano Clemente (English 1999, p. 179); Dudjom Rinpoche (English 1991, vol. I, pp. 296-297); sPrul sku Don grub, in Tulku Thöndup (1996, 1st ed. 1989, p. 96). Although in this section I expound the Anuyogatantras in my own way, in it I have included a considerable quantity of material from the section on Anuyogatantra in Namkhai Norbu (1999/2001, pp. 186-191 [also pp. 179-180]). Sarmapa (Wylie, gsar ma pa). a 1 1 1 b c d e f 297 3 On the Anuyogatantra Path of Method, just like on Anuttarayogatantra’s and Mahāyogatantra’s, there is a generation / creation stage and a completion /perfection stage. However, in both Anuttarayogatantra and Mahāyogatantra the transformation corresponding to the generation or creation stage is gradual—i.e. the visualization is built up step by step—and must be created after “spreading emptiness everywhere” through the intonation of the svabhāvamantra. While discussing Anuttarayogatantra it was stated that in the father Tantras, once the visualization is generated, it is essential to keep awareness of all of its details, which implies that in these Tantras the emphasis is placed on clarity, but that the mother Tantras place greater emphasis on the sensation of being the deity than on the details of the visualization—and that the nondual Tantras place an equal emphasis on these two aspects. However, the Anuttarayogatantras of all three kinds, and the Mahāyogatantras as well, place a far greater emphasis on the details of the visualization than Anuyogatantra, for in the latter it is enough to feel like the deity / feel as though one were that deity, without having to have more than a general idea of the deity’s traits in one’s visualization— which means that feeling is far more essential than clarity. Likewise, in all Anuttarayogatantras and Mahāyogatantras the visualization must be dissolved at the end of the practice in order to avoid solidifying the reality visualized, for otherwise, rather than freedom from the illusion of substantiality and, by familiarizing oneself with the mechanisms whereby false realities are built up, realizing the constructed character of the ordinary reality of “impure vision,” one would add still another layer to the onion of delusion that would further conceal its empty core, which is what Dzogchen teachings call the Base. For the same reason, during the practice one must keep a forceful awareness of the rainbow-like, illusionlike character of the visualization. Contrariwise, in Anuyogatantra—which is more directly based on the Dzogchen principle of spontaneous perfection and in which transformation is instantaneous and what is essential is to maintain the sensation of being the deity—at the end of the practice the practitioner must not dissolve the visualization, but “remain indivisible from the deity.” This requires practitioners of the Anuyoga to have a conviction of the empty character of all phenomena, and in particular of the deity that they visualize—so powerful as not to be in danger of solidifying the visualization if it is not dissolved. Likewise, he or she does would have to keep a forceful awareness of the rainbow-like, illusion-like character of the visualization, for her or his feeling of emptiness should be naturally so strong that there would be no danger of adding a further, outer layer to the onion of false, delusive reality. This will be further discussed below. It is in daily life that the passions spontaneously arise with greatest strength, and therefore it is in daily life that the Path of Transformation, which as we have seen depends on the passions to the same degree that fire depends on fuel—for the passions are the material that must be transformed into the corresponding facets of primordial gnosis—could prove most valuable. If, in order to revert the passions into the primordial gnoses they originally were, yogins and yoginīs had to enter a meditative absorption characterized by emptiness, subsequently develop step by step the visualization of themselves as the deity, then maintain consciousness of all details of a a Tib. lhun grub; Skt. nirābogha or anābogha. 298 the visualization, and finally dissolve this visualization and remain in a state of emptiness free from characteristics, it would be simply impossible to apply the Path of Transformation when passions are aroused in everyday life. Contrariwise, if whenever passions arise in their daily life yogins instantly visualize themselves as heruka deities and use the energy of the passion for sustaining the transformation, they will be able to effectively employ the passions on the Path of Transformation as the raw material of realization. Therefore, only Anuyogatantra can allow yogins to effectively apply the Path of Transformation in daily life. Thus it is clear that in the Anuyoga one neither constructs the visualization of the deities step by step nor dissolves the visualization at the end of a session of practice. At the beginning of a session, one is supposed to instantly visualize oneself as the deity while remaining in the state of rigpa—the panoramic awareness that (is) indivisible from the total empty expanse of the dharmadhātu—with the certitude that the deities never ceased being there and thus that one is not creating anything. Then, upon ending the session, one should not formally dissolve the deities into a blank emptiness, but should continue in the state of rigpa while maintaining nondual panoramic awareness (of) the dharmadhātu, with the certitude of the fact that the deities continue to be the embodiment of the true nature of all reality. As will be shown below, this is easy to say but most hard to actually implement. It is because of the above that, in this vehicle, it is said that on the absolute plane one never separates either from the unborn and uninterrupted manifestation of the male and female deities, or from the total, intrinsically empty expanse of the dharmadhātu —that is, from the space in which all so-called physical and mental phenomena arise, which cannot be grasped in terms of conceptual extremes, and that can only be realized by means of a nonconceptual gnosis. This implies that the deities manifest in the state of rigpa and the yogin or yoginī remains in this state while applying the practice. Likewise, it is said that in the relative plane one clearly visualizes the dimension of form of realized ones by meditating in an equanimous but distinct way. (Note that, whereas in this context the term “relative” refers to the dimension with form, in the highest interpretations of Madhyamaka form is part of the absolute truth—the relative being the conceptualization of form rather than the configuration of the sensory fields. Padampa Sangye wrote, “It is not the circumstances which arise as one’s karmic vision that condition a person into the dualistic state; it is a person’s own attachment that enables what arises to condition him.” And also, “A rainbow sparkles in space, but it is nothing other than space itself. You could [well] call it a manifestation of space.” The sky represents the absolute truth and the rainbow represents the forms that manifest: that which conditions us is not form, which is part 444 a b c In this book the term expanse renders the Skt. dharmadhātu, the Tib. chos dbyings; the Ch. 法界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, făjiè; Wade-Giles, fa -chieh ), etc.—except when it designates the subtle object of the formless absorptions (Skt. ārūpyasamāpatti; Tib. gzugs med pa’i snyoms ’jug; Ch. 無⾊界定 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wú-sè-jiè dìng; Wade-Giles, ssu wu -se -chieh ting ], or Skt. ārūpyāvacaradhyāna; Pāli arūpāvacarajhāna; Tib. gzugs med na spyod pa’i bsam gtan; Ch. 無⾊界定 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúsèjiè dìng; Wade-Giles, wu -se -chieh ting ]). Cited in Namkhai Norbu (Ed. John Shane; 2000; original ed. 1986), p. 52. Padampa Sangye (2002; J. Canti, trans. of text; M. Ricard, trans. of Commentary). a 3 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 b c 299 4 4 of the absolute, but our own reified / hypostasized / absolutized / valorized conceptualization of form.) The problem is that the intention to transform one’s vision by remembering the deities and making them manifest implies that one is hypostasizing / reifying / valorizing / absolutizing a conceptualization of one’s vision as something impure that needs to be transformed, and this itself is an instance of avidyā / marigpa—which means that at the moment vidyā / rigpa is not apparent and actual: this is the reason why in Dzogchen one does not visualize (Guru Chöwang replied to the question “what is Dzogchen” made by his disciple Bharo with the words “not to visualize,” and one of the four chozhak of the Series of Pith Instructions of Dzogchen is the nangwa chogzhag, which lies in not modifying one’s vision by means of visualization). Of course, it could be argued that a most highly realized individual could direct and mould his or her awareness while remaining in rigpa—but as Rongzompa warned, the practitioner of the Anuyoga does not have that capacity, and whoever has achieved that level of realization would not be treading the Anuyoga as a path. Chögyal Namkhai Norbu quotes passages from Rongzompa’s Commentary to Padmasambhava’s Garland of Visions, from the Rigpa Rangshar Tantra (pertaining to the Dzogchen Series of Instructions), and from Longchenpa’s Treasury of the Supreme Vehicle: a b c d e f g Rongzompa’s commentary states (Tibetan text 4: p. 243, 4): This [method] has been transmitted for those who have the capacity to remain clearly and wholly in the single instantaneous [nondual] Presence [called] rigpa [that makes patent] the nature of bodhicitta, [and in that state carry out] all the aspects of meditation and practice [established in] the texts of Yogatantra. This means that one meditates on the nonconceptual state of the ultimate nature, on the illusory maṇḍala of the deity, on the maṇḍala of higher contemplation or on the maṇḍalas of nature, of contemplation, of the images and so on; [however, in Anuyoga] all these aspects that are explained separately are clearly perfected in the same instant, just as a person endowed with miraculous powers can perform simultaneously and without incompatibility the four habitual activities. To summarize [this point, it is said that] without separating from the two [aspects] there is the clarity of the one; indivisible as one, [this clarity] is clearly distinct in three [points]. Thus the perfection of the instantaneous presence of rigpa is called the ‘method of completion’. “Without separating from the two [aspects]” refers to: 445 h 446 447 448 Wylie, Gu ru chos dbang; i.e., Chökyi Wangchuk (Wylie, Chos kyi dBang phyug). Wylie, Bha ro. This is a Tibetan mispronunciation of the Newar bāḍe, a title of the priestly cast among the Newar. Dargyay, Eva M. (1977/1979/1998). Note that this book radically distorts the true meaning of the original book by H.H. Dudjom Rinpoche, to such a degree that I advise not to read it. Skt. Upadeśavarga; Tib. Man ngag [gyi] sde. Wylie, snang ba cog bzhag. Tib. Man ngag [gyi] sde; Skt. Upadeśavarga. Namkhai Norbu (1999/2001, pp. 187-191). The three works cited are: (1) Tibetan Text 4; (2) Tibetan Text 5; (3) Tibetan Text 12. Note that in the Dzogchen [Nature of] Mind series (Tib. Sems sde; Skt. Cittavarga) the term bodhicitta is a synonym of nature of mind / Base awareness (Skt. cittatā or citta eva; Tib. sems nyid). a b c d e f g h 300 - Not separating from the sense that all animate and inanimate phenomena are the state of spontaneous perfection of Awakening in the spontaneously perfect maṇḍala of the images, [which embodies] the [true] nature of the absolute [condition] beyond birth and cessation. - Not separating from the state [in which] the [true] condition of the [primordial expanse containing all] phenomena, [which is] free from extremes [and therefore from all concepts, has unveiled]… Without separating [from these two], one meditates clearly on the aggregates, constituents and sense bases in the maṇḍala of higher contemplation: this is called the ‘single clarity’. “[Abiding] indivisibly as one” means understanding that whatever appears [and whatever] one meditates on, is indivisible in the [empty] dimension of bodhicitta beyond birth and cessation, the ultimate nature [of phenomena]. “[The] three clearly distinct [points]” are: (1) even though one meditates on the maṇḍala in which everything is spontaneously perfect, [the specific meditation] is clearly distinct from other contemplations; (2) even though the colors and attributes etc. [of the deity] manifest clearly in the maṇḍala of higher contemplation, they are clearly distinct from those of other [deities]; (3) the manifestations of the central deity, consort and surrounding retinue must be clearly distinct. These are the three clearly distinct points. If one is able to engage in this contemplation effortlessly on the basis of the principle of spontaneous perfection, integrating space and time in the [total] condition of absolute equality, then [this practice] is not different from the method of Dzogpa Chenpo. However here one does not really have this capacity, because effort is applied in directing the Presence of rigpa in a certain direction, and [because attempting to make] the instantaneous [undivided, timeless] state [be contained] within a period of time… entails fragmentariness. Thus one engages [in the practice] in this manner in order to perfect all aims in the single instantaneous Presence [that is called] rigpa. a 449 The essence of Anuyoga is concisely expressed in the Tantra Self-arising State of Rigpa (Tibetan text 5: p. 520, 2): “The great lung [tradition] of the Anuyoga vehicle speaks of the vajra of the state of inseparability of the ultimate dimension and primordial gnosis. Entry can be direct or gradual. The understanding of the view is the state beyond union and separation. In direct entry the deities, without needing to be visualized gradually, are perfected by remembering the essence. In gradual entry, one enters progressively into the ultimate dimension and into primordial gnosis and finally attains the Fruit of the level of Vajradhāra.” 450 451 In this book the term expanse renders the Skt. dharmadhātu, the Tib. chos dbyings; the Ch. 法界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, făjiè; Wade-Giles, fa -chieh ), etc.—except when it designates the subtle object of the formless absorptions. a 3 4 301 Concerning the principle of the ultimate dimension and of primordial gnosis, there is a clear and comprehensive explanation in Treasury of the Supreme Vehicle by Longchenpa (Tibetan text 12: p. 142, 4): a b “Regarding the [indivisibility of] the limitless empty expanse and primordial gnosis as the Base of liberation, the limitless expanse is emptiness that transcends thought inasmuch as it is devoid of any created [and conditioned] phenomenon, effort or change. When self-arising gnosis, which is like its substance, arises in it, one understands that all phenomena are total spontaneous liberation in the condition of the Base: this is called ‘the [indivisibility of] primordial gnosis and the limitless empty expanse of effortless spontaneous liberation.’ “Regarding the [indivisibility of] the limitless empty expanse and primordial gnosis of the Path that is the variety of appearances, when everything that manifests in [that] variety arises as the unlimited manifestation of energy, all of [it] liberates itself spontaneously without interruption. Thus, in the limitless empty expanse [that contains] the single manifestation of the phenomena of spontaneous perfection there arises the primordial gnosis of pure magical illusion that transcends all limits. Thereby one understands that all phenomena are beyond acceptance and rejection, beyond affirmation and refutation and [hence one goes] beyond all craving: this is called ‘the [indivisibility of] the limitless empty expanse and the primordial gnosis of the completeness of the state of spontaneous perfection.’ “Regarding the [indivisibility of] the limitless empty expanse and the primordial gnosis of the Fruit that is total spontaneous liberation beyond action, the limitless empty expanse, which does not abide in saṃsāra or in nirvāṇa, is single, indefinable and beyond striving. When empty primordial gnosis arises in it, beyond the limits of view and contemplation, one understands the sameness of all phenomena of happiness and of suffering: this is called ‘the [indivisibility of] the limitless empty expanse and primordial gnosis of the dharmatā beyond action.’ “By applying [the principle of] primordial gnosis in the limitless empty expanse in a gradual way, one understands the [fundamental] union of the calm state, emptiness and bliss: this is called the [state of] union in which there is nothing to accept or to reject. “By applying [the principle of] primordial gnosis in the limitless empty expanse in a direct way, [one] understands that the self-arising dharmatā transcends any point of view and thus all phenomena dissolve: this is called the direct [entry] in which there is nothing to liberate. “By applying [the principle] in a progressing way, [one] understands that in all that exists there is nothing true and thus this is called the ‘progressing way’ in which there is nothing to abandon and nothing to acquire. “By applying [this principle] in an instantaneous way, one undergoes spontaneous liberation simultaneously with visible appearances and thus there occurs liberation without any need for action or effort: this is called ‘the Anuyoga in which the vision of dharmatā arises instantly’. c d e Skt. dhātu; Tib. dbyings; Ch. 界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jiè; Wade-Giles, chieh ) or 法界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎjiè; Wade-Giles, fa -chieh ) according to the case. Skt. jñāna; Pāḷi ñaṇa; Tib. ye shes; Ch. 智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhì; Wade-Giles, chih ; Jap. chi). Tib. ’bad med rang grol gyi dbyings dang ye shes. Tib. lhun grub rdzogs tshul gyi dbyings dang ye shes. Tib. chos nyid bya ba las ’das pa’i dbyings dang ye shes. a 4 3 4 b 4 c d e 302 “Moreover, since the limitless empty expanse and primordial gnosis are not separate, this is the view of equality and nonduality. Since in the [indivisibility of] the limitless empty expanse and primordial gnosis there is no coming and going, this is the view of what never changes from its own position. Since the [indivisibility of] the limitless empty expanse and primordial gnosis is free from limitations and partiality, this is the view of what [has been] manifest from the beginning. Since apart from words that are only used as symbols, there is nothing that depends on something else, this is the view of that which is beyond any dependence. “In actuality, since the limitless empty expanse is the Base and primordial gnosis is the Path, practitioners who engage with diligence obtain liberation. Since the limitless empty expanse is the cause and primordial gnosis is the Fruit, those of sharp capacities liberate themselves without depending on the external law of cause and effect: therefore [Anuyoga] is superior to the lower [vehicles].” Despite the Atiyoga elements in the above description, the last paragraph shows quite clearly that the Anuyoga is causally biased. Nonetheless, it is said that, at the beginning of a session, we instantly visualize the deities, and that this should be done in the state of instant, nondual Presence or rigpa, and therefore without losing sight of the dharmadhātu or empty expanse. Furthermore, it should be done with an implicit awareness that the deities never ceased to be there and thus that we are not creating anything. As noted above, this implies that, according to practitioners of this system, its practice starts in the manifest awareness of the unconditioned and unmade nature, and that the generation stage does not involve creation of anything, which by definition would produce a reality that would be conditioned and made—which would only be possible if the visualization did not veil the unconditioned and unmade. And it is a fact that it is for this reason that they claim that realization of the unconditioned and unmade does not result from practices applied subsequently to the stage of generation / creation—i.e. in the completion or perfection stage—but should be manifest from the very outset of the practice. Finally, and as noted above, upon ending the session there is no need to formally dissolve the deities into a blank emptiness, for we should be able to continue to maintain awareness of the unconditioned and unmade true condition of ourselves and the whole of reality. In fact, as also noted, the reason why in vehicles of the Path of Transformation other than Anuyoga the visualization has to be dissolved into emptiness at the end of the practice is that the visualization cannot coexist with awareness of the unconditioned and unmade, and hence if it is not dissolved it may be solidified into the illusion of a hypostatically, inherently existing pure, powerful reality superimposed on the preexisting illusion of hypostatic, inherent existence of the ordinary, powerless reality that the teachings deem to be impure, adding another layer to the onion of delusion. In the Anuyoga the dissolution of the visualization at the end of the session is not deemed necessary because it is assumed that during the session the visualization was 452 a b c Tib. skad cig [ma yi] rig pa / rig pa skad chig ma. As stated explained in endnotes 30, 114, 445, 495, here “instant” (Tib. skad chig ma) means that, (1) since there is no subject-object duality, the Now is not interrupted by the present defined as the appearance of being before the Now rather than in the Now; (2) whereas perception is mediated by concepts that take a while to arise in order to interpret sensations, rig pa is unmediated and hence its patency (is) instantaneous. Tib. thun; Skt. upaveśa[ḥ]. Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). a b c 3 303 2 not concealing the unconditioned and unmade, and that, therefore, even if the visualization is not dissolved it is impossible that it will solidify in the way just described. However, this could only be actually the case if, during the session, in reality the visualization had at no point concealed the unconditioned and unmade true condition. The problem is that we have also seen that here one does not really have the capacity to carry out the practice in the state of rigpa. In fact, as noted above, the intention to transform one’s vision by remembering the deities and making them manifest implies that one is hypostasizing / reifying / valorizing / absolutizing a conceptualization of one’s vision as something impure that needs to be transformed, and this itself is an instance of avidyā / marigpa—which means that at the moment vidyā / rigpa is not apparent and actual: as also noted above, this is the reason why in Dzogchen one does not visualize. As Rongzompa notes, since contrivance and even effort are applied in order to direct the Awake, nondual awareness called rigpa in a certain direction, and contrivance and action are what ordinarily conceals the pure spontaneity of lhundrub, it would be really extraordinary if one’s vision were not contrived, conditioned and made, and did not veil the uncontrived, unmade and unconditioned true nature of ourselves and the whole of reality. To put it another way, rigpa is by definition beyond the subject-object duality and the directionality of mind; therefore, trying to direct it in a certain direction would reintroduce the subjectobject duality, as well as the duality of mind and mental factors / mental events, both of which belong to the fragmentary structure of delusion that conceals the unconditioned, uncontrived and undivided state of rigpa. Or to put it yet another way, attempting to contain the timeless state of total completeness / plenitude and perfection that is the undisrupted Now within a period of time introduces an illusory division into it, giving rise to the fragmentariness that conceals the unconditioned and undivided state of rigpa, and causing us to wrongly identify the state of rigpa with a phenomenon that is limited in time, that can be recognized, and that as such is partial and limited, rather than simply resting in the all-liberating single gnosis in which all recognition and in general all that is partial and limited liberates itself spontaneously. If one effectively had the capacity to carry out the practice in the state of rigpa, one would be practicing Ati Dzogpa Chenpo rather than Anuyoga. And, at any rate, if one had that capacity, one would profit far more from practicing Dzogchen Atiyoga than from practicing Anuyoga—which it would make sense to practice only whenever Dzogchen Ati were not working in one’s experience. It follows from the above that, although it is claimed that the Anuyoga is based on the properly Dzogchen principle of lhundrub—which embraces the senses of spontaneous perfection, spontaneous arising, spontaneous rectification and a b c d e 453 454 Wylie, lhun grub; Skt. nirābogha or anābogha: spontaneous perfection, spontaneous arising, spontaneity, spontaneous rectification, spontaneous accomplishment, uncontrived systemic loops, allachieving unhindered actionless action, etc. (according to context). Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). Pāḷi asaṅkhata; Skt. asaṃskṛta; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu wei ). Skt. citta; Tib. sems; Ch. ⼼ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xīn; Wade-Giles, hsin ). Note, however, that this Chinese term also renders the Skt. cittatā and citta eva and the Tib. sems nyid. Skt. caitta or caisatika; Tib. sems byung; Ch. ⼼所 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xīnsuǒ; Wade-Giles, hsin -so ). a b 3 2 c 2 2 d 1 e 1 304 3 spontaneous accomplishment —the truth is that it is based on an intentional, conscious reproduction of the principle in question. Firstly, because in Anuyoga spontaneous perfection is reduced to the capacity for instantaneous (rather than gradual) visualization, which is an abyss away from the sense of the concept in higher practices of the Dzogchen Series of Instructions, in which it refers to: (a) the selfarising of the self-luminous visions of the form of manifestation of energy called rölpa, which in Anuyoga are at the beginning imitated by contrivedly reproducing them in the form of manifestation of energy called dang, which lately I have been rendering as energy of the sphere of the mental, even though this term is not totally precise (these forms of manifestation of energy will be discussed in the section on Atiyoga and in greater detail in Vol. II of this book); and (b) the self-rectifying positive feedback loops in the human system that transform delusion into conflict, cause conflict and delusion to spontaneously increase exponentially, and then result in the spontaneous liberation of conflict and delusion—often when these reaching a threshold level. Secondly, though it is true that both of the inner Nyingma Tantras of the Path of Transformation involve in one way or another the symbolic reproduction of this typically Dzogchen process, symbolic reproductions are an abyss away from the spontaneous dynamic they reproduce. Even though it is a fact that the methods of Anuyoga raise the energetic volume determining the scope of awareness and induces the illusory experiences that are the basis of the practice far more swiftly—and perhaps even to a greater degree— than those of Mahāyoga, and that this, in conjunction with the rest of the elements of the practice, may lead to an initial glimpse of rigpa far more swiftly than all vehicles lower than the Anuyoga, it is also a fact that all the shortcomings of this vehicles that were pointed out above are part of the reason why the Kunje Gyälpo, root Tantra of the [Nature of] Mind series of Atiyoga, states: a b c d e f g455 Followers of Anuyoga aspire to the level of ‘Indivisible’ realization: Having entered the Path of the Empty Expanse and Primordial Gnosis they consider the primordially pure empty expanse where all phenomena manifest to be the cause and the maṇḍala of primordial gnosis to be the effect. The total bliss of Atiyoga is pure and total Awake awareness beyond cause and effect: [The state] beyond cause and effect is hindered by Anuyoga: conceiving total completeness / plenitude and perfection in terms of cause and effect amounts to falling into the misleading deviation of followers of Anuyoga. Skt. anābogha or nirābogha; Tib. lhun grub. Man ngag [gyi] sde; Skt. Upadeśavarga. Tib. rang snang. Wylie, rol pa, which literally means “play” and renders the Skt. līlā. However, in this context it refers to the appearance of immaterial self-luminous visions exhibiting a wondrous dimensionality. Wylie, gdangs. Tib. thig le. Namkhai Norbu (1999/2000, pp. 214-215.) See also Namkhai Norbu and Clemente (English 1999, pp. 179-180); Dudjom Rinpoche (English 1991, vol. I, pp. 295-297); sPrul sku Don grub, in Tulku Thöndup (1996, 1st ed. 1989, p. 96); etc. I have modified the terminology in order to make it agree with the one used throughout this book. a b c d e f g 305 The primordially pure empty expanse where all phenomena appear or, in Sanskrit, the dharmadhātu, in the Anuyoga (is) Samantabhadri, the feminine aspect of primordial Buddhahood that is the maṇḍala of primordially pure space. For its part, primordial gnosis or, in Sanskrit, jñāna, which as explained in a discussion of various of the terms used in this book refers to events of nondual Awake awareness / nondual Awake self-Awareness, and which also correspond to the dharmakāya that is the Mind aspect of Buddhahood, in the Anuyoga (is) Samantabhadra, the masculine aspect of primordial Awakening. The indivisibility of the two is no other than the maṇḍala of spontaneous perfection that gives rise to all phenomena and in which all phenomena are indivisible—even though so long as we are deluded by the reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of the supersubtle thought called threefold directional thought structure we perceive those two aspects as inherently separate from each other. Finally, total pleasure is the “child” that, in symbolic terms, is said to be born as a result of the “union” of the two above aspects (which, however, are acknowledged not to be two separate elements from the union of which pleasure may originate, but the primordial purity and spontaneous perfection aspects that the intellect artificially discriminates within the indivisible, nondual true condition of ourselves and all phenomena)—and which corresponds to the maṇḍala of original bodhicitta. This is the view of Anuyoga because in this vehicle the “primordially pure empty expanse where all phenomena appear” is associated with the female sexual organ and, as such, from the standpoint of the male it is seen as the cause of the flow of bliss that may arise from sexual union. Since according to this vehicle, nondual Awake self-Awareness unveils upon the realization of the inapprehensible character of this flow of bliss, Anuyoga views the empty expanse as a cause and nondual Awake self-Awareness as an effect (which corresponds to the explanation of the twelve links or nidāna of interdependent origination, according to which sparśa or contact is the cause of vedanā or sensation). And, indeed, the same thing occurs in the explanation of the four nyendrub or “four stages of approach and attainment” of Mahāyoga. Contrariwise (as will be seen in Part Two of this book in the context of the discussion of Direct Introduction with the syllable PHAT, and as shown in Capriles, electronic publication 2004), in Dzogchen Atiyoga the dharmadhātu is not seen as cause and nonconceptual, nondual Awake self-Awareness—i.e., rang rig —is not a b c d 456 e f g h i j 457 k Tib. chos dbyings; Chin. 法界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, făjiè; Wade-Giles, fa -chieh ). Tib. ka dag; hypothesized Skt. kaśuddha. Tib. rig pa; Skt. vidyā. Skt. svasaṃvedana; Tib. rang rig; Ch. ⾃證 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìzhèng; Wade-Giles, tzu -cheng ) / ⾃覺 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìjué; Wade-Giles, tzu -chüeh ). Skt. dharmadhātu; Tib. chos dbyings; Chin. 法界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, făjiè; Wade-Giles, fa -chieh ). Skt. svasaṃvedana; Tib. rang rig; Ch. ⾃證 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìzhèng; Wade-Giles, tzu -cheng ) / ⾃覺 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìjué; Wade-Giles, tzu -chüeh ). Pāḷi and Skt. nidāna; Tib. ’brel; Ch. 尼陀那 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, nítuónà; Wade-Giles, ni -t’o -na ). Pāḷi phassa; Skt. sparśa; Tib. reg pa; Ch. 觸 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chù; Wade-Giles, ch’u ). Skt. and Pāli vedanā; Tib. tshor ba; 受 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shòu; Wade-Giles, shou ). Wylie, bsnyen sgrub bzhi. Skt. svasaṃvedana or svasaṃvitti[ḥ]; Ch. ⾃證 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìzhèng; Wade-Giles, tzu -cheng ) / ⾃ 覺 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìjué; Wade-Giles, tzu -chüeh ). a 3 4 b c d 4 4 4 2 e 3 f 4 4 4 4 2 g 2 h 2 4 4 i 4 j k 4 4 2 306 4 seen as effect, for in the practice of this vehicle it is perfectly evident that the arising of rang rig is not the effect of any cause: indeed, as implied by the particle rang, this arising is a spontaneous occurrence beyond the cause-effect relation. 458 3. Atiyogatantra Even though the Atiyogatantra—the vehicle indicated by the term Dzogchen on the title of this book—is also classed as one of the inner Nyingma Tantras, the vehicle in question, rather than being part of the Path of Transformation, constitutes the Path of Spontaneous Liberation. However, the terms Atiyogatantra and Dzogchen are synonyms only partially, for the second also refers to the Fruit of the other inner Tantras of the Nyingmapa: Atiyogatantra is a synonym of Dzogchen only when the latter term is used to refer to a vehicle—which as such must have the three aspects that are the Base (in this case, Dzogchen qua Base), the Path (in this case, Dzogchen qua Path) and the Fruit (in this case, Dzogchen qua Fruit), for in Buddhism these three aspects are indispensable for there being an autonomous, independent vehicle. Like the Anuyogatantra, this vehicle has no equivalent or near equivalent in the higher Tantra of the Sarmapas; the only Sarma teaching that corresponds to it it is the Mahāmudrā tradition of the Kagyü School, and as will be shown below this correspondence is only partial: (I) The original form of the Mahāmudrā of the Kagyupas is supposed to be the Mahāmudrā Gaṅgāma, which corresponded quite closely to the original form of the Dzogchen Series of [the Nature or Essence of] Mind, and which, just like the latter, (a) did not involve a gradual development through four successive stages of practice; (b) applied means that were effective in creating conditions in which Direct Introduction could spontaneously, uncausedly occur; and (c) was a complete path in its own right. (II) The currently prevailing form of the Mahāmudrā of the Kagyu School is the one that first appeared in a work attributed to Gampopa and then in a text by the great tertön Ranjung Dorje, the Third Gyalwa Karmapa —which involved a gradual development through four successive stages of practice, and in general followed quite closely the structure of the practice of the Kham Tradition of the Dzogchen Series of [the Nature or Essence of] Mind, initiated by Aro Yeshe Jungne —a Master of the original form of the Dzogchen Series in question, of the Northern School of Chán (which Tibetans call the Dùnmén / Tönmun Tradition), of the gradual Mahāyāna, and of Tantra as well. According to Chögyal Namkhai Norbu and Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche this form of Mahāmudrā not only resembles the Dzogchen teaching in question, but actually derived from it (this, however, will be discussed below). a b c d e f g a b c d e f g h h Tib. Sems sde; Skt. Cittavarga. Wylie, sGam po pa (bSod nam rin chen). Wylie, gter ston Rang byung rdo rje. Wylie, rgyal ba Karma pa. Wylie, khams. Wylie, A ro ye shes ’byun gnas. This is the Chinese name. Ch. 頓⾨ (simplified: 顿⻔; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dùnmén; Wade-Giles, tun -men ). This is the Tibetan name (Wylie, ston mun). 4 307 2 Among the most widely used texts on this form of Mahāmudrā are those written by the Ninth Karmapa, Wangchuk Dorje. At any rate, all forms of Kagyu Mahāmudrā are completely different from the other two series of Dzogchen teachings—the Series of Space and the Series of Pith Instructions—in which there is a masterful usage of rölpa energy (which here I am calling visionary, corrective energy) that is absent in all forms of the Series of [the Nature or Essence of] Mind and in all forms of Mahāmudrā. Nonetheless, as time passed, century after century an increasing number of Sarmapa Masters, yogins and monks received Dzogchen teachings from Nyingma (or, in some cases, Bönpo) Masters, adopting this vehicle as their personal practice—and, moreover, quite a few treasure-Revealers of Ati and other Nyingma teachings were born inside the various Sarmapa schools. Since these Masters and Revealers transmitted the teachings of Ati Dzogpa Chenpo and other Nyingma teachings within the schools to which they belonged, nowadays it is very common for Sarmapa Masters to teach this vehicle, often in conjunction with Anuyogatantra and/or Mahāyogatantra. For example, in our time, H.H. the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, Tendzin Gyamtso, practices and teaches Dzogchen, has written books about it, and has publicly stated that it is the teaching for our age. In this book, I have been following the custom of the ancient texts that use the term Tantrayāna to refer to the Path of Transformation, and hence I have been classifying the Dzogchen Atiyoga, which is definitely not based on the principle of transformation, as being beyond the Tantrayāna—and, as noted above, as making up the Path of Spontaneous Liberation. However, the root texts of Ati Dzogpa Chenpo are called Tantras. This is so because, as we have seen, the principal and most universal meaning of the Tibetan word gyü, meaning Tantra, is “continuity”—and, as will be shown in the next chapter, the continuity of Base, Path and Fruit that the word Tantra emphasizes is far more perfect in this vehicle than in any other Tantric vehicle. It is because this chapter has been devoted to the Path of Transformation, that the Dzogchen Atiyoga will be considered in the following chapter and then in greater detail in Vol. II and III of this book, devoted in their integrity to the Path of Spontaneous Liberation. The Kunje Gyälpo, root Tantra of the Semdé series of Atiyoga, states: a b 459 c d e The “secret creation” [of Mahāyoga] consists in secretly generating the three phases of absorption that it is believed one does not [already] possess. Wylie, dBang phyug rdo rje. Tib. gter ston: Revealer of treasures or gter ma, which may be teachings, sacred objects, substances, etc. Sogyal Rinpoche’s Rigpa organization quoted H.H. as asserting this on the posters of the Dzogchen teachings H.H. offered in London in the 1980s. Wylie, rgyud. For its part, the best-known Chinese is ⺫次 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, mùcì; Wade-Giles, mu tz’u ); the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism (López & Buswell, 2014) gives us 檀特羅 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tántèluó; Wade-Giles, t’an -t’e -luo ). Namkhai Norbu and Clemente (English 1999, p. 148). Terminology was adapted to the one used in this book. a b c d 4 4 2 4 2 e 308 In the “secret completion” [of Anuyoga], prajñā is not the product or result of the three contemplations: all the phenomena of existence are the ultimate essence of prajñā that arises from inner contemplation… Since beginningless time one’s pure mind has been the deity, one deems that all the sense faculties of the vajra body are already the totality of one’s state, beyond the separation of view and behavior, of accepting and rejection. This is secret inner perfection. In the “secret total completeness / plenitude and perfection” [of Atiyoga] the phenomena that appear through perception are not [to be] transformed into [primordially] pure and total awareness by means of the three contemplations. They are not [to be] perfected by reciting the seed syllable of the deity. I, the [primordial awareness / bodhicitta that is the] source, am total completeness / plenitude and perfection because there is nothing in me that is not complete and perfect. [The] three [aspects of my nature] are the three aspects of the pure and total awareness [that as such is our] total completeness / plenitude and perfection. This is secret total completeness / plenitude and perfection… a Sections of the Inner Tantric Vehicles of the Nyingmapa Each of the three inner Tantras of the Nyingmapa has three sections, all of which are based on the view and essential approach and general methods of the corresponding inner Tantra, but each of which uses specific methods proper to one of the three inner Tantras. So Mahāyoga has three sections, which are Mahā-Maha, Mahā-Anu and Mahā-Ati; Anuyoga has three sections, which are Anu-Mahā, AnuAnu and Anu-Ati; and Atiyoga has three sections, which are Ati-Mahā, Ati-Anu and Ati-Ati. The Seeming Contradiction Between the Tantras of Atiyoga And the Combination, in Treasure Series, of Ati with Lower Vehicles It has been shown that the Tantras of Atiyoga negate the effectiveness of the lower vehicles, one by one up to the Anuyoga. And yet, as Sam van Schaik notes in his book on the subject, all the important series of treasure-teachings that he assessed feature teachings of all vehicles—and in particular of Mahāyoga and Anuyoga—side by side with those that specifically belong to Dzogchen Atiyoga. (Interestingly, in the treasure collections that he assessed, he classed all treasure texts and pure vision texts as suddenist [“simultaneist”], and concluded that the gradualist texts were always authorial treatises—i.e., texts authored by the Revealer, rather than revealed texts or pure vision texts—included in the collection.) How can we understand this seeming contradiction? b c Namely essence (Tib. ngo bo; Skt. svabhāva), nature (Tib. rang bzhin, Skt. svabhāva), and energy (Tib. thugs rje; Skt. karuṇā: compassion). They will be explained in the following chapter. The Skt. svabhāva, rendered by both ngowo and rangzhin, is rendered into Chinese as ⾃性 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìng; Wade-Giles, tzu -hsing ; Jap. jishō). Van Schaik, Sam (2004). Tib. gter ma. a 4 4 b c 309 The answer is that there is no true contradiction, for the teachings of realized Ones are what true Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamikas call other-directed assertions, rather than what they call self-directed assertions: they are reasons acknowledged by the opponent only, that are put forward as others’ view or, which is the same, without own view. What does this mean? It means that realized Ones are free from the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of thought, and hence they do not have a view of their own. Therefore, what their teachings to is to offer those in need of training conceptual positions to uphold for a while, as this is needed for them to tread the Path and advance on the latter—until the point at which the trainees themselves find freedom from the reification / hypostatization / valorization of thought and thus are freed from own view. In fact, the principle in offering those teachings is the one that at the level of the Mahāyāna Śākyamuni illustrated in Chapter 3 of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra with the example of using toys to lure children out of a house in flames. Their father shouted at his children ordering them to flee, but the latter were so absorbed in their games that they remained impervious to his calls. In despair, the father devised a ruse and told them that at the gate stood the chariots they had always wanted—one pulled by goats for the youngest, one pulled by deer for the middle one, and one pulled by oxen for the eldest. However, when the children came out, they found something much better than what their father had offered them: a coach draped with precious stones and pulled by white bullocks. In the parable, the chariot pulled by goats represents the Śrāvakayāna, the chariot pulled by deer stands for the Pratyekabuddhayāna, the oxen-pulled chariot symbolizes the Bodhisattvayāna—and the coach pulled by white bullocks stands for the Buddha-vehicle, called Ekayāna or “Sole [True] Vehicle,” which adherents of the Mahāyāna schools based on this sūtra hold to be the vehicle taught in the sūtra in question. However, the sūtra does not teach any specific method or view that may be held to be radically different from those taught in the other sūtras of the Mahāyāna. Therefore, we can modify the allegory for our purposes, making the gems-studded coach pulled by white bullocks stand for the Atiyogatantrayāna, while increasing the number of lesser chariots to represent all lower vehicles, and noting that the latter arose for those who are incapable of directly obtaining, through Ati methods based on the principle of spontaneous liberation, that which the Dzogchen teachings call Direct Introduction, in order to allow them to gradually apply methods based on different principles and in this way gain access at some point to the condition of Direct Introduction—an initial nonconceptual and hence nondual realization of our true condition obtained through an event of primordial gnosis that reveals the state of rigpa. Then, once they have gained access to that condition, they will be able to enter the Single Path of Ati a b c d e Tib. gzhan ngo khas len: assertions propounding reasonings based on what others and only others take as established (Skt. paraprasiddha; Tib. gzhan grags kyi rjes su dpag pa). Tib. rang rgyud du khas len: assertions based on reasonings that express what the proponent him or herself takes as established (Skt. svaprasiddha). Skt. praprasiddhānumāna; Tib. gzhan grags kyi rjes su dpag pa / gzhan la grags pa’i rjes dpag: reasonings based on what the opponent takes as established (Skt. svaprasiddha)—which clearly the proponent does not take as established. Skt. paramata; Tib. gzhan lugs. Skt. svamata; Tib. rang lugs. a b c d e 310 Dzogpa Chenpo, which Nubchen Sangye Yeshe named “primordial ancestor of all vehicles.” However, the treasure texts and pure vision texts of the most important cycles of treasure teachings of the last centuries, just like the Tantras of the three series of Dzogchen teachings, describe the Path of Dzogchen Ati as being utterly free from progress and evolution, and reduce the Path to a single level. Sam van Schaik quotes from Jigme Lingpa (the terminology was adapted to the one used in this book): a b “On the stage that is without progressive purification of rigpa, there is no need to train on the ten levels of the bodhisattvas, not on the paths and levels achieved by accomplishing the exertions of development and completion / perfection in the outer and inner Mantrayāna. This is because they are all combined in the single essence of primordial gnosis.” Here Jigme Lingpa places the paths and levels in the context of the system of the tantras (based on the principle of Transformation). In rGyab brten pad ma dkar po, Jigme Lingpa quotes a passage from the Künje Gyalpo that rejects the structure of the paths and levels: “No view and meditation, no maintaining of vows, No ascending through levels, no travelling of paths.” 460 c Vol. III of my The Beyond Mind Papers reads: d We have seen that it is Dzogchen Ati—the Path Tönpa Garab Dorje bequeathed us, which is neither gradual nor sudden—that embodies most perfectly the principle of the Path as Seeing through all conditioned phenomena and states arising in our experience, into the unconditioned Dzogchen-qua-Base (Capriles, 1977, 1986, 1989, 1994a, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2003, work in progress 1). The fact that in the vehicle in question Awakening does not depend on a process of maturation whereby we would develop successive [stages of evolution], is evidenced by the [following] passage of The Heart Mirror of Vajrasattva—a Dzogchen Tantra pertaining to the [Series of Instructions]… (corresponding translation… in Cornu, translator and commentator, 1995, p. 135): e “Kye! Friends! The Fruit of authentic, perfect Buddhahood does not depend on maturity or immaturity.” Furthermore… the late Kyabjé Dudjom Rinpoché, [Jigdräl] Yeshe Dorje, made it clear that in the vehicle in question there is no clear sequence of stages of realization, as realization may arise by stages, without involving a particular order of stages, or utterly beyond stages (corresponding yet not identical translation available in Dudjom Rinpoché, 1979, p. 28 and 2005, p. 53): The first passage is from Khrig yig ye shes bla ma and the second is a cite from the Kun byed rgyal po in rGyab brten pad ma dkar po. I inserted a comment so that the passage may be understood in the context of this book. Van Schaik (2004, p. 92). Wylie, Kun byed rgyal po: the root Tantra of the Series of [the Nature of] Mind. Capriles (2013c, p. 164). Skt. Upadeśavarga; Tib. Man ngag [gyi] sde. a b c d e 311 “(In the practice of the Dzogchen Series of Instructions) the stages of experience and realization may appear either progressively, or without any particular order, or all at once, according to the capacities of the different individuals. However, at the time of the Fruit there are no differences.” This explains why, though the Dzogchen teachings, in order to make the point that they lead beyond the realizations of other vehicles and show exactly the way and the sense in which they do so, occasionally posit a sequence of sixteen levels, what is characteristic of Dzogchen Atiyoga is the presentation of the Path as a single level and hence as having neither bottom nor summit. In fact, as previously noted, both Dzogchen and Chán… stress the fact that realization does not involve an ascending progression, for it lies in the instant disclosure of the original, unconditioned state of absolute equality that has no high or low, no up or down, that the Dzogchen teachings call Dzogchen-qua-Base. The Dzogchen Path is symbolized by the garuḍa bird that breaks out of the egg fully developed and capable of flying, for the simple reason that Dzogchen-qua-Path is not basically different from Dzogchen-qua-Fruit, as both of them consist in the disclosure of Dzogchen-qua-Base—the crucial difference between them being that the duration of occurrences of the former is limited because the propensities for avidyā to arise have not yet been purged, and hence at some point delusion will again conceal Dzogchen-qua-Base and distort the given. Although on the Path of the Series [of Instructions] of Dzogchen… realization follows a clear sequence that begins with the dharmakāya, continues with the saṃbhogakāya, and concludes with the nirmāṇakāya, these successive kāyas, rather than being progressively higher rungs in a ladder, floors in a building or peaks in a mountain range, consist in the correct apprehension of different forms of manifestation of the energy or thukje aspect of the unproduced, unconditioned, unborn trikāya-quaBase that is a condition of absolute equality and that as such does not fit into hierarchies or [gradualist presentations of the Path]—each successive kāya further expanding and consolidating the direct realization of the trikāya. When finally the nirmāṇakāya consolidates, Dzogchen-qua-Fruit has been attained and the full patency of the trikāya-qua-Base is never interrupted again. a b c d e 461 In fact, in Dzogchen, realization does not involve an ascending progression, for the Path begins with the disclosure of Dzogchen-qua-Base in the condition of rigpa that is both the Path and Fruit of Dzogchen. This is why in these teachings it is said that all five paths of the gradual Path of Renunciation and all ten or eleven levels that succeed each other in the gradual Mahāyāna are complete and perfect in one single rigpa. However, as already noted, this approach is especially emphasized in f g h Skt. bhūmi; Tib. sa; Ch. 地 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dì; Wade-Giles, ti ). Skt. ekabhūmi; Tib. sa gcig. Cf. endnote 67. Skt. Upadeśavarga; Tib. Man ngag [gyi] sde. The term “energy” renders the Tibetan thugs rje (lit. soft and noble heart), one of the Tibetan terms that render the Skt. karuṇā—the other one being snying rje; Ch. 悲 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bēi; Wade-Giles, pei —lit. sadness or mercy), usually rendered as compassion. The reason why this term is used is explained in a footnote to the Introduction. Skt. mārga; Tib. lam; Ch. 道 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dào; Wade-Giles tao ). Skt. bhūmi; Tib. sa; Ch. 地 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dì; Wade-Giles, ti ). Tib. rig pa gcig rdzogs. A similar sense is expressed by the Tib. rig pa gcig grol gyi ngo bo: [in the] essence of the liberated, single rigpa. a 4 b c d e 1 f 4 g 4 h 312 the treasure texts and pure vision texts of the Nyingthik series of treasures and other teachings of the Series of Instructions, as well as of the original form of the teachings of both the Series of Space and the Series of [the Nature of] Mind. Nonetheless, in the Series of Pith Instructions and the Series of Space there are stages on the Path to full Awakening: (a) In the Series of Pith Instructions, the yogins or yoginīs who first practice Tekchö and then practice Thögäl and/or the Yangti/Yangthik, will initially realize the dharmakāya which is true condition of the dang form of energy manifestation— which here I am inexactly rendering as energy of the sphere of the mental—and then through the practice of Tekchö will become increasingly familiar with this condition; subsequently, in practices of Thögäl and / or the Yangti / Yangthik, they will realize the saṃbhogakāya that is the true condition of rölpa energy—which I am rendering as visionary, corrective energy—and become increasingly familiar with this condition; and finally they will obtain the nirmāṇakāya, consolidating the svabhāvikāya. (b) In both series—that of Pith Instructions and that Series of Space—yogins and yoginīs will develop through the four visions proper to these Series, which are degrees of the clarity of the rigpa that became apparent and actual at the very outset of the Path: in the successive visions, rigpa becomes clearer and clearer—and therefore the true condition of phenomena becomes clearer and clearer—until rigpa, the Kāyas and the primordial gnoses reach their full measure in the third Vision, called “the Vision of the full measure of rigpa.” In the same way, the successive visions involve the progressive integration of phenomena in that rigpa, culminating in the fourth Vision, called exhaustion of phenomena beyond concepts. The increase in the clarity of rigpa has to do with the incrase in the energetic volume determining the scope of awareness, which makes rigpa clearer and clearer, and with the progressive neutralization, by means of the practices of Thögäl and/or the Yangti/Yangthik, of delusive obstructions—both passional ones and cognitive ones —and of our conditioning by karmic propensities. Therefore, this process may be compared to boring a very small hole through a wall at the other side of which lies a statue of Buddha: when the hole is too small and the statue too near, you can see its color, but you cannot be sure it is a statue—or, even less so, tell what the statue represents. Then you make the hole a little bigger and you realize it is a statue but you cannot tell what the statue represents. Finally, you further expand the hole and you a b c d e f g h i j Wylie, snying thig. Wylie, khregs chod. Wylie, thod rgal. Wylie, yang ti. Alternatively, this practice is called yang thig. Tib. snang ba bzhi. Some of these will be mentioned below in the regular text of this volume, and all of them will be discussed in some detail in Vol. II of this book. Tib. rig pa tshad phebs kyi snang ba. Tib. chos zad blo ’das or exhaustion of phenomena beyond concepts. Skt. kleśāvaraṇa; Tib. nyon [mongs pa’i] sgrib [pa]; Ch. 煩惱障 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fánnǎozhàng; WadeGiles, fan -nao -chang ). Skt. jñeyāvaraṇa; Pāḷi ñeyyavāvaraṇa; Tib. shes [bya’i] sgrib [pa]; Ch. 所知障 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn suǒzhīzhàng; Wade-Giles so -chih -chang ). Skt. vāsanā Tib. bag chags; Ch. 氣習 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, qìxí; Wade-Giles, ch’i -hsi ) or 習氣 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíqì; Wade-Giles, hsi -ch’i ). a b c d e f g h 2 3 4 i 3 1 4 j 4 2 4 313 2 realize it is a statue of Buddha. From the beginning, you saw the statue, but you did not have a full perception of it. This example is extremely inexact, yet it can give us a rough idea of why is development on the Dzogchen Path compared to a garuḍa that is born fully developed, and yet it is said that rigpa only reaches its full measure in the Third Vision of the higher Dzogchen practices, or that one first realizes the dharmakāya, then the saṃbhogakāya, and then the nirmāṇakāya, thus consolidating the svabhāvikāya. Because of the above, the Dzogchen teachings are said to be neither sudden not gradual. In fact, the above described dharmakāya-saṃbhogakāya-nirmāṇakāya sequence of realization, and the sequence of the four visions taught in Nyingthik texts (as well as in other Series of Instructions texts and in some Space Series texts) shows that even the most suddenist Atiyoga teachings are neither totally suddenist nor gradualist: Direct Introduction occurs suddenly, but as a rule it does not burn out all karmas, and, at any rate, in most people doubts concerning the true condition of reality and the nature of the event itself tend to arise subsequently to the event, so that one has to return to the state again and again until doubts no longer arise—and only then can one totally devote oneself to the actual practice of Dzogchen Ati. This is the reason why the spiritual testament of Garab Dorje—the Primordial Revealer who introduced Buddhist Dzogchen into our world—consists in the following three phrases: “Direct Introduction [to the state of rigpa];” “Not to Remain in Doubt [with regard to the true condition of reality and the fact that the event in which it was realized was a Direct Introduction],” and “Continue in the State [of rigpa] with confidence in self-liberation:” this is the original, standard sequence of Dzogchen practice. However, we find a typically gradual path in the Series of [the Nature of] Mind of the tradition of Kham. This tradition was developed by Aro Yeshe Jungne, who as noted above was a Master of the Northern School of Chán (which the Southern School deems gradualist), of the gradual Mahāyāna, of the Path of Transformation of the Tantras, and of the original form of the Dzogchen Series of [the Nature of] Mind. He compounded this approach to practice by incorporating elements of the original form of this series, elements of the Northern School of Chán, and seemingly also elements of the gradual Mahāyāna. And the same applies to the current Mahāmudrā teachings of the Kagyüpas, which, according to Chögyal Namkhai Norbu, Gampopa a b c d Tib. ston pa: those who reintroduce complete systems of teachings when there is no longer a line of transmission, and who as such are different from Treasure Revealers (Tib. gter ston), who, while there is still a living transmission, introduce specific teachings that had been lost or that were not suitable for previous times but are required at the time of their revelation. In Tibetan, the second statement is gcig thag bcad pa which literally means “arriving at a single, decisive certainty.” However, as Chögyal Namkhai Norbu notes, this has nothing to do with a decision of the will. In fact, it means gaining decisive certainty in our true condition so that no doubts arise. This is why Chögyal Namkhai Norbu glosses the second statement this way. Tib. Chaggya Chenpo (Wylie, phyag rgya chen po); Ch. ⼤印 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dàyìn; Wade-Giles, ta yin ) / ⼤⼿印 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dàshǒuyìn; Wade-Giles ta -shou yin ). Note that the Chinese translation renders the Tib. phyag rgya and Skt. mudra as seal rather than symbol, which according to Chögyal Namkhai Norbu is the real sense of the term. Wylie, sgam po pa: Gampopa Sönam Rinchen (Wylie, sGam po pa bSod nams rin chen: 1079-1153). Source: Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal] (E. Capriles, Ed. unpublished). a b c 4 4 4 d 314 3 4 developed on the basis of of the Series of [the nature of] Mind of the Kham tradition, and which seems to have been further developed by the Treasure-revealer Ranjung Dorje, the Third Karmapa (to whom, as noted above, Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche traced the origin of this form of Mahāmudrā). In fact, in both systems the practice begins with a concentration that is a function of mind and mental events—and hence of delusion—and then progresses through four stages, generating states in the process that are to be used as the basis for reGnizing rigpa and thus obtaining Direct Introduction. It is clear, thus, that this path follows the typical structure of graded paths, wherein there is no manifestation, at the onset of the path, of the fully developed garuḍa of rigpa. In fact, on this Series the four stages are not levels of the measure of rigpa and/or of integration of mind into uncommon phenomena that arise from the practice—as is the case in the practices of Thögel and the Yangti/Yangthik, in Nyingthik Tekchö and in the Series of Space—nor a sequence of realization of dimensions of Buddhahood as in the case of the progression dharmakāya-saṃbhogakāya-nirmāṇakāya that occurs in the Series of Pith Instructions. a b c Physical Yoga In connection with the completion or perfection stage of the Anuttarayoga, the Mahāyoga and the Anuyoga, it is necessary to stress the role of physical yoga, which in that case is of the kind known by the Tibetan term thulkhor and the Sanskrit yantra yoga or yoga of movement. This type of yoga directly acts on what here I am rendering as as structural pathways and on the circulation of energy, harmonizing the latter and giving rise to a greater integration of body and mind through the link between them, which is energy. Tibetans often use the terms tsalung and tsa-lungthigle to refer to the yogic exercises of this category applied on the Path of Transformation properly speaking (Anuttarayogatantras, especially those of the mother and nondual classes, Mahāyogatantras and Anuyogatantras) to raise what I am calling energetic volume determining the scope of awareness (related to kuṇḍalinī) and to have effects on the seed-essence that trigger experiences of total pleasure, among other effects. In fact, in the practices that give rise to indivisible d e f g h 462 Tib. gter ston: this is the title given to those who reveal the treasure-teachings and other spiritual treasures (Tib. gter ma) of the Nyingma and/or Bönpo Schools. Wylie, Rang byung rdo rje, the IIId Karmapa (1284-1339). Source: Trungpa & Fremantle (1975, p. 59). Wylie, snying thig khregs chod. Wylie, ’khrul ’khor; Skt. adhisāra. This term refers to setting something in motion, as when turning an engine on. Skt. nāḍī; Tib. rtsa. As will be explained later on, these are not preconfigured, physically existing channels, for they may be visualized in different configurations in order to produce different yogic effects (this point was stressed by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu’s root teacher, rigdzin Changchub Dorje). Skt. prāṇavāyu; Tib. rlung. Tib. thig le. Skt. bindu; Tib. thig le. That the same word is used should not surprise us, for thigle qua energetic volume to a great extent depends on thigle qua seed-essence. And with a total energetic volume it is easier to realize the true condition that is represented with a sphere because it cannot be grasped through concepts. a b c d e f g h 315 pleasure and emptiness, prāṇāyāma (yogic breathing), bandhas (specific muscular contractions and movements), and other elements proper to this type of yoga are always applied: in practices that do not involve a physical consort, the experiences sought depend on the combined application of physical yoga (including the just listed elements), visualization and so on, whereas in those that involve a physical consort, the elements just mentioned are often the key to retaining the seed-essence, which, for its part, at the onset of the practice is a necessary condition for heat to arise and possibly catalyze experiences of total pleasure, and also for the energetic volume determining the scope of awareness to possibly increase to the required levels. In Part Three of this book, an Atiyoga variety of yantra yoga (which in Ati Dzogpa Chenpo is an important secondary practice) will be described succinctly, though no instructions for practice will be provided. And should a third volume of this book be finally published (which as noted in the Introduction at this point is uncertain) very succinct directions for the three kinds or varieties of the last of the seven mind trainings, which involve some of the elements discussed here, would be offered. a b c d The Father, Mother and Nondual Anuttarayogatantras and the Three Series of Inner Tantras of the Nyingmapa We saw that the Anuttarayogatantras of the Newer or Sarmapa schools are classified into father Tantras, mother Tantras and nondual Tantras, and that when we compare these three with the Nyingma vehicles, the principle of the nondual Tantras is closest to that of Mahāyogatantra. However, Ju Mipham, among others, posited some kind of correspondence between the Mahāyoga of the Nyingmapa or Ancient School and the father Tantras of the Newer or Sarmapa schools; between the Anuyoga of the Nyingmapa and the mother Tantras of the Sarmapa schools; and between the Atiyoga of the Nyingma School and the nondual Tantras of the Newer or Sarmapa schools. Mipham was one of the top Master-scholars in the Nyingma School, who brought Nyingma Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka to unprecedented heights and who was always accurate in his explanations of the dharma. Moreover, one of his teachers, Jamgön Kongtrul, had made it clear that the correspondences between Higher Sarma Tantras and Inner Nyingma Tantras were as stated below. It is therefore obvious that Mipham posited those correspondences between the three types of Anuttarayogatantras and the three inner Tantras of the Nyingmapa as other-directed view that would work as effective skillful means for members of the Newer Schools. No doubt, in father Anuttarayogatantras method preponderates over prajñā in the senses and for the reasons discussed in the section on Anuttarayoga, and they place a greater emphasis on clarity than on sensation, for they require that the deity and maṇḍala be visualized in great detail—whereas the realization that they lead to emphasizes the inseparability of clarity and emptiness. Conversely, it is clear that in e f 463 Skt. bindu; Tib. thig le. Tib. bde [ba] chen [po]; Skt. mahāsukha; Ch. ⼤樂 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dàlè; Wade-Giles, ta -le ). Tib. thig le. Tib. blo sbyong. I am referring to the seven lojongs of the Dzogchen Menngagde (Wylie, rdzogs chen man ngag sde); not to those that Atīśa Dīpaṅkara Śrijñāna introduced in Tibet. Ju Mipham Jamyang Namgyäl (Wylie, ’Ju mi pham ’jam dbyangs rnam rgyal), 1846-1912. Jamgön Kongtrül Lodrö Thaye (Wylie, ’Jam mgon kong sprul blo gros mtha’ yas) (1813–1899). a b 4 c d e f 316 4 the Mother Anuttarayogatantras of the Sarmapa prajñā preponderates over method in the senses and for the reasons discussed in the section on Anuttarayoga, and that they place more emphasis on sensation than the Father Tantras, in two senses: in that there is no need to pay so much attention to the details of the visualization, for it is more important to have the feeling of being the deity in his or her maṇḍala, and in that they place a greater emphasis on the practices of the stage of completion or perfection aimed at the arising of total pleasure—while in the ensuing realization there is a greater emphasis on the inseparability of pleasure and emptiness. An analogous relation exists between the Nyingmapas’ Mahāyogatantra and Anuyogatantra, for when compared with the Anuyogatantras, Mahāyogatantras place a greater emphasis on method than they do on prajñā, and they place a greater emphasis on clarity than they do on feeling; in fact, they require that both deity and maṇḍala be visualized in much greater detail, and in the ensuing realization the inseparability of clarity and emptiness is paramount. Likewise, the Anuyogatantras place a far greater emphasis on prajñā than the Mahāyogatantras, and they also place a far greater emphasis on feeling than the Mahāyogatantras, in the same twofold sense in which the mother Anuttaratantras emphasize feeling to a greater extent than the father Anuttaratantras: firstly, in that there is no need to pay attention to the details of the visualization to the same extent as in Mahāyogatantra, for it is most important to have the sensation of being the deity in his or her maṇḍala; secondly, in that they place a far greater emphasis on the practices of the stage of completion or perfection aimed at the arising of total pleasure and the realization of the inseparability of pleasure and emptiness. However, the degree to which prajñā prevails over method in the Anuyoga is far greater than in the mother Tantras of the Sarmapa, and the same applies to the degree to which the sensation of being the deity prevails over the details of the visualization, to the degree to which emphasis is placed on the practices of the stage of completion or perfection that should give rise to the experiences of total pleasure, and to the degree to which in the practice pleasure prevails over clarity. In the same way, in Anuyogatantra the generation stage is far briefer, simpler and less emphasized than in the mother Tantras of the Sarmapa: as we have seen, in it the transformation is instantaneous rather than gradual and is not to be dissolved at the end of the session of practice—these being the two most important differences between Anuyogatantra and all other Tantric vehicles—and almost the whole of the practice is devoted to the completion stage. Finally, and in connection with everything that has been said in this paragraph, the swiftness with which both the experiences of total pleasure and the realization of the inseparability of pleasure and emptiness may be attained in Anuyoga is much greater than in any of the Anuttarayogatantras of the Sarmapa. Similarly, paradigmatic Mahāyogatantras (such as the Guhyagarbha) place a far lesser emphasis on method, on the generation / creation stage, on the details of the visualization, and on the inseparability of clarity and emptiness than father Anuttarayogatantras, for, as we have repeatedly seen, the principle of paradigmatic Mahāyogatantras is much closer to the one at play in nondual Anuttarayogatantras of the Sarmapa, than to those of the other two classes of Anuttarayogatantras. In fact, when we compare paradigmatic Tantras of Mahāyoga with the father and mother Anuttarayogatantras, we find that in the former there is no preponderance of either 317 the aspect of method or the aspect of prajñā, and that the Mahāyogatantras contemplate the practice of method and prajñā and the development and completion stages in the equanimity of the pure dimension, the total primordial gnosis of the single sphere that is our own natural state of rigpa-bodhicitta, the primordial state that is the Base of all phenomena. Furthermore, whereas in the father and mother Anuttaratantras the wisdom state of the fourth initiation is barely mentioned, and is mentioned in a veiled manner, in Mahāyogatantra it is shown openly and clearly. Finally, we have also seen that Mahāyoga views the true maṇḍala as spontaneously perfect and as being no other than the true condition in which cause and fruit are inseparable and wherein all beings have always been Awake—of which the sand maṇḍala used in the initiation is a mere symbolic image. Since these principles are absent in all classes of Anuttarayogatantras, and because of all that has been noted so far, there can be no doubt that Mahāyoga is significantly different from the father Anuttarayogatantras. In general, a series of Masters including Kongtrul Lodrö Taye and Chögyal Namkhai Norbu, among others, have rightly noted that, even though it is true that Mahāyoga places a greater emphasis on method, on the stage of generation or creation and on clarity, whereas Anuyoga places it on prajñā, on the stage of completion or perfection and on sensation, the principal difference between Mahāyoga and Anuyoga is that in the former transformation is applied gradually and is dissolved at the end of the session, whereas in the latter it is instantaneous—for it is based on a particular application of the principle of spontaneous perfection—and is not dissolved at the end of a session. Since the principle of instantaneous transformation is absent in all three classes of Anuttarayogatantras—father, mother, or nondual—and the principle of spontaneous perfection has so little relevance in all of them, which do not even use the term, no matter how useful the identification of Mahāyoga with father Anuttarayogatantras and of Anuyoga with mother Anuttarayogatantras may be in order to lure members of Sarmapa traditions into the Dzogchen teachings or to further good relations between the different schools, to posit a correspondence between the father Tantras and Mahāyoga, and between the mother Tantras and Anuyoga, is simply incorrect. And yet it is true that among the Nyingma Mahāyogatantras there are Tantras that the Sarmapas clasify as Father Anuttarayogatantras, even though the Nyingma and Sarma translations are different. Furthermore, although the Anuttarayogatantras, like the Mahāyogatantras and the Anuyogatantras, are structured on a model of death, intermediate state and rebirth that is supposed to purify these (not so that they become smoother or lighter but in order to free the yogins from them and the suffering they involve), Sarmapas lack a vehicle like the Atiyogatantra, in which foremost are practices like Thögel or the Yangti/Yangthik, which are based on the principle of spontaneous rectification . In fact, in these practices, yogins and yoginīs gain access to the intermediate state of a b c d e Tib. lhun grub; Skt. nirābogha or anābogha. Wylie, Kong sprul blo gros mtha’ yas; Tibetan Text 11. Namkhai Norbu (1999/2001, pp. 178-180). Skt. antarābhava; Tib. bar do; Ch. 中有 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhōngyǒu; Wade-Giles, chung -yu ) / 中陰 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhōngyīn; Wade-Giles, chung -yin ). Skt. anābogha or nirābogha; Tib. lhun grub. a b c d 1 1 1 e 318 3 the true condition of phenomena while their physical bodies are alive, so that the structure and function of that intermediate state may activate and unleash the selfrectifying positive feedback loops inherent in the human system that are at the root of the most effective, supreme, spontaneous deconditioning experiences—and as a result of this they may achieve the highest attainable realization in the shortest time possible. In fact, among the correspondences posited by Mipham, most inaccurate is the purported correspondence he posits between the nondual Anuttarayogatantras of the Newer or Sarmapa schools and the Atiyogatantra of the Ancient or Nyingmapa School. While the functional principle of all Anuttarayogatantras, independently of whether they are Father, Mother or Nondual Tantras, is transformation, it has been repeatedly noted that the Atiyogatantra of the Nyingmapa is not based on the principle of transformation, but on that of spontaneous liberation, which is radically different from the principles behind all types of Tantric transformation practice—being clearly “superior” to all of these. And, in particular, Dzogchen Ati comprises the methods, based on the principle of spontaneous rectification, aluded to in the preceding paragraph. a b Differences Between the Nyingma and Sarma Translations In the Tantras that are Common to Anuttarayoga and Mahāyoga In the case of those Mahāyogatantras of the Nyingmapa that also exist in the Anuttarayogatantra of the Sarmapas, such as for example the Guhyasamājatantra and the Śrīcandraguhyatilakanāmamahātantrarājatantra, the Nyingma translations differ significantly from those of the Sarmapa—and the same applies to Nyingma translations of commentaries to Sarma canonical texts. In fact, while the former favor the meaning over the letter, the latter are literal. This often causes the meaning of the two renderings to differ, and when this happens, as a rule the meaning is more profound and faithful to the text’s intent in the Nyingma translations. For example, as Chögyal Namkhai Norbu remarked, in Rinchen Zangpo’s Sarma translation of the Mañjuśrīnāmasaṃgīti, the famed verse “the supreme, totally pure akṣara” was translated as “the supreme, totally pure letter,” for the line was rendered attending to the literal meaning of the term akṣara; contrariwise, in the Nyingma translation of Drime Ö, a commentary to the Kālacakratantra, the term akṣara was understood in c d e f Skt. dharmatā antarābhava; Tib. chos nyid bar do; Ch. 法性中有 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎxìng zhōngyǒu; Wade-Giles, fa -hsing chung -yu ). As cautioned in a previous note, an exception to this might be the practice of the Intermediate State in the Six Yogas of Nāropā and Six Yogas of Niguma, pertaining to Sarma Anuttarayogatantra. At any rate, in the Kagyu (bKa’ brgyud) system this practice does not have the primacy and scope that Thögäl (Thod rgal) and the Yangti (Yang ti) / Yangthik (Yang thig) have in the Nyingma (rNying ma) system. Tib. [Pel] Sangwa Düpa Gyü (Wylie, [dPal] gSang ba ’dus pa rgyud). English translation: Assembly of Secrets. Tib. [Pel] Dasang Thigle [Tsawai] Gyü (Wylie, [dPal] Zla gsang thig le [rtsa ba’i] rgyud). Lit. Root Tantra of the Essence of the Secret Moon. Tib. Tsenjö (Wylie, mtshan brjod): ’Phags pa ’Jam dpal gyi mtshan yang dag par brjod pa, in fourteen chapters, translated by Rinchen Zangpo (Wylie, Rin cen bZang po). Wylie, Dri med ’od. a 3 4 1 3 b c d e f 319 its figurate sense, which is “immutable,” and hence the same verse was rendered as “the supreme, immutable and totally pure [condition]”—which seems to correctly render the meaning the word akṣara had in the original text. Moreover, Nyingma translations often improve on the original; for example, the Sanskrit term “yoga” means “union,” which does not make sense in the higher Buddhist vehicles, as Buddhism does not posit a soul that would be separate and different from an ultimate reality—or, far less, from a deity—that would be external to it and with which it should unite, and uses the term, among other things, to refer to the practice that facilitates the spontaneous dissolution of hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized contents of thought and therefore of the ensuing illusion of separateness and delusion in general, and the concomitant self-disclosure of the true condition of ourselves and the whole universe—and also to refer to the state ensuing from this practice. This roughly responds to the etymology of the Tibetan term “naljor,” which is the Nyingma translation of the Sanskrit “yoga,” even though later on the Tibetan term in question was used also by the Sarmapa: “nalma “ means “unaltered condition of something,” and “jorwa “ means “to contract,” “to take” or “to adhere to;” therefore, the combination of the two terms has the meaning of “acquiring (our own) unaltered condition and adhering to it,” but since one cannot acquire what one has always (been), it is used in the sense of, “discovering our original, unaltered condition and not becoming distracted with regard to it,” or of, “nondual awareness (of) our original, unaltered condition, which is also the original, unaltered condition of all other phenomena.” a b c 464 The Fruit in the Anuttarayogatantras of the Sarmapa and in the Inner Tantras of the Nyingmapa In the Anuttarayogatantra of the Newer or Sarmapa schools, the final Fruit of the practice is known as Mahāmudrā. Although many Western translators have rendered this term as “great seal,” Chögyal Namkhai Norbu has pointed out that its correct translation is “total symbol.” At the root of the mistake incurred by so many renowned translators is an incorrect reading of the Tibetan word “chaggya ”: the “gya” in this word is written rgya, and thus it is different from the one that appears in triplicate in the phrase “samaya gya gya gya” printed at the end of Nyingma terma teachings, which means “sealed” and is used to indicate that the teaching is very secret and should not be talked about. For their part, the Sanskrit mahā and the Tibetan chenpo in general mean “big” or “great,” which denotes a relative measure, for whatever is great can be even greater; however, these Sanskrit and Tibetan terms can also denote an absolute measure, in which case it would be more precise to render d e f Namkhai Norbu (1993, 1999/2001). Wylie, rnal ma. Wylie, ’byor ba. Tib. Chaggya Chenpo (Wylie, phyag rgya chen po); Ch. ⼤印 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dàyìn; Wade-Giles, ta yin ) / ⼤⼿印 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dàshǒuyìn; Wade-Giles ta -shou yin ). Note that the Chinese translation renders the Tib. phyag rgya and Skt. mudra as seal rather than symbol, which according to Chögyal Namkhai Norbu is the correct sense of the term. Namkhai Norbu (E. Capriles, Ed., unpublished). Wylie, phyag rgya. a b c d 4 4 4 e f 320 3 4 them as “total.” The practice of Tantrism begins and ends with symbols—the very manifestation of divinities being itself a symbol rather than the presence of a given being. Mahāmudrā is complete integration with that symbol and complete realization in it: there is nothing but the symbol, which hence has no referent other than itself and which is the total symbol referred to by the words Mahāmudrā and Chagchen. For their part, the Anuyogatantras and Mahāyogatantras of the Nyingmapa (and among the latter, also the Nyingma version of Tantras that exist also among the Anuttarayogatantras of the Sarmapa, such as the above-mentioned Guhyasamāja and Śrīcandraguhyatilakanāmamahātantrarāja ), the Fruit is called Dzogchen, which is a contraction of Dzogpa Chenpo. “Dzogpa” may mean “full,” “complete” or “perfect;” for example, a glass full of water to the brim is “dzogpa;” however, the same applies to an act that is perfectly carried out. Thus, if we allow ourselves some license, we could go as far as to say that in the term dzogpa the connotation of full refers to the primordial purity aspect of Awakening, which is emptiness, and since emptiness implies an absolute absence of divisions, in this sense render the word as plenitude or completeness; and that same term’s acceptation of perfect refers to the spontaneous perfection aspect, and in that sense translate it as “perfect.” Since in an absolute sense “chenpo” means “total,” on the basis of the preceding interpretation, allowing myself the due license, I decided to translate the noun Dzogchen as “total completeness / plenitude and perfection”—not only when the term Dzogchen refers to the Fruit of the Anuyogatantras and Mahāyogatantras of the Nyingmapa, but also, and most important, when the term designates the Base, the Path and the Fruit of Atiyogatantra. (To most people this may sound most strange, for as noted repeatedly the primordial purity aspect of our true condition of Dzogchen qua Base, qua Path and qua Fruit refers to emptiness, and common sense tends to conceive emptiness as a nothingness, which it views as the opposite of fullness or plenitude; nevertheless, emptiness also corresponds to the dharmadhātu: the undivided expanse where all phenomena appear and which is pervaded by a panoramic nondual awareness that is indivisible from it—as it becomes evident when rigpa makes our true condition evident. Since this indivisibility of undivided expanse and awareness is a continuum with no empty spaces, it is an absolute plenitude, and hence whoever is in the state of Dzogchen qua Path or qua Fruit and hence does not feel separate from it, is in a state of absolute plenitude. And it is when we feel separate from it that we feel a lack that we wrongly believe could be filled with possessions, pleasures and so on, and therefore we attribute value to possessions, pleasures, to the extent top which we wrongly imagine they will fill the lack.) Mahāmudrā, the final state of Anuttarayogatantra, is not in any way different from the condition of total completeness / plenitude and perfection indicated by the term Dzogchen that is the arrival point of both the Mahāyoga and the Anuyoga of the a 465 b c d e f 466 Tib. Dasang Thigle (Wylie, Zla gsang thig le). In full, Pel Dasang Thigle Tsawai Gyü (Wylie, dPal zla gsang thig le rtsa ba’i rgyud); English, Root Tantra of the Essence of the Secret Moon. Language of Oḍḍiyāna, santimaha (diacritics omitted); Skt. mahāsaṅdhi. Wylie, rdzogs pa chen po. Tib. ka dag; hypothesized Skt. kaśuddha. Tib. lhun grub; Skt. nirābogha or anābogha. Tib. ka dag; hypothesized Skt. kaśuddha. a b c d e f 321 Old or Nyingmapa School. However, the fact that the Fruit of the higher Tantra of the Sarmapas and of the inner Tantras of the Nyingmapa is the same does not mean that all these vehicles have the potential to achieve exactly the same degree of consolidation of that state. This is why the final level that may be achieved, is not the same in the Anuttarayogatantra, the Mahāyogatantra and the Anuyogatantra. As implied in a previous section, even the final Fruit of realization of the Bodhisattvayāna, which corresponds to the fifth bodhisattva path, called the path of no more learning, and which in Tibet as a rule is identified as the eleventh level, called Universal Radiance, might involve a perceptible partiality towards emptiness (which would imply some degree of directionality of attention and, as shown in the consideration of Anuyoga, would entail fragmentation and therefore would forestall the becoming apparent and actual of limitless, Total Space-Time-Awareness that [is] beyond the duality center-periphery), rather than revealing the fullness of the Vajra nature with its two indivisible aspects—namely primordial purity and spontaneous perfection. This is illustrated with the examples of the hen picking grain and of threading a needle with which Namkhai Nyingpo illustrated one of the flaws of the Sudden Mahāyāna, as shown toward the end of the section on the Sudden Mahāyāna of the Chapter on the Path of Renunciation. The Path of Transformation reaches beyond the eleventh level, which is supposed to correspond both to the final arrival point of the gradual Mahāyāna (or Bodhisattvayāna) and to the definitive stabilization of the instantaneous Awakening proper to the sudden Mahāyāna. For example, Anuttarayogatantra systems such as that of the Kālacakratantra and that of the Vajrahṛdayalaṃkāratantranāma, claim that the practitioner may go beyond the eleventh level and attain a twelfth level, which in the Kālacakra is called Totally Liberated Level, and which seems to be differently called in the Vajrahṛdayalaṃkāra (other Anuttarayogatantras list other different numbers of levels; however, some of these lists are intended to make the levels correspond to sets of dharma items such as the four aspects of each of the four pleasures, the sixteen emptinesses, the sacred places and so on). It has been noted that the Fruit of the three inner Tantras of the Nyingmapa is the state of Dzogchen; however, as stated above, this does not mean that all of them achieve the same degree of realization and consolidation of this state. In the Mahāyogatantra the practitioner may go beyond the final level of the Mahāyāna and also beyond the twelfth level, which in this system is called level of the Lotus of NonAttachment, and attain as the Fruit a thirteenth level, called “Level of the Great a b c d e f g h i 467 j Skt. bhūmi; Tib. sa; Ch. 地 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dì; Wade-Giles, ti ). Skt. mārga[ḥ]; Pāḷi, magga; Tib. lam; Ch. 道 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dào; Wade-Giles, tao ). Skt. aśaikṣamārga[ḥ]; Tib. mi slob pa’i lam; Ch. 無學道 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúxuédào; Wade-Giles wu hsüueh tao ). Skt. bhūmi; Tib. sa; Ch. 地 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dì; Wade-Giles, ti ). Skt. samantaprabhā; Tib. kun tu ’od; Ch. 如來地 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, rúlái [dì]; Wade-Giles, ju -lai [ti ]. Tib. ka dag; hypothesized Skt. kaśuddha. Tib. lhun grub; Skt. nirābogha or anābogha. English, Ornament of the vajra-nucleus Tantra; Tib. rDo rje snying po rgyan gyi rgyud [Toh. 451]. Tib. rnam par grol ba’i sa. Or “immaculate nonattachment.” Tib. ma chags pad ma can. a 4 b 4 c 2 2 4 d 4 e 2 f g h i j 322 2 4 Accumulation of the Cakra of Letters” or, more precisely, Level of the Great Accumulation of the Immutable maṇḍala.” Likewise, in Anuyogatantra, in which the levels are not the result of a gradual, progressive training, it is possible to go beyond the final level of Mahāyoga and attain the fourteenth level, which is known as the “Level of Total Pleasure:” the state of Dzogchen has been more thoroughly realized and consolidated than in Mahāyoga. As will be shown in the next chapter, through the nongradual / gradual Path of the Atiyoga it is possible to consolidate the state of Dzogchen even further, and attain up to the sixteenth level —and it is even possible to attain one of the modes of death characteristic of Atiyoga, which are unknown in other vehicles. This is also related to the fact that, as Chögyal Namkhai Norbu stated in a retreat in the outskirts of Caracas in 1989, the final attainment of the Tantras of Transformation, which they call svabhāvikāya—and which is regarded as endpoint of a sequence of realization that begins with the nirmāṇakāya, that continues with the saṃbhogakāya, then continues with the dharmakāya and finally concludes with the svabhāvikāya—corresponds to the condition that in Dzogchen Atiyoga is called Direct Introduction. In Dzogchen as a path, after the Direct Introduction that as just noted corresponds to that which the Tantras of Transformation call svabhāvikāya, through the practice of Tekchö we realize the dharmakāya, which in this context is a realization that lies beyond the endpoint of the Tantras of Transformation and that can hardly be reached through these Tantras. Subsequently, through the practices of Thögäl and the Yangti / Yangthik we realize the saṃbhogakāya, which in this system is a level of realization higher than that of the dharmakāya. And the Fruit of these practices is obtained when we realize the nirmāṇakāya—which here refers to a level of realization that surpasses those of the other two kāyas. Only then we can be said to have realized the true svabhāvikāya, which hence goes far beyond the svabhāvikāya of the Tantras based on the principle of transformation. a b c 468 Or Level of the Great Accumulation of the Immutable Cakra. Tib. yi ge ’khor lo tshogs chen. Or “Level of Total Bliss.” Tib. bde ba chen po’i sa. The fifteenth is the Level of the Vajra Holder (Tib. rdo rje ’dzin gyi sa), of certitude of spontaneous perfection, and the sixteenth is the Level of Master of Primordial Gnosis (Tib. ye shes bla ma’i sa), the highest possible realization in any vehicle, achievable only through Ati Dzogpa Chenpo. a b c 323 THE PATH OF SPONTANEOUS LIBERATION The Path of Spontaneous Liberation is the only Path that consists of a single vehicle— namely the one referred to in the language of Oḍḍiyāna by the terms Ati (primordial), Atiyoga (primordial yoga), Atiyogatantra (Tantra of primordial yoga) or, when given in full, Atiyogatantrayāna (vehicle of the Tantra of primordial yoga)—the referent of which is the same as that of the term Dzogchen when the latter is used to refer to a vehicle with its three aspects, which are Base, Path and Fruit (i.e., as distinct from Dzogchen qua the Fruit of Mahāyoga and Anuyoga). For its part, the term “Dzogchen,” no matter the sense in which it is used, has many synonyms, including mind of Awakening (i.e. bodhicitta ), total sphere, single sphere, total I-ness, and so on. As shown upon considering the Path of Transformation, the term Tantra and its Tibetan equivalent have the twofold sense of continuity and luminosity. Since all books, writers, translators and teachers that have employed the ancient classification of Buddhist vehicles into Path of Renunciation, Path of Transformation and Path of Self-Liberation or of Spontaneous Liberation have used the terms Tantra and Tantrayāna to refer to the Path of Transformation, many people take them to refer exclusively to that Path. However, Ati Dzogpa Chenpo, based on a functional principle that, as it has been clearly shown, is not that of transformation, but that of spontaneous liberation, is also a Tantric Path, and its root texts are most appropriately called Tantras. The reason for this is that this vehicle is also based on the continuity of empty, primordial luminosity—where empty refers to the primordial purity aspect of the Base, Path and Fruit, which is emptiness, and primordial luminosity to the spontaneous perfection / actrualization / rectification / accomplishment aspect, which is luminosity—of which it makes a far more skillful use than Mahāyoga and Anuyoga, which are the two vehicles of the Path of Transformation in the narrow sense of the term, and which are the only two vehicles apart from Atiyogatantra that, in the undivided a b c d e f 469 g h i Skt. ādi; Tib. gdod ma. This term belongs to the language of Oḍḍiyāna; Skt. Ādiyogatantrayāna; Tib. Shin tu rnal ’byor gyi theg pa. Tib. byang chub sems; Ch. 菩提⼼ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, pútíxīn; Wade-Giles, p’u -t’i -hsin ; Jap. bodaishin). Tib. thig le chen po. Tib. thig le nyag gcig. Tib. bdag nyid chen po: [true condition of] ourselves with regard to which there is nothing external, [for it is the true condition of all phenomena]. Tib. rgyud. For its part, the best-known Chinese is ⺫次 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, mùcì; Wade-Giles, mu -tz’u ); the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism (López & Buswell, 2014) gives us 檀特羅 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tántèluó; WadeGiles, t’an -t’e -luo ). Tib. ka dag; hypothesized Skt. kaśuddha. Tib. lhun grub; Skt. nirābogha or anābogha. a b c 2 2 1 d e f g 4 2 4 2 h i 325 4 true condition of ourselves and all phenomena, distinguish a primordial purity and a spontaneous perfection aspect. The requisite for there being a Buddhist vehicle or a Buddhist Path is that it must comprise three indispensable aspects, which are Base, Path and Fruit. The continuity that is designated by the term Tantra also applies to these three aspects, each of which must have the same nature as the preceding one, for as shown repeatedly and as reiterated in the preceding paragraph, the Tantric vehicles that make up the Path of Transformation are rooted in the conception that the Base is the Vajra-nature that contains the three kāyas—the dharmakāya, which may be said to correspond to primordial purity, and the other two kāyas (saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya), which make up the rūpakāya that may be said to correspond to spontaneous perfection—and the whole of the qualities and aspects of the Fruit, and that the Path is the disclosure of the Vajra-nature and the rectification of the obstructions that hamper its functionality, rather than the creation of a new reality—which amounts to saying that, as shown above, they pertain to the “Fruit-based vehicle” or Phalayāna. However, this continuity of Base, Path and Fruit is most perfect in the Atiyoga: Dzogchen qua Base is the primordial condition of total completeness / plenitude and perfection that corresponds to the all-liberating single gnosis that actualizes its all-liberating nature when it unveils and so long as it remains unconcealed in nirvāṇa, but not so when it is veiled in saṃsāra; Dzogchen qua Path is the repeated self-unveiling of the condition of total completeness / plenitude and perfection that is Dzogchen qua Base, corresponding to the all-liberating single gnosis, and the continuity of this unconcealed plenitude and fully functional all-liberating perfection, during which all that arises to conceal this condition spontaneously liberates itself and all functions occur masterfully; and Dzogchen qua Fruit is the definitive uncovering of that condition, so that our lives become total completeness / plenitude and unhindered perfection. It is because in the Atiyoga the three aspects of Base, Path and Fruit are Dzogchen, that this vehicle is also called Dzogchen. (As we have seen, in Anuyoga and Mahāyoga the Fruit is Dzogchen, but since the Base and the Path, in spite of the explanation of the Base in terms of the two aspects which are primordial purity and spontaneous perfection, are not the inherently all-liberating single gnosis, these vehicles are not called Dzogchen. The fact that in spite of this the name Dzogchen is also used in Anuyoga and Mahāyoga to refer to the Fruit instantly brings to my mind the Samten Migdrön’s categorization of Ati Dzogpa Chenpo as the universal ancestor of all vehicles.) In the higher vehicles of the Path of Transformation there is a generation stage in which a new reality must be created that was not originally apparent as part of the Base (even though, as opportunely shown, according to these vehicles the reality one creates is merely a way of acknowledging our original condition, in which the true condition of all forms is deity, the true condition of all sounds is mantra, and the true condition of mind is the samādhi of thatness, and therefore one would not be superimposing anything on the original condition, still the generation stage actually involves modifying our vision in order to produce a wholly new way of perceiving ourselves and our dimension). However, as stated in the preceding chapter, one must be aware of the insubstantial, illusion-like nature of the transformation and later on, on the completion stage, one is supposed to be enabled 470 471 a b a b Skt. tathatā; Tib. de bzhin nyid; Chin. 眞如 [性] (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēnrú [xìng]; Wade-Giles, chen -ju [hsing ]). Tib. snang ba; Skt. ābhāsa; Ch. 現 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiàn; Wade-Giles, hsien ). 1 4 326 2 4 to See through that reality in a nonconceptual and hence nondual way into the uncreated and unconditioned true condition of the Base. This does not occur in pure Ati Dzogpa Chenpo (i.e. in ati ati), and in particular in the Series of Instructions and the essence of this series condensed in the Nyingthik teachings, which teach the four chogzhag or “in its own natural condition,” one of which is the nangwa chogzhag, one of the senses of which is that vision is to be left as it (is) rather than transformed. In fact, in the primordial vehicle the Path, rather than involving the creation of a new, pure reality by means of visualization, consists in uncontrivedly Seeing through all conditioned experiences into their primordially pure and spontaneously perfect true condition, which is the unconditioned, uncreated Base of both saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. This proves that in Ati Dzogpa Chenpo the continuity of Base, Path and Fruit is perfect, and that this is not the case in the higher vehicles of the Path of Transformation: rather than having to create a pure vision of reality, the practitioner of Ati has a direct disclosure of the Base that had always been there, and since the whole of the Base is primordially pure and spontaneously perfect, upon this unveiling all phenomena are realized to be primordially pure and spontaneously perfect. This is why, as noted above, Guru Chöwang replied to the question “what is Dzogchen?” with the renowned sentence “not to visualize.” Furthermore, in Atiyoga there is no need to contrivedly create the qualities of Awakening, as is done in the causal vehicles of the Sūtrayāna, for the spontaneous realization of the indivisible, single Base wherein the teachings artificially distinguish the aspect of primordial purity and the aspect of spontaneous perfection results in the self-disclosure of our original true condition, in which these two qualities are indivisible. To conclude, even though the Path of Transformation is based on the idea that the Base and the Path have the same nature as the Fruit, and that the Fruit is no other than the stable, full realization of the Base, as noted in the preceding chapter, in it the Path is based on the principle of causality (which the Kunje Gyälpo asserts to be the shortcoming of Anuyoga). The primordial vehicle of Ati Dzogpa Chenpo does not belong either to the Hetuyāna or to the Phalayāna precisely because its Path is not based on causality, but on the principle of pure spontaneity that is referred to by the Tibetan term lhundrub. In fact, another way of explaining why the continuity of Base, Path and Fruit is more perfect in this vehicle than in those pertaining to the Path of Transformation, could consist in noting that since causes are by definition different and separate from their effects, causality involves a breach of continuity. Furthermore, as we have seen repeatedly, causality affirms and sustains the doer of action, as well as the cause-effect relation; since all of these pertain to the realm of delusion, it is clear that causal practices sustain delusion. In Dzogchen as a path, the disclosure of the Vajra-nature is spontaneous and therefore uncontrived / a 472 b c d e f 473 g Skt. asaṃskṛta; Pāḷi, asaṅkhata; Tib. du ma byas; Ch. 無爲 asaṃskṛta (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu -wei ). Skt. Upadeśavarga; Tib. Man ngag [gyi] sde. Wylie, snying thig. Wylie, cog bzhag. Tib. snang ba cog bzhag. Gu ru Chos dbang (1212-1270), whose full name was Guru Chökyi Wangchuk (Wylie, Chos kyi dbang phyug). Wylie, lhun grub; Skt. nirābogha or anābogha. a 2 2 b c d e f g 327 unconditioned , and does not require the previous creation of a new reality, and the rectification of the obstructions that hamper its perfect functionality is equally spontaneous and hence uncontrived / unconditioned. a The Base The Base of Dzogchen is the Awake, nonconceptual and hence nondual awareness that is referred to as essence or nature of mind and represented with the primordial Buddha, Samantabhadra, whose name means All-Good: the true, natural, unaltered condition of ourselves and all phenomena, which is the Buddha-nature —not as mere potency (i.e. unlike a seed that would have to meet a series of contributory conditions to give rise to a plant that at some point would bear a fruit), but in act / in actuality (i.e. like the sun that is always shining whether or not it is concealed by clouds). Since the Base is the continuum of Buddhahood in act, in it the teachings distinguish the number of aspects that Mahāyāna Buddhism distinguishes in Buddhahood, which most often range between one and five: the continuum in question is the svabhāvakāya / svabhāvikāya and the number of aspets that are distinguished in it may be: (a) none, so that only this single aspect is enumerated; (b) two aspects, which are the dharmakāya and the rūpakāya ; (c) three aspects, which are dharmakāya, saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya ; (d) four aspects, which are the three that were just enumerated plus the svabhāvakāya or svabhāvikāya , which is the indivisibility of the other aspects; or (e) five aspects, which are the preceding four plus the vajrakāya, which is included when the aspects of Buddhahood are made to correspond to the five wisdoms / primordial gnoses. Nevertheless, the most common classifications of aspects of the Base are the one that distinguishes two aspects and the one that distinguishes three aspects. When only two aspects are distinguished, these are called primordial purity or katak, corresponding to the dharmakāya, and spontaneous perfection / spontaneous arising / spontaneous b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Skt. asaṃskṛta; Pāḷi, asaṅkhata; Tib. du ma byas; Ch. 無爲 asaṃskṛta (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu -wei ). Skt. cittatā or citta eva; Tib. sems nyid. Skt. Ādibuddha; Tib. gDod ma’i sangs rgyas / dang po’i sangs rgyas / ye nas sangs rgyas; Ch. 本初佛 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Běnchū fó; Wade-Giles, Pen -ch’u fo ). Tib. chos thams cad kyi gnas lugs. Skt. buddhatā / buddhadhātu / buddhatva; Tib. sangs rgyas kyi khams; Ch. 佛性 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fóxìng; Wade-Giles fo -hsing ); Skt. tathāgatagarbha / sugatagarbha; Tib. de bzhin gshegs pa’i snying po / de gshegs snying po: Chin. 如來藏 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, rúláizàng; Wade-Giles, ju -lai -tsang ). The latter terms are often rendered as kernel or matrix of Buddhahood. Δύναμις. ἐνέργεια. Tib. ngo bo nyid sku; Ch. ⾃性⾝ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìng shēn; Wade-Giles, tzu -hsing shen ; Jap. jishōshin; Kor. chasŏng sin). Tib. chos sku; Ch. 法⾝ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎshēn; Wade-Giles, fa -shen Tib. gzugs kyi sku? Tib. klong sku; Ch. 報⾝ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bàoshēn; Wade-Giles, pao -shen ). Tib. sprul sku; 化⾝ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn; huàshēn; Wade-Giles, hua -shen ) Tib. ngo bo nyid sku; Ch. ⾃性⾝ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìng shēn; Wade-Giles, tzu -hsing shen ; Jap. jishōshin; Kor. chasŏng sin). Tib. rdo rje’i sku; Ch. ⾦剛⾝ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jīngāngshēn; Wade-Giles, chin -kang -shen ). Wylie, ka dag; hypothesized Skt. kaśuddha. a 2 2 b c 3 1 2 d e 2 4 2 2 4 f g h i 3 4 4 1 4 4 1 1 j k 4 l 4 1 1 m n 1 o 328 1 1 accomplishment / spontaneous rectification or lhundrub, which corresponds to the rūpakāya. When three aspects are enumerated, they are essence or ngowo, which in the twofold classification corresponds to primordial purity, and hence to the dharmakāya; nature or rangzhin, corresponding to the saṃbhogakāya; and energy or thukjé, which corresponds to the nirmāṇakāya— the combination of the last two corresponding, in the twofold classification, to spontaneous perfection / actualization / rectification / accomplishment or lhundrub, and hence to the rūpakāya. The primordial purity or essence aspect is the Base’s emptiness and openness, which consists in the fact that, just like a mirror is open to reflect any possible appearance because it bears no inherent form, the Base is open to give rise to any possible phenomenon because it bears no inherent phenomena, and that it is empy in the sense of lacking selfexistence and substance—which applies both to the Base as a totality and to all forms that may be singled out within it (for the latter depend on the essence or nature of mind and on mental functions to appear, and dependence is one essential criterion for establishing emptiness qua lack of self-existence of substance ). Longchen Rabjam writes in the Shingta Chenpo: a b c d e f g Primordial awareness is luminosity, emptiness, clarity and self-arisen primordial gnosis. Its essence (ngo bo) is space-like emptiness/openness; its nature (rang bzhin) is luminous clarity like those of the sun and moon; the radiance (mdangs) of its energy/compassion (thugs rje) is ceasely, unobstructedly arising like [the reflections on] the surface of astainless mirror. It is the Buddhanature, essence of the dharmakāya, saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya, free from falling into the partialities represented by saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. [Nevertheless,] in that condition delusions develop [because of not realizing the spontaneously-arisen primordial gnosis of (nondual) Awake awareness (rig pa) as it (is), and appearances as functions of its manifestative power]. [The aspect of] empty/open essence offers the door to [or opportunity for] manifesting; from [the aspect of] clear, luminous nature appear the five spontaneously arisen lights as objects [due to the failure to realize them to be the power of the primordial gnosis of (nondual) Awake awareness]; and [the aspect of] the energy/compassion of primordial gnosis manifests as prajñā. The Guhyagarbhaṃāyājālatantra reads: “Wonderful! Fom the Buddha-nature beigs are deluded by thoughts and karma.” The Base—the Buddha-nature in act—is also called essence or nature of mind—in Tibetan, semnyi —and as such it is compared to a mirror. In terms of this simile, the primordial purity aspect is illustrated with the fact that, since the mirror is empty of fixed images, it has the capacity to reflect all kinds of shapes and colors: since it is itself not a phenomenon, it is totally open to the arising of phenomena. Moreover, since reflections— h i Wylie, lhun grub; Skt. nirābogha or anābogha. Wylie, ngo bo. Wylie, rang bzhin. Wylie, thugs rje. Skt. śūnyatā; Pāḷi suññatā; Tib. stong pa nyid; Ch. 空 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, kòng; Wade-Giles, k’ung ). This means that all the phenomena that appear in the Base or by virtue of awareness are empty of selfexistence (Skt. svabhāvaśūnyatā or prakṛtiśūnyatā; Tib. rang bzhin [gyi] stong pa nyid; Ch. ⾃性空 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìngkòng; Wade–Giles, tzu -hsing -k’ung ; Jap. jishōkū). The Great Chariot: rdzogs pa chen po sems nyid ngal gso’i ’grel ba shing rta chen po, 115b/1. Equivalent though not equal translation in Tulku Thöndup (1996, p. 251). Wylie, sems nyid: Skt. cittatā or citta eva. This is one of the main acceptations of the term emptiness in the Dzogchen teachings: the essence aspect of the Base, or of the nonconceptual and thus nondual Awake awareness called rig pa (Tib. rig pa’i ngo bo), or a b c d e 4 f 4 4 4 g h i 329 which stand for the phenomena that appear in our experience—depend on the mirror— which stands for the essence or nature of mind—and cannot exist independently of the mirror and of all other reflections, all reflections are empty of self-existence, inherent existence or, simply, existence—for, as emphasized by Je Tsongkhapa, emptiness in this sense signifies dependent arisings. Likewise, since nothing appears or exists externally to the Base / essence or nature of mind, the latter may also be said to be empty of extraneous substances. Nevertheless, with regard to this acceptation of the term emptiness the simile of the mirror fails, because the images in a mirror are supposed to be reflections of something external to it, but the appearances in the Base / essence or nature of mind are not the reflections of something external to it, for there is nothing external to the Base / essence or nature of mind. It is for this reason that I introduced the alternative simile of a computer’s LED / LCD / plasma screen, in spite of being fully aware of the fact that, as Chögyal Namkhai Norbu has noted, also this image fails because all that appears on a computer’s screen is determined and conditioned by a system and a program: the idea in introducing this alternative simile was that, even though it is far from perfect, if we were aware that neither the example of the mirror nor this one were precise, each could at the same time complement the other and serve as an antidote to taking the other as a perfect analogy. (This sense of the term “essence or nature of mind” is a general one in the Dzogchen teachings; however, in the Thögäl and the Yangti / Yangthik teachings of the Dzogchen Series of pith instructions, the term “essence of nature of mind” has a specific sense that does not correspond to the one the term was given in this paragraph. ) The reason for referring to the Base’s emptiness by the term primordial purity is that it is freedom from blemishes, defects and contaminations, because there is nothing in it that is not utterly empty and therefore there is nothing that many conotaminate it or in any sense defile it. Moreover, as will be shown below, the source of defilements is the illusion of substantiality that is removed by the realization of emptiness, and hence as the Path and as the Fruit primordial purity is this realization of emptiness that forestalls the arousal of defilements. Chögyal Namkhai Norbu has also rendered the name of the Primordial Buddha as All is Viable, and in fact, whatever arises, including all that common sense and lower vehicles view as delusions, defilements and blemishes, may be turned into a b c d e474 f of the nonconceptual and thus nondual Awake self-awareness (Tib. rig pa rang gi ngo bo), or of the primordial gnosis whereby nonconceptual and thus nondual Awake self-awareness becomes patent and operative (Tib. rig pa rang gi ye shes kyi ngo bo) is empty in the sense of being open to show any phenomenon because it is not itself a phenomenon, or to show any form because it bears no fixed form. Note that Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche rendered the term śūnyatā, which is usually translated as emptiness or voidness, with the term “openness.” Skt. svābhāvaśūnyatā; Tib. rang bzhin gyi stong pa nyid, often abridged as rang stong; Ch. ⾃性空 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìng kòng; Wade–Giles, tzu -hsing k’ung ; Jap. jishōkū. rJe Tsong kha pa referred to that which is usually termed svābhāvaśūnyatā (Tib. rang stong or rang bzhin gyi stong pa nyid; Ch. ⾃性空 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìng kòng; Wade–Giles, tzu -hsing k’ung ; Jap. jishōkū]), by the term rang bzhin gyis ma grub pa, but also his understanding of this term differed widely from the consensus understanding of svābhāvaśūnyatā in Indian, Tibetan and Far-Eastern Buddhism. Tib. gzhan gyi dngos po stong pa; reconstructed Skt. paraśūnya: the Base or awareness in question may also be said to be empty of other substances (Tib. gzhan gyi dngos po stong pa nyid; reconstructed Skt. paraśūnyatā or pararūpaśūnyatā). Skt. Upadeśavarga; Tib. Man ngag [gyi] sde. Tib. sems nyid; Skt. cittatā or citta eva. Tib. ka dag; hypothesized Skt. kaśuddha. a 4 4 4 b 4 c d e f 330 4 4 the Path—a fact that may be related to the Base’s spontaneous perfection / self-actualization / self-rectification / spontaneous accomplishment aspect. It is because this awareness is Awake and is the Primordial Buddha that the full, irreversible disclosure of its primordial purity aspect and the removal of self-impediment to its aspect of spontaneous perfection / spontaneous arising / spontaneous rectification / spontaneous accomplishment are referred to as the attainment of Buddhahood. At any rate, the fact that the reGnition of the primordial purity aspect of the Base that is utter freedom from blemishes removes defilements may be aptly illustrated with the example of the magician who conjures the attractive dancer that Śāntideva used in the Bodhicaryāvatāra / Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra. As stated above, the male audience develops strong lust toward the dancer because it represents those who have no realization of emptiness and those who, even though they have had a realization of emptiness, are still under the power of passional delusive obstructions. The magician, who does not develop an overpowering passion toward the dancer, but who nonetheless experiences some lust toward her, represents those who have a stronger realization of emptiness, but who sti have not ridden themselves of cognitive delusive obstructions: the bodhisattvas between the beginning of the eighth and the end of the tenth level. And the fully Awake Buddha would be the one whose realization of emptiness is absolute and unwavering and hence does not experience the form as an inherent female dancer and thus not even the slightest passion is aroused in him. Since the passions or afflictions are the impurities, the emptiness that has always been inherent in the Base is referred to as its primordial purity aspect. The Base’s primordial purity, essence, emptiness or openness aspect may become patent as an aspect of the primordial awareness called essence or nature of mind, either in the state of Dzogchen-qua-Path or in that of Dzogchen-qua-Fruit. In fact, emptiness qua Path, not as a mere illusory experience, but as an inherent aspect of the nonconceptual and hence nondual Awake awareness called rigpa, is the direct, nonconceptual and hence nondual realization of the lack of self-existence and substance of both the Base and its phenomena for a limited timespan, in the Contemplation state of a Dzogchen practitioner. Emptiness qua Fruit is what appears when the primordial purity aspect—and indeed the totality of the Base—is never again concealed or obstructed, for Buddhahood has been attained. The fact that the Base and the phenomena made to appear by its energy aspect are empty implies that the Base contains no empty spaces or divisions—a fact that is evident in the case of the continua of sensa, and that in that of the “physical universe” is upheld by a b c d e f g Tib. lhun grub; Skt. nirābogha or anābogha. Skt. kleśāvaraṇa; Tib. nyon sgrib or nyon mongs pa’i sgrib pa; Ch. 煩惱障 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fánnǎozhàng; Wade-Giles, fan -nao -chang ). Skt. jñeyāvaraṇa; Pāḷi ñeyyavāvaraṇa; Tib. shes [bya’i] sgrib [pa]; Ch. 所知障 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn suǒzhīzhàng; Wade-Giles so -chih -chang ). Tib. nyams. Skt. niṣprapañca; Tib. spros bral; Ch. 不戲論 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùxìlùn; Wade-Giles, pu -hsi -lun ) or Skt. aprapañca; Tib. spros [pa] med [pa]; Ch. 無戲論 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúxìlùn; Wade-Giles, wu-hsi-lun). In properly Dzogchen terminology, Tib. la bzla ba. Therefore, this emptiness corresponds to the nonfigurative, actual, uncategorized, true absolute truth of the Svātantrika-Madhyamaka and Nyingma Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamaka views (Skt. aparyāyaparamārtha; Tib. rnam grangs ma yin pa’i don dam. Skt. samāhita; Tib. mnyam bzhag; Ch. 等引 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, děngyǐn; Wade-Giles, teng -yin ). a b 2 3 4 c 3 1 4 d e 2 4 f g 3 331 3 4 contemporary physics —and hence that its realization involves total plenitude. In fact, the realization of emptiness qua Path and qua Fruit involves the dissolution of the illusion of substantiality, which is experienced (so to speak) as total plenitude because a most basic aspect of the illusion of substantiality is the illusion of there being a substantial mental subject at a substantial distance from a substantial physical world, which disrupts our experience of the totality or wholeness that (is) our true condition, yielding a feeling of incompleteness—or, to express it another way, the feeling of being at a distance of the continuum of plenitude which is the universe / our sensa gives rise to an experience of lack of plenitude. Since the primordial purity or katak aspect of Dzogchen-qua-Base is a total plenitude utterly free from empty gaps and the nonconceptual and hence nondual realization of the primordial purity or katak aspect of Dzogchen-qua-Base—whether as Dzogchenqua-Path or as Dzogchen-qua-Fruit—is thus characterized by absolute completeness and plenitude, regardless of whether we view Dzogchen as Base, as Path or as Fruit it may be said that its primordial purity or katak aspect is total, absolute plenitude. Therefore, in my translation of “Dzogchen” as “total plenitude / completeness and perfection” the terms “plenitude / completeness” may be taken to refer to the primordial purity or katak aspect of the Base, Path and Fruit of Dzogchen, whereas the term “perfection” responds to the lhundrub aspect (spontaneous perfection / spontaneous arising / spontaneous rectification / spontaneous accomplishment / spontaneity) aspect of that Base, that Path and that Fruit. In fact, qua Base, lhundrub may be taken to refer to the wondrous functioning of the universe and the ecosystem, and each and all of their parts. Qua Path it may be taken to refer to the spontaneous arising of visions of rölpa energy (a concept that will be explained below in the regular text), to the way in which these visions transform the subject-object duality and the attitudes of the subject toward the object into conflict, and to the spontaneous self-rectifying cybernetic loops that boost that conflict to the threshold at which it may spontaneously liberate itself—as this occurs in practices such as Thögel and the Yangti. And qua Fruit it may be taken to refer to the unobstructed, masterful functioning of all of an individual’s capacities that results from the irreversible dissolution of hypostasized / absolutized / reified / valorized conceptuality and therefore of the illusion of substantial duality and plurality and its evil effects—including the conceptual, dualistic self-consciousness that is at the root of self-encumbering, and the illusion of self and others and projection of evil over the others that are at the root of evil. Thus in term of the above translations of the terms katak, lhundrub and chenpo, a significant Tantra revealed by Dudjom Lingpa would read: a b c e d f 475 g h Regarding the problem of quanta, cf. endnote 216. Tib. lhun grub; Skt. nirābogha or anābogha. Tib. rang snang. Wylie, rol pa. Wylie, thod rgal. Wylie, yang ti. Alternatively, this practice is called yang thig. Wylie, chen po; Skt. mahā; Ch. ⼤ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dà; Wade-Giles, ta ). The Awake Vision of Samantabhadra (etc.). Tib. Ka dag rdzogs pa chen po’i klong mdzod zab mo/ ma bcos rdzogs ldan rang byung gi sangs rgyas/ kun tu bzang po’i dgongs pa lag pa’i mthil du brkam nas lhag ger bstan pa/ dgongs brda snyan brgyud chig rdzogs kyi man ngag bka’ rgya ma. In Vol. 17 of Collected works of the emanated great treasures, the secret, profound treasures of Dudjom Lingpa (Thinpu, Bhutan: Kunsang Wangdue). There is translation in Dudjom Lingpa, Vol. I (2015, p. 179). a b c d e f g 4 h 332 [The Base] (is) primordially pure, for it is primordially uncontaminated by faults and defilements. It is naturally perfect, for the doors to spontaneous perfection / spontaneous arising / spontaneous rectification / spontaneous accomplishment are [ever] actual. And it is totally [so], for its perfection is incomparable. a In terms of the above explanation of spontaneous perfection as Base, Path and Fruit, the Tantra’s account seems to privilege spontaneous perfection qua Path, for its way of employing the term lhundrub—spontaneous perfection / spontaneous arising / spontaneous rectification / spontaneous accomplishment—seems to place the emphasis on the dynamics of practices such as Thögel and the Yangti, which involves the spontaneous arising of visions of rölpa energy (a concept that will be explained in the regular text), the transformation of the subject-object duality into conflict by these visions, and the spontaneous cybernetic loops that can boost that conflict to the threshold at which it spontaneously liberates itself. In the indivisible undividedness of our original condition of total plentitude and perfection (Dzogchen)—i.e. of the Base of Ati Dzogpa Chenpo—the Dzogchen teachings distinguish different numbers of aspects, among which the divisions into two and three aspects are by far the most common ones. Since the classification into two aspects was explained above, at this point we are concerned with the taxonomy that distinguishes three aspects: (1) Essence, which is the dharmakāya of the Base and, as such, in the twofold division of the Base is the primordial purity aspect. This a timeless aspect that may be said to consist in emptiness understood in the three senses explained in the discussion of the katak aspect of the twofold classification: (a) the fact that the Base has no fixed form or color and therefore (through its nature or rangzhin and its energy or thukje aspect) it is open to show and contain any form or color, just as a mirror or a LED / LCD / plasma screen can show any form precisely because it has no inherent form or color; (b) the fact that both the Base and all that arises by virtue of the Base is empty of self-existence and lacks substance—the apparent (being) no more than a momentary, empty configuration of sensa (i.e. light / sound / tactile sensation / taste / odor / mind-stuff) that (is) utterly nonexistent, even as an empty appearance, while it is apparent; (c) the fact that there is nothing external to or other than the single Base that here is represented with the mirror or LED / LCD / plasma screen. b c 476 d 477 e Tib. chen po; Skt. mahā; Ch. ⼤ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dà; Wade-Giles, ta ). Tib. rang snang. Wylie, rol pa. This understanding of emptiness is the one upheld by Uma Rangtongpas (Wylie, dbU ma rang stong pa; constructed Skt. trans. Svabhāvaśūnyatāvāda Madhyamaka or Prakṛtiśūnyatāvāda Madhyamaka), called svabhāvaśūnyatā or prakṛtiśūnyatā (Tib. rang bzhin gyi stong pa nyid; Ch. ⾃性空 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìngkòng; Wade–Giles, tzu -hsing -k’ung ; Jap. jishōkū]). This understanding of emptiness is no other than the one that Uma Zhentongpas (Wylie, dbU ma gzhan stong pa; tentative Skt. trans. Para[bhāva]śūnyatāvāda Madhyamaka) call “emptiness of extraneous substances” (Tib. gzhan gyi dngos po stong pa nyid, abbreviated as gzhan stong and rendered into Sanskrit as paraśūnyatā or parabhāvaśūnyatā). a 4 b c d 4 4 4 e 333 (2) Nature, which is the saṃbhogakāya of the Base and, as such, in the twofold division of the Base it (is) one aspect of the rūpakāya of the Base that is called lhundrub and that I am rendering as spontaneous perfection / spontaneous arising / spontaneous rectification / spontaneous accomplishment. This is also an utterly timeless aspect that is said to consist in luminosity / clarity, and which is compared to the brightness and reflectiveness of a mirror, thanks to which it can reflect forms and colors—or, adapting the example to our times, to the luminosity of a LED / LCD / plasma screen, thanks to which it can show all forms and colors. (3) Energy, which is the nirmāṇakāya of the Base and, as such, in the twofold division of the Base it is the other aspect of the rūpakāya of the Base that is called lhundrub and that I am rendering as spontaneous perfection / spontaneous arising / spontaneous rectification / spontaneous accomplishment. It may be explained as consisting in: (a) the unobstructedness that allows for the arising of all kinds of phenomena and for these to change uninterruptedly; (b) the unimpeded disposition to uninterruptedly and allpervasively give rise to all kinds of phenomena; (c) the process of unimpeded, uninterrupted manifestation itself—and we could even include under the term: (d) all the phenomena that appear, for these phenomena, since they are forms of emptiness that do not block the arising of subsequent reflections and that depend on the mirror and on all other reflections, are utterly nonexistent, and hence they do in no way alter this aspect of the Base by their arising or disappearance, and (b) all neutral moments in which there is no appearance. This aspect of the Base is illustrated with a mirror’s unobstructedness, which allows for the arising of all kinds of reflections, and the uninterrupted and all-pervasive arising of reflections and absence of reflections—or, adapting the example to our times, it may be illustrated with the unimpededness of the LED / LCD / plasma screen of a TV set that is always on, which allows for the appearance of all kinds of illusory forms, and the uninterrupted arising of empty images and lack of images in that screen. Because it gives rise to this succession, when saṃsāra is functioning this aspect is the basis of temporality. It must be noted that, from the standpoint of temporality, the Base is some times exemplified by the simile of a Buddhist mala or rosary that is often used to illustrate the meaning of the term Tantra and its Tibetan equivalent, Gyü, and that was discussed in the a b c478 d e f g 479 h i j k 480 l Tib. rang bzhin, which is one of the Tibetan renderings of the Skt. svabhāva (Ch. ⾃性 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìng; Wade-Giles, tzu -hsing ; Jap. jishō]). Wylie, lhun grub; Skt. anābogha or nirābogha. The term “energy” renders the Tibetan thugs rje (lit. soft and noble heart), which is one of the Tibetan terms that render the Skt. karuṇā (the other one being snying rje; Ch. 悲 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bēi; Wade-Giles, pei —lit. sadness or mercy]), usually rendered as compassion. Tib. ma ’gags pa, ’gag med or even ma ’gags. Tib. ma ’gags pa, ’gag med or even ma ’gags. Tib. ma ’gags pa, ’gag med or even ma ’gags. Wylie, kun khyab. Tib. ma ’gags pa, ’gag med or even ma ’gags. Tib. ma ’gags pa, ’gag med or even ma ’gags. Tib. ma ’gags pa, ’gag med or even ma ’gags. Tib. ma ’gags pa, ’gag med or even ma ’gags. Wylie, rgyud. For its part, the best-known Chinese is ⺫次 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, mùcì; Wade-Giles, mu -tz’u ); the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism (López & Buswell, 2014) has 檀特羅 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tántèluó; Wade-Giles, t’an -t’e -luo ). a 4 4 b c 1 d e f g h i j k l 4 2 4 2 334 4 elucidation of the Path of Transformation: the string represents the uninterrupted flow of manifestation of the Base’s empty essence—its katak or ngowo aspect—by means of its luminous, clear nature—its rangzhin aspect which, as noted above, is part of its lhundrub aspect, and which corresponds to the Skt. prabandha that was explained in the elucidation of the term Tantra. For their part, the beads and the spaces between them represent the energy aspect—the thukje aspect that, as noted above, is also part of its lhundrub aspect. In fact, the beads stand for the unceasing experiences, and the spaces between beads for the blank lapses between experiences. That inside each bead there is only string means that all experiences are in essence empty, and that they arise by virtue of the continuity of luminosity: although the essence of all our experiences is emptiness, the nature of the Base is the luminosity whereby manifestation can occur, and its energy does continuously give rise to experiences. Thus, what the string represents is no other than the continuity of empty luminosity that gives rise to experiences, and the simile of the mala as a whole illustrates the perfect continuity that there is between the three aspects of the Base of Atiyoga. Note that the Tibetan term that, following Chögyal Namkhai Norbu, here is being rendered as “energy,” is the Tibetan thukje, which, just as the Tibetan term nyingje, is a translation of the Sanskrit term karuṇā —all of which are normally rendered into English as “compassion” (the two Tibetan terms are used because both thuk and nying mean heart, while je may be rendered as soft and noble). Now, why should the nonobstruction of the Base, the uninterrupted arising of appearances and all manifest appearances be referred to by a term meaning “compassion”? After Awakening, due to the spontaneous arising of compassion, fully Awake individuals will continue to be physiologically alive rather than dying after four days, as occurs in the case of one of the two kinds of solitary realizers or pratyekabuddhas: it is as a function of compassion that the thukje aspect of the Base, qua uninterrupted arising of phenomena, will continue to function in their continuum (even though it will no longer be experienced as the succession of a multiplicity of phenomena, for fully Awake individuals are beyond experience as such and do not experience phenomena as entities). The important point here is that, since the Base of Dzogchen is the a b c d e f g h i j k l Wylie, rgyun, and also ma ’gags pa, ’gag med or even ma ’gags. Wylie, ka dag; hypothesized Skt. kaśuddha: primordial purity, which is emptiness. c Wylie, ngo bo; Skt. svābhāva; Ch. ⾃性 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìng; Wade–Giles, tzu -hsing ; Jap. jishō): the essence, which is emptiness and fully corresponds to the ka dag aspect. Wylie, rang bzhin; Skt. svabhāva (which may also be rendered by the Tibetan ngo bo); Ch. ⾃性 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìng; Wade-Giles, tzu -hsing ; Jap. jishō): the nature aspect, which is luminosity/clarity. Wylie, thugs rje. Wylie, snying rje. Ch. 悲 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bēi; Wade-Giles, pei : lit. sadness or mercy. Wylie, thugs. Wylie, snying. Wylie, rje. Skt. anuttarā samyaksaṃbuddha; Tib. yang dag par rdzogs pa’i sangs rgyas; Ch. 正遍知 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhèngbiànzhī; Wade-Giles, cheng -pien -chih ). Pāḷi paccekabuddha; Skt. Tib. rang sangs rgyas; Ch. 獨覺 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dújué; Wade-Giles, tu -chüeh ). a b 4 4 d 4 4 e f g 1 h i j k 4 4 1 l 2 335 2 Buddha-nature qua act (i.e. actuality) rather than the Buddha-nature qua potency, and therefore in this sense we are all fully Awake Buddhas, even in active saṃsāra—in which the deluded, dualistic consciousness that has as its core the illusory mental subject experiences the arising of empty forms as the succession of a multiplicity of phenomena, and sometimes experiences it as something that is imposed on itself rather than realizing it to be the energy of our own primordial awareness and in this sense our own energy—it is as a function of compassion that the thukje aspect of the Base, as uninterrupted arising of phenomena, continues to function in our continuum. This will help us understand the reason why the Dzogchen teachings designate our true condition, the Base of Dzogchen that is the Buddha-nature, by the term bodhicitta. In the Mahāyāna, the absolute bodhicitta (is) the indivisibility of emptiness and compassion as it occurs in fully Awake Buddhas. In Dzogchen, the Buddha-nature that is called the Base and that (is) our true condition is Buddhahood in act (i.e. in actuality) and hence it (is) no other than the indivisibility of emptiness and compassion: emptiness (is) its primordial purity or essence aspect, and compassion (is) its energy or thukje aspect as one of the two subdivisions of the Base’s spontaneous perfection or lhundrub. Some of the greatest Dzogchen teachers of the last centuries have asserted the recognition of the energy aspect of the Base to be achieved by noticing and observing the unobstructedness that immediately precedes the arising of phenomena and makes the latter possible. And in fact, at that point the unobstructedness that makes the arising in question possible and that together with the latter constitutes the energy aspect of the Base, can be easily recognized. However, this does not mean that the energy aspect of the Base is circumscribed to the unobstructedness that immediately precedes the arising of phenomena and excludes the uninterrupted process of arising and the phenomena that thus arise (unless the reason to affirm that it excludes them were that neither the process nor the phenomena in question have any true existence). In fact, there is actually no contradiction between what may seem to be two mutually exclusive interpretations of the energy aspect of the Base, for the Tibetan terms that are rendered as “unobstructed” are the same ones that are rendered as “uninterrupted” —which, by the way, is precisely the source of the seeming contradiction, which stems from interpreting different acceptations of the same terms as being mutually exclusive. a b c 481 d e f g h i j (1) Skt. buddhatā / buddhadhātu / buddhatva; Tib. sangs rgyas kyi khams; Ch. 佛性 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fóxìng; Wade-Giles fo -hsing ). (2) Skt. buddhatva / bhūtatathatā: 真如 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhènrú; Wade-Giles, chen ju ); Jap. shinnyo. (3) tathāgatagarbha / sugatagarbha; Tib. de bzhin gshegs pa’i snying po / de gshegs snying po: Chin. 如來藏 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, rúláizàng; Wade-Giles, ju -lai -tsang ). Greek ενεργεια (energeia). Greek δυναμις (dynamis);. Tib. ka dag; hypothesized Skt. kaśuddha. Skt. karuṇā; Ch. 悲 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bēi; Wade-Giles, pei : lit. sadness or mercy). Skt. nirābogha or anābogha. The term “energy” renders the Tibetan thugs rje (lit. soft and noble heart), which is one of the Tibetan terms that render the Skt. karuṇā (the other one being snying rje). The Ch. is 悲 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bēi; Wade-Giles, pei —lit. sadness or mercy). All these terms are usually rendered as compassion. The reason why this term is used is explained in a footnote to the Introduction. Tib. ma ’gags pa, ’gag med or even ma ’gags. Tib. ma ’gags pa, ’gag med or even ma ’gags. Tib. ma ’gags pa, ’gag med or even ma ’gags. a 2 4 4 2 2 b c d e 1 f g 1 h i j 336 2 4 According to the Dzogchen teachings, the Base has the three aspects which are essence, nature and energy; these three aspects are indivisible; and whatever comes into (being, is) ultimately a manifestation of the Base that arises by means of these three aspects and not something apart from these three aspects. However, if the Base’s energy were the unobstructedness that makes phenomenal arising possible and the disposition to give rise to phenomena at the exclusion of the phenomena manifested, the myriad subjects and objects, rather than (being) empty manifestations of the Base’s energy aspect, would be substances hypostatically / inherently different and separate from the Base’s essence aspect—and as such would have self-being, substantiality, and hypostatic / inherent existence. In that case, there would be a hypostatic / inherent, self-existent and substantial plurality, and the true condition of the three modes of manifestation of energy would not be the three dimensions of Buddhahood, as the Dzogchen teachings establish them to be—an establishment that will be discussed below and then in greater detail in Part II of this book. Therefore, dualism and self-being would be the true condition of reality, and the practice and realizations of Dzogchen would be impossible. That the myriad phenomena that appear as object, the myriad sentient beings and the myriad streams of consciousness of sentient beings are not something apart from the Base with its three aspects, but are manifestations of the Base that (are) no other than the Base and hence partake of the Base’s true condition, is evinced by the following passage of a Dzogchen Tantra revealed by Dudjom Lingpa: a b The reflections of the planets and stars in the ocean are none other than the ocean. The physical world and its sentient inhabitants are none other than space. Saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are none other than the play or display of the absolutely true condition, (...) [which] (is) the allpervasive and all-encompassing unifying principle [symbolized by the ocean]. Understand [the true sense of] these metaphors and what they exemplify. Thus you will become a yogin who embraces saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. c If one believed the myriad phenomena that appear as object, the myriad sentient beings and the myriad streams of consciousness of sentient beings to be something apart from the Base with its three aspects, believing them not to (be) manifestations of the Base that (are) no other than the Base and that therefore partake of the Base’s true condition, one would be like those who believe that the term individually realized primordial gnosis of rigpa signifies that each and every sentient being and each and every Buddha have a separate, individual rigpa—and therefore would remain in saṃsāra. This is why the same Tantra cited above tells us that if one believed there is a multiplicity of Buddhas, rather than Buddhas they would be sentient beings. However, the above expressions are no more than antidotes against the prevailing misconceptions of the deluded who have not entered the door of dharma, being stated in a d e Skt. kāya; Tib. sku; Ch. ⾝ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shēn; Wade-Giles, shen ). Dudjom Lingpa, Buddhahood without meditation (Rang bzhin rdzogs pa chen po’i rang zhal mngon du byed pa’i gdams pa ma bsgom sangs rgyas). Alternative translation in Dudjom Lingpa (2015, Vol. 2, p. 25). Tib. rol pa; Skt. līlā. Skt. pratyātmavedanīyajñāna; Tib. so so rang rig pa’i ye shes. Dudjom Lingpa, Buddhahood without meditation (Rang bzhin rdzogs pa chen po’i rang zhal mngon du byed pa’i gdams pa ma bsgom sangs rgyas). Alternative translation in Dudjom Lingpa (2015, Vol. 2, p. 23). a 1 b c d e 337 for-others way, as reasons acknowledged by the opponent only: they are made without taking them to be true, or, which is the same, are made as other-directed assertions. In fact, they do not mean that the Base—source and true condition of all phenomena—fits into the concept of oneness, or that the thesis that the phenomena that are compared to reflections are the Base that is compared to the mirror perfectly fits the true condition of reality, for as stated in the same Tantra revealed by Dudjom Lingpa: a b c d In the expanse of the sugatagarbha qua Base, all phenomena of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa appear distinctly and individually; like [reflections of] planets and stars in the ocean, they are free from the extreme of unity. However the modes of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa arise, they (are) of one taste in the sugatagarbha qua Base; just as the planets and stars reflected in the ocean (are) not other than the ocean, [phenomena] (are) free from the extreme of diversity. Since [reality] does not fall into any of the eight extremes of conceptual fabrication, its uniform pervasiveness (is) unsullied by blemishes. And also: e482 Some people hold apparent phenomena to be mind. They might think that all external apparent phenomena are actually [hypostasized / reified] thoughts and therefore [that they are] their own minds, but such is not the case. This is demonstrated by the fact that while apparent phenomena change from the very moment they manifest, ceasing and passing away in a succession of later moments following former ones, ordinary mind does not take on the nature of these passing phenomena, [for if it did so it would] become itself nonexistent qua mind [the very moment it took on the nature of these phenomena]. Through the usual progression of apparent phenomena manifesting in this manner to the eight aggregates of consciousness, cyclic existence emerges in its entirety. By tracing the process back to consciousness as the ground of all ordinary experience, one is still left stranded at the peak of experience, [pinnacle of conditioned existence (saṃsāra)]. Thus the world of all possible appearances, the whole of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, is none other than [Dzogchen-qua-]Base and is of one taste with this Base. To give an example, although myriad reflections of the planets and stars appear in the ocean, in actuality they are of one taste with the water itself. Understand that things are like this. This demonstration that all apparent phenomena are [mere] self-manifesting appearances is the direct transmission instruction of Vajradhāra. f Since, as the above passage remarks, phenomena are none other than the Base and are of one taste with the Base, it is clear that the energy aspect of the Base, which constantly gives rise to phenomena through its three forms of manifestation of energy, could not be Skt. paramata; Tib. gzhan lugs. Skt. praprasiddhānumāna; Tib. gzhan grags kyi rjes su dpag pa / gzhan la grags pa’i rjes dpag. Tib. gzhan ngo khas len: these are assertions propounding reasonings based on what others and only others take as established (Skt. paraprasiddha; Tib. gzhan grags kyi rjes su dpag pa), etc. Dudjom Lingpa, Buddhahood without meditation (Rang bzhin rdzogs pa chen po’i rang zhal mngon du byed pa’i gdams pa ma bsgom sangs rgyas). Alternative translation in Dudjom Lingpa (2015, Vol. 2, p. 30). Dudjom Lingpa, Buddhahood without meditation (Rang bzhin rdzogs pa chen po’i rang zhal mngon du byed pa’i gdams pa ma bsgom sangs rgyas). Alternative translations in Dudjom Lingpa (1994, p. 103) and Dudjom Lingpa (2015, pp. 28-9). Skt. bhavāgra; Tib. srid rtse or srid pa’i rtse mo; Ch. 有頂天 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒudǐngtiān; Wade-Giles, yu ting -t’ien ): the highest of the four formless realms. a b c d e f 3 3 1 338 circumscribed to the unimpededness that may be perceived in the moment previous to the arising of phenomena at the exclusion of the phenomena thus arisen (unless the reason to assert this were that these phenomena are utterly nonexistent). The passage makes the same point as the one by Longchenpa that was cited above: a ...all apparent phenomena that seem to exist in their own right, (are) appearances manifesting to the mind and are nothing other than manifestations appearing to the mind; though they appear to be other than the mind, like dreams, illusions and so forth, they are by nature empty, and, being inconceivable and ineffable, they have never been anything other than mind, nor have they ever been mind either: they are empty and yet clearly apparent, groundless, and timelessly pure. In fact, as both Longchenpa and Dudjom Lingpa noted, phenomena have never been anything other than mind, nor have they ever been mind either: they could not be either one thing or the other because they are utterly empty, nonexistent, groundless, and therefore timelessly pure—even though they are clearly apparent. It was because relative truth consists in the experience of utterly empty, nonexistent and groundless phenomena as in themselves existent or nonexistent and as in themselves being this or that entity, that in the Madhyamakāvatāra Candrakīrti declares relative truth to be utter delusion. This is why a translation of a verse of Candrakīrti’s Madhyamakāvatāra can go so far as to state, “There are not two truths but a single one, because, as the Buddha said, ‘Monks, this is the single, unique absolute truth—namely, nirvāṇa, which is nondeceptive.’” This is a Mahāyāna refutation of one key axiom of Mahāyāna Buddhism—namely that there are two truths, which are the absolute and the relative. Since the Dzogchen teachings take the standpoint of full realization, and in full agreement with Candrakīrti and most non-Gelug Tibetan Masters, they do not posit two truths: all there (is), (is) the Single Truth that lies in the direct, nonconceptual and hence nondual realization of the primordial state in which vision and emptiness are utterly indivisible —i.e., nonstatic nirvāṇa. It is because all similes have drawbacks that I used two different similes for the Base that is the Buddha-nature in act/in actuality: The drawback of the simile of a mirror is due to the fact that mirrors reflect the appearances of phenomena that exist externally to itself, which is not the case with the Base, as sense (c) of the emptiness that is the Base’s essence aspect evinces. The simile of the LCD screen does not have this drawback, yet it has the major shortcoming—emphasized by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu—of implying that the process of phenomenal arising is conditioned by a cybernetic system and program. Thus it is clear that both examples are inexact, and yet are useful for illustrating the fact that, in order to arise, phenomena depend on the three aspects of the Base—so that they arise as the Base’s energy and as such are not other than manifestations of the energy of the Base that are all empty of self-being. (For a discussion of the three types of emptiness briefly b483 c d e f Longchen Rabjam (1998, p. 84). Candrakīrti (1970), as cited in Candrakīrti (2003, p. 219, n. 16). Tib. snang ba; Skt. ābhāsa; Ch. 現 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiàn; Wade-Giles, hsien ). Tib. stong pa [nyid]; Skt. śūnya[tā]. Wylie, snang stong dbyer med. Skt. svabhāvasunya or prakṛtiśūnya; Tib. rang stong—which abbreviates the adjective rang bzhing gyis stong pa. The corresponding noun is rang bzhing gyis stong pa nyid; Ch. ⾃性空 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìngkòng; Wade–Giles, tzu -hsing -k’ung ; Jap. jishōkū). a b c 4 d e f 4 4 4 339 described in the discussion of the essence aspect of the Base, cf. the upcoming definitive editions of Chöphel & Capriles, 2014, and Capriles, electronic publication 2004.) According to the Dzogchen teachings, the continuum that the energy aspect of the Base is, manifests itself in three different ways, which are: (1) the dang mode of energy manifestation, (2) the rölpa mode of energy manifestation, and (3) the tsel mode of energy manifestation—which will be discussed in greater detail in Part Two of this book. Below I briefly discuss these three, albeit in a different order: (3) The third, the one referred to as tsel, is illustrated with a rock crystal, which on being struck by sunlight projects the spectrum outside itself, and in our time could be illustrated with the images projected by a movie projector or a video beam—for it gives rise to phenomena that clearly appear to lie in what the Dzogchen teachings call the “external dimension,” the paradigmatic expression of which is the reality we call “physical” — which also seems to be substantial in the sense of offering resistence to deluded beings. Note that this is the meaning of tsel in the context of explanations regarding the three modes of manifestation of energy, for in more general contexts the term may have other, very different meanings; for example, in the teachings of the Series of (the Nature or Essence of) Mind it often has the sense of expressive power, play, dynamic energy or potential, etc., and in other contexts it may have yet other, quite different meanings. (1) The first, the one called dang, is illustrated with the simile of a crystal ball that is pure, clear and limpid, in which there is nothing in particular and which is beyond the cleavage into an internal and an internal dimension; however, once tsel energy has manifested, all that may manifest in this form of energy seems to lie in an “internal dimension or ying, “ just as happens with the reflections of external phenomena appearing within a crystal ball. Note that this is the meaning of the term when the three modes of manifestation of energy are discussed, but in other contexts it may have very different meanings. For example, in the context of the teachings of Thögäl and the Yangti/Yangthik, the term dang may refer to the radiance that seems to manifest in an inner dimension and which is projected in a seemingly external dimension in the form of visions that originally appear as tsel energy and then function as rölpa energy. (2) Finally, the second, which is the one called rölpa, is illustrated with the simile of a mirror that “fills itself” with appearances that do not seem to be either in a dimension internal to the mirror—for the latter is flat rather than tridimensional—or in a dimension external to it: it is evident that they arise through the mirror’s reflectiveness and (are) not external to it, (being) neither the latter nor something other than the latter—in this sense being nondual with it. This aspect of the continuum of the Base’s energy, which links the other two and which according to Dzogchen cosmogony is the second to arise—the first being dang energy), features self-luminous visions of light that defy the dimensionality of the physical world (i.e. of tsel energy) and that forestall our attempts to dualistically maintain our a b c d 484 485 486 e f 487 488 Wylie, gdangs. Wylie, rol pa. Wylie, rtsal. Tib. phyi dbyings; hypothesized Skt. bāhyadhātu (or bahirdhādhātu?). Tib. nang dbyings; hypothesized Skt. ādhyātmikadhātu? This inner luminosity is what in Tibetan is called gting gsal: lit. depths luminosity. It is compared to the glare of a butter lamp or a candle within an earthen pot. a b c d e f 340 perception of them as lying in a dimension internal or external to the mirror. Its paradigmatic phenomena are immaterial, self-luminous visions such as those that arise in the intermediate state of the true condition of phenomena, and which arise in practices such as those of Thögel and the Yangti/Yangthik. The point is that the illusory duality of subject and object, and of an internal dimension and an external one, imply the illusory rupture of the continuum of energy; once these dualities have appeared, the mental subject, which seems to lie in the internal dimension, and which is no more than a pole in the supersubtle thought-structure that I am calling “threefold directional thought structure,” seems to be a substance that lies an unbreachable abyss apart from the “material” world, which also seems to be a substance located in the external dimension and seems to have a nature wholly other than the mental subject. Once this has occurred, only a spontaneously rectifying practice utterly free from action involving the rölpa mode of manifestation of energy and applied in the intermediate state of the true condition of phenomena, such as Thögel and/or the Yangti/Yangthik can definitively put an end to the illusory rupture of the continuum of energy, totally uprooting delusion. Note, however, that this is the sense of the term in the context of the discussion of the three forms of manifestation of energy or in teachings such as those of Thögäl or the Yangti / Yangthik; for example, in the teachings of the Series of (the Nature or Essence of) Mind and in the teachings of Tekchö very often the term has the acceptation of “play” or “display”—as when those teachings assert thoughts, which are phenomena of dang energy, to be the rölpa (i.e., the play and display) of wisdom. For their part, the three functional possibilities of the Base are the ones that were already discussed: (1) Nonstatic nirvāṇa, in which the Base’ true condition is neither concealed nor distorted and its spontaneously perfect functionality is unhindered. This is the condition in Tibetan called rigpa—in Sanskrit, vidyā, svasaṃvedana or svasaṃvittiḥ. (2) Inactive, neutral saṃsāra: this is the noted neutral base-of-all that was briefly discussed above, which pertains to saṃsāra because the first aspect or type of marigpa / avidyā—the unawareness of the true condition in question introduced by the factor of stupefaction that in ordinary human beings has always forestalled its reGnition—forestalls the reGnition of the true condition of the Base. However, in this state that true condition is neither distorted nor obstructed by the other two aspects or types of marigpa/avidyā and, therefore, while one dwells in it saṃsāra is inactive, for we are not transmigrating—yet unless one Awakens to nonstatic nirvāṇa (as occurred in the case of Buddha Śākyamuni) a b c489 d e f g 490 h i The second of the intermediate states between death and rebirth. Skt. dharmatā antarābhava; Tib. chos nyid bar do; Ch. 法性中有 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎxìng zhōngyǒu; Wade-Giles, fa -hsing chung -yu ). Wylie, thod rgal. Wylie, yang thig. Tib. nang dbyings; hypothesized Skt. ādhyātmikadhātu (?). Tib. phyi dbyings; hypothesized Skt. bāhyadhātu or bahirdhādhātu (?). Tib. lhun grub; Skt. nirābogha or anābogha. Skt. dharmatā antarābhava; Tib. chos nyid bar do; Ch. 法性中有 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎxìng zhōngyǒu; WadeGiles, fa -hsing chung -yu ). This bardo normally appears between death and rebirth, but in practices such as Thögel or the Yangthik it is made to appear while the organism is alive and well. The standard Tibetan translation of the Skt. terms svasaṃvedana and svasaṃvittiḥ is rang rig; Ch. ⾃證 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìzhèng; Wade-Giles, tzu -cheng ) / ⾃覺 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìjué; Wade-Giles, tzu -chüeh ). Tib. kun gzhi lung ma bstan. a 3 4 1 3 b c d e f g 3 4 1 3 h 4 4 4 i 341 2 the other two aspects or types of avidyā will certainly arise at some point, making us transmigrate through dissatisfactory, painful samsaric conditions. And (3) Active saṃsāra, in which the true condition of the Base is not only concealed by the first aspect or type of marigpa/avidyā, but is also distorted by the other two aspects or types of marigpa/avidyā, which also impair its spontaneously perfect functionality—and in which we move from one samsaric, dissatisfactory, painful and impeded state to another, in ceaseless transmigration. When the last of these three possibilities becomes functional, the delusion called avidyā or marigpa gives rise to the illusory sundering of the three aspects of the Base considered above. It has been shown that two of the sources of this delusion are, (1) the vibratory activity that seems to emanate from, or to be concentrated in, the center of the chest at the level of the heart, which “charges” the contents of thought with an illusion of value, truth, substantiality, objectivity and importance, thus hypostasizing / reifying / absolutizing / valorizing those baseless, empty contents, and (2) the fragmentary, limited and rather hermetic focus of consciousness that is the core of what Gestaltphilosophie and then Gestalt psychology called “figure-ground minds” and that, on apprehending a segment of the continuum of the “energy” aspect of the Base, plunges the rest of this continuum in what I often refer to as a “penumbra of awareness.” As already noted, the reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of the supersubtle thought structure known as the threefold directional thought structure begets the delusive subject-object duality, whereas the hypostatization / absolutization / reification / valorization of subtle thoughts allows us to ascertain which segment of the totality appearing as object is to be singled out—and, after it has been singled out, to mistakenly know it as being in itself / inherently / hypostatically this or that entity (very often with the help of absolutized / hypostasized / reified / valorized coarse thoughts ). For its part, the fragmentary, limited and rather hermetic focus of conscious attention makes it possible for us to single-out the segment chosen for perception. In brief, the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of the threefold directional thought structure gives rise to the illusory subject-object duality, and the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of subtle thoughts in combination with the tunnel-like, fragmentary, narrow and to some extent hermetic focus of consciousness single out segments of the totality of sense data appearing as object, and by the same token gives rise to the illusion that the singled out segments are inherently separate from the rest of the continuum of the energy aspect of the Base, and that they are in themselves / inherently / hypostatically this or that entity. The reason why it was stated that the above produces an illusory sundering of the three aspects of the Base is that, while perceiving the singled out segments in question as explained, the subject is incapable of apprehending the Base’s inherently empty essence, and therefore each phenomenon of energy seems not to be an appearance indivisible from the single essence that is the Base’s emptiness arising by virtue of the nature that is the Base’s own luminosity / clarity and the energy that is the Base’s unobstructed and a b c d Skt. trimaṇḍala; Tib. ’khor gsum; Ch. 三輪 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānlùn; Wade-Giles, san -lun ). Skt. arthasāmānya; Tib. don spyi; Ch. 總義 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngyì; Wade-Giles, tsung -i ). Skt. śabdasāmānya; Tib. sgra spyi; Ch. 論聲總 (simplified 论声总) (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, lùnshēngzǒng; WadeGiles, lun -sheng -tsung ). Tib. ma ’gags pa, ’gag med or even ma ’gags. a 1 b 4 3 c 4 1 3 d 342 4 uninterrupted flow of appearances—a flow that, moreover, instead of being realized as being the play and display of our true condition and hence as the inexpressible yet fulfilling, true Meaning of life, is experienced as something imposed on oneself that one has to suffer or enjoy according to the qualities it displays at any given moment. Thus, the Base’s energy seems to be inherently separate from its essence and nature, and to be utterly different from the latter. Moreover, the three modes of manifestation of energy also seem to be inherently separate from each other: dang energy seems to be an inherently internal dimension, while tsel energy seems to be an inherently external dimension, and rölpa energy is not even perceived. In the next section I offer an approximative explanation of the way in which (3) Active saṃsāra gradually arises from (2) Inactive, neutral saṃsāra. a The Arising of Saṃsāra from the Neutral Condition of the Base-of-All In the preceding section three functional possibilities of the Base—which, according to the Northern Treasures of Rigdzin Göden, are functional possibilities of the base-of-all, not as an experiential condition, but as a storehouse of all human possibilities, because in the Base itself no distinctions obtain—were briefly described. Because of this, this seems the right place for discussing the relationships between them and, in particular, to describe the process whereby saṃsāra arises from the base-of-all as an experiential condition that pertains to saṃsāra but in which saṃsāra is inactive (to which reference has been made throughout this volume but of which a brief yet comprehensive account has not been offered as yet). It is clear by now that the Base’s primordial purity aspect is its essence aspect, the dharmakāya qua Base, dharmakāya of the Base, or Base dharmakāya. However, as soon as we have distinguished the essence aspect that (is) the dharmakāya, we have implicitly distinguished the aspect of unawareness that is the first aspect or sense of avidyā, which is the unawareness of the true condition of the Base—and, indeed, the whole of avidyā, including the second and third aspects or senses of the term, which I have categorized as delusion. In fact, the essence / dharmakāya is compared to gold, and the unawareness cum delusion called avidyā is compared to the rust or tarnish that may conceal the qualities proper to gold and referred to as the base-of-all. Longchen Rabjam writes in the Tsigdön Dzö: b c d As the base-of-all is the root of saṃsāra, it is the foundation of all traces, like a pond. As the dharmakāya is the root of nirvāṇa, it is freedom from all traces and the exhaustion of all impurities… Tib. ma ’gags pa, ’gag med or even ma ’gags. Tib. ngo bo; Skt. svābhāva; Ch. ⾃性 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìng; Wade–Giles, tzu -hsing ; Jap. jishō). Tib. kun gzhi; Skt. ālaya; Ch. 来源 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, láiyuán; Wade-Giles, lai -yüan ). Wylie, gsang ba bla na med pa ’od gsal rdo rje snying po’i gnas gsum gsal bar byed pa’i tshig don rin po che’i mdzod, 52a/4. Alternative translations in Tulku Thöndup (1996, p. 211) and van Schaik (2004, pp. 5859 & 338 n. 204). a b 4 c 2 d 343 4 2 In the state of clear ocean-like dharmakāya, which dwells as the Base, the boat-like base-ofall filled with a mass of passengers—mind and consciousness, and much cargo, karmas and traces—sets out on the Path [of Awakening] through the state of [nonconceptual and hence nondual] Awake self-awareness, the dharmakāya. In some sūtras and Tantras the Base aspect [as different from the Path and Fruit aspects] is termed the base-of-all. Here some people who do not understand the actual meaning asserted that the Base and the base-of-all are the same. This is a grave error. If they were the same, then there would be many faults: since the base-of-all has traces, the dharmakāya would also have traces; since the base-of-all changes, the dharmakāya would also change, and since the base-ofall is transient, the dharmakāya would also be impermanent. In order to properly understand the above, it must be noted that in this context the terms neutral base-of-all, dimension of the base-of-all and so on refer to a phenomenal condition that is represented as a pervasive medium wherein the mind’s intentionality is not yet operating, even though seminal texts equate it with mind. Therefore, they are likened to an egg (an example used for the condition preceding the separation of the earth and the sky posited in Bön and other ancient cosmogonies): in this sense, the phenomenal condition referred to as base-of-all is comparable to a situation in which the senses have not awakened to their objects, though not necessarily because the continuum of sensation from which objects are singled out in developed samsaric experience is absent (as would be the case in an individual who is deeply asleep, unconscious or in the samādhis that the Yoga and Sāṃkhya darśanas view as their supreme attainment, to whom therefore the sensory continuum of awake experience is not present): what is essential is that as yet there be no cognitive, conceptualizing and objectifying activity, yet there is unawareness of the true condition of the Base. Just like an egg can give rise to a chick or to an omelet, among other things, the base-of-all may be said to be twofold: when the essence or nature of the Base is viewed in causal vehicles as the cause of Buddhahood, with all of its dimensions and primordial gnoses, it is called unpolluted, absolute base-of-all; viewed as the basis of saṃsāra, it is called the base-of-all-the-stained-traces-or-propensities. These two ways of viewing it are explained as follows by Longchen Rabjam in the Dzogpa Chenpo Semnyi Ngalsoi Drelwa Shingta Chenpo: a b c 491 d e f g As this essence or nature (is) the cause of perfections such as the dimensions (kāya) and primordial gnoses [of Buddhahood], it is called the stainless, absolute base-of-all. As it (is) the h i Tib. dmigs. E.g. Longchen Rabjam’s Tshig don rin po che’i mdzod, 60b/3, which will be cited below in the regular text. Tib. sems; Skt. citta; Ch. ⼼ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xīn; Wade-Giles, hsin ). Note, however, that this Chinese term also renders the Skt. cittatā and citta eva and the Tib. sems nyid. Tib. gshis—a term widely used in bKa’ brgyud teachings that is roughly equivalent to ngo bo as the term is used to refer to the first aspect / primordial gnosis of the Base in the threefold Dzogchen classification. Tib. don gyi kun gzhi. Tib. bag chags sna tshogs pa’i kun gzhi. Wylie, rdzogs pa chen po sems nyid ngal gso’i ’grel ba shing rta chen po, vol. I, 92a/2 (cited in Tulku Thöndup, 1996, p, 226; I replaced some terms for the ones used in this book). Tib. gshis: a term widely used in bKa’ brgyud teachings, which is a rough equivalent of ngo bo as used in the Dzogchen teachings. Tib. don gyi kun gzhi. a b c 1 d e f g h i 344 basis of saṃsāra, it is called the base-of-all-of-stained-traces-or-propensities. The essence [aspect] of the Base qua base-of-all is one, but it is divided [by the teachings] on account of the different qualities based on it. a b At any rate, the above twofold classification of the base-of-all is not the only one of those offered by the Dzogchen teachings, for although, as noted in the above passage, the essence aspect of the Base qua base-of-all is one, the teachings distinguish in it as many aspects as required by different needs of elucidation. For example, in the Tsigdön Dzö Longchen Rabjam offers the following fourfold classification of the base-of-all: c “The four [aspects of types of base-of-all] are: [i] Absolute, primordial base-of-all: attendance of unawareness or nescience upon gnosis—that aspect of nescience or unawareness of [the true condition of universal] nondual Awake selfawareness that arose simultaneously with this nondual Awake self-awareness from primordial time, like gold and its tarnish, which serves as the initial ground for all samsaric phenomena (being an unAwakening that is defined as such in relation to Awakening). [ii] Absolute linking-up base-of-all: the base of karmic activity, the neutral primary support or foundation that links up and impels one through one’s individual karma to saṃsāra and nirvāṇa through different deeds [or absence of deeds]. d e f g h [iii] Base-of-all carrying multifarious traces or propensities: the neutral base of diverse latent karma that generates the samsaric cycle of mind and mental factors or events and repeated births in saṃsāra. [iv] Base-of-all of bodily propensities or traces: nescience / unAwakening as a basis / ground for the manifestation of three different bodies: [a] a gross body that manifests in parts, whose limbs and organs are made of infinitesimal particles such as the one that appears in the realm of sensuality, [b] a radiant body of lights such as the one that appears in the realm of form, and [c] a body that manifests out of Contemplation such as the one that appears in the realm of formlessness.” i j With regard to the arising of saṃsāra from the base-of-all, which is that which we are concerned with at this point, it must be noted that from the base-of-all the essence aspect of the Base, which is the Base dharmakāya and as such involves the potentiality for nonstatic nirvāṇa to arise, shines forth as the true condition of the essence aspect of the Base or ngowoi shi. However, as noted above, the gold that is the example of the essence / dharmakāya has since beginningless time coexisted with the first aspect or type of the k Tib. bag chags sna tshogs pa’i kun gzhi. Tib. ngo bo; Skt. svābhāva; Ch. ⾃性 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìng; Wade–Giles, tzu -hsing ; Jap. jishō). Wylie, gsang ba bla na med pa ’od gsal rdo rje snying po’i gnas gsum gsal bar byed pa’i tshig don rin po che’i mdzod, 52a/5 Alternative translations in Tulku Thöndup (1996, pp. 211-12) and van Schaik (2004, pp. 58-59 & 338 n. 204). Tib. ye don gyi kun gzhi. Skt. svasaṃvedana; Tib. rang rig. Tib. ltos pa’i. Tib. sbyor ba don gyi kun gzhi. Tib. lung ma bstan. Tib. bag chags sna tshogs pa’i kun gzhi. Tib. bag chags lus kyi kun gzhi. Wylie, ngo bo’i gshis. a b 4 c d e f g h i j k 345 4 unawareness cum delusion called avidyā, which was compared to the rust or tarnish that may conceal the qualities proper to gold: the contingent, beclouding element of stupefaction that forestalls the reGnition of the shining forth of the so-called fivefold gnosis that otherwise would have made patent the Base dharmakāya that is the Base’s essence aspect. This first aspect or type of avidyā in the classification adopted here, which in Tibetan is called gyu dagnyi chikpai marigpa, was operative in the neutral base-of-all—and, indeed, it was that which caused the base-of-all to be a neutral condition that pertains to saṃsāra but in which neither saṃsāra nor nirvāṇa is actively functioning. If, immediately after being forestalled, by the contingent, beclouding element of stupefaction that is the core of the first aspect or type of avidyā in the classification adopted here, from reGnizing the shining forth of the so-called fivefold gnosis, the subject-object duality—i.e. the grasper and the grasped, conditions of possibility of grasping at appearances—arises and hence we incur in the error of taking that shining forth to be an external reality, this is the second aspect or type of avidyā in the threefold classification adopted in this book, which calls it spontaneous illusion or lhenchik kyepai marigpa — which marks the beginning of the development of active saṃsāra. This gives rise to the illusory distance between the perceiver and the perceived necessary for the perceiver to cling to the perceived, and hence for thoughts to leave traces rather than spontaneously dissolving as they arise like feathers entering fire, as occurs in the case of the spontaneous liberation that is the hallmark of Dzogchen. However, by itself it is not sufficient for producing the imprints or traces in question. Finally, there arises the third aspect or type of avidyā in the classification adopted here, termed kuntu tagpai marigpa or imaginative delusion. This begins with the arising of a delusiveness, the propensity for which is inherent in the base-of-all-carryingpropensities, which upon arising conceives of the base-of-all-carrying-propensities as an independently existing “I” that rules over the aggregates, thus giving rise to the basic disturbing attitude referred to by the Sanskrit term ahaṃkāra and the Tibetan ngadzin, which I am rendering as self-grasping but which involves self-affirmation and selfpreoccupation as well, and which conceives an I or me as the experiencer, would-be controller and somehow owner of what is cognized. Imagine that you were practicing Contemplation and then the first type of avidyā arises, giving rise to the unenlightened, samsaric emptiness of the base-of-all. After this happens, you may feel inconform with that condition in which there is no change and that feels dull and uninteresting—which means that the second aspect or type of avidyā has a b c d e f g h i j Tib. rmongs cha. Wylie, rgyu bdag nyid gcig pa’i ma rig pa (cf. Longchenpa, 1976, p. 24, and the great encompassing work by Cornu, 2001, p. 62). Tib. rmongs cha. Wylie, lhan cig skyes pa’i ma rig pa (cf. Longchenpa, 1975a, p. 51; 1976, pp. 24 and 122 note 10; and Cornu, 2001, p. 62). Wylie, kun tu brtags pa’i ma rig pa (cf. Longchenpa, 1976, pp. 24 and 123 note 11, and Cornu, 2001, p. 62). As the term suggests, this aspect or type of avidyā is related to the third nature of Mahāmadhyamaka, which is the “nature of imaginary configurations” (Skt. parikalpitalakṣaṇa; Tib. kun brtags kyi mtshan nyid). Tib. nyon yid. Tib. bag chags kyi kun gzhi. Skt. skandha; Pāli khandha; Tib. phung po; Ch. 蘊 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yùn; Wade-Giles, yün ). Wylie, nga ’dzin. a b c d e f g h i 4 j 346 become operative, as there can be no inconformity without a subject-object duality (which is the condition of possibility of rejection or acceptance of experience), as well as the third aspect of type of avidyā, because this inconformity is itself a conceptualization of the situation. Then the inconformity becomes restlessness, which is itself a product of the selfgrasping / self-affirmation / self-preoccupation referred to by the Skt. ahaṃkāra and the Tib. ngadzin. And then this restlessness becomes the driving force leading the self-grasping / self-affirmation / self-preoccupation called ahaṃkāra to make us affirm and maintain ourselves by adhering to arising thoughts and following them, or singling out objects and feeling in contact with them, etc. In fact, the self-grasping / self-affirmation / self-preoccupation referred to by the Skt. ahaṃkāra and the Tib. ngadzin becomes the impelling force at the root of the singling out of objects (which for its part depends on the existence of a divisive, hermetic focus of awareness) within the continuum that appeared as object the moment at which spontaneous illusion arose in the immediately preceding stage, and also of the perception of these objects in terms of hypostasized / reified / valorized / absolutized thoughts that is at the root of the confusion of the digital, fragmentary maps of thought with the holistic territory of the given that such maps are incapable of matching, and the mistaken belief in the perfect correspondence of the one and the other—which is the source of the illusion of there being a plethora of entities existing hypostatically or intrinsically, independently and disconnectedly. This occurs because the superimposition of the idea of an “I” on the illusory subject that arose in the preceding state and that is the core of dualistic consciousness, gives rise to the compelling drive to confirm the existence of that “I” and gratify its acquisitiveness by means of contacts with the seemingly self-existing, seemingly external entities that are perceived at this stage. This is the source of the grasper’s lingering interest in and clinging to the grasped that causes thoughts to leave traces or imprints that impel the mind toward subsequent thoughts, rather than liberating themselves without leaving traces like feathers entering fire. If we compare the source of experience to a spring, the perceiver, with the self-grasping, self-affirmation and self-preoccupation with which it was endowed at this stage, is the illusion of someone separate and other than the spring that observes the water that flows from it, conceptualizing the forms that arise in it and clinging to them, thus fixating them in time and forestalling their spontaneous liberation. With this, and with our inability to realize the unawareness cum delusion called avidyā as such that is the third type or aspect of avidyā in the alternative classification, saṃsāra consolidates. However, also if nonstatic nirvāṇa became operative upon the shining forth of the true condition of the essence aspect of the Base or ngowoi shi, by reGnizing the latter in a nonconceptual and hence nondual way as the essence aspect of nonconceptual and hence nondual Awake self-awareness, this would not last forever: at some point (and initially most likely after very few seconds) avidyā or marigpa in the first of the senses it has in the Dzogchen classification adopted here would be come operative again, reinstating the dimension of the base-of-all—from which saṃsāra would rapidly develop in the way described above. If we wish to explain the arising of saṃsāra in more precise terms, we may do so in terms of three stages that successively produce birth in the three spheres of saṃsāra—as a b c a b c Wylie, nga ’dzin. Tib. lhan cig skyes pa’i ma rig pa. Wylie, ngo bo gshis. 347 implied by a terma revealed by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu, which I interpreted, on the basis of my own experience, by explicitly subdividing each of the three stages in question into two subsequent conditions. In the first, the base-of-all and the formless absorptions are explained as two different, successive conditions; in the second, the consciousness of the base-of-all and the absorptions of form are described as two different, subsequent conditions; and in the third, the defiled-defiling consciousness and the realm of sensuality are viewed as two different, subsequent conditions—the second of which, on each of the three stages, would arise when a (proto-)subject-object duality appeared. In any case, if at any stage the thoughts liberated themselves, so that the hypostatization / absolutization / reification / valorization of the contents of thought momentarily came to a halt, the development of saṃsāra would be interrupted; otherwise, the corresponding samsaric realm would become established. These three stages are: (1) The co-emergent arising of the activity I am referring to as hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of thought and of the supersubtle thought I call threefold directional thought-structure, gives rise to a lineal, dualistic structuring and functioning of the cognitive complex, which is polarized into subject and object, and by the same token gives rise to the phenomenon of being that, as shown elsewhere, endows all phenomena with the illusion of being—thus generating the illusion that there is an experience-that-is, an experiencer-that-is and something-experienced-that-is. Thus, the continuum of the neutral base-of-all that appeared when the beclouding element of stupefaction prevented the reGnition of the true condition of the essence aspect of the Base or ngowoi shi that shone forth and that otherwise would have made evident the essence or ngowo aspect of the Base (i.e. the Base’s emptiness that is the Base dharmakāya), giving rise to a created, arisen, originated, constructed, contrived, intentional, conditioned, made or compounded and as such samsaric emptiness, is turned into a conceptualized object of delusion. Although the traditional Dzogchen teachings do not seem to make a distinction between the neutral base-of-all and the formless contemplations, “neutral base-of-all” and “formless contemplations” are two different, distinct terms, and therefore should refer to two different conditions. In fact, all or nearly all the Dzogchen termas revealed in the last seven centuries, including those revealed by Longchenpa and Jigme Lingpa, make the point, or at least clearly imply, that the only aspect or type of avidyā that is manifest in the base-of-all is the first, which I am rendering as innate beclouding of primordial, nondual, a b d c e f g h i j The kLong chen ’od gsal mkha’ ’gro’i snying thig las lta ba blo ’das chen po’i gnad byang bshigs. Skt. ālaya; Tib. kun gzhi; Ch. 来源 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, láiyuán; Wade-Giles, lai -yüan ). Skt. ārūpyāvacaradhyāna; Pāli arūpāvacarajhāna; Tib. gzugs med na spyod pa’i bsam gtan; Ch. 無⾊界定 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúsèjiè dìng; Wade-Giles, wu -se -chieh ting ). Skt. ālayavijñāna; Tib. kun gzhi rnam [par] shes [pa]; Ch. 阿賴耶識 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, ālàiyē shí; Wade-Giles, a -lai -yeh shih ) or 藏識 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zàngshì; Wade-Giles, tsang -shih ). Skt. rūpāvacaradhyāna; Pāli rūpāvacarajhāna; Tib. gzugs na spyod pa’i bsam gtan; Ch. ⾊界定 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sèjiè dìng; Wade-Giles, se -chieh ting ). Skt. kliṣṭamanovijñāna; Tib. nyon [mongs pa can gyi] yid kyi rnam [par] shes [pa]; Ch. 末那識 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, mònà shì; Wade-Giles, mo -na shih ). Skt. kāmadhātu or kāmaloka; Tib. dod pa’i khams; Ch. 欲界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yùjiè; Wade-Giles, yü -chieh ). Capriles (2007, Vol. I). Wylie, ngo bo’i gshis. Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). a b 2 2 c 2 4 4 4 d 1 4 1 4 4 4 e 4 4 4 f 4 4 4 g 4 4 h i j 3 348 2 Awake awareness or, figuratively, unawareness. This implies that the second aspect or sense of avidyā, which involves the subject-object duality, and the third, which involves the conceptualization of the object or the subject as this or that, are absent in all of the states referred to by terms involving the phrase base-of-all. Contrariwise, as stated above in the regular text and as explained in four successive endnotes to the relevant passages of the regular text, there are four realms of formlessness, which arise according to four different forms of conceptualizing the seeming infinitude that is manifest—which for its part means that the third aspect or type of avidyā is manifest in these conditions. And since the third aspect or type of avidyā can only arise after the second has become operative, this implies that, unlike what is the case in the base-of-all, in the formless realms also the second type of avidyā is operative. And, in fact, in the first formless realm, the dominion of the infinitude of space, the infinitude is conceptualized as space; in the second, the dominion of the infinitude of consciousness, we conceptualize ourselves as an infinite consciousness that perceives the infinitude and is one with it; in the third, the dominion where there are no “whats,” the infinitude is conceptualized as being impossible to conceptualize; and in the fourth, the dominion in which there is neither perception nor absence of perception, in which gross discrimination has been left behind and there is only the subtlest of discriminations, it is conceptualized as being beyond both conceptualization and absence of conceptualization. This evinces the fact that the formless realms involve the third aspect or type of avidyā, which for its part implies that they also involve the second type or aspect. Since the baseof-all does not involve either of these two aspects, there can be no doubt that the base-ofall and the formless realms are different, quite distinct conditions. The above clearly explains why I apply the terms neutral base-of-all, dimension of the base-of-all and so on to those phenomenal conditions in which a continuum that seems to be a totality is manifest but in which there is no subject-object duality and no other form of conceptualization, and the term formless contemplations to the conditions that arise as a result of the arising of the subject-object duality or a proto-subject-object duality and a conceptualization of the object, or of both the object and the subject, as being this or that (or not-this, or neither-this-nor-that), in which there appears as object or proto-object a seemingly limitless continuum that, being utterly free from a figure / ground division, may be mistaken for a totality or an infinitude (although it is neither a totality nor an infinitude, for the illusory subject-object duality or proto-subject-object duality has concealed Totality, and the experience of there being a subject different and separate from whatever appears as object has introduced a limit that makes the object finite). As the mental subject establishes a b c d e f Tib. rgyu bdag nyid gcig pa’i ma rig pa; cf. Longchenpa, 1976, p. 24, and Cornu, 2001, p. 62. Skt. ākāśānantyasamāpatti; Tib. nam mkha’ mtha’ yas snyoms ’jug; Ch. 空無邊處定 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, kōng wúbiān chùdìng; Wade-Giles, k’ung wu -pien ch’u -ting ). Skt. vijñānantyasamāpatti; Tib. rnam shes mtha’ yas snyoms ’jug; Ch. 識無邊處定 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shì wúbiān chùdìng; Wade-Giles, shih wu -pien ch’u -ting ). Skt. ākiñcanyasamāpatti; Tib. ci yang med pa’i snyoms ’jug; Ch. 無所有處定 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wú suǒyǒu chùdìng; Wade-Giles, wu so -yu ch’u -ting ). Skt. naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāsamāpatti; Tib. ’du shes med ’du shes med min gyi snyoms ’jug; Ch. ⾮想⾮⾮想 處定 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fēixiǎng fēifēixiǎng chùdìng; Wade-Giles, fei -hsiang fei -fei -hsiang ch’u -ting ), also called “Peak of Experience” (Skt. bhavāgra; Tib. srid [pa’i] rtse [mo]; Ch. 有 頂 天 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒudǐngtiān; Wade-Giles, yu -ting -t’ien ): cf. Capriles (2013a, note 75 and Vol. II, note 187). Tib. kun gzhi’i khams. a b 1 3 1 4 4 c 4 3 1 4 4 d 2 3 3 4 4 e 1 3 3 1 f 349 3 1 1 3 4 4 a link of being with the seemingly limitless object, thus becoming a seeming infinitude, it obtains the illusion of having accomplished a totality or infinitude—which may be mistaken for a Buddhist realization. This is the reason why the earliest Buddhist teachings already warned against mistaking formless absorptions for Awakening. At any rate, if we managed to stabilize the base-of-all or a formless absorption, we would take birth in the formless realms; otherwise, saṃsāra would continue to develop through the following stages. (2) Then there arises what the Dzogchen teachings call consciousness of the base-of-all. Though at this point the concrete objects of the fives senses are not yet present as such, a subtle cognitive capacity that tends to grasp its objects has risen and made itself ready in every respect to receive the impressions of the potential objects of deluded mind, like a mirror, and so the eyes see what deluded beings perceive as color-forms, the ears hear what deluded beings perceive as sounds, the nose smells what deluded beings call fragrances, the tongue tastes what deluded beings perceive as flavors, and the body has what deluded beings perceive as kinesthetic sensations. This singling-out consciousness is compared to ice on water because grasping at its would-be objects amounts to singling them out, which is akin to freezing segments of the ocean, for it causes what is as yet unpatterned to become configured; when this happens, we enter the realm that, according to the Mahāyāna, is primarily determined by cognitive delusive obstructions: the realm of form. If we manage to make the ensuing condition stable, we take birth in this realm; otherwise, saṃsāra will continue to develop through the the next stage. (3) At this stage the singled-out configurations or patterns of that which, when recognized / perceived, will become sense data of the consciousness of the five sensory gates (i.e. of that which the West calls the five senses), are recognized / perceived as being this or that by the so-called “consciousness of mental contents.” The “consciousness” in question apprehends only the phenomena of the dang mode of manifestation of energy that we call “mental” and that normally we perceive as lying in an internal dimension, but at this stage its function consists in interpreting and perceiving in terms of subtle thoughts the configurations or patterns that were singled out in the preceding stage and that presented themselves to the consciousness of the five sense doors, which perceives phenomena of the tsel mode of manifestation of energy that appear to lie in an external dimension (i.e. a b c d e f g h i j k l m Cf. endnotes 233, 283, etc. Skt. ālayavijñāna; Tib. kun gzhi rnam [par] shes [pa]. Jigme Lingpa, rDzogs pa chen po’i gnag gsum shan ’byed, in the kLong chen snying gi thig le. Quoted in Guenther (1977, p. 144). Skt. jñeyāvaraṇa; Pāḷi ñeyyavāvaraṇa; Tib. shes [bya’i] sgrib [pa]; Ch. 所知障 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn suǒzhīzhàng; Wade-Giles so -chih -chang ). Skt. lakṣaṇa; Pāḷi lakkhaṇa; Tib. mtshan nyid; Ch. 相 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn. xiāng; Wade-Giles, hsiang ) Skt. manovijñāna; Pāḷi manoviññāṇa; Tib. yid kyi rnam [par] shes [pa]; Ch. 意識 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yìshí; Wade-Giles, i -shih ). Wylie, gdangs. Skt. manovijñāna; Pāḷi manoviññāṇa; Tib. yid kyi rnam [par] shes [pa]; Ch. 意識 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yìshí; Wade-Giles, i -shih ). Tib. nang dbyings. Skt. arthasāmānya; Tib. don spyi; Ch. 總事 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngshì; Wade-Giles, tsung -shih ) or 總義 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngyì; Wade-Giles, tsung -i ). Skt. pañcadvārajñāna; Tib. sgo lnga’i rnam [par] shes [pa]. Wylie, rtsal. I have occasionally rendered this mode of manifestation of energy as “projective energy.” Tib. spyi dbyings. a b c d 3 1 4 e 1 f 4 2 4 2 g h i j 3 3 4 k l m 350 4 through the five modes of consciousness that apprehend sensa that arise in the fields of the five senses universally accepted by Western psychology and epistemology). As Drime Öser notes, it is said that mind is the consciousness of the base-of-all, whereas apprehending selfhood [in human beings or in phenomena which are not human beings] is thought or mental forms. For its part, the arousing of aversion, desire or attachment, or of neutral attitudes, towards the sensory configurations that at this point are being perceived in terms of subtle thoughts, is the ego-centered consciousness called defiled-defiling consciousness or consciousness of the passions, which arises at this point, defining this stage, and which consists in the drive to passionately react to the configurations in question, grasping them, appropriating them, or confronting them in whichever ways may serve the illusory “I” that is the core of self-preoccupation / self-grasping to establish, confirm, demonstrate and sustain the illusion of its own existence as a separate, absolutely important and true individual self. It is this that gives rise to the realm of sensuality, which functions through the consciousness that apprehends mental phenomena, and the so-called consciousnesses of the other five senses, but which has as its core and driving force the defiled-defiling consciousness or consciousness of the passions (all of these “consciousnesses” and their objects, are stirred by the “Base-of-all carrying propensities,” for consciousness and its contents arise interdependently or coemergently for one moment and then disappear, in an order or sequence that depends on the karmic propensities “carried” by the “base-of-all carrying propensities”). This is the realm of “I” and “mine” in which, through the last six modes of consciousness, the imaginary “I” that is the core of the self-preoccupation and of the defiled-defiling consciousness or consciousness of the passions tries to affirm itself as a true self and gratify its acquisitiveness by obtaining concrete sensory experiences and emotionally reacting to the objects of these experiences. In Mahāyāna terms, it is also the realm that is primarily determined by passional delusive obstructions. Nonetheless, as noted above, for Dzogchen practitioners who are familiar enough with the unwavering patency of the dharmakāya and the spontaneous liberation of delusive thoughts, at any of these stages, including the third, it will be sufficient for them to look into whichever thought is present, as though to apprehend its true condition (with which they are quite familiar due to their previous, repeated reGnition of the dharmakāya and concomitant spontaneous liberation), for the thought to liberate itself spontaneously upon the reGnition of the dharmakāya—or not to do so, since spontaneous liberation is beyond causality and thus, unless the individual is very advanced on the Dzogchen Path, there are no guarantees that it will take place on any particular occasion. Note that a process roughly analogous to the one described above develops again and again as short cognitive gaps occur repeatedly in our experience throughout our daily a b c d e f g h rDzogs pa chen po sems nyid ngal gso’i ’grel ba shing rta chen po, I, 49a/3 Alternative translation in Tulku Thöndup (1996, pp. 220). Skt. citta; Tib. sems; Ch. ⼼ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xīn; Wade-Giles, hsin ). Skt. manas; Tib. yid; Ch. 意 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yì; Wade-Giles, i ). Cf. the rDzogs pa chen po sems nyid ngal gso’i ’grel ba shing rta chen po, vol. I, 83a/5 (cited in Tulku Thöndup, 1996, p, 220-221). I am not quoting from it at this point. Skt. kliṣṭamanovijñāna; Tib. nyon mongs pa can yid kyi rnam [par] shes [pa]. Skt. manovijñāna; Tib. yid kyi rnam [par] shes [pa]. Skt. pañcadvārajñāna; Tib. sgo lnga’i rnam [par] shes [pa]. Skt. kleśāvaraṇa; Pāḷi kilesāvaraṇa; Tib. nyon [mongs pa’i] sgrib [pa]; Ch. 煩 惱 障 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fánnǎozhàng; Wade-Giles, fan -nao -chang ). a b 1 c 4 d e f g h 2 3 4 351 life, but at the time our space-time-awareness is quite narrow and we are distracted by the turmoil of daily activities, duties and worries, and hence it is not easy to become aware of it. A further difficulty is the fact that on such occasions the process takes place just too rapidly and confusedly, and the limits of its successive stages become extremely murky. The process also occurs—yet is easier to observe—in those practices of semdzin and rushen that induce specific varieties of the neutral base-of-all—such as, for example, in practices eliciting the experience of disoriented clarity and emptiness called heddewa. At any rate, the recurrence of this process throughout our daily life shows that saṃsāra, rather than being continuous, is constantly arising and developing. a b c 492 The Path The Three Aspects of the Path It is when we are confined to saṃsāra that it is necessary for us to travel a Path that may allow us to reach the Fruit of irreversible nonstatic nirvāṇa—i.e. Buddhahood. The three aspects of the Path in all Buddhist vehicles are those referred to by the Tibetan terms tawa , gompa and chöpa. However, as explained below, in Dzogchen Ati these terms have meanings that are radically different from the ones they have in all the other Buddhist paths, vehicles and schools. (1) In standard Buddhist paths, vehicles and schools the term tawa is usually rendered as theoretical view, for it designates the conception a given path, vehicle or school has of the true condition of reality and of the realization of the true condition in question—as well as of relative truth, of the nature and workings of unawareness and delusion, of the Path leading to freedom from unawareness and delusion in the condition identified as absolute truth, etc. However, the Dzogchen teachings emphasize direct access to the nonconceptual and hence nondual awareness (of) the Base—i.e., (of) the inconceivable, inexpressible true condition of reality—that the Dzogchen teachings call rigpa, which evinces the incontrovertible fact that concepts, words, or chains of concepts or words, no matter how sophisticated and thoughtful they may be, could never correspond precisely, either to the true condition of the Base that is made evident by the spontaneous dissolution of all three aspects or types of avidyā in the nonconceptual and thus nondual awareness (of) that condition, or to the awareness in question. This is the reason why in these teachings we find 493 d e f g h Wylie, sems ’dzin—lit. mental fixation or mental concentration: practices used to induce experiences that then may be used to try to grasp at the grasper (which is another meaning of the term sems ’dzin). Wylie, ru shan. The full name of these practices is ’khor ’das ru shan phye ba: distinguishing between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. Wylie, had de ba. Wylie, lta ba; Skt. dṛṣṭi (also darśana; especially when referring to nonBuddhist systems); Ch. ⾒ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jiàn; Wade-Giles, chien ). Wylie, sgom pa; Skt. bhāvanā; Ch. 修習 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiūxí; Wade-Giles, hsiu -hsi ). Wylie, spyod pa; Skt. caryā; Pāḷi and Skt. carita; Ch. 行 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíng; Wade-Giles, hsing ). Skt. acintya; Pāli: acinteya, acintiya; Tib. bsam yas or bsam gyis mi khyab pa; Ch. 佛學辭彙 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fóxué cíhuì; Wade-Gilles, fo -hsüueh tz’u -hui ). Skt. avācya; Tib. smrar med pa; Ch. 不可说物 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùkěshuō wù; Wade-Gilles, pu -k’e -shuo wu ) / Skt. anabhilāpya; Tib. brjod [du] med [pa]; Ch. 不可說 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùkěshuō; Wade-Gilles, pu -k’e shuo ). a b c d 4 e 1 2 f 2 g 2 2 2 4 h 4 3 1 4 1 352 4 3 a striking exception to this rule: in them the term, rather than designating a theoretical view, refers to the awareness in question—often referring in particular to the initial events of unconcealment of that awareness. This is the reason why in the context of those teachings I render the term tawa as Vision, which I capitalize in order to make it clear that, rather than referring to the vision of this or that object through the sense of sight, it designates the initial events of the direct, nonconceptual, nondual, undistorted awareness (of) the true condition of the Base that is our own true condition of total completeness / plenitude and perfection— or, which is the same, the initial occurrences of the primordial gnosis whereby rigpa displays itself, which (is) that which the Dzogchen teachings call the single level condition of liberation. (Note that the usage of the same term for referring to the theoretical view of a path, vehicle or school, and to the initial events of nonconceptual and hence nondual awareness [of] the true condition of reality, is not foreign to Mahāyāna Sanskrit terminology, for the term rendered by the Tibetan word tawa is dṛṣṭi, but it also renders the Sanskrit darśana, which does not only designate the theoretical views in question, for it also has the acceptation of presence understood in the sense of the nonconceptual and hence nondual Presence [of] the true condition of reality [(I capitalize the term Presence in order to indicate that rather than being used in Greek etymological sense of presence emphasized by Plato, it is used to refer to a sublime event that defies the sense in question )]: this is the acceptation the term has in the name of the third bodhisattva path, which is the one attained when this nonconceptual and hence nondual so-called Presence arises for the first time: darśanamārga or path of Presence. However, in this case the term darśana is not rendered into Tibetan as tawa, for the Tibetan name of this path is tonglam —where lam means path and tong is the Tibetan for seeing, which I capitalize and render as Vision for the same reasons why I render tawa as Vision, and also in order to emphasize that the English term chosen refers to [different degrees of] the same event in the Mahāyāna and in the Atiyogatantrayāna.) The Vision in question need not last long: it may be a short-lived glimpse, but at any rate it must make the true condition of ourselves and the whole of reality clearly patent. The great Dzogchen Masters usually leave their dharma heir or heirs a spiritual testament, which, as it is well-known and as it was noted in a previous chapter, in the case of Garab Dorje—the “Primordial Revealer” who introduced Buddhist Dzogchen into our world— was: (i) Direct Introduction [to the state of rigpa]; (ii) Not to Remain in Doubt [with regard to the true condition of ourselves and the whole of reality that revealed itself in the event of Direct Introduction, to the fact that the event in question actually disclosed the condition in question, and to the nature and significance of that event]; and (iii) Continue, with confidence in self-liberation, in the State [of rigpa] (for it is impossible to continue in the state if one does not have confidence in self-liberation). As also noted in the same chapter, this is the original, standard sequence of Dzogchen practice. a b 494 c d e Wylie, grol sa gcig po yin par ngo shes. Mainly when referring to nonBuddhist systems. Skt. mārga[ḥ]; Pāḷi, magga; Tib. lam; Ch. 道 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dào; Wade-Giles, tao ). Wylie, mthong lam; Ch. ⾒道 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jiàndào; Wade-Giles chien -tao ). Tib. ston pa: those who reintroduce the dharma when the dharma in its totality has been lost, and who as such are different from the Treasure Revealers or gter ston—who, while there is still a living transmission of the teachings, introduce specific teachings that had been lost or that were not suitable for previous times but are required at the time of their revelation. a b c 4 d 4 e 353 4 Well, the Direct introduction referred to in the first of the three phrases Garab Dorje bequeathed us through his lineage-holder, Mañjuśrīmitra, is no other than the initial event of Vision, which marks the entrance to the Path: an initial, sudden, total disclosure of our original, uncompounded / unconditioned / uncontrived / nonfabricated, unborn condition of total completeness / plenitude and perfection—i.e. Dzogchen—by means of the nonconceptual and hence nondual Awake Awareness / absolute Presence / instant Presence referred to by the Tibetan term rigpa. And it is by returning to the Vision in question again and again that we come to no longer remain in doubt. When the Vision is interrupted by the arising of a thought, since we were in the state of dharmakāya that is the true condition of thought, by looking at the stuff of the thought the dharmakāya manifests again and, since the dharmakāya (is) an all-liberating single gnosis, thought liberates itself spontaneously. Through the constant repetition of this one gains confidence in self-liberation, which allows one to continue in the state of rigpa by means of gompa and chöpa, which will be discussed below. By combining the two principal threefold classifications of avidyā existent in the Dzogchen teachings, in a previous chapter I expounded a fourfold classification of the referent of the term in question. The first type of avidyā, which lies in the unawareness of the true condition of both ourselves and all other phenomena, was said to consist in the beclouding of the self-reGnition of the true condition of the Base by the above-mentioned element of stupefaction named mongcha that has always been flowing with the mental continuum of sentient beings who have never realized the true condition in question—and that, when unaccompanied by the other types or aspects of avidyā, induces the condition of the neutral base-of-all that, since it involves avidyā, pertains to saṃsāra, but in which the latter is not active, for we are not yet at any point of the revolving wheel, for it is not actively giving rise to the illusions of dualism, substantiality, inherent qualities and so on that cause us to go up or down according to both karma and circumstances. The second type or aspect of avidyā, produced by the reification / hypostatization / valorization of the threefold directional thought structure, was said to give rise to the illusory subject-object duality that is the first element of active saṃsāra. The third type or aspect, engendered by the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of subtle / intuitive thoughts, was said to produce the perception of entities. Therefore, the passions that alternate in our experience as we revolve in the wheel are produced by the combination of the second and third types of avidyā, in collaboration with the various mental functions and energetic a b c 495 d e f Pāḷi asaṅkhata; Skt. asaṃskṛta; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu -wei ). Pāli and Skt. ajāta; Tib. ma skyes [pa] or skyes med; Ch. 無⽣ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúshēng; Wade-Giles, wu sheng ). The most common terms are anutpāda and anutpatti (Tib. and Ch. same as just expressed), which Nāgārjuna preferred to ajāta. Tib. skad cig [ma yi] rig pa / rig pa skad chig ma. As stated explained in endnotes 30, 114, 445, 495, here “instant” (Tib. skad chig ma) means, (1) that Awake awareness is free from the division of the temporal continuum into past, present and future that arises when hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of the threefold directional thought-structure sunders the uninterrupted Base into subject and object, and thereby into space, time and knowledge as different dimensions; (2) that whereas perception is mediated and it takes time for concepts to be superimposed on sensa, rig pa is unmediated and instantaneous. Wylie, rang ngo shes pa. Concerning the reason for coining the neologisms reGnition, reGnize and so on, see the endnote the reference mark for which is next to the reference mark to this footnote. Wylie, rmongs cha. Skt. saṃsāra; Tib. ’khor ba; Ch. 輪迴 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, lúnhuí; Wade-Giles, lun -hui ) or ⽣死輪迴 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shēngsǐ lúnhuí; Wade-Giles, sheng -ssu lun -hui ). a 2 b 2 2 1 c d e f 2 1 3 2 2 354 2 events that give rise to the narrowly focused consciousness that seems to be a function of the baseless, illusory mental subject that is produced by the reification / hypostatization / valorization of the threefold directional thought structure, and that is unaware of the Base that (is) the primordial, true condition of ourselves and all other phenomena, and aware of delusive contents only. Finally, the fourth type of avidyā was said to consist in being unaware of the fact that the experience conditioned by the combination of the other three types of avidyā involves both unawareness (of the true conditions of ourselves and all phenomena) and delusion, and, contrariwise, taking it to be faithful to the true condition of reality. It is when the above elements are interacting, that we need Direct introduction [to our own face or true condition ]—i.e., an initial nondual, nonconceptual self-reGnition of the nonconceptual and hence nondual Awake, nonpositional, nonthetic, nonreflexive selfawareness that makes patent this nondual awareness’ own face, whereby both the unawareness of the true condition of ourselves and the whole of reality that is the first type of avidyā and whichever thoughts of any of the three types that may have been hypostasized / reified / valorized spontaneously dissolve, so that the true condition of the Base is unconcealed in rigpa-qua-Path. As just noted, the term “spontaneous liberation” is used because this liberation takes place spontaneously rather than being the result of an action, and hence it does not produce a state that as such would be fabricated, contrived, conditioned, made, and/or compounded; contrariwise, the term refers to the dissolution of the fabricated, contrived, conditioned, compounded and / or made experiences that in saṃsāra conceal our unborn, nonfabricated, unconditioned, uncontrived, uncompounded, primordial nature. Thereafter one will have to apply again and again the instructions that facilitate the spontaneous, uncontrived and uncaused arising of the Vision, until the point is reached at which the subsequent arising of delusion no longer causes doubts to arise in us regarding the fact that the true condition of reality is the single, undivided, nature that was revealed in the nonconceptual and hence nondual state of Vision—which is what is a b c d496 e f g h i j k l Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). Wylie, thog tu ngo sprad pa. Wylie, rang ngo. Tib. rang ngo shes pa. For it does not posit any thesis, For it is not a consciousness of position—which would necessarily involve subject and object—and does not involve representation. Since it is nondual it cannot involve reflexivity—which implies a separate subject that reflects on him or herself. This is why it is a major blunder to render as reflexive consciousness, reflexive awareness or apperception the term rang rig when used in a Dzogchen context or in senses (i) or (ii) of those it has in the Pramāṇavāda (as explained in the section Awakening Vs. Transpersonal, Holotropic and Nearly Holistic Counterfeits). Tib. rang rig; Skt. svasaṃvedana; Ch. ⾃證 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìzhèng; Wade-Giles, tzu -cheng ) / ⾃覺 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìjué; Wade-Giles, tzu -chüeh ). Since the particle rig refers to rig pa, combining English with Tibetan the term could be rendered as self-rigpa or Awake nonconceptual and hence nondual self-awareness. Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). Pāli and Skt. ajāta; Tib. ma skyes [pa] or skyes med; Ch. 無⽣ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúshēng; Wade-Giles, wu sheng ). The most common terms are anutpāda and anutpatti (Tib. and Ch. same as just expressed), which Nāgārjuna preferred to ajāta. Pāḷi asaṅkhata; Skt. asaṃskṛta; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu -wei ). Tib. lta ba; Skt. dṛṣṭi (also darśana; especially when referring to nonBuddhist systems); Ch. ⾒ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jiàn; Wade-Giles, chien ). a 3 2 3 2 b c d e f g h 4 4 4 2 i j 2 1 k 2 l 4 355 2 referred to by the second of the three phrases of the testament of the primordial revealer Garab Dorje: to dispel doubts through the repeated occurrence of the most clear, direct, firsthand, indubitable disclosure of the Base’s true condition, so as to ascertain it so decisively in a nonconceptual way that does not at all involve a decision, as to make our natural certainty consolidate and thus Not to remain in doubt. Therefore, as Chögyal Namkhai Norbu has remarked and as will be shown in Part Two of this book, it is a crass error to assert that the Tibetan for the second statement— chik thagchepa which literally would mean “arriving at a single definitive decision or discovery”—has the sense of “deciding upon this single point:” to decide that the nature of reality is that which disclosed itself in the state of tawa of Direct introduction would be an activity of mind qua nucleus of delusion, and hence if we make a decision in this regard the core of delusion will be sustained rather than transcended. Not to remain in doubt means that the certitude attained in the state of rigpa beyond mind has filtered into the state of mind, so that the latter does not have to decide but has a spontaneous, absolute certitude concerning the true nature of reality. But why is it necessary to return again and again to that condition in order not to remain in doubt? As Ācārya Dignāga correctly noted, in our ordinary, dualistic condition, to remember is always to remember that one was perceiving. In rigpa there is no subjectobject duality, and therefore no one is perceiving—and, in fact, there is no perception as such. Therefore, it is impossible that the type of dualistic memory that the creator of the Pramāṇavāda is referring to, clearly remembers the initial event of rigpa that took place in Direct Introduction—and hence when the dualistic subject-object condition is restablished it is natural that doubts arise regarding the fact that Direct Introduction really occurred, and regarding the true condition of reality that it disclosed. Likewise, the nonconceptual and hence nondual condition of Awake awareness that is disclosed in Direct Introduction is a totally panoramic condition of Total Space-Time-Awareness, and as such it could not be remembered from the fragmentary, tunnel-like, dualistic perspective proper to the normal, ordinary condition characterized by a quite low energetic volume determining the scope of awareness, as the limitless cannot fit into the limited and cannot even be conceived by the limited. And since just one moment of rigpa will not affect our experience so deeply as to make us realize the experience of post-Contemplation to be illusion-like, when the dualistic, fragmentary perspective is reestablished, once more it will seem to be the real condition of reality. However, the difficulty to maintain certainty in the normal, ordinary experience of post-Contemplation is much greater when the energetic volume determining the scope of awareness is not high enough at the time of Direct Introduction. In fact, if at the time the energetic volume is very high, the self-liberation of unawareness and delusion in rigpa may provide a totally striking contrast to samsaric experience, but when it is not that high rigpa a b c d e 497 Tib. thag bcad pa. Tib. nges shes. One should not be confused by phrases such as rang rig pa’i ngo bo yar thag chod shes, for the words rendered here as “decisively realize” do not imply that we must make a decision; what they mean is that the realization in question is decisive in that it gives rise to definite and indubitable certainty. Tib. thag bcad thog tu gcig: not to remain in doubt through directly discovering the single [true condition]. Wylie, gcig thag bcad pa. a b c d e 356 will not be so clear, and this may facilitate the arising of doubt when unawareness and delusion are reestablished. Whatever the case, unless the energetic volume is extremely high at the time of Direct Introduction and unless the yogin or yoginī has a high capacity, it is just natural that doubts arise when unawareness and delusion are reestablished. And in this case the only way to dispel those doubts is to return to the condition of rigpa again and again—or, even better, to return to that condition again and again with a high energetic volume—until doubts no longer arise. It is at that point that one has the certainty in the Vision and in spontaneous liberation necessary for one to continue in the state. (2) For its part, the term gompa, in standard Buddhist paths, vehicles and schools signifies meditation, concentration, absorption or contemplation, for it refers to practices contrivedly applied by the mind that sustain and condition the dualistic mind and, as such, are functions of delusion that confirm and sustain delusion. The exception to this rule is the main Dzogchen practice, which does not involve any form of contrived activity that may condition the mind or confirm and sustain delusion. In fact, in these teachings the term gompa refers to the continuity of the Vision during a session of practice. Although in this context I render the term as Contemplation, I capitalize it in order to make it clear that it does not refer to the contemplation of an object by a subject, but, as just noted, to the continuity of the Vision of the true condition of the Base in which all degrees or forms of reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of thought are absent and in which, therefore, the subject-object duality is also absent. Since the Base of Dzogchen is not circumscribed to the aspect of primordial purity that consists in emptiness, but also comprises the aspect of spontaneous perfection, which involves the arising of phenomena (for spontaneous perfection is subdivided into nature and energy, and the aspect of energy naturally gives rise to all sorts of phenomena without interruption), thoughts will naturally arise during a session of practice. However, since Contemplation (is) the continuity of Vision and Vision is the patency of the all-liberating single gnosis, so long as we remain in the state of Contemplation all that arises and that otherwise would conceal the Base liberates itself spontaneously, gradually neutralizing the propensities for the arising of delusion and by the same token increasing our capacity to remain in Contemplation. Of course, initially, all arising thoughts will be reified / absolutized / hypostasized / valorized, thus begetting delusion, and among them, discursive thoughts, in particular, will form chains of thought. However, if, rather than grasping and following what the thoughts express, one reGnizes the stuff and true condition of these thoughts, they will liberate themselves spontaneously and therefore the Vision will be maintained. It is only while the Vision is maintained that the Dzogchen teachings refer to our practice as gompa or Contemplation. Therefore, not necessarily the entire sessions of sitting practice will be Contemplation, for in them we can certainly alternate between Contemplation and delusion. At any rate, the third of the phrases of the testament of Garab Dorje is Directly continue confidently in liberation —which is only possible once one no longer remains in a b c d a b c d Wylie, sgom pa; Skt. bhāvanā; Ch. 修習 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiūxí; Wade-Giles, hsiu -hsi ). Tib. thun; Skt. upaveśa[ḥ]. Tib. thun; Skt. upaveśa[ḥ]. Tib. gdeng: with confidence; grol: in liberation; thog tu bca’: directly continue. 1 357 2 doubt, and which initially consists in Contemplation or gompa, but at a later stage must include Behavior. (More strictly speaking, continuing in the state of rigpa is understood in the sense of continuing in that state as much as possible, and hence, in this stricter sense, to continue in the state is made to correspond to chöpa or Behavior, and in this case not to remain in doubt is made to correspond to gompa or Contemplation: this is how Paltrul Rinpoche explained the correspondences between the three phrases of Garab Dorje’s testament and the three aspects of the Path which are tawa, gompa and chöpa, and it has the advantage of making each aspect of one classification correspond to one aspect of the other. ) (3) Finally, in standard Buddhist paths, vehicles and schools, the Tibetan term chöpa designates regulated, conditioning, contrived, predetermined modes of behavior applied by the mind, which are functions of the mind that is the core of delusion that confirm and sustain the mind that is the core of delusion. The exception to this rule is the Dzogchen teachings, in which the main practice does not involve any form of contrived behavior that will sustain and condition the mind that is the core of delusion. In fact, even though in the context of Dzogchen Atiyoga I still render the term chöpa as Behavior, I capitalize it in order to make it clear that it does not refer to regulating one’s behavior with reference to a rules (like in the Hīnayāna) or to ample general principles (like in the Mahāyāna), but to the prolongation of Contemplation or gompa beyond sessions of practice and throughout all of one’s daily activities—which necessarily implies absolute spontaneity beyond adherence to rules or principles. Thus it is clear that the principle of chöpa implies that Dzogchen practitioners must go beyond the split of life into a Contemplation state and a post-Contemplation state; even though we may have sessions of Contemplation, from the very outset of the practice we must carry the state of rigpa—i.e. of manifest, unhindered nonconceptual and hence nondual Awake Awareness—beyond the sessions of Contemplation and into the twenty-four hours of the day and night (i.e. throughout daily activities and during sleep). Properly speaking, the term chöpa applies only so long as we keep in the state of rigpa while we are outside the sessions of practice in Tibetan referred to as thun —which for its part involves what is referred to as carrying the six gatherings on the Path (where, as already noted, the “gatherings” are the object, sense and consciousness of each of the six senses that Buddhism acknowledges: the five that present “outer” phenomena of tsel energy—namely those universally acknowledged in the West—and the one that presents “inner” phenomena of dang energy or, which is the same, “mental phenomena”)—and therefore spontaneously actualize the behavior of Samantabhadra. Samantabhadra is the name of the primordial Buddha that stands for our own true, Awake condition (the male aspect standing for the dharmakāya, and the female aspect for the dharmadhātu, which in this context has the term sugatagarbha as a synonym), and it a b c d 498 e 499 f Wylie, sgom pa; Skt. bhāvanā; Tib. Ch. 修習 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiūxí; Wade-Giles, hsiu -hsi ). Tib. spyod pa; Skt. caryā; Pāḷi and Skt. carita; Ch. 行 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíng; Wade-Giles, hsing ). Cf. Patrul Rinpoche’s Commentary to the Three Phrases of Garab Dorje’s testament, the mkhas pa sri rgyal po’i khyad chos’ grel pa dang bcas pa with self-Commentary. There is a good English translation in Reynolds, John M. (trans. Introd. and comm. 1996). Wylie, spyod pa; Skt. caryā; Pāḷi and Skt. carita; Ch. 行 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíng; Wade-Giles, hsing ). Skt. samāhita; Tib. mnyam bzhag; Ch. 等引 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, děngyǐn; Wade-Giles, teng -yin ). Tib. thun; Skt. upaveśa[ḥ]. a 1 2 b 2 c d 2 e 3 f 358 3 means “All Good.” On the one hand this refers to the fact that in the state of rigpa there is no sense of self or ego and hence no selfishness or egotism, and that in rigpa the whole universe is one’s own body and hence one equanimously cares for all sentient beings and natural phenomena just as one cares for oneself, but on the other it alludes to the fact that, since behavior is spontaneous rather than contrivedly regulated to fit a preconceived, externally imposed mold, unpredictable ways of behavior spontaneously arise to respond to situations and to the acts of sentient beings in the most fitting and beneficial ways. Since they do not fit any preconceived pattern, those ways of behavior could be perceived by others as improper of spiritual people, or of Buddhists, etc., and be judged negatively and possibly condemned—which may give rise to unpleasant feeling tones that the yogin or yoginī will employ as an alarm reminding him or her to apply the instruction that will facilitate the spontaneous liberation of the negative concept or idea that others projected on her or him together with the unpleasant feeling tone. Or, in those who are even more advanced, it could directly result in the spontaneous liberation of the concepts or ideas in question, together with the unpleasant feeling tones induced by them. In fact, though we will initially lose the state of rigpa and hence the chöpa again and again during our daily activities, falling under the sway of delusion, good practitioners use their flaws, errors and mistakes to return to the state of rigpa, thus recovering the chöpa or Behavior—precisely because the effects of those falls, errors and mistakes shake them, impairing their usual egosustaining mechanisms and in particular their adherence to the idea that they are consummate—or, at least, superior—practitioners and the ensuing pride (which would be most detrimental, for pride makes delusion comfortable, turning into an insurmountable obstacle to successful continuation of the practice). The way this is achieved by the chöpa of Dzogchen will be discussed in a subsequent chapter, in the context of the meaning of Refuge in Atiyoga, and will be analyzed in greater detail in Part Two of this book. In short, the Path lies in the disclosure of the Base in the disclosure of tawa or Vision, and in the continuity of this disclosure by means of gompa or Contemplation (i.e. of the continuity of tawa or Vision during sessions of practice, for, as noted above, when the arising of thought is reified / hypostasized / absolutized / valorized, and so long as this reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of thought is still manifest, we are not in gompa or Contemplation) and of chöpa or Behavior (i.e. of the continuity of Contemplation or gompa beyond sessions of practice, for when the arising of thought is reified / hypostasized / absolutized / valorized, and so long as this hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of thought is manifest, we are not spontaneously actualizing the chöpa or Behavior). Thus, it is clear that there is a perfect continuity, not only between the Base, the Path and the Fruit of Ati, but also between the three aspects of the Path—a continuity that is lacking even in the inner Tantric vehicles of the Path of Transformation, for in them the conceptual character of the tawa, which is no more than a theoretical view, contrasts with the nonconceptuality they attribute to the Fruit; likewise, on the Path of Transformation gompa does not lie in the pure and perfect continuity of tawa, for it involves a creation or generation stage in which visualization is contrivedly generated and sustained, and then a perfection or completion stage in which initially contrived practices with channels, energy circulation and energetic volume determining the scope of awareness often have to be applied—whereas chöpa may involve contrivedly overcoming prejudices as a means to go beyond the discrimination between pure and impure, and so on. 500 359 The term rangdröl, which as a rule is translated as “self-liberation,” here is being rendered as “spontaneous liberation” because some people have misunderstood the term “self-liberation” as meaning that one liberates oneself as a result of one’s own action and power rather than through the grace of an external power. This is a total misunderstanding because the event in question is utterly free from the illusory split into an internal and an external dimension, and because action sustains the illusory mental subject inherent in the second aspect of type of avidyā: self-liberation would be thwarted by any action or effort seemingly having the illusory mental subject as its agent, for such action or effort would affirm and maintain the spurious existence of the grasper and the grasped, which are the pivot of delusion and active saṃsāra. Morover, if action were undertaken as a cause supposed to produce Awakening as result, since action would then be a cause producing an effect, any action aimed at liberating oneself by one’s own power would do no more than sustain the sphere of the contrived, produced, conditioned and/or compounded, thus averting self-liberation—and hence Awakening or liberation could by no means occur. The only way in which action could be the condition of possibility of spontaneous liberation would be if it were applied as self-defeating skillful means—i.e. as the action of walking or running must have been inititated by an individual if one is to make her or him trip and collapse. However, none of this should be taken to signify that one is liberated through the grace of an external power, for there is nothing external to our true condition. In order to properly understand the meaning of “spontaneous liberation,” we must keep in mind that, as noted repeatedly, in the Dzogchen teachings the primordial gnosis whereby the state of rigpa is disclosed and actualized and that is no other than the selfreGnition (of) Awake awareness that makes its own face patent, is characterized as “allliberating single gnosis,” for the very instant this self-reGnition occurs, and so long as it continues to (be) patent and actual, reified / hypostasized / absolutized / valorized thoughts liberate themselves spontaneously (i.e. they instantly dissolve of their own accord) as their true condition, which is the dharmakāya—true condition of ourselves and of the whole universe, and in the Series of Pith Instructions, true condition of dang energy or “energy of the sphere of the mental,” which is the stuff of thought—becomes perfectly patent. In fact, this self-reGnition dissolves all of the aspects of types of avidyā discussed in this book, and hence this nondual primordial gnosis of Awake awareness is not veiled by either the contingent, beclouding element of stupefaction that obscures rigpa’s inherent nondual selfawareness, preventing it from making patent its own face and from actualizing its allliberating nature, or by the spurious subject-object duality and the ensuing illusion of there being a distance between awareness and spatial phenomena, etc. Thus the functionality of rigpa as the all-liberating single gnosis is fully active: rigpa (is) like a mirror in which there is no distance between reflective capacity and reflections and in which there is no one to adhere to the reflections; therefore, the very moment this single gnosis is self-reGnized, its all-liberating nature is actualized and whichever thought is present liberates itself instantly and spontaneously—and so long as the gnosis in question continues to (be) self-reGnized, whichever thoughts may arise self-liberate as they arise like drawings on water, leaving no a b c d e a b c d e Wylie, rang grol. Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). Tib. rang ngo shes pa. Tib. gcig shes kun grol. Tib. rang ngo shes pa. 3 360 2 traces or conditionings in that gnosis or awareness, just as reflections leave no traces in a looking glass, or as ripples in a watersource cannot ever become stationary. Contrariwise, when the delusion involving the duality of subject and object arises, the nonduality of primordial gnosis is concealed by the illusion that our cognitive capacity is at a distance from the spatial appearances it gives rise to, and that these appearances either arise from an external source or are produced by the illusory mental subject; therefore, there is automatic grasping at the appearances in question that elicits acceptance / attachment, rejection / aversion or disinterest / indifference—which prevents the self-liberation of the concepts that condition the perception of those appearances and results in the production of karmic traces that give rise to never-ending saṃsāra. Therefore, though it is true that in this vehicle we are liberated by the power of our own potentiality rather than by the power of a meditation deity (as may seem to be the case on the Path of Transformation), this liberation does not at all result from our own actions or our own efforts: it is the natural function of the pure spontaneity that is the self-perfection / self-rectifying aspect of the Base, utterly beyond the cause-effect relation. At any rate, it should be perfectly clear by now that the Ati principle of spontaneous liberation or self-liberation is radically different from the principle of transformation characteristic of the other inner Tantras of the Nyingmapa and the Anuttarayogatantras of the Sarmapa. Whereas the above classification of the aspects of the Dzogchen Path is sequential, there is another classification of the Path that does not seem to be sequential: the one that divides it into: (a) emptiness of nonthought; (b) luminosity and clarity, and (c) bliss. However, in this case these three aspects do not refer to the three main nyam or illusory experiences that are used in Tantra or in preparatory Dzogchen practices for discovering the true condition of the nonconceptual and hence nondual Awake awareness whereby and wherein those experiences arise. This is clarified by Nyoshul Khenpo in his noted Commentary to Jigme Lingpa’s The Lion’s Roar or Senge’i ngaro: a 501 b c The meditation experience of nonthought (mitogpai nyam; mi rtog pa’i nyams) is the natural reflection (rang gdangs) of the dharmakaya. Arising as the natural reflection of the empty essence (ngo bo stong pa) of awareness, there is the wisdom of nonthought (mi rtog pa’i ye shes). Based on the meditation experience of nonthought, the wisdom of nonthought will arise in your mind. In the above citation, wisdom renders the Tibetan yeshe, which I am rendering as primordial gnosis. The meaning of the above is, thus, that the illusory experience of the mere absence of thought is not the emptiness of nonthought as one of the three elements of the Path, even though it may serve as the basis for discovering that element of the Path, which is the primordial gnosis of nonthought. When it says “will arise in your mind,” by “mind” one should not understand “mind” as the core of ignorance and delusion, but as the essence or nature of mind. As to clarity or luminosity, Nyoshul Khenpo notes in the same place: d a b c d Tib. rjes med. Wylie, nyams. Nyoshul Khenpo Jamyang Dorje (2015; D. Christensen, trans., p. 189). Nyoshul Khenpo Jamyang Dorje (2015; D. Christensen, trans., p. 189). 361 The meditation experience of clarity (sal nyam; gsal nyams) is the natural reflection, or the luminosity, of the sambhogakaya or rupakaya. Arising as the natural reflection of the nature of clarity (rang bzhin gsal ba), there is the wisdom of clarity (gsal ba’i ye shes). Based on the meditation experience of clarity, the self-cognizant wisdom will arise. The meaning of the above is, thus, that the illusory experience of clarity is not the clarity or luminosity that (is) one of the three elements of the Path, even though it may serve as the basis for discovering that element of the Path, which is the primordial gnosis that (is) nondually aware (of) itself or nondually self-aware. As to pleasure or bliss, Nyoshul Khenpo states in the same place: a The meditation experience of bliss (de nyam; bde nyams) is the natural reflection of the nirmanakaya. Arising as the natural reflection of the all-pervassive capacity (thugs rje kun khyab), there is the wisdom of bliss (bde ba’i ye shes). Based on the experience of bliss, the wisdom of bliss, or the wisdom of the all-pervassive capacity (thugs rje kun khyab pa’i ye shes), will arise. The meaning of the above is, thus, that the illusory experience of pleasure or bliss that depends on an object or that is produced / induced / fabricated / caused / compounded / conditioned is not the bliss that (is) one of the three elements of the Dzogchen Path, even though it may serve as the basis for discovering that element of the Path—which is the primordial gnosis of the all-pervassive potentiality or capacity. In fact, pleasure or bliss that depends on an object, or that is created, arisen, originated, constructed, contrived, intentional, conditioned, made or compounded, is a samsaric, illusory experience of bliss or pleasure that as such is not and could not be an aspect of the Dzogchen Path, for the Path in question is the continuity of the uncontrived, unconditioned Vision that discloses the nonconstructed, unconditioned, nonarisen, unoriginated, uncontrived, unintentional, uncreated, unmade and uncompounded true condition of the Base. This is why Nyoshul Khenpo states a little later: b c d Here, Jigme Lingpa is not speaking of the impure bliss of desire and passion, but of the pure bliss that arises from Dzogchen meditation practice. This experience of bliss is the bliss of dharmata (chos nyid kyi bde ba), the bliss that comes from resting on the continuity of the natural state (gnas lugs de’i ngang). In fact, becoming attached to any of the three illusory experiences is a diversion. The uncreated, unconditioned, unoriginated, nonconstructed, uncontrived, unintentional, unmade and uncompounded, corresponding primordial gnoses described in the above quotations are the true continuity of the Path. The Three Series of Teachings Nyoshul Khenpo Jamyang Dorje (2015; D. Christensen, trans., p. 189). Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). Skt. asaṃskṛta; Pāḷi, asaṅkhata; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無爲 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu wei ). Nyoshul Khenpo Jamyang Dorje (2015; D. Christensen, trans., p. 190). a b 3 c 2 2 2 d 362 In Volume Two of this book, the three series of teachings of Ati Dzogpa Chenpo will be considered in some detail. At this point, it is sufficient to say that Mañjuśrīmitra, the main disciple of Primordial Master Garab Dorje, on the basis of the three phrases of the latter’s testament, classified the doctrines and instructions he received from him into three series of teachings. At this point, suffice to offer the following brief outline of them: 1) The teachings that were mainly concerned with Direct introduction and that, despite being founded on the principle of spontaneous liberation, bore some resemblance with those of the Sūtrayāna, he gathered into the (Nature of) mind series (Semde ) of Dzogchen teachings. The great twentieth century lady teacher, Sera Khandro, wrote: a b [This series involves] the thorough investigation of the mind, the examination of which is primary among the body, voice, and mind, and the examination of the mind’s origin, location, destination, form, shape, color and so on. This is followed by the actualization of the clear light, in which luminosity and awareness (are) undifferentiated. Finally, the unification of appearances and mindsets is asserted to be the culmination of the tawa or Vision. The original teachings of this series emphasized the inconceivable nature of the true condition of reality and the uncontrived character of the practice, which must be free from action, intention, manipulation, and one-pointed fixation or concentration. In fact, onepointed fixation / concentration is not applied in the main practice of any of the Dzogchen Series, for fixation / concentration is a function of deluded, dualistic mind that sustains deluded, dualistic mind, whereas the main practice in all the Series of Dzogchen teachings lies in abiding in a natural Contemplation that is utterly free from the deluded, dualistic mind, and which consists in the perfect continuity of nonconceptual and hence, nondual Awake self-Awareness that is free of all reference points. Note that this tradition also comprises preliminary practices, such as five types of semdzin (among which the third involves ten exercises, and the fourth and fifth, three exercises each), which involve the Vase breathing that is the basis of many of the inner / higher Tantric practices of tsa-lung-thigle of the perfection or completion stage: because of this, it may be validly said that this Series involves practices that comprise elements that resemble those of the Path of Transformation, even though their principle is still that of Spontaneous Liberation. c d e f g h502 i j Wylie, Sems sde; Skt. Cittavarga. Rang bzhin rdzogs pa chen po ma bsgom sangs rgyas kyi zin bris dpal ldan bla ma’i zhal rgyun nag ’gros su bkod pa tshig don rab gsal skal ldan dgyes pa’i mgul rgyan. In Dudjom Lingpa (2015, p. 67). Tib. rtse gcig ting nge ’dzin. Tib. rang babs kyi bsam gtan. Tib. rang rig; Skt. svasaṃvedana; Ch. ⾃證 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìzhèng; Wade-Giles, tzu -cheng ) / ⾃覺 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìjué; Wade-Giles, tzu -chüeh ). Tib. dmigs med. Wylie, sems ’dzin, which may have the sense of “fixing—or concentrating—the mind,” or of “grasping the mind.” The senses of these translations will be discussed in the discussion of Dzogchen in general in terms of the Series of pith instructions. Skt. kumbhaka; Tib. [rlung] bum [pa] can. Wylie, rtsa rlung thig le; Skt. nāḍī prāṇavāyu bindu. Skt. saṃpannakrama, niṣpannakrama or utpannakrama; Tib. rdzogs rim; Ch. 圓滿次第 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yuánmǎn cìdì; Wade-Giles, yüan -man tz’u -ti ). a b c d e 4 4 2 f g h i j 2 3 4 4 363 4 However, at some point the noted Aro Yeshe Jungne, who besides being a Master of the Dzogchen Series of (the Nature of) mind was a Master of the Dùnmén or Tönmun Tradition of the Northern School of Sudden Mahāyāna, of the gradual Mahāyāna, and of Tantra as well, synthesized teachings of this series with some teachings from the Dùnmén or Tönmun Tradition, and with others petaining to the gradual Mahāyāna, thus giving rise to the Semdé Tradition of Kham, which seems to have been unprecedented in Dzogchen. For example, in the account that, in the Samten Migdrön, the Master of the [Nature of] mind Series—and also of the Dùnmén or Tönmun Tradition, of the gradual Mahāyāna, and of Tantra—Nubchen Sangye Yeshe offered of the various traditions that in his time existed within the Series in question, as a rule the Masters he quoted disparage and warn against all forms of one-pointed concentration, noting that they contradict the principles of the Ati Path of Self-Liberation and are utterly foreign to it, and there is no mention of a gradual development through stages of practice, or in general of anything that resembles, even slightly, the practices of the Semdé of Kham. Contrariwise, in the initial stages of the practice of the Semdé of Kham, one-pointed fixation or concentration is quite central, and in the practice as a whole there are four main stages. In fact, the Kham tradition, there is a sequential progress through four stages, each of which culminates in a Contemplation or naljor (yoga). In the first of these stages, the main practice in some way resembles some of those of calm abiding or śamatha; in the second, the main practice in some way resembles those of insight or vipaśyanā (so that in this regard the practices of this tradition may seem somewhat similar to those of the Gradual Mahāyāna) —being mainly the fourth the one that does not resemble in any way the practices of the Gradual Mahāyāna. At any rate, the first stages of the practice may turn into the respective Contemplations or naljor when, after they have given rise to clear, intense illusory experiences or nyam, we apply the instruction for Direct Introduction illustrated with the mudra of Direct Introduction in the paradigmatic artistic representations of Guru Garab Dorje. The Semdé tradition of Kham seems to have been at the root of the present forms of Kagyü Mahāmudrā meditation practice, as different both from the original, formless Mahāmudrā Gaṅgāma that mahāsiddha Tilopā taught his disciple Nāropā on the banks of a b c 503 d e f g h i j 504 k l m A ro ye shes ’byung gnas. ‘Jigs med gling pa mentions him as the source of this tradition but does not suggest that he created something new; cf. Thinley Norbu (2015, p. 68). This is the Chinese name. Ch. 頓⾨ (simplified: 顿⻔; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dùnmén; Wade-Giles, tun -men ). This is the Tibetan name (Wylie, ston mun). Wylie, khams. This is the Chinese name. Ch. 頓⾨ (simplified: 顿⻔; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dùnmén; Wade-Giles, tun -men ). This is the Tibetan name (Wylie, ston mun). Here the term Contemplation renders the Tibetan ting [nge] ’dzin; Skt. samādhi; Ch. 三昧 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānmèi; Wade-Giles, san -mei ). Wylie, rnal ’byor. Pāḷi samatha; Tib. zhi gnas; Ch. ⽌ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhǐ; Wade-Giles, chih ; Jap: shi). Pāḷi vipassanā; Tib. lhag mthong; Ch. 觀 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, guān [seemingly also guàn]; Wade-Giles, kuan [seemingly also kuan ]; Jap. kan). Wylie, nyams. Tib. Phyag rgya chen po; Ch. ⼤印 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dàyìn; Wade-Giles, ta -yin ) / ⼤⼿印 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dàshǒuyìn; Wade-Giles ta -shou yin ). Tib. sgrub chen; Ch. ⼤聖 (simplified, ⼤圣) (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dàshèng; Wade-Giles, ta -sheng ): great adept, adept with great power(s). a b 4 2 4 2 c d e f g 1 4 h i 3 j 1 4 k l 4 4 3 4 4 m 4 364 4 the Ganges—which seems to have borne a much greater resemblance with the original teachings of the [Nature of] mind series of Dzogchen teachings—and from Mahāmudrā as the Fruit of the Path of Transformation of Anuttarayogatantra. At any rate, the four stages of the tradition of Kham and their respective Contemplations will be discussed in Vol. II of this book, and the various traditions of the original series that Nubchen Sangye Yeshe discussed in the Samten Migdrön will be enumerated and very briefly reviewed. 2) The teachings that mainly dealt with the means for Not remaining in doubt, were grouped into the Space series (Longde ) of Dzogchen teachings. Concerning this series, Sera Khandro wrote: a 505 b Having indivisibly unified the absolute space [that ordinarily we perceive as] external and the nonconceptual, nondual Awake awareness called rigpa [that may be thought of as] internal and then [rested in the] Contemplation (of) [their indivisibility], this [resultant] indivisibility of the absolute space of phenomena and the nonconceptual nondual Awake called rigpa is asserted to (be) the culmination of the tawa or Vision. Although Sera Khandro then notes that in this series the pace is a bit slow, in this series access to the indivisible state of rigpa is more sudden than in the gradual approach to the Series of [the nature of] mind proper to the tradition of Kham. It involves means for acting directly on the individual’s energetic system, and thus may be said to bear some resemblance with the practices of the Path of Transformation properly speaking—which, according to Chögyal Namkhai Norbu, occurred because this series had a great deal of interaction with the inner Tantric teachings—even though its principle is self-liberation. The teachings on the Vajra-bridge found in this series bear that name because the practice of those teachings (is) like a bridge between our ordinary physical condition and the rainbow body —and, in fact, for several generations the practice of them gave rise to the attainment in question in Tibet, beginning with Pang Mipham (Sangye) Gönpo. In this tradition there are four symbols, which are: (1) that of luminosity or clarity; (2) that of nonconceptuality or thoughtlessness (the nyam of which is one of emptiness); (3) that of pleasure or bliss; and (4) that of the indivisibility of the other three, which become manifest simultaneously and coincidently, in a totally unified condition. They will be discussed in Vol. II of this book. 3) Finally, the teachings that were mainly concerned with the way to Continue in the State (of rigpa) with confidence in self-liberation, that were most abrupt, and that were most c d e f g h i j k Wylie, kLong sde; Skt. Abhyantaravarga. Rang bzhin rdzogs pa chen po ma bsgom sangs rgyas kyi zin bris dpal ldan bla ma’i zhal rgyun nag ’gros su bkod pa tshig don rab gsal skal ldan dgyes pa’i mgul rgyan. In Dudjom Lingpa (2015, p. 67). Tib. rdo rje zam pa. Tib. ’ja’ lus. Wylie, sPang Mi pham (sangs rgyas) mgon po. Tib. brda. Tib. gsal ba / gsal ba’i brda. Tib. mi rtog pa / mi rtog pa’i brda. Wylie, nyams: illusory experiences of the practice. In Chán or Zen a whole kind of such experiences are called demonic states (Ch. 魔境: Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, mójìng; Wade-Giles, mo -ching ; Jap. makyo). Tib. bde ba / bde ba’i brda. Tib. dbyer med / dbyer med brda. a b c d e f g h i 2 j k 365 4 radically different from those of vehicles and Paths other than Atiyoga, were gathered under the label Dzogchen Series of pith instructions. With regard to the teachings of this series, Sera Khandro wrote: a506 b Third, among the outer cycle, the inner cycle and the secret cycle, and the very secret, unsurpassed cycle within the category of pith instructions, this is called the category of very secret, unsurpassed pith instructions. With regard to the correct practice of these instructions, there are four sections: (i) determining the Base by means of the tawa or Vision; (ii) how to practice by cultivating the Path; (3) teachings on the behavior that is the support of the former two; and (4) the way in which the Fruit is attained. The above four sections will be briefly discussed below and also in Vol. II of this book, in which the Series of pith instructions will be explained in terms of the noted four chogzhag or “letting be in relaxation / resting freely in an unadulterated condition,” and also the four successive visions of Tekchö, Thögel and the Series of space will be briefly discussed. Note that, even though each of the three series is more concerned with a different phrase among the three that make up Guru Garab Dorje’s testament, each of those series offers a complete Path that allows the yogin or yoginī to gain Direct Introduction, then to Dispel Doubts and finally to Continue in the State of rigpa, stabilizeing it. However, the final Fruit is not exactly the same in the three series: the Series of Space and the Series of Pith Instructions reach beyond the Series of [the Nature or Essence of] Mind, and their Fruits are more thorough than that of the latter, whereas the Fruits of the Series of Pith Instructions are attained much swifter than those of the Series of Space—provided that the yogin or yoginī possesses the required capacity and that the right conditions are present and blessings are received. Let us illustrate the practice of Dzogchen with the example of the Series of Pith instructions and the most essential and direct teachings of this series, which are gathered in the Nyingthik. Above it was noted that the teachings and practices of this Series were c d e Tib. Man ngag [gyi] sde; Skt. Upadeśavarga. Rang bzhin rdzogs pa chen po ma bsgom sangs rgyas kyi zin bris dpal ldan bla ma’i zhal rgyun nag ’gros su bkod pa tshig don rab gsal skal ldan dgyes pa’i mgul rgyan. In Dudjom Lingpa (2015, p. 67). Wylie, cog bzhag. This section is based on the instructions in Capriles (1989). Relevant works are the two books on which I received instructions and which were the basis for my practice: Dudjom Rinpoche (1979, 2005; the first version that came to my hands was 1978, which Dudjom Rinpoche warned me not to take seriously) and ’Jigs med gling pa, The Lion’s Roar (I studied a rough translation by sPrul sku Don grub [Tulku Thöndup] after reading the one in Chögyam Trungpa, 1972, pp. 21-26, in an English that did not flow but that, because of its literal character, was one of the greatest helps to my practice; however, currently other great versions are available: Thinle Norbu, 2015, pp. 75-88; Nyoshul Khenpo, 2015, pp. 135-149, with Commentary by sMyo shul mkhan po, pp. 151-216; and van Schaik, 2004, pp. 225-234). Beside the books just mentioned I consulted Patrul Rinpoché, Khas pa Śrī rgyal po’i khyad cho (at the time I used a translation by Keith Dowman that he published in Boudhanath; a more sophisticated and elaborate version is now available in Reynolds, 1996). Moreover, I highly recommend two rather recent books: Namkhai Norbu (2013b), which features a Commentary on Dza dPal sPrul rin po che’s rDzogs pa chen po’i nyams len gyi gnad mthar thug pa’i rtsa ’grel ’od gsal gyi snang cha zhes bya ba, and Jigme Lingpa’s Yeshe Lama (2008; Lama Chönam & Sangye Khandro, trans.; name in full: rDzogs chen khrid yig ye shes bla ma), among others. Tib. ngang la bzhag pa. Tib. snying thig. a b c d d e 366 mainly concerned with the way to Continue in the State (of rigpa) with confidence in selfliberation; however, as noted in the preceding paragraph, they also involve practices— grouped into three categories—that may serve for gaining Direct introduction and for Not remaining in doubt. In fact, in the context of a ceremony, the Master offers the would-be disciples a possibility of having Direct introduction. However, either if, after they had Direct introduction, they remain in doubt, or if they fail to have Direct introduction, they must apply: the secret practices exclusive to this Series of instructions called rushen; the semdzin of this Series; and the threefold seventh lojong (which is to be applied in the context of the practice of the successive seven lojongs or mind trainings of this Series). In the seventh lojong or mind training, powerful methods are applied that induce experiences of indivisibility of pleasure and emptiness, or of indivisibility of clarity and emptiness, or of a condition utterly beyond thought that may disclose the absolute nature of phenomena. Then the experiences that thus arise are used as reflections in a mirror that may become the means to discover the true condition of the mirror that is their true condition and that is free from the subject-object duality and hence from acceptance and rejection. This may seem to be the principle of the Path of Transformation; however, in this case we do not apply transformation—and, partly because of this, whereas on the Path of Transformation it takes quite a few years in retreat to generate the experiences that are to be used for discovering the awareness that is compared to the mirror, these methods of the Series of instructions can elicit those experiences in a relatively short time. In the composite term “semdzín,” “sem” means “mind” and “dzinpa” means “to hold” or “to grasp.” Chögyal Namkhai Norbu explains that this term is used because in many of the semdzin the mind is fixated or concentrated on an object (i.e. the mind holds onto an object) in such a way as to elicit specific experiences—which may be of calm; of simultaneous calm and movement; of emptiness, clarity or pleasure; or of a combination of two or all three of the latter—and notes that once those experiences have arisen one must turn back as though one were to grasp the awareness that has the presence of them. This, which is that which Guru Garab Dorje’s mudrā of Direct introduction urges us to do—he is pointing to the inside of our head so as to direct us to look in that direction rather than looking toward the outside, as we usually do—may also be explained as trying to grasp the mind (sems ’dzin) by suddently and abruptly turning around toward the inside of one’s head. This could be described in different ways—as trying to grasp the mental subject, which cannot appear as object (for it appears in an indirect and implicit way, whereas its objects are perceived directly and explicitly ); as noticing that which notices the experiences; as trying to grasp the Gnitive power or awareness whereby and wherein, as in a mirror, all experiences arise, etc. However, no matter how we describe it, it suggests an altrnative reading of the term semdzin, which in this case would be that of “[trying to] grasp the mind.” So, it could be said that the mind grasps an object so as to induce strong a b c d e 507 Wylie, ru shan. The full name of these practices is ’khor ’das ru shan phye ba: distinguishing between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. Wylie, sems ’dzin, which may have the sense of “fixating—or concentrating—the mind,” or of “grasping the mind.” The senses of these translations will be explained below in the regular text. Wylie, blo sbyong. Wylie, sems. Wylie, ’dzin pa. a b c d e 367 illusory experiences and then, when these are manifest, it must try to grasp the mind— which in this case means the awareness of them. In some of the rushen, methods are applied that considerably increase the energetic volume determining the scope of awareness and elicit quite intense samsaric experiences that may involve very powerful illusory experiences or nyam, and in all cases the methods applied at some point block samsaric experience, or make it trip up and instantly collapse (so to speak), so that nirvāṇa may have a chance of becoming patent and actual. If nirvāṇa actually does so, so long as it is manifest it will imbue the individual with absolute certitude that what is manifest at that point is the true condition of all phenomena, implicitly showing saṃsāra to have been like a bad dream. Then, when saṃsāra arises again and conceptual, samsaric experience is reestablished, even though, as repeatedly noted, one might be unable to remember the condition beyond memory or to remember totality from the fragmentary, tunnel-like perspective, the self-liberation of avidyā in rigpa will have provided a striking contrast to samsaric experience. Moreover, when the samsaric experience that instantly self-liberates is intense and the energetic volume determining the scope of awareness is very high, its self-liberation endows the practitioner with a capacity for the self-liberation of thought-conditioned experiences of the same intensity. These methods are exclusive to the Series of instructions and are regarded as very secret and very powerful means to catalyze the self-disclosure and self-actualization of rigpa and, under some circumstances, develop capacity. Something similar happens with the practice of Chöd—the principle of which will be discussed in some detail in Vol. II of this book—when it is applied in the traditional way (i.e., as it was traditionally applied in Tibet), for the practice increases the energetic volume determining the scope of awareness and induces extremely powerful experiences of dread, which then must be used as a basis to look at the mind in ways not unlike those applied in the semdzin, the rushen or even in the three varieties of the seventh lojong. At this point the extremely powerful deluded, samsaric experience of most intense dread self-liberates into rigpa, and, just as happens in some of the rushen, its self-liberation endows the practitioner with a capacity for the self-liberation of thought-conditioned experiences of the same intensity—the difference being that in this case the capacity acquired is much greater, because the energetic volume and emotional intensity at the time of self-liberation is much higher. This is the reason why many termas teach systems of practice that begin with the practice of Chöd and then continue with the practices of Thögäl and/or the Yangti / Yangthik. The above practices are applied until the certainty that arises during the reGnition of the essence or nature of mind while in the nonstatic nirvāṇa of rigpa, gradually seeps to the experience of [deluded] mind in the samsaric condition, imbuing the latter with that certitude until the point at which one no longer remains in doubt and, moreover, has developed a sufficient capacity of self-liberation. Therefore, if there was a practitioner with such a high capacity that after a clear Direct introduction has not remained in doubt, applying practices for returning again and again to the condition of rigpa might not be absolutely indispensable for her or him. However, even in such cases, these practices will always be extremely useful—and, in any case, people with such a high capacity are so rare that one should assume that one is not an individual of this kind. a Skt. apratiṣṭhitanirvāṇa; Tib. mi gnas pa’i myang ’das; Ch. 無住涅槃 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúzhù nièpán; WadeGiles, wu -chu nieh -p’an ). a 2 4 4 2 368 At any rate, once one no longer remains in doubt, the practice of Contemplation may be undertaken in order to Continue in the State (of rigpa) with confidence in self-liberation. In this Series there are two successive stages of the practice of Contemplation, the first of which is the one called Tekchö or “spontaneous, instant, absolute release of tension,” in which practice is applied exclusively with thoughts, which are phenomena of dang energy or “energy of the sphere of the mental” that as such appear in a seemingly inner dimension, and in which the practice consists in creating the conditions for the spontaneous liberation of all thoughts in the realization of the true condition of the dang mode of manifestation of energy / energy of the sphere of the mental of which they are appearances, which (is) the dharmakāya—the mental aspect of Buddhahood. By means of this practice one must develop a sufficient capacity of spontaneous liberation—ideally at elevated levels of experiential intensity and energetic level determining the scope of awareness—so as to be able to undertake the practice of Thögel. To develop this capacity, the most effective method may lie in potentiating the practice of Tekchö by devoting oneself to the practice of Chöd that will be discussed in Vol. II of this book. Then, once a sufficient capacity of spontaneous liberation is achieved by means of these practices, one can undertake the second stage of the practice of this Series, which is that of Thögel, which here I will render as “swiftly crossing over,” or of the Yangti or Yangthik—the last term signifying, as once explained by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu, “most essential.” In these practices the yogin or yoginī works mainly with rölpa energy, which initially appears as tsel energy in a seemingly external dimension but then activates a dynamics that dissolves the inner-outer chasm and that may be described as peacefulwrathful or zhitro—this being the highest type of zhitro among all forms of this practice. As noted above, the most essential and most direct teachings of the Series of Pith Instructions, were distilled into the Nyingthik teachings. Although this term has often been wrongly rendered as “heartdrop,” Chögyal Namkhai Norbu remarks that the term nying does not refer to the physical heart, but to whatever is most essential, and that thik, which is a phonetic transliteration of the root syllable of the word thigle, in this context means potentiality (for, as explained in the endnote, wherever there is a thigle there is potentiality ). Therefore, the term could be translated as “essence of potentiality” or even as “essence of the essence.” It is often said that, in the Nyingthik, Tekchö and Thögel are indivisible, for although the explanations emphasize Tekchö, they often speak of the clear light and its projection into a seemingly external dimension, and in general describe elements that arise most clearly in Thögel, without explicitly stating that such is the case or that these descriptions refer to a special, more advanced stage of the practice. Likewise, although general Nyingthik practice is focused on Tekchö, Thögel experiences could spontaneously occur in it and resolve themselves in the ways proper to this practice. At any rate, the Nyingthik’s most essential teachings, which emphasize the activation of luminosity and of the peaceful-wrathful dynamics of rölpa energy in the intermediate state of the true a b c 508 d e f 509 a b c d e f Wylie, khregs chod. Wylie, gdangs. Wylie, thod rgal. Tib. snying thig. Tib. snying. Tib. thig. 369 condition of phenomena —thus emphasizing the practice’s Thögel aspect—are those of the Yangthik. Since the Tibetan term yang means “even more so,” and since above Nyingthik was rendered as “essence of potentiality,” Yangthik could be translated as “innermost essence of potentiality.” And since the Yangthik stresses the Thögel of the dark, all that has been said and that will be said below concerning Thögel applies to it. Let us begin with a brief, simple explanation of Tekchö. We know that, when the supersubtle threefold directional thought structure is reified / hypostasized / absolutized / valorized, the subject-object duality arises, and when subtle / intuitive thoughts are reified / hypostasized / absolutized / valorized, the illusion arises that the object is of a specific kind and has inherent qualities that may be positive, negative or neutral—at this point the object being the conceptualization of an object of any of the five outer-looking senses, or of the subject, or some other kind of thought, appearing as object to the consciousness of mental contents. Because of this, once there is a subject-object split and an intuitive/subtle conceptualization, there is rejection of what is deemed negative, acceptance of what is considered as positive and indifference to what is deemed neutral—which seems to be the mental subject’s attitude toward the object, even when the object is a conceptualization of the subject. Since both the mental subject and its objects seem to be absolutely real and ultimately important, and hence their fate seems to be a “death or life matter,” the combination of the illusory subject-object duality with reified / hypostasized / absolutized / valorized subtle / intuitive thoughts always involves a lesser or greater degree of tension. Once this has occurred, reified / hypostasized / absolutized / valorized discursive thoughts arise to justify and reinforce the subject’s attitude toward the object, making it develop and in this way increasing tension. It is in this way that the passions arise, for the passions are the intensification of the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of thought in the passionate context of the realm of sensuality, as the attitude becomes more intense and the resultant tension stronger—for what we call passions are no more than emotionally charged attitudes that a mental subject seems to have toward an object. After we have been directly Introduced to the nonconceptual and as such nondual Awake, undistorted awareness called rigpa in the form of the transparent, unimpeded, unobstructed primordial gnosis of the dharmakāya—true condition of the dang form of manifestation of energy —that nonconceptually and hence nondually reveals the empty a b c d510 e f g h i j k Skt. antarābhava; Tib. bar do; Ch. 中有 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhōngyǒu; Wade-Giles, chung -yu ) / 中陰 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhōngyīn; Wade-Giles, chung -yin ). Tib. Yang thig. Tib. yang. Namkhai Norbu (E. Capriles, Ed., unpublished). Skt. trimaṇḍala; Tib. ’khor gsum; Ch. 三輪 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānlùn; Wade-Giles, san -lun ). Skt. arthasāmānya the Tib. don spyi, or the Ch. 總事 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngshì; Wade-Giles, tsung -shih ) or 總義 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngyì; Wade-Giles, tsung -i ). Pāḷi and Skt. kāmadhātu or kāmaloka; Tib. dod pa’i khams; Ch. 欲界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yùjiè; Wade-Giles, yü chieh ). Wylie, rig pa. Tib. ye shes zang thal. Wylie, gdangs. The term “energy” renders the Tibetan thugs rje (lit. soft and noble heart), which is one of the Tibetan terms that render the Skt. karuṇā (the other one being snying rje; Ch. 悲 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bēi; Wade-Giles, pei —lit. sadness or mercy), which is rendered as “compassion.” After Awakening a Buddha continues to live solely as the function of nonreferential compassion. The Base, which is the Buddha-nature and is what we (are) in a 1 1 3 1 b c d e 1 f 4 3 3 4 4 g 4 4 h i j k 1 370 nonconceptual, nondual Awake awareness called rigpa, and repeated recurrence of this gnosis has dispelled all doubts with regard to the true condition of ourselves and all phenomena, we must look at the thought that is the direct object of consciousness in the face and, rather than concentrating on what the thought expresses and grasping its content as though it were the naked truth, directly See the stuff the thought is made of, so as to reGnize it. Since thought (is) a manifestation of the essence aspect of our true condition, and the stuff it is made of (is) the dang form of manifestation of energy , and since the true condition both of the essence aspect of the Base and of dang energy (is) the dharmakāya’s transparent, unimpeded, unobstructed primordial gnosis , when one looks at the stuff in question in this way the dharmakāya may be reGnized. If this happens, since the dharmakāya (is) the intrinsically all-liberating single gnosis, this gnosis will become functional and whichever reified / hypostasized / absolutized / valorized thought is present at the moment, as well as the thoughts that are implicit in that thought as traces left by previous thoughts (see the explanation of this below)—and hence also the subject-object duality produced by the reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of the threefold directional thought structure—will instantly dissolve of themselves like feathers entering fire, leaving no traces. Since all tensions require the existence of the subject-object duality and in general the reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of thought, at that point the individual’s body-voice-mind totally, instantly relaxes in a way that Chögyal Namkhai Norbu has compared to a stack of firewood falling on the ground when the cord holding it together breaks of its own accord. This must be related to the semantic explanation of the term Tekchö that Chögyal Namkhai Norbu has offered in retreats around the world. Some of the most common ways to render the term into English are “cutting through” or even “cutting through solidity.” These renderings may be correct when the term is written khregs gcod, as it is spelled in some ancient Dzogchen Tantras, for gcod means “to cut,” as in the name of the practice of Chöd (gcod), but this is not the standard spelling. Chögyal Namkhai Norbu itemizes the term khregs chod, noting that khregs refers to a bundle of tied up objects; for example, a tied-up bundle of firewood is a shing tekwo (shing khregs bo), whereas a tied-up bundle of grass is a dza tekwo (dza khregs bo). And he notes that the chod in khregs chod, rather than having the sense of “to cut” means “to break [of its own accord].” Hence, he says that a b c d e f g h i truth, is the true, ultimate, birthless, deathless Buddha. Since the Base’s energy aspect is unobstructedness and continued arising of appearances, so long as experience continues to arise through us, it is the true Buddha that is continuing to give rise to experience—the energy aspect—in us, doing so because of compassion (even when we are unaware of this and feel “thrown” [Ger. Geworfen, in Heidegger’s sense] in the world). This is the reason why in the Dzogchen teachings the aspect that, following Chögyal Namkhai Norbu, I am rendering as energy, is called the compassion aspect. Tib. rig stong blo ’das. Tib. gcer ’dzin. We reGnize the nature—i.e. the stuff—of whichever thoughts arise: Tib. rnam rtog ci shar rang ngo shes par byas. Wylie, ngo bo; Skt. svabhāva (which may also be rendered by the Tibetan rang bzhin); Ch. ⾃性 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìng; Wade-Giles, tzu -hsing ; Jap. jishō). Wylie, gdangs. As stated repeatedly, the Tibetan is thugs rje. Tib. ye shes zang thal. Tib. rang gi ngo bo shes na. Tib. gcig shes kun grol. a b c d 4 4 e f g h i 371 khregs chod refers to a spontaneous breaking of tension that may be compared to the spontaneous breaking of the rope that ties up a bundle of firewood or of grass, upon which the firewood or the grass falls on the floor in a totally relaxed way. And, in fact, whoever has practiced Tekchö will be aware that there is no way to intentionally cut the tension inherent in the reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of the threefold directional thought structure and of subtle / intuitive thoughts, for all attempts to cut it are based on the reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of the threefold directional thought structure and of subtle / intuitive thoughts, thus sustaining the root of the tension. The only way that the tension can break is of its own accord, which occurs when the dharmakāya’s transparent, unimpeded, unobstructed primordial gnosis , which is an intrinsically all-liberating single gnosis, becomes patent and operative upon the regnition of the true condition of dang energy or “energy of the sphere of the mental,” which is the essential stuff of all thoughts and mental phenomena. In fact, there is no way to guarantee that this braking of tension will occcur upon looking directly at the stuff of thoughts—or upon applying instructions such as the one illustrated with the mudra of Direct Introduction, say, in a situation of extreme dread or anguish such as those that occur in the practice of Chöd: in the latter case, it may even happen that for a short lapse after applying the instruction, the tension and the dread or the anguish continue to increase, so that when they finally break it is absolutely evident that this occurred spontaneously rather than being the result of the action prescribed by the instruction. And, indeed, if the self-liberation of thought upon the concomintant disclosure of the dharmakāya were induced by an action, that liberation and that dharmakāya would be created and/or arisen and/or originated and/or constructed and/or contrived and/or intentional and/or conditioned and/or made and/or compounded, and hence would be no more than samsaric, illusory experiences. And yet the self-liberation of thought in the practice of Tekchö is not the highest, absolutely spontaneous form of self-liberation: to begin with, at least in the initial stages of the practice, it requires an intentional, contrived mindfulness that must become aware of arising thoughts, and then an intentional, contrived action is necessary as the condition of possibility of the self-liberation of thought. That intentional, contrived mindfulness is based on the subject-object duality, and when thought self-liberates, this mindfulness selfliberates simultaneously with the thought, as feathers entering fire: this is the reason why the term khres chod has sometime been glossed as dran chod (pronounced tenchö), which may be rendered as “spontaneous breaking of mindfulness / dualistic presence.” The most thorough type of self-liberation is the one that occurs in the practices of Thögal and the Yangti / Yangthik (and that will be briefly described below), provided that the practitioner has the required capacity of spontaneous liberation, once the wrathful dynamics of the dharmatā is unleashed by the conditions of the practice. It must be noted, however, that the self-liberation proper to Tekchö described above in terms of the etymology of the Tibetan term applies to the first of the three modes or capacities of self-liberation, but does not apply so precisely to the other two. A detailed a b c 511 d Tib. ye shes zang thal. Tib. gcig shes kun grol. Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). Tib. phrin las drag po: the wrathful (Tib. khro bo) dynamic of the true condition of phenomena that is proper to the intermediate state of the true condition of phenomena (Skt. dharmatā antarābhava; Tib. chos nyid bar do; Ch. 法性中有 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎxìng zhōngyǒu; Wade-Giles, fa -hsing chung -yu ]). a b c 3 d 3 372 4 1 3 2 description of all three modes or capacities of spontaneous liberation is offered in my books on the Nyingthik, The Source of Danger is Fear and Upadesha to a Singing Ḍākinī, which as such emphasize the practice of Tekchö. The above is far removed from calm abiding, for the latter certainly can mollify and slow down the workings of mind and enable us to begin to perceive the undercurrents of thought, but cannot dissolve avidyā in the revelation of the dharmakāya. In fact, calm abiding is based on mollifying the attitude the mental subject has toward its objects, but cannot instantly dissolve the subject-object duality, and hence cannot result in the instant, absolute relaxation that characterizes the disclosure and actualization of the state of rigpa in the practice of Tekchö. In the long run, this practice may result in the pacification of all thoughts and hence a thoughtless state free from the subject-object duality may arise, but as a rule this state will be one of the neutral base-of-all and hence will pertain to saṃsāra (even though at that point saṃsāra will not yet be active). The point is that when thoughts of any of the three kinds described in this book are reified / hypostasized / absolutized / valorized, like drawings made on fresh clay, which leave traces that remain printed on the clay, they leave a trace that works like a kind of lingering memory, which establishes or reinforces karmic propensities and reinforces our delusive obstructions, and which serves as the basis for the continuity of thought to be possible. For example, when the threefold directional thought structure arises, it leaves its traces as just described. When a subtle, intuitive thought with regard to singled-out sense data arises on the basis of the trace of the reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of the threefold directional thought structure, the subtle thought is experienced as an object other than the mental subject and the individual feels she or he is standing at a distance from it. Since a trace is left by this subtle thought as well, on the basis of that trace a coarse, discursive thought may arise to explain the previous subtle thought. Since this thought also leaves a trace, on the basis of that trace, an understanding in terms of subtle thoughts, and also subsequent coarse, discursive thoughts, may arise, giving rise to a chain of thought. Discursive thoughts, in particular, may be compared to waves that rise, reach their apogee and gradually subside, leaving their karmic traces —for a lingering, conditioning memory remains that posits something that is implicitly taken for granted, even when it is no longer a direct object of conscious awareness, and that conditioning memory serves as the basis for discursive thinking to find its continuity. This process may be slowed down by the practice of mental pacification, and by persisting in the latter practice it may even a 512 b c d e f g h Skt. śamatha; Pāḷi: samatha; Tib. zhi gnas; Ch. ⽌ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhǐ; Wade-Giles, chih ; Jap: shi). Wylie, kun gzhi lung ma bstan, or which there are different types. Skt. vāsanā Tib. bag chags; Ch. 氣習 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, qìxí; Wade-Giles, ch’i -hsi ) or 習氣 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíqì; Wade-Giles, hsi -ch’i ). Skt. āvaraṇa; Tib. sgrib pa; Ch. 遮障 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēzhàng; Wade-Giles, che -chang ). Skt. trimaṇḍala; Tib. ’khor gsum; Ch. 三輪 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānlùn; Wade-Giles, san -lun ) Skt. arthasāmānya; Tib. don spyi; Ch. 總事 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngshì; Wade-Giles, tsung -shih ) or 總義 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngyì; Wade-Giles, tsung -i ). Skt. vāsanā Tib. bag chags; Ch. 氣習 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, qìxí; Wade-Giles, ch’i -hsi ) or 習氣 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíqì; Wade-Giles, hsi -ch’i ). Qua obstacles to the “omniscience” of Buddhahood: Skt. & Pāḷi āvaraṇa; Tib. sgrib pa; Ch. 遮障 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēzhàng; Wade-Giles, che -chang ). Skt. śamatha; Pāḷi: samatha; Tib. zhi gnas; Ch. ⽌ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhǐ; Wade-Giles, chih ; Jap: shi). a 3 b c 4 2 2 4 d 1 4 e 1 4 f 3 3 4 g 4 2 2 4 1 h 4 3 373 4 be halted in an absorption of the neutral base-of-all, in which the first aspect or type of avidyā—which conceals the dharmakāya—is operative. However, the karmic traces and delusive obstructions left by the reified / hypostasized / absolutized / valorized thoughts since time without beginning are still conditioning whoever attains this result, and although they are not producing thought-conditioned experience, when those traces are activated once more, whoever attained the result in question will find him or herself in the same situation in which she or he was before entering the absorption—except that his or her possibilities of entering a hellish psychological state will be greater. This is why the Dzogchen teachings compare this to cutting our own head: because spending a significant part of our human existence in those absorptions would amount to squandering the precious human birth, for a period that may be very long could pass without us having any possibility of liberation—and by the same token that would create karma of immobility, which is the cause of rebirth in the formless realms (in which one has no possibility of liberation and which as a rule are followed by birth in lower states of existence—very often in transient hells). Such feats are in stark contrast with the spontaneous liberation of Dzogchen Ati, which neutralizes or burns out the karmic traces and delusive obstructions left by reified / hypostasized / absolutized / valorized thoughts, gradually neutralizing or burning out the propensity for delusion to arise and for saṃsāra to go on without cessation, and which, in the initial mode of liberation—which is called “liberation through bare [Seeing]” — may be compared to a wave that, having reached its apogee, instantly evaporated of its own accord, thus ceasing to conceal the transparent and nondual true condition of the ocean and hence making the condition in question become perfectly patent. This liberation neutralizes karmic traces proportionally to the wave’s size—i.e. to the energy sustaining the thought in the instant immediately preceding its dissolution—and to the water’s temperature—a clumsy metaphor for the energetic volume determining the scope of awareness. As Longchen Rabjam expresses it in the noted Dzogpa Chenpo Semnyi Rangdröl: a b c d e f g h However much [meditative] effort one applies, if from the net of thoughts later thoughts arise after the cessation of former ones, though one may take that cessation for liberation, thoughts are just passing in succession [rather than] self-liberating. Spontaneous liberation occurs in three consecutive ways (even though these three ways are not three stages we subsequently go through in such a way that once the second Tib. kun gzhi lung ma bstan. Such absorptions may be instances of what the Dzogchen teachings call kun gzhi’i khams. Skt. vāsanā Tib. bag chags; Ch. 氣習 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, qìxí; Wade-Giles, ch’i -hsi ) or 習氣 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíqì; Wade-Giles, hsi -ch’i ). Qua obstacles to the “omniscience” of Buddhahood: Skt. & Pāḷi āvaraṇa; Tib. sgrib pa; Ch. 遮障 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēzhàng; Wade-Giles, che -chang ). Skt. āvaraṇa; Tib. sgrib pa; Ch. 遮障 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēzhàng; Wade-Giles, che -chang ). Skt. āninjyakarma; Pāḷi aniñjitakamma; Tib. mi gyo ba’i las; Ch. 不動業 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùdòng yè; WadeGiles, pu -tung yeh ). Skt. vāsanā Tib. bag chags; Ch. 氣習 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, qìxí; Wade-Giles, ch’i -hsi ) or 習氣 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíqì; Wade-Giles, hsi -ch’i ). Qua obstacles to the “omniscience” of Buddhahood: Skt. & Pāḷi āvaraṇa; Tib. sgrib pa; Ch. 遮障 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēzhàng; Wade-Giles, che -chang ). Skt. āvaraṇa; Tib. sgrib pa; Ch. 遮障 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēzhàng; Wade-Giles, che -chang ). Tib. gcer grol. Wylie, rDzogs pa chen po sems nyid rang grol; alternative translation in Tulku Thöndup (1996, p. 343). a b 4 2 2 4 1 4 c 1 4 d 4 4 4 e 4 2 2 4 1 f 4 1 g h 374 4 has occurred the first will occur no more, and so on), and as already noted, the explanation in the three preceding paragraphs respond to the initial one, which is the one in which, being a beginner meditator, one tends to see thoughts as enemies that need to be dissolved in the reGnition (of) the dharmakāya for one to achieve the aim of the practice, and at which an intentional action is therefore required for the thought to dissolve, liberating itself in the reGnition in question: this it the mode of liberation referred to as “liberation through bare [Seeing],” in which one directly discovers the true condition of the energy that makes up the thought that is already present as object, and this thought dissolves instantaneously in the transparent, unimpeded primordial gnosis or wisdom that discloses the dharmakāya— and since this gnosis (is) an intrinsically all-liberating single primordial gnosis, whichever thought is there instantly dissolves without leaving any traces. The difficulty at this stage of the practice is that one should not allow the arising coarse, discursive thoughts to generate further thoughts, giving rise to chains of thought, or allow subtle, intuitive thoughts to initiate an undercurrent of proliferating delusions that would cause one to get entangled in a mind-produced web of memories —yet neither should one become like a policeman who were in charge of arresting all arising thoughts through reGnizing the true condition of the energy of which they are made, for this would sustain and increase the strength of the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of thought, thus maintaining the subject-object duality and begetting and / or reinforcing aversion and nervousness—which, if allowed to develop beyond a certain point, may give rise to energy disorders. Therefore, it is imperative to find the middle point between excessive zeal and slackness. At any rate, since the essence of the practice lies in reGnizing the stuff and true condition of thought by means of the primordial gnosis that previously we met, and at this stage zealous practitioners tend to see thoughts as enemies, this level of reGnition is compared to recognizing an old friend, for it is like suddenly coming on a man in a frightening dark area of town and then recognizing him as an old friend. Repetition of this makes us gradually become familiar with the unimpeded, open transparency of unbound, unfettered Awake awareness and makes our capacity of self-liberation increase. Since each and every time tension breaks of itself in realization of the dharmakāya the mental subject that appears to be the thinker of thought, agent of action and receiver of experiences—and that seems to be the agent of mindfulness / relative presence—instantly dissolves, as noted above the name of the practice of Tekchö has also been glossed as Tenchö, meaning rupture of mindfulness. This should be no surprise, because when one thought of any of the three types discussed in this book self-liberates, all thoughts of all a b c d e f g h i j k l m a b c d e f g h i j k l m Tib. gcer grol. Tib. ye shes zang thal. Tib. gcig shes kun grol. Tib. ’og ’gyu ’khrul ’byams. Tib. blos byas ’jur dran. Tib. rlung nad. Tib. ngo shes pa. Tib. ye shes; Skt. jñāna; Ch. 智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhì; Wade-Giles, chih ; Jap. chi). Tib. sngon ’dris kyi ye shes de nyid ngos bzung. Tib. ngos bzung. This modification of the example was adapted from Reynolds (1996). Tib. zang thal kha yan rig pa. Tib. dran chod. 4 375 three types self-liberate—which signifies that the subject and the object produced by the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of the threefold directional thought structure instantly dissolve—as noted above, in a way that is compared to feathers entering fire. And since what seems to be in charge of exerting mindfulness or relative presence is the mental subject that seems to lie at the core of dualistic consciousness, the instant the mental subject dissolves mindfulness dissolves—and hence the spontaneous rupture of thought is by the same token a spontaneous rupture of mindfulness. Therefore, constant repetition of this works as a remedy for the deviation that lies in exerting a contrived, relentless mindfulness that struggles to detect the arising of thought like a hunter concealed in a bush awaiting a deer to emerge from the vegetation in order to shoot it dead—and continued practice makes mindfulness ever more relaxed and spontaneous, in the long run turning it into a self-arising natural mindfulness. In particular, one develops the ability to uncontrivedly release the mental subject that seems to be the agent of mindfulness “deep inside” into rigpa , rather than maintaining the contrived, relentless mindfulness that I just compared to the hunter. As one becomes more and more familiar with this capacity or mode of liberation, beside the just mentioned gradual development of a self-arising natural mindfulness, one develops—in most cases gradually—a capacity to rest for longer and longer time in the condition that becomes patent and operative the instant at which the reGnition in question takes place. And all of this makes one develop evergreater capacity, so that the next mode of self-liberation may become operative and gradually come to prevail. In fact, this is the reason why a terma revealed by Dudjom Lingpa reads: a b c d e f Oh Vajra of Mind, the rope of mindfulness and firmly maintained attention is dissolved by the power of Contemplation, until finally the ordinary mind of an ordinary being disappears... Subsequently, outer appearances are not impeded, and the rope of inner mindfulness and firmly maintained attention is cut. Then you are not bound by the constraints of good meditation, nor do you fall back to an ordinary state through pernicious ignorance and delusion. Rather, ever manifest transparent, luminous awareness shines through, transcending the conventions of Vision, Contemplation and Behavior. Without the dichotomizing of self and other whereby you can say, “this is consciousness” and “this is the object of consciousness,” the primordial, selfemergent awareness is freed from clinging to experiences. At any rate, and as hinted above, even before realization is complete, once one undertakes the practice of Thögel and this practice develops beyond a certain point, no mindfulness or exertion of mindfulness will be necessary for spontaneous liberation to occur each and every time delusion arises. g513 Tib. sdug btsir ’jur dran gyis bcings ba. Compare the Tib. rang babs gnyug ma’i dran pa with the Tib. yang dag gnyug ma’i dran pa. Tib. shar mkhan kho rang gi rig thog tu klod. Tib. sdug btsir ’jur dran gyis bcings ba. Tib. ngang la bzhag pa. Dag snang ye shes drva la las gnas lugs rang byung gi rgyud rdo rje’i snying po. Alternative translation in Dudjom Lingpa (2015, Vol. III, p. 28). Tib. dran med or ma dran. This is because, since mindfulness involves the subject-object duality that issues from the reification of supersubtle thoughts and subtle conceptualization of objects, the uncontrived true condition cannot be sustained or grasped with mindfulness (Tib. dran pa ma bzung). a b c d e f g 376 The middling capacity or mode of liberation is the one in which the thought is reGnized the instant it begins to arise, in the seemingly internal dimension, before it has become established as an object that seems to be in front of the mental subject. In fact, as I noted in a manual on the practice of the Dzogchen Nyingthik written in the late 1970s and early 1980s on the basis of my experience of the practice , initially in this mode of liberation it may seem as though one mentally turned back in the direction in which at that point thoughts may seem to arise, behind the eyes and into the skull’s inner space. Since the thought dissolves spontaneously as it begins to arise, traditionally this capacity / mode of liberation has been compared to a snake spontaneously untying the knot into which its body had been tied, or to a drawing made on water that dissolves right while it is made. In fact, since the instant at which the snake begins to undo its knot until the instant the snake disappears in the space of the true condition of phenomena, no traces are left, because the phenomenon in question is not perceived in terms of a hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized thought, and thus rather than being like a drawing made on fresh clay, this movement of thought is like a drawing made on water that dissolves at each instant while it is drawn, leaving no traces (or, rather than “while it is drawn,” “while it self-arises,” for the mental subject is not the thinker of thought). The reason why this is so is because whatever arises while the dharmakāya is patent liberates itself directly. At any rate, in this mode of liberation, called “liberation upon arising,” an automatic, unpremeditated reaction is indispensable for the thought to dissolve, self-liberating. And the result of this is that, rather than establishing karmic propensities or reinforcing the karmic propensities and delusive obstructions that we already have, as reified / hypostasized / absolutized / valorized thoughts would do, this traceless type of self-liberation neutralizes propensities, obstructions and karma proportionally to the intensity with which thoughts were being reified / hypostasized / absolutized / valorized—and therefore to the intensity of the experience—in the instant immediately preceding self-liberation, and also proportionally to the height of the energetic volume determining the scope of awareness at the time when the illusory self-liberation occurs. (Note that the Dzogchen texts speak of “three coils of a snake liberating themselves simultaneously,” which might allude to the simultaneous liberation of the three main types of thought: coarse / discursive, subtle / intuitive and supersubtle. ) a b c d e f g h i Tib. nang dbyings: the dimension of gdangs energy in which thoughts, memories, fantasies and the imagined appears, which once rtsal energy arises and seems to constitute an external dimension (Tib. pyi dbyings), appears to be an internal dimension. Capriles (1989), which would become one of the chapters of Vol. III of this book should the volume in question be finally published. The explanations of the practice in this section are based on the experiences I describe in the book in question, and on my assimilation, on the basis of my own practice, of the teachings of my kind, precious teachers, and of supplementary readings. Tib. shar ba de nyid. Tib. thog tu grol or rang gis thog tu grol bas: directly self-liberate by its own power [without any mindfulness being exerted to this end (Tib. dran med or ma dran)]. Cf. endnote 494. Tib. shar grol. Skt. vāsanā Tib. bag chags; Ch. 氣習 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, qìxí; Wade-Giles, ch’i -hsi ) or 習氣 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíqì; Wade-Giles, hsi -ch’i ). Skt. āvaraṇa; Tib. sgrib pa; Ch. 遮障 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēzhàng; Wade-Giles, che -chang ). Tib. sbrul gyi mdud gsum dus gcig la grol ba lta bu. As noted repeatedly, coarse thoughts are the discursive thoughts in Sanskrit called śabdasāmānya (Tib. sgra spyi; Ch. 論聲總 [simplified 论声总] [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, lùnshēngzǒng; Wade-Giles, lun -sheng -tsung ), which a b c d e f 4 2 2 4 g 1 4 h i 4 377 1 3 It has been asserted that at this point thoughts arise from within as Contemplation, without ever concealing the fact that they (are) made of our unobstructed and transparent, [nonconceptual, nondual] Awake self-awareness. If this is taken to mean that while the thought is self-liberating as a snake undoing its knot, the fact that they (are) made of our unobstructed and transparent, [nonconceptual, nondual] Awake self-awareness, this is correct. However, we should not overlook the fact that in this capacity or mode of spontaneous liberation an automatic reaction—which involves a very subtle type of action and hence of delusion—is still necessary for them to self-liberate; that before their selfliberation, for an extremely brief instant, the incipient, arising thought is hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized; and that it is as one implicitly detects the hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized incipient, arising thought that the reaction in question takes place. Therefore, as the thought arises duality and delusion begin to arise as well; in implicitly noticing the incipient, arising thought, duality and delusion are involved; and subtle duality and delusion are also present in the reaction necessary for the thought to selfliberate in the reGnition of the dharmakāya: it is only while the thought is self-liberating like a snake undoing its knot and when the thought has dissolved into the space of the dharmakāya that duality and delusion are no more—at least until the next thought begins to arise. At any rate, with the passing of time the state of rigpa, the patency and operativevess of which is responsible for the self-liberation of thought, lasts for increasingly longer spans, and one becomes ever more familiar with liberation upon arising. This signifies that one’s capacity is gradually increasing, and thus at some point one will begin to be capable of remaining in the state of rigpa or reGnition as thoughts arise, at least for limited periods. Since, so long as this state is patent and operative, contents of thought do not conceal the transparent, unimpeded, unobstructed primordial gnosis of the dharmakāya that is the true condition of thought, and since no dualistic consciousness having a mental subject at its core arises to protect itself from what such a consciousness would experience as the intrusion of thought, at this point there is no one that may feel threatened or be harmed by the arising of thought. This is why in this third capacity or mode of spontaneous liberation arising thoughts are compared to a thief in an empty house: firstly, there does not seem to be someone that may be harmed by thoughts; and secondly, thoughts at no point conceal the true condition of nonconceptual, nondual Awake awareness, and thus no action or a b514 c d e f modifying a translation devised by Alex Berzin (2001) I render as word sound patterns [resulting from mental syntheses] that convey meanings. Subtle thoughts are the ones in Sanskrit called arthasāmānya (Tib. don spyi), which modifying a translation devised by Alex Berzin (2001) I render as universal, abstract concept of an entity [resulting from a mental synthesis] that conveys a meaning. And the supersubtle thought par excellence is the one in Sanskrit called trimaṇḍala (Tib. ’khor gsum; Ch. 三輪 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānlùn; WadeGiles, san -lun ]), which I render as threefold directional thought-structure and which involves the notion that there is an experience, something experienced and an experiencer; a thinking, a thought and a thinker; an action, an object of action and an agent; etc. Tib. rig pa zang thal gyi ngang las rang rtsal du ’char ba. In this context, in the mKhas pa sri rgyal po’i khyad chos, Dza Patrul Rinpoche (Wylie, rDza dpal sprul rin po che), Orgyen Jigme Chökyi Wangpo (Wylie, O rgyan ’jigs med chos kyi dbang po, 1808-1887) used the term grol cha’i chos sku ngos bzung; cf. Reynolds (1996, p. 115). Tib. ngang la bzhag pa. Tib. ngos bzung. Tib. ye shes zang thal. Skt. vijñāna; Pāḷi, viññāṇa; Tib. rnam shes; Ch. 識 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shí; Wade-Giles, shih ). 1 4 a b c d e f 2 378 reaction on the part of a meditator is required to liberate them, for all thoughts are primordially liberated. It is because at this point the contents of thought are not hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized and hence thoughts do not conceal in any way the dharmakāya that is their true condition, but they certainly do so when their contents are hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized, that Jigme Lingpa stated that before this stage is reached “it is too early to label all thoughts as dharmakāya.” In fact, at this point nothing becomes patent apart from the primordial gnosis that reveals the essence aspect of the Base that (is) our true condition —i.e. there (is) a single, singular condition—and thus rigpa is self-sustaining or self abiding: this is what is designated as the yoga of the natural river-like flow and often as nonmeditation. Since at no point is there reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of thought and hence at no point do thoughts leave traces, it may be said that one (is) resting in the state of primordial liberation. This capacity or mode of liberation is the one properly called spontaneous liberation or self-liberation ; since in it arising thoughts at no point conceal the dharmakāya, in this capacity or mode of liberation the two gnoses of the so-called Buddha omniscience, as they are understood in the Mahāyāna, coincidently become patent and operative just as, according to the Mahāyāna, they do in Buddhahood, rather than the gnosis that reveals the true condition becoming patent and operative in the Contemplation state and the gnosis of variety becoming patent and operative in postContemplation (the distinctive way in which they are understood in the Dzogchen Series of pith instructions will be briefly considered below, and will be discussed in greater detail in Vol. II of this book). In fact, when we are in the dualistic condition in which we feel we are the mental subject produced by the reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of the threefold directional thought structure and we feel that the gnitive power of the essence or nature of mind pertains to this illusory subject, which looks toward what it perceives as being away from itself and other than itself, it is as though the nonconceptual and hence a b c d e f g h i j k l m Tib. ye grol. In The Lion’s Roar (Seng ge’i nga ro). This is the rendering of the statement in an extremely simplified version of the text by Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche (1972, p. 23). Other translations in Thinle Norbu (2015, p. 78); Nyoshul Khenpo (2015, p. 139); van Schaik (2004, p. 227) Compare with the Tib. ngo bo gcig las ma ’das pa’i ye shes. Compare with the Tib. rig pa rang gnas. As already noted in the regular text, the Skt. yoga means union, which contradicts Dzogchen, where there is no one to unite and nothing to be united with. Thus the term is to be understood in the sense of the Tib. rnal ’byor, understood as remaining in the patency of our unaltered original, true condition. Tib. rang bzhin chu bo rgyun gi rnal ’byor. This implies that we remain in the continuous flow of the uncontrived natural condition (Tib. ma bcos gnas lugs rgyun skyong) or continuous flow of the primordial gnosis whereby rigpa becomes patent and operative (Tib. rig pa’i ye shes rgyun skyong ba). Note that this unwaveringly continuing in Awake awareness is also called rig thog nas ma g.yos ba. Tib. sgom med. Tib. ye grol. Tib. rang grol. Skt. yathāvadbhāvikajñāna; Tib. ji lta ba mkhyen pa’i ye shes; Ch. 如理智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, rúlǐzhì; WadeGiles, ju -li -chih ). Skt. samāhita; Tib. mnyam bzhag; Ch. 等引 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, děngyǐn; Wade-Giles, teng -yin ). Skt. yāvadbhāvikajñāna; Tib. ji snyed pa mkhyen pa’i ye shes; Ch. 如量智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, rúliángzhì; WadeGiles, ju -liang -chih ). Skt. pṛṣṭhalabdha; Tib. rjes thob; Ch. 後得 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, hòudé; Wade-Giles, hou -te ). a b c d e f g h i j 2 3 4 k 3 l 2 2 4 m 4 379 2 3 nondual Awake awareness called rigpa (which as noted repeatedly is symbolized by a mirror) were looking away from itself —even though this is not precise, for only the mind having the mental subject as its core (which is exemplified as a reflection) is at that point under the illusion of being a separate self that can look either to itself or away from itself. At any rate, this illusion that rigpa looks away from itself is named a deviation, for when it is manifest, as the appearances of our own true condition arise, they appear to be other than ourselves, or something that arose elsewhere than in ourselves and from something other than our own selves. Contrariwise, in self-liberation or spontaneous liberation properly speaking, rigpa naturally maintains itself or abides as itself without this requiring any action and without straying from its own condition of undistracted, naked, instant Awake awareness. This continuing directly in [awareness (of) the true condition of] the Base—i.e. in the Vision—is the main, core practice, in which we must persevere until we obtain stability beyond concepts in the expanse of empty, bright Awake awareness that is our condition of total plenitude and perfection. The above is so because as a rule on the Path firstly the Awake awareness called rigpa is developed and mastered through the practice of Tekchö; then rigpa expands and unfolds in the practice of Thögel; and finally rigpa reaches its fullness or completeness as the Fruit. However, the seeming gradualism of these stages should not be taken to mean that the three modes or capacities of liberation discussed in the last several paragraphs are sharply delineated, consecutive modes of liberation: although at the inception of the practice average yogins or yoginīs experience only the first, as they become more familiar with it, the first and the second may alternate. And although it is a fact that with the passing of time the third may come to prevail, this does not mean that after some threshold the first two modes of liberation necessarily cease to operate and only the third does so. Therefore, to speak of successive stages will be misleading if one understands this in too narrow a sense. a b c d e f g h i j k l m Tib. gzhan ltos gyi rig pa. The Tib. gol sa is rendered as diversion or deviation. Nyoshul Khenpo (2015, p. 151) says the term refers to the point in the practice when on can become sidetracked or deviated, noting that the term is contrasted with nor sa, which is rendered as error (in the practice), and shor sa, which is rendered as ways of straying (due to a mistaken comprehension or application of emptiness). Tib. rang gi snang ba gzhan du shar ba. Tib. rang gi snang ba gzhan du shar ba. Tib. rang grol. Tib. rig pa rang gnas. Tib. rig pa rang gnas. By instant Awake awareness I render the Tib. skad cig [ma yi] rig pa / rig pa skad chig ma. As stated in endnote 473, here “instant” (Tib. skad chig ma) means, (1) that Awake awareness is free from the division of the temporal continuum into past, present and future that arises when the reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of the threefold directional thought-structure sunders the Base, which in itself is free from divisions and interruptions, into subject and object, thus giving rise to space, time and knowledge as different dimensions; (2) that whereas perception takes time because it is mediated and it takes time for a concept to be superimposed on sense, rig pa is unmediated and arises instantaneously. Cf. the explanation above in the regular text. Tib. dngos gzhi rang thog tu gzhi bca’ ba. Tib. rig stong blo ’das rdzogs pa chen po’i klong du btsan sa zin pa. Tib. rtsal ba. Tib. rgyas pa. Tib. rdzogs pa. a b c d e f g h i j k l m 380 When one practices in the right way and develops the necessary capacity, as Sera Khandro noted, “gurus of the past have stated that to the extent that thoughts proliferate, to the same extent the [patency of the] dharmakāya increases its power, just as a mass of fire flares up in accordance with the quantity of fuel.” In fact, this is the reason why often during the sessions of Tekchö practice yogins and yoginīs direct their gaze upwards into the space in front of them, which their awareness is perfectly integrated: to increase the rate of arising and liberation of thoughts. And that whereas other meditations are building up practices based on the development of a dualistic mindfulness that then may become dormant when absorptions become stable, and therefore the absorptions in question are fabricated, produced, contrived, conditioned and / or compounded states, the practice of the Dzogchen Series of pith instructions is based on the repeated, constant self-liberation of mindfulness and of all of the meditative states achieved by means of mindfulness, including those in which mindfulness has become dormant. As the great Guru of Oḍḍiyāna said: a b c There are many who know how to build up meditation, but only I know how to break it down. To conclude with the practice of Tekchö, let me repeat that in order to potentiate the practice in question and make the self-liberation of thought neutralize karmic traces in general to a greater extent and free us from the power of demons, infectious illnesses and all fear, we engage in the practice of Chö that will be discussed in Vol. II of this book. This is the best way to make the practice of Tekchö reach its climax and purify delusions. In fact, in Dzogchen it is made clear that demons and gods are no more than reification of thought, and that when this reification is neutralized we become immune to the power of demons and from the hope of obtaining any help from gods. This will be illustrated with some classic Tibetan stories and important quotations from a Terma revealed by Dudjom Lingpa. For their part, Thögel and the Yangthik set the conditions for the self-arising of vision in the form of luminous spheres and other apparition-like phenomena that initially occur in what seems to be an external dimension —which is the way of manifesting proper to tsel energy. However, since these visions are phenomena of rölpa energy that exhibit the latter’s wondrous dimensionality (which will be discussed below), and since they are sustained by an extremely high energetic volume determining the scope of awareness, their presence activates the self-rectifying dynamics of luminosity qua rölpa energy that is d e f g h i In Rang bzhin rdzogs pa chen po ma bsgom sangs rgyas kyi zin bris dpal ldan bla ma’i zhal rgyun nag ’gros su bkod pa tshig don rab gsal skal ldan dgyes pa’i mgul rgyan. An analogous though not identical translation is available in Dudjom Lingpa (2015, Vol. II, p. 249). Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). Cited by Sera Khandro in Rang bzhin rdzogs pa chen po ma bsgom sangs rgyas kyi zin bris dpal ldan bla ma’i zhal rgyun nag ’gros su bkod pa tshig don rab gsal skal ldan dgyes pa’i mgul rgyan. In Dudjom Lingpa (2015, Vol. II, p. 249). Wylie, gcod. Dag snang ye shes drva la las gnas lugs rang byung gi rgyud rdo rje’i snying po. Wylie, Yang thig. Tib. rang snang. Tib. thig le. Tib. dbyings. a b 3 c d e f g h i 381 2 inherent in the intermediate state of the true condition of phenomena, which does not allow the illusion of there being an outer dimension and an inner dimension, a subject and an object, to have a continuity and consolidate. A Tantra revealed by Dudjom Lingpa reads: a b Since the mental afflictions conquer themselves, they manifest as wrathful forms. This great primordial gnosis that is replete with all such Awake qualities makes the dharmakāya’s primordial gnosis, which is inherent in the Base, manifest. Traditional explanations of the above, based on experiences of Thögel practice, note that the clear light of our true, Awake condition—namely of the dharmakāya—that is said to be inner because it has its chief abode in the “heart’s cavity,” like a projector’s light bearing the images to be projected, is made to appear on the seemingly external dimension—in fact, they initially appear to be in front of oneself—as they are projected through the extremely subtle, hollow, crystal-like channels called kati channels, gnosischannels or smooth white channels, which link the eyes with the heart’s cavity. As just noted, the light in question adopts the form of the luminous spheres called thigles and other visions that are appearances, in what initially seems to be an external dimension, of the energy of the nonconceptual and hence nondual Awake awareness called rigpa. Once one experiences visions that are more luminous than physical entities and that seem as real as the latter, one gains certainty that this is also how the everyday reality that we perceive as an external physical world, and which pertains to tsel energy, arises—the reality in question being therefore neither external nor truly existent. It must again be emphasized, however, that though both Thögel visions and the physical world are made of the [energy of the nature of] mind, they are not mind. In Contemplation, those spontaneous visions are spontaneously met by rigpa, at the outset of the practice in the same way in which one immediately recognizes one’s own face in a mirror or an old friend one has not met in a long time, and hence the vision directly liberates itself into its own inherent condition, which means that it is no longer experienced as something external to awareness, for the mental subject that experiences itself as being at a distance from the vision has disappeared: the vision reveals itself qua vision as empty, c d e f g h i j k l m n o Skt. dharmatā antarābhava; Tib. chos nyid bar do; Ch. 法性中有 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎxìng zhōngyǒu; WadeGiles, fa -hsing chung -yu ). This bardo normally manifests between physical death and rebirth, but in practices such as Thögel or the Yangthik it is made to manifest while the organism is alive and well (which also happens spontaneously in some psychoses). Dag snang ye shes drva la las gnas lugs rang byung gi rgyud rdo rje’i snying po. Alternative translation in Dudjom Lingpa (2015, Vol. III, p. 63). This is why it is called “inner light:” Tib. nang ’od; Skt. antarajyioti[ḥ]. Tib. tsit ta. Tib. ka ti shel gyi sbu gu can. Tib. ye shes rtsa. Tib. dkar ’jam rtsa. Compare with the Tib. gzhan ngo snang tshul. Compare with the Tib. rig pa’i rtsal. Tib. sems kyi snang ba—in which sems may refer to sems nyid / byang chub sems. Tib. rang snang. Compare Patrul Rinpoché: Tib. rang rang phrad pa. Tib. rang du ngo shes pa. Tib. rang gi rang thog tu grol bas. Compare with the Tib. snang ba stong pa. a 3 4 1 3 b c d e f g h i j k l m n o 382 while its luminosity, which is the luminosity of rigpa, is self-reGnized. However, once the visions have developed beyond their initial stages, as suggested above, if this does not spontaneously occur in an immediate way, the wondrous dimensionality of this form of manifestation of energy and the extremely high energetic volume determining the scope of awareness that accompanies and sustains the visions of rölpa energy will catalyze the spontaneously rectifying dynamic of the true condition of phenomena. In fact, the visions’ immutability and imperviousness activate the delusive tropisms that give rise to aversion / antagonism / irritation, causing one to react to the phenomena of luminosity—which (are) one’s own condition appearing in a seemingly external way —with irritation and thus to beget strong tensions and conflict. And this makes the illusion of there being a mental subject in an internal dimension at a distance from the visions appearing as objects that seem to lie in an external dimension turns into conflict—which, when the practice has developed, occurs as soon as that mental subject arises. Provided that we have sufficiently developed a capacity of spontaneous liberation through the practice of Tekchö (and ideally potentiated this capacity by means of the practice of Chöd), this irritation / antagonism / aversion, together with the dualistic delusion that constitutes its condition of possibility, will instantly self-liberate, and therefore tension and conflict will be instantly released— which gignifies that this practice works as the catalyzer of the spontaneous, instant, absolute release of tension characteristic of Tekchö, which it intensifies and accelerates, thus enhancing and optimizing its power to neutralize delusion. The above is so because, contrarily to what happens in the practice of Tekchö, in which one may become distracted and as a result reinforce karmic propensities and delusive obstructions, the irritation / aversion / antagonism that the luminous visions elicit in these practices turns the contradiction that is avidyā into conflict—i.e. into anguish or something akin to anguish—and hence there is no way that one could adhere to delusive experiences— which makes it virtually impossible for avidyā to continue to be manifest. Moreover, each and every time delusive phenomena liberate themselves spontaneously, the propensity for delusion to arise is neutralized to an extent that is directly proportional to both the magnitude or height of the energetic volume determining the scope of awareness and the degree of experiential intensity in the moment immediately preceding self-liberation—both a b c d e f g h i Compare with the Tib. gsal ba rig par ngo shes pa. Tib. lhun grub; Skt. nirābogha or anābogha. Skt. dharmatā; Tib. chos nyid: Ch. 法性 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎxìng; Wade-Giles, fa -hsing ). Skt. dveṣa; Pāḷi dosa; Tib. zhe sdang; Ch. 瞋 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chēn; Wade-Giles ch’en ). This is the same tropism at the root of boredom, and is somewhat similar to the way in which the pleasure of being caressed by the goose’s feathers turns into a torture. Teachings by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu. Also compare Patrul Rinpoché: Tib. cir snang rang yin. The mental subject is no more than an appearance of gdangs energy (which as such has no characteristics perceivable through the five external senses, and which cannot be perceived as object because it appears implicitly and indirectly as the perceiver of appearances that appear as object) arising in the nonconceptual, nondual awareness called essence or nature of mind (Tib. sems nyid)—like a reflection in a mirror. However, by virtue of the second aspect or type of avidyā the mental subject seems to be an internal awareness (i.e. the awareness represented with the mirror seems to pertain to the illusory mental subject), while the visions seem to be external appearances. This is called ma rtogs pa la rang gzhan gnyis su byung. Compare Patrul Rinpoché: Tib. zhe sdang dus shes pas grol. Compare Patrul Rinpoché: Tib. zhe sdang nyid kyis grol ba. Tib. thig le, which renders the Skt. bindu, but in this context has a sense somewhat akin to that of the Skt. kuṇḍalinī. a b c 3 d 4 1 e f g h i 383 of which reach their maximum potential in the practices of Thögel and the Yangti / Yangthik. Since in these practices the illusory mental subject that appears to lie at a distance from an object is spontaneously dissolved—either the moment it arises, or after irritation / antagonism / aversion makes tension and conflict increase to a threshold— Thögel and the Yangti / Yangthik have the power to swiftly neutralize the propensity for the individual to experience him or herself as a mental subject in an internal dimension that is at a distance from objects lying in an external dimension and, in general, to neutralize or exhaust all aspects of avidyā. In fact, the practices of Thögel and the Yangti / Yangthik make the intermediate state of the true condition of phenomena manifest while the practitioner is physically and clinically alive, thus eliciting the projection of the visions of rölpa energy proper to this intermediate state. As suggested above, the reason for making these visions arise is that, unlike phenomena of tsel energy, these visions do not allow the illusory divide into mental subject and object, or internal and external dimension—which is a most elemental appearance of dualistic delusion—to persist and consolidate. Actually, this is a key reason why the symbol of rölpa energy is a mirror: because in a mirror there is no distance between reflective power and reflections. In fact, the practice forces the yogin or yoginī to return to the condition in which there does not seem to be a distance between reflective power and reflections (another reason being that the mirror illustrates the saṃbhogakāya’s primordial gnoses of quality and quantity, which will be briefly discussed below and, in greater detail, in Vol. II of this book). At any rate, the purpose of eliciting those visions is to activate the self-rectifying dynamic that forces the yogin or yoginī to integrate with what seems to be external but that in fact is not so—in this case, with the visions that arise by virtue of the radiance of the dang aspect of our true condition, initially in what seems to be an external dimension—so that when that integration is achieved (so to speak) only one dimension remains. However, it must be kept in mind that the expression “the yogin or yoginī is forced to integrate with the visions” is metaphoric, for what the self-rectifying dynamic of rölpa energy does is to force the spontaneous dissolution of the mental subject that appears to be at a distance of the objects—and hence no one is left that may be said to have integrated with the visions: only the nonconceptual, nondual primordial gnosis that makes rigpa patent remains. To recapitulate, in these practices the combination of optic effects, ways of staring, postures and other elements of the practice—which in the case of the Yangti/Yangthik comprises long periods in darkness—give rise to a top energetic volume determining the scope of awareness and cause the intermediate state of the true condition of phenomena to appear and become operative while the yogin or yoginī is physically alive, eliciting the appearance of the visions of rölpa energy. The wondrous dimensionality of these visions, 515 a b c d e f g Skt. dharmatā antarābhava; Tib. chos nyid bar do; Ch. 法性中有 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎxìng zhōngyǒu; WadeGiles, fa -hsing chung -yu ). Skt. antarābhava; Tib. bar do; Ch. 中有 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhōngyǒu; Wade-Giles, chung -yu ) / 中陰 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhōngyīn; Wade-Giles, chung -yin ). Tib. bsre ba. Tib. gdangs or rang gdangs. Wylie, gdangs. Compare with the Tib. rang gdangs. Tib. dbyings gcig. Skt. dharmatā antarābhava; Tib. chos nyid bar do; Ch. 法性中有 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎxìng zhōngyǒu; WadeGiles, fa -hsing chung -yu ). a 3 4 1 3 b 1 1 1 c d e f g 3 4 1 3 384 3 together with their imperviousness and immutability, and the reactions the latter elicit in the yogin or yoginī, activates the wrathful self-rectifying dynamics of rölpa energy proper to the intermediate state in question, which in yogins or yoginīs with the necessary capacity of self-liberation forestalls the persistence of the dualisms of subject and object, and of internal dimension and external dimension. In case the self-reGnition of the visions’ true condition does not immediately occur, the irritation / antagonism / aversion that the deluded, dualistic consciousness having the illusory mental subject as its core will at some point experience in the face of the visions’ immutability and imperviousness will be made to increase exponentially in a positive feedback loop together with the tensions it elicits and with the anguish that the situation may produce, to a threshold level at which—provided that the yogin or yoginī developed a sufficient capacity of self-liberation in repeated practice of Tekchö—they self-liberate. Above I emphasized the spontaneous wrathful activity or wrathful dynamics that becomes operative in the practices of Thögel and the Yangti / Yangthik—a spontaneous modality of zhitro or “peaceful-wrathful” practice that is the supreme form of this practice—when the self-luminous visions of the intermediate state of the true condition of phenomena elicit irritation / aversion / antagonism, activating the wrathful or trowo dynamics, but did not emphasize the function of the peaceful state that becomes patent in the absence of subject-object duality. Both aspects are important because in these practices the peaceful or zhiwa aspect involves total bliss—evincing the fact that when there is no delusion there (is) total plenitude / satisfaction—whereas the arising of delusion gives rise to great distress and anguish—evincing the fact that suffering it inherent in delusion. Of course, the wrathful aspect is the most important one, for it is the driving force of the spontaneous rectification dynamics activated by these practices—and especially by the practice of darkness—which makes it impossible for delusion to persist, as it transforms into conflict the contradiction that fully-fledged avidyā is (in the sense that the experience conditioned by fully-fledged avidyā contradicts the true condition of reality). Note that the aforementioned total bliss arises when [our deluded, conceptual, dualistic perceptions] selfliberate, [disclosing] the [true, nonconceptual and nondual] condition of the visions, so that the delusion of feeling that there is an internal dimension or space that is the dwelling and a c b d e f g h i j k Tib. rang ngo shes pa. Tib. snang ba; Skt. ābhāsa; Ch. 現 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiàn; Wade-Giles, hsien ). Tib. phrin las drag po. Tib. khro bo. Tib. lhun grub. Tib. zhi khro. This dynamic is proper to the intermediate state of the true condition of phenomena (Skt. dharmatā antarābhava; Tib. chos nyid bar do; Ch. 法性中有 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎxìng zhōngyǒu; Wade-Giles, fa -hsing chung -yu ]) because, as will be explained below in the regular text, the intermediate state in question is the one in which one’s true condition, which is the true condition of phenomena (Skt. dharmatā; Tib. chos nyid; Ch. 法性 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎxìng; Wade-Giles, fa -hsing ]), is projected, initially unto a dimension that is perceived as external, in the form of visions of rölpa energy. Tib. khro bo. Tib. zhi ba. Compare with the Tib. snang ba nyid snang bas grol. Tib. nang dbyings. a b 4 c d e f g 3 1 3 3 4 h i j k 385 4 domain of an internal Awake awareness, and an external dimension or space filled with extraneous objects, instantly dissolves in the realization of the single space or dimension of the true condition of phenomena. Now the reason why the family of purification is the Vajra Family, the Buddha of which is Vajrasattva, may be easily understood. Vajrasattva represents the saṃbhogakāya and is the deity traditionally visualized in Anuyoga zhitros as containing all peaceful and wrathful deities, whose mantra has one hundred syllables, one for each of these deities, and is used in Tantric purification. And the passion of this family is aversion / irritation / antagonism / anger / wrath, which is the means par excellence for the most powerful, swiftest purification of delusion and the passions that issue from it (and hence also of the karmic seeds for the activation of all of them )—namely the practices of Thögel and the Yangti / Yangthik for which the Anuyoga modality of the practice of zhitro is a preparation, and which are based on the activation and spontaneous liberation of aversion / antagonism / irritation / anger / wrath in the genuine, true zhitro. This also seems to corroborate the Samten Migdrön’s reference to Dzogchen Ati as the primordial ancestor of all vehicles. Once more let me emphasize the contrast between Dzogchen reGnition and what is termed recognition, which was explained in endnote 35 to this book: whereas the latter involves the understanding of singled-out sensa in terms of contents of thought—normally a reified / hypostasized / absolutized / valorized subtle thought that appears as object due to the reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of the supersubtle thought that I call threefold directional thought structure —the Dzogchen reGnition of the dharmakāya instantly dissolves all types of recognition. Therefore, when it is said that if awareness identifies the emotional defilement to be liberated, at that very instant it will vanish, this is not to be taken literally. For example, it is simply wrong to say that anger is liberated due to its being recognized as anger, for recognizing anger as anger is what occurs to any samsaric being who becomes aware that she or he has been possessed by anger. In fact, anger is liberated by (the) self-reGnition as the dharmakāya of the thoughts at its root, without any recognition in terms of thought-contents. The example of anger was used because antagonism is the motor of Thögel practice, but the way this reGnition and selfliberation was described corresponded to the way in which they would occur in the practice of Tekchö that, before undertaking the practice of Thögel, one must perfect to a a b c d e f g h 516 i j k l m n Compare with the Tib. term nang rig pa. Tib. phyi dbyings. Tib. dbyings gcig. This is an extended explanation of that which is referred to by the Tib. rang gis nang ngo shes pas. Tib. zhi khro. Skt. dveṣa; Pāḷi dosa; Tib. zhe sdang; Ch. 瞋 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chēn; Wade-Giles ch’en ). Skt. vāsanā Tib. bag chags; Ch. 氣習 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, qìxí; Wade-Giles, ch’i -hsi ) or 習氣 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíqì; Wade-Giles, hsi -ch’i ). Wylie, Yang thig. Skt. saṃjñā; Tib. ’du shes; Ch. 想 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiǎng; Wade-Giles, hsiang ). Skt. arthasāmānya; Tib. don spyi; Ch. 總事 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngshì; Wade-Giles, tsung -shih ) or 總義 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngyì; Wade-Giles, tsung -i ). Modifying a translation devised by Alex Berzin (2001), I render this term as universal, abstract concept of an entity [resulting from a mental synthesis] that conveys a meaning. Skt. trimaṇḍala; Tib. ’khor gsum; Ch. 三輪 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānlùn; Wade-Giles, san -lun ). Tib. ngos zin. Tib. mnyam du. Tib. rang ngo shes pa. a b c d e f 1 g 4 2 2 4 h i 3 j 3 3 4 4 k 1 l m n 386 4 considerable degree—and it is the same way in which one would deal with any other passion in the practice of Tekchö. The above was said with regard to Thögel and the Yangti / Yangthik because the practices in question are the most powerful triggers and catalyzers of the spontaneous selfrectifying dynamics of the Base’s spontaneous perfection aspect, as they are the ones in which the visions of rölpa energy self-arise from primordial gnosis in a seemingly external dimension —and these visions are, for their part, the paradigmatic, most radical trigger and catalyzer of the positive feedback loops that lead aversion / antagonism / irritation / anger / wrath to develop in a runaway to a threshold level at which, if it has not yet done so, it selfliberates. However, the positive feedback loops of the self-rectifying dynamics in question can also become operative, albeit with lesser intensity, when hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorised thoughts arise in what seems to be an internal dimension. In either case, if by means of Tekchö practice we have developed a sufficient capacity of spontaneous liberation, it is certain that if delusion together with all the tensions it elicits fails to immediately liberate itself, it will do so after a runaway of tension makes the latter reach a threshold level. At any rate, when the intermediate state of the true condition of phenomena becomes patent and operative—whether after physical death or in practices such as Thögel or the Yangthik / Yangti—the clear light of rigpa appears in the sequence sound > light > rays (the latter being the projection of rigpa’s clear light as self-luminous visions that initially seem to lie in an external dimension—i.e. as does projective, apparently substantial, tsel energy). Primordial gnoses are events of rigpa, which in those in whose mental continuum rigpa has become patent and operative are called the son, son clear light, or Path clear light. For its part, rigpa’s clear light is called the mother clear light, Base clear light, or clear light abiding as the Base —the true condition of which is the dharmakāya. If we have developed the necessary familiarity with the rigpa of which each and every primordial gnosis (is) a Gnitive event, when the clear light arises at the outset of the intermediate state of the true condition of phenomena in the afterdeath we have a effective possibility of reGnizing it as the mother, and thus realize the indivisible integration beyond duality of mother (the nonconceptual and therefore nondual Awake awareness [of] the primordial state) and son (primordial gnosis). If, while the body is physically alive, in connection with fortuite circumstances the intermediate state in question or a similar condition becomes a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Compare with the Tib. rang snang ye shes kyi rol pa. Tib. phyi dbyings. Tib. nang dbyings. Wylie, Yang thig. Tib. ye shes; Skt. jñāna; Ch. 智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhì; Wade-Giles, chih ; Jap. chi). Skt. saṃtāna; Tib. sems rgyud or rgyun; Ch. 相續 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiāngxù; Wade-Giles, hsiang -hsü ); in general used as ⼼相續 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xīnxiāngxù; Wade-Giles hsin -hsiang -hsü ). Tib. bu. Tib. bu’i ’od gsal. Tib. lam gyi ’od gsal. Tib. ma’i ’od gsal. Tib. gzhi’ ’od gsal. Compare with the Tib. gzhi gnas ma’i ’od gsal. Skt. dharmatā antarābhava; Tib. chos nyid bar do; Ch. 法性中有 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎxìng zhōngyǒu; WadeGiles, fa -hsing chung -yu ). Compare with the Tib. ma bu gnyis sbyor ba. a b c d e 4 f 1 1 g h i j k l m 3 4 1 3 n 387 1 4 4 patent and operative; if in that condition anguish develops in a runaway to the threshold at which the subject-object duality can self-liberate—especially if the clear light has shone forth—and at that point delusion self-liberates, we develop a really powerful potentiality, which we can further develop by means of Tekchö practice, for the self-liberation of dualism in the reGnition of the rigpa that (is) the Base clear light. And this means that we have developed some degree of capacity to practice Thögäl or the Yangthik / Yangti—i.e. that when, in these practices, our own luminosity shines forth into an apparently external dimension in the form of visions, we have the potentiality to integrate with them, so to speak. (If we relate this symbolism of mother and son to the above-discussed sense of the phrases naturally arisen primordial gnosis individually realized through the spontaneous awareness of the primordial, true condition and individually realized primordial gnosis of spontaneous Awake awareness [(rigpa)], we must say that although there is a single mother, the events of primordial gnosis that make it fully patent occur individually in the mental stream of a yogin or yoginī.) Although the six lamps or lights of Thögel and the Yangthik will not be discussed in this tome, as they are relevant solely for the practices in question, let it be said that the first lamp, called the lamp or light of rigpa’s dimension or space, is the luminosity of our true condition—the true condition of phenomena —which shines in the center of the body at the level of the heart, initially as the dang / radiancy of dang energy shining in an inner dimension. It is this light that shines inside the heart properly as the lamp of the fleshy heart, in the form of that which is called innermost luminosity, and which is compared to a lamp shining at the center of an earthen pot, illumining the pot’s inside. The light goes through the above mentioned, extremely subtle, hollow, crystal-like channels that link the eyes with the heart’s cavity called the kati channels, channels of primordial gnosis or smooth white channels, into the eyes, and then is projected onto what seems to be an external dimension in the form of initially tiny luminous spheres and other visions—all of which are appearances, in what initially seems to be an external dimension, of the energy a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Skt. pratisaṃvid (Dorje & Kapstein, in Dudjom Rinpoche, 1991), pratyātmagati, pratyātmādhigama or pratyātmavid (Brunnhölzl, in Nāgārjuna & IIId Karmapa, 2007); Tib. so so rang gi rig pa. Skt. pratyātmavedanīyajñāna; Tib. so so rang rig pa’i ye shes. As stated in a previous footnote, with this term I am rendering the Skt. saṃtāna, usually translated into Tibetan as rgyun or as sems rgyud and into Chinese as 相續 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiāngxù; Wade-Giles, hsiang hsü ), in general used as ⼼相續 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xīnxiāngxù; Wade-Giles hsin -hsiang -hsü ). Note that the Tibetan terms could also render the Skt. saṃtati (similar to saṃtāna), jāti (normally rendered as skye ba: birth) and anvaya (directly, following, connection, male descendant, lineage, family, succession, inheritance, drift, tenor, or, in logic, negative implication [e.g. “when there is no (longer a) pot there is clay”]). Tib. sgron ma drug. Tib. rig pa dbyings kyi sgron ma. Skt. dharmatā; Tib. chos nyid; Ch. 法性 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎxìng; Wade-Giles, fa -hsing ). Tib. nang dbyings. Tib. tsit ta sha’i sgron ma. Tib. gting gsal: lit. depths luminosity. Tib. ka ti shel gyi sbu gu can. Tib. ye shes rtsa. Tib. dkar ’jam rtsa. Compare with the Tib. gzhan ngo snang tshul. Tib. thig le. Tib. gzhan ngo snang tshul. a b c 1 4 1 1 d e f 3 g h i j k l m n o 388 4 4 of the nonconceptual and hence nondual Awake awareness referred to as rigpa. Therefore, it is the true condition of phenomena, which is our true condition, that is projected outside in the form of the visions of rölpa energy, with which, metaphorically speaking, we must completely integrate, without the slightest appearance of dualism. In fact, the intermediate state of the true condition of phenomena was given this name because it is the state in which the true condition of phenomena that is our true condition appears in what initially seems to be an external dimension, in the form of luminous visions of rölpa energy: this is the reason why, no matter whether the physical organism is dead or alive, if the visions of rölpa energy are apparent and operative, that will signify that the yogin or yoginī finds her or himself in the intermediate state of the true condition of phenomena. To conclude let me emphasize once more that the practices of Thögel and the Yangthik should not be undertaken until the necessary capacity of spontaneous liberation has been developed through the practices of Tekchö and/or the Nyingthik—and ideally also through the practice of Chöd—for otherwise our practice will surely be blocked, or a psychosis may ensue, or other undesirable outcomes may occur. However, under the right conditions, it will be most important to undertake these practices, for they will boost the process of spontaneous liberation set in motion through the practices of Tekchö or the Nyingthik—ideally boosted by the practice of Chöd—accelerating it, so that whichever realization has been attained so far may develop most rapidly to the level at which the illusory sundering of the Base by the appearance of there being a subject in an internal dimension and a world in an external dimension finally comes to an end, arising no more. Furthermore, if luminous visions of rölpa energy or a mass of light have not appeared in the seemingly external dimension or ying, the awareness associated with our organism (and thus this very organism) will not have the possibility of integrating with it—which means that we will not be able to obtain either of the two highest modes of ending life characteristic of the Dzogchen teachings. a b c d The Fruit Above it was noted that in the Series of Pith Instructions of Dzogchen Atiyoga the Fruit may de said to consist in the irreversible stabilization of the complete unveiling of the indivisibility of the three aspects of the Base, so that it will never be concealed again. And it was also noted that this Fruit is not achieved all at once, but by stages: first the dharmakāya becomes patent and operative as the true condition of the essence aspect of the Base and of the dang form of manifestation of the energy aspect of the Base are realized; then, while the dharmakāya is patent and operative, the saṃbhogakāya becomes e f g Tib. rig pa’i rtsal. Skt. dharmatā; Tib. chos nyid; Ch. 法性 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎxìng; Wade-Giles, fa -hsing ). Skt. dharmatā antarābhava; Tib. chos nyid bar do; Ch. 法性中有 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎxìng zhōngyǒu; WadeGiles, fa -hsing chung -yu ). Skt. dharmatā; Tib. chos nyid; Ch. 法性 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎxìng; Wade-Giles, fa -hsing ). Tib. ngo bo, which is one of the Tibetan translations of the Skt. svabhāva (Ch. ⾃性 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìng; Wade-Giles, tzu -hsing ; Jap. jishō]). Wylie, gdangs. As noted repeatedly, the term “energy” renders the Tibetan thugs rje. a b 3 4 3 4 c 3 4 1 3 d e 4 4 f g 389 patent and operative when the true condition of the Base’s nature aspect and of the rölpa form of manifestation of the Base’s energy aspect are realized; finally, while dharmakāya and saṃbhogakāya are both patent and operative, the nirmāṇakāya becomes patent and operative when the true condition of the Base’s energy aspect and of the tsel form of manifestation of the Base’s energy aspect are realized—which signifies that the delusive mental subject no longer arises to perceive them as other. Once the indivisibility of the three aspects of the Base has completely disclosed itself and this disclosure has become stable, it could be said that the svabhāvikāya has become patent and operative as the Fruit—though in fact it is difficult to establish a precise point at which this may be said to have occurred, for in this vehicle the Path is a process of ongoing Awakening that may be said to reach an end only once the fourth vision of Thögel has unfolded to its ultimate degree. When the Buddha-activities of those who reach to this point have been completed, rather than going through the process of death they attain the Total Transference or Phowa Chenpo that will be briefly referred to below. Since each of the above stages corresponds to the realization of the true condition of one of the aspects of the Base, which is achieved by treading the Path, and since the last of these stages consists in the realization of the indivisibility of the three aspects of the Base, again there can be no doubt that in this vehicle there is a perfect continuity of Base, Path and Fruit. 1) The dharmakāya: As already noted, in the Series of pith instructions of Dzogchen Ati entrance to the Path consists in the disclosure, when the basic disposition of the essence aspect of the Base or ngowo shi shines forth, of the Base’s essence aspect—the Base’s emptiness that (is) the dharmakāya-qua-Base and that (is) the single dimension wherein the Base’s Gnitiveness (is) indivisible from the single, empty space, sky or expanse in which all phenomena (including those that we experience as “internal” and those that we experience as “external”) arise unobstructedly —and of the true condition of the dang form of manifestation of the Base’s energy aspect—the dharmakāya-qua-Path proper to the Series of Pith Instructions—in a Direct introduction to the transparent, unimpeded, unobstructed primordial gnosis that reveals the dharmakāya (for a brief illustration of this in terms of the Atiyoga method for direct Introduction by means of the abrupt pronunciation of the syllable PHAT!, cf. endnote 495). Then, once practitioners no longer remain in doubt with regard to the fact that what became patent at that point actually did so, and that it (was) the true condition of themselves and all phenomena, they must devote themselves to the practice of Tekchö or of the Nyingthik (in which, as noted above, Tekchö predominates), a b c d 517 518 e f g h k b c d e f g h i j k l m Tib. rang bzhin. Wylie, rol pa. Tib. thugs rje; see explanation of this term in previous footnotes. Wylie, rtsal. Skt. Upadeśavarga; Tib. Man ngag [gyi] sde. Wylie, ngo bo’i gshis. Tib. dbyings gcig. Tib. nam mkha’; Skt. ākāśa; Ch. 空 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, kōng; Wade-Giles, k’ung ). Tib. nam mkha’; Skt. ākāśa; Ch. 空 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, kōng; Wade-Giles, k’ung ). Tib. klong. Tib. ma ’gags pa, ’gag med or even ma ’gags. Wylie, gdangs. Tib. ye shes zang thal. 1 1 390 j l m a i reGnizing the stuff and true condition of the present thought—so that whenever the essence and true condition of thought and of the dang energy that constitutes it is reGnized, the dharmakāya becomes patent and operative. Constant repetition of this enables practitioners to reGnize the true condition of thought whenever thoughts are hypostasized / absolutized / reified / valorized, making them perfectly familiar with the dharmakāya and capable of reGnizing it at all times. If the third capacity or mode of liberation—the one properly called spontaneous liberation or self-liberation—becomes stable, it may be said that the dharmakāya has been stabilized and hence the first level of realization of this practice has been achieved. And if this stabilization is absolute and irreversible this means that we have attained one of the Fruits of Dzogchen, which, when our Buddha-activities have been completed, may result in one of the modes of ending our bodily existence proper to Dzogchen that will be discussed below. 2) The saṃbhogakāya: As explained in the section on the Path of Ati, once practitioners have developed a sufficient capacity of spontaneous liberation through practice of Tekchö or the Nyingthik—even better if they are potentiated by the practice of Chöd—they must devote themselves to the practice of Thögel and that of the Yangthik / Yangti, in which, while physically alive, the yogin or yoginī gains access to the intermediate state of the true condition of phenomena in which the immaterial, self-luminous visions of rölpa energy appear. As also explained, though those visions initially appear in a dimension that seems to be external, as do the phenomena of the tsel mode of manifestation of energy, since rölpa energy is refractory to the arising and consolidation of the dualisms of subject and object, and of internal dimension and external dimension, the spontaneous self-rectifying dynamic inherent in the rölpa mode of manifestation of energy will catalyze the repeated self-liberation of those dualities. When the dualities in question self-liberate, the saṃbhogakāya that is the true condition of both the nature aspect of the Base and the rölpa form of manifestation of the Base’s energy aspect, becomes patent and operative. At this point the luminous visions continue to be there, but our dualistic perception of them (involving the illusions of there being a mental subject and an object, an inner dimension and an outer dimension) liberates itself spontaneously each and every time it arises, and do so at maximum levels of experiential intensity and height of energetic volume determining the scope of awareness. Since under these conditions the power of spontaneous liberation to neutralize the propensities for the arising of avidyā and of the most powerful instances of avidyā, as the practice unfolds our propensities for delusion and dualism and hence for the passions to be aroused are progressively neutralized or burned out in the swiftest and most radical way possible and the saṃbhogakāya gradually consolidates. 3) The nirmāṇakāya: If the practice of Thögel or the Yangthik is carried on to its limit, rölpa energy and tsel energy will overlap, so that it becomes evident that the three forms of manifestation of energy form a continuum—and, indeed, rölpa and tsel energies begin to function as a continuum that arises from and has its source in the individual’s rigpa. Therefore, those who attain this realization never again experience themselves as being at a distance from the continuum of the universe—and thus never depart again from total a b a b c d c Tib. nang dbyings. Tib. phyi dbyings. Tib. nang dbyings. Tib. lhun grub; Skt. nirābogha or anābogha. 391 d completeness / plenitude (Dzogchen). Likewise, a mental subject that may establish a linkof-being with the object indicated by the individual’s name no longer arises, and hence it will no longer be possible for them to be self-encumbered like the centipede of the poem cited in a previous chapter. And since the roots of evil have been eradicated and the whole universe is their own body, all activities benefit all beings without exception or partiality. Therefore, in their activities, they total perfection (Dzogchen) becomes fully patent and operative. Furthermore, since rölpa energy and tsel energy have overlapped or fused there is no longer an illusion of there being an external dimension containing phenomena that are other than the individual’s Awake, nonconceptual and hence nondual awareness, or that are not subject to the power of that awareness: the experience of phenomena as opposing resistence to awareness (in the Heideggerian sense in which this means that one cannot modify reality by merely thinking of it and if one tries to do so one will have to overcome the resistance of the physical world by forcefully overpowering that resistence) arises no longer and thus those phenomena no longer oppose resistence to the individual. In other words, the so-called “physical” elements are at this point under the power of rigpa and therefore those who attain this realization develop what others perceive as a capacity of performing miracles. In particular, the saṃbhogakāya’s primordial gnoses of quality and quantity (which will be briefly discussed below and then will be considered in greater detail in Vol. II of this book) will become patent and operative at the level of tsel energy, being perceived by ordinary beings as miracles that defy the dimensionality of the physical world. The point is that the visionary, corrective mode of manifestation of energy called rölpa, the true condition of which is the saṃbhogakāya, has a dimensionality that seems wondrous and magical to sentient beings conditioned by the dimensionality of projective, seemingly substantial, tsel energy, which is the one that characterizes ordinary people’s experience of the physical world. An example of that wondrous dimensionality has been offered by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu, who recounted that once in the practice of Thögel he had a vision of one central thigle surrounded by four other thigles (one above, one below, one at the right and another one at the left). Then, after his session of practice, he tried to draw the vision, but was unable to do so, for in the vision there were no empty spaces between the thigles and nonetheless none of them invaded the space occupied by the others, whereas in the drawing it was impossible for the thigles to touch each other in more than one point of their circumference without each invading the space occupied by the others— and therefore it was impossible to draw them as he had seen them. In the practitioner in whom the fourth vision of Thögel has developed beyond a threshold, as noted above, the dimensionality of rölpa energy has overlapped or fused with that of tsel energy, and hence 519 a b c Tib. ’byung ba la dbang skur nus pa. These two gnoses are referred to by the same words as the tho aspects of the omniscience of Buddhahood in the Mahāyāna; Yathāvadbhāvikajñāna (Tib. ji lta ba mkhyen pa’i ye shes; Ch. 如理智 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, rúlǐzhì; Wade-Giles, ju -li -chih ])—which many Mahāyāna translations render as primordial gnosis that apprehends the true condition, for in that system it refers to the nonconceptual and therefore nondual awareness (of) absolute truth, but in Dzogchen it refers to that which Chögyal Namkhai Norbu called wisdom of quality and which here I call primordial gnosis of quality—and yāvadbhāvikajñāna (Tib. ji snyed pa mkhyen pa’i ye shes; Ch. 如量智 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, rúliángzhì; Wade-Giles, ju -liang -chih ])—which many Mahāyāna translations translate as primordial gnosis of variety, but in Dzogchen it refers to that which Chögyal Namkhai Norbu called wisdom of quantity and that here I am referring to as primordial gnosis of quantity. Personal communication. a b 2 3 4 2 c 392 2 4 tsel energy can exhibit the qualities proper to rölpa energy, defying the limitations and rules of ordinary tsel dimensionality—i.e. of the dimensionality that ordinary people experience the physical world as exhibiting and that common sense takes for granted. Therefore, as the yogins or yoginīs reach the point at which all three forms of manifestation of energy overlap and tsel energy begins to exhibit the qualities of rölpa energy, and at which they attain the simultaneous patency and operativeness of the primordial gnoses proper to Buddhaomniscience, they exhibit what others see as miraculous powers. What does Buddha-omniscience have to do with what I am referring to here as the saṃbhogakāya’s primordial gnoses of quality and quantity? As stated in a footnote, in the Sanskrit language, the two primordial gnoses of Buddha-omniscience are referred to by the names yathāvadbhāvikajñāna —which many translations of Mahāyāna texts render as primordial gnosis that apprehends the true condition, for it lies in the nonconceptual and therefore nondual awareness (of) the single absolute truth—and yāvadbhāvikajñāna — often translated as primordial gnosis of variety, for it consists in the nondual presence of variegated phenomena free from the perception of them in terms of hypostasized, reified, absolutized, valorized thoughts, and hence without being tainted by them (so that one neither falls under their influence nor is driven to cut them off) while dwelling in the primordial gnosis that reveals the true condition, and without ever losing a keen, alert awareness. However, that which the two Sanskrit terms in question and their Tibetan translations designate in the Dzogchen goes far beyond the coincident patency and operativeness of the nonconceptual, nondual awareness of absolute truth and the awareness and discernment of phenomena, because they also designate: (1) two qualities of the saṃbhogakāya that both illustrate and attest to the wondrous dimensionality of rölpa energy; and (2) the patency and operativeness of those two qualities of the saṃbhogakāya, at the nirmāṇakāya level of tsel energy, due to the overlapping of rölpa energy qua saṃbhogakāya and tsel energy qua nirmāṇakāya when the fourth vision of Thögel develops beyond a threshold. The above may seem mysterious, but it can be easily clarified by teachings offered by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu. Possibly in order to make the point that in Dzogchen the two terms in question do not designate solely the referents they have in the Mahāyāna, this Master renders the first term as wisdom of quality and the second as wisdom of quantity— which here, since I am rendering the term yeshe as primordial gnosis, I will turn into primordial gnosis of quality and primordial gnosis of quantity. In teachings that the aforesaid Master offered in near Caracas (Venezuela) in 1989, he illustrated the referents of the gnoses in question in the Dzogchen teachings with the symbol of a small mirror and a couple of episodes from Milarepa’s hagiography. The gnosis of quality he illustrated with the fact that a small mirror can equally reflect the smallest and the hugest of objects, just by moving it nearer the object or farther away from it; and he exemplified this gnosis’ operativeness in the nirmāṇakāya dimension of tsel energy with the great Tibetan yogin a b c d520 e Skt. sarvākārajñatā; Tib. rnam pa thams chad mkhyen pa; Ch. ⼀切種智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yīqièzhǒng zhì; Wade-Giles i -ch’ieh -chung chih ). Tib. ji lta ba mkhyen pa’i ye shes; Ch. 如理智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, rúlǐzhì; Wade-Giles, ju -li -chih ). Tib. ji snyed pa mkhyen pa’i ye shes; Ch. 如量智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, rúliángzhì; Wade-Giles, ju -liang -chih ). This is based on a definition Sera Khandro offered in Rang bzhin rdzogs pa chen po ma bsgom sangs rgyas kyi zin bris dpal ldan bla ma’i zhal rgyun nag ’gros su bkod pa tshig don rab gsal skal ldan dgyes pa’i mgul rgyan, which I reproduce in the endnote. In Dudjom Lingpa (2015, Vol. II, p. 152). This vision is called chos zad blo ’das or exhaustion of phenomena beyond concepts. a 1 4 3 4 b 2 c 3 4 2 d e 393 2 4 taking shelter from a hailstorm within a yak’s horn that lay on the ground, without reducing the size of his body or increasing that of the horn. For its part, the gnosis of quantity he illustrated with the fact that a small mirror can equally reflect a single entity or as many entities as we may wish, also by moving it nearer to the object or farther away from it; and he gave as an example of this gnosis’ occurrence in the nirmāṇakāya dimension of tsel energy, the great Tibetan yogin’s cremation, which was performed in various places although there was only one corpse (all of this will be discussed in greater detail in Vol. II of this book ). Although ordinary people would view these examples of these two gnoses in terms of Milarepa’s life and parinirvāṇa as being miraculous feats, they are not so. The great scholar-lama Gendün Chöphel wrote: a b c The Book of the Kadam[pas] says that after performing numerous [seeming] miracles such as fitting his perfect body into a small bowl, Atīśa stated, “What I showed you today, reasonclinging logicians call contradictory. If they want to take it like that, let them do so. I could swear in front of all of India and Tibet that this is how the true condition of phenomena (is).” d What those seeming feats signify is simply that the nirmāṇakāya has consolidated to the point at which it is nearly ready to transmute into a body of light —which for its part is an index of the consolidation of the indivisibility of the trikāya. The individual is now like a Universal Monarch who cannot fear anything external, for all is under her or his power—or, more precisely, there is no longer anything that seems external, for in her or him there is no sense whatsoever of being a separate self with a separate, individual will and power. In fact, the illusory mental subject and the impresion that awareness belongs to that subject have dissolved and, at the end, when all Buddha activities have been completed and the time of death would otherwise have come, if the practice that still must be undertaken is successful and the integration of nonconceptual Awake awareness into the vision —so to speak, for as just noted what has happened is that there is no longer a mental subject that seems to be a separate source of thoughts and agency or recipient of experiences—has become absolute and irreversible, the total transference (phowa chenpo ) is attained. This is possible because the essence or nature of mind depends on the physical organism—whereby it experiences, the voluntary movements of which it controls and in the heart of which it resides (so to speak)—and hence when the fourth vision of Thögel develops to the point at which the awareness in question has been fully integrated into the nature of phenomena that had been projected outside, the physical organism on which the 521 e f g h These wisdoms were explained in terms of the simile of a mirror in Namkhai Norbu (E. Capriles, Ed. unpublished); it is on the basis of this explanation that they will be discussed in Part Two of this book. Wylie, dge ’dun chos ’phel (1903–1951). Chöphel (2005); Chöphel (2016); Chöphel & Capriles (unpublished). Tib. bKa’ gdams glegs bam. Jinpa (trans. 2008). The Kadampas referred to in the title of that book are the original Kadampas founded by Atīśa Dīpaṅkara Śrijñāna; not the demon-worshipers who oppose H.H. the Dalai Lama, who were suspects in the heinous murder of the head of the School of Dialectics in Dharamsala, and who call themselves the “New Kadampas.” Compare with Patrul Rinpoché: Tib. rig pa snang bu la thim pa. Wylie, ’pho ba chen po. Skt. cittatā or citta eva; Tib. sems nyid. Skt. dharmatā; Tib. chos nyid; Ch. 法性 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎxìng; Wade-Giles, fa -hsing ). a b c d e f g h 3 394 4 essence or nature of mind depended totally dissolves, and the total transference is attained. In fact, as noted above, the fourth vision of Thögel is that of the exhaustion of phenomena beyond concepts, wherein the visions of rölpa energy cease to appear and only a mass of light remains. If the illusion of a perceiver separate from the mass of light arises no more, so that, as just noted, the essence or nature of mind that was dependent on the physical organism fully integrates into the nature of phenomena that had been projected outside and that at this point appears as the mass of light, then the physical body dissolves and the mass of light aquires the shape of the body on which the essence or nature of mind had been dependent. If the fourth vision of Thögel has not unfolded to the point at which integration is fully attained in life, but has gone beyond a given threshold, when the term of one’s life comes, the organism will go through the process of physical death, but rather than going through a lapse of unconsciousness and the intermediate state of the moment of death, one will directly continue in the intermediate state of the true condition of phenomena in which one was practicing while alive. And since in the afterlife, due to the absence of a physical body, clarity reaches an even higher degree than it had reached in the practice of Thögel while one was alive, the so-called integration of the essence or nature of mind into the true condition of phenomena will be easily completed during the first week following parinirvāṇa and one will attain the body of light. The way in which this will happen is the same as in the case of the Total Transference: visions will be replaced by a mass of light, and when the essence or nature of mind that depended on the physical organism has fully integrated into the nature of phenomena that had been projected outside and that at this point appears as the mass of light, the physical body dissolves and the mass of light aquires the shape of the body on which the essence or nature of mind had been dependent. The difference is that in the Total Transference this occurs without the individual going through the process of death and no physical remains will be left, whereas in the case of the ordinary Body of Light the dissolution of the physical body will occur after death and remains will be left behind: the hair and nails, which utterly lack sensitivity, which are always growing to the outside, and which are regarded as being in a sense “impurities.” The so-called integration of the essence or nature of mind into the true condition of phenomena signifies that the karmic traces that created and sustained the body have been absolutely neutralized or burned out and impure vision has utterly dissolved, and hence there is no longer any karmic cause for the continued appearance of a tangible body (even a b c d e f g h i j k Tib. ’pho ba chen po. Tib. chos zad blo ’das or exhaustion of phenomena beyond concepts. Skt. cittatā or citta eva; Tib. sems nyid. Skt. dharmatā; Tib. chos nyid; Ch. 法性 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎxìng; Wade-Giles, fa -hsing ). Tib. ’chi kha’i bar do. The Skt. parinirvāṇa; Pāḷi parinibbāna; Tib. yongs su mya ngan las ’das pa; Ch. 般涅槃 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bānnièpán; Wade-Giles, pan -nieh -p’an ) refers to a nirmāṇakāya’s physical death. Tib. ’od kyi sku. Skt. cittatā or citta eva; Tib. sems nyid. Skt. dharmatā; Tib. chos nyid; Ch. 法性 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎxìng; Wade-Giles, fa -hsing ). Skt. vāsanā; Tib. bag chags; Ch. 氣習 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, qìxí; Wade-Giles, ch’i -hsi ) or 習氣 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíqì; Wade-Giles, hsi -ch’i ). Tib. las snang. Though this is a synonym of ma dag las snang, the point is neither transforming impure vision into pure vision (Wylie, dag snang) nor projecting the latter over the former. a b c d 3 4 e f 1 4 2 g h i 3 j 4 2 4 k 395 4 2 though emanations of Masters who attained the body of light have been recognized along Tibetan history—which implies that compassion may still give rise to embodiements). It must be noted, however, that as will be explained in Part II of this book, these special modes of ending human existence can hardly obtain in the case of practitioners who establish themselves as teachers with many disciples, for the disciples’ violations of the Tantric or Dzogchen commitment becomes an obstacle for the exhibition of these realizations by the teacher. However, Masters who have the corresponding potential, even if they cannot exhibit the special modes of putting an end to human existence that are exclusive to the Atiyoga, will exhibit other signs that show that they have attained the corresponding potential and realization. A treasure teaching of Dudjom Lingpa reads: a b ...When there is no fragmentation of the panoramic sweep of rigpa, indwelling confidence is acquired in your own rigpa. Still, that by itself will not bring you to Awakening. When phenomenal appearances have been extinguished into the absolute condition, there is an infinite expansion into the total, allencompassing sphere of the absolute, empty expanse where phenomena manifest, devoid of even a trace of the appearances and mindsets of saṃsāra. You have reached the state of liberation. Within this realization, even the subtlest of obstacles of cognitive delusive obstruction have been utterly cleared away, and mastery is gained over the total primordial gnosis that realizes reality as it (is) and is aware of the full range of phenomena. So you achieve Buddhahood in the dharmakāya, which is like space, and the three kāyas arise as displays of uniform pervasiveness. c d And Sera Khandro comments: e At this time, with your body like a corpse living in a charnel ground, even if you were surrounded by a hundred assassins, there would be no fear or trepidation. With your speech responding to others like an echo, the movements of energy winds of your voice are naturally released into their own place of rest. With your mind like a rainbow disappearing into the sky, phenomenal appearances are extinguished into the absolute condition; and there is an infinite expansion into the total, all-encompassing sphere of the absolute, empty expanse where phenomena manifest —primordial purity, free of conceptual fabrications and devoid of even a trace of the appearances and mindsets of saṃsāra. You have then reached the state of liberation. At this time there are three levels: Optimally, dreams are purified in the clear light, which uninterruptedly pervades all your experiences throughout day and night. Next best is to recognize the dream state for what it is, leading to such abilities as emanating within and transforming dreams. At the very least, bad dreams cease altogether and you have only good dreams, such as dreams of seeing deities and buddhafields, drawing maṇḍalas, bestowing empowerments upon others, and teaching the dharma, for negative habitual propensities have been extinguished... f Skt. samaya; Tib. dam tshig; Ch. 三摩耶 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānmóyé; Wade-Giles, san -mo -ye ). Dudjom Lingpa, Buddhahood without meditation (Rang bzhin rdzogs pa chen po’i rang zhal mngon du byed pa’i gdams pa ma bsgom sangs rgyas). Alternative translations in Dudjom Lingpa (1994, p. 169-170) and Dudjom Lingpa (2015, pp. 41-2 and 268). Skt. dharmadhātu; Tib. chos dbyings; Chin. 法界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, făjiè; Wade-Giles, fa -chieh ). Skt. jñeyāvaraṇa; Pāḷi: ñeyyavāvaraṇa; Tib. shes [bya’i] sgrib [pa]; Ch. 所知障 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn suǒzhīzhàng; Wade-Giles so -chih -chang ). In Rang bzhin rdzogs pa chen po ma bsgom sangs rgyas kyi zin bris dpal ldan bla ma’i zhal rgyun nag ’gros su bkod pa tshig don rab gsal skal ldan dgyes pa’i mgul rgyan. In Dudjom Lingpa (2015, Vol. II, pp. 269270). The terminology was adapted to the one used in this book and minor modifications to the translation were made. Skt. dharmadhātu; Tib. chos dbyings; Chin. 法界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, făjiè; Wade-Giles, fa -chieh ). a 1 2 2 b c 3 4 3 4 d 3 1 4 e f 396 For those with superior faculties, even the subtlest of obstacles of cognitive delusive obstructions are completely cleared away within seven days; for those with middling faculties, six months; and for those with inferior faculties, within one year. Then you gain mastery over the Base by means of the primordial gnosis that realizes reality as it (is). Due to gaining mastery over the Path by means of the primordial gnosis that is aware of the full range of phenomena, (there manifest) the dharmakāya, essential nature of emptiness, the saṃbhogakāya unimpeded nature of spontaneous perfection / actualization / rectification / accomplishment, and the nirmāṇakāya, as unimpeded displays of omnipresent energy. For your own sake, you realize the state of dharmakāya in the total expanse of the uniformly pervasive three kāyas, and you become a Buddha. For the sake of others, by means of the rūpakāyas, you arise as the great saṃbhogakāya of absolute space until the three realms of saṃsāra are empty. Emerging from this are the nirmāṇakāyas and saṃbhogakāyas, the six sages that subdue living beings, and the one who reveals the way of the Buddhas, such as Śākyamuni, by way of the twelve Awake deeds of a supreme nirmāṇakāya. In addition you reveal created nirmāṇakāyas, living-being nirmāṇakāyas, material nirmāṇakāyas, and so on, appearing in whatever ways are needed to train sentient beings. In these ways you perfectly perform the deeds of a Buddha, in which your own well-being and that of others are perfected in the vast ability to serve the needs of the world. a b It should be clear by now that—as noted in the section called “The Fruit in the Anuttarayogatantras of the Sarmapa and in the Inner Tantras of the Nyingmapa”—in the Series of oral or pith instruction of Atiyoga the sequence of realization begins with the dharmakāya, goes on with the saṃbhogakāya, and concludes with the nirmāṇakāya and the indivisibility of the three kāyas, so that it is the inverse of the one established in the Tantric vehicles of the Path of Transformation, which is nirmāṇakāya > saṃbhogakāya > dharmakāya > svabhāvikāya. And that this apparent contradiction is due to the fact that the terms nirmāṇakāya, saṃbhogakāya, dharmakāya and svabhāvikāya do not have the same referents in this series of Ati Dzogpa Chenpo as in lower vehicles. In fact, that which is glimpsed in the Direct Introduction of Dzogchen is that which becomes patent and operative as the final stage of realization of the Tantric Path, which in the latter is called svabhāvikāya, but which in Ati Dzogpa Chenpo may be explained as the realization of the true condition of the essence aspect of the Base and of the dang mode of manifestation of energy in a transparent, unimpeded, unobstructed primordial gnosis that reveals the dharmakāya—which, as noted repeatedly, (is) the true condition of both the aspect of the Base and the form of manifestation of energy in question. For their part, the subsequent levels of realization, which in the Dzogchen Series of pith instructions are called saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya, go far beyond anything that may be attained through the practice of other vehicles or Paths. The point is that, just as the Path of Renunciation culminates in the realization of emptiness, which is the starting point of the Path of Transformation, the latter culminates in the realization of rigpa that is the very starting point of the Path of Spontaneous Liberation—which leads far beyond the points of arrival of all other Paths and vehicles. This should not be taken to signify that first one has to follow the c d e Skt. jñeyāvaraṇa; Pāḷi: ñeyyavāvaraṇa; Tib. shes [bya’i] sgrib [pa]; Ch. 所知障 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn suǒzhīzhàng; Wade-Giles so -chih -chang ). Lit. compassion: Tib. thugs rje; Skt. karuṇā. Explanation in the term in other footnotes. Wylie, gdangs. The term energy refers to the aspect of the Base called thugs rje; cf. the explanation in other footnotes. Tib. ye shes zang thal. a 3 1 4 b c d e 397 Path of Renunciation until emptiness is realized, and then tread the Path of Transformation until rigpa is attained, so as to be able to set foot on the Path of Spontaneous Liberation: if this were the case, Dzogchen Ati would not be a fast Path. On the contrary, as already shown, the Path of Self-Liberation has powerful means to gain Direct introduction and Not remain in doubt, so that practitioners may Continue in the state of rigpa in the properly Dzogchen way. Therefore, there can be no doubt that, in the case of those having the appropriate capacity, the Path of Spontaneous Liberation can lead to a far more complete realization in a much shorter time. As also noted, in the Mahāyāna the two Buddha-bodies—the dharmakāya and the rūpakāya (the latter consisting, as we have seen, of saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya)—are held to be the result of the accumulations of merits and knowledge, respectively. In the Mahāyogatantra this vision is maintained to a certain degree, for it is said that in the final level, which in this vehicle is the thirteenth, which is called the cakra of letters (or, more precisely, the immutable maṇḍala: cf. the discussion of the term akṣara in endnote 444), despite the fact that the condition represented with letters is acknowledged to be immutable and empty, the maṇḍala of symbolic attributes is held to be the result of the accumulation of merits. In the Atiyogatantra such causal relationships are not established, for it is the Path beyond the cause-effect relation, in which realization is the actionless result of the spontaneous perfection aspect of the Base applied as Path; therefore, in Ati the Fruit is genuinely unborn, unconditioned, unproduced, nonfabricated, unmade and uncompounded, as such being the only definitive solution to the duḥkha that is the first noble truth and the avidyā that is the second noble truth: it (is) Buddhahood, which as the teachings of all Buddhist vehicles and paths agree, is alone unborn, unconditioned, uncompounded, nonfabricated, unmade and unproduced. In fact, the causally obtained rūpakāya of Mahāyoga, which is held to arise as such in the level of the immutable maṇḍala (or “level of the cakra of letters”), is not at all the same as the spontaneous rūpakāya of Atiyoga, which is beyond origination and that does not manifest in the thirteenth level, for it is the result of a further development of realization that cannot be attained through Mahāyogatantra. What about the Fruit of Anuyogatantra, which involves going beyond the level of the immutable maṇḍala (or of the “cakra of letters”) and, according to various Anuyoga and Atiyoga sources, attaining a fourteenth level that is called Great Bliss ? (Anuyoga sources sometimes speak of twenty-one levels, but those levels have no equivalents in the levels enumerated in Dzogchen texts—for that classification arose in order to emphasize correspondences that are proper to the Anuyoga—and hence this number is not used when Anuyoga is compared with Dzogchen Ati.) As shown in the section on this Tantric vehicle, the latter is flawed in its concept of the Fruit as being the result of a cause, and thus the Fruit in question falls short of the spontaneously accomplished, uncaused Fruit of Dzogchen Ati. In fact, even if one attains the Fruit of the Anuyoga, still one will need to practice Dzogchen and, if one intends the highest Dzogchen reaclization, at some point enter, while 522 a 523 b 524 c a b c d d Skt. bhūmi; Tib. sa; Ch. 地 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dì; Wade-Giles, ti ). Tib. lhun grub; Skt. nirābogha or anābogha. Skt. bhūmi; Tib. sa; Ch. 地 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dì; Wade-Giles, ti ). Tib. bde [ba] chen [po]; Skt. mahāsukha; Ch. ⼤樂 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dàlè; Wade-Giles, ta -le ). 4 4 4 398 4 alive, the intermediate state of the true condition of phenomena in order to practice Thögel and/or the Yangti / Yangthik—thereby attaining the true, spontaneous Fruit of Atiyoga. As already noted, unlike other vehicles and Paths, the Dzogchen teachings often speak of one single level, comparing the yogin or yoginī with a garuḍa bird that, upon hatching out, is fully developed: the state that becomes patent in the direct Introduction that marks the outset of the Path of Atiyoga is not substantially different from the Awakening that is the final Fruit of this Path. However, as noted above, in Dzogchen Atiyoga that state may unfold far beyond the arrival point of Mahāyoga and Anuyoga, until the illusory cleavage into a subject in an internal dimension and a world in an external dimension is definitively and irreversibly eradicated. This is why, in terms of a perspective other than that which establishes a single level, the Rigpa Rangshar Tantra (one of the root texts of the Ati Series of pith instructions ) states that in this vehicle it is possible to reach three levels beyond the final goal of Mahāyogatantra and two beyond that of Anuyogatantra: it is possible to reach a fifteenth level, designated as “Vajradhāra level,” and a sixteenth level, known as the “level of supreme primordial gnosis” (however, even when the Path is explained in terms of this multi-level optics, the individual does not need to go through the levels in the gradual way typical of the Mahāyāna, for progress on the Path can also happen in such a way as to make it impossible to pinpoint the precise level the individual is going through at any given moment). The fifteenth level referred to by the Rigpa Rangshar is one in which one goes through the intermediate state of the true condition of phenomena (since in Ati the ultimate realization is attained in a single lifetime, it is clear that this refers to practices such as Thögel and the Yangthik / Yangti, which are carried out in that intermediate state while the organism is clinically alive), and the unsurpassable Fruit that it identifies as the sixteenth level is the final attainment of the practice of Thögel or the Yangthik / Yangti. At any rate, progress on the Dzogchen Series of space and the Dzogchen Series of pith instructions —including Tekchö and the Nyingthik, and Thögel and the Yangthik—is not measured in terms of paths or levels, but in terms of four successive visions, the third of which is called “the Vision of the full measure of rigpa.” As already noted, this name is due to the fact that, even though rigpa becomes patent upon Direct Introduction or, which is the same, from the very outset of the Path, it becomes fully patent and operative when this Third Vision is attained—which, by slightly modifying a simile used above in a slightly ampler context, could be compared to seeing something through a very small hole bored through a plank of wood or seeing it after removing the plank of wood: even though that which was to be seen was seen through the hole, it is only perceived in its totality and with absolute clarity only when the plank of wood is removed. a b 525 c d e526 f g h Tib. lhun grub; Skt. nirābogha or anābogha. Tib. sa gcig pa. Wylie, rig pa rang shar chen po’i rgyud. Skt. Upadeśavarga; Tib. Man ngag [gyi] sde. Cf. Tibetan Text 5, as well as Tibetan Text 11. Skt. dharmatā antarābhava; Tib. chos nyid bar do; Ch. 法性中有 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎxìng zhōngyǒu; WadeGiles, fa -hsing chung -yu ). Tib. kLong sde; Skt. Abhyantaravarga. Skt. Upadeśavarga; Tib. Man ngag [gyi] sde. a b c d e f 3 4 1 3 g h 399 For its part, as already noted, the fourth vision is called “exhaustion of phenomena beyond concepts” or “vision of the exhaustion of reality.” When this fourth vision unfolds beyond a threshold, the yogin or yoginī attains extremely high realizations that culminate in three special modes of death, and when the vision in question reaches its apogee, whoever attains this realization will not undergo the process of death of the material body at the end of his or her life. Among these ways of putting an end to material existence, below are discussed the three modes of death in which the sensitive parts of the body dissolve within a period of seven days after physical death has occurred and only the insensitive parts (nails and hair) remain: (1) The rainbow body or jalü , which results from the “mode of death of the ḍākinīs,” proper to those who have attained the highest realization resulting from the practice of the Vajrabridge or Dorje Zampa pertaining to the Dzogchen Series of space, which occurs when all Buddha activities have been completed by those who, through the practice of this system, have reached or gone beyond a threshold in the development of the fourth vision of Dzogchen. This precise realization has not been attained for several centuries, from which I have inferred that the exacerbation of delusion might have made the methods of Longdé incapable of bearing such fruit in our time. However, the practices of the Space series continue to be most effective for practitioners who remain in doubt regarding Direct Introduction, in order to dispel their doubts and in this way enable them to continue in the state of rigpa by means of the practices of the Series of pith instructions. This realization should not be confused with the so-called “rainbow body” resulting from specific Tantric practices of the Path of Transformation, which is not at all equivalent, as the latter does not involve dissolution of the physical body or a realization going beyond the state of Direct Introduction of Dzogchen. (2) The body of infinitesimal particles, which results from the “mode of death of holders of nonconceptual, nondual Awake awareness,” proper to those who have attained the highest realization resulting from the practice of Tekchö or the Nyingthik—which, as it is clear by now, belong to the Dzogchen Series of Pith Instructions. After death, the body will dissolve into infinitesimal particles, and hence this mode of death will not result in a nirmāṇakāya body of rölpa energy that may continue to give teachings to those able to perceive the energy in question and to receive teachings from bodies of light and rainbow bodies. This realization is compared to the breaking of a closed vase, upon which the internal space or dimension and the external space or dimension fuse. Since no one has attained this realization in a very long time, as in the preceding case, I infer that that the exacerbation of delusion might have made Tekchö and the Nyingthik alone incapable of bearing such fruit in our time. (3) The body of light, which results from the mode of death called “self-consuming like a a b 527 c d e f g h Tib. chos zad blo ’das. Tib. chos nyid zad pa’i snang ba. Tib. ’ja’ lus. Tib. mkha’ ’gro [ma]; Ch. 荼枳尼 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, túzhǐní; Wade-Giles, t’u -chih -ni ). Tib. rdo rje zam pa. Tib. lus rdul phran du dengs. Skt. vidyādhara; Tib. rig ’dzin; Ch. 持明 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chímíng; Wade-Giles, ch’ih -ming ; Jap. jimyō; Kor. chimyŏng). In Pāḷi, vijjādhara. Tib. ’od kyi sku or ’od phung. a b c d 2 3 2 e f g 2 h 400 2 fire,” proper to those practitioners of Thögel and/or the Yangthik / Yangti who have gone beyond a threshold in the development of the fourth vision of Dzogchen, and thus attain the second highest level of realization that can result from these practices. The body in question—which is very often called “rainbow body” as well—is a nirmāṇakāya body of rölpa energy that has the power of continuing to give teachings to those able to perceive the energy in question and to receive teachings from such bodies of light. This is the only one among these special modes of death that continues to be attained in our time; therefore, this is the only one that we can be absolutely certain we have the effective possibility of attaining (however, I discussed all three because it was important to list all three special modes of death; these modes of death were also discussed in Capriles [2000a, 2003, 2013 vol. II], and will be briefly discussed once more in Vol. II of this book). Finally, the realization resulting in deathlessness is: (4) The total transference, sometimes called total transference [into the] rainbow body, which does not involve going through the process of death, which occurs by means of the mode of ending life called “invisible like space,” and which results from the highest level of realization in the practices of Thögel and/or the Yangthik: the one in which the fourth vision reaches its apogee and culmination. The ensuing nirmāṇakāya body of rölpa energy is also known as Vajra Body, which is how Padmasambhava’s and Vimalamitra’s current light bodies are referred to in the teachings. Like the body of light that is the fruit of the third of the realizations discussed above, this body of light involves an active function, for those who attain it can manifest as visions to those most advanced Dzogchen practitioners who are capable of perceiving the energy in question, and offer them the teachings that they or their contemporary fellow practitioners require. In this realization, once the yogins or yoginīs complete their Buddha-activities in this world, and in front of their disciples if they have them, offer their final teaching and advise, and then their flesh and bone bodies dissolve into rainbow light leaving no remains whatsoever, for even the hair and nails disappear when the physical body dissolves. To my knowledge, the last yogin to reach this realization was Jetsun Senge Wangchuk, who lived in the eleventh and twelfth centuries CE. (This attainment of deathlessness was also discussed in Capriles [2000a, 2003, 2013 vol. II], and will also be briefly discussed in Vol. II of this book). a b c d e a b c d e Tib. me dpung. Tib. ’pho ba chen po. Tib. ’ja’ lus pho ba chen po. Tib. rdo rje’i sku. Wylie, lCe btsun seng ge dbang phyug. 401 LAM-RIM: THE “GRADED PATH” No Tibetan tradition pertains to the Hīnayāna, and yet all Tibetan traditions teach and practice what may be viewed as a Hīnayāna stage in various versions of that which is called the graded path or path by stages. In fact, in this approach, the practitioner successively goes through what may be viewed as a Hīnayāna stage, a Mahāyāna stage, and a Vajrayāna stage, and realization is supposed to be reached as the practices of the Vajrayāna are brought to fruition. In each of the stages the yogin or yoginī engages in a set of practices corresponding to the vehicle being practiced; however, the tenets on which the graded path as a whole is based, as well as the aim it pursues, are rooted on the common ground that the Mahāyāna shares with the Vajra vehicles. The lamrim tradition was initiated when Atīśa Dīpaṅkara Śrijñāna, while still in India, wrote the Bodhipathapradīpa, acclaimed by his peers at Vikramaśīla University. Then, in Tibet, it was emphasized by the members of the original, true Kadampa School, founded by Atīśa’s disciples, as well as by the members of the Kagyu School, for the founder of the monastic branch of this tradition, Gampopa, who had been a Kadampa, developed this approach in the noted treatise, The Jewel Ornament of Liberation, which presented a quite universal form of a graded path. Later on, Je Tsongkhapa, founder of the Gelugpa School, which claimed to have given continuity to the Kadampa School, gave rise to the variant of this tradition that he turned into the backbone of Buddhist practice in the Gelug school. (Note that although the Gelug school sees itself as the heir of the Kadampa tradition and as giving continuity to the latter’s teachings, Tsongkhapa’s radically reformed version of Prāsaṅgika contradicted Atīśa’s understanding of the philosophy of that school of tenets, and the founder of the Gelug School also incorporated many of the Tantric teachings and views Marpa Lotsawa had introduced to Tibet, as well as other of the teachings he received.) Although primordial revealer Garab Dorje, introducer of Buddhist Dzogchen into our world, did not teach Dzogchen as the culmination of previous teachings, but directly, as a self-contained vehicle or path, and although at the time of the first dissemination of the doctrine in Tibet the graded path had not even arisen in India, with the passing of time even the Nyingmapas incorporated it into their teachings, producing a b c d e f g h Skt. mārgakrama or pathakrama; Tib. lam rim—lit. path (by) steps (as the steps in a staircase). Tib. Byang chub lam gyi sgron ma. sGam po pa: Gampopa Sönam Rinchen (Wylie, sGam po pa bsod nams rin chen: 1079-1153). Tib. Dvags po thar rgyan or Dam chos yid bzhin nor bu rin po che’i rgyan. Capriles (unpublished 1). Wylie, mar pa lo tsa ba: Marpa Chökyi Lodrö (Wylie, Mar pa chos kyi blo gros: 1012-1097 or 1099). ston pa. The term ston pa literally means “Revealer;” however, the term does not refer to those who reveal termas (Wylie, gter ma) attributed to Padmasambhava, but to those who reveal a complete system of Awakening at a time when previous systems have disappeared. Therefore, it is properly rendered as “Primordial Revealer.” Wylie, dGa’ rab rdo rje. a b c d e f g h 403 elaborate expositions of their own versions of the graded Path—which with the passing of time have become standard presentations of the Nyingma teachings, even though some outstanding Masters have continued to teach in the way proper to the original Nyingmapas. Atīśa’s lamrim teachings were structured in terms of a set of mind trainings that comprised many points. Geshe Chekawa, direct disciple of Geshe Potowa (the renowned direct disciple of Atīśa), put these mind trainings into writing, and then Chekawa’s main disciple, Sechilphuwa (Özer Shyönnu) Chökyi Gyaltsen, arranged them into seven points, giving rise to what became known as the “seven mind trainings” or seven lojong. These were: 1. The preliminaries to mind training 2. The main practice of training the mind in the mind of Awakening 3. Transforming adversity into the Path of Awakening 4. Applying the practice throughout one’s whole life 5. The measure or signs of proficiency in mind training 6. The commitments of mind training 7. The precepts of mind training The essence of the Hīnayāna stage that, as noted above, is the first in the most widely known forms of the graded Path, is the taking of Refuge (which will be considered further on). This stage comprises the practice of the preliminaries to mind training above listed as (1), which are the famed “four reflections that cause the mind to turn away from saṃsāra and strive for nirvāṇa.” Among these reflections, the first two, which are interrelated, are: (a) reflection on the preciousness of the human existence and the great difficulty of obtaining it, and (b) reflection on the impermanence of all that is born or produced. The sequence of these two reflections is owing to the fact that the second would not have the desired effect if one were not already conscious of the opportunities a precious human existence offers and of how difficult it is to obtain a human birth: their combination is said to have the function of “spurring the horse of diligence with the riding crop of impermanence.” The next two are also interrelated—which is the reason why a Nyingmapa tradition compiled by the great Dzogchen Master Longchen Rabjampa reversed the order in which Atīśa taught them, placing as (c) the reflection on the unsatisfactory nature and suffering of saṃsāra and its different realms, and as (d) the reflection on the law of cause and effect: the latter will be truly effective only if and when one is already aware of the inherently unsatisfactory nature of saṃsāra and of the sufferings that characterize each and all of its realms. Although these four reflections are essential elements in both the general ngöndro (course of preliminary practices) transmitted by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu and a b c d e 528 f g h Tib. blo sbyong. Chekawa Yeshe Dorje (Wylie, ’Chad kha ba Ye shes rdo rje) (1101-1175). Wylie, Se spyil du pa chos kyi rgyal mtshan (1121-1189 CE). Tib. blo sbyong [don] bdun [ma]. e Skt. bodhicitta; Tib. byang chub [kyi] sems; Ch. 菩提⼼ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, pútíxīn; Wade-Giles, p’u -t’i hsin ; Jap. bodaishin). Wylie, kLong chen rab ’byams pa. For an exposition in English, see Longchenpa (trans. and annot. H. V. Guenther, 1975, vol. I). Wylie, sngon ’gro. a b c d 2 1 f g h 404 2 in the Base level of the same Master’s Santimahasamgha graded course of teachings and practices, in his regular teachings the Dzogchen Master in question insists that what is essential is not to be always reflecting on these four elements, but to keep a keen, constant awareness of them throughout one’s everyday activities and life. Moreover, since this way of presenting the “four reflections” was developed in Tibet, where everyone accepted rebirth at face value, and this is not the case in the West—where only a minority of people belief in rebirth—a way to make this graded way of teaching work for everyone will have to be devised. In all cycles of Dzogchen Nyingthik teachings, there is a series of successive practices having the same aim as the four reflections—i.e. that of causing one’s mind to become integrated with the meaning of the teaching —that also received the name of the seven mind trainings or lojongs, but that incorporated into the seventh mind training a set of three practices pertaining to the most essential division of the most direct series of Dzogchen teachings—though they incorporate elements proper to the Tantric Path of Transformation, adapted to the Dzogchen mode of practicing —that offer practitioners an opportunity to have a first glimpse of rigpa. Therefore, although these trainings fulfill the purpose of the Hīnayāna stage of the graded Path, they go far beyond this stage, reaching up to the Atiyoga. Regarding these trainings, which do not depend to such an extent on the belief on rebirth in order to produce their effects—and which would be discussed in detail in Vol. III of this book, should I finally add that third tome to the present book—the Master Chögyal Namkhai Norbu wrote: a b529 530 531 c Among all the series of mind trainings used as basic practices in Ati Dzogpa Chenpo the ‘seven mind trainings’ belonging to the texts of Dzogchen Nyingthik are distinguished because they are easier for beginners to apply than those of other systems and at the same time are also more effective. These are: 1. Training the mind in the thought that all that is made, fabricated, produced, contrived, intentional, conditioned and / or compounded is impermanent. 2. Training the mind in the thought that all actions are a cause of suffering. 3. Training the mind in the thought of how we are beguiled by diverse secondary causes. 4. Training the mind in the thought that all worldly actions are meaningless. 5. Training the mind by reflecting on the Fruit of supreme liberation. 6. Training the mind by reflecting on the value of the teachings of one’s teacher. 7. Training the mind by means of meditative stability of the state beyond thought. Whoever practices these seven trainings will easily succeed, first of all to enter the deep and swift Path of Atiyoga, then to put into practice without difficulty its fundamental points, and finally to integrate their mind with the teaching. Thanks to their qualities and special d The diacritics for transliterations of Oḍḍiyāna language are unknown to me; Skt. Mahāsaṅdhisaṃgha; Tib. rdzogs chen dge ’dun. Wylie, rdzogs chen snying thig. Namkhai Norbu (1999/2001, pp. 39-40). In point 1, I replaced “compounded” with the phrase “made, fabricated, produced, contrived, intentional, conditioned and / or compounded,” as the Tibetan term ’dus byas embraces the meaning of all of these English words; in point 2, I replaced “the cause of suffering” with “a cause of suffering;” in point 4, the phrase “all the actions of this life” was replaced by “all worldly actions,” which I believed would convey the idea more precisely. Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). a b c d 3 405 2 functions, all Atiyoga teachers in recent times are accustomed to usher beginners into the Ati teaching through the practice of these seven trainings. The Hīnayāna stage of the graded path is followed by a Mahāyāna stage that comprises the essence of the second point—and also of the remaining five—of the seven mind trainings as listed by Sechilphuwa (Özer Shyönnu) Chökyi Gyaltsen, for its emphasis is on training in the mind of Awakening: developing the intention proper to the relative mind of Awakening, carrying out the above discussed practices of the four Immeasurables of the bodhicitta of intention, and applying in one’s everyday life the also discussed six or ten transcendences of the bodhicitta of action. These will not be considered here, as they were briefly outlined in the discussion of the Mahāyāna qua vehicle. At this point it suffices to emphasize the fact that, in order to incorporate the Bodhisattvayāna’s principle into a Dzogchen adept’s practice, whenever one is functioning in the relative condition and lacks the possibility to liberate the condition in question into rigpa, the key point is to check one’s intention each and every time one decides to act, so that if the intention is selfish or injurious, one abstains from acting on the basis of that intention and change it into an altruistic one. Therefore, this application of the Bodhisattvayāna’s principle may be said to be an application of the dualistic presence / mindfulness of sensible / responsible conscientiousness / awareness . In Tibet, with the passing of time, on the basis of the graded path there arose the set of preliminary practices known as ngöndro, which begins with a Hīnayāna stage, then comprises a Mahāyāna stage, continues with a Vajrayāna stage in which one initially does specific practices belonging to the outer or lower Tantras with the purpose of completing the accumulation of merits and wise knowledge, purifying obstacles and obscurations, and receiving blessings. It is only after completing these practices, thereby accumulating merits, purifying karma and receiving blessings, that a practitioner is allowed to apply the teachings of the inner or higher Tantras. In particular, in Tibetan schools, most teachers require that their disciples complete at least one full course of the preparatory practices before for giving them initiations and teachings of inner or higher Tantra. Note that if one is to practice the ngöndro, one must receive teachings from one’s teacher on the specific ngöndro that corresponds to his or her lineage and teachings. a b c d e Skt. paramita; Tib. phar phyin or, in full, pha rol tu phyin pa; Ch. 波羅蜜 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bōluómì; Wade-Giles, po -luo -mi ). Dualistic presence / mindfulness renders the Skt. smṛti; Pāḷi sati; Tib. dran pa; Ch. 念 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, niàn; Wade-Giles, nien ). Sensible / responsible conscientiousness / awareness renders the Skt. saṃprajanya; Pāḷi sampajañña; Tib. shes bzhin; Ch. 正知 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhèngzhī; Wade-Giles, cheng -chih ); Jap. shōchi; Kor. chŏngji. Dualistic presence / mindfulness of sensible / responsible conscientiousness / awareness renders the Skt. smṛtisaṃprajanya; Pāḷi satisampajañña; Tib. dran pa dang shes bzhin; Ch. 正念慧 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhèngniànhuì; Wade-Giles, cheng -nien -hui ). Chögyal Namkhai Norbu render this phrase into Italian as presenza della consapevolezza. Wylie, sngon ’gro; Skt. pūrvaka (note that the sngon ’gro in its current form was developed in Tibet; the Sanskrit term did not refer to a universally preestablished course of specific practices corresponding to the current sngon ’gro). a 1 2 4 b 4 c 4 d d 4 4 4 e 406 1 ORIGIN, VALIDITY AND LINEAGES OF TRANSMISSION OF THE THREE PATHS The most ancient form of teachings and practices that from the outset bore the label “Buddhist” are those of the Sūtrayāna that make up the Path of Renunciation. Although the Hīnayāna negates that the Mahāyāna was taught by Buddha Śākyamuni, the Mahāyāna asserts that its teachings had their source in the Sage, although it does acknowledge that in most cases they were spoken by mouth of attending bodhisattvas after having been empowered by the Buddha to do so (a way of teaching that will be discussed below). For its part, as already noted, the Sudden Mahāyāna affirms that Awake awareness was “transmitted” directly by Śākyamuni to Mahākāśyapa without uttering a single word in the event known as the Silent Sermon. Thus each of the vehicles of this Path affirms that its source was Śākyamuni Buddha, who manifested at the material level in the nirmāṇakāya dimension: according to the Tibetan tradition of the gradual Mahāyāna, which is based on the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra, by means of the three successive Promulgations that gave rise to the texts that form the canonical basis of the Path of Renunciation (the most ancient written texts of this Path being those of the First Promulgation); according to the Sudden Mahāyāna, by means of one single, silent transmission occurring through the physical nirmāṇakāya level, even though the transmission itself took place at the level of mind. However, agreement is not unanimous with regard to the other two Paths and six vehicles (which are not listed as Buddhist Paths and vehicles in ordinary canonical sources or commentaries of the Sūtrayāna and hence are not accepted as Buddhist by followers of the Path of Renunciation, except in the case of some followers of the sudden Mahāyāna). According to the general teachings of the Nyingmapa, the three inner Tantras that make up this system’s highest category (Ati, Anu and Mahā) were “transmitted” in a nondual manner (i.e. without a transmission properly speaking, for transmitter and receiver were in the single nonconceptual, nondual Awake awareness) from dharmakāya to saṃbhogakāya, and then passed from the saṃbhogakāya to the nirmāṇakāya—thus being held to have the dharmakāya as their common source. The same teachings claim that the three outer Tantras arose through the saṃbhogakāya’s symbolic transmission, and that the Sūtrayāna arose through the oral explanations of the nirmāṇakāya and in particular of the Buddha Śākyamuni. 532 533 534 535 407 Thus, these general teachings assert the three inner Tantras to have had their source in the dharmakāya. The Gongpa Düpa Gyü, fundamental root Tantra of the Anuyoga, reads: 536 a b The dimension of dharmakāya is like space, its name is “total pervasiveness,” and the teacher is Samantabhadra, who transmits the teaching through the nonconceptual dimension and through the three inner Tantras [(which are Mahā, Anu and Ati)]. In the Akaniṣṭha palace of [the Buddha] Vairocana, like a King, the saṃbhogakāya teaches the bodhisattvas the three series of outer Tantras—Kriyā, Ubhaya and Yoga—by means of the symbols of the manifestation it has embodied. South of Jambudvīpa [(our world)], the nirmāṇakāya Śākyamuni took on the form of a śrāvaka and taught various disciples the three sections (piṭaka) of Sūtra, Vinaya and Abhidharma, transmitting the teaching through the three analytical (i.e. Sūtrayāna) vehicles. c For its part, the Kunje Gyalpo, fundamental root Tantra of the Semdé series of Ati Dzogpa Chenpo, reads: d e From the self-arisen awareness of the One who creates all—that is, Myself—there arise the three natures (i.e. essence or ngowo, nature or rangzhin, and energy or thukje), which manifest as the Masters of the three dimensions: [respectively] the dharmakāya, the saṃbhogakāya and the nirmāṇakāya. Concerning the nature of these three dimensions… the dharmakāya is the natural beginningless condition that transcends subject and object; the saṃbhogakāya is perfect enjoyment [of] the desirable riches [that are my own qualifications]; the nirmāṇakāya is taking on any [possible physical] form in order to teach. The teaching of the Masters of the three dimensions manifests in three aspects, [which are the] secret, [the] inner and [the] outer. The teaching of the dharmakāya Master is revealed in the nature of the “three secrets,” which are called “secret” because they are not accessible to everyone: from the pure nature of the Base there arise the three aspects of [the] secret generation [stage that is the essence of Mahāyoga], [the] secret completion [stage that is the essence of Anuyoga], and [the] secret total completeness and perfection [that is essence of Atiyoga]. The secret teaching [of Mahāyoga], in which the three stages [consisting in the contemplation of the essential nature, the contemplation of total vision, and the contemplation of the cause] are generated from nothingness, is called “secret generation.” In the teaching [of Anuyoga], called “secret completion,” [by] developing inner prajñā one does not conceptualize the three contemplations, and all phenomena that manifest in perception during inner contemplation are said to be the essence of prajñā: having visualized one’s pure mind as the original deity, without dualism between view and behavior, beyond acceptance and rejection, the vajra sensory bases of the body are defined as “the nature of total I-ness:” this is called “secret completion.” Wylie, dgongs pa ’dus pa rgyud. Namkhai Norbu and Clemente (English 1999, p. 22; see also note 16, p. 264). Adriano Clemente took the quotation from the Colophon of Tibetan Text 14, attributed to Longchen Rabjampa (Wylie, kLong chen rab ’byams pa). Reproduced with slight modifications in order to adapt the terminology to the one used in this book. Tib. ’Og min. The term means “the highest” and designates the pure dimension in which various teachings arose (so that different types of Akaniṣṭha are spoken of according to different manifestations of wisdom). Wylie, kun byed rgyal po. Tibetan Text 23, 48-22b, 5. a b c d e 408 Concerning the teaching of secret total completeness and perfection [corresponding to the vehicle of Atiyoga], all existent phenomena are not transformed into [the primordial state of] bodhicitta by means of the three contemplations, nor are they perfected by reciting the essential syllable [of the deity]: I, who creates all, am total completeness and perfection because there is nothing in me that is not complete and perfect. My nature manifests in three aspects [which are] the three bodhicittas of total completeness and perfection (i.e. are essence, nature and energy): this is called “total secret completeness [and perfection].” This is the teaching of the dharmakāya Master. However, as already noted, according to the classification of the Nyingmapas’ nine vehicles into Paths of Renunciation, Path of Transformation and Path of SelfLiberation or Spontaneous Liberation expounded in the Kathang Dennga and the Samten Migdrön, the first Path, which responds mainly to the bodily, physical aspect of human individuals, the true nature of which is the nirmāṇakāya, came into the human world through the nirmāṇakāya Śākyamuni. The second Path, which responds chiefly to the vocal and energetic aspect of human beings, the true nature of which is the saṃbhogakāya, arrived in the human world via saṃbhogakāya manifestations. Finally, the third Path, which responds mainly to the mind aspect of individuals, the true nature of which is the dharmakāya, came to the human world directly through the dharmakāya—for, as already noted, since its methods work at the level of mind, there was no need for the first human links to have visions that subsequently would become methods of the practice—and since there is a single dharmakāya, this came to pass without a transmission properly speaking. Thus, the explanation of the origin of the three Inner Tantras (Ati, Anu and Mahā) in both the Kathang Dennga and the Samten Migdrön differs from the most widespread explanations, according to which the three vehicles in question arose through the dharmakāya. In fact, the Kathang Dennga and the Samten Migdrön coincide with the claim, made in the above quotations, that the source of Atiyoga is the dharmakāya, but make the point that the supreme Master Garab Dorje did not need as mediation the vision of a saṃbhogakāya deity, for he simply remained in the state of dharmakāya beyond the duality between one who transmits and another who receives the transmission. The assertion that the Anuyoga and Mahāyoga had their source in the saṃbhogakāya, is due to the fact that they arose when the true nature of the elements and their functions manifested in the dimension of the energy of the great adepts or mahāsiddhas who were the first human links of each of the Tantras, as a given saṃbhogakāya deity in the pure dimension of his or her maṇḍala (in which the various types of energy, the five elements, the five aggregates and all functions of the mahāsiddha’s existence are personified as deities): in this case, these great adepts may be said to somehow have received transmission through the manifestation of the deity. With regard to the latter, Chögyal Namkhai Norbu notes: 537 a The Tantric teachings [that constitute the Path of Transformation] appeared in our human dimension through the visionary experiences of realized individuals such as mahāsiddhas, who had the capacity to contact other dimensions and transmit to the human realm the teachings received in those dimensions. The Tantric initiation arose because, once a mahāsiddha received the transmission of a practice based on the principle of transformation, a Namkhai Norbu (E. Capriles, Ed., unpublished). 409 he or she used paintings or drawings showing the respective divinities and the respective maṇḍalas, as well as oral explanations, in order to communicate it to others and enable them, through the use of imagination, to transform themselves in the prescribed way. It is said that the teachings of Tantrism have a more symbolic character than those of the Sūtrayāna because when the mahāsiddhas transmitted to their human disciples the methods of transformation they had received, with their respective maṇḍalas and the figures of the corresponding divinities, these became symbols: the garland of heads of a manifestation began to signify this, its diadem of skulls began to signify that, and so on. The general teachings of the Nyingmapa, the Kathang Dennga and the Samten Migdrön agree, however, that the teachings of the outer Tantras of Purification have as their source the saṃbhogakāya and the teachings of the Path of Renunciation arose through the nirmāṇakāya. For example, after the passage cited above, the Kunje Gyalpo goes on to list and explain the teachings of the saṃbhogakāya Master, which are the three outer Tantras, and the teachings of the nirmāṇakāya Master, which are the three vehicles of the Sūtrayāna. The Tantra reads: a b The teaching of the saṃbhogakāya Master comprises the three outer series of action [consisting in Kriyā, Ubhaya and Yoga]. According to the general view of the Nyingmapa School, the Vajrayāna Path of Purification, which roughly could be said to consist in the three levels of Tantra that this school calls “outer” and that the Sarmapa schools call “lower,” was taught in the Akaniṣṭha palace of Buddha Vairocana by the saṃbhogakāya in its dimension of color and light, which is neither material not concrete. In a book in Italian published in 1988, Chögyal Namkhai Norbu asserted that such general explanations are not definitive, and quoted the Bairo Drabag, which despite being a Nyingma text, coincides with the Sarmapas in asserting that the three outer Tantras were taught by the nirmāṇakāya Śākyamuni: 538 539 c d540 To the disciples endowed with particular capacities [the Buddha Śākyamuni] transmitted some teachings of Tantra. Thus [he] taught the Kriyātantra in the Nairañjanā River and in Siṃgāla Park; the Ubhayatantra at Subāhu Park; [and] the Yogatantra in the palace of the Blazing Mountain. e f Wylie, Kun byed rgyal po. Ibidem. Wylie, Bai ro’i ’dra ’bag. Namkhai Norbu (1988, Part III, Chapter IX, p. 84). The quote is from the Bai ro’i ’dra ’bag (Tibetan Text 15), p. 6 b, 4. Tib. dPung bzang kyis. This is how this park is called in Tibetan Text 15, p. 6 b, 4; this Tibetan name, which may mean “good shoulder,” “good upper arm,” “good army,” etc., renders the Indian name Subāhu (meaning strong / handsome shoulder / arm), as found in the Tantra of the Dialogue with Subāhu (Skt. Subāhuparipṛcchānamātantrapiṇḍārthavṛtti; Tib. dPung bzangs kyis zhus pa’i rgyud kyi bsdus pa’i don dgrol ba’i brjed byang) [Toh. 2673]. Tib. Me ri ’bar ba: another Tibetan name for the pure land of Akaniṣṭha (Tib. ’Og min) presided over by the Buddha Vairocana, of the Buddha or Tathāgata family (center of the maṇḍala), meaning Blazing Mountain. (In higher Tantra the name can also refer to the inner fire.) a b c d e f 410 In fact, the teachings of the Sarmapa claim that the nirmāṇakāya Śākyamuni taught, not only the three vehicles of the Sūtrayāna, but also the three lower Tantras, which are Kriyā, Cārya (corresponding to Ubhaya) and Yoga, and the Anuttaratantras that according to their system make up the highest category of Tantras. In the book in Italian quoted above, Chögyal Namkhai Norbu wrote: a [According to the teachings of the Sarmapa…] …in the glorious stūpa of Dhanakuṭa in Southern India, Śākyamuni Buddha… manifested in the divine aspect of Śri Kālacakra and… transmitted the Tantra bearing the same name. b Likewise, some Sarmapa accounts of the origin of the Guhyasamājatantra—a Tantra that, like the Kālacakratantra, Sarmapas include in the Anuttarayogatantra, but which unlike the latter is also one of the Nyingma Mahāyogatantras—claim that when King Indrabhūti the Great, ruler of Oḍḍiyāna, invoked Śākyamuni, the sage magically manifested before him, and finally granted him transmission in the form of Śrī Guhyasamāja. However, in general the Sarmapa accounts according to which Śākyamuni transmitted the Anuttarayogatantras agree in asserting that he did so from an immaterial dimension of color and light pertaining to the saṃbhogakāya, in the form of the yab-yum manifestation (i.e. the manifestation in union with a consort) of a Tantric meditation deity, rather than in his habitual nirmāṇakāya form as a celibate monk. As the Master Namkhai Norbu has pointed out, the fact that a monk may have manifested in this way may seem to be a contradiction, but it is not, for as just noted the deity and his consort, rather than being something material or concrete, were a manifestation, in the dimension of natural energy, of the true nature of the elements and their functions, arising in response to the karmic potentialities of the one receiving the transmission. Thus, it is clear that the Anuttaratantras of the Sarmapa were also introduced into the human world through saṃbhogakāya manifestations. At any rate, it makes no sense to ascribe so emphatically the source of all the Tantras to Śākyamuni, for as Chögyal Namkhai Norbu writes in the same book cited above: 541 c d 542 543 e ...in truth the manifestations of Vajradhāra are infinite, as the dimensions of worlds in the universe, and a teaching may not be limited by holding that it was transmitted in a certain epoch and solely by a certain teacher. In the Mañjuśrīnāmasaṃgīti it is indeed written: “It was taught by the Buddhas of the past; it will be taught by those of the future, and it is always taught by the perfect Buddhas of this time.” f Namkhai Norbu (1988, Part III, Chapter IX, p. 84). Tib. ’Bras spungs: heap of fruition (from “heap of rice”). Namkhai Norbu (E. Capriles, ed., unpublished). Skt. iṣṭadevatā; Skt. yid dam—probably a contraction of yid kyi dam tshig: samaya of mind, or nonJungian archetypal forms [with which] samaya [is kept]. Namkhai Norbu (1988, Part III, Chapter IX, p. 85). rJe btsun thams cad bai ro tsa na’i rnam thar ’dra ’bag chen mo, p. 6 b, 4. Lhasa: 1976. a b c d e f 411 The same Master goes on: a To be considered authentic, a teaching (...) does not necessarily need to have been taught by Buddha Śākyamuni. The authenticity of the teaching of the Buddhas, in fact, must be demonstrated in terms of four fundamental principles: 1) It is not based on the provisional sense, but in the true (or definitive) one 2) It is not based on a doctrine, but on the individual(’s realization). 3) It is not based on the words, but on the meaning. 4) It is not based on the mind, but on primordial gnosis. According to the general Nyingma teachings, among their inner Tantras, the Mahāyogatantras fell on the palace of Indrabhūti the younger, King of Oḍḍiyāna, and during the initial period were transmitted mainly by adepts from this country, which as noted above might have had its capital in the valley of Swat in present day Pakistan (and might have extended itself deep into Western Tibet—perhaps as far as Mount Kailāśā). According to one of the best-known accounts of the history of these Tantras, their lineage originated in the transmission from dharmakāya Samantabhadra to saṃbhogakāya Vajrasattva, and then to the nirmāṇakāya bodhisattvas of the three families (which are Mañjuśrī, Avalokiteśvara and Vajrapāṇi); from them it passed to Licchavi Vimalakīrti, the protagonist of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra, along with the four other excellent beings. From these, it passed through one of the noted kings of Oḍḍiyāna called Indrabhūti (who, as Dudjom Rinpoche remarks, might have been Indrabhūti the Middle: the second of the three kings called Indrabhūti), the later Kukurāja, Indrabhūti the younger, and then through six more links (including princess Gomadevi) until it reached Padmasambhava and Vimalamitra, who introduced the lineage into Tibet. Though it is said that the Mahāyogatantras fell on Indrabhūti’s palace, according to this account, later on the King decided to receive transmission for all these Tantras from the Licchavi Vimalakīrti. With regard to the Anuyogatantras of the Nyingmapas, Dudjom Rinpoche cites a prophesy according to which they would originate in Śrī Laṅkā; however, he tells us that they were first received by Kambalapāda (Indrabhūti the younger), King of Oḍḍiyāna, who spontaneously understood their meaning, but then, in order to legitimate his understanding, he received teachings from the Licchavi Vimalakīrti. Another account tells us that the lineage of these Tantras passed from dharmakāya Samantabhadra to the saṃbhogakāya Buddhas of the five families; from them to the nirmāṇakāya bodhisattvas of the three families, to Licchavi Vimalakīrti, to King Ja (Indrabhūti the younger of Oḍḍiyāna), to the later Kukurāja, and then through nine b544 c d e f g h545 i a b c d e f g h i Ibidem. Dudjom Rinpoche (English 1991, vol. I. p. 460). Tib. Dri med grags pa; in full: Li tsa bi Dri ma med par grags pa. Luk, Ch. (Upāsaka Lü Kuan Yu) (trans. 1972). AKA Indrabodhi or Ja (Tib. Dza). Dudjom Rinpoche (English 1991, vol. I. p. 459). Dudjom Rinpoche (English 1991, vol. I. p. 458 et seq.); Tulku Thöndup (1984, pp. 19-21). Dudjom Rinpoche (English 1991, vol. I. p. 460). Dudjom Rinpoche (English 1991, vol. I. p. 485 et seq.). 412 more links to Nubchen Sangye Yeshe. At any rate, Chögyal Namkhai Norbu has pointed out that it was Nubchen Sangye Yeshe, who had received teachings from Dharmabodhi, Vasudharā, and, principally, from Drushai Chetsenkye in the land of Drusha, who introduced them into Tibet from the latter country, which bordered on Oḍḍiyāna, and which, according to this Master and some other scholars, roughly corresponds to the present (ex-Soviet) republic of Kyrgyzstan. Chögyal Namkhai Norbu affirms that the human transmission of the Anuyoga, unlike those of the other Tantric vehicles, originated in Drusha. To sum up, though the transmission of both Mahāyoga and Anuyoga arose in the dimension of the dharmakāya, the mahāsiddhas who initiated the transmission of these Tantras in the human world received the respective methods through visions of the true condition of the elements and their functions that were neither material nor concrete, appearing in the dimension of their own energy in visible saṃbhogakāya form. Furthermore, though for their part the Sarmapa traditions tell us that it was the Buddha Śākyamuni who originally communicated the Anuttarayogatantras to our world, as we have seen, the first human practitioners also received them through a saṃbhogakāya manifestation. And in fact, a Path that deals mainly with the level of energy somehow should arise precisely through this level. Lastly, the Atiyogatantrayāna, which according to Tibetan Buddhism (and in particular to the tradition of the Old or Nyingmapa School) is the supreme vehicle of Buddhism, was transmitted by the dharmakāya Samantabhadra—who is none other than nonconceptual, nondual Awake Awareness—to the saṃbhogakāya Vajrasattva, who transmitted it to the nirmāṇakāya Prahevajra (i.e. Garab Dorje), who was born 55 CE. As we have seen repeatedly, the Atiyoga is the teaching of the Mind level of human existence, the true condition of which is the dharmakāya; therefore, for its transmission to be received, there is no need for the manifestation of any particular vision (even though, as we have seen and as we will see in greater detail in Part Two of this book, the self-generated, spontaneous visions of Thögel are the most powerful catalyst of the spontaneous liberation that characterizes this vehicle). Thus, when it is said that the lineage went from the dharmakāya to the saṃbhogakāya and from the latter to the nirmāṇakāya, this is so because the saṃbhogakāya is always the link between dharmakāya and nirmāṇakāya, and not because visions were necessarily involved. a 546 b 547 c d 548 549 550 Validity of the Tantras as Buddhist Teachings Does the fact that the Nyingma Tantras were not taught by Śākyamuni, or the fact that the Anuttarayogatantras of the Sarmapas were not taught by the physical dimension of Śākyamuni, mean that they are not Buddhist teachings? As noted above, that which determines whether a teaching is or not Buddhist is not whether or not it was first transmitted in our human world by Śākyamuni, but whether or not it conforms to a This is the account given in Tulku Thöndup (1984, pp. 22-23). Namkhai Norbu (E. Capriles, ed., unpublished). Chetsenkye of the land of Drusha (Wylie, Bru sha’i che btsan skyes). For references to this Master see Dudjom Rinpoche (English 1991, vol. I. pp. 489, 537, 607 and 609). Wylie, bru sha. a b c d 413 series of established criteria (of which above four were enumerated: 1. Rather than being based on a provisional sense, it is based on the true (or definitive) one; 2. Rather than being based on a doctrine, it is based on the individual’s realization; 3. Rather than being based on the words, it is based on the meaning; 4. Rather than being based on the mind, it is based on primordial gnosis). Jamgön Kongtrul’s All-Embracing Encyclopedia (Sheja Kunkhyab ) offers a more exhaustive explanation of the criteria involved: a b c [Whether or not] a person who adheres to a philosophical system [is a Buddhist] can be determined [on the basis of the following points]: [concerning the view or tawa], by whether or not they accept as their view the ‘four signs’ of the Buddha’s word; [concerning the meditation or gompa], by whether or not the meditation [they practice] should become an antidote to [the highest level of mundane meditative absorption, corresponding to the fourth formless realm or ārūpa loka, which is that of neither-being-nor-nonbeing, and that is normally referred to as] the ‘peak of existence;’ concerning behavior or chöpa, by whether or not they relinquish the two extremes [consisting of] the self-mortification [of the ascetic] and the insatiable craving [of the hedonist]. Concerning the Fruit [consisting in] liberation, by whether or not they recognize [the third Noble Truth, which is] the Truth of cessation, as the special state wherein there is no more negativity to overcome. The Luminous Discipline (Dülwa Ölden ) reads: d e “It perfectly teaches the three trainings [consisting of śīla or moral discipline, samādhi or meditative absorption, and prajñā or discriminative wisdom]; it perfectly possesses the four signs [that will be enumerated below]; it brings about virtue at the beginning [of the Path], the middle [of the Path] and the end [of the Path]: in this way the wise recognize the word of the Buddha.” [According to Buddhism] the ‘four signs’ are the four epitomes of dharmas; as one can read in Infinite Secrets (Sangwa Samkyi Mikhyabpa ): f “The Tathāgata has epitomized all Dharmas in four aphorisms: “Everything that is saṃskṛta is impermanent; Everything contaminated by delusion is suffering; All phenomena are devoid of independent being or existence; Nirvāṇa (the condition beyond suffering) is peace.” g 551 In fact, as noted in the preceding section, some of the most important and revered sūtras of the Mahāyāna make it clear that it was the great bodhisattvas or the Wylie, Shes bya kun khyab. Tibetan Text 11. See Bibliography for data on English translations. Adapted to the terminology of this book from Namkhai Norbu (1999/2001, pp. 23-24.) The quotation is from Tibetan Text 11, A: vol. 2, p. 359, 13. Skt. bhavāgra; Tib. srid rtse or srid pa’i rtse mo; Ch. 有頂天 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒudǐngtiān; Wade-Giles, yu -ting -t’ien ). Wylie, ’dul ba ’od ldan. Wylie, gsang ba bsam kyis mi khyab pa. I.e. created and/or arisen and/or originated and/or constructed and/or contrived and/or intentional and/or conditioned and/or made and/or compounded: Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). a b c d 3 3 1 e f g 3 2 414 great arhats, rather than Śākyamuni, who pronounced the words recorded in them; however, since they gave the teachings through the power of the Buddha, these are considered to be the word of the Buddha. Something similar happens in the case of the mahāsiddhas of Oḍḍiyāna who revealed the inner Tantras of the Nyingmapa: if they received and transmitted them through the power of the trikāya of the Buddha—i.e. from the dharmakāya, the saṃbhogakāya or the nirmāṇakāya, even if Śākyamuni was not involved and they themselves were nirmāṇakāyas)—and if the Tantras they received fulfill both the four criteria enumerated in a passage by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu cited above and those enumerated in the Sheja Kunkhyab and quoted above, these texts are authentic Buddhist teachings. As to the teachings of the Path of Spontaneous Liberation of Ati Dzogpa Chenpo, which, as noted repeatedly, were introduced into the human world by Tönpa Garab Dorje , it must be emphasized that, even though no one has ever attributed these teachings directly to Śākyamuni, no serious Tibetan Master would dare to assert that they do not constitute a Buddhist Path—or even that they do not constitute the supreme Path of Buddhism. On the one hand, for a teaching that does not belong to the concrete, material level—as is the case with Dzogchen Ati—to be Buddhist, it is not necessary that it should have been taught by Śākyamuni’s nirmāṇakāya, concrete material level. On the other hand, just as there is one type of teaching of the Buddha that arises when he empowers the bodhisattvas to voice them, and another type that arises as the Buddha empowers the arhats (both of which are contained in Buddhist sūtras and considered to be direct teachings of the Buddha), there is still another type of Buddhist teachings that is transmitted through prophecy: Śākyamuni announces that at such and such a moment, in such and such a place, such and such individual will reveal such and such type of Buddhist teaching, and consequently, when the prophesied teaching arises, it is considered as a direct teaching of the Buddha. Since Śākyamuni prophesized that a certain time after his parinirvāṇa or physical death, there would appear in Oḍḍiyāna a teaching beyond cause and effect which would be the most essential of all Buddhist teachings, it is universally recognized by Tibetan Buddhists that the Buddhist Dzogchen teaching taught in Oḍḍiyāna by Tönpa Garab Dorje is a direct teaching of the Buddha. And, in contrast to those teachings that bodhisattvas and arhats give in the sūtras, since Garab Dorje is deemed to be an emanation of the Buddha, the teachings of Ati Dzogpa Chenpo that came into the world through him are not considered to have been given through “empowerment,” but to have been taught directly by the Buddha. Furthermore, since Tönpa Garab Dorje was an emanation of Śākyamuni, the latter could not have been unaware of the principle of Ati Dzogpa Chenpo. In fact, although Śākyamuni’s Awakening was not the result of applying Dzogchen methods, it occurred as Awake awareness became patent and operative from the condition of the base-of-all, in a way that was analogous to those Atiyogatantrayāna ways of directly Introducing rigpa in which the latter is reGnized as nonconceptual, nondual Awake self-Awareness arises spontaneously from the condition of the base-of-all. Hence it is not difficult to understand why do so many sūtras of the Mahāyāna pertaining both a b552 c 553 Wylie, sTon pa dGa’ rab rdo rje. Wylie, sTon pa dGa’ rab rdo rje. Tib. rang rig; Skt. svasaṃvedana; Ch. ⾃證 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìzhèng; Wade-Giles, tzu -cheng ) / ⾃覺 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìjué; Wade-Giles, tzu -chüeh ). a b c 4 4 2 415 4 to the second and third Promulgations include teachings that seem to be based on the principle of Ati, or that somehow show its traces. Regarding Mahāyāna Buddhism, both sudden and gradual, it is also important to bear in mind that, as stated in an endnote to a previous chapter, according to the traditions of the Ancient or Nyingmapa School of Buddhism codified in the Chöjung Khepai Gatön by Pawo Tsuglag Threngwa and in the Bairo Drabag, one of the two lines of transmission originating in Garab Dorje passed through Nāgārjuna and his disciple Āryadeva—the latter of whom, according to the former source, attained the rainbow body. Therefore, according to the text in question, the founder of the Madhyamaka School and his direct successor were links in the transmission of Dzogchen Atiyoga (which may be taken to somehow imply that the Madhyamaka is the result of adapting the point of view deriving from Dzogchen to the principles of the Mahāyāna). And, as noted in the section on the Sudden Mahāyāna, Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva are also listed in the Platform Sūtra of the Sixth Patriarch as links in the transmission of Mind a b c d554 e Antecedents of Dzogchen in Pre-Buddhist Traditions The fact that no serious Tibetan Master would dare to assert that Dzogchen is not a Buddhist Path, or even that it is not the supreme Path of Buddhism, does not mean that the principle of Atiyoga and the Dzogchen teachings are strictly confined to Buddhism. No doubt, if Dzogchen Atiyoga is, as stated in the Samten Migdrön, the primordial vehicle that is the universal ancestor of all vehicles, which rather than a philosophical system is a direct access to the nonconceptual, nondual Vision (of) the primordial state, by no means could it be circumscribed to a single religious system, a single country or a single culture. According to the Dzogchen Tantras, Dzogchen was already taught by primordial revealer Khyeu Nangwa Tampa Samgyi Mikhyabpa, in the primordial time when humans were in a condition of limitless, total space, time and knowledge—and hence in that which the Dzogchen teachings call the “fourth time”—and because of this the duration of life was experienced as infinite. Then whenever the teachings and transmission deteriorated or were lost, a new primordial revealer appeared in the world in order to reintroduce it. Moreover, even currently existing Dzogchen traditions are not all Buddhist; roughly 1.800 years before the rise of Buddhist Dzogchen, Primordial Revealer / f g 555 Wylie, Chos ’byung mkhas pa’i dga’ ston, which may be rendered as A Feast for the Erudite. Wylie, dPa’ bo gtsug lag phreng ba. Wylie, Bai ro’i ’dra ’bag. Namkhai Norbu (Italian 1988). Ch. 壇經 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Tánjīng; Wade-Giles, T’an -ching ), 六祖壇經 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Liùzǔtánjīng; Wade-Giles, Liu -tsu T’an -ching ), which abbreviate 六祖⼤師法寶壇經 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Liùzǔdàshī fábǎotánjīng; Wade-Giles, Liu -tsu -ta -shih Fa -pao -t’an -ching ); full title: 南宗頓教最上⼤乘摩訶般若 波羅蜜經六祖惠能⼤師於韶州⼤梵寺施法壇經. Wylie, ston pa. Wylie, Khye’u sang ba dam pa bsam gyis mi khyab pa. a b c d e 2 4 3 2 1 1 4 3 4 1 2 3 f g 416 2 1 Tönpa Shenrab Miwoche, Lhabön Yongsu Tagpa , the reformer of the Bön tradition, taught a series of Dzogchen teachings in the area around Mount Kailāśā and Lake Mānasarovar (or, more properly, Mānasa Sarovar) in Western Tibet (seat of the city of Khyung lung, at that time capital of that province of the Kingdom of Zhang-zhung, or possibly of the whole Kingdom). And though these teachings look quite seminal and rudimentary when compared with the current Dzogchen teachings of Buddhism, they are beyond doubts based on the principle of spontaneous liberation and as such pertain to an authentic form of Dzogchen Atiyoga. Upon considering the origins of Bön and of the teachings of Tönpa Shenrab, and on the basis of thorough historical research, the Italian scholar Giuseppe Tucci rightly noted that there was an intimate connection between Dzogchen and Śaivism, and offered some evidence suggesting a connection between these traditions (and also some circumstantial evidence of a connection between them and both Zurvanism and Ismā‘īlīsm). However, seemingly under the influence of the biased views of some influential mainstream Tibetan Buddhist scholars, the renowned Is.M.E.O. scholar came to interpret the presence of Śaivas in the region of Mount Kailāśā and the connections and terminological coincidences between Śaivism and Dzogchen as proving that both Dzogchen and Bön derived from Śaivism. Chögyal Namkhai Norbu replied to this wrong view in the following words: a b c 556 557 d558 e The most concentrated essence of the Nyingthik is the body of teachings grouped under the term Yangthik. In Tibetan, “yang” means “even more.” For example, if something is profound, it is characterized as “zabmo,” and if it is even more profound, it is characterized as “yangzab.” “Essential” is “nyingpo,” and “even more essential” is “yangnying.” It is important to point this out because Professor Tucci has written that the fact that the Dzogchen teachings use words including the terms “Ati,” “Chiti” and “Yangthik,” each of which is considered more essential than the former, proves that the Dzogchen teaching derived from Kashmiri Śaivism, which features terms similar to these ones. This is a paramount inversion. “Ati” is the term in the language of Oḍḍiyāna that corresponds to the Sanskrit ādi, meaning “primordial”. In turn, “Chiti,” a term used to refer to the more general teachings of Atiyoga, is a combination of “chi, ” which in Tibetan means “more general,” and “ti, ” which are the last two letters of ati. Finally, “Yangthik” is a totally Tibetan term that indicates the more specific teachings of Atiyoga. Some Tibetan Buddhist scholars have asserted that certain concepts of the Bön tradition and of f g h i j k l559 m n a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Wylie, sTon pa gShen rab mi bo che. Wylie, Lha bon yongs su dag pa. Wylie, Khyung lung. Tucci (1970, English 1980, Chapter Seven [pp. 213-248], and in particular pp. 213-224). Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal], 2004. Wylie, sNying thig. Wylie, Yang thig. Wylie, zab mo. Wylie, yang zab. Wylie, snying po. Wylie, yang snying. Wylie, spyi ti. Wylie, spyi. Wylie, ti. 417 the Dzogchen teachings were received from Śaivism, and it is possible that Professor Tucci may have derived his views from these interpretations by Tibetan Buddhists. If it were true that all these terms appear in Kashmiri Śaivism, that would not at all be surprising, for the chief sacred place of Śaivism is Mount Kailāśā in West Tibet, located in what at the time of the rise of Bönpo Dzogchen was the Kingdom of Zhang-zhung, where the Bön tradition prevailed, and where it was maintained and transmitted until its posterior diffusion through Eastern Tibet and Bhutan. Everyone automatically assumes that the culture, religion and philosophy of India and China are very old and autochthonous. However, the very opposite occurs with the culture, religion and philosophy of Tibet: people tend to assume that they must have in their integrity come from other countries, such as India, China, or even Persia. This way of thinking is typical of those who are totally conditioned by the traditions established by pro-Indian Buddhists in Tibet. If many concepts of Dzogchen and Bön came from Śaivism, where did Śaivism come from? Since it is supposed to be of Indian origin, Śaivism could not have come from elsewhere but India, whereas Bön and Dzogchen, being Tibetan, must be something absorbed or imported from other regions and traditions. What a naïve way of thinking! The Śaivas keep the whole history of their teachings, and according to it, their doctrine originated in Mount Kailāśā. This is the reason why every year hundreds of Śaivas go on pilgrimage from India to Mount Kailāśā and circumambulate it. Now, where is Mount Kailāśā? In India or in Tibet? And if Kailāśā is in Tibet and it was there that Śaivism originated, why should it be said that Bön and Dzogchen took their concepts from India? It is logical to hypothesize that Śaivism may have had its roots in Bön, which prevailed in the region of Mount Kailāśā ever since Tönpa Shenrab Miwoche established it there some 3.800 years ago, and which contains its own Dzogchen teachings, part of which may have leaked into Śaivism. a In fact, Śaivism holds Mount Kailāśā to be the abode of Lord Śiva himself, and if that tradition places the abode of its deity in Tibet, it is utterly absurd to think that the teachings of Bönpo Dzogchen came from Śaivism—the logical conclusion of this being that it was the other way around. Furthermore, Chögyal Namkhai Norbu has referred to extant Bön sources according to which the great sages Lhadag Nagdro of India, Legtang Mangpo from China and various great sages from different regions of an ample region that extends itself West to Persia, South to India, and East and North to China and possibly even Mongolia, spread the teachings taught by Shenrab Miwoche in their own countries. He writes: b Shenrab Miwoche was born in Zhang-zhung, and was therefore a Tibetan, or better a Zhang-zhung-pa, though the Bön that he taught soon spread far beyond Zhang-zhung, to countries like Tazig (Persia or Tadzhikstan), India and China. Some credible Bön sources report that the great sages Mutsa Trahe of Tazig, Hulu Baleg of Sumba, Lhadag Nagdro of India, Legtang Mangpo from China, and Serthog Chejam of Khrom translated into their respective languages and spread in their native lands the teachings of Shenrab included in the four series (or four gates) of “divine Bön” (Lha bon sgo bzhi)—the Shen of the Cha (Cha shen ), the Shen of the Universe of Phenomena (Nang shen ), the Shen of Existence (Si c d Wylie, sTon pa gShen rab mi bo che. Namkhai Norbu (2004, pp. 28-29). The text was compared with Namkhai Norbu (1997, pp. 26-27), and a modification on the basis of the latter was made to the English version. Wylie, phyva gshen [theg pa]. Wylie, snang gshen [theg pa]. a b c d 418 shen ) and the Shen of Magic Power (Tul shen )—and in the three series known as the Divine Bön of Ritual Offerings (Shökyi lhabön ), the Bön of Village Funeral Rites (Dronggi durbön ) and the Bön of Perfect Mind (Yangdagpai sembön )… [It is] certain… that the Bön of Perfect Mind (Yangdagpai sembön) taught by Shenrab Miwoche was an archaic form of Dzogchen: in fact, we possess the list and the histories of all lineage Masters of Dzogchen of the Oral Transmission of Zhang-zhung (Zhang-zhung nyengyü ). If Shenrab Miwoche taught Dzogchen, which is also the final aim of all the teachings transmitted by Buddha Śākyamuni, we cannot doubt his extraordinary qualities; we can, moreover, deduce that Tibet in that period had not only a culture, but also an exceptional form of spiritual knowledge. a b c d e f 560 561 Another source, also on the basis of ancient Bön texts, asserts the following: g Of Tönpa Shenrab’s many disciples, the foremost was Mucho Demdrug (Mu-cho lDemdrug), who in his turn taught many students, the most important of whom were the “Six Great Translators:” Mutsha Trahe (dMu-tsha Tra-he) of Tazig, Trithog Pasha (Khri-thog sPa-tsha) of Zhang-Zhung, Hulu Paleg (Hu-lu sPa-legs) of Sum-pa (east of Zhang-Zhung), Lhadag Ngagdröl (Lha-bdags sNgags-grol) of India, Legtang Mangpo (Legs-tang rMangpo) of China and Sertog Chejam (gSer-thog lCe-byams) of Phrom (Mongolia). From the above it may be inferred that Śaivism may have originated from the teachings of the sage Lhadag Nagdro, Indian disciple of Shenrab’s main disciple; that Chinese Taoism may have had its source in the teachings of sage Legtang Mangpo, Chinese disciple of Shenrab’s main disciple; that Persian Zurvanism may have had developed on the basis of the teachings of the sage Mutsha Trahe, Persian disciple of Shenrab’s main disciple (note that according to G. Tucci [1970; English 1980], not only Śaivas, but also Persian Zurvanists and Ismā‘īlīs assiduously traveled to Mount Kailāśā on pilgrimage)—and that Paleo-Siberian Shamanism may be a corruption of the system introduced by Serthog Chejam, Mongol disciple of Shenrab’s main disciple. (The latter adds a new region on the North to the ones mentioned in the passage by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu, not because a land is mentioned in this passage that is not featured in the passage by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu, but because the name Phrom is interpreted as referring to Mongolia). At this point I put an end to the discussion of possible connections between Śaivism, Dzogchen and Bön; whoever wants to explore those h i Wylie, srid gshen [theg pa]. Wylie, ’phrul gshen [theg pa]. Wylie, bshos kyi lha bon. Wylie, grong gi ’dur bon. Wylie, yang dag pa’i sems bon. Wylie, zhang zhung snyan brgyud. Lopeta, Vaitkus y Rute (undated). The deity of Zurvanism was Zurvan, who like Śiva Mahākāla was total or infinite time (Zurvan was also total or infinite space), and like the Ardhanārīśvara aspect of Śiva, was simultaneously male and female. In Capriles (2011a) I speculated that Ismā‘īlīsm may have resulted from an infiltration of Zurvanism into Islam. And it is a fact that the Ismā‘īlī “mysticism of light” has much in common with that of the Bönpos, and that there are many points in common between Ismā‘īlīsm, Zurvanism and Śaivism. And in fact, though there are no decisive proofs of this theory, in the paper in question I provide weighty evidence that suggests that this theory may be correct. Cf. also the endnotes to this book. a b c d e f g h i 419 possible connections in greater detail may consult a paper in which I speculated about them. At any rate, from the above it may be inferred that the area of Mount Kailāśā was a hub from which irradiated the essential transmission and attending conceptual framework of all genuine Awakening systems in Asia (some of which, for their part, were the source of most of European mysticism since the fifth century CE onwards, as I have suggested elsewhere )—including Chinese Taoism and Persian Zurvanism and Ismā‘īlīsm. As to Chinese Taoism, since Legtang Mangpo carried the teachings of Shenrab Miwoche to China some fourteen centuries before the time of Lǎozǐ (Lao Tzu), and there is so much in common between original Taoism and the Dzogchen teachings, as well as so much significant evidence suggesting connections, as to make it worthwhile to undertake a brief discussion of the subject. Thus, at this point let me speculate on possible connections between Bönpo Dzogchen and Chinese Taoism. According to William Rockhill, the Chinese usually identified the Bönpos in Eastern Tibet as Taoists, and Shenrab Miwoche was generally thought to be a name that stood for Lǎozǐ —who, by the way, according to the legend wrote the Dàodéjīng or Tao-te-ching at the request of a border official when he left China for a country to the West, which for the reasons that will be adduced below, I find it hard to imagine was other than Zhang-zhung (which included a great deal of present day Tibet). Alexandra David-Neel was another author who pointed out the alleged genetic relation between Taoism and Bön —and I for my part have personally heard oral reports about Taoist Masters asserting the identity of their own tradition with that of Bön. For his part, the Chinese scholar on Tibetan history Shěn Zōnglián (Shen Tsung-lien) wrote: a b c d e f g h i j “Bön-Po, one form of Shamanism, is considered by some scholars to be a Tibetan copy of a later decadent phase of Chinese Taoism... However, by borrowing too freely from the abundance of Buddhism, it was not long before Bön-Po lost its own characteristics and became absorbed into its rival.” The ancient sources consulted by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu and other scholars suggest that, just as in the case of Tucci’s explanation of the relations between Bön, Dzogchen and Śaivism, the direction of the influences between Bön, Dzogchen and Taoism may have been inverted by Chinese scholars, for many people in China have regularly viewed the rest of humankind as barbarians, and their Tibetan neighbors in particular as wildly uncultured ones (like Tucci, such scholars seem to have been utterly k Capriles (2011a). Cf. Capriles (2011a) and other works. ⽼⼦; Wade-Giles, Lao -tzu . Rockhill (1997, pp. 217-218, n. 2). Wylie, gShen rab mi bo che. ⽼⼦; Wade-Giles, Lao -tzu . g 道德經; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Dàodéjīng; Wade-Giles Tao -te -ching . I have tried hard to remember the work in which she did so, but I still fail to do so. 沈宗濂; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Shěn Zōnglián; Wade-Giles, Shen Tsung -lien . Shen (1953, this Ed. 1973, p. 37). Namkhai Norbu (2004, pp. 28-29). a b c 3 3 3 3 d e f 4 2 1 h i 3 j k 420 1 2 unaware of the fact that Paths of Awakening antedate civilization, and that civilization is both a product and a catalyst of degeneration). The most significant evidence suggesting a connection between Dzogchen and Taoism, however, is the fact that both the “holy immortal’s” “ascension to Heaven” in what Herrlee Creel called Xiān Taoism, and the sign of final consummation of the realization of “Complete Reality” in Quánzhēn Taoism, are illustrated with the image of a snake shedding its old skin—which the Dzogchen teachings traditionally use to illustrate the extraordinary modes of death undergone by those who attain some of the highest levels of realization that may be reached through the practice of Dzogchen (and in particular the mode of death called “self-consuming like a fire,” which as noted above results from the second highest realization that may be attained through the practices of Thögel and the Yangthik and gives rise to the body of light ), which are followed by the dissolution of the sensitive parts of their physical bodies, which cease to be tangible in the lapse of the seven days immediately following death, so that only are left as tangible remains the parts of the body that lack sensitivity and that constantly grow toward the outside (namely the nails and hair) together with the clothes that were enveloping the body—which lie on the floor in such a way as to make the ones who see it associate it with the skin shed by a snake. Like Dzogchen, the teachings of Lǎozǐ, Zhuāngzǐ (Chuang-tzu) and Lièzĭ (Lieh-tzu)—which H. Creel subsumed under the label Contemplative Taoism and I have subsumed under the label Taoism of Unorigination —stressed the fact that the Fruit of true Paths of Awakening is the realization of the uncreated, nonfabricated, uncontrived, unborn, unconditioned true nature of reality, and therefore, were Taoism actually linked to Dzogchen, the Taoism so linked would no doubt be that of Lǎozǐ, Zhuāngzǐ and Lièzĭ and its continuation in the form of Quánzhēn Taoism—which as will be shown below, like Xiān or Shénxiān Taoism but unlike the extant, available treatises by the three venerable Masters just mentioned, illustrate the highest realizations that may be attained by treading their Path with the simile of the snake shedding its skin (the fact that the image is not featured in the treatises by Lǎozǐ, Zhuāngzǐ and Lièzĭ could be due to the image being part of a secret oral transmission, a b c d e f g h i j k l m a n o 神仙; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shénxiān; Wade-Giles, shen -hsien . 2 1 Creel used the Wade-Giles, calling it Hsien Taoism; the Chinese name of the school is 神仙傳 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Shénxiānzhuàn; Wade-Giles, Shen -hsien Chuan ). For a discussion cf. Creel (1970). 全眞; Wade-Giles, Chuan -chen . Liu I-ming (trans. Thomas Cleary, 1988). Tib. me dpung. Tib. ’od kyi sku or ’od phung. ⽼⼦; Wade-Giles, Lao -tzu . 莊⼦; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Zhuāngzǐ; Wade-Giles, Chuang -tzu . 列⼦; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Lièzĭ; Wade-Giles, Lieh -tzu . Creel (1970). Capriles (2009a). 全眞; Wade-Giles, chuan -chen . 仙; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiān; Wade-Giles, hsien . As noted in a previous footnote, Creel used the WadeGiles, calling it Hsien Taoism. 神仙; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shénxiān; Wade-Giles, shen -hsien . In full the Chinese name of the school is 神仙傳 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Shénxiānzhuàn; Wade-Giles, Shen hsien Chuan ). For a discussion, cf. Creel (1970). b 1 2 c 2 1 4 1 d e f g 3 3 h 1 i 4 3 3 j k l 2 m 1 1 1 n 2 o 1 2 1 4 421 probably passed down hand by hand with both a symbolic transmission and a mind transmission). And since it seems most unlikely that such an odd image as a snake shedding its skin may have been used by genetically linked traditions in neighboring countries to illustrate completely different occurrences, if the Taoism of these three Masters and its continuation in the form of Quánzhēn Taoism had actually been genetically linked to the Dzogchen tradition, I would assume that it used the image in question to refer to the same realizations that it illustrates in the Dzogchen teachings, and that Xiān or Shénxiān Taoism absorbed the image from it, yet totally distorted the tradition in question. Since the image of the snake is shared by the Quánzhēn and Xiān forms of Taoism, one could assume that these two traditions share the same views, aims and methods. This is not at all the case, for the former seems to have given continuity to the Taoism of the venerable ancient sages, whereas the latter is an utter distortion of Taoism that vilified the sages in question together with their views and methods. In fact, roughly since the eighth century BC, Xiān Taoism has been bent on prolonging the human lifespan and, by means of generative methods, pretending to produce immortal bodies—a paramount contradiction, for as Buddhist doctrine makes it clear, all that is fabricated, produced, contrived, conditioned, configured, made and / or compounded is impermanent, and only the nonfabricated, unproduced, uncontrived, unconditioned, unconfigured and /or uncompounded is beyond corruption, cessation and death. Not long after Zhuāngzǐ and probably at the time of Lièzĭ, in the Inner chapters of Gěhóng’s (Ko-hung’s) Bàopúzǐ (“He Who Holds to Simplicity,” a pseudonym of the author), referred to Zhuāngzǐ’s way as “pure conversation” —a term that Alan Watts rendered as “nothing but a head trip”—and vilified Zhuāngzǐ for his view that death should not be opposed. All of this demonstrates that this form of Taoism could not have led to the realization represented with the image of the snake shedding its skin, and suggests that it absorbed the simile from the original forms of Taoism and used it to illustrate the attainment of immortality they fancied but could by no means achieve. For its part, Quánzhēn Taoism, which traces its roots to Lǎozǐ, Zhuāngzǐ and Lièzĭ, like the Taoism of these three great Masters, seems to be a means for realizing the uncreated, unborn, unconditioned true nature of reality and thus realize that one is not the creature that is born and dies, but the unborn and undying true condition of all phenomena—which puts an end to rejection of death, as the realized individual has a b c d e f g h i j562 k Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ). Pāḷi, asaṅkhata; Skt. asaṃskṛta; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu wei ). 莊⼦; Wade-Giles, Chuang -tzu (circa. 369-286 BCE). 內篇: Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Nèipiān; Wade-Giles, Nei -p’ien . 葛洪; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Gěhóng; Wade-Giles, Ko -hung (circa 283-343 BCE). 抱朴⼦; Wade-Giles, Pao P’u -tzu . 莊⼦; Wade-Giles, Chuang -tzu . 清談; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, qīngtán; Wade-Giles, ch’ing -t’an . Watts (1975). Creel (1970, I, p. 22); Watts (1975, p. 91); a partial English translation of Gěhóng’s writings appeared in 1967 in the book now available as Ware (trans. 1981). 全眞; Wade-Giles, Chuan -chen . a 3 b 2 2 c 1 3 d 4 e f 1 3 4 2 g 1 2 3 3 h 1 i j k 2 2 1 422 2 gone beyond death itself. Therefore, like the Taoism of the venerable ancient sages, Quánzhēn Taoism seems to have many points of coincidence with Dzogchen—from which one may infer that in this type of Taoism the image of the snake shedding its skin might have referred to the actual, consummating realizations that the Dzogchen teachings illustrate with the same image. [For a longer discussion of all of this, cf. the paper referred to in the footnote and the contents of the endnote. ]) Just like the Chinese scholars referred to above, Keith Dowman affirmed that Taoism influenced Tibetan religion, but in his view the influence was received by Buddhist Dzogchen, via Chán Buddhism, and both Chán and Dzogchen ultimately originated from Śaivism. Though above I acknowledged that Chán (and possible the gradual Mahāyāna as well) might have influenced both the teachings and the practices of the Kham tradition of the Series of the [essence or nature] of mind, taken as a general principle the idea that it was Taoism that influenced Dzogchen rather than the other way around seems to turn facts upside down, for the universal ancestor of all vehicles is posited as a hybrid derived from two or more of the traditions that in truth seem to have derived from it. Furthermore, in the same book, Dowman has claimed that the term chatral, which he explained as denoting spontaneous activity beyond intentional action: a 563 b c d …is probably derived from the Taoist notion of wu-wei; Taoist concepts arrived in Dzogchen metaphysics via the Chinese Chán School. e If at some point of its development Dzogchen would have lacked the principle of spontaneous accomplishment through nonaction, since this principle is its inherent, distinctive principle, which sets it apart from other Paths of Awakening, it would not have been Dzogchen and could not have been so called. In Dzogchen Contemplation the paramount expressions of this principle are the practices of Thögel and the Yangthik / Yangti, and its second highest expression is the advanced stages of the main practice of the Series of space, for the practices in question function on the basis of the Base’s spontaneous perfection / actualization / rectification / accomplishment aspect—in Tibetan, lhundrub, which may be rendered as nonaction and which in this context works by means of those systemic activities utterly free from action that are designated by terms that are often and most properly rendered as nonaction, such as thinle and dzepa. Chán / Zen is a Mahāyāna tradition that as such does not feature the explanation of the Buddha-nature as a Vajra-nature having the two aspects which are f g h i564 For a more exhaustive discussion of the coincidences between Dzogchen and Taoism, see Capriles (2009a). Dowman (Ed. & Trans. 1984, pp. 295-8). Keith is my vajra brother, who I hold in very high esteem and with whom I meet when we coincide in the same town, but it was imperative to clarify this point. Bya bral. Actually, as will be shown below, more pertinent to the subject under discussion are terms such as phrin las, mdzad pa, and even lhun grub (Skt. nirābogha or anābogha). Dowman (ed. & trans. 1984, p. 243). Chán: 禪; Wade-Giles, Ch’an; Jap. ぜん (hiragana) / Zen (romaji); Korean, 선 (Seon); Viet. Thiền. Tib. sgom pa; Skt. bhāvanā; Ch. 修習 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiūxí; Wade-Giles, hsiu -hsi ). Wylie, lhun grub; Skt. nirābogha or anābogha. This principle implies freedom from contrived action and in certain contexts may be properly rendered as nonaction. Wylie, phrin las; Skt. karman. Wylie, mdzad pa. a b c d e f 1 g h i 423 2 primordial purity and spontaneous perfection, because it does not master the spontaneous, self-rectifying dynamic of energy that is the backbone of practices such as Thögel, the Yangthik / Yangti or even the main practice of the Series of Space, or even the lower mastery of energy proper to the Path of Transformation. In fact, the degree to which practices such as Thögel and the Yangthik, which are the essence of Dzogchen Contemplation, are based on the principle of nonaction, is not matched by any of practice of Chán Buddhism. For its part, the Behavior of Dzogchen—which is the context in which the term chatral, which was the one that Keith Dowman rendered as nonaction, is used—is utterly based on nonaction, for strictly speaking it is only while, outside sitting sessions, practitioners remain in the continuity of the Vision or, which is the same, in the state of rigpa, that it is said that they are exhibiting the chöpa or Behavior—and since in the state of rigpa there is no reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of the threefold directional thought structure or of any other kind of thought, no agent of action, action or object of action arise or appear in it. As noted above, since in Dzogchen the simile of the snake that sheds its skin illustrates the special modes of death that result from the realizations of the Series of pith instructions and the Series of space, the fact that exactly the same simile is found in Taoism suggests that this system may have had practices analogous to the Dzogchen practices that result in the realizations at the root of those modes of death. However, as also suggested above, if there existed, or had existed at some point, similar practices in Taoism, the evidence adduced above and, in greater detail, in a paper I published in Spanish, indicates that they were quite probably absorbed from Dzogchen Atiyoga rather than the other way around: these higher Dzogchen practices could not have been imported from any other tradition, because they are the supreme embodiment of the principle that, since the very rise of Dzogchen Atiyoga, has been its hallmark, which sets it apart from other Paths, teachings and practices. In fact, purportedly around eighteen hundred BCE, and therefore over one millennium before the rise of Taoism, of Buddhism in general and of Chán in particular, the primordial revealer of Bön, Shenrab Miwoche transmitted the original verses of the seminal instruction of the Oral Transmission of Dzogchen of Shang Shung complied in the Twelve Brief Tantras of the Single Sphere of Bodhicitta —which at a much later stage were put in writing and explicated by the great teacher Cherchen Nangzher Löpo, and which clearly expressed the principle of nonaction. (According to a Bönpo chronicle put into writing by Nyima Tenzin in his Tentsi and to various Internet pages, a b c d 565 e f g566 h i j Wylie, lhun grub; Skt. nirābogha or anābogha. Wylie, spyod pa; Skt. caryā; Pāḷi and Skt. carita; Ch. 行 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíng; Wade-Giles, hsing ). Wylie, bya bral. Capriles (2009a). Tib. ston pa. Tib. snyan rgyud. In Namkhai Norbu and Adriano Clemente (English 1999), Note 245 by Adriano Clemente, p. 215, reads: In the present case snyan rgyud, literally ‘oral transmission’, signifies an aphorism encapsulating in a few words the content of vast and profound teachings. Tibetan Byang sems thig le nyag gcig gi rgyud bu chung bcu gnyis, op. 24: p. 171, 5. Gyer chen snang bzher lod po. Wylie, bsTan rtsis. E.g. Anonymous author (undated). a b 2 c d e f g h i j 424 the teachings of Shenrab Miwoche were bestowed some eighteen thousand years ago, but I follow the dating offered by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu, which is about 1,800 BC). The text in question reads: a b567 The Path is self-accomplished, beyond effort and progress… The Fruit is self-accomplished in its own condition… In the ultimate unborn dimension abides the primordial gnosis without interruption— the single sphere beyond the duality of birth and cessation. These verses clearly express the “beyond action” principle, summarized in the assertion that the Path does not involve either effort or progress, and that the Truth to be realized is free from birth and as such could not be produced or attained through contrived practices. No doubt, the concepts of achievement through non-action and of Awakening as involving spontaneous activities utterly free from intention and action must be acknowledged to be inherent in the primordial vehicle and universal ancestor of all vehicles, Ati Dzogpa Chenpo. Though it was from Taoism that Chán absorbed the Chinese terms wúwéi, meaning nonaction, and wéiwúwéi, meaning action by means of nonaction, as noted repeatedly Taoism is later than Bönpo Dzogchen, with which it seems to have had a most intimate connection—and so one may assume that Taoism absorbed the corresponding concepts from Dzogchen Atiyoga, to which the principle of spontaneous accomplishment beyond action and the ensuing spontaneous activity that is free of human intentionally is inherent. Furthermore, as noted at the end of the preceding section, Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva were Dzogchen Masters, and according to the Platform Sūtra of the Sixth Patriarch, they were, respectively, the 14 and 15 Patriarchs of the Dhyāna (Chán or Zen) School in India, and therefore it would not be far-fetched to speculate that these Masters may have introduced into Chán concepts belonging to the Semdé series of Ati, which they may have adapted to the functional principles of the Mahāyāna. Moreover, with the passing of time there were many contacts between Dzogchen Ati and Chán; for example, as noted above, Bodhidharma, who introduced Chán into China, may have been a link in the transmission of the Anuyoga (which throughout history has been applied by practitioners of Dzogchen Ati, and the Fruit of which, as we have seen, is called Dzogchen); later on, Namkhai Nyingpo, who was one of the 25 main disciples of Padmasambhava, as well as one of his 8 most selected disciples, became a Master c d e th th f That is, around 16,000 BCE; cf. Kvaerne (1971). According to some Internet pages (e.g. Chumney, S. [ed.], 2008), Shenrab lived around 18,000 BCE, but I believe this to be the result of mistaking the phrase “about eighteen thousand years ago” for the phrase “some eighteen thousand years BCE.” Op. 24: first two lines, p. 171, 5; last three lines, p. 172, 1. 無為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu -wei ). 為無為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wéiwúwéi; Wade-Giles, wei -wu -wei ). Ch. 壇經 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Tánjīng; Wade-Giles, T’an -ching ), 六祖壇經 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Liùzǔtánjīng; Wade-Giles, Liu -tsu T’an -ching ), which abbreviate 六祖⼤師法寶壇經 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Liùzǔdàshī fábǎotánjīng; Wade-Giles, Liu -tsu -ta -shih Fa -pao -t’an -ching ); full title: 南宗頓教最上⼤乘摩訶般若 波羅蜜經六祖惠能⼤師於韶州⼤梵寺施法壇經. Wylie, sems sde. a b c 2 2 d 2 e 2 2 2 4 3 2 1 1 4 3 4 1 2 3 f 425 2 1 of both schools; as the Blue Annals note, Aro Yeshe Jungne was the seventh link in both the transmission of Tibetan Chán and of Ati Dzogpa chenpo; likewise, Nubchen Sangye Yeshe was a Master of both Chán and Dzogchen—and so on. In conclusion, it would be extremely naïve to believe that Taoism—historians and Masters of which having often asserted their tradition to be one and the same as Tibetan Bön—was known to Tibetans via Chán Buddhism. However, speculation about the relations between Taoism, Bön and Dzogchen must stop at this point; the interested reader may consult a paper in which I discuss the subject in far greater detail. a b 568 c Lineages of Transmission of the Nyingmapa Vehicles of Inner Tantra (Including Dzogchen Atiyoga) The transmission and teachings of the Nyingma vehicles of inner Tantra included in the Paths of Transformation and Spontaneous Liberation have come to us through two different channels, which are: (1) the kama or ringyü kama tradition of “long lineages,” and (2) the terma or ringyü terma transmission of “short lineages.” d e The Kama Tradition The first—the Kama tradition—consists in a continuous line of transmission, both of rigpa itself, and of teachings, texts, practices, sādhanas, and even worldly realizations. The corresponding lineages are said to be “long” because in them the transmission has passed from Master to student in an uninterrupted succession since the introduction of the inner Tantras into our human world, and thus they involve a great deal of links. This tradition comprises three principal lineages with their respective forms of transmission, which are: (1) The nonconceptual, nondual, direct transmission of the Awake awareness of the Victors (i.e. of Buddhahood)—in Tibetan, rGyal ba dgongs pa’i brgyud pa— consisting in the continuity, through successive generations of human beings, of the state of nonconceptual, nondual Awake awareness called rigpa—as disclosed by primordial gnoses. The source of this lineage is beyond time, in the dharmakāya f g h Roerich (Trans. 1979, p. 167); cf. also Dowman (Ed. & Trans. 1984, p. 350, note 19). Note that the translation attributed to Roerich was actually the work of the great Gendün Chöphel. A ro ye shes ’byung gnas. Capriles (2009a). Wylie, ring brgyud bka’ ma. Wylie, ring brgyud gter ma. Tib. brgyud pa. Tib. dgongs pa; this term is often rendered as “wisdom mind.” Note that the term is the honorific for bsam pa, meaning “thought” or “intention,” but in the Dzogchen teachings it refers to the wisdom mind of Buddhas, or of bodhisattvas in their state of Contemplation (Skt. samāhita; Tib. mnyam bzhag; Ch. 等引 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, děngyǐn; Wade-Giles, teng -yin ]), both of whom are beyond thought and intention in the ordinary sense of the terms. Skt. jina; Tib. rgyal ba; Ch. 最勝 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zuìshèng; Wade-Giles, tsui -sheng ). a b c d e f g 3 3 h 4 426 4 dimension, personified as the primordial Buddha Samantabhadra, whose timeless dimension is known as the Akaniṣṭha pure land. As we have seen, it is said that the state of rigpa is “transmitted” through Vajrasattva (in Mahāyoga) or through the Buddhas of the Five Families (in Anuyoga); however, we have also seen that, in a strict sense, for something to be transmitted there would have to have a transmitter and a receiver of the transmission separate from him or her; since the very state of this “transmission” is absolutely beyond dualism, so that the duality of transmitter and receiver is absent, the term should not be understood in a literal manner—a fact that is most evident in the case of the transmission of Atiyoga. As expressed in the Derdü tsagyü : a b c 569 d e “I am at the same time the one who teaches and the one who receives the teaching.” 570 (2) The symbolic transmission of Awareness-holders, known in Tibetan as Rig ’dzin brda’i brgyud pa, which was transmitted through the Lords of the Three Families (Mañjuśrī, Vajrapāṇi and Avalokiteśvara) and, from the latter, through a series of nonhuman and human rigdzin. (3) The oral transmission by means of human links, known in Tibetan as Gang zag snyan khung gi brgyud pa, which is not limited to the inner Tantras that contain the teachings of the Paths of transformation and spontaneous liberation, for there is also a transmission of this type in the case of the three outer levels of Tantra that convey the teachings of the Path of Purification, as well as in that of the Sūtrayāna (in the latter, it involves the Mahāyāna compilation carried out by 500 scholars and 500 assistants under the patronage of King Lakṣāśva). The lineages of the kama transmission may also be explained by identifying the specific origin and lines of transmission of each one of the three inner Tantras and their respective sections, but to do that more extensively than was made in the sketch offered in a previous section of this chapter would go far beyond the purpose of this book. For our aims, it is sufficient to point out that, although in the word kama the particle “ka ” literally means “word of Buddha,” this does not imply that this tradition only contains the words of Buddha Śākyamuni. For example, in the case of the kama transmission of the teachings of Dzogchen Ati, the particle “ka” makes the point that these teachings have their origin in the dharmakāya—symbolized as the primordial Buddha or ādi Buddha Samantabhadra—and that, being essentially beyond time, they appear in all times and directions. Thus, when it is said that the teachings of Buddhist f g 571 572 h Skt. ādi; Oḍḍiyāna language, ati; Tib. gdod ma. Skt. Ādibuddha; Tib. gDod ma’i sangs rgyas / Dang po’i sangs rgyas / Ye nas sangs rgyas; Ch. 本初佛 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, běnchū fó; Wade-Giles, pen -ch’u fo ). Pāli Akaniṭṭha; Tib. ’Og min; Ch. ⾊究竟天 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sèjiùjìng tiān; Wade-Giles, se -chiu -ching t’ien ). Wylie, bDer ’dus rtsa rgyud; also bDe gshegs ’dus pa rtsa ba’i rgyud: a Tantra belonging to the Sādhana Section of Mahāyoga found in Vol. OM and AH of the rNying ma rgyud ’bum. Tibetan Text 17. Quoted in Dudjom Rinpoche (English 1991, vol. I, p. 449). Skt. vidyādhara; Tib. rig ’dzin; Ch. 持明 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chímíng; Wade-Giles, ch’ih -ming ; Jap. jimyō; Kor. chimyŏng). In Pāḷi, vijjādhara. These are also the three principal deities of the outer Tantras, and they represent, respectively, wisdom (discerning and nonconceptual), energy and compassion (referential and nonreferential). bka’. a b 3 1 2 c 4 1 d e f 2 g h 427 2 4 4 Atiyoga come from Garab Dorje, reference is being made to the teachings of Ati existing in our time, for as shown above Garab Dorje was the first teacher in human form to receive these teachings in their current form, as well as the first link in the presently existing human transmission in the bosom of Buddhism. 573 The Terma Tradition As noted above, the terma tradition is the second pathway of transmission of the state of rigpa, as well as of teachings, texts, practices, sādhanas and so on of the Paths of Transformation and Spontaneous Liberation —but also of ritual objects, images, medicinal substances and many other precious objects, as well as of worldly realizations. Lineages of this tradition are said to be “short” because they involve a much lesser number of human links than the kama tradition: in most cases, the transmission goes directly from Padmasambhava (eight century CE) to a Revealer living at the time when such teachings and/or objects are to be reintroduced into the human world, who transmits it to his or her disciples and successor(s). Also in our time, there are Revealers who reveal treasures that correspond to the times and culture, or that were lost and now must be reintroduced. Besides being most appropriate for our time, treasure teachings may be more effective because, having passed through a lesser number of hands, it is less likely that the transmission may have been damaged due to some links breaking the Tantric commitment (and, if the Revealer is our own teacher, there is simply no possibility that the transmission may have been damaged, unless we ourselves break the commitment). In particular, this type of transmission permits, when time and circumstances are propitious, the revelation of teachings or objects that either were not suitable for previous times, or that, had they been revealed in those times, in the best of cases would have been lost. The Revealers of these teachings, objects, substances, etc., are neither angels without a material organism with physiological necessities, nor world-renouncing saints who are an insurmountable gulf away from human passions. It is especially important to note, on the one hand, that the tertön who reveals complete cycles of teachings is compelled to take a consort, and, on the other hand, that in most cases, before tertöns have begun to discover terma, they have been regarded as ordinary individuals rather than as tulkus, scholars or dharma practitioners. The essential nucleus of Guru Padmasambhava’s terma tradition consists in the “transmission of the cognitive mandate.” It is said that the great Master concealed many teachings in the continuum of the wisdom mind or awareness of his realized disciples through the power of the “transmission of the cognitive mandate,” upon which both Master and disciple remained in the state of indivisibility of realization and of the 574 a b c 575 576 d e Tib. gter ston, where gter means treasure and ston means revealer. Skt. samaya; Tib. dam tshig; Ch. 三摩耶 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānmóyé; Wade-Giles, san -mo -ye ). Tib. gter ston. Tib. gtad rgya. Skt. abhiprāya; Tib. dgongs pa; Ch. 意趣 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yìqù; Wade-Giles, i -ch’ü ). As stated in other footnotes, the term dgongs pa is the honorific for bsam pa, meaning “thought” or “intention,” yet in the Dzogchen teachings it refers to the wisdom mind of Buddhas, or of bodhisattvas in their state of Contemplation, both of whom are beyond thought and intention in the ordinary sense. The term is a synonym of the Tib. thugs. a b 1 c d e 4 428 4 2 2 teaching thus hidden, and therefore the teachings, the blessings and the corresponding attainments were kept intact in the disciple’s continuum of primordial gnosis or awareness. However, it is the fact that the Master conceived the aspiration that the teaching be revealed at the appropriate moment for the benefit of sentient beings, which permits the rediscovery of the teachings and so on. In connection with the above, Padmasambhava, as well as his main Tibetan consort, Yeshe Tsogyäl , and other “lords of the treasures” directly associated with them, hid teachings, papers with types of symbolic writing, and complete texts, as well as “material treasures” (including images, medicinal substances, ritual objects, etc.), in different places in the “physical” world, so that, when the propitious moment arrived, a particular individual would reveal them. The terma tradition comprises six types or stages of lineage. The first three are the same ones as in the kama transmission, which were explained upon considering that transmission: (1) The nonconceptual, nondual, direct transmission of the Awake awareness of the Victors (i.e. of Buddhahood) consisting in the continuity of the state of nonconceptual, nondual Awake awareness called rigpa made patent by primordial gnoses; (2) the symbolic transmission of Awareness-holders; and (3) the oral transmission by means of human links. Then there are the three lineages exclusive to the terma tradition, namely: (4) the transmission named “empowered by (Awake) aspiration,” which is the principal aspect of the transmission and corresponds to the cognitive mandate considered above; (5) the transmission that is based on prophetic authorization, in which the Master inspires the disciple and, indicating that in the future he or she will become a tertön, causes this to occur, and (6) the transmission entrusted to the ḍākinīs, in which the Master entrusts to the ḍākinīs for protection the three main elements of the transmission: the treasure or terma, the Revealer or tertön, and the treasure’s Masters and practitioners. Though in general there are eighteen categories of terma, with regard to the way they are discovered there are two main categories, which are: (1) gongter or “treasures of Awake awareness,” and (2) sater , or “earth treasures.” The first—the treasures of Awake awareness—are not related to any type of material support (neither to a “yellow scroll” nor to anything else); although some times their discovery is catalyzed by the arising of visions and/or sounds (which may or may not include symbolic words), the tertön discovers the treasure of Awake a 577 b c d e f g h i j k l Ye shes mtsho rgyal. Tib. rdzas gter. Tib. rgyal ba dgongs pa’i brgyud pa. Tib. rig ’dzin brda’i brgyud pa. Tib. gang zag snyan khung gi brgyud pa. Tib. smon lam dbang bskur. Tib. lung bstan bka’ babs. Tib. mkha’ ’gro gtad rgya. Wylie, dgongs gter. These are also referred to as thugs gter—“thuk” being roughly a synonym of “gong,” for in this context both terms refer to the state of rigpa. Wylie, sa gter. Tib. shog ser. Tib. gter. a b c d e f g h i j k l 429 Awareness when, the circumstances having matured and the auspicious moment arrived, the transmission of the cognitive mandate spontaneously awakes from the rigpa or Awake Awareness that makes the boundless expanse of primordial gnosis evident. These are regarded as the supreme and most important treasures. Generally speaking, the second—the earth treasures—may be hidden in rocks, mountains, lakes, temples, images and even in space, and among them there may be material objects such as, for example, a roll of paper known as “yellow scroll” bearing some form of symbolic writing that may serve as a key so that, on reading it, the tertön may discover the treasure in his or her own Awake awareness. This is so because the discovery of treasures consists in their appearing in the empty expanse where all phenomena appear, by the power of the self-arisen rigpa that is nonconceptually, nondually self-reGnized in primordial gnoses. Because of this, those who do not have a firm realization of the state of rigpa of Ati Dzogpa Chenpo, which embraces the primordial empty expanse and is inseparable from it, would never be able to discover a terma transmitted through the cognitive mandate of Padmasambhava. However, earth treasures are also a subcategory among the eighteen classes of treasures, and when so considered it includes only the treasures that are unearthed after having been hidden in the earth; therefore, treasures found in lakes or submerged in water in general, are called water treasures; treasures found in space are referred to as space treasures; etc. Finally, among those treasures that are not treasures of Awake awareness properly speaking, yet have no material support and are not hidden in the earth, it also important to mention the dream treasures, which are those that are discovered by means of dreams. Lastly, it may be pointed out that there is also a category of revealed teachings that are known as “teachings of pure vision,” but that are not treasures, and may be discovered by less realized individuals. What has been explained in this section has been simplified as much as possible, for this is not the place to give a detailed description of all the possible types of treasures; for an intermediate explanation and for another, more exhaustive one, I refer the reader to two specific texts published in Western languages. a b c d578 579 e f g h i j580 Tib. dgongs. As stated in previous footnotes, the term dgongs pa is the honorific for bsam pa, meaning “thought” or “intention,” yet in the Dzogchen teachings it refers to the wisdom mind of Buddhas, or of bodhisattvas in their state of Contemplation, both of whom are beyond thought and intention in the ordinary sense. Tib. shog ser. Tib. brda yig. Skt. dharmadhātu; Tib. chos dbyings; Chin. 法界 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, făjiè; Wade-Giles, fa -chieh ). These being called water treasures (Tib. chu gter). These being space treasures (Tib. nam mkha’ gter; the term nam mkha’ also means “sky” and in this context is often translated as such [“in the sky”]). Tib. rmi lam gter. Tib. dag snang. Tib. gter ma. For an “intermediate” explanation of treasures or gter ma, I particularly recommend sPrul sku Don grub’s essay “The Terma Tradition,” reproduced in Tulku Thöndup (1995). For a more extensive discussion, Tulku Thöndup (1986) may be consulted. a b c d 3 e f g h i j 430 4 REFUGE, ROLE AND STATUS OF THE TEACHER, AND COMMITMENT AND PRECEPTS IN THE THREE PATHS Refuge One of the key elements of the Path of Renunciation is Refuge in Buddha, dharma and saṃgha, which arose in the Hīnayāna—in which Buddha is understood to refer solely to Śākyamuni, dharma is understood to designate the teachings of the First Promulgation, and saṃgha is taken to refer to the community of monks and nuns—but progressively spread to all Buddhist Paths and vehicles, where those three nouns acquired much wider senses. In the face of the insecurity inherent in life, which is unstable and ever-changing, and of the transitory problems that constantly occur in it, all human beings crave finding a stable refuge. The most naïve ones take refuge in religious beliefs and other ideologies, lovers, money, power, status, idolized personages (of pop culture, politics, religion, the academy, etc.), groups, material objects, fame and fans, drugs, etc. However, it is easy to realize that taking refuge in such objects of refuge, instead of offering a refuge from insecurity, exacerbate our worries: if I take refuge in my lover, this will increase the insecurity associated with the possibility that she or he may prize or love another more than myself; if I take refuge in money, I will be worrying that it may be stolen or somehow I may lose it, that stock markets may crash, etc.; if I take refuge in ideologies, I take the risk that they may fail, be refuted, show their flaws or be relinquished by the masses; drugs have a very transient effect and in most cases create far worse problems than immediately they may seem to solve—and something of the kind is true of all mundane objects of refuge. This is the reason why Patrul Rinpoche said, “If you have a house, you have a house problem; if you have a yak, you have a yak problem; if you have a goat, you have a goat problem.” Finally, as to those who take refuge in spiritual states that, being produced, are impermanent, as we have seen, these also offer no more than a temporary solace that at some point will be followed by the shock of having to face new, undesirable experiences. The only secure, stable, everlasting Refuge lies in Buddhahood, which consists in the definitive and irreversible consolidation of the Awake state, for only in this state no vicissitudes can affect us: neither the sensations that normally would be experienced as pain, nor illness, nor old age, nor death, nor any other circumstance will be able to alter the immutable condition of total completeness / plenitude and perfection that, being free from the reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of thought is beyond the a c a b c Tib. sangs rgyas; Ch. 佛 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fó; Wade-Giles, fo ). Pāḷi dhamma; Tib. chos; Ch. 法 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎ; Wade-Giles, fa ; Jap. hō). Pāḷi: saṅgha; Tib. dge ’dun; Ch. 僧伽 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sēngjiā; Wade-Giles, seng -chia ). 2 3 1 1 b subject-object duality and in general beyond dualism—thus being beyond acceptance, rejection and indifference (and therefore beyond the ephemeral, petty pleasure that arises from the first, the pain that arises from the second, and the neutral feeling issuing from the third), beyond life and death, beyond hope and fear, beyond dexterity and clumsiness. The Mahāyāna and higher vehicles refer to this condition of nonconceptual, absolute wisdom or primordial gnosis, as absolute Refuge, or as supramundane Refuge directly received from the true nature of phenomena (i.e. from the dharmatā or chönyi ), for as just shown, the irreversible stabilization of the condition in question if the only absolute Refuge. a b c Relative Refuge: Provisional and Definitive In The Precious Vase, Chögyal Namkhai Norbu writes: 581 There are two ways to understand the meaning of ‘taking refuge’: the provisional way and the definitive way. Provisional refuge means taking refuge temporarily in a person, in a non-human being, in the power of a rig ngag mantra etc. with the aim of avoiding direct or indirect disturbances to one’s body, voice and mind—and even finding shelter in a cave or at the foot of a tree when caught in a downpour. The aim of definitive Refuge, on the other hand, consists not only in overcoming momentary problems but also in resolving their cause or root, which is our dualism, in such a way as to obtain lasting release from the ocean of saṃsāra. To this end we take Refuge in the Three Precious Jewels, that is, in the Teacher [Śākyamuni], who teaches the Path in a perfect way, in his teachings, which constitute the holy dharma, and in the noble saṃgha or community of those who help us apply such teachings in the right way. 582 In other words, provisional refuge is the refuge human beings in general, whether Buddhist or non-Buddhist, take in different mundane objects in order to avoid specific threats, whereas definitive Refuge is the Refuge that Buddhists take in the Three Precious Jewels (or in their equivalents in Paths other than that of renunciation, which will be considered below) as the means to attain the Awake state that, as shown above, is the only secure, stable, everlasting Refuge. Refuge on the Path of Renunciation As already stated, it is as part of the method for having access to the absolute condition that is the only true, stable and immutable Refuge, that in the Hīnayāna (and in general in the entire Path of Renunciation) one takes relative Refuge: (1) in the Buddha as the nirmāṇakāya Śākyamuni who, having obtained the true, absolute Refuge—a far more perfect refuge than whatever a Hīnayāna practitioner can obtain—gave rise to the teachings of this Path; (2) in the dharma or teachings of the nirmāṇakāya Śākyamuni as the Path for reaching the lower refuge consisting in the attainments of the Hīnayāna; and (3) in the saṃgha or community of practitioners as the true helpers with the practice for attaining Skt. prajñā; Tib. shes rab; 般若 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn bōrě; Wade-Giles, po -je ). Here these terms are to be understood in the sense of absolute prajñā, as understood in the Prajñāpāramitā teachings. Skt. jñāna; Tib. ye shes; Ch. 智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhì; Wade-Giles, chih ; Jap. chi). Wylie, chos nyid; Ch. 法性 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎxìng; Wade-Giles, fa -hsing ). a 1 b 4 c 3 432 4 3 that lower refuge, becoming firmly established in it. The third of these aspects is directly related to the role that teachers have in the Hīnayāna and gradual Mahāyāna—who in this case are the elder members of the saṃgha who help one understand and apply the teachings correctly, or to follow the discipline correctly, but that may not give us incontestably orders—which will be considered in a subsequent section of this chapter. Concerning the way to take Refuge, in the Hīnayāna, which strongly places the emphasis on the taking of vows, Refuge ended up turning into a vow. In the Mahāyāna, for its part, it has been noted that the key concept is not that of taking vows that may by no means be transgressed, but that of engaging in a training that, contrariwise, implies the commitment to go beyond one’s limits if that is necessary in order to benefit others (even when this may be dangerous for one’s own comfort, security and so on). Therefore, in the Mahāyāna, rather than being a vow that one takes, Refuge is a training one engages in. (However, the Mahāyāna incorporated the system of vows from the Hīnayāna, subjecting it to a properly Mahāyāna motivation, intention and way of applying, and thereon in this vehicle there arose that which became known as the “Refuge vow and training of the bodhisattva.”) Furthermore, in the Mahāyāna, once one attains nonconceptual, absolute prajñā and thereby enters the Third Path, which is that of Vision, it is said that one has discovered the absolute Refuge, which is the one referred to as the “supramundane Refuge received directly from the true nature of phenomena.” The above explanation of Refuge in the Mahāyāna is a literal, outer interpretation that is far from being the only one. It is said that in an inner Mahāyāna sense the Buddha is the state of Awakening, the dharma is the teachings and practices characteristic of the Mahāyāna, and the saṃgha is formed by the higher bodhisattvas (those in the third and four paths, i.e. from the first through the tenth level). Likewise, it is said that in a secret Mahāyāna sense the Buddha is the dharmakāya, the dharma is the saṃbhogakāya, and the saṃgha is the nirmāṇakāya. Only in the last acceptation is Refuge absolute, for it is only in the condition of irreversible indivisibility of the three kāyas that nothing can harm us or affect us negatively. a 583 Padmasambhava’s Comparative Explanation of Refuge: Path of Renunciation When Paths and vehicles are compared, the conventional Refuge of the Sūtrayāna is the outer Refuge. Padmasambhava explained this outer Refuge in characteristically Mahāyāna terms by emphasizing compassion and working for others: he stated that the essence of taking Refuge is the aspiration to attain supreme Awakening, together with commitment to compassion; and asserted that it is called Refuge because it releases from fear of the three lower states and from wrong beliefs that attribute absolute, inherent truth and self-existence to the impermanent aggregates. He further stated that this Refuge has three causes, which are fear of the suffering of saṃsāra, faith in the Three Jewels as the place of Refuge, and recognition of the Three Jewels as the object of Refuge; that its object 584 b Skt. dharmatā; Tib. chos nyid; Ch. 法性 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎxìng; Wade-Giles, fa -hsing ). According to a gter ma revealed by Nyang Nyi ma ’od zer (1124-1192), this explanation is part of the advice given by the great teacher of Oḍḍiyāna to his consort and disciple Ye shes mtsho rgyal (Yeshe Tsogyäl). Cf. Guru Padma’s Advice in the Form of Questions and Answers (sLob dpon pad ma’i zhal gdams zhu lan: Tibetan Text 19: A: p. 256, 6; B: p. 20, 3); quoted in Namkhai Norbu (1999/2001, pp. 99-101). a 3 b 433 4 is the Three Jewels, the only means to bring about the cessation of birth-and-death; that the requisites of the one who takes it are aspiration, devotion and faith, as well as always keeping in mind the qualities of the Three Jewels (which implies recognizing that it would be senseless to take Refuge in conditioned and samsaric entities or conditions, such as the deities of the eternalists, and that it only makes sense to take it in the state of Buddhahood, nonfabricated / unproduced / uncontrived / unconditioned / unconfigured / uncompounded and nirvanic, which is the sole place of freedom in all respects); that the method of taking Refuge should be based on devotion through body, voice and mind, fear of the three lower states of saṃsāra, trust in the power of the Three Jewels, and stable faith and compassion; and that the intention in taking it should be the liberation of all beings—which is right to the point, for otherwise one’s selfish intention will assert and maintain the illusion of selfhood. This last point explains the reason why we recite: “In order to liberate all beings from the suffering of saṃsāra, I and all beings of the three worlds take Refuge until we have reached the essence of Awakening.” a 585 Padmasambhava’s Comparative Explanation of Refuge: Path of Transformation As we have seen, according to the classification of the nine vehicles into Path of Renunciation, Path of Transformation and Path of Spontaneous Liberation, the views and methods of the Path of Transformation in their entirety were introduced into the human world by nirmāṇakāya mahāsiddhas who received them through manifestations of the saṃbhogakāya, and who then communicated them through lines of transmission that at some point reached our teachers in human form, who obtained the realization of the state that the teachings of this Path communicate and, in turn, obtained the capacity to transmit it. This is why true Tantric Masters have the capacity to transfer the power of this state to us by means of Tantric empowerments, which, when the third empowerment is effective, may be the occasion for an example of primordial gnosis to arise in our own continuum of experience—which in the case of a male disciple is introduced in the form of a female partner, symbolized by a nude dancing girl. In the fourth empowerment, for its part, an oral indication of the nature of mind is offered that, by the power of the transmission, in most fortunate individuals may be the key for the spontaneous occurrence of the actual primordial gnosis that in freedom from conceptual fabrications reveals the true condition of ourselves and of the whole of reality, as well as the true meaning of the dharma—which is none other than this actual primordial gnosis itself. Then, even after the veil of hypostasized / reified / valorized conceptualization is reestablished, since we have apprehended the true condition at least for an instant, we know what it is and thus if we do not remain in doubt we no longer depend on explanation or analogy. Furthermore, it is even possible that we may have learned how to have access to it again, and since we have also received the power of the transmission, we may have the capacity to practice on our own. b c d Pāḷi, asaṅkhata; Skt. asaṃskṛta; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu -wei ). Tib. dpe yi ye shes. Tib. don gyi ye shes. Skt. niṣprapañca; Tib. spros bral; Ch. 不戲論 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùxìlùn; Wade-Giles, pu -hsi -lun ) or Skt. aprapañca; Tib. spros [pa] med [pa]; Ch. 無戲論 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúxìlùn; Wade-Giles, wu-hsi-lun). In properly Dzogchen terminology, Tib. la bzla ba. a 2 b c d 2 434 4 4 2 This is why, on the Path of Transformation, Refuge is taken in the Master (guru or lama ) rather than in the Buddha: the Master is no other than Vajradhāra—a name that is given to whoever has attained the supreme realization of Tantrism—and as such is the ultimate source of the empowerment that allows the primordial condition to unveil in our continuum, as well as of the methods we apply (for here the methods are the deities we visualize, which were transmitted by the human teachers who revealed and first realized the respective Tantric methods, and then through a line of transmission until our teacher, from whom we receive them) and of our realization, which is totally dependent on that which we receive from him or her in the course of the four empowerments, on devotion to the Master, on the way we perceive the teacher, on our keeping the commitment or samaya with the Master, etc. Furthermore, the teacher’s state of true, absolute Refuge (is) the primordial gnosis of which first we receive a sample in the third empowerment and— provided that we are the best type of student and that we receive the blessing of the Base through the blessing of the Lineage and of the Teacher—we perfectly realize in the fourth empowerment... and in which we aspire to firmly establish ourselves. In short, the Tantric Master is the source of all Empowerments, Methods and Realizations. Padmasambhava stated: a b You should understand that the Teacher is more important than the Buddhas of the thousand kalpas, for all the Buddhas of past kalpas have attained Awakening by following a Teacher. Before the arising of a Teacher not even the name “Buddha” existed. c And also: d The Teacher is Buddha, the Teacher is the dharma and equally the Teacher is the saṃgha: He or she is the root of the Three Jewels. Even if you neglect any other offering but honor the Teacher perfectly, satisfying him or her, then all the siddhis you desire will manifest. e Regarding the other two objects of refuge, just as on the Path of Renunciation we take Refuge in the dharma (externally identified with the teachings given by Śākyamuni) as the Path to tread in order to attain the condition of true, absolute Refuge, on the Path of Transformation we take Refuge in the “meditation deity” because this deity is the main method of the practice that the Tantric Master communicates as the Path to gain access to the true and absolute Refuge. f Wylie, bla ma; Ch. 師 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shī; Wade-Giles, shih ) or 上師 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shàngshī; Wade-Giles, shang -shih ). However, the word-by-word rendering of bla ma is 藏⽂ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zàngwén; Wade-Giles, tsang -wen ). According to a gter ma revealed by Nyang nyi ma ’od zer (1124-1192), the following words are part of the advice given by the great teacher of Oḍḍiyāna to his consort Yeshe Tsogyäl. See Tibetan Text 19: A: p. 256, 6; B: p. 20, 3. Quoted in Namkhai Norbu (1999/2001, p. 104). Pāḷi: kappa; Pāḷi kappa; Tib. bskal pa; Ch. 劫 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn jié; Wade-Giles chieh ; jap. gō) or 劫波 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jiébō; Wade-Giles, chieh -po ): time-cycle, which is divided in various ways, including the one into four eras (Skt. yuga; Tib. ldan; Ch. 時 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn shí; Wade-Giles, shih ]). Ibidem. Pāḷi saṅgha; Tib. dge ’dun; Ch. 僧伽 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sēngjiā; Wade-Giles, seng -chia ). Skt. deva, devatā, or, more precisely, iṣṭadevatā (where iṣṭa means “cherished” or “revered”); Tib. yi dam: probably a contraction of yid kyi dam tshig: samaya of mind, or non-Jungian archetypal forms [with which] samaya [is kept]). a 1 4 4 1 2 b c 2 2 1 2 d e 1 f 435 1 Finally, just like on the Path of Renunciation one takes Refuge in the saṃgha or community of practitioners as the true helpers of the practice to be applied in order to establish oneself in the state of true and absolute Refuge, on the Path of Transformation one takes Refuge in the ḍākinīs, owners of the Teachings, who, together with guardians, pawos and pamos, and vajra brothers and sisters, on this “swift” Path are the true helpers of the practice. Why are ḍākinīs the main, true helpers of the practice? The Sanskrit term ḍākinī has many different levels of meaning, which may be classified into the three kāyas and into a series of classes, but it is the ḍākinīs of the three kāyas, as well as all wisdom-ḍākinīs, which are the true helpers of the practice par excellence. From the standpoint of the male, in particular, the ḍākinī qua secret Tantric consort is a primary helper in some of the main practices of the Vajrayāna Path of Transformation, as well as a trigger for activating the passions, because the relationship with her activates possessiveness, attachment, anger, jealousy and so on, which the practitioner must deal with by means of transformation, turning them into the corresponding facets of primordial gnosis so as to keep the Tantric commitment —which becomes a powerful impulse for dharma practice. However, the ḍākinīs represent the energies of life, the activities of the Masters, and so on, and also all of these are the true helpers of the practice, for the situations that present themselves in our lives, and in particular those that are created by the Master’s activities, are trials that offer the opportunity to swiftly progress on the Path—or else incur into pitfalls that may block the advance in question. (It may be noted that the Refuge explained in this paragraph is the one corresponding to the external level of Refuge on the Path of Transformation; the inner level is explained below in the regular text of this chapter.) Padmasambhava notes that to take Refuge the Vajrayāna way, which when all Paths and vehicles are taken into account, is the one that is referred to as inner Refuge, one has to enter the Path of Secret Mantra; that the way of taking it must be based on respect and devotion through body, voice and mind; that the three specific intentions of the individual taking Refuge must be to see the teacher as Buddha, never to forsake the meditation deity even at the cost of his or her own life, and to worship all khandros or ḍākinīs without interruption; that the duration of Refuge is from the moment of taking the commitment of bodhicitta during the initiation until attaining the level of Vajradhāra; that the secondary cause is having respect and devotion toward the Path of Secret Mantra (Guhyamantrayāna); and that its aim and benefits are to make one suitable to tread the Mantrayāna Path and to receive the empowering flow that is proper to this Path. a b c d e f 586 587 Inner and Secret forms of the “Inner Refuge” which is the Refuge of the Path of Transformation Tib. mkha’ ’gro [ma]; Ch. 荼枳尼 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, túzhǐní; Wade-Giles, t’u -chih -ni ). Skt. dharmapāla; Pāḷi dhammapāla; Tib. chos skyong; Ch. 法護 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, făhù; Wade-Giles, fa -hu ). With regard to the relation between the Refuge of the Path of Renunciation and the Refuge of the Path of Transformation, cf. Namkhai Norbu (1999/2001, pp. 93-103). Tib. gsang yum. As sGam po pa said once, “you must not show the karmamudrā (Tib. las kyi phyag rgya) jealousy or antagonism.” In this context karmamudrā refers to the Tantric consort. According to a gter ma revealed by Nyang nyi ma ’od zer (1124-1192), the following words in the regular text are part of the advice given in Tibet by the great teacher from Oḍḍiyāna to his consort Yeshe Tsogyäl. See Tibetan Text 19: A: p. 256, 6; B: p. 20, 3. Quoted in Namkhai Norbu (1999/2001, pp. 101-102). a 2 b 3 2 3 c d e f 436 4 However, when the Vajrayāna Path of Transformation is considered on its own, the Refuge that in this discussion I have associated with this Path is the outer Refuge, for it is the one that is referred to literally in the texts. In this context the inner Refuge is the one taken in the true nature of each of the three aspects of the vajra body: (1) the seed-essence indivisible from the energetic volume determining the scope of awareness; (2) the energy currents or winds; and (3) the energy pathways. In the same context, the secret Refuge may be said to be the three kāyas as they are understood in the context of the Vajrayāna Path of Transformation. Moreover, in this Path it is also said, from the standpoint of the male, that the general object of Refuge is the ḍākinī. From this perspective, it may be said that the first object of Refuge is the dharmakāya ḍākinī Samantabhadri: the total, empty, limitless expanse where all physical and mental phenomena appear, which is indivisible from the dharmakāya represented with her consort, Samantabhadra. The second is the ḍākinī of the saṃbhogakāya that we visualize in our practice. And the third is the nirmāṇakāya or physical women that we relate to, and in particular the Teacher if the teacher is a female or the Teacher’s consort if the teacher is a male, and if we are males, our own consort—but also all of our vajra sisters and all women in general. In actual practice, on the Path of Transformation there is no need to take a Refuge vow, as it suffices to recognize the three Refuges in the Tantric Initiation, or else to take Refuge on one’s own, without the need for a ritual and simultaneously with the bodhicitta commitment as it is done in the System of the Profound View attributed to Nāgārjuna. According to the celebrated lines in The Pure Dimension of Mañjuśrī: a588 b589 c590 d e All dharmas are secondary causes And depend entirely on one’s intention. As Chögyal Namkhai Norbu notes, it is thus easy to see that this system is in full accord with the basic principle of all the Mahayana training methods, which is that everything depends on the intention of the individual. However, in everyday life Tantric practitioners, visualizing in front of them the field of merits consisting in the guru (which in the case of the Nyingmapa may be represented with Padmasambhava or Garab Dorje), the deva(s), and the ḍākinī(s) and so on, in the context of a ritual one should recite the phrases namo guru bhya, namo deva bhya, namo ḍākinī bhya. Padmasambhava’s Comparative Explanation of Refuge: Tib. thig le, which renders the Skt. bindu (also tilaka), but which at the same time has an acceptation very similar to that of the Skt. kuṇḍalinī—this being the reason why I render the term as “seed-essence indivisible from the energetic volume determining the scope of awareness.” Cf. endnote 567. Skt. prāṇavāyu (combination of the terms vāyu and prāṇa), prāṇa (Tib. srog; Ch. 波那 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bōnà; Wade-Giles, po -na ]) or vāyu (Pāḷi vāyu or vāyo; Tib. rlung; Ch. ⾵⼤ [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fēngdà; Wade-Giles, feng -ta ]), according to context. The Tib. and Ch. terms employed in this context seem to be the terms that render the Skt. vāyu: rlung and fēngdà. Skt. nāḍī; Tib. rtsa. Tib. zab mo lta ba’i lugs. Tib. ’Jam dpal zhing bkod, four chapters contained in the dKon mchog brtsegs pa’i mdo; Skt. Ratnakūṭasūtra, translated by Lotsawa Ye shes sde and the Indian Paṇḍita Śilendrabodhi 65, 109. Cited in Namkhai Norbu (1999/2000). a b 1 1 4 4 c d e 437 Path of Spontaneous liberation We have seen that the only secure, true Refuge is Buddhahood; that on the Path of Renunciation the source of the teachings is the nirmāṇakāya Śākyamuni, Buddha of our age; and that therefore Refuge is taken principally in the Buddha. We have also seen that on the Path of Transformation the state of the Master is held to be Buddhahood; that the true source of empowerment and blessings is the Master; and that therefore Refuge is taken principally in the Master. Well, on the Path of Spontaneous Liberation there is full awareness that the only secure, true Refuge is the irreversible stabilization of our state of rigpa, which is the state that is the source of the teachings, blessings and realization, and which is no other than the dharmakāya Samantabhadra, root of the transmission of these teachings—and therefore it is this state that constitutes the true Refuge. (However, this should not be taken to mean that the Master is unimportant on this Path: ordinarily, rigpa is realized through the instruction and blessings of the Master, and therefore there is a commitmentless commitment of the yogin or yoginī with the Teacher, who is also a catalyzer of rigpa’s blessings. And this is the case also in those individuals who initially realize rigpa without an external nirmāṇakāya Master’s instruction or empowerment.) In fact, concerning the type of Refuge corresponding to the Path of Spontaneous Liberation, which in comparison with the Refuge of other Paths and vehicles is referred to as secret Refuge, Padmasambhava stated that the objects of Refuge are tawa or Vision, gompa or Contemplation, and chöpa or Behavior. As noted in the chapter on the Path of Spontaneous Liberation, as is the case with every Buddhist vehicle, Ati Dzogpa Chenpo has three aspects, which are the Base, the Path and the Fruit—each one of which has in turn three aspects. As we have also seen, the first of the aspects of the Path of Ati Dzogpa Chenpo is tawa or Vision, which, unlike the tawas of other vehicles, is not an intellectual view about reality, a knowledge and the understanding of a method, but the state of rigpa: since the tawa or Vision is an initial glimpse of the true Buddha and of the Awake state of the Tantric and Dzogchen Master, and this Vision is the source of all of the Buddhist teachings and realizations, on the Path of Spontaneous Liberation this is the equivalent of the Buddha on the Path of Renunciation, and of the Master on that of Transformation— and as such on this Path it is the first element of Refuge. With regard to this element, Padmasambhava asserted that the tawa (Vision) should be based on certainty, which in terms of the three phrases of Garab Dorje’s testament means that for this aspect of Refuge to be truly effective, one should be able to remain free of doubts with regard to the fact that the condition that became patent in the Introduction is the tawa or Vision of Dzogchen and that that which this Vision discloses (is) the true condition of all entities and experiences. With regard to specific intentions, Mahāguru Padmasambhava noted that the tawa (Vision) involves not harboring any attachment or desire to achieve Awakening or relinquish saṃsāra—the point in this being that the tawa of Ati is the unveiling of the primordial state 591 592 a c b d 593 According to a gter ma revealed by Nyang nyi ma ’od zer (1124-1192), the following words are part of the advice given by the great teacher of Oḍḍiyāna to his consort Yeshe Tsogyäl. Cf. Tibetan Text 19: A: p. 256, 6; B: p. 20, 3. Quoted in Namkhai Norbu (1999/2001, p. 102). Wylie, lta ba; Skt. dṛṣṭi (also darśana; especially when referring to nonBuddhist systems); Ch. ⾒ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jiàn; Wade-Giles, chien ). Wylie, sgom pa; Skt. bhāvanā; Ch. 修習 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiūxí; Wade-Giles, hsiu -hsi ). Wylie, spyod pa; Skt. caryā; Pāḷi and Skt. carita; Ch. 行 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíng; Wade-Giles, hsing ). a b 4 c 1 d 2 2 438 corresponding to Awakening, which does not permit the arising of hope or fear—which are two of the main demons with regard to whom one is taking Refuge in the demondestroying vajra of rigpa. Just as on the Path of Renunciation it was the dharma taught by Śākyamuni that was to be practiced, and on the Path of Transformation the methods of the practice were the meditation deities, on the Path of Spontaneous Liberation what is to be applied is the second aspect of this Path, which, as it has been shown, is gompa or Contemplation, defined as “continuing in the tawa or Vision.” Hence on this Path the equivalent of the dharma on the Path of Renunciation and the yidam on the Path of Transformation, thus being the second element of Refuge, is the continuity of the Vision in which there is no unawareness of the true condition of reality and no hypostatization / absolutization / reification / valorization of thought, and in which therefore the all-liberating single gnosis is nonconceptually and hence nondually patent and functional, so that all arising thoughts and perceptions, which otherwise would veil this state, self-liberate. With regard to this element, Padmasambhava noted that the gompa should be based on the direct Seeing [(of) the true condition of all reality]: it must consist in the continuity of this nonconceptual and hence nondual self-Seeing. Furthermore, Padmasambhava said that one should not have any concept of being in “Contemplation” or in “meditation:” the Contemplation of Ati lies in being beyond the limits established by concepts, and if the thought of being in meditation arises and does not liberate itself spontaneously, this means that saṃsāra has interrupted our Contemplation and thus at the moment we are not in the Contemplation of Dzogchen. Finally, just as on the Path of Renunciation the true helpers of the practice were the members of the saṃgha (which in the external sense was the community of monks and nuns), and just as on the Path of Transformation they were the ḍākinī s, together with the guardians of the teachings, the pawos and pamos and the vajra brothers and sisters, on the Path of Spontaneous Liberation the true helper of the practice is the third aspect of the Path, which is chöpa or Behavior—with regard to which Padmasambhava said that “one should neither accept nor reject anything, thus never falling into partiality” (so that in this regard one should be like a pig or a dog, which will gobble shit as enthusiastically as caviar, beyond discrimination). The point is that the chöpa of Atiyoga consists in the spontaneous flow of actionless activities that occurs when the state of rigpa that is the essence of gompa or Contemplation is carried beyond the limits of sessions or thuns—and since the state of rigpa is totally beyond judgment, this implies being utterly beyond acceptance and rejection and therefore beyond partiality. If at some point the continuity of the state of rigpa (and therefore of chöpa or Behavior) is interrupted, we must maintain the same impartiality beyond acceptance and rejection, and therefore our unconventional courses of behavior, or the disapproving opinions of others concerning these courses of behavior, will elicit hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized judging thoughts that will yield conflict— which will be most useful, for in Atiyoga the turning of contradiction into conflict is the essential catalyst of the process of spontaneous liberation allowing us to proceed swiftly on the Path. And therefore chöpa or Behavior is the true helper of the practice—just as are the saṃgha on the Path of Renunciation, or the ḍākinīs, together with the guardians of the teachings, the pawos and pamos and the vajra brothers and sisters, on the Path of Transformation. 594 595 596 439 For example, when we act like bodhisattvas and hence the way we are perceived by others causes us to experience a pleasant feeling tone, it is extremely easy to forget the practice and be carried away by the habit of clinging to our thoughts. Contrariwise, when the way others perceive us induces in us an unpleasant feeling tone, this feeling can be effectively used as an alarm reminding us to look at our thoughts in the ways prescribed by the teachings, so that they self-liberate—or, if we have developed a higher capacity, it may directly result in the self-liberation of those thoughts. However, this does not mean that we must devise specific courses of action that we expect will have a pre-conceived effect on ourselves or others: the chöpa or Behavior, to be so, must be uncontrived—and when we slip from the state of rigpa and fall into delusion, the way we will behave will to a great extent depend on how our idiosyncratic delusion is, what are our preponderant passions, etc. One of the most concise and yet most precise keys to understanding the chöpa of Ati Dzogpa Chenpo may be the following stanza discussing it, which Dudjom Rinpoche (Jigdräl Yeshe Dorje) wrote in the poem entitled Calling the Lama from Afar: The careless craziness of destroying clinging to a style… may this human lifetime be spent in this State of uninhibited, naked ease. Throughout history, consummate Dzogchen practitioners exhibited extremely unconventional modes of Behavior, and the bad reputation and rejection they gained by so doing became a great help to their practice. However, each must behave in terms of his or her level of realization (or lack of it): if those who are not highly realized implemented such courses of action, the medicine would turn into poison: how sad it would be if we inflated our egos by being seen as mad yogins, mahāsiddhas or the like! Moreover, the West of our time is not the Tibet in which those practitioners lived, and behaving as they did could make us get into great trouble—and, what is worse, the bad reputation that such behavior would yield could stain our teacher, his or her Community, and possibly even Dzogchen Ati and Tibetan Buddhism as a whole. Therefore, far more reasonable than imitating legendary figures of the distant past would be to find inspiration in the conduct of our own teacher. However, this does not mean that we should imitate him or her: to begin with, the disciple normally does not have the Master’s level of realization; in the same way, a Master may have to show an authority and an imperviousness that would not at all befit those who are not Masters; and finally, finding inspiration in the teacher’s conduct is not the same as imitating that conduct, for imitation would sustain the dualistic control of conduct that the Behavior of Dzogchen is meant to help us surpass. In particular, we should keep in mind that the Behavior of Ati Dzogpa Chenpo, if genuine, will at no point neglect the needs of others. So long as we act spontaneously in the continuity of the Vision or tawa, we are free from the belief in a self and from the selfishness that issues from this belief, and since we do not experience other beings or the world as external, we spontaneously care for them the way deluded beings care for their own bodies. And then, when the arising of delusion interrupts the continuity of the Vision or tawa, we must apply the principle of self-responsibility on the basis of the dualistic 440 presence / mindfulness of sensible / responsible conscientiousness / awareness . Chögyal Namkhai Norbu illustrated responsible awareness with the example of a glass containing poison: whoever has a responsible awareness knows the effects of poison and therefore does not drink from the glass. For its part, presence indicates the lack of distractedness that prevents us from inadvertently drinking from the glass. All of this was summarized by Padmasambhava in his renowned statement: “Though my Vision is ampler than the sky, my observation of the law of cause and effect is finer than sand.” At any rate, all that was said in the above paragraphs concerning the chöpa of Ati Dzogpa Chenpo should allow us to understand why on the Path of Spontaneous Liberation chöpa is the equivalent of the saṃgha on the Path of Renunciation and of the ḍākinī on the Path of Transformation, and why as such it is the third element of Refuge. To conclude the discussion of the Refuge of Ati Dzogpa Chenpo that here is being referred to as secret Refuge, it must be remarked that with regard to it Padmasambhava said: a b c d e f 597 g The person should have supreme capacity and aspiration to Awakening With regard to its duration, it lasts until irreversible total Awakening. As for the secondary cause, you take Refuge with the wish not to be reborn. Concerning its benefits, it serves to attain perfect Awakening in this very lifetime. In this Path, Refuge is not taken by means of a ceremony, nor is it received in the context of an initiation; rather, the individual who, with pure motivation, aspires to attain realization and thus studies with and follows a teacher, automatically has taken Refuge in the teacher and the teaching—which in this Path is the essence of Refuge in the outermost sense of the term. Thereafter, once truly on the Path, whenever the state of rigpa becomes patent and operative, the individual is in the condition of Refuge in the innermost sense of the term. The above should not be understood to mean that in the Dzogchen Atiyoga we do not do any kind of ritual Refuge practice. In general, Dzogchen practitioners regularly do a Tantric style Refuge practice, visualizing the guru or lama in the space in front of them (or, alternatively, over their own head), most often in the form of Guru Padmasambhava or Dualistic presence / mindfulness renders the Skt. smṛti; Pāḷi sati; Tib. dran pa; Ch. 念 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, niàn; Wade-Giles, nien ). Sensible / responsible conscientiousness / awareness renders the Skt. saṃprajanya; Pāḷi sampajañña; Tib. shes bzhin; Ch. 正知 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhèngzhī; Wade-Giles, cheng -chih ); Jap. shōchi; Kor. chŏngji. Dualistic presence / mindfulness of sensible / responsible conscientiousness / awareness renders the Skt. smṛtisaṃprajanya; Pāḷi satisampajañña; Tib. dran pa dang shes bzhin; Ch. 正 念 慧 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhèngniànhuì; Wade-Giles, cheng -nien -hui ). Chögyal Namkhai Norbu render this phrase into Italian as presenza della consapevolezza. Tib. dang shes bzhin. Namkhai Norbu (1995). Tib. dran pa. This term, which translates the Pāḷi sati and the Sanskrit smṛti, has been rendered into English as “mindfulness,” “collectedness,” “attention,” “presence,” etc. The Pāḷi term that refers to foundations of sati or mindfulness, which are four (that of the body, that of the feelings, that of the mind, and that of mental objects), is satipaṭṭhāna (Skt. smṛtyupasthāna; Tib. dran pa nyer gzhag; Ch. 念處 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, niànchù; Wade-Giles, nien -ch’u ). The following words are part of the advice given by the great teacher of Oḍḍiyāna to his consort Yeshe Tsogyäl according to Tibetan Text 19: A: p. 256, 6; B: p. 20, 3. Quoted in Namkhai Norbu (1999/2001, p. 102). a 4 b 4 c c 4 4 4 d e f 4 4 g 441 1 Guru Garab Dorje—which, if carried out with supreme devotion, is an essential key for effective progress on the Path, as this practice may have a great value, for its function is similar to that of an invocation (lit. wish-Path ) to help us open ourselves up to the transmission, so that we may actually receive it together with the blessings of the Master, the lineage, and through them our true condition. Furthermore, the outcome of treading the Path totally depends on the manner in which our relationship with the physical Master from whom we receive transmission evolves and, as will be reiterated in a subsequent section of this chapter—particularly on the way we maintain our commitment or samaya with him or her. a 598 The Role and Status of the Teacher Role and Status of the Teacher on the Path of Renunciation Concerning the relationship between students and those from whom they receive instruction, each vehicle of the Path of Renunciation has its particular norms and outlook; however, in all three gradual varieties of the Path of Renunciation the figure of a Master bearing unquestionable authority is nonexistent. In the Hīnayāna, the śrāvakas, as well as those would-be pratyekabuddhas who live at a time when a Buddha’s teaching is flourishing, must learn limitlessly from their older kalyāṇamitta or “noble friends.” In particular, in a Buddhist monastery each novice chooses, among the older monks, one to instruct him in the dhamma, whom he will call ācariya, and another one who will instruct him in the norms of discipline, whom he will refer to as Pāḷi upajjhāya. Nevertheless, novices who receive instruction do not have to take a commitment of absolute obedience to either of the two types of instructor, because they are neither the source of the teachings nor infallible authorities, but fellow members of the sangha who, being more learned and experienced, are capable of being “true helpers with the practice” (which is how the saṃgha was defined in the context of the Sūtrayāna in the previous section of this chapter). 599 b c d e f Tib. smon lam; Skt. praṇidhāna; Pāḷi panidhāna; Ch. 願 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yuàn; Wade-Giles, yüan ). This word is Pāḷi; Skt. kalyāṇamitra; Tib. dge ba’i bshes gnyen; Ch. 善知識 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn shànzhīshì; Wade-Giles shan -chih -shih ). This is the Pāḷi word; Skt. dharma; Tib. chos; Ch. 法 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎ; Wade-Giles, fa ; Jap. hō). This word is Pāḷi; Skt. ācārya; Tib. slob dpon; Ch. 阿闍梨 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, āshélí; Wade-Giles, a -she -li ; Jap. ajari) or 阿闍梨耶 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, āshélíyē; Wade-Giles, a -she -li -yeh ; Jap. ajariya). The Sanskrit term was used in the Hīnayāna communities of Northern India. Since monastic institutions always belong to the Hīnayāna, independently of whether the individual or tradition adheres to that vehicle or to the Mahāyāna (or even of the Vajrayāna), the term was also used, and is still used, in the monastic communities professing the views and practices of the Ample Vehicle. This term is Pāḷi; Skt. upādhyāya; Tib. mkhan po; Ch. 和尚 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, héshàng; Wade-Giles, he -shang ; Jap. oshō / wajō / kashō; Korean hwasang). Originally rendered into Kashgar by a term that sounds like Chinese 社 shè, héshàn derives from the Khotani and is not a precise translation (cf. Cheung, ed. annot. & comm. 2014, § 293). The Sanskrit term was used in the Hīnayāna communities of Northern India. As with the term discussed in the preceding note, this term was also used, and is still used, in the monastic communities professing the views and practices of the Ample Vehicle. This term is Pāḷi; Skt. saṃgha; Tib. dge ’dun; Ch. 僧伽 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sēngjiā; Wade-Giles, seng -chia ). a 4 b 4 1 4 c 3 d 1 1 2 2 2 e 2 f 1 442 2 1 4 1 In the gradual Mahāyāna, students must also learn limitlessly from their older “noble friends” or kalyāṇamitra, and concerning such friends in general the situation is very much as in the Hīnayāna. One minor difference between Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna in this regard is that, since the inner Mahāyāna saṃgha consists of the higher bodhisattvas, who are those who have reached the first level but have not gone beyond the tenth, in the Mahāyāna the “true helpers with the practice” may be laymen rather than monks or nuns. In fact, it would be difficult to conceive a better dharma friend than the Licchavi Vimalakīrti. Finally, in the sudden Mahāyāna, which consists in Chán Buddhism, students do not learn from “noble friends” wielding no special authority to command others, but from the ācārya, who in this tradition has practically the same commanding authority as the guru or vajrācārya of the Path of Transformation. a 600 b Role and Status of the Teacher on the Path of Transformation The role of the teacher in the Path of Transformation is very different from the one it has in the Path of Renunciation. As we have seen, here the source of the teachings and of their realization is not Śākyamuni Buddha, but the Tantric Master (the guru or vajrācārya ): it is he or she that is the source of the empowerment that enables disciples to directly experience the example of primordial gnosis that will set them on the Path, as well as the source of the actual primordial gnosis that constitutes realization. In fact, the state we want to reach is the state of the teacher, and hence its attainment totally depends on our relationship with her or him. So true is this that, as we have seen, in the Vajrayāna it is said that before the teacher existed, not even the name of Buddha existed, and it is asserted that realization depends completely on the teacher. Moreover, on this Path reliance on the teacher is so pivotal that the results of the transmission that we receive depend on the way we perceive her or him: it is said that if students perceive the teacher as a Buddha, they will have the possibility of obtaining the realization of a Buddha; if they perceive the teacher as a vidyādhara, they may possibly obtain that of a vidyādhara; if they perceive the teacher as a mahāsiddha, they may be able to obtain that of a mahāsiddha; if they perceive the teacher as a siddha, they will have the possibility of obtaining that of a siddha; c d e f g601 h i Pāḷi kalyāṇamitta; Tib. dge ba’i bshes gnyen; Ch. 善知識 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn shànzhīshì; Wade-Giles shan -chih shih ). Pāḷi ācariya; Tib. slob dpon; Ch. 阿闍梨 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, āshélí; Wade-Giles, a -she -li ; Jap. ajari) or 阿闍梨 耶 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, āshélíyē; Wade-Giles, a -she -li -yeh ; Jap. ajariya). In this context the term has a meaning utterly different from the one it has in the Hīnayāna. Tib. bla ma; Ch. 上師 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shàngshī; Wade-Giles, shang -shih ). However, the word-by-word rendering of bla ma is 藏⽂ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zàngwén; Wade-Giles, tsang -wen ). Tib. rdo rje slob dpon; Ch. (lit.) ⾦剛阿闍梨 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jīngāng āshélí; Wade-Giles, chin -kang a -she li ) or (lit.) ⾦剛師 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jīngāngshī; Wade-Giles, chin -kang -shih ). Tib. dpe yi ye shes. Tib. don gyi ye shes. Tib. rig ’dzin; Ch. 持明 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chímíng; Wade-Giles, ch’ih -ming ; Jap. jimyō; Kor. chimyŏng). In Pāḷi, vijjādhara. Tib. sgrub chen; Ch. ⼤聖 (simplified, ⼤圣) (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dàshèng; Wade-Giles, ta -sheng ): great adept, adept with great power(s). Tib. grub thob. a 4 1 4 b 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 c 4 1 4 2 d 1 2 1 1 1 e f g 2 h 2 4 i 443 4 1 1 2 if they perceive the teacher as a yogin, they may possibly obtain that of a yogin; if they perceive the teacher as a bodhisattva, they have the possibility of obtaining that of a bodhisattva—and if they perceive the teacher as a dog or as a demon, they will be able to obtain the states of a dog or that of a demon, respectively. This implies that, as will be shown in the next section of this chapter, this vehicle involves the Tantric commitment or samaya to perceive the teacher in a pure manner, and our realization depends on the degree to which we succeed in maintaining this commitment. The above explains why on the Path of Transformation an absolute authority is attributed to the vajrācārya or Vajra Master, who has the authority to dictate to his or her disciples what they must do, who must be the object of the latter’s utmost respect, and whom they must hold in a position clearly superior to their own. This, however, does not mean that they must regard him or her as inherently superior to themselves; it simply means that they must see him or her as the embodiment of the state that they consider to be supreme and that, precisely through the transmissions and teachings that they receive from him or her, they themselves want to reach. a b c Role and Status of the Teacher on the Path of Spontaneous liberation The way things are on the Path of Spontaneous Liberation are radically different from the ways they are in all other Paths. In fact, as explained in the previous section, on the Path of Spontaneous Liberation the teacher, in the most genuine, profound sense of the term, is the practitioner’s own Vision or tawa. This does not mean, however, that in it there is no place for the Master as an external individual in human form. In fact, it seems that since the time of Garab Dorje nearly no individual has been born who could derive the complete system of teachings and practices making up Ati Dzogpa Chenpo from his own Vision or tawa, Contemplation or gompa, and Behavior or chöpa: nearly all Masters seem to have needed to rely on the transmission initiated by the supreme Master Garab Dorje, lord of all rigdzins, who historically became the source of the teachings of Atiyoga in their Buddhist form upon directly transmitting the patency of the primordial condition according to the teaching of the single state that transcends effort, Ati Dzogpa Chenpo, “the total completeness / plenitude and perfection (of the primordial state).” Even those Masters and Treasure Revealers who obtain the first unveiling of primordial gnosis on their own and without the instructions and empowering of an external teacher, in nearly all cases cannot do without the transmission and the teachings that are received from the external teacher in human form, who is of primordial importance on this Path. In fact, it is said that on this Path realization depends on devotion to the root guru. Sera Khandro cites some important Dzogchen texts and comments on them as follows: d Tib. rnal ’byor pa; Ch. 修⾏⼈ (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xīuxíngrén; Wade-Giles, hsiu -hsing -jen ). The Chinese term refers to practitioners of the Buddha-dharma in general. Pāḷi bodhisatta; Tib. byang chub sems dpa’; Ch. 菩薩 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, púsà; Wade-Giles, p’u-sa; Jap. bosatsu; Kor. posal). Tib. rdo rje slob dpon; Ch. (lit.) ⾦剛阿闍梨 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jīngāng āshélí; Wade-Giles, chin -kang a -she li ) or (lit.) ⾦剛師 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jīngāngshī; Wade-Giles, chin -kang -shih ). In Rang bzhin rdzogs pa chen po ma bsgom sangs rgyas kyi zin bris dpal ldan bla ma’i zhal rgyun nag ’gros su bkod pa tshig don rab gsal skal ldan dgyes pa’i mgul rgyan. In Dudjom Lingpa (2015, Vol. II, pp. 263265). Clarifying additions by the translator are in square brackets; my own clarifying additions are within curly brackets. a 1 2 2 b c 1 2 1 d 444 1 1 1 1 2 The A ti bkod pa chen po or Great Presentation of Ati states: For the guru to appear in the maṇḍala of your mind is better than to visualize a hundred kāyas of deities. And : Worshipping the buddhas of the three times is not equivalent to one one-hundredth of worshipping the guru. In summary, do not do anything to displease your guru even for an instant, but rather please him with your body, speech and mind, and listen to whatever he or she says. If you please him by all that you do, this will purify all your previous karma, mental afflictions and habitual propensities, and you will instantly accomplish an ocean of accumulations of merit and knowledge. The best [form of service] is to establish the teachings of the practice lineage through rendering service by means of your spiritual practice. Middling is to render service with your body and speech, which can only purify obscurations of the body, speech, and mind. And the least form of service is to please the guru with material goods, which adds to your accumulations of the two kinds. The Dam tshig mchog tu bkod pa sdong po’i rgyud or Tantra of the Supreme Samaya states: Faithful ones who desire siddhis: siddhis arise from pleasing the guru. (...) [And the sGra thal ’gyur rtsa ba’i rgyud or Reverberation of Sound Root Tantra states: The advantages of devoting [yourself to the guru] are immeasurable greater than the advantages of a wish-fulfilling tree, a wish-fulfilling jewel, and a wish-fulfilling cow. Bearing this in mind, devote yourself to the guru, and this will turn the battle of saṃsāra. On the Path of Spontaneous Liberation disciples must be aware that Garab Dorje is the supreme Master who introduced in our world the Buddhist teachings that they practice, and, as stated above, when they do an external guru-yoga practice in the Tantric manner as a rule they represent the source of the transmission with his image, or with that of Guru Padmasambhava, who is one of the main sources, as well as the symbol, of this living transmission in Tibet, which seems to be the only Buddhist Dzogchen transmission that has survived until our time and seems to be the one all Buddhist Dzogchen practitioners of our time have received. Likewise, disciples must firmly adhere to the instructions of the external teacher—who, just as in the Path of Transformation, has the rank of guru or vajrācārya—and treat him or her with utmost respect, pleasing her or him in all possible a Some Hindu teachers in Nepal claim to have a Hindu Dzogchen tradition originated in the Mahāguru Padmasambhava, but I have seen no proof whatsoever of this claim. a 445 ways. Otherwise, as Sera Khandro also notes by citing the sGyu ’phrul dva ba or Illusory Matrix: 602 a b The disadvantage of disparaging the guru and disturbing his mind is that suffering is experienced for the duration it would take to scoop out all the water in the great, outer ocean with a hair: this is known as Vajra Purgatory (i.e. Vajra [Transient] Hell). I may not assume that my readers have adopted transmigration as a dogma in the external sense in which it is taken to mean that after our physical body ceases to be alive we will be reborn in one of the six realms of existence. In fact, in the Kālāma Sutta and elsewhere Śākyamuni taught that one should not accept any doctrine out of respect for the proclaimer but, on the contrary, should put all theses to trial and accept only those that pass the assay of reason and that are for our own good and the good of others. Moreover, in section 17 of the same Sutta went so far as to proclaim that a happy and moral life would be correct even if there were no karma and reincarnation, proclaiming his noted four assurances, or solaces: c The disciple of the Noble Ones, Kālāmas, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malicefree mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom four solaces are found here and now. “Suppose there is a hereafter and there is a fruit, result, of deeds done well or ill. Then it is possible that at the dissolution of the body after death, I shall arise in the heavenly world, which is possessed of the state of bliss.” This is the first solace found by him. “Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.” This is the second solace found by him. “Suppose evil (results) befall an evil-doer. I, however, think of doing evil to no one. Then, how can ill (results) affect me who do no evil deed?” This is the third solace found by him. “Suppose evil (results) do not befall an evil-doer. Then I see myself purified in any case.” This is the fourth solace found by him. The disciple of the Noble Ones, Kālāmas, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom, here and now, these four solaces are found. In brief, one should abstain from disparaging the guru and disturbing his mind, not out of fear of punishment, either in this life or in future lives, but by keeping the presence of the awareness that one’s realization totally depends on it, and that acting in such ways may shorten the Master’s lifespan and make him susceptible to the influences that induce illness—and yet it is certain that the psychological state represented as the vajra hell will befall on disciples that disparage the guru and disturb her or his mind, and should one do Wylie, sgyu ’phrul dva ba. In Rang bzhin rdzogs pa chen po ma bsgom sangs rgyas kyi zin bris dpal ldan bla ma’i zhal rgyun nag ’gros su bkod pa tshig don rab gsal skal ldan dgyes pa’i mgul rgyan. There is translation in Dudjom Lingpa (2015, Vol. II, p. 264), which does not exactly correspond to the one in this book (my own clarifying additions and changes are within parentheses and/or square brackets). Skt. Kālāma Sūtra. a b c 446 so, the pitfall must be repaired in the way that will be explained in the discussion of the samaya commitment on the Path of Spontaneous Liberation. Although, as clearly shown by the above citations, on this Path the Master and the quality of the relationship and samaya commitment of the yogins and yoginīs with her or him is determinant, by means of their practice, on the Path of Spontaneous Liberation all yogins and yoginīs must acquire such familiarity with the Vision or tawa and confidence in it as to be able to become autonomous and self-sufficient—so that, as a result of their advance on the Path, their own state of rigpa becomes their direct source of inspiration and point of reference, and they no longer require clarifications from an external source. In fact, a true student is not a blind person and a true Master is not a guide dog; the true Master leads students to See, so that they do not depend on him or her, and the true student is the one who succeeds in Seeing. If a teacher behaves like a guide dog, it is either because a student’s capacity is too low, or because the teacher him or herself does not See—and, when the blind lead the blind, they fall together into the abyss. All this allows us to understand why it is said that the principle of the Path of Spontaneous Liberation is self-responsibility rather than putting ourselves totally under the authority of others: while in the state of nonconceptual and hence nondual Awake Awareness called rigpa, pure spontaneity is the guide of Behavior; when the state of rigpa is not patent and operative, the practitioner must keenly keep in all circumstances the dualistic presence / mindfulness of sensible / responsible conscientiousness / awareness . that lies in not being distracted and being aware of the likely consequences of his or her actions, as will be explained in Part Two of this book. a 603 604 b c d Commitment, Precepts and Vows Vows and Training on the Path of Renunciation As we have seen, among the vehicles of the Path of Renunciation, the Hīnayāna is most strictly based on the principle of renunciation, associated with the adoption of vows that may not be broken for any reason, whereas the Mahāyāna is based on the principle of training, which implies the commitment to go beyond one’s limits (and even to break one’s vows and transgress the Hīnayāna rules of behavior) if that is necessary to benefit others, and one is certain that the result of one’s actions will be good. For the Hīnayāna, and in particular the Śrāvakayāna, the ideal way of undertaking the practice is to become a monk or nun and assuming all the vows that this implies— which is a quite obvious form of renunciation—so as to attain the individual liberation that e I.e. a dog for guiding the blind or “seeing eye dog” (the latter term is actually a U.S. trademark). Dualistic presence / mindfulness renders the Skt. smṛti; Pāḷi sati; Tib. dran pa; Ch. 念 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, niàn; Wade-Giles, nien ). Sensible / responsible conscientiousness / awareness renders the Skt. saṃprajanya; Pāḷi sampajañña; Tib. shes bzhin; Ch. 正知 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhèngzhī; Wade-Giles, cheng -chih ); Jap. shōchi; Kor. chŏngji. Dualistic presence / mindfulness of sensible / responsible conscientiousness / awareness renders the Skt. smṛtisaṃprajanya; Pāḷi satisampajañña; Tib. dran pa dang shes bzhin; Ch. 正 念 慧 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhèngniànhuì; Wade-Giles, cheng -nien -hui ). Chögyal Namkhai Norbu render this phrase into Italian as presenza della consapevolezza. Skt. prātimokṣa; Pāḷi, pāṭimokkha; Tib. so sor thar pa; Ch. 波羅提毘⽊叉 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bōluótípímùchā; Wade-Giles, po -lo -t’i -p’i -mu -ch’a ). a b 4 c 4 d d 4 4 4 e 1 2 2 2 4 1 447 1 is its aim—but which, as noted in a previous section, the Mahāyāna does not view it as an irreversible liberation. Otherwise we must take one or another of the alternative sets of Prātimokṣa vows or “vows for individual liberation” offered by the Vinaya, and keep them steadfastly, doing one’s best not to break them for any reason. Contrariwise, as already shown, the principle of the Mahāyāna is not that of taking vows, but that of undertaking a training based on the intention to help all sentient beings surmount their problems and, especially, overcome duḥkha altogether and help others follow suit by attaining Awakening. In fact, in the Mahāyāna, instead of being bound by inviolable precepts, practitioners are constrained to infringe whichever precepts or limits they may have imposed on themselves, provided that their intention is to benefit sentient beings, and they are certain that their actions will be effective in achieving this aim. This is owing to the fact that, while the aim of the Hīnayāna is to free oneself from suffering, that of the Mahāyāna is to free the totality of sentient beings from it—even if one has to face various sufferings in order to achieve this goal, including those that could result from committing deeds that the Hīnayāna views as negative and shuns. Consequently, whereas according to the Hīnayāna the character of an action will depend exclusively on whether the type of action involved is sanctioned by the teachings, forbidden by them, or considered neutral, in the Mahāyāna its character depends on the intention with which it is carried out: if the intention behind the action is good, and the individual has certainty that the action’s results will be good, the action will be good and will produce merits and positive karma, even if Hīnayāna vows were broken in order to carry it out. Therefore, even though one is willing to suffer the bad consequences of committing a forbidden action, if one does so with a good intention and is certain that the results will be positive, the consequences of the action will be good and, rather than suffer those consequences foreseen by the Hīnayāna, one will ripe progress on the Path and/or worldly happiness. Even though the base of the Mahāyāna is not the adoption of the vows established by the Vinaya, but the principle of training, the influence of the Hīnayāna principle of taking vows resulted in the creation in the Mahāyāna of the bodhisattva vows. Although the principle of vows pertains to the Hīnayāna, since in this case the vows are based on Mahāyāna principles, they do not establish absolute rules of behavior to be kept even at the cost of one’s life, but, on the contrary, compel practitioners to disregard any Hīnayāna vow they may have taken or any general prohibition on the levels of body and voice established by the Buddhist teachings, provided that they intend to benefit others and are certain that their actions will achieve this aim. In fact, those votes, as well as the Mahāyāna principle of training, compel Mahāyāna practitioners to carry out any of the seven nonvirtuous actions of body and voice forbidden by the Vinaya (which is a Hīnayāna collection), provided that their intention is to benefit others and they have certainty that the results will be good. However, under no circumstances are they allowed to commit any of the three nonvirtuous actions related to the level of mind, because one cannot be of benefit to anyone by craving other people’s property, harboring a malevolent intention, or upholding an erroneous view (such as, for example, negating the law of cause and effect or law of karma). a b605 This is the Sanskrit word; Pāḷi Pāṭimokkha; Tib. so sor thar pa; Ch. 波羅提毘⽊叉 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bōluótípímùchā; Wade-Giles, po -lo -t’i -p’i -mu -ch’a ). This is the Skt. and Pāḷi; Tib. ’dul ba; Ch. 律 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, lù; Wade-Giles, lü ). a 1 2 2 2 4 1 b 4 448 Imagine you are walking through the forest and unexpectedly see Śākyamuni pass in front of you, and then after a while you meet a platoon pursuing him to kill him, the commander of which asks you, “in which direction did the monk they call ‘the Buddha’ go?” If you say the truth they will kill Śākyamuni and humankind will lose its guide and illuminating light; if you remain silent they will kill you and you will lose the precious human opportunity; but if you tell them that he went in a direction contrary to the one he actually took, perhaps you manage to spare his life and, if you also run in the opposite direction, perhaps you spare your own life as well. Likewise, imagine you find out that someone at the campus has war weapons hidden somewhere and plans to kill his fellow students, and for some reason you cannot denounce him: if you are sure you have a chance of stealing his weapons and disposing of them without being noticed, that would no doubt be a good action. The Upāyakauśalyasūtra tells us an even more radical story about a past life of Śākyamuni, according to which he was a bodhisattva in the guise of a ferry captain called Great Compassionate One whose boat was carrying five hundred bodhisattvas in the guise of merchants transporting a valuable cargo, and one bandit who planned to kill them all to steal the cargo—and circumstances were such that the only way he could prevent the mass murder, saving the bodhisattvas, sparing their families a life of misery and, especially, saving the bandit from accumulating such a terrible karma, was by killing the bandit. He did so, and the canonical source tells us that rather than creating bad karma, the bodhisattva curtailed his stay in saṃsāra by 100.000 cosmic time cycles (eons or aeons ). The Yogācārabhūmiśāstra and the Bodhisattvabhūmiśāstra tell stories with similar morals. Even though the Mahāyāna is not based on the Hīnayāna principle of controlling our physical existence by means of vows, since its teachings are intended to prevent the arousal of the passions and are mainly related to our corporeal existence and the material level, that vehicle is held to belong to the “Path of Renunciation.” And because both the Hīnayāna and the Mahāyāna have to do with the material level, both keeping the former’s vows and engaging in the latter’s training are circumscribed to the waking state, and both the former’s vows and the latter’s training come to an end at death. For example, monks or nuns are forbidden to engage in any kind of sexual activity while waking; however, it is not forbidden for them to have an erotic dream after falling asleep, and ejaculate with their “physical” body because of the stimulation produced by the dream. a b 606 Commitment or Precepts on the Path of Transformation On the Path of Transformation the regulation of behavior depends on a principle radically different from those proper to the Path of Renunciation—namely that of the Tantric commitment, which is known as samaya. Since this Path is related to the energy level, which is not interrupted by sleep and is not cut off by death as material existence is, the precepts corresponding to the Tantric samaya are not limited to the waking state, nor do they come to an end when the practitioner dies. When practitioners receive an initiation of the outer Tantras, they must promise (in some cases by touching a mala or rosary that the Master presents them) that they will recite daily the mantra that is thereby transmitted to them, and that they will maintain certain a b Cf. Tatz (trans. 1994, pp. 73-4); summarized in King (2013/2016, p. 634). Skt. kalpa; Pāḷi kappa; Tib. bskal pa; Ch. 劫 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn jié; Wade-Giles chieh ; jap. gō). 2 449 types of “pure” conduct, etc. This is, in a nutshell, the commitment or samaya of these Tantras. When practitioners receive a transmission belonging to the Path of Method of an inner Tantra (for example, of Mahāyogatantra), instead of the commitment to maintain certain types of externally “pure” conduct, they acquire, among others, the commitment to go beyond discrimination between “pure” and “impure.” On this level of Tantra, it is imperative to entirely transcend judgment and discrimination by discovering the state of “one taste”, just as in the formless Mahāmudrā teaching of Tantrism (which, as we have seen, in its present form is very similar to the teachings of the Dzogchen Series of [the essence or nature of] mind). However, whereas in the Mahāmudrā teaching the yogins are not required to carry out some specific type of action, on the Path of Method of the inner Tantras it is imperative to exhibit a “resolute conduct” that requires the individual to perform actions that the “lower” vehicles would consider impure—the most widespread and well-known example of which is the obligation to eat meat and drink alcohol in the ritual called gaṇapūja. As Chögyal Namkhai Norbu has said, “one taste” does not mean to mentally put all phenomena together and convince oneself that they all have the same taste, in this way adding another layer to the onion of deception, but to discover the nonconceptual and as such nondual single, unaltered awareness that underlies the plethora of neutral, pleasant and unpleasant experiences, and remain in that awareness, which does not discriminate between the experiences it gives rise to and is not altered by any possible experience. That awareness has been compared to a mirror that does not feel separate from the different reflections it exhibits—for they appear in it—nor does it believe itself to be those reflections—for these are always changing whereas it itself is unchanging and at no point does it acquires the characteristics of the reflections appearing in it. Therefore, like that mirror that is impartial toward reflections because it does not derive pleasure from nice ones or disgust from unpleasant ones, Awake awareness is beyond discrimination and unable to refuse to reflect some kinds of phenomena or to agree to reflect other kinds of them. Therefore, “one taste” is only possible while a primordial gnosis is disclosing the common, single condition of the Awake awareness by virtue of which and in which the manifold, infinitely diverse experiences, like reflections in a mirror, occur—and which, being unaltered by the multifarious experiences, has the same taste indifferently of the reflection appearing in it. As repeatedly noted, it is because this primordial gnosis (is) allliberating that, while it is unconcealed and active, all thoughts and thought-tinged perceptions self-liberate as they arise. How can we come to discover this single taste by means of the practice of the two stages of generation and completion, for example in Anuttarayogatantra? Imagine that on the basis of the clarity of primordial awareness we transform ourselves into a deity and transform the universe into a maṇḍala; if instead of continuously feeling that we are the deity and that our dimension is the maṇḍala, at some point we discover the underlying unalterable nondual awareness, transformation becomes Mahāmudrā and thus we attain the a b607 608 c d e a b c d e Tib. ro gcig. Tib. brtul zhugs. Tib. ye shes spyi. Tib. sna tshogs su snang yang. For it is what in Tibetan is known as gcig shes kun grol. 450 highest realization of Anuttarayogatantra. Merely feeling that we are the deity and that all that surrounds us is the pure dimension of the maṇḍala is nothing more than a conditioned and made, thought-tinged experience pertaining to saṃsāra; contrariwise, the unalterable nondual awareness that unveils in the realization of Mahāmudrā is the unproduced, unconditioned Base of both saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, and its nondual unveiling is the unproduced, unconditioned realization of nirvāṇa. In the inner Tantras—a paradigmatic example of which is the Anuyogatantra— many yogins and yoginīs take the precept not to lose the type of seed-essence, bindu or thig le associated with sexual emissions, except for seven especially prescribed purposes— including conceiving a son or daughter for giving continuity to the transmission of the dharma, medical reasons, and fulfilling the requirements of the transmission of the dharma and producing the means of purification by disciples of the Tantric samaya or commitment in connection with this transmission. As we have seen, because dreams are phenomena of the level of energy and because losing during sleep the seed-essence associated with sexual emissions results in the loss of that type of seed-essence, those who take such commitment must maintain it even during sleep. In the case of yoginīs, whose sexual seedessence functions in a dual way, some apply methods that combine yoga and traditional medicine for stopping menstruation as well—allowing it to return when they intend to conceive a son or daughter for transmitting the teaching, when they have to fulfill one particular requirement of the transmission of the teaching and of the means for disciples to purify their samaya or commitment, or when they must carry out any of the other exceptional activities specified in the original texts. If there is a contradiction between the duties imposed by one’s Tantric samaya and those imposed by the Sūtrayāna, it is the principle of the “higher” vehicle that must be followed (just as in the case of a contradiction between the vows of the Hīnayāna and the principle of the Mahāyāna training, one had to break the former in order to conform to the latter): if in order to maintain the Tantric samaya one has to contravene a rule of a “lower” vehicle, one will be keeping both the Tantric samaya and the “lower” rule, for “lower” precepts are contained in “higher” ones but not the other way around. On the contrary, if one decides to break the “higher” commitment in order to keep the “lower” rule, one will be breaking both the “higher” commitment and the “lower” rule. One could wonder on what grounds one should, for example, fail to help others as established by the principle of training of the Mahāyāna, if this were necessary in order to keep a Tantric samaya. The reply is that in such an unlikely case compassion would still be one’s guiding principle, since one keeps the Tantric samaya in order to swiftly attain full realization, for one knows that only if one is fully realized one can help others in a truer sense (firstly, because then one will have the power to give them a definitive rather than a provisional help; secondly, because one will have overcome the “law of inverted effect” or “reverse law” that causes one to do evil while trying to do good). As part of the transmission, besides introducing in the Third Empowerment the noted “example of primordial gnosis,” —and, were it possible to do so, introducing in the Fourth Empowerment the actual primordial gnosis —the Master must teach us the way to transform ourselves and find ourselves in the pure dimension of the deity during the stage 609 610 611 612 a b a b Tib. dpe yi ye shes. Tib. don gyi ye shes. 451 of generation or creation, and also how to perform the practices pertaining to the stage of completion or perfection, which will give us the possibility of having access to the actual primordial gnosis—if, as most often happens, one did not have access to it in the Fourth Empowerment. Thereafter, we will be fulfilling our commitment or samaya whenever we perform the practice and find ourselves in the dimension of the transformation, and we comply with the other nine among the ten Tantric commitments (such as performing the number of mantra recitations we are obliged to carry out every day, and complying with the mandatory practice of mudras, samādhi, offerings, as well as with the samaya, etc.)— and we will be doing so far more perfectly if, on the top, the actual primordial gnosis is patent and operative. However, the above is not all there is to say about the Tantric commitment or samaya, for one of its most important points lies in the duty to maintain a pure perception of the Master and our fellow students—our “vajra brothers and sisters.” Our realization, but also, to a considerable degree, the health and long life of the teacher, as well as the development of our fellow students, to a great extent will depend on the degree to which we succeed in maintaining this pure perception, and on our earnestness in purifying our Tantric commitment or samaya whenever we have failed in maintaining it in a perfect way. Since this is aspect of commitment or samaya is also a crucial one on the Path of Spontaneous Liberation, what was stated with regard to the teacher in the section on the Teacher on the Path of Spontaneous Liberation, and all what will be said below about restoring the samaya commitment on the same Path applies here as well. Lastly, it would be totally wrong to think that it is crucially important to avoid impure perceptions of the Master, but it is not important to forestall impure perceptions of our vajra sisters and brothers. In fact, this is the reason why the treasure-teaching on Siṃhamukhā revealed by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu one takes Refuge in the vajra sisters and brothers rather than taking it in the Three Roots. a b Commitments or Precepts on the Path of Spontaneous Liberation Whereas on the Tantric Path of Transformation there are ten essential principles of the commitment or samaya, which are normally listed as transformation into the deity and application of mantra, mudra, samādhi, offerings, samaya and so on, in Dzogchen teaching there are the “ten nothingnesses” or “ten absences,” which consist in the negation of the ten essential principles of Tantrism. Chögyal Namkhai Norbu states in this regard: c The Tantras tied to the Path of Transformation must necessarily be based on ten fundamental points, called the “ten natures of Tantra,” which constitute the main means of realization in that Path: view, conduct, maṇḍala, initiation, commitment (samaya), capacity for spiritual action, sādhana, visualization, making offerings, and mantra... The Kunje Gyälpo (which is the essential Tantra of the Semdé series of Dzogchen teachings) continuously refers to [a variety of 613 Skt. utpattikrama; Tib. bskyed rim; Ch. ⽣起次第 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shēngqǐ cìdì; Wade-Giles, sheng -ch’i tz’u -ti ). Skt. saṃpannakrama, niṣpannakrama or utpannakrama; Tib. rdzogs rim; Ch. 圓滿次第 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yuánmǎn cìdì; Wade-Giles, yüan -man tz’u -ti ). Namkhai Norbu and Clemente (English 1999, pp. 67-68). The terminology was adapted to the one used in this book. a 1 4 4 b 2 3 4 4 c 452 3 these] ten aspects: Vision, commitment, capacity for spiritual action, maṇḍala, initiation, Path, levels of realization, conduct, wisdom and spontaneous perfection. However, it does so in order to negate them, as corresponds to the principle of the “ten absences” or “ten there isn’t” characteristic of the deep understanding of Dzogchen. The same Master lists the ten absences: a b 1. There is no view on which one has to meditate. 2. There is no commitment or samaya one has to keep. 3. There is no capacity for spiritual action one has to seek. 4. There is no maṇḍala one has to create. 5. There is no initiation one has to receive. 6. There is no Path one has to tread. 7. There are no levels of realization (bhūmi or sa) one has to achieve through purification. 8. There is no conduct one has to adopt or abandon. 9. From the beginning, self-arisen wisdom has been free of obstacles. 10. Spontaneous perfection is beyond hope and fear. Thus the Dzogchen Atiyoga negates the Tantric principle of samaya; however, it does not do so because in Dzogchen there is no samaya, but because the samaya of Dzogchen is very different from that of Tantrism. In particular, the samaya of Dzogchen requires us to be beyond judgment and all forms of conceptualization, in the condition that in the preceding section was compared to that of the mirror that does not discriminate among reflections but simply exhibits them in its own condition of total completeness / plenitude and perfection—which contradicts the constraint to keep specific samayas such as those established by the Tantric teachings, which require that we constantly resort to judgement in order to ascertain what acts we can carry out and what must be avoided, in order to check whether or not we are keeping our samaya, etc. The above is the reason why the principle of the samaya of Ati Dzogpa Chenpo is explained in terms of the “four absences” or “four there isn’t:” (1) “there is no samaya commitment;” (2) “uninterrupted nonconceptual and thus nondual, instant Presence (i.e. rigpa);” (3) “single State (of rigpa);” and (4) “spontaneously perfect.” The last three elements oblige us to maintain the state of rigpa, and the first principle is “ “there is no samaya” because, as noted above, keeping precepts necessarily involves the action of the mental observer that judges our conduct, which requires the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of concepts and judgments and the ensuing subject-object duality and—and therefore doing so would interrupt the state of rigpa that the other three principles of the commitment or samaya of Ati oblige us to keep. In fact, in the as yet unpublished book called The Path of Spontaneous Liberation and Our Total Plenitude and Perfection, Chögyal Namkhai Norbu has remarked that the last three principles may be summarized in the phrase “always in the spontaneously arising and spontaneously perfect nondual Presence of the single State of rigpa.” c d614 a b c d Tib. med pa bcu. Ibidem. Tib. med pa bzhi. Tib. lhun grub; Skt. nirābogha or anābogha. 453 What was said above with regard to Dzogchen, applies also to the formless Mahāmudrā teachings associated with the Tantras, both in the original form they had in the Mahāmudrā Gaṅgāma that the mahāsiddha Tilopā taught Nāropā on the banks of the Ganges, and in their current form (which as noted in a previous section is closely related to that of the Dzogchen Series of [the essence or nature of] mind). In fact, it was precisely for the above reasons that Tilopā told Nāropā on the banks of the Ganges: “The supreme samaya is broken by thinking in terms of precepts:” by thinking in terms of precepts that compel us to abstain from some acts and to carry out others, we introduce or maintain the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of concepts and judgments and the ensuing subject-object duality, which conceal the state of rigpa that the samaya of this teachings compels us to keep. Chögyal Namkhai Norbu explains the four absences of the samaya of Ati Dzogpa Chenpo in slightly different terms while elucidating chapter fortysix of the Kunje Gyälpo: a Dzogchen talks of four characteristic samayas: (1) mepa, or absence—all is empty from the beginning and there is nothing to confirm; (2) chälwa , or omnipresence—this is clarity that manifests; (3) chikpu , or single—the state of the individual as pure, nondual Presence; (4) lhundrub, or spontaneously perfect. In short, this means that the state of rigpa of each individual is the center of the universe. The [true] condition of each person is like the sun beyond the clouds. Even though at times the clouds obscure the sun so that we cannot see it, the quality of the sun (is) always there and never changes. That is why the state is said to be lhundrub, spontaneously perfect from the origin. A realized one may seem different from us, but the only difference is that he or she has overcome the obstacle of the clouds and lives where the sun shines. So, we must recognize and have these four samayas, whose gist is that as practitioners we should never get distracted (with respect to the nondual state of rigpa): this is our only real commitment. b c Thus lhundrub also means that our own rigpa and the whole of phenomena have always been spontaneously perfect and thus need not be perfected by means of the two stages of generation and completion; chikpu means that all phenomena are appearances of the single state of rigpa and therefore they continuously arise in this state; chälwa means that this state has no center or periphery and, being a condition of Total Space-TimeAwareness, encompasses all the phenomena that appear in the single state of rigpa; and mepa means that there are no specific precepts to keep because trying to do so would interrupt the state of rigpa. A Tantra revealed by Dudjom Lingpa reads: d If rigpa is committed to its own state, and if you achieve the confidence of never departing from it, you will effortlessly achieve the supreme siddhi in this lifetime. If you do slip away from it and fall into a state of ignorance or ignorance and delusion, the sufferings of saṃsāra and the miserable states of existence will scorch you like fire. So this is the great samaya: the essential nature of all vows and commitments consists of binding yourself to the space of rigpa, never being confused by the deluded ways of grasping at self-existence. Namkhai Norbu and Clemente (English 1999, p. 113). The terminology was adapted to the one used in this book. Wylie, phyal ba. Wylie, gcig bu. Dag snang ye shes drva la las gnas lugs rang byung gi rgyud rdo rje’i snying po. Alternative translation in Dudjom Lingpa (2015, Vol. III, p. 66). a b c d 454 Thus, in Dzogchen to keep the samaya commitment is no more than to continue in the state of rigpa without ever becoming distracted, and integrating all experiences in this state. If at some point we become distracted, this does not mean we ought to feel guilty for having broken the commitment; quite to the contrary, feeling guilty would be a further violation of samaya because it would imply a hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized judgment. This is why this commitment may be said to be utterly free from guilt: it requires the disappearance of the mental observer that judges the individual’s conduct and hence of the Freudian superego. Therefore Milarepa stated: “This dharma of Milarepa is such that one is not ashamed of oneself.” And one of the phrases in a renowned dictum by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu goes “Noi non ci vergogniamo per niente” (we do not become ashamed for any reason whatsoever). As noted above, the state of rigpa, which is compared to a mirror, being free from the subject-object duality (is) free from value judgments that may approve or disapprove, and thus (is) without acceptance and rejection. However, this does not mean that we should allow ourselves to become distracted; as soon as we notice that we have become distracted we apply the instruction that will create the conditions for the coarse, subtle or super-subtle thoughts at the root of the distraction to liberate themselves spontaneously, so that we may instantly recover the nondual Presence corresponding to the state of rigpa—nonconceptual and hence nondual Awake awareness / instant Presence. Chögyal Namkhai Norbu relates that once someone asked the famous Dzogchen Master, Yungtön Dorje Pel , what was it that he practiced, and the Master replied with the negative “mepa” or “there isn’t.” Then his startled questioner asked again, “Then you don’t meditate?,” to which the Master replied, “And when am I ever distracted?” This is the essence of the samaya commitment in the Dzogchen teachings: not to meditate or to practice something with the mind and yet never be distracted, for the point is to remain uninterruptedly in the primordial purity and spontaneous perfection of the single state of rigpa. The fact that in Dzogchen Atiyoga the true teacher is the Vision or tawa aspect of the Path, and that the commitment consists in being beyond judgment and hence beyond thinking in terms of precepts, does not mean that when the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of thought interrupts the state of Contemplation there will be no commitment to keep concerning the Master and fellow practitioners. The vajra relationship between the Master and the students lasts until final realization, and so if the students do not achieve total realization in this life it goes far beyond the grave. Likewise, the fact that different practitioners follow the same teaching and the same Master, or that they practice together in the state of Contemplation, establishes a bond between them that lasts until total realization. This type of relationship is compared to that between people crossing a river in the same boat with the intention of reaching the other shore: if they damage the boat or start to fight with each other in the middle of the river, the boat may capsize, preventing all of those that were on board from reaching the “other shore” consisting in Buddhahood. Those who intend to cross the river of existence in the boat of a certain Master are known as vajra brothers and sisters; they must collaborate with and respect each other, for if collaboration and respect are present, even though minor incidents may occur, major impediments will be avoided. a b 615 a b Namkhai Norbu (E. Capriles, ed., unpublished). Wylie, gYung ston rdo rje dpal. 455 However, the fact that we are in the same boat with a respected Master and with our vajra brothers and sisters, especially when the Master is very highly regarded and his boat is associated with the teaching universally regarded as supreme (or at least regarded as such by us), involves the danger of using our belonging to the group that we regard as the most special, led by the most important Master, to enhance our sense of identity and swell our hearts and chests with pride. This is especially dangerous at the present time, when Tibetan Buddhism has become trendy and chic in Hollywood, rock and pop culture, the transpersonal scene and so on, and it has become widely known that Dzogchen is the supreme teaching of this form of Buddhism. In such conditions, being a practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism and in particular of Dzogchen may be taken as a status symbol, and the condition of “old practitioner”—or, even worse, of teacher—may confer an even higher sense of identity in the individual. However, enhancing our sense of identity by means of the practice of Buddhism would imply using the teaching that may lead beyond saṃsāra to temporarily ascend to higher samsaric realms, selfishly pushing down non-Buddhists, all that do not belong to our group, those who have not been Dzogchen practitioners for as long as us—or, if we are teachers, those who do not have that status. It would be pathetic for us to use Dzogchen as an alibi to freely give way to the impulses that Buddhism and the Dzogchen teaching should allow us to overcome. To conclude, it may be useful to reiterate that by keeping a higher commitment or precept we will be also keeping the lower ones, even if we embark on courses of behavior that the latter forbid. It has already been noted that, if we break a Hīnayāna vow in order to follow the principle of the Mahāyāna training, we are neither breaking the former nor contravening the latter. It has also been noted that, if we transgress vows of the Path of Renunciation in order to keep the Tantric samaya, we will be keeping both this samaya and the vows and training of the Path of Renunciation, and not breaking either. Likewise, Dzogchen practitioners, so long as they keep the supreme samaya of Ati Dzogpa Chenpo, no matter what Tantric samaya commitments or vows or training pertaining to the Path of Renunciation we may break, there will be no transgression whatsoever. In fact, so long as we are in the state of rigpa, selfishness will not arise, nor will impulses arise that may give rise to courses of behavior that are harmful to others or self. On the contrary, from the inherent disposition of emptiness a nonreferential compassion naturally arises that embraces all beings and phenomena in general, and when thought is hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized, giving rise to the substantialistic illusion of dualism and pluralism, compassion and a fervent love for all sentient beings naturally arise. In such cases, what purpose would vows, precepts or commitments serve? The essence of vows is to help practitioners maintain the morality that derives from a strong wish to liberate oneself from saṃsāra; its characteristic nature is to adopt a resolute conduct based on intention not to harm others. In Ati Dzogpa Chenpo, vows are substituted by the continuity of the state of rigpa; however, when this state is interrupted, we must avoid exhibiting selfish conduct, and to this end we must keep the dualistic presence / a b a b Tib. stong nyid kyi gshis. Tib. brtse ba. 456 mindfulness of sensible / responsible conscientiousness / awareness , which consists in not been distracted with regard to experience, the motivations behind our acts, our behavior in general and the expectable consequences of our acts. Furthermore, when we are unable to keep the Dzogchen state of rigpa, we must keep the immediately lower samaya commitments and precepts; when we cannot keep these, we must keep the immediately lower ones—and if we cannot keep any of the other sets of precepts or conform to any of the other principles, we should keep the vows of the Hīnayāna if we have them, or otherwise at least avoid the ten nonvirtuous actions and so on. Does this mean that if we have taken Tantric initiations in which we assumed the commitment to perform a mala of the mantra of different deities we will have to spend the whole of our time reciting mantras in order to keep our commitment? According to Chögyal Namkhai Norbu, in those cases being, at least for some time, in the state of Guru Yoga that consists in rigpa, will be enough to keep all the lower samaya commitments, even if we are not spending the whole of our time in rigpa. If this is not possible, at least one should perform a Dzogchen Guru Yoga with form, which will effectively replace the Tantric ritual and/or recitation that the samaya of the Path of Transformation obliges us to apply. At any rate, if one is familiar with rigpa, one must stay as much as possible in the formless Guru Yoga that consists in simply being in that state, and whenever we cannot remain in that state we must keep the presence / mindfulness of sensible / responsible conscientiousness / awareness. And, in particular, if we are practitioners of the Paths of Spontaneous Liberation or Transformation, we will have to be extremely aware under all circumstances in order to avoid breaking our samaya commitment with the Vajra Master and the vajra brothers and sisters—and, if we break it, we must as soon as possible do whatever may be necessary in order to restore it. The above principle also applies to criticism of lower views. Ponder on the lines by Atīśa Dīpaṅkara Śrijñāna: a b c 616 d If, with the intention of identifying and teaching higher and lower views, other precepts are deprecated, this is not a transgression, but greatly increases merit. In brief, one should most carefully keep the samaya commitment with the vajra Master and the vajra siblings. However, for the same reasons explained in the discussion of the relationship with the Master on the Path of Spontaneous Liberation right after the quotation from the Kālāma Sutta, one should not do so out of fear of punishment, either in this life or in future lives, but do so with the presence of the awareness that one’s realization totally depends on it, and that breaching the samaya commitment with the vajra Master may shorten his lifespan and make him susceptible to the influences that induce illness— Dualistic presence / mindfulness renders the Skt. smṛti; Pāḷi sati; Tib. dran pa (Wylie, dran pa); Ch. 念 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, niàn; Wade-Giles, nien ). Sensible / responsible conscientiousness / awareness renders the Skt. saṃprajanya; Pāḷi sampajañña; Tib. shes bzhin; Ch. 正知 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhèngzhī; Wade-Giles, cheng -chih ); Jap. shōchi; Kor. chŏngji. Dualistic presence / mindfulness of sensible / responsible conscientiousness / awareness renders the Skt. smṛtisaṃprajanya; Pāḷi satisampajañña; Tib. dran pa dang shes bzhin; Ch. 正 念 慧 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhèngniànhuì; Wade-Giles, cheng -nien -hui ). Chögyal Namkhai Norbu render this phrase into Italian as presenza della consapevolezza. In his rTsa ba’i ltung ba’i rgya cher ’grel pa. Cited by ’Jigs med gling pa in van Schaik (2004, p. 219). a 4 b 4 c c 4 4 4 d 457 1 and yet it is certain that the psychological state represented as the vajra hell will befall one if one breaks the samaya commitment and does not repair it. Finally, concerning the way to restore the samaya commitment with the teacher in case we break it, it is stated in the Rigpa Rangshar Gyü or Tantra of Self-Arising Rigpa, pertaining to the Dzogchen Series of pith instructions: a b If your samayas degenerate regarding your teacher, create a great maṇḍala of gaṇacakra offerings, and do the same for your vajra siblings; make offerings of goods that please your teacher, and offer whatever you have to the [Seer ]. c Wylie, rig pa rang shar rgyud. Cited in Rang bzhin rdzogs pa chen po ma bsgom sangs rgyas kyi zin bris dpal ldan bla ma’i zhal rgyun nag ’gros su bkod pa tshig don rab gsal skal ldan dgyes pa’i mgul rgyan. In Dudjom Lingpa (2015, Vol. II, p. 264). My own clarifying additions and changes to the translation in the aforementioned text are within brackets. Skt. ārya; Tib. ’phags pa; Ch. 聖 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shèng; Wade-Giles, sheng ): one who has insight into the absolute truth—namely the vajra teacher (Skt. vajrācārya; Tib. rdo rje slob dpon; Ch. [lit.] ⾦剛阿闍梨 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jīngāng āshélí; Wade-Giles, chin -kang a -she -li ] or [lit.] ⾦剛師 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jīngāngshī; Wade-Giles, chin -kang -shih ]). a b c 4 1 1 1 1 1 458 1 2 2 WORKS CITED OR MENTIONED IN THIS BOOK (I) TEXTS IN WESTERN LANGUAGES (QUOTED DIRECTLY) Alchin, Frank Raymond (1995). Language, culture and the concept of ethnicity. In Alchin, Frank Raymond & Erdosy, George (ed. 1995). The archeology of early historic South Asia: The emergence of cities and states, pp. 41-53. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. Anderson, Walter Truett; Callenbach, Ernest; Capra, Fritjof, Spretnak, Charlene: Eds. (1986). Critical Questions About New Paradigm Thinking. Washington, D. C. No 1, Vol. 9, ReVISION, summer/fall 1986. Anonymous compiler (1959). Zen Buddhism, An Introduction to Zen with Stories, Parables and Koan Riddles Told by the Zen Masters. Mount Vernon, New York, The Peter Pauper Press. Anonymous author (undated). History of the Yungdrung Bön Tradition. Internet: http://www.sherabchammaling.com/index.php/tibetan-bon-3.html (accessed on Jan. 28, 2016). Aristotle (this English ed. 1991). De Anima. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. Assoun, P.-L. (1982a). Introducción a la epistemología freudiana. Mexico: Siglo XXI Editores. Assoun, P.-L. (1982b). Freud. La filosofía y los filósofos. Barcelona, Spain: Paidós. Ayer, A. J. (1952). Language, truth and logic. New York, NY: Dover Publications. Bachelard, G. (1957). La formation de l’esprit scientifique : Contribution à une Psychanalyse de la connaissance objective (The formation of the scientific mind: A contribution to a psychoanalysis of objective knowledge) (1st Ed., 1938). Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin (Collection Bibliothèque des Textes Philosophiques, dirigée par Henri Gouhier). Bareau, André (1987). Lumbini et la naissance du futur Bouddha. Bulletin de l’École Française d’Extrême Orient 76: 69-81. Barnes, Jonathan (1998). The Beliefs of a Pyrrhonist. In Burnyeat & Frede [eds.], 1998: 58-91). Bateson, G. Ed. and Introduction (1961). Perceval’s narrative: A patient’s account of his psychosis, 1830-1832 (by John Perceval). Stanford: Stanford University Press. Bateson, Gregory (1968). “Conscious Purpose Versus Nature.” In Cooper, D. (Ed. 1968). Bateson, Gregory (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine Books. Bateson, Gregory (1979). Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity. New York: Dutton. Baums, Stefan (2009). A Gāndhāri commentary on early Buddhist verses: British Library Kharoṣṭhī Fragments 7, 9, 13 and 18. PhD dissertation, University of Washington. Cited in Beckwith (2015). Beckwith, Christopher I. (2009). Empires of the Silk Road: A history of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the present. Princeton (NJ) and Oxford (UK): Princeton University Press. Beckwith, Christopher I. (2015). Greek Buddha: Pyrrho’s encounter with early Buddhism in Central Asia. Princeton (NJ) and Oxford (UK): Princeton University Press. Bentov, I. (1977). Stalking the wild pendulum. New York, NY: Dutton. Bentov, I. & Bentov, M. (1982). A cosmic book: On the mechanics of creation. New York, NY: Dutton. Berzin, A. (2001). Fundamentals of Dzogchen meditation. In The Berzin Archives. Internet: http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/advanced/dzogchen/meditation/funda mentals_dzogchen_meditation/fund_dzogchen_meditation_01.html Beyer, Stephan (1978). Magic and ritual in Tibet: The cult of Tara. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Bharati, Agehananda (1977). The Tantric Tradition. Garden City (NY): Doubleday Anchor. Bhattacharya, D. C. (1998). Icons of cultural linkage. In Chung (1998), pp. 197-200. Bloch, H.; Postel, J.; & Others (1996). Gran diccionario de psicología (Great dictionary of psychology). Madrid: Ediciones del Prado. Bocchi, Gianluca and Mauro Ceruti (1993). Origini di storie. Giangiacomo Feltrinelli Editore. Bohm, D., y Hiley, B. (1975). On the Intuitive Understanding of Nonlocality as Implied by Quantum Theory. In Foundations of Physics: Vol. 5, 1975, pp. 93-109. Bohm, David (1976). Fragmentation and Wholeness. Jerusalem: The Van Leer Jerusalem Foundation. Bohm, David (1980; Spanish 1987). La totalidad y el orden implicado. Barcelona: Kairós. Bohm, David (1982). Interviews. In Wilber, Ken (Ed.). The Holographic Paradigm and Other Paradoxes. Boulder, Shambhala. Boyers, R. & Orrill, R. (Eds., 1971). R. D. Laing and anti-psychiatry. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, UK: Penguin. Briant, Pierre (1996). Histoire de l’Empire perse: de Cyrus à Alexandre. Paris: Fayard. Briggs, George Weston (1974). Gorakhnath and the Kanphata yogis. Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass. Brillouin, Léon (1959). La science et la théorie de 1’information. París: Masson Léon. Bronkhorst, Johannes (1986). The two traditions of of meditation in ancient India. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden. Bronkhorst, Johannes (2007). Greater Maghadha: Studies in the culture of early India. Leiden: Brill. Bronkhorst, Johannes (2011). Buddhism in the shadow of Brahmanism. Leiden: Brill. Brooks, C. Harry (1922). The practice of autosuggestion by the method of Émile Coué (revised ed., with a foreword by Émile Coué). New York (NY): Dodd, Mead & Co. Brown, Lester (1990). “Picturing a Sustainable Society.” In The Elmwood Newsletter, Vol. 6, No. 1, Spring Equinox 1990. Berkeley, The Elmwood Institute. Brown, Norman O. (1968). Life against death: The psychoanalytical meaning of history. London: Sphere. (Original Ed. 1959: Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.) Bryant, Edwin (2001). The quest for the origins of Vedic culture: The Indo-Aryan migration debate. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 159–60. Bultrini, R. (2013). The Dalai Lama and the king demon. Carlsbad, CA: Hay House. Original Italian ed.: (2008). Il demone e il Dalai Lama. Tra Tibet e Cina, mistica di un triplice omicidio (The demon and the Dalai Lama: Between Tibet and China, mystique of a triple murder). Milan, Italy: Baldini Castoldi Dalai. Burnyeat, M. & Frede, M. [eds.]. The Original Sceptics: A Controversy. Indianapolis / Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Co. Buswell, Robert E. & López, Dónald S. (2014). The Princeton dictionary of Buddhism. 460 New Jersey, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cabezón, J. I. (2003). Two views of the Svātantrika-Prāsaṅgika distinction in fourteenthcentury Tibet. In Dreyfus, G. B. J. & McClintock, S. L. (eds.) (2003), pp. 289-315. Cabezón, José Ignacio & Dargyay, L. (2007). Freedom from extremes: Gorampa’s “Distinguishing the views” and the polemics of emptiness. Boston, MA: Wisdom Publications. Candrakīrti (1970; Louis de La Vallée Poussin, ed.). Madhyamakāvatāra. Osnabrück: Biblio Verlag (original ed. [1912] St. Petersburg: Bibliotheca Buddhica, 9. Candrakīrti (2003; Karen C. Lang, trans. and intr.). Four illusions: Candrakīrti’s advise for travellers on the bodhisattva path. New York: Oxfor University Press. Cappelletti, Angel J. (1972). Los fragmentos de Heráclito, Caracas, Editorial Tiempo Nuevo. Cappelletti, Angel J. (1969). La filosofía de Heráclito de Éfeso. Caracas, Monte Ávila Editores. Capra, F. (1983). The tao of physics (1st Ed, 1975). Boulder, CO: Shambhala. Capriles, Elías (1977). The Direct Path: Providing a Background for Approaching the Practice of rDzogs-chen. Kathmandu, Mudra Publishing. Capriles, Elías (1986). Qué somos y adónde vamos. Caracas, Unidad de Extensión de la Facultad de Humanidades y Educación de la Universidad Central de Venezuela. Capriles, Elías (1988). Sagezza, uguaglianza e pace / Wisdom, Equality and Peace (abridged version of the paper presented in the First International Encounter for Peace, Disarmament and Life). Arcidosso (GR, Italy: Rivista Meri Gar/Meri Gar Review, October 1988, pp. 52-58. Capriles, Elías (1989). The Source of Danger is Fear: Paradoxes of the Realm of Delusion and Instructions for the Practice of the Dzogchen Upadesha (1989, Mérida, Editorial Reflejos. Capriles, Elías (1990). Ciencia, chamanismo y metachamanismo (Science, Shamanism and Metashamanism). Mérida, Venezuela: Boletín Antropológico 6(19). Museo Arqueológico, Universidad de Los Andes. Capriles, Elías (1994). Individuo, sociedad, ecosistema. Ensayos sobre filosofia, política y mística. Mérida (Venezuela: Consejo de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Los Andes. Capriles, Elías (1998a). India: ¿Qué tradición? ¿Continuidad en cuál cambio? In Cejas, Ismael (Ed.) (1998). India: Tradición y modernidad. ¿Continuidad en el cambio? Mérida, Ediciones GIEAA y CDCHT de la Universidad de Los Andes. Capriles, Elías (1998b). “En torno a los estudios asiáticos”. In Capriles, Elías and Hernán Lucena (Eds.) (1998). Africa y Asia: diálogos en Venezuela. Mérida, Ediciones GIEAA y CDCHT de la Universidad de Los Andes. Capriles, Elías (1999a). Aportes de la India hacia la solución de la crisis global. In Capriles, Elías and Hernán Lucena (Eds.) (1999). India: De su contribución universal a los pensadores de la independencia. Mérida, Ediciones GIEAA y CDCHT de la Universidad de Los Andes. Capriles, Elías (1999b). Más allá de la mente. Pasos hacia una psicología metatranspersonal. Mérida (Venezuela): Trasiego, No. 9. Capriles, Elías (2000a). Budismo y dzogchén. La doctrina del Buda y el vehículo supreme del budismo tibetano. Vitoria (Spain: Ediciones La Llave. 461 Capriles, Elías (2000b). Estética primordial y arte visionario. Un enfoque cíclico-evolutivo comparado. Mérida, Venezuela, Publicaciones del Grupo de Investigación en Estudios de Asia y Africa (GIEAA)/CDCHT-ULA. Capriles, Elías (2000c). Beyond Mind: Steps to a Metatranspersonal Psychology. Honolulu: The International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, Vol. 19, pp. 163-184. Capriles, Elías (2001). “The meaning of self-liberation and loops from The source of danger is fear.” Honolulu: The International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, Vol. 20. Capriles, E. (2004). Clear discrimination of views pointing at the definitive meaning: The four philosophical schools of the Sutrayana traditionally taught in Tibet (With reference to the Dzogchen teachings). Internet: http://www.webdelprofesor.ula.ve/humanidades/elicap/ (Provisional publication, the fully revised and corrected edition of which will be published physically when ready.) Capriles, E. (2005). Editor’s Introduction. In Chöphel, Gendün (2005). Clarifying the core of Madhyamaka: Ornament of the thought of Nagarjuna. E. Capriles (Ed.) (P. Wangjie & J. Mulligan, Trans.) Arcidosso, GR, Italy: Shang Shung Edizioni. Capriles, E. (2006a). Beyond mind II: Further steps to a metatranspersonal philosophy and psychology. San Francisco, CA: The International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, vol. 24. (Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center.) Also in Internet at the URL: http://www.transpersonalstudies.org/ImagesRepository/ijts/Downloads/Beyond%20Mi nd%20II%20Further%20Steps%20to%20a%20Metatranspersonal%20Philosophy%20 and%20Psychology.pdf Capriles, E. (2006b). El proyecto nuclear de Venezuela, el “derecho” de Irán a la energía nuclear, y la contraposición de dos tipos de religiosidad (Venezuela’s nuclear project, Iran’s purported “right” to develop nuclear energy, and the contrast between two types of religiosity). Mérida, Venezuela: Humania del Sur, 1:1, pp. 99-126. Also in Internet at the URL: http://www.saber.ula.ve/bitstream/123456789/24720/2/articulo7.pdf Capriles, E. (2007a). Beyond being, beyond mind, beyond history: A Dzogchen-founded metatranspersonal, metapostmodern philosophy and psychology for survival and an age of communion. 3 vols.: Volume I: Beyond being: A metaphenomenological elucidation of the phenomenon of being, the being of the subject and the being of objects. Volume II: Beyond mind: A metaphenomenological, metaexistential philosophy, and a metatranspersonal metapsychology. Volume III: Beyond history: A degenerative philosophy of history leading to a genuine postmodernity (this volume being merely an outline of what the tome in question must become). Mérida, Venezuela: Internet: http://www.webdelprofesor.ula.ve/humanidades/elicap/ (unfinished provisional Ed.). Capriles, E. (2007b). From primal to postmodern ecommunism. In C. Kumar (Ed.) (2007) Asking, we walk (2 vols.) Bangalore, India: Streelekha Publications. Capriles, E. (2007c). Hacia el ecomunismo: Una respuesta mítica a algunos problemas del marxismo. (Toward ecommunism: A mythic response to some of the problems of Marxism.) San Salvador: Realidad: Revista de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades 112, April-June 2007 (Universidad Centroamericana “José Simeón Cañas”). Capriles, E. (2007d). ¿El ecosocialismo como vía hacia el ecomunismo? Una propuesta pragmática (Ecosocialism as the way to ecommunism? A pragmatic proposal). Mérida, Venezuela: Humania del Sur, 2:1, pp. 85-125. Also in Internet: http://www.saber.ula.ve/bitstream/123456789/24733/2/articulo5.pdf Capriles, E. (2007e). Aletheia: Heráclito vs Heidegger. (Aletheia: Heraclitus vs Heidegger) 462 (Paper presented at the First Conference on Ibero-American Philosophy.) Mérida, Venezuela: Internet: http://www.webdelprofesor.ula.ve/humanidades/elicap/ Capriles, E. (2007f). Aesthetics for a new age. Mérida, Venezuela: Internet: http://www.webdelprofesor.ula.ve/humanidades/elicap/ Capriles, E (2007e). Book review: The fall: Evidence for a golden age, 6,000 years of insanity and the dawning of a new era; by Steve Taylor. Palo Alto, CA: The Journal of Transpersonal Studies, Vol. 26, 2007. Internet: http://www.transpersonalstudies.org/ImagesRepository/ijts/Downloads/Book%20Revi ew%20The%20Fall.pdf Capriles, E. (2008). En torno al concepto de alienación: Una reelaboración ecologista desde el siglo XXI (Concerning the concept of alienation: An ecologist re-elaboration from the twenty-first century). Valencia, Venezuela: Revista de Estudios Culturales 1:2 (JulyDecember 2008). Reproduced in Entropia: Revue d’Étude Théorique et Politique de la Décroissance (France), at the URL http://www.entropia-larevue.org/spip.php?article46 Capriles, E. (2009a). Una tesis sobre el origen y los desarrollos del daoísmo a la luz de antiguos textos del Bön tibetano (A thesis about the origin and developments of Taoism in the light of ancient texts of Tibetan Bön). Mérida, Venezuela: Humania del Sur, 4(7), pp. 113-136. Also available at http://www.saber.ula.ve/handle/123456789/30224 Capriles, E. (2009b). Beyond mind III: Further steps to a metatranspersonal philosophy and psychology: Continuation of the discussion of the three best known transpersonal paradigms, with the focus on Washburn’s and Grof’s. San Francisco, CA: The International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 28:2, 2009, 1-145. Internet: http://www.transpersonalstudies.org/ImagesRepository/ijts/Downloads/Capriles.pdf (complete journal: this article plus the Editors’ presentation, in:) http://www.transpersonalstudies.org/volume_28_2.html Capriles, E. (2010a). Gandhi, Ambedkar y el nacionalismo religioso casteísta: Paradigmas de la India ante la mundialización y el belicismo contemporáneos (Gandhi, Ambedkar, and casteist religious nationalism: India’s paradigms in face of globalization). In Lucena, H. (Ed.). Bolívar y Gandhi: paradigmas liberadores (Bolivar and Gandhi: Liberating paradigms). Merida, Venezuela: Consejo de Estudios de Postgrado, Consejo de Desarrollo Científico, Humanístico y Tecnológico (CDCHT), Centro de Estudios de África, Asia y Diásporas Latinoamericanas y Caribeñas “José Manuel Briceño Monzillo” and Cátedra Libre India Siglo XXI, Universidad de Los Andes. Also in the Internet: http://www.human.ula.ve/ceaa/documentos/libro_bolivar_ghandi.pdf Capriles, E. (2010b). Nondual awareness, dualistic consciousness and the path to absolute sanity. Wittnau, Germany / Madrid, Spain: Journal of Transpersonal Research, Vol. 2, pp. 97-107. Internet: http://www. transpersonaljournal.com/pdf/vol2-sep10/Capriles%20Elias.pdf Capriles, E. (2010c). Preliminary refl ections on Wilber V. Amsterdam, Holland: Integral World Website. Internet: http://www.integralworld.net/capriles4.html Capriles, E. (2011a). Yoguis budistas, bhaktas y yoguis shaivas, ismaelitas y sufíes: Diálogos místicos eurasiáticos con su eje en Monte Kailāśā. Mérida, Venezuela: Humania del Sur, (6)11. p. 121 Capriles, E. (2011b). Aux sources mystiques de la décroissance (At the mystical sources of degrowth/ungrowth). Paris: Synodies (Revue du Groupe de Recherches et d’Études 463 des Thérapies Transpersonnelles), pp. 68-73. Capriles, E. (2012a). Alienación, crisis ecológico-económica y regeneración. Esencia, desarrollo y modos de la alienación y erradicación de ésta en el ecomunismo decrecentista y libertario (Alienation, ecological-economic crisis and regeneration: Essence, development and modes of alienation and the latter’s eradication in degrowing, acratic ecommunism). Madrid: Editorial Académica Española. Also at: http://webdelprofesor.ula.ve/humanidades/elicap/es/uploads/Biblioteca/alienacion_to mo_unico.pdf (Please use this free Internet version.) Capriles, E. (2012b). A reply to Abramson’s response to my “Beyond Mind” papers and some reflections on Wilber V. Palo Alto (CA): International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 31(2), 2012, 118-165. Capriles, E. (2012c). ¿Curar la psicopatología llamada “normalidad”? In Almendro, M. (2012). ¿Qué es la curación? Barcelona, Spain: Kairós. Capriles, E. (2013a). The Beyond mind papers: Transpersonal and metatranspersonal theory. A critique of the systems of Wilber, Washburn and Grof and an outline of the Dzogchen Path to definitive true sanity. Volume 1: Introduction: Essential concepts. Nevada City (CA): Blue Dolphin Publishing. Capriles, E. (2013b). The Beyond mind papers: Transpersonal and metatranspersonal theory. A critique of the systems of Wilber, Washburn and Grof and an outline of the Dzogchen Path to definitive true sanity. Volume II: Steps to a metatranspersonal philosophy and psychology: A Critique of the systems of Wilber, Washburn and Grof, and an outline of the Dzogchen Path to definitive true sanity. Nevada City (CA): Blue Dolphin Publishing. Capriles, E. (2013c). The Beyond mind papers: Transpersonal and metatranspersonal theory. A critique of the systems of Wilber, Washburn and Grof and an outline of the Dzogchen Path to definitive true sanity. Volume III: Further steps to a metatranspersonal philosophy and psychology: An evaluation of Ken Wilber’s system and of the ascender/descender debate. Nevada City (CA): Blue Dolphin Publishing. Capriles, E. (2013d). The Beyond mind papers: Transpersonal and metatranspersonal theory. A critique of the systems of Wilber, Washburn and Grof and an outline of the Dzogchen Path to definitive true sanity. Volume IV: Further steps to a metatranspersonal philosophy and psychology: An assessment of the transpersonal paradigms of Grof and Washburn (and Appendices I, II, and III). Nevada City (CA): Blue Dolphin Publishing. Capriles, E. (2016). Buddhist Epistemology and Western Philosophy of Science: Toward a Synthesis Responding to the Current Predicament of Humankind. In Culture and Dialogue 4:1, pages 170 – 193. Brill. Note by the author: This paper was messed up with by the editors of Culture and Dialogue and then my corrections were overlooked by the editors, so the publication does not reflect my views on the subject (and indeed reflect no views whatsoever, as the paper is sheer nonsense). Capriles, E. (2019). Chamanismo y Dzogchen. Barcelona: Ediciones La Llave. Capriles, E. & Melloni, X. (2019). Presente y futuro de las tradiciones espirituales / Present i futur de les tradicions espirituals (bilingual edition). Barcelona: Plecs Budistes Edicions / Coordinadora Catalana d’Entitats Budistes. Capriles, E. (unpublished 1). Introductory study. In Chöphel & Capriles (unpublished). Note: So far only the translation of Gendün Chöphel’s text was published as a separate 464 volume: Gendün Chöphel (2016). An Ornament of the Thought of Nāgārjuna. Arcidosso (GR): Shang Shung Publications. Capriles, E. (unpublished 2). The role of transpersonal psychology in cross-cultural spiritual dialogue: Buddhism. In Hartelius, G. & Friedman, H. L. (in process). World religions in dialogue with transpersonal psychology. Alresford, Hants, UK: John Hunt. Capriles, E. (unpublished 3). The philosophical foundations of buddhism: a Nyingmapa approach. Capriles, E. (work in progress 1). Buddhism and Dzogchen - Volume Two - Dzogchen: A Buddhist outlook. Capriles, E. (work in progress 2). Buddhism and Dzogchen - Volume Three - On the Path. (A provisional project, as I still do not know whether or not it will be finished and published.) Capriles, E. (work in progress 3). Greek philosophy and the East. Carstanjen, Friedrich (1897/2014). Richard Avenarius and his general theory of knowledge, Empiriocriticism. Internet (retrieved on Monday, October 12, 2015): https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Richard_Avenarius_and_His_General_Theory_of_Kno wledge,_Empiriocriticism (original ed. [1897]: Mind, N.S., Vol. 6, pp. 449-475. Cavalli-Sforza, L. Luca, Menozzi, Paolo & Piazza, Alberto (1994). The history and geography of human genes. Princeton (N.J.) & Oxford (UK): Princeton University Press. Chang, Garma C. C. (1970). The practice of Zen. New York, NY: Perennial Library, Harper & Row. (Original Ed. 1959.) Chandrakirti & Mipham, J. J. (2002). Introduction to the Middle Way: Chandrakirti’s Madhyamakavatara with commentary by Jamgön Mipham. Shambhala: Boston, MA & London. Chattopadhyaya, A (1981/1996, trans. Prof. Lama Chimpa) Atisa and Tibet: Life and works of Dipamkara Srijnana in relation to the history and religion of Tibet (with Tibetan sources). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Chen, Kenneth Kuan Sheng. (1964). Buddhism in China: A historical survey. Princeton, N.J. & Oxford (UK): Princeton University Press. Cheung, Martha P. Y. (ed. annotations and commentary, 2014). An anthology of Chinese discourse on translation. Milton Park (Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK) & New York (N.Y.): Routledge. Chönam, Lama & Sangye Khandro (trans.) (2011). The Guhyagarbha Tantra: Secret essence definitive nature just as it is, with Commentary by Longchen Rabjam. Ithaca (NY): Snow Lion Publications. Chöphel, G. (2005). An ornament of the thought of Nāgārjuna. Trans. By Pema Wangjie & Jean Mulligan; ed. By E. Capriles. Arcidosso (GR, Italy): Shang Shung Pub. Chöphel, G. (3d revised and corrected ed.). An ornament of the thought of Nāgārjuna. Trans. By Pema Wangjie & Jean Mulligan; ed. By E. Capriles. Arcidosso (GR, Italy): Shang Shung Pub. Chöphel, G. y Capriles, E. (unpublished). Gendün Chöphel’s Madhyamaka: Ascertaining the Prasangika Madhyamaka view (a Nyingmapa interpretation). A revised version of the translation of Gendün Chöphel’s Ornament of the thought of Nagarjuna with an Introductory Study on the definitive meaning of Madhyamaka, its development and its subschools in India and Tibet, and a commentary on Gendün Chöphel’s work (E. 465 Capriles, Introductory Study, Commentary and Notes; P. Wangjie & J. Mulligan, Trans.). Christ, Carol (1987). The laughter of Aphrodite: Reflections on a journey to the goddess. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row. Christ, Carol (1989). Rethinking Theology and Nature. In Christ, Carol and Plaskow, Judith, Eds. Weaving the visions: New patterns in feminist spirituality. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row. Chumney, S. (ed.) (2008). World Religions in Richmond, Virginia: Limincha Institute. Internet: http://wrs.vcu.edu/wrr/group.profiles/Buddhist/Ligmincha%20Institute.html (accessed on Jan. 28, 2016). (Based on the Per Kvaerne [1996]. The Bon religion of Tibet: The iconography of a living tradition. Boston: Shambhala.) Chung, Tan (ed. 1998). Across the Himalayan gap: An Indian quest for understanding China. Delhi: Gyan Publishing House & Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts. Claudel, Paul (1943). Art poétique. Connaissance du temps. Traité de la co-naissance au monde et de soi-même. Développement de l'église. Paris: Mercure de France. (Original Ed. 1907 by the same publishers.) Cleary, Thomas and J. C. translators (1977). The Blue Cliff Record (3 Vol.). Boulder and London: Shambhala Publications. Cleary, Thomas (1991). The essential Tao. San Francisco, CA: Hamper (a division of Harper Collins Publishers Inc.). Clifton, T. with Miller, S. (1997). Did an obscure Tibetan sect murder three monks close to the Dalai Lama? Newsweek Magazine, April 28, 1997. Available in the Internet: http://dorjeshugden.com/wp/?p=1235. Cook, Elizabeth (1992). Light of liberation: A history of Buddhism in India. Berkeley (CA): Dharma Publishing. Cooper, D. E. (1967). Psychiatry and antipsychiatry . New York, NY: Ballantine. Cooper, David (1968). Introduction. In Cooper, D. (ed.) (1968). Cooper, D. E. (Ed. 1968). The dialectics of liberation. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, UK: Pelican Books. Cordaux, Richard; Weiss, Gunter; Saha, Nilmani & Stoneking, Mark (2004). The Northeast Indian passageway: A barrier or corridor for human migrations? Molecular Biology and Evolution (Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution). Internet: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/8/1525.full.pdf+html Cornu, P. (trans. and commentary) (1995). Le miroir du cœur de Vajrasattva: Tantra du Dzogchen. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, coll. “Point Sagesses.” Cornu, Philippe (2001). Dictionnaire Encyclopédique du Bouddhisme. Paris: Éditions du Seuil. Creel, Herrlee G. (1970). What is Taoism? and Other Studies in Chinese Cultural History. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Crenshaw, T. L. (1996a). The Alchemy of Love and Lust - Discovering our Sex Hormones and How they Determine who we Love, when we Love, and how often we Love. New York: Putnam Adult (G. P. Putman’s Sons). Crenshaw, Theresa L. (1996b). Class Notes. In Stanford Magazine, September/October 1996. Whole paper available on its own at https://stanfordmag.org/contents/thescience-of-sex Accessed Oct. 2011. Daniélou, A. (1984; K. E Hurry, Trans.). Shiva and Dionysus. New York: Inner Traditions 466 International. (Originally published in French [1979/1982] as Shiva et Dionysos. Paris: Librairie Arthème Fayard.) Dargyay, Eva M. (1977/1979/1998). The rise of esoteric Buddhism in Tibet. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Davidson, R.M. (2008). Tibetan Renaissance: Tantric Buddhism in the Rebirth of Tibetan Culture. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass). De La Vallée Poussin, Louis (1970). Madhyamakāvatāra par Chandrakirti. Bibliotheca Buddhica IX. Osnabrück: Biblio Verlag. De la Vallée Poussin, Louis (1971). L’ Abhidharmakośa de Vasubandhu (6 vols). Blls: Institut Belge des Hautes Études Chinoises. Deleuze, Gilles (1980). “Psicoanálisis muerto analiza.” In Deleuze, Gilles, and Parnet, Claire, Diálogos. Valencia, Editorial Pre-Textos (Original French ed. 1977). DeMeo, J. (1998). Saharasia. Ashland, OR: Natural Energy Works (Orgone Biophysical Research Lab). Demiéville, Paul (1952). Le concile de Lhasa: une controverse sur le quiétisme entre bouddhistes de l’Inde et de la Chine au VIIIe siècle de l’ère chrétienne. Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Institut des Hautes Études Chinoises, VII, Imprimerie Nationale de France. Diogenes Laërtius (1972-1979). Lives of eminent philosophers. With an English translation by R.D.Hicks (2 vols). Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, Loeb Classical Library. Dowman, Keith (Ed. and Trans. 1984). Sky Dancer: The Secret Life and Songs of the Lady Yeshe Tsogyel (according to Tertön Taksham Nuden Dorje). London, Boston, Melbourne and Henley, Routledge & Kegan Paul. Dowman, Keith (Ed. and Trans. 1985). Masters of Mahamudra. Songs and Histories of the Eighty-Four Buddhist Siddhas. Albany, N. Y. SUNY Press. Dreyfus, George B. J. (1997). Recognizing reality: Dharmakīrti’s philosophy and its Tibetan interpretations. Albany (NY): SUNY Press. Dreyfus, George B. J. & McClintock, Sara L. (eds.) (2003). The Svātantrika-Prāsaṅgika distinction: What difference does a difference make? Boston, MA: Wisdom Publications. Dudjom Lingpa (Wallace, B. A., trans.) (2015). Dudjom Lingpa’s visions of the Great Perfection. Vol. I: Heart of the Great Perfection. Somerville (MA): Wisdom Publications. Dudjom Rinpoche, Jigdräl Yeshe Dorje (1978; trans. by J. Reynolds). The Alchemy of Realization (Ri chos bslab bya nyams len dmar khrid go bder brjod pa grub pa’i bcud len). Kathmandu: Simhanada Publications. Dudjom Rinpoche, Jigdräl Yeshe Dorje (1979; trans. by M. Ricard on the basis of instructions by Dungse Thinle Norbu Rinpoche and Tulku Thöndup). Extracting the Quintessence of Accomplishment (Ri chos bslab bya nyams len dmar khrid go bder brjod pa grub pa’i bcud len). Darjeeling, India: Ogyan Kunsang Choekhorling. Dudjom Rinpoche, Jigdräl Yeshe Dorje (English, 1991; Gyurme Dorje and M. Kapstein, trans.). The Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism. Boston (MA): Wisdom Pub. Dudjom Rinpoché, J. Y. D. (2005). Essential advise for solitary meditation practice. Direct instructions on practice explained in a manner easy to understand called Extracting the very essence of accomplishment (Ri chos bslab bya nyams len dmar khrid go bder brjod 467 pa grub pa’i bcud len). In Garry (2005, pp. 41-59). Dumoulin, Heinrich (2005). Zen Buddhism: A History, 1: India and China. Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom. Dunne, J. D. (2004). Foundations of Dharmakīrti’s philosophy. Boston, MA: Wisdom Publications. Durant, Will (Spanish 1957). La civilización de la India. Buenos Aires, Editorial Sudamericana. Eisler, Riane (1987). The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future. San Francisco, Harper & Row. Eliade, Mircea (1964). Shamanism: The archaic techniques of ecstasy. New York: Pantheon Books. (Also: Arkana 1989.) Emmanuel, Steven M. (2013). A companion to Buddhist philosophy. Malden, MA & Oxford, OX, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Engels, Friedrich F. (1994). Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German Philosophy. Internet https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwigfeuerbach/ (1994; retrieved on Oct. 11, 2015). Original English edition: (1946) Moscow: Progress Publishers. Original German edition (1886), in Die Neue Zeit (The New Time). Epstein, Ronald (1976). The Shurangama-Sutra (T. 945): A Reapprisal of its Authenticity. Internet: http://online.sfsu.edu/rone/Buddhism/authenticity.htm Epstein, Ron & Rounds, David (2009). The Śūraṅgama Sūtra. With excerpts from the Commentary by Venerable Master Hsüan Hua. Buddhist Text Translation Society. Evans-Wentz, W. Y. Ed. (translated by Kazi-Dawa Sangdup, 1954). The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation. London: Oxford University Press. (First translation of the Rigpa ngothö cherthong rangdröl [Rig-pa ngo-sprod gcer-mthong rang-grol], a terma discovered by Karma Lingpa.) Evans-Wentz, W. Y. Ed. (translated by Kazi-Dawa Sangdup, 1958). Tibetan yoga and secret doctrines. London: Oxford University Press. Faure, Bernard (1991). The Rhetoric of Immediacy. A Cultural Critique of Chan/Zen Buddhism. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press. Faure, Bernard (1998). Bouddhismes, philosophies et religions. Paris: Flammarion. Fenichel, O. (1945). The psychoanalytic theory of neurosis. New York, NY: Norton. Ferrer, J. N. (2002). Revisioning transpersonal theory: A participatory vision of human spirituality. Albany (NY): SUNY Press. Ferrer, J. N. (2008). Spiritual knowing as participatory enaction: An answer to the question of religious pluralism. In Ferrer, J. N. & Sherman, J. H. (2008), pp. 135-169. Ferrer, J. N. & Sherman, J. H. (2008). The participatory turn in spirituality, mysticism, and religious studies. In Ferrer, J. N. & Sherman, J. H. (2008), pp. 1-78. Ferrer, J. N. & Sherman, J. H. (Eds.) (2008). The participatory turn: Spirituality, mysticism, religious studies. Albany (NY): SUNY Press. Ferrer, J. N. (2017). Participation and the Mystery: Transpersonal Essays in Psychology, Education, and Religion. Albany (NY): SUNY Press. Feyerabend, P. K. (1982). La ciencia en una sociedad libre (Science in a Free Society). Mexico, Madrid & Bogotá: Siglo XXI Editores. (Original English Ed. 1980.) Feyerabend, P. K. (1984). Contra el método. Esquema de una teoría anarquista del conocimiento (Against method. Schema of an anarchist theory of knowledge). Barcelona, Spain: Historia del pensamiento, Editorial Orbis. (Original English Ed. 1970; 468 1st Spanish Ed. 1974.) Feyerabend, P. K. (1987). Adiós a la razón (Farewell to reason). Madrid: Editorial Tecnos. (1st Spanish Ed. 1984.) Fifth Dalai Lama (English 1974; trans. Jeffrey Hopkins). The Practice of Emptiness. Dharamsala (India): Library of Tibetan Works and Archives. Fine, R. (1987). Historia del psicoanálisis (History of psychoanalysis). Buenos Aires: Paidós. Fischer-Schreiber, I. Erhard, F-K, and Diener, M. S. (1989). The Shambhala Dictionary of Buddhism and Zen. Boston, Shambhala. Flintoff, Everard (1980): Pyrrho and India. Phronesis 25 (1):88-108 (1980). Foucault, Michel (1975). Surveiller et punir: naissance de la prison. Paris: Gallimard. Foucault, M. (1978). Microfísica del poder (Microphysics of power). Madrid: Ediciones de La Piqueta. Frauwalner, Erich (1951). On the Date of the Buddhist Master of the Law Vasubandhu. Rome, IsMEO, Serie Orientale Roma, # 3. Freud, Sigmund (trans. James Strachey) (1954). Project for a Scientific Psychology. In Freud, Sigmund (trans. James Strachey) (1954). The Origins of Psycho-Analysis, 347445. London: Imago Publishing Co. (Original work, 1895.) Fromm, E. (1955). The sane society. New York, NY: Fawcett Publications, Inc. Hirotatsu Fujiwara (1970; Worth C. Grant, trans.). I Denounce Soka Gakkai: What should we do about this Japan? Tokyo: Nisshin Hodo Co. (Original paper: Journal of Church and State, 1972, 14 [3]: 528-530.) Gardini, Walter (1995). Religiones y literatura de Japón. Buenos Aires, Kier. Garry, J. (2005) (Trans., Intr., notes). Wisdom nectar: Dudjom Rinpoche’s heart advise. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion Publications. Gay, P. (1989). Freud. Una vida de nuestro tiempo (Freud: A life of our times). Buenos Aires: Paidós. Gerez-Ambertin, M. (1993). Las voces del superyó. En la clínica psicoanalítica y el malestar de la cultura (Voices of the superego: In the psychoanalytical clinic and the malaise of civilization). Buenos Aires: Ediciones Manantial SRL. Ghosh, Amalananda. (ed. 1990). An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archeology (2 vols.). Leiden: Brill. Giles, H. (trans. 1980). Chuang Tzu: Mystic, moralist, and social reformer. London: Mandala. (Original Ed. 1899; London: Bernard Quartich. Chinese Ed. 1926; Shanghai, China: Kelly & Walsh.) Gimbutas, Marija (1989). Il linguaggio della dea. Mito e Culto della dea madre nell’Europa neolitica. Longanesi, Milan. English version: The Language of the Goddess. London, Thames & Hudson. Gimbutas, Marija (1982). Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe, 7000 to 3500 B. C.: Myths, Legends, and Cult Images. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press. Gimbutas, Marija (1997). The Living Goddesses. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press. Gö Lotsawa Zhönnupel (English translation attributed to G. N. Roerich but actually carried out by Gendün Chöphel; 2d English ed. 1976). The Blue Annals. Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass. 469 Gödel, K. (1962). On formally undecidable propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related systems. Edinburgh and London: Oliver & Boyd. Gómez, Luis O. (1983a). “Indian Materials on the Doctrine of Sudden Enlightenment.” In Lai and Lancaster, eds. Early Ch’an in China and Tibet, pp. 393-434. Berkeley, Berkeley Buddhist Studies Series 5. Gómez, Luis O. (1983b). “The Direct and the Gradual Approaches of Zen Master Mahayana: Fragments of the Teachings of Mo-ho-yen.” In Gimello and Gregory, eds. Studies in Ch’an and Huayen, pp. 69-167. Honolulu, University of Hawai’i Press. Green, Ronald S. (2013). East Asian Buddhism. In Emmanuel (2013, pp, 110-126). Gramsci, A. (1998). El materialismo histórico y la filosofía de Benedetto Croce (Historic materialism and the philosophy of Benedetto Croce). Buenos Aires: Editorial Nueva Visión. (Original Ed. 1948. Turin: Einaudi.) Gregory, R. (1995). Diccionario Oxford de la mente (The Oxford dictionary of mind). Madrid: Alianza Editorial. Grof, Stanislav (1985). Beyond the brain. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Grof, Stanislav (2000). Beyond psychoanalysis. Internet: Home.att.net. Guarisco, Elio; Clemente, Adriano; & Valby, Jim (trans.) (with the precious hrelp of Chögyal Namkhai Norbu) (2013). The Marvelous Primordial State: The Mejung Tantra: A Fundamental Scripture of Dzogchen Semdé. Arcidosso (GR): Shang Shung Publications. Guenther, Herbert V. (1952). Yuganaddha: The Tantric View of Life. The Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Studies Vol. III. Varanasi, India, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office. (K. 37/99, Gopal Mandir Lane, P.O. Box 8, Varanasi I, India.) (Not to be confused with a later work by the same author also titled Yuganaddha: The Tantric View of Life.) Guenther, Herbert V. (1957; 2d. Ed. 1974). Philosophy and Psychology in the Abhidharma. Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass. (2d. Ed, Berkeley, CA: Shambhala Publications, Inc.) Guenther, Herbert V. (1964). Philosophy and psychology in the Abhidharma. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. (US edition: Berkeley 1976). Guenther, Herbert V. and L. Kawamura (Trans. 1975). Mind in Buddhist Psychology: A translation of Ye-shes rgyal-mtshan’s “The Necklace of Clear Understanding.” Emeryville, CA, Dharma Publishing. Guenther, Herbert V. (1977). Tibetan Buddhism in Western Perspective. Emeryville (Ca): Dharma Publishing. Guenther, Herbert V. (1983). “‘Meditation’ Trends in Early Tibet.” In Lancaster, L. and Lai, W. (1983). Early Ch’an in China and Tibet. Berkeley: Berkeley Buddhist Studies Series, 5. Guenther, Herbert V. (1984). Matrix of Mystery, Scientific and Humanistic Aspects of rDzogs-chen Thought. Boulder and London, Shambhala. Guenther, Herbert V. (1993). Ecstatic spontaneity: Saraha’s three cycles of dohā. Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press, Nanzan Studies in Asian Religions, 4. Gupta, Bina (1947; 2ª Ed. 1998). The Disinterested Witness. A Fragment of Advaita Vedanta Phenomenology. 2d Ed. Evanston (Ill.): Northwestern University Press. Guru Rinpoche according to Karma Lingpa (Trungpa, Chögyam and Francesca Fremantle, translators, 1975). The Tibetan Book of the Dead. The Great Liberation upon Hearing in the Bardo. Berkeley and London, Shambhala. 470 Gutman, A & B. Avanzati (2013). The Language Gulper: Tibeto Burman Languages. Internet: http://www.languagesgulper.com/eng/Tibeto.html (access. March 11, 2016). Harner, Michael J. (Spanish 1973). Alucinógenos y chamanismo. Madrid, Editorial Labor. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (this English ed. 1955; trans. James Baille). The Phenomenology of Mind. London, George Allen & Unwin (Muirhead Library of Philosophy Series). Heidegger, Martin (originally published 1943). Aletheia. In Heidegger, M. (1975). Early Greek Thinking, 102-123. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers. Heidegger, Martin (1996). Being and Time (trans. Joan Stambaugh). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. (1927. Original German Ed. 1953.) Heine, Steven (reprint 2003). Buddhism in the modern world: Adaptations of an ancient tradition. New York: Oxford University Press. Hendrix, H. (1992). Keeping the Love You Find: A Guide for Singles. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, Atria Books. Hinshelwood, R. D. (1989). Dictionary of Kleinian Thought. London: Free Association Books. Hodus, Lewis (1923). Buddhism and Buddhists in China. Internet: http://www.authorama.com/buddhism-and-buddhists-in-china-1.html Houston, G. W. (1980). Sources for a History of the bSam yas Debate. Sankt Augustin: VGH Wissenschaftsverlag. Huang Po, recorded by P’ei Hsiu (Blofeld, John, translator, 1958). The Zen Teaching of Huang Po: On the Transmission of Mind. New York, NY: Grove Press, Inc. Hume, David (this ed. 1978). A Treatise of Human Nature: Second Edition. Edited by L.A. Selby-Bigge with Text Revised and Notes by P. H. Nidditch. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Humphreys, Christmas (1987; 2d Ed. 1995). The Wisdom of Buddhism. Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Rutledge-Curzon. Hurvitz, Leon (1967). The Surangama Sutra: Review. Ann Arbor (MI): Asociation for Asian Studies: Journal of Asian Studies, 26:3 (May 1967), pp. 482-484. Iqbal, A. (1964). Life and work of Rumi. Lahore (Pakistan): Institute of Islamic Culture. Isaacs, S. (1989). The nature and function of phantasy: Developments in psychoanalysis. London: Karnac Books. (Original Ed. 1943.) Jigme Lingpa, Vidyadhara (2008; Lama Chönam & Sangye Khandro, trans.). Yeshe Lama. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion. Jinpa, Thupten (trans. 2008). The book of Kadam: The core texts. Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications. Johnston, M. (1993). Objectivity refigured: Pragmatism without verificationism. In Haldane, J. & Wright, C. (eds.) (1993), pp. 149-179. Jones, E. (1979). Vida y obra de Sigmund Freud (Life and work of Sigmund Freud). Buenos Aires: Ediciones Horme. Kant, Immanuel (this English ed. 1996). Critique of pure reason: Unified edition (with all variants from the 1781 and 1787 editions). Cambridge (MA): Hackett Publishing Co, Inc. Kaufman, R.C. (2017/2018). The Science of PEA : The Brain’s Natural Stimulant for Higher Performance and Longevity. In the Website NaturoDoc. Internet: http://www.naturodoc.com/library/antiaging/PEA_science.htm (retr. Jan. 14, 2018). 471 Keown, Damien (ed.) with S. Hodge, C. Jones & P. Tinti (2003). Oxford dictionary of Buddhism. Oxford, UK, and New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Keown, Damien & Prebish, Charles S. (Eds.) (2010). Encyclopedia of Buddhism. Abingdon, Oxon, UK and New York, N.Y.: Routledge. (1st. Ed. 2007.) Kierkegaard, Søren (Trans. Walter Lowry; this ed. 1957, 3d impression 1970). The Concept of Dread. Princeton, N.J. Princeton University Press. Kierkegaard, Søren (Trans. W. Lowry; this ed. 1954). Fear and Trembling and the Sickness Unto Death. New York: Doubleday/Anchor, 1954. King, Sallie B. (2013/2016). A companion to Buddhist philosophy. Chichester (West Sussex, UK): John Wyley & Sons, inc. Kirk, G.S. and J. E. Raven (1966; Spanish 1970). Los filósofos presocráticos. Historia crítica con selección de textos. Madrid, Editorial Gredos, S. A. Kisala, Robert (2004). Soka Gakkai: Searching for the mainstream. In Lewis, James R. & Aagaard, Petersen, Jesper (2004). Controversial new religions, pp. 139-152. New York: Oxford University Press. Knipe, David M. (1991). Hinduism: Experiments in the sacred. San Francisco: Harper SanFrancisco. Korzybski, A. (1973). Science and sanity: An introduction to non-Aristotelian systems and general semantics (4th Ed. 5th printing). Lakeville, CT: International Non-Aristotelian Library Publishing Company. (Original ed. 1933.) Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Kunii, Irene (1995). Fighting against the tide. In Time Magazine, Nov. 20, 1995. Korzybski, A. (1973). Science and sanity: An introduction to non-Aristotelian systems and general semantics (4th Ed. 5th printing). Lakeville, CT: International Non-Aristotelian Library Publishing Company. (Original Ed. 1933.) Koyré. Alexandre (1973). Études d’histoire de la pensée scientifique. Paris, Gallimard. Kuhn, Thomas S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Kulke, Hermann & Rothermund, Dietmar (2004). A history of India (Fourth Edition), p. 32. Oxon OX14 4RN (UK) & New York (NY): Routledge Kvaerne, Per (1971). “A Chronological Table of the Bon-po: The bsTan rcsis of Nyi-ma bstan-’jin.” Copenhagen, Acta Orientalia XXXIII, pp. 205-282. Laing, Adrian (1996). R. D. Laing: A biography. New York, NY: Thunder’s Mouth Press. Laing, Ronald D. (1961). The Self and Others. London, Tavistock (hardcover). (1969). Self and Others, Harmondsworth, Pelican (paperback). Laing, R. D. (1967). The politics of experience and the bird of paradise. London: Tavistock; (hard cover); Harmondsworth, Pelican (paperback). Laing, R. D. (1972). La politique de la famille (The politics of the family). Paris: Stock. (Original English Ed. 1969/1971.) Laing, R. D. & Esterson, A. (2nd. Ed. 1971). Sanity, madness and the family. New York, N.Y.: Basic Books. Laming-Emperaire, A. (1962). La signification de l’art rupestre paléolithique (The meaning of rupestrian paleolithic art). Paris: Picard. Lamotte, Étienne (1998), Suramgamasamadhi Sutra: The Concentration of Heroic Progress on the Path to Enlightement. London: Curzon Press. 472 Lao-tzu (English 1989). Te-Tao Ching (translation by Robert G. Henricks). New York, Ballantine Books. Lao-zi (Spanish 1996). El libro del Tao (Te-tao Ching, translation by J. I. Preciado Ydoeta). Buenos Aires-Mexico, Alfaguara Bolsillo. Laplanche, J. & Pontalis, J.-B. (1967). Vocabulaire de la psychanalyse (Vocabulary of psychoanalysis). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France (PUF). Laszlo, Ervin (1974). A Strategy for the future. The systems approach to World Order. New York, George Braziller. Laszlo, Ervin (1987). Evolution: The Great Synthesis. Boston, Shambhala. Lawler, Andrew (2008). Indus collapse: The end or the beginning of an Asian culture? Washington (DC): Science Vol. 320 no. 5881 (6 June 2008): pp. 1281-1283. Lemert, E. M. (1962). Paranoia and the dynamics of exclusion. New York, NY: Sociometry , 25,1:220-231 (March 1962). Lenin (Ulianov), Vladimir Illich (Spanish 1974). Materialismo y empirio-criticismo. Madrid: Editorial Fundamentos. Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1965). Préhistoire de l’art occidental (Prehistory of Western art). París: Lucien Mazenod. Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1994). Las religiones de la Prehistoria (Prehistoric religions). Barcelona: Laertes SA. LeShan, L. (1982). The medium, the mystic, and the physicist: Toward a general theory of the paranormal. New York, NY: Ballantine Publishing Group. Lewis, James R. & Aagaard, Petersen, Jesper (2004). Controversial new religions. New York: Oxford University Press. Lichtenberg, Georg Christoph (1902/1908; Spanish 1989/1995). Aforismos (Aphorismen, nach den Handschriften). Mexico, Fondo de Cultura Económica. Liebowitz, M.R. (1983). The Chemistry of Love. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co. Lindtner, Christian (1992). The Lankavatarasutra in Early Indian Madhyamaka Literature, Copenhagen. Asiatische Studien, XLV, 1, pp. 244–279. Lindtner, Christian (1997). “Cittamātra in Indian Mahāyāna until Kamalaśīla.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 41, 1997, 159–206. Lipman, K. (1983/1986). Introduction. In Mañjuśrīmitra [Trans. K. Lipman, Namkhai Norbu and B. Simmons: English 1983/1986]. Primordial experience: An introduction to rDzogs-chen meditation. Boston, MA: Shambhala. Longchenpa (Longchen Rabjam; translated & annotated by Herbert V. Guenther) (1975). Kindly Bent to Ease Us: Part I. Emeryville (Ca): Dharma Publishing. Longchenpa (Longchen Rabjam; translated & annotated by Herbert V. Guenther) (1976). Kindly Bent to Ease Us: The Trilogy of Finding Comfort and Ease: Part Three: Wonderment. Emeryville, CA: Dharma Publishing. Longchenpa (Kennard Lipman and Merril Peterson, trans. 1987). You Are the Eyes of the World. Novato (USA): Lotsawa. Longchen Rabjam (1998). The Precious Treasury of the Way of Abiding. Junction City, CA: Padma Publishing. Longchen Rabjam (2001). A Treasure Trove of Scriptural Transmission: A Commentary on The Precious Treasury of the Basic Space of Phenomena. Junction City, CA: Padma Publishing. Lopeta, J.; Vaitkus, V., & Rute, I. [based on the teachings of the 33d Menri Trinzin, 473 Yongdzin Tenzing Namdak & Pönlop Thinle Nyima] (undated). Yungdrung Bon. Internet: http://www.yungdrung-bon.lt/en/bon.htm (accessed Jan. 2011). In Jan. 2016, when I tried to acces the page again, it was no longer available, but I identified the same passage in the page Bon Children. Internet: http://bonchildren.tonkoblako9.net/en/jewel2/01.tan Lopon Tenzin Namdak (John M. Reynolds, Ed.) (2006). Bonpo Dzogchen Teachings. Kathmandu: Vajra Publications. Liu I-Ming (trans. Thomas Cleary, 1988). Awakening to the Tao. Boston, Shambhala. Luk, Charles (Upashaka Lü Kuan Yu), translator (1972). The Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra. Berkeley (CA): Shambhala Publications. Luk, Charles (Upashaka Lü Kuan Yu), translator (1973). The Surangama Sutra (Leng Yen Ching): Chinese Rendering by Master Paramiti of Central North India at Chih Chih Monastery, Canton, China, AD 70. London: Rider. Mansfield, Vic (2008; 1 Indian edition, 2011). Tibetan Buddhism & modern physics: A quantum mechanical challenge: Toward a union of love and knowledge. Delhi: New Age Books (first edition by Templeton Foundation Press). Mañjuśrīmitra (Trans. K. Lipman, Namkhai Norbu and B. Simmons) (1983/1986). Primordial experience: An introduction to rDzogs-chen meditation. Boston, MA: Shambhala. Marcovich, M. (1967). Heraclitus: Greek Text with a Short Commentary: Editio Mayor. Mérida (Venezuela): The Los Andes University Press. Marcovich, M. (1968). Heraclitus—Texto griego y versión castellana—Editio Minor; Mérida (Venezuela): Talleres Gráficos Universitarios (Universidad de Los Andes). Marcuse, H. (1964). One dimensional man. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Marcuse, Herbert (1965). Industrialisierung und Kapitalismus im Werk Max Weber. In Marcuse, Herbert (1965). Kultur und Gesellschaft, II, 107-129. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Marshall, John (1931). Mohenjo-Daro and the Indus civilization: Being an oficial account of archeological excavations at Mohenjo-Daro carried out by the government of India between the years 1922 and 1927. London: Arthur Probsthain. Masters from Huainan/Thomas Cleary (1990). The Tao of Politics. Boston: Shambhala. McClintock, S. L. (2003). The role of the “Given” in the classification of Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla as Svātantrika-Mādhyamikas. In Dreyfus, G. B. J. & McClintock, S. L. (eds.) (2003), pp. 125-172. McLaughlin, Levi (2012). Soka Gakkai in Japan. Handbook of contemporary Japanese religions. Tokyo? Brill. Mellaart, James (1967). Catal Hüyük: A neolithic town in Anatolia. London: Thames and Hudson. Mellaart, James (1975). The neolithic Middle East. London, McGraw-Hill. Mette, Adalheid (1995). The synchronism of the Buddha and the Jina Mahāvīra. In Heinz Bechert, ed., When did the Buddha live? The controversy on the dating of the historical Buddha, pp. 179-183. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications. Moos, Felix (1963). Religion and politics in Japan: The case of the Soka Gakkai. In Asian Survey: A Bimonthly Review of Contemporary Asian Affairs. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. This paper is also freely available in the Internet at the URL: http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/bitstream/1808/1135/1/CEAS.1963.n6.pdf st 474 Morin, Edgar (1981). Pour sortir du vingtième siècle. Paris: Fernand Nathan. Mukherjee, Namita; Nebel, Almut; Oppenheim, Ariella & Majumder, Partha P. (2001). High-resolution analysis of Y-chromosomal polymorphisms reveals signatures of population movements from Central Asia and West Asia into India (PDF). Journal of Genetics (Springer India): 80 (3), December 2001. Internet: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02717908#page-1 Mullin, Glenn (2001). The Fourteen Dalai Lamas. Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light Publishers. Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal] (Ed. Kennard Lipman; 1984). Dzog Chen and Zen. Oakland, Ca. Zhang Zhung Editions. Namkhai Norbu (Ed. John Shane; 2000; original ed. 1986). The crystal and the way of light: Sutra, Tantra and Dzogchen. Revised Edition: Ithaca, N.Y. Snow Lion. Namkhai Norbu (translation, Adriano Clemente; 1986). Dzog-chen: Lo stato di autoperfezione. Roma, Ubaldini Editori. Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal] (1988) Un’introduzione allo Dzog-chen: Risposte a sedici domande. Arcidosso, GR, Italy: Shang-Shung Edizioni. Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal] (1993). The Wish-Fulfilling Vase. An Abridged Version of The Precious Vase: Instructions on the Basis of Santi Maha Sangha. Arcidosso, GR, Italy: Shang-Shung Edizioni. Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal] (1995). The Mirror: An Advise on Presence and Awareness. Barrytown, NY, U.S.A.: Barrytown, Limited. Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal] (1996a). Drung, deu e bön. Le narrazioni, i linguaggi simbolici e il Bön nell’ antico Tibet, p. 21, n. 7. Arcidosso, GR, Italy: Shang-Shung Edizioni. Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal] (1996b). Thos-Grol: The Practice of the Twenty-five Thigles. Arcidosso, GR, Italy: Shang-Shung Edizioni. Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal] (1997). La collana di zi. Arcidosso, GR, Italy: Shang-Shung Edizioni. Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal] (1999/2001). The precious vase: Instructions on the Base of Santi Maha Sangha. Arcidosso, GR, Italy: Shang-Shung Edizioni. Namkhai Norbu and Adriano Clemente (English 1999). The Supreme Source. The Fundamental Tantra of the Dzogchen Semdé Kunjed Gyalpo. Ithaca, NY, Snow Lion. Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal] (2003). Longsal teachings volume four. Arcidosso, GR, Italy: Shang-Shung Edizioni. (This is a restricted circulation book—this being the reason why I did not cite any passage from it in this book.) Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal] (2004). The necklace of zi: On the history and culture of Tibet. Arcidosso, GR, Italy: Shang-Shung Edizioni. (There is an older English edition published by the Library of Tibetan Works and Archives in Dharamsala, India. The present edition is a translation into English of the Italian version of 1997 carried out by Barrie Simmons with thanks to Nancy Simmons.) Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal] (2008). Yantra yoga: The Tibetan yoga of movement. Ithaca (NY): Snow Lion Publications. Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal] (2009/2013a). The light of Kailāśā: A history of Zhang Zhung and Tibet, Vol. I. Arcidosso, GR, Italy: Shang-Shung Edizioni. Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal] (2013b). The light of Kailāśā: A history of Zhang Zhung and Tibet, Vol. II. Arcidosso, GR, Italy: Shang-Shung Edizioni. Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal] (2013c). The vision of clear light [by] Paltrul Rinpoche. Arcidosso, GR, Italy: Shang-Shung Edizioni. 475 Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal] (E. Capriles, Ed. unpublished). The path of spontaneous liberation and our total plenitude and perfection. (This book will not be published, as the recordings of the teachings on which it is based were lost, and the translations committee of the Dzogchen Community would require them in order to publish it.) Napper, Elizabeth (2003). Dependent-arising and emptiness: A Tibetan Buddhist interpretation of Madhyamika philosophy emphasizing the compatibility of emptiness and conventional phenomena. Boston, Wisdom Publications. Neusner, Jacob, ed. (3d Ed. 2003). World religions in America: An introduction. Louisville, KY; London: Westminster John Knox. p. 166. Nietzsche, F. W. (1999). On the genealogy of morals: A polemic by way of clarification and supplement to my last book Beyond good and evil. Cary, NC: Oxford University Press. (Original German Ed. 1887.) Nietzsche, F. W. (undated). On truth and lie in a nonmoral sense. Internet: http://www.publicappeal.org/library/nietzsche/Nietzsche_various/on_truth_and_lies.ht m (Also in Nietzsche, Friedrich [1979]. Philosophy and truth: Selections from Nietzsche’s notebooks of the early 1870’s [Nachgelassene Schriften] [Ed. and trans. by Daniel Breazeale.]. Section: On truth and lies in an extra-moral sense. Brighton, Sussex, UK: Harvester Press.) (Original German Ed. 1873.) Nyoshul Khenpo (2015; D. Christensen, trans.). The fearless lion’s roar: Profound instructions on Dzogchen, the Great Perfection (With Commentaries on Jigme Lingpa’s The lion’s roar and Longchenpa’s Resting at ease in illusion). Boston & London: Snow Lion. Obermiller, E. (1999). [Butön’s] History of Buddhism in India and Tibet. New Delhi: Paljor Publications. Padampa Sangye (2002; J. Canti, trans. of text; M. Ricard, trans. of Commentary). The Hundred Verses of Advise. Boston & London: Shambhala. Padmasambhava and others (1973). The legend of the great stupa. Emeryville, CA: Dharma Publishing. Italian (1977): La leggenda del grande stupa e la biografia del guru Nato dal loto. Roma, Ubaldini Editore. Padmasambhava and Jamgön Kongtrül the Great (English 1995). The Light of Wisdom (containing Padmasambhava’s Lam-rim Ye-shes sNying-po and Kongtrül’s commentary on it, the bLa-ma’i Thugs-sGrub rDo-rje Drug rTsal-lam. Shal-gdMas Lam-rim Ye-shes sNying-po’i Grel-pa Ye-shes sNang-ba rab-thu rGyas-pa Shes-bya-pa bShugs-so). Boston and London, Shambhala. Pandey, K. C. (2d revised and enlarged ed. 1963). Abhinavagupta: A historical and philosophical study. Varanasi (India): Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series. Parain, Brice (Director of the collection, 1969, Spanish translation 1972). Historia de la Filosofía Siglo XXI, Vol. 3: Del mundo romano al Islam medieval. Mexico, Siglo XXI Editores. Pascal, Blaise (1962). Pensées (Thoughts). Paris: Le Livre de Poche. (Posthumous edition, 1669.) Patrul Rinpoche (revised ed. 1998) (trans. Padmakara Translation Group). Words of my perfect teacher: A complete translation of a classic introduction to Tibetan Buddhism. Walnut Creek (CA): AltaMira Press. (1 Ed. 1994.) Paz, O. (1978). Pasado en claro (Clear past ). Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica. st 476 Pettorino, Sveva (2003). “International Seminar: The Tibetan Nomads.” Rome, Italy, Asia Onlus News, Year 2003, No. 1, pp. 16-22. Piya Tan (2009). Transmission outside the scriptures? The evolution of Chán Buddhism as a religion in its own right (3rd revision). Internet: http://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/40b.5Transmission-outside-the-scriptures.pdf (downloaded Dec. 7, 2015). Popper, K. R. (1961). The logic of scientific discovery. New York, NY: Science Editions, Inc. (Original Ed. 1959.) Possehl, Gregory L. (2002). The Indus Civilization: A Contemporary Perspective. Lanham (MD): Altamira Press. Powers, John (2000). A Concise Encyclopedia of Buddhism. Oxford and Boston, Oneworld Publications. Pribram, Karl H. & Merton Gill (1976). Freud’s “Project” Re-assessed. New York: Basic Books. Pribram, Karl H. & J. Martínez Ramírez (1980). Cerebro, mente y holograma. Madrid: Editorial Alhambra. Pribram, Karl H. (1982). Interviews. In Wilber, Ken (Ed.). The Holographic Paradigm and Other Paradoxes. Boulder, Shambhala. Price, Henry Habberley (2d. Ed. 1969). Thinking and Experience. London: Hutchinson University Library. Radford-Ruether, Rosemary (1992; this Ed. 1994). Gaia & God: An Ecofeminist Theology of Earth Healing. New York (NY): Harper San Francisco. Radhakrishnan, S. (1923/1929). Indian Philosophy (2 Vol). Muirhead Library of Philosophy. London, George Allen & Unwin; New York, MacMillan. Ratnagar, Shereen (2004). Archaeology at the Heart of a Political Confrontation: The Case of Ayodhya”. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press: Current Anthropology 45 [2] [April 2004]). Ravignant, Patrick (1972, Spanish 1978). Los maestros espirituales contemporáneos. Barcelona, Plaza y Janés. Reid, Daniel (2002/2003). Practice Makes Perfect: Common Grounds in the Practice Paths of Chuan Chen Tao and Dzogchen Dharma. Conway, Mass, The Mirror # 63, December 2002/January 2003, pp. 26-7. Renfrew, Andrew Colin (1987). Archaeology and language: The puzzle of IndoEuropean origins. London: Pimlico. Repps, Paul (3rd Printing, 1957). Zen Flesh, Zen Bones: A collection of Zen & pre-Zen writings. Vermont, Tuttle of Rutland. (Published in Pelican Books 1971; reprinted 1972, 1972, 1975, 1978, 1980, 1982, 1984.) Reynolds, John Myrdhin (1989a). “The Nagas—Ancient Bönpo Teachings and the Nagas.” Arcidosso (Grosseto, Italy): Rivista Meri Gar/Meri Gar Review, No. 2, October 1989, pp. 20-31. Reynolds, John M. (translation, Introduction and commentaries, 1989b). Self-liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness. Barrytown, N.Y. Station Hill Press. (A new translation of the Rigpa ngothö cherthong rangdröl [Rig-pa ngo-sprod gcer-mthong rang-grol], a terma revealed by Karma Lingpa.) Reynolds, John M. (trans. Introd. and comm.) (1996). The Golden Letters. Ithaca, Snow Lion Publications. 477 Ricard, M. & Thuan, T. X. (2004). The quantum and the lotus: A journey to the frontiers where science and Buddhism meet. New York, NY: Random House Inc. Robinson, Richard (1967). Early Madhyamika in India and China. Madison (Milwaukee) and London, University of Wisconsin Press. Rockhill, William Woodville (1997). Land of the Lamas. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services. Rodrigué, E. (1996). El siglo del psicoanálisis (The century of psychoanalysis). Buenos Aires: Editorial Sudamericana. Ruegg, David Seyfort (1981). The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz. Russell, Bertrand (1925). The ABC of relativity. New York: Harper & Brothers. Russell, B. & Whitehead, A. N. (1910-1913) Principia mathematica (3 vol.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sanz-Ferramola, R. (2001). El imperativo categórico de Kant en Freud (Kant’s categorical imperative in Freud). San Luis, Argentina: Universidad Nacional de San Luis, Fundamentos en Humanidades , II:1 (2001:3). Also in Internet at the URL: http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=1280138 Sartre, Jean-Paul (1980). L’être et le néant. Essai d’ontologie phénoménologique [Being and nothingness. An essay on phenomenological ontology]. Paris, NRF Librairie Gallimard. (Original ed. 1943). Sartre, Jean-Paul (1969; trans. H. E. Barnes). Being and nothingness. An essay in phenomenological ontology. London: Methuen. Schmithausen, Lambert (1987). Alayavijñana: On the Origin and Early Development of a Central Concept of Yogācāra Philosophy (2 vols.). Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 1987. (Studia Philologica Buddhica, Monograph Series, IVa and IVb.) Schmithausen, Lambert (1969). Zur Literaturgeschichte der älteren Yogācāra-Schule. In: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Supplementa I (1969) (= Vorträge des XVII. Deutschen Orientalistentages in Würzburg), 811-823. Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered. London, Blond & Briggs. Schumacher, S. and Woerner, G. (1993). Diccionario de la sabiduría oriental. BarcelonaBuenos Aires-México, Paidós. Schweitzer, A. (C. E. B. Russell, trans. 1936). Indian Thought And Its Development. London: Rodder and Stougkton. Sedgwick, P. (1982). Psycho politics. Laing, Foucault, Goffman, Szasz and the future of mass psychiatry. Nueva York, N.Y.: Harper & Row. Sellars, W. (1997). Empiricism and the philosophy of mind (with an Intr. by R. Rorty and a Study Guide by R. Brandom). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (original Ed. Minneapolis 1956 by UMP, without Rorty’s Introduction and Brandom’s S. G.). Sellars, W. (1963). Science, perception and reality. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Sellars, W. (1968). Science and metaphysics: Variations on Kantian Themes. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul; New York, NY: The Humanities Press. The 1966 John Locke Lectures. Senent, J. Saint-Marc, P. and others (1973). La contaminación. Barcelona: Salvat, Biblioteca Salvat de Grandes Temas. 478 Setio, Evan (undated). Uddiyana, Oddiyana. Internet (retrieved on March 25, 2014): http://www.scribd.com/doc/41377424/Uddiyana-Oddiyana Shah, Idries (1964, Spanish translation by Pilar Giralt Gorina, 1975). Los sufíes. Barcelona, Luis de Caralt Editor S. A. Shah, Idries (1991). The Way of the Sufi. New York, Penguin. Sharma, Chandradhar (1987). A critical survey of Indian philosophy. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Shen, Tsung-lien (1953; this Ed. 1973). Tibet and the Tibetans. New York, NY: Octagon Books. Shimbun Akahata (The Newspaper Red Flag), Thursday March 11, 2004: 宮本顕治委員長 （ 当 時 ） 宅 電 話 盗 聴 事 件 の 判 決 は ？ Available in the Internet at the URL: http://www.jcp.or.jp/akahata/aik3/2004-03-11/0311faq.html Smith, Ācārya Malcolm (2018a). The Self-Arisen Vidyā Tantra: A translation of the Rigpa Rangshar. Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications with Zangthal Editions. Smith, Ācārya Malcolm (2018b). The Self-Liberated Vidyā Tantra: A translation of the Rigpa Rangdrol. Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications with Zangthal Editions. Snellgrove, David (2010). The nine ways of Bön: Excerpts from gZi-brjid. Bangkok: Orchid Press. (Original Ed. London, 1967, Oxford University Press). Sorel, G. (1906). Le système historique de Renan (Renan’s historical system). Paris: G. Jacques. Sorel, G. (1908). Les illusions du progrès (The illusions of progress). Paris: Marcel Rivière. Sorel, G. (1922). Introduction à l’économie moderne (Introduction to modern economics) (2d ed.). Paris: Marcel Rivière. In the Web at the URL http://pages.infi nit.net/sociojmt (1st edition: 1903). Steinkellner, Ernst (1994). Buddhist logic: The search for certainty. In Takeuchi, Yoshinori, et al. (Eds.) (1994). Buddhist spirituality: Indian, Southeast Asian, Tibetan and Early Chinese. London: SCM (Student Christian Movement) Press, Ltd. Suber, P. (1997). Non-contradiction and excluded middle. Retreived Feb. 18, 2011 from the URL http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/logsys/pnc-pem.htm Suzuki, D. T. (French 1940/1943, 1972, 3 vol.). Essais sur le Bouddhisme Zen. Première série (Essays on Zen Buddhism. First Series). Paris: Albin Michel. Suzuki, Shunryu Daiosho (Ed. Trudy Dixon, 1980). Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind: Informal Talks on Zen Meditation and Practice. New York and Tokyo, Weatherhill. Takakuso, Junijirō (3d. ed. 1956) (ed. Wing-tsit Chan and Charles A. Moore). Essentials of Buddhist Philosophy. Honolulu (HI): T.H. Office Appliance Co. Ltd. (1st ed. 1947: Honolulu, University of Hawaii; 2d ed. 1949: Honolulu, T.H. Office Appliance Co. Ltd.) Tarthang Tulku (1977a). Time, Space and Knowledge: A New Vision of Reality. Emeryville, California, Dharma Publishing. Tarthang Tulku (1977b). The Vajrayana Lineages in Tibet. In Crystal Mirror, Vol. 5, pp.165-307. Emeryville (Ca.): Dharma Press. Tarthang Tulku (1991). Lineage of diamond light (2d. Ed. of Crystal Mirror, Vol. 5: The Vajrayana Lineages in Tibet). Emeryville (Ca.): Dharma Press. Tatz, Mark (trans. 1994). The Skill in Means (upāyakauśalya) Sūtra. Delhi: Tibet House and Motilal Barnasidass. Taylor, S. (2005). The fall: The evidence for a golden age, 6,000 years of insanity, and the 479 dawning of a new era. Winchester (UK) and New York, NY: O Books (The Bothy, John Hunt Publishing Ltd.) Tenzin Namdak [Lopön] (1993). Heart Drops of Dharmakaya: Dzogchen Practice of the Bön Tradition. Ithaca: Snow Lion. Tenzin, Nyima (trans. Per Kvaerne, 1971). “A Chronological Table of the Bon-po: The bsTan rtsis of Nyi-ma bstan-'jin.” In Acta Orientalia XXXIII, Copenhagen 1971, pp. 205-282. The Ecologist Editing Team (1971). A Blueprint for Survival. Harmondsworth: Pelican Books (expanded version in book form). Thinle Norbu Rinpoche (1977) (trans. Elisabeth Anderson). The small golden key to the treasure of the various essential necessities of general and extraordinary Buddhadharma. Mimeograph. Also: Boston (MA): Shambhala (1977, 1986, 1993). Thinle Norbu Rinpoche (1997). Welcoming flowers from across the cleansed threshold of hope: An Answer to the Pope’s Criticism of Buddhism. New York, Jewel Publishing House. Thurman, Robert (1976). The holy teaching of Vimalakīrti: a Mahāyāna scripture. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. This online version (retrieved June 22, 2014): https://www.google.co.ve/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=uFanU-DQBPO8gfasoAo#q=Vimalak%C4%ABrti-nirde%C5%9Bas%C5%ABtra+non+action&safe=off&start=20 Tillemans, Tom J. F. (1995). On the So-Called Difficult Point of the Apoha Theory. Asiatische Studien / Études Asiatiques 59/4, 1995, 854-889. Triulzi, A. (2006). Ancient Greek color vision. Internet (accessed on May 15, 2012): http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/61 Trungpa, Chögyam (1972). Mudra. Berkeley and London: Shambhala. Trungpa, Chögyam (1976). The Myth of Freedom and the Way of Meditation. Berkeley: Shambhala. Trungpa, Chögyam (1981). Journey Without Goal, Boulder, Prajña Press. Trungpa, C. & Fremantle, F. (trans. 1975). The Tibetan book of the dead. Boulder, CO: Shambhala. Tsong kha pa, Je (2002; trans. The Lamrim Chenmo Translation Committee). The great treatise on the stages of the Path to Enlightenment, Vol. III. Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications. Tucci, G. (1940). Travels of Tibetan pilgrims in the Swat Valley (Orgyenpa [o rgyan pa] and Tagsang Repa [stag shang ras pa]). Calcutta (currently Kolkata), WB: The Greater India Society. Tucci, Giuseppe (1958). First Bhavanakrama of Kamalashila. Rome: Minor Buddhist Texts, II, Serie Orientale Roma IX, 2, Is.M.E.O. Tucci, Giuseppe (1966). Tibetan folk songs from Gyantse and Western Tibet. 2d. Rev. and enl. ed. With two Appendices by Namkhai Norbu. Ascona (Switzerland): Artibus Asiae. Tucci, Giuseppe (1970; English 1980). The Religions of Tibet. London-Boston-Henley, Routledge and Kegan Paul; India, Allied Publishers. Tulku Thöndup (1984). The Origin of Buddhism in Tibet. The Tantric Tradition of the Nyingmapa. Marion, MA, Buddhayana Foundation. Tulku Thöndup (1986). Hidden Teachings of Tibet. An Explanation of the Terma Tradition of the Nyingmapa School of Buddhism, London, Wisdom. 480 Tulku Thöndup (1995). Enlightened Journey, Buddhist Practice as Daily Life. Boston and London, Shambhala Publications. Tulku Thöndup (1996). The practice of Dzogchen. Ithaca (NY): Snow Lion. (Original ed. 1989 as Buddha-Mind.) Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche (comp. and trans. E. P. Kunsang and M. Binder S., 2006). Quintessential Dzogchen: Confusion dawns as wisdom. Boudhanath, Hong Kong and Esby: Ranjung Yeshe Publications. Ulianov (Lenin), Vladimir Illich (1977). Materialism and Empirio-Criticism: Critical Comments on a Reactionary Philosophy. Moscow, Progress Publishers. Also Internet (1998-2012). World Socialist Web Site: http://www1.wsws.org/IML/materialism/ (retrieved on Oct. 12, 2015). Upāsaka, Sī. Esa (1990). History of Buddhism in Afghanistan. Varanasi (Benares), U.P. India: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies. Vals, J. L. (1995). Diccionario freudiano (Freudian dictionary). Buenos Aires: Julián Yebenes S.A. Van Schaik, Sam (2004). Approaching the Great Perfection: Simultaneous and gradual methods of Dzogchen practice in the Longchen Nyingthig. Boston: Wisdom Pub. Vasubandhu (English 1988-1990, trans. L. M. Pruden, 4 vols.) Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam. Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press. (Translated from the French trans. of the Chinese trans. by L. de la Vallée Poussin [1971, 6. vols.]. L’ Abhidharmakośa de Vasubandhu. Brussels: Institut Belge des Hautes Études Chinoises.) Vattimo, Gianni (1995). Más allá de la interpretación. Barcelona, España / Buenos Aires / México: Paidós / I.C.E. Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona. (Original 1994.) Vetturini, G. (2007). The bKa’ gdams pa School of Tibetan Buddhism. London: University of London. Ven. Jikwan (Publisher) & Ven. Hyechong (Editor-in-Chief) (2007). What is Korean Buddhism. Seoul: The Jogye Order of Korean Buddhism (Publication 30). Ventaka Ramanan, K. (1966). Nagarjuna’s philosophy. Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle, for the Harvard-Yenching Institute. Waddell, Laurence Austine (1972). Tibetan Buddhism, with its mystc cults. Symbolism and mythology, and in relation to Indian Buddhism. New York, NY: Dover Publishing (original ed. 1895 by the same publisher under the title Buddhism of Tibet). Wallace, B. Allan (2007). Hidden dimensions: The unification of physics and consciousness. New York (NY): Columbia University Press. Walter, Michael (2012). All that glitters is gold: The place of the yellow metal in the Brahmanic, Scyntian and early Buddhist traditions. In Nepalica-Tibetica: Festgabe for Cristoph Cüppers. Andiast (Graubünden, Switzerland): International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies, 2: 283-298. Ware, James R. (trans. 1981). Alchemy, medicine and religion in the China of A.D. 320: The Nei P’ien of Ko Hung (Pao-p'u tzu). New York, Dover Publications. Washburn, Michael (2 ed. 1995). The ego and the dynamic ground. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Watson, B. [trans.] (1968). The Complete Works of Chuang Tzu. New York, Columbia University Press. Watts, Alan W. (1951). The Wisdom of Insecurity: A Message for an Age of Anxiety. New York, Vintage Books. nd 481 Watts, Alan W. (1956). The Way of Zen, New York, Pantheon Books. Watts, A. W. (1962). The joyous cosmology. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. Watts, Alan (1966). The Book: On the taboo against knowing who or what you are. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. Watts, Alan (1975). Tao—The Watercourse Way. New York, Pantheon Books. (Written in 1973 with the collaboration of Al Chung-Liang Huang.) Wayman, Alex (1979). Calming the Mind and Discerning the Real. New Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass. (Original ed. 1978.) Welch, Holmes (1967). The practice of Chinese Buddhism. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Whitehead, Alfred North (corrected ed. 1979; D. R. Griffin & D. W. Sherburne, eds.). An essay in cosmology. New York (NY): Free Press. (Original ed. [1929]. New York [NY]: Macmillan Company.) Wilber, Ken (1977; Spanish translation, 1990). El espectro de la conciencia (The Spectrum of Consciousness). Barcelona: Editorial Kairós. Wilber, Ken (Ed. 1982). The Holographic Paradigm and Other Paradoxes. Boulder, CO: Shambhala Publications. Wilber, Ken (1982). Physics, mysticism and the new holographic paradigm: A critical appraisal. In Wilber, Ken, Ed. (1982). The holographic paradigm and other paradoxes. Exploring the leading edge of science. Boulder: Shambhala. Wilber, K. (1993a). The spectrum of consciousness. Wheaton, IL / Madras, India / London: Quest Books: The Theosophical Publishing House. (Original Ed. 1977.) Wilber, Ken (1993b). “The Pre/Trans Fallacy.” In Walsh, Roger & Vaughan, Frances (eds.). Paths Beyond Ego. Los Angeles: Tarcher. Wilber, Ken (1995). Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. Boston & London: Shambhala. Wilber, Ken (1996; Spanish, 1996). Breve historia de todas las cosas (A Brief History of Everything). Barcelona, Kairós. (Original English: Boston & London: Shambhala.) Wilden, Anthony (1972; 2d Ed. 1980). System and Structure. London, Tavistock. Wilkinson, Christopher (2016). Ten Early Tantras of the Great Perfection: A Basket of Diamonds. Cambridge, MA: Christopher Wilkinson. Williams, Paul (1998). The Reflexive Nature of Awareness: A Tibetan Madhyamaka Defense. Richmond [Surrey], Curzon Press Wong Mou-Lam and A. F. Price, translators (1969) The diamond Sutra and The Sutra of Hui-neng. Boston, Shambhala Publications. Yeshe Tsogyäl (English, 1978). The Life and Liberation of Padmasambhava (Padma bKa’i Thang) (2 vol.). Dharma Publishing, Berkeley, Ca. Yanagida Seizan (1983). The Li-tai fa-pao chi and the Ch’an Doctrine of Sudden Awakening. In Lai and Lancaster, eds. Early Ch’an in China and Tibet, pp. 13-49. Berkeley, Berkeley Buddhist Studies Series 5. Yoka Daishi (Yung-chia Hsüan-chüeh)/Taisen Deshimaru (Spanish 1981). El canto del inmediato satori. Barcelona, Vision Libros. Zhao, M., Kong, Q. P., Wang, H. W., Peng, M. S., Xie, X. D., Wang, W. Z. et al. (2009). Mitochondrial genome evidence reveals successful Late Paleolithic settlement on the Tibetan Plateau. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA (PNAS) 106, No. 50, 21230–21235 (2009). Internet: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/50/21230 Zukav, G. (1979). The dancing Wu Li Masters. An overview of the new physics. New 482 York, NY: William Morrow and Company, Inc. (II) TEXTS IN TIBETAN (QUOTED INDIRECTLY) (Numbered according to order of appearance.) Tibetan Text 1: bSam gtan mig sgron (sGom gyi gnad gsal bar phye ba bsam gtan mig sgron) by gNubs chen Sangs rgyas Ye shes (IX c.), published by Tashigangpa, Leh 1974. (A fundamental texts for understanding the gradual and direct sūtra traditions, Mahāyoga and Atiyoga.) Tibetan Text 2: Vimalamitra (discovered as a terma [gter-ma] by Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo (’Jam dbyangs mKhyen brtse dBang po) [1820-1892]), kLong lnga’i yi ge dum bu gsum pa (Man ngag thams cad kyi rgyal po klong lnga’i yi ge dum bu gsum pa). Tibetan Text 3: Sūtra of the Nucleus of the Tathāgata. Tib. De-bzhin gshegs-pa’i snyingpo’i mdo. Skt. Tathāgatagarbhasūtra. Tohoku University catalogue of the sDe-dge edition of the Tibetan Buddhist Canon (Ed. H. Ui et al. Sendai, 1934), 258. P. Pfandt, Mahayana Texts Translated into Western Languages (Köln: In Kommission bei E. J. Brill, 1983), 231. Tibetan Text 4: Rong zom lta ’grel (Man ngag lta ba’i phreng ba zhes bya ba’i ’grel pa), by Rong zom Pandita Chos kyi bZang po (1012-1088), in SNGA ‘GYUR BKA’ MA’I CHOS SDE, vol. ’a,; published by Si khron bod kyi rig gnas zhib ‘jug khang. (Commentary to Man ngag lta ba’i phreng ba by Padmasambhava.) Tibetan Text 5: Rig pa rang shar chen po’i rgyud, transmitted by dGa’ rab rdo rje, in RNYING MA’I RGYUD BCU BDUN, vol. I, published by Sangs rgyas rDo rje, New Delhi 1973. (One of the seventeen principal Tantras of the Man ngag sde.) Tibetan Text 6: Man ngag lta ba’i phreng ba, by Padmasambhava (VIII c.) A: in SNGA ‘GYUR BKA’ MA’I SCHOS SDE, vol. ‘a, published by Si khron bod kyi rig gnas zhib ‘jug khang; B: in GDAMS NGAG MDZOD, vol. Ka, published at Paro in Bhutan, 1979. (One of the rare texts of the oral tradition ascribed to Padmasambhava; translated in Dowman, Flight of the Garuda, Ithaca 1992; Karmay, The Great Perfection, Leiden 1988; Italian translation in Baroetto, L’insegnamento esoterico di Padmasambhava, Arcidosso 1990.) Tibetan Text 7: Thar lam gsal sgron (Klong chen snying thig gi sngon ’gro’i khrid yig thar lam gsal byed sgron me zhes bya ba), by A ‘dzam ‘Brug pa ‘Gro ‘dul dpa’ bo rdo rje (1842-1934), published by bsTan ‘dzin dbang rgyal, Darjeeling 1974. (A text of explanations of the preliminary practices of the Klong chen snying thig.) Tibetan Text 8: A Feast for the Erudite (Chöjung Khepai Gatön: chos ’byung mkhas pa’i dga’ ston), by Pawo Tsuglag Threngwa (dPa’bo gtsug lag phreng ba). Two editions of this text are the ones published by: (A) Mi-rigs dpe sKrun Khang, Peking, 1986; (B) Delhi Kharmapae Chödey Guialwae Sungrab Partun Khang, Delhi, 1980 (I-Tib 81900485. SP 9, 1961). Tibetan Text 9: sDe-gsum snying-po’i don-’grel gnas-lugs rin-po-che’i mdzod ces-’bya’ba’i grel-pa, by Longchen Rabjampa (kLong-chen Rab-’byams-pa). Tibetan Text 10: Kun-mkhyen zhal-lug bdud-rtsi’i thigs-pa (commentary to the Gnas-lugs rdo-rje’i tshig-rkang), by Jigme Lingpa (’Jigs-med gLing-pa). Tibetan Text 11: Shes bya kun khyab (Shes bya kun la khyab pa’i gzhung lugs nyung ngu’i tshig gis rnam par ’grol ba legs bshad yongs ‘du shes bya mtha’ yas pa’i rgya mtsho 483 zhes bya ba), by Kong sprul Ngag dbang Yon tan rGya mtsho (1813-1899). A: published by Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, Beijing 1982. B: Shatapitaka Series, I-Tib 77-913514. Saraswati Vihar, New Delhi, 1970. (A work that encompasses the whole of Buddhist knowledge. Currently being translated into English, so far two volumes have been published: Myriad Worlds, Ithaca, Snow Lion, 1995 and Buddhist Ethics, Ithaca, Snow Lion, 1998.) Tibetan Text 12: Theg mchog mdzod (Theg pa’i mchog rin po che’i mdzod ces bya ba) by Klong chen rab ’byams pa Dri med ’od zer (1308-1363), in MDZOD BDUN, vol. ca-e, published by rDo grub chen rin po che, Sikkim. (A text of explanations of rDzogs chen; one of the ‘seven treasures’ of Klong chen pa.) Tibetan Text 13: Sa skya pan di ta Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan: sDom pa gsum gyi rab tu dbye ba’i bstan bcos, p. 104, 3. Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang, Lhasa 1986. Tibetan Text 14: kLong-chen Chos-’byung (Chos-’byung rin-po-che’i gter mdzod bstan pa gsal bar byed pa’i nyi ’od), by rGyal-sras Thugs mchod rtsal (written in 1362), Bod ljongs bod yig dpe rnying dpe skrung khang, Lhasa 1991. The author has been identified as Longchenpa by various scholars including Jigme Lingpa, but others remain in doubt as to the author’s identity. Tibetan Text 15: Bai ro ’dra ’bag (rJe btsun thams cad mkhyen pa bai to tsa na’i rnam thar ’dra ’bag chen mo). Lhasa, 1976. Edition contained in Bai ro rgyud ’bum, vol. Ja, pp. 405-605, Leh 1971. Tibetan Text 16: Tantra Comprising the Supreme Path of the Method that Clearly Unveils Samantabhadra’s Primordial Gnosis. Kun-bzang Ye-shes gSal-bar sTon-pa’i Thabs-kyi Lam-mchog ’Dus-pa’i rGyud. rNying-ma’i rgyud-’bum: Collected Tantras of the Nyingmapa. Thimpu, Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche, 1973, vol. 3, No. 46. Tibetan Text 17: Root Tantra of the Gathering of the Sugatas: bDer-’dus rTsa-rgyud. rNying-ma’i rgyud-’bum: Collected Tantras of the Nyingmapa. Thimpu, Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche, 1973, vol. 31, No. 375. Tibetan Text 18: The Realization of Yoga (rNal ’byor grub pa’i lung): Sūtra that Gathers All Intentions: (mDo) dgongs(-pa) ’dus(pa), sPyi mdo dgongs-pa ’dus-pa, or ’Dus-pa mdo, the Fundamental Anuyoga Scripture, in 75 chapters. rNying-ma’i rgyud-’bum: Collected Tantras of the Nyingmapa. Thimpu, Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche, 1973, vol. 11, No. 160. Tibetan Text 19: Guru Padma’s Advice in the Form of Questions and Answers: Slob dpon pad ma’i zhal gdams zhus lan, gter ma by Nyang Nyi ma ’od zer (1124-1192). A: In RIN CHEN GTER MDZOD, vol. i, published by Si khron bod kyi rig gnas zhib ‘jug khang; B: in JO MO LA GDAMS PA’I CHOS SKOR (under the title: sKyabs ‘gro lam khyer gyi skor jo mo la gdams pa), Paro 1983. (A text of explanations on various aspects of Buddhist practice. Some parts translated in Padmasambhava, Dakini Teachings, Boston 1990.) Tibetan Text 20: Summary of the Wish-Fulfilling Treasure: Yid bzhin mdzod kyi grub mtha’ bsdus pa by ’Ju Mi Pham ’Jam dbyangs rnam rgyal rgya mtsho (1846-1912), in Yid bzhin rin po che’i mdzod by kLong-chen-pa, vol. wam, published by Dodrub Chen Rinpoche, Sikkim. (A text of explanations on the various Buddhist traditions on the basis of the Yid bzhin rin po che’i mdzod, which is one of the Seven Treasures of kLongchen-pa. 484 Tibetan Text 21: Nor bu’s bang mdzod (sLob dpon chen po pad ma ’byung gnas kyis mdzad pa’s man ngag lta ba’i phreng ba’i mchan ’grel nor bu’i bang mdzod ces bya ba) by ’Ju Mi Pham ’Jam dbyangs rnam rgyal rgya mtsho (1846-1912). (Commentary to the Man ngag lta ba’i phreng ba by Padmasambhava.) Tibetan Text 22: Ngal-gso skor-gsum gyi spyi-don legs-bshad rgya-mtsho by kLong-chen Rabs-’byam-pa. Published by Dodrub Chen Rinpoche. Tibetan Text 23: Byang chub kyi sems kun byed rgyal po (rDzogs pa chen po byang chub kyi sems kun byed rgyal po’i rgyud), in sNga ’gyur bka’ ma’i chos sde, vol. XVII-tsa, translated into Tibetan by Śrī Singha and Vairotsana, published by Si kron bod kyi rig gnas zhib ’jug khang. Tibetan Text 24: rGyud bu chung bcu gnyis (Zhang zhung snyan rgyud kyi rgyud bu chung bcu gnyis), snyan rgyud written down by sNang bzher lod po (VII c.), published by Lokesh Chandra, International Academy of Indian Culture, Delhi 1968. (One of the fundamental texts of the Zhang zhung snyan brgyud.) Tibetan Text 25: Chos mnon pa mzod kyi bsad pa (trans. of Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam), written by Vasubandhu. In A Complete Catalogue of the Tibetan Buddhist Canons (Edited by Ui, Suzuki, Kanakura, and Tada. Sendai, Japan: Tohoku University, 1934): 4090; also in The collated sDe dge edition of the bsTan ’gyur (Beijing: Krung go’i bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, 1995–2005): 79. If I ever allowed a biography of myself to be published it would discuss this in detail. A brief account may be offered as follow: I was in retreat in the Padmasambhava cave in Chu mig byang chub ring mo on the lower Himalaya chain between Kathmandu Valley and the Terai, and was poisoned with a mushroom by a non-Buddhist, nonTibetan and non-Bhutanese attendant of the local Bhutanese lamas. To his surprise, I survived, and on my return to Kathmandu I went to visit sKyabs rje Bya ’bral ye shes rdo rje rin po che. A family from Yol mo gangs ra (Nepalese, Helambu), the region on the higher Himalayas where I usually went into retreat, was visiting Rinpoche, and one of Rinpoche’s monks was with him. Without me saying anything to him about the poisoning, he advised me to never again go into retreat at Chu mig byang chub ring mo, and to go to Yol mo instead. He told me not to stay in the cabin where I had stayed the preceding time in the Tro pa throng (Wylie unknown to me) retreat area of Yol mo gangs ra, for the owner was a disciple of a Gelugpa lama who lived in a temple over 100 yards uphill on the path to Gu ru lha khang / Gu ru ’brug phug—a Padmasambhava cave where I had also stayed, which is over 16,000 feet high—and a mountain pass on the Lang tang range that is well over 19,000 feet high, warning that the lama in question “was very evil,” and directed me to stay at the retreat cabin owned by the Yol mo family that was visiting him. I had never heard a lama I respected speak that way of another lama, and hence I was very surprised, but didn’t give it much thought. When I arrived in Yol mo, I was taken to the retreat cabin that was offered me by the family that was visiting Bya ’bral ye shes rdo rje rin po che Rinpoche, and I found there was a nun, with a giant fleshy protuberance hanging from one of her cheeks, living in the house. They told her she had to move to the cabin next door, and hence I went to the cabin in question to inspect whether it was hospitable, and found it had a hole on the roof. It was November, at well over 9,000 feet over the sea level, and it was beginning to be cold, and shortly it could get so cold that it could snow. So, I said I would move into the cabin with the hole, but they didn’t allow me, and at the end I had to yield and move into the cabin where the nun had been staying, so long as I was allowed to offer the nun food and drink throughout my stay. The monk who was at Bya ’bral rin po che’s was also there, and he told me he was going to be staying in another cabin some tens of yards uphill from the one that was offered me. Then one day I was sitting cross-legged in the porch looking into the sky in khregs chod nam mkha’ ar gtad, and when a knot-like delusion arose and self-liberated, and immediately I began to write in a hurry the 1 485 knot’s description and that of the way to resolve it with the practice so that it would become a chapter of my book on Dzogchen practice titled The Source of Danger is Fear. As I was beginning to write, suddenly the monk drew the blanket I was using as a curtain so that no one could see me from outside, and, of course, I lost the thread and forgot what I was in the process of writing, losing the chapter that I intended to incorporate into the book. The monk shouted, aaaah-ha!, and walked to the nun’s house to scold her and ask her to come and see what I was doing—i.e. that I was writing rather than doing black magic. I was totally disconcerted. Then the monk came to me to explain what was going on, even though I was in retreat and was not supposed to talk to anyone or even look at someone in the face. He said that the nun was spreading the rumor that by means of black magic I had destroyed the nunnery where she lived with other nuns who were all disciples of the “evil lama” who lived uphill, and that he was in charge of showing her that the rumors she was spreading were far from reality. I think it was when I was trekking to my preceding retreat in the region, that there was a particularly strong monsoon that nearly prevented me from reaching the area: not only myself with my lighter rucksack, but also the porters who were carrying around 60 kilos of luggage each, had to jump from slippery rock to slippery rock to cross a river the stream of which was so swift that whoever would fall into it would be immediately carried away by the current and drown. Since that time I already had a cabin, I did not need to stop at the village of Tarke Gyang (Wylie unknown to me) to find a cabin and then climb from there to Tro pa throng as I had always done, and so instead I took a shortcut through the place where the nunnery had been, and when I arrived at the place where the nunnery had stood, I found it was gone. On arriving at the cabin where I did that retreat, the landlord told me that a big stream had suddenly formed that destroyed the nunnery, though the nuns fortunately heard the rumble and were able to escape in time, so none of them died, but three Tibetan men who were living further down the hill and who were disciples of the lama that Bya ’bral rin po che categorized as “evil” had been killed in the event. I learned that the lama in question was a rGgyal po Shugs lden practitioner who wanted to discredit me—I assume the reason for this was that in this way he would discredit Dudjom Rinpoche, as I had been received by the villagers because of being a disciple of H.H. whom he had recommended as a retreat guest for their retreat cabins in the Tro pa throng area, which was about half an hour’s walk uphill from the village of Tarke Gyang. For information on Yol mo gangs ra, go to the URL http://rywiki.tsadra.org/index.php/Yolmo, and for more detailed information go to http://rywiki.tsadra.org/index.php/Guide_to_the_Hidden_Land_of_Yolmo This most important Master from the region of gNubs was gNubs Nam mkha’i snying po, a direct disciple of Padmasambhava; according to various histories of the dharma, besides being a direct disciple of Gu ru Pad ma he also studied with the Atiyogatantrayāna-Dzogchen and Mahāyoga Master Hūṃ ka ra, Hūṃ mdzad or Hūṃ chen ka ra. This work was hidden as a gter ma or spiritual treasure, and was revealed by gter ston or “Treasure revealer” O rgyan gling pa of Yar rje in the thirteenth century AD. Its authenticity and antiquity are attested by the fact that there are exact quotes of that work—or of a more ancient book cited in that work—in gNubs chen Sangs rgyas ye shes’s bSam gtan mig sgron, which was out of mainstream circulation for many centuries until it was made more widely available again in the twentieth century and hence was unlikely to have been tampered with by anyone. Some of the most important works dealing with the history of Buddhism in Tibet assert gNubs chen sangs rgyas ye shes to have been a direct disciple of Padmasambhava. For example, Dudjom Rinpoche (English 1991, pp. 607-14) says that, besides having been a direct disciple of Guru Padmasambhava, Nubchen may also have been a direct disciple of Śrī Siṃha, Vimalamitra, Kamalaśīla, Dhanadhala, Khrag ’thung nag po (Skt. Kālaheruka), Śāntigarbha, Dhanasaṃskṛta, Śākyadeva, Dhanarakṣita, the Brahmin (Brāhmaṇa) Prakāśālaṃkāra, Dharmabodhi, Dharmarāja, gTsug lag dpal dge, Vasudharā and Bru sha’i chen btsan skyes—as well as of the erudite translator gNyags Jñānakumāra and his eight principal disciples [and, among these, in particular the Sogdian—or the blacksmith, for in Tibet blacksmiths were also called Sogdians, as many of them came from that Central Asian country—Sog po dPal gyi ye shes and rGyal ba’i yon tan. However, according to other important works, Nubchen was not a direct disciple of the great Master of Oḍḍiyāna, and the latter’s lineage passed through a couple of links until reaching Nubchen. Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu, who as we have seen has propagated the classification of vehicles into Paths taught by both gNubs Nam mkha’i snying po and gNubs chen Sangs rgyas ye shes, has upheld the latter view. It is curious that the two Masters who have bequeathed to us the division of the Buddhist vehicles into Path of Renunciation (corresponding to the Sūtrayāna and comprising the Hīnayāna and the Mahāyāna), Path 2 3 4 486 of Transformation (corresponding to the Vajrayāna or Tantrism), and Path of Spontaneous Liberation (corresponding to A ti rDzogs pa chen po), were both born in the Tibetan region of gNubs. However, despite this coincidence, gNubs Nam mkha’i snying po did not belong to what later on became known as the “lineage of Nub,” which is the one established by gNubs chen Sangs rgyas ye shes and which includes Khu lung pa yon tan rgya mtsho, Ye shes rgya mtsho, Pad ma dbang rgyal and a series of later successors of these (and whose origins go back, through Sog po dpal gyi ye shes, gNyags Jñānakumāra, g.Yu sgra snying po and Ba gor Bē ro tsa na (the last four syllables are the Tibetan spelling of Vairocana), to Vimalamitra and Padmasambhava. Neither the University of the Andes (Mérida, Venezuela), nor the Dzogchen Community of Venezuela, nor the author of this book, possesses a Library of Tibetan mss. Moreover, as I have already pointed out, during my years in Asia following the meeting with the Masters that became my teachers, rather than devoting myself to the study of the Tibetan language and of translation of Tibetan texts, most of the time I was in retreat practicing the teachings. The four philosophical schools of the Sūtrayāna traditionally featured in Tibetan curricula are not considered in this book, for I might deal with them in some detail in the definitive version of Capriles (electronic publication 2004, which was very deficient and hence I deleted from my webpage), in case I finally produce that version. The Theravāda was not one of the first Eighteen Schools of Buddhism interpreting the earlier teachings of the Buddha Śākyamuni (i.e. of the type of Buddhism that later on the Mahāyāna called “Hīnayāna”). In fact, the Theravāda developed on the basis of the Mahāsthavira School (one of the first four to arise in the Buddhism adhering to the First Promulgation), having been founded as an independent school by Moggaliputta Tissa in the “Council of the Pāḷi School” that this monk organized, purportedly by order of King Aśoka, and which is supposed to have convened around 244 BC (though the Pāḷi School refers to this as the IIId Council and, making no reference whatsoever to the Council wherein there took place the division between Mahāsāṃghikas and Sthaviras [adherents of the Sthaviranikāya], says that this division was a consequence of the IId Council, in fact the council in which the schism took place seems to have been the IIId). The Council summoned by Moggaliputta Tissa excluded the monks opposed to the latter’s theses, which this monk refuted in his Kathāvatthu—which subsequently was incorporated to the Abhidharma of the Theravāda. In Ceylon, the new doctrine was adopted by the monks who adhered to the Māhavihāravāda (which was a subdivision of the Mahāsthavira School). Later on, the Theravāda divided into Mahīśāsaka (from which the Dharmaguptaka were derived) and Kāśyapīya. The book in question was concealed as a gter ma, possibly because it was foreseen that at some point the classification of Buddhist vehicles into Hīnayāna, Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna would displace the one into Path of Renunciation, Path of Transformation and Path of Spontaneous Liberation, and that Ch’an (禪 or 禪; Wade-Giles, Ch’an ; Jap. ぜん [hiragana] / Zen [romaji]; Korean, 선 [Seon]; Viet. Thiền) Buddhism would come into disrepute and be disparaged in Tibet. Nam mkha’i snying po was a direct disciple of Padmasambhava. In fact, he was one of the twenty-five main direct disciples of the Lotus-born: the “25 of mChims pu,” who received the eight Mahāyoga sādhanas at the cave of mChims phu near bSam yas monastery—as well as one of the “most fortunate eight,” each of whom received siddhi by practicing a different one among the eight Mahāyoga sādhanas, after their flower fell on the deity of the maṇḍala that corresponded to that sādhana, and they practiced it intensively and correctly for long enough. As stated in endnote 4, although many sources tell us that gNubs chen Sangs rgyas ye shes was also a direct disciple of the Guru from Oḍḍiyāna, Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche favors the sources according to which he was a third generation spiritual descendent of Padmasambhava. In any case, it is a fact that many passages of Nam mkha’i snying po’s bKa’ thang sde lnga appear verbatim in the bSam gtan mig sgron (Tibetan Text 1) by gNubs chen Sangs rgyas ye shes, the extant copies of which had remained unnoticed for a very long time and therefore were most unlikely to have been tampered with—all of which strongly suggests that the former is earlier than the latter, and that the former is a genuine gter ma teaching. (Note that according to Adriano Clemente [personal communication], those passages that appear in both books are citations of a text more ancient than these two.) The name is as a rule written without diacritic marks, but I cannot tell whether this is due to the fact that it requires none or to the fact that scholars have been unable to study the language of Oḍḍiyāna, as it is a dead language that, unlike Sanskrit, has no ongoing oral tradition. 5 6 7 8 2 9 10 487 On the basis of some textual indications, some researchers locate Oḍḍiyāna (or Uddiyana) to the east of Bodh Gaya, identifying it with Odisha—i.e. the Indian state formerly called Orissa (e.g., Keown with Hodge, Jones & Tinti, 2003, p. 203)—on the grounds that the name derives from the Dravidian Oṭṭiyan, which refers to one who is from Oḍra (i.e. Odisha) or Oṭṭiyam (Telugu for Oḍra), which is a region where Tantrism thrived, as evinced by the Sūrya temple of Konārak, located in Konark. Moreover, Oḍḍiyāna is, according to the source cited, the middle Indic form of Udyāna, meaning “garden.” However, on the basis of other textual indications, most Tibetan texts locate Oḍḍiyāna West of Bodh Gaya. dPal sprul rin po che (1808-1887), in the Kun bzang bla ma’i zhal lung (Patrul Rinpoche, 2d Ed. 1998, pp. 338-339), is more specific when it refers to dGa’ rab rdo rje’s birthplace not barely as Oḍḍiyāna or Uddiyana, but more specifically as an area neighboring Lake Kutra in the region of Dhanakośa, thus placing it in present-day North-eastern Kashmir (currently occupied by Pakistan) and describing it as a region neighboring with Chitral, Gilgit and the Swat valley. For his part, Giuseppe Tucci (1940), on the basis of the accounts of medieval Tibetan travelers O rgyan pa and sTag shang ras pa, who had travelled to the Swat Valley and believed it to be the birthplace of dGa’ rab rdo rje, Padmasambhava, Tilopā and Luipā and the female teachers who made this land famous as the paradise of the ḍākinīs, declared with conviction that the land in question had been finally identified as the Swat Valley—subsequently being followed in this identification by a host of Tibetologists and Buddhologists. As John Myrdhin Reynolds (1996, pp. 211-212) noted, thirty years later, the same Giuseppe Tucci (1970; English 1980, p. 244) reported that ceramics found in the royal tombs of Leh, in Ladakh, stand in clear relation with others that had been found in the Swat Valley, which (although Tucci failed to make this connection) suggests that both areas may have been part of the same nation and, by implication, of the same kingdom—although, of course, this cannot be proved. Reynolds concluded that (ibidem, p. 212), “…perhaps Uddiyana was actually the name of a much wider geographical area than the Swat Valley alone, one embracing parts of [present day] Pakistan, Afghanistan, and even Western Tibet (Zhang-zhung). The best approach is to remain open-minded and not to restrict the name only to the Swat Valley.” Although the Kabul valley in present day Afghanistan is more commonly identified with Śambhala, quite a few modern Tibetan scholars have identified with that land with Oḍḍiyāna, whereas other scholars have claimed that Oḍḍiyāna may have included at least part of that valley as well. However, we must keep in mind that the main connection between that which nowadays constitutes Northern Pakistan and what nowadays constitutes Afghanistan has for millennia been the Khyber Pass. Therefore, if that theory were correct, either Oḍḍiyāna included the Khyber Pass or else communications between its Western and Eastern regions were as difficult as that between some parts of Tibet and the rest of that land. For a résumé of the subject cf. Evan Setio (undated). At any rate, as a disciple of Chos rgyal Namkhai Norbu, I must stress the fact that this great Master identified Oḍḍiyāna with the Swat Valley, without further complicating things. In Part Two of this book I discuss the reasons why the Man ngag sde (Skt. Upadeśavarga) is the most effective of the three series of Dzogchen teachings. However, in order to proceed swiftly on the Path it is convenient to have a good knowledge of the three series, so that even if one focuses mainly on the practice of the Menngagde, one may apply any of them as required by circumstances. It was Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu who asked me to compile the book in question, and at the time of its compilation he approved it for publication and wrote a preface for it. However, the publishers I send the book to for evaluation rejected it and then I stopped pursuing its publication, so that many years passed. And, in the meantime, the rules for the publication of works by Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu changed and it was established that a Translations Committee had to approve them for publication after confronting the files with the original recordings of Rinpoche’s teachings. Since the latter were damaged, it became impossible to have the book approved by the committee. The clarity and thoughtlessness that becomes apparent shortly after the unconsciousness that occurs right after falling asleep is an instance of the consciousness of the base-of-all (Tib. kun gzhi rnam [par] shes [pa]; Skt. ālayavijñāna), and kLong chen pa noted that some Sarmapa Masters claim that those who can realize this state and then stay absorbed in it enjoy the absolute nature of clarity without having any dreams. However, this is not so in Dzogchen, wherein that which is to be reGnized and on which one must rest during sleep is the second luminosity that shines forth, which is piercing and which is the luminosity of the dharmakāya. kLong chen rab ’byams pa writes in rDzogs pa chen po sems nyid ngal gso’i ’grel ba shing rta chen po, vol. I, 86b/5 (in Tulku Thöndup, 1996, p. 225; the terminology was adapted to the one used in this book and interpolations were added for clarification): 11 12 13 14 488 “[When] an individual of the realm of sensuality goes to sleep, [first] the consciousness of the five senses and the defiled-defiling consciousness (Skt. kliṣṭamanovijñāna; Tib. nyon yid kyi rnam shes or nyon mongs pa can gyi yid kyi rnam par shes pa; Ch. 末那識 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, mònà shì; Wade-Giles, mo -na shih ]) dissolve into the consciousness that perceives mental phenomena (Skt. manovijñāna; Pāḷi manoviññāṇa; Tib. yid kyi rnam [par] shes [pa]; Ch. 意識 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yìshí; Wade-Giles, i -shih ]). [Then] the consciousness of mental phenomena dissolves into the consciousness of the base-of-all (Skt. ālayavijñāna; Tib. kun gzhi rnam [par] shes [pa]; Ch. 阿賴耶識 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, ālàiyē shí; Wade-Giles, a -lai -yeh shih ] or 藏識 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zàngshì; Wade-Giles, tsang -shih ]), and [immediately thereafter a state of] clarity and thoughtlessness arises for a while. Some Masters of the Newer [Translation] Tantras (Tib. gSar ma) assert that those who are able to become aware of this state and can become absorbed in it enjoy the absolute nature of clarity without having any dreams. [Then] the consciousness of the baseof-all dissolves into the thoughtless base-of-all (Skt. ālaya; Tib. kun gzhi; Ch. 来源 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, láiyuán; Wade-Giles, lai -yüan ]). Then upon the dissolution of the base-of-all into the absolute space of phenomena (Tib. chos dbyings) the gross and subtle perceptions dissolve and there arises the absolute nature [in which] emptiness and luminosity [(are) indivisible], free of conceptual fabrications. If one realizes this, [all] delusions will be dissolved, [although thereafter] they will arise again: from the absolute condition, there arises the base-of-all; from the base-of-all, the consciousness of the base-of-all arises; and from that the consciousness of mental phenomena arises alone [(i.e. without the consciousness of the five senses)]. At this point various kinds of dream arise and one apprehends the [dream] phenomena, [which are] the objects of the mind of karmic traces (Skt. vāsanā; Tib. bag chags; Ch. 氣習 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, qìxí; Wade-Giles, ch’i -hsi ] or 習氣 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíqì; Wade-Giles, hsi -ch’i ]).” Although the Buddhist teachings generally refer to what above was called the consciousness of the five senses, plus the consciousness of mental phenomena, as the “six consciousnesses,” in terms of the concept of consciousness that is reflected by Western languages, it may be more precise to explain them as the specific capacities of a single consciousness to perceive six different types of objects through six different “doors” (the five senses universally recognized, plus the mental sense that presents thoughts and other mental objects—i.e. objects of gdangs energy). And, in fact, one subschool of Yogācāra (Tib. rnal ’byor spyod pa ba; Ch. 瑜伽⾏派 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yúqiéxíng pài; Wade-Giles, yü -ch’ieh -hsing p’ai ]) affirms that there is only one consciousness that perceives through eight avenues. To conclude, it must be emphasized that an experience of luminosity the true condition of which is not reGnized, will be no more than an illusory experience (Tib. nyams) that may correspond to the base-ofall or to the consciousness of the base-of-all, whereas managing to become absorbed in that experience of formless luminosity without reGnizing its true condition may be an absorption of the base-of-all or a formless contemplation (Skt. ārūpyasamāpatti; Tib. gzugs med pa’i snyoms ’jug; Ch. 無⾊界定 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúsèjiè dìng; Wade-Giles, ssu wu -se -chieh ting ]). In particular, with regard to my explanation of the reintegration of the subject with the object that takes place by means of the practices of Thod rgal and the Yang ti / Yang thig, (1) as corresponding to the disappearance of the illusion of there being a subject and an object, (2) as involving the dissolution of the illusion of there being an internal dimension (Tib. nang dbyings) and an external dimension (Tib. spyi dbyings), and (3) as resulting in the condition of dbyer med in the thod rgal and Yang thig / Yang ti sense of the term, it must be noted that (1) and (2) also occur in the practice of sNying thig or Thugs thig Khregs chod, albeit in a way that is very different from the one in which it occurs in Thod rgal and the Yang ti / Yang thig (for in the former practice those dualities disappear as thoughts self-liberate, but it would not be legitimate to speak of “integration into the object”), whereas indivisibility (Tib. dbyer med) in the sense in which the term is used in (3) applies only to the practice and the Fruits of Thod rgal, the Yang thig / Yang ti and the Series of Space or kLong sde. Thus whereas (1) and (2) were based on relating my own sNying thig / Thugs thig practice of Khregs chod with my understanding of Thod rgal and some spontaneous experiences of this practice occurring in my practice of the sNying thig or Thugs thig Khregs chod, (3) was inferred from teachings of gNam chos mi ’gyur rdo rje (1645–1667), Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu and sLob dpon bsTan ’dzin rnam dag (born 1926) (In Löpon Tenzin Namdak, 1993). For its part, the description of the form in which saṃsāra arises right after the illusory experience (Tib. nyams) of emptiness and clear startled awareness called had de ba, when the true condition of that which arises is not reGnized, and most of the rest of the yogic and the philosophical explanations that are found in the work, derive from confronting the teachings I have received and texts I have read with my own practice and my experience teaching. Explanations of how to apply the practices that lead to this 4 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 4 2 4 4 2 2 2 4 2 4 2 4 4 15 489 4 2 2 4 2 experience, of how to reGnize the true condition of the Base on the basis of this experience and that which appears immediately thereafter, and of how to reGnize the true condition of whatever appears in the process of arising of saṃsāra from the neutral condition of the base-of-all, were based on the interaction of the instructions offered mainly by bDud ’joms rin po che ’jigs bral ye shes rdo rje, gDung sras Phrin las nor bu rin po che and Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu with texts by kLong chen Rab ’byams pa (and partly with a text by bDud ’joms gling pa) and a gter ma revealed by Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu, with my own experience of Dzogchen practice. As suggested in the regular text of the Introduction, my explanations of the practice of the Series of Pith Instructions (Tib. Man ngag [gyi] sde; Skt. Upadeśavarga) are based on my own experience of the practice and of teaching, which for its part derives from instructions I received from gDung sras Phrin las nor bu rin po che and bDud ’joms ’jigs bral ye shes rdo rje and from two books mentioned in the regular text of the Introduction (Dudjom Rinpoche’s Ri chos [1979; trans. by M. Ricard on the basis of instructions by gDung sras Phrin las nor bu rin po che and Tulku Thöndup] and ’Jigs med gling pa’s Senge’i ngaro [unpublished: rough translation by Tulku Thöndup]). Much later my own instructions were confronted with the public oral teachings by Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu and the teachings in the books mentioned in footnotes to the regular text—namely the translations of ’Jigs med gling pa’s Senge’i ngaro in Chögyam Trungpa (1972, pp. 21-26), Thinle Norbu (2015, pp. 75-88), Nyoshul Khenpo (2015, pp. 135149, with Commentary by sMyo shul mkhan po, pp. 151-216), and van Schaik (2004, pp. 225-234), plus rDza dPal sprul rin po che’s mKhas pa śrī rgyal po’i khyad chos’ grel pa dang bcas pa (in Reynolds, 1996) and rDzogs pa chen po’i nyams len gyi gnad mthar thug pa’i rtsa ’grel ’od gsal gyi snang cha zhes bya bzhugs so, in Namkhai Norbu, 2013b) and ’Jigs med gling pa’s Ye shes bla ma [rDzogs pa chen po klong chen snying thig gdod ma’i mgon po’i lam gyi rim pa’i khrid yig ye shes bla ma] (in Jigme Lingpa, 2008; Lama Chönam & Sangye Khandro, trans.), among others. However, the discussion, in the preceding endnote (endnote 14), of the reGnition of the luminosity of the absolute expanse of phenomena (Tib. chos dbyings) while one sleeps is based solely on kLong chen rab ’byams pa’s rDzogs pa chen po sems nyid ngal gso’i ’grel ba shing rta chen po, vol. I, 86b/5; in Tulku Thöndup (1996, p. 225), with no incidence of my own experience. Among the explanations I have inferred from relating my own general experience of Buddhist practice, and in particular of the rDzogs chen Man ngag sde, with various Buddhist teachings, it is important to stress that of the illusory duality between the mental subject and the physical world as a result of reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of the directional threefold thought structure, which gives rise to the illusion that the spurious mental subject (which is an appearance of the gdangs form of manifestation of energy) is a soul or a substantial and autonomous mind, inherently separate from the physical world, located in what the individual may experience as the incorporeal “crossing point” of the four dimensions (the three of space, and time). The same applies, in general, to the explanation of how delusory experience arises when, on the basis of the first aspect or type of avidyā posited by the Dzogchen teachings (i.e. the unawareness of our true condition), the reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of the threefold directional thought structure gives rise to the second type of avidyā—the perception of sensa as external—and that of subtle, intuitive thoughts gives rise to the illusion of substantial multiplicity, etc. In general, such explanations are too numerous to be enumerated. I might also publish the texts in question as separate books. Or, if volume II happens not to be very long, I might include them in that volume. Which of the three possibilities will be chosen will be decided when the time comes. These are two cycles of Treasures or gter ma: the first was revealed by bDud ’joms gling pa (1835-1904) and the second was revealed by bDud ’joms ’jigs bral ye shes rdo rje himself under the title “New Treasure of Dudjom” (bDud ’joms gter gsar). These personalized teachings consisted in a series of sessions. In each session, Dil mgo mkhyen brtse rin po che would give a series of instructions concerning A ti rDzogs pa chen po that later on I would have to apply on my own; then, in the following session and before receiving the next teaching, I had to report the results obtained on applying the preceding ones. Concerning transmissions, I received from Dil mgo mkhyen brtse rin po che: the mKha’ ’gro snying thig, ya bzhi revealed by kLong chen rab ’byams pa; the Thugs gter kLong chen snying thig gzhung rtsa ba gsal byed dang bcas pa revealed by Jigs med gling pa; the collection of gter ma revealed by Chos gling gar dbang ’chi med rdo rje; the complete bka’ ma tradition of the rNying ma pa or rNying ma bka’ ma; and the complete Rin chen gter mdzod: the great compilation of the most important gter ma of the rNying ma 16 17 18 19 490 pa or “Old School” completed in the nineteenth century by ’Jam dgon skong sprul the Great and ’Jam dbyang mkhyen brtse dbang po. Apart from the clarifications concerning ’Jigs med gling pa’s Lion’s Roar (Tib. Seng ge’i nga ro) referred to in the regular text, from rDo grub chen rin po che I received the transmission of ’Jigs med gling pa’s Thugs gter kLong chen snying thig gzhung rtsa ba gsal byed dang bcas pa, which I had received already from Dil mgo mkhyen brtse rin po che, and the lung of the Rin chen gter mdzod—the empowerments (Tib. dbang bskur; Skt. abhiṣeka) for which I was receiving at the time from Dil mgo mkhyen brtse rin po che. From Bya ’bral ye shes rdo rje rin po che, I received the transmission for a recitation and visualization associated with Mañjuśrī sitting on a snow lion, as well as the most useful practical advice I referred to in endnote 1 to this book. The initial version of this book was published in the URL http://www.eliascapriles.dzogchen.ru, where it continued to be available for years; however, later on my University offered me another webpage for making available those among my works I wished, or was allowed, to make freely available, which is http://webdelprofesor.ula.ve/humanidades/elicap, and so now it is available in this webpage instead. Literally, the term dharmacakra means “(turning) the wheel of the teaching:” in ancient India, the introduction of a true system of spiritual teachings was illustrated with the image of setting in motion the wheel of the teaching or dharmacakra. The individual who did so was called a Cakravartin—a term that was also applied to emperors who would conquer of all known inhabitable territories. The canon containing the Buddhism of the First Promulgation (dharmacakra), in which the Hīnayāna was taught, is written in the Pāḷi language. It is the original texts of the Mahāyāna, which according to the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra were taught in the Second and Third Promulgations, which were written in Sanskrit. Some texts of the Vajrayāna or Tantrism are also in Sanskrit, although many others are in the language of Oḍḍiyāna (to a certain extent similar to Sanskrit) or in Prakrits (prākṛta) from Northern India—although those of the Anuyoga might have been originally written in the language of Bru sha, which Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu identifies as the ex-Soviet Kyrgyz Republic of Kyrgyzstan. The original texts of Buddhist A ti rDzogs pa chen po are in the language of Oḍḍiyāna. Exceptions to this rule are the books by Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu, which as we have seen are based on the ancient tradition that, under this Master’s inspiration, I follow in this book. As a derivate of Sanskrit or a Sanskrit-related language, the language of Oḍḍiyāna (or Uddiyana) may be categorized as a Prakrit (prākṛta); however, as Chögyal Namkhai Norbu (E. Capriles, Ed. unpublished) has noted, though most of the words of that language are Indo-European, and are either derived from or related to Sanskrit, the language’s syntax is Tibeto-Burman. For example, whereas the Sanskrit for rDzogs chen is Mahāsaṅdhi, where the adjective goes first and is followed by the noun, the Oḍḍiyāna (or Uddiyana) term is Santimaha (diacritic signs omitted because the term’s exact pronunciation is unknown), where, just as in Tibetan in general and in the term Dzogchen in particular, the noun goes first, being followed by the adjective. The method I have followed in doing this, is the one I have called a “meta-ontological hermeneutics.” For a lengthy discussion of this method, see Capriles (work in progress). A briefer, more superficial explanation of it, is provided in Capriles (electronic publication 2007, vol. I). For example, in a recent work Elio Guarisco, with Adriano Clemente and Jim Valby (2013), rendered the term saṃbhogakāya as dimension of perfect resources and nirmāṇakāya as dimension of emanation, which are much better as translations than most of the other ones offered in the past—yet they also have the problem of emphasizing only a specific acceptation of each of the terms. Elsewhere I have objected to Dr. Guenther’s translation of a series of terms: in Capriles (electronic publication 2004), I objected to his translation of the Sanskrit dharmakāya and its Tibetan equivalent, chos sku; in Capriles (electronic publication 2007, vol. I) and elsewhere I objected to his translation of the Tibetan gzhi and so on. In fact, whereas the Tibetan gzhi refers to the Buddha-nature as actuality (Greek, energeia [ἐνέργεια]) rather than as potency (Greek, dünamis/dynamis [δύναμις]), Dr. Guenther identified the term’s meaning with that of the term das Sein (Being) in the philosophy of Martin Heidegger, in which das Sein or Being refers to a conceptual understanding and to the most basic and general phenomenon of deluded samsaric experience—as exhaustively and most carefully shown in Capriles (electronic publication 2007, vol. I). In the case of dharmakāya, the original word has so many different acceptations according to the context in which it is used, that any translation of it will necessarily do away with all but one of its manifold meanings, and therefore will distort—or, at least, restrict—the sense of the passage in which the term is 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 491 found. This is why the Tibetans who produced the ancient translations, who as a rule rendered the words in terms of their deeper meanings rather than in terms of their etymology, in this case kept faithful to the etymology of the Sanskrit word and coined the term chos sku: chos was the literal translation of dharma, and sku was the literal translation of kāya. Unlike the Tibetans, Dr. Guenther totally disregarded the etymology of the term he was translating, and, rather than finding a translation that conveyed at least one the deeper meanings of the word, in Guenther (1977), he used one that contradicts all possible meanings of the term. Paradoxically, in a note to the book in question (p. 190, note 22), the author criticizes those who leave the term untranslated. He writes: “…chos-sku. This term corresponds to (the) Sanskrit dharmakāya, which is either left untranslated or mistranslated by what I call the ‘literalist fallacy’. The Tibetan term sku indicates ‘existence’ in the sense of ‘Being’. It almost approximates the existentialist philosopher’s conception of ‘existence’ and ‘Being’ except that it does not share the latter’s subjectivism.” What existentialist and existential philosophers called “existence” was that which, in Buddhist terms, we would have to call being-under-the-power-of-avidyā-and-hence-being-in-saṃsāra, which they analyzed in phenomenological and existentialist or existential terms as thoroughly as they could—yet without realizing it to be a delusion, and as a rule taking it to be something given and to be inherent in the true condition of reality. Therefore, unwillingly Dr. Guenther is telling us that the Tibetan term sku refers to being-under-the-power-of-avidyā-and-hence-being-in-saṃsāra, when the truth is the very opposite of this: qua Fruit, it refers solely to nonstatic nirvāṇa (Skt. apratiṣṭhitanirvāṇa; Tib. mi gnas pa’i myang ’das; Ch. 無住涅槃 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúzhù nièpán; Wade-Giles, wu -chu nieh -p’an ]), and as such is contrasted with lus, which applies only to unaware and deluded sentient beings in saṃsāra. See Capriles (electronic publication 2007, vol. I) for a most exhaustive explanation of the reasons why Dr. Guenther’s understanding of the meaning of the terms Being and existence in both Existenzphilosophie and Existentialism is not only wrong, but constitutes a total inversion of their meaning in those contexts. As stated in the regular text of this Introduction, translations of Dzogchen texts and teachings often speak of recognizing thoughts as the dharmakāya; or of recognizing the true condition, essence or nature of thoughts, and so on. In all such cases, the texts use terms such as ngo shes pa, which refer to something utterly different from what normally we understand by “recognition” and “perception” (Skt. saṃjñā; Tib.’du shes; Ch. 想 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiǎng; Wade-Giles, hsiang ])—for “recognition” and “perception” refer to the understanding of a configuration / pattern / collection of characteristics (Skt. lakṣaṇa; Pāḷi lakkhaṇa; Tib. mtshan nyid; Ch. 相 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn. xiāng; Wade-Giles, hsiang ]) in terms of a reified / hypostasized / absolutized / valorized subtle thought (Skt. arthasāmānya; Tib. don spyi; Ch. 總事 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngshì; Wade-Giles, tsung -shih ] or 總義 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngyì; Wade-Giles, tsung -i ]). It was in order to make clear the distinction between ngo shes pa, which is what the texts refer to, and what is usually termed “recognition” or “perception,” that for translating ngo shes pa I coined the neologisms “reGnition,” “reGnize,” and so on. For some time, I rendered the Tibetan term ngo shes pa as reCognition, reCognize, etc., which I wrote with a capital C so that they could be distinguished from the terms recognition, recognize and so on. However, this was far from ideal, because reCognition (etc.) still contained the prefix “co,” which implies the coemergent arising of a subject and an object—and this does not at all take place in what I am calling reGnition (etc.). In fact, as Paul Claudel correctly pointed out in his Traité de la Co-naissance au monde et de soi-même (in Claudel, 1943), “la connaissance est la co-naissance du sujet et de l’objet:” the conceptual and as such dualistic knowledge (connaissance) that is a function of delusion involves the interdependent birth (conaissance) of subject and object. Contrariwise, in what I call reGnition (Tib. ngo shes pa) the subject and the object dissolve like feathers entering fire, making this most basic duality instantly disappear. (Note that Claudel was speaking of knowledge in a very particular context that is not at all the one we are concerned with here, yet his statement is correct in all contexts. He claimed that birth qua co-naissance, like time, occurs in Being, and that it forms a couple with Time—the first assertion being wrong, because the birth in question is the birth of the phenomenon of being and hence does not occur in Being, and the second being correct, for sequential time arises interdependently with subject and object, as explained in the regular text of this book and others of my works [Capriles, 2000a, 2007a Vol. I, 2012a, etc.].) However, in the neologisms reGnition, reGnize and so on the prefix “re”—which is absent in the Tibetan— seems to imply the arising of a wholly new event called Gnition each and every time the true condition of both ourselves and all phenomena is realized. Although this is correct in the sense in which it is said that each event of rig pa (Skt. vidyā; Pāḷi vijjā; Ch. 明 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúmíng; Wade-Giles, wu -ming ]) 2 4 4 2 30 3 1 3 4 3 4 2 492 2 arises through a new primordial gnosis (Skt. jñāna; Pāḷi ñaṇa; Tib. ye shes; Ch. 智 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhì; Wade-Giles, chih ; Jap. chi]), it is one single rig pa that appears in each and every new primordial gnosis, just as it is the nonconceptual, nondual Awake Gnitiveness / awareness called essence or nature of mind (Skt. cittatā or citta eva; Tib. sems nyid) that appears qua Path and Fruit as rig pa, the Gnition in question may not be properly divided into different Gnitive events. Thus the terms “reGnition,” “reGnize” and so on are not perfect, for concepts and descriptions cannot match reality, yet I chose them because all alternatives I considered seemed to be far more inadequate. (These terms may be translated into Spanish as “reGnoscimiento,” “reGnoscer,” etc., and into other Latin languages by corresponding constructions.) The nonconceptual and as such nondual condition that is free from the unawareness of the true condition that is the first type or aspect of avidyā in the Dzogchen teachings and free from the delusion involved in the other two types or aspects of avidyā, and in which, therefore, the nonconceptual and as such nondual Awake awareness that is the Base (is) perfectly evident and unimpeded, is designated in the Dzogchen teachings by the term rig pa, which may render the Sanskrit vidyā or, when the particle rang is placed before it (in rang rig), Sanskrit terms such as svasaṃvedana or svasaṃvittiḥ (Ch. ⾃證 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìzhèng; Wade-Giles, tzu -cheng ] or ⾃覺 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìjué; Wade-Giles, tzu -chüeh ]). When I met Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu, he used to render the term rig pa as “Knowledge”—which in translations of his teachings I used to write with the initial in capitals in order to contrast its meaning with the one the word has in ordinary language, which corresponds to its dualistic etymology. Rinpoche’s choice of this word was perfectly correct because, as Malcolm Smith notes in his Introduction to his translation of the Rig pa rang shar (Smith, 2018a, pp. 6-7; the phrases in parentheses and brackets are my own additions): “…The extant commentary on the Tantra Without Syllables (Yi ge med pa rgyud) clarifies that in the context of the Great Perfection (rDzogs chen) teachings, vidyā refers in general to knowledge, such as the five sciences and so on, and in particular to knowledge of one’s essence, buddha nature.” However, this “knowledge of one’s essence, buddha nature” is in sharp contrast with the conceptual and as such dualistic knowledge that is usually indicated by the term “knowledge” (and that Paul Claudel glossed as “la co-naissance du sujet et de l’objet:” the coemergent birth of subject and object). Rather, it (is) a faithful, undistorted nonconceptual and hence nondual awareness (of) this true condition. This is probably the reason why later on Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu ceased rendering rig pa as “Knowledge” and adopted the term “Presence”—which is perfectly appropriate because “Presence” refers to nondistraction. Not to be distracted from whatever one is doing in a given moment while in the dualistic, relative state, but to be perfectly mindful and aware of it, is the relative presence that is referred to by the Tibetan term dran pa (Skt. smṛti; Pāḷi sati; Ch. 念 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, niàn; Wade-Giles, nien ]). Not to be distracted from the nondual, delusion-free state in which the nondual primordial gnosis that is the Base is fully patent, is the absolute Presence that is referred to by the Tibetan term rig pa. Therefore, to be distracted from what one is doing at a certain moment in the dualistic, relative state, is a double distraction: it is distraction both with regard to the patency of rig pa I am calling “absolute Presence,” and with regard to dran pa or relative presence. However, not only distraction from whatever one is doing is distraction with regard to the absolute Presence called rig pa, for both relative distraction and relative presence or dran pa involve the concealment of the nondual primordial gnosis that is the Base, and hence both are distraction with regard to the patency of this primordial gnosis. (Note that in the Series of [the Essence of Nature of] Mind the same word, dran pa, is used to refer both to dran pa or relative presence and rig pa or Absolute Presence. Since this is not a text pertaining to the Series in question, and since the ambiguous usage of the term dran pa is likely to beget confusion, on the basis of various teachings by Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu I decided to use the word presence, yet capitalizing it in the case of rig pa and not doing so in the case of dran pa. Note that, in the Series of Pith Instructions, various types of dran pa are posited, but they will not be considered here.) The above was also probably the reason why in the teachings Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu offered in the outskirts of Caracas in 1989, rather than rendering rig pa as Knowledge, he contrasted “relative presence,” which at the time was his rendering of the Tibetan dran pa, with “Absolute Presence,” which during those teachings was his translation of rig pa. However, the term rig pa is most frequently employed when the awareness in question is patent and operative on the Path or as the Fruit. Therefore, it is imperative to emphasize the distinction between Awake awareness qua Base, or simply Base awareness, which in Tibetan is referred to as sems nyid and which is as a rule rendered as “nature of mind,” “essence of mind,” or “Base awareness,” and rig pa. Sems nyid designates the awareness that is the Base of all experiences of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, whereas the term rig pa designates this very same awareness when it (is) 4 4 4 4 4 493 2 perfectly patent and unimpeded in nonstatic nirvāṇa. Therefore, rig pa is no other than the Base awareness referred to as sems nyid—and yet most often the term rig pa is used only when the true condition of the Base is fully patent and there is no delusion-begotten self-impediment. The point is that sems nyid has the potentiality to give rise, either to obscurations and self-impediment in the functioning called saṃsāra, or to a total lack of obscurations and self-impediment in the functioning called nonstatic nirvāṇa—the term rig pa being often used only in the second case. In brief, rig pa is used especially in the conditions of Dzogchen qua Path and qua Fruit. Note that the particle shes is one element both of terms that refer to nonconceptual and hence nondual Gnitive events that make the true condition of ourselves and all phenomena perfectly patent, such as ye shes, rang byung gi ye shes and gcig shes kun grol, on the one hand, and of terms that refer to conceptual, dualistic, delusive events such as kun gzhi rnam par shes pa, yid kyi rnam par shes pa, and sgo lnga'i rnam par shes pa, on the other. This is so because all of these terms refer to functions of our Gnitive capacity or Base-awareness: those in the first group and others that I failed to mention make the true condition of that Gnitive capacity or Base-awareness and of all of the phenomena that appear through it perfectly patent, whereas those in the second group and many others that I failed to mention conceal that true condition and by the same token give rise to or involve delusion. During his last years, Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu as a rule rendered rig pa as “instant Presence,” which is the nearly literal translation of the phrases skad cig [ma yi] rig pa and as rig pa skad chig ma, for the Tib. skad chig ma means “instant.” I assume that this term is combined with rig pa for diverse reasons, among which I believe that at least two are very important: (1) that awareness is free from the division of the temporal continuum into past, present and future that arises when the reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valuation of the threefold directional thought-structure sunders the uninterrupted Base into subject and object, and by the same token into space, time and knowledge as different dimensions (cf. the explanation in the main body of the regular text), and (2) that sense data are apprehended without mediation by concepts and hence without the lapse that it takes for recognition (Skt. saṃjñā; Pāli saññā; Tib. ’du shes; Ch. 想 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiǎng; Wade-Giles, hsiang ]) to occur. However, the reasons why I capitalize the term “Presence” have not been discussed so far in this note. The point is that Plato emphasized the etymology of the Greek term parousia (παρουσία), which is that of “being before” (in the sense of “being in front of”), and that this etymology is shared by the Latin term praesentia, from which the English “presence” derives. In rig pa the duality of subject and object that is implied by the term presence has dissolved, and hence the condition in question contradicts the etymology of the term used to refer to it. By capitalizing the initial of “Presence” I make the point that I am using the work to refer to something that contradicts its very etymology. At any rate, the above are the reasons why in this book I am rendering the Tibetan rig pa as Awake awareness, [nonconceptual and as such nondual] Awake awareness, absolute Presence, instant Presence or instant Awake awareness. The first time these terms appear in the book, I include the pertinent explanations once again. This applies both to the nondual Awake awareness or essence or nature of mind that (is) the Base of Dzogchen, and to the nondual gnoses that, on the Path and as the Fruit, reveal the condition of rig pa (Skt. vidyā; Pāḷi vijjā; Ch. 明 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, míng; Wade-Giles, ming ]) or rang rig (Skt. svasaṃvedana or svasaṃvittiḥ; Ch. ⾃證 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìzhèng; Wade-Giles, tzu -cheng ] / ⾃覺 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìjué; Wade-Giles, tzu -chüeh ]). I am taking as the main hypothesis in this regard the one upheld in Bocchi & Ceruti (1993). However, I leave ample room for concurrent hypotheses by Gimbutas, Jain, Gornung, Renfrew, Hodge, Danilenko, Diakonov, Gamkrelidze Ivanov, Hausler, Gimpera, Schmid, Bosch, Georgiev, Devoto, and Makkay. All of them agree that rather than having originated, as the Brahmins of India claim and as Hitler wanted to believe, in the slopes of the Himalayas, the Indo-Europeans initiated their expansion from areas far more to the West—though they disagree as to the exact location and boundaries of those areas. At any rate, all serious scientific researchers have rejected the allegedly Indian or Himalayan origin of the so-called “Aryans,” and most asserted them to have initiated their expansion from a region in the Eurasian steppes—the prevailing view seeming to be that they initiated their expansion from Northern Caucasia or nearby areas, and in particular from a strip stretching from the North of the Black Sea to the West of the Caspian Sea. Among the many works that ratify the view according to which the proto-Indo-European invaders of India came from the Eurasian steppes, Alchin, Frank Raymond (1995), Kulke & Rothermund (2004, p. 32) may be particularly relevant, among many other works. 3 31 2 4 4 2 32 494 4 As already noted, Brahmin (Brāhmaṇa) traditions claim that the Indo-Europeans expanded from the Himalayas, but no one who does not blindly follow those traditions would accept that thesis nowadays. The statement according to which contacts between the proto-Indo-Europeans and the peoples who were already settled in India may go as far as 2000 BCE has its source in the genetic studies reported in CavalliSforza, Menozzi & Piazza (1994), as well as in the interdisciplinary research reported in Renfrew (1987) and the one reported in Mukherjee, Nebel, Oppenheim & Majumder (2001). The latter write: “More recently, about 15,000-10,000 years before present (ybp), when agriculture developed in the Fertile Crescent region that extends from Israel through northern Syria to western Iran, there was another eastward wave of human migration (Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi & Piazza, 1994; Renfrew 1987), a part of which also appears to have entered India. This wave has been postulated to have brought the Dravidian languages into India (Renfrew 1987). Subsequently, the Indo-European (Aryan) language family was introduced into India about 4,000 ybp.” Since ybp means “years before present”, to calculate the years BCE it is mandatory to subtract 2000 years from the above dates. Therefore, the Dravidians would have reached India between 13,000 and 8,000 BCE, and the Indo-Europeans would have initiated their contacts with India around 2,000 BCE. For an account of the bellicose character of the religion of the Indo-Europeans, see Eisler (1987); Bocchi and Ceruti (1993); Gimbutas (1989 and 1982); DeMeo (1998); Taylor (2005); Capriles (2012a). However, as rightly pointed out in Radford-Ruether (1992, this Ed. 1994), this does not mean that the agricultural peoples of Eurasia that later on were conquered and dominated by the Semitic and Indo-European peoples were totally non-violent, as were human beings in the Golden Age: violence was less developed among the agricultural peoples in question, but it had already developed to some extent. Moreover, recent archeological discoveries have suggested that, after their initial contacts with the violent Indo-Europeans, and probably due to the realization that at some point they would be invaded by the approaching hordes, the Harrapo-Dravidians began to produce weapons. The Harrapan civilization had been peaceful, egalitarian and “gylanic” (this term, coined by Riane Eisler, refers to societies that, rather than being patriarchal or matriarchal, are egalitarian concerning gender and sex), but at later stages of its development it would have begun to produce weapons and absorb other characteristics proper to stratified, bellicose societies. As stated in the preceding endnote, my guess is that this development was the result of the Indo-Europeans’ advance Eastward, which would have gradually made their neighbors become more bellicose, as they had to defend themselves from the Indo-Europeans and/or were contaminated by contact with the latter. At any rate, it seems that by the time Indo-Europeans invaded the Indus Valley the Harrapans were no longer as peaceful, egalitarian and “gylanic” as they had been until a short time before. According to the most important researchers of the civilization and religion of Zhang-Zhung, and in particular to both Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu (oral teachings; cf. also Chögyal Namkhai Norbu, 1992, 1996a, 2004, 2009/2013a) and sLob dpon bsTan ’dzin rnam dag (cf. Tenzin Namdak [Lopön], 1993, p. 144), in the Kingdom of Zhang-Zhung, which comprised a great deal of the Himalayas and the HinduKush, the language belonged to the Tibeto-Burman family, which includes present-day Tibetan, some Bhutanese languages and present-day Burmese, and belongs to the Sino-Tibetan family. During the reign of some of its Kings, the capital of this Kingdom—or, according to Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu’s most recent studies on Zhang-zhung (Namkhai Norbu, 2009/2013a), the capital of the Himalayan region of this Kingdom—was the city of Khyung-lung, near Mount Kailāśā and lake Mānasarovar (or, properly, Mānasa Sarovar), where the great Dzogchen Master, Primordial Revealer (Tib. ston pa) gShen rab mi bo che, taught the rDzogs pa chen po zhang zhung snyan brgyud, probably around 1,800 BC (other accounts give us quite different dates, which will be reviewed in a subsequent note). The region of Mount Kailāśā, where Tajik Master gShen rab mi bo che taught the Dzogchen tradition of the rDzogs pa chen po zhang zhung snyan brgyud around 1,800 BC (see the preceding note), is precisely the place of emanation of Śaivism, which seems to have been the religion of the Harrapo-Dravidians. In fact, the Śaivas hold Mount Kailāśā to be the home of the god Śiva, and therefore many Indian Śaivas go there every year on pilgrimage. Furthermore, the king who protected gShen rab, Khri wer la rje gu lang gser gyi bya ru can, is regarded as the first of the eighteen kings whose crown was ornamented with horns (cf. Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal], 1996a, p. 21, n. 7)—just like the figure represented in the so-called Paśupati Seal of the Harrapan civilization: a human, seemingly ithyphallic, horned figure with three faces. It is well known that Paleolithic art, rather than depicting anthropomorphic deities—as shown by Anette Laming-Emperaire (1962) and her teacher André Leroi Gourhan (1965, 1994)—glorified and celebrated the world as sacred, 33 34 35 36 495 and that throughout Eurasia horned animals were ubiquitous in Paleolithic art. Later on, when anthropomorphic deities arose in the art of the Neolithic, in religions of Communion (the ones that Riane Eisler [1987] associated with the chalice) the horns reappeared as ornaments of the divinity and/or of animals associated with it. In fact, as noted in Daniélou (1984), since the arising of the deities of nature and Communion in the transition from the Paleolithic to the Neolithic, the horns have been paradigmatic ornaments of those deities, including the Indian god Śiva and its equivalents elsewhere, such as Dionysus in Greece, Osiris in Egypt and so on—and horned animals have also been associated with those deities, as shown by the fact that Śiva’s mount is Nandi the bull (in antiquity called Vṛṣabha), which is also the gatekeeper of Śiva and Parvati, and which is frequently represented in Śaiva temples with a statue pointing to the shrine. At any rate, Tibeto-Burman peoples, who formerly were believed to have arrived on the Tibetan plateau not earlier than the advanced Neolithic, have been shown to have settled there during the Epipaleolithic and Neolithic, as they migrated from northern China during the mid-Holocene—which is to say, around 4000 BCE. Before their arrival, other ethnic groups had populated the region that settled there during the Paleolithic. (Zhao, M., Kong, Q. P., Wang, H. W., Peng, M. S., Xie, X. D., Wang, W. Z. et al., 2009). As noted by Shereen Ratnagar (2004), an early and influential work in the area that set the trend for interpretations of archaeological evidence from Harrapan sites that have been called proto-Brahmanic— although they are actually Śaiva, for Brahmanism arose after the Indo-European invaders imposed the Indo-European gods, cast system and so, on the peoples they conquered—was that of John Marshall (1931, pp. 48–78), who identified the following features as prominent in the Harrapan religion: a Great Male God and a Mother Goddess; deification or veneration of animals and plants; symbolic representation of the phallus (liṅgaṃ) and vulva or vagina (yoni); and, use of baths and water in religious practice. Marshall’s interpretations have been much debated, and sometimes disputed over the following decades (Possehl, 2002, pp. 141-156). However, the so-called Paśupati Seal represents a human, seemingly ithyphallic, horned figure with three faces, which Marshall identified as an early form of Śiva or Rudra (the latter two being the same deity, though it is claimed that their identification took place at a later stage), who is associated with asceticism, yoga, and liṅgaṃ; who, in his form as Paśupati, is regarded as a lord of animals; and who is often depicted as having three eyes (Marshall, 1931, pp. 48-78; Possehl, 2002, pp. 141-144). Capriles (1998a, 2000b). According to the traditions of the Brahmins, the Upaniṣads would have put in writing some of the “secret doctrines” that with the passing of time had become indissolubly associated with the Vedas. However, those findings that purportedly show Vedic religion not to be older than Buddhism would have outright refuted this claim. Christopher I. Beckwith (2015) claims that Anacharsis the Scythian, considered to be one of the Seven Sages of Antiquity in Greek Philosophy, expressed views very similar to both those of Buddhism and those of Pyrrhonism. From this and what he takes to be a consistent body of evidence, he infers that the Buddha Śākyamuni, the “sage of the Śākyas”, was actually Sakamuni, the “sage of the Sakas,” and that the root Saka was turned into Śākya in order to make Śākyamuni appear to be Indian (Siddhārtha Gautama’s purported place of birth is in present day Nepal, but that border did not exist at the time of Śākyamuni). For a résumé of the debate on the location of Oḍḍiyāna, cf. endnote 11 to this book. I said that their purest form and quintessence became manifest in the teachings of Buddhist Dzogchen and the Vajrayāna, independently of the lineal transmission of the ancient tradition, because in the absence of evidence showing there was a transmission of teachings and realization from the pre-Buddhist tradition to the Buddhist one, we are compelled to provisionally assume that the Buddhists did not receive their Dzogchen and Vajrayāna teachings from non-Buddhist sources. The thesis I am positing is that these Buddhist teachings expressed the essence of the original practices and doctrines of the peoples speaking Tibeto-Burman and Dravidian languages more accurately than other teachings, for the supreme transmission and teachings of the Tibeto-Burman and Dravidian peoples most likely was, as suggested in a previous note, gShen rab Mi bo che’s rDzogs chen tradition of the rDzogs pa chen po zhang zhung snyan brgyud, assisted by the Tantric teachings of both Bon pos and Śaivas (for evidence as to the fact that the Bon pos had Mantric teachings see Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal], 1996a.) Today, it is known beyond any doubt that the ancestors of the “Aryans” (Ārya) or “Indo-Europeans”—the Kurgans, who apparently had settled in a strip of land that stretched from the north coast of the Black Sea in the eastern direction to a small part of the western coast of the Caspian Sea—before beginning their conquering expansion in multiple directions had been regular marauders of their neighbors. They 37 38 39 40 41 496 progressively invaded and conquered almost all of Europe, a great deal of the Middle East (which they could not conquer in its entirety because they had to compete with the other mighty invaders who were conquering the region: the Semites), and then India. In all of that ample region, previously to the Indo-European and Semitic invasions, there had prevailed an elevated culture and a nondual mystical tradition that seems to have had Tantric and Dzogchen views and methodology, and that later on developed into a series of local spiritual traditions: in the case of the Tibeto-Burman from the lower slopes and high plains of the Himalayas, into Bön; in the case of the Dravidians of India, into Śaivism; in the case of the Persians, into what much later on was known as Zurvanism; in the case of the Minoan Cretans, into the Dionysian religion—and, according to Alain Daniélou (1984), in the case of the Egyptians, into the cult of Osiris. It must be noted that, although it seems true that the pre-Aryan, pre-Semitic civilizations that later on were conquered by the Aryans and the Semites were relatively egalitarian, peaceful and nonsexist, on the basis of the works by Marija Gimbutas (1989 and Spanish 1991) and others, authors such as Riane Eisler (1987) and Carol Christ (1987, 1989) seem to have somehow, somewhat exaggerated these traits, overlooking the fact that those civilizations developed as a result of settling in lands previously inhabited by other peoples with their own cultures. For example, research has shown that the Dravidians were not one of the autochthonous peoples of India (in Capriles, 1998a there is an outdated discussion of this): the former settled into the Indus valley at a relatively late date (according to Mukherjee, Nebel, Oppenheim & Majumder, 2001, between 13,000 and 8,000 BCE)—though one can assume that the lands that in our time are Pakistan and India were so scarcely populated at the time that no war of conquest was necessary—which is attested by the fact that there are no traces of weapons in archeological sites of the region until relatively late times. The Elamite and the Sumerians probably did likewise in their respective regions, though the Sumerians seem to have turned bellicose before the Dravidians. It is also significant that James Mellaart (1967, 1975) claims to have found in Catal Hüyük (Anatolia) evidence of the existence of a priestly class and an incipient social stratification, and reported the existence of primitive weapons such as sticks, spears, daggers, arches, arrows and so on; however, Mellaart was forced to leave Turkey before his research was exhaustive, having been taken over by his disciple Ian Hodder many years after Mellaart left the country—and Hodder’s exhaustive research did not show signs of significant social stratification, while showing clear signs of gender / sexual equality and suggesting that society was neither patriarchal nor matriarchal. He concluded that the female statues that Mellaart took for representations of goddesses were not deities (Hodder, in different works). Therefore, though it is clear that there is a radical difference concerning social stratification and bellicosity between the Indo-Europeans and the Semites, on the one hand, and the peoples they conquered, on the other, in many late cases this difference is one of degree only. (In Capriles, 1998a, I also discussed the theses by Professor Victor Mair, from Pennsylvania University; Californian anthropologist James Mallory, from The Queen’s University in Belfast, Ireland; and archeologist Jeannine Davis-Kimball, director of the San Francisco Chapter of the Archeological Institute of America. These have stressed the anthropological traits of the Indo-European Tocharians, which remained in the bronze age until very late times, produced few weapons and attributed a high status to women, in order to “prove” that the original Indo-Europeans were not as bellicose, sexist, domineering and so on as they were pictured above. DavisKimball, in particular, asserts that the traits shown by the Tocharians demonstrate that the bellicose, androcentric character attributed to Indo-Europeans in some “popular works” is a myth. However, archeological remains of the Kurgans [proto-Indo-Europeans] in the fifth millenary BC show them to have exhibited all the shortcomings attributed to them. For his part, Mallory states that Iranian groups within the Kurgans pushed them to the East from their habitat in the steppes North of the Black and Caspian seas, and as a result they ended up establishing themselves on the edges of the Taklimakan desert, on the Silk Route, in Central Asia—where they remained roughly until year 1.000 CE, when either they became extinct or were absorbed by the Uighurs of present-day Xinjiang. However, what this suggests is either that not all Indo-Europeans turned bellicose at the same time, or, more likely, that the Tocharians were pacified by the people of the region where they finally settled, who at an earlier stage were Bon pos belonging to the empire of Zhang-zhung and later on converted to Buddhism—a religion stressing nonviolence. At any rate, it is a fact that the anthropological and cultural traits of the different peoples cannot be reduced to a racial determinism: some human groups “Fall” faster than others, but this is not due to any inherent racial traits—in fact, the prevailing research strongly suggests that geographical and climatic factors may be most determinant in the arising of violence and other human vices. Moreover, 497 recent research into the human genome has shown that no genetic differences whatsoever support racial differentiation—and that the whole of humankind derives from a single source.) The so-called “Aryans” suppressed the spiritual traditions proper to the lands they conquered, but later on these reappeared, apparently with greater impetus in India and Central Asia, in such a way that in India part of their lofty spirituality gradually infiltrated the religion of the conquerors—and in some regions of Central Asia the latter converted to Buddhism, in which at some point there arose both Tantric and Dzogchen teachings. However, the Indo-European conquerors were quite zealous in filtering away any elements of the old religion that could threaten their rule, including many of its most direct mystic methods; in particular, and to the extent that repression is inherent in the structure and function of domination, to a great extent they excluded the methods that used the energy associated with the erotic impulse as a means to reach transpersonal experiences. In the case of India, where the Indo-Europeans established the caste system as a means to maintain their privileges, they eliminated the Bacchanalia in which social stratification had been inadmissible. I treat this subject in detail in Capriles (work in progress) See also: (1) Durant (Spanish, 1957). (2) Bocchi & Ceruti (1993). (3) Daniélou (1984). (4) Gimbutas (1989). (5) Eisler (1987). Etc. In Capriles (1998a) and elsewhere I asserted that the doctrines of the ṛṣis who compiled the Upaniṣads included those elements of pre-Aryan spiritual doctrines and practices that had not yet been destroyed at the time the texts were written, which infiltrated the religion of the invaders that later on came to be known as Indo-Europeans, becoming associated, in the form of “secret doctrines,” to the sacred books called Veda—even though the doctrines in question were purged of their egalitarian, life-celebrating elements. This view radically contradicts the traditions of the Brahmins, according to which nondual mysticism is an exclusive element of the Aryan (i.e. Indo-European) lore, which they claim was the main contribution of this people to the human race. However, it suffices to take a look at the collections (Skt. saṁhitā) of hymns that make up the four saṁhitā Vedas to confirm that the Ṛgveda—the most ancient of the four—does not contain any elements of nondual mysticism, is mainly mythological in character, and conveys a creationist, clearly henotheist view (it describes a plurality of gods, among whom a different one prevails in different hymns and among whom one, who is also not always the same, created the world). In fact, the contents of the Ṛgveda are typical of “fallen” humankind, have no reference to methods that may lead to the unveiling of the primordial condition, and posit a hierarchical mythology that mirrors the structure of the divided, fragmented societies and psyche resulting from the “fall.” (By fall I am referring to the arising and development of the subject-object duality and judgment, which, as reflected in the etymology of the German translation of the term—which is Urteil—gave rise to the “original partition” at the root of the illusion of ontological dualism and pluralism.) It was only several centuries after the arrival of the Indo-European invaders that the assimilation of the traditions of the Dravidian and Tibeto-Burman predecessors of the Aryans in India allowed for the inclusion in one of the four Vedas that are saṁhitā or collections of hymns of both nondual mysticism and of different types of magic (including many of the deviations that typically arise in the context of the ancient traditions of nondual mysticism as the result of the degeneration of humankind). This happened in the Atharvaveda, which was the latest collection or saṁhitā of hymns. However, it was in the Upaniṣads—and later on in the Vedanta Sūtra, as well as in the different types of Vedānta that, under the influence of Mahāyāna Buddhist doctrines, arose as interpretations of this sūtra (Gauḍapāda’s Māyāvāda was influenced by Yogācāra philosophy, whereas Śaṅkarācārya’s Advaita Vedānta received most obvious influences from Madhyamaka philosophy)—that some elements of nondual mysticism appeared more clearly in Brahmanic traditions. Of course, it was with the rise of Mahāyāna Buddhism that the above elements acquired greater coherence, and it was with the rise of Buddhist Tantra and Dzogchen that the anti-somatic elements typical of IndoEuropean prejudice were totally done away with in spiritual systems in Aryan-dominated India. For example, according to the Dzogchen teachings, the body is an appearance of rtsal energy, which for its part is one of the three forms of manifestation of the third of the three bodhicittas or wisdoms inherent in our true condition; therefore, the body is to be realized to be a form of wisdom and bodhicitta rather than taken to be an obstacle to wisdom and bodhicitta. And, in fact, in the methods of both Tantra and Dzogchen the body and its impulses may be used as crucial elements of the Path of Awakening. To conclude, it must be noted that recent research has revealed the fact that the Chinese annals relate the nomadic tribes of Tibet (as different from non-nomadic Tibetans) with the Qiāng (Ch. 羌; Wade–Giles, Ch’iang ), an ancient nomadic ethnic group that at some point had a warring presence on the North1 498 Western confines of China and that, according to the researchers who unveiled this fact, had IndoEuropean origins. Furthermore, they tell us that the Tibetan language and culture carry influences of the proto-Indo-Europeans as an effect of the nomads’ migrations (Pettorino, Sveva, 2003). (The term antisomatism, coined by Mircea Eliade, refers to the belief that the body is evil or bad, or that the impulses associated with the body are evil or not to be trusted. Even when the illusory body-soul dualism is not asserted as an ontological tenet, antisomatism necessarily implies this dualism, since the fact that the mind blames and despises the body implies that it takes itself to be substantially different and separate from it. Therefore, anti-somatic systems, even when they claim to be nondualistic, cannot be truly so.) The date of Śākyamuni’s parinirvāṇa is often rounded to 480 BC “because of the general nature of the traditional chronology” (Napper, Betsy, 2003, p. 661, note 60). It must be noted that one system of astrological calculation places the parinirvāṇa at 544 BC, whereas a tradition of the Kālacakratantra places it circa 880 BC. And on the basis of recent research various scholars (including Beckwith, 2015) insist in placing it later than the traditional chronology (some of this research will be discussed below in the regular text). Those who insist that the historical Buddha was reacting to Zoroastrianism rather than to Brahmanism have to attribute a more recent date to his existence, for the hypothesis would only make sense if the Muni had lived after the Persians began to rule over Gandhara and Sindh. In particular, Beckwith (2015: 11) suggests that the Buddha’s period of asceticism and Awakening coincided with the first fifty years of Persian rule—i.e., ca. 515 to ca. 465 BC—and that supposing that he actually lived for eighty years his death may have occurred ca. 425 BC. For a résumé of these claims and their sustentation by different scholars, cf. Beckwith (2015). However, Beckwith holds that the individual who according to tradition was called Siddhārtha Gautama was the originator of something totally new—the first Path of Awakening—but seems to claim that there were precedents of philosophy—and of a philosophy similar to that of Buddhism—among the Scyntians. The truth seems to be that the region that was occupied by the Sakas, and the Scyntians in general, had been part of the kingdom or empire of Zhang Zhung (cf. Namkhai Norbu, 2009/2013a), who had possessed a Dzogchen Path of Awakening and what may be justifiably seen as having had a system of philosophy akin to that of Buddhism since at least the nineteenth century BCE (according to a Bon po chronicle put into writing by Nyima Tenzin in his bsTan rtsis, the Dzogchen teachings of the kingdom or empire of Zhang zhung originated some eighteen thousand years ago [cf. Kvaerne, Per, 1971]; however, as will be shown in a subsequent endnote, in that case ston pa gShen rab mi bo che could not have been a speaker of Tibeto-Burman languages, for the speakers of these languages settled in the area at a much later date— and hence placing his lifetime in 18,000 BCE amounts to claiming that he was not a Tibeto-Burman speaker). In short, there seem to have been precedents of Buddhism in the Himalayas and Central Asia. And it does not seem unlikely that those precedents may have found their continuity among the Sakas and/or other Scyntians—even if, as it seems to be the case, there are no proofs of the hypothesis put forward by the Bon po teacher sLob dpon bsTan ’dzin rnam dag, who has privately asserted the Buddhist Mahāyāna, Vajrayāna and Atiyogatantrayāna to have been produced by Bon po Masters, and insisted that dGa’ rab rdo rje was in truth the Bon po Master Ra sangs ta pi hri tsa. Thus, so far the latter assertion may not be seen as being more that the assertion of the primacy of a particular tradition. In the rNying ma tradition, the nirmāṇakāya—and this also applies to the nirmāṇakāya Śākyamuni—is explained in two different ways: the ordinary way, aimed at ordinary people, consists in explaining how an individual moves from the relative, deluded, contaminated dimension to the absolute, undeluded, pure dimension; for its part, the extraordinary way consists in explaining how from the dharmakāya emanates the saṃbhogakāya and from the latter emanates the nirmāṇakāya—so that no progress from the condition of an ordinary being to that of a Buddha is contemplated. For one explanation of these two approaches cf., for example, Nyoshul Khenpo (2015, pp. 69-100). Most individuals continue to believe that satisfaction, plenitude and fulfillment are possible in the normal state of mind pertaining to saṃsāra precisely because there are riches, pleasures, luxuries and so on that are beyond their reach, and so they can believe that upon reaching them they will obtain the satisfaction, plenitude and/or fulfillment that presently eludes them. Therefore, all that Siddhārtha Gautama’s parents did to keep him from questioning human life may have had an effect opposite to the one they were trying to produce, as the prince quickly got bored of all that humans desire most, learning that it cannot yield plenitude or satisfaction—which caused him to undertake the spiritual quest they were intent on 42 43 44 45 46 499 preventing. In short, his parents were victims of the “reverse law” or “law of inverted effort” that will be considered in a subsequent chapter of Part One of this book. It seems likely that these ṛṣis or Seers were those who, in pre-Indo-European times, practiced pre-IndoEuropean doctrines leading to liberation and mystic communion, but who, after the consolidation of IndoEuropean power, the Establishment identified with the authors of the Upaniṣads. The most ancient forms of Buddhism negate the existence of something independent and permanent that may be designated as “self,” inside or outside the “physical” and “psychic” existence of the individual. After the development of Vedānta, some branches of which distinguished very clearly between jivātman or individual soul / self and paramātmā / parātman or universal soul / self, Buddhists specifically rejected the concept of a universal soul or paramātmā / parātman as well. The Upaniṣads had posited a permanent substance called brahman, which they compared to clay that can adopt manifold transitory forms (and which later on Advaita Vedānta asserted to be one with paramātmā / parātman), claiming then we wrongly perceive that substance as a multiplicity of permanent substances, but that there is no such multiplicity, for the forms we perceive as permanent substances are like the different utensils that are made from the same clay. The Buddhism based on the First Promulgation negated the existence of such a permanent substance and affirmed that the manifold transitory forms that we perceive arise and disappear at each instant without there being any substantial basis for them (i.e. without there being a substantial “clay”). In the Mahāyāna, it is asserted that entities are all tathatā (thatness or thusness: the true condition of whatever one may point at) or dharmatā (the true condition of all phenomena), but the Madhyamaka School negated in extremely clear terms that tathatā, dharmatā or the basic constituent of all entities is a substance. (It is clear that the Buddhist remedy against eternalism could then become the poison of nihilism: this is why Buddhism developed a series of arguments in order to prevent clinging to nihilist conceptions, which it declared far more dangerous than clinging to eternalist ones: in particular, this is why the Madhyamaka school developed the concept of an “emptiness of emptiness.” Cf. the definitive version in print of Capriles, electronic publication 2004, in case it is finally prepared, and Capriles, unpublished 1; Capriles, unpublished 3; Chöphel & Capriles, unpublished.) Hence the early Buddhist doctrine of constant, uninterrupted change, aimed at neutralizing the belief in a substance and therefore the possibility that by dualistically, conceptually knowing a pseudo-totality as object, and dualistically, conceptually identifying with this pseudo-totality (or, in Sartrean [1980] terms, becoming this pseudo-totality by establishing a link of being with it), individuals may wrongly believe that they are having direct realization of the absolute truth, and as a result may cling to the absorptions of the formless realms (and in particular of the peak of existence), in the belief that he or she has attained Awakening or nirvāṇa—which was precisely the distortion in which his teachers incurred and that he rejected. The nāgas are elementals of nature that live under the waters and also in the subterranean world, whose bodies sometimes have a human form from the waist up and a serpent-like form from the waist down, at times have a full human form, and at times have a full serpent form (they are often depicted as metamorphosing from one form to another). Although I suspect them to be of Tibeto-Burman origin, they have an important place in the mythology of an ample region that extends from the Western Himalayas and perhaps the Hindu Kush, through the Himalayan range and India, to Southeast Asia. It is said that Śākyamuni left the Prajñāpāramitā teachings in the underworld, in the custody of the king of the nāgas. When the latter became ill, only Nāgārjuna could cure him. Understanding that Nāgārjuna was the human prophesied by Śākyamuni as the one to whom he should hand over the Prajñāpāramitā teachings, the king of the nāgas carried out his commission. Thus, Nāgārjuna was able to disseminate them in the human world and, furthermore, to write the series of commentaries on them that make up the doctrinal base of the Madhyamaka (“middle Way” or “middle Path”) School of Mahāyāna Buddhism. However, according to the Platform Sūtra of the Sixth Patriarch (Ch. 壇經 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Tánjīng; WadeGiles, T’an -ching ], 六祖壇經 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Liùzǔtánjīng; Wade-Giles, Liu -tsu T’an -ching ], which abbreviate 六祖⼤師法寶壇經 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Liùzǔdàshī fábǎotánjīng; Wade-Giles, Liu -tsu -ta -shih Fa -pao -t’an -ching }; full title: 南宗頓教最上⼤乘摩訶般若波羅蜜經六祖惠能⼤師於韶州⼤梵寺施法壇經 ) Nāgārjuna and his direct disciple Āryadeva were links in the “Transmission of Mind” of that school. At any rate, not only is Nāgārjuna listed among the Patriarchs of the Dhyāna, Chán or Zen School, for according to (1) g.Yu sgra snying po noted rJe btsun thams cad mkhyen pa Bai ro tsa na’i rnam tar ’dra ’bag chen mo; (2) the Man ngag bshad thabs of the Hundred Thousand Tantras of Berotsana: Bai ro rgyud ’bum, vol. Ka, pp. 134-172; and other texts that include (3) the Sems sde bco brgyad kyi dgongs pa rig ’dzin rnams kyis rdo rje’i glur bzhengs pa, in the sNga ’gyur bka’ ma, vol. Tsa [Sichuan]) and so on, 47 48 49 50 2 1 4 3 2 1 4 2 3 2 1 500 3 4 1 Nāgārjuna was a link in the transmission of rDzogs chen Ati. As we know, like Chán, rDzogs chen Ati is not a gradual system, for Direct Introduction is in all cases sudden, yet nearly in all cases, in order to stabilize the state of rig pa, subsequent practice is required, and hence there is a gradual aspect of rDzogs chen—so that in the latter nongradual and gradual approaches coexist. The same applies to Nāgārjuna’s associate and disciple, Āryadeva, for dPa’ bo gtsug lag phreng ba’s Chos ’byung mkhas pa’i dga’ ston, p. 568 cites both of them as links in one of the two lines of transmission originating from dGa’ rab rdo rje, source of the current transmission of Buddhist Dzogchen. According to the same text, Āryadeva attained the rainbow body after receiving rDzogs chen teachings from Mañjuśrīmitra the Younger (cf. Norbu, Namkhai, Italian 1988). According to Tibetan tradition, Nāgārjuna lived for 600 years beginning 400 years after Śākyamuni’s’s parinirvāṇa or physical death; if we assume that the founder of Buddhism lived from 560 BC through 480 DC, then this tradition may be read as asserting Nāgārjuna lived from 80 BC to 520 CE. Other sources give as the date of Nāgārjuna’s birth 482 BC, and still others 212 BC. For an account of the various datings of Nāgārjuna, including those of Western scholars, see Ruegg (1981, pp. 4-6). At any rate, it is important to take into account the fact that, according to Tibetan Text 8 (Chos ’byung mkhas pa’i dga’ ston, by dPa’ bo gtsug lag phreng ba) and Tibetan text 15 (rJe btsun thams cad mkhyen pa Bai to tsa na’i rnam thar ’dra ’bag chen mo), from dGa’ rab rdo rje, the first Master of Buddhist rDzogs chen, there were two lines of succession, and Nāgārjuna was a link in one of them. Since the most widely accepted date of dGa’ rab rdo rje’s birth is 55 CE, in order to be a link in one of the succession lines deriving from him, Nāgārjuna must have been alive after said date. It must also be noted that Tibetans tend to identify the Nāgārjuna who founded the Madhyamaka School with the Tantric Master of the same name, who according to all extant records was a disciple of the mahāsiddha Sarahapāda and who most probably lived around the eighth century CE. If the Tibetan chronology for Nāgārjuna’s birth were right, this would imply that Nāgārjuna lived for much longer than the 600 years attributed him by Tibetan tradition. Malayagirī means Mount Malaya; other names of the mountain are: Śrī Pāda (Sacred Footprint, which Buddhists claim is that of Śākyamuni, Hindus that of Śiva, and Christians and Muslims that of Adam), Mount Laṅkā, Ratnagirī (Mountain of Gems), Amāntakūṭa (Peak of End), Svargarohanam (“the climb to heaven”), Mount Rohana. The Muslims referred to it by the Arab and Persian equivalent of the latter name, Al Rohoun, and the British, following the Portuguese name of Pico de Adam, called it Adam’s peak, which is how it is generally listed in Śrī Laṅkā’s tourist guides. Śākyamuni’s himself prophesized (Dudjom Rinpoche, English 1991, vol. I, p. 189; I deleted the phrase “who is” that lay between “A monk” and “called Asaṅga”): “A monk called Asaṅga, learned in the meaning of these treatises, will differentiate in many categories the sūtras of provisional and definitive meaning.” Concerning the principally “inner” or “outer” character of the teachings contained in sūtras of the Third Promulgation, definitively the more “inner” ones are those that teach that all that appears, either as subject or as object, is based on primordial gnosis (Skt. jñāna; Tib. ye shes) rather than on mind, and that emphasize the fact that consciousness is a saṃskṛta (produced, made, conditioned, contrived, etc.: Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ]) delusive, impermanent appearance cum process that disappears upon Awakening. Furthermore, the Laṅkāvatārasūtra posits the possibility of an instantaneous Awakening and in general its tenets and way of exposition are of the innermost kind, as in the case of the Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra, and so on. Contrariwise, as briefly explained in Capriles (unpublished 1, unpublished 3) and as will be explained in detail in the definitive version in print of Capriles (electronic publication 2004)—in case I finally prepare it—the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra concentrates on the gradual Path and teaches a way to meditate on emptiness that gives rise to a conceptual type of emptiness involving the subject-object duality (at least at the level of vipaśyanā or lhag mthong based on analysis). Thus, it could be ventured that the Laṅkāvatāra, the Āvataṃsaka and several other Third Promulgation sūtras are “inner” and “definitive” in relation to the Saṃdhinirmocana. The Commentaries and secondary literature by the commentators of the Third Promulgation (and the same applies, obviously, to those of the Second) may also be classified into texts having a more “inner” meaning and writings having a more “outer” meaning. In particular, in Capriles (electronic publication 2004), I listed many of the commentaries and treatises by Maitreyanātha, Asaṅga and others that belong to the innermost type; if I prepare and publish the definitive version of that book, the list in question might be improved. 51 52 53 3 501 2 Concerning the “many categories” into which Asaṅga would differentiate the commentaries and original treatises, Dudjom Rinpoche (ibidem) lists the following characteristics as the criterion for such differentiation: (1) the standard of their composition; (2) the purpose of their composition; (3) their individual composers; (4) the manner of their composition; (5) the transmitted precepts that they explain; and (6) the meaning that they express. For their part, (6) are classified into: (a) those that teach quantitatively (for their part classified into common and uncommon), (b) those that teach qualitatively (exemplified by those among Madhyamaka texts that emphatically establish both the coarse and the subtle selflessness of both human beings and phenomena that are not human beings), and (c) those that teach the means for attaining liberation and omniscience (classified according to whether the author was of the superior type, like Nāgārjuna and Asaṅga, of the middle type, like Dignāga and Candragomin, or of the lower type, like Śrīgupta or Śākyamati). For an explanation of the different categories of treatises considered in the first three paragraphs of this note, see Dudjom Rinpoche, English 1991, vol. I, pp. 88-109. This Third Truth is often stated as “stopping the causes (i.e. the karmas), the effects cease.” In particular, according to the Theravāda, nirvāṇa is the only dharma (meaning phenomenon or, in this case, perhaps metaphenomenon) that may be categorized as asaṃskṛta (Pāḷi, asaṅkhata; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無爲 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu -wei ]: uncontrived, unmade, unproduced, unconditioned, uncompounded). It is a mistake to believe that the Theravāda conceives nirvāṇa as a mere annihilation—or, even worse, as the extinction of human life. In fact, many texts of the Pāḷi Canon illustrate nirvāṇa with the image of a flame that seems to go out, but that in reality, rather than being annihilated, through entering pure space (Skt. ākāśa; Tib. nam mkha’; Ch. 虚空 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xūkōng; Wade-Giles, hsü -k’ung ]) disappears from view. Therefore, nirvāṇa, which is not simply nonbeing (it is characterized as not-nonbeing), would be a transition to a different dimension. For example, Hīnayāna Buddhism posits two types of nirvāṇa / nibbāna: nirvāṇa with a residue of condition, called sopadhiśeṣanirvāṇa (Pāli savupadisesa-nibbāna; Tib. lhag bcas myang ’das; Ch. 有餘涅槃 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuyú nièpán; Wade-Giles, yu -yü nieh -p’an ]) or nirvāṇa with remainder, which is obtained during one’s lifetime, and nirvāṇa without a residue of condition or nirvāṇa without remainder, called anupadhiśeṣanirvāṇa or nirupadhiśeṣanirvāṇa (Pāli anupādisesa-nibbāna; Tib. [phung po’i] lhag [ma] med [par] myang [an las] ’das [ba]; Ch. 無餘涅槃 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúyú nièpán; Wade-Giles, wu -yü nieh -p’an ]), which is obtained posthumously. The former is the transition to another dimension, not in the sense of going beyond our world, but of continuing to live and yet experiencing the world (so to speak, for the concept of experience does not apply here) in a totally new way, utterly beyond duḥkha and its cause, which is the basic human delusion. At any rate, according to the Mahāyāna, the Hīnayāna’ purported nirvāṇa without a residue of condition or nirvāṇa without remainder has a remainder that is a cause for rebirth, and if complete realization is to be attained the individual who attained that nirvāṇa will have to be reborn and tread the Mahāyāna Path from its inception to its conclusion, and thus attain anuttarāsamyaksaṃbodhi (Tib. yang dag par yongs su rdzogs pa’i byang chub; Ch. 阿耨多罗三藐三菩提 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, ānòuduōluó sānmiǎo sānpútí; WadeGiles, a -nou -to -luo san -miao san -p’u -t’i ]), which alone represents irreversible freedom from saṃsāra and a limitless capacity to benefit all beings. Probably because Siddhārtha Gautama (Pāḷi: Siddhattha Gotama) followed a quite extreme form of the Path of Renunciation, Albert Schweitzer (1936) classified Buddhism as a “life denying” religion. Had Śākyamuni explained nirvāṇa to involve physical death, that classification would have been correct. However, even though Schweitzer seems to have based himself on the Hīnayāna and overlooked the Mahāyāna, he was aware that the phrase did not apply to it precisely, for he referred to Śākyamuni with sympathy and reverence, dedicating to him the following passages: “He gave expression to truths of everlasting value and advanced the ethics not of India alone but of humanity. Buddha was one of the greatest ethical men of genius ever bestowed upon the world... “Thus in the world and life negation to which he was devoted, the Buddha kept some measure of naturalness. This is what was great in him. Whilst he mitigated the severity of world renunciation, he made a fresh and great concession to world and life affirmation.” Nevertheless, Schweitzer categorized Buddhism as a world- and life- negating religion, which as noted above is not a fair judgment even for someone who concentrated on the Hīnayāna. Buddhist Tantrism and rDzogs chen, on the other hand, are not only life-celebrating, but, moreover, are utterly free of the antisomatism—the belief that the body and its impulses are a source of sin and hence the impulses in question are to be repressed or else channeled in ways in which they become permissible—at the root of 54 2 2 1 1 3 2 1 4 1 2 1 3 1 2 2 2 502 4 2 2 4 2 the world- and life-negation proper to Judeo-Christian-Muslim religion, and the command to dominate all species and phenomena expressed in the Book of Genesis, which is at the root of ecological crisis. Cf. endnote 7. This book, still unpublished as I write this English version of Buddhism and Dzogchen, was intended to be an Appendix to it. However, then I realized it would make the present book too long, and finally in an email Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu referred to it as “your new book”—which caused me to decide that the right thing to do was to turn it into a separate book. The version that was posted in my Webpage was plagued with errors and imprecisions, to such a degree that I decided to delete it from that Webpage. Now I am not sure I will want to correct it and publish it, and hence in this book I refer to it as “the upcoming definitive version on print of Capriles (electronic publication 2004), in case I finally decide to prepare it and publish it.” The root of this term (Wylie, khor) literally means “wheel.” As will be shown in a subsequent chapter of Part One of this book, the Hīnayāna considers the ten nonvirtuous actions to be always nonvirtuous and thus as having to be avoided by all means under all circumstances. However, according to the Mahāyāna it is legitimate and, moreover, mandatory to commit any of the seven nonvirtuous actions concerning the body and the voice (or speech) if this is done for the benefit of sentient being and the individual is certain that the result will be positive. Only the three nonvirtuous actions concerning the mind are always nonvirtuous and should be avoided by all means and under all circumstances, for they can never be useful to sentient beings, and are in all cases harmful to the individual who commits them. Note 113 by Adriano Clemente to Namkhai Norbu, Chögyal (1999/2001) reads: “The aggregate of form (rūpa) comprises four ‘forms’ as cause (the four elements [which are] earth, water, fire and air) and eleven ‘forms’ as effect (the five sense faculties, the five sense objects, and what is known as ‘imperceptible form’...). “The aggregate of sensation (vedanā) consists of three types of sensation: pleasant, unpleasant and neutral. “The aggregate of recognition (saṃjñā) basically comprises perceptions derived from contact with the six sense objects; however, its particular feature is to distinguish the characteristics of objects (e.g. color), which can embrace all three realms, [which are that] of passion [or sensuality], [that] of form and [that of formlessness]. “The aggregate of mental formations (saṁskāra) is responsible for actions and contains fifty-one virtuous and non-virtuous states associated with the active function of the mind and twenty-four formations dissociated from the active function of the mind (ldan min ’du byed), such as a newly acquired virtuous quality or a temporary state of ‘cessation’ (nirodha) in which one remains absorbed in a condition devoid of perception. “The aggregate of consciousness (vijñāna)… [which corresponds to the awareness of objects] comprises the six consciousnesses (the five sense consciousnesses plus the mental consciousness) or eight consciousnesses (in the case of those texts of the Third Promulgation that add to these six: [1] the consciousness contaminated by the passions, and [2] the base consciousness).” That which Clemente calls consciousness contaminated by the passions is that which here I am referring to as defiled-defiling consciousness (Skt. kliṣṭamanovijñāna; Tib. nyon [mongs pa can gyi] yid kyi rnam [par shes pa]; Ch. 末那識 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, mònà shì; Wade-Giles, mo -na shih ]), and that which he calls base consciousness is what here has been called store-consciousness (Skt. ālayavijñāna; Tib. kun gzhi rnam [par] shes [pa]; Ch. 阿賴耶識 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, ālàiyē shí; Wade-Giles, a -lai -yeh shih ] or 藏識 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zàngshì; Wade-Giles, tsang -shih ]). It must be noted that the illusion of self in the individual, generated by the interaction of the skandhas, implies the illusion of other (-than-self). Furthermore, as soon as one becomes a separate mortal self who is prone to face suffering, one is beset by fear of whatever may happen to oneself, and of whatever one’s actions may bring upon oneself (which Sartre called “anguish”). Sa skya paṇ ḍi ta kun dga’ rgyal mtshan (1182– 1251), whose name is often contracted to Sapaṇ, exemplified both these facts with the example of a bird supposedly existing in the vicinity of Tibet that is purportedly terrorized by the sound of its own wings, which makes it believe someone else is approaching. For his part, Tibetan Master Chos rgyam Drung pa (Chögyam Trungpa) rin po che spoke of “an ego and its attendant paranoia.” For the Hīnayāna, although there was no ego and no soul, there was a succession of conscious moments each of which existed in an absolute manner, and countless absolutely real infinitesimal particles formed material objects. All Mahāyāna schools negated the purported absolutely real, inherent or substantial existence of infinitesimal particles; as will be shown in the upcoming definitive publication in print of 55 56 57 58 59 4 4 4 1 4 4 60 503 4 1 4 Capriles (electronic publication 2004)—in case I finally prepare it and publish it—the MadhyamakaSvātantrika-Sautrāntika was the only philosophical school of the Mahāyāna to posit the existence of infinitesimal particles, but stressed the fact that such infinitesimal particles did not exist inherently or substantially. For its part, on the basis of the concept of “conscious instants,” the Yogācāra School posited a “mental current” (Skt. saṃtāna; Pāli santāna; Tib. sems rgyud or rgyun; Ch. 相續 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiāngxù; Wade-Giles, hsiang -hsü ], in general used as ⼼相續 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xīnxiāngxù; Wade-Giles hsin -hsiang -hsü ]) consisting in a succession of such instants. The Madhyamaka subschools divided both the selflessness or absence of an independent self-nature (Skt. nairātmya or anātman; Pāḷi anattā; Tib. bdag med; Ch. 無我 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwǒ; Wade-Giles, wu wo ]) or emptiness of self-being / self-entity (Skt. svabhāvaśūnyatā or prakṛtiśūnyatā; Tib. rang bzhing gyis stong pa nyid; Ch. ⾃性空 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìngkòng; Wade–Giles, tzu -hsing -k’ung ; Jap. jishōkū) in human beings and phenomena that are not human beings into a coarse one and a subtle one. In the case of the selflessness or emptiness of human beings, the coarse one consists in the baselessness of the belief in a pure ego or center that would be different from the events it unites: it consists in the unfounded character of the belief in a truly existing, self-sufficient self conceived as a non-composite phenomenon that would exist independently from the aggregates (Skt. skandha; Pāḷi khandha; Tib. phung po; Ch. 蘊 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yùn; Wade-Giles, yün ]). In turn, the subtle selflessness of human beings is the baselessness of the belief in a pure ego or center as an event of a “self-sufficient substance:” it consists in the unfounded character of the belief in a truly existing, self-sufficient self conceived as a composite phenomenon corresponding to the collection of aggregates. Only the five Saṃmitīya sub-schools of the Vaibhāṣika School ever held the subtle belief in an ego; no Buddhist school ever held the belief in a coarse one. The division into a “coarse” and a “subtle” belief in the true existence of phenomena that are not human beings, and the proclamation of two types of absence of an independent self-nature or emptiness of phenomena that are not human beings, corresponding to the baselessness of these two beliefs, is exclusive to the Madhyamaka. Since the Hīnayāna proclaims the selflessness of human beings but not that of the phenomena that are not human beings, no Hīnayāna school ever posited either of these two types of absence of an independent self-nature or emptiness. Since Yogācāra belonged to the Mahāyāna, it posited the selflessness or emptiness of phenomena; however, although this system arose after the Madhyamaka, its conception of the absence of independent self-nature and its conception of emptiness were limited to what the Madhyamaka called “coarse emptiness of phenomena other than human beings,” which this school defined as the baselessness of the belief that things exist apart from their being experienced: it understood emptiness merely in the sense of the nonexistence of phenomena as separate from mind, and failed to add that, as they are experienced, phenomena do not exist in the way in which we erroneously experience them as existing (i.e. that they do not exist inherently, absolutely and self-sufficiently). Therefore, only the Madhyamaka posited the subtle emptiness of phenomena other than human beings that corresponds to the baselessness of the subtle exaggerate belief in the existence of things and that consists in the fact that while they are being experienced things lack the self-existence, absolutely true existence, or inherent existence that we experience them as having. In his Triṃśikāṭīkā, Vinītadeva claimed that with the passing of time the Sarvāstivāda subdivided into Kāśyapīyas, Mahīśāsakas, Dharmaguptakas and Mūlasarvāstivādins; the Saṃmitīya subdivided into Kaurukullakas, Avantakas, and Vātsīputrīyas; the Mahāsāṃghikas subdivided into Pūrvaśailikas, Aparaśailikas, Lokottaravādas and Prajñāptivādas; and the Sthavira (i.e. adherents of Sthaviranikāya) subdivided into Jetavanīyas, Abhayagirivāsins and Mahāvihāravāsins. However, Damien Keown (2003, p. 84) questioned Vinītadeva as follows (ibidem): “For example, the Sthaviras did not exist as a school separately from the three Nikāyas mentioned in group (1), and the same was probably true of the Mahāsāṃghikas and Saṃmitīyas. In group (3), the Sarvāstivādins and Mūlasarvāstivādins were arguably the same school. The Dharmaguptas and Kāśyapīyas were probably not extant in India in Vinītadeva’s day, and the Mahīśāsakas only in a Mahāyāna / Sarvāstivāda influenced form. Mention of these three schools in earlier Sarvāstivādin works led Vinītadeva to classify them in this historically incorrect form. Too much reliance should therefore not be placed on the traditional classifications of the eighteen schools.” As stated in a previous note, though the Pāḷi School refers to this as the IIId Council and, making no reference whatsoever to the Council wherein there took place the division between Mahāsāṃghikas and Sthaviras, claims that this division was a consequence of the second Council, it is widely held that in truth the council in which the schism took place was the third. 1 1 1 4 4 61 2 3 4 4 62 63 504 4 4 This is the opinion of the Kashmiri Vaibhāṣikas, discussed in Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. Pruden (1989, pp. 120-122); Kongtrul (2007, p. 330, n. 323 by E. M. Callahan). The Sanskrit terms svasaṃvedana / svasaṃvitti(ḥ); their Tibetan translation, rang rig; and their Chinese translations, ⾃證 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìzhèng; Wade-Giles, tzu -cheng ) and ⾃覺 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìjué; WadeGiles, tzu -chüeh ), can refer to: (1) A nondual awareness that could be compared unto a mirror or a LED computer or TV screen, in which either: (a) A dualistic consciousness of objects having an illusory mental subject as its core may arise as a delusive phenomenon by virtue of the reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of the threefold directional thought structure (Skt. trimaṇḍala; Tib. ’khor gsum; Ch. 三輪 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānlùn; WadeGiles, san -lun ]), giving rise to active saṃsāra (Tib. ’khor ba; Ch. 輪迴 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, lúnhuí; WadeGiles, lun -hui ] or ⽣死輪迴 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shēngsǐ lúnhuí; Wade-Giles, sheng -ssu lun -hui ]); or (b) The dualistic consciousness in question, which is the most basic phenomenon of delusion, may dissolve— possibly making the true condition of nondual awareness nonconceptually and hence nondually patent, and thus giving rise to nonstatic nirvāṇa (Skt. apratiṣṭhitanirvāṇa; Tib. mi gnas pa’i myang ’das; Ch. 無 住涅槃 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúzhù nièpán; Wade-Giles, wu -chu nieh -p’an ]). (2) An nonconceptual and hence nondual awareness (of) delusive, conceptual, dualistic consciousness of object that arises when a (1a) dualistic consciousness arises in the awareness indicated as (1), like a reflection in a mirror or an image on the screen, so that one can speak of a nondual awareness (of) dualistic consciousness of object (where the preposition “of” is within parentheses because there is no dualistic relation of knowledge between the nondual awareness that is represented with the mirror or screen and the dualistic consciousness that arises in it: the images in a mirror or a screen are not known by the latter as something separate from them; they simply arise in them, in a nondual way, as insubstantial, empty appearances). (3) A nonconceptual and therefore nondual self-awareness of the true condition of both awareness and the phenomena that appear through it, which can only appear when the dualistic consciousness that appears in (1a) as (2) has dissolved, and (1b) appears. This implies that the dissolution of dualistic consciousness, rather than resulting in the neutral condition of the base-of-all (Tib. kun gzhi lung ma bstan), has resulted in nonstatic nirvāṇa. In Pramāṇavārttika 3.212-213 Dharmakīrti wrote (as rendered in Dunne, 2004, pp. 406 and 408; I made the changes within the brackets to adapt the translation to the terminology of this book): “This part of awareness—namely the one that is established such that it seems external—[appears to be] different from the internal determination [which is the part of awareness that seems subjective and seems to apprehend that apparently external part]. Awareness is not differentiated, but its appearance is differentiated into two. This being the case, the dualistic appearance must be cognitive confusion. “The nonexistence of one of the two in awareness eliminates the existence of both. Therefore, the emptiness of duality is the Suchness (tattva) of the awareness.” Subcommentator Śākyabuddhi noted in his Pramāṇavārttikaṭikā (adapted from Dunne’s [2004, pp. 406-407 n. 15] translation so as to fit my own understanding of the Sanskrit terms [my changes are indicated by bolds and explained in notes; the words and phrases within double brackets are my own addition]) that the ultimate pramāṇa—which in this case is an ultimately valid nondual Gnosis rather than a valid cognition—is not the yogipratyakṣa that I render as yogic preperception: “…in terms of just what appears (Tib. gsal ba kho nar; Skt. [[roughly]] prabhāsa eva), awareness is dualistic. However, dualistic awareness is erroneous; rather, it is established (rna par bzhag pa = vyavasthita) through cognitive error because in conventional terms, real things are established in accord with the way in which they are imaginatively determined. If that were not the case, how could the duality in singular awareness be [[held to be]] real [[by the deluded]]? “Someone objects: ‘If the object and subject do not exist, then what would be left but the suchness of awareness itself?’ Cognitively myopic beings do not experience anything but the objective and subjective cognitive images. If they were to be aware (of) something else, they would See suchness. That being the case, beings would be effortlessly liberated. That suchness cannot be definitively determined through inference. “…Therefore, there is ultimately no object that is distinct from awareness itself, and since that object does not exist [[and since subject and object are mutually dependent]], we say ‘the subject does not exist;’ in saying this we [[are referring to]] the subject that occurs in expressions of concepts that are constructed (rab tu brtags pa = prakalpita) in dependence on the [apparently external object], as in ‘This is the real 64 65 4 4 1 2 4 2 4 2 1 2 505 4 4 2 3 2 2 entity (ngo bo = rūpa) that is the subject which apprehends that object, which is the real entity that cognizes.’ Since an agent and its patient are constructed in dependence with each other, these two [i.e., subject and object] are posited in dependence on each other. The expression ‘subject’ does not [[refer to the]] mere nondual awareness (of) awareness itself, which is the essential nature of cognition itself. The essential nature of cognition is established in mere nondual awareness (of) awareness itself. Since it is devoid of the above-described object and subject, it is said to be nondual.” In fact, in an as yet unpublished work I wrote: “Even Dharmakīrti was aware that the true condition of phenomena cannot be unconcealed by what I am rendering as yogic preperception (Skt. yogipratyakṣa; Tib. rnal ’byor mngon sum), for it can only be disclosed by a yogic nonconceptual and as such nondual gnosis.” Yogipratyakṣa or yogic preperception is the fruit of inference rather than of pure nonconceptual and hence nondual sense-awareness; since above Śākyabuddhi explicitly states that suchness cannot be definitively ascertained through inference, it seems clear that for the Pramāṇavāda suchness or thatness (Skt. tathatā Tib. de bzhin nyid) cannot be directly realized by means of yogic preperception, but only by means of a nonconceptual and as such nondual gnosis (Skt. advayajñāna; Tib. gnyis med ye shes). At any rate, the above passages by Śākyabuddhi perfectly agree with Vasubandhu’s words in Triṃśikā 29 and with the assertions by Vinītadeva and Sthiramati that were referred to elsewhere in the regular text of this book and briefly discussed in a note. And if we classify all of these authors under the heading Yogācāra, then we must conclude that the school bearing this name negates substantiality not only to objects but to subjects as well—and that the absolute truth only discloses itself when the illusory mental subject dissolves. In Mipham’s Sword of Wisdom, a book annotated and commented by mKhan chen dPal ldan shes rab (Khenchen Palden Sherab, 2018, p. 97), we read (the phrases in parentheses and the prefixes in brackets are my own addition): “Because they do not train with a teacher, the pratyekabuddhas are considered to be beyond training, and the sublime (Skt. ārya; Tib. ’phags pa; Ch. 聖 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shèng; Wade-Giles, sheng ]) śrāvakas and sublime bodhisattvas can be divided into those in training and those beyond training, so counting this way makes five categories. Then for each of these five, there is the yogic [pre]perception of meditative equipoise without appearances and the yogic [pre]perception of postmeditation with appearances, which makes ten categories of yogic direct [pre]perception.” The whole of the above makes it crystal clear that the nonconceptual and hence nondual gnosis of Awake awareness that is the core of the rDzogs chen teachings is not the same as the yogic [pre]perception of the vehicles of the Path of Renunciation—even though Buddhas have solely the nonconceptual and hence nondual gnosis of Awake awareness that is the core of the rDzogs chen teachings. For an exhaustive explanation of svasaṃvedana / svasaṃvitti(ḥ) / rang rig /⾃證 in the three senses outlined above cf. Capriles (unpublished 1). Here I included the above remarks on yogic [pre]perception because this problem will be discussed in two ulterior notes, and I didn’t want to be obliged to cite the same passages of the above-quoted books again and again. It must be noted that the fact that the forms of yogic preperception—and hence of realization—proper to the Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna and Bodhisattvayāna are the fruit of inference and hence fall off the mark represented by the nonconceptual and hence nondual gnosis of Awake self-awareness proper to rDzogs chen and to Buddhahood, on the one side seems to confirm the parable of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra according to which the three former vehicles are merely toys to lure children out of saṃsāra’s burning house, and that the only true vehicle is the Buddha-vehicle, and on the other suggests that the parable’s Buddha-vehicle is rDzogs chen Ati—even though below in the regular text doubts will be raised concerning the suggestion that nonstatic nirvāṇa may involve the gnosis proper to rDzogs chen. E. M. Callahan (in Kongtrul, 2007, p. 332, n. 348) mentions as the likely source of this, Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, Ch. 1, commentary to verse 43d. Although most Tibetan scholars deem Ācārya Dignāga (who introduced the concept of awareness of consciousness) and Dharmakīrti (his indirect disciple, who further elaborated on his indirect teacher’s theories and became more widely known than the former) to have belonged to the Cittamātra School, certain scholars, both in India and in Tibet, have classed them as Madhyamika-Svātantrika-Yogācārins. At any rate, the awareness of consciousness they posited (explained in note before last), upheld in rDzogs chen teachings as well, was championed by Madhyamaka-Svātantrika-Yogācārins and adherents of the inner, subtle Madhyamaka (Tib. nang phra ba’i dbu ma), which is used as a synonym of dbU ma gzan 4 66 67 506 stong pa (Skt. reconstr. Paraśūnyatā or Pararūpaśūnyatā Madhyamaka) and of dbU ma chen po (Skt. reconstr. Mahāmadhyamaka). Note that the last two terms, since they began to be used in Tibet, have been interchangeable, but I myself use them to designate two different systems upholding the emptiness of alien substances (with regard to the single condition of ourselves and the whole of reality). For three different acceptations of the Skt. svasaṃvedana or svasaṃvitti[ḥ] and the Tib. rang rig, cf. note before last. The Madhyamaka School offers an interpretation of the canonical sources of the Second Promulgation. It will be superficially discussed throughout this book, but whoever wants precise technical information about it is directed to Capriles (unpublished 1, unpublished 3) and Chöphel & Capriles (unpublished). The forms of Madhyamaka that Tibetans subsume under the label dbU ma rang stong pa (Skt. Svabhāvaśūnyatā Madhyamaka), which have their source in Nāgārjuna’s Collection of Madhyamika Reasonings (Skt. Yuktikāya; Tib. dbU ma rigs tshogs), groups those Madhyamikas who understand emptiness in the sense of absence of self-existence / inherent existence of entities, and includes that which later on Tibetans identified as the two great Indian sub-schools, which they named Prāsaṅgika and Svātantrika. The term U ma Rang stong pa is defined in contrast with the term dbU ma gzhan stong pa, which may be rendered into Skt. as Paraśūnyatā or Pararūpaśūnyatā Madhyamaka and which refers to the understanding of emptiness as the nonexistence of anything extraneous to the Buddha-nature, the dharmakāya, the dharmatā, the dharmadhātu, or however one calls the single true condition of the whole of reality. A brief discussion of the various sub-schools of Madhyamaka would appear in the upcoming, definitive version in print of Capriles (electronic publication 2004)—in case I finally decide to prepare it and publish the version in question. It must be remarked, however, that in his Collection of Eulogies (Skt. Stavakāya; Tib. bsTod tshogs) and in particular in the Eulogy to the Expanse of the True Condition (Skt. Dharmadhātustava; Tib. chos dbyings bstod pa), Nāgārjuna expressed views that correspond to that which Tibetans call the dbU ma gzan stong pa. I use the term Mahāmadhyamaka idiosyncratically to refer to a form of Madhyamaka encompassing and harmonizing the views of the dbU ma Rang stong pa and the dbU ma gzan stong pa, in perfect agreement with the Prāsaṅgika viewless view. As to my use of the term Mahāmadhyamaka, it must be noted that there have been at least three usages of the Skt. term and its Tibetan equivalents. (1) As noted in the regular text, Dol po pa Shes rab Rgyal mtshan used it strictly as a synonym of the Tib. dbU ma gzhan stong pa, which could be rendered into Sanskrit as Paraśūnyatā or Pararūpaśūnyatā Madhyamaka—where Paraśūnyatā or Pararūpaśūnyatā would render the Tibetan term gzhan gyi dngos po stong pa nyid. In other words, he used it to refer to the view of the Jo nang pa. (2) For his part, ’Ju Mi pham (Mi pham ’jam dbyangs rnam rgyal rgya mtso), in his commentary to the Bodhicaryāvatāra and in several other texts, approvingly employed the term Mahāmadhyamaka again and again (cf. e.g. Williams, 1998, pp. 99 note 11, and 196), yet what he meant by the term was not at all the same as in the case of Dol po pa, for most of the time he used it to refer to an interpretation of Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamaka that, unlike that of rJe Tsong kha pa and the dGe lugs school, did not negate the key concepts of Third Promulgation Canonical Sources, and did not shun Third Promulgation concepts / terms. However, in one specific text he argued in favor of Mahāmadhyamaka in the sense Dol po pa had given the term—i.e. as a synonym of dbU ma gzan stong pa: in the text he wrote by command of his teacher ’Jam dbyangs mkhyen brtse’i dbang po, who insisted that in at least one book he should defend the view his teacher adhered to. In fact, he declared himself a Prāsaṅgika and, unlike the followers of rJe Tsong kha pa and like many Prāsaṅgikas in Red Hat Schools (all schools except for the dGe lugs, which uses Yellow Hats), he decidedly upheld and defended the existence of svasaṃvedana or svasaṃvitti (Tib. rang rig) by declaring it to be a conventional existent that, being true for the world, as such should not be an object of refutation for Prāsaṅgikas. In fact, Mi pham defended svasaṃvedana in purely Prāsaṅgika terms, as something that should not be rejected by the Prāsaṅgikas because the latter accept the conventional existence of conventional reality, and their refutations are concerned with the alleged ultimate existence of the relative and conventional, which is always erroneous (see William, Paul, 1998). However, Mi pham seemingly defended the existence of svasaṃvedana conceived in Yogācāra and Madhyamaka-Svātantrika terms, rather than defending the Mahāmadhyamaka interpretation of it—which to me makes no sense unless he was trying to validate it in the eyes of the dGe lugs pa, who do not contemplate the existence of the inner, subtle Madhyamaka (Tib. nang phra ba’i dbu ma), to which Mahāmadhyamaka belongs. For a lengthier discussion of this, see the possible upcoming definitive 68 69 507 publication in print of Capriles (electronic publication 2004). (3) I have not adopted ’Ju Mi pham’s strategy, for Mahāmadhyamaka in the sense in which Dol po pa used the term privileges the gZhan stong view of emptiness as the nonexistence of substances other than the single true condition of all reality, which is in agreement with the rDzogs chen teachings, which negate that there is anything other than the Base (Tib. gzhi) of rDzogs chen—yet it equally posits emptiness of self-existence (Skt. prakṛtiśūnyatā / svabhāvaśūnyatā; Tib. rang bzhin [gyi] stong pa nyid) exactly as interpreted by Prāsaṅgika philosophy, which is the highest of all dbU ma Rang stong pa views. The only difference between my usage of the term Mahāmadhyamaka and most interpretations of Dol po pa’s usage is that insist that the Base of rDzogs chen, or the true condition of phenomena (Skt. dharmatā; Tib. chos nyid: Ch. 法性 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎxìng; Wade-Giles, fa -hsing ]), or the dharmakāya, etc. may not be said to be either existent or nonexistent, and hence even less so could it be absolutely or ultimately existent. (However, in a noted passage that I cite and comment upon in another endnote to this volume, Candrakīrti asserts the absolute truth to be svabhāva—which I interpreted in the sense of self-nature [i.e. of not being dependent on anything other than itself] rather than as implying self-existence, and which I accept if interpreted in this way.) It is widely acknowledged that the View of rDzogs chen corresponds to that of the Madhyamaka Prāsaṅgika because both agree that (in the words of Tibetan Text 5, an extremely important Tantra of the rDzogs chen Menngagde), “the sense of the view is not to take a (conceptual) position.” Moreover, it has been stated that, according to (1) g.Yu sgra snying po noted rJe btsun thams cad mkhyen pa bai ro tsa na’i rnam tar ’dra ’bag chen mo, (2) the Man ngag bshad thabs of the Hundred Thousand Tantras of Bairotsana (Bai ro rgyud ’bum, vol. Ka, pp. 134-172), and other texts that include (3) the Sems sde bco brgyad kyi dgongs pa rig ’dzin rnams kyis rdo rje’i glur bzhengs pa (in the sNga ’gyur bka’ ma, vol. Tsa [Sichuan]) and so on, Nāgārjuna was a link in the transmission of rDzogs chen Ati—and the same applies to Āryadeva, for (4) dPa’ bo gtsug lag phreng ba’s Bhos ’byung mkhas pa’i dga’ ston (Tibetan Text 8, Ms. A, p. 568) cites both Nāgārjuna and his associate and disciple, Āryadeva, as being links in the transmission of rDzogs chen. This led Chögyal Namkhai Norbu (1988, p. 27) to suggest that the view of Madhyamaka-Prāsaṅgika could have had its source in rDzogs chen, which to me seems most likely, for so many rDzogs chen Tantras, which are supposed to precede the teachings of the Sūtrayāna, express the same view as the Prāsaṅgika. Just to cite one more of such Tantras, the Byang chub sems nya mo ’khor lo rgyud (equivalent yet not identical translation in Wilkinson, 2016, p. 33) reads, “We have no [theoretical, conceptual] position. Our primordial gnosis shines without bias.” And yet the same Tantra expresses a gZhan stong view in a line cited elsewhere in this book (equivalent yet not identical translation in Wilkinson, 2016, p. 9): “There is not anything other than our one awareness.” In fact, as shown in Capriles (electronic publication 2004, deleted from my Webpage because it contained too many errors and imprecisions, and of which I might prepare a revised version in the future), the conceptual expressions of the Vision of rDzogs chen encompass the Mahāmadhyamaka viewless view, which for its part encompasses the viewless view of Madhyamaka Prāsaṅgika. This is so because the view of Mahāmadhyamaka is far more comprehensive than that of Prāsaṅgika and, furthermore, it has features that make it compatible with essential rDzogs chen tenets other than the mere nonconceptuality of the View and the negation of the existence of substances other than nonconceptual and hence nondual Awake awareness, or the Buddha-nature, etc.—such as, for example, the continuity of Base, Path and Fruit, the conception of the conditioned and unconditioned, and the understanding of that which the Mahāyāna refers to as “ultimate truth,” and to some extent also the usage it makes of concepts such as those of kun gzhi (Skt. ālaya; Ch. 来源 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, láiyuán; Wade-Giles, lai -yüan ]), kun gzhi rnam [par] shes [pa] (Skt. ālayavijñāna; Ch. 阿賴耶識 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, ālàiyē shí; Wade-Giles, a -lai -yeh shih ] or 藏識 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zàngshì; Wade-Giles, tsang -shih ]) and rang rig (Skt. svasaṃvedana or svasaṃvittiḥ; Ch. ⾃證 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìzhèng; Wade-Giles, tzu -cheng ] / ⾃覺 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìjué; Wade-Giles, tzu -chüeh ]). (With regard to the concepts of kun zhi, kun gzhi rnam shes and rang rig, it must be reiterated that even though in the rDzogs chen teachings there are usages of the terms not shared by Mahāmadhyamaka, the acceptations of those terms shared by the rDzogs chen teachings and Mahāmadhyamaka differ from the understanding of them by both the Yogācāras and the Madhyamaka-Svātantrika-Yogācāras. For further details, see the definitive version of Capriles, Elías, electronic publication 2004, in case I finally manage to prepare it.) The term “phenomenon” is derived from the Greek phainomenon (φαινόμενον), meaning that which appears. Some translators use the term for objects only, perhaps partly because they do not realize that although the mental subject appears in a way that has been categorized as “implicitly and indirectly,” it 3 4 2 2 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 70 508 4 2 nonetheless appears and, moreover, is no more than an apparition, and perhaps in part because they are conditioned by common sense, Judeo-Christian religious dogmas or Western metaphysics (or even by a phenomenological philosophy such as Husserl’s), according to which that which appears are the objects that appear to the subject, for the latter is taken for granted as a substantial and subsisting entity rather than been realized to be no more than a baseless appearance. In fact, according to the philosophies of Dignāga and Dharmakīrti, to the higher forms of Buddhism, to the philosophies of David Hume and Georg Christoph Lichtenberg, and to the philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre, among other systems, the mental subject and the dualistic consciousness associated with it are mere appearances that exist only insofar and so long as they appear (Ācārya Dignāga and Dharmakīrti, Mahāmadhyamaka, rDzogs chen, and Sartre’s philosophy, acknowledge that they appear in a nondual awareness). In fact, in the Introduction to Sartre (1980/1969), the author rejects Husserl’s subtle assertion of the Cartesian cogito, and notes that: “Consciousness is not to any extent substantial; it is a mere ‘appearance,’ in the sense that it only exists to the extent that it appears.” Bhāvaviveka, creator of the initial form of that which Tibetans call the Madhyamaka-Svātantrika system of tenets, was the first Buddhist thinker to insist that consciousness was part of the phenomenal world, and to substantiate this view with a plethora of arguments. In fact, consciousness and the mental subject, which appear only in saṃsāra when the subject-object duality is functioning, are phenomena, even though they do not appear directly and explicitly as objects, but in a much subtler way—which, as just noted, in the case of the mental subject has been referred to as “indirect and implicit.” Both similes are defective: that of the mirror, because it suggests the idea of something hypostatically / inherently external to awareness that reflects itself in it and which is required for forms to appear in the mirror of awareness; the LED screen, if it belongs to a computer, depends on both a system and a program to give rise to forms. This will be discussed in greater detail elsewhere in this book. Moreover, the simile of the mirror has an extra shortcoming: that it seems to imply a passive interpretation of cognition and perception, like those posited by Aristotle and Lenin. Idealist and some nondual philosophers go deeper and claim that the brain is no more than an appearance in awareness, and that, therefore, that which gives rise to luminosity and to sensa is awareness as the single source of all that appears, rather than the mere appearance that the brain is. This view is also shared by most transpersonal psychologists and it is far deeper than the view of those neurologists that see the brain and nervous system as the cause or source of sensa. In the West, the first Modern philosopher who negated that something may exist outside or independently of awareness was bishop Berkeley, whose arguments have not been conclusively refuted, even though the conclusions he drew from those arguments—namely that there are manifold self-existent souls that produce physical appearances in mutually congruent ways—could hardly be more absurd. This delusion involves all of the aspects that the rDzogs chen teachings distinguish in the unawareness cum delusion that the Buddha and other Indian mystics have referred to by the Sanskrit term avidyā, the Pāḷi avijjā, the Tibetan ma rig pa, the Chinese 無明 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúmíng; Wade-Giles, wu -ming ), etc., and which will be discussed below in the regular text of this book: it involves all three aspects or types of avidyā listed in the most common rDzogs chen classification: it involves the first aspect or type of avidyā because the true condition of ourselves and the whole universe, which is the Base of rDzogs chen, is obscured; it involves the second aspect or type of avidyā because singled-out sensa are perceived as being other than the knower and as a rule as an external reality; and it involves the third aspect or type of avidyā because it involves taking the content of an intuitive thought as being an inherently existing / a selfexistent entity. Moreover, in Pramāṇavāda terms, it involves the erroneous cognition referred to by terms such as the Skt. bhrānti and the Tib. ’khrul as understood by Dharmakīrti (i.e., as the error or delusion of taking an abstracted general configuration / collection of characteristics [Skt. sāmānyalakṣaṇa; Tib. spyi mtshan; Ch. 共相 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, gòngxiàng; Wade-Giles, kung -hsiang )] for a particular, specifically characterized phenomenon / inherent configuration / inherent collection of characteristics [Skt. svalakṣaṇa; Tib. rang mtshan; Ch. ⾃相 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxiàng; Wade-Giles, tzu -hsiang )]). (Note that in Āryadeva the terms bhrānti and ’khrul simply refers to the error or delusion inherent in avidyā.) And it involves taking a delusion for a totally correct perception of reality. Therefore, altogether it involves the four aspects or types of avidyā that result from combining the two rDzogs chen classifications enumerated in this book, plus the error that the Pramāṇavāda calls bhrānti or ’khrul. The basis of the delusion in question was expounded by Gregory Bateson (1979, p. 49) as follows: “Numbers are the product of counting. Quantities are the product of measurement. This means that numbers can conceivably be accurate because there is a discontinuity between each integer and the next. Between 71 72 73 2 4 4 4 509 2 4 two and three, there is a jump. In the case of quantity, there is no such jump; and because jump is missing in the world of quantity, it is impossible for any quantity to be exact. You can have exactly three tomatoes. You can never have exactly three gallons of water. Always quantity is approximate. “Even when number and quantity are clearly discriminated, there is another concept that must be recognized and distinguished from both number and quantity. For this other concept, there is, I think, no English word, so we have to be content with remembering that there is a subset of patterns whose members are commonly called ‘numbers.’ Not all numbers are the products of counting. Indeed, it is the smaller, and therefore commoner, numbers that are often not counted but recognized as patterns at a single glance. Card players do not stop to count the pips in the eight of spades and can even recognize the characteristic patterning of pips up to ‘ten.’ “In other words, number is of the world of pattern, gestalt, and digital computation; quantity is of the world of analogic and probabilistic computation.” Who can doubt that conceptual perception is digital and sensa are analog and that hence the former cannot correspond exactly to the latter? At any rate, whoever still doubts it can consult the following two endnotes, which discuss the matter in detail. Sellars’ (1997, p. 15; McClintock, 2003, p. 126) definition of the myth he denounced reads: “…the point of the epistemological category of the given is, presumably, to explicate the idea that empirical knowledge rests on a ‘foundation’ of noninferential knowledge of matter of fact.” McClintock (ibidem) comments on this as follows, “In other words, an entity plays the role of the given as long as that entity is understood to meet two conditions: (a) that it provide a foundation for empirical knowledge, and (b) that it do so noninferentially.” As Sellars (1997, p. 14; McClintock, 2003, p. 126) noted, one of the things that has at times been held to be given is sense contents. In the following endnote, this matter is discussed in great detail, so as to leave no doubts in the minds of the readers as to the fact that sensa may be regarded as given with regard to our conceptual perception of them (and only with regard to our conceptual perception of them), and that asserting this is does not imply falling into the myth of the given as defined by Sellars. In order to show how sensa are constructed by neurological and mental processes and how, if there were a given reality that sensa would convey to us, it would not resemble the reality in question in any way, below I paraphrase, in the terminology of this book, paragraph 8 of bishop Berkeley’s (1963) A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge: “You could reply that... outside the mind [or human experience] ... there could be things that are similar to the phenomena or representations of our experience, but existing outside the mind in a nonthinking substance, of which the phenomena or representations of our experience would be copies or likenesses. I reply that a phenomenon of our experience cannot be something other than a phenomenon of our experience; a color or figure cannot resemble anything but another color or figure. If we observe a bit the phenomena or representations of our experience (whether in perception, reminiscence or fantasy), we shall find it impossible to conceive a similitude except between [various] phenomena or representations of our experience. Again, I ask whether the supposedly original or external things, of which [according to the realist] the phenomena or representations of our experience would be images or representations, would themselves be perceivable or not be so. If they were, then they would be phenomena or representations of experience [rather than the originals posited by the realist] and we would be right; if you say they are not, I will ask anyone whether it makes sense to assert that a color resembles something that is invisible; whether the hard and the soft [may resemble] something that is intangible; and so on and on concerning the rest [of the qualities we perceive].” Berkeley’s point that if there were a reality external to our experience and independent from it, it could not have form, color, sound, taste, odor, texture and all the qualities we perceive through the senses (a fact that Kant’s philosophy acknowledged, even though this philosophy was totally wrong in trying to find an unshakeable basis for dimensionality, truth, beauty, goodness and so on), was purportedly confirmed by physics later on. In order to show how this is so, let us ponder on the words Bertrand Russell (1925) wrote in The ABC of Relativity: “Common sense imagines that when it sees a table it sees a table. This is a gross delusion. When common sense sees a table, certain light waves reach its eyes, and these are of a sort that, in its previous experience, has been associated with certain sensations of touch, as well as with other people’s testimony that they also saw the table. But none of this ever brought to us the table itself. The light waves caused occurrences in our eyes, and these caused occurrences in the optic nerve, and these in turn caused occurrences in the 74 75 510 brain. Any one of these, happening without the usual preliminaries, would have caused us to have the sensation we call ‘seeing the table’, even if there had been no table. (Of course, if matter in general is to be interpreted as a group of occurrences, this must apply also to the eye, the optic nerve and the brain.) As to the sense of touch when we press the table with our fingers, that is an electric disturbance on the electrons and protons of our finger tips, produced, according to modern physics, by the proximity of the electrons and protons in the table. If the same disturbances in our finger-tips arose in any other way, we should have the sensation, in spite of there being no table. The testimony of others is no doubt a secondhand affair. A witness in a law court, if asked whether he had seen some occurrence, would not be allowed to reply that he believed so because of the testimony of others to that effect. In any case, testimony consists of sound waves and demands psychological as well as physical interpretation; its connection with the object is therefore very indirect. For all these reasons, when we say that a man ‘sees a table,’ we use a highly-abbreviated form of expression, concealing complicated and difficult inferences, the validity of which may well be open to question.” It is a fact that, if there were a world existing independently from our experience and externally to it, we would be utterly unable to know it as it is in itself. The purported particle-waves we call photons are supposed to produce alterations in the eye, which are supposed to produce electromagnetic disturbances in the optic nerve, which are supposed to produce the phenomena in our brains that cause us to see light. However, there is no reason to believe that this experience of light is in any way similar to the photons that purportedly hit the eye: these photons never entered our experience, and in themselves the particlewaves that we call photons surely may resemble other particle-waves, but it seems most unlikely that they should resemble in any way our experience of light. Moreover, in dreams and hallucinations we also see light, and the same will occur if we apply pressure on our eyelids, but this light does not arise in response to any supposedly external particle-waves touching the eyes. Scientists would assume our experience to be a product of the brain’s workings, but since there is no way for us to perceive anything other than our experience, the very idea that there is a brain that is not a mere experience (such as the experience we have in the dissection of the corpses of others, from which we “validly” infer that we also have a brain) is clearly open to question. Thus, it is easy to be tempted to conclude that all that that appears is a product of mind, or of the process of experiencing, etc. Though this conclusion would be sound, it does not imply that there is nothing different from our sensations that is conveyed by them. In fact, since it is just as impossible to demonstrate that there is nothing different from and external to our sensations that they convey to us, as it would be to demonstrate that there is something different from them and external to them that they convey to us, twentieth century phenomenology decided to suspend judgment in this regard in what it referred to as the phenomenological epoché, and yet act in all regards as though there were. Finally, does the above reasoning by Russell mean that we do not see the table? Semanticist Alfred Korzybski (1973) stated that “the pattern is the thing”—a statement that at first sight might seem to be somewhat similar to the views of those Cittamātrins and Yogācāra-Svātantrikas Who Take the Aspect to be True (Skt. Satyākāravādin; Tib. rNam bden pa). However, the fact that one accepts that what an entity’s name refers to is merely an image in our awareness does not mean that one has to take that entity to be true qua mere image in our awareness. If fact, what it actually substantiates is the genuine Prāsaṅgika viewless view, which (contrarily to Tsong kha pa’s interpretation) has never involved positing a reality external to awareness having the aspects that each of the six classes of beings perceives it as having, but, quite the contrary, most appropriately suspended judgment as to whether there is or there is not such external reality or substance, while setting out to deconstruct the illusion of substantiality that is the root of suffering. Therefore, very much like twentieth century phenomenology, Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka placed the hypothetical external reality in parentheses, while nonetheless accepting it nominally because the world takes it for granted—Candrakīrti said, “we don’t argue with the world”—and the sentient beings of the world are to be respected. Those who negated it—though they did so only the context of the practice of mental yoga, for this negation was not intended to become an absolute tenet—were the Cittamātrins and Svātantrika-Yogācāra-Madhyamikas, although they are at odds as to whether what appears is true or false qua image in awareness (they are divided into the ones who posit the falseness of aspects [Skt. Alīkākāravādin; Tib. rNam rdzun pa] and the ones who posit the truth of aspects [Skt. Satyākāravādin; Tib. rNam bden pa]—those who posit the falseness of aspects being held to be philosophically superior to those who posit their truth). Thus it is clear that if there were a universe independent from and external to our sensa that these sensa conveyed to us, it would not resemble those sensa in any way. And therefore it is equally clear that our sensa are not given, if by given we understand “not depending in any way from our mechanisms of 511 sensation and perception and our mental functions:” according to contemporary science, sensa are the product of a most complex physio-psychological processing and therefore they could not be given in the sense of not depending on human processing. (Of course, there is no way to prove that the organs that science sees as taking part in the processing in question are more than sense contents and perceptions and inferences produced on the basis of those contents, yet there is no way to prove that they are no more than sense contents either.) However, our sensa may be validly said to be given with regard to our conceptual perception of them, if only in the sense that the perception in question distorts them. In fact, the sensory continuum is a territory that is with the naked eye analog and hence continuous, which is distorted when it is perceived through the filter of digital and as such discontinuous thought, and taken to have in itself the latter’s characteristics. In fact, our sense fields are with the naked eye analog and as such continuous, for no layer of lack of sensa separates the segments of the sense fields we perceive as entities separate from their environment. And according to physics the same is the case with the universe, which is held to be an energy continuum that does not involve layers of nothingness or of some substance other than energy that would separate the segments of the energy field we perceive as separate entities from their environment (it could be adduced that, according to quantum physics, space itself is also digital in the sense of being somehow granulated; in this regard, cf. endnote 217). Therefore, as used in my works, the term given refers to the continuum of sensation, independently of whether or not that continuum is distorted by the superimpositions our mental events and functions make on it. In fact, I call it given only with regard to the pseudo-reality our superimpositions produce because those superimpositions are put and because the ensuing pseudo-reality distorts that continuum by making us perceive it as being in itself discontinuous and as having inherent separations where there are none— because it is our mental events and functions that single out the segment of the continuum that is taken as figure, and nonetheless we wrongly experience the figure as being in itself separate from the rest of the continuum, and because of the rest of the reasons adduced above. However, as already shown, this does not mean that the sensa that are thus distorted are either true or false. The problem is that following the publication of Wilfrid Sellars’ Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind (1956) and Science, Perception and Reality (1963), the term given became taboo in philosophy, and thereafter it gradually became objectionable in different sciences and disciplines, in which its users are now routinely dismissed as upholding the myth of the given. At some point this taboo extended to the fields of transpersonal psychology (Ferrer, 2002) and of studies on religion, spirituality and mysticism (Ferrer, 2008; Ferrer & Sherman, 2008a, 2008b)—rapidly extending itself to Buddhist philosophy, as well as to Tibetology and Buddhology (McClintock, 2003). In fact, Sellars wrote (1997, p. 15; McClintock, 2003, p. 126): “…the point of the epistemological category of the given is, presumably, to explicate the idea that empirical knowledge rests on a ‘foundation’ of noninferential knowledge of matter of fact.” McClintock (Ibidem) expands on this as follows, “In other words, an entity plays the role of the given as long as that entity is understood to meet two conditions: (a) that it provide a foundation for empirical knowledge, and (b) that it do so noninferentially.” As Sellars (1997, p. 14; McClintock, 2003, p. 126) noted, one of the things that has at times been held to be given is sense contents. Since what I am referring to as the given is the basis of all imputations and of all superimpositions, which could be conceptualized as the “continuum of sense-data of all sense-fields” (including the sense-field where according to Buddhism we perceive mental contents), this note seemed necessary in order to clarify my understanding of the positionless position of the higher Buddhist systems. With regard to the distinction between the bare continuum of sensation, and perception of the segments we single out in that continuum in terms of supersubtle and subtle thought-contents (cf. the section of the Introductory Study to Chöphel, G. y Capriles, E. [unpublished] called “Can the Ultimate be an Object Appearing to a Subject?”), rDzogs chen practice makes it evident that one thing is the raw continuum of sensation and quite another the recognition / perception of segments of the continuum of sensation as being in themselves separate from the rest of the sensory field and as being inherently this or that. It is in order to distinguish our digital and as such discontinuous perceptions of sensa from the sensory territory that they interpret—which is with the naked eye analog and as such continuous, and which therefore the perceptions in question utterly, most radically distort—that I assert the territory to be given with regard to our perceptions of it. This is so in spite of the self-evident fact that both the seemingly analog, continuous territory and those digital, discontinuous perceptions result from our experience-constructing mechanisms. However, this very purpose shows very clearly that the given is not in any way posited as a justification of truth, which is that which, according to Wilfrid Sellars, the so-called myth of the given is expected to do. 512 In fact, according to the rDzogs chen teachings, perception is preceded by an instant of bare, uninterpreted sensation that in ordinary beings is an instance of what the rDzogs chen teachings call the base-of-all (Tib. kun gzhi; Skt. ālaya; Ch. 来源 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, láiyuán; Wade-Giles, lai -yüan ]). Suppose that you are kidnapped, then blindfolded and then taken to a place you don’t know, where the blindfold is taken off your eyes: the first appearance that will be available to your visual field would be a continuum of visual sensation, which would be an instance of pure sensation, in the sense of being uninterpreted, unrecognized, unperceived sensation. Immediately, a preconceptual activity will search for potential patterns / configurations / collections of characteristics of interest in the field; in this case, your interest might be to find a pattern / configuration / collection of characteristics in the sensory continuum that may be identified as a possible way out. Imagine that you begin by looking for a door in order to make sure it was already locked. In that case, the first pattern / configuration / collection of characteristics you will single out will be the door: the instant you single it out, before you actually perceive it in terms of the subtle concept of door (in the terminology of both the rDzogs chen teachings and the Pramāṇa tradition, the subtle concept in terms of which this perception occurs is an abstracted general configuration / collection of characteristics [Skt. sāmānyalakṣaṇa; Tib. spyi mtshan; Ch. 共相 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, gòngxiàng; Wade-Giles, kung -hsiang )], which in this case is of the type that here I am designating as universal, abstract concept of an entity [resulting from a mental synthesis] [Skt. arthasāmānya; Tib. don spyi; Ch. 總事 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngshì; Wade-Giles, tsung -shih ) or 總義 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngyì; Wade-Giles, tsung -i )]), there is an instance of that which the rDzogs chen teachings refer to as the consciousness of the base-of-all (Skt. ālayavijñāna; Tib. kun gzhi rnam shes; Ch. 阿賴耶識 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, ālàiyē shí; Wade-Giles, a -lai -yeh shih ] or 藏識 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zàngshì; Wade-Giles, tsang -shih ])—a term that in this case I use in one of the metaphenomenological senses it has in these teachings, to refer to a preperceptual cognition. It is in the immediately following instant that full, proper recognition / perception of the door takes place, for at that point the sensory configuration is properly recognized / perceived as a door, and taken to be in itself a separate entity, and to be in itself a door—an absolute delusion, for it is a door only for civilized human perception, on which it depends in order to be a door. (The same process that was illustrated with this example occurs in ordinary situations, but the example may allow the reader to develop certainty as to the fact that these are the steps leading to perception.) So, first the base-of-all arises beyond the subject-object duality. Then a subject arises that knows the seeming totality as object, giving rise to a samsaric formless condition. Next, when a segment of the continuum is singled out, this is the consciousness of the base-of-all. Then the form is fully, properly recognized in terms of a concept. And this concept, due to its being associated with a positive, negative or neutral judgment, elicits an emotional reaction, giving rise to the consciousness of the passions (Skt. kliṣṭamanovijñāna; Tib. nyon [mongs pa can gyi] yid kyi rnam [par] shes [pa]; Ch. 末那識 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, mònà shì; Wade-Giles, mo -na shih ]). Finally, we take birth in the corresponding samsaric realm among the six that pertain to the realm of sensuality—in a psychological sense, for this description does not apply to physical birth: it explains how, during the lifetime of a physically human individual, he or she takes psychological birth in different realms. Thus it is clear that the rDzogs chen teachings altogether negate the existence of self-existing, inherently separate entities of the kind that the Pramāṇa tradition calls inherent particulars, inherent specifically characterized phenomena, self-configurations or self-collections of characteristics (Skt. svalakṣaṇa; Tib. rang mtshan; Ch. ⾃相 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxiàng; Wade-Giles, tzu -hsiang ]), which would be inherent bases of imputations that would then be grasped and perceived in terms of a mental, abstracted general configuration / collection of characteristics (Skt. sāmānyalakṣaṇa; Tib. spyi mtshan; Ch. 共相 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, gòngxiàng; Wade-Giles, kung -hsiang ])—and which, if they existed, could be potentially used as a basis of truth and hence would be a given in Sellars’ sense. In fact, what there is in the first moment, is a sensory continuum having no inherent separations—into which our perception introduces separations. Therefore, there are no inherently separate bases of imputations that may be regarded either as the hypostatic particulars posited by the Pramāṇa tradition, or as that which both some Svātantrika Madhyamikas and rJe Tsong kha pa called mere existents or merely existent entities and that according to their respective systems must not be negated in the forms of analysis that each of those two systems teach (cf. Capriles, unpublished 1, unpublished 3; Chöphel & Capriles, unpublished). Moreover, I could have singled out the doorknob rather than the door—which shows that the door is not inherently a unity. In fact, the arguments in Candrakīrti’s sevenfold reasoning, for example, call attention to the fact that whatever we perceive as a unity is actually a sum or collection of parts, and that the same happens to each 2 4 4 3 3 2 4 4 1 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 513 4 4 of the parts, so that at the end we do not find anything at all—at which point either the mind collapses with the whole realm of conceptuality, and the absolute truth is disclosed, or else one finds a conceptual no-thing-ness appearing as object, which would sustain delusion and, if taken for the absolute truth, would take one into the extreme of nihilism while one mistakenly believes to have achieved realization. (It could be thought that a third possibility would be that at that point one found a limitless continuum that one would interpret as being the sensory continuum or as being the energy continuum that according to contemporary physics the universe is; however, on the one hand what one finds depends on what one seeks, and on the other, just as was the case with Aristotle’s prima materia, this continuum cannot really be perceived as such, as it can only be arrived at through inference—although its perception is mimicked by the lowest of the four formless realms and four formless contemplations. In fact, just as for Aristotle the prima materia could not be perceived as such, for only the forms it adopts are perceivable, the limitless cannot be perceived, for only what has limits is perceivable; therefore, in the formless realm and the formless contemplation in question what one perceives is not really limitless—firstly because all concepts are defined by exclusion [Skt. apoha; Tib. sel ba; 除 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chú; Wade-Giles, ch’u ) or 遮除 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēchú; Wade-Giles, che -ch’u )] or exclusion of other [Skt. anyāpoha; Tib. gzhan sel; Ch. 他感排除 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tā gǎn páichú; Wade-Giles, t’a -kan p’ai -ch’u ); another possibility, though far less likely: 他者的遮除 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tāzhědí zhēchú; Wade-Giles, t’a -che -ti che -ch’u )]—and secondly because what is known will always exclude part of the sensory continuum [e.g., the mental subject will be excluded, as will also be all that is behind the perceiver’s body, etc.].) The argument shows that whenever one perceives something as a unitary entity that is in itself this or that entity (e.g. the door), one is under delusion, for one may then do the same with each of its parts, until one realizes that neither the entity (the door) nor any of its parts are a unitary entity that is in itself this or that entity: in the terminology of the Pramāṇa tradition, that which has revealed itself is the nonexistence of hypostatic, self-existing, inherently existing extended particulars, specifically characterized phenomena, self-configurations or self-collections of characteristics (Skt. svalakṣaṇa; Tib. rang mtshan; Ch. ⾃相 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxiàng; Wade-Giles, tzu -hsiang ]); in terms of the system of rJe Tsong kha pa, that which has revealed itself is the nonexistence of the mere existents or merely existent entities that he posited. However, whereas this could make Svātantrikas happy because they have discovered what they call the figurative absolute truth (Skt. paramārthānukūlaparamārtha; Tib. don dam pa dang mthun pa’i don dam pa) and they have come to the verge of realizing the true absolute truth that they called the nonfigurative absolute truth (Skt. aparyāyaparamārtha; Tib. rnam grangs ma yin pa’i don dam), followers of rJe Tsong kha pa would probably panic in the false belief that they have fallen into the extreme of nihilism by taking as object of analysis a basis of analysis that, as such, according to their system must not be turned into an object of analysis to be negated. Thus I reiterate that, regarding ordinary samsaric experience, I use the term given to refer to whatever appears in the initial instant of bare sensation, before the processing that leads to singling out a figure and then perceiving it in terms of a concept has been activated, and that rather than using it to uphold the purported truth of the perceived, I use the concept in order to show its untruth. In particular, my use of the term does not imply the existence of two separate substances: one that is interpreted in perception (whether it is conceived as grossly configured, like Descartes’ res extensa; as non-phenomenal, such as Kant’s Dingan-sich; or somewhere in between, such as David Bohm’s implicate order), and one that interprets it (no matter whether it is Descartes’ res cogitans, Kant’s empirical consciousness [founded on a transcendental consciousness], or Bohm’s mind [which, anyhow, unlike the two aforementioned philosophers, the noted physicist did not posit as a separate substance]). Perceiver and perceived arise coemergently in rDzogs chen-qua-Base when delusion is active, by means of a processing that cannot be ascribed to any of the resulting parts, for previously to their arising there are no such parts. (This is not a mere theory, but a fact that any rDzogs chen practitioner can witness and corroborate in her or his practice). Nevertheless, once both illusory aspects have arisen, it may be said to be the interplay of the two of them—which, however, in reality continues to be the play of the energy of rDzogs chen-qua-Base—that creates the delusive reality of saṃsāra. (An alternative to the views of Descartes, Kant and Bohm was posited by Third Promulgation sūtras and the philosophical schools based on them—namely that there is non-material basis of experience that is not always itself experience: the ālayavijñāna or kun gzhi rnam [par] shes [pa]. However, also in this case our sensa would be constructed by neurological and/or mental processes.) (Cf. the works by David Bohm and Karl Pribram in the Reference Section, as well as the two works listed as Wilber, 1982.) 2 1 2 1 3 2 2 1 4 4 514 3 2 1 2 The reader could object that he or she never experienced the moment of pure sensation posited above, and that Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka has explicitly rejected the existence of such a moment. To the first objection I would reply that in ordinary experience it is as a rule undetected, for as noted above it is an instance of the base-of-all involving the presence (of) the sensory continuum, and since the baseof-all does not involve awareness (of) consciousness of object, it cannot be self-consciously, reflexively remembered: consciousness, attention and interest (which as noted above is what drives attention) have not yet arisen. And then I would advise she or he to practice pacification meditation (Skt. śamatha; Pāḷi: samatha; Tib. zhi gnas; Chinese ⽌ [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhǐ; Wade-Giles, chih]; Jap: shi) in order to slow down the process of perception and be able to clearly detect the moment of pure sensation, which then may come to last for a long time: though in the moment in question there will be no awareness (of) consciousness of object, the instant consciousness arises one will most clearly realize that the preceding moment there was bare sensation. To the second objection I would reply that what Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka does refute is the same it refutes concerning the whole of relative truth: just as Mi pham and many other Prāsaṅgikas throughout history noted with regard to concepts such as that of svasaṃvedana / svasaṃvitti or that of ālayavijñāna in the sense it has in Third Promulgation sūtras, that which the Prāsaṅgika rejects is the inherent, hypostatic or absolute existence of the referent of such concepts. Likewise, that which Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka does refute regarding the thesis according to which a moment of pure sensation precedes perception, is that the moment in question is inherently separate from the ensuing perception, thus refuting the purported inherent, hypostatic or absolute existence of the referent of this concept, or of the given that appears in that instant. (This, of course, differs from the interpretation of rJe Tsong kha pa.) In the fields of philosophy of religion and transpersonal psychology, Jorge Ferrer (2002, p. 146) gave to understand that the sensory continuum, instead of an analog continuum, is a sum of discrete, digital substances. He illustrated this with the distinctions among flavors and among colors, affirming that they are independent from our perception of them. Taking as an example the distinctions between the flavors of mustard, cheese and chocolate, he claimed that they exist independently of any concept we may apply to them. He also referred to experiments that show people to be able to distinguish different colors even if they lack the respective concepts. For the sake of clarity, rather than outright discussing whether or not there are distinctions in sensa, I will briefly discuss whether or not there are separations in it. Well, it seems to be true that, as Plato noted, the sensory basis of perception is articulated: an articulation allows our perception to separate the forearm from the arm, another one allows it to separate the hand from the forearm, and so on—and on the basis of these articulations different concepts arise that we can apply to our experience (note that this last fact contradicts Plato, who affirmed the existence of eidos [εἶδος] that, rather than deriving from experience, served as an objective basis for our experience of entities, values and so on). However, articulations are not separations, for as Einstein’s noted Field Theory and post-Einsteinian physical systems acknowledge, they are not inherent separations in the continuum that in their view the Universe is—and the same in all lights applies to what I have called the “basis of the imputation of the term sensory continuum,” which common sense assumes to be our way to have access to an external universe: that basis of imputations is an analog continuum in which separations arise only when our perceptual mechanisms sharply cut it on the basis of its articulations. For example, first the illusory subject-object split or chasm is introduced. Then a sharp figure-ground division is introduced, and the figure is perceived in terms of a sharply defined concept that contrasts with other concepts. In short, though the sensory continuum has some kind of articulations in Plato’s sense, I refer to it as a continuum because it is itself undivided—divisions being introduced by human perception, which cuts it on the basis of digital, discontinuous concepts. And this signifies that the perception of the continuum of sensa in terms of concepts always involves a delusion (this delusion being, indeed, the combination of aspects or types [2] and [3] of avidyā in the most widespread classification [the senses or aspects of avidyā in the rDzogs chen teachings were explained at the beginning of the Chapter on the Mahāyāna Version of the Second Noble Truth]). The above is most clear in the case of the examples Ferrer (ibidem) gives, for in the color spectrum there is no precise division at which the gradation of color ceases to be red and begins to be orange, or at which orange ceases to be orange and begins to be yellow—the continuity of the spectrum attesting to the fact that not only separations, but also distinctions, rather than lying in a given, depend on singling out specific segments of the sensory continuum and understanding them in terms of the respective concept. 515 In fact, it is only when distinctions have been made by human perception as described above, that we have the experience of colors, flavors and so on as different from each other; before that, properly speaking there are no distinctions: what there is, is utterly inconceivable flavoredness, coloredness, and so on (according to the sense involved)—this being the reason why in Verse XII of the Dàodéjīng (Ch. 道德經 ; Wade-Giles Tao -te -ching Lǎozǐ (Ch. ⽼⼦; Wade-Giles, Lao -tzu ) wrote: “The five colors blind the eye. The five tones deafen the ear. The five flavors dull the taste.” In brief, the fact that the given (in the moderate sense I give the term) is formed and colored and so on does not imply that it involves either separations or digital distinctions at the level of intermediate dimensions: both of these are made by our singling out segments of the continuous gradation of the spectrum of the given and understanding them in terms of the digital contents of thought. Paradoxically, what Ferrer was claiming was that sensory differences were given, and was using this claim to negate the viewless view of all the higher forms of Buddhism, implicitly validating the perceptions of common sense—thus falling into the myth of the given right as Sellars defined it. The point under discussion may be proven as well by the Ancient Greek perception of colors, among which I originally had in mind the color glauko (γλαυκό)—which was the color of the sea, but which was also the color of red wine and of a wide range of what nowadays we see as quite different, distinct colors. However, in the Internet I found a text that offers a series of quite precise examples of what I had in mind, clearly showing how different from our own was the ancient Greeks’ perception of colors, and I decided that it was easier to quote its initial paragraphs (in spite of the fact that the author explains the radical differences between the ancient Greeks’ classification of colors and our own by wrongly asserting the retina of the ancient Greek not to have evolved to its present degree of evolution). The text goes as follows (Triulzi, 2006): “Ancient Greek Color Vision “As seen through the eyes of the Ancient Greeks, color perception is a very different thing than our own color perception. Why is this, what is it about our eyes and brains that causes this difference of visual perception from person to person and culture to culture? “In his writings Homer surprises us by his use of color. His color descriptive palate was limited to metallic colors, black, white, yellowish green and purplish red, and those colors he often used oddly, leaving us with some questions as to his actual ability to see colors properly. (1) He calls the sky ‘bronze’ and the sea and sheep as the color of wine, he applies the adjective chloros (χλωρός, meaning green with our understanding) to honey, and a nightingale. (2) Chloros is not the only color that Homer uses in this unusual way. He also uses kyanos (κύανος) oddly, ‘Hector was dragged, his kyanos hair was falling about him.’ (3) Here it would seem, to our understanding, that Hector’s hair was blue as we associate the term kyanos with the semi-precious stone lapis lazuli, in our thinking kyanos means cyan. (4) But we cannot assume that Hector’s hair was blue, rather, in light of the way that Homer consistently uses color adjectives, we must think about his meaning, did he indeed see honey as green, did he not see the ocean as blue, how does his perception of color reflect on himself, his people, and his world. “Homer’s odd color description usage was a cultural phenomenon and not simply color blindness on his part, Pindar describes the dew as chloros, in Euripides chloros describes blood and tears. (5) Empedocles, one of the earliest Ancient Greek color theorists, described color as falling into four areas, light or white, black or dark, red and yellow; Xenophanes described the rainbow as having three bands of color: purple, green/yellow, and red. (6) These colors are fairly consistent with the four colors used by Homer in his color description, this leads us to the conclusion that all Ancient Greeks saw color only in the premise of 4 2 1 3 516 3 Empedocles’ colors, in some way they lacked the ability to perceive the whole color spectrum.” (Submitted by Ananda Triulzi on Mon, 11/27/2006, 11:18 AM: Biology. The strange syntax was in the text and is not my responsibility.) The fact that the interpretation of color in digital terms is always imprecise, precisely because the digital and discontinuous can never match the analog and continuous, is proven by the fact that systems and programs for digital computers, in order to give the impression that the images they produce approach to some extent the sensa they reproduce, must have millions of colors—and even then there is always a mismatch between the image and the sensa it reproduces. Now let us ponder on the myth of the given as part of a foundationalist theory of justification. In this regard, Sara McClintock (2003, p. 128) writes: “When the given is understood as part of a foundationalist theory of justification, as it almost invariably is, the given provides the warrant for the basic beliefs that themselves ground further empirical knowledge. The given is thus [taken to be] that which prevents an infinite regress in the process of justification of true beliefs.” Then, on discussing whether or not the Buddhist Pramāṇavāda tradition that was founded by Dignāga, given continuity by Dharmakīrti and then taken up by the Svātantrikas, could validly be viewed as a foundationalist theory of justification, McClintock (2003, p. 129) wrote: “…even though Buddhist epistemologists understand perception as nonerroneous, nonconceptual awareness—as a kind of direct and full-blown encounter with the real—there are good grounds for caution in referring to the contents of perception as the given, since perceptual awareness alone seems unable to ground or justify basic beliefs.” I have some reserve with regard to the above statement, but this is not the place to discuss it. At any rate, that which in this book is referred to as an instant of bare sensation is not perception, but something that precedes perception, and, moreover, it is not asserted to constitute the truth, or the basis on which truth may be inferred, but it is acknowledged to constitute a condition that normally involves one of the senses or types of avidyā (for it ordinarily appears as the condition of the base-of-all, which involves avidyā in the first sense in all rDzogs chen classifications) and that, when used as the raw material of perception, is distorted by the latter—because perception is digital whereas sensation is analog (at least with the naked eye), and perception always involves the four senses or aspects of avidyā that result from combining the two classifications discussed in this book, as well as the error that the Pramāṇavāda calls bhrānti or ’khrul. Conversely, when the true condition of the whole universe and ourselves becomes patent, bare sensation is not distorted by perception, as neither the latter nor avidyā enter the picture at that point. (As noted above, the senses or aspects of avidyā in the rDzogs chen teachings were explained at the beginning of the Chapter on the Mahāyāna Version of the Second Noble Truth.) Then, with regard to Tsong kha pa’s objection to the Svātantrika use of the Pramāṇavāda’s justifications of relative, conventional, supposedly “correct” knowledge and “correct perception,” McClintock (2003, pp. 131-132) writes: “Tsong kha pa maintains that the Svātantrikas go wrong as Madhyamikas when they allow the given to play a role in conventional awareness and in the conventional ascertainment of right and wrong. Prāsaṅgikas like Candrakīrti, in contrast, get it right when they insist that even the conventional is devoid of the given, that perceptual awareness (at least in the case of unenlightened beings) is not free from the imputations of beginningless ignorance, and that any attempt to ground conventional judgments in the given is futile and misguided. In other words, as the best kind of Madhyamikas recognize, entities do not appear to the mind of an ordinary being “just as they are.” Rather, such appearances are already shaped by the primordial erroneous presuppositions (i.e., the ignorance) of that being’s mind, and as such, they are unsuited to ground empirical or any other sort of knowledge.” I will not stop to discuss the fact that, since Tsong kha pa acknowledges the above, when he insists that there are mere existents or merely existent entities that are bases of analysis but not objects of analysis and that therefore they must not be refuted, he is consciously asking followers to let erroneous presuppositions and ignorance (i.e. avidyā) be, and since avidyā is the cause of saṃsāra, he is asking his followers to let saṃsāra be, rather than proceeding on the Path to Awakening. That which concerns us here is the fact, which must be clear by now, that both the rDzogs chen teachings and a rNying ma interpretation of Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka that I share claim that an instant of pure sensation precedes superimpositions, and whether or not the rDzogs chen teachings and the just mentioned interpretation of Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka incur in the error Tsong kha pa denounces. In analysis seeking the absolute the moment of pure sensation preceding perception is certainly not found; 517 however, in the experience of the relative realm it undeniably appears. Why then do the rDzogs chen teachings and my interpretation of Prāsaṅgika posit that moment of pure sensation preceding perception, and why have I been referring to a given (which at any rate is not totally given, for it is given only with regard to what is conceptually put)? Certainly not in order to validate ordinary knowledge; on the contrary, the purpose of so doing is to show ordinary knowledge to be by its very nature deluded and delusive, and to show how does delusion arise, for this is of key importance in order to undo delusion. And, by the same token, to make it clear that truth lies in not taking any perception, thought or element of human experience to be absolutely true. In other words, no myth of the given is posited, but if it is still claimed that it is, then the opponent who claims that this is the case must acknowledge that such myth is introduced in full awareness of the fact that all that we humans think and believe is myth. In fact, it is enough to apply the refutations employed by the so-called Madhyamikas of the model texts, those used by Candrakīrti, and even those by other Madhyamikas—as well as those by Pyrrhonics and Greek and subsequent European Skeptics—in order to show that what we perceive as given facts is no more than illusions (so that there are no true things in our own experience either), and that hence our belief that there is such a thing as facts, as well as all our theories, are no more than myths. This is one of the reasons why in a recent book (Capriles, 2012a) and various papers, following George Sorel (1922, 1906, 1908), I asserted progress to be a myth, science to be a myth, the so-called scientific character of Marxism to be a myth, and in general all of our assumptions about reality to be myths. This agrees to some extent with Nietzsche’s “On Truth and Lie in a Nonmoral Sense” (Nietzsche, 1873; this English Ed. Undated 1—a paper that remained unpublished for very long time), which identifies as metaphors what most people take to be truths: rather than knowing things in themselves as they truly are, we know them through a series of metaphorizations—from thing-in-itself to sense-data, to mental image, to word, to mediation in a cultural sphere of meaning, and back to reference to the thing. However, since thing-in-itself is itself a metaphorization, each transformation is a metaphor of what it transforms, without relatedness to an origin or foundation: there are only metaphoric transformations. In the same work Nietzsche wrote: “What then is truth? A movable host of metaphors, metonymies, and anthropomorphisms: in short, a sum of human relations which have been poetically and rhetorically intensified, transferred, and embellished, and which, after long usage, seem to a people to be fixed, canonical, and binding. Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions—they are metaphors that have become worn out and have been drained of sensuous force, coins which have lost their embossing and are now considered as metal and no longer as coins.” In this way, what is normally taken to be facts is shown to be no more than illusions, whereas all that is normally taken to be correct knowledge is shown to be no more than myth built on the basis of the processes of erring. In the same vein, in the Genealogy of Morals Nietzsche (1999) went on to assert facts not to exist, and to assert all that we assume to be so, to be mere interpretation. On these bases, Gianni Vattimo (1995, p. 50) correctly writes: “Nihilism means in Nietzsche ‘de-valorization of the supreme values’ and fabulation of the world: there are no facts, only interpretations, and this is also an interpretation.” The above seems very similar to the way Mahāyāna and other, even higher forms of Buddhism view what we regard as facts and truths. However, Nietzsche does not seem to contemplate a “real Truth” that would lie in Seeing through the errors hitherto taken as truths—such as the Heraclitan aletheia (ἀλήθεια) as understood in other works of mine (Capriles, 2007a Vol. I and minor works) or the Buddhist Awakening, which, rather than lying in the experience of hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized concepts that we wrongly take to be absolutely true (as is the case with the pseudo-truths accepted by metaphysics, religion, science or common sense, regardless of whether they are understood as adæquatio rei et intellectus, as clara et distincta perceptio, in terms of Heidegger’s misinterpretation of Heraclitus’ aletheia [ἀλήθεια], or whatever else), lies in the spontaneous liberation of hypostasized / absolutized / reified / valorized concepts—including the ones that take part in perception—which shows these concepts to be no more than fictions. And since it is the contents of thought that constitute the built / produced / contrived / conditioned (Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi: saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch., 有為 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ]) pseudo-reality that conceals our true, unproduced / uncontrived / unconditioned / unmade (Skt. asaṃskṛta; Pāḷi, asaṅkhata; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無爲 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; WadeGiles, wu -wei ]) condition, if avidyā in the first of the senses the term has in the two rDzogs chen classifications discussed in this book dissolves together with the contents of thought in question, this instantly results in the patency of the true, unproduced / uncontrived / unconditioned / unmade condition in question. Failure to acknowledge this “real Truth,” as in the case of Vattimo during his “postmodern” 3 2 2 2 518 period, can only give rise to a most harmful type of nihilism, which would doom humankind to despair and ultimately result in our self-destruction. Now, does positing a real Truth, or a true, unproduced / uncontrived / unmade / unconditioned condition that is concealed by superimposition of thought-contents, represent a reintroduction of the myth of there being a foundation? To begin with, let me note that, if all is myth, then there are at least two types of myths: those that are viable and wholesome, and those that are unviable and pathological. This naturally follows from the criterion of Truth qua absence of delusion amply discussed in this and other books of mine (quite at length in Capriles, 2013b, Chapter I). In the discussion in question it was shown that myths such as those of substantiality and self-existence, of inherent duality, of inherent plurality and so on are proven erroneous by their effects. If one who believes to be going north discovers that she or he is heading south, this proves her or his belief to have been erroneous: the myths in question are erroneous in the sense that they fail to achieve the aim they were intended to achieve and, contrariwise, achieve the very opposite, thus proving themselves to be unviable and pathological. Therefore, finding them to be erroneous means discovering that they must be cast off. Moreover, in the case of the just mentioned myths, if they are not abandoned in the very near future, they will bring about the self-destruction of our species. (I explain the distortion involved, in part by saying that the world of sensa and that which Freud [trans. J. Strachey, 1954] called primary process are analog and thus continuous, as well as holistic in nature, whereas the way in which that world and that process are experienced and understood by secondary process is digital and as such discontinuous, as well as fragmentary in nature: this is a key reason why this way of experiencing and understanding the world of sensa and primary process necessarily distorts them. Some of the other reasons why this is the case were listed in others of my works [e.g. Capriles, 1994].) I also note that good myths are posited in full awareness that they are myths, whereas bad myths are posited in the belief that they are the Truth and therefore involve the basic confusion that constitutes the third sense of avidyā in the second rDzogs chen classification. In fact, so long as one takes secondary process interpretations for what they interpret, or as precisely corresponding to the latter, one is under the influence of all three senses of avidyā in all rDzogs chen classifications, and hence one necessarily takes one’s myths to be either facts of truths about facts—rather than realizing them to be no more than myths. By implication, my explanation and use of the concept of the given in full awareness that it is a myth, yet also in full awareness that Truth qua lack of delusion lies in the disclosure of rDzogs chen-qua-Base that constitutes both rDzogs chen-qua-Path and rDzogs chen-qua-Fruit and that goes along with the spontaneous liberation of all thoughts and the dissolution of the first sense or type of avidyā, may provide a foundation for rDzogs chen theory and practice—just as the awareness that the Absolute Truth of the Mahāyāna is realized when interpretations in their totality dissolve in the patency of the absolute expanse of the true condition (of all phenomena) may provide a basis for Mahāyāna practice. Have the concept of Truth and, by implication, that of a given—in this case the Base of rDzogs chen or the absolute expanse of the true condition (of all phenomena)—been introduced once more at this point? The reader is free to make her or his own conclusions. At any rate, here Truth refers to the collapse of all interpretations and the dissolution of avidyā in all of the senses or aspects the term has in all the rDzogs chen classifications, because the absolute expanse of the true condition (of all phenomena) and rDzogs chen-qua-Base simply cannot be interpreted or conceptually and dualistically known in any terms. When this truly happens, the sensory continuum that in the process leading to ordinary perception appears in the initial instant of pure sensation, continues to appear, yet it does so without the veil constituted by the first aspect or sense of avidyā, and of course without the superimposition of the subject-object duality or any other conceptual projection—and hence at this point no sense or aspect of avidyā is active that may blur the true condition and character of what appears. And, most important, the concept that this is a foundation, something rock-solid on which to build anything, simply cannot arise in this condition, as all concepts have collapsed together with the illusion of substantiality: myths cannot be mistaken for facts in the all-liberating single gnosis that dissolves all hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized thoughts, even though alternative myths can be posited in the way Candrakīrti called “other-directed” or “exteriordirected” assertions (Tib. gzhan ngo khas len: cf. the section of the Introductory Study to Chöphel & Capriles [unpublished] that bears this name in its title): assertions that the propounder does not believe, and which she or he makes as skillful means to lead others on the Path. What is central to me is, thus, that this puts an end to all of the evil effects of delusion, so that if achieved by an individual it will fully resolve the “problem of life” for him or her, while by the same token enabling her or him to achieve the benefit of others—and if achieved by a sufficient number of people so that, metaphorically speaking, 519 “critical mass is reached,” it may be the condition of possibility of the survival of our species and the beginning of a new era of Communion, equality, ecological balance and individual fulfillment. I assume that on the basis of the above it could still be claimed that I am using bare sensation as part of a foundationalist theory of justification, whereby what is justified is Awakening (which, however, if justified at all in this book, is so because of its being free from all aspects and senses of avidyā rather than in terms of a theory of adæquatio, as I asserted the latter to be impossible). And if so, then the reader is free to see this book as upholding the myth of the given, or, because it asserts what we take for facts and truths to be no more than myths, to view it as an attempt to help all of us humans see our myths for what they are: I myself do not care whether it is seen one way or the other, and will continue to use “good myths” as a means to help both self and others go beyond myths—i.e. in the same way in which the Buddhist sage Aśvaghoṣa said that we must use words (that is, in order to go beyond words). Contrariwise, those who assert that the given is always a myth and that all that arises is co-created, since cocreation means that two different agents are involved in creation, take as Truth and as given the myth that there is no given and that there are at least two different substances that participate in creation (which, it seems, are taken to be given). Therefore, they are upholding a myth that they take not to be a myth and that is a myth of the given which is not any less dangerous than the myth of the given that they abhor and deride. Does not one have to assume the given character of at least two substances in order to posit cocreation and hence a participative view of spirituality? If the viewless view other-directedly expressed in this book could be viewed as a case of the myth of the given, at least it could not be viewed as a substantialistic, dualistic myth of the given like the ones that are at the root of the current ecological crisis, and like the one upheld by those who posit co-creation and therefore a participative view of spirituality (in Ferrer’s case, he did so at least until 2017). This is why ’Ju Mi pham rgya mtsho (1846–1912) asserted the Prāsaṅgika School to be “suddenist” and the Svātantrika School to be “gradualist.” Cf. Capriles (unpublished 1, unpublished 3). Even though the classification into Svātantrika and Prāsaṅgika is known in the West by the Sanskrit names of these two subschools, in Indian literature the distinction in question seems to be nonexistent. In fact, the only occurrence of one of these terms that has been detected in an Indian text is that of Svātantrika a couple of times in the Madhyamakāvatāraṭīkā by Jayānanda, which this Indian interpreter of Candrakīrti used to refer to advocates of a position that he saw Candrakīrti as opposing (Cabezón, 2003, p. 292. It must be noted, however, that Jayānanda spent a long time in Tibet, and that Cabezón consulted the text just referred to in its Tibetan translation). At any rate, scholars as a rule assume the classification and terminology to have arisen in Tibet in the eleventh or twelfth century CE—the most ancient known texts in which it appears being the translations of works by Candrakīrti by Tibetan translator Pa tshab nyi ma grags, who, in spite of Jayānanda’s previous use of the term Svātantrika, is thus regarded as the probable originator of the terminological distinction (Dreyfus & McClintock, eds. 2003, passim; a longer discussion of this subject is available in Capriles, unpublished 1). Note that, since Prāsaṅgikas circumscribed themselves to drawing unwanted consequences from the theses put forward by others and the syllogisms used by others (although they were permitted to put forward theses and syllogisms so long as they themselves did not take them to be the truth and their opposites to be false—this being that which is referred to as inferences based on reasons acknowledged by the opponent only [Skt. praprasiddhānumāna; Tib. gzhan grags kyi rjes su dpag pa / gzhan la grags pa’i rjes dpag]), Jeffrey Hopkins rendered the label in question as Consequentialists; likewise, since Svātantrikas posited autonomous theses and syllogisms, he rendered this label as Autonomists. As stated in the preceding endnote, Jayānanda spent a long time in Tibet, and Cabezón consulted the text just referred to in its Tibetan translation. According to Tibetan tradition it was Maitreya, the Buddha of the future, who inspired Asaṅga after the latter did intense devotional practice having Maitreya as its object; however, nowadays all (or nearly all) Western scholars and various Tibetan Masters agree that the one who inspired Asaṅga was the philosopher and Buddhist teacher, Maitreya or Maitreyanātha, also called Ajita (meaning “Invincible”). Note that the name Maitreya derives from the Skt. maitrī, meaning benevolent love or loving kindness. Tradition has it that Vasubandhu (author of Sarvāstivādin texts such as the famous Abhidharmakośa, of Yogācāra texts like the Viṃśatikā, of the poetic work Triṃśikā, and of various commentaries) had been a Hīnayāna Sarvāstivādin until his conversion to the Mahāyāna (particularly to the Yogācāra School) by influence of his elder brother, Asaṅga. Erich Frauwallner has proposed the alternative theory according to which the Vasubandhu who was the author of Yogācāra texts and brother of Asaṅga (who, according to the Platform Sūtra of the Sixth Patriarch [Wong Mou-Lam and A. F. Price, translators, 1969], was the 76 77 78 79 80 520 twenty-first link in the transmission of Chán or Zen) lived in the fourth century CE, but the Vasubandhu who was the author of Sarvāstivādin texts was another individual, who flourished in the fifth century. However, this alternative theory has not been well received by current scholarship. (According to Tibetan chronology, Asaṅga was born approximately on 420 CE; if this were the correct chronology, both Asaṅga and his brother Vasubandhu would have lived in the fifth century CE.) The terms Yogācāra and Cittamātra are most often used as exact synonyms; however, according to some interpretations (e.g. Lipman, 1983 / 1986), the term Cittamātra refers to a reductionist understanding of the canonical sources of the Third Promulgation, and the term Yogācāra to a more sophisticated comprehension of the same sources. For a discussion of this cf. Capriles (2014). The idea that nirvāṇa involves a “pure dependence” is an obvious error of this school, for in nirvāṇa there is no subject-object duality and no illusion of a multiplicity of phenomena, and therefore there can be no (mutual) dependence whatsoever. It is in saṃsāra that there are subject and object, and that the mutual dependence of these—and indeed of all phenomena—is to be asserted. That which was later called “emptiness (Skt. śūnyatā; Tib. stong pa nyid; Ch. 空 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, kòng; Wade–Giles, k’ung ]) of alien substances” (Tib. gzhan [gyi dngos po] stong [pa nyid]; Skt. reconstruction, paraśūnyatā or pararūpaśūnyatā) is present in Mahāyānasūtras of the Second and Third Promulgations. Among the former, the important Prajñāpāramitāsūtra in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines, also called the Intermediate Mother, states: “In this context, if you ask what is the emptiness [or absence of the purported existence] of alien substances, [it must be noted that] it applies whether the Tathāgatas have appeared or not. As the abiding, [true] nature of [all] reality (gnas lugs: the dharmakāya’s primordial emptiness), as [the true condition of] reality itself, [as] the absolute expanse of the true condition (of all phenomena), [as] the faultlessness of [the true condition], [as] the nature of isness, and as the genuine goal, it abides as isness. Therefore, this [true condition of all] reality, which is empty of extraneous entities, is called the emptiness of alien substances. Subhuti, this is the greater vehicle of the Bodhisattvas, great spiritual warriors.” Third Promulgation sūtras expressing the view of “emptiness of alien substances” are many; for example, the Laṅkāvatārasūtra, one of the sources that abound in elements of that view, is worth quoting: “If you ask what is the emptiness that is [inherent in] the absolute reality of all things, [or, in other words, the emptiness that is inherent in] the great primordial gnosis of the sublime beings, it is as follows: The attainment of the primordial gnosis of the sublime beings, which is one’s own nondual self-awareness, is empty of the propensities of all views and faults. This is called the emptiness that is [inherent in] the absolute reality of all things, [the emptiness that is inherent in] the great primordial gnosis of sublime beings.” Also various Tantras express that view. Among Mahāyāna treatises and commentaries, it is worth noting Nāgārjuna’s Collection of Eulogies (Skt. Stavakāya; Tib. bsTod tshogs, among which most eloquent is the Eulogy to the Absolute Expanse of the True Condition [of Phenomena] [Skt. Dharmadhātustava; Tib. Chos dbyings bstod pa]); Asaṅga’s Vyākhyā commentary to the Ratnagotravibhāga and other of his texts; some works by Vasubandhu, and then—oddly enough—some works by Bhāvaviveka/Bhavya (who in the Madhyamakaratnapradīpa [Tib. bdU ma rin chen sgron ma], like the gZhan stong pas and the Mahāmadhyamikas, used the terms “coarse, outer Madhyamaka [Phyi rags pa’i dbU ma]” and “subtle, inner Madhyamaka [Tib. Nang phra ba’i dbU ma],” and asserted the superiority of the latter). However, the first scholar-yogin to have articulated the view of emptiness of alien substances as a separate system of tenets is believed to have been Kashmiri scholar Somanātha’s eleventh century disciple, the Kālacakra yogin Yu mo mi bskyod rdo rje (b. 1027). From Yu mo mi bskyod rdo rje onwards, the Bro lugs or “Dro lineage” of the Kālacakra passed on through various lineage-holders to Kun spangs thugs rje brtson ’grus (1243-1313), who settled in the meditation caves on the mountains of Jo mo nang in present day dbU-gTsang, South Central Tibet. It is from this place that the term Jo nang was taken, as the name of the school that arose on the basis of this transmission and teachings—so that the term Jo nang pa was used to designate the adherents of this school. However, Dol po pa further developed the Jo nang interpretation and it was him (and later on also Tāranātha [1575–1634]) who elaborated it to its current degree of sophistication and made it so well-known as to gain a high number of followers and detractors. The School was suppressed by the Fifth Dalai Lama for political reasons, as the Jo nang pas, like the bKa’ brgyud pas, had close connections with the royal family of the province of gTsang, which was contending with the Dalai Lama and the dGe lugs School for the control of Central Tibet (dbU)—which finally merged with gTsang to form the province of bdU gTsang— yet in the case of the Jo nang pas there was a further problem: the incarnation of Tāranātha was a boy 81 82 83 4 521 who descended from the royal lineage of the Mongols, who had already been named as the spiritual leader of the whole of Mongolia and who could have become troublesome in Tibet, as he could have tried to be recognized as Khan. At any rate, many rDzogs chen Tantras and treatises implicitly or explicitly assert this type of emptiness. Just to give one example, in a previous endnote I cited a line of the Byang chub sems nya mo ’khor lo rgyud (equivalent yet not identical translation in Wilkinson (2016, p. 9): “There is not anything other than our one awareness.” It is thus easy to understand the reason why so many of the great rDzogs chen Masters of the Ris med movement taught the “emptiness of alien substances.” Dol po pa wrote in Tibetan, and the term he used to categorize the true condition, which was rang bzhin, need not be rendered as self-existent. In fact, Candrakīrti himself characterized the true condition of all entities (Skt. dharmatā; Tib. chos nyid; Ch. 法性 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎxìng; Wade-Giles, fa -hsing ]) as svabhāva (Tib. rang bzhin; Ch. ⾃性 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìng; Wade–Giles, tzu -hsing ; Jap. jishō]), which is as a rule rendered as “self-existent” and which dGe lugs translators render as hypostatically / inherently existent, but which he used in the sense of self-nature or intrinsic nature: that which (is) the true condition both of all phenomena and of the awareness whereby all phenomena appear, which may be said to (be) a self-nature or intrinsic nature in that as a nature it does not depend on anything else. In fact, Candrakīrti was a most consistent philosopher who rejected the four extremes with regard to all relative entities and thus by no means would he have asserted the absolute to fall into one of the four extremes—i.e. that of existence—and, what would be much worse, to fall into that extreme hypostatically / inherently—for the absolute obviously has neither genus proximum nor differentia specifica and thus is more evidently free from the extremes than any particular relative entity. Discussing self-nature / intrinsic condition (Skt. svabhāva; Tib. rang bzhin) in Madhyamakāvatārabhāṣya (Tib. dbU ma la ’jug pa’i bshad pa / dbu ma la ’jug pa’i rang ’grel), Candrakīrti categorized the true nature of all entities by the term bhava (Tib. yod pa or dngos po, according to context; Ch. 有 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒu; Wade–Giles, yu ; Jap. yū (ゆみ)]), which is usually rendered as either being or existence, but which he was using in the sense of nature—i.e., of that which everything (is). This is why he wrote in the book in question: “Does a nature, as asserted by the Master [Nāgārjuna], that is characterized in such a way [as in the just cited Prajñānāmamūlamadhyamakakārikā] XV.2cd by Nāgārjuna, exist? The absolute nature of phenomena (Skt. dharmatā; Tib. chos nyid) put forward by the Supramundane Victor—‘Whether the Tathāgatas appear or not, the absolute nature of phenomena just abides’—exists. Also, what is this absolute nature of phenomena? It is the self-nature (Skt. svābhāva; Tib. rang bzhin) of these eyes and so forth. And, what is the nature of these? It is their non-fabricatedness, that which does not depend on another, their thusness that is realized by wisdom free from the dimness of unawareness and delusion. Does it exist or not? If it did not exist, for what purpose would bodhisattvas cultivate the Path of the Pāramitās? Why would bodhisattvas initiate hundreds of difficulties for the sake of realizing the absolute nature of phenomena?” Adapted from the edition prepared by De La Vallée Poussin (1970), 305.19-306.12 and from Tsong kha pa’s citation of a Tibetan translation in the Lam rim chen mo (Dharamsala ed., 416b.6-417a.2; translation in Wayman [1979, p. 256] cited in Napper [2003, pp. 128-129]; alternative trans. in Tsong kha pa [2002, Vol. III, p. 198]). As to my use of the term Mahāmādhyamaka, in a previous endnote I discussed three usages of the Skt. term and its Tibetan equivalents. According to Prajñāpāramitā literature, prajñā wisdom (Skt. prajñā; Tib. shes rab; 般若 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn bōrě; Wade-Giles, po -je ]) can be relative or absolute. Relative prajñā, which is developed progressively in the gradual Mahāyāna, and which is an intelligence that permits the correct comprehension of the teachings, is one of the fifty-one (51) mental factors or events (Skt. caitta or caisatika; Pāḷi cetasika: Tib. sems byung; Ch. ⼼所 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xīnsuǒ; Wade-Giles, hsin -so ) listed in the literature associated with the Abhidharma (one of the “three baskets” or piṭakas that constitute the Tripiṭaka), which occur in the conditioned sphere marked by active avidyā or delusion (i.e. by all three of the types of avidyā posited by the rDzogs chen teachings and explained in the regular text of this volume). In particular, it is one of the five object-determining mental factors or mental events (Tib. yul so sor nges pa lnga). In the Prajñāpāramitā texts, absolute prajñā is the wisdom that apprehends absolute truth, beyond the made and conditioned, beyond the unawareness and the delusion corresponding to the different types of avidyā 84 3 4 3 85 1 1 3 3 522 4 4 in the threefold rDzogs chen classification adopted here, and hence beyond saṃsāra. This type of prajñā may arise at some moment in the gradual Mahāyāna, mainly in the framework of the training in the transcendence of wisdom (Skt. prajñāpāramitā; Tib. shes rab phar phyin; Ch. 般若 [波羅蜜] [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bōrě bōluómì; Wade-Giles, po -je po- luo -mi ]) and of the practice of insight (Skt. vipaśyanā; Pāḷi vipassanā; Tib. lhag mthong; Ch. 觀 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, guān; Wade-Giles, kuan ; Jap. kan]). For its part, the sudden Mahāyāna has as its pivot the application of numerous methods in order to facilitate its sudden arising. Several of these sūtras are listed, and some quoted, in the section on the Sudden Mahāyāna in a subsequent chapter of this book. A classical text on Japanese Buddhism used to be Takakuso (Chan & Moore, eds. 1947), which is largely based on the Hasshu-koyo and which was also used for the study of Chinese Buddhism, since with the sole exception of the Nichiren schools and their ramifications, and other new Buddhist and para-Buddhist sects, all Japanese Schools give continuity to Chinese schools. However, I disagree with professor Takakuso’s terminology, explanations and way of classifying the schools he deals with in his book. For their part, contemporary Japanese scholars seem to deem this text deficient and outdated (I commented to Professor Tetsu Nagasawa, Associate Professor at the Department of Human Sciences at Kyoto Bunkyo University, that Professor Takakuso’s classifications of schools and his use of language seemed to me highly flawed, and he replied that contemporary Japanese scholarship views his noted text as defective). Therefore, I resorted to other, newer sources—even though, since Chinese Buddhism is not the focus of this book, in this section I circumscribe myself to enumerating the Chinese schools and offering an extremely brief account of their tenets or orientation. The reader interested a more thorough analysis of Chinese and Japanese Buddhism is advised to consult as many different works as possible, including the following: Chen (1964), Dumoulin (2005), Faure (1998), Hodus (1923), Welch (1967), Green (2013), and various dictionaries and encyclopedias on Buddhism (including Keown & Prebish, Eds., 2010; Buswell & López, 2014; Keown, 2003; Cornu, 2001; etc.). Tibetans traditionally assert the Vasubandhu who authored the Abhidharmakośa and the Vasubandhu who wrote texts interpreting the sūtras of the Third dharmacakra to have been the same individual. However, as noted above in the regular text, some Western scholars have asserted them to be two different individuals. For an explanation of this cf. endnote 80 to this book. In particular, Takakuso (Chan & Moore, eds. 1947), which as noted is largely based on the Hasshu-koyo, meaning “A Summary of the Eight Sects,” considers the respective scions of the Indian Madhyamaka and Yogācāra Schools to be quasi-Mahāyāna, and yet classifies the Vinaya School as a fully-fledged Mahāyāna tradition. This is clearly a flaw of Takakuso’s text and of the traditional views it conveys. Robert Buswell Jr. and Dónald López (2014, p. 169) speculate that the Śata[ka]śāstra or Treatise in Onehundred [stanzas] might have actually been Kumārajīva’s interpretation of the Catuḥśatakaśāstrakārikā or Treatise in One-hundred [stanzas], which is extant in Sanskrit and is the most famous treatise by Āryadeva (the only direct disciple of Nāgārjuna). It must be noted that the major works of both Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva were translated into Chinese, but none of the works by Buddhapālita and Candrakīrti were translated into this language. Among those by Bhavya, only the Prajñāpradīpa (Tib. Shes rab sgron me) was rendered into Chinese. Cf. Robinson (1967, pp. 26-39). At any rate, the importance of this school diminished as a result of the introduction of the Fǎxiàng School. Allegedly, because of its doctrine according to which the icchantikas (Tib. ’dod chen; Ch. ⼀闡提 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yīchǎntí; Wade-Giles, i -ch’an -t’i ]) could never attain Buddhahood. In contrast to the Indian Tripiṭaka, which contained only the teachings reputed to have originated directly from the Buddha Śākyamuni’s nirmāṇakāya form, the Chinese Tripiṭaka also contains the śāstras or commentaries written by the great Chinese Masters. For their part, Tibetans distinguish between (1) the bKa’ ’gyur, containing, on the one hand, the texts of the Three Baskets (Tripiṭaka) attributed directly to the teachings given in this earth by the nirmāṇakāya Śākyamuni, and on the other hand, the root Tantras, and (2) the bsTan ’gyur, which contains the whole of the commentaries by the great Indian Masters extant in Tibetan. In general, the Sanskrit term śamatha (Pāḷi, samatha; Tib. zhi gnas; Chinese ⽌ [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhǐ; WadeGiles, chih ; Jap: shi]) refers to different types of mental pacification practice that in the long run may lead all movements of the mind to stop—even though generally this is not their ultimate aim. The Sanskrit term vipaśyanā (Pāḷi, vipassana; Tib. lhag mthong; Chinese, 觀 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, guān; Wade-Giles, kuan ; Jap. kan]) as a rule refers to different types of practice dealing with the movements of the mind and with 1 3 1 2 4 1 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 1 3 2 93 94 3 1 523 insight (which, among many other things, may be related to the discovery of the emptiness of thought, with the use of thought as a means to discover the emptiness of entities, with questioning one’s experience in order to overcome dualistic-pluralistic delusion, etc.). Whereas in the Indian gradual Mahāyāna the practices of śamatha and vipaśyanā were applied sequentially, and only when the path of preparation or application (Skt. prayogamārga[ḥ]; Tib. sbyor lam; Ch. 加⾏道 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jiāxíng dào; Wade-Giles chia hsing tao ; Jap. kegy ōdō; Kor. kahaeng to]) was attained, could a union of mental pacification and insight (Skt. śamathavipaśyanāyuganaddha; Tib. zhi gnas lhag mthong zung ’jug; Ch. ⽌觀雙運 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhǐguān shuāngyùn; Wade-Giles, chih -kuan shuang yün ]) be experienced, the Tiāntái School instructed disciples on the two practices as inseparable and as a circle, for each reinforced the other (cf. Green, 2013, p. 117. In Emmanuel, 2013). Furthermore, in Suzuki, D. T. French 1940/1943, 1972, vol. 2, pp. 146-148, we read (the names were adapted to Hànyǔ Pīnyīn): “One of the first Zen (Hiragana ぜん; Ch. 禪; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Chán; Wade-Giles, Ch’an ) Masters who introduced the idea of the nembutsu (recitation of the sacred name of Amitābha: Skt. buddhānusmṛti; Ch. 念佛 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, niànfó; Wade-Giles, nien -fo ]) was [Master] Yǒngmíng Yánshòu (永明延壽; WadeGiles, Yung -ming Yen -shou ; died 975 CE). He attached great importance to the Zen yogins devoting themselves to the practice of nembutsu, to the extent of declaring that among those who followed Zen without nembutsu nine out of ten would miss the final goal, whereas those who practiced the nembutsu would achieve realization all without exception; but the best are those, he used to say, who practice Zen and the nembutsu, for they are like a tiger with two horns… “(For his part,) Kōnggǔ Jǐnglóng (空⾕景隆; Wade-Giles, K’ung -ku Ching -lung ), teaching at the beginning of the fifteenth century… said: “‘Those who practice Zen devote themselves exclusively to it, thinking that they are striving to achieve calm and nothing else; concerning the invocation of the name of Buddha in order to be reborn in the Pure Land, worshipping him and reciting the sūtras morning and evening, they practice none of this. Regarding these faithful, it may be said that they have Zen but no nembutsu. However, in truth these Zen disciples are not of the good kind; they are only good at preaching the exercise of kōan (Ch. 公案; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, gōng’àn; Wade-Giles kung -an ), they are like staffs, stones or bricks. When they are affected by this kind of mental illness, they cannot be saved, except perhaps one among ten. Zen is a living spirit; it is like a gourd floating on water, which upon being touched dances wonderfully. It is also said that one should pay homage to the living spirit of the masters rather than to their dead words’…” Suzuki comments concerning the above (p. 148): “There is something lame in this interpretation, but the fact cannot be denied that the nembutsu, at that time, was sapping the doorways of Zen, and we are going to see that in the psychology of nembutsu there is a factor that could easily ally itself with the exercise of kōan in its mechanical phase. For, despite his attitude towards the nembutsu, which he considered like some kind of practice for the śrāvaka, Kōnggǔ kept on preconizing it as being as effective as the kōan in the realization of the true way of Buddha.” For this reason, many Chinese Mahāyāna Masters consider it to be heterodox—just as, owing to its presentation of the Awakening principle in terms that in the context of their view seemed to identify it with an eternal and substantial self, many Tibetan Masters (especially within the dGe lugs pa school) considered the Jo nang pa school of Buddhism that developed in their country as heretical. It is no doubt true that the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra holds that there is an absolute self, and that the term no-self refers to the conditioned, relative phenomena produced by delusion, which have no existence whatsoever, because it considered that the only truth there is, is the true self that is permanent and so on. In other words, it teaches a doctrine of emptiness of the kind that Tibetans refer to as gZhan stong (in full, gzhan gyi dngos po stong pa nyid), which may be rendered into Sanskrit as paraśūnyatā / pararūpaśūnyatā—which is exactly the doctrine taught by the Jo nang pas, which caused them to be regarded as heterodox, not only by the dGe lug pas, but also by most early Sa skya pas, by many bKa’ brgyud pas and even by some rNying ma pas. Tib. ’dod chen po, meaning “great desire.” Tibetan traditions also have specific practices for healing, obtaining financial gain and other worldly aims, but they are very secondary practices to be applied when a problem arises that makes it necessary. For example, if a temple needs to be repaired, the practice of Yellow Jambhala may be applied; if one is ill, one may do practice with Amitāyus, etc. And there is no problem with doing practice if one has to pay one’s debts. The problem is having financial interests as the main aim of one’s practice in general. 1- 2 4 3 4 95 2 4 3 2 2 2 4 1 1 4 96 97 98 524 3 3 2 1 1 The Sōka Gakkai, founded by schoolteacher Tsunesaburō Makiguchi (牧⼝常三郎), has effectively extended itself throughout the world, to such an extent that in 1995 it was present in 115 countries and counted 1.260.000 members outside Japan (330.000 in North America, 10.000 in Central America, 190.000 in South America, 709.000 in non-Japanese Asia, 15.000 in Europe and 5.000 in the Near East) (Gardini, 1995). Just like the rest of present day Nichiren schools, this group centers its practice on the veneration of Nichiren and the so-called “Three Great Mysteries.” The sect’s co-founder, Jōsei Toda (戸⽥城聖), succeeded to Makiguchi. In October 1954, he gave a speech to over 10,000 Gakkai members while mounted on a white horse, proclaiming: “We must consider all religions our enemies, and we must destroy them” (Kisala, 2004). When the Religious Corporation Law came into effect in August 1952, the Sōka Gakkai legally registered as a religious corporate body. The same year, Toda was required to deliver a statement to the special investigations bureau of the Department of Justice to the effect that Sōka Gakkai members would refrain from the illegal use of violence or threats in their proselytizing (Heine, reprint 2003). In 1960 Daisaku Ikeda (池⽥⼤作) assumed leadership of the sect, and later on he founded a political party, which supposedly intended to found “the type of democracy that would harmonize with Buddhism,” which should establish a “humanitarian socialism,” and which would try to achieve world peace and general welfare (aims that seem quite at odds with the internal practices of the sect and the accusations in this note). However, Ikeda’s writings against the traditional forms of Buddhism, his ruthless criticism of the Christian religion and his intransigence gained him the strong reprehension of his own country’s National League of Religions, made up of Buddhists and Christians. Moreover, in 1960 Ikeda declared that he would continue to seek the annihilation of “heretical” religions (i.e. of the orthodox forms of Buddhism, as well as of the rest of world religions) and kept on reinforcing the practice of what Walter Gardini called “a totalitarian exclusivism” (Gardini, 1995, p. 151). In reaction to the orientation of this sect, in 1969 University Professor Hirotatsu Fujiwara (1970) published the book mentioned in the regular text of this book, in which he severely criticized the Gakkai, calling it “fascist” and comparing its political methods to those of the early Nazi party (Fujiwara, 1970; Gardini, 1995, p. 151). The Sōka Gakkai and the Kōmeitō Party used their political power to try to suppress its publication. When Fujiwara went public with the attempted suppression, the Sōka Gakkai was harshly criticized in the Japanese media. To save face, Ikeda announced that “Kōmeitō [Party] members of national and local assemblies will be removed from Sōka Gakkai administrative posts” (Nakano, 1996). After this scandal, both Kōmeitō and the Gakkai were weakened and their constant postwar growth came to an end (McLaughlin, 2012, p. 295). The same year, the Sōka Gakkai was also embroiled in a separate scandal: it was discovered that the sect had been wiretapping the home of Kenji Miyamoto (宮本顕治), leader of the Japanese Communist Party. The illegal operation had been headed by Masatomo Yamazaki, then legal advisor and vice chairman of the Sōka Gakkai (Shimbun Akahata [The Newspaper Red Flag], Thursday March 11, 2004). However, in the General Assembly of May 3, 1970, Ikeda presented a restructuring of the program, promising “…an absolute separation between politics and religion, freedom for all members of the Sōka Gakkai to vote for whichever party [they would choose], opening of the Komeito to all, respect for the religions hitherto regarded as ‘heretical,’ giving up the method of forced conversions ‘even if this implies losing one half of our members’” (Ibidem, p. 151). In Powers (2000), we read concerning the latest schism among Nichiren followers: “After an acrimonious battle between the priesthood (of the monastic Nichiren-Shōshū [⽇蓮正宗]) and the lay leadership (of the Sōka Gakkai), in 1991 the high priest of the Nichiren-Shōshū, Nikken Abe ( 阿部⽇顕 ), officially ‘excommunicated’ the lay Sōka Gakkai International (創価学会). He declared that only the priesthood of the Nichiren Shōshū represented the true tradition of Nichiren, and further claimed that only its gohonzon is an authentic basis for chanting and worship. The priests of the Nichiren Shōshū assert that the practice of chanting the daimoku (“Namu Myoho-renge-kyo,” “Praise to the Lotus Sūtra”) requires that the practitioner perform it in front of an authentic gohonzon and that those used by the Sōka Gakkai are ineffective for worship.” Following this, the lay organization engaged in violence against the monastic organization; in one incident, Sōka Gakkai members broke into a Shōshū temple during a religious service and beat a defector into unconsciousness (Kunii, 1995). The Sōka Gakkai entry of Wikipedia offers lots of information on the wrongdoings of the sect in question. Note that the foremost of the three most important teachers of Atīśa Dīpaṅkara Śrijñāna also lived in Java, and that the Tibetan School founded by Atīśa’s disciples—that of the bKa’ gdams pa, not to be confused with the demon-worshipers called the “New Kadampas”—was, among the ones established in the “land of the snows,” the one that did not emphasize the practice of inner Tantra. 99 100 525 101 Śubhakarasiṃha (Ch. 善無畏三蔵; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Shànwúwèi Sāncáng; Wade-Giles, Shan -wu -wei San ts’ang ; Jap. Zenmui-Sanzō) was born to the royal family of Oḍḍiyāna, and took over the throne at the age of 13. Fed up with the battle and struggles among the brother-princes, he resigned the position of King and became a monk. He studied at Nālandā University and also studied Tantra. Following the advice of his guru, he visited China arriving in Xī’ān (⻄安; Wade-Giles, Hsi -an ), the capital of Táng (Ch. 唐; Wade-Giles, Tang ) China, in 716. There he started to teach and also translated many Tantric scriptures. He asked for permission to return to India in 732, but the emperor wouldn't let him go. The most important text he translated is the Mahāvairocanatantra in 7 volumes, which is the main Tantra of the Ubhayatantra. Vajrabodhi (669-741) was born to either a royal or a Brahmin (Brāhmaṇa) family in South India. He took vows at age 10 in Nālandā. After studying Vinaya, the Abhidharmakośa, Cittamātra and Madhyamaka, and spending some time studying logic and epistemology under Dharmakīrti, he moved to South India and studied Tantra—mainly the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgrahatantra (Ch. ⾦剛頂経 ; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Jīngāng Dǐngjíng; Wade-Giles, Chin -kang Ting -Ching ; Jap. Kongōchōkyō), a Tantra belonging to the Yogatantra class. After returning to Central India and then staying in Śri Laṅka and in South India for one year or so, he traveled to China by ship and arrived in Luòyáng (洛陽; Wade-Giles, Luo -yang ) in 720. He was offered an ashram (āśrama) and a special temple for initiation, and he taught and translated Tantra. The most important of the texts he translated was the main Tantra that he had studied the most: the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgrahatantra. Atīśa Dīpaṅkara Śrijñāna himself helped Ācārya Jayaśīla to translate one of his own works (Chattopadhyaya, A., 1981/1996, pp. 42-43); other translators included kLu mes; Lo ston; Rwa lo tsā ba rdo rje grags and ’Gos lo tsā ba khug pa lhas btsas, whom I mention together because of the problems that arose between them; Tsalana Yeshe Gyaltsen (Wylie, Tsalana ye shes rgyal mtshan; Ācārya Phralaringba; ’O bran blo gros dbang phyug; Smṛti Jñānakīrti; Śākyabhikṣu Nyi ma rgyal mtshan dpal bzang po; Lo tsā ba ’Brog mi phrag gi ral pa can; Scholar Jaitakarṇṇa; Upādhyāya Mañjuśrī; Mal lo tsā ba blo gros grags pa; Paṇḍita Parahitaprabha; Lo tsā ba gZu-dga’ rdo rje; Ānandabhadra; Se tsha bsod nams rgyal mtshan; Thar pa lo tsā ba nyi ma rgyal mtshan / Sthavira Nyi ma rgyal mtshan (Cf. the sectarian, Sarma-biased book, Davidson, R.M., 2008, passim). This school arose after the meeting between Rin chen bzang po and Atīśa Dīpaṅkara Śrijñāna, as the latter asked the former to become his translator but he declined. (Cf. Gianpaolo Vetturini, 2007, Part 1, pp. 9596). Srong btsan sgam po, to the North had conquered a great deal of China—he came to the doors of the capital of the time, which he kept under siege—and, to the South, a great deal of current Nepal and a region of India extending so far as the banks of the Ganges. In order to establish an alliance with the Tibetans an thus forestall further invasions, the Chinese emperor gave Srong btsan sgam po his daughter (or, according to the Chinese records, his niece), Princess Wénchéng Gōngzhǔ (Ch. ⽂成公主; Wade-Giles, Wen -ch’eng Kung -chu ) as wife, and the same did the Nepalese Licchavi king with his daughter, Bhṛkuti Devi—and together with both ladies their fathers sent Buddhist teachers as a strategy aimed at pacifying the Tibetans by trying to get them to adopt the Buddhist doctrine of ahiṃsā (Pāli: avihiṃsā) or nonviolence. Zhang Zhung was an ancient empire that, according to Chögyal Namkhai Norbu (2009/2013a, oral teachings; cf. 1992, 1996a, 2004 as well), comprised a vast tract of land that extended itself from Persia to Western Tibet, and which had its political capital in Persia and what could perhaps be called its spiritual capital in the town of Khyun lung, in Western Tibet, at the foot of Mount Kailāśā and near the shores of lake Mānasarovar (or, properly, Mānasa Sarovar). After the parinirvāṇa of bDud ’joms rin po che, ’jigs ’bral ye shes rdo rje, in 1987, Dil mgo mkhyen brtse rin po che was chosen as his successor to this office. After Dil mgo mkhyen brtse’s parinirvāṇa in 1991, Pad ma nor bu rin po che, whose name is abridged as Pad nor rin po che, was chosen to replace him. After Pad nor’s passing away, in 2001 to sMin gling khri chen rin po che was elected. In 2010 ’Khrul zhig rin po che, and in 2012 the title passed to sTag lung rtse sprul rin po che (1926-2015), who passed away in December 2015. At the rNying ma smon lam in Bodhgaya, in January 2018, ’gyur med bstan pa rgyal mtshan, 1954–2018), the Fourth Kaḥ thog dge rtse rin po che was appointed to be the supreme head of the rNying ma Tradition for three years, but he passed away in 2018. At the time of writing this, I do not know who will be sTag lung rtse sprul’s successor. Phya pa chos kyi seng ge (1109-1169) belonged to the original, true bKa’ gdams pa tradition, founded by second generation disciples of Prāsaṅgika teacher Atīśa Dīpaṅkara Śrijñāna. However, although Atīśa was a true Prāsaṅgika, Phya pa seems to have adhered to and championed the Svātantrika School. 4 2 4 1 2 1 1 2 102 1 1 3 2 4 103 104 105 2 2 1 106 107 108 3 526 2 The Jo nang pas, like the bKa’ brgyud pas, were allies of the gTsang clan, which had been contending with the Dalai Lama and the dGe lug pas for the control of Central Tibet. Moreover, the boy recognized as the tulku (“reincarnation”) of the prominent Jo nang pa Lama Tāranātha was a son of the prince Tüsheet Khan and therefore belonged to the Borjigin lineage—the imperial clan of Genghis Khan and his successors— and thus had birth rights for becoming Khan. Since Tibet was under Mongol power—the Fifth Dalai Lama had been appointed King by the Gushri Khan—this represented a grave threat for the dGe lugs. And the threat had become all the gravest when the boy was declared spiritual leader of all of Mongolia. Glenn Mulling (2001, p. 207) cites the Fourteenth Dalai Lama in this regard: “These monasteries were closed for political reasons, not religious ones, and their closing had nothing to do with sectarianism. They had supported the gTsang pa King in the uprising, thus committing treason. The Great Fifth believed that they should be closed in order to insure the future stability of the [Tibetan] nation, and to dissuade other monasteries from engaging in warfare… The fact is that the Great Fifth passed laws outlawing sectarian skirmishes, and passed laws ensuring the freedom of religion. This freedom was extended to not only the Buddhist Schools, but also to the non-Buddhist ones. For example, he kept a Bon po lama in his entourage to speak for the interests of the Bön tradition. And on a personal level, he practiced so many non-Gelug lineages that the Gelukpas criticized him for straying from his roots.” According to Snellgrove (2010) in our time the Nine Ways are: I. The Way of the Shen of Prediction (Tib. phyva gsen theg pa, often spelled phywa gsen theg pa), describing the four methods of prediction: (a) mo sortilege; (b) astrological calculation (Tib. rtsis); (c) ritual (Tib. gto); (d) medical diagnosis (Tib. dpyad). II. The Way of the Shen of the Visual World (Tib. snan gsen theg pa) explains how to defeat or placate divinities and demons. The various ritual practices and the recognition of the various natures of the spiritual beings are subdivided into four parts, which are: (1) lore of exorcism, which describes various divinities (Tib. thug khar, ber ma, etc.); (2) nature and origin of demons (Tib. hdre) and “vampires” (Tib sri), which describes the methods for eliminating these beings; (3) deals with all kinds of ransom; (4) deals with “fates” (Tib, hdre), “furies” (Tib, hdre), local divinities (Tib. hdre) and offerings due to them. III. The Way of the Shen of the Illusion (Tib. ’prul gsen theg pa) sets out the rites for disposing of enemies: these rites are the same as in the Bön Tantras and very similar to those of the Buddhist Hevajratantra. IV. The Way of the Shen of Existence (Tib. srid gsen theg pa), devoted to beings situated in the ‘Intermediate State’ (Tib. bar do) between death and rebirth, shows how to lead them to salvation. V. The Way of the Shen of the Virtuous Adherents (Tib. dge bsnyen theg pa) deals with the practice of the ten virtues and the ten perfections, and those who build and worship stūpas. VI. The Way of the Shen of the Great Ascetics (Tib. dran sron theg pa) is devoted to those practicing a rigorous ascetic discipline: although the entire organization is based on Buddhism, many arguments seem to lead in a different direction. VII. The Way of the Shen of Pure Sound (Tib. a dkar theg pa) deals with the highest tantric practices, illustrating the Tantric transformation through the maṇḍala. VIII. The Way of the Primeval Shen (Tib. ye gsen theg pa) (pp. 190-225) establishes a suitable teacher, partner and place; instructions are given on how to prepare the maṇḍala (Tib. dkyil ’khor; Ch. 曼荼羅 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, màntúluó; Wade-Giles, man -t’u -lo ; Jap. mandara (まんだら); Kor. Mandara]) and an account is provided of the process of meditation. IX. The Supreme Way (Tib. bla med theg pa) describes the True condition and the Way—the latter being described as the mind in its absolute state, that is, as pure bodhicitta. These Nine Ways are internally classified into four ‘lower ways’ of ‘Cause Bon’ and five ‘higher ways’ of ‘Fruit Bon’: this qualitative distinction refers respectively to magic-ritualistic practices and to the Ways referring to morality and meditation. He was reportedly found in his quarters with a ka dag (ceremonial scarf) stuffed down his throat, and suspicions fell on some officials of the Dalai Lama’s entourage who wished him ill due to his rivalry with the Great Fifth. When bla mas were killed, this was a frequent yet most absurd way to do it, because the killers feared the bla ma could be a Buddha, and drawing blood from a Buddha is one of the five worst possible actions, which yield the most dreadful consequences (they devised this method because they adhered to the letter rather than following the spirit, for the idea in making the drawing of blood from a Buddha a heinous crime was that to kill a Buddha was so terrible, that merely to draw blood from him or her is already one of the actions with the direst consequences—just imagine the consequences of killing a Buddha in such a heinous, tormenting way!). 109 110 4 2 2 111 527 This explanation of the basic craving called tṛṣṇā or taṇhā successively refers to the three types of tṛṣna explained in the Preamble: (1) craving for pleasure (Skt. kāmatṛṣṇā; Pāḷi kāmataṇhā; Tib. ’dod chags kyi sred pa; Ch. 欲愛 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yùài; Wade-Giles, yü -ai ]); (2) thirst-for-existence (Skt. bhavatṛṣṇā; Pāḷi bhavataṇhā; Tib. srid pa’i sred pa; Ch. 有愛 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuài; Wade-Giles, yu -ai ]); and (3) craving for self-annihilation (in static nirvāṇa) (Skt. vibhavatṛṣṇā; Pāḷi vibhavataṇhā; Tib. med pa’i sred pa; Ch. 無有愛 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúyǒuài; Wade-Giles, wu -yu -ai ]). The reader should keep in mind that the meaning of the term “delusion” is different from that of the word “illusion.” By “illusion” I designate, for example, the perception of a falling hair by one who suffers from floaters (myodesopsia / muscæ volitantis), the apprehension of a shell as yellow by one suffering from jaundice, the vision of a gigantic snow ball in the Sahara Desert, the perception of something bidimensional as being tri-dimensional, etc. On the other hand, “delusion” implies confusion and may consist in believing that an illusion, rather than being merely an illusion, is actual reality—or in taking the relative as absolute, the interdependent as independent, what we value as intrinsically valuable, etc. The rDzogs chen teachings designate the state free from unawareness and delusion by the Tibetan term rig pa, which corresponds to the Sanskrit vidyā (Pāḷi vijjā; Ch. 明 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, míng; Wade-Giles, ming ])—and which in this book I render most often as [nonconceptual and hence nondual] Awake Awareness, and sometimes as [nondual] absolute or instant Presence. Rig pa becomes patent and operative when the nondual primordial gnosis of Awake Awareness reGnizes its own face (Tib. rang ngo shes pa)—that which is referred to as “its own face” (being) no other than the nonconceptual and hence nondual, open and clear Awake Awareness that is compared to a mirror that can equally reflect phenomena of saṃsāra or metaphenomena of nonstatic nirvāṇa and that may be called rig pa-qua-Base or Base-rig pa (Tib. gzhi’i rig pa or gzhir gnas kyi rig pa), nature or essence of mind (Tib. sems nyid; Skt. cittatā or citta eva); or mind of Awakening (Skt. bodhicitta; Tib. byang chub sems; Ch. 菩提⼼ [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, pútíxīn; Wade-Giles, p’u -t’i -hsin ; Jap. bodaishin]), etc. The Skt. avidyā, the Pāḷi avijjā, the Tib. ma rig pa, and the Ch. 無明 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúmíng; Wade-Giles, wu -ming ) are terms composed by (1) a privative prefix (the Sanskrit and Pāḷi a, the Tibetan ma and the Chinese 無 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wú; Wade-Giles, wu ]) and (2) the words that in the context of the rDzogs chen teaching I have been translating as nonconceptual and hence nondual Awake Awareness, nonconceptual and hence nondual Presence, instant Presence, absolute Presence and so on (namely the Skt. vidyā, the Pāḷi vijjā, the Tib. rig pa, and the Ch. 明 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, míng; Wade-Giles, ming ]—synonyms of which are the Skt. svasaṃvedana / svasaṃvittiḥ, the Tib. rang rig; the Ch. ⾃證 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìzhèng; WadeGiles, tzu -cheng ] / ⾃覺 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìjué; Wade-Giles, tzu -chüeh ], or, in the case of instant Presence, literally skad cig [ma yi] rig pa and rig pa skad chig ma). The above is due to the fact that the most basic instance of avidyā is the unawareness of the true condition and nature of the Base, in which Awake Awareness is obscured and which is the first of the three types or aspects of avidyā posited by the two main rDzogs chen classifications of avidyā discussed in the regular text, but which also underlies the active delusion at the root of saṃsāra (consisting in the second and third types of avidyā in the best-known classification, which amalgamate to produce dualism and a confusion of categories—namely that which is referred to by the Skt. bhrānti, the Tib. ’khrul [pa] and the Ch. 亂 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, luàn; Wade-Giles, luan ] as the term is understood in the rDzogs chen teachings—but also involving the third in the least known classification, which consists in ignoring delusion to be such). In the teaching of the Four Noble Truths (Skt. catvāri āryasatyāni; Pāli cattāri ariyasaccāni; Tib. ’phags pa’i bden pa bzhi; Ch. 四聖諦 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sì shèngdì; Wade-Giles, ssu sheng -ti ; Jap. shishōdai]) proper to the First Promulgation, associated with the Hīnayāna, the Second Noble Truth, which is that of the cause (Skt. and Pāli, samudaya; Tib. kun ’byung; Ch. 集 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jí; Wade-Giles, chi ; Jap. jū] [also 苦集滅道: Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, kǔjímièdào; Wade-Giles, k’u -chi -mieh -tao ]) of suffering, is said to be tṛṣṇā (Pāli taṇhā; Tib. sred pa; Ch. 愛 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, ài; Wade-Giles, ai ]), which means “craving.” However, as shown in the regular text, some Mahāyāna, Vajrayāna, and Atiyogatantrayāna interpretations of the Four Noble Truths, in full accord with the Pratyekabuddhayāna’s view of interdependent origination (Skt. pratītyasamutpāda; Pāḷi paṭiccasamuppāda; Tib. rten cing ’brel bar ’byung ba; Ch. 緣起 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yuánqǐ; Wade-Giles, yüan -ch’i ]) as a temporal chain of causal origination consisting of a succession of twelve links (Pāḷi and Skt. nidāna; Tib. ’brel; Ch. 尼陀那 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, nítuónà; Wade-Giles, ni -t’o na ]), have established that tṛṣṇā derives from avidyā—which here must be understood as involving the three main senses that the term has in the threefold classification adopted here and therefore as a combination of unawareness with delusion or error, the condition of possibility (although the term 112 4 4 3 2 3 4 4 113 114 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 2 3 2 4 4 4 2 3 2 4 528 2 corresponds to the Ger. Bedingungen der Möglichkeit, it is being used in a nonKantian way) of which is the unawareness of the true nature or essence of all reality that is the first of the types of avidyā in the two rDzogs chen classifications considered here. In fact, craving and desire issue from our illusion of lacking something that would be necessary for us to feel whole—or, in other words, from the avidyā that introduces an illusory cleavage into the plenitude and completeness of our true condition and that makes us experience a lack-of-completeness-/lack-of-plenitude- that-demands-to-be-filled. As stated in the regular text and then explained in an endnote, Tsong kha pa and Go rams pa bsod nams seng ge diverged in their respective understandings of the first link of the above temporal chain of causal origination: the former understood avidyā to refer in that context to the conception and experience of entities as truly existent (which according to the rDzogs chen teachings depends on the previous and underlying unawareness of our true condition that is the first sense of avidyā in all rDzogs chen classifications); for the second, the first link is passional delusive obstructions (Skt. kleśāvaraṇa; Pāḷi: kilesāvaraṇa; Tib. nyon [mongs pa’i] sgrib [pa]; Ch. 煩腦障 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fánnǎo zhàng; Wade-Giles, fan -nao chang ]), whereas the conception and experience of entities as truly existent—core of cognitive delusive obstructions (Skt. jñeyāvaraṇa; Pāḷi ñeyyavāvaraṇa; Tib. shes [bya’i] sgrib [pa]; Ch. 所知障 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sǔozhī zhàng; Wade-Giles, so -chih chang ])—are the cause of the twelve links. The point is that for Tsong kha pa, grasping at phenomena that are not persons is an instance of passional delusive obstructions, and as noted above these passional delusive obstructions are the avidyā that is the first link. In Śūnyatāsaptatikārikā 64 we read: “Conceiving as true the entities that the Teacher taught to be [products of] delusion—it is from this that the twelve links arise”—and, as stated in another endnote, rJe Tsong kha pa inferred from this that conceiving entities as true was an instance of passional delusive obstructions. Go rams pa objected that the verse, rather than asserting that conceiving entities as true is the first link, is most clearly and explicitly saying that conceiving entities as true is that from which the first link arises—so that conceiving entities as true is that which gives rise to avidyā in the sense of passional delusive obstructions (i.e., to the first link) and it is the latter that gives rise to the other eleven links (Cabezón, 2007, pp. 145 and 315 n. 233). Conceiving entities as true is an aspect of the avidyā that is at the core of cognitive delusive obstructions and which, when the necessary propensities and the objects of the realm of sensuality meet, gives rise to passions—of which the avidyā that is the first link is held to be an instance. In this regard, kLong chen rab ’byams pa sided with Go rams pa. The referents of the terms tṛṣṇā and avidyā may seem similar to two of the three main defilements that, according to general Buddhism, arise in saṃsāra, and that are designated either as the three roots of unwholesomeness (Skt. akuśalamūla; Pāli akusalamūla; Tib. mi dge ba’i rtsa gsum; Ch. 三不善 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sān bùshàn; Wade-Giles, san pu -shan ]) or as the three poisons (Skt. triviṣa; Pāli tivisa; Tib. dug gsum; Ch. 三毒 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sāndú, Wade-Giles, san -tu ]), which are (1) bewilderment and mental obfuscation (Skt. and Pāli moha; Tib. gti mug; Ch. 癡 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chī; Wade-Giles, ch’ih ]); (2) avidity or strong desire (Skt. and Pāli lobha; Tib. chags pa; Ch. 貪 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tān; Wade-Giles, t’an ]); and (3) aversion (Skt. dveṣa; Pāḷi dosa; Tib. zhe sdang; Ch. 瞋 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chēn; Wade-Giles ch’en ]). In fact, at first sight (2) lobha may seem similar to tṛṣṇā and (3) moha may seem similar to avidyā, but in reality the relation between moha and avidyā is quite complex due to the reasons offered by Go rams pa and kLong chen rab ’byams, which roughly distinguish between avidyā as the cause of the first link of the temporal chain of causal origination and avidyā as the first link—even though avidyā and moha are interchangeable in various contexts. At any rate, avidyā as the cause of the first link is the ultimate cause of all the passions, including all of the three roots of unwholesomeness or three poisons, the five root passions, the six passions that are the cause of the six realms of sensuality, up to the 84,000 passions. In the same way, tṛṣṇā has a far wider meaning than lobha even though in some particular contexts they may be used as synonyms or near synonyms. Tsong kha pa insisted that the emptiness that had to be found by Prāsaṅgikas, rather than being emptiness of existence, was emptiness of a delusive mode of existence that appeared to us yet did not exist. In fact, he distinguished between what he called mere existence, which in his view should not be refuted, and hypostatic or inherent existence, which did not exist at all and which, precisely for this reason, should be refuted (for an exhaustive discussion of this, cf. my Introductory Study to Chöphel & Capriles, unpublished; for a far less detailed discussion, cf. Capriles, 2014). Tsong kha pa also affirmed that, according to Madhyamaka Svātantrika, the misconception and delusory experience of the nature of the human individual and the misconception and delusory experience of the nature of phenomena other than humans are not exactly the same in nature—and that they distinguish 2 3 4 3 1 4 1 4 4 1 2 1 1 1 115 529 between the root of cyclic existence, which is the conception of a self in human individuals, and the final root of cyclic existence, which is the conception of a self in phenomena other than humans. It is said that some forms of Buddhism are higher than others when their application allows individuals of greater capacity to obtain a most radical and complete realization in a shorter time. Therefore, they are higher in a relative sense: they are higher for the individual with the necessary capacity to practice them, and only while their practice works for the individual. For individuals of lesser capacity, “lesser” vehicles can be superior to “higher” ones, because they can be more effective. Likewise, at times, when the practice of “higher” vehicles does not work for individuals of higher capacities, “lower” ones may be more effective for them, and thus be temporarily higher than “higher” vehicles for them. Damien Keown and other authors have noted that these two titles are the names of two different versions of the same noted text, Bodhicaryāvatāra seeming to be the title of a later version that is the one extant in Sanskrit, as the Tibetan versions unearthed from Dùnhuáng (敦煌 [Wade-Giles, Tun-huang; also known as 燉煌 (simplified Chinese, 炖煌)]) were buried early in the second millennium CE and hence are likely to be in the most ancient form (obviously, all rNying ma Tibetan versions of the text are older than the Sarma Tibetan versions). At any rate, the current arrangement of chapters also seems to be a later arrangement, since in the earlier manuscripts chapters 2 and 3 form one single chapter. Texts often describe the formless absorptions and realms as not involving the subject-object duality. However, the very distinction into four formless absorptions and realms, which depends on how the infinitude that is perceived (as a proto-object) is conceptualized, makes it clear that when it is said that there is no subject-object duality in these conditions, the term “object” is being used in the sense of “singled-out segment of the continuum of sensa that is perceived as object”—which is absent in the formless absorptions, because no segment of the continuum of sensa is singled out in those conditions. Since the second type of avidyā, which gives rise to the subject-object duality and which involves the conditioning of experience by the supersubtle threefold directional thought structure (Skt. trimaṇḍala; Tib.’khor gsum; Ch. 三輪 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānlùn; Wade-Giles, san -lun ]), arises previously to the third, which in the main classification in the rDzogs chen teachings involves the perception of the object or proto-object in terms of a subtle concept (Skt. arthasāmānya; Tib. don spyi; Ch. 總事 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngshì; Wade-Giles, tsung -shih ] or 總義 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngyì; Wade-Giles, tsung -i ]), there can be no doubt that in the formless absorptions / realms there is a subject-object duality in the sense of perceiving luminosity (sensa) as external—even though subsequently the mental subject may identify with the infinitude in order to give rise to the experience of being that infinitude. Moreover, the third type of avidyā is also operative in such conditions, for that which distinguish the four formless absorptions and/or realms from each other is the different types of conceptualizations of the infinitude appearing as [proto-]object. Note that I wrote “may be illustrated with” because there is no way to know whether or not there is a physical reality external to our experience, so that if there were no such reality the finding of physics would refer to the structure of our experience rather than to an external reality that would be the basis of that experience (most recent substantiations of this in Chöphel & Capriles, unpublished, and Chöphel & Capriles, 2014). Moreover, as I have shown in different pieces of writing, the sciences do not find truths (most recent justifications of this in works of mine: Capriles, 2012a; Capriles, 2013c; Capriles, 2016; Capriles, unpublished 1, and Chöphel & Capriles, unpublished. Cf. also endnote 230 to this book). That which the Buddhist teachings call a mental feeling tone is the sensation that arises with each and every perception, action or thought, mainly in the center of the trunk at the level of the heart, and that is interpreted as proof of the goodness, neutrality or badness/evil, or beauty, neutrality of ugliness, and so on, of the object of the perception, action or thought. In fact, as will be shown below in the regular text, acceptance of one’s objects yields pleasure; rejection begets pain, and indifference gives rise to a neutral sensation. This may not be self-evident to the reader, but it will be substantiated below in the regular text. In Chapter 6 of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Chos mngon pa’i mdzod kyi bshad pa: this is not a verse of the Abhidharmakośa), Vasubandhu wrote (translation my own on the basis of those by De la Vallée Poussin’s and Leo M. Pruden’s: Vasubandhu [1971] and Vasubandhu [1988-1990]): “When one hair from the palm of the hand gets into the eye [one experiences] discomfort and suffering. Immature beings are like the palm of the hand: they do not feel the hair of the suffering of conditioned existence. Higher bodhisattvas are like the eye: They are greatly disturbed by that hair.” Note that the suffering of conditioned existence is the one that is often rendered as all-pervading suffering (Skt. saṁskāraduḥkhatā; Tib. ’du byed kyi sdug bsngal; Ch. ⾏苦 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíngkǔ; Wade-Giles, hsing -k’u ]): lit. “distress inherent in being subject to habitual mental formations or impulses that move the mind” (Skt. saṁskāra; Pāli saṅkhāra; Tib.’du byed; Ch. ⾏ [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíng; Wade-Giles, hsing ]). 116 117 118 1 3 4 4 3 4 119 120 121 2 3 2 530 Zeno of Citium, founder of the Stoia, was a disciple of Cynic philosopher Crates of Thebes. However, he outright contradicted the teachings of the Cynics by keeping slaves. Moreover, after leaving Crates, he studied with the Megarian logician Stilpon. Thus, he corrupted the Cynic tradition by subjecting it to the straightjacket of logic and by accepting to personally benefit from the revolting, obnoxious institution of slavery. We have a tropism to accept what is beneficial for the body, the species’ survival and certain spiritual needs, and reject what is harmful for the body, the species’ survival and the same spiritual needs. This is the reason why we automatically reject the sensation we have when we put our hand over the fire, and automatically accept the sensations produced by caressing, the tastes of some foodstuffs or erotic sensations (the latter being necessary for the continuity of the species and a skillful means that may be valuable on the Path of Awakening). Normally, both the quality and the quantity (intensity) of sensation enter into play, and as a result of the combination of them either we accept or reject our sensations right away; however, later on other elements can also enter into play and determine whether we accept or reject our sensations. For example, if a sensation we deem pleasurable and therefore accept, thereby experiencing pleasure, goes on uninterruptedly for too long, at some point we will reject it, experiencing displeasure. Likewise, because of reasons different from the quality and quantity of the sensation, which have more to do with the habits the individual made during his or her upbringing, a masochist can accept a sensation having a combination of quality and quantity that would lead most people to reject it and thereby to experience pain. It is well-known that those masochists who ask their partners to whip them, often learned to enjoy as pleasure the sensation produced by whipping because during their infancy they were whipped on parts of their body having an erogenous potential, which resulted in erotic stimulation, which for its part made them associate the sensation of “pain” to the erotic sensation and experience it as pleasure—as a result of which they associated erotic stimulation and pleasure with being whipped. However, this cannot be properly understood out of the context of the type of relations that, mainly in early infancy, prevailed in the interaction between the individual and her or his most significant others, and may be related with the individual not being able to obtain love and acceptance from her or his most significant others and, often, with her or his having been forced to adopt a humiliating position in relationships. The reasons for this often have to do with the explanation of psychological masochism offered below. Within the framework of a psychological sense of the word “masochism” that is not circumscribed to sexual stimulation associated with physical pain and, furthermore, may even be wholly unrelated with it, it could be said that masochism has to do with an extremely poor self-image—and, according to the explanation in Sartre (1980/1969), with the fear of being rejected resulting from the imperviousness and/or despiteful attitude of the most important significant others, which leads the person to assume humiliation and rejection beforehand rather than to attempt to gain acceptance from others, because of fear of the risk of being rejected by those others. It must be noted, however, that no explanation of physical masochism can be fully comprehensive if understood outside the context of the explanation proposed in the regular text of this book. Some people abhor the intense tickling sensation in the belly induced by roller coasters, parachute jumping before the parachute opens, etc., and never again dare to repeat the experience, whereas others enjoy the sensation deeply—which clearly depends on whether or not the individual manages to accept it. Likewise, some people, on hearing the scratching of a squeezed notebook paper, or of a chalk leaning in a certain angle, on a blackboard, get goose bumps and experience a most unpleasant sensation, whereas others feel nothing at all—the difference lying, once more, on the individual’s reaction to the sound. In both cases, if the one who rejects the sensation manages to drop her or his rejection, the sensation in the belly or the goose bumps may persist, but the experience may become pleasant. In the same way, some people, as they are tattooed, simply feel pain, whereas others at some point stop rejecting the sensation and experience a light ecstatic pleasure (this might be more likely to occur when the tattooing is made on erogenous zones, yet it can happen in all cases). “Energetic volume determining the scope of awareness” is one of the main meanings of the Tibetan word thig le, and its sense is somewhat similar to that of the Sanskrit word kuṇḍalinī. Herbert V. Guenther rendered the term, when used in this sense, as “bioenergetic input,” which was a great achievement, for the fact that the term thig le referred to the volume of energy entering the higher centers had not been emphasized in the West. However, Guenther’s translation implies both that the energy in question has a biological origin, and that there is an inherent separation between a “higher bioenergetic center” in the brain, and a bioenergetic current entering that center. (Moreover, the term seems to imply a von Neumann122 123 124 125 126 127 531 like systems theory based on the concept of input/output, which Fritjof Capra and other so-called “New Paradigm” thinkers [cf. e.g. Anderson, W. T.; Callenbach, E.; Capra, F.; Spretnak, C.; Eds.; 1986] have deemed not to be truly holistic [these thinkers deem systems theories based on the concept of selforganization to be more in harmony with truly holistic worldviews such as the Buddhist; however, it would be a grave mistake to identify the views of Buddhism with those of systems theories based on that concept, for only someone who has attained Buddhahood can outline a genuinely liberating system such as Buddhism].) Furthermore, some of the most lucid exponents of the rDzogs chen teachings (including rig ’dzin Byang chub rdo rje, who was Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu’s root teacher) have noted that the system of subtle channels (Skt. nāḍī; Tib. rtsa) described by Tantric Buddhism while discussing those practices that have the function of increasing the energetic volume determining the scope of awareness, even in the relative, conventional sphere may not be said to exist in an “objective,” material manner (e.g. in the way that conventionally it may be said that the nervous system and the brain exist). In fact, in the different practices of yantra yoga / adhisāra (Tib. ’phrul ’khor) and rtsa-rlung-thig le associated with the stage of completion or perfection of the inner Tantras and/or with the preliminary practices of the rDzogs chen teachings, and involving the arousal of kuṇḍalinī, the energetic system is visualized in different ways according to the effects sought—which implies that it does not have a prefixed form. Nonetheless, all such practices produce the intended effects—which demonstrates that the energetic system exists relatively and actually in the Buddhist sense in which the criterion for relative and actual (in Greek, as energeia [ἐνέργεια]; German wirlich) existence is the production of effects. The state of small time-space-knowledge, which is associated with a low energetic volume determining the scope of awareness, is a narrow condition wherein the focus of consciousness is circumscribed to only one fragment of the sensory continuum at a time, and has rather impermeable boundaries. This state is the condition of possibility of the functioning of delusion, for without it, the fragmentary perception at the root of the individual’s illusion of separateness, the illusion of substantial ontological multiplicity, and the concealment that Sartre called bad faith and that Freud designated as repression (these names being signifiers for slightly different signifieds—i.e. being slightly different concepts—for they apply to not-so-divergent interpretations of the same phenomenon) would not at all be possible. Nevertheless, in order to overcome delusion, it is not enough to enlarge one’s space-time-knowledge: this will only induce illusory experiences of the type that Buddhists designate with the Tibetan term nyams, which may be rendered as “illusory states,” or with the Chinese 魔境 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, mójìng; Wade-Giles mo -ching ; Jap. makyo), which means demonic states—and which Ṣūfīs designate by the Arabic term ‫ﺣﺎل‬ (ḥāl; plural, aḥwāl: ‫)أﺣﻮال‬. Such experiences are dangerous because they may be mistaken for realizations, yet they may be either boons or obstacles on the Path—and in both cases they have potential value. For example, the rDzogs chen teachings compare the nondual Awake, undistorted awareness called rig pa to a mirror, and the illusory experiences of the practice (the most important of which are classified into those of nonconceptuality, those of clarity and those of pleasure) to reflections in the mirror that must be used for reGnizing the true condition of the latter (to this end, once the experiences of the practice appear in a clear, vivid and powerful manner, specific instructions must be applied for discovering the true condition of the nonconceptual and hence nondual Awake, undistorted awareness whereby they appear). However, this will not guarantee their reGnition, for the latter cannot be produced, made, contrived, intentionally achieved, compounded or conditioned, as it can only occur in the way designated by the Skt. asaṃskṛta, the Pāḷi, asaṅkhata, the Tib. ’dus ma byas or the Ch. 無爲 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu -wei ). When, in rDzogs chen practice, such experiences arise, if they are automatically, delusively interpreted in terms of the contents of reified / hypostasized / absolutized / valorized thoughts—as most often happens due to the propensities at the root of saṃsāra—a competent practitioner will reGnize these thoughts the way thoughts must be reGnized—i.e., as and through the intrinsically all-liberating dharmakāya—and hence they will liberate themselves spontaneously, instantly dissolving in a natural way, like feathers entering fire. It cannot be repeated too much that Awakening cannot be produced, for it (is) unconditioned and unmade (Skt. asaṃskṛta; Pāḷi, asaṅkhata; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無爲 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu wei ]). Therefore, in itself the increase of the energetic volume determining the scope of awareness will result in an enlargement of space-time-knowledge, but it simply cannot do away with delusion; all it can do is to give rise to conditions in which an individual who is prepared can apply the instructions that may serve as contributory conditions for the spontaneous dissolution of delusion, but which in the individual lacking preparation would most likely give rise to attachment, terror, or even a psychotomimetic 2 4 2 2 2 2 532 experience that, if the increase of the energetic volume is prolonged in time, may become a fully-fledged psychosis. It happens that, as will be shown in the section dealing with the dynamic of the maṇḍala in Vol. II / Part III of this book, the expansion and permeabilization of consciousness may allow individuals to discover the insubstantiality, both of the entity that they believe themselves to be, and of the rest of the universe, and/or perceive ego-dystonic contents (i.e. contents that are incompatible with their own self-image)—all of which would threaten their ego-functioning and sense of identity. Likewise, this expansion and permeabilization may cause people to experience in its nakedness the pain inherent in the reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of thought—which may cause them to react to it with rejection and thus activate positive feedback loops (i.e. systemic loops which cause processes to increase from their own feedback) of pain and anguish and so on. With regard to the sense the Tibetan term thig le has in the context of the Tantric Path of Transformation, it must be noted that it renders the Skt. terms bindu (seed-essence) and tilaka, yet as noted by Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu it also has a meaning somewhat similar to that of the Sanskrit term kuṇḍalinī—this sense being the one I render as energetic-volume-determining-the-scope-of-awareness. This shows quite clearly that bindu and kuṇḍalinī are not two different things, but a single functional reality: kuṇḍalinī depends on bindu in the various senses of the latter term. For example, when the bindu of life, which dissolves after the total expiration of the air in the lungs in an individual’s last breath, is no more, there is no thig le energy in the individual’s energy-system; likewise, retaining the sexual bindu and engaging in sexual activity or applying practices such as the so-called “mystic heat” (Skt. caṇḍālī; Tib. gtum mo; Ch. 旃陀利 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhāntuólì; Wade-Giles, chan -t’o -li ]) raises the thig le in the sense of energetic volume and kuṇḍalinī; etc. In fact, the translation of the term thig le as “drop” in the context of the Tantric Path of Transformation is due to the fact that it also refers to the fluid that drops upon ejaculation and/or to the ovum and the blood that drops in menstruation. Since energy is related to the male and female seedessences, when the Tantras speak of white and red thig les that circulate in the energy currents (Skt. prāṇa or prāṇavāyu; Tib. rlung) through the energy channels (Skt. nāḍī; Tib. rtsa), many translators render this as white and red drops—yet it does not seem to me that any drops circulate through the energy channels. In fact, it is because the energy and energetic volume determining the scope of awareness called thig le are directly related to retention of the thig les or bindus which are the ovum and the sperm, which are the gross referent of these “drops,” that one pole of that energy is symbolically represented with the color of sperm and the other pole is represented with that of menstrual blood: this, and the fact that particular experiences associated with the colors red and white often appear that are directly related to the subtle energetic winds, seems to be among the main reason why Western translators of the Tantric texts write that “the energetic winds carry red and white drops along the structural pathways called rtsa”—even though the energy that circulates as winds does not seem to consist in drops, but in a colorless, polarized energy that rises and ebbs as energetic volume determining the scope of awareness or as kuṇḍalinī. In the context of the Atiyoga Path of Spontaneous Liberation, apart from energetic-volume-determining-thescope-of-awareness, the term thig le is understood mainly in the sense of “sphere” and is a synonym of the term rDzogs chen—so that it may be understood qua Base, qua Path and qua Fruit. Qua-Base it refers to the true condition of the totality of reality, which does not exclude anything: the term is used because a sphere has no angles or corners, which represent limits and, by implication, concepts. In fact, as noted repeatedly in the regular text and footnotes to it, all concepts are limits because by nature they have a differentia specifica (they exclude something, which is what the Pramāṇavāda refers to by the terms exclusion—Skt. apoha; Tib. sel ba; Ch. 除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chú; Wade-Giles, ch’u ] or 遮除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēchú; Wade-Giles, che -ch’u ]—or exclusion of other—Skt. anyāpoha; Tib. gzhan sel; Ch. seems to be 他感排除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tā gǎn páichú; Wade-Giles, t’a -kan p’ai -ch’u ]), and also a genus proximum (i.e., they are included in an ampler genus, which is also defined by exclusion of other); since the true condition of reality has no limits, by nature it lacks both differentia specifica and genus proximum, and hence it cannot fit into any content of thought—this being the reason why it is said to be inconceivable (Skt. acintya; Pāli acinteya or acintiya; Tib. bsam yas or bsam gyis mi khyab pa; Ch. 佛學辭彙 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fóxué cíhuì; Wade-Gilles, fo -hsüueh tz’u -hui ]) and inexpressible (Skt. avācya; Tib. smrar med pa; Ch. 不可说物 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùkěshuō wù; Wade-Gilles, pu -k’e -shuo wu ] / Skt. anabhilāpya; Tib. brjod [du] med [pa]; Ch. 不可說 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùkěshuō; Wade-Gilles, pu -k’e -shuo ]). In the same context (that of the rDzogs chen teachings), thig le qua-Path and thig le qua-Fruit is the direct, nonconceptual and therefore nondual realization of rDzogs chen / thig le qua Base, in which both the unawareness of the true condition that is the first aspect or type of avidyā, and the illusory limits 128 1 2 4 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 4 4 3 1 4 4 533 3 1 introduced by concepts, have totally dissolved—thus being free from conceptual fabrications (Skt. niṣprapañca; Tib. spros bral; Ch. 不戲論 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùxìlùn; Wade-Giles, pu -hsi -lun ] or Skt. aprapañca; Tib. spros [pa] med [pa]; Ch. 無戲論 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúxìlùn; Wade-Giles, wu -hsi -lun ]— or, in properly rDzogs chen terminology, Tib. la bzla ba). In the context of the Path of Spontaneous Liberation, the term may also be understood in the sense of potentiality. In Namkhai Norbu (unpublished ms.), we read that when we see someone approach, or when a plane first becomes visible over the horizon, the first thing we perceive is a thig le—which is the potentiality for the object to appear as a person or a plane, respectively, once it comes near enough. Likewise, subatomic particle-waves, while in their “particle” state (so to speak), would be thig les. As also noted in the regular text, the primary meaning of the term thig le chen po—total thig le or total sphere—understood qua Base, is that the whole of reality, since it lacks proximate genus and specific difference, cannot be precisely matched by any concept. Understood qua Fruit—and often also qua Path—it means that in the direct, nonconceptual and hence nondual realization of rDzogs chen-qua-Base in the state of Total Space-Time-Awareness thoughts self-liberate and hence there is no conditioning by contents of thought. However, particularly relevant to us here is the fact that the term also implies that in the latter condition there is a total energetic volume determining the scope of awareness. In fact, as noted in the section of the regular text to which the reference mark for this note was appended, there is a direct relation between the scope of an individual’s space-time-knowledge and the height of that which Tantrism calls “energetic volume determining the scope of awareness” (Tib. thig le, which as noted repeatedly, in this case is somewhat similar to the Skt. kuṇḍalinī). Furthermore, as also noted, the terms thig le and bindu designate the luminous spheres that can appear when one closes one’s eyes in the dark, when one looks at the sky or, in an incomparably more vivid and impressive manner, in practices like Thod rgal, where they are the condition for the swiftest methods to function—and that the these luminous spheres will become apparent in these practices depends on the most extreme heightening of the energetic volume or thig le and hence of kuṇḍalinī. (It may be useful to relate the rDzogs chen term “total sphere” to the statement by Saint Bonaventura that was later reproduced by Blaise Pascal (1962), and which physicist Alain Aspect repeated after his experiments of 1982 at the University of Paris-Sud: “The universe is an infinite sphere the center of which is everywhere and the periphery of which is nowhere.”) The single continuum consisting in the energy or thugs rje aspect of rDzogs chen-qua-Base is made up of the basic energy that the Tantric teachings call thig le; therefore, both the phenomena that in saṃsāra we experience as internal (which belong to the mode of manifestation of energy that the rDzogs chen teachings call gdangs) and those that in saṃsāra we experience as external (which belong to the mode of manifestation of energy the rDzogs chen teachings call rtsal), are made up of the same basic thig le energy. In the Tantras in general, the circulation of this energy is referred to by the Sanskrit terms vāyu, prāṇa and prāṇavāyu (Tib. rlung); the patterns (or “structural pathways”) of this circulation are called nāḍī (Tib. rtsa); and these two are responsible for the arising of all phenomena on the basis of thig le energy. The above applies both to the human organism and to the universe as a whole: in Tantrism the term thig le refers mainly to the energy-flow entering the higher centers (thus having the sense that above was said to be similar to that of kuṇḍalinī) and to the white or red bindu that must be kept for the flow to be high enough, as well as to the polarization of this basic energy as the white and red bindus used in practices of the Completion or Perfection stage (Skt. saṃpannakrama, niṣpannakrama or utpannakrama; Tib. rdzogs rim): it is this basic energy that circulates in a polarized form as prāṇa (Tib. srog; Ch. 波那 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bōnà; Wade-Giles, po -na ; Jap. hana; Kor. Pana]), vāyu (Pāḷi vāyu or vāyo; Tib. rlung; Ch. ⾵⼤ [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fēngdà; Wade-Giles, feng -ta ]) or prāṇavāyu through the body’s energy-channels or “structural pathways” called nāḍī (Tib. rtsa), which may also be seen as energy configurations. However, the rlung is not only the circulation of energy through some “channels” in the human organism, and the rtsa does not consist only in the configuration of these “channels” in the human organism: the former includes all that involves circulating energy, and the latter includes the configurations of this circulating energy that make of the plethora of phenomena. In fact, the term “total thig le” may also be taken to refer to the fact that the whole of reality is pure energy—in which, as is well-known, the Tantras would coincide with contemporary physics, which represents the basic stuff of all phenomena as energy. (However, Einstein’s theory—though not necessarily so more recent theories—assumes there is an objectively existing universe external to the individual, which is not the case in the rDzogs chen teachings: though they also posit the Base as an objective reality, they do not assert the universe to exist objectively 2 4 4 2 1 4 1 4 534 4 4 as a reality that is external to the individual; furthermore, this energy continuum includes both what we view as mental and what we view as physical, and upon disclosing itself in nirvāṇa as it truly is, it shows itself to be a single continuum not divided into two different dimensions.) Likewise, it is useful to keep in mind that some of the most lucid exponents of the rDzogs chen teachings— such as Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu’s root teacher, rig ’dzin Byang chub rdo rje—have noted that the system of subtle channels (nāḍī or rtsa) described by Tantric Buddhism in relation to practices for increasing the energetic volume determining the scope of awareness, even from the standpoint of relative truth, may not be said to exist in the material, seemingly “objective” manner in which the nervous system and the brain exist. In fact, in different practices of yantra yoga and rtsa-rlung-thig le of the stage of completion or perfection (Skt. saṃpannakrama, niṣpannakrama or utpannakrama; Tib. rdzogs rim) of the inner Tantras involving the arousal of kuṇḍalinī, the energetic system is visualized in different ways according to the effects sought. However, all of them produce the intended effects—which shows the energetic system to exist in the Buddhist sense in which the criterion for existence is the production of effects. In systems theory, an autocatalytic or positive feedback loop is a systemic loop whereby a dynamic grows from its own feedback. Korzybski seems to have believed that the maps produced by the sciences—which, it must be noted, are digital / discontinuous and discrete—could precisely correspond to the sensory basis of perception—the nonconceptual territory that (is) analog / continuous and, at a level of reality, holistic. This would be absolutely wrong, for that which is digital / discontinuous and discrete could by no means fit precisely that which is analog / continuous and, at a level of reality, holistic. Therefore, it is imperative to move beyond Korzybski and emphasize the fact that, if we take our conceptual maps of the nonconceptual sensory continuum to be absolutely right or absolutely wrong, we are under delusion. This will be further discussed below in the regular text. As Jean-Paul Sartre (1980/1969) points out well, this denial—which is an instance of what he called bad faith—despite being carried out in a single act, can be explained as a double negation, for in one and the same operation, we negate what experience has taught us, and deny that we have denied something. (This double negation is phenomenological rather than logical, for a double logical negation undoes the first negation, but contrarily to Hegel’s beliefs, this is not the case with a phenomenological one. Furthermore, it is equally plausible to explain it as an infinite negation, for in the same operation we also deny that we have denied that we have denied something, and that we have denied that we have denied that we have denied something—and so on ad infinitum.) For further detail, see Sartre (1980/1969), and Capriles (1994, electronic publication 2007, 3 vols.); etc. It is in this way that we give rise to what Heidegger called wertverhaftete Dinge or “value-endowed things.” In fact, we attribute value to possessions, lovers and so on to the extent that we fancy that they will fill our sense of lack, which issues from our illusion of being separate and at a distance from the absolute wholeness and plenitude of our true condition. Because of this fact, we could consider the true condition as absolute value, and say—like Sartre (1980/1969) in Being and Nothingness—that our being qua individuals (which Sartre designated as “being-for-Self”) is being-for-value: qua individual entities, we are doomed to experience a lack-of-plenitude / value that compels us to constantly try to attain value / plenitude, yet we are compelled to do so without dissolving as individual entities. This is a stark contradiction because the lack of plenitude and value stems precisely from our illusion of being individual entities at a distance from the plenitude of our true condition. And this contradiction prevents the dissolution of the duḥkha inherent in the delusion that, as we have seen, is at the root of our illusion of being an individual entity. The philosophy Sartre developed in Being and Nothingness differs from Buddhist philosophies principally in that, for the French philosopher, there is no way that being-for-Self can dissolve, and do so in an irreversible way, while the human organism is alive, and hence absolute plenitude is barred to us— whereas the very aim of Buddhism is to achieve the dissolution of the illusion of individuality and of the duḥkha inherent in it, in the plenitude of the given. Of course, this plenitude will not be realized by the supposedly individual entity that we always thought we were (which, as Sartre was right in noting, can never attain the value/plenitude which it constantly longs for), but by our true condition, which, as it has been noted, is in itself absolute plenitude. It is for this reason that Buddhism distinguishes Buddhas from “sentient beings” and affirms that Buddhahood involves the extinction of the illusory entity designated as “sentient being.” Cf. “Teoría del valor: Crónica de una caída”, in Capriles (1994); also Capriles (2012a). 129 130 131 132 535 (Note that Hazel Barnes [Sartre, 1969] rendered the French être-pour-Soi as being-for-itself rather than as being-for-Self, which is how it was rendered here. Her translation is wrong because that which being-forSelf yearns to attain is the Self, which could only be attained if being-for-Self died existentially; to render the term être-pour-Soi as being-for-itself amounts to implicitly claiming that what being-for-Self yearns to attain is being-for-Self—which is utterly absurd.) In the field of economics, most ordinary theories emphasize scarcity (e.g. oil became cheap in 2015 because fracking created an over-supply), environment (an air conditioner would have no value in Antarctica) and so on as key elements in determining the value of an object, a commodity or a service—thus obviating the deepest psychological reasons. In fact, the determinant element is to what extent we feel and believe that acquiring the object will fill our inner sensation of lack—which, of course, does not reduce the value or the “truth” of the most ordinary theories. Cf. Teoría del valor: Crónica de una caída (in Capriles, 1994) and Capriles (2012a). In the social group of criminals, it can happen that the more violent and ruthless an individual is, the more the rest will value him or her; conversely, the activities that “decent” people have traditionally valued may be a source of disgrace. In Stigma, Ervin Goffman tells us how an ex-convict who enjoyed good reading, before leaving the public library, used to look up and down the street to make sure that none of his criminal friends would see him leaving such a shameful place. Likewise, under some circumstances the fear or hatred that those who are not criminals can feel toward a criminal can induce in him or her shame or conflict (we often see criminals in the news covering their faces, which to some extent may be aimed at avoiding notoriety that may hamper their career, but to some extent may be aimed at avoiding being the object of general opprobrium), but under other different circumstances it can also serve as a source of pride (for example, by letting other criminals see how much he or she is feared and hated, and therefore how valuable he is in terms of “criminal” values): it is well-known that public enemy number one may be very proud of being number one in his or her field—and, in fact, the more an individual is hated and despised by many, the more pronounced an illusion of self-existence she or he will obtain. The Greeks understood negative values as the mere lack of positive ones; for example, evil was for them merely the absence of good. However, Kant was correct in explaining evil (and in general all negative values) to be a value and an active force, but with a minus sign (so that evil and other negative values, rather than being merely an absence of value, were anti-values and negative active forces). I am using the terms in the senses given them in Sartre (1980/1969); in Capriles (1977), I discussed from a Buddhist standpoint Sartre’s interpretation of sadism and masochism, and outlined a rather commonplace theory of the genesis of these “deviations.” According to context, someone’s stupidity, bad manners, bad taste, ugliness and so on may also cause us to dismiss the person as a source of value, for we feel that being appreciated by someone who lacks the value that we want to embody will not endow us with value in the eyes of others: they will think that the person who appreciates us has no value and that hence that person may readily value anyone who accepts him or her in spite of his or her stupidity, bad manners, bad taste, ugliness, etc. In 1975, endorphin receptors were discovered by two independent teams of researchers: one in Scotland comprising John Hughes and Hans Kosterlitz, and one in the U.S. made of Rabi Samantov and Solomon Snyder. In 1976, American neuroscientist Candace Pert, who had played a role in the discovery of the opiate receptor while completing her PhD in pharmacology in Synder’s laboratory, along with American researcher Nancy Ostrowski, “discovered” the relationship between endorphins and sex. In the 1983 book The Chemistry of Love, American psychiatrist Michael Liebowitz (1983, pp. 5, 107-109) outlined the relationship between endorphins and love. Prior to that year, no one had ever seriously investigated the underlying biochemical or neurochemical basis of love. Liebowitz, for instance, states that, prior to the writing of his book, when “looking into the matter more closely I began to realize that no one had ever seriously tried to examine the biochemical basis for our romantic drives”. Then, in the 1996 book The Alchemy of Love, American physician Theresa Larsen Crenshaw (1996a; for a summary, cf. 1996b), a former student of Masters and Johnson, came to the same conclusion. Crenshaw (1996a, p. xx) stated that “when it was discovered in the 1980s that nerve cells have specific receptor sites for chemicals such as endorphins, a flood of research followed ... we soon learned that the vast tributaries of the brain are awash in hormones (such as testosterone and estrogen).” This research soon led to the “hormone theory of love”. At any rate, according to current scientific beliefs, attraction would have to do with the sudden release of dopamine, whereas more stable love would have to do with a more stable release of endorphins. Since what attracts us depends in great measure on our karma (a concept that will be explained in greater detail further on, and which includes the one produced in past lives), individuals often find successive 133 134 135 136 137 138 536 partners having the same defects and vices or qualities and who allow them to repeat the same dramas. A most important element in choosing a partner for love and sex is the perception through the sense of smell of the individual’s pheromones, but certainly “falling in love” with partners who allow human beings to repeat the same dramas is related in greater or lesser measure with that which R. D. Laing (1972) called “family mapping:” the replication, in the family-of-reproduction, of relationship systems internalized in the family-of-origin. Harville Hendrix (1992), modified the Jungian theory of the imago, explaining it as a highly individual imprint in each of our memory banks, that embodies both positive and negative attributes of our earliest caretakers. This imago is like an intimacy template for our dream lover, influencing and filtering our perceptions so that we are particularly attentive and sensitized to those who match our private patterns. The perception of strong attraction then acts as an internal signal eliciting PEA (beta-phenylethylamine) release. The hope is that things will turn out better and we will have more control this time around than in our earlier relationship dynamic. As to PEA, Richard Clark Kaufman (2017/2018, PhD writes: “PEA is an endogenous stimulant of the human brain that amplifies the activity of major neurotransmitters for increased longevity, slower aging, higher performance, a sense of wellbeing, and a renewed youthfulfunctioning body. PEA has unique rapid uplifting effects on mood, mental activity, attention, motivation, alertness, creativity, awareness, energy, stamina, physical activity, pleasurable feelings, sexuality, and sensory perceptions. PEA (beta-phenylethylamine) is a naturally occurring trace amine neurotransmitter (chemical signal messenger between nerves) and neuroregulator that is normally synthesized in the brain from the amino acid phenylalanine. PEA amplifies the signal strength and effectiveness of the major neurotransmitters in the human brain to improve your life. “PEA increases the actions of dopamine (for wellbeing and feeling pleasure), norepinephrine (the brain's stimulant for wakefulness and higher performance), acetylcholine (for improving memory and mental activity), and serotonin (for better mood emotion and impulse control). PEA is a highly-concentrated neurotransmitter in the limbic system (the brain's emotional center) that increases motivation, physical drive, feelings, and social activity.” The point is that PEA is supposed to be the brain’s endogenous mesencephalic enhancer, which according to researchers plays a key role in the functioning of our innate and acquired drives. There are “enhancersensitive neurons in the brain that work in a split second on a high activity level due to PEA.” In “mere microseconds, PEA causes an impulse-mediated release of catecholamines (dopamine and epinephrine) and serotonin in the brain,” giving rise to “rapidly occurring improvements in cognitive performance, attention, awareness, pleasure, libido, and sense of wellbeing.” According to some studies, it may last between eighteen months and four years. This will not happen if, due to karmic causes and conditions, we manage to maintain a stable endorphin production, as endorphins, like opiates, reduce anxiety and stress. For an exhaustive explanation of the impossibility of obtaining plenitude through falling in love and having a love affair or a lasting passional relationship, see Sartre (1980/1969). For a Buddhist use of the explanations by Sartre, see Capriles (1977, 1986 and, more incidentally, later works). The fact that sometimes celebrities try to go incognito does not contradict their addiction to notoriety; on the contrary, it shows that, in spite of this addiction, fame entails great inconvenience and hardships insofar as it invades private life and curtails individual freedom. Moreover, although celebrities may go incognito when recognition by crowds could be bothersome and so on, they would be terrified of being ignored by the crowds when they are not going incognito, since that would imply that they have lost their fame and appeal, and with it they have lost the illusion of value that these used to afford them. In the same way, it is even possible that less famous individuals pretend going incognito only to make others believe (and thereby make themselves believe also) that they have reached a high degree of notoriety. Of course, for our part we value those who value precisely what we value, and consequently we are concerned as to whether or not they have a positive opinion of us; conversely, we despise those who despise what we value, and consequently we have little regard for their opinion of us. Nevertheless, in this way we put ourselves in the hands of those whose opinion we value, for if they come to despise us or ignore us, they will succeed in harming us to the extent that we have valued them and made our own value depend on their opinion of us. Furthermore, we can never succeed in completely ignoring or dismissing the judgments of even those whose opinions we care for the least, and so we are to a certain extent exposed to their judgments. 139 140 141 142 143 537 Most people may value those who belong to the “highest” social class, but this is not universal, for leftists, hippies, criminals and so on may either despise them or be indifferent toward them. Though some value prestigious academics, others find them a bore or are indifferent toward them. Though some value the Masters of some spiritual tradition, others think they are weirdoes or cheaters, or are indifferent toward them. And so on. The states in which sensual pleasure is enjoyed in a stable and relatively durable manner belong to the lower regions of the realm of the gods (Skt. and Pāli devagati / suragati / devaloka / devagati; Tib. lha ’gro ba; Ch. 天 趣 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tiānqù; Wade-Giles, t’ien - ch’ü ])—the “highest” of the six psychological states or “realms of samsaric existence” posited by Buddhism. Such states of stable, durable sensual pleasure make up the higher regions of the sphere of sensuality (Skt. kāmadhātu or kāmaloka; Tib. dod pa’i khams; Ch. 欲界 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yùjiè; Wade-Giles, yü -chieh ])—which for its part is the “lowest” of the three samsaric spheres posited by Buddhism. It must be remarked that despite the fact that the term “Dionysian pleasure” is often applied to all kinds of sensual enjoyment, there is evidence suggesting that the cult of Dionysus may have comprised a Path of spiritual liberation featuring methods analogous to those taught by the various forms of Tantrism, which seems to have been genealogically connected with a common ancestor of the latter, and even might have applied methods based on the principle of rDzogs chen. In Daniélou (1984), it is claimed that the cults of both Śiva and Dionysus, as well as the Egyptian cult of Osiris, were local forms of one and the same transnational tradition, which was disrupted by the Indo-European and Semitic invasions. At any rate, it is well-known that one of the aims of the Macedonian conqueror Alexander the Great—who according to Herodotus was considered Greek when he went to compete in the Olympic games—in his thrust toward the East was to find the origins of dark-skinned Dionysus in the Himalayas and India, for in ancient Greece it was common lore that the origins of this deity were related to those regions (I tend to believe it may have been philosopher Anaxarchus of Abdera, perhaps together with Pyrrho of Elis, who influenced Alexander to search for those lost origins). Likewise, in Capriles (2000b, 1998a, 1998b, 1999a), and in greater detail in Capriles (2011a and work in progress 3), I referred to the probable genetic connections between Śaivism, the cult of Dionysus, Persian Zurvanism, and the Bön tradition of Zhang-zhung. There is a clear analogy between those states in which aesthetic pleasure is enjoyed in a stable and relatively durable manner, and the sphere of form—the rūpadhātu (Pāli, rūpa loka; Tib. gzugs khams; Ch. ⾊界 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sèjiè; Wade-Giles, se -chieh ]), intermediate one among the three samsaric spheres posited by Buddhism—which corresponds to the middle regions of the realm of the gods (Skt. and Pāli devagati / suragati / devaloka / devagati; Tib. lha ’gro ba; Ch. 天趣 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tiān qù; Wade-Giles, t’ien ch’ü ], which for its part is the “highest” of the six psychological states or realms of samsaric existence posited by Buddhism). In the case of aesthetic pleasure, what happens is the following: since a single consciousness cannot adopt two different attitudes at the same time, when we admire the object of aesthetic appreciation and hence accept it, by so doing we are accepting the totality of our sensory continuum, which includes the mental factor or mental event (Skt. caitta or caitasika; Pāli cetasika; Tib. sems byung; Ch. ⼼所 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xīnsuǒ; Wade-Giles, hsin -so ]) that the Abhidharma designates as feeling (Skt. and Pāli vedanā; Tib. tshor ba; Ch. 受 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shòu; Wade-Giles, shou ]), which in this case is the so-called “feeling tone” or “mental sensation” that accompanies all perceptions and that appear principally in the center of the trunk at the level of the heart. Since, as it will be shown below in the regular text, what we call “pleasant” sensations are those sensations that happen to be accepted by consciousness, the acceptance of “mental” sensations which takes place when we accept the object of consciousness causes us to experience a pleasurable mental sensation or feeling-tone, which then we interpret as irrefutable proof of the inherent (rather than culturally conditioned) beauty of the object—which is an instance of delusion, not only because it is based on the subject-object duality produced by the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of the threefold directional thought-structure, on hypostatized / reified / absolutized / valorized intuitive thoughts, and so on, but also because so many of the usual instances of aesthetic appreciation are culturally conditioned rather than being determined by a form’s supposedly inherent harmony (as posited by most Western, pre-Kantian philosophers of art), or by a form’s adequation to a priori principles of the faculty of judgment (as Kant believed), etc. For a far more detailed discussion of this and a succinct critique of Kantian aesthetics, see Capriles (2000); a more thorough, albeit provisional critique of Kantian aesthetics was made by this author in a work produced when he was a student of philosophy. 144 1 4 4 4 145 4 4 1 4 1 3 4 538 The states in which transpersonal pleasure, albeit subtle—for coarser pleasure arises from acceptance of the sensations issuing from contact with sensual objects and from passions based on acceptance, and as such pertains to the realm of sensuality—is enjoyed in a less fleeting manner belong to the sphere of formlessness (Skt. ārūpyadhātu [also arūpaloka or ārūpyāvacara]; Pāḷi, arūpaloka; Tib. gzugs med pa’i khams; Ch. 無⾊界 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúsèjiè; Wade-Giles, wu -se -chieh ]): the highest of the three samsaric spheres posited by Buddhism, which corresponds to the higher regions of the realm of the gods (Skt. and Pāli devagati / suragati / devaloka / devagati; Tib. lha ’gro ba; Ch. 天趣 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tiān qù; WadeGiles, t’ien ch’ü ])—the “highest” of the six psychological states or realms of samsaric existence posited by Buddhism. In the case of yogic-transpersonal pleasure, the general dynamic is similar to that of aesthetic pleasure, the difference being that the acceptance and ensuing pleasure are subtler and far more lasting, and that that which induces consciousness’ acceptance of its object, rather than being the judgment that establishes its beauty, is the judgment that establishes its apparently limitless / absolute / total character—and hence in a sense it more similar to the aesthetic admiration of what is established as sublime than to the appreciation of what is established as beautiful. Thus while we are in a formless absorption we feel we are fused with the seemingly limitless object, and when we become conscious of that object and admire it we experience transpersonal pleasure and become attached to the absorption. As stated in the preceding note, since a single consciousness cannot adopt two different attitudes at the same time, when we admire—and thus accept—the pseudo-totality that in this case is our object, our consciousness is accepting the totality of the universe, which includes the so-called “mental” sensation accompanying perception. Since “pleasant” sensations are nothing more than sensations accepted by consciousness, by accepting the totality of the continuum-of-sense-data-out-of-which-objects-may-besingled-out as though it were a single, limitless entity, we obtain an extremely subtle feeling-tone of pleasure, which we interpret as irrefutable proof of the marvelous and supposedly absolute character of the pseudo-totality which is the object of our contemplation, and with which the mental subject that is the core of dualistic consciousness—even though it is still functioning as a subject that seems to be at a distance from its object—identifies or, in more correct, Sartrean terms, which it becomes. As the mental subject identifies with or, more correctly, becomes the pseudo-totality appearing as object, it gains the illusion of having surpassed the subject-object duality and achieved totality—which may be wrongly understood as “having attained Awakening.” In fact, as will be shown in a subsequent note, while the common teachings of the Sūtrayāna place the sphere of formlessness (Skt. ārūpyadhātu [also arūpaloka or ārūpyāvacara]; Pāḷi, arūpaloka; Tib. gzugs med pa’i khams; Ch. 無⾊界 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúsèjiè; Wade-Giles, wu -se -chieh ]) at the top of saṃsāra, the Vajrayāna, Tantrayāna or Mantrayāna places it at the bottom—as represented by the structure of the hat of a Vajra Master (Skt. vajrācārya; Tib. rdo rje slob dpon; Ch. [lit.] ⾦剛阿闍梨 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jīngāng āshélí; Wade-Giles, chin -kang a -she -li ] or [lit.] ⾦剛師 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jīngāngshī; WadeGiles, chin -kang -shih ]), in which the feather that is the symbol of the sphere of sensuality (Skt. and Pāḷi kāmadhātu or kāmaloka; Tib. dod pa’i khams; Ch. 欲界 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yùjiè; Wade-Giles, yü -chieh ]) is placed at the top, whereas the rim, which represents that of formlessness, lies at the bottom. Therefore, those two different Paths value the pleasure of sensuality, and the pleasures of form and formlessness when they actively occur, in opposite ways. I avoided using the term orgasm because there does not seem to exist a universal consensus with regard to the concept’s definition. For example, in the case of the male, common folk in the West understand it as a synonym of ejaculation. Some of the Eastern traditions preconizing the retention of the seed-essence and of the contemporary sexologists regard the woman’s copious emission of a water-like fluid (so-called “squirting”) in moments of vaginal climax as an ejaculation partly equivalent to that of the man, and thus some of these Eastern traditions teach women to retain this liquid in order to keep their energy and vitality at a peak. However, according to some specific Tantric Buddhist traditions the woman’s loss of the ovum in menstruation is comparable to the emission of spermatozoa by the man, for just as in the man it is the spermatozoa that are the coarse physical correlate of the specific aspect of the seed-essence (Skt. bindu; Tib. thig le) that is to be retained for the energetic volume determining the scope of awareness (Skt. bindu; Tib. thig le—which in this case have a meaning that is extremely close to that of the Skt. kuṇḍalinī) to peak, in the woman it is the ovum that is the coarse physical correlate of this aspect of the seed-essence and that therefore must be retained (hence the use by women of a specific medicine in combination with practices of rtsa-rlung-thig le in order to stop menstruation). Likewise, other specific Tantric Buddhist traditions seem to combine these two approaches to female sexuality. At any rate, since I have not at all 146 2 1 4 4 4 147 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 4 2 1 4 148 539 4 specialized in the conceptions of different categories of Ancient or rNying ma pa and Newer of Sarmapa Tantras in this regard, I believe it may be better not to explore the matter further in this book. It is not possible to give a comprehensive explanation of human eroticism and sexuality in a few short paragraphs. The theory in Sartre (1980/1969), is that an essential aspect of erotic desire is the wish for one’s consciousness to become flesh and qua consciousness-made-flesh somehow possess the Other’sconsciousness-made-flesh, which we intend to achieve through contact, as extended as possible, between one’s flesh and the other’s flesh (in the case of both lovers, consciousness becomes flesh in the one who is experiencing sensations through the flesh, and by the same token becomes flesh for the Other who is touching the flesh in which consciousness has incarnated—and thus through the contact of fleshes both parts attempt to achieve some kind of full, direct contact of consciousnesses). Sartre notes, however, that one does not wish to possess the Other’s consciousness in the manner in which one possesses a lifeless object, for what one wishes to possess is the other’s consciousness qua freedom and spontaneity made flesh (and in turn as recognizing one’s consciousness qua freedom and spontaneity made flesh). However, this is to be placed in the ampler framework of Buddhist philosophy, which roughly corresponds to the ampler framework of Sartre’s (1980) Being and Nothingness—except in that the rough equivalent of Awakening in the latter (which is the Soi or Self, provided that it is redefined as done in Capriles [2012a] and as will be done in the definitive edition of Capriles [2007a Vol. I], corresponds to nonstatic nirvāṇa [Skt. apratiṣṭhitanirvāṇa; Tib. mi gnas pa’i myang ’das; Ch. 無住涅槃 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúzhù nièpán; Wade-Giles, wu -chu nieh -p’an )]) is according to Sartre absolutely unattainable. All human acts ultimately aim at attaining absolute plenitude, which can only be achieved if the illusion of inherent separateness and individuality dissolves. In the case of erotic relationships, both parties wish to attain absolute plenitude through absolute pleasure, which necessarily would entail the dissolution of the illusion of separateness and individuality in both partners. However, neither party is ready to accept this dissolution, for each wants to experience and enjoy the pleasure ensuing from union as a separate conscious entity, and each wants to “touch” the Other’s consciousness and “be touched” by the Other’s consciousness through incarnating as flesh and causing the Other to incarnate as flesh, and then pressing each one’s naked body against the other’s—which implies that neither party is willing to accept its own dissolution as an apparently separate, individual consciousness. (References to Sartre 1969/1980.) Furthermore, as stated in Laing (1961), in a subsequent stage of the erotic relationship each party as a separate individual may wish to mark the other qua separate individual with the most intense experience of pleasure—which also implies that each one wishes to remain as an apparently separate individual. (This is not always so to both parties, for in many cases one party—most often the female—may not be willing to give the other the satisfaction of being satisfied by him or her; at any rate, also to this end the person has to remain an apparently separate individual.) Nevertheless, in the practice of the inner Tantras, erotic relationships are employed as a means for attaining absolute plenitude through absolute pleasure in a temporary dissolution of the illusion of separateness and individuality in both parties. When this is achieved, there is communion in the single nonconceptual and hence nondual Awake awareness that is the common nature of both consciousnesses, which is incomparably deeper than the contact of two consciousnesses made flesh, and which allows both parties to achieve through the Other the most intense pleasure and the most perfect plenitude, precisely because neither party remains as an apparently separate individual. I dealt with the drives and contradictions inherent in human sexuality in Capriles (1977), where I quoted many pages of Sartre’s reflections in the framework of a comprehensive explanation of human sexuality in terms of the views characteristic of the Tantras (largely based on the information made available in Guenther, 1952). I dealt with the subject again in Capriles (1986), in which I excluded most of the long extracts from Sartre’s work, and then in a more seminal way in Capriles (2012a). In this case the object is not a true infinitude: since it excludes the subject, the object is finite. Moreover, the purported infinitude is perceived through the concept of infinitude, which is defined by differentia specifica / exclusion of other (Skt. apoha; Tib. sel ba; 除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chú; Wade-Giles, ch’u ] or, more precisely, Skt. anyāpoha; Tib. gzhan sel; Ch. 他感排除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tāgǎn páichú; Wade-Giles, t’a kan p’ai -ch’u ]). The Mahāsāṃghikas asserted the purportedly “formless” object to involve form in a subtle sense, but I do not know whether or not this was the reason why they did so. For some time, instead of “conveys a meaning,” following Alex Berzin, I used “is a meaning category.” However, the term “meaning category” never felt precise to me and, moreover, that term has been used to render the key concept of Husserl’s philosophy that he expressed with the term Bedeutungskategorie, 149 2 4 4 2 150 2 1 3 2 2 151 540 which does not correspond to the sense in which Berzin, and then myself, used it. Therefore, I decided to modify the expression. In the long term pleasant, unpleasant and neutral states—i.e. states involving pleasant, unpleasant and neutral feeling-tones—are the maturation of positive, negative and neutral karmas. In fact, the acts (karmas) that gave rise to the potentialities (karmas) that matured as those states involved acceptance, rejection or indifference, thus creating the propensity for experiencing pleasure, pain or neutral feelings, respectively. Because of the above, the nature of our actions is reflected on our feeling-tones: when we find our actions acceptable in terms of the criteria we internalized during our upbringing, we accept ourselves and thus experience a pleasant feeling-tone. When we find our actions blameworthy in terms of the criteria we internalized during our upbringing, we reject ourselves and thus experience an unpleasant feeling-tone. When we do not find our actions either acceptable or reprehensible in terms of the criteria that we internalized during our upbringing, we do neither accept not reject ourselves and thus experience a neutral feeling-tone. However, not all depends on the criteria we internalize. Even if we have been told consistently that an act harmful to others is OK, upon carrying it out our innate sensibility will reveal to us that the act is not really OK, and thus we will reject ourselves upon doing it, no matter how much we resort to self-deceit. Therefore, the nature of karmas does not depend on the criteria internalized during our conditioning, but on laws that are in a sense objective. Hence the Buddhist explanation of the law of karma as being objective rather than depending on different internalized criteria of good and evil. As will be shown in a subsequent note, the stage in the development of saṃsāra that the rDzogs chen teachings call “consciousness of the base-of-all” (Skt. ālayavijñāna; Tib. kun gzhi rnam [par] shes [pa]; Ch. 阿賴耶識 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, ālàiyē shí; Wade-Giles, a -lai -yeh shih ] or 藏識 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zàngshì; Wade-Giles, tsang -shih ])—which involves a preconceptual interest that tends to single out and take as figure structures that maintain their pattern within the total change of the totality of sense data—is immediately followed by an extremely brief experience of the realm of form (Skt. rūpadhātu; Pāli, rūpa loka; Tib. gzugs khams; Ch. ⾊界 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sèjiè; Wade-Giles, se -chieh ]). If one rests either in the consciousness of the base-of-all or in the experience of the realm of form, one creates karma to be reborn in the realm of form. Otherwise, the consciousness of the base-of-all becomes the basis for the activity of the next “consciousness,” which is that of defilements (Skt. kliṣṭamanovijñāna; Tib. nyon [mongs pa can gyi] yid kyi rnam [par] shes [pa]; Ch. 末那識 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, mònà shì; Wade-Giles, mo -na shih ]), and one enters the realm of sensuality (Skt. kāmadhātu or kāmaloka; Tib. dod pa’i khams; Ch. 欲界 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yùjiè; Wade-Giles, yü -chieh ]). However, this note is intended to clarify the reason why the dynamic of the sphere of form is a key catalyst of the most advanced rDzogs chen practices. We read in Padmasambhava and others (1973, Italian, 1977, p. 15): “The sphere of form is an ocean of vibration that becomes ever more turbulent as one moves away from its peaceful profundities; sensitive to the slightest tremor of pain or displeasure, the impulses [that are proper to this sphere] formulate their own antidote to disharmony.” In fact, the consciousness of the base-of-all and the realm to which it may give access are key catalysts of the highest practices of the Series of pith instructions (Skt. Upadeśavarga; Tib. Man ngag [gyi] sde) series of rDzogs chen teachings, which depend on the activation of aversion (Tib. zhe sdang; Skt. dveṣa; Pāḷi dosa; Ch. 瞋 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chēn; Wade-Giles ch’en ]) in reaction to those most peculiar appearances of clarity / luminosity which are the self-luminous forms of the rol pa mode of manifestation of energy when they appear stably as object for very long periods in an apparently external dimension—i.e. initially manifesting as rtsal energy. If the aversion in question arose as a reaction to bodily sensations rather than to apparently external selfluminous forms and therefore did so in experiences of the realm of sensuality, one would develop a strong reticence to practice, the dynamic or the realm of form described above in terms of a quotation from Padmasambhava and others would not become operative, and the practice would not lead to the integration of the external and the internal dimension or dbyings and the concomitant overlapping of the rtsal and rol pa modes of manifestation of energy—and hence it would not lead to the realizations resulting in the special modes of death or deathlessness characteristic of the rDzogs chen teachings. All this will be discussed in Part Two of this book. Finally, it may be noted that when the practice with the sphere of form is successful, this sphere arises as the saṃbhogakāya—just as in successful practice with the sphere of formlessness, the latter must arise as the 152 153 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 541 4 4 dharmakāya, and in successful practice with the sphere of sensuality, the latter must arise as the nirmāṇakāya. J. Krishnamurti did not distinguish between the identification in terms of concepts of the group to which we belong, which may be indispensable for contemporary human beings—for example, upon crossing an international border we have to declare our nationality and show the corresponding passport or required document—and the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of that identification, which makes us feel that inherently and absolutely we are what we have thought or said we are. Consequently, those who follow his teaching might think that they should avoid certain particular statements and / or thoughts—some of which are indispensable for life—instead of being aware that what must be eradicated is the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of all thoughts. And, even if they spontaneously understood it, in Krishnamurti’s teachings they would not find methods leading to the spontaneous liberation of hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized thoughts. According to Buddhism, pride is both a mode and a transformation of aversion, and envy and jealousy are modes and transformations of desire. In fact, trying to climb in saṃsāra by pushing others down is a function of aversion, and wanting what others have (whether objects, as in envy, or the appreciation of people, as in jealousy) is a function of desire. Furthermore, each passion begets other passions; for example, envy and jealousy beget aversion, and even hatred, toward those whom we envy or are jealous of. And so on. In fact, in the decade of the 1950s experiments demonstrated that pleasant experiences are remembered more easily than unpleasant ones, and the conclusion was that pleasing, self-satisfying experiences that enhance prestige are often relived mentally, thereby becoming fixed in memory, whereas, contrariwise, we are compelled to repress painful, humiliating experiences, negating them while at the same time negating that we are negating something (Sartre’s bad faith) / thrusting them out of consciousness or, which is the same, making them unconscious (Freud’s repression). However, it was also shown that even though rarely recalled, those negative memories remain active and are often at the root of a great deal of unexplained anxiety. All this is so well-known today that it is redundant to point it out. In Sartre (1980/1969), these mechanisms were explained in terms of the concept of “bad faith” or selfdeception by the individual consciousness, whereas the first Freudian topic interpreted it as “repression” or concealment carried out by the “preconscious.” Although the two interpretations are not so divergent as Sartre seems to have believed (for the preconscious, agent of repression, works in secondary process, which is the language of the conscious, and as such it may be seen as an aspect of the conscious rather than as an agent of repression alien to the conscious, which is how Sartre seems to have understood the Freudian explanation of Verdrängung / refoulement / repression), the Sartrean concept seems to me to be closer to the Buddhist explanation of such phenomena than the Freudian one. In other works, on the basis of the theories developed in Bateson (1972, and to some extent 1979), I have explained this in terms of the relationship between the two brain hemispheres and the two types of mental process (primary and secondary) described in Freud (trans. J. Strachey, 1954). See, among other of my works: Capriles (1994, Chapter Two, and electronic publication 2007, 3 vols.). The root of this term (Wylie, khor) literally means “wheel.” Among other things, it is because we perceive what is unoriginated, unmade and uncompounded as originated, made and compounded, that many of us justify the widespread belief in a creator of the universe. There are many other reasons for the arising of this belief, which were partly discussed in Capriles (2000b) and discussed in far greater detail in Capriles (2012a); cf. also the possibly upcoming revised edition of Capriles (1994). At any rate, this is not the place to discuss this matter in depth. As explained repeatedly, the reason why I had to coin the neologism “reGnition” in order to refer to an occurrence that in the English translations of rDzogs chen texts is often called “recognition,” was that this occurrence does not involve the mental event called “recognition” (Skt. saṃjñā; Tib. ’du shes; Ch. 想 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiǎng; Wade-Giles, hsiang ]). Contrariwise, that occurrence represents the dissolution of all forms of recognition in the patency of nondual Awake awareness’ own face that is the occurrence of rig pa-qua-Path and rig pa-qua-Fruit. In Pascal (1962 [posthumous edition, 1669], section “Annoyances,” thought 167), we read: “Nature makes us miserable in every state; our desires make us imagine a blissful state, because they attribute to a state in which we do not find ourselves [all that in] the state in which we find ourselves [we fancy as the greatest] pleasures; but we would not be blissful upon attaining those pleasures because we would have other desires according to the [characteristics and lacks of the] new state. It is necessary to particularize this general proposition. 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 3 162 542 “We never keep to the present moment. We anticipate the future as if it were coming [too] slowly, in order to hurry its course; or we turn to the past to stop it, as [if it were escaping us] too rapidly: we go along wandering imprudently in times that are not ours, and we have no power in the only one that belongs to us [which is the now]; and we are so inane, that we think about those times that are nothing and run away without [dissolving ourselves in] the only one that subsists [which at any time is the now]. “The point is that the present usually hurts us. We hide it from our sight, because it distresses us; and if it is pleasant we mourn when we see it escape. We try to sustain it in the future, and we think about arranging things that are not in our power for a time that we have no certainty at all will arrive. “Let everyone examine their thoughts and they will find them all busy with the past and with the future. We do not think almost anything about the present; and if we do think about it, it is only to shed light on arranging the future. The present is never our aim: the past and the present are our means; only the future is our aim. Thus, we never live, but merely hope to live, and since we are making ourselves ready to be blissful, it is inevitable that we will never be so… “The sensation of the falsity [and hollowness] of the present pleasures and the ignorance of the vanity of the absent ones cause inconstancy… “Men busy themselves chasing a ball and a hare; it is the pleasure of kings themselves…” Later on, Pascal will remind us that players of games of chance do not want the money from the bet but the self-forgetfulness that betting provides them, as it allows them to totally turn their attention toward the external world while the roulette wheel spins, and that the same thing happens to the hunter, who would not want the hare if it were given to him as a gift, because what he wants is to chase after it in order to forget what goes inside himself and elude the boredom of monotony. However, in order to gamble, the gambler has to make himself believe that it is the prize money that he wants, and in order to chase after the hare the hunter has to make himself believe that it is the hare that he wants, for otherwise he would not be able to go after it. The fear of boredom is such that men willingly go to war in order to escape it, although later on in war they long for the peace and tranquility of home and of life in times of peace; then when the war ends, they return home to enjoy peace, but they do not find such enjoyment, for what they find is boredom once again. The entire section called “Amusement” in Pascal’s Thoughts is a marvelous description of the first Noble Truth of the Buddha, which inclusively points out the second Noble Truth. Pascal (1962) writes: “Such is our true state: it is what makes us incapable of knowing with certainty and of ignoring absolutely. We drift in this vast middle, always uncertain and floating, pushed from one extreme to the other [back and forth]. Whichever point we intend to attach ourselves and secure ourselves to, moves and abandons us, and if we follow it, it escapes our movements, slipping away from us and fleeing in an eternal flight. Nothing is fixed for us. This is the state that is natural to us, and, nevertheless, the most contrary to our inclination. The desire to find a firm seat and a final constant base to build a tower that will rise to the infinite embraces us; but our entire foundation cracks, and the earth opens to the abyss. “Therefore, let us not look for security or steadiness…” With respect to Sartre (1980/1969), let me repeat that the problem with the book in question is that, although it is structured like a Buddhist teaching that would designate Awakening as holon, it negates the possibility of reaching the holon. Important rDzogs chen texts make the point that Atiyogatantra—i.e., rDzogs chen qua Path or vehicle—is the most ancient of the teachings of Awakening and the source of all teachings of Awakening. However, it is impossible to establish whether Dignāga drew the concept and term from the rDzogs chen teachings or whether the term was coined by Dignāga and then absorbed by the rDzogs chen teachings to express one of its own characteristic concepts—or whether the word was independently coined by both of them because etymology commanded. With regard to the translation I use for rendering this term, see the immediately following endnote. What is important at this point is to place the different types of thought discussed in the regular text in a wider context. According to the rDzogs chen teachings, and, in the context of the Sūtrayāna, to the Indian Mahāyāna Buddhist philosophers Dignāga and his indirect disciple Dharmakīrti, there are two types of entity as such: (1) The particular phenomena they referred to as inherent particulars, inherent specifically characterized phenomena, inherent self-configurations or inherent self-collections of characteristics (Skt. svalakṣaṇa; Tib. rang mtshan; Ch. ⾃相 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxiàng; Wade-Giles, tzu -hsiang ]), which are actual or effective in that they have the capacity to produce effects, yet are impermanent, and which pertain to that 163 164 4 543 4 which the Third Promulgation Sūtras refer to as dependent nature (Skt. paratantra; Tib. gzhan dbang; Ch. 依他起性 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yītā qǐxìng; Wade-Giles, i -ta ch’i -hsing ]). The Mahāmadhyamaka school of tenets calls dependent patterns or dependent collections of characteristics (Skt. paratantralakṣaṇa; Tib. gzhan dbang gi mtshan nyid). Paradigmatic cases of these phenomena, and source of most other cases, are the phenomena of that which the rDzogs chen teachings call the rtsal form of manifestation of energy; however, in the view expressed here, for reasons explained in the following paragraph, mere mental appearances—which pertain to the gdangs form of manifestation of energy and that Tibetan epistemology (an extension of the Indian Buddhist pramāṇa tradition) refers to as reflections (Skt. pratibimba; Tib. gzugs brnyan) or aspects (Skt. ākāra; Tib. rnam pa)—may also belong to this category (and, of course, so do self-luminous visions of rol pa energy). It is also important to keep in mind that in the rDzogs chen teachings the contents of the consciousness of the base-of-all (Skt. ālayavijñāna; Tib. kun gzhi rnam [par] shes [pa])—when this term, rather than referring to a so-called storage-consciousness, refers to a phenomenon that is a key stage in the arising of saṃsāra from the base-of-all and that occurs again and again in the course of perception—are phenomena of this class, which appear as such for an instant as they are singled out for perception. And it is even more important to be mindful of the fact that, although these phenomena are said to be real and effective, this does not at all mean that they are self-existent; contrariwise, being dependently arisen phenomena—which depend on perception to be singled out and separated from the rest of the sensory field, and even to have their form—they are empty of self-existence (the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra notes that phenomena of the dependent nature are empty of production because they do not arise from their own nature or by their own power, and empty of the absolute because they are perceived as dependently arisen phenomena; in fact, they conceal rather than reveal the absolute and, moreover, according to Mahāmadhyamaka [Tib. bdU ma chen po] and dbU ma gzhan stong pa [proposed Skt. transl. Para(bhava)śūnyatāvāda Madhyamaka]—systems mainly based on other sūtras, most of them pertaining to the Third Promulgation, and on many treatises, as well as on Tantras—and also according to the rDzogs chen teachings, phenomena of the dependent nature are also empty of own nature / own being, and therefore their perception as having own nature / own being is a delusion). (2) The synthetic mental phenomena that they named abstracted general configurations / collections of characteristics (Skt. sāmānyalakṣaṇa; Tib. spyi mtshan; Ch. 共相 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, gòngxiàng; Wade-Giles, kung -hsiang ]), which are unreal and ineffectual, yet are said to be “permanent,” and which pertain to that which Third Promulgation Sūtras call imaginary, imputational nature (Skt. parikalpita; Tib. kun brtags) and which the Mahāmadhyamaka and dbU ma gzan stong pa philosophical schools call imaginary or imputational patterns, or imaginary or imputational collections of characteristics (Skt. parikalpitalakṣaṇa; Tib. kun brtags kyi mtshan nyid). The hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of these phenomena is responsible for the third type of avidyā in the classification privileged in this book and by most rDzogs chen Masters, and hence for all defilements (note, however, that for the third type or aspect of avidyā to arise, the second, produced by the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of the threefold directional thought-structure [Skt. trimaṇḍala; Tib. ’khor gsum; Ch. 三輪 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānlùn; Wade-Giles, san -lun )] must have previously arisen, and for the second type or aspect of avidyā to arise, the first type or aspect must be operative—for the simple reason that without unawareness of the true condition it is simply impossible for that condition to be distorted). Moreover, since phenomena of the imaginary, imputational nature are projected on particulars, specifically characterized phenomena, self-configurations or self-collections of characteristics and as such exist and subsist in the human mind only, they do not subsist by their own nature and thus, as even the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra makes it clear, they are empty of own-nature (as noted above, this canonical source in question asserts dependently arisen phenomena not to be empty of own nature / own being). Each abstracted general configuration / collection of characteristics initially arises when an imprint is left by the initial understanding of the preperception (Skt. pratyakṣa; Tib. mngon sum; Ch. 現量 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiànliáng; Wade-Giles, hsien -liang ]) of a particular / specifically characterized phenomenon—i.e. of so-called self-configuration or self-collection of characteristics—in terms of the concept of whatever the individual’s society takes it to be—as such being a model, constructed by mental syntheses (Skt. prapañca; Pāḷi papañca; Tib. spros pa; Ch. 戲論 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xìlùn; Wade-Giles, hsi -lun ; Jap. keron; Kor. hŭiron]: mental fabrication), of the so-called particular, specifically characterized phenomenon, self-configuration or self-collection of characteristics in question, rather than being merely the latter’s mental image. In conceptual cognition (a term that Dharmakīrti applied to cognitions involving a phenomenal appearance capable of being conjoined with a linguistic expression) a phenomenon of this kind, which is a mental representation (i.e. a pratibhā or snang ba of the sixth sense—the one that perceives mental phenomena—under the impulse of the seventh 1 4 1 3 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 544 2 so-called “consciousness” and of propensities in the eighth so-called “consciousnesses”), is superimposed on a particular, specifically characterized phenomenon or so-called self-configuration or self-collection of characteristics of the same type as the one that initially served as its basis, immediately after the phenomenon in question is preperceived for an instant. Therefore, it becomes mixed and confused with the latter, in such a way that what is then perceived as that phenomenon is the abstracted general configuration / collection of characteristics in question—which is obviously a delusion. (Note that the mental images that serve as the sensory basis of abstracted general configurations / collections of characteristics pertain to the mode of manifestation of energy the rDzogs chen teachings call gdangs, and as such may be compared to reflections of the phenomena surrounding a crystal ball that appear inside the latter in a somewhat dimmer way than do the visual phenomena reflected: they are mere mental appearances and yet, as implied above, such appearances may also be of the kind called particulars, specifically characterized phenomena or so-called self-configurations or self-collections of characteristics—the reasons for this being that [a] they can be apprehended for an instant in bare perception before they are replaced by an abstracted general configuration / collection of characteristics, and [b] in many cases they can produce effects—at least in the dimension to which they belong). Taking fire as an example of what was described in this paragraph: when, upon perceiving a physical fire—i.e. upon perceiving a so-called inherent particular, inherent specifically characterized phenomenon, selfconfiguration or self-collection of characteristics of fire—one learns that this phenomenon is a fire, a generic image of fire arises—which is (2) an abstracted general configuration / collection of characteristics “made up” of gdangs energy and which will take part in obscured perception each and every time one perceives, cognizes by means of thought, or imagines or visualizes a fire. Among those phenomena of gdangs energy which are (2) abstracted general configurations / collections of characteristics, we are mainly concerned with two kinds, the first of which is based on the perception of the sound of words, whereas the second may be based on a perception of data of any sense whatsoever, namely: (2A) Those coarse thoughts called word sound patterns [resulting from mental syntheses] that convey meanings, which is my own translation of the Sanskrit term śabdasāmānya (Tib. sgra spyi; Ch. 論聲總 [simplified 论声总] [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, lùnshēngzǒng; Wade-Giles, lun -sheng -tsung ])—a term which is used in the rDzogs chen teachings, which Dignāga introduced to the Sūtrayāna and which Dharmakīrti did not use, but which is nonetheless widely used by Tibetan Buddhist epistemologists in general, as it was introduced into Tibet seemingly through two different avenues: Śāntarakṣita did so in the context of the Sūtrayāna (being assimilated by practically all Tibetan epistemologists, as they found it to be most important in their field), and shortly thereafter it was reintroduced upon the arrival of the Buddhist rDzogs chen teachings. The material basis of these sound patterns that convey meanings are the acoustic mental images of words, phrases and sentences that take part in discursive thinking and that as such are temporal rather than spatial. They are reproductions by the imagination, on the basis of human memory, of models of the acoustic patterns of the sound of words, phrases and sentences (which as such have been divested of the characteristics of an individual’s pronunciation—e.g. of a speaker’s pitch, softness or raspiness of the voice, pronunciation, volume, and so on) that speakers of a particular language have adopted as conventions (Skt. vyavahāra; Tib. tha snyad; Ch. 俗 諦 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, súdì; Wade-Giles, su -ti ]; seemingly also ⾔語 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yányǔ; Wade-Giles, yen -yü ] is used as a translation) to designate phenomena—or, in general, to communicate meanings (a more precise instance of this understanding of the term, and to some extent an exception to it, seems to be the Sa skya pa Master Go rams pa bsod nams seng ge [1429-1489], who seems to have understood the term śabdasāmānya or sgra spyi as referring to the description of an essence [Thakchoe, 2007, p. 82], and thus roughly as what in Western terms could be called a definition). (A. Berzin [2001] asserts that, since these models have been divested of the particular characteristics of an individual’s pronunciation and thus are imputable on sounds made by a variety of voices and in a vast gamma of pitches, volumes, and pronunciations, they are categories— which he calls collection mental syntheses [Tib. tshogs spyi; reconstructed Skt. samudāyasāmānya, though one scholar has offered saṅghasāmānya] and class mental syntheses [Skt. jātisāmānya; Tib. rigs spyi]. Thus according to Berzin, what I am calling word sound patterns [resulting from mental syntheses] that convey meanings and that he calls word sound patterns [resulting from mental syntheses] that are meaning categories, rather than being imputed on the mere mental images of words, phrases, sentences and so on, are imputed on collection mental syntheses and class mental syntheses. Some could conclude that they pertain to a logical type wholly different from the latter—a view that, as shown in note after next, would seem to contradict Go rams pa, for the latter claims that class mental syntheses are not a 4 1 3 2 2 545 3 4 category different from that of universal concepts of entities [resulting from mental syntheses] that convey meanings [Skt. arthasāmānya; Tib. don spyi] discussed in the following paragraph of this note. Note that in dGe lugs epistemology—and according to Berzin [2001] also in the rDzogs chen teachings—collection mental syntheses are the wholes imputed on spatial, sensory, and/or temporal parts—such as the whole “material entity table” imputed on a sensory / spatial flat surface resting on four legs, or the whole “word table” imputed on the temporal sequence of phonemes that make up the sound pattern table, etc.—whereas class mental syntheses are the type of phenomenon that a specific individual item is an instance of—such as for example a material, spatial configuration being validly a table, or a temporal sound pattern being validly the word table. Go rams pa’s view is based on the fact that these imputations are made by the thoughts discussed in the next paragraph, which are the true source of the imputational or imaginary nature, for as shown below they are that which provides unity to collections of sensations and that understand the resulting unity as this or that entity with these or those characteristics. I am not sure whether or not Berzin’s claim that in this regard the rDzogs chen teachings coincide with the dGe lugs view is right, and I have not found the sources that would allow me to assess his assertions, but if so it would be something exceptional, since the rNying ma views rarely coincide with those of the dGe lugs pas—and even though the rNying ma views do not always coincide with those of Go rams pa, they coincide with the latter far more often than with those of the dGe lugs.) (2B) Subtle thoughts, called universal concepts of entities [resulting from mental syntheses] that convey meanings (Skt. arthasāmānya; Tib. don spyi; Ch. 總事 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngshì; Wade-Giles, tsung -shih ] or 總義 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngyì; Wade-Giles, tsung -i ]). In the view of non-Gelug schools and vehicles, abstracted general configurations / collections of characteristics of this particular kind integrate the meaning that a given society attributes to the particular, specifically characterized phenomenon—i.e. to the so-called self-configuration or self-collection of characteristics—that they reproduce, and hence they subsequently serve to interpret and experience phenomena of the same kind—and hence, as noted in the discussion of this type of phenomena, the particular, specifically characterized phenomenon or so-called self-configuration or self-collection of characteristics (Skt. svalakṣaṇa; Tib. rang mtshan; Ch. ⾃相 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxiàng; Wade-Giles, tzu -hsiang ]) is no longer perceived directly after the initial instant of presentation (i.e. after preperception) so long as conceptual perception is operative, for that which is then perceived is the abstracted general configuration / collection of characteristics in terms of which we interpret it, which in this case involves a meaning, for it is one of the subtle thoughts under discussion (i.e. a universal concept of an entity [resulting from mental syntheses] that conveys a meaning) and as such it necessarily conveys a meaning. (However, understanding in terms of a universal concept of an entity [resulting from mental syntheses] that conveys a meaning does not occur solely in the sensory perception [Greek, aisthesis: αἴσθησις] of particulars / specifically characterized phenomena or so-called self-configurations / self-collections of characteristics, for it also occurs repeatedly in discursive thinking, connecting coarse discursive thoughts in order to establish meanings, or immediately after a mental image arising in fantasy in order to establish its identity, and so on [as noted above, the mental image’s raw material is, according to non-Gelug Sūtrayāna understanding, that which here is being called a particular / specifically characterized phenomenon, or a so-called inherent configuration / inherent collection of characteristics]. Note that in what regards the mental appearances of gdangs energy, in conceptual cognition occurring in imagination, visualization, fantasy, visual memory and so on, they may be the reproduction of spatial, principally visual appearances that may be associated with the reproduction of appearances of the other senses, and / or temporal auditive appearances [namely words].) To conclude, and most important, among phenomena of the imputational or imaginary nature, the thoughts discussed in this paragraph are responsible for the activation of defilements, whereas discursive thoughts are responsible for feeding, increasing and giving continuity to those defilements. (It must be noted that in the dGe lugs view—which according to Berzin [2001] is also that of the rDzogs chen teachings, though I have not verified this—spatial, mainly visual images must have been synthesized into collection mental syntheses and class mental syntheses, and that, as shown in note after next, for his part Go rams pa claimed that class mental syntheses may not be regarded as different from universal concepts of entities [resulting from mental syntheses] that convey meanings.) (The explanation of perception and cognition in terms of, (a) particular / specifically characterized phenomena or so-called self-configurations / self-collections of characteristics, and (b) those synthetic mental phenomena named abstracted general configurations or collections of characteristics, may at first sight seem quite similar to the perceptual theories of British empiricism, and particularly to Hume’s, according to which ideas [a concept Hume took from Locke and Berkeley, but which he modified to make 3 3 4 4 546 4 4 it fit his own outlook], reproduce particular impressions [i.e. direct sensory perceptions of particular phenomena]. However, in what seems to be a near inversion of Berkeley’s view [according to which a word becomes general by its relation to a particular but representative idea], Hume claimed that, with the passing of time, because of the resemblances an individual finds in his or her experience between the different patterns / configurations—whether impressions or ideas—indicated by the same word, and the contrast between these patterns and the similar patterns indicated by different words, through custom she or he forms that which he referred to as a concept or a general idea and which consists in the combination of an individual, particular idea with the appropriate associative dispositions, which allowed the individual to identify all of the patterns indicated by the same word. Although this means that Hume’s ideas change after they are established—although even after successive syntheses they continue to be specific—this does not contradict Dignāga’s and Dharmakīrti’s view that abstracted general configurations / collections of characteristics are “permanent,” for what was essential to them and that set it in contrast with particular phenomena / particulars, specifically characterized phenomena / selfconfigurations / self-collections of characteristics, was that, unlike the latter, they do not change during cognition. As stated in previous endnotes, the English terms I use for the thoughts indicated as (B) and the preceding ones—those which I use for those indicated as (A)—are adaptations from the ones devised by Alex Berzin in The Berzin Archives. However, my explanation of the terms in question is different from Berzin’s. Moreover, at the time when I consulted his archives (I think it was between 2009 and 2013) Berzin was overlooking the third type of thoughts (C), which he did not even mention, all while intending to list all the different types of thoughts mentioned in the Dzogchen teachings. In reference to discursive thoughts, and in general to the use of language and its interpretation, as stated in note before last, the mere reproduction of the sound of words devoid of understanding would be mere mental images—i.e. reflections (Skt. pratibimba; Tib. gzugs brnyan) or aspects (Skt. ākāra; Tib. rnam pa)—which, as it is self-evident and as the rDzogs chen teachings make it clear (and as, in the context of the Sūtrayāna, Dignāga made it clear), are insufficient for discursive thinking to be possible. Here the process is explained in terms of the rDzogs chen teachings, which posit two categories indispensable for the thought process to be possible: (A) the category that they—as well as Dignāga in the Sūtrayāna—call word sound patterns [resulting from mental syntheses] that convey meanings (Skt. śabdasāmānya; Tib. sgra spyi; Ch. 論聲總 [simplified 论声总] [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, lùnshēngzǒng; Wade-Giles, lun -sheng tsung ]), and (B) the category that they—as well as Dignāga and Dharmakīrti in the Sūtrayāna—call universal concepts of entities [resulting from mental syntheses] that convey meanings (Skt. arthasāmānya; Tib. don spyi; Ch. 總事 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngshì; Wade-Giles, tsung -shih ] or 總義 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngyì; Wade-Giles, tsung -i ]). Since both categories were defined in endnote before last, here it is sufficient to add the following: (A)With regard to word sound patterns [resulting from mental syntheses] that convey meanings, it must be noted that unless one were talking to an orthodox Brahmin (Brāhmaṇa) holding the Vedic belief that meanings are inherent in the Sanskrit language, in our time it would be a truism to note that no meaning is inherent in mere mental aspects resembling the sounds of phonemes appearing one after another in sequence, and that in audial, temporal cognition—whether during sensory perception or in discursive thinking—meaning requires a conceptual mental cognition, which is the one in which a phenomenal appearance is conjoined with a linguistic expression and the understanding of the essence or meaning of the phenomenal appearance and the linguistic expression conjoined with it. Such cognitions involve the mental synthesis of the representation of words, phrases, and sentences, and the superimposition on them of audio categories of words, phrases, and sentences (which according to Berzin’s explanation at this point would have become the material basis of what he renders as collection mental syntheses [Tib. tshogs spyi; as noted in a previous endnote, the most probable reconstructed Skt. seems to be samudāyasāmānya, although one scholar has proposed saṅghasāmānya] and class mental syntheses [Skt. jātisāmānya; Tib. rigs spyi]. Once more, keep in mind that Go rams pa objected to this, claiming that it is not possible to distinguish between these categories and universal concepts of entities [resulting from mental syntheses] that convey meanings [cf. the immediately following note]. I have never heard or read whether or not this is related to the reason why Dharmakīrti, the indirect disciple of Dignāga, did not include among his categories the ones that Dignāga called śabdasāmānyas [Tib. sgra spyi]; Ch. 論聲總 [simplified 论声总 ] [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, lùnshēngzǒng; Wade-Giles, lun -sheng -tsung ], but it seems certain to me that what Dignāga called śabdasāmānyas do not exist as independent entities totally different from all other types 165 166 4 3 3 3 4 4 547 1 3 4 1 of entity because they may be understood as the conjunction of a word that is an ākāra (Tib. rnam pa) with a comprehension that is an arthasāmānya. This could be another way of explaining the reason why Dharmakirti did away with them. (B) In this context, universal concepts of entities [resulting from mental syntheses] that convey meanings may be said to be patterns of significance of a language sound pattern that has been adopted as the meaning of a word, phrase, or sentence in a particular language by members of a specific society. As suggested above, in order to refute Mīmāṃsā and in general the Vedic belief that meanings are inherent in the Sanskrit language, and that the latter is inherently sacred, Dignāga and Dharmakīrti, just like the rDzogs chen teachings, stressed the nowadays commonsensical fact that meanings are not inherent in sounds or words, but are conventionally coined, assigned to words, and used as categories by members of a society or social group for thinking and communicating—and that even within the same society different people may assign slightly different meaning to a particular word, using that meaning as a category when reproducing that word in discursive thinking. Since most conceptual cognitions have a verbal support, as a rule they involve the superimposition of both audio categories and meaning categories onto mental aspects (Skt. ākāra; Tib. rnam pa). However, as stated in note before last, conceptual cognition may also be nonverbal, in which case it superimposes onto mental aspects only a universal concept of an entity [resulting from mental syntheses] that conveys a meaning, such as when visualizing or remembering what someone’s face looks like (according to Berzin [2001], in this case it also superimposes unto it collection mental syntheses and class mental syntheses [defined in the preceding note]; in the view of Go rams pa, this is not the case). In discursive thinking, coarse thoughts of the kind called word sound patterns [resulting from mental syntheses] that convey meanings succeed each other, yet this would not be enough for a line of thought to be meaningful, or even for it to have its continuity; for the latter to be possible, the patterns / categories in question must alternate with subtle thoughts, or, which is the same, with universal abstract concepts [resulting from mental syntheses] and conveying a meaning, as the latter must provide a more abstract understanding of the meaning of the former’s concatenation. As shown in note 164, (B) subtle thoughts—and according to Dignāga also (A) coarse thoughts—are synthetic mental phenomena of those that Dignāga and Dharmakīrti called abstracted general configuration / collection of characteristics (Skt. sāmānyalakṣaṇa; Tib. spyi mtshan; Ch. 共相 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, gòngxiàng; Wade-Giles, kung -hsiang ]), which are unreal and do not change during cognition, and which pertain to what Third Promulgation Sūtras and the Cittamātra School call imputational or imaginary nature (Skt. parikalpita; Tib. kun brtags; Ch. 遍計所執性 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, biànjì suǒzhí xìng; Wade-Giles, pien -chi so -chih hsing ]) and the Mahāmadhyamaka school call imaginary or imputational patterns / configurations / collections of characteristics (Skt. parikalpitalakṣaṇa; Tib. kun brtags kyi mtshan nyid). These phenomena are contrasted with the particular phenomena the two Indian authors in question referred to as particulars or specifically characterized phenomena (Skt. svalakṣaṇa; Tib. rang mtshan; Ch. ⾃相 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxiàng; Wade-Giles, tzu -hsiang ]), or as inherent configurations or inherent collections of characteristics, though the last two translations have the defect of involving the adjective “inherent” (Skt. sva; Tib. rang). This might be due to the fact that Dignāga and his followers deemed these phenomena to be real and actual / effective (i.e. effect-producing), yet to be constantly changing, even during the smallest possible lapse. Contrariwise, the Mahāmadhyamaka school and the rDzogs chen teachings clearly acknowledge such phenomena not to exist in themselves or inherently as separate phenomena—this being the reason why it was stated that the adjectives sva and rang, meaning “inherent” or “self-” that the Pramāṇavāda applies to these phenomena, if taken literally, would make them just as delusive as the abstracted general configuration / collection of characteristics that pertain to what Third Promulgation Sūtras and the Cittamātra School call imputational or imaginary nature. In fact, some of the most renowned Indian Madhyamika Masters, which according to Dreyfus (1997, p. 430 and elsewhere) and other authors seem to include Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla, and, following them, various early scholars in Tibet, classed Dharmakīrti’s Pramāṇavārttikakārikā as a MadhyamakaSvātantrika text. Also ’Jig rten mgong po (1143-1217), the first patriarch of the ’Bri gung pa branch of the Kagyü School, classified them in the same way (Dreyfus, 1997, p. 441). Moreover, in Napper (2003, p. 685, note 142), we read: “Ngawang Palden in the Sautrāntika chapter of his Explanation of the Conventional and the Ultimate in the Four Systems of Tenets (grub mtha’ bzhi’i lugs kyi kun rdzob dangs don dam pa’i don rnam par bshad pa legs bshad dpyid kyi dpal mo’i glu dbyangs, New Delhi: Guru Deva, 1972, 39.5-39.6), says that some, 167 4 4 4 3 2 4 4 4 168 548 4 such as Prajñākaragupta, Sūryagupta, Śāntarakṣita, Kamalaśīla, and Jetari, interpret Dharmakīrti’s Commentary on [Dignāga’s] Compendium of Valid Cognition (Tib. Tshad ma rnam ’grel; Skt. Pramāṇavārttika) as a Madhyamika treatise.” The reason why the contemporary Indian scholar Chandradhar Sharma (1987, p. 104) classified Dignāga and Dharmakīrti as Svātantrika-Yogācāra-Madhyamikas might be that he was relying on the texts of ancient Indian authors such as the ones just cited—though it is also possible that he came to that conclusion after assessing their works. This is explained in a subsequent section of the regular text. It is interesting that Alex Berzin does not mention the threefold directional thought-structure when he discusses the different types of thought posited by the rDzogs chen teachings. In Guenther (1984, p. 219, footnote 9) we are told that the Sanskrit and Pāli term ahiṃsā (Ch. 不害 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùhài; Wade-Giles, pu -hai ])—meaning nonviolence—is rendered into Tibetan as ’tshe ba med pa, and that the rest of those terms that imply a categorical negation are translated by adding the term med pa. The fact that ma rig pa implies something definitely different from rig pa med pa is something that mKhan po Nus ldan emphasizes in his mKhas ’jug mchan ’grel, a commentary on the mKhas ’jug by ’Jam mgon ’Ju mi pham rgya mtsho. The same, however, does not occur with the Sanskrit term avidyā, which has the same structure as ahiṃsā—which shows that, as will be remarked in a subsequent chapter, translations produced during the earlier (Tib. rnying ma) diffusion of the dharma are very often more etymologically—and in general conceptually—precise than the original texts on which they are based. (It must be noted that the text by Dr. H. V. Guenther in which this explanation is found makes the extremely serious error of translating rDzogs chen terminology with the one developed by Heidegger—as though the latter had arisen as a response to rDzogs chen Awakening, when in truth it arose from extreme delusion in saṃsāra. In a set of works I have categorically refuted the use of Heideggerian terminology to translate terms that are unique to the rDzogs chen teaching; in particular, see Capriles (electronic publication 2007, vol. I; and 2000b); I also dealt with this matter in several papers and would do so again in Capriles (work in progress). Below, the terms rig pa and vidyā will be explained in terms of the concepts of Base, Path and Fruit. If so understood, then ma rig pa and avidyā do not refer to the negation of rig pa / vidyā qua Base (as suggested by their etymology), not only because rig pa / vidyā qua Base is as a rule rendered by terms such as the Skt. cittatā and citta eva and the Tib. sems nyid and the Skt. bodhicitta and the Tib. byang chub sems, but mainly because qua Base, rig pa / vidyā cannot be destroyed or uprooted. In fact, they refer to (1) the nonappearing of rig pa / vidyā qua Path and qua Fruit as a result of the unawareness of the true condition of the Base that obscures the nonconceptual and hence nondual self-awareness inherent in rig pa qua Base, preventing it from making patent rig pa’s own face, and (2) the arising of active delusion in saṃsāra, which on the top of (1) involves the other aspects or types of avidyā / ma rig pa posited in the threefold classifications expounded in this book. (Keep in mind that, as stated elsewhere in this book and explained in the immediately following endnote, the Tib. term rig pa may also be understood as a contraction of the Tib. rang rig, which renders the Skt. terms svasaṃvedana and svasaṃvitti[ḥ] (Ch. ⾃證 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìzhèng; Wade-Giles, tzu -cheng ] / ⾃覺 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìjué; Wade-Giles, tzu -chüeh ]). For a complete understanding of the above, it is necessary to have a good grasping of the concepts of Base, Path and Fruit as used in the rDzogs chen Atiyoga, in the Tantras and in the Mahāmadhyamaka school of Mahāyāna philosophy. A more detailed explanation of the usage of the terms in the rDzogs chen teachings will be offered in Part Two of this book; an explanation of the usage of the terms in Mahāmadhyamaka (and of some relations between this understanding and that of rDzogs chen and of the Tantras of the Path of Transformation) will be provided in the definitive version of Capriles (electronic publication 2004), in case I have time to complete that book. At any rate, the concept of avidyā / ma rig pa is widely used in the context of the Hīnayāna and the general Mahāyāna, which have an understanding of the concepts of Base, Path and Fruit radically different from that of the rDzogs chen teachings. The most common sense of the Skt. terms svasaṃvedana and svasaṃvittiḥ, the Tib. rang rig or the Ch. ⾃ 證 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìzhèng; Wade-Giles, tzu -cheng ) and ⾃覺 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìjué; Wade-Giles, tzu chüeh ) in the Mahāyāna (Tib. theg pa chen po; Ch. ⼤乘 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Dàshèng; Wade-Giles, Ta ch’eng ]) is not the one they have in the rDzogs chen teachings. Nevertheless, Śākyabuddhi, a follower and commentator of Dharmakīrti, in his Pramāṇavārttikaṭikā made it clear that also in the Mahāyāna the term can have roughly the same connotation that in this book was explained as being the one proper to 169 170 4 4 171 4 4 4 2 172 4 4 2 4 4 4 549 the rDzogs chen teachings. For some passages by noted Indian Masters and philosophers that make this clear, and my own clarifications, cf. endnote 65 to this book. As explained below in the regular text, the Mahāyāna’s nonstatic nirvāṇa falls short of the rig pa of the rDzogs chen teachings—especially when the latter is understood in the sense or the “full measure of rig pa” that gives its title to the third vision of Thod rgal and/or the Yang thig / Yang ti. Note that the meaning of the term “primordial, profound base-of-all” or ye don kun gzhi is completely different from those of the terms involving the words kun gzhi that were discussed in the regular text and that the rDzogs chen teachings use in a [meta]phenomenalistic or [meta]phenomenological sense (for a definition of the latter two adjectives, cf. Capriles [2007, Vol. I; 2013a, Vol. I; etc.]). In fact, ye don kun gzhi, rather than referring to a phenomenon in human experience or a metaphenomenon in Buddhic metaexperience, refers to our Awake true condition—namely the Base (Tib. gzhi) as (a) primordially pure (Tib. ka dag) and (b) spontaneously perfect and self-corrective / self-rectifying (Tib. lhun grub). However, as noted in the regular text, this “primordial, profound base-of-all” has always been flowing with a contingent, beclouding element of stupefaction (Tib. rmongs cha) that obscures its inherent nondual self-awareness, preventing it from making patent rig pa’s own face as rig pa-qua-Path and rig pa-quaFruit—which, as shown repeatedly, gives rise to (1) the first sense of avidyā in all rDzogs chen classifications. It is when it is so obscured yet the aspects or forms of active delusion which are senses or aspects (2) and (3) in the various threefold classifications of avidyā in the rDzogs chen teachings are not operative, that there is a condition of the base-of-all in one of the senses the term has in rDzogs chen teachings that I called [meta]phenomenalistic or [meta]phenomenological—e.g., those forms of the neutral condition of the base-of-all (kun gzhi lung ma bstan) called dimension of the base-of-all (kun gzhi khams), base-of-all carrying propensities (bag chags kyi kun gzhi]), etc. The term in the most widespread classification (the one favored by kLong chen pa) makes the point that this beclouding of primordial awareness is inborn and may seem to imply that it is teleonomically and perhaps teleologically oriented to give rise to the illusion of single selfhood. In other words, it would be the basis for taking the true condition of reality to be a universal self, as happens in various Hindu schools. The rDzogs chen teachings, the Inner Tantras of the Vajrayāna, and Third Promulgation Sūtras such as the Laṅkāvatāra, coincide in positing this threefold directional thought structure (Skt. trimaṇḍala, meaning threefold maṇḍala; Tib. ’khor gsum [meaning threefold wheel or threefold circle but often rendered into English as “the three spheres”]; Ch. 三輪 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānlùn; Wade-Giles, san -lun ]). In rDzogs chen and the Vajrayāna it is explained as a supersubtle thought structure, in contrast with subtle and coarse thoughts. The term imaginative delusion (Tib. kun tu brtags pa’i ma rig pa) used in the most widespread rDzogs chen classification of avidyā, may seems to correspond to the third nature of the Third Promulgation canonical texts of the Mahāyāna and the Indian schools of tenets based on them—namely the imputational, imaginary nature (Skt. parikalpita; Tib. kun brtags [a term found in the phrase rendered as imaginative delusion]; Ch. 遍計所執性 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, biànjì suǒzhí xìng; Wade-Giles, pien -chi so -chih hsing ])— but as will be shown below, this is certainly not the case. The relation of that which the rDzogs chen teachings call imaginative delusion with the third pattern / configuration posited by Mahāmadhyamaka— namely, the imputational, imaginary pattern / configuration (Skt. parikalpitalakṣaṇa; Tib. kun brtags kyi mtshan nyid)—is much closer than its relation with the imputational, imaginary nature of the Indian schools of tenets in question, yet rDzogs chen’s “imaginative delusion” not the same as the former, either. In fact, when spontaneous illusion arises, the sensory continuum becomes an object to a mental subject; then as imaginative delusion arises, patterns are singled out in that continuum and taken as object to the mental subject (an operation that depends on the works of a divisive, hermetic focus of awareness), and that which has been singled out is instantly perceived in terms of hypostasized / reified / valorized / absolutized thoughts (thus involving the confusion of the digital, fragmentary maps of thought with the analog, holistic sensory territory that such maps are incapable of matching, and the mistaken belief in the perfect correspondence of the one and the other)—which gives rise to the illusion of there being a plethora of entities existing inherently, independently and disconnectedly, and to the illusion that each of those entities is inherently this or that kind of entity. The delusion under discussion also involves the superimposition of the idea of an “I” on the illusory subject that is a pole of dualistic consciousness and the inherent drive to confirm that subject’s existence and gratify its acquisitiveness by means of contacts with the seemingly self-existing, seemingly external entities that are perceived at this stage. Therefore, this type of avidyā involves the confusion of categories proper to the conjunction of the second (2) and 173 174 175 176 1 4 177 4 550 4 3 2 4 third (3) aspects or types of avidyā in the most widely used classification, which constitutes the second (2) type in the alternative classification—whereby the relative is taken to be absolute, the insubstantial is taken to be to be substantial, the dependent is taken to be inherently existing, and so on. In rDzogs chen terms, this implies that spontaneous illusion involves an inverted cognition that consists in erroneously perceiving the three aspects of the Base, which are essence (Tib. ngo bo), nature (Tib. rang bzhin) and energy or compassion (Tib. thugs rje), as being inherently separate from each other: since the phenomena that arise by virtue of the thugs rje aspect seem to be substantial rather than empty, they seem to have an essence different from the ngo bo aspect, which is emptiness and which is completely ignored. The above also implies that spontaneous illusion involves grasping at appearances (Tib. phyin ci log par ’dzin pa), and hence comprises the arising of the grasped and the grasper (Tib. gzung ’dzin), which introduces dualistic appearances, plus the perception of a plurality of seemingly inherently existent entities, and— among other delusions—the perception of those seeming entities as being inherently one or another type of entity. Therefore, as will be clearly shown below, it involves a conjunction of what Second Promulgation canonical sources call the dependent nature and what they call the imputational, imaginary nature—both of which, as will also be clearly shown below, are equally delusive. Note that Third Promulgation canonical texts of the Mahāyāna and the Indian schools of tenets based on them claim that the objects that are singled out as described above belong to the dependent nature (Skt. paratantra; Tib. gzhan dbang; Ch. 依他起性 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yītā qǐxìng; Wade-Giles, i -ta ch’i -hsing ]), the emptiness of which in their view need not be realized. Contrariwise, they claim that the perception of that which has been singled out in terms of hypostasized / reified / valorized / absolutized thoughts that makes us experience each of the singled out objects as being inherently this or that type of entity, together with the superimposition of the idea of an “I” on the illusory mental subject and the inherent drive to confirm that subject’s existence and gratify its acquisitiveness by means of contacts with the seemingly self-existing, seemingly external entities that are perceived at this stage, constitute the imputational, imaginary nature (Skt. parikalpita; Tib. kun brtags; 遍計所執性 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, biànjì suǒzhí xìng; WadeGiles, pien -chi so -chih hsing ]), which is the source of delusion and the emptiness of which must consequentially be realized. For its part, the perception of the emptiness of the imputational, imaginary nature is according to them the absolutely true nature (Skt. pariniṣpanna; Tib. yongs grub; 圓成實性 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yuánchéng shíxìng; Wade-Giles, yüan -ch’eng shih -hsing ]), the realization of which is the most essential element on the Path to Buddhahood. The above view of the Indian schools of tenets based on the Third Promulgation is not precise, because: (1) there are no inherent divisions in the sensory continuum, and (2) in order to single out for perception segments of the sensory continuum it is indispensable to have the concept that those segments are inherently separate entities and that they are inherently this or that entity—and in order to take those singled out segments as being in themselves separate entities, and as being the entities that conventions establish them to be, it is even more evidently necessary to have the concept in question, and to have hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized it. Therefore, the dependent nature is simply indivisible of the imputational, imaginary nature—and its emptiness must be realized together with that of the latter. With regard to (1), as noted repeatedly, entities are not in themselves separate from the rest of the sensory field, for the latter is a continuum that as such lacks inherent separations, and if one assumes that there is an independently existent physical reality that serves as the basis of perception (an assumption that, however, Third Promulgation texts and the schools of tenets based on them reject), then we would have to face the fact that, according to contemporary physics, that physical reality is also a continuum that as such involves no inherent separations—and therefore perceiving the plurality of entities that according to Third Promulgation texts and the schools of tenets based on them pertain to the dependent nature is itself as delusive as perceiving those singled out objects in terms of reified / hypostasized / absolutized / valorized concepts, ideas and judgments—and once more it must be emphasized that it is as imperative to realize the emptiness of dependent nature entities just as much as it is to realize the emptiness of the imputational, imaginary nature. In fact, as noted above, also with regard to (1), it is a fact that some quantic physicists have claimed that space is somehow “granulated” (cf. endnote 216)—which, if proven true, seemingly would imply that at the dimensional level of Plank’s constant there are clear-cut boundaries—yet: (a) No physicist claims that either a zone of lack of energy field or a zone of a substance other than the energy field separates phenomena from their environment (at any rate, no one has taken a look outside her or his experience in order to see whether or not there is a physical reality at the basis of experience, and hence our sensations are the only thing that we can know directly, albeit distortedly—and it is a fact that neither 1 4 4 3 2 4 2 551 2 2 4 1 3 4 a zone of lack of sensations nor a zone of a substance other than sensation separates the phenomena of our senses from their environment); (b) The whole of contemporary physics holds that subatomic particles such as photons and electrons do not maintain the energy-matter that constitutes them, for, so to speak, “they constitute themselves at each instant with the energy of the zone of the field through which they are passing” (which implies that no entity maintains the energy-matter that constitutes it and hence that at least one of Aristotle’s concepts of substance has been refuted by contemporary physics); (c) Experiments have strongly suggested that at the dimensional level of Plank’s constant everything in the universe is connected in a nonlocal way, as though “from here to here” (for an explanation cf. endnote 216)—which further supports the current physical view of the universe as a continuum, suggesting that not only is it a continuum, but space and time, which are the condition of possibility of separations, are produced, to a great extent by human experience, on the basis of a reality that does not involve separations; (d) Likewise, the steps toward the unification of fundamental forces have strongly suggested that not only matter and electromagnetism are part of the energy continuum, but that all fundamental forces are part of that continuum. However, as clarified in endnote 188, we must keep in mind that physical theories are always changing and hence they must not be used as an irrefutable proof of the views of Buddhism and rDzogs chen. Moreover, as I have shown in several works, current epistemology is fully aware of the fact that the sciences do not discover truths (in this regard, cf. endnote 230 to this book)—and hence when we use scientific theories and “findings” we do so in the same way in which the Buddha Śākyamuni referred to the deities of Brahmanism: because people believe in them. Back to the discussion of Third Promulgation categories and their understanding in the Mahāmadhyamaka (Tib. bdU ma chen po) and dbU ma gzhan stong pa (Skt. trans. Para[rūpa]śūnyatāvāda Madhyamaka) school[s] of tenets, it must also be noted that the absolutely true nature could not lie in an absence, for absences are delusive perceptions produced by the absolutization / reification / absolutization / valorization of negative concepts that are relative to the phenomena of which they are the absence—and, moreover, an absence is like a barren woman that as such cannot bear any of the phenomena of our experience. These are some of the reasons why the Mahāmadhyamaka and dbU ma gzan stong pa school[s] of tenets, just like the rDzogs chen teachings, assert the dependent nature to be as empty as the imputational, imaginary nature, and reject the belief that the absolutely true nature may be a mere absence—and, even more so, that it may consist in the absence of the imputational, imaginary nature only. (The rDzogs chen teachings do not posit either two or three truths, as do the texts and schools of the Path of Renunciation and the Path of Transformation, but in discussing the texts and schools in question they can use their categories.) (2) Second sense, aspect or type of avidyā in the most widespread classification: In Tibetan, this sense, aspect or type of avidyā is called lhan cig skyes pa’i ma rig pa, which was rendered into English by early translators as “spontaneous illusion” (cf. Longchenpa, 1975a, p. 51; 1976, pp. 24 and 122 note 10 [the latter from mKha’ ’gro yang thig, part III, p. 117 of edition used by the translator], and Cornu, 2001, p. 62). In the arising of active saṃsāra from the base-of-all, it may arise right after the shining forth of the primordial gnosis inherent in rDzogs chen-qua-Base (in which the teachings distinguish five aspects), when this precious opportunity to reGnize the condition in question is missed as we fail to reGnize it, and immediately thereafter the supersubtle thought I call threefold directional thought structure (Skt. trimaṇḍala; Tib. ’khor gsum; Ch. 三輪 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānlùn; Wade-Giles, san lun ]) discussed below in the regular text of this section arises and is automatically reified / valorized / hypostasized / absolutized—thus being charged with an illusion of truth, value and importance. Once this happens, the subject-object duality arises, and that shining forth is taken to be an external reality rather than an expression of the Base that (is) our true condition. In terms of delusive obstructions, the one that arises at this point is the delusive obstruction of knowledge (Skt. jñeyāvaraṇa; Pāḷi ñeyyavāvaraṇa; Tib. shes [bya’i] sgrib [pa]; Ch. 所知障 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, suǒzhīzhàng; Wade-Giles so -chih -chang ]), which is thus the first to arise among the two types of delusive obstructions acknowledged by the Mahāyāna, and which is also the last one to be eradicated on the Path, for according to the gradual Mahāyāna it persists until the end of the tenth bodhisattva level (Skt. bhūmi; Tib. sa; Ch. 地 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dì; Wade-Giles, ti ]), which is the one that immediately precedes Buddhahood (often regarded as the eleventh bodhisattva level)—whereas the delusive obstruction of the passions (Skt. kleśāvaraṇa; Pāḷi kilesāvaraṇa; Tib. nyon [mongs pa’i] sgrib [pa]; Ch. 煩惱障 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fánnǎozhàng; Wade-Giles, fan -nao -chang ]), as it occurs in human action, may be illustrated with an archer who, at the time of shooting, makes a conscious 178 1 4 3 1 4 4 2 552 3 4 decision to shoot and undertakes the action of shooting. Since (a) this involves subtly taking his or her own self as object and knowing it as shooting, (b) the mental subject for an instant becomes that object, and (c) objects lack a capacity for action, (d) this hinders and encumbers the flow of spontaneity of the Base, giving rise to a slight jerk that deviates the arrow. This aspect of cognitive delusive obstruction, which as just noted arises first and persists for longer than the defilement of the passions, always underlies the latter so long as the latter persists. (3) Third sense, aspect or type in the most widespread classification: In Tibetan this sense, aspect or type of avidyā is called kun tu brtags pa’i ma rig pa—a term that that earlier translators rendered as “imaginative delusion” (cf. Longchenpa, 1976, pp. 24 and 123 note 11, and Cornu, 2001, p. 62). As stated in the regular text, it involves the apparitional-imputational delusion (Skt. vyabhīcāra / vyakūla; Tib. ’phrul pa) that lies in experiencing all entities in terms of hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized subtle concepts that establish what they are, and which is not operative in the previous two types or aspects of avidyā. Hence it is related to the imputational, imaginative nature that is the third of the three natures posited by Third Promulgation Sūtras such as the Laṅkāvatāra (Suzuki, trans., 1999) and the Saṃdhinirmocana (Keenan, trans. 2000; Hopkins, trans., 2002), as well as Indian Buddhist philosophical schools based on them, such as the Cittamātra (wholly based on the Promulgation in question), the Yogācāra Svātantrika Madhyamaka subschools, and the Tibetan school[s] called Mahāmadhyamaka and dbU ma gzan stong pa (partly based on the Promulgation in question)—which, however, is understood quite differently in these three schools (in case I manage to complete Capriles, 2004, this will be discussed in greater detail in the definitive version of that book). Although this third type or aspect of avidyā coincides to a great extent with this third nature, as explained in the preceding endnote, the nature in question is indivisibly amalgamated with the second nature posited in the same texts and schools—and hence both of them are indivisibly amalgamated in this third aspect or type of avidyā. (The Sanskrit, Tibetan and Chinese terms for these natures and the Wylie for the Tibetan school or school just mentioned were offered in the preceding note.) As also stated, this imaginative delusion involves the arising of the fully-fledged illusion of selfhood in the individual and of self-existent plurality in the world, as the concept of an “I” is superimposed on the illusory mental subject that is one of the poles of dualistic consciousness and the idea of a self-existing entity is superimposed on the singled-out object that is the other pole (which may be experienced either as being one with the mental subject [for example, when I experience my arm as being part of me] or as being alien to it [for example, when I experience the lamp or the cat, or, in a more complex way, when I try to move my arm and fail to do so because it is paralyzed]—which as just shown by the examples depends on what the object is and other circumstances). This produces an overpowering urge to confirm the existence of the “I” in question and gratify its acquisitiveness by means of contacts, driven by different types of emotional attitudes, with the singled-out segments of the continuum of what appears as object that at this stage are wrongly experienced as self-existing, external entities. (Its acquisitiveness is an automatic consequence of the lack of wholeness and plenitude inherent in feeling separate from the undivided whole of our true condition, in interaction with the compulsion to sustain the illusion that the subject is a self-existing “I” and that its objects are self-existent entities by means of contacts between the former and the latter.) In terms of delusive obstructions, what arises at this point, when it does so with greater strength, is passional delusive obstructions (Skt. kleśāvaraṇa; Pāḷi: kilesāvaraṇa; Tib. nyon [mongs pa’i] sgrib [pa]; Ch. 煩腦障 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fánnǎo zhàng; Wade-Giles, fan -nao chang ]), which as noted above is therefore the second to arise among the two types of delusive obstruction posited by the Mahāyāna, and the first one to be eradicated on the Path, for according to the gradual Mahāyāna it persists until the end of the seventh bodhisattva level (Skt. bhūmi; Tib. sa; Ch. 地 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dì; Wade-Giles, ti ]). When, in bodhisattva levels eight through ten, as a result of the gradual neutralization of delusion along the Path it operated with little strength, it is deemed to be an aspect of the cognitive delusive obstruction briefly discussed above. Passional delusive obstructions, which are defined as “any state of mind that when developed brings about uneasiness and suffering,” are subdivided into: intellectual or theoretical delusive obstructions (Tib. kun btags nyon mongs kyi sgrib pa), defined as “any intellectual framework that justifies, gives rise to, or reinforces grasping and the arising of the passions,” and inborn delusive obstructions (Tib. lhan skyes nyon mongs kyi sgrib pa), which is the inborn tropism to charge the contents of thoughts with an illusion of truth, value and importance, and grasp at them with such strength and intensity as to give rise to the various defilements (such as the three poisons, the five passions, the six root delusions, etc.). This mix-up makes us attribute to phenomena and events different degrees of value and importance, ranging 2 4 179 553 3 4 from zero to infinitude. The attribution to some phenomena of zero value and importance does not mean that thoughts are not being charged with an illusion of truth, value and importance, for it involves a subject’s indifference to those phenomena, thus being a function of the subject-object duality that arises as a result of the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of the super-subtle, threefold directional thought-structure that will be considered below in the regular text, and of the perception of an object as this or that which results from the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of a subtle / intuitive thought (i.e., it involves the first and second types of avidyā in the alternative classification and all types of avidyā in the most widespread classification—i.e. in the one favored by kLong chen rab ’byams pa and most other Masters). Furthermore, the lack of value and importance we attribute to some object is relative to the different degrees of value and importance that we attribute to other objects. Or, alternatively, seemingly inexistent and unimportant—or, else, to some extent important. I dealt with self-deceit in detail in Capriles (2007a vol. I)—where I explained it in terms that are nearer to Sartre’s than Freud’s, but on the basis of rDzogs chen concepts. This aspect of avidyā depends on a particular class of the neutral condition of the base-of-all (Tib. kun gzhi lung ma bstan) and on the hermetic focus of awareness that experientially detaches from the rest of the sensory field whatever it singles out. For example, according to the dGe lugs School, the Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka view in this regard is that the root of saṃsāra (i.e. cyclic existence) is the basic delusion called avidyā; that this delusion, consisting in the misconception and delusory experience of the nature and status of entities is twofold, as it applies both to human individuals and to phenomena other than individuals; that the misconception and delusory experience of the nature of the individual depends on the misconception and delusory experience of the nature of the aggregates (Skt. skandha; Pāḷi khanda; Tib. phung po; Ch. 蘊 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yùn; WadeGiles, yün ])—which are phenomena other than the individual—that interact in the production of said misconception and delusory experience; and that this does not imply that there are two roots of cyclic existence, for both misconceptions and delusory experiences are exactly the same in nature—which this school explains as a conception and experience of self-existence (Skt. svabhāva: Tib. rang bzhin), where there is no such mode of existence. However, according to the Svātantrika Madhyamikas, the misconception and delusory experience of the nature of the person and the misconception and delusory experience of the nature of phenomena other than persons are not exactly the same in nature. Furthermore, they make a distinction between the root of cyclic existence, which is the conception of a self in persons, and the final root of cyclic existence, which is the conception of a self in phenomena. For their part, non-Gelug Prāsaṅgika Madhyamikas implicitly distinguish among the two misconceptions, for they often assert the emptiness of individuals to lie in the presence of an absence that results from the negation of their existence, and the emptiness of phenomena that are not individuals to lie in their being free from the four extremes which are being, nonbeing, both being and nonbeing, and neither being nor nonbeing. At any rate, in terms of the interpretation of the rDzogs chen teachings offered here, the misconception and delusory experience of all types of phenomena as self-existing is a function of the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of thought (which I explain briefly below in the regular text), in interaction with a series of mental functions. In the Orphic tradition Λήθη was the name of the river that the soul had to cross after death, upon which it would forget its former life. I believe Heraclitus to have been a Dionysian or to have been influenced by Eastern traditions (such as Buddhism)—i.e. to have pertained to the tradition I deem to be in radical opposition to that of the Orphics—and to have employed the term in a way that radically differs from that of the Orphics and that might either identical or somewhat analogous to the use of avidyā in higher forms of Buddhism. This contradicts most of the interpretations Western philosophers and historians of philosophy have made of the terms lethe and aletheia. In particular, it frontally contradicts both the interpretation Heidegger (1996) made in § 44 B of Sein und Zeit and the one he made in the 1943 text called Aletheia (in Heidegger, 1975, 59-78). For a detailed explanation of this, cf. Capriles (2007a Vol. I). For a more detailed discussion of the concept of “hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization,” see the explanation of the phrase in Capriles (1994, 2000a, 2000c and, especially, 2007a vol. I). Both the Madhyamikas of the Model Texts and the Prāsaṅgikas warned against different types of nihilism. The first, which I deem appropriate to call moral nihilism, lies in perceiving existing entities as existent 180 181 182 4 183 184 185 186 554 (which, since the perception of existence is indivisible from that of substantial, inherent, hypostatic, true, absolute existence, signifies that they are perceived as truly, absolutely, substantially and hypostatically / inherently existent), and therefore being prey to the passions that this perception elicits, so that even when one is compelled to scream in pain because fire is being applied to one’s skin, one nonetheless claims that nothing of what one perceives as existent—other beings, good and evil, pain and pleasure, happiness and suffering, and the totality of the entities of the world—exists at all... as a rule in order to justify acts that, seeking what one erroneously sees as one’s own benefit, harm others. This kind of nihilism results from superimposing a view of emptiness (Tib. stong ltas rgyas ’debs) on substantialistic perceptions, thoughts and actions, thus adding an extra layer to the onion of delusion—and not just any layer, but an extremely toxic one. As a tenet, this nihilism is the opposite of substantialistic tenets and yet is based on the delusive substantialistic experience of inherent / hypostatic existence, which the individual intellectually contradicts (experiencing oneself and all entities as being truly existing and as having greater or lesser value and importance—for in the individual’s own experience and everyday view fire burns the chair and there is a self that experiences pain when this happens—one decides that none of them exist, has importance or has value, as a rule in order to give free rein to the selfish, malignant impulses that issue from one’s own substantialistic experience). This first type of nihilism was denounced in Nāgārjuna’s Rājaparikathāratnavalī (stanzas I.43/44/45/57) as follows: “In brief the view of nihilism / is that the effects of actions do not exist. / Devoid of merit and leading to a bad state, it is regarded as a ‘wrong view.’ “In brief the view of existence / is that effects of actions exist. / Meritorious and conducive to happy migrations / it is regarded as a ‘right view.’ “Because existence and non-existence are extinguished by wisdom, / there is a passage beyond meritorious and ill deeds. / This, say the excellent, is liberation from / bad migrations and happy migrations. “Followers of nonexistence follow bad migrations, / but happy ones accrue to the followers of existence. / However, those who know what is correct and true / do not fall into dualism and thus are liberated.” A second type of nihilism is often called annihilationism, which is the opposite of eternalism yet is based on the experience of eternalism inherent in the belief in hypostatic / inherent existence, for whatever is hypostatically / inherently existing cannot cease, disintegrate or come to an end—so that those who hold this view incur in a contradiction with regard to their own experience and their own view, for their view implies that existence cannot cease, yet they proclaim its cessation. This is what Nāgārjuna warned against in Prajñānāmamūlamadhyamakakārikā XV.11 (Cf. Napper, 2003, pp. 206-7 and throughout for the dGe lugs interpretation of this and of Candrakīrti’s comment on the stanza): “‘Whatever exists hypostatically / inherently is permanent, / for it does not become nonexistent. / If one says that what arose formerly is now nonexistent, / this entails [the extreme of] annihilationism.’ “Since the existent is not overcome, something that is said to be existent does not ever become nonexistent; in that case it follows that through asserting [something to be] existent one has a view of permanence. “‘If so, through asserting the existence of entities when formerly they were abiding and then asserting that now, in a posterior moment, they are destroyed and thus come to no longer exist, it follows that one has an annihilationist view.’” This is the type of nihilism, which I would refer to as eternalist annihilationism, consists in believing that at some time existents are extinguished, which implies that before extinction they were “truly existent,” and therefore implies the view of permanence inherent in the view of hypostatic or inherent existence which is self-contradictory in that it makes the existence in question be impermanent. Still another type of nihilism is the one that lies in asserting the ultimate truth to be a mere nothingness that is made to appear by applying a purportedly absolute, nonimplicative, nonaffirming negative (Skt. prasajyapratiṣedha; Tib. med dgag) that is actually of the implicative, affirmative kind (i.e. that which is referred to by the Skt. paryudāsapratriṣedha and the Tib. ma yin dgag), and which is one form of emptiness qua nonexistence (Tib. ci yang med pa’i stong pa) or analytical emptiness (Tib. dpyad pa’i stong pa). Cf. Capriles (unpublished 1, unpublished 3) for a discussion of two of these forms of nihilism in the philosophy of rJe Tsong kha pa. These five are: (1) adhyātma vidyā; Tib. nang gi rig pa or nang rig (meaning “inner science or inner branch of knowledge,” this discipline is also known as nang don rig pa, where nang don means “inner sense” or “subject of study”): it may be rendered as “inner knowledge,” and includes Buddhist philosophy, dharma teachings, commentaries, rDzogs chen, Tantra, etc.; (2) hetu vidyā; Tib. gtan tshigs kyi rig pa or tshad ma rig: dialectics, logic and epistemology; (3) śabda vidyā; Tib. sgra’i rig pa or sgra rig: science of language (grammar, poetry and linguistics); (4) cikitsā vidyā; Tib. gso ba’i rig pa or gso rig: medical 187 555 science or healing arts; (5) śilpa-karma-sthāna vidyā; Tib. bzo gnas kyi rig pa or bzo rig: mechanic and fine arts and crafts... As stated in endnote 30, the extant commentary on the Tantra Without Syllables (Yi ge med pa rgyud) clarifies that in the context of the Great Perfection (rDzogs chen) teachings, vidyā refers in general to knowledge, such as the five sciences and so on, and in particular to knowledge of one’s essence, buddha nature—yet this knowledge, rather than being the arising of subject and object to give rise to a conceptual understanding, is revealed by a primordial gnosis free from conceptualization and hence from the subject-object duality. As will be stated more extensively in a subsequent footnote, references to contemporary physics made in this book are not intended to imply that in the twentieth century physics suddenly elucidated the definitive nature and structure of the material universe. In fact, as I have shown in quite a few works (e.g. Capriles, 2016; unpublished 1 [endnotes]; 2013a Vol. III; 2012a; 1994, Ch. I; and other works), the “discoveries” and theories of the sciences are ideological in nature, and in the opinion of some thinkers they are more than ideologies, as they are the very matrix that make possible the existence of power (political, economic, cultural and so on). (In this regard, cf. endnote 230 to this book.) Therefore, the current theories of physics could change radically in the future with the progressive development of research and conceptual elaboration, just like those of nineteenth century physics changed radically in the twentieth and twentyfirst centuries. And yet the coincidences between contemporary physics and the world views of the Mahāyāna, Vajrayāna and Atiyogatantrayāna forms of Buddhism are too impressive to be overlooked. The coincidences between the views of Buddhism in general and in some cases of other Asian systems as well have been discussed in different works by Watts (1966), Capra (1975; 2d ed. 1983), Zukav (1979), Bentov (1977), Bentov & Bentov (1982), LeShan (1982), M. Ricard and Trinh Xuan Thuan (2004), B. Allan Wallace (2007), Vic Mansfield (2008/2011), and many others (including the author of this book: cf. Capriles, Elías, 1977; Capriles, Elías, 1986 and Capriles, Elías, 1994). Cf. also the works by David Bohm and Karl Pribram mentioned in the Reference section, as well as Wilber (1982). When I consider three possibilities—namely (1) that all is “material,” including all that we call “mental,” (2) that all is “mental,” including all that we call “material,” and (3) that “mental” and “material” are states of a single true condition that cannot be understood either as “material” or “mental”—I am using the logic of reductio ad absurdum proper to Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamaka, which is intended to forestall us from clinging to views about reality. I consider these three possibilities because, when the ChristianCartesian dualism of soul or res cogitans and extended world or res extensa is refuted, common sense may come to one of these three conclusions. However, without “mind,” “matter” would not be matter, and without “matter,” “mind” would not be mind, for each of these concepts is that which Greek and in general Western logic calls the differentia specifica of the other—or, in terms of Buddhist epistemology and logic (and in particular of the Pramāṇavāda tradition established by ācārya Dignāga [c. 480 – c. 540 CE]), each is defined by exclusion (Skt. apoha; Tib. sel ba; Ch. 除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chú; Wade-Giles, ch’u ] or 遮除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēchú; Wade-Giles, che -ch’u ]) of the other… which is that which Dignāga named “exclusion-of-other” (Skt. anyāpoha; Tib. gzhan sel; Ch. 他感排除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tā gǎn páichú; Wade-Giles, t’a -kan p’ai -ch’u ]). In short, “mind” is defined in contrast with “matter” and “matter” is defined in contrast with “mind”—and hence if everything were reduced to the referent of one of these two terms, the one in terms of which it would be defined would lose its meaning. This is why in my 1994 book Individuo, sociedad, ecosistema, I quoted Carstanjen, a disciple of Avenarius (in the Austrian Empirio-Criticist circles of the beginning of the twentieth century), telling us that the latter said during a conversation, “I do not know either the physical or the psychical, but a third thing.” To the comment that the definition of that third thing had not been given by Avenarius, Petzoldt replied: “We know why he couldn’t formulate this concept. For this third thing there is no counter-concept (‘Gegenbegriff’: correlative concept) ... The question: ‘What is this third thing?’ lacks logic.” (Adapted from a quotation in Lenin [Ulianov], Vladimir Illich, Spanish 1974. Lenin was repulsed by the insights of the Austrian Empirio-Criticists, as he felt it threatened materialism, which he had to redefine in a most absurd way in order to maintain the category alive.) Indeed, that which Petzoldt called the “third thing” (is) not a “third thing,” for it (is) the only, single stuff and source of all phenomena—including those we call “physical” and those we call “mental.” It was on the basis of a similar understanding that Alfred North Whitehead developed his own version of a monism free from the mind-matter dichotomy. And it is to the view that both mind and matter arise from a reality that is neither one nor the other that current physics seems to be currently leading (cf. for example, B. Allan Wallace, 2007). 188 189 2 1 1 3 2 2 556 2 This absolute completeness / plenitude is disrupted in our samsaric experience but not in the true condition of reality / the absolute truth. Moreover, it may be said to be disrupted by our experience, because the etymology of the term “experience” implies that it may refer solely to saṃsāra. In fact, this English term and its equivalents in many European languages derive from the Latin ex-perire, meaning “going out from inside” or “dying from inside,” and therefore there can be no doubt that it implies the subject-object duality. The assertion according to which only in saṃsāra there is experience, is ratified in Thinle Norbu Rinpoche, 1997, pp. 3-4 (the phrases within parentheses and the words in brackets are my own additions): “…it is not said in Buddhism that Buddha “experienced” Awakening. Awakening is beyond experience. Experience occurs between the duality of subject and object, and there is no existence of subject and object in Awakening. Experience comes from feeling, and feeling belongs to sentient beings, not to fully Awake Buddhas. Awakening is completely beyond either feeling or numbness. “From the point of view of the causal vehicle (Skt. Hetuyāna; Tib. rGyu’i theg pa), it can be said that bodhisattvas, sublime beings who are on the Path of Awakening and have not yet attained Buddhahood, still have experience due to traces of the residue of previous habit. Therefore, it could be said that when Buddha took birth many times as a bodhisattva before attaining Awakening, he had experience, including the experience of suffering caused by the passions, which he later taught about when he attained the omniscience of fully Awake Buddhahood. But this explanation of experience can only be made from the point of view of the causal vehicle, in which bodhisattvas are differentiated from Buddhas. According to the resultant vehicle (Skt. Phalayāna; Tib. ’Bras bu’i theg pa), bodhisattvas are fully Awake manifestations of Buddhas effortlessly emanating for the benefit of beings and so they are also beyond experience, indivisible from the Wisdom-mind of Buddhas. “According to the Buddhist point of view, experience is always connected with dualistic mind. Dualistic mind depends on the ordinary inner elements of sentient beings and ordinary outer elements of the [seemingly] substantial world, which are the basis of all that exists in duality. These ordinary elements are affected by inner root circumstances, such as the conditions of the [seemingly] substantial world, which always rely on each other and always change. The experience of sentient beings is to continually react to the circle of manipulation between subject and object, inner and outer elements, and root [cause] and contributing circumstances, which all continuously change because they are occupied by the habit of duality. The object is unreliable because the subject is unreliable, like a mental patient who depends on a schizophrenic psychiatrist. Sometimes he may feel worse and sometimes better, but he cannot transcend his situation, because of endlessly circling between the subjective problems of the self and the objective problems of the other.” If we assume the realist’s hypothesis, we can explain this in terms of twentieth century physics, and note that according to Field Theory the universe is a continuum of energy with no empty spaces in it, which therefore can be categorized as absolute plenitude. In terms of this hypothesis, the Buddhist view would have to be explained by asserting that, since human consciousness is not a substance separate from the rest of totality, it is part of the same continuum of plenitude. When the illusion that we are a consciousness separate from the energy field arises, there arises the illusion that we are not part of that plenitude, and thus we experience lack of plenitude. However, this is merely one of the possible different hypotheses concerning reality. Below in the regular text I explain how the Buddhist view can be explained in terms of both of them and also of a third view that is more correct in Buddhist terms. Below in the regular text and, in greater detail, in endnote 250 to this book, it will be clearly shown that current epistemology agrees that the sciences do not find “truths” and that their results are ideological and more than ideological—to such an extent that an epistemologist compared the sciences to magic and sorcery (in this regard cf. the endnote in question). Nevertheless, as a rule physicist believe it has been demonstrated that the “physical universe” is not in itself divided—which has been used to substantiate the view of the Mahāyāna and other “higher” forms of Buddhism according to which our true condition is undivided and divisions are introduced by mental processes. In fact, according to Albert Einstein, the universe is a single energy field; for David Bohm (who worked with Einstein but whose theory is far from being as widely accepted as Einstein’s), at the dimensional level of Planck’s length the universe is an “implicate order” in which there is neither space nor time (which are indispensable for there to be separations, which for their part are the condition for there to be separate entities); etc. In terms of Bohm’s theory, for us to perceive our shared spatio-temporal reality the implicate 190 191 192 557 order has to be spatio-temporalized by our perception so as to produce an explicate order. Whether or not this is so, as shown in this book, once we have a spatio-temporal reality, entities are separated by our own mental functions, which recognize those configurations that persist as time passes. (However, as shown in a previous endnote, according to Einstein’s Field Theory, as time passes these configurations are not constituted by the same portion of “matter-energy”, and therefore may not be regarded as substances in one key Aristotelian sense of the term—which is quite logical, for if an entity exchanges with its environment the matter of which it is made, then it cannot be said not to depend on anything else than itself to be what it is, for it would depend on matter that presently is not part of itself in order to continue to be itself in the future [it must be kept in mind, however, that Aristotle developed different concepts of substance in different works]). As to how, once we have a spatio-temporal reality, entities are separated by our mental functions, which recognize those configurations that maintain themselves as time passes, our mental functions associate those configurations with concepts related to their essence, and single them out from the rest of the energy field that the universe is, taking them as figure (which our figure-ground minds always feel compelled to do)—in Sartrean terms, by “nihilating” their environment in order to perceive them as separate entities. (In this explanation the existence of an objective “physical” reality external to our experience was taken for granted because this is the way physics proceeds.) In these terms, part of the delusion affecting us is related to the fact that, upon perceiving entities, we feel that they are in themselves separate (from us and from the rest of the single energy field), that they are in themselves the contents of the thoughts in terms of which we understand them (“this is a dog,” “this is a house,” and so on), and that in themselves they have a positive, negative or neutral value. It is this that makes us spin in a circle of acceptance, rejection and indifference, causing us to oscillate between duḥkhapervaded pleasure, double-duḥkha pain, and duḥkha-pervaded neutral feeling, and thus giving rise to active saṃsāra. According to Descartes, there was one uncreated substance—namely god—and two created substances, which were: (1) the soul or res cogitans, which was not spatial and thus did not occupy any space, and (2) the extended (“physical”) universe or res extensa, which was the spatial reality in the midst of which the res cogitans found itself. This involved the problem of how could two substances having so utterly different natures and constituents communicate so that the soul would be able to perceive through the senses of the human body, move the body at will, and so on. In face of the impossibility of solving this problem, Descartes asserted that the pineal gland was the link between soul and body. However, the pineal gland is part of the res extensa or extended (physical) universe, and thus Descartes’ “solution” did not solve anything, as it would be necessary to explain how can a nonspatial soul communicate with the spatial and material pineal gland—and thus we would still face the same initial problem. Obviously, the only way it could do so, would be by magical means—which would be unacceptable to scientific-minded people. The Mahāyāna and the higher Buddhist vehicles imply mind and body to be segments of a continuum, of which the middle segment is energy / voice. Philosophers such as Alfred North Whitehead and the Austrian Empirio-Criticists (Richard Avenarius, Ernst Mach [who never met Avenarius] and Avenarius’ disciple Joseph Petzoldt), starting from Realism and, in the second’s case, process philosophy, on the basis of early twenty-century physics came close to developing a nondual conception of reality. In particular, Avenarius stated that the single stuff of which the universe was made could not be said to be either “mental” or “physical.” It must be added that neither may it be considered to be a third substance different from matter and mind. Whitehead, for his part, insisted that pinpointing inherently separate discrete entities was the result of what he termed “The Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness.” What is important, however, is that, currently, leading physicists are more and more often insisting that the true condition is neither matter nor mind but that which gives rise to both—just as Einstein had made it clear that physical entities are made of something that is neither energy nor matter but that is the common constituent of both. Lenin (1977; also Internet 1998-2012: Ch. I, 6: The solipsism of Mach and Avenarius) writes with the aim of refuting the Empirio-Criticists: “Of Avenarius, his disciple Carstanjen says that he once expressed himself in private conversation as follows: ‘I know neither the physical nor the mental, but only some third (ein Drittes).’ To the remark of one writer that the concept of this third was not given by Avenarius, Petzoldt replied: ‘We know why he could not 193 194 195 558 advance such a concept (Begriff). The third lacks a counter-concept (Gegenbegriff). . . . The question, what is the third? is illogically put.’” (Einführung in die Philosophie der reinen Erfahrung [Introduction to the Philosophy of Pure Experience], Vol. II, p. 329). For his part, Carstanjen (2014) writes: “The hidden ground for this is to be found in the relinquishment of the natural concept of the universe, in the division of the one universe into an inner and an outer world, in the division of the one course of events into a physical and a psychical, and in the need of connecting and uniting what has been artificially separated, the need of finding a mediator between the universe of ‘Being’ and that of ‘Thought’. Actually, the last phrase is wrong, for being, rather than lying in matter or nature, is a delusive creation of the human mind in interaction with a vibratory activity that seems to have its source in the center of the trunk at the level of the heart (cf. Capriles, 2007 Vol. I). Back to Lenin and the Empirio-Criticists: Aware of Einstein's theories, and therefore unable to negate the nondualism of Avenarius and others, V. I. Lenin (Ulianov, 1977; also Internet, 1998-2012)—who deemed the concept of matter to be indispensable for dialectical materialism, and materialism to be necessary for socioeconomic “liberation”—in order to keep the concept of matter, speciously defined this concept as a “philosophical category” and declared that by definition “mental” phenomena are excluded from this category. Friedrich Carstanjen concluded in his work Richard Avenarius and his General Theory of Knowledge, Empirio-Criticism (1897/2014): “Avenarius, on the contrary, has succeeded in once more presenting a view of the universe as one, which corresponds to theoretical as well as to practical needs.” If theories of this kind were correct, then the unity of the universe revealed by twentieth century physics and universally accepted ever since, would actually be the unity of the psychic stuff of which all entities would be made: while believing that they are probing a physical universe, physicists would in truth be probing their own mental experience and mental stuff. 197 As noted again and again, definitio fit per genus proximum et differentiam specificam (definition is made by proximate genus and specific difference)—concepts being relative because of their being defined by inclusion in a wider genre that contains them (genu proximum) and in contrast with the most important among those concepts within the same genre that are mutually exclusive with them (differentia specifica). If both what we regard as physical and what we deem to be mental are made of the same stuff, this stuff cannot have differentiam specificam—and since both the terms “physical” and “mental” are defined by their mutual contrast or differentia specifica, it would be utterly absurd to claim that this stuff is either physical or mental. And the same would result if we considered the subject in terms of the Buddhist Pramāṇavāda’s concepts of exclusion (Skt. apoha; Tib. sel ba; 除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chú; Wade-Giles, ch’u ] or 遮除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēchú; Wade-Giles, che -ch’u ]) and exclusion of other (Skt. anyāpoha; Tib. gzhan sel; Ch. 他感排除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tā gǎn páichú; Wade-Giles, t’a -kan p’ai -ch’u ] [another possibility, though far less likely: 他者的遮除 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tāzhědí zhēchú; Wade-Giles, t’a -che -ti che -ch’u )]). This is precisely the conclusion Avenarius reached on the basis of position (1) and of early twenty-century physics. See endnote before last (note 195). Cf. endnote 76 to this Volume for a comprehensive substantiation of this. As shown elsewhere in the regular text, what here is rendered as energy is the third aspect of what the rDzogs chen teachings call the Base (Tib. gzhi): the first aspect is its essence (Tib. ngo bo), which is the emptiness that allows for appearances to arise; the second aspect is its nature (Tib. rang bzhin), which is clarity or reflectiveness that allows for the uninterrupted process of arising; and the third aspect is its energy (Tib. thugs rje), consisting in the unobstructedness (Tib. ma ’gags pa) that allows for the arising of phenomena and the unobstructed / uninterrupted (Tib. ma ’gags pa) and all-pervasive (Tib. kun khyab) flow of the latter, as well as the functionality of those phenomena—which, as it has been clearly shown, are a single continuum (despite the fact that in saṃsāra these phenomena appear as though they existed in two separate dimensions, one internal and the other one external). Some great masters have noted that the energy aspect is not to be recognized in phenomena, but in the instant preceding the arising of the latter, in which an openness and readiness to give rise to appearances, which is unobstructed / uninterrupted (Tib. ma ’gags pa) and all-pervasive (Tib. kun khyab), becomes clearly apparent. This may be the proper way to correctly identify the Base’s energy aspect, yet it does not mean that phenomena are not part of the Base’s energy aspect: there is absolutely nothing other than or external to the Base, and since phenomena are that which the energy aspect is at all times manifesting, they may 196 2 1 2 1 3 2 2 1 1 2 198 199 200 559 3 2 be properly regarded as being part of that aspect. In fact, the Tantra called in Tibetan Rig pa rang shar rgyud reads (alternative translation in Tulku Thöndup, 1996 [original ed. 1989], p. 206): “The appearances of [the Base’s] energy [aspect] (are) limitless [and limpid] like the cloudless sky.” Moreover, kLong chen rab ’byams writes in the rDzogs pa chen po sems nyid rang grol (alternative translation in Tulku Thöndup, 1996, p. 326): “The essence (Tib. ngo bo) of appearances and mind is emptiness, and that is the meaning of [the Base] dharmakāya; “the nature (Tib. rang bzhin) [of appearances] is unceasing, and that (is) the appearance of [the Base] saṃbhogakāya; “the characteristics [of appearances] are various and that is the [Base] nirmāṇakāya [which is the energy (Tib. thugs rje)].” The above quotations make it clear that phenomena are part of the Base’s energy [aspect] (note that the second quotation also shows that the terms essence, nature and energy have various acceptations and thus may be explained in different ways). And nonetheless phenomena are utterly nonexistent: since they are nothing at all, they may not legitimately be regarded as being existent phenomena of the Base’s energy aspect. The single continuum consisting in the energy or thugs rje aspect of the Base may be viewed as being made up of the basic energy that the rDzogs chen and Tantric teachings call thig le; therefore, both the phenomena that in saṃsāra we experience as internal (which, as will be shown later on, belong to the mode of manifestation of energy the rDzogs chen teachings call gdangs) and those that in saṃsāra we experience as external (which, as will be explained later on, belong to the mode of manifestation of energy the rDzogs chen teachings call rtsal) are made up of the same basic thig le energy. Below in the regular text it will be shown that the circulation of this energy is called rlung, that the patterns (or “structural pathways”) of this circulation are called rtsa, and that energy with all its aspects is responsible for the appearing of all phenomena. (In other words, according to some Tantric teachings the rlung is not only the circulation of thig le through certain “channels” or “structural pathways” in the human organism, and the rtsa does not consist solely in the configuration of these “channels” or “structural pathways:” the former may be understood to include all instances of circulating energy, and the latter to include all the configurations of stirring energy that make of the plethora of phenomena.) This may immediately bring to mind Einstein’s Field Theory. However, in these teachings the basic energy that we perceive as an external universe is explicitly stated not to be a self-existing “physical” reality inherently different and separate from all that in saṃsāra seems to appear inside ourselves as mental phenomena: as it has been noted, this continuum of energy includes both what we deem to be mental and what we deem to be physical, and upon unconceiling itself in nirvāṇa as it truly is, rather than appearing to be divided into two different dimensions, it shows itself to be a single continuum. In Part Two of this book the three forms of manifestation of the Base’s energy (Tib. thugs rje) aspect, which arise as the play and display (Tib. rol pa) of the energy in question, will be discussed in greater detail. However, given the doubts raised by one of the readers of this Part One of the book, it may be useful at this point to offer an extremely brief explanation of how these three forms of manifestation of energy develop, of how they become the basis of saṃsāra, and of how they are the means for the eradication of saṃsāra and consolidation of nirvāṇa. The first form of manifestation of energy is gdangs, which is transparent, pure, clear and limpid, and therefore features no forms that may be perceived vividly, as we perceive the phenomena that appear through our senses. Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu describes this energy as follows (Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal], 1996b, p. 32): “Dang is a type of energy that is characteristic of the primordial state, the state of Contemplation, the state of Samantabhadra. In this case, we are not talking about an inner or an outer dimension, of subject and object, but about the condition as it is, an authentic condition like the dharmakāya. So, the example used is that of a crystal ball that is pure, clear and limpid, in which there is nothing in particular: this is our true nature… This is gdangs energy, the [true] condition of [which is the] dharmakāya.” To realize the true condition of this energy is, indeed, the realization of the dharmakāya as it occurs in the rDzogs chen Series of Pith Instructions (Skt. Upadeśavarga; Tib. Man ngag [gyi sde]). In fact, the true condition of this energy is a transparent, unobstructed primordial gnosis (Tib. ye shes zang thal) that, just like gdangs energy, may be exemplified by a crystal ball, for crystal balls are transparent and yet they have the disposition to unobstructedly fill themselves with reflections that are also transparent—for one can see through them—and unimpeded—because a previous reflection does not obstruct the appearing of 201 560 a new one. Moreover, when this primordial gnosis arises as the Path or as the Fruit, it (is) an all-liberating single gnosis (Tib. gcig shes kun grol): that which is responsible for the self-liberation or spontaneous liberation that is the trademark of rDzogs chen. When one discovers the true condition of gdangs energy one discovers the true condition of the primordial purity (Tib. ka dag) or essence (Tib. ngo bo) aspect of the Base. The latter (is) free from all dualities, including the extreme conceptions of existence and nonexistence, for it is inconceivable (Skt. acintya; Pāli: acinteya, acintiya; Tib. bsam yas or bsam gyis mi khyab pa; Ch. 佛學辭彙 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fóxué cíhuì; Wade-Gilles, fo -hsüueh tz’u -hui ]) and inexpressible (Skt. avācya; Tib. smrar med pa; Ch. 不可说 物 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùkěshuō wù; Wade-Gilles, pu -k’e -shuo wu ] / Skt. anabhilāpya; Tib. brjod [du] med [pa]; Ch. 不可說 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùkěshuō; Wade-Gilles, pu -k’e -shuo ]). Since it (is) utter emptiness free from inherent apprehensible characteristics it is free from the extreme of existence and hence it does not justify holding to the extreme of eternalism; and since the Base (is) spontaneously perfect / selfaccomplishing / self-rectifying, and since it (is) self-effulgent, it is free from the extreme of nonexistence and hence it does not justify holding to the extreme view of nihilism. It is also free from the alternatives of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, for it has the potential to give rise to both possibilities—although it is in nonstatic nirvāṇa that its true condition becomes fully patent. The Tantra called in Tibetan Rig pa rang shar rgyud reads (alternative translation in Tulku Thöndup, 1996 [original ed. 1989], p. 206) reads: “Primordial purity, the Base, (is) manifest as essence (Tib. ngo bo), nature (Tib. rang bzhin) and energy (Tib. thugs rje; lit. compassion). The essence (is) the ceaseless, changeless inherent gnosis, and it is called the condition of the youthful vase body (Tib. gzhon nu bum sku). The nature is the ceaseless appearances of the five lights. The appearances of [the Base’s] energy [aspect] (are) limitless [and limpid] like the cloudless sky. These are called the condition of primordial purity because they do not fall into dimensions of partialities [and hence are free from extremes].” Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu often identifies primordial purity with essence, while dividing selfperfection—which here I am calling spontaneous perfection (Skt. anābogha or nirābogha; Tib. lhun grub)—into nature and energy. However, the Rig pa rang shar identifies primordial purity with the Base as a whole because it is the true condition of the Base, which (is) its emptiness. Therefore, there is no contradiction between both explanations. Moreover, as we read in the gter ma revealed by Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu titled kLong chen ’od gsal mkha’ ’gro’i snying thig las lta ba blo ’das chen po’i gnad byang bshigs, in the process of genesis of saṃsāra, “because of dualistic ignorance [and delusion], the natural gdangs of the Base, the innate and self-originated wisdom, is covered…” and it is this that gives rise to the eight samsaric consciousnesses. How does this happen? kLong chen rab ’byams wrote in Tshig don rin po che’i mdzod: “15a/2: Having broken the shell (Tib. rgya) of the youthful vase body, the primordial Base of the originally pure, absolute sphere, by the flow (Tib. gyos pas) of the energy / wind of primordial gnosis, the selfappearances (Tib. rang snang) of the nondual and hence nonconceptual Awake awareness called rig pa flash out (Tib. ’phags) from the Base as the eight spontaneously perfect / spontaneously accomplished / self-rectifying doors (for an explanation of these doors cf. Tulku Thöndup, 1996, p. 206, footnote 1).” From the appearances of the eight spontaneously perfect / spontaneously accomplished / self-rectifying doors, everything that pertains to nirvāṇa and everything that pertains to saṃsāra arises as the forms of outer luminosity (Tib. spyi gsal) that are projected by the inner luminosity (Tib. nang gsal) of our true condition (which shines in our heart). According to the teachings, “as the appearances proper to each of the eight modes or doors of consciousness sequentially emerge in their natural order,” saṃsāra becomes fully operative, and as they are reabsorbed back into the consciousness of the base-of-all, they subside into the neutral condition of the base-of-all. All the appearances that thus arise and subside (are) no other than the Base, and are of one taste with the Base—even though, as shown elsewhere in this volume, one cannot say that the Base and phenomena are either one and the same, nor other than each other and different from each other. Cosmologically speaking, after the shining forth of the inner luminosity of gdangs energy, subtle luminous forms of rol pa energy appear, functioning as the condition of possibility of the subsequent origination of rtsal energy—i.e. of appearances seeming to lie in a dimension (Tib. dbyings) that appears to be external to the individual, as a result of the reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of the threefold directional thought structure. Then, with regard to the apparently external dimension (Tib. spyi dbyings) of rtsal energy, gdangs energy— which as we have seen is neither internal nor external, for it is not dualistic—appears to constitute an 2 2 2 4 4 3 1 4 561 4 3 1 internal dimension (Tib. nang dbyings). The paradigmatic expression of rtsal energy is, thus, the “material” phenomena that we experience as an inherently external, substantial reality. At this point, when the phenomena of rtsal energy are reflected by gdangs energy in the dimmer way in which forms appear in this energy, they seem to lie in this internal dimension—just as occurs when the phenomena of the “physical” world are reflected in a crystal ball, with their reflections seeming to lie inside the ball, and their appearance being far more tenuous than those of the “material” world, and being somehow, somewhat transparent. Speaking in the context of the practice of the Series of Pith Instructions, as briefly shown in the discussion of Contemplation (Tib. sgom pa) below in the regular text of this volume, and as will be shown in greater detail in Vol. II of this book, the operativeness of rol pa energy is also the condition that later on, when the individual is in saṃsāra, will make it possible for the dualism inherent in rtsal energy to be neutralized through the most advanced rDzogs chen practices—such as those of Thod rgal and the Yang ti / Yang thig. Furthermore, as stated in the regular text, the thoughts that in saṃsāra are hypostasized / absolutized / reified / valorized—coarse or discursive, subtle or intuitive, and super-subtle—are not appearances of either rtsal energy or of rol pa energy, but of the colorless, clear and limpid gdangs energy, and as such are as pure, transparent, limpid and clear as this energy (and hence as transparent, pure, limpid and clear as a crystal ball). This is the reason why in the rDzogs chen texts and in particular in texts on Khregs chod, it is said that thoughts are the dharmakāya. Once rtsal energy arises and the three types of concepts are hypostasized / absolutized / reified / valorized, the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of the super-subtle directional threefold thought structure causes even phenomena of gdangs energy such as thoughts to be perceived dualistically, as though they were objects to a mental subject lying at a distance from them—and rather than being realized to be the play and display (Skt. līlā; Tib. rol pa) of the dharmakāya that is the true condition of gdangs energy and the essence of the primordial state, they (a) further conceal the dharmakāya that (is) the true condition of gdangs energy, and (b1) are confused with phenomena of rtsal energy (in the case of intuitive thoughts appearing in perception through the five outer-looking senses), or else (b2) are taken to either correspond to phenomena of rtsal energy—and thus to be true—or to fail to correspond to them— and hence to be false (in the case of discursive thoughts appearing to the consciousness of mental phenomena). It is at this point that we need a practice in order to overcome the basic delusion at the root of saṃsāra. In fact, kLong chen rab ’byams wrote in Tshig don rin po che’i mdzod 18a/3 (alternative translation in Tulku Thöndup, 1996, p. 20): “At the very moment of the arising from the Base of the nonconceptual and therefore nondual Awake awareness called rig pa, the eight spontaneous appearances of the Base manifest naturally. By not apprehending those appearances as other [than one’s own Awake awareness], and [on the contrary] realizing them with a pure awareness (Tib. gzu bo’i blos) to (be) the natural glow or inherent radiance [of the awareness in question], the movements [in awareness] cease of their own accord. At the first movement, by realizing the very essence of the spontaneously arisen appearances, the realization [of emptiness] takes place... At the second movement, delusions are dispelled and the [self-perfection / selfmanifestation / self-accomplishment / self-rectification] of primordial gnosis [manifests and] develops. That is the development of the Base’s [self-realization] as the Fruit of Awakening. It is called reAwakening (or spontaneous liberation of all delusions) through the realization of the essence, primordial Buddhahood. Once the self-appearances have dissolved into primordial purity [/emptiness] and Awakening at the Base as [it was originally] has occurred, it is called Lord All-is-Viable or All-Good Lord: the primordial Buddha, Samantabhadra / Kun tu bzang po.” From emptiness, nonconceptual and hence nondual Awake awareness shines forth—which in terms of the Four Phur bas or Four phur bus, is represented by the Phur ba of rig pa piercing the dharmadhātu. This symbolizes Direct Introduction. The next stage in the practice of the Upadeśavarga (Tib. Man ngag sde) series of rDzogs chen teachings is, as shown below in the regular text, that of Khregs chod or that of the sNying thig, which consists in reGnizing the stuff and true nature or essence of whichever thought is present at the moment—upon which it liberates itself spontaneously and gdangs energy appears as it always (was) in truth: as the pure, clear and limpid dharmakāya which (is) a transparent, unimpeded primordial gnosis and also an all-liberating single gnosis. This shows that such was always the true nature of the phenomena of gdangs energy, which is that of all thoughts, and puts an end to the illusion of dualism, and in particular to the illusion of there being two different dimensions, one inside and the other 562 one outside—until the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of thought activates itself again, giving rise to dualism and to the illusion of there being two different dimensions. When the above practice has thoroughly consolidated, if one has the vocation to irreversibly put an end to saṃsāra, it is appropriate to undertake the practice of thod rgal or that of the yang thig, so that the dynamic of rol pa energy may catalyze the process of spontaneous liberation of delusion and in the long term put an end to the illusion of there being a self-existent, substantial physical world in a dimension external to the individual—which takes place when the Fruit has been attained, giving rise to the irreversible merging of the rol pa and rtsal modes of manifestation of energy. It is only at this point that the illusion of dualism in general, and the illusion of there being two different dimensions in particular, arise no more. Though mind and mental factors or mental events, being indivisible, are not a duality, the basic delusion that gives rise to saṃsāra may cause them to appear to be a duality. Different schools list different numbers of “omnipresent” mental factors or events (i.e. those that are involved in all cognitions); however, all of them acknowledge contact (Skt. sparśa; Pāli phassa; Tib. reg pa; Ch. 觸 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chù; Wade-Giles, ch’u ]); feeling-tone (Skt. vedanā; Pāli vedanā; Tib. tshor ba; 受 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shòu; Wade-Giles, shou ]); recognition, conceptualization or perception (Skt. saṃjñā; Pāli saññā; Tib. ’du shes; Ch. 想 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiǎng; Wade-Giles, hsiang ]); impulse (Skt. cetanā; Pāli cetanā; Tib. sems pa; Ch. 思 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sī; Wade-Giles, ssu ]), which propels attention toward a potential object that then is singled out, or propels the mind into action, etc.; and attention (Skt. manasikāra; Pāli manasikāra; Tib. yid byed; Ch. 作意 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zuòyì; Wade-Giles, tsuo -yi ]). Among the above, let me take impulse as an example. Imagine a good Buddhist monk with heterosexual propensities who sets out to meditate by concentrating on a statue of Śākyamuni’s. When he directs his attention toward the statue he gets the impression that he is in control of the impulse that sets it on the object: there seems to be a duality between mind and this mental factor or mental event, but the mind seems to be in control of it. Then a very attractive girl dressed in a mini-skirt and a see-through blouse comes into the temple as a tourist and enters the periphery of his visual field. At this point impulse automatically tends to direct his attention away from the statue of Śākyamuni’s and toward the girl, but since he is a good monk he struggles to keep his attention on the object: at the point when attention was automatically shifting toward the girl he was experiencing a duality between mind and this mental factor or mental event, but the mental factor or event was not felt to be fully under the control of the mind; contrariwise, it seemed to be behaving rather autonomously, and it almost managed to direct the mind toward the object against the monk’s wishes. However, then he manages to take control of the mental factor/event and concentrate on the statue, and therefore, though there is still the appearance of a duality between mind and the mental factor/event, again he feels that the mind is in control of the mental factor/event. In other words, I believe the Abhidharmakośa and other books on the mind and the mental events describe impulse in such a way that there can be no doubt that it refers to that which impels attention toward its object, but that the wording of the descriptions is such as to make the event described encompass both the fully intentional and the not-fully-intentional movements of attention toward objects. If this is so, then it is incorrect to render the Sanskrit term cetanā, the Pāli cetanā; the Tib. sems pa and the Ch. 思 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sī; Wade-Giles, ssu ) as “intention” or “volition,” for the referent of those different Eastern terms no doubt encompasses those of the terms intention and volition, but it is wider than the referents of these terms. As stated in the preceding note, all Buddhist systems list recognition (Skt. saṃjñā; Pāli saññā; Tib. ’du shes; Ch. 想 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiǎng; Wade-Giles, hsiang ]), which may also be translated into English either as “conceptualization” or as “perception,” among the omnipresent mental factors or mental events, which are those that occur in all cognitions. The Abhidharmasamuccaya (Tib. Chos mngon pa kun las btus pa; Ch. ⼤乘阿毘達磨集論 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Dàshéng āpídámó jí lùn; Wade-Giles, Ta -sheng a -pi -ta mo chi lun ]) states (Guenther, Herbert V. and L. Kawamura, trans. 1975): “What is the absolutely specific characteristic of recognition? It is to know by association. It is to see, hear, specify, and to know by way of taking up the defining characteristics (Skt. lakṣaṇa; Pāḷi lakkhaṇa; Tib. mtshan nyid; Ch. 相 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn. xiāng; Wade-Giles, hsiang ]) [of an object] and distinguishing them.” For its part, Vasubandhu’s Pañcaskandhaprakaraṇa (Tib. Phung po lnga’i rab tu byed pa; Ch. ⼤乘五蘊論 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Dàshéng wǔyùn lùn; Wade-Giles, Ta -sheng wu -yün lun ]); says (Guenther & Kawamura, trans. 1975): “What is recognition? It is taking hold of the defining characteristics of an object.” 202 4 4 3 1 4 4 1 203 3 4 2 2 4 1 4 563 2 3 4 4 2 1 2 2 Sometimes this has been illustrated with the simile of a screen in which figures are painted, and in which the figures are made up of conditioning propensities (Skt. vāsanā; Tib. bag chags; Ch. 氣習 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, qìxí; Wade-Giles, ch’i -hsi ] or 習氣 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíqì; Wade-Giles, hsi -ch’i ]) that are reproductions of conceptions-impressions, which is interposed between the contact of the senses with their objects, and the perceiving consciousness. In particular, according to the Pramāṇaviniścaya (Tib. Tshad ma rnam par nges pa]) by Master Dharmakīrti and to the schools based on this text (on which dGe lug pas and Sa skya pas disagree), we only know the “real object” (which they call particular, specifically characterized phenomenon, or, less correctly yet literally, inherent configuration or inherent collection of characteristics [Skt. svalakṣaṇa; Tib. rang mtshan; Ch. ⾃相 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxiàng; Wade-Giles, tzu -hsiang )]) for a very short instant, and immediately thereafter we perceive the image of the object that, so to speak, in past experiences was somehow “photographed” on the screen and associated with a given meaning or understanding (this image being that which the Pramāṇavāda calls abstracted general configurations / general collections of characteristics: Skt. sāmānyalakṣaṇa; Tib. spyi mtshan; Ch. 共相 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, gòngxiàng; Wade-Giles, kung -hsiang ]). (In Capriles, electronic publication 2004, I compared the images of objects posited by Dharmakīrti with Hume’s and Locke’s ideas; however, I also had to point out some of the differences between these concepts.) However, a “screen” could be interposed between consciousness and the potential object apprehended by my senses only if consciousness were inherently at a distance of its objects—which is not at all the case. In saṃsāra there is an illusory split between consciousness and its objects that causes them to appear to be at a distance from each other, but this split is a function of an even subtler instance of what the simile represents as a “screen”—namely the one produced by the reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of the threefold directional thought-structure. Therefore, the simile is far from precise. In fact, if the simile of the screen is to be used, it cannot be circumscribed to the mental factor or mental event called recognition, which allows us as subjects to identify objects, but should be applied to all three kinds of hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized concepts (Skt. vikalpa; Pāḷi vikappa; Tib. rnam [par] rtog [pa]; Ch. 分別 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fēnbié; Wade-Giles, fen -pieh ]): coarse, subtle or intuitive, and super-subtle. Since in terms of this view the subject-object duality is also introduced by one of the screens, the screens as a whole could not be said to interpose themselves between the consciousness and the contact of the senses with their objects, but would have to be said to introduce the illusion that there is a subject and an object at a distance from each other, and immediately thereafter to introduce the image of the object that resulted from past experiences, and give rise to the illusion that the object is this image. Therefore, the interpretation of conditioned perception in terms of the screen is far from being perfectly accurate and faithful to reality. At any rate, it is of utmost importance to distinguish between hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized conceptualization (Skt. vikalpa; Pāḷi vikappa; Tib. rnam [par] rtog [pa]; Ch. 分別 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fēnbié; Wade-Giles, fen -pieh ] or Skt. prapañca; Pāḷi papañca; Tib. spros pa; Ch. 戲論 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xìlùn; Wade-Giles, hsi -lun ]) and recognition (Skt. saṃjñā; Pāli saññā; Tib. ’du shes; Ch. 想 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiǎng; Wade-Giles, hsiang ]), which is an instance of the former. This tendency and the associated pre-conceptual interest are aspects of that which the rDzogs chen teachings call consciousness of the base-of-all (Skt. ālayavijñāna; Tib. kun gzhi rnam [par] shes [pa]; Ch. 阿賴耶 識 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, ālàiyē shì; Wade-Giles, a -lai -yeh shih ] or 藏識 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zàngshì; Wade-Giles, tsang -shih ]), propelled by the self-grasping / self-affirmation / self-preoccupation (Skt. ahaṃkāra; Tib. ngar ’dzin; Ch. 我執 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wǒzhí; Wade-Giles, wo -chih ] or 我慢 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wǒmàn; Wade-Giles, wo -man ]) that is the core of the so-called passional consciousness (Skt. kliṣṭamanovijñāna; Tib. nyon [mongs pa can gyi] yid kyi rnam [par] shes [pa]; Ch. 末那識 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, mònà shì; WadeGiles, mo -na shih ].). For a more detailed explanation of the process whereby saṃsāra arises from the base-of-all cf. note 280 below. Sūtras of the Third Promulgation such as the Laṅkāvatārasūtra and the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra (which according to Lindtner [1992, 1997] was put into writing after the former) and related treatises like the Yogācārabhūmi (which according to Schmithausen [1969, 1987] predated the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra), as well as the Tantric and rDzogs chen teachings, understand the term consciousness of the base-of-all as referring to a “receptacle consciousness”—a kind of unconscious that, rather than being static and substantial, is described as an insubstantial stream of consciousness (Skt. saṃtāna; Tib. rgyun or sems rgyud; Ch. 相續 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiāngxù; Wade-Giles, hsiang -hsü ]). However, this is not the sense of the term in this context, wherein it has another, alternative meaning that to my knowledge exists solely in the 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 1 1 2 2 4 4 3 204 1 4 4 1 4 4 3 3 4 4 2 4 4 1 564 4 4 rDzogs chen teachings: that of the presence of a segment of the sensory continuum that has been singledout, before the perception of that which was singled-out in terms of a subtle concept of the kind that the rDzogs chen teachings—as well as ācārya Dignāga and Dharmakīrti in the Mahāyāna—referred to by the Sanskrit term arthasāmānya (and, according to the dGe lugs view, which Berzin [2001] asserts to be also that of the rDzogs chen teachings, also a collection mental synthesis [Tib. tshogs spyi] and a class mental synthesis [Skt. jātisāmānya; Tib. rigs spyi)). Below in the regular text of this book an extremely brief explanation of a set of stages in the development of saṃsāra according to the rDzogs chen teachings— also considered in Capriles (2013abc)—is offered. Note that the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra and the Yogācārabhūmi are at the root of Mahāyāna philosophical schools such as the Cittamātra and/or Yogācāra School, as well as the Madhyamaka-Svātantrika-Yogācāra subschool(s)... However, the dbU ma gzhan stong pa (Skt. reconstr. paraśūnyatāvāda or parabhavaśūnyatāvāda) and/or Mahāmadhyamaka (Tib. dbU ma chen po) subschool(s) are based on other Third Promulgation sūtras, on various Mahāyāna treatises and on certain root Tantras. After a segment of the sensory continuum is singled-out for perception / recognition (Skt. saṃjñā; Pāli saññā; Tib. ’du shes; Ch. 想 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiǎng; Wade-Giles, hsiang ]), yet before its recognition / perception in terms of the content of a subtle thought of the kind that the rDzogs chen teachings (as well as Dignāga and Dharmakīrti in the Mahāyāna) called an arthasāmānya, that which texts of the Pramāṇavāda refer to by the Sanskrit term pratyakṣa (Tib. mngon sum; Ch. 現量 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiànliáng; Wade-Giles, hsien liang ])—which translators render as nonconceptual direct perception or as bare sensation, but which here I render as preperception—takes place. The reason for using this translation is that, as noted at the beginning of this paragraph, I am using the term “perception” as a synonym of “recognition”—i.e. for referring to the understanding of data of one or more of the six senses [as a rule, of a singled-out segment of the sensory continuum] in terms of a concept—and the term “sensation” for the presence of sensa, independently of whether or not these sensa are being perceived in terms of a concept. On the other hand, that which Dharmakīrti called pratyakṣa, rather than being the mere presence of sensa, is the bare, preperceptual patency of a segment of the continuum of sensation that has been singled-out by mental events. Since the process of singling-out is always activated by a preconceptual interest, and the pratyakṣa of the segment that has been singled-out is immediately followed by its conceptual perception or recognition, I distinguish it from bare sensation. However, since perception has not yet occurred, it may not be called direct perception, either. Not being either bare sensation or direct perception, the best label to refer to it I have found so far is preperception. Well, the phenomenon under discussion may seems to coincide—at least in part—with the referent of the term “consciousness of the base-of-all” very briefly discussed in the first paragraph of this endnote—i.e., as understood, for example, in discussions of the arising of saṃsāra from the base-of-all (Skt. ālaya; Tib. kun gzhi; Ch. 来源 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, láiyuán; Wade-Giles, lai -yüan ]; cf. Capriles, 2003, 2013abcd). At any rate, when adults single-out a figure: (a) Unless the figure is unknown to them, they already have what the rDzogs chen teachings (and, in the Mahāyāna, Dignāga and Dharmakīrti) called an arthasāmānya of that which we single out, and (b) Interest has been aroused for that which the concept expresses. For their part, infants learn to distinguish the segments of the sensory continuum that we regard as different entities because: (i) Those segments maintain their configuration or pattern—in the case of visual objects, their color-form— in the mist of the constant change of the pattern or configuration of the sensory field, and (ii) Those who raise and teach them make them believe that each of those segments is an entity in itself separate from the rest of the sensory field, and that it is in itself this or that. Now, once we have learned to distinguish entities, it is our interest in this or that, which makes us single it out and take it as figure instead of singling-out something else and taking it as figure. Therefore in adults concepts are the driving power behind singling-out the segments of the sensory continuum taken as figure. The rDzogs chen teachings explain the arising of saṃsāra within the “Base” in a greater number of steps; however, in this Part One of this book we are concerned with giving a general idea of the arising and the dynamics of delusion and saṃsāra, rather than with explaining exhaustively how these come forth from an absorption that pertains to saṃsāra but in which neither nirvāṇa nor saṃsāra are active, and in which avidyā (Tib. ma rig pa; Ch. 無明 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúmíng; Wade-Giles, wu -ming ]) is only operative in the first of the three senses the terms has in the threefold classification adopted here. In the upcoming definitive version in print of Capriles (electronic publication 2004)—provided that I complete it—as well as in Part Two of this book, I will explain sequentially, according to the rDzogs chen teachings, the 3 4 2 2 2 205 2 565 2 principal stages of the arising of saṃsāra—including the arising of the second and third types of avidyā posited in the threefold classification adopted here—from those absorptions that pertain to saṃsāra, but in which neither nirvāṇa nor saṃsāra are active. Besides, it must be noted that, although the figures we perceive are singled-out in the Base by our mind and mental factors / mental events (Skt. caitta / caitasika; Pāli cetasika; Tib. sems byung; Ch. ⼼所 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xīnsuǒ; Wade-Giles, hsin -so ]), they can be singled-out because in the realms of middle and greater dimensions (though not at the subatomic level) these figures maintain a continuity of form through the passing of time, which allows us to identify them as entities. This is what Plato explained in terms of articulations: even though the arm, the forearm and the hand are segments singled-out by the mind and mental factors / mental events in the same undivided arm and even in the same undivided body, we can refer to them by different names because the arm’s articulations provide us with a valid reason to distinguish between them. We cannot recognize the object before there is an object, and hence the precondition of so doing is that hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of the threefold directional thought-structure has already given rise to the subject-object duality. Recognition then takes place in terms of an intuitive thought (i.e. of a thought that does not consist in the “mental pronunciation” of a word or series of words, but which consists in the mute knowledge that the segment of the continuum of sensation that has been singled out is a door, a dog, a tree, a car, etc.—i.e. it is recognized in terms of intuitive thoughts (Skt. arthasāmānya; Tib. don spyi; Ch. 總事 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngshì; Wade-Giles, tsung -shih ] or 總義 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngyì; Wade-Giles, tsung -i ]). And by the same token, also in terms of an intuitive thought, we judge it as beautiful or ugly, good or bad, etc. Immediately thereafter, it may happen that we express the recognition of the object in terms of discursive thoughts (Skt. śabdasāmānya; Tib. sgra spyi; Ch. 論 聲 總 [simplified 论 声 总 ] [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, lùnshēngzǒng; Wade-Giles, lun -sheng -tsung ]), mentally telling ourselves “this is a door,” “this is a dog,” “this is a tree,” “this is a car,” etc. All three types of thought are hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized when they arise; however, as already suggested, among them the first to arise is the threefold directional thought-structure; the second to arise are the intuitive ones; and the third are the discursive ones. Of course, these thoughts have to be applicable to these aspects or “qualities”: for us to say “correctly” (even though this “correctness” is delusive if we take the thought for an absolute truth) that a lemon is yellow it will have to be more or less yellow: it could not be altogether green. However, other qualities depend to a greater degree on the idiosyncratic tastes of the perceiving individual: one individual may think a salad dressing containing vinegar is delicious, while another one who detests vinegar may judge it to be really awful. It may be noted that, since from a temporal perspective the sensory world may be seen as a process, the segments we single out in this world and interpret as static substantial and subsistent entities, can be seen as singled-out segments of the “universal process,” or as singled-out subprocesses within a single process. In terms of this way of seeing, good, bad and neutral “qualities” are our interpretation, on the basis of our own judgments, of aspects of these subprocesses. As noted elsewhere in this book, Śākyamuni realized that his immediate disciples in the Buddhist order were śrāvakas or “listeners” and thus were suited to the teachings of the Hīnayāna, but would have been frightened by the Mahāyāna teachings of the Prajñāpāramitā, which required a higher capacity and the related propensities, including greater spiritual courage, for the latter teachings posited a far more thorough conception of the emptiness (Skt. śūnyatā; Tib. stong pa nyid; Ch. 空 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, kòng; Wade–Giles, k’ung ; Jap. kū]) of entities. Therefore, according to those sources, he left these teachings in the custody of the nāgas (Tib. klu; Ch. ⻯ [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, lóng; Wade-Giles, lung ]; note that, unlike the Tibetan translation of nāga, the Ch. ⻯ also renders the English word “dragon”—the Tib. for dragon being ’brug), for them to be revealed over half millennium later by the Mahāyāna mystic and philosopher Nāgārjuna, who, according to most Western scholars, lived around the second century AD, but according to Tibetan tradition may have lived from 80 BC to 480 CE. Mahāyāna Buddhism classifies grasping / conceiving a self or substance (Skt. grāha; Tib. ’dzin pa) into (a) “Grasping at” / “conceiving a self or substance” in phenomena that are human beings (Skt. ātmagraha; Tib. bdag ’dzin; Ch. 我執 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wǒzhí; Wade-Giles, wo -chih ])—which include the human beings we are as well as other human beings (the latter having the power to cause us to experience ourselves as objects to them, making us feel good when they perceive us as having good qualities, or bad when they perceive us as having bad qualities [which could by the same token impair our subjectivity])— 1 3 206 3 4 4 3 1 3 207 208 4 2 209 3 566 2 4 and (b) “Grasping at” / “conceiving a self or substance in” phenomena that are not human beings (Skt. dharmātmagraha; Tib. chos kyi bdag ’dzin; Ch. 分別法我執 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fēnbié fǎwǒzhí; Wade-Giles, fen -pieh fa -wo -chih ])—i.e. grasping at things, which in post-animistic, post-shamanic times we as a rule experience as objects (and hence in normal conditions there is no risk that they will make us experience ourselves as objects to them, causing us to feel good or bad). When we grasp at phenomena that are not human beings, or when we grasp at another human being whom we are taking as object but who does not have the possibility to perceive us and who therefore cannot take us as object, indirectly we are grasping at our own self: if I badly wish to eat that delicious, well prepared dish, I am directly grasping at the dish, and I am indirectly grasping at the supposedly true and important hungry self who wants to eat the dish. Conversely, when we grasp at our own self, the latter is both the direct object and the indirect object of grasping: the direct object is a collection of characteristics that is supposed to be our own self or part of our own self (for example, our body or a part of our body, our speech, one of our actions, etc.), and the indirect object is our consciousness, equally supposed to be [part of] our own self. In Madhyamaka terms, grasping at human beings and at phenomena that are not human beings implies taking both ourselves and the objects of our grasping as self-existing, ultimately important entities. As part of the remedy against the evils of grasping, the subschools of Madhyamaka posited the selflessness / emptiness of human beings and the absence of an independent self-nature / emptiness of phenomena that are not human beings, each of which, as stated in an earlier note, was in turn divided into a coarse one and a subtle one. The explanation of these was given in that note. As I remarked in Capriles (electronic publication 2007, 3 vols.) and in a series of other works, Heraclitus seems to have referred to avidyā or ma rig pa by the Greek term lethe (λήθη), which in the Orphic tradition meant forgetfulness (according to that tradition, after death the souls crossed the river of Lethe [Λήθη], forgetting their previous life), but which in the Dionysian and Greek Buddhist traditions might have had the acceptations of concealment or veiling—which seems to be a most important acceptation of the term in Heraclitus, for it seems to have referred to unawareness of the true condition of ourselves and all phenomena, and probably also to a distorted perception of the given (as is the case with avidyā throughout higher Buddhism and in particular in the rDzogs chen teachings). He seems to have referred to the disclosure of the true condition of reality through the patency of vidyā or rig pa, by the term aletheia (ἀλήθεια), which means “unveiling.” (For the theory according to which some Greek philosophers followed the Orphic tradition, whereas other Greek philosophers based themselves in the Dionysian-Śaiva and Buddhist-inspired traditions, cf. the two lectures I offered in Mexico at the Faculty of Philosophy of UNAM-Acatlán, currently available in YouTube, and the possibly upcoming book Greek Philosophy and the East.) As to the claim that Heraclitus was a younger contemporary of Śākyamuni, that is what follows from the conventional dating and chronology of both the Buddha and the Ephesian, which is at the root of Karl Jasper’s theory of am “axial time;” however, as noted in the regular text above, this assumption is currently being called into question. The reasons why Hume refuted the supposed substantiality of the “I” probably were radically different from the ones that led Śākyamuni Buddha and a series of Buddhist philosophers to do likewise, but also seem to have been very different from those behind similar attempts by Western philosophers other than Hume. In fact, the latter’s attempt to show substantiality to be a mere fiction was a consequence of his empiricism, according to which sense impressions necessarily had to be the direct or indirect basis of all knowledge: since the impression of substance did not exist, for it was simply impossible that there could be such an impression, substance necessarily had to be a fiction produced by the human mind, and therefore there was no reality whatsoever that could be referred to as substance. Furthermore, to Hume each and every different object, and every object consisting of parts, is distinguishable, and all that is distinguishable is separable. He concludes (Hume, David, this ed. 1978, Part I, sec. VI, p. 16): “We have therefore no idea of substance, distinct from that of a collection of particular qualities, nor have we any other meaning when we either talk or reason concerning it... The idea of substance, ....is nothing but a collection of simple ideas, that are united by the imagination, and have a particular name assigned them, by which we are able to recall, either to ourselves or others, that collection.” Hume offers a nominalist solution to the problem of substance. In fact, the word “substance” is nothing but a name that is applied to a bundle or collection of qualities, for there is nothing that could be the support 1 2 3 3 2 210 211 567 of those qualities or that may contain those qualities: all there is, is the collection of particular qualities and nothing else. Hume regards the problem of the identity of the “self” or “I” as a special instance of the problem of the identity of substance, quite different from that of the supposed substance of the entities appearing as object. In fact, Hume (this ed. 1978, IV, V) argues that the illusion that the “self” or “I” is substantial doesn’t derive from a sense impression, from the association of a series of impressions, or from the association of a series of ideas derived from previous impressions, for there is not even an impression or series of impressions that may correspond to the “self,” “I,” or “personal identity.” Therefore, the substantiality of this “self,” “I,” or “personal identity” should be considered to be even more fictitious than that of the entities that appear as object (for this to be correctly understood, we must keep in mind that he was not identifying the “I” with the sum of mind, voice, body, qualities and activities [for there can be no doubt that there are impressions corresponding to the voice, body, qualities and activities], but he was taking it to correspond to the mind understood as a substance and thought to be our innermost identity). To conclude, Hume did not assert the absolute nonexistence of all instances of the “I;” what he did was to assert that the “I”—whether it is conceived as a metaphysical, psychological or epistemological entity— is not at all substantial, and to negate the existence of an “I” that would be simple and identical with itself, or identical throughout the whole of its manifestations. He stated that, upon entering what we call “I,” he always found one or another particular perception, and hence concluded that the “I” was nothing but a series of perceptions linked by associations. Though Hume’s reasons for denying the substantiality of the “I” or “self” are different from those that led both Śākyamuni’s Buddha and Heraclitus to do likewise, at first sight the conception of the “I” as an illusion produced by a bundle of impressions or ideas may seem somehow similar to the Buddhist explanation of it as an illusion produced by the interaction of the five aggregates (Skt. skandha; Pāli khandha; Tib. phung po; Ch. 蘊 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yùn; Wade-Giles, yün ]). Hume tells us, in fact, that despite the fact that the so-called “selves” …are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement… we imagine that there must be a support for these impressions which would be different from them and that would remain identical to itself under all of them: a soul or a mental “I” qua underlying substance. Furthermore, because Hume negated that any of these impressions responded to a substance, his conception was not that far from the Mahāyāna view according to which the skandhas are also insubstantial. Like Hume, Nietzsche rejected the supposed substantiality of the “I.” However, he did not produce such an elaborate and encompassing theory in order to explain its insubstantiality—which was implicit in the Dionysian religion, to which in theory he initially adhered. Moreover, I am of the opinion that he contradicted it in his practice, and certainly he rejected “Asian Dionysism” because he viewed it as going too far. Lichtenberg asserted that to argue from sensations to an ego, self or soul as their bearer, as Descartes did, was not logically warranted, and in this regard insisted that to say cogito (je pense: I think) was to say too much, for as soon as it was translated into “I think” it seemed necessary to postulate an ego, self or soul (as the agent of thinking). And in fact the crux of Descartes’ error was precisely that he was trying to prove that the fact that there was thinking demonstrated the existence of a thinking ego, self or soul. In Aphorismen, nach den Handschriften (Lichtenberg, 1902/1908, Spanish 1989/1995, section “Causes,” p. 214) the idea we are concerned with is expressed roughly as follows: “One should not say ‘I think’: one thinks like the sky flashes lightening.” This would help clarify Heraclitus’ intention when he wrote: “…Although the logos [or universal intelligence] is [the single and] common [nature of all intellects], the majority [of human beings] live as if they had a separate and personal intelligence [of their own].” In turn, Koyré’s book (in the index of which the statement is attributed to James K. Lichtenberg rather than to Georg Christoph Lichtenberg) expresses the idea we are concerned with as follows (Koyré, 1973, p. 17; cited in Capriles, 1994): “It would be better to use an impersonal formula and, rather than saying I think, say “it thinks in me.” Thus expressed, the statement would be far less precise than Heraclitus’. The point is that thinking is a function of the single true condition of all entities rather than an action performed by a purportedly separate, autonomous soul or mind, and that thoughts are made up of the gdangs form of manifestation of the energy of the single true condition of all entities. So it is correct to say that it is not the limited “I” 4 212 568 (i.e. that which deluded beings wrongly consider to be their true identity)—whether conceived as a soul or substantial mind, or as the whole entity referred to by one’s name, etc.—that thinks. However, that which thinks is not something different from or external to ourselves (as Koyré’s rewording of Lichtenberg’s statement seem to imply), but our true condition, and this condition does not think “in the I” (i.e. in the limited “I” that deluded beings wrongly consider to be their true identity), but in its own sphere, which encompasses everything. In Buddhist terms, thoughts are data of the sixth sense, which according to the rDzogs chen teachings perceives phenomena of gdangs energy, and which presents those data to the mind (so to speak) so that it may experience them. We cannot be absolutely sure of the original form of Lichtenberg’s statements because by the time Albert Leitzmann edited Aphorismen, nach den Handschriften, many of the notes by Lichtenberg—which were extant when the Vermischte Schriften were edited between 1800 and 1803—had been lost. These verses by the Mexican, Nobel Prize-awarded poet, correctly implies that Descartes’ intuition was delusive, for there is no separate “I” who thinks the thoughts: this “I” is an illusion produced by the thinking process, and this illusion is somehow like the shadow of the words that follow each other in discursive thinking (because the mental subject appears “indirectly and implicitly” in both cognitions and actions). However, we cannot be sure that he was saying that there is no thinker—no separate self, soul or subject who was the agent of thinking—or simply saying that our sense of identity is an illusion produced by the thinking process. Seventeenth-century philosopher Blaise Pascal (1962 [posthumous edition, 1669]) presented all human attempts to elude boredom and uneasiness as movements away from authenticity. Nineteenth-century philosopher Søren Kierkegaard (trans. W. Lowry, this ed. 1957, 3d impress. 1970; Kierkegaard, trans. W. Lowry, this ed. 1954) viewed similarly all our attempts to flee Angst (essential anguish/dread). Later on, in the twentieth century, Existential and Existentialist philosophers equated authenticity with facing anguish: the former would lie in ceasing to “flee” (so to speak, for in this context the term cannot be taken literally) the naked experience of being-in-relation-to-death (Heidegger, 1996 [original German 1927], § 45-53), the naked experience of the anguish that the being of the human individual is (Sartre, 1980), etc. In fact, in Sartre’s words, the being of the human individual is anguish, and as such it reveals itself in the experience of anguish—as well as in others such as boredom, uneasiness, nausea. Sartre (ibidem) distinguished between fear and anguish, noting that the former is fear that something undesirable may happen, and the latter is fear that our own actions may cause something undesirable to occur. Experiments in the lab have “proven” the validity of this distinction, as they have shown that rats develop ulcers and cardio-vascular illnesses when consistently subject to punishments that depend on their own decisions, but do not develop the same illnesses when subject to consistent punishments that do not depend on their own decisions. For a more detailed consideration of all of the above, see Capriles (1977; 1986; electronic publication 2007, 3 vols.). In the East, thousands of years ago Buddhist traditions asserted that, in order to move from saṃsāra to nirvāṇa, it was essential to train in awareness of the myriad sufferings and shortcomings of saṃsāra— the all-pervasiveness and constancy of duḥkha or “unhappy consciousness,” the certainty of old age, illness and death, and so on—and implied that eluding awareness of these sufferings and shortcomings represented a movement away from authenticity. However, they never suggested that one should remain anguished or unhappy forever: anguish was merely the springboard from which it was possible to go beyond the illusion of being, into Awakening—a truth that is corresponds to the dynamics represented by maṇḍalas. In the West of Antiquity, both pre-Christian and Christian thinkers and ascetics insisted in the need to face the experiences that most human beings automatically flee; among the former, this was an outstanding part of the theory and praxis of Diogenes of Sinope and the Cynics, as well as of other individuals and schools; among the latter, this was done by desert anchorites and many other early religious men. However, in this case the idea also was not to remain in a state of anguish and unhappiness, but to use anguish to go beyond anguish and beyond normal human experience. In fact, in the Kaccāyanagotta Sutta, pertaining to the Saṃyutta Nikāya, Śākyamuni says: “‘Everything exists:’ That is one extreme. ‘Everything doesn’t exist:’ That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle…” (Thanissaro Bhikkhu, trans. 1997– 2011b). Then in the Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta, pertaining to the Majjhima Nikāya, the Muni rejected all of the positions presented to him regarding various subjects (Thanissaro Bhikkhu, trans. 1997–2011a). 213 214 215 569 However, the first apparent usage of the catuṣkoṭi (Tib. mu bzhi or mtha’ bzhi) or tetralemma occurs in Khuddaka Nikāya, III: Udāna, where the fourteen avyākṛta questions or avyākṛtavastūni are divided into four sets, the first one containing the four questions concerning the “origin of the universe,” which are: “(1) Is the world eternal? Is it not eternal? Is it both eternal and not eternal? Is it neither eternal nor not eternal? The remaining three sets of questions are the following: (2) Is the world infinite? Is it not infinite? Is it both infinite and not infinite? Is it neither infinite nor not infinite? (3) Are the animating principle and the body identical? Are the animating principle and the body different? (4) Does the Tathāgata exist after death? Does the Tathāgata not exist after death? Does the Tathāgata both exist after death and not exist after death? Does the Tathāgata neither exist after death nor not exist after death?” As we can see, this discourse of Buddha Śākyamuni prefigures the structure of Madhyamaka refutations, which do no more than bring it into subtler philosophical subjects. (These questions recur in several places in the Nikāyas: twice in Majjimanikāya, I [sutta 72], once in Saṃyuttanikāya, III; once in Saṃyuttanikāya, IV; once in Dīghanikāya 9 [Potthapāda Sutta], and once in Dīghanikāya 29 [Pāsādika Sutta]—and part of the same argument refuting the four extremes appears in Brahmajāla Sutta, 2.27. Note that Nāgārjuna was fully aware of them, for he discussed them in Mūlamadhyamakakārikāḥ, XXVII and, if the Chinese were right that he authored the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra, also in the latter.) Then in the Mahāyāna Sanskrit Canon, the Vajracchedikā asserts that the truth (is) neither being nor nonbeing (the latter being the presence of being’s absence), for these two are mutually relative: “The Tathāgata has said that truth is uncontainable and inexpressible. It neither is nor is not.” Similar assertions are found in Sūtras such as the Mahāratnakūṭa and the Kāśyapaparivarta, as well as in the canonical sources that explicitly reject all of the four extremes listed above, including the Prajñāpāramitāsaṃcayagāthā (I-13), the Kāśyapaparivarta (von Staël-Holstein, 1933, p. 56) and the Samādhirājasūtra (IX-27), among other texts, altogether reject the four extremes of the catuṣkoṭi or tetralemma (for a list of Mahāyāna texts that reject them cf. Ruegg, 1977, 2000, and other sources). Note that Nāgārjuna was fully aware of them, for he discussed them in Mūlamadhyamakakārikāḥ, XXVII and, if the Chinese were right that he authored the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra, also in the latter. In fact, Nāgārjuna made of the tetralemma or catuṣkoṭi one of his workhorses, applying it to all that may be thought as a means to shatter the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of thought and allow the true condition common to mind and the universe to disclose itself free from the filter of concepts—or, in Heraclitan terminology, to allow for the aletheia or disclosure of the true condition. It must also be noted that, in the Aṭṭhakavagga, an early series of the Pāḷi Canon, various texts emphasize that we must not have views of our own—which is precisely that which is sought by the Madhyamaka philosophy of Nāgārjuna in the Mahāyāna (cf. Gendün Chöphel & Capriles, unpublished, Vols. I y II, passim) when he insists that the sage lacks own view (Skt. svamata; Tib. rang lugs) and that when a sage teaches, she or he always does so as views-for-others (Skt. paramata; Tib. gzhan lugs): this is why Gómez [1976: 156] characterizes some passages of the Aṭṭhakavagga as proto-Madhyamaka and D’Amato (2009) compares some of the texts discussed by Gómez with the fully developed Madhyamaka system. Beckwith (2015, p. 37) writes: “In the Aṭṭhakavagga (fifth book of the Sutta Nipāta subsection of the Khuddaka Nikāya section of the Pāḷi Canon), several texts say unambiguously that we should have ‘no views.’ The teaching of ‘right views’ and the ‘highest knowledge’ are rejected as ‘the false science of those who are still attached to views. Moreover, their attachment is not deemed to be merely the attachment to wrong views, but to views in general. Also, there is no question here of teaching the superior dharma, rather the point is that the true follower of the path would not prefer any dharma; he would make no claims to the possession of a higher dharma’. (Gómez, 1976: 139-140; Beckwith acknowledges that he replaced some verbs that were in the past tense for forms in present tense). Wise men are those who ‘fancy not, they prefer not, and not a single dharma do they adopt’ (Aṭṭhakavagga 803 [Gómez 1976: 140]). Gómez points out further, ‘This idea is in fact well known to us through the traditional doctrine of the Middle Path—avoiding the two extremes. Thus, not to rely on views is in a certain way a form of nondualism…’).” Actually, it is not that “not to rely on views is in a certain way a form of nondualism,” but rather that views are extremes insofar as they are defined in contrast with other views—for as Ācārya Dignāga noted, concepts are defined by exclusion (Skt. apoha; Tib. sel ba; 除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chú; Wade-Giles, ch’u ] or 遮除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēchú; Wade-Giles, che -ch’u ]) or exclusion of other (Skt. anyāpoha; Tib. gzhan sel; Ch. 他感排除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tā gǎn páichú; Wade-Giles, t’a -kan p’ai -ch’u ]; another, far less likely possibility: 他者的遮除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tāzhědí zhēchú; Wade-Giles, t’a -che -ti che -ch’u ])—and hence the nonduality of the Middle Way or Madhyamaka can only lie in the absence of own-views. 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 570 2 3 2 1 2 Note that some kind of tetralemma also occurs in the Zhuāngzǐ (莊子; Wade-Giles, Chuang-Tzu), which was composed mostly with material gathered in the IV to III centuries BCE. What are quanta? The idea of quanta came from the attempt to describe nature at the smallest scales of energy levels of atoms and subatomic particles. It is directly related to the thesis, put forward by some physicists, that space is not infinitely divisible; that there is a span, called the “Planck length”— 1.6 x 10 cm—which is the shortest possible measurement. However, since this length is a measurement, we could infer that quanta are not physical entities, but something posited by human interpretation and that rather than existing in “the physical world” does so in our interpretation. However, some physicists, in spite of acknowledging that space is a continuum, have claimed that space itself, rather than being an infinitely divisible, perfectly “smooth” continuum, is somehow “granular”—and that the Planck length is the size of these smallest possible grains. Thus, insofar as space is a continuum, it is analog—yet such physicists believe that the granular property may be seen as digital. Something similar happened with time: early in the twentieth century, at the time of the initial formulation of quantum physics, physicists speculated about the possibility of there being a quantum of time called “chronon,” which was supposed to be the shortest duration of any identifiable change, and which is very roughly calculated to be 10 –10 seconds. In general, physicists accept that space is a continuum, yet these physicists posited a shortest duration of any identifiable change that as such would be digital. On the basis of the views of the above physicists, some have speculated that reality is both analog-continuous and digital-discontinuous. However, the posited digital, discontinuous aspect / interpretation of space and time has not been decisively and irrefutably demonstrated—and, at any rate, currently prevailing epistemology as a rule rejects the idea that the sciences can find and demonstrate “truths.” (In this regard cf. endnote 230 to this book.) However, Buddhism has also posited a minimum possible size—which, as B. Allan Wallace (2007, pp. 86-87) notes, is nearly the same as the minimum possible size posited by current physics—and a minimum possible time—which, as the same author notes (op. cit. p. 87), is also quite similar to the minimum possible time posited by the physicist in question. However, the highest Buddhist schools are right in claiming that space and time, rather than existing in themselves without depending on anything else, exist only as a conceptual imputation depending on our own karmic propensities (Skt. vāsanā; Tib. bag chags; Ch. 氣習 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, qìxí; Wade-Giles, ch’i -hsi ] or 習氣 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíqì; Wade-Giles, hsi -ch’i ])—which implies that there cannot be any inherently existing, self-existent or absolutely existent, minimum measure of space or minimum measure of time. Whatever the case, the paradigmatic example of a quantum and the source of the concept is the photon (or the similarly-behaving electron), and the fact that the photon shows properties of particles (for when photons hit a metal sheet they cause electrons to be shed from the sheet) and properties of waves (as in the case in which the light of two photons measures more than the addition of the light of both, suggesting that the crests of two waves coincide, or less light, suggesting that the depressions of two waves coincide), to common sense may seem contradict the idea that quanta exist as a granular property of matter. At any rate, it is a fact that some top physicists believe that there is evidence that contradicts the idea that space and time are made of discrete units comparable to discrete granules of space or discrete lapses of time. Moreover, the EPR imaginary experiment, designed by Einstein, Podolski and Rosen to demonstrate the universal validity of Relativity Theory—and in particular the existence of objective space and time and Einstein’s assertion that the highest possible speed in our universe is that of light, or, in Einstein’s own words, the fact that “God doesn’t play dice with the universe”—became feasible after CERN mathematician John Bell discovered the mathematical theorem called “Bell’s inequality” and, a few decades later, the technology for making a “real” experiment analogous to the EPR became available— which allowed Alain Aspect to carry out an analogous experiment at the Université de Paris-Sud in 1982, in which photons were used instead of electrons because at that time the available technology did not permit using electrons, which was how Einstein, Podolski and Rosen originally conceived the experiment. That experiment, which thereon was reproduced by other physicists, refuted the thesis that if two photons or electrons were “twinned,” when the rotation axis and the spin of one of these particles were determined, the time that light would take to go from one of the particles to the other would have to elapse before the other would take a parallel rotation axis and an inverse spin. One of the interpretations of this was that at the dimensional level of Planck’s constant” everything was connected as though no space or time mediated between them. And, later on, when the technology became available, the experiment was repeated with electrons, as originally conceived in the EPR. (Even though I had been exploring and explaining the matter for several decades, this last datum was only brought to my attention very recently, 216 - 33 -24 36 4 2 4 571 2 when I read Mansfield, 2008/2011, which was offered to me as a gift—for he deals with the problem in pp. 137 et seq.) The above experiments were part of the evidence used by David Bohm as support for his holonomic theory of reality, which held that the dimensional level of Planck’s length there was no dimensionality as we know it, and it was mainly the experiment in question that led John Wheeler to put forward a new branch of physics that he called “Recognition Physics” and that had the purpose of showing how dimensionality arises from a nondimensional reality. And, if at the dimensional level of quanta there were no space or time, then it would seem paradoxical to claim that at that very dimensional level reality is discontinuous. In fact, in the face of such “evidence” (which we should never regard as absolute), the intellect that absolutizes, hypostasizes and reifies its own interpretations can do no more than conclude that it is facing a paradox. And such seemingly paradoxical findings show that it would be really hard for physicists to assert that the dimensional level in question is at the same time analog-continuous and digitaldiscontinuous—which, at any rate, would itself seem a paradox to such physicists. When, throughout the regular text of this book, I said that our sensory continua were with the naked eye analog, the reason why I wrote with the naked eye was because of the possibility that, when physicists do research into the structure and function of the physical world, they were actually doing research in the structure and function of their own experience. And, if this were the case, and if it were correct that at the level of the constant of Planck reality is both analog and digital, the conclusion would be that it is our sensory experience that is at the same time analog and digital. However, as suggested above, this would be nearly as doubtful as asserting that at that dimensional level reality is both analog and digital. And, at any rate, as noted above, and as on the basis of the theories of top current epistemologists I have shown in various papers and books, the sciences do not demonstrate truths (in this regard, cf. endnote 230 to this book). Finally, even if it could be demonstrated that space was also digital in the above sense, physicists would still interpret that in the framework of Field Theory, according to which the whole of space is permeated by energy, there being nowhere empty layers or layers of a substance other than energy that separated quanta from each other. Therefore, the analog-continuous character of reality would constitute a primary level of reality, with regard to which the seeming digital-discontinuous character of the dimensional level of the constant of Planck would constitute a secondary level of reality. This delusion involves all of the aspects the rDzogs chen teachings distinguish in the unawareness cum delusion that the Buddha and other Indian mystics have referred to by the Sanskrit term avidyā or the Pāḷi avijjā (Tib. ma rig pa, Ch. 無明 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúmíng; Wade-Giles, wu -ming ]), etc., and which will be discussed below in the regular text of this book: it involves all three aspects or types of avidyā listed in the most common rDzogs chen classification. Indeed, (1) It involves the first aspect or type of avidyā because the true condition of ourselves and the whole universe, which is the Base of rDzogs chen, is obscured; (2) It involves the second aspect or type of avidyā because sensa of the “outward-looking senses” (i.e. the senses that perceive rtsal energy) are perceived as being other than the knower and as an external reality— except when the mental subject identifies with segments or aspects of what it views as its own “self” (my body; my voice; my mind; my qualities, faculties and capacities; my activities; etc.) (3) It also involves the third aspect or type of avidyā because it involves the erroneous cognition referred by terms such as the Skt. bhrānti and the Tib. ’khrul as understood by Dharmakīrti—i.e., as the twofold error or delusion of taking a singled our segment of the sensory field for an inherently existing particular, specifically characterized phenomenon, self-configuration or self-collection of characteristics (Skt. svalakṣaṇa; Tib. rang mtshan; Ch. ⾃相 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxiàng; Wade-Giles, tzu -hsiang ]) and by the same token experiencing the singled-out segment in terms of an abstracted general configuration / collection of characteristics (Skt. sāmānyalakṣaṇa; Tib. spyi mtshan; Ch. 共相 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, gòngxiàng; Wade-Giles, kung -hsiang ]), as being intrinsically the abstracted general configuration / collection of characteristics (note that in Āryadeva the term bhrānti simply refers to the error or delusion inherent in avidyā). (4) And it involves the third aspect or type of avidyā in the alternative classification because we take an erroneous, deluded perception or an erroneous, deluded interpretation of reality as being correct. Therefore, altogether it involves the four aspects or types of avidyā that result from combining the two rDzogs chen classifications In endnote 75, I cited the following lines by Gregory Bateson (1979, p. 49) that illustrate a key aspect of the delusion in question: 217 2 2 4 4 4 572 4 “Numbers are the product of counting. Quantities are the product of measurement. This means that numbers can conceivably be accurate because there is a discontinuity between each integer and the next. Between two and three, there is a jump. In the case of quantity, there is no such jump; and because jump is missing in the world of quantity, it is impossible for any quantity to be exact. You can have exactly three tomatoes. You can never have exactly three gallons of water. Always quantity is approximate. “Even when number and quantity are clearly discriminated, there is another concept that must be recognized and distinguished from both number and quantity. For this other concept, there is, I think, no English word, so we have to be content with remembering that there is a subset of patterns whose members are commonly called ‘numbers.’ Not all numbers are the products of counting. Indeed, it is the smaller, and therefore commoner, numbers that are often not counted but recognized as patterns at a single glance. Card players do not stop to count the pips in the eight of spades and can even recognize the characteristic patterning of pips up to ‘ten.’ “In other words, number is of the world of pattern, gestalt, and digital computation; quantity is of the world of analogic and probabilistic computation.” Who can doubt that conceptual perception is digital and sensa are analog and that hence the former cannot correspond exactly to the latter? An example in terms of colors was offered in note 75 in reply to a fallacious argument used by Jorge Ferrer in order to demonstrate that differences lie in sensa rather than in human perception; whoever still has doubts in this regard may consult the note in question. In ancient Greece, Pyrrho of Elis—who met early Buddhists in India—used the tetralemma. Before his trip, Democritus of Abdera purportedly had traveled to India, where he is believed to have met early Buddhists, importing to Greece some of their discoveries, which he might have diffused among the Dionysian-influenced Greek intelligentsia—which was favorable to the rejection of all conceptual knowledge and the search for a nonconceptual disclosure of the true condition. According to Philip P. Hallie (1967), it was Democritus who, in India, received the method of isosthenia (ἰσοσθένεια) or neutralization of each belief through the defense of the opposite belief in order to make all beliefs collapse—a method used in Chán (Ch. 禪 [Wade-Giles, Ch’an; Jap. Zen; Korean, Seon; Vietnamese, Thiền) Buddhism as a Madhyamaka method, as well as in later Greek skepticism, including that of Neoacademics and the so-called “sophists”, and which, also according to Hallie, Democritus would have transmitted to his disciple Anaxarchus of Abdera, who in turn purportedly transmitted it to Pyrrho of Elis. At any rate, according to Philon of Athens, Anaxarchus would have been Pyrrho’s predilect philosopher (quoted by Diogenes Laërtius, “Pyrrho”, IX-67). However, later on the criticisms that some religious philosophers (φιλόσοφοι) of India directed to Anaxarchus for “having pleased kings” seem to have driven him apart from the latter (for according to Sextus Empiricus [Adversus mathematicos, I, 282] Anaxarchus received ten thousand golden coins from Alexander for a laudatory poem). (J. Barnes [1998] corroborates the close relationship between Democritus and Anaxarchus in his essay The Beliefs of a Pyrrhonist.) It could also have been Democritus who imported to Greece the tetralemma—or simultaneous negation of the four extremes—for already Plato (Republic 428–347 bc) cited Glaucon’s mention of this fourfold negation and the purported reply his version of “Socrates” gave to him, and also Aristotle (Metaphysics 4 4–5) cites a tetralemma in his discussion of those who negate the principle of noncontradiction, which shows that the tetralemma must have been known in Greece before the return of Anaxarchus and Pyrrho from India (who had traveled with Alexander’s armies)—and in fact this agrees with what Hallie says about the method of isosthenia, the functional principle of which is the same as that of the tetralemma. (Note that in the book Greek Buddha, Christopher I. Beckwith acknowledges that the tetralemma appears in those passages, and nonetheless he totally overlooks the possibility that Plato and Aristotle may have had Democritus in mind: even though he acknowledges that the tetralemma was known in Greece before Pyrrho’s return from India, noting that the relevant passage of the Metaphysics does not refer to Pyrrho, he [Beckwith, 2015: 85] “solves” the problem represented by the early time of that discussion of the tetralemma by suggesting that it could have been a later interpolation by a disciple of the Stagirite.) Flintoff (1980) seems to be right when he claims that the source of the tetralemma seem to be the sermons of the Pāḷi Canon—or, it could be specified, perhaps an oral tradition that was later codified into that Canon, for, most likely, at the time of Democritus no Buddhist Canon had yet been codified. Although Flintoff does not cite the relevant sources of that Canon, various Sermons in it—cited in endnote 215 to this book—altogether negate all four different logical alternatives to different problems. Since the Sermons and some of their passages are cited in that note, there is no need to reproduce them here. 218 573 Cf. note 206. Cf. note 206. As stated in a previous endnote, Beckwith (2015) claims that Śākyamuni was a Saka or Eastern Scyntian and that Scyntian thought involved elements that later on were developed by Buddhism. In particular, he claimed that Scyntian thought was familiar with the simultaneous negation of all possible theses, as it occurs in the negation of four extreme views in different Buddhist sources, for it is also found in the Scyntian philosopher Anacharsis, whom the Greeks regarded as one of the Seven Sages of Antiquity. Thus in his view, as in that of Walter (2012), the teachings of the Buddha Śākyamuni (who according to him would have been Saka-muni or the Sage of the Sakas or Eastern Scyntians) discussed in the above paragraph were a result of the Muni’s Scyntian origin. However, the region where the Scyntians, and in particular the Sakas, lived, was within the area that at some time was the kingdom or empire of Zhang Zhung, and the Sakas, in particular, were not so far from the center of irradiation of the rDzogs chen transmission of Zhang Zhung, the rDzogs chen Zhang zhung sNyen rgyud. Therefore, what Beckwith views as being characteristically Scyntian could rather have been characteristic of Zhang Shung and in particular of the rDzogs chen teachings of that kingdom or empire. This can make one think of the theories of Bon po teachers such as sLob dpon bsTan ’dzin rnam dag. This Master posits a genetic link between Buddhist and Bon po rDzogs chen, claiming that Buddhist rDzogs chen derived from Bon po rDzogs chen, and that in truth dGa’ rab rdo rje would have been the famous Bon po rDzogs chen Master Ra sangs ta pi hri tsa, who would have given transmission and teachings to a group of Buddhist Masters, thereby initiating the current Buddhist transmission of rDzogs chen Atiyoga (other Bon po teachers, whose views were quoted in Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal] 1997, p. 27, have identified dGa’ rab rdo rje with Zhang zhung dGa’ rab, the thirteenth link in the lineage of the Oral Transmission of rDzogs chen of Shang Shung). However, what we are concerned with here is that the sLob dpon has gone so far as to claim that Buddhism in general—or at least the higher forms of Buddhism, including the Mahāyāna—derived from Bön. However, so far there is no evidence substantiating any of these Bon po theories, which in the absence of such hard evidence may seem to arise from wishful thinking—since all traditions want to the be source of the teachings and transmissions of other traditions, rather than the recipients of the latter. As shown above in the regular text, in this translation the terms “plenitude / completeness” respond to the ka dag aspect of what is designated by the term rdzogs pa, whereas the term “perfection” responds to its lhun grub aspect. In fact, the ka dag aspect of the Base that is the true condition of ourselves and all phenomena, is its emptiness, corresponding to the lack of self-existence both of the totality of the Base and of all entities that may be singled out within it—and the direct realization of this lack of self-existence, not as a mere negation that begets an absence’s presence, but as a nonconceptual, nondual realization, puts an end to the basic human illusion that lies in experiencing one’s awareness as being at a distance from the continua of sensa of the five “outer-looking” senses. Therefore, it dissolves the lack of plenitude and completeness that issued from this illusion—and hence the nonconceptual and therefore nondual realization of the ka dag aspect of the Base corresponds to the realization of absolute completeness and plenitude. In Tarthang Tulku (1977a), there is reference to a condition of Great Space-Time-Knowledge. However, in this case, just like in the one discussed in the preceding note, the Tibetan term chen po has an absolute rather than a relative meaning, and therefore, following an indication by Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu, I rendered it as “Total.” With regard to this Total condition I spoke of “Space-Time-Awareness” rather than of “Space-Time-Knowledge”—as Tarthang Tulku’s called it—because in some European languages the latter’s etymology implies dualism: in note 30 it was stated that poet Paul Claudel pointed out in his Traité de la Co-naissance au monde et de soi-même (in Claudel, 1943) that “knowledge” (connaissance) is the co-emergence (co-naissance) of subject and object (“la connaissance est la co-naissance du sujet et de l’objet”)—and in fact the term refers to the dualistic cognitive function of the state of avidyā (the second type of avidyā in the most widely known rDzogs chen classification) that arises as a result of the reification-hypostatization-absolutization-valorization of the threefold directional thought-structure. (In English, the term “knowledge” does not seem to have a dualistic etymology, for it begins with the letters “kn” rather than with the prefix “co”—and the former might as well derive from the Greek combination of letters “gn,” as in the term “gnosis,” and be related to the Sanskrit combination of letters “jñ,” as in the term jñāna.) According to the interpretation in the regular text, the instant in question is mathematical rather than a physical lapse: it has no duration whatsoever. However, as stated in a previous note, some physicists 219 220 221 222 223 224 574 calculate the shortest possible moment as having a duration that they roughly estimate to be 10 –10 seconds, whereas some Hīnayāna Buddhist systems calculate it to be roughly of 10 seconds. However, as noted before, higher Buddhist systems view time and space as categories depending on perception. Probably Descartes chose the pineal gland as the point of communication of the res cogitans and the res extensa because he felt that it was roughly where this gland lies that in his experience the mental subject seemed to lie. “Oneself,” “himself” and “herself” refer to the whole human individual; here I am referring to the mental subject, which I call “it” because it has no sex or gender. “Oneself,” “himself” and “herself” refer to the whole person; here I am referring to the mental subject, which I call “it” because it has no sex or gender. The attempt to achieve virtue issues from awareness that we have nonvirtuous drives. However, at the same time it confirms and potentiates the drives that this attempt is meant to check. Alan Watts compared true virtue to the healing virtue of a plant: either the plant has the curative virtue or does not have it; if it possesses it, it is not necessary to do anything for the virtue to be operative; if it does not have it, no matter what one might do, it will not develop it. Watts pointed out that the sense of the Chinese word dé (Ch. 德; Wade-Giles, te ) in the title of the Dàodéjīng (Ch. 道德經; Wade-Giles Tao -te ching ) is precisely the one just described. Nevertheless, in this case virtue depends, not on the fact that the true condition of ourselves and all other entities (is) the Dào (道; Wade-Giles Tao ), but on the Dào’s disclosure. In fact, when the basic human delusion called avidyā or ma rig pa conceals the Dào (i.e. when it is operative in the first of the three senses the term has in the threefold classification adopted here), and then gives rise to the illusion of selfhood (i.e. when it is operative in the second and third senses the term has in the threefold classification adopted here), we are possessed by selfishness and become subject to the law of reverse effect that will be considered below in the regular text. Since these impede the flow of the virtue inherent in the Dào, nothing we may do to generate the virtue inherent in it will make it arise. Conversely, when the Dào unconceals itself, the virtue inherent in it becomes spontaneously operative. (Although the most ancient known version of the Dàodéjīng is the one discovered in Mǎwángduī (⾺⺩ 堆 ; Wade-Giles, Ma -Wang -Tui ), titled Dédàojīng [ 德 道 經 ; Wade-Giles Te -tao -ching ] [Lao-tzu, English 1989; Lao-Zi, Spanish 1996], Thomas Cleary [Cleary, Thomas, 1991] may be right when he says that the version in question, which is arranged differently than the traditional one and is more extensive than the latter, was a courtly adaptation of the original.) The institutions of justice themselves have prompted this. Cf. Foucault (1975). For a more extensive analysis of the mechanics that makes us distance ourselves from virtue as we try to possess it, and exacerbate evil by trying to destroy it, or miss pleasure by seeking it and trying to enjoy it and exacerbate suffering trying to halt it, etc., cf. Capriles (1994; the topic is dealt with in the third essay of the book, called “Teoría del valor. Crónica de una caída;” cf. in particular the section on Ethical Value). Cf. also Capriles (electronic publication 2007, 3 vols.) and in particular (1989), which is my restricted circulation book on the practice of khregs chod, The Source of Danger is Fear. In a nutshell, the essence of this mechanics may be abridged as follows: It is well-known that one of the most powerful roots of evil is our perception of certain human traits and tendencies as evil, and the hatred towards these traits and tendencies that ensues—which causes us to negate them in ourselves, see them as the innermost identity of some others, hate them in and as those others, and often punish and even try to destroy them by punishing and even trying to destroy those others. Jung explained this in terms of his concept of the “shadow” archetype, which in my view is an instance of that which Susan Isaacs (1943)—allegedly developing a concept by her teacher, Melanie Klein—called unconscious phantasy (a concept that Freud had negated). (Isaacs wrote this last term with “ph” so that it could be easily distinguished from fantasy, which is conscious and that is that which is normally understood by this term; cf. Isaacs, 1943, this folder ed. 1989; Laing, Ronald D. 1961 / 1969; Hinshelwood, Robert D., 1991). The ensuing dynamics is that which Gestalt psychology called the “dynamics of the shadow,” which gives rise to the most extreme forms of evil—for evil is potentiated by our hatred of those others on whom we project evil and all that we hate and cannot accept in ourselves and feel compelled to extraject, and particularly by our attempts to punish or destroy evil by punishing or destroying those others. Now, how do the shadow and our unconscious phantasies arise? Jung believed it to be the “remnant of the violent impulses of our animal ancestors,” but the findings of paleopathology and other sciences make his view, at best, extremely improbable. My own explanation was offered in detail in Capriles (1977, -24 16 -3 225 226 227 228 2 4 1 4 3 2 1 2 229 230 575 4 1 2 1986), and again, more briefly but probably with greater accuracy, in Capriles (electronic publication 2007, 3 vols.; 2013b, pp. 118-121 [the reader may read beyond p. 121 if she or he desires to expand on the view expressed in that section]; unfortunately the latter book was sold out and now I am preparing a second edition, wherein page numbers may differ from those of the first edition). Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu often repeats the Tibetan proverb, “On someone else’s nose, one won’t fail to notice the presence of even something as small as an ant. But on one’s own, one won’t notice the presence of even something as big as a yak”—which is the same as Jesus of Nazareth’s saying that we see the straw in the other’s eye but don’t see the beam in our own eye. Ancient Asian spiritual systems lack the psychological concepts that here I will use to explain this: Freud’s concept of superego, Jung’s concept of the shadow, and Susan Isaacs’ Freud-rooted yet Freud-contradicting concept of unconscious phantasy. In Vol. II of my book The Beyond Mind Papers: Transpersonal and Metatranspersonal Theory (Capriles, 2013b) I wrote (the text is cited with modifications): “In fact, here it must be shown that, so long as we take that which Freud called the superego to be a conscience conceived as an inborn, abstract, absolute, metaphysical, nature-given or God-installed moral principle establishing what is right and what is wrong—and, in particular, establishing categorical imperatives— we sustain the horrid, appalling unconscious phantasy that Jung saw as an archetype and called the shadow together with that which Gestalt psychology calls the dynamics of the shadow, which is perhaps the greatest source of evil and servitude, as well as a major source of suffering, and we are bound to continue to take the conventions (Greek, nomos [νόμος]) that prevail in our society as being by nature (Greek, physis [φύσις]) or, even worse, by divine power—and thus they will continue to have an absolute power to determine the quality of our experience (and, in particular, to induce unpleasant feeling tones in us) and our behavior (for they will make us incur in irrational ways of conduct that are harmful to both ourselves and others).” (Keep in mind that it is claimed that Freud’s concept of superego has its roots in Kant’s concept of categorical imperative, or in Schopenhauer’s non-Kantian interpretation of the latter. In fact, though Kant’s concept of the categorical imperative is supposed to be at the root of Freud’s conception of the superego, the Oedipal complex and the moral of psychoanalysis [Roudinesco & Plon, 1997; Fine, 1987; Rodrigué, 1996, Laplanche & Pontalis, 1967; Gay, 1989; Jones, 1979; Vals, 1995; Gregory, 1995; Bloch, Postel & Others, 1996; Assoun, 1982a], and Kant’s concept of moral consciousness is supposed to be at the root of the homonymous Freudian concept, Marta Gerez-Ambertin [1993, p. 39] and Ramón Sanz-Ferramola [2001] have asserted that Freud modified the Kantian sense of these concepts, whereas Paul-Laurent Assoun [1982b] has asserted that Freud understood them in terms of Schopenhauer’s non-Kantian understanding of the concepts in question. Cf. Ramón Sanz-Ferramola [2001].) Moreover, maintaining the superego sustains the delusive subject-object, controller-controlled, mind-body split (which results from the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of the supersubtle threefold thought structure [Skt. trimaṇḍala; Tib. ’khor gsum; Ch. 三輪 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānlùn; WadeGiles, san -lun )] and constitutes the second sense of avidyā in the rDzogs chen classification favored here) which is at the root of the experience of the lack of the wholeness and plenitude of our true undivided condition, as well as of self-encumbering and, in general, of many of the defects of saṃsāra—which is all the more problematic when we are ruled by blind drives over which we have no control whatsoever, and in particular by the demonic impulses generated by the Jungian shadow that (as I have shown in Capriles, 2012a and 2013b) arises coemergently and interdependently with the superego. As shown in great detail in Capriles (2007a vol. II) and in lesser detail in other of my works, though we are made to believe that self-control with reference to the superego or conscience is the root of goodness, the paradoxical truth is that it exacerbates evil. The phenomenal basis of the superego is installed in infants when the original other—who normally is the mother—and other significant others reprimand them, seeing them as a monstrous entity, and causing them to become that entity—which is what Susan Isaacs (1989) designated as an unconscious phantasy. In fact, it is after this and because of this that then the original other and the other most significant others can offer the infant an alternative, positive identity he or she may consciously adopt and thus make the negative phantasy become unconscious (note that if the original other and the other most significant others are to lead an infant to develop a socially acceptable self-identity, they will allow her or him to embody this identity, seeing her or him approvingly as being it, and if they are to make her or him adopt a socially unacceptable self-identity, or to face problems in developing a consistent identity, they will frustrate her or his attempts to embody the acceptable identity). It is well known that Jung believed what he called the shadow to be a remnant of the aggression proper to our animal ancestors. As stated in the preceding note, this, however, is contradicted by the findings of 231 1 4 576 paleopathology—which most convincingly suggest that mass violence (and apparently also individual violence) did not arise until relatively recent times (Lochouarn, 1993; Van der Dennen, 1995; DeMeo, 1998; Taylor, 2003, 2005; Capriles, 2000b, 2007a, 2012)—and other disciplines (Descola, 1986, 1996; DeMeo, 1998; Taylor, 2003, 2005; Capriles, 2000b, 2007a, 2012) that seem to have refuted the Swiss analyst’s Darwinist, typically modern interpretation of the genealogy of violence and its roots. In fact, as suggested above, the shadow arises from a phenomenal basis, which is the unconscious phantasy that is implanted in infants as they are punished, and whenever they are perceived as blameworthy entities: it is in order to elude the hell of being the horrid unconscious phantasy that in our infancy the original other projected on us—causing us to embody that phantasy—that we are compelled to project the phantasy on other people we perceive as exhibiting it in a more conspicuous way than we ourselves do. Not only does this give rise to the scapegoating that has produced a great deal of the evils arisen in the course of the history of our species—including so many wars, the Inquisition, “comfort women” and related horrors, the holocaust, the Gulag, Sabra and Chatila, suicide bombing, 9/11, Abu Ghraib and so on—but causes us to somehow feel that in the depths of ourselves lies a monster that has to be controlled, generating monster-like impulses that in one or another way condition our behavior. I have explained these dynamics in great detail in Capriles (2007a vol. II; cf. also Capriles, 1977, 1986, 1994). This will be so, provided that we have already fully learned the activity we are carrying out. As Gregory Bateson noted (Bateson, 1972), one who is learning a new activity needs to concentrate the whole of his or her attention on it; once learning has been completed, the individual will have the capacity to carry out the activity automatically, while his or her attention occupies itself with other matters. However, in the case of the individual in saṃsāra possessed by basic human delusion, at some point circumstances can cause self-conscious attention to enter into play, which may impede his or her performance. This is not so in the case of a fully Awake one, for the propensities for hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized dualism to affect the individual have been fully neutralized. The human individual is often referred to as “the subject,” but human individuals are not only subjects, for we often become objects as well. In fact, in the experience that Jean-Paul Sartre (1980/1969) called being-for-others, consciousness becomes the object that another is perceiving as oneself. Sartre offers the example of one who is looking through a keyhole and suddenly realizes he or she is being perceived by another, thus becoming the shameful object that the other perceives as her or him: as the individual “feels touched in the heart by the other’s look,” a link of being is established between consciousness and the shameful object the other perceives as him or her, and hence consciousness experiences itself as being that object. (Sartre distinguishes this from identification with an object, but this distinction will not be discussed here.) It is also significant that, when the reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of what I am referring to as threefold directional thought-structure (Skt. trimaṇḍala; Tib. ’khor gsum; Ch. 三輪 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānlùn; Wade-Giles, san -lun ]) gives rise to the second aspect or type of avidyā according to the most diffused threefold classification of avidyā in the rDzogs chen teachings, a mental subject arises that a great deal of the time seems to be owner and master of the (co)Gnitiveness and motility of awareness: the individual feels that he or she is that subject, experiencing her or himself as a separate, autonomous nucleus of consciousness. The above interacts with the other four aggregates, which as a result of the reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of the threefold directional thought-structure, a great deal of the time may appear as object, even though the subject may become one or another one of them at different times, or identify with them, or feel to be a nucleus of consciousness that owns or moves them, etc.—all of this as part of the illusion of selfhood. In fact, this illusory self is not always the same: sometimes it is felt to be the configured matter (Skt. and Pāli rūpa; Tib. gzugs; Ch. ⾊ [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sè; Wade-Giles, se ]) that we call “our body” (e.g. when being perceived by others, when seeing one’s image in the mirror, when the body is hit by another, etc.) or one of its parts or aspects, yet at other times it feels not to be the body (for example, if the latter becomes paralyzed and one tries to move it)—and the same happens with sensation or feeling (Skt. and Pāli vedanā; Tib. tshor ba; Ch. 受 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shòu; Wade-Giles, shou ]), for we tend to perceive pain as something external imposed on oneself (whether the pain is “physical” or “mental”), but one often feels one is the mental sensation that arises in the center of the body at the level of the heart; or with habitual mental formations or impulses that move the mind (Skt. saṁskāra; Pāli saṅkhāra; Tib. ’du byed; ⾏ [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíng; Wade-Giles, hsing ]), which sometimes we experience as our volition and other times we 232 233 1 4 4 4 2 577 experience as a force that moves our attention to an object against our will (for example, when a good monk’s attention if driven to the body of the sexy girl who entered the monastery)… One of the first authors to deal with this law was Lǎozǐ (⽼⼦; Wade-Giles, Lao -tzu ) in his Dàodéjīng (道 德經; Wade-Giles Tao -te -ching ). I myself dealt with it in Capriles (1989 [restricted circulation book]). Later on the nonrestricted parts of the book were refined into Capriles (2001), and then were even further refined into the Appendix “Loops from The Source of Danger is Fear” to Capriles (electronic publication 2007, 3 vols.). With respect to Watts, it may be noted that inaccuracies and even some in depth errors are found in his work that may even have led some along false paths. By way of example: in The Joyous Cosmology, Watts (1962) went so far as to declare that psychedelic drugs could produce the state of Awakening that Chán or Zen and other “paths of liberation” of the East pursue—which is an extremely grave error because the essential characteristic of this state is that it (is) unproduced / uncontrived / unconditioned / unmade / uncompounded (Skt. asaṃskṛta; Pāḷi, asaṅkhata; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無爲 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu wei ]). This and similar assertions by Watts lent momentum to the psychedelic hedonism that characterized the hippies in the decade of the 1960’s and the early 1970s and that, in spite of having inspired some to seek for genuine spiritual paths, in an immediate, direct way also gave rise to psychoses and suicides, and in a mediate, indirect way, resulted in a conservative and repressive reaction that gave rise to the boom of spiritual groups based on dominion, manipulation and deception, to the popularization of very highly deleterious, physiologically and/or psychologically addictive, ego-enhancing drugs, and to a political reaction to the far right. Therefore, that hedonism is something that young people who aspire to transform their consciousness and society ought to avoid. Nevertheless, Watts played an inestimable role in the education and inspiration of a good part of those members of this writer’s generation who later undertook one or another of the Buddhist paths. In particular, he was a determinant influence on me, to which I am greatly indebted. Moreover, I deem The Wisdom of Insecurity to be one of the best books on spiritual matters ever written by a Westerner. I think it is advisable not to try to predict exactly when would the disintegration of human society or the end of human life on our planet take place if current trends were sustained. According to what seem to be the soundest interpretations of the prophesies related to the Kālacakratantra, the Kālacakra wars are not imminent—and hence those prophesies seem to foresee that human society will not disintegrate, and that human life will not come to an end, during the twenty first century. Contrariwise, after the Kālacakra wars they foretell the advent of a millennium of Awakening, harmony and peace. The fact that scientific predictions have rarely been fulfilled with precision, is show by the ones made in The Ecologist Editing Team (1971), which was supported in a document by many of the most notable scientists of the United Kingdom and by organizations such as The Conservation Society, the Henry Doubleday Research Association, The Soil Association, Survival International, and Friends of the Earth. The authors asserted that: “An examination of the relevant attainable information has made us conscious of the extreme gravity of the global situation in our days. However, if we allow prevailing tendencies to persist, the rupture of society and the irreversible destruction of the systems that sustain life on this planet, possibly towards the end of the [twentieth] century, doubtlessly within the lifetimes of our children, will be inevitable.” The same applies to the predictions by Michel Bosquet (in Senent, J. Saint-Marc, P. and others, 1973), who warned about three decades ago that: “Humankind needed thirty centuries to gather momentum; there are thirty years left to brake before the abyss.” More pondered, but perhaps still too tight in his dating, German-Ecuadorian ecologist Arthur Eichler pointed out in the late 1980s that it would have been an exaggeration to predict the total destruction of the systems that sustain life in the twentieth century, but also asserted that only an immediate total transformation of society, the economy, political systems and so on might perhaps make our survival possible beyond the first half of the current century (personal communication). For his part, Lester Brown, from the Worldwatch Institute in Washington, D.C. (Brown, Lester, 1990), may have also been too precise in his predictions when he asserted at the Global Forum on the Environment and Development for Survival that took place in Moscow from January 15-19, 1990 that: “If we cannot turn around some of the prevailing tendencies in the future, we run the very real risk that environmental degradation may produce economic ruin, as it has already done in parts of Africa, and that the two may begin to feed upon each other, making any future progress extremely difficult… …by the year 2030, we will either have produced an environmentally sustainable world economic system or we 234 3 4 2 2 1 2 235 578 3 will have clearly failed and, much before that, environmental degradation and economic ruin, feeding upon each other, will have led to social disintegration. We will do it by 2030 or we will have clearly failed.” Nevertheless, this prediction was quite precisely ratified by the United Nations panel on climate change, which in 2018 warned that if unless countries around the world take unprecedented action to reduce their use of fossil fuels and release less carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the air by 2030, global temperatures could reach an irreversible tipping point. Already in 1989, without announcing a “date of doom,” a group of scientists comprising many of the Nobel prize winners of the planet had warned against the irreversible destabilization and destruction of the ecosystem through the greenhouse effect—which beginning in 1997 and during 1998 produced the most extreme phenomenon “El Niño” ever recorded in history, and later on even more extreme occurrences of that phenomenon, which wreaked havoc around the world. Even James Lovelock, who previously had made fun of ecologists, pointed out that Gaia (the planet considered as a living organism) would be incapable of keeping its homeostasis (health) and even of continuing to be alive, with an index of human incidence upon its systems such as the one that has characterized recent years and decades. Though I refuse to make predictions concerning the time at which, if no radical change is achieved, society may be disrupted or humankind destroyed, there is no doubt that the effects of our modern scientifictechnological project threaten the continuity of human society and life. Therefore it is imperative that we begin working right now toward the spiritual, psychological, epistemological, technological, social, economic and cultural changes that are the condition of possibility of long-term survival: only thus will possibly come true the predictions in the Kālacakratantra, according to which after the final wars of Kālacakra humankind will enjoy a millennium of peace and spiritual fulfillment. Buddhism does not claim that a god created the world in order to fulfill a preconceived purpose. Since the question as to how the world originated and how life arose is irrelevant from the standpoint of attaining Liberation or Awakening, Śākyamuni’s remained silent when asked about it (just as he did when asked about a series of other topics—thirteen according to the Pāḷi Canon or fifteen according to the Mahāyāna Canon). Furthermore, the question concerning the meaning of life only arises from dualistic delusion, as the latter causes us to feel that we are thrown into a world against our will and forced to have experiences in it, and this for its part makes us ask why were we thus thrown and what the purpose and meaning of life is. However, Awakening then discloses an inexpressible and unthinkable Meaning: since we are no longer caught within the boundaries of the dualism of self and other, person and world, experience and recipient of experience, etc. the flow of experience through Time is itself nonconceptual and hence nondual Meaning that does not allow for asking questions concerning the purpose or meaning of life. In fact, we (are) what is happening, and when nonconceptual and hence nondual rig pa is patent and operative and thus we do not feel different from what is happening, the latter is absolute, nonconceptual and hence nondual Meaning. (When I capitalize Time it is because the term is referring to the undivided Time proper to the condition wherein Awareness, Space and Time have not illusorily separated from each other and hence there is Total Time-Space-Gnosis/Awareness; when I capitalize Meaning it is because I am not referring to what we usually understand by meaning, but to a nonconceptual, inexpressible, perspectiveless perspective that is indivisible from [capitalized] Time in the sense just defined.) In this context, it is important to emphasize that saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are two ways of functioning of the single Base or gzhi—or, according to the sophisticated Northern Treasures, of the base-of-all or kun gzhi: the path of illusion (Tib. ’khrul lam) that has deluded mind (Tib. sems can) as its core and its fruit, and the path of liberation (Tib. grol lam) which has rig pa as its core and Buddhahood (Tib. sangs rgyas) as its Fruit—and that both arise from the same source. In the Kun byed rgyal po, Samantabhadra, the state of dharmakāya, says (Namkhai Norbu and Adriano Clemente, English 1999, p. 94): “There is nobody apart from me who has created dualism.” As Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu has noted (ibidem), this does not mean that Samantabhadra has concretely done something; all it means is that nothing exists apart from the state of the individual. In other words, there is nothing apart from our true nature that may have created the world and ourselves, or that may have given rise to saṃsāra, or that may continue to maintain saṃsāra at every instant. And yet this does not mean that our own true condition has actively created and maintained these things. At any rate, this understanding is at the root of the līlā (Tib. rol pa) myth, which represents the universe as a hide-andseek play of universal awareness (in Hinduism represented with the god Śiva) with itself, and which is 236 579 intended to provide a symbolic idea of the arising of experience and of saṃsāra to children and child-like people. However, in truth saṃsāra arises again and again in our experience (in ongoing way that was described both in Part Two of this book and in Capriles, electronic publication 2004), and thus this question does not refer to something that happened long ago, but to something that is constantly happening as time goes on. In Buddhism it is said that saṃsāra has no beginning yet has an end, and that nirvāṇa has a beginning but no end. However, if nonetheless we insisted in conceiving a moment at which saṃsāra arose, and hence also a moment before the occultation of the true condition of reality, since in the preceding moment there would have been no duality of self and other, experience and recipient of experience, and no “I” or “mind” that could harbor a purpose or an intention, saṃsāra could not have arisen as the result of a conscious purpose or intention, and therefore we cannot posit a “reason” for this occultation to occur. Therefore, also if we posited a beginning of saṃsāra we could not say that the occultation of the true condition and the arising of dualism took place for this or that reason. In fact, the illusion of duality that is the core of saṃsāra arises nondually as the play of the true condition. If, after we have fallen under the illusion of duality, we are fortunate enough as to reGnize rig pa and thereby apprehend nondually what had previously seemed to be a duality, we come to realize the “meaning beyond words” referred to above. Though we cannot say why saṃsāra continues to arise moment after moment, we can say how it arises: this is what the rDzogs chen teachings do when they explain the successive arising of the base-of-all (Tib. kun gzhi) as basic ignorance concerning the true condition of the Base (Tib. gzhi), of the consciousness of the base-of-all (Tib. kun gzhi rnam shes) as a readiness to know the forms that may be singled-out in the continuum of sensation that arises in the state of the base-of-all, of the passional consciousness referred to as defiled-defiling consciousness (Tib. nyong mongs pa can yid kyi rnam shes) that is the active core of the passions which are the essence of the realm of sensuality, and of the six sensory consciousnesses as the actual functioning of this realm of saṃsāra. For a detailed explanation of this, see the possibly upcoming definitive version on print of Capriles (electronic publication 2004), and also Part Two of this book. It is not easy to assess the authenticity or inauthenticity of the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra. Unlike the texts conforming the Collection of Madhyamika Reasonings (Skt. Yuktikāya; Tib. Rigs tshogs or dbU ma rigs tshogs), universally attributed to Nāgārjuna, this text posits a “truth” that seems to be roughly the same as the figurative ultimate posited by all trends of Svātantrika Madhyamaka and also by rNying ma Prāsaṅgikas, and in general some of its views seem partly similar to those of the Svātantrikas. However, the text in question makes it very clear that whenever an Awake individual posits something, she or he does so without that which Candrakīrti called “own-view” (Skt. svamata; Tib. rang lugs), doing so as a “view for others (to provisionally hold)” (Skt. paramata; Tib. gzhan lugs): they do not believe what they say to be True, but say it as an expedient means for leading beings of specific capacities to Awakening. This is a view proper to the Prāsaṅgikas (though not so to Tsong kha pa’s reinterpretation of Prāsaṅgika thought) and the Inner, Subtle Madhyamaka (Tib. Nang phra ba’i dbu ma)—and in particular by Mahāmadhyamaka as I have reinterpreted the term. Since the Svātantrika Madhyamaka subschool school rejects the latter view, the śāstra clearly does not seem to have been concocted by late followers of this school. In the same way, the method of interrelated opposites attributed to Wei-lang (his name was 惠能, which in Cantonese is Wai -nang ; however, in the West that Cantonese name is best known as Wei-lang [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Huìnéng; Wade-Giles, Hui -neng ; Jap. Enō]), which consists in proving the opposite of what the interlocutors assert and, if they concede, then refuting that which they just accepted—for the method’s purpose is to destroy clinging to all views (cf. Capriles, unpublished 1, and the upcoming, definitive edition of Capriles, 2004). The Chán and Zen use of this method, which corresponds to the Pyrrhonean and Greek sceptic method of isosthenia (ἰσοσθένεια), being based on the understanding that Buddhas have no own-view and hence that all they say is other-directed assertions having the function of leading (nonexistent) beings to Awakening, could be based, among other sources, on the Prajñāpāramitāśāstra and on the whole Collection of Madhyamika Reasonings. In Guenther, Herbert V. 1984, we are told the tale of the men and the elephant is an ancient Indian fable. As stated in the regular text, to the knowledge of this author it first appeared in written form in Khuddaka Nikāya, III: Udāna (Buddha Śākyamuni, ed. P. Steinthal, 1885/1982, pp. 66-68; Venkata Ramanan, 1966, pp. 49-50, reference in note 138 to Ch. I, p. 344). Then it appeared in the Mahāyāna Sanskrit Canon, in the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra (Dudjom Rinpoche, 1991, vol. I, p. 295). Later on, it reappeared in Islamic countries, in texts by the Ṣūfī poets; for example, according to the Ḥadīqatuʼ l-ḥaqīqat (Persian: ‫ﺣﺪﯾﻘﮫ‬ 237 6 4 4 2 238 580 ‫ )اﻟﻄﺮﯾﻘﮫ ﺷﺮﯾﻌﮫ و اﻟﺤﻘﯿﻘﮫ‬or Walled Garden of Truth by Sanā’ī (Hakim Abul-Majd Majdūd ibn Ādam Sanā’ī Ghaznavi; Persian, ‫ﻏﺰﻧﻮی ﺳﻨﺎﯾﯽ آدم ﺑﻦ ﻣﺠﺪود اﺑﻮاﻟﻤﺠﺪ ﺣﮑﯿﻢ‬: Persian Sufi poet who lived in Ghaszna, in what is now Afghanistan, between the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and died around 1131), just like in the original sūtra, the men were blind; later on, it appeared in the Maṭnawīye Ma’nawī (Spiritual Couplets: ‫ )ﻣﻌﻨﻮی ﻣﺜﻨﻮی‬by Rūmī (Jalāl ad-Dīn Muḥammad Balkhī—Persian: ‫—ﺑﻠﺨﻰ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ اﻟﺪﯾﻦﺟﻼل‬also known as Jalāl ad-Dīn Muḥammad Rūmī—Persian: ‫—روﻣﯽ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺟﻼﻻﻟﺪﯾﻦ‬and popularly known as Mowlānā—Persian: ‫—ﻣﻮﻻﻧﺎ‬Jalāl ad-Dīn Muḥammad Rūmī), written over one century after the Ḥadīqatuʼ l-ḥaqīqat, in which the men, rather than being blind, were in the dark. Cf. Iqbal (1964). Recently, the story has been told in Dudjom Rinpoche (English 1991, vol. I, p. 295), in Nam mkha’i nor bu Rinpoche’s oral teachings, in texts dealing with systems theory and also in previous works by the author of this book (cf. Capriles, 1986; 1988; 1994; etc.). I got this example from Alan Wilson Watts several decades ago, and have used it in a number of works, but unfortunately I do not remember in which of Watts’ books it was used—and although I have endeavored to identify it, have been unable to do so. There is a direct relation between the ampleness or narrowness of an individual’s space-time-knowledge and what rDzogs chen and Tantrism designate as “energetic volume determining the scope of awareness” (Tib. thig le; similar in meaning to the Skt. kuṇḍalinī)—a concept that was explained in a note the first time the term was used in the regular text, and that will be considered in far greater detail in the context of the discussion of the maṇḍala in Part Three of this book. This relation is emphasized to such an extent that Total Space-Time-Awareness corresponds to that which the rDzogs chen teachings call “thig le chen po” or Total Sphere: although this term is used as a synonym of rDzogs chen mostly because a sphere has no corners or angles, and the angles represent the limits which are our concepts (which as noted repeatedly are limits because they are defined by exclusion of other—i.e. by differentia specifica / apoha (Tib. sel ba; 除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chú; Wade-Giles, ch’u ] or 遮 除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēchú; Wade-Giles, che -ch’u ]) / anyāpoha (Tib. gzhan sel; most likely Ch. 他感排除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tā gǎn páichú; Wade-Giles, t’a -kan p’ai -ch’u ]). In this sense, “total thig le” also means total bindu—in the sense of “total seed-essence”—which in this case corresponds to “total energetic volume determining the scope of awareness.” Though the term Total Sphere is a synonym of rDzogs chen (no matter whether qua Base, qua Path or qua Fruit), in this particular sense of total energetic volume determining the scope of awareness it refers specifically to rDzogs chen qua Fruit. It may be useful to relate the rDzogs chen term “total sphere” to the statement by Saint Bonaventura (“the Seraphic Doctor:” John of Fidanza [1221-74]) that was later reproduced by Blaise Pascal (1962), and which physicist Alain Aspect repeated after his experiments of 1982 at the University of Paris-Sud: “The universe is an infinite sphere the center of which is everywhere and the periphery of which is nowhere.” The Chinese, Korean and Japanese proverb goes: “The frog in the well knows nothing of the great ocean” (井底之蛙, 不知⼤海). The Watson translation of the chapter under discussion is available in the Web at the URL http://www.terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu1.html#17. The Era of Perfection (Skt. kṛtayuga; Tib. rdzogs ldan; Ch. 圆满時 [abridged 圆满时] [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yuánmǎn shí; Wade-Giles, yüan -man shih ]) or Age of Truth (Skt. satyayuga; Tib. bden ldan; Ch. ⿈⾦ 時代 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, huángjīn shídài; Wade-Giles, huang -chin shih -tai ]), when the primordial order and its plenitude and perfection prevailed, corresponds to that which in Persia and Greece was named Golden Age and which the Bible called Eden. (The hypothetic initial, most complete and perfect instance of this condition consists in the indivisibility of Total Space-Time-Awareness, which the earlier Persian religion and Indian Śaivism represented with a deity—which pre-Aryan Indians called Śiva Mahākāla or “Total Time,” and which, seemingly at a later stage, the Persians called Zurvan.) After the Indo-European invasions the concept of an initial and an upcoming era of Truth and Perfection was lost in Greece, but at some point Hesiod reintroduced it from Persia, and centuries later it became central to the Cynics and the Stoics, who revived the characterization of that period as being previous to the rise of the State, government, property or the exclusive family (I assume the Stoics received this interpretation from the Cynics, since Zeno of Citium was a disciple of Crates of Thebes, and it seems to be from the Cynics that the early Stoics absorbed both their proto-anarcho-communist views and their philosophy of history). In Tibet, the Bön tradition of Tibet also referred to it as a period in which property and other restrictions proper to civilization were still nonexistent (Reynolds, 1989a). In China, the Taoist sages referred to it as the Age when the Dào (Ch 道; Wade-Giles Tao ) prevailed and the authenticity of the uncut trunk was embraced; its proto-anarcho-communist social and political views were discussed mainly 239 240 2 1 2 1 3 2 2 2 1 241 242 2 3 3 2 4 581 4 in the Huáinánzǐ (Ch. 淮南⼦; Wade-Giles, Huai -nan -tzu [Huainan Masters / Thomas Cleary, 1990]). And so on. The idea that it was the development of essential delusion that produced the progressive degeneration of humankind through the succession of ever more degenerate ages or eras might have been part of Heraclitus’ thought, because the Ephesian used the concepts of lethe (λήθη) and aletheia (ἀλήθεια) in a way that seems to correspond to the use of avidyā and vidyā, respectively, in Buddhism, and used the term aion [αίών: English, aeon or eon] as well—according to Diogenes Laërtius [L, IV, 9], in the context of the conception of temporality and degenerative evolution that we are concerned with here. However, the idea that degeneration gradually develops as lethe / avidyā develops is not explicitly expressed in any known extant document produced by Hesiod, Heraclitus, the Stoics, or any other Greek individual or school of thought. The same applies to the understanding, expressed in the rDzogs chen teachings (Padmasambhava and others, 1973), that the gradual development of delusion involves the progressive acceleration of the vibratory activity of the human organism at the root of hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization, which results in a gradual acceleration of the experience of time, and to the idea that the Dark Age or Black Age (Skt. kaliyuga; Tib. rtsod ldan [gyi dus]; Ch. 爭⾾時 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēngdòu shí; WadeGiles, cheng -tou shih ]: the Age of Degeneration at the end of the cycle) comes to an end when, vibratory rates having reached a threshold, they collapse and as a result of this both time and human delusion come to an end. For my own interpretation of the cyclic conception of time, corruption and regeneration in terms of the development of the basic delusion, and my explanation of how ecological crisis represents the reductio ad absurdum of this delusion, which may make its eradication possible at an ample scale, see Capriles (1994, Second Essay; 2012a; 2019a). The loss of the Dào (Tao ) is illusory, for in truth the “Fall” corresponding to the loss in question is part of the Dào’s flow, and the same applies to all thoughts and acts of human beings after this “Fall.” In other words, that which is lost is not the Dào qua Base, but the unveiling of the Dào qua Base that here I have been referring to as Dào qua Path and Dào qua Fruit. The term here translated as “virtue” is dé (Ch. 德; Wade-Giles, te : virtue), which refers to the Dào’s inherent virtue in the sense in which one speaks of the “healing virtue” of a plant: as noted in a previous endnote, it is not “virtue” in the Kantian sense in which a person is said to be virtuous when she or he resists the impulses issuing from selfishness and / or from the Jungian shadow, and contrivedly, artificially sets out to help others. The way the Dào’s dé or virtue persists after the Dào is concealed may be compared to the persistent smell of a mothball that remains in a drawer after the mothball has been removed. It is clear that if the implementation of a project gives rise to practical consequences that contradict the aims inherent in the project, the theses or views at the root of the project have achieved their reductio ad absurdum. However, in the case of the technological project of domination of all that we see as other with regard to ourselves, it is not only the thesis or view at the root of the project that completes its reductio ad absurdum when the implementation of the project gives rise to the ecological crisis that seems to be about to disrupt human society and eventually wipe out human life from the face of the earth: what completes its reductio ad absurdum is mainly the basic delusion that, upon developing to a certain degree, gave rise to the technological project of domination. In fact, this project is no more than a late product of the development of delusion throughout the cosmic cycle (eon / aeon, aion or kalpa [Pāḷi kappa; Tib. bskal pa; Ch. 劫波 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jiébō; Wade-Giles, chieh -po ) or 劫 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn jié; Wade-Giles chieh ; jap. gō)]), which by reducing delusion to absurdity, allows for its eradication at the level of the species (or at least at the level of those members of the species who survive), and thereby may make the end of the cycle and the beginning of a new one possible—the first stage of which would be a new Golden Age, Age of Truth (Skt. satyayuga; Tib. bden ldan; Ch. ⿈⾦時代 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, huángjīn shídài; WadeGiles, huang -chin shih -tai ]) or Era of Perfection (Skt. kṛtayuga; Tib. rdzogs ldan; Ch. 圆满時 [abridged 圆满时] [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yuánmǎn shí; Wade-Giles, yüan -man shih ])—or, perhaps more likely, a roughly equivalent Millennium of plenitude, harmony, ecological integration and nondual spirituality, like the one predicted in Kālacakra literature. In this regard, see Capriles (1994; 2012a). In ordinary Buddhism the Skt. term samāhita, the Tib. mnyam bzhag, and the Ch. 等引 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, děngyǐn; Wade-Giles, teng -yin ) refer to staying in the patency of self-manifest rig pa (rang gi rig pa’i mthong), whereas the Skt. term pṛṣṭhalabdha, the Tib. rjes thob and the Ch. 後得 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, hòudé; Wade-Giles, hou -te ) refer to the periods between sessions (Tib. thun) of meditation, after the arising of 2 1 4 2 3 2 243 4 2 244 2 1 2 2 1 2 4 2 245 3 4 3 2 582 3 3 movement on rising from meditation and entering all kinds of activities with a full presence of responsible awareness (Skt. saṃprajanya; Tib. shes bzhin; Ch. 正知 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhèngzhī; Wade-Giles, cheng chih ). However, as Nyoshul Khenpo (2015, pp. 185-6) notes: “In the practice of rDzogs chen, the key point of postmeditation is that you remain in ‘rigpa’s own place of repose’ (Tib. rig pa’i mal or rig pa’i rang mal), and without [obliterating] the essence of awareness, you engage in all kinds of activities.” (The translation by David Christensen has “forgetting” instead of “obliterating.”) In fact, the rDzogs chen teachings warn us that to believe that post-Contemplation refers to keeping a sense of illusoriness or of dream-likeness outside sessions of practice, although correct in the Mahāyāna and the Vajrayāna, is utterly wrong in rDzogs chen practice. In Pascal (1962 [posthumous edition, 1669]), without mentioning the second Noble Truth (it is widely believed that at the time Buddhism was largely unknown in France), this truth is correctly described, and just as in the story of the maddening water, it is compared to a psychological disturbance. Pascal (1962). Fromm (1955, pp. 14-15). Mainstream clinical psychology and psychiatry reserve the term delusion for the degrees of distortion of reality characteristic of psychosis, for they assume that there is hardly no distortion in normality and a very low degree of distortion in that which used to be called “neurosis” and which nowadays does to a great extent under the label “personality disorders.” However, this is a clearly defective criterion, for as I have shown elsewhere, the degrees of delusion achieved in normality (not to mention “neurosis” or that which in current terminology is called “personality disorders”) are not necessarily lesser than those that occur in psychoses—and, moreover, that which psychiatry views as instances of delusion occurring in psychosis are often metaphoric ways of soundly perceiving actual aspects of relative reality (cf. Lemert, 1962 [Paranoia and the Dynamics of Exclusion], and the case of “Jane” in Laing & Esterson, 2nd. Ed. 1971, pp. 14-16). The criterion of sanity / mental health as absence of delusion, quite similar to the one used here, is found in some trends of phenomenological-existential psychology and psychiatry, and in particular in those that were influenced by Eastern philosophy and psychology, such as the ones developed by R. D. Laing and D. E. Cooper. In fact, according to the latter, the condition that mainstream psychology and psychiatry regard as normal clearly involves delusion, and sanity consists in the absence of delusion rather than in adaptation to a deluded and delusive society—the identification of sanity with normality being anyhow obsolete, as even the WHO dropped it over half a century ago, and only some diehard trends of Egopsychology continue uphold it in our time. In three recent works I have distinguished different types and degrees of sanity and insanity; cf. among other works of mine: Capriles (2007: Beyond Being, Beyond Mind, Beyond History [3 megavolumes], Vol. II: Beyond Mind. Provisional e-version: http://webdelprofesor.ula.ve/humanidades/elicap/en/Main/Bb-bm-bh). Capriles (2013ab: The Beyond Mind Papers: Transpersonal and Metatranspersonal Theory, Volumes I and II. Nevada City: Blue Dolphin Publishing). Note that the latter four volumes are far more precise than the former volume, yet the former volume covers humanistic psychology as well, which is overlooked in the four-volume book. Let me briefly expand on the idea in the paragraph of the regular text to which the reference mark for this endnote was appended. In our time all forms of positivism are widely seen as obsolete remnants of the enthusiasm with science proper to early modernity. In particular, even though most of those philosophers who define themselves as “postmodern” continue to implicitly uphold the myth of progress that is the root and essence of the project of modernity, as a rule they outright negate that science or philosophy discover truths or that the discourses of science and philosophy can achieve an adæquatio intellectus et rei (i.e., a concordance of knowledge with a purportedly independent, factic reality). In fact, this idea runs counter, not only to those trends of philosophy that categorize themselves as postmodern, but in general to the views of a long list of philosophers, scientists and philosopher-scientists that goes at least as back as the Greek Skeptics. An interesting case is that of Wilfred Sellars (1997, 1963), who absorbed and amalgamated elements of British and American analytical philosophy and Austrian and German logical positivism, as well as of American Pragmatism—and, in at least one work (1968), even of Kant’s transcendental idealism—and became renowned for having questioned the foundationalist belief in a given that may serve as the basis 4 1 246 247 248 249 250 583 for an adæquatio intellectus et rei. However, his conclusions have been used to negate the fact that digital, clear-cut separations and divisions lie in the conceptual mind of operative thinking and secondary process, but are lacking in our sensory continuum or, if we accept the existence of a physical reality different and separate from our experience of it, in that physical reality, and to negate the fact that the perception of sensa, which at the level of middle dimensions are analog and continuous, in terms of thoughts that are digital and as such discontinuous, and the confusion of the former with the latter, is a delusion. This I have refuted in Capriles 2013d, Appendix III, which I briefly summarized in a previous endnote to this book. As to whether or not there are discontinuities at the quantic level, cf. endnote 216 to this book. It is well known that Kant claimed that the Scottish critical empiricist, David Hume, had awakened him from what he called his “dogmatic dream.” Among Hume’s alleged discoveries, most relevant to us at this point is the universally accepted objection to empirical science as the source of “scientific laws,” which nowadays is widely referred to as “Hume’s law,” and which may be enunciated as follows: “we are not entitled to extrapolate the regularities observed in a limited number of cases to the totality of possible cases, thus making it into a law, for one or more of the unobserved cases could contradict the observed regularity.” Moreover, science claims that it derives its purported laws from observation of objective facts, the very existence of which, as noted above, Sellars called into question. Furthermore, the human psyche structures perception in terms of ideologically conditioned expectations; therefore, scientists tend to observe in nature whatever their theories require them to find; for example, Gaston Bachelard (1938, this edition 1957) notes that prejudices consisting in opinions and previous “knowledge” (and therefore in their ideologies and wishful thinking) condition the way a researcher interprets empirical observations, becoming epistemological obstacles that impair his or her capacity to admit that the results obtained may contradict the beliefs and theoretical construction that caused him or her to expect a specific outcome. An anecdote told by Edgar Morin (1981) clearly illustrates the extent to which observational judgments are conditioned by ideology: while driving his car into a crossroads, he saw another car’s driver disregard the traffic light and, with the front of his car, hit a moped that was moving with the Green light. Morin stopped his car and stepped down in order to testify in favor of the moped driver, yet when he did so, he heard the latter admit that it was him who had overlooked the red light and hit the car on the side. Incredulous, the famed thinker examined the car, finding the dent the moped made in the car to be on the latter’s side, and concluding that his thirst for social justice and socialist ideology caused him to perceive the event wrongly and invert the facts, even though he had not drunk any alcohol and no other conditions were present that could have distorted his perception. In the case of an experiment planned beforehand, the results are far more dubious, for the way in which the experiment is set up and the criteria in terms of which the data it yields are assessed are arranged to satisfy the researcher’s expectations, as he / she intends to corroborate a theory put forward beforehand. Léon Brillouin’s (1959) theorem, conceived in 1932, purportedly showed that empiric experiments do not yield exact results, for “information is not free of charge:” each and every observation of a physical system increases the system’s entropy in the lab, and hence the experiment’s output, which must be defined in terms of the relation obtained and the resulting increase in entropy, will always be lower than the unit (1)—which represents exactness of information—and only in rare cases will approach it: since the perfect experiment would require an infinite expenditure of human activity, it is impossible to achieve. The above explains why such a conservative thinker as Karl Popper (1961) noted that, if no experience contradicts a theory, scientists are entitled to adopt it provisionally as a probable truth (thus openmindedly acknowledging that no scientific theory can be fully substantiated, yet closed-mindedly clinging to the belief in truth qua adæquatio), and that the acceptance of a new theory gives rise to as many problems as it solves. Moreover, as it is well-known, on surveying the history of science, Thomas Kuhn (1970) noted that from the moment a scientific theory or paradigm is accepted as true, scientific observations begin to contradict it, yet scientists consistently overlook these contradictions until the point is reached at which contradictions become so abundant and conspicuous that they can no longer ignore them, and hence they must set out to devise new theories and paradigms in order to account for these observations—yet new observations will contradict the new theory or paradigm as well, and hence the process in question will repeat itself again and again. Thus it is not difficult to see why a series of authors (cf. for example, Anthony Wilden, 1972; 2d Ed. 1980) have noted that scientific theories are nothing but ideologies. It must also be noted that science and technology are indivisible from the ideological project of modernity, which initially was associated with the ascending bourgeoisie and at a later stage, through the influence of Marxism, also with the ascending proletariat: as Marcuse (1964, Ch. 6, “From Negative to Positive 584 Thinking: Technological Rationality and the Logic of Domination”) noted, science is by its very nature instrumental, and hence it naturally delivers the means for the domination of the natural environment and other human beings. All of the above makes it easy to understand why Michel Foucault (1976, 1978) and Gilles Deleuze (1980) asserted philosophy and science to be, not merely ideologies, but more than ideologies: for a very long time philosophical systems, and later on for a shorter time scientific disciplines and theories have functioned as an “abstract machine or generalized axiomatic” that works as the matrix that makes possible the very existence of power—their function being that of providing power with the forms of knowledge necessary to sustain the models on the basis of which it will have to structure itself in each period. (According to Deleuze, psychoanalysis played the role in question at the time he wrote the book referred to in this paragraph: not in vain, as it was held in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, “Freud was the name Ford used when dealing with psychology”). The above also shows that Georges Sorel (1922, 1906, 1908) was right in claiming, between the last years of the nineteenth century and the outset of the twentieth century, that human beings act under the influence of myths, that the sciences are myths, and that the scientific pretensions of Marxism—a focus of his criticism—responded to the force of the myth of science, which prevailed in Marx’s time. And that Antonio Gramsci (1998, p. 63) was equally right in pointing out, in 1948, and in spite of the fact that he was definitely Marxist, that to the extent to which we take the “discoveries” of the sciences as truths in the sense of adæquatio of a scientific map to a territory, the sciences are ideologies. In fact, in our time the belief that science discovers truths has been demystified to such a degree, that Paul K. Feyerabend (1982, 1984, 1987)—who has shown scientists to often arrive at their discoveries and theories by breaking the established procedural rules of science—placed Western reason and science on the same plane as magic and sorcery. In the Genealogy of Morals, Friedrich Nietzsche (1999) had already left behind the idea that interpretations often do not reflect facts, and had gone so far as to claim that there are no facts that may be or not be matched by our interpretations. In his allegedly “postmodern” period, in which he propounded the active radicalization of nihilism, Gianni Vattimo (1995, p. 50) wrote in this regard: “Nihilism means in Nietzsche ‘de-valorization of the supreme values’ and fabulation of the world: there are no facts, only interpretations, and this is also an interpretation.” As to the logic in terms of which the sciences function, it is evident that from one standpoint a given entity is that entity, yet from a different viewpoint (belonging to a different logical type) it is not that entity (e.g., from a certain standpoint a wooden table is a table, but from other standpoints it is not a table but: an assembly of pieces of wood; a conglomerate of atoms; a segment, singled out for perception, of the continuum that according to Einstein’s Field Theory the universe is; etc.)—and that this may at first sight seem to contradict Aristotelian logic (in particular, the conjunction of the principle of the excluded middle and the principle of noncontradiction that Peter Suber [1997] refers to as Exclusive Disjunction for Contradictories [PEDC]). In their noted Theory of Logical Types, Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead (1910-1913) seemingly intended to solve apparent problems of this kind by asserting contradictions between terms to be “real” only when both terms belong to the same logical type—which requires that no element belonging to a logical type different from that of the class being dealt with be included in the class or excluded from it. However, the theory elaborated by Russell and Whitehead was objected by Kurt Gödel (1962), who pinpointed a major problem, not only of the theory in question, but of all deductive systems—which, after induction was shown to be nonexistent, has been acknowledged to include all scientific systems—by ideating his incompleteness theorem, which showed that all logical systems necessarily contain at least one premise that cannot be proven or verified without the system contradicting itself… from which it follows that it is impossible to establish the logical consistency of any complex deductive system without assuming principles of reasoning the internal consistency of which is as open to questioning as the system itself. With a reasoning far more accessible to the layman, Gregory Bateson (1972) noted that in order not to include or exclude items that do not belong to the logical type being considered, as the theory of logical types demanded, one had to exclude all such items from consideration, which meant that one was excluding them in order not to exclude them and thus was violating the principle one was intent on respecting. Moreover, this implies that, when dealing with the class to which x belongs, whatever does not belong to the same class as x cannot be considered either as x or as not-x—which violates the principle of Aristotelian logic that the theory in question was intended to save, for according to it whatever is not x is not-x. Of course, if we regard the theory of logical types as a mere convention necessary for resolving practical problems, rather than as an attempt to substantiate 585 the supposedly ultimate character of Aristotelian logic, then it will fulfill its purpose—and, at any rate, the problems just discussed may be deemed irrelevant for the validity or invalidity of the empirical sciences. I would not deny that, in spite of Hume’s law and the whole of the above objections, the sciences are as a rule capable of predicting some types of events with a considerable degree of reliability, as well as of producing predictable immediate effects. However, in the long run they produce effects that altogether contradict the ones they claim to be intent on producing. In fact, as noted in the regular text, in terms of Korzybski’s (1973) semantics—according to which the criterion for sanity is the structural fit between our reactions to the world and what is actually going on in the world, and insanity by the lack of such fit—we must conclude that Śākyamuni Buddha was right when he compared fully fledged avidyā to an illness, and that Candrakīrti hit the mark when he compared this fully fledged avidyā to insanity, for it gives rise to a severe structural discrepancy between our reactions to the world and what is actually going on in the world: as stated repeatedly throughout this book, our attempts to achieve satisfaction yield dissatisfaction, our efforts to suppress pain produce and exacerbate pain, and our efforts to destroy death and all negative aspects of life and allegedly build a technological Eden have given rise to the ecological crisis that is producing major natural disasters and which threatens to disrupt human society and put an end to human existence in the course of the current century. Thus it seems that Korzybski was wrong when noting, in terms of the famed map/territory analogy, that although the map is not the territory, the map could be correct in the sense of having a structure similar to that of the territory that allows us to successfully deal with the latter—thus achieving the structural fit defining sanity. Korzybski’s criterion coincides with the one that, in the face of Hume’s law and the accumulated objections of subsequent epistemologists (cf. Capriles, 1994, 2007a vol. III, 2007c), Alfred Julius Ayer (1952, p. 50) devised with the aim of validating the sciences: the one according to which ““We are entitled to have faith in our procedure just so long as it does the work it is designed to do—that is, enables us to predict future experience, and so to control our environment.” However, in trying to control our environment with the purported aim of creating an artificial Eden and kill death and pain, the sciences and the technology based on them, rather than achieving their declared effect, have produced a hellish chaos and taken us to the brink of extinction—and, moreover, at no moment did they foresee this outcome. Therefore Ayer’s criterion, rather than validating, outright invalidates the sciences. In fact, as already noted, the current ecological crisis has made it evident that the technological application of the sciences in the long run gives rise to effects contrary to the ones it is allegedly intended to produce. Thus to the extent to which the sciences involve a pretension of truth in the sense of exact correspondence of their maps to the territory of the given, or the pretension of improving our lives and producing a technological paradise, it is clear that they are metanarratives involving the denial of their character as metanarratives, and as such they must be denounced as being myths, ideologies and more than ideologies: they are elements of modernity’s myth of progress, which ecological crisis has proved, not merely to be unrealizable, but to be outright deadly. The above discussion of the limits of science makes it evident that the positivistic belief that metaphysics will be surpassed and truth will be attained by replacing philosophy with the positive sciences (etc.) could hardly be more misguided. So long as Total Space-Time-Awareness is veiled by limited space-time-knowledge (no matter whether the latter is narrower or wider), a directional consciousness observes, judges and controls behavior. And so long as a directional consciousness observes, judges and controls behavior, to some degree one is susceptible to suffer the self-impeded-centipede effect. As shown above in the regular text, the Pāḷi term saṅkhata, the Sanskrit term saṃskṛta, the Tibetan term ’dus byas, and the Chinese term 有為 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei )—the negations of which are, respectively, asaṅkhata, asaṃskṛta, ’dus ma byas and 無爲 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; WadeGiles, wu -wei )—mean compounded, and/or fabricated, and/or configured, and/or conditioned, and/or made, and/or contrived, and/or intentional. In general Buddhism, all of these words refer to the principal characteristic of phenomenal entities in their totality, which are mutually conditioned and interrelated (as most clearly established by the doctrine of interdependent origination [Skt. pratītyasamutpāda; Pāḷi paṭiccasamuppāda; Tib. rten (cing) ’brel (bar ’byung ba); Ch. 緣起 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yuánqǐ; Wade-Giles, yüan -ch’i ) in all its interpretations, from that of the succession in time of the twelve links [Pāḷi and Skt. nidāna; Tib. ’brel; Ch. 尼陀那 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, nítuónà; Wade-Giles, ni -t’o -na ], to the one expounded in the Prajñāpāramitāsūtras, which does not view it solely as temporal succession, but principally as the essential, synchronous dependence of all entities with regard to each other). However, the acceptations 251 252 3 2 2 2 3 2 586 2 4 2 of “made up” and “intentionally contrived” should not be taken to mean that Buddhism asserts that a god or demiurge created them with a purpose: the conception of a god or demiurge is extraneous to Buddhism. The four characteristics just listed in the regular text before the reference mark for this note boil down to the assertion that all that is compounded and/or fabricated and/or configured and/or conditioned and / or intentional and/or contrived has a beginning and an end, and as such it is impermanent (Pāḷi anicca; Skt. anitya; Tib. mi rtag pa; Chin. 無常 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúcháng; Wade-Giles, wu -ch’ang ; Jap. mujō]) and subject to suffering. Lists of what the philosophical schools traditionally taught in Tibet deemed to be compounded and/or fabricated and/or configured and/or created and/or conditioned and/or intentional and/or contrived and what they deemed to be uncompounded and/or nonfabricated and/or unconfigured and/or uncreated and/or unconditioned and/or nonintentional and/or uncontrived will be provided in the possibly upcoming edition in print of Capriles (electronic publication 2004) in case I produce it; some of those lists are reproduced in the following notes. Take the example of a circle—a geometrical figure that in Buddhism represents the dharmakāya, true condition of all reality and mental aspect of Buddhahood—made with an undivided string. So long as it is not cut, the string has no beginning and no end. As soon as you cut it, the string has a beginning but also an end. Though this example is spatial, it if obvious that the same applies to time, which, according to Einstein, together with the three dimensions of space, is one of the four dimensions of the universe; according to superunification theories, it is one of the only four dimensions that expanded with the big bang; and according to holonomic theory and recognition physics in general, it is one of the four dimensions of the explicate order. As stated in a previous note, the word phenomenon derives from the Greek phainomenon (φαινόμενον), meaning “that which appears.” Strictly speaking, that which appears is the deceptive appearances that characterize saṃsāra and that veil the true condition of reality. Contrariwise, nonstatic nirvāṇa, even though it comprises the sense data that are the basis of appearances, because it involves the dissolution of all false appearances and the perfect realization of the true condition of reality, in a special sense may be viewed as being beyond that which appears—even though in another sense nonstatic nirvāṇa is viewed as an appearance insofar as it appears in the Base-awareness that has been illustrated with a mirror. In order to leave room for the first of these interpretations, I preferred not to speak of the phenomena of nirvāṇa, but of the metaphenomenon or metaphenomena of nirvāṇa (nirvāṇa being beyond one and many, neither expression is precise—though common sense is likely to think that “metaphenomenon” is more correct than “metaphenomena”). For example, according to the Vaibhāṣika School, the phenomena which are unmade / unconditioned / uncompounded / uncontrived / unconfigured (Skt. asaṃskṛta; Pāli asaṅkhata; Tib. ’dus ma byas]; Ch. 無 爲 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu -wei ]) are: (1) space (Skt. ākāśa; Tib. nam mkha’; Ch. 虚空 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xūkōng; Wade-Giles, hsü -k’ung ]); (2) nonperception of phenomena due to the absence of conditions (Skt. pratyaya; Pāḷi paccaya; Tib. rkyen; Ch. 緣 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn yuán; Wade-Giles yuan ]) and resulting from concentration (rather than from perfect insight issuing from discrimination) (Skt. apratisaṃkhyānirodha; Tib. so sor brtags min gyi ’gog pa; Ch. ⾮擇滅 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fēizémiè; WadeGiles, fei -tse -mieh ]); and (3) supreme wisdom of cessation resulting from perfect insight issuing from discrimination (Skt. pratisaṃkhyānirodha; Tib. so sor brtags ’gog; Ch. 擇滅 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zémiè; Wade-Giles, tse -mieh ]). The Mahāsāṃghika School (which other Hīnayāna schools deemed heretic) went further and posited nine categories of asaṃskṛta dharma. The philosophical schools of the Mahāyāna are not unanimous as to what is conditioned and what is unconditioned. The Cittamātrins posited six unconditioned phenomena or asaṃskṛta dharma: (1) space (Skt. ākāśa; Tib. nam mkha’; Ch. 虚空 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xūkōng; Wade-Giles, hsü -k’ung ]), which was “the unlimited and unchanging;” (2) supreme wisdom of cessation resulting from perfect insight issuing from discrimination (Skt. pratisaṃkhyānirodha; Tib. so sor brtags ’gog; Ch. 擇滅 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zémiè; Wade-Giles, tse mieh ]); (3) nonperception of phenomena due to the absence of conditions (Skt. pratyaya; Pāḷi paccaya; Tib. rkyen; Ch. 緣 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn yuán; Wade-Giles yuan ]) and resulting from concentration (rather than from perfect insight issuing from discrimination) (Skt. apratisaṃkhyānirodha; Tib. so sor brtags min gyi ’gog pa; Ch. ⾮擇滅 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fēizémiè; Wade-Giles, fei -tse -mieh ]); (4) disinterest concerning power and pleasure (Skt. acalā; Tib. mi g.yo ba; Ch. 不動地 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùdòng dì; Wade-Giles pu tung ti ]); (5) a state wherein recognition in terms of concepts and sensation are inactive (Skt. saṃjñāvedayitanirodha; Pāḷi saññāvedayitanirodha; Tib.’du shes dang tshor ba ’gog pa; Ch. 想受滅 2 2 253 254 255 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 4 2 4 256 1 1 2 4 2 1 2 4 4 4 4 587 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiǎngshòu miè; Wage-Giles hsiang -shou mieh ]); and (6) thatness or thusness (Skt. tathatā; Tib. de bzhin nyid; Chin. 眞如 [性] [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēnrú (xìng); Wade-Giles, chen -ju (hsing )]), which was the true absolute-qua-Base of the Yogācāras: the basic constituent, nature or condition of all phenomena, which unveils in nirvāṇa and is veiled in saṃsāra. Note that according to the Mahāyāna in general, a first, incipient glimpse tathatā first takes place in the first of the four stages of the path of preparation or path of application (Skt. prayogamārga[ḥ]; Tib. sbyor lam; Ch. 加⾏道 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jiāxíng dào; Wade-Giles tzu -liang tao ]), which is the stage called “heat” (Skt. ūṣman / ūṣmagata; Tib. drod; Ch. 煖 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, nuǎn; Wade-Giles, nuan ]). The Rang stong pa sub-schools of Madhyamaka—Svātantrika and Prāsaṅgika—regard as conditioned / made / contrived / produced / configurated / compounded (Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch., 有 為 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ]) the whole of the appearances that we wrongly perceive as being self-existent or hypostatically / inherently existent (Skt. svābhāva; Tib. ngo bo or rang bzhin; Ch. ⾃性 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìng; Wade–Giles, tzu -hsing ; Jap. jisho]). For them the unconditioned is the emptiness (śūnyatā; Tib. stong pa nyid; Ch. 空 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, kòng; Wade–Giles, k’ung ; Jap. kū]) or emptiness-of-self-existence / emptiness-of-hypostatic-existence / emptiness-of-inherent-existence (Skt. svābhāvaśūnyatā; Tib. rang [bzhin gyi] stong [pa nyid]; Ch. ⾃性空 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìng kòng; Wade– Giles, tzu -hsing k’ung ; Jap. jishōkū]) of those appearances—which lack the self-existence that we mistakenly perceive in them, and cannot be precisely matched by anything that can be asserted in their regard. (As noted repeatedly, rJe Tsong kha pa preferred rang bzhin gyis ma grub pa over rang bzhin gyi stong pa nyid, but his view of absolute truth / emptiness was utterly different from that of the rest of Tibetan schools.) The view expressed in the regular text of this book, according to which conditioned / made / contrived / produced / configurated / compounded phenomena are in truth unconditioned / unmade / uncontrived / unproduced / nonconfigurated / uncompounded, is best explained in terms of the philosophy of the Mahāmadhyamaka sub-school of the Madhyamaka School, which correctly asserts conditioned phenomena to be in truth unconditioned, because the absolute truth is the Awake awareness that (is) the Buddha-nature-in-act, and also while avidyā / ma rig pa is concealing and distorting that awareness / nature and the phenomena that appear through it, all that appears in / through it has the nature or essence of absolute truth. And since this truth, which this school explained as the inseparability of appearances and emptiness, is free of the four characteristics of all that is conditioned / made / contrived / produced / configurated / compounded (Dudjom Rinpoche, English 1991, vol. I, pp. 196-8, 206-7), the whole of the phenomenal world is utterly free of those four characteristics. Indeed, if the rūpakāya—the phenomenal aspect of Buddhahood—were something that arises at some point in time as the fruit of the accumulation of merits, the rūpakāya would be conditioned / made / contrived / produced / configurated / compounded—but then Awakening would be impermanent and subject to suffering. However, since the rūpakāya is inherent in the Buddha-nature qua Base, which involves the indivisibility of appearances and emptiness, it is not contrived / produced / configurated / compounded / made; and since it is not affected or modified by conditions, it is unconditioned. Some statements by Dudjom Rinpoche in this regard will be quoted and discussed in the section on Mahāmadhyamaka of the definitive version in print of Capriles (electronic publication 2004), in case I finally complete it. The problem arises mainly when we write in Western languages, for the terms that are usually rendered as self-existent when the works of Dol po pa Shes rab Rgyal mtshan and other dbU ma gzan stong pas are rendered into Western languages are the Sanskrit svābhāva and its Tibetan equivalent, rang bzhin, which do not necessarily imply existence, or, even less so, self-existence—for they may be rendered as selfnature. In fact, even Candrakīrti, who is the author that Prāsaṅgika critics of the gZhan stong view claim to follow, in Madhyamakāvatārabhāṣya (dbu ma la ’jug pa’i bshad pa / dbu ma la ’jug pa’i rang ’grel) asserted self-nature (Skt. svābhāva; Tib. rang bzhin) with regard to the true condition of ourselves and the whole of reality: “Does a nature, as asserted by the Master [Nāgārjuna], that is characterized in such a way [as in Nāgārjuna’s (Prajñānāmamūlamadhyamakakārikā) XV.2cd, which Candrakīrti has just cited] exist? The absolute nature of phenomena (Skt. dharmatā; Tib. chos nyid) put forward by the Supramundane Victor— ‘Whether the Tathāgatas appear or not, the absolute nature of phenomena just abides’—exists. Also, what is this absolute nature of phenomena? It is the self-nature (Skt. svābhāva; Tib. rang bzhin) of these eyes and so forth. And, what is the nature of these? It is their non-fabricatedness / uncontrivedness / unproducedness / unconditionedness / uncompoundedness (Skt. asaṃskṛta; Pāḷi, asaṅkhata; Tib. ’dus ma 3 4 4 1 1 2 4 1 3 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 257 588 2 4 byas; Ch. 無爲 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu -wei ]), that which does not depend on another, their thatness of thusness (Skt. tathatā; Tib. de bzhin nyid; Chin. 眞如 [性] [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēnrú (xìng); Wade-Giles, chen -ju (hsing )]) that is realized by wisdom free from the dimness of unawareness. Does it exist or not? If it did not exist, for what purpose would bodhisattvas cultivate the Path of the Pāramitās? Why would bodhisattvas initiate hundreds of difficulties for the sake of realizing the true, absolute nature of phenomena?” Analogous translation in the edition by De La Vallée Poussin (1970: Madhyamakāvatāra par Chandrakirti. Bibliotheca Buddhica IX, Osnabrück: Biblio Verlag), 305.19-306.12. rJe Tsong kha pa cites a Tibetan translation in the Lam rim Chen mo (Dharamsala edition, 416b.6-417a.2; translation in Wayman [1978; Indian ed. 1979, p. 256] cited in Napper [2003, pp. 128-129]; alternative trans. in Tsong kha pa [2002, Vol. III, p. 198]). This does not mean that it is permanent. Since the nature that becomes patent and operative in nonstatic nirvāṇa is the single nature of all entities, it is not defined by exclusion (Skt. apoha; Tib. sel ba; 除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chú; Wade-Giles, ch’u ] or 遮除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēchú; Wade-Giles, che -ch’u ]) or exclusion of other (anyāpoha; Tib. gzhan sel; Ch. 他感排除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tā gǎn páichú; Wade-Giles, t’a -kan p’ai ch’u ]. [Another possibility, though far less likely: 他者的遮除 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tāzhědí zhēchú; WadeGiles, t’a -che -ti che -ch’u )]): it does not have differentiam specificam—or genus proximum, for that matter—and therefore it cannot be said to be either nonimpermanent or not-nonimpermanent. As will be shown in a subsequent chapter, in rDzogs chen the Base, Path and Fruit are more than congruent, for in a sense they are the same: the Path is no other than the repeated disclosure of the Base while on the Path, and the Fruit is attained when the Base is concealed no more. It is said that failure to realize the emptiness of those phenomena that are not persons is an impediment to “omniscience”—which can be realized solely through practice of the Mahāyāna and higher vehicles, and which is a necessary condition for effectively helping others. This will be discussed in the chapter dealing with the Path of Renunciation, sections on the Pratyekabuddhayāna and the Bodhisattvayāna. See the explanation of the etymology of the term rDzogs chen in a previous note, and in particular the explanation of the reasons why rendering rdzogs pa as “completeness / plenitude” emphasizes the ka dag aspect of rDzogs chen, and translating the same term as “perfection” emphasizes the lhun grub aspect of rDzogs chen. In Dudjom Rinpoche (English 1991, vol. I, p. 768), we are told that at the time when the Nepalese Bha ro gtsug ’dzin was to leave Tibet, he offered his teacher, Gu ru Chos dbang (Chos kyi dbang phyug) sixty zho (weight measure corresponding to one-tenth of the Tibetan ounce or srang) of the gold he had gathered as a gold digger in the country. The Master asked Bha ro to mix the gold with barley flour and perform a burnt offering, and then asked him to throw the remains into a nearby rushing stream. According to a different account, as Bha ro did so, Gu ru Chos dbang declared “what should I want gold for, when the whole world is gold for me?” (According to bDud ’joms rin po che [Dudjom Rinpoche, English 1991, vol. I, p. 768], the Master said the ḍākinīs would rejoice in this throwing the gold away.) (The name Bha ro [Newar, bade] refers to the Buddhist priestly caste among the Newars, which in later times had exclusive rights to gold- and silver-work. Dudjom Rinpoche, English 1991, vol. II, p. 72, note 1010 by the translators.) We learn different sets of values in different social contexts or groups, and among the sets of values we learn, one of the worldly ones posits acting in self-interest as the highest value, whereas some religious and ethical ones posit the sacrifice of self-interest for the sake of others as the highest value. However, this is not the place to consider this in detail, and so for the sake of simplicity I decided to pit acting on the basis of self-interest against acting on the basis of learned values. See the preceding note. The self-interference of artists will be greater when they are deemed responsible for their work, and are valued according to the degree of excellence their work attains, for fear of blundering—which, in the terminology of Sartre (1980/1969), is anguish—will instill doubt into the artist, which will make him or her more prone to self-interference. This doubt can be magnified by the exposure to the objectifying, judging gaze of others, which induces the artist to become what those others see as him or her, and, by becoming an object, interfere with his or her subjectivity in the sense of spontaneity (i.e., of “capacity to freely and uninhibitedly act as a subject”). The power of a critical gaze may be so great that even Zen Masters with a relatively high degree of spiritual realization have occasionally been incapable of freeing themselves from the interference that it induces. Consider the following anecdote told in a book on Zen Buddhism by an anonymous compiler (1959, pp. 13-4.): 2 1 2 2 4 258 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 589 3 2 “Master Kosen drew (in Chinese characters) the words ‘The First Principle’ which are carved over the door of Oaku Temple in Kyoto. He drew them with his brush on a sheet of paper and then they were carved in wood. “A student of the Master had mixed the ink for him and had remained standing near him, watching the Master’s calligraphy. This student said, “Not so good!” Kosen tried again. The student said, “This is worse than the last one!” and Kosen tried again. “After attempt number sixty-four, the ink was gone and the student went out to mix some more. Having been left along, without being distracted by any critical eye that might observe him, Kosen made another rapid drawing with what was left of the ink. When the student returned, he took a good look at this latest effort. “‘A masterpiece!’, he said.” Arts can be undertaken as “Paths” (Chinese: dào; Japanese: do) of spiritual realization: as disciplines of action directed toward the achievement of nonaction (Ch. 無為; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles wu wei ; Skt. asaṃskṛta; Pāḷi, asaṅkhata; Tib. ’dus ma byas) or “action that emerges through the spontaneity of the Dào (Ch. 道; Wade-Giles Tao ), without the interference inherent in the intentionality of a seemingly separate subject” (Ch. 為無為; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wéiwúwéi; Wade-Giles, wei -wu -wei ). Those who have established themselves firmly in the Awake state, so that the Dào may flow uninterruptedly through them, will not be affected by the gaze of others and will be able to accomplish masterpieces under the watchful eye of the most critical and fearsome of observers. the paradigmatic expression of phrin las and mdzad pa qua characteristic expressions of the dynamics of the lhun grub aspect of the Base There is the example of a sitar-playing competition between Śākyamuni and a god, where both played unsurpassably. Then the god broke one string and the same did Śākyamuni, and both continued to play unsurpassably. This went on as more strings were broken, until at the end Śākyamuni broke the last string and continued to play unsurpassably, whereas the god was unable to play without strings. Playing without strings is a symbol for unproduced, uncreated, non-fabricated, uncontrived, unintentional, uncompounded and unconditioned (Skt. asaṃskṛta; Pāḷi, asaṅkhata; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無爲 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu -wei ]) performances, which are totally spontaneous (in the rDzogs chen texts, Skt. anābogha or nirābogha, Tib. lhun grub; in Chán Buddhism, ⾃然 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìrán; Wade-Giles tzu jan ) and beyond action (as clearly shown by the Chinese translation of the Skt. asaṃskṛta, which is 無爲 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu -wei ] and which means non-action, free of action or actionless). This term, which refers to the true, original condition of our cognitive capacity, which is inherently nondual, is more or less equivalent, in the rDzogs chen teachings, to the concept of the Base (Skt. āśraya; Tib. gzhi; Chinese: 依止; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn: yīzhĭ; Wade-Giles: i-chih; Korean 의지; Korean transcription: ŭiji; Japanese: エジ; Romaji eji), and especially in the Series of rDzogs chen Teachings of [the Essence or Nature of] Mind (Tib. Sems sde), also to that of mind-of-Awakening (Skt. bodhicitta; Tib. byang chub sems; Ch. 菩提⼼ [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, pútíxīn; Wade-Giles, p’u -t’i -hsin ; Jap. bodaishin]) (note that the Ch. term for “Base” also means place). The difference between the concepts of nature or essence of mind (Skt. cittatā or citta eva; Tib. sems nyid) and mind-of-Awakening, on the one hand, and that of the Base, on the other, is that the latter does not equally emphasize the cognitive aspect—which is correct because, since everything is this true condition and there is nothing that is not contained in it, it could not correspond to one of the opposites in any duality whatsoever and hence it could not be said to be either mental or material. And yet, since all that appears in our experience is mental or experiential, in this sense that condition may be said to be in a sense mental or experiential. As to the meaning of rig pa, as noted in the regular text, the term nature or essence of mind (Skt. cittatā or citta eva; Tib. sems nyid) may be considered to be a synonym of rig pa when the latter term is understood qua Base (as it was used once in the paragraph of the regular text to which the call for this note was affixed). Here I rendered sems nyid as “nonconceptual and therefore nondual Awake awareness” because the Tibetan term refers to our own cognitive capacity understood as the Base of rDzogs chen, and because the etymology of the Anglo-Saxon term “awareness” has, among others, the sense of “being true.” When the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of thought arises in it, giving rise to the illusions of dualism and multiplicity, saṃsāra arises; when the hypostatization / reification / valorization / absolutization dissolve together with the illusions of dualism and multiplicity, as “rig pa's own face” becomes fully patent in the condition of rig pa-qua-Path or rig pa-qua-Fruit, nonstatic nirvāṇa arises. Among the best alternative translations would be terms such as “nature of mind” and “essence of mind,” which correspond etymologically to the Sanskrit terms as well as to the Tibetan one. Other very good alternatives are Base-awareness or “nonconceptual and therefore nondual Awake awareness qua Base.” 2 2 4 2 2 2 266 2 2 4 2 2 2 267 2 590 2 1 Paying attention to the Skt. term citta eva some prefer the translation of the Tib. sems nyid as Mind-as-such, but this writer considers that the etymology of this term does not at all correspond to the meaning of the latter: Mind-as-such logically would be understood to mean mind-qua-mind, which, because the term mind in the rDzogs chen teachings refers to the very core of delusion, could be understood as the very opposite of what the term sems nyid refers to. All combinations of words involving the term “consciousness” seem defective because the prefix “co-” implies duality, and hence they would convey an idea that would be the very opposite of what the term sems nyid refers to. Normally, that which I render as “primordial gnosis” is the Sanskrit term jñāna and its Tibetan equivalent, ye shes: a word composed by the prefix ye, which means “primordial,” and the term shes, which suggests Gnitiveness—a term I coined by deleting the prefix “co” in cognitiveness, because the term’s referent does not involve the subject-object chasm implied by that prefix, even though in that nondual awareness the illusion of the subject-object duality may appear—or a Gnitive event. This is justified because the prefix “ye” in the Tibetan term ye shes means “primordial,” and because the Sanskrit jñāna and the Greek gnosis share the same Indo-European root—and, moreover, the latter was used in some Greek traditions to refer to the cognitive event that, according to those traditions, made the absolute condition patent. Elsewhere I have also used the term gnosis as an alternative translation of the Tibetan word sems nyid, because: (1) The latter contains the term sems, which shows that it deals with a cognitive function, but at the same time refers to the true condition of all phenomena (i.e. what in Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna is designated as “absolute condition”), and (2) The unveiling of that which the Tibetan term refers to, makes the absolute condition patent. The Kunje Gyalpo (Namkhai Norbu & Clemente, 1999 p. 200) reads: “Teacher of teachers, Supreme Source (lit. All-Creating King), I have understood the true nature thus: all phenomena are one in the true nature... The whole animate and inanimate universe composed of the five elements is the Supreme Source. Apart from the Supreme Source, there are no Buddhas or sentient beings, and no animate or inanimate universe or any other phenomenon exists.” For its part, the Nam mkha’ che (cited in Baroetto, 2010, p. 137; the rendering here widely differs from Baroetto’s) reads: “[Each and every thing] being pervaded by the dharmakāya, [the true condition of all phenomena] is one.” For its part, the sPyi bcings (cited in Baroetto, 2010, p. 105; the rendering offered here widely differs from Baroetto’s) reads: “There is the Self. There is no other. There is the total self, [which (is)] spontaneously manifest. In the state of Samantabhadra, since everything is one, there is no other.” Likewise, the lTa ba chos nyid sprin (cited in Baroetto, 2010, p. 106; the rendering offered here widely differs from Baroetto’s) reads: “The sentient beings issued from illusion and the Buddhas issued from realization have the nature of the Self; all without exception are included in the self.” And the rNal ’byor grub pa’i lung (cited in Baroetto, 2010, p. 11; the rendering offered here differs from Baroetto’s) tells us: “The state of Buddha of the total self is Samantabhadra, which contains and unifies all.” However, this does not mean that the rDzogs chen Series of [the Essence or Nature of] Mind falls into the extreme of oneness, as contrary to that of plurality. As stated repeatedly, the rDzogs chen teachings are based awareness of the fact that the true condition, which they call the condition of rDzogs chen, cannot fit into the limits of any concept, which is why they call it “single, sole sphere” (Tib. thig le nyag gcig) and “total sphere” (Tib. thig le chen po). We read in the Khyung chen (cited in Baroetto, 2010, p. 114; the rendering offered here widely differs from Baroetto’s) reads: “The spontaneous gnosis (or gnosis without other) (is) an ever-manifest nonconceptual state just as it (is).” And also (cited in Baroetto, 2010, p. 115 [the rendering offered here widely differs from Baroetto’s]): “The spontaneous gnosis (or gnosis without other) in itself is unrelated to [all] verbal positions.” For its part, the Kun tu bzang po che ba la rang ngas pa (cited in Baroetto, 2010, p. 134; the rendering offered here widely differs from Baroetto’s) states: “No matter how it is explained, [the true condition] is not any [of those explanations]. It is not nothingness, for there (is) the sensibility of responsive [nonconceptual, nondual] mindfulness... It does not fall into eternalism, [for] it involves no conceptual determinations. It does not exist as a single, sole something, for it pervades everything. At the beginning there is no cause [or] creation, and hence at the end it does 268 591 not die or pass away. In the now it is not a real substance, for it does not exist as something permanent or that may be grasped.” And for its part the sGum chung (cited in Baroetto, 2010, p. 145; the rendering offered here widely differs from Baroetto’s) notes: “No matter how many profound words are uttered, they will not accord with the principle.” As will be shown in the discussion of the Path, in rDzogs chen the rūpakāya—the saṃbhogakāya plus the nirmāṇakāya—is known to be inherent in the dharmakāya, so that when the latter is realized and as this realization becomes stable, all kāyas are spontaneously actualized. “Patency n (1656): The quality or state of being patent” (Webster Collegiate Dictionary, 1983 ed.). The term “roaring patency” indicates that in total silence this patency may be accompanied by a roar-like sound, and that all discursive thoughts, which reproduce the sound of words in the “inner sound” (the latter being an auditive-like manifestation of gdangs energy), liberate themselves spontaneously in this roar that is free from the subject-object duality. As shown elsewhere in this book, the three aspects of the Base are: essence (Tib. ngo bo), which is emptiness; nature (Tib. rang bzhin), which is reflectiveness and/or luminosity; and energy (Tib. thugs rje: lit. compassion), consisting in the unobstructed disposition to give rise to phenomena and in the unobstructed, uninterrupted flow of phenomena. In a subsequent section they will be discussed in further detail. As we have seen, the terms rig pa and vidyā may be understood in terms of the concepts of Base, Path and Fruit. If so understood, then ma rig pa and avidyā do not refer to the negation of rig pa / vidyā qua Base (as suggested by their etymology), for qua Base rig pa / vidyā cannot be destroyed or uprooted, but to: (1) The non-operativeness of rig pa/vidyā qua Path and/or qua Fruit due to the activation of the unawareness of the true condition of the Base produced by the factor of stupefaction that obscures the nondual selfawareness inherent in rig pa, preventing it from making patent rig pa’s own face and giving rise to that which could be called “manifest yet inactive saṃsāra,” and (2) Delusion, which on the top of (1) involves the other two types of avidyā posited in the already explained, threefold classification adopted here, and which give rise to active saṃsāra. (As it has been shown, the rDzogs chen teachings prefer to designate rig pa qua Base by other terms.) For a complete understanding of the above, it is necessary to have a good grasping of the concepts of Base, Path and Fruit as used in the rDzogs chen Atiyoga, in the Tantras, and in the Mahāmadhyamaka school of Mahāyāna philosophy. An explanation of the usage of the terms in rDzogs chen is provided in this volume and a more encompassing explanation might be offered in Part Two of this book. An explanation of the usage of the terms in Mahāmadhyamaka (and of some relations between this understanding and that of rDzogs chen and of the Tantras of the Path of Transformation) would be given in the upcoming definitive edition in print of Capriles (electronic publication 2004), provided I complete it. However, the concept of avidyā is best known in the context of the Hīnayāna and the general Mahāyāna, which do not use the concepts of Base, Path and Fruit. At any rate, the reasons offered here could help explains why, in the Tibetan term ma rig pa, the negative prefix is not the one that is used in normal categorical negation. This would explain the reason why in the neutral condition of the base-of-all bliss is experienced, given that pleasure results from acceptance. However, also it is also said that in rig pa there is bliss, and this is actually the case, and yet no type of avidyā is operative in that condition. An explanation would be that bliss is retrospectively conceptualized after avidyā and the ensuing duḥkha have arisen, and in contrast with duḥkha the plenitude, relaxation and so on inherent in these conditions are conceptualized as bliss. Delusion causes us to attribute an enormous—positive or negative—value and importance to some events / phenomena / people, a medium degree of value and importance to others, a very low one to still others, and no value or importance to yet other ones. Although nonpractitioners may think the last possibility is identical to the absence of reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization, this is incorrect, for it amounts to projecting neutral value and as such it is an effect of the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of the contents of thought, relative to the different degrees of value and importance that we attribute to other events / phenomena / people, and thus it is an instance of delusion. In Third Promulgation Mahāyāna sources, in the Cittamātra (Tib. Sems tsam pa) or / and Yogācāra (Tib. rNal ’byor spyod pa) Schools, in the Svātantrika-Yogācāra-Madhyamaka (Tib. rNal ’byor spyod pa’i dbu ma rang rgyud pa) School, in the dbU ma gzhan stong pa (Skt. reconstr. Para[rūpa]śūnyatāvāda Madhyamaka) and/or Mahāmadhyamaka (Tib. bdU ma chen po) Schools, and in many Tantric sources, the term consciousness of the base-of-all (Skt. ālayavijñāna; Tib. kun gzhi rnam [par] shes [pa]; Ch. 阿 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 592 賴耶識 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, ālàiyē shì; Wade-Giles, a -lai -yeh shih ] or 藏識 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zàngshì; Wade1 4 1 4 Giles, tsang -shih ]) refers to the so-called “store consciousness” or “receptacle consciousness” wherein all traces or propensities are stored—which, nonetheless, is not a static storage center or deposit, but a mental stream (Skt. saṃtāna; Pāli santāna; Tib. sems rgyud or rgyun; Ch. 相續 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiāngxù; Wade-Giles, hsiang -hsü ], in general used as ⼼相續 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xīnxiāngxù; Wade-Giles hsin hsiang -hsü ]). (Note that I leave open the possibility that Cittamātra and Yogācāra be regarded as two different schools because of the authors that have used these terms as not being perfect synonyms, and I leave open the possibility that dbU ma gzhan stong pa and dbU ma chen po be regarded as two different schools because I myself sometimes use dbU ma chen po to refer to a view that is not exactly the same as that of dbU ma gzan stong pa.) Nonetheless, in Vasubandhu’s summary of Yogācāra thought, the Triṃśikā (Tib. Sum cu pa), it has a phenomenic or phenomenological sense, for the text in question explains the process that begets the samsaric world of objects in terms of three “transformations of the experiencing process” (Skt. pariṇāma; Tib. gyur) whereby the consciousness of the base-of-all as an experience becomes increasingly conditioned and thus “gradually solidifies into the subject-object dichotomy.” At any rate, in the rDzogs chen teachings the term base-of-all (Skt. ālaya; Tib. kun gzhi; Ch. 来源 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, láiyuán; Wade-Giles, lai -yüan ]), when used alone, also has phenomenal senses that are of pivotal importance in rDzogs chen metaphenomenology—even though, as shown below in the regular text and in endnotes, some of these phenomenal senses are fundamental for the storage and transmission of traces or propensities (e.g. when thought is not reGnized and does not liberate itself as the dharmakāya, a phenomenal instance of the base-of-all follows that functions as the dynamic deposit where the propensity established or reinforced by the thought is “stored”). (For the concept of metaphenomenology cf. Capriles, 2007, Vol. I; 2013abcd and various other works). In the rDzogs chen teachings such phenomenal (phenomenalistic or phenomenological) senses coexist with the more metaphysical ones that are used in the Mahāyāna teachings of the Third Promulgation. Transpersonal psychology has given consistent continuity to the overestimation of indeterminate “peak experiences” fostered by one of the founders of the trend: Abraham Maslow. However, at some point he had the wisdom of warning that for such experiences to be truly valuable they would have to arise in the context of a self-consistent method, and then replaced the concept of “peak experience” with that of “plateau experience”—and yet this failed to solve the problem, for both peaks and plateaus are “highs” and the only difference between them is that a plateau lasts longer. In fact, the theses and proposals of this psychological trend might as well lead people to pursue fabricated / produced / conditioned / induced / compounded states either near the summit or at the very summit of saṃsāra—such as the four formless absorptions—or experiences of the neutral condition of the base-ofall which, as noted in the regular text, belong to saṃsāra rather than being an instance of nirvāṇa, even though in them saṃsāra is not active. All of these are forgeries or counterfeits which, in terms of a phrase that Hegel applied to the wrong object, may be compared to a night in which “all cats are grey”—or, in German, “all cows are black” (alle Kühe schwarz sind). (The translator of the first draft of this book into English warned me that in English the “cat” sentence is used in the context of erotic relations in a “sexist, women-denigrating sense;” however, this is no reason for sacrificing the valuable allusion to Hegel’s statement, which to my knowledge had nothing to do with that context or with that attitude.) However, the rDzogs chen and Tantric Buddhist view of the spiritual and social evolution of humankind are totally contrary to that of Hegel’s, and the same applies to the understanding of the “cow” or “cat” parable by Hegel and the one in this book. For its part, Ken Wilber’s “Integral philosophy and psychology” seems to closely follow Hegel’s view of philogenesis and to be equally confused with regard to spiritual ontogenesis. For a thorough denunciation of the inverted views of Ken Wilber and of the sometimes naïve and simplistic views of the principal transpersonal psychologists cf. Capriles, 2013abcd (Vol. I summarizes my general critique of the best-known authors of the transpersonal field and of Wilber’s “integral” theory; Vol. II presents my exposition of the philosophy and psychology of Awakening; Vol. III contains my detailed critique of the successive “Wilbers” until so-called “Wilber V;” and Vol. IV contains my critique of Grof and Washburn as well as three Appendices: one on the “transreligious fallacy” in Wilber and on Wilber’s noxious philosophical tradition; one on psychedelics; and the last one criticizing Jorge Ferrer’s so-called “participative vision” of spirituality. I had originally summarized my critique of Wilber in this note but then, in order to make the book a little shorter, I decided that the reader interested in that may consult the four tomes of Capriles 2013abcd. 4 4 1 1 4 1 4 2 2 276 593 As stated in a previous note, the clarity or luminosity and thoughtlessness that appears immediately after the unconsciousness that immediately follows one’s falling asleep is an instance of the base-of-all unless its true condition is reGnized—and kLong chen pa asserted that some Sarmapa Masters claim that those who can realize this state and then contemplate in that state enjoy the absolute nature of clarity without any dreams. However, in rDzogs chen practice that which is to be reGnized and on which one must rest during sleep is the second luminosity that shines forth, which is piercing and which is the luminosity inherent in the dharmakāya. The virtuous and nonvirtuous karmas are causes for “good” or “bad” rebirths within the realm of sensuality (Skt. kāmadhātu or kāmaloka; Tib. dod pa’i khams; Ch. 欲界 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yùjiè; Wade-Giles, yü chieh ]). The cause for rebirth in the formless realms (Skt. ārūpyadhātu, arūpaloka or ārūpyāvacara; Pāḷi, arūpaloka; Tib. gzugs med pa’i khams; Ch. 無⾊界 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúsèjiè; Wade-Giles, wu -se -chieh ]) and form realms (Skt. rūpadhātu; Pāli, rūpa loka; Tib. gzugs khams; Ch. ⾊界 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sèjiè; WadeGiles, se -chieh ]), on the other hand, is the karma called karma of immobility (Skt. āninjyakarma / aniñjanakarman; Pāḷi aniñjitakamma; Tib. mi gyo ba’i las; Ch. 不動業 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùdòng yè; WadeGiles, pu -tung yeh ]), which is neither virtuous nor nonvirtuous. The individuals who, instead of integrating into the nondual gnosis of primordial awareness the states produced by the visualization practices applied in the Tantric stage of generation or creation (Skt. utpattikrama; Tib. bskyed rim; Ch. ⽣起次第 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shēngqǐ cìdì; Wade-Giles, sheng -ch’i tz’u ti ]) or by similar practices, cling to those states, thereby may take birth in the heavens of the sphere of form. Likewise, those who, incapable of integrating into the nondual gnosis of primordial awareness the experiences of pleasure that are obtained by means of the practices of the completion or perfection stage (Skt. saṃpannakrama, niṣpannakrama or utpannakrama; Tib. rdzogs rim; Ch. 圓滿次第 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yuánmǎn cìdì; Wade-Giles, yüan -man tz’u -ti ]) of the inner Tantras or similar practices, cling to these states, may gain access to the heavens of the sphere of sensuality. (The two mentioned stages of Tantric practice are explained in the chapter on the Path of Transformation of the Vajrayāna.) According to the rDzogs chen teachings, saṃsāra arises from the absorptions of the base-of-all (Skt. ālaya; Tib. kun gzhi; Ch. 来源 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, láiyuán; Wade-Giles, lai -yüan ]) under the impulse of what is known as self-grasping / self-affirmation / self-preoccupation (Skt. ahaṃkāra; Tib. ngar ’dzin; Ch. 我執 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wǒzhí; Wade-Giles, wo -chih ] or 我慢 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wǒmàn; Wade-Giles, wo -man ]), as follows: (1) we may be led to grasp at the condition of the base-of-all, and thereby enter a formless absorption of the top of saṃsāra; (2) if we are not so led, at the following stage there could arise that which the rDzogs chen teachings refer to as consciousness of the base-of-all (Skt. ālayavijñāna; Tib. kun gzhi rnam [par] shes [pa]; Ch. 阿賴耶識 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, ālàiyē shí; Wade-Giles, a -lai -yeh shih ] or 藏識 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zàngshì; Wade-Giles, tsang -shih ]), to which we are impelled by an incipient drive to grasp at forms, and which could lead us into an absorption of the realm of form; (3) if the process goes on because we do not remain in any of the aforementioned to samsaric realms, we will begin to single out within the as yet undivided totality of sense data, one after the other, a series of collections of characteristics (Skt. lakṣaṇa; Pāḷi lakkhaṇa; Tib. mtshan nyid; Ch. 相 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn. xiāng; Wade-Giles, hsiang ]), establishing ourselves as apparently substantial, subsisting subjects by reacting to those collections of characteristics in ways that assert and confirm ourselves as separate selves—thereby entering the realm of sensuality and revolving in the wheel from one to another of the six realms into which the sphere of sensuality is divided. All of this will be considered in further detail in a subsequent note; for a more detailed explanation, see Part Two of this book and Capriles (2013abcd, 2007a [3 Vols.] and the likely upcoming definitive version of electronic publication 2004). As briefly stated in a previous note, the common teachings of the Sūtrayāna place the formless absorptions and the samsaric formless sphere (Skt. ārūpyadhātu, arūpaloka or ārūpyāvacara; Pāḷi, arūpaloka; Tib. gzugs med pa’i khams; Ch. 無⾊界 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúsèjiè; Wade-Giles, wu -se -chieh ]) at the top of the hierarchy of psychological states; they place absorptions with form and the corresponding samsaric sphere (Skt. rūpadhātu; Pāli, rūpa loka; Tib. gzugs khams; Ch. ⾊界 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sèjiè; Wade-Giles, se chieh ]) in the middle range; and place lowest the absorptions of sensuality and the corresponding sphere (Skt. kāmadhātu or kāmaloka; Tib. dod pa’i khams; Ch. 欲界 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yùjiè; Wade-Giles, yü chieh ]). As evinced by the symbolism of the hat of the Vajra Master (Skt. vajrācārya; Tib. rdo rje slob dpon; Ch. (lit.) ⾦剛阿闍梨 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jīngāng āshélí; Wade-Giles, chin -kang a -she -li ] or (lit.) ⾦ 剛師 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jīngāngshī; Wade-Giles, chin -kang -shih ]), the Vajrayāna’s inner Tantric teachings 277 278 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 279 1 3 4 4 2 3 4 4 280 2 3 2 2 3 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 281 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 594 1 1 1 1 2 2 invert this hierarchy, placing the sphere of sensuality at the top, the sphere of form in the middle, and the formless sphere at the bottom: the brim represents the formless sphere, the crown represents the sphere of form, and the feather—which rises above the crown as an adornment—represents the sphere of sensuality, the phenomena of which are an adornment for the realized Tantrika or rDzogs chen pa. For some reflections in this regard, see Capriles (electronic publication 2007a, 3 vols., and 2013abcd). In Buddhism, there was much discussion as to whether or not in the formless sphere (Skt. ārūpyadhātu, arūpaloka or ārūpyāvacara; Pāḷi, arūpaloka; Tib. gzugs med pa’i khams; Ch. 無⾊界 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúsèjiè; Wade-Giles, wu -se -chieh ]) and the corresponding contemplations there is a genuine and thorough formlessness and by implication a complete dissolution of the figure / ground division. For example, the Mahāsāṃghikas asserted that ārūpa comprised rūpa or figure in a subtle sense. For his part, this writer has claimed that the formless, which actually refers to the states wherein no figure is singledout and hence there is no ground against which it may stand, is established in contrast to the singling-out of figures, and is recognized in terms of hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized concepts as the “general form of the formless” in contrast with the “general form of all that has form.” In Tarthang Tulku (1977a), the limited expansion of space-time-knowledge in the more spacious samsaric realms (i.e. those of the formless sphere) is contrasted to the condition of Total Space-Time-Awareness proper to Awakening. The four absorptions of formlessness and the four levels of the formless sphere (Skt. ārūpyadhātu, arūpaloka or ārūpyāvacara; Pāḷi, arūpaloka; Tib. gzugs med pa’i khams; Ch. 無⾊界 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúsèjiè; Wade-Giles, wu -se -chieh ]) are instances of such limited expansion, which contrasts with the narrower perception of figure as singled out from ground; however, in both cases there is recognition, which always consists in the understanding of a configuration or collection of characteristics (Skt. lakṣaṇa; Pāḷi lakkhaṇa; Tib. mtshan nyid; Ch. 相 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn xiāng; Wade-Giles, hsiang ]) in terms of hypostasized / reified / valorized / absolutized concepts—independently of whether the configuration is a singled-out figure that clearly and precisely stands against a background, or whether it is the above mentioned “general form of the formless.” For its part, the state of Total Space-Time-Awareness is the very dissolution of recognition in terms of hypostasized / reified / valorized / absolutized concepts, and since it does not involve the recognition of either the “general form of the formless” or singled-out forms, it cannot be said either to involve form or not to involve form. In Sartrean terminology, being-for-Self—the mental subject’s being—establishes a link of being with the pseudo-totality that is perceived as object. I did not express this in these terms because readers who are not familiar with Sartre’s philosophy would fail to understand the expression “link of being” without an exhaustive explanation. Therefore, I chose to say “identification,” even though for Sartre this term has a different meaning, and although I have adopted my own version of Sartre’s language in some regards. (For an explanation of the concept of establishing a link of being with an object, see Sartre, 1980, and various of my works; e.g. 2007a Vol. I.) See the preceding note. Both thoughts and the space between thoughts are instances of the essence (Tib. ngo bo) aspect of the Base, which is emptiness. When the stuff of thoughts or other phenomena of the gdangs mode of manifestation of energy is reGnized, so that the ngo bo aspect of the Base is apprehended correctly rather than delusorily, this is the reGnition (of) the dharmakāya. For a more extensive and in-depth explanation of this see Part Two of this book. As stated in previous notes, I write, “identifies with” in order to keep the text simple, but what I refer to is the subject becoming an object through that which Sartre called “establishing a link of being with it.” Other examples would be “all is the undivided energy-field,” “all is the Buddha nature,” “all is the One Mind,” “all is God,” etc. This delusion does not take place exclusively in traditional meditation. In the early seventies, I met an American hippy in the Greek island of Mikonos. One afternoon he told me he was on LSD: marveled and exultant, he constantly repeated in wonder, “All is one,” “all is one.” This seems to be a clear example of how an individual may identify with a subtle thought in terms of which he experienced a condition of larger-than-usual space-time-knowledge and then express the ensuing perception in terms of a series of coarse thoughts of the discursive kind. LSD and similar substances—which in an Appendix to Capriles, 2013d, I christened chemical raisers of the energetic-volume-determining-the-scope-of-awareness that have an epochotropic, non-dissociative, nonhypnotic, potentially “psychotomimetic,” consciousness expanding effect (CREV)—tend to enlarge the scope of conscious awareness and have an effect I have called epochotropic (a neologism compounded 282 2 4 4 2 4 4 1 283 284 285 286 287 595 of the Greek noun epoché [εποχή], usually rendered as suspension of judgment, and the Greek verb trepein [τρέπειν, present active infinitive of τρέπω], here understood in the sense of to tend to): they tend to suspend—i.e., to delay—the interposition of subtle thoughts and judgments in sensory awareness, in such a way as to defer recognition and perception. In general, all sharp increases of the energetic volume determining the scope of awareness (Tib. thig le; somewhat similar to the sense of the Skt. kuṇḍalinī), tend to have an effect of this kind, even though drugs may also produce other effects that are not produced by other ways to raise the energetic volume in question. Thus the increase of the energetic volume and the ingestion of LSD and similar substances, to the extent that they widen the scope of conscious awareness and to the extent that they delay perception, may give access to the neutral base-of-all, in which a contingent, beclouding element of stupefaction (Tib. rmongs cha) obscures the Base’s inherent nondual self-awareness, preventing it from making patent rig pa’s own face as rig pa-qua-Path and rig pa-qua-Fruit. At this point, this obscuring element is what is called rgyu bdag nyid gcig pa’i ma rig pa. The neutral condition of the base-of-all, which is not nirvāṇa, for it pertains to saṃsāra, but in which saṃsāra is not active, often has been taken for rig pa-qua-Path or rig pa-qua-Fruit. This happens immediately after the arising of the second type of avidyā in the threefold classification adopted here, which is called automatically arising illusion (Tib. lhan cig skyes pa’i ma rig pa) and which gives rise to the subjectobject duality, causing us to attempt to take the neutral condition of the base-of-all or rig pa-qua-Base as object—and hence what arises is no longer the base-of-all, but the experience of the formless realms that results from grasping at the base-of-all. If the subsequent arising of the third type of avidyā or ma rig pa, which is the one called imagining delusion (Tib. kun brtags ma rig pa), does not result in the singling out of manifold entities in the continuum appearing as object, and the yogin manages to make the grasping at the continuum in question stable over a long period (which, however, is impossible in the case of individuals under the effect of LSD and similar substances), he or she has become established in a formless absorption (Skt. ārūpyāvacaradhyāna; Pāli arūpāvacarajhāna; Tib. gzugs med na spyod pa’i bsam gtan; Ch. 無⾊界定 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúsèjiè dìng; Wade-Giles, wu -se -chieh ting ]; also Skt. ārūpyasamāpatti; Tib. gzugs med pa’i snyoms ’jug; Ch. same as the former). And, of course, whoever habituates him or herself to the absorptions of the base-of-all or to formless absorptions may subsequently take birth in the formless realms (Skt. ārūpyadhātu, arūpaloka or ārūpyāvacara; Pāḷi, arūpaloka; Tib. gzugs med pa’i khams; Ch. 無⾊界 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúsèjiè; Wade-Giles, wu -se -chieh ]) that lie at the summit of saṃsāra and stay in this realm for periods that subjectively may be experienced as aeons. In the nineteen sixties Alan Watts (1962) wrote that the ingestion of LSD could allow people to “experience” Awakening. He might have been confusing his own LSD-induced experience of the neutral base-of-all (Tib. kun gzhi lung ma bstan) and probably a subsequent formless absorption, with the dharmakāya qua initial occurrence of Awakening / nonstatic nirvāṇa. The point is that, as noted above, when the energetic volume determining the scope of awareness increases sharply, the neutral base-of-all may arise spontaneously with the arising of nonconceptual experiences of pure sensation, without there being a need to apply any dharma method whatsoever. However, the instance of rig pa-qua-Path that takes place upon the reGnition of the dharmakāya that is free from the basic obscuration inherent in the neutral base-of-all and that makes patent rig pa’s own face, is unlikely to occur in the same manner and situation. This is one of the reasons why, as stated in the regular text to which the reference mark for this note was affixed, ‘Jigs med gling pa predicted that in our time many yogins would commit the terrible mistake of taking the neutral condition of the base-of-all for the dharmakāya—which, upon the subsequent arising of grasping and therefore of the second and third aspects or types of avidyā in the most common classification (which are the condition for interpreting the experience as this or that), may be followed by a short-lived formless absorption. Furthermore, once the neutral condition of the base-of-all (which as noted above pertains to saṃsāra and in which therefore nirvāṇa is not operative—but in which, nonetheless, saṃsāra is not active) is taken for rig pa qua Path or rig pa qua Fruit, rig pa qua Base has been taken as object and grasped at (so to speak, for once it appears as object it is no longer rig pa qua Base), and hence what arises is no longer the baseof-all, but a formless condition. Watts might have recognized the condition of the base-of-all, thus turning it into a formless absorption—in which case at the time he would have taken the ensuing samsaric experience for nonstatic nirvāṇa / Awakening. In normal life we feel we are our body, speech, mind, qualities and activities (or one or more of these elements), and so our ego is limited to these aspects of our persons. (The reasons why I say “or one or more of these” should be explained in great detail; since this cannot be done in a note, I might do so in a 2 4 2 288 596 4 4 4 4 possible future book called Meditation on the Selflessness of Human Beings and of Phenomena that are not Human Beings). Conversely, in formless conditions we identify with something much larger than our person: a pseudo-totality that seems to be limitless rather than to have narrow limits. However, both in normal life and in formless conditions, we identify (or, more precisely, establish a link of being) with something we have taken as object, and then pretend there is no difference, distance or duality between the object and the subject. For a more extensive and in-depth discussion of this and in general of the errors of transpersonal and integral psychologies, see Capriles (2013abcd; electronic publication 2007a [3 vols.] or/and the series of papers bearing in their titles the phrase “Beyond Mind.” It was Ronald D. Laing’s disciple, David E. Cooper (1967), who coined the term antipsychiatry, and Laing never applied it to his own system. However, when I use the term in a wide sense I include Laing under the label—a custom that, according to Adrian Laing (1996), was initiated by David Cooper (Ed. 1968) in his Introduction to The Dialectics of Liberation, but which I have observed in other works as well (for example, Boyers & Orrill, Eds. 1971, and, if my memory does not fail, Sedgwick, 1982). I include under the label the Scottish psychiatrist’s associates and those who assimilated his influence: Aaron Esterson, Joseph Berke, Morton Schaszman, Leon Redler, Noel Cobb, James Low, Ross V. Speck, Andrew Feldmár, Douglas C. Smith, David Small, Mina Semyon, M. Guy Thompson, Steven J. Ticktin, Ljiljana Filipović, Steven Gans, Peter R. Breggin, Kevin F. McCready, Peter Sedgwick, etc. And I include under the same label even akin thinkers or therapists having a different filiation—some of whom influenced Laing, some of whom were influenced by him, and some of whom both influenced him and received his influence—such as Gregory Bateson, Jungian Psychiatrist John W. Perry (whose Diabasis had a striking success in the “healing” of psychotics), Michel Foucault, Thomas Szasz, Kazimierz Dabrowski, Jay Haley, Bert Kaplan, Franco Basaglia, Don Jackson, John Weakland, etc. Though I could also include under the label transpersonalists Stan and Christina Grof, and to some extent even Michael Washburn, I follow the custom of referring to them as transpersonal theorists and/or therapists. This is the highest of all four formless realms or concentrations, and as such it is called the “Summit of Existence” (Skt. bhavāgra; Tib. srid [pa’i] rtse [mo]; Ch. 有頂天 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒudǐngtiān; WadeGiles, yu -ting -t’ien ]). The term “beyond perception and lack of perception” that here designates this concentration renders the Skt. naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāsamāpatti (Tib. ’du shes med ’du shes med min gyi snyoms ’jug; Ch. ⾮想⾮⾮想處定 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fēixiǎng fēifēixiǎng chùdìng; Wade-Giles, fei -hsiang fei -fei -hsiang ch’u -ting ]). This term responds to the fact that in this concentration gross discrimination is left behind and only the subtlest of discriminations obtains. In it no sense of good and evil obtains because it is the fruit of the neutral karma of immobility (Skt. āninjyakarma [also aniñjanakarman]; Pāḷi aniñjitakamma; Tib. mi gyo ba’i las; Ch. 不動業 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùdòng yè; Wade-Giles, pu -tung yeh ]). Cf. notes 124 and 125. Laing shared Sartre’s (1980) view that it is consciousness that negates all that it does not want to be aware of, in the same operation negating that it has negated something (and negating that it has negated that it has negated something and so on ad infinitum), or that it is consciousness that deceives itself while in the same operation deceiving itself as to the fact it has deceived itself (and deceiving itself about the fact that it has deceived itself about the fact that it has deceived itself, and so on ad infinitum). Freud developed different explanations in his two successive topics, but Sartre simplistically and imprecisely reduced Freud’s view to the idea that the agent of repression was an entity external to the conscious. For Laing’s explanation see the endnote following next endnote. In systems theory, an autocatalytic / positive feedback loop is a systemic loop whereby a dynamic grows from its own feedback. Consider the diagram of Laing’s spiral of pretenses (Laing, Ronald D. 1961/1969): “Elusion is a relation in which one pretends oneself away from one’s original self; then pretends oneself back from this pretense so as to appear to have arrived back at the starting point. A double pretense simulates no pretense. The only way to “realize” one’s original state is to forgo the first pretense, but once one adds a second pretense to it, as far as I can see, there is no end to the series of possible pretenses. I am. I pretend I am not. I pretend I am. I pretend I am not pretending to be pretending... 289 290 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 4 3 4 4 291 292 293 294 597 4 4 “The positions A and A on the perimeter of the circle are separated by an impermeable barrier which is thinner and more transparent than one can imagine. Begin at A and move towards B. Instead of going back in a clockwise direction to A, continue in an anti-clockwise direction to point A . A and A are ‘so near and yet so far’. They are so close that one says: ‘Is not A just as good as A, if it is indistinguishable from A?’” In the interpretation of the diagram I am making here, point A corresponds to the unveiling of our true condition in the self-reGnition of rig pa. If this is what one values, upon reaching A one will think that one has arrived at A, for one will not be able to admit that what one has reached is no more than its imitation. For its part, point B is our habitual condition marked by delusion, in which we hypostasize / reify / valorize / absolutize the idea that we are the finite, limited entity that is designated by our name, which we believe to be distinct and separate from the rest of the universe. Finally, point A represents those conditions that may be confused with the Awakening represented as A, such as the neutral condition of the base-of-all and, in particular, the states of the formless sphere that is the highest region of saṃsāra (i.e. of experience marked by the delusion called avidyā). Though A is represented as preceding the genesis and development of delusion, as stated in my discussion of the debate between Wilber, on the one hand, and Grof and Washburn, on the other (Capriles, 2013abcd; 2007 Vol. II), the reGnition of rig pa that makes our true condition patent is a wholly new event, rather than consisting in the return to a more wholesome and holistic condition previous to the development of the spurious divisions that characterize deluded adulthood (ordinary individuals have not reGnized rig pa during infancy or in the intermediate state and, in most cases, have not done so in “previous lifetimes” either). Therefore, the diagram should not be thought to represent the chronological development of delusion, but to express its development from a (meta-)phenomenological perspective (for the concept of metaphenomenology cf. the works cited in this paragraph and various works in Spanish). At any rate, it is once we arrive at B and thus feel separate from the totality that is our true condition (or, in terms of twenty-century physics, from the plenitude of the single energy field that the universe is), as a result of which we experience the powerful sensation of “lack of plenitude” discussed in the regular text of this book, that we try to fill that lack by whatever means—which may include spiritual methods. However, since we fiercely cling to the illusion of selfhood and this clinging has been vehemently cultivated by our conditioning, in our attempts to regain totality and plenitude by spiritual means we strive to maintain ourselves as truly existing separate selves; therefore, instead of returning to A, we would rather go ahead to A by becoming (or, less precisely, by identifying with) the conceptualization of the spurious totality produced by a limited panoramification of our focus of conscious attention. Concerning the assertion that the reGnition of rig pa represented as A is a wholly new event rather than the return to a more wholesome condition experienced in the past, it is self-evident that the state of Awake individuals and that of babies are in no way identical. Besides being unable to deal with life situations, babies are beclouded by avidyā in the first of the senses the term has in the threefold classification adopted here (which, as we have seen, is that of the element of stupefaction that in Tibetan is called rmongs cha), and their experience involves a proto-dualism that, as a result of their interaction with their parents and other adults, will develop into the second and third senses of the term avidyā in the threefold classification adopted here. Contrariwise, Awake individuals deal with life situations more effectively than deluded 1 1 1 1 1 1 598 1 adults, for they maintain the learning achieved in the process of socialization and education, but have rid themselves of the self-hindering that issues from the second and third aspects / types of avidyā and hence from the hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized self-consciousness illustrated with the centipede poem. In fact, the constant self-reGnition of rig pa has made them totally free of all types of avidyā or ma rig pa, and hence they have entirely overcome dualism and neutralized (or burned) the seeds at the root of dualism—which means that they cannot be conditioned to develop saṃsāra again. However, as Norman O. Brown (1968) suggested in a different context and without referring to Laing’s diagram (which had not been conceived in 1959 when the first edition of Brown’s book was published), “returning to A” after having become fully conditioned adults may be compared to recovering that which Freud called oceanic feeling (ozeanische Gefühl), as well as the spontaneity and unselfconsciousness that characterizes infants. However, as this happens the avidyā and proto-avidyā that condition the experience of infants gradually dissolve and finally are totally neutralized, and hence the dimension of an Awake individual could hardly be farther removed from that of an infant. (Freud believed the infant’s oceanic feeling implied a sensation of unsheltering and was at the root of religious sentiment, which he viewed as a means to elude that sensation. Though it is true that infants may experience a feeling of unsheltering in the period when their energetic volume determining the scope of awareness has not yet decreased to the levels necessary for adult normal ego-functioning, and the oceanic feeling has not yet been obliterated, this unsheltering is not inherent in the oceanic feeling, but in the developing illusion of being a separate ego or self, as the ocean-like condition does not afford the latter the illusory shelter granted it by the narrow and hermetic focus of attention that is the condition of possibility of normal ego-functioning. Therefore, though I may agree that the feeling of unsheltering is a driving force toward building up a normal Freudian ego, I am appraising the oceanic feeling in a way that is closer to Norman O. Brown’s than to Freud’s.) At any rate, it was on the basis of the panoramic, spontaneous and unselfconscious character of both the experience of babies and the condition of Awake individuals, that the Zhuāngzǐ ( 莊⼦ ; Wade-Giles, Chuang -tzu ) reads (Giles, 1926, quoted in Watts, Alan, 1956): “... (A baby) sees all things all day long without blinking; this is possible because his eyes are not focused on any specific object. He goes without knowing that he goes and stops without knowing what he is doing. He has no idea of separation with regard to his environment and moves along with it. These are the principles of mental health.” (An alternative translation is provided in Watson, B. [trans.], 1968, p. 253, according to which the baby [I replaced “it” with “she or he” in order to emphasize the fact that babies are not things] … “…stares all day long without blinking its eyes—she or he has no preferences in the world of externals. To move without knowing where you are going, to sit at home without knowing what you are doing, traipsing and trailing about with other things, riding along with them on the same wave—this is the basic rule of life-preservation...”) For his part, Dudjom Rinpoche (1979, 2005 [first attempt at translation 1978]) compared the experience of a rDzogs chen practitioner to an infant entering a Tibetan temple for the first time and watching the frescoes in its walls, pillars and so on. To conclude, it must be noted that the explanation in terms of the spiral of pretenses is an exclusively digital interpretation of the process of spiritual ascension to spurious highs based on the interaction of a digital and an analog process (the first of which, in individuals who have not suffered brain damage, is principally associated with the cerebral hemisphere situated on the left, and the second of which, in such individuals, is associated with the right hemisphere). Furthermore, that explanation is allegoric rather than literal, and so it would be absurd to try to establish the number of revolutions involved in any given process of spiritual ascension (as I did in a book published in 1977 in Nepal). For a more detailed discussion of the above, cf. Capriles (2013abcd; electronic publication 2007a [3 vols.] and the series of papers bearing in their titles the phrase Beyond Mind. It is our human sensitivity that makes it possible to establish in a universal way which actions are “good” and which are “bad”—and according to the Buddhist teachings it is the karmas thus established that determine future rebirths. In the Iron Age / the kaliyuga (Age of Darkness or Black Age: Tib. rtsod ldan [gyi dus]; Ch. 爭⾾時 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēngdòu shí; Wade-Giles, cheng -tou shih ]) people internalize a set of mutually conflictive criteria (for example, a Christian priest may tell a boy that he should respond to violence by “offering the other cheek,” but other boys will make it clear to him that the “right thing” to do is to strike back). Though initially most children are bound by the criteria espoused by their parents (which, for their part, change 1 3 295 296 1 4 2 599 from one set of parents to another), later on, according to particular circumstances that probably include both genetic propensities and environmental influences, each individual compounds his or her own synthesis of criteria (and yet in general the first criterion to bind us will continue to exert a crucial influence on us throughout our lifetime). I have discussed this in a series of other works, among which the first were Capriles (1977 and 1986). However, even if we become convinced that, for example, killing rabbits in order to sell their meat is fine, at the moment of killing the rabbit our natural sensitiveness will cause us to be aware that we are causing suffering and harm to a sentient being, and that this is a negative action; therefore, we will accumulate the corresponding negative karma regardless of our cultural conditioning. What makes our actions create a cause that will have effects is that, at the moment of acting, the acting entity designated by our name becomes the object of our own consciousness, and we judge this object as “a subject that is carrying out a good, bad or neutral act.” When we judge ourselves as agents of a good act, we accept ourselves, and since this acceptance embraces all potential objects, including the mental feeling that is experienced with each and every perception or act in the center of the body at the level of the heart, we experience a rather pleasant feeling. When we judge ourselves as agents of a bad act we reject ourselves, and since this rejection embraces all potential objects, we experience an unpleasant feeling. And when we judge ourselves as agents of a neutral act we remain indifferent towards ourselves and hence experience a neutral feeling. Therefore, it is easy to assume that through these judgments we give rise to a good, bad or neutral self-image and to karmic propensities of the same sign—which in the future will cause us to accept ourselves and thereby accept the whole of our experience, experiencing pleasure; to reject ourselves and thereby reject the whole of our experience, experiencing pain; or to remain indifferent toward ourselves and thereby toward the whole of our experience, experiencing a neutral sensation. Furthermore, to a great extent an individual’s self-image determines his or her behavior: if her or his self-image is good according to a given criterion, an individual will tend to have a good conduct according to that criterion; if it is bad, he or she will tend to have a bad behavior; etc. The fact that the criteria in terms of which we judge our actions somehow depend on a synthesis of the criteria of internalized others, rather than on universal abstract norms, does not entail a moral relativism. As stated in the preceding note, even those who are taught that acts that are harmful to others are good, know very well that they are evil, and this knowledge will condition their judgment of their own actions and therefore will determine the karmic result of their actions. This is why it is said that the full ripening of karmas does not necessarily take place in the lifetime when the negative action was committed, or in the one immediately following, or even in the ones closely following this one, but may take place at any time—even many lifetimes after the negative action was committed. It must be noted that one of the contributory conditions for the maturation of a negative karma may be a condition of wider space-time-knowledge in which the mechanisms of self-deceit cannot conceal the full extent of the pain produced by our rejection of sensations. In this condition, the activation of the habits of rejection may be the doorway to a rebirth in the purgatories. Likewise, the presence of certain pathogens may be a contributory condition for a very painful disease to arise. And so on. Both the Hīnayāna and the Mahāyāna shun alcohol. As to meat, the Mahāyāna prohibits its consumption, but the Hīnayāna allows it when put as alms in a monk’s begging bowl—prohibiting only its intentional acquisition by both monks and laypeople. All that according to the higher vehicles and theoretical visions (such as the higher interpretations of Madhyamaka, including Mahāmadhyamaka [Tib. bdU ma chen po]) is fabricated, and/or produced, and/or contrived, and/or conditioned, and/or configured, and/or compounded. In other words, rather than destroying the world of sensa, the point is to destroy our fabricated, and/or produced, and/or contrived, and/or conditioned, and/or configured, and/or compounded perception of the world of sensa. In this case by “concealed,” in terms of the twofold classification of aspects of the Base, I mean that the primordial purity (Tib. ka dag; hypothesized Skt. kaśuddha) aspect, which is emptiness, is obscured, and by “obstructed” I mean that the spontaneous perfection (Skt. anābogha or nirābogha; Tib. lhun grub) aspect is hindered by self-consciousness. In terms of the threefold classification of aspects of the Base, the primordial purity aspect corresponds to essence (Tib. ngo bo, which is one of the terms that renders the Skt. svabhāva), and spontaneous perfection is subdivided into nature (Tib. rang bzhin, which is also one of the terms that renders the Skt. svabhāva), and energy (Tib. thugs rje, which renders the Skt. karuṇā, meaning compassion). These aspects of the Base will be discussed in the explanation of the 297 298 299 300 301 600 Atiyogatantrayāna in the regular text (the word Atiyogatantrayāna pertains to the language of Oḍḍiyāna, for which there are no diacritic marks, for its exact pronunciation has not been scientifically ascertained, yet I used the diacritics for yāna as they would be employed in Sanskrit—in which the term would be Ādiyogatantrayāna). Because of all that has been explained in the regular text, in Capriles, Elías, electronic publication 2004, I noted that, had a rDzogs chen practitioner replied to Shénxiù (神秀; Wade-Giles, Shen -hsiu ; Jap. Jinshū), probably he or she would have written something like the following: Freed from the illusory obstruction introduced by self-grasping (Skt. ahaṃkāra or ātmagraha), the nonexistent primordial mirror’s inherently all-liberating nature is not hampered by an illusory subject’s clinging and so all illusory dust liberates itself spontaneously upon arising. If, contrariwise, one tried to clean the looking glass, this would be a function of ahaṃkāra (self-grasping) that would impede spontaneous liberation, illusorily tainting the looking glass with the fictitious stains such “dirty cloth” would leave on it upon cleaning it. Note that the Tib. for ahaṃkāra is ngar ’dzin, whereas the Tib. for ātmagraha is bdag ’dzin. The Śūraṅgamasūtra is a Mahāyāna sūtra extant in Chinese only (Taisho No. 975) that outside China is widely regarded as apocryphal. Its Chinese name is 大佛頂如來密因修證了義諸菩薩萬行首楞嚴經 (Taisho No. 975; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dà fódǐng rúlái mìyīn xiūzhèng liǎoyì zhū púsà wànxíng shǒuléngyán jīng), though it is more often called by the shorter title 大佛頂首楞嚴經 (dà fódǐng shǒuléngyán jīng), or by the even shorter one, 楞嚴經 (léngyán jīng; Wade-Giles, leng -yan jing ). Chinese Buddhist tradition has it that Śramaṇa Pāramiti from Central India translated it into Chinese in 705, being revised by a Chinese monk and then polished and edited by an ex-minister to Empress Wǔ Zétiān (武則天; Wade-Giles, Wu Tse -t’ien ). As to the claims that the text is apocryphal, some Chinese scholars throughout the centuries declared it to be so. In the west, Leon Hurvitz (1967, p. 482) asserted it to be “a Chinese forgery,” whereas Bernard Faure (1991, pp. 42, 122 n9, 231, 240) declared it to be apocryphal, yet none of them substantiated their assertions. Ronald Epstein (1976) reviewed the arguments adduced for attributing it an Indian or a Chinese origin, and concluded: “...the Sutra is probably a compilation of Indic materials that may have had a long literary history [...] [O]ne of the difficulties with the theory that the Sutra is apocryphal is that it would be difficult to find an author who could plausibly be held accountable for both structure and language and who would also be familiar with the doctrinal intricacies that the Sutra presents. Therefore, it seems likely that the origin of the great bulk of material in the Sutra is Indic, though it is obvious that the text was edited in China. However, a great deal of further, systematic research will be necessary to bring to light the all the details of the text’s rather complicated construction.” Christmas Humphreys (1995) noted that various authors have associated the text with the Buddhist tradition of Nālandā University, and Epstein also made the point that the doctrinal position of the sūtra does as a rule correspond to what is known about the Buddhist teachings at Nālandā during this period. Ron Epstein and David Rounds (2009) have suggested that the major themes of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra reflect the strains upon Indian Buddhism during the time of its creation. They cite the resurgence of tribal influences, and the crumbling social supports for Buddhist monastic institutions. Étienne Lamotte (1999) noted that this era also saw the emergence of Hindu Tantrism and the beginnings of Esoteric Buddhism and the siddha traditions. The idea is that moral challenges and general confusion about Buddhism are said to have then given rise to the themes of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, such as clear understanding of principles, moral discipline, essential Buddhist cosmology, development of samādhi, and how to avoid falling into various delusions in meditation. This may be read in at least two divergent ways. The first is in terms of the Hetuyāna or “causal vehicle” (a term that refers to the Sūtrayāna, to which the Śūraṅgamasūtra and in general all sūtras and their commentaries and treatises belong), according to which Awakening is explained in terms of cause and effect—even though all Buddhist teachings agree that all that arises as the effect of a cause is produced / fabricated / conditioned / contrived and or compounded (Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch. 有為 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ]) and as such is transitory and subject to duḥkha (Pāḷi: duḥkha; Tib. sdug bsngal; Ch. 苦 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn kū; Wade-Giles k’u ; Jap. rōmaji, ku; Kor. ko). The second is in terms of the Atiyogatantrayāna, according to which, to be truly unproduced / nonfabricated / unconditioned / uncontrived and uncompounded (Skt. asaṃskṛta; Pāḷi, asaṅkhata; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 302 2 4 303 2 2 1 3 2 1 304 3 2 1 601 無爲 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu -wei ]), and hence to be irreversible and represent a definitive 2 2 eradication of duḥkha, Awakening has to be entirely beyond the cause-effect relation (however, to some extent the latter view may apply to the Vajrayāna, to the sudden Mahāyāna and to the Mahāmadhyamaka school of the Mahāyāna). In the first context, the Śūraṅgamasūtra should be interpreted as asserting that the cause of Awakening must be the unconditioned and unmade nature of all reality, which alone is not false or spurious. However, effects are by definition produced, and causation always gives rise to something produced / fabricated / conditioned / contrived and or compounded, which as such is false, impermanent and subject to duḥkha. If this sūtra were interpreted in terms of the second context (since the text does not belong to A ti rDzogs pa chen po or to the Vajrayāna, this would be either an interpretation in terms of the sudden Mahāyāna, or one in terms of the Mahāmadhyamaka school of the Mahāyāna), it would amount to stating that Awakening cannot be caused, for otherwise it would be conditioned and made. Even though I have related this second interpretation (which is the perfectly flawless one) to some forms of the Mahāyāna, only A ti rDzogs pa chen po could implement it thoroughly and perfectly. In fact, as expressed in Dudjom Rinpoche, English, 1991, vol. I, pp. 300-301: “The Sugata (Śākyamuni), during the intermediate (i.e. the Second) Promulgation of the transmitted precepts (i.e. of the Sūtrayāna), did not reveal the structure of the fundamental reality, though he did extensively teach the inconceivable, abiding nature (consisting in the dharmakāya’s primordial emptiness) without referring to symbols of elaborate conception. And, during the final (i.e. the Third) Promulgation (of the Sūtrayāna), though he did reveal the structure of the fundamental reality, he did not teach the characteristic Path through which it is actualized. Therefore, the conclusive intention of the two promulgators (i.e. Nāgārjuna and Asaṅga) actually abides without contradiction in the nature of rDzogs chen.” (It must be noted that the reference to Nāgārjuna and Asaṅga as “the two promulgators” seems to suggest that, just as Nāgārjuna revealed the sūtras of the Second Promulgation, which Śākyamuni is said to have left in the custody of the nāgas, Asaṅga revealed the sūtras of the Third Promulgation. However, although I have often found references to Nāgārjuna as a revealer of Śākyamuni’s’s teachings, I have never found any analogous, explicit reference to Asaṅga.) The point that Dudjom Rinpoche was making is that rDzogs chen is the Path of Spontaneous Liberation, in which Awakening, rather than being sought through seeming actions of the illusory, nonexistent nucleus of experience and action, results from the spontaneous dissolution of the illusory nucleus of experience and action and of all that is spurious, conditioned and made, and of the unawareness of the true condition due to a factor of stupefaction that has been going along with the mental stream of sentient beings since time without beginning that is the first type or aspect of avidyā or ma rig pa. As Shabkar put it in The Flight of the Garuda (slightly different translation of the passages in Shabkar, Erik Pema Kunsang, trans. 1993, pp. 33-34): “This nonconceptual and hence nondual Awake awareness itself, unaltered by circumstances and unspoiled by concentration, Is vividly clear and keenly alert. “It is the source of all the Buddhas of the three times. It is the awareness of all the Awake Ones. Never separate from this, you fortunate ones! “Without fabricating or producing [anything], it is spontaneously Awake. How can you say you are not Seeing your awareness, the Awake One? In it there is nothing whatsoever to meditate upon. How can you say that you do not find something upon which to meditate? “This is in itself the vividly manifest nonconceptual, nondual Awake awareness. How can you say you can’t find your mind? This is itself uninterrupted Gnizance [or fully aware gnosis] How can you say you don’t recognize the nature or essence of mind? “In this there is not even the slightest work to do. How can you say you can’t make it happen? It is free from the duality of abiding and nonabiding. How can you say you cannot remain in it? 602 “In this self-abiding awareness the three kayas are spontaneously accomplished without any effort. How can you say you cannot accomplish them through practice? It is sufficient to rest freely in nonaction. How can you say that you cannot do it? “The arising and liberation of thoughts occurs simultaneously. How can you say you cannot apply a remedy? [The remedy] is precisely this current wakefulness.” And as the Rig pa rang shar rgyud of the Series of Pith Instructions puts it (slightly different translation of the passage in Smith, M. 2018, Vol. I p. 190; the interpolations in brackets are mine): “This Great Perfection, Atiyoga, is like the [king of] predator[s], the lion: Secret Atiyoga confirms one’s awareness (of) Truth and conquers inferior vehicles. Arising from itself and dissolving into itself is the meaning of the three kāyas. The great nonmeditation from the nonarising expanse is free from both an object of meditation and a meditator. The self-liberation free from grasping is like the knots of a snake: spontaneously liberating and totally self-purifying.” According to the sources that do not class rDzogs chen Ati as a Path separate from that of the Vajrayāna in general, the rDzogs chen teachings and transmission arose through the saṃbhogakāya Vajrasattva. It is the texts that classify all vehicles into Path of Renunciation, Path of Transformation and Path of Spontaneous Liberation that assert that the canonical sources and transmissions of the Path of Transformation arose through Vajrasattva—i.e., from the saṃbhogakāya—but assert the Tantras and the transmission of the Path of Spontaneous Liberation to have arisen through Samantabhadra—or, which is the same, from the dharmakāya. The discoveries Tucci reported thirty years after his initial association of Oḍḍiyāna with the Swat Valley seem to be most relevant. He (Tucci, 1970, section on Bön, p. 244) writes: “…the tombs at Leh (note by the author of the present book: the capital of Ladakh, in Eastern Kashmir, an area where nowadays Tibetan Buddhism and Shīʿah Islam prevail) (...) as far as their ceramics are concerned appear to stand in clear relation to those which have been uncovered by the Italian Archeological mission in Swat, Pakistan, in the Indus Valley (Francke, 1914, p. 71), burial places which must doubtless be ascribed to Dardic tribes.” Ladakh traditionally included what is nowadays the Indian regions of Ladakh, Lahaul and Spiti, as well as Baltistan, the Indus Valley, Zangskar, Askai Chin, and Gari [including the regions of Rudok and Guge to the East and the Nubra valleys to the North], and thus the findings suggest that Oḍḍiyāna may have been a region ampler than the Swat Valley, which included parts of what culturally may be referred to as Western Tibet (perhaps reaching as far as Mount Kailāśā) and that therefore overlapped with regions that formerly pertained to the Kingdom of Zhang Zhung. In another book, Tucci (1966) suggested that there were trade connections between the ethnic Tibetans and Iranian regions through Badakhshan, Gilgit, Ladakh and West Tibet—and, indeed, Chögyal Namkhai Norbu (2009/2013a) has made it clear that the kingdom of Zhang Zhung embraced from Persia through Western Tibet. At any rate, the above findings suggest that a region far ampler than the Swat Valley and that included at least the greater Ladakh and reached to the Chitral Mountains on the North-West and to Gilgit, was the seat of an ample culture that politically may have corresponded to the kingdom of Oḍḍiyāna. In the Internet, an anonymous text reads (http://yoniversum.nl/dakini/uddiyana.html; retrieved on June 25, 2014; it seems likely that the passage was cited from some published book that was not cited by the person who uploaded the text, but I have not been able to find out whether or not this is so, as there is no indication of the author and by searching extracts with Google no publication by an identified author appears): “The idea of Uddiyana being the name of a large region rather than of a small valley, actually reiterates information published 100 years earlier by Laurence Austine Waddell in his Buddhism of Tibet (New York: Dover Publishing, 1895; reprinted in 1972 as Tibetan Buddhism). Although Waddell writes twice that Uddiyana equals Swat, he also noted in a footnote (3) that from the extent assigned to it by Hwen Tsang, the name probably covered a large part of the whole hill region south of the Hindu Kush, from 305 306 603 Chitral to the Indus, as indeed it is represented in the Map of Vivien de St. Martin (Pélerins Bouddhistes, ii.) … “…Whereas many a Tibetan text simply locates Uddiyana by saying that it lies to the West of India, Patrul Rinpoche (b. 1808) provides us with more detail when describing the birth place of dGa’ rab rdo rje not simply as ‘Uddiyana’ but as being close to Lake Kutra in the region of Dhanakosha; thus indicating present day North-eastern Kashmir (now Pakistan)—a region right in the middle between Chitral, Gilgit and Swat. [Patrul Rinpoche, revised ed. 1998, pp. 338-339] … “…Taking this view of Uddiyana and projecting it in the form of map (…) one arrives at a very interesting image. Uddiyana thus becomes the uniting name for the whole region along the length of the Indus River for as long as it stays in the mountains. Starting with the river’s multiple sources near Mt. Kailas, passing through Zhang-Zhung, Lahul and Spiti, crossing Kashmir with Zanskar on the left and Ladakh on the right before moving into Gilgit; the Indus turns South just before reaching Chitral. From here onwards, the river becomes the natural (Eastern) border of the Swat valley (the ancient capital was near present day Mingora) until its waters leave the mountains and reach the low and fertile plains that much earlier gave rise to the Indus Valley civilization (Harappa, Mohenjo Daro) as well as the later Buddhist kingdom of Gandhara.” The above suggests that the land that later on became Oḍḍiyāna had both culturally and religiously pertained to Zhang-Zhung, and that Oḍḍiyāna was the source of the culture and religion of the Harappan-Dravidian civilization—thus lending weight to Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu’s thesis that Śaivism derived from Bon po rDzogs chen. As John Reynolds (1996, p. 349, n.2) reports, S. E. Upāsaka (1990) “compiles evidence for clearly locating Uddiyana in eastern Afghanistan.” Therefore, we cannot exclude the possibility that Oḍḍiyāna was an eastern region of today’s Afghanistan… although it seems more likely that the author in question mistook remains of the Kingdom of Shambhala—which according to both Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu and Giuseppe Tucci (personal communication by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu) was located in Afghanistan—for those of Oḍḍiyāna. However, it is also possible that Oḍḍiyāna extended to the West as far as Eastern Afghanistan, as suggested in the regular text right before the reference mark for this note. The declared aim of this Path is the realization of absolute truth. In the Mahāyāna, most systems identify absolute truth with the twofold emptiness (that of persons and that of phenomena other than persons); nevertheless, the Prāsaṅgika subschool, summit of the coarse, outer Madhyamaka, does not reduce the absolute to mere emptiness. For its part, the Mahāmadhyamaka School, and in general all of the subtle, inner Madhyamaka, understands absolute truth to lie in the inseparability of emptiness and appearances (or, in the case of the gZhan stong pa School, when I class it as a school different from Mahāmadhyamaka, as that of emptiness and awareness). However, according to the rNying ma pa, the Dzogchen Community and this author, the Path that allows the individual to effectively attain this realization is not that of the Mahāyāna, but that of A ti rDzogs pa chen po. According to interpretations of the Madhyamaka Prāsaṅgika school, it is impossible to have a genuine realization of the emptiness of human beings if one does not realize the emptiness of phenomena that are not human beings, which include the aggregates the interaction of which gives rise to the illusion that human beings exist as selves and do so hypostatically or inherently. According to the rDzogs chen teachings, the Base has three aspects. The ngo bo aspect is emptiness and corresponds to the mind aspect of the individual; in fact, its correct apprehension is the dharmakāya, which is the “mind” aspect of Buddhahood. The rang bzhin aspect may be said to be clarity or luminosity, source of all experience, which corresponds to the voice or energy aspect of the individual; its correct apprehension is the saṃbhogakāya—the voice or energy aspect of Buddhahood. The thugs rje aspect is the unobstructedness of appearances and the uninterrupted manifestation of appearances, and comprises all manifest, yet nonexistent phenomena and corresponds to the body aspect of the individual; its correct apprehension is the nirmāṇakāya, which is the body aspect of Buddhahood. The illusory experiences (Tib. nyams—a term the referent of which is roughly equivalent to that of what Chán / Zen calls demonic states [Ch. 魔境: Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, mójìng; Wade-Giles, mo -ching ; Jap. makyo] and that of what Ṣūfīsm calls ḥāl [pl. aḥwāl])—of emptiness are said to be the characteristic experiences of the mind aspect of the human reality; the illusory experiences of clarity are said to be the characteristic experiences of the energy or voice aspect of the human reality; and the illusory experiences of sensation are said to be the characteristic experiences of the body aspect of the human reality. Therefore, though it is said to be with the mind that Tantric practitioners apply the concentration / visualization whereby they transform or modify their vision, with regard to experiences it may be said that vision, which is a function 307 308 309 310 311 2 604 4 of clarity, is a function of our energy. Furthermore, the transformation of vision that is the essence of the Path of Transformation consists in perceiving ourselves and the whole of our dimension as saṃbhogakāya deities in their dimension (in particular, as the saṃbhogakāya deity that manifested to the mahāsiddha who introduced into the human world the Tantric teaching we are practicing). The original mahāsiddha was in the state in which the true condition of the level of energy or voice (Skt. vak; Tib. gsung) is realized, and for our transformation to become actual realization, we must find ourselves in the same state. Thus the visions of this Path arose from the realization of the true condition of the level of energy and are a method whereby practitioners can achieve this realization. (In Tibetan, the term gsung refers to the voice and corresponding aspect of Buddhahood; the voice and corresponding aspect of the existence of a sentient being trapped in saṃsāra is referred to by the term ngag.) (As will be shown here, the English term energy is used to translate various words. In the context of Tantrism it is used mainly for rendering the Tibetan term rlung, which refers to the circulation of energy through the “pathways” described in Tantric systems, and in general for referring to the “energy” aspect of our condition, represented as the “voice,” which is the sense in which it is being used in this note and in the discussion to which this note was appended. However, some authors have also used it to translate the Tibetan term thig le, one of the senses of which designates the basic energy of which rlung is a dynamic instance. In the context of the rDzogs chen Atiyoga, as already noted, Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu [who I follow also in this regard] uses the term for translating the Tibetan term thugs rje, which literally means compassion, and which consists in the unobstructed (Tib. ma ’gags pa) and all-pervasive (Tib. kun khyab), uninterrupted (Tib. ma ’gags pa) flow of phenomena and the latter’s functionality— independently of whether these pertain to the gdangs, the rol pa or the rtsal modes of manifestation of energy. While the first terms translated as energy (rlung, ngag and gsung) are mainly related to the aspect of the voice, the next (thig le) corresponds in an important sense to the mind, and the last (thugs rje) corresponds to the body. However, in a very specific sense, it may be said that the voice or energy is a derivate or function of the mind, and that the body is a derivate or function of the voice or energy. And, more important, body, voice/energy and mind are derivates arising by virtue of compassion or thugs rje, a term that, as just noted, Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu renders as “energy.”) As stated in the preceding note, here reference is being made to the level of energy in the sense in which the word is used when one talks about the body, energy or voice, and mind, rather than in the sense the word has when one talks about essence (Tib. ngo bo), nature (Tib. rang bzhin) and energy (Tib. thugs rje). Before invading the Indian subcontinent, the proto-Indo-European peoples had a three-tiered cast system; however, after their conquest of the Indian subcontinent and their crossbreeding with the peoples that at the time populated the region (namely the Dravidians and the various kinds of ādivāsi or first inhabitants) they introduced a fourth caste into their social system, probably in order to turn those who had a lesser proportion of proto-Indo-European blood into servants and agricultural providers. Thus the highest caste was that of the Brahmins (Skt. Brāhmaṇa), which conformed the priesthood, thereby having the highest privileges without having the duty to fight wars. The immediately inferior caste was that of the Kṣatriyas, who constituted the political and warring class (i.e. the “nobility”). Then came the Vaiśyas, who were traders and artisans. Finally there came the Śūdras, who had a very small proportion of Indo-European blood and who were farmers and servants. Those who had no proto-Indo-European blood were the tribal ādivāsis, whereas those born from the union of father and mother of different casts—i.e. from unions that were deemed illegitimate—were declared untouchables (Skt. amedhyaṃ) and divided into subgroups according to the casts of father and mother—each subgroup in charge of one of the tasks that caste people needed them to perform because of being deemed too base and/or contaminating. In fact, according to the Ṛgveda (X. 90), Brahmins issued from the mouth of Puruṣa, the universal soul and divinity; Kṣatriyas arose from Puruṣa’s arms; Vaiśyas were formed from Puruṣa’s thighs; and Śūdras arose from Puruṣa’s feet. The ādivāsis, having no proportion of Indo-European blood whatsoever, and the untouchables, being born of unions deemed illegitimate or being the descendants of people born of unions deemed illegitimate, did not arise from any of the parts of Puruṣa’s body and hence were thought to lack the capacity to attain spiritual realizations and to be unfit for traditional religious activities. Orthodox Hindu traditions regard the Brahmins as having the highest spiritual capacity, followed by the Kṣatriyas, and then by the Vaiśyas—all of which had the option of devoting themselves to the spiritual quest upon reaching the age at which they were deemed to have fulfilled their “social dharma” duties. The Śūdras were deemed incapable of attaining spiritual realizations and hence they were forbidden to 312 313 605 devote themselves to the spiritual quest at any time of their lives—and, of course, the same applied to dalits (meaning “oppressed,” this label is used by the so-called untouchables to characterize their situation as an oppressed social group, in contrast with the term Gandhi coined for them, which was harijan[aḥ] or “child of god”—which they deemed to be patronizing and outright contradictory, for, as shown above, according to the Ṛgveda they were one of the groups who had not arisen from the divinity and hence lacked the “presence of the divine” in themselves). However, as shown in the regular text, the nondual spirituality of India did not come through the barbarian Indo-European invaders; it seems to have come through the Tibeto-Burmans living on the plateaus and slopes of the Himalayas and the Dravidians who seemingly received transmission and teachings from the Tibeto-Burmans and spread those teachings and transmissions in their civilization. In fact, the pre-IndoEuropean Indian religion was Śaiva and, rather than being antisomatic, it deemed corporeal reality, including the body and its impulses, to be sacred, and to be a vehicle for the realization of the divine. The Indo-Europeans, on the contrary, were anti-somatic and sternly repressed the Śaiva bacchanalia as a threat to the continuity of their cast system and hence to their own political, social and economic power—for whoever was born of one of the unions that took place in them was excluded from the caste system and declared untouchable. In India, Tantrism represented a revival of pre-Indo-European traditions, and therefore the prejudices and antisomatism of the Brahmins made the latter least apt to practice Paths such as that of transformation and that of spontaneous liberation. The Kṣatriyas were deemed to be slightly more apt to practice these Paths, the Vaiśyas more so—and the Śūdras were deemed aptest among caste Indians. Though some mahāsiddhas, such as the great Sarahapāda and a few others, came from Brahmin families, it was often among those untouchables that cast people deemed to be of the lowest type (the caṇḍālas and caṇḍālīs, born from a Śūdra father and a Brahmin mother, who were in charge of the disposal of corpses), among other groups of “untouchables,” or in many cases among Śūdras, that there arose the greatest mahāsiddhas and realized beings. This inversion of the traditional caste-structure by Tantrism was reflected in the latter’s appraisal of the spiritual capacity of the members of the different castes. With regard to the classification of the Tantras into four vehicles taught by the Sarmapa in Tibet, an unpublished manuscript by Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu translated by Adriano Clemente states: “In the Shes bya kun khyab (Jamgön Kongtrul’s Encyclopædia of Knowledge) we read: “‘There are four types of disciples of the Buddha: (1) those who appreciate to a greater extent external practices such as purification and ablutions, who desire to practice the Teaching in this way; (2) those who are more interested in the real meaning and less in external actions; (3) those who understand that external actions can be a source of distraction, and therefore devote themselves principally to meditation on the real inner meaning; and (4), those who rejoice in the enjoyments through the nondual wisdom of method and prajñā. “‘When these four types of disciple receive a Teaching, they become respectively followers of (1) Kriyā[tantra], (2) Ubhaya[tantra] [or Cāryatantra], (3) Yoga[tantra], and (4) Anuttarayogatantra. “‘To transmit the Teaching to the four types of disciples in accordance with their inclinations there have therefore been imparted teachings related to the four types of Tantra: to those who feel greater attachment and lust, and who in the Hindu tradition are followers of the god Śiva, the method of the Anuttaratantra was transmitted; to those who are conditioned by anger, who in the Hindu tradition are followers of the methods linked to Viṣṇu, the method of the Ubhayatantra was taught; to those who are more obscured by ignorance, who traditionally follow the methods linked to Brahmā, the Kriyātantra has been taught; to the individuals with undefined characteristics the Yogatantra was taught. These considerations are explained in the De nyid ’Dus pa, which contains the way of seeing of Masters such as Nāgārjuna, Rab ’byor bskyans and others.” “And furthermore: “‘The (Anuttarayogatantra titled) Dur khrod smad du byung ba rgyud maintains that in order to discipline Brahmins, Kṣatriyas, Vaiśyas and Śūdras with the Teaching, and to carry them onto the Path, the four series of Tantras were transmitted, namely the Kriyā[tantra], Ubhaya[tantra or Cāryatantra], Yoga[tantra] and Anuttara[yoga]tantra(, respectively). “‘The (Tantra titled) rDo rje gur (mkha’ ’gro ma dra ba rdo rje gur zhes bya ba’i rgyud kyi rgyal po) states: “‘To those with an inferior capacity the Kriyātantra was taught. “’To those with a medium capacity the Ubhayatantra was taught. “’To those with a superior capacity the Yogatantra was taught. 606 “’To those with a supreme capacity the Anuttara[yoga]tantra was taught’.” The principle of Anuyoga is instantaneous visualization, rather than the gradual visualization that is the principle of other, lower Tantric vehicles, including both the Mahāyoga of the rNying ma pa and the Anuttarayogatantra of the Sarmapa. In a situation like the one described here, only an instantaneous, lhun grub visualization will do, for in an unforeseen situation we cannot sit down in order to develop a visualization step by step: we have to transform instantaneously and sustain the visualization with the passion’s energy (in this case, the anger’s), or else the method will not work. Furthermore, it is likely that the passion would not allow us to concentrate on the successive steps of the gradual process, and if we succeeded in so doing, this would mean the passion has already subsided and thus we no longer have a passion to transform. Even if they do not harm their present body during the fight, and if they do not go to jail because of fighting or because of harming the opponent, they will harm themselves because they will create bad karma that will have negative effects for them in the future. The heat may arise spontaneously if the consort is the right one and the couple receives the blessings of the Base that is the Buddha-nature as actuality (Wirlichkeit) through the blessings of the Master and the lineage, or forcefully through the application of yogic practices involving the retention of breath in the Vase-breathing (Skt. kumbhaka; Tib. bum can, rlung bum can or srog rtsol bum can nyams len), in combination with the application of the muscular contractions called bandha in Sanskrit (Tib. bcing ba) and practices with energy channels/configurations, energy winds and energy potential / energetic volume determining the scope of awareness (Skt. nāḍī-prāṇavāyu-bindu; Tib. rtsa-rlung-thig le). Note that in rDzogs chen, and in particular in the Upadeśavarga or Series of Pith Instructions, clarity—and in general all three main experiences—is not the same as in the Tantras of transformation. Whereas in the latter a visualization, a vision, a perception of auras around objects, or even an enhanced perception of the “physical” phenomena of rtsal energy is regarded as clarity, in the Upadeśavarga—and in particular in the sNying thig teachings—“clarity” refers to the clarity of the patency of rig pa (which is more potent when a high energetic volume determining the scope of awareness [Tib. thig le] is operative). As ‘Jigs med gling pa expresses it in The Lion’s Roar (Seng ge nga ro; Skt. Siṃhanāda): “Clarity, or clear light, is the unobstructed shining forth, as rig pa-awareness, of the clarity of rig pa’s potentiality [manifesting with total] energy, untainted by hindrances such as fogginess or dullness. It is not the arising through the avenues of perception of apparent objects such as shapes, colors and so forth.” The above is a free rendering after taking into account the translation by sKyabs rje gDung sras Phrin las nor bu (2015, p. 81)—who as noted in the Introduction was one of my principal teachers and a principal root of my rDzogs chen practice—as well as the one by David Christensen in Nyoshul Khenpo (2015, p. 142) and that by Sam van Schaik (2004, p. 229). ’Jigs med gling pa makes it clear that in the same context pleasure excludes the pleasure that depends on causes and conditions, including a consort’s body and energy. And emptiness excludes induced experiences of emptiness. In fact, in the rDzogs chen Series of Pith Instructions, and in particular in the Nyingthik, bliss, clarity/luminosity and emptiness are occurrences inherent in, or aspect of, the spontaneous, uncontrived, clear patency of rig pa. In fact, in rDzogs chen, emptiness, clarity or luminosity, and emptiness, are inherent in the Base, Path and Fruit of rDzogs chen, and hence in Buddhahood in act rather than in potency—and, as such, they can only be unproduced / nonfabricated / unconditioned / uncontrived and uncompounded (Skt. asaṃskṛta; Pāḷi, asaṅkhata; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無爲 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu -wei ]). Therefore, they cannot be dependently arisen: they cannot include the pleasure that depends on contact with a body or on yogic practice, or the experiences of luminosity or clarity induced by yogic means, or the experiences of emptiness produced through contrived practices. Coarse metals represent the passions and gold represents Awakening: the very examples that illustrate this Path show that its basic principle lies in transforming something (coarse metals) into something totally different (gold), rather than in directly discovering the true condition and nature (Tib. gshis) of what seemed to be “coarse metals” but which is actually gold (where gold represents total plenitude [rDzogs chen], the illusory loss of which as a result of the arising of the first two aspects of types of avidyā in the classification privileged in this book, together with the perception of an object that is the essence of the third type of avidyā, is at the root of the projection of value on objects, according to the extent to which we feel that their possession or enjoyment will fill the ensuing lack of plenitude). As will be shown below in the regular text, the direct discovery of the golden nature of coarser metals, rather than the transformation of coarse metals into gold, is the principle of the Path of Spontaneous Liberation. 314 315 316 317 2 318 607 2 For its part, as will be shown in a subsequent note, the risk involved in the “alchemic process” of the Path of Transformation in the strictest sense of the term, is illustrated with the use in the alchemical process of mākṣika mercury (a mercury compound used in the Tibetan, Āyurvedic and Chinese medical systems for the preparation of alchemical medicines, and which some texts associate, or compare, with pyrite): its application would be extremely risky for those who lack the necessary qualities. The Skt. term amṛta refers to the condition for the passions to be transmuted into primordial gnosis on the Path of Transformation. It is related to the energetic volume determining the scope of awareness (Tib. thig le, when this term is understood in a sense that is somewhat similar to that of the Skt. term kuṇḍalinī), and hence in inner Tantras of the Path of Transformation, from the standpoint of the male, it is represented with human semen—which, however, rather than being the thig le itself, is the thig le’s material support (however, when five amṛtas are referred to, semen is only one of them, and the symbolism expressed here does not fully apply). Reference is often made to a “nectar medicine or elixir” (bdud rtsi sman), or to a “nectar elixir or medicine of attainment” (bdud rtsi sman grub), which may have different levels of meaning. Qua Base, rak ta consists in the passions that are to be transmuted into Awakening and that are compared to the firewood on which the fire of wisdom depends; qua Fruit, it represents Awake involvement in the world that gives rise to a limitless flow of Awake, selfless, actionless activities. As stated in a previous note, the Yogācāra School, as well as the Madhyamaka Svātantrika School, assert the absolute truth and final realization of the Sūtrayāna to be emptiness. However, according to Mahāmadhyamaka, the absolute truth and final realization of the Sūtrayāna is the indivisibility of emptiness and appearances. A detailed explanation of this may be offered in the possibly upcoming definitive version of Capriles (electronic publication 2004). According to the sources that do not class rDzogs chen Ati as a Path separate from that of the Vajrayāna in general, the rDzogs chen teachings and transmission arose through the saṃbhogakāya Vajrasattva. Only the texts that classify all vehicles into Path of Renunciation, Path of Transformation and Path of Spontaneous Liberation, do assert canonical sources and transmissions of the Path of Transformation to have arisen through Vajrasattva—i.e., from the saṃbhogakāya—and the Tantras and the transmission of the Path of Spontaneous Liberation to have arisen through Samantabhadra—or, which is the same, from the dharmakāya. The Base dharmakāya is, generally speaking, the emptiness that (is) the true condition of all entities, no matter whether this true condition is concealed in saṃsāra or unconcealed in nirvāṇa. However, in the rDzogs chen Series of pith instructions the dharmakāya is the true condition of the gdangs form of manifestation of the Base’s (Skt. āśraya; Tib. gzhi; Ch. 依⽌ [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn: yīzhĭ; Wade-Giles: i -chih ]) energy aspect (Tib. thugs rje, which renders the Skt. karuṇā, meaning compassion), which (is) the form of manifestation of energy that (is) the stuff of thoughts, memories, fantasies and in general all mental phenomena. When the true condition of that form of energy is reGnized, that (is) the Path dharmakāya. And when the manifestation of the dharmakāya becomes irreversible and uninterrupted, that (is) the Fruit dharmakāya. Therefore, it could be said that in this context gdangs energy, independently of whether or not its true condition is realized, (is) the Base dharmakāya. However, as noted in the regular text, normally the Sanskrit term dharmakāya and its Tibetan translation, chos sku are used solely to refer to what in this endnote is called Path dharmakāya and what is called Fruit dharmakāya. Therefore, if the terms are used to refer to gdangs energy independently of whether or not the true condition of this energy is unconcealed, it is essential to make it clear that the term Base dharmakāya (is) used to refer to that energy either when its true condition (is) concealed, or independently of whether or not it is concealed or unconcealed—and that, therefore, the term Base dharmakāya should be used only when the Base dharmakāya is contrasted with the Path dharmakāya and Fruit dharmakāya. Dualistic delusion always involves tensions, which are inherent in the hypostatization / absolutization / reification / valorization of supersubtle thoughts and the ensuing subject-object duality, and of subtle thoughts and the ensuing illusion of self-existence or substantiality. That it depends on the subject-object duality is due to the fact that a conscious entity can only pull or push in a direction opposite to that in which an animate or inanimate force is pulling or pushing, if it feels itself to be separate from this force. That it depends on the illusion of self-existence / substantiality is due to the fact that if one does not conceive a self-existent self and a self-existent alien entity or force, one cannot oppose or pursue that entity or force. These are the reasons why no degree of tension whatsoever can arise when all aspects or types of avidyā instantly dissolve and the nondual true condition of all phenomena becomes perfectly patent, and why this dissolution of avidyā and instant discovery of the nondual true condition of all 319 320 321 322 1 323 608 3 phenomena results in a sudden, absolute relaxation of body, speech and mind, in a way that has been compared to the fall of firewood sticks when the rope tying them breaks. (Of course, whenever opposing animate or inanimate forces may be necessary in order to benefit beings, totally Awake individuals can do so beyond action; however, in this case, rather than doing so out of delusion, they would do so as a function of spontaneous compassionate responsiveness, totally in the absence of the famous threefold directional thought-structure.) On the Path of Transformation the sequence in which the kāyas are realized is said to be nirmāṇakāyasaṃbhogakāya-dharmakāya-svabhāvikāya (where the latter term refers to the inseparability of the three kāyas). However, as stated in a previous note and as will be shown below in the regular text, according to the teachings of the Path of Spontaneous Liberation, rDzogs chen Atiyoga, the final realization on the Path of Transformation, which the latter calls svabhāvikāya, corresponds to the initial disclosure of rig pa that the rDzogs chen teachings refer to as Direct Introduction and which is the very outset of the Path in this vehicle, for only after having had this initial glimpse of realization can one begin treading this Path in the true sense of the expression. And this means that in a sense the Path of rDzogs chen Atiyoga begins exactly at the point at which the Path of Transformation ends: the Path of Spontaneous Liberation goes much further than the Path of Transformation, for it allows practitioners to consolidate the realization of the true, genuine dharmakāya and then, through its incomparable, exclusive use of the Base’s spontaneous perfection / spontaneous arising / spontaneous rectification / spontaneous accomplishment (Tib. lhun grub) aspect, with the emphasis on its energy (Tib. thugs rje) aspect—and in particular through the selfrectifying dynamics of the rol pa mode of manifestation of energy—to expand this realization, so as to realize the true saṃbhogakāya and the true nirmāṇakāya, therefore allowing the true svabhāvikāya to consolidate. However, some Tantras of the rDzogs chen Series of Pith Instructions (such as the Rig pa rang grol rgyud and the Mu tig phreng ba’i rgyud; cf., e.g., Smith, Ā.M. 2018a, Introduction, pp. 10-11]) assert the kāyas to be realized in the same sequence as on the Path of Transformation—and yet to do so successively as the first three visions of thod rgal (or the yang thig). Since the realizations of these two practices are far more advanced than all realizations obtained on the Path of Transformation, it is clear that the kāyas featured in the rDzogs chen teachings—both those discussed in most of the paragraphs of this note, which correspond to the true condition of the three forms of manifestation of energy, and those featured in the just mentioned Tantras—are not the same as the ones referred to on the texts of the Path of Transformation, but constitute far more advanced realizations. At any rate, even though both presentations seem mutually contradictory, both are correct: the Rig pa Rang grol’s and the Mu tig phreng ba’i rgyud’s presentation of the kāyas is a fully correct presentation of the sequence of rDzogs chen realization that has the great value of being in agreement with lower vehicles in what regards the presentation of the kāyas, and the seeming contradiction between the sequence dharmakāyasaṃbhogakāya-nirmāṇakāya and the sequence expressed in the two Tantras just mentioned simply emphasize different meanings and aspects of the three kāyas. In fact, in various Mahāyāna sources it is explained that ordinary beings and bodhisattvas on the lower levels are only aware of the nirmāṇakāya; that bodhisattvas on the higher levels are aware of the saṃbhogakāya; and that only Buddhas are aware of the dharmakāya. This explanation is perfectly sound in the context of the meaning that the kāyas have on the Mahāyāna Path and of the sequence of realization of those kāyas on the Path in question. However, people who give priority to the Mahāyāna, unaware that the names of the kāyas in rDzogs chen refer to something different, and definitely higher, than on the Mahāyāna, upon learning that the supreme realization on the Path of Atiyoga is the nirmāṇakāya, are likely to view rDzogs chen as a lower Path. Therefore, instead of understanding that the Path of Atiyoga leads much further than that of the Mahāyāna and than those of the Tantras of Transformation, and that on that Path the names of the kāyas refer to something different and certainly higher than on the Paths of Renunciation and of Transformation, they might disparage the rDzogs chen teachings and Path. The explanation in the Rig pa rang grol and the Mu tig phreng ba’i rgyud according to which the first vision of thod rgal and the yang thig is the nirmāṇakāya; the second vision of thod rgal and the yang thig is the saṃbhogakāya; and the third vision of thod rgal and the yang thig is the dharmakāya—even though most Tantras of the Series of Pith Instructions are full of references to the sequence dharmakāyasaṃbhogakāya-nirmāṇakāya: also the Rig pa rang shar rgyud presents the names of the kāyas in this order throughout the text; in particular, Ch. 11 discusses the dharmakāya; Ch. 12 discusses the saṃbhogakāya; and Ch. 13 discusses the nirmāṇakāya—making it clear that the latter two are functions of Buddhahood that arise from the realization of the dharmakāya. 324 609 (For example, in the sGra thal ’gyur rtsa ba’i rgyud or Reverberation of Sound Root Tantra, which is asserted to be the most ancient Tantra of the rDzogs chen series of Pith Instructions, it is said that the view of rDzogs chen is Prāsaṅgika-Mādhyamaka; however, the label Prāsaṅgika-Mādhyamaka seems to have arisen in Tibet toward the beginning of the second millennium CE, and hence, if it is correct that the label arose in Tibet at that time, it will seem that the rDzogs chen Tantras received later interpolations. And, in this case, the same could have been the case with the sequence of realization of the kāyas in the Rig pa rang grol.) See the preceding note. As already noted, the systemic, positive feedback loops that are activated when contradiction turns into conflict, and which result in the spontaneous liberation of both contradiction and conflict when tensions go beyond a threshold and instantly break of their own accord, are functions of the Base’s spontaneous perfection / spontaneous arising / spontaneous rectification / spontaneous accomplishment (Tib. lhun grub) aspect which have their paradigmatic expression in the practices of Thod rgal and the Yang ti / Yang thig. However, they can also activate themselves and play a role in the practice of Khregs chod— especially in the context of the sNying thig, which focus on Khregs chod but does not radically separate this practice from that of Thod rgal. The realization of rig pa corresponds to the final realization of the Path of Transformation, which this Path identifies as the svabhāvikāya, but which, as stated in note 324 and previous notes, on the Path of Spontaneous Liberation is the initial glimpse of the dharmakāya that marks the true outset of this Path. The Path of Spontaneous Liberation begins at this point, because its function is first of all to consolidate the realization of the dharmakāya, and then expand it through the subsequent realizations of the saṃbhogakāya and, finally, the nirmāṇakāya. Once the three kāyas become simultaneously manifest and functional, the true svabhāvikāya has consolidated. However, as stated in a previous endnote, we should not forget that according to some Tantras of the Series of Pith Instructions the sequence of realization is the same as in the Tantras of Transformation—yet the meaning of the kāyas in those Tantras is certainly different from the one on the Path of Transformation. This principle, which in the rDzogs chen teachings is the counterpart of that of ka dag, will be considered in greater detail in Part Two of this book. In a different context, the principle behind this kind of systemic activity was explained in Bateson (1972), in terms of the relation between the functioning of our two brain hemispheres and the mental processes associated with them. The right hemisphere works mainly in an analog way and thus is mainly responsible for that which Freud (1954; original work published 1895) called primary process. The left hemisphere works mainly in a digital way and thus is mainly responsible for what Freud called secondary process. Since the code of primary process is analog, the process in question cannot entertain negatives, and thus it cannot say “no” to wayward function-relations in order to bring them to a halt—and, if secondary process says “no” to them, primary process will “read” that negation as an affirmation. Therefore, it is utterly impossible to uproot those wayward function-relations at will. In fact, the only way to eradicate them is by developing them to the extreme at which, incapable of “stretching” any further, they simply break like a rubber band that is stretched beyond its maximum endurance. In the practice of the rDzogs chen Man ngag [gyi] sde, this breaking of function-relations takes place after the application of some specific ways of questioning experience and of looking into coarse or subtle thoughts (or into supersubtle thought structures): the application of these is the condition that permits the disclosure of the true condition of thoughts, which is the dharmakāya aspect of Awakening, and hence the breaking of the tensions inherent in thoughts as the latter self-liberate—this being the therapeutic breaking that leads beyond saṃsāra, as different from mere worldly, therapeutic breakings (for an exposé of the distinction between these two contrasting types of breaking, cf. Capriles (2013abcd; electronic publication 2007a, vol. II). As suggested above, it is the activation of a positive feedback loop that results in the exacerbation of what must be surpassed. This loop is activated by the organism’s discomfort because the discomfort causes conscious awareness, which functions in digital secondary process—the code of human awareness that does entertain negation—to reject it. In fact, conscious awareness, which normally functions in terms of the coding of secondary process, cannot cause primary process, the code of which does not entertain negation, to negate and interrupt a wayward dynamic—and yet it effectively modifies the dynamics of primary process in a way that is a paradigmatic instance of the law of reverse effect. When consciousness negates some wayward dynamics in an attempt to interrupt them, since primary process does not entertain negation, it reads the negation as an emphasis on that which is negated, just as the concerned attention 325 326 327 328 329 610 paid to the function-relation that consciousness is trying to interrupt places an emphasis on the functionrelation that is being negated—which feeds that function-relation, reinforcing it instead of interrupting it. (In well-adapted individuals who do not exaggerate too much in their attempts to control their impulses and emotions, consciousness, functioning in terms of digital, secondary process, a great deal of the time feels in control of analog, primary process; however, this is not the case in those who obsessively and uninterruptedly try to control analog, primary process.) In particular, if we try to interrupt a relation of rejection and opposition, the “no” that digital, secondary process gives that relation, being an instance of rejection, will reinforce the relation of rejection that we are trying to interrupt. As we have seen, pleasure results from accepting sensation, pain results from rejecting sensation, and neutral feelings are produced by remaining indifferent to sensation. Therefore, relations of rejection always give rise to unpleasant sensations, which are intensified by our rejection of those relations and those sensations—causing our rejection to increase, which causes unpleasantness to increase, which makes our rejection further increase, and so on, so that a positive feedback loop gives rise to a self-catalyzing process (i.e. a process that increases from its own feedback) of rejection and pain. The rDzogs chen Atiyoga makes the most skillful use of the above principle and dynamics; for a detailed explanation of how it does so, cf. Capriles (2013ab, electronic publication 2007a vol. II). In order to make a schematic classification of vehicles it was convenient to establish a correspondence between the outer Tantras and the Path of Purification. However, strictly speaking, the Yogatantrayāna, which I classified with the outer Tantras, is, as its very name suggests, a yogic Path that to some degree applies the principle of the Path of Transformation. And yet, because it also applies the principle of purification of the outer Tantras, to the extent of being classified as an outer Tantra, it cannot be deemed to belong to the Path of Transformation properly speaking. Thus the correct view in this regard seems to be that the Yogatantrayāna combines the principle of purification proper to the outer Tantras with the principle of transformation of the inner Tantras of the Path of Transformation, and as such lies between the Path of Purification and the Path of Transformation. That which I am referring to as craving spirits or Tantaluses (Skt. preta; Pāli peta; Tib. yi dwags; Ch. 餓⻤ [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, èguǐ; Wade-Giles, o -kuei ]) are beings with voracious appetites who are unable to satiate them. Some of them are represented as having enormous stomachs but tiny mouths and thread-like necks (hence their incapacity to satiate their hunger and thirst); with regard to this latter class, it is said that when they succeed in getting food, it appears to them as disgusting substances like pus and blood. Some are said to be able to eat a little, but then the food burns their stomachs as though it were molten iron. Etc. They are said to have too good a karma to be born as a being of the purgatories (Skt. nāraka; Pāli nerayika; Tib. dmyal ba; Ch. 地獄有情 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dìyù yǒuqíng; Wade-Giles ti -yü yu -ch’ing ] or 地獄衆⽣ [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dìyù zhòngshēng; Wade-Giles ti -yü chung -sheng ]), but too bad a karma to be born as an antigod, titan or demigod (Skt. asura; Tib. lha ma yin; Ch. 阿修羅 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, āxiūluó; Wade-Giles, a -hsiu -luo ]). However, what is really important is that their existence results mainly from greed, but also to some extent from envy and jealousy. The passions included among the three nonvirtuous actions related to the mind (which together with the three non-virtuous actions related to the body and the four non-virtuous actions related to the voice make up the ten non-virtuous actions) are, (1) craving other people’s property, and (2) malevolence. The other nonvirtuous action pertaining to the mind is wrong view, which is not a passion, though it is conducive to the activation of harmful passions. Each of the three “baskets” which make up the Tripiṭaka (Pāḷi Tipiṭaka; Tib. sDe snod gsum; Ch. 三藏 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Sānzàng; Wade-Giles, San -tsang ]) in the ample sense of the term—(1) the Abhidharmapiṭaka (Pāḷi Abhidhammapiṭaka; Tib. Chos mngon pa’i sde snod; Ch. 論藏 [abridged 論蔵] [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Lùnzàng; Wade-Giles, Lun -tsang ]); (2) the Vinayapiṭaka (Tib. ’Dul ba’i sde snod; Ch. 律藏 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, lǜzàng; Wade-Giles, lü -tsang ]); and (3) the Sūtrapiṭaka (Pāḷi: Suttapiṭaka; Tib. mDo’i sde snod; Ch. 經 藏 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jīngzàng; Wade-Giles, ching -tsang ])—contains 21.000 sections, and so together they contain 63.000 sections. Thus, when we add the 21.000 sections of the Tripiṭaka—this time understanding the term in a narrower sense—we have the famous 84.000 sections of the teachings that Śākyamuni is held to have communicated on the nirmāṇakāya level. However, the above is a way of speaking, for the Abhidharma, even though it is based on the teachings of the Buddha, was developed by disciples of the various schools that accept these teachings (which exclude the Sautrāntika school). For example, the Vaibhāṣikas—a name that means “Proponents of Particular Substances” but that nonetheless may also refer to the fact that they make statements in accord with the Mahāvibhāṣaśāstra—can base themselves on the Sarvāstivāda Commentaries to the Abhidharma because 330 331 4 3 4 4 1 1 4 4 4 3 2 1 2 332 333 1 4 4 4 4 4 1 611 4 they view them as being compilations made by the great realized masters of the Hīnayāna (Skt. arhat; Pāḷi arahant; Tib. dgra bcom pa; Ch. 阿羅漢 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, āluóhàn; Wade-Giles, a -luo -han ], often shortened to 羅漢 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, luóhàn; Wade-Giles, luo -han ]), of teachings actually contained in sūtras. According to López and Buswell, also the name 應供 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yìnggōng; Wade-Giles, ying -kung ), which is one of the titles of a Buddha, may be used to refer to an arhat—just as, in spite of the fact that the Udānavarga was compiled by Dharmatrāta and as such it should be deemed to be a śāstra (which is how Sautrāntikas view it), the Vaibhāṣikas considered it to be a sūtra. (Cf. Kongtrul (2007, p. 330, note 321 by Elizabeth M. Callahan.) As stated in the preceding endnote, the Abhidharma, even though it is based on teachings of the Buddha, was developed by disciples of the various schools that accept these teachings. For further details cf. the preceding endnote. These four factors are: (1) the abandoning of already generated nonvirtuous phenomena; (2) the nongeneration of not yet generated nonvirtuous phenomena; (3) the increase of already generated virtuous phenomena; and (4) the generation of not yet generated virtuous phenomena. As we have seen, Chinese schools such as the Huáyán (Ch. 華嚴; Wade-Giles Hua -yan ; Jap. Kegon) and the Tiāntái (Ch. 天台; Wade-Giles, T’ien -t’ai ) combine the sudden and gradual method in an approach that they designate as “round” or total. The Chinese Nirvāṇa School or Nièpánzōng (涅槃宗; Wade-Giles, Nieh -p’an -tsung ; Jap. Nehanshū) also refers to a “sudden” Awakening, and, as noted in the regular text, the Pure Land or Jìngtǔ (Ch. 淨⼟; Wade-Giles, Ching -t’u ) School, in spite of not claiming to be a “sudden” school, is prolific in “sudden Awakenings.” However, most of these schools seem not to have had an active presence in Tibet in the time period when the three-paths, nine-vehicles system presented here was codified (with the possible exception of the Pure Land school, from which, according to Chos rgyam Drung pa [Chögyam Trungpa] rin po che [in Guru Rinpoche according to Karma Lingpa, Trungpa, Chögyam and Francesca Fremantle, translators, 1975], the practice of pho ba or transference of consciousness in the nirmāṇakāya style applied in the different schools of Tibetan Buddhism might have been assimilated). In fact, the sūtra in question uses the parable of a house in flames, which stands for saṃsāra, and ordinary sentient beings with children (a ubiquitous simile, so extended that Tibetan teachers customarily refer to ordinary people as “children”). It compares the Buddha to a loving father and the three vehicles in question with toys he offers his children, who were unaware that the house was in flames and that hence it was mandatory and most urgent to leave it (just as ordinary people are utterly unaware that they are in saṃsāra), offered them by their father in the context of a pretense game in order to lure them out of the house. However, according to this sūtra, Buddhahood is only attained by means of the Buddha-vehicle, which is the only true vehicle. Actually, the Hīnayāna often refers to the śrāvakas as śrāvakabuddhas. In this case the three possible realizations of the Sūtrayāna are that of śrāvakabuddhas, that of pratyekabuddhas and that of anuttarā samyaksaṃbuddhas. There are different enumerations of the ten powers of a Buddha or Tathāgata (Skt. tathāgata bala; Tib. de bzhin gshegs pa’i stobs; Ch. 如來⼒ [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, rúlái lì; Wade-Giles, ju -lai lu ]). Perhaps the most precise list is as follows (to simplify I will use only the Skt. terms, or the Skt. and Tib. terms): (1) Skt. sthānāsthānajñānabala; Tib. gnas dang gnas ma yin pa mkhyen pa’i stobs: the Buddha’s power to know the positive and negative contingencies of things and / or events—including what can be and what cannot be—as well as their causes and conditions (Skt. hetupratyaya) and the mechanism of their fruits of retribution (Skt. vipākaphalaniyāma). (2) Skt. karmavipākajñānabala; Tib. las kyi rnam smin mkhyen pa’i stobs: power of knowing the karmic results of the maturation of deeds: the power to know the sphere of action (Skt. karmasthāna) of all kinds of actions of the past, present and future. (3) Skt. nānādhimuktijñānabala; Tib. mos pa sna tshogs mkhyen pa’i stobs: the power of the primordial gnosis of resolve, which allow them to know the diverse aspirations and dispositions of the different sentient beings, including their purity (Skt. prasāda) and inclinations (Skt. ruci). (4) Skt. nānādhātujñānabala; Tib. khams sna tshogs mkhyen pa’i stobs: power of knowing how the world has its many and different elements. (5) Skt. indriyaparāparajñānabala; Tib. dbang po mchog dang mchog ma yin pa mkhyen pa’i stobs: power of knowing who is of superior acumen and who is not, and what are the moral faculties of all beings. (6) Skt. sarvatragāmanīpratipadjñānabala; Tib. thams cad du ’gro ba’i lam mkhyen pa’i stobs: the wisdom 1 2 2 4 4 4 334 335 336 2 1 4 2 2 2 1 4 3 337 338 339 2 612 2 4 1 power of the courses, which is the power to know the paths leading to all different destinations. (7) Skt. sarvadhyānavimokṣasamādhisamāpattisaṃkleśavyavadānavyutthānajñānabala; Tib. bsam gtan dang rnam thar dang ting nge ’dzin dang snyoms par ’jug pa dang kun nas nyon mongs pa dang rnam par byang ba dang ldan pa thams cad mkhyen pa’i stobs: power of knowing the acquisition, defilement and purification of all meditative absorptions (Skt. dhyāna), liberations (Skt. vimokṣa), samādhis, trances (Skt. samāpatti), afflictions, purification—which is the power to know all these auxiliary factors of the path to liberation. This power is also referred to by the Skt. sarvadhyānavimokṣasamādhisamāpattisaṃkleśavyavadānavyavasthānajñānabala, and by the Skt. dhyānavimokṣasamādhisamāpattijñānabala. (8) Skt. pūrvanivāsānusmṛtijñānabala; Tib. sngon gyi gnas rjes su dran pa mkhyen pa’i stobs: power of recollecting previous births / past lives and of discovering those of others. (9) Skt. cyutyupattijñānabala; Tib. ’chi ’pho bo dang skye ba mkhyen pa’i stobs: the wisdom power of birth and death, which is the power to see with the Buddha’s divine eye (Skt. divyacakṣus) the place and time of death and rebirth of all beings. (10) Skt. āsravakṣayajñānabala; Tib. zag pa zad pa mkhyen pa’i stobs: the wisdom power of destruction of contaminants, which is the power to determine the destruction, cessation or extinction of contaminants or impure influences, their nature and the mindsets of all beings. Another list gives the Buddhas’ ten powers as the powers of (1) aspiration (Skt. āśaya), (2) resolution (Skt. adhyāśaya), (3) habit (Skt. abhyāsa), (4) practice (Skt. pratipatti), (5) wisdom (Skt. prajñā), (6) vow (Skt. praṇidhāna), (7) vehicle (Skt. yāna), (8) way of life (Skt. caryā), (9) thaumaturgy (Skt. vikurvaṇa), (10) the power to turn the wheel of dharma (Skt. dharmacakrapravartana). The four confidences or fearlessnesses of a Buddha (Skt. vaiśāradya; Pāli vesārajja; Tib. mi ’jigs pa; Ch. 無所畏 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúsuǒwèi; Wade-Giles, wu -so -wei ]) are: (1) The confidence that he is fully enlightened with regard to all phenomena, or alternatively the confidence that he has full knowledge of all elements (Skt. sarvadharmābhisaṃbodhivaiśāradya). (2) The confidence that all the contaminations, obstructions and impure influences have been destroyed (Skt. sarvāsravakṣyajñānavaiśāradya); (3) The confidence of having identified all hindrances to emancipation and offered a correct exposition of them (Skt. antarāyikadharmavyākaraṇavaiśāradya); and (4) The confidence that all marvelous qualities are achieved through the path, or alternatively the confidence of having the knowledge of the sameness of all paths leading to spiritual advancement and emancipation (Skt. nairyāṇikapratipadvyākaraṇavaiśāradya), and of which are the false paths. According to the Mahāyāna only fully awake Buddhas have these qualities, which are not possessed by those who have attained other lower Buddhist realizations—even though the Theravāda (Skt. Sthaviravāda) school claims that they are shared by śrāvakas. The eighteen special qualities or distinct attributes of a Buddha (Skt. [aṣṭādaśa]veṇikābuddhadharmā[ḥ]; Tib. sang rgyas kyi chos ma ’dres pa [bco brgyad]; Ch ⼗ ⼋ 不 共 [ 佛 ] 法 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shíbā bùgòng(fó)fǎ; Wade-Giles, shih -pa pu -kung -(fo )fa ]) may be summarized as follows: (1) absence of delusion or actions being free from error (Skt. nāsti[tathāgatasya]skhalitam; Tib. ’khrul pa med pa; Ch. ⾝無失 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shēn wúshī; Wade-Giles, shen wu -shih ]). (2) absence of loudness (Skt. nāsti ravitam; Tib. ca co med pa; Ch. ⼝無失 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, kǒu wúshī; WadeGiles, k’ou wu -shih ]). (3) absence of false memories and forgetfulness (Skt. nāsti muṣitasmṛtitā; Tib. bsnyel ba med pa; Ch. 念無 失 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, niàn wúshī; Wade-Giles, nien wu -shih ]). (4) undistractedness [regarding absolute truth and everyday relative reality] (Skt. nāsti asamāhitacittam; Tib. sems mnyam par ma gzhag pa med pa 無異想 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wú yìxiǎng; Wade-Giles, wu i -hsiang ]). (5) absence of proliferation of perceptions (Skt. nāsti nānātvasaṃjñā; Tib. tha dad pa’i ’du shes med pa; Ch. 無不定 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wú bùdìng; Wade-Giles, wu pu -ting ]). 340 2 3 4 341 2 1 4 4 2 3 1 3 2 2 1 1 4 2 1 2 2 613 4 4 4 3 (6) their equanimity is not derived from [ignorant] indistinctness (Skt. nāsti apratisaṃkyāyopekṣā; Tib. so sor ma rtogs pa’i btang snyoms med pa; Ch. 無不知捨 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wú bùzhī shě; Wade-Giles, wu pu -chih she ]). (7) non-degeneration of or regression in zeal or devotion (Skt. nāsti cchandasya hāni[ḥ]; Tib. dun pa nyams pa med pa; Ch. [欲無滅 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yù wúmiè; Wade-Giles, yü wu -mieh ]). (8) non-degeneration of perseverance or effort (Skt. nāsti vīryasya hāni[ḥ]; Tib. brston ’grus nyams pa med pa; Ch. 精進無滅 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jīngjìn wúmiè; Wade-Giles, ching -chin wu -mieh ]). (9) non-degeneration or regression of recollection (Skt. nāsti smṛtihāni[ḥ]; Tib. dran pa nyams pa med pa; 念無滅 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, niàn wúmiè; Wade-Giles, nien wu -mieh ]). (10) non-degeneration of Contemplation (Skt. nāsti samādhihāni[ḥ]; Tib. ting ’dzin nyams pa med pa; Ch. 定無滅 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dìng wúmiè; Wade-Giles, ting wu -mieh ]). (11) non-degeneration of discriminating awareness (Skt. nāsti prajñāhāni[ḥ]; Tib. shes rab nyams pa med pa; Ch. 慧無滅 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, huì wúmiè; Wade-Giles, hui wu -mieh ]). (12) non-degeneration or regression of liberation (Skt. nāsti vimuktihāni[ḥ]; Tib. rnam grol nyams pa med pa; Ch. 解知⾒無滅 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jiě zhījiàn wúmiè; Wade-Giles, chieh chih -chien wu -mieh ]). (13) all actions of the body are preceded by primordial gnosis [which is not disrupted by these actions] and remain in conformity with it (Skt. sarvakāyakarmajñānapūrvagamaṃ jñānānuparivarti; Tib. lus kyi las thams cad ye shes kyi sngon du ’gro shing ye shes kyi rjes su ’brang ba; Ch. ⼀切⾝業隨智慧⾏ [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yīqiè shēnyè suí zhìhuì xíng; Wade-Giles, i -ch’ieh shen -yeh sui chih -hui hsing ]). (14) all actions of the voice are preceded by primordial gnosis [which is not disrupted by these actions] and remain in conformity with it (Skt. sarvavākkarmajñānapūrvagamaṃ jñānānuparivarti; Tib. ngag gi las thams cad ye shes kyi sngon du ’gro shing ye shes kyi rjes su ’brang ba; ⼀切⼝業隨智慧⾏ [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yīqiè kǒuyè suí zhìhuì xíng; Wade-Giles, i -ch’ieh k’ou -yeh sui chih -hui hsing ]). (15) all actions of the mind are preceded by primordial gnosis [which is not disrupted by these actions] and remain in conformity with it (Skt. sarvamanana[ḥ]karmajñānapūrvagamaṃ jñānānuparivarti; Tib. yid kyi las thams cad ye shes kyi sngon du ’gro shing ye shes kyi rjes su ’brang ba; Ch. ⼀切意業隨智慧⾏ [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yīqiè yìyè suí zhìhuì xíng; Wade-Giles, i -ch’ieh i -yeh sui chih -hui hsing ]). (16) they never lose the primordial gnosis that is unimpeded with regard to the past (Skt. athīte ’dhvani asaṅgam apratihataṃ jñānadarśanaṃ pravartate; Tib. ’das pa’i dus la ma chags ma thogs pa’i ye shes gziks par ’jug pa or ma ’ongs pa’i dus la ma chags ma thogs pa’i ye shes gzigs par ’jug go; Ch. 智慧知 過去世無礙 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhìhuì zhī guòqùshì wú ài; Wade-Giles, chih -hui chi kuo -ch’u -shih wu ai ]) (17) they have access to the primordial gnosis that is unimpeded with regard to the future (Skt. anāgate’dhvani asaṅgam apratihataṃ jñānadarśanaṃ pravartate; Tib. ’das pa’i dus la ma chags ma thogs pa’i ye shes gzigs par ’jug go; Ch. 智慧知未來世無礙 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhìhuì zhī wèiláishì wú ài; Wade-Giles, chih -hui chih wei -lai -shih wu ai ]). (18) they have access to the primordial gnosis that is unimpeded with regard to the now (Skt. pratyutpanne ’dhvani asaṅgam apratihataṃ jñānadarśanaṃ pravartate; Tib. da ltar gyi dus la ma chags ma thogs pa’i ye shes gzigs par ’jug go / pa; Ch. 智慧知現在世無礙 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhìhuì zhī xiànzàishì wú ài; WadeGiles, chih -hui chih hsien -tsai -shih wu ai ]). The major marks are 32 and the minor marks are 80; all of them are bodily characteristics purportedly exhibited by all Buddhas. These marks were taught due to the Hīnayāna belief that Buddhas are wholly different from ordinary people and that the latter cannot attain Buddhahood, but can only aspire to realizations minor than that of a Buddha. In the Mahāyāna, according to which all human beings can attain Buddhahood, they are said to be marks of the saṃbhogakāya aspect or dimension of anyone who has attained Buddhahood, but which can only be seen by those realized beings who can perceive that aspect or dimension of Buddhahood. (The two shortest versions of the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra—the one in Tibetan and the shorter Chinese translation—affirm that those beings who reject the dharma and who have severed their roots of wholesomeness called icchantika [Tib. ’dod chen; Ch. ⼀闡提 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yīchǎntí; Wade-Giles, i -ch’an -t’i )] can never attain Awakening or nirvāṇa; however, the longer Chinese version of the same canonical source by Dharmakṣema does not mention such thing and, contrariwise, subscribes to the doctrine according to which, since all beings have the tathāgatagarbha, all beings can attain Awakening or nirvāṇa. Note that other Mahāyāna sources list two other classes of beings who are barred from Awakening—the acchantikas, who are bodhisattvas that refuse to enter nirvāṇa yet, and the ātyantikas, whose original condition lacks the characteristics of nirvāṇa and hence cannot attain it—yet these minority sources contradict that which is consensus for the mainstream of the Mahāyāna. In fact, 2 4 1 3 4 2 4 1 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 3 1 4 1 4 1 1 4 3 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 4 4 2 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 342 1 3 2 614 4 4 2 2 4 1 4 2 4 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 1 2 4 4 4 2 4 Mahāyānasūtras that acknowledge the existence of the icchantikas such as the Laṅkāvatāra, assert that such people will be saved by the power of the Buddha, who does not abandon any being.) There would be no point in listing the 32 major and 80 minor characteristics of a Buddha here, but if any of the readers is interested in information about them, they are listed in different dictionaries and encyclopædias of Buddhism, and there is even a Wikipedia article that provides it; to access it, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_characteristics_of_the_Buddha#The_32_Signs_of_a_Great_Man This explanation of the view of the śrāvakas, as well as the following explanation of the view of the pratyekabuddhas, is that found in the rDzogs chen teachings, which to a great extent coincides with that found in texts of the Madhyamaka-Svātantrika-Yogācāra School of the Mahāyāna. The original texts of the śrāvakas compare both theories—that of the nihilists and that of the eternalists or substantialists—to mistaking a rope for a snake, and so when expounding the views of the śrāvakas, Padmasambhava takes up this example in Tibetan Text 6. However, it seems more precise to say that the theories of the eternalists or substantialists are like mistaking a rope for a snake, because they involve taking something to be more serious or important than it actually is, and that the theories of the nihilists are like mistaking a snake for a rope, because they involve taking something to be less dangerous, serious or important than it really is (as a result of which they may ripe results that may be far more serious than being bitten by a venomous snake upon grabbing it as a consequence of having taken it for a rope, for they are not limited to the present life). Adriano Clemente gives us a classification of these in terms of the five aggregates (Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal], 1999/2001, p. 150, note 114): “The twelve bases (Skt. āyatana), literally ‘that arise and develop’, form another classification parallel to those of the skandhas and of the dhātus. In this case, for example, the seven constituents (dhātu) of consciousness are contained within the base (āyatana) of the mind.” The Buddhist teachings generally refer to these as the “six consciousnesses;” however, in terms of the concept of consciousness that is reflected by Western languages, it may be more precise to explain them as the specific capacities of a single consciousness to perceive six different types of objects through six different “doors” (the five senses universally recognized, plus the mental sense that presents thoughts and the objects of memory, imagination, etc.). In this case, the term dhātu (Tib khams or dbyings, according to the case; Ch. 界 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jiè; WadeGiles, chieh ] or 法界 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎjiè; Wade-Giles, fa - chieh ] according to the case) refers to the eighteen sense constituents, corresponding to the six senses (the five that are universally accepted plus the one that presents “mental” contents), the six sensory objects (of the senses that were just listed), and the six (modes of) consciousness arising from perception through the six senses. In other contexts, the same Sanskrit and Tibetan terms refer to other sets of elements: (2) The three (loka) dhātu or khams, which are the kāmadhātu or realm of sensuality, the rūpadhātu or realm of form and the ārūpyadhātu or realm of formlessness. (Since some times the term khams gsum may be used as a synonym of the terms srid gsum and ’jig-rten gsum, it is important to remark that normally srid gsum refers to the realm of gods above, that of gnyan in the middle and that of nāgas below.) (3) The five gross dhātu or kham, which are the four elements corresponding to the four states of matter and the four functions of existence (solid state and function of supporting = “earth;” liquid state and function of concentrating = “water;” igneous state and function of ripening = “fire;” and gaseous state and function of moving = “air,”), plus a fifth element which consists in the space in which the four other elements arise, and corresponds to the function of giving space. (4) The six dhātu or kham, which are the five elements listed as (2), plus a sixth element, which is consciousness. (5) Also the physical remains of a realized being in the form of relics (Skt. śarīra; Pāli sarīra; Tib. ring bsrel / lus bsrel / sku bsrel / ro bsrel; Ch. 舍利 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shèlì; Wade-Giles, she -li ]). Besides, as stated in a previous note, the six loka or gati (Skt. sadgati or sadloka; Ch. 六趣 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, liùqù; Wade-Giles, liu -ch’ü ]) in Tibetan are also called the “six khams” or the ’jig rten gyi khams drug— which, as we have seen, are: the realm of the gods (Skt. and Pāli devagati / suragati / devaloka / devagati; Tib. lha ’gro ba; Ch. 天趣 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tiān qù; Wade-Giles, t’ien ch’ü ]), the realm of antigods or titans (Skt. and Pāli asuragati / asuraloka; Tib. lha ma yin ’gro ba; Ch. 阿修羅 趣 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, āxiūluó qù; Wade-Giles, a -hsiu -luo ch’ü ]), the realm of humans (Skt. manuṣyagati / manuṣyaloka; Pāli manussagati / manussaloka; Tib. mi ’gro ba; Ch. ⼈ 趣 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, rén qù; Wade-Giles, jen -ch’ü ]), the realms of craving spirits or Tantaluses (Skt. pretagati / pretaloka; Pāli petagati / petaloka; Tib. yi dvags ’gro ba; Ch. 餓⻤ 趣 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, èguǐ qù; Wade-Giles, o -kuei ch’ü ]), the realms of animals 343 344 345 346 347 4 3 4 4 4 4 1 1 4 1 2 4 4 2 4 615 3 4 4 (Skt. and Pāli, tiryagyonigati / tiryagyoniloka; tiracchānagati / tiracchānaloka; Tib. dud ’gro ’gro ba; Ch. 畜⽣ 趣 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chùshēng qù; Wade-Giles, ch’u -sheng ch’ü ]), and the realm of purgatories (Skt. narakagati / narakaloka; Pāli nerayikagati / nerayikagati; Tib. dmyal ba’i ’gro ba; Ch. 地獄趣 有情 趣 or 地獄趣 衆⽣ 趣 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dìyù yoǔqíng qù or dìyù zhòngshēng qù; Wade-Giles, ti -yü yu ch’ing ch’ü or ti -yü chung -sheng ch’ü ]). As shown earlier in the regular text, the Theravāda was not one of the Eighteen Schools of the Buddhism based on the First Promulgation, but arose after the latter. The way in which the eighteen schools of what the Mahāyāna calls Hīnayāna developed was briefly summarized above in the regular text. (For further information, see Gö Lotsawa Zhönnupel, English translation attributed to G. N. Roerich but actually carried out by Gendün Chöphel, 2d English Ed. 1976, pp. 27-33; an extremely brief account is offered in Dudjom Rinpoche, English 1991.) Concerning the Vaibhāṣika and the Sautrāntika, the reader may consult the possibly upcoming definitive ed. in print of Capriles (electronic publication 2004), in case I find the time to prepare it. Prāsaṅgikas are supposed to reject this view and assert that the absence of a self-nature in persons cannot be realized independently of the absence of a self-nature in phenomena other than persons: either both of them are realized, or none of them is realized. In Candrakīrti’s [Auto]commentary to the Supplement to (Nāgārjuna’s) ‘Treatise on the Middle Way’, we read (there is an alternative, dGe lugs version, in Napper, 2003, p. 172): “Because of error due to apprehending a hypostatic entity in forms and so forth, [followers of the Hīnayāna such as śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas] fail to realize even the selflessness of human beings. This is because of their apprehending the aggregates that are the basis of designation of the self. [Nāgārjuna’s Precious Garland (Skt. Ratnāvalī; Tib. Rin chen phreng ba; Ch. 宝⾏⺩正论 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Bǎoxíngwáng zhèng lùn; Wade-Giles, Pao -hsing -wang cheng lun ] 35 ab) says: “As long as one conceives the aggregates So long does one conceive an I with respect to them.” In particular, they are said to reject the belief that physical entities are constituted by indivisible infinitesimal particles existing absolutely on their own right (Dudjom Rinpoche, English 1991, vol. I, p. 159). Therefore, as stated in the following note, they assert the emptiness of all those phenomena that, not being human beings, have form and are normally regarded as material, and therefore they posit the emptiness of the aggregate of form, and of the ten bases and ten sense constituents tied to form (see following note). Besides, they realize the emptiness of what is known as “imperceptible form” (see following note). However, among phenomena that are not human beings, or aspects of phenomena that are not human beings, with the exception of “imperceptible form,” they do not realize the emptiness of those phenomena or aspects that do not involve material form and that therefore are not regarded as being constituted by infinitesimal particles—such as the four aggregates (Skt. skandha; Pāḷi khanda; Tib. phung po; Ch. 蘊 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yùn; Wade-Giles, yün ]) which are other than form (Skt. rūpa; Pāli rūpa; Tib. gzugs; Ch. ⾊ [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sè; Wade-Giles, se ]), and the sense bases and sense constituents that do not involve material form (see following note). In short, they fail to realize the emptiness of all five aggregates; therefore, according to the Prāsaṅgikas they not only fail to fully realize the selflessness of phenomena other than persons, but also fail to fully realize the selflessness of persons. Rong zom chos kyi bzang po (Tibetan Text 4) says that pratyekabuddhas understand the absence of substance solely in the aggregate of form (and not in the next 4) and in the 10 sense bases and 10 sense constituents tied to form (the reasons for this were discussed in the preceding note), as well as in imperceptible form, which is one modification that arises in the process of realization. In note 122 to Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal] (1999/2001, p. 155), Adriano Clemente writes: “To summarize: the pratyekabuddhas accede to (realization of) the absence of a self or independent selfnature (bdag med) in the aggregate of form, as regards the classification of the five skandhas; in the ten internal and external bases (āyatana) linked to the five senses, as regards the classification of the twelve āyatanas; in the ten constituents (dhātu) that comprise the five sense faculties and the five sense objects, as regards the classification of the eighteen dhātus. All of this pertains to the sense sphere. As regards the aspect of consciousness and of the phenomena that constitute its object, there are the two ‘bases’ of the mind and phenomena and the eight ‘consciousnesses’ that include the seven dhātus derived from the aggregate of consciousness plus the constituent of phenomena or mental contents (chos kyi khams): in terms of all of these the pratyekabuddhas acknowledge the absence of a self only in ‘imperceptible form’ (rig byed ma yin pa’i gzugs), the eleventh component of the aggregate of form, a term that indicates a 4 1 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 1 4 348 349 350 3 2 2 4 4 351 4 4 352 616 4 3 kind of alteration of one’s individual structure determined by a precise will: taking a vow, for example, is a physical and verbal act, but its effect persists within the person; this ‘alteration’ that takes place is called ‘imperceptible form’.” The fact that pratyekabuddhas do not acknowledge the absence of a self or independent self-nature (bdag med) in many nonmaterial phenomena as well as in many of the phenomena belonging to the sphere of consciousness (such as the four aggregates or skandhas that do not involve material form, the two bases [āyatana] and constituents [dhātu] that consist in the objects of the mental consciousness and the sense that apprehends these objects, various dhātus derived from the aggregate of consciousness and so on), is no doubt related to the fact that, according to some texts (e.g. Dudjom Rinpoche, English 1991, vol. I, p. 159) pratyekabuddhas hold the idea that the supposedly internal, subjective consciousness does indeed exist in truth. (In order to better understand the meaning of the above explanation by Adriano Clemente, it is advisable to consider the following classification of the eighteen constituents in terms of the five aggregates that the same scholar gives us in Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal], 1999/2001, p. 150, note 114: “The eighteen constituents [khams; dhātu] include ten constituents pertaining to the aggregate of form: the five sense faculties plus the five sense objects; seven constituents pertaining to the aggregate of consciousness: the six consciousness plus the mental constituent [yid kyi khams, a synonym of yid kyi dbang po] by which is intended the cognitive faculty that ensues on the cessation of one of the six consciousnesses, plus the constituent of phenomena [chos kyi khams] or ‘mental contents’ that embraces the aggregates of sensation, of perception and of mental formations as well as ‘imperceptible form’ and non-composite phenomena.”) As noted in the regular text, Go rams pa’s position is: (1) Avidyā in the sense of combination of unawareness of the true condition with delusion, and hence as the source of both cognitive delusive obstructions and passional delusive obstructions, rather than being the first link (Pāḷi and Skt. nidāna; Tib. ’brel; Ch. 尼陀那 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, nítuónà; Wade-Giles, ni -t’o -na ]) in the temporal sequence of interdependent origination (Skt. pratītyasamutpāda; Pāḷi paṭiccasamuppāda; Tib. rten cing ’brel bar ’byung ba; Ch. 緣起 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yuánqǐ; Wade-Giles, yüan -ch’i ]), is the source of the first of the twelve links. (2) The first of the twelve links is avidyā in the sense of passional delusive obstructions. In Śūnyatāsaptatikārikā 64 we read: “Conceiving as true the entities that the Teacher taught to be [products of] delusion—it is from this that the twelve links arise.” Tsong kha pa inferred from this that conceiving entities as true was an instance of passional delusive obstructions. Go rams pa objected that the verse, rather than asserting that conceiving entities as true is the first link, is most clearly and explicitly saying that conceiving entities as true is that from which the first link arises—so that conceiving entities as true is that which gives rise to avidyā in the sense of passional delusive obstructions (i.e., to the first link) and it is the latter that gives rise to the other eleven links (Cabezón, 2007, pp. 145 and 315 n. 233). For their part, the rDzogs chen teachings note that avidyā in the sense that, as Go rams pa noted, gives rise to the first link—i.e. avidyā in the sense of combination of unawareness of the true condition with delusion, and hence as the source of both cognitive delusive obstructions and passional delusive obstructions—is the cause of avidyā in the sense of the Sanskrit term moha (Tib. gti mug; 癡 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chī; Wade-Giles, ch’ih ], which means mental dullness, bewilderment or perplexity—i.e. avidyā qua one of the three or five poisons or most basic defilements (Skt. kleśa; Pāḷi kilesa; Tib. nyon mongs; Ch. 煩腦 [simplified, 煩惱] [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fánnǎo; Wade-Giles, fan -nao ]). In fact, kLong chen rab ’byams pa wrote (rDzogs pa chen po sems nyid hgal gso’i ’grel ba shing rta chen po, pub. by rDo grub chen rin po che, Vol. 1,80a/1, alternative rendering in Tulku Thöndup 1996/1989, p. 219): “[The base-of-all carrying propensities (Tib. bag chags sna tshogs pa’i kun gzhi) is the basis of both virtuous and nonvirtuous karmas; its essence [ngo bo] is ignorance in the sense of mental dullness, bewilderment or perplexity [gti mug], and it is neutral [with regard to both virtues and nonvirtuous karmas]. “Some say that it is not avidyā because it is the basis of all the five poisons (including avidyā qua moha) as well as of Awakening. That it just a misunderstanding. This is not the ignorance in the sense of mental dullness, bewilderment or perplexity [that is one of the] five poisons. [Rather,] it is the innate unawareness cum delusion (lhan chig skyes pa’i ma rig pa) arisen [as root or part of] the delusion leading to saṃsāra, and it has also been referred to [as such].” Conceiving entities as true is an aspect of the avidyā that is the root source of all the passions and hence of the first link of interdependent origination. In fact, it is this basic unawareness cum delusion that, when the necessary propensities and the objects of the realm of sensuality meet, gives rise to the passions—of 353 2 2 1 2 617 3 2 3 4 which the avidyā that is the first link is held to be an instance. In fact, it is because grasping at entities as true is a function of cognitive delusive obstructions that, after the transition to the eighth level, higher bodhisattvas continue to perceive dirt, rocks, mountains and the like—even though they no longer carry much weight in their experience—and that Śāntideva illustrated it in the Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra in terms of the magician that causes the attractive dancing girl to appear in the experience of his audience as well as in his own experience—even though in his own experience the girl does not elicit the same degree of lust as in the male audience. And it is in those in whom the power of karmic propensities has not been made to dwindle as a result of repeated insight into absolute truth, that grasping entities of the realm of sensuality as true automatically gives rise to passional delusive obstructions. Therefore, we cannot agree with rJe Tsong kha pa when he claims that grasping at phenomena that are not human individuals is an instance of passional delusive obstructions. Our position can only be the one that was expressed by kLong chen pa on the above passages. An example of a pratyekabuddha who lived at a time when there was neither Buddha, nor dharma, nor saṃgha, and who, nonetheless, attained realization by meditating on the twelve links of interdependent origination, is the man who spontaneously identified the twelve links after finding a skeleton. This finding led him to think of old age and death (Pāḷi and Skt. jarāmaraṇa; Tib. rga shi; Ch. ⽼死 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, lǎosǐ; Wade-Giles, lao -ssu ]: the twelfth link of interdependent origination), and then to identify birth (Pāḷi and Skt. jāti; Tib. skyed ba; Ch. ⽣ [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shēng; Wade-Giles, sheng ]) as the cause of old age and death—birth, and old age and death, being “the links that constitute the result of the causes of existence.” Then he went on to identify the tenth link, which is becoming (Pāḷi and Skt. bhava; Tib. srid pa; Ch. 有 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒu; Wade-Giles, yu ]), followed by the ninth, which is attachment to the aggregates (Pāḷi and Skt. upādāna; Tib. len pa; Ch. 取 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, qǔ; Wade-Giles, ch’ü ]) and the eighth, which is desire or craving (Pāḷi, taṇhā; Skt. tṛṣna; Tib. sred pa; Ch. 愛 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, nài; WadeGiles, nai ])—these being “the three links that constitute the causes of existence.” Then he identified the seventh link, which is sensation (Pāḷi and Skt. vedanā; Tib. tshor ba; Ch. 受 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shòu; WadeGiles, shou ]), followed by the sixth, which is sensory contact (Pāḷi phassa; Skt. sparśa; Tib. reg pa; Ch. 觸 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chù; Wade-Giles, ch’u ]), the fifth, which is the sense bases (Pāḷi and Skt. ṣaḍāyatana; Tib. skye mched; Ch. 六⼊ [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, liùrù; Wade-Giles, liu -ju ]), and the fourth, which is nameand-form (Pāḷi and Skt. nāmarūpa; Tib. ming gzugs; Ch. 名⾊ [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, míngsè; Wade-Giles, ming se ])—these being “the four links that constitute the result of the determining causes.” Then he identified the third link, which is consciousness (Pāḷi, viññāṇa; Skt. vijñāna; Tib. rnam shes; Ch. 識 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shí; Wade-Giles, shih ]), then the second, which is repetitive mental formations or impulses (Pāḷi, saṅkhāra; Skt. saṁskāra; Tib ’dü byed; Ch. ⾏ [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíng; Wade-Giles, hsing ]), and finally the first, which is avidyā (Pāḷi avijjā; Tib. ma rig pa; 無明 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúmíng; Wade-Giles, wu -ming ]) in the sense of mental dullness, bewilderment or perplexity (Skt. moha; Tib. gti mug; 癡 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chī; Wade-Giles, ch’ih ])—these being “the first three links, which constitute the determining causes.” Thus the man identified the twelve links and, by meditating on them, attained the realization of a pratyekabuddha without having received teachings in that lifetime. The story does not tell us whether or not the man in question identified avidyā in the sense of combination of unawareness of the true condition with delusion, and hence as the source of both cognitive delusive obstructions and passional delusive obstructions, as the cause of the first link and hence as the root cause of all twelve links of interdependent origination. As shown above in the regular text and explained in notes 331 and 332, the Pratyekabuddhayāna on the one hand accepted the nonexistence of some aspects of phenomena that are not human beings, but kept a belief in the existence of some other aspects, and were also accused of not fully realizing the selflessness of human beings because it purportedly maintains that the supposedly internal, subjective consciousness exists in truth (cf. Dudjom Rinpoche, English 1991, vol. I, p. 159). Obviously, Prāsaṅgikas do not deem this explanation to be admissible—for, as stated in a previous note, they assert the selflessness of persons to be truly realized only if the selflessness of phenomena other than persons is realized. According to Robert Buswell (1989), the Vajrasamādhisūtra, which he acknowledges to have been of great importance in the development of East Asian Buddhism, including Chán, is apocryphal—a suspicion Mizuno Kōgen and Walter Liebenthal previously harbored. Tibetans as a rule do not accept its validity because it was never translated into their language and it is not featured in the bKa’ ’gyur or Tibetan Collection of Canonical Sources. However, Buswell’s allegation has not been proved, and it is a fact that 354 3 3 1 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 2 2 2 1 355 356 357 618 2 Chán and the rest of East Asian Buddhism continue to regard it as a genuine sermon of Śākyamuni—and they are right in so doing, since the Sūtra is in full agreement with the principles of Mahāyāna Buddhism. Moreover, the oral tradition quoted by Oon certainly agrees with the essence of the Mahāyāna. According to Vasumitra, the Sarvāstivādin view is that ubhayatobhāgavimutta arhats, by reaching nirodhasamāpatti, remove both passional delusion and vimokśāvaraṇa—which they explain as delusion regarding the knowledge of akarmaṇyatā of nāma and rūpa—whereas prajñāvimukta arhats remove only the first type, doing so by means of prajñā (cf. Dutt, 1978, p. 159). Yet the canonical sources and Commentaries of the Mahāyāna, including Maitreya’s Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra, contradict those of the Hīnayāna. Note that Chinese Buddhism attributes this text to Sthiramati rather than to Maitreya-Asaṅga. As shown elsewhere in this book, the arising of the mental subject cleaves the undivided experiential totality of the base-of-all, and though the ensuing object, being undivided, still seems to be a totality, it is no longer so, as it excludes the mental subject. The Cittamātra school posits three types of nirodha or cessation: (1) pratisaṁkhyānirodha or cessation (nirodha) of the passions (kleśa) by the power of perfect discrimination; (2) apratisaṁkhyānirodha or cessation of the passions or kleśas without the intervention of perfect discrimination; and (3) saṁjñāvedanāniroda, which is a state wherein saṃjñā or recognition in terms of concepts and vedanā or mental sensation are inactive. For example, a Hīnayāna monk avoids the arousing of desire by eluding women or keeping a distance from them, and forestalls the arousal of anger by keeping from engaging in worldly dealings. Contrariwise, a Mahāyāna layman (Skt. and Pāli, upāsaka; Tib. dge bsnyen; Ch. 優婆塞 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yōupósāi; WadeGiles, yu -p’o -sai ]) or lawwoman (Skt. and Pāli, upāsikā; Tib. dge bsnyen ma; Ch. 優婆夷 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yōupóyí; Wade-Giles, yu -p’o -i ]) lives in the world; if “unlawful” desire arises in his mind, he will try to neutralize it by seeing the woman, perception and himself as empty—or, if this does not work, by visualizing the woman as though he could see through her body and perceive a heap of bones, muscles, fat, blood, mucus, mucosa, organs, gastric juices (vomit), excrement and so on. If he gets angry at someone who wronged him, in order to neutralize the anger he will also resort to emptiness and, if that does not work, he will try to develop compassion by thinking the person did so because he or she is possessed by delusion and, as a result, is suffering in saṃsāra. The principle behind using repulsion and compassion to neutralize lust and anger is that a single mind cannot simultaneously entertain two different attitudes toward an object, and thus disgust puts an end to desire, just as compassion puts an end to anger, etc. In the gradual Mahāyāna, the principle of training mainly consists in trying to produce the qualities proper to Awakening through the application of antidotes to the vices or defects that are their opposites. As remarked in the regular text, this is contrary to the principle of the sudden Mahāyāna, in which the qualities of Awakening arise spontaneously as a result of Awakening itself. Cf. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra or Sūtra Spoken by Vimalakīrti (Tib. Dri med grags pas bstan pa’i mdo; Ch. 維摩經 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Wéimó jīng; Wade-Giles, Wei -mo ching ] or, in full in the translation by Kumārajīva, 維摩詰所說經 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Wéimójié suǒshuō jīng; Wade-Giles, Wei -mo -chieh so -shuo ching ]), which reveals the lifestyle of this Licchavi of the Indian city of Kapilavastu (which according to traditional accounts, in Śākyamuni’s lifetime was the capital of the kingdom of the Śākya and the place where the Kingdom’s heir, Siddhārtha Gautama—who later became the Buddha of our age—lived until his decision to seek Awakening). Since the teachings of rDzogs chen Atiyoga interpret the three aspects consisting of the dharmakāya, the saṃbhogakāya and the nirmāṇakāya, both (a) in the same sense as those of the Mahāyāna and those of the Vajrayāna, and (b) in a different, more specific way than both of the latter, they will be explained in some detail from the standpoint of the rDzogs chen teachings in Part Two of this book, which deals with the Atiyogatantrayāna. As stated in a note to Chapter One, the word “phenomenon” is derived from the Greek phainomenon (φαινόμενον), meaning, “that which appears.” In a Buddhist context, it seems appropriate to interpret “that which appears” as referring to the deceptive appearances that characterize saṃsāra and that conceal the true condition of reality. Contrariwise, nonstatic nirvāṇa, even though it involves the sense data that constitute the basis of appearances and hence in a sense it involves appearances, involves the dissolution of all false appearances and the perfect realization of the true condition of reality; therefore, in a special sense it may be regarded as being beyond that which appears, whereas in another it is an appearance involving countless appearances. Because of this, I chose to speak of the metaphenomenon or the series 358 359 360 361 1 2 1 1 2 2 362 2 2 1 2 1 363 364 619 2 2 3 1 of metaphenomena of nirvāṇa (the plural or singular depending on the standpoint we adopt) rather than of the phenomena of nirvāṇa, even though rDzogs chen texts consistently apply the same term to the appearances of saṃsāra and those of nonstatic nirvāṇa. The order in which Indian Master Atiśa Dīpaṃkaraśrījñāna taught the “Four Immeasurables” in Tibet during the gSar ma or “new” diffusion of the teachings was: (1) love, (2) compassion, (3) joy and (4) equanimity. A well-established rNying ma pa tradition that at some point was codified by A ’dzam ’brug pa in Tibetan Text 7 insists that if immeasurable equanimity is not present from the very outset of the development of the other three qualities, these could as well fall into partiality (i.e. they could be directed to some individuals to a greater extent than to others); therefore, it is quite possible that they never become genuine Immeasurables. See Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal], 1999/2001, p. 113. It is important to keep in mind that the four qualities that the Mahāyāna designates as “immeasurable catalysts of Awakening” are also mentioned, extolled and practiced in Hīnayāna Buddhism. If they are considered as a distinctive characteristic of the Mahāyāna, it is only because in this later vehicle they occupy a more central place and are emphasized to a higher degree than in the Hīnayāna. In fact, the practice of immeasurable equanimity is an antidote to attachment and aversion. The practice of immeasurable love or loving kindness is an antidote, among other things, to thinking of oneself first and working for one’s well-being at the expense of that of others. The practice of immeasurable compassion is an antidote to the rejection of suffering, and in particular of the suffering of others, which normally we wish to shun—and together with that of loving-kindness is an antidote to aversion in general. Finally, the practice of immeasurable, sympathetic joy or rejoicing for the good actions, qualities and positive circumstances of others is an antidote to jealousy/envy and competitiveness in relation to others. Note 124 by Adriano Clemente to Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal] (1999/2001) reads: “The pāramitā of method (thabs) refers to the dedication of one’s merit to the Enlightenment of all beings; the pāramitā of force (stobs) signifies no longer being conditioned by adversities and negative forces; the pāramitā of aspiration (smon lam) means intensely wishing in all future lives never to separate from bodhicitta and to practice the pāramitās for the benefit of beings; the pāramitā of wisdom (ye shes) indicates genuine understanding of emptiness, the true nature of phenomena.” In order to make the above more specific, it must be remarked that the pāramitā of method (Skt. upāya pāramitā; Tib. thabs phar phyin; Ch. ⽅便 波羅蜜 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fāngbiàn bōluómì; Wade-Giles, fang pien po- luo -mi ]) implies the perfecting of the spontaneous skillful means that developed with increasing power since one became a superior bodhisattva and throughout the ten levels (Skt. bhūmi; Tib. sa; Ch. 地 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dì; Wade-Giles, ti ]) previous to full Awakening began: as one acquires greater confidence in the Vision that was initially disclosed in the first level, one’s skillful means become more spontaneous, sharper and far more powerful. The pāramitā of aspiration (Skt. praṇidhāna pāramitā; Tib. smon lam phar phyin; Ch. 願 波羅蜜 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yuàn bōluómì; Wade-Giles, yüan po -luo -mi ]) implies an even lesser concern with oneself, as well as the optimization of the natural arising of all-embracing transcendent wishes (which, as they arise, may put the whole of one’s body hair on end). The pāramitā of force (Skt. bala pāramitā; Tib. stobs phar phyin; Ch. ⼒ 波羅蜜 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, lì bōluómì; Wade-Giles, li po -luo -mi ]) involves even greater confidence in the Vision; it implies that one’s actions respond solely to the needs of others, and that they do so more unselfconsciously and hence uncontrivedly than ever. The pāramitā of primordial gnosis (Skt. jñāna pāramitā; Tib. ye shes phar phyin; Ch. 智 波羅蜜 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhì bōluómì; Wade-Giles, chih po -luo -mi ]) cannot be reduced to the mere understanding of emptiness, which is a function of the pāramitā of prajñā. In fact, the pāramitā of primordial gnosis or wisdom implies the unveiling of absolute truth: the true condition of reality, which is inexpressible and cannot be reduced to mere emptiness, and that hence Mahāmadhyamaka referred to as the indivisibility of emptiness and appearances. (However, as noted in the discussion of Chán or Zen, this realization if different from that of rDzogs chen, for even at this point the primordial purity (Skt. ka dag aspect of the Base is to some extent privileged over its spontaneous perfection / spontaneous arising / spontaneous rectification / spontaneous accomplishment (Tib. lhun grub aspect)—for example, Chán / Zen does not have a practice wholly based on the Base’s spontaneous perfection / spontaneous arising / spontaneous rectification / spontaneous accomplishment aspect such as the practices of Thod rgal and the Yang ti / Yang thig. Transcendent generosity (Skt. dāna pāramitā; Tib. sbyin pa phar phyin; Ch 布施 波羅蜜 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bùshī bōluómì; Wade-Giles, po -shih po -luo -mi ]) is applied as an antidote to miserliness, avarice and 365 366 367 1 4 1 2 4 4 4 4 1 2 1 2 4 4 4 1 2 4 368 4 1 1 2 4 620 endeavoring for one’s well-being at the expense of that of others; transcendent moral discipline (Skt. śīla pāramitā; Tib. tshul khrims phar phyin; Ch. 持戒 波羅蜜 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chíjiè bōluómì; Wade-Giles, ch’ih -chieh po -luo -mi ]) is an antidote to debauchery, disrespect, mindlessness and so on; transcendent forbearance (Skt. kṣānti pāramitā; Tib. bzod pa phar phyin; Ch. 忍辱 波羅蜜 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, rěnrǔ bōluómì; Wade-Giles, jen -ju po -luo -mi ]) is applied as an antidote to impatience, rebelliousness and aversion in general; the practice transcendent perseverance (Skt. vīrya pāramitā; Tib. brtson ’grus phar phyin; Ch. 精進 波羅蜜 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jīngjìn bōluómì; Wade-Giles, ching -chin po -luo -mi ]) is an antidote to laziness and indolence; transcendent stable mental absorption (Skt. dhyāna pāramitā; Tib. bsam gtan phar phyin; Ch. 禪定 波羅蜜 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chándìng bōluómì; Wade-Giles, ch’an -ting po luo -mi ]) is applied as an antidote to distraction and the monkey mind; the practice of transcendent discriminating wisdom (Skt. prajñā pāramitā; Tib. shes rab phar phyin; Ch. 般若 波羅蜜 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bōrě bōluómì; Wade-Giles, po -je po -luo -mi ]) is an antidote to wrong view, ignorance, bewilderment and delusion. (Etc.) Certainly the training in question cannot cause the arising of unconditioned nonreferential compassion, for whatever is unconditioned cannot be caused by a combination of main cause (Skt. & Pāḷi hetu; Tib. rgyu; Ch. 因 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn yīn; Wade-Giles yin ]) and a set of contributory conditions (Skt. pratyaya; Pāḷi paccaya; Tib. rkyen; Ch. 緣 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn yuán; Wade-Giles yuan ]); however, it can be a contributory condition, similar to a favorable setting, which may be ideal for the uncaused arising of such an unconditioned virtue as nonreferential compassion. As stated in a previous note, these four factors are: (1) the abandoning of nonvirtuous phenomena already generated; (2) the nongeneration of nonvirtuous phenomena not yet generated; (3) the increase of virtuous phenomena already generated; and (4) the generation of virtuous phenomena not yet generated. The Mahāyāna description of the four stages of this path is as follows: (1) heat (Skt. ūṣman / ūṣmagata; Tib. drod; Ch. 煖 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, nuǎn; Wade-Giles, nuan ]), which involves having an initial, incipient, partial, yet nonconceptual apprehension of tathatā (the true constituent of all entities); (2) peak or climax (Skt. mūrdhan; Tib. rtse mo; Ch. 頂 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dǐng; Wade-Giles, ting ]), which means one has reached the point at which the virtuous roots (Skt. kuśalamūla; Pāḷi kusalamūla; Tib. dge ba’i rtsa ba; Ch. 善 根 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shàngēn; Wade-Giles, shan -ken ]) one has cultivated cannot decrease or disappear, and the apprehension of tathatā becomes clearer; (3) forbearance (Skt. kṣānti; Tib. bzod pa; Ch. 忍辱 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, rěnrǔ; Wade-Giles, jen -ju ]) implies that by becoming increasingly familiar with the concept of emptiness one overcomes the dread of it I call panic, and that the doors of lower realms are irreversibly closed; (4) supreme mundane qualities (Skt. laukikāgradharma; Tib. ’jig rten pa’i chos kyi mchog; Ch. 世 第 ⼀ 法 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shìdìyīfǎ; Wade-Giles, shih -ti -i -fa ]) signifies one has actualized the highest qualities of mundane existence and become prepared to enter the supramundane Path—i.e. to gain access to the third path, which is the path of Presence (Skt. darśanamārga[ḥ]) or path of Seeing (Tib. mthong lam; Ch. ⾒道 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jiàndào; Wade-Giles chien -tao ]). Since we are speaking of the Mahāyāna, the dread that is overcome in the third stage has as its object the emptiness of the Mahāyāna, which is the twofold emptiness of both persons and phenomena-that-are-notpersons (both of which, in the case of the Madhyamaka School, may be either coarse or subtle). It is because glimpsing totality implies glimpsing that there are no separate parts—i.e. glimpsing the latter’s emptiness—that I refer to this dread as panic—which, of course, is attended and sustained by dread of dread. The Mahāyāna conception of emptiness will be considered in the section on the gradual Mahāyāna; a more thorough elucidation, discussing the conceptions of emptiness held by the different schools of the Mahāyāna, will be offered in the definitive version in print of Capriles (electronic publication 2004)— provided that I complete it. In the sudden or instantaneous Mahāyāna—Chán or Zen—the nonconceptual and hence nondual wisdom called absolute prajñā (or, in terms of the ten pāramitās, jñāna) must also arise at a given moment, marking the entrance into the Path in the truest sense of the term. One of the essential differences between the instantaneous approach and the gradual one lies in the fact that the former does not require the practitioner to begin the practice by performing the activities at the root of the relative accumulation of merits, or those traditionally done for developing relative bodhicitta—such as the contrived practices applied for developing the bodhicitta of intention (the four immeasurable catalysts of Awakening) and the contrived practices of the bodhicitta of action (the six or ten transcendences or pāramitā). Likewise, in the instantaneous Mahāyāna it is not held that the rūpakāya (the Buddha-body of form consisting of the saṃbhogakāya and the nirmāṇakāya) will arise as a result of the accumulation of merits: it is held 2 4 1 2 4 3 3 1 2 4 1 4 1 2 4 2 2 4 1 3 1 2 4 369 1 2 370 371 1 3 4 3 1 3 4 4 1 3 4 372 621 4 4 1 that in the state of Contemplation the three kāyas or Buddhic “bodies” are already active, and that therefore there is nothing to be produced by means of the “two accumulations.” The responsibility of practitioners, for their part, is not to allow delusion and relative truth to arise and veil absolute truth upon rising from a session of Contemplation. (All of these concepts will be explained in this section.) Just as in the Śrāvakayāna the path of Vision marks the entrance into the “stream,” in the Mahāyāna the transition to the path of Vision is the entrance to the Path in a truer sense—or, which is the same, to the True Path. This is what was meant in the preceding note when it was stated that the nonconceptual and hence nondual wisdom called absolute prajñā (or, in terms of the ten pāramitās, jñāna) must arise at a given moment, marking the entrance into the Path in the truest sense of the term. It was the Madhyamaka School, founded by Nāgārjuna and his disciple Āryadeva (called Kānadeva in the root text of Chán, the Platform Sūtra of the Sixth Patriarch), which developed the teachings on emptiness into a quite subtle system of philosophy to serve as the conceptual counterpart to the practice of the Mahāyāna path, explaining it mainly but not only as absence of self-existence (svabhāva śūnyatā)—and in particular as the absence of both the coarse and the subtle self-existence of both persons and phenomena other than persons—and making the point that this emptiness can only be truly realized through a nonconceptual gnosis that as such is free from the subject-object duality. (As noted repeatedly, both Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva are listed in the just mentioned Chán text as links in the transmission of Chán Buddhism, and that in various authoritative Tibetan works they are listed as links in one of the main lines of transmission of rDzogs chen Atiyoga.) According to Tibetan Buddhism, at an early stage the Madhyamaka divided into the Prāsaṅgika School and the Svātantrika Schools (the latter comprising the Svātantrika-Sautrāntika and two types of SvātantrikaYogācāra)—even though we have no records of Indian teachers using the two terms to refer to two different subschools of Madhyamaka. In fact, the only extant text by an Indian author in which one of these labels appear is the Madhyamakāvatāraṭīkā by Jayānanda—the sole Indian teacher who carried the view of Candrakīrti to Tibet—where the term Svātantrika is used a couple of times to refer to advocates of a position that the author viewed Candrakīrti as opposing (Cabezón, 2003, p. 292; it must be noted, however, that Jayānanda spent a long time in Tibet, and that the text just mentioned was consulted by Cabezón in Tibetan translation). At any rate, scholars as a rule assume the classification and terminology to have arisen in Tibet in the eleventh or twelfth century CE—the most ancient known texts in which it appears being the translations of works by Candrakīrti by Tibetan translator Pa tshab nyi ma grags, who, in spite of Jayānanda’s previous use of the term Svātantrika, is thus regarded as the probable originator of the terminological distinction (Dreyfus & McClintock, eds. 2003, passim). Later on in Tibet, the Jo nang pas—among whom the greatest philosopher seems to have been Dol po pa shes rab rgyal mtshan (1292–1361)—developed a Madhyamaka view found in higher Mahāyāna Sūtras of both Promulgations (among Third Promulgation Sūtras, it is found in the Mahābherīhārakaparivarta, the Laṅkāvatāra, the Āryaśrīmālādevīsiṃhanādanāmamahāyana, the Suvarṇaprabhāsa, the Aṅgulimāla, the Mahāparinirvāṇa and others; among Second Promulgation Sūtras, in the Śatasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā), and also found in Tantras such as the Kālacakra and the Hevajra, as well as in higher Indian Mahāyāna treatises interpreting Third Promulgation Sūtras (such as the Ratnagotravibhāga / Uttaratantraśāstra [Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra] by Maitreya—which, however, the Chinese attribute to Sthiramati / Sāramati [Ch. 堅慧 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jiānhuì; Wade-Giles, chien -hui )]) and higher Indian Mahāyāna treatises interpreting Second Promulgation Sūtras (e.g. Nāgārjuna’s Collection of Eulogies [Skt. Stavakāya; Tib. bsTod tshogs], among which most eloquent is surely the Eulogy to the Absolute Expanse of the True Condition [of Phenomena] [Skt. Dharmadhātustava (also referred to as Dharmadhātustotra); Tib. Chos dbyings bstod pa; Ch. 讚法界頌 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Zàn fǎjiè sòng; Wade-Giles, Tsan fa -chieh sung )]), and other texts. They referred to their view by the Tibetan terms dbU ma gzhan stong pa, dbU ma chen po (Skt. Mahāmadhyamaka) and inner, subtle Madhyamaka (Tib. Nang phra ba’i dbu ma), and grouped the rest of Madhyamaka schools under the rubrics “coarse, outer Madhyamaka” (Tib. Phyi rags pa’i dbu ma) and “Madhyamaka of Emptiness of Self-Existence” (Tib. dbU ma rang stong pa; Skt. Svabhāvaśūnyatā Madhyamaka). This terminology was due to the fact that the Jo nang pas and those redhat lamas who adopted their view further developed the conception of emptiness as the absence of anything other than ultimate truth itself that was already present in the just mentioned canonical sources and treatises. According to them, the dbU ma rang stong pas were right in claiming that individual relative phenomena were empty of self-existence (Skt. svabhāva śūnyatā; Tib. rang bzhing gyis stong pa nyid); however, they noted that it was equally important to emphasize the fact that absolute truth was void of extraneous existents (Skt. paraśūnya; Tib. gzhan stong). 373 374 1 4 4 4 622 3 4 For a more detailed explanation of this and an exposition of the views of the various Madhyamaka subschools, see Capriles (unpublished 1; possible definitive version in print of electronic publication 2004) and Chöphel & Capriles (unpublished 1). Note that I have artificially distinguished two subschools within the inner, subtle Madhyamaka, using the term dbU ma gzhan stong pa to refer to the view of Dol po pa and other Jo nang pas right as they expressed it, and Mahāmadhyamaka (Tib. dbU ma chen po) for referring to my own reinterpretation of it. Many people question how one might feel compassion toward others when one grasps the emptiness and therefore the unreality both of those others and of their circumstances and sufferings. This confusion arises from a wrong understanding of the meaning of “nonreferential compassion:” in general, what the noun “compassion” refers to is not piety, commiseration and charity felt toward particular individuals; for its part, the adjective “nonreferential” means that here compassion is not directed toward particular individuals and does not stem from reflecting on the problems and suffering that people face, but, as remarked in the regular text, is inherently inseparable from emptiness. In his King Dohās, the mahāsiddha Sarahapāda used the example of a simpleton (who might just as well have been a drunkard) who squinted and saw two moons, and then believed them to be two substantially separate and different entities. The inseparability of emptiness and compassion is like the indivisibility of the moon, but the delusion of dualism is like that of the simpleton or drunkard, which makes us utterly incapable of understanding the indivisibility of what the combination of these two terms refers to. In fact, it is the illusion of inherently true selfhood or egohood that lies at the root of selfishness and that causes us to always put what we consider to be in our own interest before the interests of others. When we find ourselves possessed by the illusion of inherent existence, we are in the state described in Pascal (1962 [posthumous edition, 1669]): “(134) All hate each other, although they feign charity or serving the public welfare; (135) admirable rules of courtesy, morality and justice have been founded on concupiscence and made out of it; but the heart, this fragmentum malum, rather than having been uprooted, has been covered up.” Evil issues primarily from selfishness and egotism, which for their part result from delusion and the egograsping it involves; although delusion and its inherent ego-grasping arise as the play (Skt. līlā; Tib. rol pa) or dance (Skt. lalita) of our true condition, the telos (τέλος) of human life is the game of hide-andseek whereby this true condition is concealed so that it may be progressively unveiled in a process of ever greater plenitude and fulfillment—and evil, being a result of delusion, arises from the hiding stage of the game rather than being something that is inherent in our true condition and that as such could never be removed. Contrariwise, the game is the game of removing delusion together with the evil it begets. However, the greatest source of evil is that which Jung called “the shadow,” but which, rather than being, as Jung believed, the remnant of the violent instincts of our animal ancestors, results from that which psychoanalyst Susan Isaacs (1989)—a disciple of Melanie Klein—called “unconscious phantasy,” which is the true fragmentum malum at the root of evil—especially because then we are compelled to see the fragmentum malum in others and to try to destroy this fragmentum by trying to destroy those others. The phantasy in question installs itself in us when, as infants, we are punished or reprimanded in a civilized society because we have engaged in socially unacceptable courses of behavior—for the individual who inflicts the punishment perceives the infant as a little, shameful demon, causing the infant to become that which is being perceived as him or her. Thereon he or she will have to repress those courses of behavior if she or he is to avoid punishment, but the unconscious phantasy is already installed in her or him, and he or she will have to conceal it by means of the mechanics which Freud explained in terms of the concept of “repression” and which Sartre (1980/1969) explained in terms of that of “bad faith”—which, rather that curbing the evil impulses inherent in feeling that in the bottom of ourselves we are inherently evil, potentiates them and exacerbates them precisely to the extent to which repressing it confirms our wrong belief that the phantasy in question is his or her deepest and truest identity. Contrariwise, when delusion is uprooted, from our chest there may emanate a warmth that embraces all sentient beings and all things without discrimination, and the whole universe, with the totality of human and other sentient beings in it, is experienced as our own body, which we take care of naturally, beyond the idea of substantial, external individuals or beings with absolutely true sufferings whom we should pity and feel sorrow for. As stated repeatedly, the term phenomenon derives from the Greek phainomenon (φαινόμενον), which means “that which appears.” Christianity posited a hypostatically existing soul that could not appear to human perception but that it held to be the agent of perception and action, and Western metaphysics was conditioned by this belief throughout its history—not only giving rise to Descartes’ thesis that there were 375 376 623 two created substances, one of which was the res cogitans that was no other than the Christian soul, and to some extent to Kant’s thesis of the transcendental consciousness, but persisting well into the twentieth century, when the philosopher that created phenomenology—Edmund Husserl—transformed this belief into the concept that he referred to by the term “pure transcendental consciousness,” conceived as a substantial reality that did not appear in perception yet was responsible for perception, thus betraying the very concept of phenomenology. Therefore, Sartre (1980) denounced Husserl and asserted consciousness to be no more than an appearance that existed only insofar as it appeared. On the other hand, even before Kant conceived his system, Hume had reduced the mind to a bundle of phenomena, thus showing it to be a phenomenal reality—and so did, purportedly under Hume’s influence, Kant’s contemporary, G. C. Lichtenberg. In the East, however, since Antiquity various Buddhist philosophers showed the mind to be a phenomenon and a mere appearance. As stated in endnote 70 to this volume, Bhāvaviveka, creator of the initial, avant la lettre form of Madhyamaka-Svātantrika philosophy, seems to have been the first Buddhist thinker to make the point that consciousness was part of the phenomenal world, and to substantiate this view with a set of arguments. At any rate, consciousness and the mental subject, which arise only in saṃsāra when the subject-object duality is functioning, are phenomena, even though they are phenomena of the gdangs form of manifestation of energy or “energy of the sphere of the mental,” and even though they do not appear directly and explicitly as objects, but in a much subtler way, which in the case of the mental subject has been referred to as “indirect and implicit.” For further details, cf. endnote 70. For a longer discussion, cf. Capriles (2007a, 3 Vols.; 2013abcd). Candrakīrti had made the point that all relative truth is delusion and that the only truth is the absolute. This is why in the twentieth century Gendün Chöphel commented that the Tibetan kun rdzob, the etymological meaning of which is “all-concealed,” is the term earlier scholars used to render the Sanskrit saṃvṛti, which has the etymological meaning of “obscuration to correctness” or “thoroughly confused.” Because one is “deluded about the meaning,” we must also understand “relative truth” as “mistaken truth”— i.e., as that which those who are utterly deluded take to be true. Madhyamakāvatāra VI-28 may be rendered from its Tibetan version as follows (corresponding yet not identical translation in Chandrakirti & Mipham, 2002, p. 72): “The true condition of phenomena (Skt. dharmatā; Tib. chos nyid; Ch. 法性 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fǎxìng; WadeGiles, fa -hsing ]), enshrouded by delusion, is “all concealed” (Tib. kun rdzob; Skt. saṃvṛti; Ch. 俗諦 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, súdì; Wade-Giles, su -ti ]), yet what is conditioned by this delusion appears as true, and so the Buddha spoke of “concealed truth” (Tib. kun rdzob bden pa; Skt. saṃvṛtisatya; Pāḷi sammutisacca; Ch. 世俗諦 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shìsú dì; Wade-Giles, shih -su ti ] or simply 俗諦 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, súdì; WadeGiles, su -ti ]). Thus fabricated / produced / contrived / compounded / conditioned (Skt. saṃskṛta; Pāḷi saṅkhata; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch., 有為 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒuwéi; Wade-Giles, yu -wei ]) phenomena are “allconcealing”.” Candrakīrti explains the term saṃvṛti / kun rdzob in the following three senses (corresponding yet not identical explanation in Thakchoe, 2007, p. 46): “(1) Deluded consciousness, which according to the Mahāyāna conceals the true condition of entities and produces a false reality through conceptual fabrications (Skt. prapañca; Pāḷi papañca; Tib. spros pa; Ch. 戲 論 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xìlùn; Wade-Giles, hsi -lun ]) that produce the subject-object dichotomy, our perceptions of reality in terms of the contents of countless thoughts that are confused with what they interpret (thus giving rise to a proliferation of entities), and the illusion that the ensuing appearances are self-existent. “(2) That which is mutually interdependent (Tib. pan tshun brtan pa; Skt. paraparasaṃbhavana); “(3) Worldly conventions (Skt. lokavyavahāra; Tib. ’jig rten tha snyad).” Go rams pa (in Nges don rab rgyal, p. 376d of the edition Thakchoe used) discusses the three senses Candrakīrti ascribes the term (corresponding yet not identical translation in Thakchoe, 2007, p. 47): “[1] Relative truth (Tib. kun rdzob) is that which obstructs all. The primal delusion is named kun rdzob or all-concealing because delusion thoroughly conceals the true condition of entities. [2] Alternatively, kun rdzob means mutually interdependent: it means [that all entities] are mutually interdependent. [3] Finally, kun rdzob refers to terms—i.e. worldly conventions. That too is explained as having the characteristics of expresser and expressed, consciousness and object of consciousness, and so forth.” In the above passage, the word “alternatively” may be misleading, for sense [2] implies sense [1], since whatever is interdependent thoroughly conceals the true condition of entities and is all-obstructing — doing so to a progressively lower extent in higher bodhisattvas as they proceed on the Path, yet doing so 377 3 4 2 4 4 2 2 4 4 3 4 4 624 2 without exception, for what is interdependent is the phenomena of relative truth in general, which are only perceived by the deluded—for they are not perceived either by higher bodhisattvas in their Contemplation state, or by Buddhas throughout their Buddha-life. Tsong kha pa acknowledges the etymology of both the Sanskrit saṃvṛti and its Tibetan translation, kun rdzob, but claims that there is a type of relative truth, which he called “mere existents,” that is not a product of delusion. Let us ponder on Tsong kha pa’s words on the etymology of the Tibetan kun rdzob and the Sanskrit saṃvṛti, which as we know are the terms rendered as “relative truth” (in Thakchoe, 2007, p. 47; terminology adapted to the one used here; the italics at the end are my own, and some of the words within brackets were added to Thakchoe’s translation): “Kun rdzob (saṃvṛti) is unawareness or ignorance because it conceals (’gebs) and thereby obstructs (sgrib par byed pa) the true condition. Since the [Sanskrit] equivalent of kun rdzob (saṃvṛti) also applies to obstruction (sgrib pa), it is explained in these terms: this, however, is far from stating that all kun rdzob are obstructers [or concealers].” The final assertion, “this, however, is far from stating that all kun rdzob are obstructers or concealers,” is the main innovation introduced by rJe Tsong kha pa in the Madhyamaka system, for previously no one had made such an assertion, and it is the distinguishing trait of the dGe lugs pa system. In fact, the latter introduced the purported distinction between hypostatic, inherent or true existence, which it deems to be a delusion, and a purported mere existence of entities that is held not to be an instance of delusion, and which, therefore, must be left standing after the analysis has refuted true, hypostatic or inherent existence if one is to avoid falling into nihilism. This amounts to asserting the existence of a multiplicity of entities, which may not be questioned in analysis, and asserting those entities to be the type of entity that the concept in terms of which we perceive them establishes them to be: a cat, a pot, a pillar, etc. Moreover, whereas the original Prāsaṅgikas and their faithful followers in Tibet always acknowledged that Buddhas apprehend the absolute truth only, Tsong kha pa claimed that Buddhas simultaneously apprehend the two truths: since “mere existence” actually existed, an omniscient being had to perceive it. For further information on this issue and a thorough refutation of the dGe lugs position in this regard, cf. Capriles (unpublished 1, unpublished 3), Chöphel & Capriles (unpublished) and, if I complete it at some point and publish it, the definitive version in print of Capriles (2004). When someone cannot continue in Contemplation indefinitely, at some point he or she must move to another condition that is marked by delusion and that is as such conceptual and dualistic and hence is an instance of delusion, but in which delusion occurs with less force than in an ordinary individual. It is this second state that in Sanskrit is referred to by the Skt. pṛṣṭhalabdha, the Tib. rjes thob and the Ch. 後得 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, hòudé; Wade-Giles, hou -te ). In the case of individuals of the type referred to in the above note, the period of Contemplation is referred to by the Sanskrit term samāhita, the Tib. mnyam bzhag and the Ch. 等引 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, děngyǐn; WadeGiles, teng -yin ). Passional delusive obstructions (Skt. kleśāvaraṇa; Pāḷi kilesāvaraṇa; Tib. nyon [mongs pa’i] sgrib [pa]; Ch. 煩惱障 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fánnǎozhàng; Wade-Giles, fan -nao -chang ]), which are defined as “any state of mind that when developed brings about uneasiness and suffering,” and which according to the gradual Mahāyāna are totally removed when the bodhisattva moves from the seventh to the eighth level (Skt. bhūmi; Tib. sa; Ch. 地 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dì; Wade-Giles, ti ]), are classified into: (1) Intellectual or theoretical delusive obstructions (Tib. kun btags nyon mongs kyi sgrib pa), which refers to any intellectual framework that justifies, gives rise to, or reinforces the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of thought, grasping and the passions. This is what is known as a “wrong view,” of which classical examples are: believing one is an inherently existing, autonomous, independent self; thinking that relative, conditioned phenomena are permanent; saying that there is no basis for propounding the Four Noble Truths; believing that a god made the universe; etc. (2) Inborn delusive obstructions (Tib. lhan skyes nyon mongs kyi sgrib pa), which consist in the inborn tropism to grasp, and to delusorily hypostasize / absolutize / reify / valorize thoughts, in such a way as to automatically give rise to the various defilements (such as the three poisons, the six root delusions, etc.). Examples of this are: the automatic arousal of anger when someone insults one and the reflex drive to retaliate; the automatic welling-up of longing desire as soon as one encounters an object to which one is attracted, and the reflex drive to appropriate that object; etc. However, in Thod rgal practice, in which the practitioner oscillates between absorptions of form (Skt. rūpādhyāna; Pāli rūpājhāna; Tib. gzugs khams bsam gtan; Ch. 四禪 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sìchán; Wade-Giles, ssu -ch’an ] or rūpāvacaradhyāna; Pāli rūpāvacarajhāna; Tib. gzugs na spyod pa’i bsam gtan; Ch. ⾊界 378 4 2 379 3 3 380 2 4 381 4 2 625 3 4 定 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sèjiè dìng; Wade-Giles, se -chieh ting ]) and the saṃbhogakāya (Tib. klong sku; Ch. 報 ⾝ [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bàoshēn; Wade-Giles, pao -shen ]), this oscillation occurs because the instant delusion arises as an absorption with form, aversion (Skt. dveṣa; Pāḷi dosa; Tib. zhe sdang; Ch. 瞋 [Hànyǔ 4 4 4 4 1 Pīnyīn, chēn; Wade-Giles ch’en ]) is activated, and its activation unleashes a spontaneous perfection / spontaneous arising / spontaneous rectification / spontaneous accomplishment (Skt. nirābogha or anābogha; Tib. lhun grub) systemic loop that culminates with the spontaneous liberation of delusion in the saṃbhogakāya—which consists in the correct apprehension of the visions of rol pa energy, so that one does not experience oneself as different from them. Cognitive delusive obstructions (Skt. jñeyāvaraṇa; Pāḷi ñeyyavāvaraṇa; Tib. shes [bya’i] sgrib [pa]; Ch. 所知障 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn suǒzhīzhàng; Wade-Giles so -chih -chang ]) are so called because they do not involve the passions that arise on the basis of passional delusive obstructions (Skt. kleśāvaraṇa; Pāḷi kilesāvaraṇa; Tib. nyon [mongs pa’i] sgrib [pa]; Ch. 煩惱障 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fánnǎozhàng; Wade-Giles, fan -nao -chang ]), for they are much subtler instances of delusion circumscribed to the non-passional hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of knowledge and action—which as such cannot create the causes for rebirth in lower realms. This kind of delusive obstruction has often been defined as the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of knowledge and action that persists after passional delusive obstructions (Skt. kleśāvaraṇa; Tib. nyon [mongs pa’i] sgrib [pa]) and the intense passionate karma involved have been neutralized or uprooted, and which underlies these so long as they are present. It is because of the emphasis on the fact that these delusions persist after coarse ones have been uprooted that traditionally the coarse obscurations that constitute the obstacle of passions were compared to a piece of camphor or, in our time, to a mothball in a drawer, and the subtle obscurations that constitute the obstacle of knowledge have been symbolized with the odor left by the camphor—or, in our time, the mothball—after it has been removed. However, as just shown, the latter obstacle is also active while the former is present—just as a mothball’s odor is also present while the mothball is present, rather than arising after it has been removed. An instance of the obstacle of knowledge that is present both while the coarse obscurations that make up the obstacle of passions are active and after they have been removed, is that of the intentional self-conscious action that characterizes saṃsāra, the drawbacks of which are independent of whether or not the action is carried out under the influence of the passions—even though they may arise with greater power in the latter case. As already noted, whenever we act in an intentional and self-conscious manner, at the moment of acting we take the entity designated by our name as the object of our consciousness and we perceive this entity as “a subject that is carrying out an action,” thus causing the subject to become an object and hence producing a greater or lesser degree of self-impediment. In Chán or Zen Buddhism, in order to develop the capacity to act in the state of Contemplation, beyond the influence of the basic human delusion and the self-interference that this implies, a series of dàos (Ch. 道 [Wade-Giles tao ]; Jap. dō [わ たる]) are applied—among which archery may offer a useful example of this. When an archer shoots under the power of delusion, at the moment of shooting his or her own consciousness takes the human entity that is shooting as its object and perceives it in terms of an intuitive thought that in discursive terms could be expressed as “now I am shooting.” Thereby the subject-consciousness that arises coemergently with the intention of shooting the arrow identifies with—or, in terms of Sartre’s (1980) philosophy, becomes—the object of that subject-consciousness, which is conceptualized as “the shooter”—which for a moment obstructs the consciousness’ subjectivity-spontaneity and thereby gives rise to a slight twitch that deflects the arrow. The training of the Zen archer aims at allowing him or her to “shoot without shooting:” while uncontrivedly “aiming” at the target’s center, his or her fingers must open spontaneously to free the arrow, beyond any self-conscious intention to shoot. When the archer finally succeeds in “achieving” this “prowess” every time he shoots, nothing interferes any longer with his aim, and so he becomes a consummate archer. A classical gradual Mahāyāna example of the obstacle of knowledge after the coarse obscurations that constitute the obstacle of passions has been removed, is the effort bodhisattvas in the last three levels (Skt. bhūmi; Tib. sa; Ch. 地 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dì; Wade-Giles, ti ]) still have to apply in their everyday practices. The particular kind of cognitive delusive obstruction (Skt. jñeyāvaraṇa; Pāḷi ñeyyavāvaraṇa; Tib. shes [bya’i] sgrib [pa]; Ch. 所知障 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn suǒzhīzhàng; Wade-Giles so -chih -chang ]) responsible for deviating the arrow, as well as for the effort bodhisattvas in the last three levels (Skt. bhūmi; Tib. sa; Ch. 地 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dì; Wade-Giles, ti ]) still have to apply in their everyday practices, is the one called 1 382 3 2 3 1 4 4 4 4 383 3 4 626 1 4 ’khor gsum rnam par rtog pa gang de shes bya sgrib par ’dod. Most special thanks are due to the accomplished translator and scholar Elio Guarisco for the extensive research he so kindly did on my behalf concerning the usage of the term ’khor gsum; Skt. trimaṇḍala; Ch. 三輪 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānlùn; Wade-Giles, san -lun ]). Śāntideva compared what is termed passional delusive obstructions (Skt. kleśāvaraṇa; Pāḷi kilesāvaraṇa; Tib. nyon [mongs pa’i] sgrib [pa]; Ch. 煩惱障 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fánnǎozhàng; Wade-Giles, fan -nao chang ]) to the lust that the sexy illusory woman-dancer created by a magician arouses in male spectators at a magic show, and likened what is called cognitive delusive obstructions (Skt. jñeyāvaraṇa; Pāḷi ñeyyavāvaraṇa; Tib. shes [bya’i] sgrib [pa]; Ch. 所知障 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn suǒzhīzhàng; Wade-Giles so chih -chang ]) to the lust that the sexy illusory woman-dancer created by a magician arouses in the magician himself. Understood in this limited sense, the second type of obscuration would be circumscribed to superior bodhisattvas on the fourth Path between the eighth and tenth level (Skt. bhūmi; Tib. sa; Ch. 地 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dì; Wade-Giles, ti ]) in their post-Contemplation state. However, the cognitive delusive obstructions also underlie what is called passional delusive obstructions while this type of obstruction is operative, and as such it must be understood in the wider sense in which it is explained in the paragraph of the regular text to which the call for this note was appended. This term (Ch. 頓⾨ [simplified: 顿⻔] [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dùnmén; Wade-Giles, tun -men ]; Tib. ston mun) is the general one for referring to this tradition. In his sūtra, the Sixth Patriarch of Chán, Wai -nang or Weilang (惠能; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Huìnéng; Wade-Giles, Hui -neng ; Jap. Enō) declared that no tradition is either sudden or gradual, and that these adjectives should be applied to students rather than to teachings or schools, for no doubt some students are more “sudden” than others (Wong Mou-Lam and A. F. Price, translators, 1969); however, the term is used to refer to the Chán or Zen School because in it Awakening is not posited as the result of a gradual development through paths and levels, but as an instantaneous breakthrough. It is easy to wonder how can the sudden Mahāyāna value a sūtra that claims that, after attaining vajra-like samādhi, the bodhisattva will have to study the majestic conduct of the Buddhas for one thousand aeons and the refined practices of the Buddhas for ten thousand aeons before finally fulfilling Buddhahood. However, Chán views this as having a hidden meaning, and to prove their point retort: “each kalpa being immeasurable, how could anyone posit one thousand or ten thousand in a literal sense?” As shown by the story of the “conversion” of Déshān Xuānjiàn (Ch. 徳⼭宣鑑; Wade-Giles, Te -shan Hsüan -chien ; Jap. Tokusan Senkan: Cleary, T & J. C. trans., 1977), the same reply may be given to the general Mahāyāna statement that the bodhisattva attains Awakening after three immeasurable cosmic time cycles (Skt. kalpa; Pāḷi kappa; Tib. bskal pa; Ch. 劫波 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jiébō; Wade-Giles, chieh -po ] or 劫 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn jié; Wade-Giles chieh ]) treading the Path (according to Mahāyāna canonical sources and treatises, one of these periods is required to go through the paths of accumulation and preparation or application; one for going through levels one to seven [i.e. for the path of Vision and part of the path of Contemplation]; and one for going through the last three levels of the path of Contemplation and thus reaching the path of no more learning—i.e., full, irreversible Buddhahood). According to Hīnayāna Buddhism, only monks can attain nirvāṇa. However, this is not so according to the Mahāyāna, which does not depict the great bodhisattvas as monks. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra, in particular, portrays as a model of the perfect practitioner, very superior to the Hīnayāna monk, a lay bodhisattva that lived at home with his family and whose conduct could not be set up as a paradigm of the Path of Renunciation. Moreover, as will be shown in a subsequent section of the regular text of this book, the bodhisattva Vimalakīrti, hero of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra, was an extremely important lineage holder in the lineal succession of both the Mahāyogatantra and the Anuyogatantra. At any rate, if Vimalakīrti is set up as the supreme type of practitioner by an important canonical text of the Sūtrayāna, it is curious that some Sarmapa monks, in spite of being Vajrayāna practitioners—and thus of treading a Path that is not centered on the level of the body to which vows belong, and that does not teach practitioners should become monks and nuns—and in spite of seeing no problem in being granted temporary dispense of their vows in order to take a secret consort when this is required in order to perform specific practices, express misgivings and even overt hostility toward lay Masters. The above does not happen among the rNying ma pa, whose texts clearly state that it is not convenient for the supreme Masters, who are the gter ston or “revealers of spiritual treasures” (the term will be explained toward the end of the main text of this Part One of the book), to be monks or nuns, because they must necessarily take a consort. For their part, the ’Brugs pa bKa’ brgyud, just as the Sa skya pas, do not establish that lamas should be monks (moreover, in the latter school the hierarchs simply may not become 1 4 384 2 3 4 3 1 4 4 385 4 2 6 4 4 2 386 2 1 1 2 2 387 627 1 4 monks, for they must bear offspring—since they are chosen by family line rather than being chosen by “reincarnation”). Furthermore, in many of the sūtras mentioned above in the regular text of this book, elements are found that seem to belong to the Path of Spontaneous Liberation, while in certain sūtras (some of which were not included among the former) we find elements that seem to belong to the Path of Transformation. (These two Paths will be considered below in the regular text of this book). Concerning the sūtras that feature elements that seem to belong to the Path of Transformation, it is extremely significant that the Ārya-Śurangama-Samādhi Nāma Mahāyāna-Sūtra (extant in Tibetan version) tells us how the bodhisattva who is the hero of this sūtra—the Mārācārya or Devil’s Teacher, Viśnaya Vimalā— puts the demonic forces of delusion to the service of Awakening. In fact, rather than expressing the principle of the Path of Renunciation, this seems to express the principle of the inner Tantras. With regard to those sūtras of the Mahāyāna, pertaining both to the Second and Third Promulgations, which feature elements that seem to belong to the Path of Spontaneous Liberation, in a subsequent section of the regular text it will be shown that, according to Buddhist rDzogs chen teachings, the ston pa or Primordial Master dGa’ rab rdo rje, who introduced Buddhist rDzogs chen into the human world, was an emanation of Śākyamuni’s Buddha. This, and the fact that since all Buddhist canonical sources, whether pertaining to the Pāḷi Canon and hence to the Hīnayāna, to the Mahāyāna Canon, to the Vajrayāna or to rDzogs chen Ati, assert Buddhahood to be unproduced, nonfabricated, uncontrived, unconditioned and uncompounded (Skt. asaṃskṛta; Pāḷi, asaṅkhata; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無爲 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu -wei ]), implies that in all vehicles genuine realization occurs by means of spontaneous liberation and hence that Śākyamuni, being a Buddha, could not have been unaware of the principle of A ti rDzogs pa chen po. And, indeed, although Śākyamuni trod a quite extreme form of the Path of Renunciation, his Awakening, as those of all other realized beings on the Paths of Renunciation and Transformation, was a spontaneous occurrence (he Awoke after giving up his penances: he had powerful nyams, in the face of which he remained perfectly aloof; then he entered a very deep samādhi, and when he spontaneously awoke from the samādhi his Awakening took place). At any rate, all that was expounded in this note explains the fact that some sūtras contain elements that seem to be based on the principle of the Atiyogatantrayāna or that somehow show its traces. In fact, as already stated in a note 374, according to the Platform Sūtra of the Sixth Patriarch (Wong MouLam and A. F. Price, trans., 1969), Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva (the latter of whom is called Kānadeva in the sūtra) were respectively the fourteenth and fifteenth links in the lineal succession of Chán or Zen. However, not only is Nāgārjuna listed among the Patriarchs of the Dhyāna, Chán or Zen School, for according to (1) g.Yu sgra snying po’s noted Bairo Dradak (Wylie, rJe btsun thams cad mkhyen pa bai ro tsa na’i rnam tar ’dra ’bag chen mo); (2) the Man ngag bshad thabs of the Bai ro rgyud ’bum (Hundred Thousand Tantras of Berotsana / Bairotsana: vol. Ka, pp. 134-172); and other texts that include (3) the Sems sde bco brgyad kyi dgongs pa rig ’dzin rnams kyis rdo rje’i glur bzhengs pa (in the snGa ’gyur bka’ ma, vol. Tsa [Sichuan]) and so on, Nāgārjuna was a link in the transmission of rDzogs chen Ati—which, like Chán, is not a gradual system (even though in it nongradual and gradual approaches coexist). And the same applies to Āryadeva, for dPa’ bo gtsug lag phreng ba’s Chos ’byung mkhas pa’i dga’ ston (p. 568) cites both Nāgārjuna and his associate and disciple, Āryadeva—who according to this text attained the rainbow body after receiving rDzogs chen teachings from Mañjuśrīmitra the Younger—as links in one of the two lines of transmission originating from dGa’ rab rdo rje, source of the current transmission of Buddhist rDzogs chen (cf. Norbu, Namkhai, Italian 1988). Moreover, the author (Ibid.) went so far as to conclude that the theoretical view of the original Madhyamaka may be a Mahāyāna expression of the essential outlook of rDzogs chen: “The (theoretical) viewpoint of rDzogs chen is that of the Madhyamaka-Prāsaṅgika system, aim of the teaching of Buddha and supreme among Buddhist philosophical systems, originally expounded by Nāgārjuna and his disciple Āryadeva. (Note 14 by Adriano Clemente: ‘Madhyamaka [dBu ma] philosophy was originally taught by the Indian Master Nāgārjuna… and his disciple Āryadeva. In a later period two schools developed, the Prāsaṅgika [Thal ’gyur pa] and the Svātantrika [Rang ’gyur pa]. The first, faithful to the original thought of the founder, and propounded by Buddhapālita [470-540], does not uphold any theory, but limits itself to showing the absurdity of all possible theses concerning the ultimate nature of reality. The second, founded by Bhāvaviveka [fifth century], is based on a more systematic formulation of this philosophy.’). This is confirmed by the (root Tantra of the rDzogs chen man ngag sde series), the Drataljur (sGra thal ’gyur chen po’i rgyud; Skt. Shabda maha prasamga mula tantra). Therefore, we could conclude that the (theoretical) view of rDzogs chen (corresponds to that of) this 2 2 388 628 philosophical system that transcends eternalism and nihilism. (In fact), it is even possible to speculate that the (theoretical) view of Madhyamaka-Prāsaṅgika (may) have originated from rDzogs chen. There are two reasons to substantiate this. The first is that the (real) Knowledge of the true condition cannot be something different from the state of spontaneous perfection of Dzogchen, and therefore the view of Madhyamaka-Prāsaṅgika must correspond to it. The other is that dGa’ rab rdo rje, the first Master of (Buddhist) Dzogchen, was the source of two lineages, one of seven disciples and one of twenty-one, and one of these twenty-one successors was Nāgārjuna. Besides, it is claimed that Āryadeva vanished in light after having received Dzogchen teachings from the second Mañjuśrīmitra (who is considered to have been an emanation of the direct disciple of dGa’ rab rdo rje bearing the same name). All of this is clearly reported in A Feast for the Erudite: A History of Buddhism (Chos ’byung mkhas pa’i dga’ ston: Tibetan Text 8, Ms A, p. 568). “But even if the (theoretical) view of Dzogchen (corresponds to) that of Madhyamaka-Prāsaṅgika, Sakya Paṇḍita asserted that: “‘The View of Primordial Yoga (Atiyoga) is wisdom rather than a vehicle.’ “Therefore, it is not correct, basing oneself merely on a limited vision, to define Dzogchen as a philosophical system transcending eternalism and nihilism, (for this would reduce Dzogchen to a theoretical) view. Dzogchen must in fact be understood in the completeness of the three aspects, which are the Base, the Path and the Fruit. The (term lta ba, which is usually rendered as) View, (refers to) only one of the three elements of the Path, and thus (is far from) representing the whole (of Dzogchen).” It must be noted that most Tibetans seem to regard Candrakīrti as the originator of Prāsaṅgika, because they consider that Buddhapālita simply gave continuity to the type of Madhyamaka developed by Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva. Then Bhāvaviveka insisted on the need to posit theses and employ syllogisms in order to explain Madhyamaka, and criticized Buddhapālita for doing the same that the forefathers had done, rather than making people understand their system. And it was after this that Candrakīrti refuted Bhāvaviveka and established that Madhyamaka should not be allowed to posit theses and use syllogisms, because its original purpose had been that of leading seekers beyond the intellect (yet permitting the use of otherdirected assertions like those referred to by the Skt. paramata and the Tib. gzhan lugs). At any rate, that which in the above quoted passage is rendered as “View” is lta ba, which, as shown in the regular text, in the context of the rDzogs chen teachings I render as “Vision” because, rather than a theoretical view, it is the direct, nonconceptual and hence nondual disclosure of the Base of rDzogs chen—namely of the true condition of ourselves and all phenomena. The fact that both Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva are listed as links in the transmission of both rDzogs chen Ati and the sudden Mahāyāna (Chán or Zen), could make one suspect that the latter may have been the result of an adaptation of the practice of A ti rDzogs pa chen po to the principles and the context of the Mahāyāna, and that it was this adaptation that introduced the partiality towards emptiness that Nam mkha’i snying po denounced in his bKa’ thang sde lnga—which, however, is based on the view and practice of the Northern School of Shénxiù (神秀; Wade-Giles, Shen -hsiu ; Jap. Jinshū). At any rate, if this were the case, then the fact that the theoretical view of Madhyamaka seems to be an essentially Mahāyāna expression of the rDzogs chen View, could be due to the fact that it was introduced by great rDzogs chen yogis who were also links in the transmission of Chán or Zen, as an expression of the realization of the latter tradition to be offered to practitioners of the gradual Mahāyāna. In fact, rDzogs chen yogis would have produced both the philosophy of Madhyamaka as a theoretical basis for the practice of the gradual Mahāyāna, and Chán or Zen as a more direct, nongradual practice for Mahāyāna practitioners of greater capacity. (Note that this interpretation is the opposite of the one found in Keith Dowman, Ed. and Trans. 1984, according to which rDzogs chen derived from Chán Buddhism.) At any rate, I feel fully confident that it may properly be said that Chán or Zen is to the Mahāyāna what rDzogs chen Ati is to the Vajrayāna. All of the above is quite congruent with the fact that, in his bSam gtan mig sgron, gNubs chen sangs rgyas ye shes designated the Atiyogatantrayāna as the “universal ancestor of all vehicles,” and that some other teachings of A ti rDzogs pa chen po seem to suggest that all paths of Awakening might have been derived from the mentioned primordial vehicle (in fact, the very title “primordial” somehow implies the meaning of “source of everything”). And, in fact, in this book the point has been made repeatedly that in all vehicles and Paths, including those based on Renunciation and on Transformation, when Awakening occurs, it always does so as a spontaneous liberation. Though some Bon po Masters (such as sLob dpon bsTan ’dzin rnam dag) have privately claimed that the Buddhist Mahāyāna, Vajrayāna and Atiyogatantrayāna were originally taught by Bon po Masters, and 2 629 4 insisted that dGa’ rab rdo rje was in truth the Bon po Master Ra sangs ta pi hri tsa, there is no evidence whatsoever to substantiate such claims—which, so long as no sound evidence is offered, should not be taken as a fact, but, on the contrary, should be dismissed. At any rate, as stated elsewhere in this book, the labels Svātantrika and Prāsaṅgika and the division of the Madhyamaka into these two subschools arose in Tibet—although, as already noted, the label Svātantrika had already been used in Jayānanda’s Madhyamakāvatāraṭīkā to refer to advocates of a position that he saw Candrakīrti as opposing (Cabezón, 2003, p. 292). In the standard translation of The Platform Sūtra of the Sixth Patriarch (in Wong Mou-Lam and A. F. Price, translators, 1969 pp. 50-1) there is no explanation as to the identity of Kānadeva, who is listed as the 15th Patriarch and successor to Nāgārjuna, the 14th Patriarch. However, in the standard translation of the Chán classic The Blue Cliff Record (T. and J. C. Cleary, translators, 1977, vol. I, Thirteenth Case, pp. 88-93) the fact that Kānadeva was a disciple of Nāgārjuna is emphasized, and in a note to the same book the translators note that Kānadeva is another name for Āryadeva. In endnote before last I speculated that the original Madhyamaka philosophy developed by Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva may have been an adaptation of the view of the sudden school to the gradual Mahāyāna, and that both Madhyamaka philosophy and the sudden Mahāyāna qua vehicle may have been adaptations of rDzogs chen to the propensities and capacities of practitioners. To that aim it was noted that Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva were links in the lineage of the rDzogs chen Atiyoga, which in Tibetan Text 1 (pp. 290145b, 6) was referred to as “the universal ancestor of all vehicles”—a title that suggests this interpretation in a quite precise way. This, however, would have to be ascertained by future research and scholarship. At any rate, it is a fact that the sudden Mahāyāna makes use of the views and explanations of the original Madhyamaka, most of which correspond to the Prāsaṅgika view (the exception being mainly Nāgārjuna’s Collection of Eulogies (Skt. Stavakāya; Tib. bsTod tshogs and in particular in the Eulogy to the Expanse of the True Condition [Skt. Dharmadhātustava; Tib. Chos dbyings bstod pa]). However, throughout Chán and Zen we find the terminology of the canonical texts of the Third Promulgation—for example, making ample reference to the single, primordial Mind, as well as to the so-called “eight consciousnesses” posited in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra, which later on became a central tenet of the Yogācāra School (the fact should not be overlooked that the Platform Sūtra of the Sixth Patriarch lists Vasubandhu, one of the architects of the Mind-Only school—Skt. Cittamātra; Tib. Sems tsam pa; Ch. 唯⼼ [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wéixīn; WadeGiles, wei -hsin ] as the twenty-first link in the transmission of Chán or Zen). In fact, the ideas, terminology and explanations of (1) the Second Promulgation and the Madhyamaka School, and (2) the Third Promulgation, coexist and fuse in the sudden Mahāyāna. However, whatever this vehicle took from the Third Promulgation was not digested in terms of Mind-Only philosophy, for in the sudden Mahāyāna the general conception of the emptiness of the manifold phenomena is that of Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka, which is the highest form of Madhyamaka Rang stong pa, and the seemingly “idealistic” explanations it provides insist on the emptiness of mind in a way reminiscent of the views of the subtle, inner Madhyamaka, and in particular of Mahāmadhyamaka in the sense in which I use the term). It must be noted that in the Sudden Mahāyāna we do not find lengthy theoretical explanations of reality like those provided by the theoretical schools of the Mahāyāna, for its intent is to cut off speculation and all wanderings of mind, and achieve that which has been imprecisely rendered into English as “sudden Awakening” (Ch. 悟; [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wù; Wade-Giles wu ; Jap. satori]). Therefore, it would not be at all inaccurate to say that, like the subtle, inner Madhyamaka (and in particular Mahāmadhyamaka in the sense I give the term), the sudden Mahāyāna unifies the Rang stong pa and gZhan stong pa sub-schools of Madhyamaka. (For an explanation of the above schools and their relation to rDzogs chen and Tantrism, see Capriles [unpublished 1, unpublished 3]; Chöphel & Capriles [unpublished]; and the possibly upcoming, definitive edition in print of Capriles [electronic publication 2004].) Although it is possible that this term may have been used in the Northern school as well, I have seen it in a Master of the Southern School: Huángbò Xīyùn (Ch. ⻩檗希運 [simplified, ⻩檗希运 ] [Wade-Giles, Huang -po Hsi -yün ]); lit., “Xīyùn of Mt. Huángbò” (Jap. Ōbaku Kiun) (died 850). Cf. Blofeld (1958). In fact, the meaning of “great use of prajñā” corresponds to the arising of skillful means or method (Skt. upāya; Tib. thabs; Ch. ⽅ 便 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fāngbiàn; Wade-Giles, fang -pien ]) in the form of spontaneous actionless actions effective in leading others to Awakening. As it is well-known, upāya is the counterpart of prajñā (Tib. shes rab; Ch. 般若 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn bōrě; Wade-Giles, po -je ]). Cf. Blofeld (1958). 389 390 2 1 4 391 2 4 1 4 392 1 4 1 630 3 The Japanese name of the Rinzai tradition, which was imported into Japan by Eisai Zenji (1141-1215) is Rinzai-shū, which translates the Chinese Línjìzōng (临济宗; Wade-Giles, Lin -chi Tsung ), for Línjì (d. 866; Wade-Giles, Lin -chi ; Japanese, Rinzai) was the founder of this school. Its Korean name is Imjechong, and the Vietnamese one is Lam-te. The Japanese name of the Sōtō tradition, which was imported into Japan by Dōgen Zenji (1200-1253; 道元 禅師; a.k.a. Dōgen Kigen 道元希⽞, or Eihei Dōgen 永平道元, or Koso Joyo Daishi) is Sōtō-shū, which translates the Chinese Cáodòngzōng (曹洞宗; Wade-Giles, Ts’ao -tung Tsung . This school was founded by Dòngshān Liángjiè (洞⼭良價, 806-869; Wade-Giles, Tung -shan Liang -chieh ; Jap. Tōzan Ryōkai) and his Dharma-heirs in the ninth century. Some attribute the name “Cáodòng” to a juncture of the first character of the name Dòngshān and the first character of the name Cáoshān—which was that of one of Dòngshān’s dharma heirs, Cáoshān Běnjì (曹⼭本寂; Wade-Giles, Ts’ao -shan Pen -chi ; Jap. Sōzan Honjaku); however, according to others, the “Cáo” much more likely came from Cáoxī (曹溪), Huìnéng’s “mountain-name”—for Master Cáoshān is said to have been of lesser importance than his contemporary and fellow Dharma-heir, Yúnjū Dàoyīng (雲居道膺; Wade-Giles, Yün -chü Tao -ying ; Jap. Ungo Dōyō). The sect emphasizes sitting meditation and later “silent illumination” techniques. The Vietnamese name of the sect is Tao-Dong. The Ōbaku-shū (⻩檗宗 ) is the third school of Japanese Zen, but it will not be discussed here, as it is not relevant to explain the contrast between the dynamic and the quietist approaches. In this context it would not be permissible to speak of the two aspects of the Base, which according to the rDzogs chen teachings are primordial purity (Tib. ka dag; hypothesized Skt. kaśuddha) and spontaneous arising / spontaneous rectification / spontaneous accomplishment / spontaneous perfection (Tib. lhun grub; Skt. nirābogha or anābogha), for these concepts do not belong to the Mahāyāna, gradual or sudden—nor does Chán or Zen make use of the spontaneous perfection / spontaneous arising / spontaneous rectification / spontaneous accomplishment principle in the way in which, and to the extent to which, it is applied in the rDzogs chen teachings. However, if illegitimately we transposed these concepts into the sudden Mahāyāna, perhaps it could be permissible to say that the approach that in present day Japan is represented by the Rinzai School makes some kind of use of the principle of lhun grub—albeit the ka dag aspect predominates in the practice of the Mahāyāna in general and the principle of lhun grub is neither acknowledged not fully employed. It may also be remarked that in the Sōtō school the two rows of practitioners sit back to back, facing the walls, whereas in the Rinzai school the two rows of students face each other. The first way of sitting emphasizes the primordial purity aspect of emptiness and calm to a greater extent than the latter, which for its part may activate the systemic loops that lead delusion to its reductio ad absurdum, which are related to the spontaneous accomplishment / spontaneous perfection / spontaneous arising / spontaneous rectification aspect. In fact, of all the Ch’an methods used in Japan, it is probably that of gōng’àn (公案; Wade-Giles kung -an ; Jap. kōan) riddles—central in Rinzai Zen—that, when it works properly, most forcefully activates the lhun grub aspect of the Base for using it as radical skillful means. Unfortunately, the institutionalization and systematization of even the most powerful methods can make them lose a great deal of their power. At any rate, some of the methods emphasized by the Chinese Twenty Century Chán Master Xūyún Dàshī (meaning “Empty Cloud”: 虛雲⼤師; Wade-Giles: Hsu -yun Ta -shih : 1840–1959), which do not seem to be used in Japanese Zen, are among the most radical methods making use of the principle of lhun grub, if we allow ourselves to use this term in the context of Chán/Zen. For a more detailed discussion of the concepts of ka dag and lhun grub, see Part Two of this book. The Japanese term dokusan (獨參; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dúcān; Wade-Giles, tu -ts’an ) literally means “go alone to a high one” and refers to the meeting of a Zen student with his teacher, alone in the Master’s room. Sōtō Zen abandoned this extremely important practice since the middle of Meiji times. This term is said to mean “doing only zazen whole-heartedly” or “single-minded sitting,” and is believed to have been introduced by a Master of the Cáodòngzōng: Tiāntóng Rújìng ( 天童如淨; Wade-Giles, T’ien -t’ung Ju -ching ; Jap. Tendō Nyōjo), the teacher of the Japanese monk Dōgen, who introduced Sōtō Zen into Japan. There is a well-made biographic movie on Dōgen, most interestingly picturing his wisdom-seeking trip to China: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TinmRC2BS00 In fact, Dòngshān Liángjiè (洞⼭良價; Wade-Giles, Tung -shan Liang -chieh ; Jap. Tōzan Ryōkai) himself, which has been regarded as the original Chinese founder of the Sōtō School (cf. endnote 393 for details), 393 2 2 4 2 4 4 1 1 2 4 2 2 1 1 4 ? 394 1 4 1 2 4 1 395 2 1 396 1 2 2 1 4 4 397 4 631 1 2 4 3 1 4 was involved in a good deal of mondos. See Cleary, Thomas and J. C. translators, 1977, vol. II, case 43 (pp. 306-311) and Biographies of Masters (pp. 449-452). On the same occasion, Emperor Wǔ of Liáng (Ch. 梁武帝 Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Liángwǔdì; Wade-Giles, Liang Wu -Ti ; personal name 蕭衍 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Xiāoyǎn; Wade-Giles, Hsiao -yan ]; courtesy name 叔達 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Shūdá; Wade-Giles, Shu -ta ], nickname 練兒 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Liàn'ér; Wade-Giles, Lien erh ]), who lived from 464 through 549, asked Bodhidharma what was the highest meaning of the holy truths. Reportedly the latter replied, “Empty, without holiness.” (Thomas and J. C. Cleary, translators, 1977, vol. I, First Case, pp. 1 and 3.) As repeatedly noted, “other-directed assertions” are not made because the individual who makes them believes them to be true; they arise spontaneously for producing a specific effect on the interlocutor. Therefore, a realized master does not make them “from his or her own heart,” but only as means of leading others beyond delusion. For a more detailed discussion of this, see Capriles (unpublished 1, unpublished 3); Chöphel & Capriles (unpublished); and in case I manage to complete it, the definitive version in print of Capriles (electronic publication 2004). Normal people are confused and deluded, and yet feel certain that their ideas, beliefs and perceptions are absolutely sound. The above was a means of shaking the emperor’s beliefs and throwing him into a state in which confusion becomes evident and which therefore is nearer to Awakening than normal, smoothfunctioning delusion—and, most important, from which it is far easier to Awaken. The point is that any highly realized Chán and Zen Master is perfectly aware that no statement can correspond to absolute truth; he or she will express ideas such as the above, which seem to respond to the standpoint of emptiness, but as soon as they realize that their interlocutor is clinging to such ideas, they will affirm the opposite viewpoint in order to lead him or her beyond clinging to dualistic concepts. This is the essence of the Chán or Zen method of interrelated opposites that will be explained in detail in the definitive version in print of Capriles (electronic publication 2004), in case I complete it. Countless other texts could be cited to make the same point, but I chose to provide as a token this brief quotation from the Platform Sūtra of the Sixth Patriarch because, as we have seen, this is the most important extant text of Chán/Zen Buddhism. Furthermore, a very interesting paradox can be appreciated when comparing, (1) Tibetan monasteries, in which the law of cause and effect was constantly emphasized, together with the practices of the gradual Mahāyāna for developing the bodhicitta of intention and the bodhicitta of action (and especially the practices for developing the Four Immeasurables and such practices as giving and taking, exchanging oneself for others, and so on), and (2) Chinese monasteries devoted to the practice of Chán—a tradition accused by many Tibetans of negating the law of cause and effect—in which the Four Immeasurables and such practices as giving and taking, exchanging oneself for others, and so on, were not emphasized. While most Tibetan monasteries were feudal lords that sustained themselves from the tributes exacted from their feudal serfs and received donations from the people at large, Chinese Chán monasteries were selfsustaining, for the monks, including the abbot and master, every day ploughed the fields during the whole morning, precisely in order not to be a charge to the poor peasants of the area—or to anyone else, for that matter—and not to have strings attached. In particular, Chán Master Bǎizhàng Huáihǎi (Ch. 百丈懷 海; Wade-Giles, Pai Chang Huai Hai ; Jap. Hyakujo Ekai) instituted the norm “one day without work, one day without food,” which was adopted by all Chán monasteries. (When Bǎizhàng was very old and feeble, he was asked to stop working on the fields, but he refused. In order to protect his health and wellbeing, a monk hid his laboring utensils; however, the Master stopped eating, forcing the monk to return his utensils to him, so that he was able to continue plowing the fields—and hence he began to eat again.) Moreover, in general, Chán monks and nuns take great pains not to let even the smallest morsel of food be lost. For example, when Déshān Xuānjiàn (Ch. 徳⼭宣鑑 [Wade-Giles, Te -shan Hsüan -chien ; Jap. Tokusan Senkan]) was in the company of other monks by a river that flowed from the wilderness, the monks saw a leaf of spinach being carried by the current; saying that there should be a man of the Path in the mountains, they proposed to follow the river upwards. However, Déshān said no man of the Path would let a leaf of spinach go to waste, and refused to search for whoever let the leaf be carried away by the river. (Cleary, T & J. C. trans., 1977.) The above does not signify that all Tibetan practitioners depended on exacting tribute from others. Many rNying ma pa Masters were laymen who as such did not live in monasteries, yet were not lay feudal lords; among them a great number herded their bovines or carried out other productive activities. As we read in Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal] (Ed. John Shane, 1986), there were also self-sustaining communities such as the one led by Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu’s root Guru, Rig ’dzin Byang chub rdo rje, which obtained 398 2 3 4 1 1 3 2 4 2 399 400 401 3 4 2 3 2 632 1 1 4 its resources from the labor of all members and, moreover, offered a daily free soup to the destitute and the poor in the surroundings, and helped many peasants with diagnostic and free medicines. Furthermore, some Tibetan monasteries purportedly did not exact tribute from the peasants; according to an article in the Vajradhātu Sun in the early 1980s, this was the case with the monasteries under the Ta’i Si tu pas. And so on. In the West, there has been controversy as to whether this debate actually took place. Some of the Western sources discussing the supposed debate are: Demiéville (1952); Tucci (1958); Houston (1980); Guenther (1983); Yanagida Seizan (1983); Gómez (1983a, 1983b); Wayman (1979, pp. 44-58). Brief yet most important commentaries in this regard (some of which are included in the discussion of the debate featured in the regular text of this chapter) were also made in Namkhai Norbu (E. Capriles, Ed. unpublished). Many scholars who have concentrated on the Chán or Zen of the Southern school insist that the Northern school propounds a gradual Path. This indicates that what they know about the Northern school is only what the Southern school asserts about it, and that they have not studied any of the original manuscripts of that school discovered in Dùnhuáng (Ch. 敦 煌 [Wade-Giles, Tun -huang ]; also known as 燉 煌 [simplified Chinese, 炖煌]) by Aurel Stein, Paul Pelliot and others. In all of these, it is evident that the Northern school is based on the principle of “sudden” Awakening and that its teachings are not as different from those of the Southern school as the latter has presented them. Kennard Lipman (Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal], Ed. Kennard Lipman, 1984, p. 33, note 11) tells us that, according to gNubs chen Sangs rgyas ye shes’s bSam gtan mig sgron (Leh, Ladakh: S.W. Tashigangpa, 1974, pp. 23-24): “Kamalaśīla taught according to sūtras that were provisional in their meaning (drang don) and ‘incomplete’ (yongs su ma rdzogs), while Hwa-shan taught according to (sūtras that) were ‘complete’ (yongs su rdzogs). See H. V. Guenther, “‘Meditation’ Trends in Early Tibet,” in Early Chán in China and Tibet, p. 352. There is a parallel passage in the bka’ thang sde lnga, edited and translated by G. Tucci in his Minor Buddhist Texts (Rome, Is.M.E.O. 1958), p. 68 ff. He mistranslates: The Indian ācārya Kamalaśīla did not fully realize (the meaning) of the sūtras, the sense of which is to be determined (i.e. relative, drang don, neyartha)… (p. 82, the passage in Tibetan is to be found on p. 69). The text has the same meaning as that of the bSam gtan Mig sgron.” In fact, the Man ngag [gyi] sde (Skt. Upadeśavarga) series of rDzogs chen features the method taught by Kamalaśīla as a sems ’dzin; however, instead of claiming that the ensuing experience is the absolute truth, it explicitly asserts it to be a mere illusory experience (Tib. nyams) that must be used to discover the nondual awareness in which it arises. However, to do justice to the Indian Master, it must be acknowledged that, in the system of his teacher, the emptiness that appears at the end of analysis is not held to be the real absolute truth, but a figurative ultimate truth (Skt. paramārthānukūlaparamārtha; Tib. don dam pa dang mthun pa’i don dam pa) that as such pertains to relative truth. As stated in the regular text, during the Táng Dynasty (Ch. 唐朝; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Táng cháo; Wade-Giles T’ang ch’ao), after achieving certainty in the state revealed by sudden Awakening (Ch. 悟; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wù; Wade-Giles wu ; Jap. satori), Chán practitioners used to go for long periods into a hut for continuing with their practice in strict retreat, assisted by a less experienced monk who, at the same time, would learn from the more advanced practitioner (cf. Cleary, T. and J. C. trans., 1977). I do not know what was the practice they would do in such retreats, but one may assume that the aim of it was to make the state of satori stable. Aversion (Skt. dveṣa; Pāḷi dosa; Tib. zhe sdang; Ch. 瞋 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chēn; Wade-Giles ch’en ]) is one of the “three poisons:” the three most basic passions that sustain saṃsāra. The other two are attachment / desire (Skt. rāga; Tib. ’dod chags; Ch. 貪 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tān; Wade-Giles, t’an ]) and consistent, ignorant bewilderment, stupidity and / or dullness (Skt. moha; Tib. gti mug; 癡 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chī; Wade-Giles, ch’ih ]). The terms I am rendering as aversion have also been translated as anger and hatred, but actually these are just some of the particular instances of aversion or irritation, which is what the term really refers to, and that which the practices of Thod rgal and the Yang ti / Yang thig must activate. The two main stages of practice in the rDzogs chen Man ngag sde (Skt. Upadeśavarga) are Khregs chod or “spontaneous rupture of tension” and Thod rgal or “acceleration” (the meaning of this translation, which is not literal, will be briefly explained in a subsequent note, and then will be discussed in detail in Volume Two of this book), and/or the Yang thig / Yang ti. It could very well be said that Thod rgal and the Yang thig / Yang ti are to a great extent ways of boosting the practice of Khregs chod through the activation of luminosity, which activates the practitioners’ tendency to irritation (Skt. dveṣa; Pāḷi dosa; Tib. zhe sdang; 402 2 4 403 404 4 405 1 1 1 406 633 Ch. 瞋 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chēn; Wade-Giles ch’en ]), causing them to react to the visions of rol pa energy (which are phenomena of luminosity) in manners that exacerbate their tensions—which for their part catalyze the process of spontaneous liberation characteristic of Khregs chod or “spontaneous, instant, absolute release of tension.” The above is the reason why it would be so dangerous to undertake the practice of Thod rgal before the necessary capacity of spontaneous liberation has been developed through the practice of Khregs chod. And yet for those who have the vocation to fully integrate in Buddhahood rather than simply resolving the problems proper to relative life, it is most important to undertake it when the conditions are given, for otherwise the realization of Khregs chod might not be optimized and, in our time, it would most unlikely that the higher attainments of rDzogs chen could be obtained. (Many texts correctly note that Khregs chod is for people of higher capacity and Thod rgal for people of lower capacity; however, in our time, as a rule the practice of Khregs chod on its own is not sufficient for fully integrating oneself in the condition of Buddhahood, and hence, for those who have the vocation for so doing, it is mainly the means to develop the capacity required for undertaking the practice of Thod rgal and/or the Yang thig / Yang ti.) In fact, both Thod rgal and the Yang thig / Yang ti will not only accelerate the development of the practice of Khregs chod, but will give rise to realizations that can only be attained through the practice of Thod rgal and/or the Yang thig / Yang ti. If the “mass of light” has not appeared in the external dimension (Tib. spyi dbyings), the awareness associated with our organism (and thus this very organism) will not have the possibility of integrating with it—which would mean that we could obtain other rDzogs chen realizations and modes of death, but not the body of light (Tib. ’od kyi sku or ’od phung)—often called rainbow body (Tib. ’ja’ lus) as well—or, even less so, the total transference (Tib. ’pho ba chen po). (It must be stressed that, in the dynamics activated by the practice of thod rgal, the “total pleasure” inherent in the zhi ba or “peaceful” aspect—which in this case is joyful because it involves total pleasure—of the Thögäl or Yang thig / Yang ti zhi khro or “Peaceful and Wrathful” Practice, is as important regarding the ensuing learning as the dynamics of the khro bo or “wrathful” aspect. In particular, in the practice of darkness, the function of the experiences of total pleasure is not any less important than that of those involving the activation, spontaneous exacerbation and subsequent spontaneous liberation of tensions.) Different examples of this are found in the Essays on Zen Buddhism by D. T. Suzuki, which deal exclusively with the Southern school, as well as in the texts of the Northern school discovered in Dùnhuáng (敦煌; Wade-Giles, Tun -huang ; also known as 燉 煌 [simplified Chinese, 炖 煌 ]), among other sources. Nevertheless, condemnation of sensory pleasure and/or recommendations about the use of antidotes are as a rule found next to such exhortations, which make it perfectly clear that Chán or Zen belongs to the Path of Renunciation. (An example of Zen text in which different approaches co-exist is The Vast Chinese Instructions on the Dhyāna [Tib. bsam gtan rgya lung chen po], which Nubchen Sangye Yeshe attributed to [Hwashan] Mahāyāna, but which in China and Japan are currently attributed to Bodhidharma.) Many Sarmapa scholars have classified the Tantras as belonging to the Abhidharmapiṭaka. However, the three piṭakas or “baskets” that make up the Tripiṭaka (Abhidharmapiṭaka, Vinayapiṭaka and Sūtrapiṭaka) traditionally include the canonical texts of the Sūtrayāna, and thus I do not see any valid reason for including the Tantras in any of these. More reasonable seems to me the view according to which the Tantras constitute a fourth piṭaka, called the Tantrapiṭaka. However, I would prefer to keep the term piṭaka to refer to the canonical texts of the Sūtrayāna, which are the ones that feature the term, and classify the Tantras as constituting an altogether different corpus of teachings. In fact, even though this is a truism and a tautology, the Tantras are simply the Tantras, and I see no reason to classify them otherwise. In common language the Sanskrit noun vajra meant “diamond.” In the Buddhist teachings, the term refers to that which embodies a superlative form of the qualities of diamonds: our own true nature—which, because it is unconditioned and unmade, is unborn and indestructible, as well as changeless or immutable—and the nonconceptual, direct realization of it. A diamond cut into a brilliant is transparent and spotlessly pure, and thus it may represent emptiness; however, when exposed to sunlight it gives rise to a wonderful, complex appearance of colors, which may represent the arising of the variegated phenomena and their consummate functionality. In fact, emptiness is merely the primordial purity (Tib. ka dag; hypothesized Skt. kaśuddha) aspect of our Vajra-nature (i.e. our true nature, which, as we have seen, possesses the qualities of the Buddhist vajra), which also has a spontaneous perfection / spontaneous arising / spontaneous rectification / spontaneous accomplishment (Tib. lhun grub; Skt. nirābogha or anābogha) aspect that consists in perfect phenomenality and its 1 407 4 2 408 409 634 consummate functionality. (These two aspects of ka dag and lhun grub will be considered in Part Two of this book.) Since beginningless time the three kāyas or dimensions of Buddhahood have been inherent in our Vajra nature, which means that, besides possessing the dharmakāya qua Base (which, viewed as the essence [Tib. ngo bo] aspect of the Base, corresponds to emptiness), it also possesses the rūpakāya qua Base, consisting in the unity of the saṃbhogakāya qua Base (which, considered as the nature [Tib. rang bzhin] aspect of the Base, corresponds to luminosity / clarity / reflectiveness) and the nirmāṇakāya qua Base (which, considered as the energy [Tib. thugs rje] aspect of the Base, consists in the unobstructed [Tib. ma ’gags pa], all-pervasive [Tib. kun khyab] and uninterrupted [Tib. ma ’gags pa] flow of phenomena and the latter’s functionality). (The three aspects of the Base, consisting in ngo bo or essence, rang bzhin or nature, and thugs rje or energy, will be considered in greater detail in Part Two of this book.) In this context, the term bodhicitta has the meaning given it in the inner Tantras of the rNying ma pa, as well as in the Sems sde series of rDzogs chen teachings, rather than the one discussed in the consideration of the Mahāyāna: here it refers to the Base that (is) the true condition of all reality. For his part, Samantabhadra—which means “all good”—is the primordial Buddha, which is no other than the Base qua Awake condition: our own nonconceptual and hence nondual, Awake, undistorted awareness or rig pa, the self-reGnizing nature of which, according to the rDzogs chen teachings, in the neutral condition of the base-of-all and in saṃsāra in general, is concealed and impeded by a contingent, beclouding element of stupefaction (Tib. rmongs cha), but not so in nonstatic nirvāṇa, where its “own face” (so to speak) becomes patent. The name Samantabhadra or “all good” has the connotation of “all is viable,” for both in the Tantric Path of Transformation and in the Ati Path of Spontaneous Liberation whatever arises in saṃsāra is not considered useless, or considered as something that cannot be incorporated into the Path and hence viewed as something to be repressed; contrariwise, what arises in saṃsāra is viewed as viable in that it can be turned into the Path. Our perception of entities as being substantial and self-existing is the core of the basic unawareness cum delusion called avidyā, which is the ultimate source of all defilements. As stated in previous notes, the schools that make up the Madhyamaka Rang stong pa (Prāsaṅgika and Svātantrika) understand the term “emptiness” in the sense of absence of self-existence (Skt. svābhāvaśūnyatā; Tib. rang stong or rang bzhin gyi stong pa nyid—except for rJe Tsong kha pa, who preferred the term rang bzhin gyis ma grub pa; Ch. ⾃性空 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìng kòng; Wade–Giles, tzu -hsing k’ung ; Jap. jishōkū]) and lack of substantiality. In fact, for the passions or defilements to well up, the precondition is that we have the deluded experience of being a separate sentient being and that we perceive the phenomena we deem to be other than our consciousness, as self-existent and as having inherently positive, negative or neutral qualities. This is why emptiness is very often equated with purity: without the delusion of self-existence there are no defilements. And this is one reason why Go rams pa noted that avidyā in the sense of the basic misconception or delusion that makes us perceive substantiality, rather than being the first link in the twelvefold chain of interdependent causation (Skt. pratītyasamutpāda; Pāḷi paṭiccasamuppāda; Tib. rten cing ’brel bar ’byung ba; Ch. 緣起 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yuánqǐ; Wade-Giles, yüan -ch’i ]), and rather than being a case of delusive obstruction of the passions (Skt. kleśāvaraṇa; Pāḷi kilesāvaraṇa; Tib. nyon [mongs pa’i] sgrib [pa]; Ch. 煩惱障 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fánnǎozhàng; Wade-Giles, fan -nao -chang ]), is that from which the first link arises. And it is also the reason why kLong chen pa noted that avidyā in the sense of the delusion of substantiality is the cause of avidyā in the sense of moha (Tib. gti mug; 癡 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chī; Wade-Giles, ch’ih ]) or bewilderment / dullness / stupidity—i.e. avidyā qua one of the three or five poisons (or most basic defilements: Skt. kleśa; Pāḷi kilesa; Tib. nyon mongs; Ch. 煩腦 [simplified, 煩惱] [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fánnǎo; Wade-Giles, fan -nao ]). (With regard to all of this, cf. endnotes 114 and 353 to this volume.) However, in the particular case of emptiness qua the Base’s primordial purity aspect, the term emptiness refers mainly to our own awareness, which: (1) is empty in the sense in which a mirror may be said to be empty (i.e. in that it can fill itself with any new content without previously having to empty itself of the contents filling it), this being the reason why it can give rise to experiences; (2) is empty of self-existence and hence also of a sentient being; and (3) is empty in the sense of there being no substances different from or other than itself (i.e. in the sense of rang stong emptiness). Full realization of the last two of these senses is purity in the sense of absence of passions. In order to understand the first sense in which our awareness is said to be empty, it is convenient to note that in general we regard as empty whatever can contain something yet at the moment does not contain that 410 411 4 4 4 2 3 2 1 2 3 635 3 4 which we expect it to contain. For example, a pot, a jug, a jar, a glass or other hollow container is said to be empty when they do not contain anything liquid or solid—even if it is full of air—and hence it can be filled with anything liquid or solid we may wish to put in them. Now suppose that, in a loosely similar sense, we say that a mirror is inherently empty: the statement will make sense if what we are trying to say is that the mirror does not exhibit any fixed image, nor is filled with image-obstructing matter, and therefore it can “fill itself” with the reflection of whatever is put in front of it. However, when a pot, a jug, a jar, a glass or any other hollow container is filled with walnuts, for it to be filled with almonds it will have to be emptied of the walnuts that had been filling it so far. This is not the case with a mirror, which does not need to be emptied of whatever had been filling it in order to “fill itself” with the image of the new object that is placed in front of it: as the mirror “fills itself” with the new image, the old one automatically disappears. The fact that mirrors do not need to be emptied of the reflections they contain for them to fill themselves with new reflections may be taken to mean that, even while filled with images, mirrors are empty (for they are still ready to fill themselves with new images), and so are the images that fill them (among other senses of the term, they may be said to be empty in the sense in which space is said to be empty: in that they are nonobstructing). Therefore, in a particular sense, it may be said that, unlike the emptiness of a pot, a jug, a jar, a glass or any other hollow container, the emptiness of a mirror is somehow inherent in it, and whatever fills a mirror is as inherently empty as the mirror itself. In is well known that one of the eight similes of illusion taught by Śākyamuni’s was a reflected image, which illustrated the fact that phenomena “appear yet do not have a self-nature:” the very nature of reflections illustrates the fact that phenomena are utterly empty in the absence-of-self-existence or rang stong sense of the word. All that was said here with regard to the mirror and its reflections applies equally to our own awareness and the phenomena it gives rise to—the only difference being that the phenomena that arise through our awareness are not the copies of entities existing externally to it. This ratifies the assertion made in a previous endnote that the simile of the mirror is imperfect in that it is dualistic, and therefore cannot illustrate precisely the nondual reality it represents. And that one could think that a computer screen is a more suitable simile, in that it does not depend on something external to reflect and in this way fill itself; however, the computer is conditioned because whatever it shows depends on a system and a program—which is not the case with primordial, Awake awareness. The second of the senses in which our own awareness was said to be empty—(a) its being empty of selfexistence and (b) its being empty of a sentient being—refers to the fact that (a) it may not be said to be either existent, nonexistent, both existent and nonexistent, and neither existent nor nonexistent, and (b) it is not a separate core of perception and action: it is not a sentient being, but an empty cognition lacking an owner—and yet delusion causes us to wrongly take it to be a sentient being and delusively experience it as a separate source of action and a separate receiver of experiences. The third sense in which our own Awake awareness is empty is that of being empty of substances other than itself—i.e. in the gzhan stong sense, which was defined and briefly explained in some of the previous endnotes and which therefore will not be considered at this point. At any rate, the emptiness aspect of awareness and of all reality is referred to as primordial purity because “emptiness” means that both our awareness and the phenomena it gives rise to lack the substantiality and self-existence we project on them—in the case of the phenomena in question, because they depend on our awareness and on other phenomena to arise. As already suggested above in this note, since the projection of self-existence and substance is the very source of all defilements, the absence of these qualities means that the true condition of both the universe and ourselves is utterly free from defilement. It is because purity may be defined as lack of defilement that in the rDzogs chen teachings emptiness corresponds to primordial purity (Tib. ka dag; hypothesized Skt. kaśuddha). This may be understood in terms of the famous Tree of Porphyry, which established a hierarchy in the elements of the definition. In a previous note we saw that the principle of the Path of Transformation is compared to the use, in the alchemical process, of a type of mercury called mākṣika (a mercury compound used in the Tibetan, Āyurvedic and seemingly also Chinese medical systems for the preparation of alchemical medicines, and which some texts associate with or compare to pyrite—and which, one could infer, might be mercury pyronate): its application would be extremely risky for those who lack the necessary capacity and knowhow. This warning and example are applied specifically to the practice of the Path of Method or thabs lam of the inner Tantras, which is the one that paradigmatically embodies the principle of the Path of Transformation as explained in these pages. With respect to the application of mākṣika mercury in the 412 413 636 alchemical process as an example of the Path of Method, in particular in the Mahāyoga, cf. Dudjom Rinpoche, English 1991, vol. I. p. 277; the word mākṣika is explained in footnote 267, vol. II, p. 19, as a substance used in the transmutation of iron into gold; however, this is surely a symbol of the transmutation of the passions on the Path of Method of the Path of Transformation. The dharmadhātu is the space of the all-embracing, empty condition of the primordial state; this is why the primordial gnosis of dharmadhātu has been referred to as “panoramic wisdom” and “all-encompassing wisdom,” among other terms. It may also be remarked that the passion corresponding to this Buddha family, which is often called stupidity, obfuscation or dullness (Skt. and Pāli moha; Tib. gti mug; Ch. 癡 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chī; Wade-Giles, ch’ih ]), contains an element of laziness—although principally it involves lack of clarity and lack of motivation and interest. This system is common to some of the Anuttarayogatantras of the Newer or Sarmapa schools and the Mahāyogatantras of the Old or rNying ma pa School, but it is not universal: other Tantric systems (and in particular different gter ma teachings) establish different correspondences between passions and primordial gnoses (Skt. jñāna; Pāḷi ñaṇa; Tib. ye shes; Ch. 智 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhì; Wade-Giles, chih ; Jap. chi]). Clinging to pleasure will make the practice derail, forestalling the achievement of the intended results and by the same token creating karma for rebirth in the realm of the gods of the sphere of sensuality. Clinging to clarity / a form will create karma for rebirth in the realm of the gods of the sphere of form. Clinging to emptiness will create karma for rebirth in the realm of the gods of the sphere of formlessness. And birth in any of these gods’ realms will block development on the Buddhist Path. A more precise explanation of these was given in a note appended to the discussion of the term in the section on the Śrāvakayāna. These include onions, leeks and other vegetables of the lily (Liliaceae) family, as well as some types of pepper and more pungent vegetables of the capsicum family, and so on. The Sāṃkhya system of the three guṇas classify foodstuffs, among other things, in terms of predominance of one of these three guṇas (principles or tendencies of Prakṛti—the female, active principle, embodied in nature), which are sattva (purity, goodness), rajas (passion, activity) and tamas (darkness), where the latter promotes dullness, obfuscation, dissolution, death, destruction, bewilderment, sloth and resistance. The reasons why tamasic elements are to be avoided in a system such as Kriyātantra are therefore selfevident. According to Adriano Clemente, Supreme Maṇḍala is the complete creation of the maṇḍala with the central deity, and Supreme Action is the visualization of the activities performed by the yid dam such as purifying the impure dimensions etc. He writes (Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal], 1999/2001, note 153, p. 168): “In Tibetan, las rgyal mchog and dkyil ’khor rgyal mchog. Usually these terms denote two of the three phases that correspond to the bskyed rim stage: the initial contemplation of preparation (dang po sbyor ba’i ting nge ’dzin), which includes the transformation of oneself as the deity through the five factors of realization; contemplation of the supreme maṇḍala (dkyil ’khor rgyal mchog gi ting nge ’dzin), which refers to the complete creation of the maṇḍala with the summoning of the wisdom deity in front of oneself; contemplation of the supreme action (las rgyal mchog gi ting nge ’dzin), which refers to the visualization of the activities performed by the yi dam deity, e.g. purifying the impure dimensions etc.” Adriano Clemente writes (Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal], 1999/2001, note 149, p. 167): “The Man ngag lta ba’i phreng ba subdivides the Yoga vehicle in two series: the Tantras of the outer yoga of control (rnal ’byor phyi pa thub pa’i rgyud) and the Tantras of the inner yoga of method (rnal ’byor nang pa thabs kyi rgyud). The former, corresponding to the Yoga Tantra, are for those who have not got the capacity to apply the principle of absolute equality characteristic of the inner Tantras and who consequently must comply with rules that limit behavior.” Cf. endnote before last. Note 157 to Namkhai Norbu (Chögyal), 1999/2001 (p. 169), by Adriano Clemente: “The five factors of realization (mngon byang lnga), the five fundamental phases that correspond to the creation stage or bskyed rim, are sometimes listed slightly differently.” As will be shown below in the regular text, the plural in the term “higher Tantras” does not indicate that in the Sarma system this level of Tantra comprises a plurality of vehicles. I used the plural because there are many texts called Tantras that belong to the single vehicle of higher Tantra of the gSar ma pas, which is the one called Anuttarayogatantra (“Unsurpassable Tantra of the Direct Realization of our Original, Unmodified Condition”). 414 1 415 4 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 637 Indeed, whereas the rNying ma teachings of Mahāyoga generally designate this Path as grol lam, the Anuttarayogatantras or the Sarmapa call it thar lam. However, the words grol ba and thar pa are synonyms that are both rendered as “liberation,” and that in most contexts are interchangeable. The Path of Method / Skillful Means is known in Tibetan as thabs lam—a name that is equally used in the Tantras of the Old or rNying ma pa School and in those of the Newer or Sarmapa schools. In Mahāyoga, in particular, there is a division into two yogas, which are (1) the yoga with characteristics or mtshan bchas, in which the two stages—that of generation or creation and that of perfection or completion—are practiced, and (2) the yoga without characteristics or mtshan med, in which one simply “contemplates thatness or thusness (Skt. tathatā; Tib. de bzhin nyid)—i.e. the absolute nature,” so that no visualization is to be practiced. It may be noted that the fact that there are two paths, one of method that puts the emphasis on method / skillful means (Skt. upāya; Tib. thabs; Ch. ⽅便 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fāngbiàn; Wade-Giles, fang pien ]), and another one of liberation, which puts the emphasis on wisdom (Skt. prajñā; Tib. shes rab; 般若 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn bōrě; Wade-Giles, po -je ]), should not lead us to think that in one of them the cause of liberation is method and that in the other the cause is wisdom. Even though Atiyoga texts denounce Mahāyoga as being struggle-biased and cause-biased, if someone achieves Awakening in connection with the practice of Mahāyoga, we can be sure that this did not occur as the effect of a cause, for Awakening is in all cases beyond the cause-effect relation (in fact, after the experiences of the practice arise, the yogin or yoginī applies self-defeating instructions that may possibly block the functioning of saṃsāra, thus opening up the possibility that the samsaric functioning will collapse and nonstatic nirvāṇa will arise by means of a primordial gnosis). Furthermore, if on the path of liberation methods are not rightly applied, by no means will primordial gnosis spontaneously become evident—and without primordial gnosis spontaneously becoming evident in the Path of Method, the latter will not bear fruit. Finally, in rDzogs chen Atiyoga, thought liberates itself spontaneously (i.e. liberates itself of its own accord), but does not do so unless method comes into play. It must be noted that in this vehicle, the emphasis is not placed on prajñā wisdom (Skt. prajñā; Tib. shes rab; 般若 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn bōrě; Wade-Giles, po -je ]) but on primordial gnosis (Skt. [ādi]jñāna; Pāḷi [ādi]ñaṇa; Tib. ye shes; Ch. [本初] 智 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, [běnchū] zhì; Wade-Giles, [pen -ch’u ] chih ; Jap. chi]: note that traditionally the prefix “primordial” appears only in the Tibetan, as it is not part of the Skt., Pāḷi or Ch. terms; it was the author of this book who tried to add it in those languages)—to which, as will be shown in the corresponding chapter of the regular text, the principle of spontaneous liberation is inherent. In fact, this is why Atiyoga calls this gnosis “all-liberating single gnosis” (Tib. gcik shes kun grol). (It must be noted that, like the Atiyoga, the Anuyogatantrayāna uses mainly the term “primordial gnosis” and only secondarily employs the expression “discriminating wisdom” [Skt. prajñā; Tib. shes rab; Ch. 般若 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn bōrě; WadeGiles, po -je )]; nonetheless, its principle, rather than spontaneous liberation—which is exclusive to the Atiyoga—is transformation, which, as will be shown in the corresponding section, in this vehicle is instantaneous rather than gradual.) In the generation or creation stage, one meditates on the union of one’s three doors (body, energy or voice and mind) with the three vajras of the deities (nirmāṇakāya, saṃbhogakāya and dharmakāya), placing the emphasis mainly on the generation of the visualization of the maṇḍala by means of the three samādhis or ting ’dzin gsum, which are: (1) the samādhi of the great emptiness or thatness / suchness (Skt. tathatā; Tib. de bzhin nyid; Chin. 眞如 [性] [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēnrú (xìng); Wade-Giles, chen -ju (hsing )]); (2) the samādhi of illusory or all-embracing compassion, and (3) the samādhi of the cause constituted by clear and stable syllables. Note 162 to Norbu [Chögyal], 1999/2001 [p. 172], by Adriano Clemente: “The Illusory Body (sgyu lus) is also one of the Six Yogas of Nāropā.” Note 163 to Norbu [Chögyal], 1999/2001 [p. 172], by Adriano Clemente: “‘Direct action’ (mngon spyod) denotes the fierce actions tied to the Karma family whose aim is to destroy evil beings by freeing their consciousness.” Note 164 to Norbu [Chögyal], 1999/2001 [p. 173], by Adriano Clemente: “The Clear Light (’od gsal) is also one of the Six Yogas of Nāropā.” Note 165 to Norbu [Chögyal], 1999/2001 [p. 173], by Adriano Clemente (I added the term “male,” which I placed in square brackets): “The Path of Method (thabs lam) embraces practices tied to control of the subtle energies (prāṇa) and the seed-essence (thig le), such as the gtum mo or inner heat, the purpose of which is to ‘melt’ the [male] thig le to enable its reabsorption in the various cakras.” 424 425 1 1 4 3 1 3 1 1 4 3 426 1 427 428 429 430 638 2 4 3 Note 166 to Norbu [Chögyal], 1999/2001 [p. 173], by Adriano Clemente: “The activity of ‘conquest’ (dbang) pertains to the Padma family.” Note 167 to Norbu [Chögyal], 1999/2001 [p. 173], by Adriano Clemente: “Concerning the term bodhicitta, in the inner Tantras and in particularly in rDzogs chen it denotes the primordial state of the individual, pure from the beginning and perfectly endowed with all qualities, thus corresponding to [the] absolute bodhicitta of the Mahāyāna Sūtra tradition. The term rig pa alongside bodhicitta indicates that Knowledge (of) the primordial state is a continuous living Presence.” As stated elsewhere in this volume, there are different types of bindu (rendered into Tibetan as thig le, this is only one of the senses of the Tibetan term) or seed-essence. At this point I am referring to the seminal bindu, which in the male is directly related to the semen and in the female it is mainly related to the ovum that is lost in menstruation, though some systems relate it to the transparent liquid copiously emitted in female ejaculation. Evidently I am not referring to the most essential aspect of bindu or seed-essence, called the thig le of life, which is only lost at death—for there is no way to retain the latter forever and thus achieve eternal life. It is thig le energy that, in a polarized form, “circulates through” the “structural pathways” called rtsa as the different types of rlung. (Actually this is only a way of speaking, for the “structural pathways” are not material structures, but the possible configurations of the circulation of thig le as rlung). Since the energetic volume determining the scope of awareness (Tib. thig le) and the related kuṇḍalinī are directly linked to retention of the sexual thig les or bindus, one pole of that energy is symbolically represented with the color of sperm and the other is represented with that of menstrual blood: this is the main reason why some Westerners have rendered the Tantric texts as saying that “the energetic winds carry red and white drops along the structural pathways called rtsa,” and that the ovum and the sperm are the gross referent of these “drops.” However, the thig le that circulates does not consist in drops, but in the colorless, polarized energy that rises and ebbs as energetic volume determining the scope of awareness and as kuṇḍalinī. (It may be relevant to note that some particular experiences associated with the colors red and white are directly related to the subtle energetic winds, which is part of the reason for the use of the symbolism at the root of these translations.) The above translation of the term thig le as “drop” is due to the fact that it also refers to the sperm and ovum / blood that drops upon ejaculation and menstruation. In the context of the rDzogs chen teachings the best translation of these terms is “sphere,” for ultimately they refer to the true nature of reality and the direct realization of it, which are and can only be absolutely nonconceptual: as noted repeatedly, since the true nature of reality is energy and its realization implies total energetic volume determining the scope of awareness, and since concepts are limits, which are represented with angles or corners, this true nature of reality and its realization are represented with a total sphere (Tib. thig le chen po). Furthermore, as we have seen, the terms thig le and bindu also designate the luminous spheres that can appear in the dark, when one looks at the sky or, in a much more vivid, impressive and total manner, in practices like Thod rgal and the Yang thig or Yang ti—in which they are the very condition for the swiftest methods to accomplish their function. See note 167 to Norbu [Chögyal], 1999/2001 [p. 173], by A. Clemente, reproduced above in endnote 432 to this volume. Tarthang Tulku (1977b, pp. 172-173 / 1991, p. 165) classes the Guhyasamāja as an Anuttarayogatantra and as such asserts it to overlap the outer and inner Tantras—i.e., to lie somewhere in between them. In this book that tantra, following Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu, has been classed as a Mahāyogatantra. Both ways of classifying the tantra in question are justified and in harmony with tradition, for there are two different Tibetan renderings of the text: one produced by the rNying ma translators, which pertains to Mahāyoga and which was rendered based on the meaning, and one produced by the Sarma translators, which pertains to Anuttarayoga and which was rendered based on the letter. I deem the former to be higher than the latter. In rDzogs chen Ati, the point is to gain direct, nonconceptual and hence nondual awareness (of) the essence aspect of the nonconceptual and hence nondual Awake self-awareness called rang rig (full Tib. rang rig pa’i ngo bo), which is achieved by means of the immediate patency of the nonconceptual, nondual Awake awareness called rig pa (Tib. rig thog tu ma slebs bar). Otherwise one is lost in delusion (Tib. ’khrul ’byams). In Dudjom Rinpoche, English 1991, vol. I, pp. 278-279 we read: “Concerning the paths that are the object of this meditation, the Guhyagarbha Tantra explains: “‘Through their maturation during the sequence of rebirth, 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 639 the aspects of the entrance are established to be five: because all that has a self-nature is intrinsic awareness, death is [the moment of] the ultimate truth, the intermediate state before birth is relative appearance and the three phases of birth are the nondual truth.’ “In this way, Mahāyoga perfectly reveals the Paths through which the rebirth process including death, the intermediate state and the three phases of birth, is immediately purified. Now, the Path that corresponds to inner radiance at the moment of death is great emptiness, and the Paths that correspond to the three phases of birth are the single symbol (phyag rgya gcig pa), the elaborate symbol (phyag rgya spros bcas) and the attainment of the maṇḍala clusters (tshom bu tshogs sgrub), making five in all.” In the work quoted above, there follows an explanation of the generation stage in terms of death, intermediate state and birth, and an extremely important explanation of the completion stage. The reader is referred to this book for an extremely wonderful description of Mahāyoga, which so far as I know seems to be the most complete in any Western language so far. As stated in note 424, whereas the rNying ma teachings of Mahāyoga generally designate the Path of Liberation as grol lam, the Anuttarayogatantras or the Sarmapa use the word thar lam. However, the words grol ba and thar pa are interchangeable in nearly all contexts—both being rendered as “liberation.” Beside the fact, noted in the regular text just after the reference mark for this note, that the rNying ma translation, like the rest of the Mahāyogatantras, uses a great deal of rDzogs chen terminology, as a rule the rNying ma translation is based on the meaning, and the Sarma translation is based on the letter. In Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal] (1999/2001), the visualization of the three divine manifestations and the procedure for the Contemplation of the cause are described. This description will not be reproduced here because this is a public circulation book, which as such must not provide instructions for the practice. As Chögyal Namkhai Norbu (1999/2001) notes, the Sanskrit corresponding to the word “letter”, which is akṣara, can also mean “immutable.” In fact, as Adriano Clemente comments in a note to Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu’s aforementioned text, the Sanskrit term akṣara actually means “immutable,” but is commonly used as a synonym of “letter” because the letters of the Sanskrit alphabet, divided in vocals (āli) and consonants (kāli), in traditional India represent the origin of the whole of existence. In fact, the famous verse of the Mañjuśrīnāmasaṃgīti that states “the supreme utterly pure letter” is rendered in a quotation found in the commentary to the Kālacakratantra called Stainless Light (Dri med ’od) as “the supreme immutable utterly pure (state)”. Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu notes that from this one can infer that the name of the thirteenth level could also be interpreted as “great accumulation of the wheel (cakra) of the maṇḍala that knows no changes or transformations.” The above means that this maṇḍala (is) nonfabricated, unmade, unproduced, unintentional, uncompounded, uncontrived and /or unconditioned (Pāḷi asaṅkhata; Skt. asaṃskṛta; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch., 無為 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu -wei ]). Therefore, it is neither impermanent nor subject to suffering. On the basis of the same commentary, the Great Accumulation of the Cakra of Letters is so called because, when it is attained, one effortlessly realizes the spontaneously perfect state of primordial gnosis and of the maṇḍala with characteristic attributes (Tib. mtshan ma’i dkyil ’khor)—for the letters or immutability are of two types: of primordial gnosis and of the characteristic attributes (Tib. ye shes dang mtshan ma). Rinpoche says that “the interpretation based on the term akṣara meaning immutable, that would render it into level of the great accumulation of the immutable cakra, seems to me a lucid explanation that points out with supreme discernment the authentic meaning of tantra.” In terms of this explanation, that the letters are of two types means that there are two aspects of what is immutable: Primordial Gnosis: dharmakāya Characteristic attributes: rūpakāya According to causal Mahāyoga accumulation According to causal Mahāyoga accumulation that since this is rDzogs chen does not result from that since this is rDzogs chen does not result from yet corresponds to the Collection of Wisdom yet corresponds to the Collection of Merits In fact, here they are spontaneously realized, as the principle is that of rDzogs chen, and they have always been inherent in our true condition. The difficulty stems from the fact that the term Collection of Merits is used as a synonym of rūpakāya rather than as its cause, because this is rDzogs chen, which is not causal, and the term Collection of Wisdom is used as a synonym of dharmakāya, because this is the noncausal rDzogs chen Path. Primordial Gnosis is dharmakāya because it is pure (co)gnition, which, since it pertains to gdangs energy, is formless, and Characteristic Attributes is rūpakāya or Buddhic dimension of form, because attributes is all that can be perceived, which is all that has form. 438 439 440 441 2 2 640 The (letters of the) characteristic attributes (rūpakāya) are in their turn subdivided in two types: of names and of forms. As noted above, rendering the term akṣara as “letters’ gives rise to diverse interpretations of its meanings, including, “letters of primordial gnosis and of characteristic attributes,” and “arising of the clouds of letters.” In any case, it can be explained in the sense of the arising of sound, light and rays as the expression of the potentiality of energy of the primordial state in the form of letters, and from this viewpoint no contradiction arises and there is no disagreement with any of the principles of Anuyoga and Dzogpa Chenpo. In terms of this explanation of letters in the literal sense, which are forms of sound that makes it possible to understand that which appears by virtue of the sound, light and rays, this is the source of saṃsāra, but also that which allows us to understand that saṃsāra is saṃsāra and hence to move from saṃsāra to nonstatic nirvāṇa. In fact, the text reads (I deleted the phrase “of actuality” that was within parentheses): “As regards the ‘letters,’ all phenomena exist only inasmuch as they are designated by the letters of names and words and apart from this they are by nature devoid of existence. However, simultaneous with this absence everything that appears is (the arising of) the maṇḍala of the basic (form) dimensions and of the primordial gnosis (or wisdom) that exists from the beginning as the great spontaneously perfect accumulation of merit and wisdom.” In fact, it is by realizing that all phenomena exist only because they are designated by the letters of names and words and apart from this they are by nature devoid of existence, and by reaching stability in this realization, that this final level of Mahāyoga is attained. Then everything appears as the immutable maṇḍala that has two aspects, dharmakāya and rūpakāya, which in the adaptation of the Mahāyāna’s and of Mahāyoga’s causal terminology to Atiyoga are the great spontaneously perfect accumulation of merit and wisdom that was always operative. The following explanation of the four branches of approach and attainment (Tib. bsnyen sgrub bzhi) appears in Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal], 1999/2001, pp. 208-213: Regarding the true meaning of the four branches of approach and attainment [of Mahāyoga, considered from the standpoint of rDzogs chen], Tibetan text 6 (A: p. 170, 6; B: p. 24, 2) reads: “Thus one should engage diligently in the yoga that leads to spontaneous perfection of the final goal of approach, complete approach, attainment and great attainment.” (Note by Adriano Clemente: In this case, according to Rong zom pa’s commentary [Tibetan text 4] the approach [bsnyen pa] is the object to recognize, the complete approach [nyen ba’i bsnyen pa] and the attainment [sgrub pa] are the method, and the great attainment [sgrub pa chen po] is the result.) In particular, regarding the true meaning of approach, Tibetan text 6 (A: p. 171, 1; B: p. 24, 2) reads: “Approach is the recognition of bodhicitta, the understanding that all phenomena have been from the beginning of the nature of Awakening, for which reason there is nothing to obtain through practice or to correct by means of antidotes.” Regarding the true meaning of complete approach, Tibetan text 6 (A: p. 171, 2; B: p. 24, 3) reads: “Complete approach is the recognition of oneself as the deity: the understanding that, since all phenomena have been from the beginning of the nature of Awakening, we too have been from the beginning of the nature of the deity, which is not something to realize now by means of practice.” Regarding the true meaning of attainment, Tibetan text 6 (A: p. 171, 3; B: p. 24, 3) reads: “Attainment is the creation of the mother: the understanding that from the dimension of space, which is the great mother, space itself manifests in the four great mothers [of the elements] earth, water, fire and air, and that from the beginning these are the mothers endowed with the active function [of existence].” And regarding the true meaning of great attainment, Tibetan text 6 (A: p. 171, 5; B: p. 24, 5) reads: “Great attainment is the union of method and prajñā. From the prajñā of the five mothers and from the emptiness of space that is the mother [there manifest] as consorts the Buddhas of the five aggregates [that represent] method, from the beginning in union without any intention. From their union [comes] bodhicitta, the nature of which [has the capacity to] emanate the deities, male and female (literally: brothers and sisters), whose [true] meaning is primordial Awakening. In the illusory enjoyment of a dimension that is [itself] illusory [as well], one [experiences] the illusory flow of supreme bliss: in the very moment of bliss without conceptualization, one realizes the true meaning of the absence of characteristics equal to space, thus acceding to the state of spontaneous perfection. In this way the four demons too are vanquished and the final goal is achieved.” (Note by Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu: The four demons [bdud bzhi] that cause interruptions or hindrances to liberation are: the demon of the son of the deity or [demon] of pride [Skt. devaputramāra; Tib. lha’i bu bdud; Ch. 天⼦魔 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tiānzǐmó; Wade-Giles, t’ien -tzu -mo )]; the demon of the aggregates of the body [Skt. skandhamāra; Tib. 442 1 3 2 641 phung po’i bdud; Ch. 陰魔 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yīnmó; Wade-Giles, yin -mo )]; the demon of the lord of death [Skt. mṛtyumāra; Tib. ’chi bdag gi bdud; Ch. 死魔 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sǐmó; Wade-Giles, ssu -mo )]; the demon of passions or disturbing emotions [Skt. kleśamāra; Tib. nyon mongs pa’i bdud; Ch. 煩惱魔 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fánnǎo mó; Wade-Giles, fan -nao mo )].) (Note by EC: In the context of the practice of gcod there is a different enumeration of demons, which are also four, but which should not be confused with these ones.) Rong zom pa’s commentary (Tibetan text 4, p. 259, 6) explains: “Here [Padmasambhava’s Garland of Views] explains concisely how the four approaches and attainments of Mahāyoga are transcended in Dzogpa Chenpo [for example by affirming that the approach is the uncaused, uncontrived, unconditioned (Skt. asaṃskṛta; Pāḷi, asaṅkhata; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無爲 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu -wei ]) recognition of bodhicitta and not something that depends on the temporary factor of the Path]. Great attainment is the union of method and prajñā and refers to their union also in relation to bodhicitta [qua Base]: thus it demonstrates the original union and the state of spontaneous perfection of the three aspects consisting in method, prajñā and bodhicitta; father, mother and male and female emanations; and the three doors of liberation, which are emptiness, the absence of intention and the absence of characteristics.” (Note by Adriano Clemente: The three doors of liberation [rnam thar sgo gsum], in Tibetan stong pa nyid, smon pa med pa and mtshan ma med pa, also called ‘the contemplations of the three doors of liberation’ [rnam thar sgo gsum gyi ting ’dzin] are characteristic features of the sūtra teachings.) Furthermore, the commentary by ’Ju Mi pham called Treasury of Jewels (Nor bu’i bang mdzod: Tibetan text 21) states (p. 451, 3): “Approach means recognizing bodhicitta as the Base in which original purity and spontaneous perfection are indivisible; that is, understanding that all phenomena, already pure in themselves, are from the very beginning of the nature of Awakening and that there is nothing new that must be obtained by means of the Path or corrected by means of antidotes. “Complete approach means recognizing, on the basis of this same view, that the individual composed of five aggregates is the deity itself; that is, understanding that, since all phenomena are from the beginning of the nature of Awakening, we too are from the beginning of the nature of the deity, which therefore is not something to realize by generating oneself as the deity on the basis of the view of Mahāyoga and other [vehicles]. [When it is said that] attainment is the creation of the mother, this is not the same as the creation of the mother as applied in Mahāyoga and other [vehicles]. Rather, it means understanding that, from the dimension of space that is the great mother, space itself manifests as the four great mothers [consisting in] earth, water, fire and air, and that these mothers, endowed with the active functions of giving space, of supporting, of concentrating [in one place], of ripening and of moving, respectively, have existed from the very beginning. “Great attainment is the union of method and prajñā. But in which way are they united? From the prajñā of the absence of self-nature of the five great elements that are the mothers and from the [door of] liberation of emptiness, which is the space of the mother, the Buddhas of the five aggregates, which represent method, manifest without interruption as consorts. They are in union from the beginning [on the basis of the principle of the door] of liberation and of the absence of intention, which is absolutely not the result of [engaging on] a Path. From their nature of inseparability in [the state of] bodhicitta all the sense bases manifest as male and female Bodhisattvas whose nature, which is the very condition of original Awakening, does not depend on the emanation of male and female bodhisattvas from the bodhicitta of the union of male and female deities as occurs in Mahāyoga and other [vehicles]. The wisdom of rig pa illusorily enjoys the ultimate dimension of phenomena, similar to a magical display, which is the consort. When experiencing the harmonious (in Tibetan rol mo lta bu, literally ‘similar to music’) state of the gnosis of pleasure that manifests everywhere, without interruption and indivisible, beyond concepts and all attachments, not even a speck of dualistic attachment remains, and so the pleasure of wisdom is supreme bliss. Experiencing and enjoying its illusory flow [one understands] that this itself is the flow of the true condition that, like space, cannot be grasped even in a moment. The moment of bliss transcends all conceptual elaboration, [is based on the door of] liberation of the absence of characteristics, cannot be conceptualized within any limits, and is like space. Never leaving this dimension of total equanimity means to have realized the single state of self-arising wisdom of the ultimate nature: thus, without acting and without effort one is in the state of spontaneous perfection. In fact, the impure causes of the dualism of subject and object, being purified in self-arising wisdom, manifest without interruption as the flow of the fundamental nature: this is the accumulation of merit. The fact that there is not the slightest concept 1 2 3 2 2 3 2 642 2 2 or attachment to conceptual characteristics represents the accumulation of wise knowledge. This total self-arising wisdom in which the two accumulations are spontaneously perfect also vanquishes the four demons and enables realization of the final goal.” Regarding the way the four demons are vanquished, in his commentary Rong zom pa (Tibetan text 4, p. 260, 3) says: “In general every teaching has a specific method for subjugating the demons. Here it is asserted that through the four branches of approach and attainment one can vanquish the four demons. In fact, by means of contemplation of the unborn (in Tibetan ma skyes pa’i ting nge ’dzin)—the characteristic of recognizing bodhicitta that is the approach—the demon of the lord of death is vanquished. By means of contemplation similar to a magical illusion (in Tibetan sgyu ma lta bu’i ting nge ’dzin, at times synonymous with kun tu snang ba’i ting nge ’dzin: the contemplation of total vision according to Mahāyoga)—the characteristic of recognizing oneself as the deity—the demon of aggregates is vanquished. By means of contemplation that transcends the subtlest atom (in Tibetan rdul dang bral ba’i ting nge ’dzin: beyond any concept of an infinitesimal particle as the essential constituent of phenomena)—characteristic of the creation of the mother that is attainment—the demon of the passions is vanquished. By means of non-conceptual spacelike contemplation (in Tibetan mi dmigs mkha’ dang snyoms pa’i ting nge ’dzin)—characteristic of the union of method and prajñā that is the great attainment—the demon of the son of the deity [that symbolizes] interruptions and distractions is vanquished. A Path that has the power to vanquish the four demons is a perfect Path, and in particular this is the great Path [that enables realization] of spontaneous perfection without relying on effort.” All of these passages clearly explain the way to enter Total Perfection [and Completeness in terms of the categories proper to Mahāyoga]. In the Anuyogatantra, the Path of Method has the same name as in the rNying ma pa Mahāyogatantra and the Sarmapa Anuttarayogatantra, and, consequently, its name is universal: thabs lam. For its part, the Path of Liberation has the same name as in the rNying ma pa Mahāyogatantra, which, as already explained, is grol lam. It is important to remark that on the Anuyoga Path of Method or Thabs lam there are—just as in that of the Mahāyogatantra—two possible trainings, which are that of the “upper doors,” in which one works with the four or six cakras in order to cause innate gnosis (or innate wisdom) to gradually arise, and the training with the lower doors, consisting in union with the Tantric consort, which according to followers of this system causes innate wisdom to arise instantaneously. In the second, there are two aspects, which are Contemplation of the meaning (Tib. don), which consists in Contemplation of thatness (Skt. tathatā; Tib. de bzhin nyid) beyond any interpretative thought, and Contemplation of the signs or characteristics, which is the one consisting in the instantaneous transformation into the meditation deity (Skt. iṣṭadevatā; Tib. yid dam). To conclude, in Anuyoga the totality of phenomenal appearances is Samantabhadra, the masculine aspect of the primordial state, which is the spontaneous maṇḍala of deities, while the empty nature of all phenomenal existence is Samantabhadri, the feminine aspect of the primordial state, which is the maṇḍala of primordial thatness (Skt. āditathatā; Tib. ye de bzhin nyid). (Alternatively, it is said that Samantabhadra is self-arisen Awake Awareness [Tib. rang rig], corresponding to the dharmakāya, and Samantabhadri is the dharmadhātu: the primordial expanse or primordial space that in realization is inseparable from the dharmakāya; however, there is no contradiction, for all phenomena are appearances of awareness.) The essence of both is the child of total pleasure, the nature of the sameness that is the maṇḍala of Awake Awareness. Herukas are the deities or masters that exhibit a “wrathful” (Skt. krodha; Pāḷi kodha; Tib. khro ba; Ch. 忿 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fèn; Wade-Giles, fen ]) aspect; however, they exhibit as adornments all the passions that in the transformed state function as primordial gnosis. The Sanskrit term is rendered into Tibetan and Chinese as “blood drinker” (Tib. khrag ’thung; Ch. 呬嚕迦 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xìlǔjiā; Wade-Giles, hsi -lu chia ]). Note 192 to Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal], 1999/2001[p. 187], by Adriano Clemente: “In Tibetan rig pa skad cig ma: the pure nonconceptual, nondual instant Presence that is the specific feature of the Path of rDzogs chen Atiyoga.” Keep in mind that the etymology of the term “presence,” which is “being in front of,” implies the subjectobject duality, which is absent in the state of rig pa, and that “instant,” which renders the Tib. skad chig ma, means that, (1) awareness is free from the division of the temporal continuum into past, present and future that arises when the reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valuation of the threefold 443 444 4 4 1 445 643 3 directional thought-structure sunders the uninterrupted Base into subject and object, and thus into space, time and knowledge as different dimensions (cf. the explanation above in the regular text), and (2) sense data are apprehended without mediation by concepts and hence without the lapse that it takes for recognition (Skt. saṃjñā; Pāli saññā; Tib. ’du shes; Ch. 想 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiǎng; Wade-Giles, hsiang ]) to occur. Note 193 to Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal], 1999/2001[p. 187], by Adriano Clemente: “In Tibetan sgyu ma lha’i dkyil ’khor: the illusory maṇḍala of the deity with the depiction of all the symbolic attributes.” Note 186 to Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal], 1999/2001[p. 185], by Adriano Clemente: “In Tibetan gzugs brnyan gyi dkyil ’khor: the maṇḍala presented during the initiation, on which one meditates to attain realization, is the counterpart of the spontaneously perfect maṇḍala. In general there are three maṇḍalas (dkyil ’khor rnam pa gsum): the spontaneously perfect maṇḍala as the Base, [consisting in] one’s body (gzhi lhun grub rtsa ba’i dkyil ’khor); the maṇḍala of method of images as the Path, [corresponding to] the depictions of the maṇḍala with colored powders or paints, etc. (lam gzugs brnyan thabs kyi dkyil ’khor); and the maṇḍala of the nature of purity as the Fruit, [consisting in] Contemplation (’bras bu rnam dag rang bzhin gyi dkyil ’khor). There is also the classification of maṇḍala of nature (rang bzhin gyi dkyil ’khor), maṇḍala of contemplation (ting nge ’dzin gyi dkyil ’khor) and maṇḍala of images (gzugs brnyan gyi dkyil ’khor).” Note 195 to Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal], 1999/2001[p. 187], by Adriano Clemente: “The four activities (spyod lam rnam bzhi) are: sitting, walking, eating and sleeping.” In the original translation of this passage the text read “medial condition” instead of “condition free from conceptual extremes.” Note 196 to Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal], 1999/2000 [p. 188], by A. Clemente explains the meaning of the term “medial condition” or “condition free from conceptual extremes:” “The condition free from conceptual extremes (dbu ma), characteristic of the Madhyamaka tradition, indicates overcoming all conceptual limits, [and] in particular the extremes of eternalism and nihilism.” Note 197 to Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal], 1999/2000 [p. 188], by Adriano Clemente: “In Tibetan lung chen. On the basis of the classification into rgyud, lung and man ngag, Anuyoga is usually defined as lung.” Note 198 to Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal], 1999/2000 [p. 189], by Adriano Clemente: “In Tibetan rdo rje ’dzin pa’i sa.” The text by kLong chen pa cited by Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu refers explicitly to the Anuyoga and yet speaks of spontaneous liberation, which is the defining feature of the Path of Spontaneous Liberation which is A ti rDzogs pa chen po. Though originally it seemed to me to have been written from the standpoint of Anu-Ati (application of methods of Anu while keeping to the View or Vision of Ati), I must confess I am not sure how to classify it. Furthermore, when the limitless Now corresponding to total plenitude and perfection is disrupted as the present separates the future from the past, the limitless, unfragmented condition is limited by the illusion of sequential time, which entails fragmentariness: the undisrupted Now, which is nonfabricated, unmade, unproduced, unintentional, uncompounded, uncontrived and /or unconditioned (Pāḷi asaṅkhata; Skt. asaṃskṛta; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch., 無為 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu -wei ]), is concealed by the present that is fabricated, made, produced, intentional, compounded, contrived and /or conditioned (Pāḷi saṅkhata; Skt. saṃskṛta; Tib. ’dus byas; Ch., 無為 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wéi; Wade-Giles, wei ]). In order to have the capacity to visualize oneself as a deity while remaining in the state of rig pa, one would have to have consolidated this state to a considerable degree through the practice of Atiyoga, for only in this case the absolutely panoramic state of rig pa will not be disrupted by the visualization (which can occur only in the case of those who have acquired the capacity to carry out the most diverse activities in that state). However, if one has already attained a higher realization through a higher Path or vehicle, it would be senseless to undertake the practice of a lower Path or vehicle in order to attain the corresponding realization. Hence Anuyoga-style visualizations can be applied in the state of rig pa only by advanced Atiyoga practitioners who for one or another reason need to apply an Anuyoga-style visualization (for example, because they need to solve a particular problem, etc.), and they might as well apply in the context of the Ati-Anu section of Atiyoga. After the end of the quotation in the regular text of this book, the following verses follow in the Tantra (Namkhai Norbu and Adriano Clemente, English 1999, p. 180): Listen great being! The view and behavior of total completeness / plenitude and perfection 3 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 2 2 2 454 455 644 are not like those of practices based on cause and effect. The view and behavior of pure and total Awake awareness are like the sky: the sky is beyond thoughts and analysis. Those who seek to reason and analyze will never achieve sky-like Awakening: the arising of judgments and analysis is the deviation and hindrance. Whoever tries to apply sky-like View and Behavior in terms of subject and object will never realize sky-like Awakening: the arising of subject and object is the deviation and hindrance. Note that in order to understand the above in the context of this book, the term “view” must be replaced by “Vision,” and “behavior” must be written with a capital b (Behavior). The dharmadhātu is primordial, limitless space, where everything that can be known appears. As pointed out in a previous note, in the Anuyoga the dharmadhātu is Samantabhadri, the female aspect of primordial Buddhahood; in turn, rang rig (self-arisen/inherent rig pa/Awake awareness), which here corresponds to the dharmakāya or Buddha-Mind, is Samantabhadra, the male aspect of Buddhahood of which the myriad phenomena appearing in the dharmadhātu are appearances (keep in mind that, when it is asserted that the myriad phenomena that appear in the dharmadhātu are appearances of rang rig, this self-arisen / inherent Awake awareness is being considered qua Base—i.e. in the most usual sense of sems nyid—rather than qua Path or qua Fruit, which in general is when the rDzogs chen teachings apply such terms as rig pa, rang rig and dharmakāya). In the Anuyoga it is said that total pleasure is the “child” of both aspects (maternal and paternal), even though these are not two separate elements from the union of which pleasure may originate: having been a single, indivisible reality since beginningless time, they may not be said to constitute a duality. However, there is a reason for this view to be adopted by the Anuyoga: in this vehicle the experience of the dharmadhātu may arise upon union with the consort, and hence from the standpoint of the male the bhāga or female sexual organ is identified with the dharmadhātu; for its part, the ensuing flow of bliss seems to be the effect of the union with the consort and therefore, in the male, of the Vision of the dharmadhātu. Since in the Anuyoga rang rig is said to arise by realizing the inapprehensible character of the flow of bliss, this vehicle views the dharmadhātu as cause and rang rig as effect. (As will be shown in the immediately following note, something similar happens in Mahāyoga.) Contrariwise, in the rDzogs chen Atiyoga the dharmadhātu is not seen as cause and rang rig is not seen as effect, for in this vehicle it is perfectly evident that the arising of rang rig is not and cannot be the effect of any cause: as implied by the particle rang, rang rig arises as a spontaneous occurrence beyond the cause-effect relation. (It must also be noted that, in the context of A ti rDzogs pa chen po, Padmasambhava explained the indivisibility of the paternal and the maternal aspects represented with Samantabhadra and Samantabhadri [Tib. Kun bzang yab yum], as the indivisibility of vision and emptiness.) In fact, in rDzogs chen Atiyoga rang rig arises as a spontaneous occurrence beyond the cause-effect relation and, throughout the whole of the practice, it is equally evident that rang rig is not the effect of any cause, that it arises spontaneously beyond the cause-effect relation. In a note to the chapter on the Path of Spontaneous Liberation, the fact that throughout rDzogs chen Ati it is evident that rang rig is not the effect of any cause, that it arises spontaneously beyond the cause-effect relation, will be illustrated with the method for direct Introduction through pronunciation of the syllable PHAT! In the explanation of the four bsnyen sgrub (bsnyen sgrub bzhi), the first two correspond to the stage of generation or creation and the last two to the stage of completion or perfection; of these last two, the first, which is sgrub pa and which corresponds to the experience of the dharmadhātu, is seen as the cause of the second, which is sgrub pa chen po—and which for its part corresponds, at least to some extent, to the rang rig and the ye shes of Anuyoga—even though in Mahāyoga it is explained in terms of prajñā (Tib. shes rab). (The four bsnyen sgrub of Mahāyoga were explained in a previous note in terms of a citation from Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal], 1999/2000, pp. 208-213; following Tibetan Text 6, this quotation explains the four bsnyen sgrub in the context of Atiyoga, as the entrance door to the state of Ati.) See note before last. For example, among the dGe lugs pa (the newest of gSar ma pa schools and champion of the status quo), the “Great Fifth” Dalai Lama, who was the first Dalai Lama to rule over Tibet, was not only a supreme rDzogs chen practitioner, but also an important revealer of treasure-teachings (Tib. gter ma)—i.e., he was a gter ston—in the Old School or rNying ma pa tradition (toward the end of the regular text of this first 456 457 458 459 645 part of the book, the terms gter ma and gter ston will be briefly explained). The same applies to the Third Kar ma pa, Rang ’byung rdo rje, head of the bKa’ brgyud School (which is also a Newer or gSar ma pa school), who was a wonderful rDzogs chen practitioner and a great revealer of treasure-teachings or gter ston, and also to ’Jam dbyangs mkhyen brtse dbang po and other Sa skya pa Teachers who were extremely important gter stons and rDzogs chen Masters. A high number of the most important Masters of the Newer or Sarmapa schools have been among the main rDzogs chen Masters, and also among the principal gter stons of this teaching. Besides, it may be pointed out that the Mahāmudrā teachings on formless meditation are classed within the Anuttarayogatantra of the gSar ma pa, and that the practice of these teachings, just like rDzogs chen Atiyoga, is not based on visualization, but on Contemplation. As stated elsewhere in this volume, the original Mahāmudrā was that which in Tibetan is called Phyag chen gang gā ma—where Phyag chen renders the Skt. Mahāmudrā—which the mahāsiddha Tilopā taught to Nāropā on the banks of the Ganges, and which seems not to have involved any form of concentration, for it seems to have been an utterly formless, objectless, nongradual practice—and in this sense, as in many other ones, it seems to have been to a great extent akin to the original forms of the rDzogs chen Series of [the Essence or Nature of] Mind or rDzogs chen Sems sde. However, in Tibet a form of Mahāmudrā was developed that was gradual and in its initial stages was based on concentration and hence in a sense involved form. According to Chögyal Namkhai Norbu (E. Capriles, ed., unpublished), this form of Mahāmudrā was developed by sGam po pa (1077-1152)—which is no doubt correct if the text that was published by W. Y. Evans-Wentz (1958, pp. 101-154), called Phyag chen gyi zin bris bzhugs so, was actually authored by the ex-bKa’ gdams pa monk who was the main disciple of Mi la ras pa. According to the late Chos rgyam Drung pa (Commentary by C. Trungpa in Trungpa & Fremantle, trans. 1975), it was introduced by the Third Kar ma pa, Rang ’byung rdo rje, who as stated above was a most important Treasure-revealer (Tib. gter ston) of rDzogs chen teachings. At any rate, no matter who introduced the gradual Mahāmudrā into the Kagyu School, he or she modeled these teachings on the Khams tradition of the rDzogs chen Ati “Series of the (Essence or Nature of) Mind” or Sems sde, which according to sKyabs rje gDung sras Phrin las nor bu (2015, p. 68; cf. also ’Gos lo tsa ba gzhon nu dpal, 2d English Ed. 1976, which I cite in endnote 503 to this volume) and others was introduced by A ro ye shes ’byun gnas, by compounding the original teachings of the Series in question with teachings of the gradual and sudden Mahāyāna. And, at any rate, the Mahāmudrā teaching of the Third Kar ma pa, together with that of the Ninth Kar ma pa, are widely acknowledged as being the supreme synthesis of both traditions, which served as the base for all successive forms of Mahāmudrā. However, as sMyo shul mkhan po (Nyoshul Khenpo, 2015, p. 211) notes, when one first catches a glimpse of realization (Tib. rtogs pa mthong ba) still some grasping is involved in it. However, as the husk of grasping or fixation is removed (Tib. ’dzin pa’i shun pa bral), awareness becomes naked (Tib. rjen), limpid (Tib. dvangs) and free from grasping (Tib. ’dzin pa med pa). And then it progressively expands and unfolds (Tib. gong nas gong du ’phel ba). In each of these levels of realization all three kāyas are in some sense glimpsed. For example, the first level of realization is that of the dharmakāya because it is the realization, in the practice of Khregs chod, of the true condition of the gdangs form of manifestation of the energy (Tib. thugs rje) aspect of the Base (Tib. gzhi), which in the rDzogs chen Ati Series of Pith Instructions (Skt. Upadeśavarga; Tib. Man ngag [gyi] sde) is the dharmakāya, and which illustrates the essence or ngo bo aspect of the Base—which from another standpoint (held in the general rDzogs chen teachings), since it is the emptiness aspect of the Base, is also identified as the dharmakāya. However, in this level we glimpse the emptiness of gdangs energy simultaneously with its clarity and with its unobstructedness in the unceasing flow of appearances, and therefore in a sense glimpsing the Base’s emptiness (its essence or ngo bo aspect) is a glimpse of the dharmakāya, glimpsing the Base’s clarity (its nature or rang bzhin aspect) is a glimpse of the saṃbhogakāya, and glimpsing the Base’s unobstructedness in the unceasing flow of appearances—its energy (Tib. thugs rje) aspect—is a glimpse of the nirmāṇakāya. Therefore, even though in this case what appears most strikingly is the dharmakāya, all three kāyas may be said to be glimpsed in the unveiling of the true condition of gdangs energy that, in the special sense proper to the rDzogs chen Ati Series of Pith Instructions, is the dharmakāya. Likewise, the second level of realization in the rDzogs chen Ati Series of Pith Instructions is the realization of the saṃbhogakāya, because it is the realization, in the practices of Thod rgal or of the Yang ti / Yang thig, of the true condition of the rol pa form of manifestation of energy, which in the Series in question is the saṃbhogakāya, and which illustrates the nature (Tib. rang bzhin) aspect of the Base—which from 460 461 646 another standpoint (held in the general rDzogs chen teachings), since it is the clarity aspect of the Base, is also identified as the saṃbhogakāya. However, in this level we glimpse the clarity of rol pa energy simultaneously with its emptiness and with its unobstructedness in unceasing flow of appearances, and hence in the sense in which glimpsing the Base’s clarity (its essence or ngo bo aspect) is a glimpse of the dharmakāya, glimpsing of the Base’s clarity (its nature or rang bzhin aspect) is a glimpse of the saṃbhogakāya, and glimpsing the Base’s unobstructedness in the unceasing flow of appearances (its energy or thugs rje aspect) is a glimpse of the nirmāṇakāya, although that which appears most strikingly is the saṃbhogakāya, all three kāyas may be said to be glimpsed in the unveiling of the true condition of rol pa energy that, in the special sense proper to the rDzogs chen Ati Series of Pith Instructions, is the saṃbhogakāya. Similarly, the third level of realization is that of the nirmāṇakāya, for it is the correct apprehension, as a result of the total consolidation of thod rgal realization, of the rtsal form of manifestation of energy—a realization that in the rDzogs chen Ati Series of Pith Instructions is the nirmāṇakāya. However, it is also the nirmāṇakāya in another sense, because this realization illustrates the energy (Tib. thugs rje) aspect of the Base, which from another standpoint (in the general rDzogs chen teachings), being the aspect of the Base that (is) the unobstructedness of the unceasing flow of appearances, is also the nirmāṇakāya. However, here we glimpse the unobstructedness of the unceasing flow of appearances of rtsal energy simultaneously with its clarity and with its emptiness, and hence in the sense in which glimpsing the Base’s emptiness (its essence or ngo bo aspect) is a glimpse of the dharmakāya, glimpsing the Base’s clarity (its nature or rang bzhin aspect) is a glimpse of the saṃbhogakāya, and glimpsing the unobstructedness of unceasing manifestation (its energy or thugs rje aspect) is a glimpse of the nirmāṇakāya, though the salient aspect is the nirmāṇakāya, all three kāyas may be said to be glimpsed in the realization of the true condition of rtsal energy that, in the special sense proper to the rDzogs chen Series of Pith Instructions, is the nirmāṇakāya. At any rate, each dimension realized successively in the rDzogs chen Ati Series of Pith Instructions embraces the preceding ones: the saṃbhogakāya’s realization embraces that of the dharmakāya, and that of the nirmāṇakāya comprises the saṃbhogakāya’s and the dharmakāya’s. Thus we could say that in the rDzogs chen Series of Pith Instructions the realization of the true condition of the gdangs form of manifestation of energy is the dharmakāya, but that this dharmakāya has a dharmakāya, a saṃbhogakāya and a nirmāṇakāya aspect in a sense that is not limited to the rDzogs chen teachings Likewise, in the rDzogs chen Series of Pith Instructions realization of the true condition of rol pa energy is the saṃbhogakāya, but this saṃbhogakāya has a dharmakāya, a saṃbhogakāya and a nirmāṇakāya aspect in a sense that is not limited to the rDzogs chen teachings. And in the Upadeśavarga or Menngagde series of rDzogs chen teachings realization of the true condition of the rtsal form of manifestation of energy is the nirmāṇakāya, yet this nirmāṇakāya has a dharmakāya, a saṃbhogakāya and a nirmāṇakāya aspect in a wider sense that is not limited to the rDzogs chen teachings. (Regarding all that appears in this paragraph, cf. Ch. 74 of the Rig pa rang shar rgyud; one translation is available in Smith, Ā.M. [2018a, pp. 431-2]). In Capriles (1977) I presented the diagram of a “spiral of spirals,” which was an elaboration on R. D. Laing’s (1962) “spiral of pretenses.” In it, it seemed that from the level wherein the anguish that is the being of the human individual is fully experienced, one proceeded to the realization of the nirmāṇakāya, and then from it to the successive realizations of the saṃbhogakāya and the dharmakāya. Later on I abjured that diagram. However, from all the above we must not infer that in order to undertake the practice of rDzogs chen Ati it is necessary to first practice the Inner Vajrayāna Tantras of the Path of Transformation until we attain the highest level of realization of this vehicle: rDzogs chen Ati is a self-contained Path featuring the most powerful methods of Awakening, all of which are based on the principle of spontaneous liberation rather than on that of transformation, and many of which allow individuals to gain Direct Introduction (to some extent analogous to a first satori [Chin. 悟; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn: wù; Wade-Giles, wu ]) without having to spend years practicing the stages of creation and completion or perfection. Furthermore, in each of these levels of realization, the kāyas may be understood in a wider sense that is not limited to the rDzogs chen Ati Series of Pith Instructions. Finally, as already noted, some Tantras of the rDzogs chen Series of Pith Instructions (such as the Rig pa rang grol rgyud and the Mu tig phreng ba’i rgyud; cf., for example, Smith, Ā.M. 2018a, Introduction, pp. 10-11) assert the kāyas to arise in the same sequence as on the Path of Transformation—and yet to do so 4 647 successively in the three first visions of Thod rgal or the Yang thig. In this regard, cf. endnote 324 to this book. I speak of kuṇḍalinī and bindu as two different elements because these are two different Sanskrit words, used in different contexts. However, it is important to keep in mind that it is the Tibetan term thig le— which renders the Skt. bindu—that, according to the sense in which it is used in each different case and context, I am rendering either as seed-essence or as energetic-volume-determining-the-scope-ofawareness (the latter having a sense akin to that of the Skt. kuṇḍalinī)—or even as “sphere.” In particular, retaining the sexual bindu / seed-essence increases the energetic-volume-determining-the-scope-ofawareness, and when the latter increases one may see spheres of multicolored light—whereas with a high energetic-volume-determining-the-scope-of-awareness it becomes easier to discover the true condition of reality that is compared to a single sphere because it cannot fit into any concept of chain of concepts. In fact, that which the term thig le refers to, (is) a single reality. ’Ju Mi pham’s way of relating the inner Tantras of the rNying ma pa with the Sarmapa Father, Mother and Nondual Anuttarayogatantra was probably aimed at making the rNying ma teachings palatable to the Sarmapa, and in particular to the dGe lugs pa. In fact, it so happens that Mi pham spent some time in dGe lugs pa monasteries (cf. Williams, P., 1998, pp. 25-26), and he seems to have decided, like his teacher, Dza dpal sprul ’jigs med chos kyi dbang po rin po che, to keep being a monk after receiving the rDzogs chen transmission of the kLong chen snying thig revealed by ’Jigs med gling pa. In the same vein, it seems that he decided to present the rNying ma philosophical teachings in a way that would be appealing to the dGe lugs pa—perhaps due to the sectarian political turmoil and recurrent violence that had taken place in Khams, where he lived. Both the rNying ma pas and the gSar ma pas have a Tibetan terminology that is far more precise than the original Sanskrit. For example, in Napper (2003), which comments on dGe lugs pa philosophy, we read (p. 69): “Of particular assistance is the development in Tibetan of very precise technical terminology that makes it possible to extract from the more loosely worded Indian texts greater specificity of meaning than might otherwise be gained.” For example, in the rNying ma translation of the Guhyasamājatantra (a Tantra that, as we have seen, also exists in the Sarmapa system, where it is a father Anuttarayogatantra), we read (quoted in Tibetan Text 6 [A: p. 167, 3; B: p. 21, 7], for its part cited in Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal], 1999/2001, p 201; the words or phrases in brackets were added by this author): “All dharmas are fundamentally empty, “All dharmas are utterly pure from the beginning, “All dharmas are entirely luminous clarity, “All dharmas are by nature [nonstatic] nirvāṇa, “All dharmas are perfect Awakening. “Just this is Total [Plenitude and] Perfection (Dzogpa Chenpo).” In fact, in the Madhyamaka Rang stong pa sub-schools, emptiness means that no entity exists inherently or hypostatically, or, which is the same, that there are no self-existing entities. This clearly implies that we are not separate entities in a universe conceived as the sum of countless separate entities, but, on the contrary, our true nature is a continuum of fullness and plenitude (a fact that was discussed in a previous chapter of the regular text of this book, in terms of the positions of [1] those who assume the existence of a physical universe—which according to contemporary physics is an undivided continuum with no empty spaces in it; [2] those who claim that all is mind; [3] skeptics; [4] those who claim that the true condition (is) a single continuum that is neither mind nor matter, and from which both mind and matter arise, without ceasing to be that single continuum; etc.). Moreover, since emptiness implies that qua Base we ourselves are not separate from this continuum of fullness and plenitude and therefore do not find ourselves at a distance from it, and since the realization of emptiness implies that in Contemplation—i.e. on the Path—and in the Fruit we are beyond the illusion of being separate from it or of finding ourselves at a distance from it, there can be no doubt that the ka dag aspect of our true nature corresponds to “fullness” or “plenitude.” In the use of the term rDzogs chen to which this note was appended, the word ka dag refers to the Fruit, to which it is applied in the Anuyogatantras and Mahāyogatantras of the rNying ma pa (whereas in the Atiyoga it is equally applied to the Base, to the Path and to the Fruit); therefore, in this context the emphasis should be on the ensuing condition of plenitude. 462 463 464 465 466 648 The Kālacakra adds to the ten traditional superior stages (Skt. āryabhūmi; Tib. ’phags pa’i sa) the “stage without obstacles” (Tib. bar cad med pa’i sa) and the “totally liberated stage” (Tib. rnam par grol ba’i sa). According to Elio Guarisco (research done in my behalf) here the ten stages are specified as been superior (Skt. ārya; Tib. ’phags pa) because the Kālacakratantra (just as the Sa skya Lam ’bras teachings) posits another set of twelve stages, which are supposedly attained on the path of preparation and which are known under the general name “twelve stages of contemplation” (Tib. ting nge ’dzin kyi sa). These constitute a branch of the six-fold yoga. Elio Guarisco (research done in my behalf) also notes that a text called mChog tu ’mi ’gyur pa (Toh.2219?) states that the Tantra called Vajrahṛdayalaṃkāratantranāma (Tib. rDo rje snying po rgyan gyi rgyud [Toh.451]: Ornament of the Vajra Nucleus Tantra) lists twelve stages, as follows: kun tu ’od, bdud rtsi ’od, nam mka’i ’od, rdo rje’i ’od, rin chen ’od, pad ma’i ’od, sangs rgyas kyi las byed pa’i sa, dpe med pa’i sa, dpe thams cad kyi dpe rab tu rtogs par byed pa’i sa, shes rab kyi ’od bla na med pa’i sa, thams cad mkhyen pa nyid ’od gsal ba chen po’i sa, so so’i bdag nyid rig pa rnal ’byor pa’i sa. Also, some Tibetan Masters say that these stages taught in the rDo rje snying rgyan rgyud are Buddha stages only; others say that they are superior (ārya) stages; still others associate them with the twelve stages of the sixfold yoga of Kālacakra. Guarisco notes that the Indian Masters of that tradition and the Jo nang pas explained them as been present in the Base, as the Path and as the Fruit, and gave explanations regarding each of the twelve (see Jam mgon Kong sprul’s Shes bya kun khyab: Tibetan Text 11, Chinese book form edition, vol. III, p. 523). Thanks are due to Elio Guarisco for the research done in this regard. There are Anuttarayogatantras of the Sarmapa that refer to their final realization by the term “rainbow body;” however, this realization is not the same as the one that the rDzogs chen teachings refer to by the same name. It must also be noted that, though the Anuyoga is asserted to allow its most consummate practitioners to attain one special type of death, it does not allow them to attain the same four modes of death as the Atiyoga. Among the other terms used to refer to rDzogs chen and/or to the Atiyoga are: gza’ gtad dang bral ba, lhun gyis grub pa, rang byung ye shes, bya btsal dang bral ba, bde ba chen po, gnyis su med pa, mtha’ ril ma spangs bral ba’s rang lugs chen po, gzhi ji bzhing bar lta be, etc. These terms are discussed in the A ti byang sems dgongs mdzod ces bya ba, which it would be utterly illegitimate to reproduce here. bDud ’joms ’jigs bral ye shes rdo rje rin po che (Dudjom Rinpoche, English 1991, vol. I, p. 244) compares the Hetuyāna (Causal vehicle) or Hetulakṣaṇayāna (Causal vehicle of characteristics; Tib. rGyu mtshan nyid/phyi’i theg pa), discussed in the first of the following paragraphs, with the Phalayāna or Resultbased vehicle (Tib. ’Bras bu theg pa), discussed in the second: “Therefore, in the vehicle of (the distinction of) characteristics (by means of dialectics), the nature of mind (corresponding to primordial gnosis) is merely perceived as the causal basis of Buddhahood. Since it is held that Buddhahood is obtained under the condition whereby two provisions (that of merits and that of wisdom) increasingly multiply, and since the purifying doctrines which form the causal basis of nirvāṇa are made into the Path, it is called the Causal vehicle (rGyu’i theg pa). Therein a sequence in which cause precedes result is accepted. “According to the vehicle of mantras, on the other hand, the nature of mind abides primordially and intrinsically as the essence of the result, consisting in the kāyas and primordial gnoses. The nature of mind is thereby established as the Base within oneself already at this moment as the aim of attainment. It is then established as the Path through its functions of bringing about recognition and removing the provisional stains that suddenly arise by means of inducing the apprehension of isness, and it is established as the Fruit through its function of actualizing this very Base. Since a sequence in which cause precedes effect is not really distinguished therein, it is called the Result-based vehicle (’Bras bu’i theg pa) and the Vehicle of the indestructible condition (rDo rje theg pa).” As will be seen immediately following in the regular text of the book, in rDzogs chen Atiyoga the Path consists in the progressive unconcealment of the Base and, therefore, rather than involving the production of something, it is based on what has (been) the Base and what has (been) in the Base from beginningless time. Contrariwise, on the Path of Transformation corresponding to Tantrism, it is necessary to produce visualizations and other experiences that originally were not manifest. It is for that reason, among other things, that I point out that the Base-Path-Fruit continuity (rGyud: Tantra) is less perfect in Vajrayāna or Tantrism than it is in rDzogs chen Atiyoga. In Anuttarayoga and Mahāyoga one is supposed to keep aware that whatever one visualizes is empty of self-existence or substance, but nonetheless one is fabricating a new reality by transforming impure vision 467 468 469 470 471 472 649 into pure vision by means of visualization—and while one perceives the new, fabricated reality one has no nonfabricated, unmade, unproduced, unintentional, uncompounded, uncontrived and/or unconditioned (Pāḷi asaṅkhata; Skt. asaṃskṛta; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch., 無為 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu wei ]) direct awareness (of) the unconditioned Base. In Anuyoga one is supposed to carry out the instantaneous, spontaneously perfect (Tib. lhun grub; Skt. anābogha or nirābogha) visualization in the state of nonconceptual and thus nondual Awake Awareness called rig pa, but as Rong dzom pa (Tibetan text 4: p. 243, 4) pointed out, one does not really have this capacity and therefore the generation stage entails fragmentation. Only Atiyoga involves, from the very outset of the Path the nonfabricated / unproduced / unintentional / uncompounded / uncontrived / unconditioned, direct unveiling of the unconditioned nature of the Base in the state of rig pa or Awake awareness—which, as will be shown below in the regular text, consists in the disclosure of lta ba or Vision upon Direct introduction. Of course, even in the Series of Pith Instructions (Tib. Man ngag [gyi] sde; Skt. Upadeśavarga), which is be the most characteristic series of rDzogs chen Atiyoga, there are secondary practices, such as, for example, some of the sems ’dzin, some of the ’khor ’das ru shan, the three varieties of the seventh blo sbyong, the zer lnga and so on, in which specific experiences are induced or visualizations are generated; it is in the main practice that does not involve constructing or producing anything specific. Let us take the two levels of Menngagde or Upadeśavarga as an example: In Khregs chod thoughts arise spontaneously of their own accord, as they have always done, and hence the only difference between this practice and the experience of an ordinary individual is that, in the case of the ordinary individual, thoughts veil the Base and fail to liberate themselves spontaneously, as a consequence of which samsaric propensities (Skt. vāsanā; Tib. bag chags; Ch. 氣習 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, qìxí; Wade-Giles, ch’i -hsi ] or 習氣 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xíqì; Wade-Giles, hsi -ch’i ]) are reinforced or established, whereas in Khregs chod practice, all thoughts liberate themselves spontaneously—either once they are established as object, upon arising, or as self-liberated ornaments of the true condition—rather than veiling the Base, and therefore no samsaric traces are established. If we consider the natural arising of thoughts as a spontaneous generation or creation stage (Skt. utpattikrama; Tib. bskyed rim; Ch. ⽣起次第 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shēngqǐ cìdì; Wade-Giles, sheng -ch’i tz’u -ti ]), then we will have to conclude that in Khregs chod this stage rather than being contrived is self-generated, as corresponds to the principle of lhun grub inherent in our true nature. For its part, ideally the completion or perfection stage (Skt. saṃpannakrama, niṣpannakrama or utpannakrama; Tib. rdzogs rim; Ch. 圓滿次第 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yuánmǎn cìdì; Wade-Giles, yüan -man tz’u -ti ]) ought to occur simultaneously with the arising of thoughts and should not depend on an action on the part of the illusory subject—which is how it occurs in the third type of spontaneous liberation that will be considered in the description of khregs chod in Part Two of this book. In Thod rgal and the Yang ti / Yang thig that which arises spontaneously of its own accord is the visions necessary for the method to function (see the section on this practice in Part Two of this book). Furthermore, the systemic loops consisting in the runaway (i.e. the spontaneous, uncontrolled exacerbation) of tensions toward a threshold level and subsequent spontaneous liberation, together with the spontaneous liberation of the whole of dualistic delusion (a spontaneous liberation that consists in the dissolution of the illusory mental subject that feels itself to be separate from the visions), develop in an equally spontaneous / spontaneously perfect / spontaneously rectifying (Tib. lhun grub; Skt. anābogha or nirābogha) manner. Though the principle of lhun grub means that whatever occurs—the arising of visions, the development of tensions, and the spontaneous liberation of these tensions together with the whole of delusion—does so spontaneously rather than being the result of actions carried out by the illusory subject, the runaway of tensions depends on the mental subject’s automatic reactions before the self-arising visions in a condition that is subject to the dynamics of the rol pa mode of manifestation of energy, which does not allow the development of dualism. Therefore, practice does not involve any conditioned / conditioning element. The above is the reason why The Vajra Essence (Tib. Dag snang ye shes drva pa las gnas lugs rang byung gi rgyud rdo rje’i snying po)—a treasure teaching revealed by Dudjom Lingpa—notes with regard to the practice of thod rgal (alternative trans. by A. Wallace in Dudjom Lingpa, 2015, Vol. 3): “If you practice in this way—unlike [what is the case in] the mentally constructed, dim meditation proper to khregs chod—the true condition of the clear light will directly appear to your senses, and this is therefore called the vision of the direct apprehension of the absolutely true [condition].” In the rDzogs chen Series of Pith Instructions (Tib. Man ngag [gyi] sde; Skt. Upadeśavarga), which is the most direct series of rDzogs chen teachings, the term nature or essence of mind (Tib. sems nyid; Skt. 2 2 473 4 2 2 1 2 3 4 4 474 650 3 4 4 4 cittatā or citta eva) refers to the (co-)Gnitive capacity that in a sense depends on the organism and, while in the dualistic condition, seems to lie in an internal dimension (Tib. nang dbyings), whereas the nature or essence of phenomena other than mind (Tib. chos nyid; Skt. dharmatā) is the true condition of all that appears as object in a seemingly external dimension (Tib. spyi dbyings). This difference is established because in that series of teachings the highest level of practice, which is Thod rgal or the Yang ti / Yang thig, may take realization to the point at which the nature or essence of mind fully integrates with the nature or essence of phenomena, in the sense that the illusion that the former is the illusory mental subject that arises from the reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of the threefold directional thought structure (Skt. trimaṇḍala; Tib. ’khor gsum; Ch. 三輪 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānlùn; Wade-Giles, san lun ]) and that as such it is inherently separate from an array of entities that appear as object by virtue of the same mechanism, dissolves and no longer arises, so that the highest type of indivisibility (Tib. dbyer med) is achieved—upon which the organism dissolves into light (if this is achieved while the individual is still alive, the whole organism disappears; if it is achieved after death, the hair and nails, which lack sensibility and are always growing to the outside of the body, remain—yet in both cases a “body of light” remains that can continue to transmit teachings to those who have the capacity to contact this dimension of light, so long as people having this capacity continue to appear). All of this is briefly discussed in the main body of this volume and might be discussed in greater detail in Vol. II of this book. It is the exacerbation of the illusion of self and others as inherently existing, independent realities, which causes us to be willing to harm others in order to achieve what we wrongly see as our own benefit, and it is the projection of evil unto others that boosts the ensuing evil, giving rise to the most extreme evils. The latter has to do with that which Jung called the archetype of the shadow, and with that which Gestalt psychology calls the dynamic of the shadow—although, as already noted, contrary to Jung’s belief, rather than being the “remnant of the violent impulses of our animal ancestors,” the archetype in question and the dynamic inherent in it result from being punished during the process of socialization in civilized societies. Cf. Capriles (2012, 2013b, etc.). It is possible to distinguish different numbers of aspects in the undivided Base, but the two most common divisions that for their purposes the rDzogs chen teachings make in it are: The one into the three aspects which are essence (Tib. ngo bo, which is one of the Tibetan renderings of the Skt. svabhāva [Ch. ⾃性 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìng; Wade-Giles, tzu -hsing ; Jap. jisho)]), which is the Base’s dharmakāya; nature (Tib. rang bzhin, which is one of the Tibetan renderings of the Skt. svabhāva [Ch. ⾃性 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìng; Wade-Giles, tzu -hsing ; Jap. jisho)]), which is the Base’s saṃbhogakāya; and energy (this term renders the Tibetan thugs rje [lit. soft and noble heart], which is one of the Tibetan terms that render the Skt. karuṇā, which literally means compassion—the other term being snying rje; Ch. 悲 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bēi; Wade-Giles, pei : lit. sadness or mercy]), which is the Base’s nirmāṇakāya. And, (2) The one into the two aspects which are primordial purity (Tib. ka dag; hypothesized Skt., kaśuddha)— which in the threefold division corresponds to the essence aspect, and which therefore is also the Base’s dharmakāya—and spontaneous perfection (Tib. lhun grub; Skt. nirābogha or anābogha)—which the threefold division subdivides into nature and energy, and which is the Base’s rūpakāya. Therefore (2) and (1) are the Base’s division into two and three kāyas, respectively. However, we can also leave the Base undivided, which would be the Base as svabhāvikāya; or into four, which would be the threefold division presented as (1), plus the svabhāvikāya that is the indivisibility of the trikāya; or into five, if we add the vajrakāya to the former four, so as to make the kāyas correspond to the five Buddhafamilies. In fact, since the Base is the Buddha-nature, not in potency, but in act, we can illustrate it with a statue of Buddha, which is an undivided unity, but in which we can distinguish its form, its color and the material of which it is made. However, we could as well distinguish a fourth aspect if we deemed it useful, which could be, say, the indivisibility of the aforementioned three aspects. To which we could add the material’s brightness, its smoothness, or whatever else we deemed useful. This is why the Buddhist teachings divide the Buddha-nature into two aspects, which are the dharmakāya and the rūpakāya; or into three aspects, which are the three kāyas—or into four, if we add the svabhāvikāya which is the indivisibility of the three kāya, or into five, so that the aspects in question may correspond to the five wisdoms. Etc. In rDzogs chen, emptiness is never an object of knowledge, but a quality or aspect of the nonconceptual and hence nondual Awake awareness that qua Base is called essence or nature of mind and qua Path and qua Fruit is called rig pa—or, as often stated, (is) that awareness itself. ’Jigs med gling pa wrote concerning emptiness in rDzogs chen (alternative translations in Thinle Norbu, 2015, pp. 78-79; Nyoshul Khenpo, 2015, pp. 139-140; van Schaik, 2004, pp. 227-228; Trungpa, pp. 23-24): 1 4 475 476 4 4 4 1 477 651 4 “What is emptiness? “It (is being) primordially empty and without any self-nature / inherent entity. “It (is being) free from the four and eight extreme views. “This immediate Awake awareness, which is free and unbound and free from reified concepts “is known as rig pa. “This might not be [properly understood]. “For example, in the lower vehicles, conceptual awareness is used to negate existence [but by the same token, some of its systems reify the ensuing] nonexistence [into a purported absolute truth]. And, following this, you arrive at an empty, blank absence. “Or, as in the lower Tantric vehicles, with the svabhāva mantra (note by the author of this book: which is oṃ svabhāvaśuddhā sarvadharmā svabhāvaśuddho ’haṃ) and so forth, through meditative absorption you purify everything into emptiness, [giving rise to a mere illusory experience of] clarity and emptiness. “Or, if you experience [substantiality], [you apply as an antidote] a [merely conceptual, superimposed] view that [all phenomena] are like illusions. “These are errors.” The Sanskrit term karuṇā (Ch. 悲 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, bēi; Wade-Giles, pei : lit. sadness or mercy], which is normally rendered into English as “compassion,” is translated into Tibetan both as thugs rje and as snying rje: both thugs and snying mean “heart,” while rje may be rendered as “soft and noble.” Why should the nonobstruction of the arising of phenomena, the uninterrupted arising of appearances and the manifest appearances be referred to by a term meaning “compassion”? After Awakening, fully Awake individuals (Skt. anuttarā samyaksaṃbuddhas; Tib. yang dag par rdzogs pa’i sangs rgyas; Ch. 正遍知 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhèngbiànzhī; Wade-Giles, cheng -pien -chih ]) will continue to be physiologically alive rather than dying after a few days, as occurs in the case of solitary realizers or pratyekabuddhas, because in Buddhas compassion arises spontaneously; therefore, it is as a function of compassion that the thugs rje aspect of the Base, corresponding to the Base’s unobstructedness and the uninterrupted arising of phenomena, will continue to function in their continuum (even though, of course, it will no longer be experienced as the succession of a multiplicity of phenomena irrupting into their experience, for fully Awake individuals do not experience themselves as other than the Universal Source [i.e., than that which Chos rgyal nam mkha’i nor bu and Adriano Clemente called the “Supreme Source” and which in Tibetan is called the “All-Creating King”])—and, moreover, they are beyond experience as such. It could be objected that this may be so in the case of Buddhas, but not in the case of deluded individuals, to whom phenomena continue to appear inexorably even in the absence of compassion. However, the point is that the Base is the Buddha-nature with the three kāyas, and it is only because sentient beings experience themselves as creatures inherently separate from the rest of the Base that they fail to realize that appearances are the function of compassion. Despite the fact that only fully Awake Ones, who do not experience themselves as beings thrown into the world by an external power and do not feel separate from the Buddha-nature that is the Base, are fully aware that the thugs rje aspect of the Base continues to function because of compassion, the same is the case with those sentient beings in saṃsāra who fail to realize this fact. Therefore also in their case it is correct to say that the thugs rje aspect of the Base is a function of the compassion inherent in Buddhahood. As stated in endnote 411, because containers are meant to contain something other than air, even when a pot, a jug, a jar, a glass and all other hollow containers are filled with air, they are said to be empty if they do not contain anything liquid or solid and therefore we can fill them with anything liquid or solid we may wish to put in them. Now suppose that, in a loosely similar sense, we say that a mirror is inherently empty: the statement will make sense if what we are trying to say is that the mirror does not exhibit any fixed image, nor is filled with image-obstructing matter, and therefore it can “fill itself” with the reflection of whatever is put in front of it. However, when a pot, a jug, a jar, a glass or any other hollow container is filled with walnuts, for it to be filled with almonds it will have to be emptied of the walnuts that had been filling it so far. This is not the case with a mirror, which does not need to be emptied of whatever had been filling it in order to “fill itself” with the image of whichever new object is placed in front of it. The fact that the mirror does not need to be actively emptied of the reflections it contains for it to fill itself with a new reflection may be taken to mean that, even when filled with images, a mirror continues to be empty (for it is still ready to fill itself with new images), and therefore that the images that fill the mirror are also empty. In fact, one of the eight similes of illusion taught by Śākyamuni’s was that of a reflected image, meant to show that 478 1 4 479 652 4 1 despite the fact that phenomena appear, they lack a self-nature—and therefore that they are utterly “empty of self-existence” (Skt. svābhāvaśūnyatā; Tib. rang bzhin gyi stong pa nyid, except for rJe Tsong kha pa, who preferred rang bzhin gyis ma grub pa; Ch. ⾃性空 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìng kòng; Wade–Giles, tzu hsing k’ung ]). However, in this case the simile is also meant to show that the phenomena of our experience are empty in the sense in which space is said to be empty: in that they are nonobstructing. Therefore, in a very particular sense, it is possible to say that, unlike the emptiness of a pot, a jug, a jar, a glass or any other hollow container, the emptiness of a mirror is somehow inherent in it, and also that whatever fills a mirror is as empty as the mirror itself. However, the Base—or, which is the same, the nonconceptual and hence nondual Awake awareness that is the essence or nature of mind—is illustrated with the simile of the mirror precisely because emptiness in the above senses is inherent in the mirror, but so is also its disposition to give rise to appearances: just like the mirror, primordial gnosis or spontaneous Awake awareness qua Base will give rise to any content, depending on contributory conditions. (In the case of the mirror, the contributory conditions are the external objects we place in front of it; in the case of the Base, in relation to which nothing is external— for it is empty of substances other than or extraneous to the Base [Tib. gzhan gyi dngos po stong pa nyid; tentative Skt. trans. para(bhava)śūnyatā]—the contributory conditions are those that make it possible for particular sense data to appear. It must be noted that all sense data are segments of the continuum of the Base’s energy [Tib. thugs rje] aspect, on which perception depends and which, in contrast with the projections put by humans in order to produce perceptions and only in contrast with these projections, could be referred to as “objective reality.” Cf. the possibly upcoming definitive version on print of Capriles [electronic publication 2004].) In terms of the twofold division of the Base, the above emptiness is its primordial purity (Tib. ka dag) aspect, whereas the Base’s disposition to give rise to phenomena—i.e. its luminosity—is a function of its selfperfection / spontaneously rectifying / spontaneously accomplishing (Tib. lhun grub) aspect. In terms of the threefold division, that emptiness is the essence (Tib. ngo bo) aspect of the Base, and the Base’s disposition to give rise to phenomena is its nature (Tib. rang bzhin) aspect, source of the unimpeded arising of phenomena that makes up the Base’s energy (Tib. thugs rje) aspect. As noted above, for their part the phenomena of the energy or thugs rje aspect of the Base are utterly empty in at least the three senses of the term discussed above: (1) in that of lacking true, hypostatic or inherent existence (Skt. svābhāvaśūnyatā; Tib. rang bzhin gyi stong pa nyid, except for rJe Tsong kha pa, who preferred rang bzhin gyis ma grub pa; Ch. ⾃性空 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìxìng kòng; Wade–Giles, tzu -hsing k’ung ]); (2) in that of not obstructing the capacity of spontaneous awareness to “fill itself” with different contents; (3) in their not being substances external to the base, because the Base is empty of alien substances (Tib. gzhan gyi dngos po stong pa nyid; tentative Skt. trans. para[bhava]śūnyatā). If the nonconceptual and hence nondual Awake awareness qua Base that is the essence of nature of mind were not empty in the sense of not having fixed forms, and if phenomena were not empty of hypostatic, inherent or true existence, the awareness in question would necessarily give rise to the same phenomena all the time, and the constant change that characterizes human experience would be impossible: it is precisely because that awareness is empty in the sense of not bearing any fixed images, and because it continues to be empty even when it is filled with images (because the images are themselves empty), that it can give rise to all kinds of images. In turn, it is because these images are empty that they do not obstruct the arising of new images: they are empty (a) because they can arise thanks to the emptiness and reflectiveness of awareness; (b) because they are not obstructing and thus need not be removed in order for the mirror to “fill itself” with new images; and (c) because they are like the empty images that arise by virtue of a play of light (so to speak). In fact, this is why they are neither self-existent nor subsistent, being empty in the rang stong sense of lacking hypostatic, inherent, true existence. The fact that all relative entities of saṃsāra can only appear and have their existence thanks to the two or three aspects of the nonconceptual and hence nondual Awake awareness that is the essence or nature of mind and that is the Base of rDzogs chen, implies that these phenomena (which in the threefold division of aspects are appearances of the energy or thugs rje aspect) lack a self-nature or substance. The emptiness of self-existence of the myriad phenomena is confirmed by the fact that, when subjected to analysis, those phenomena are not found as self-existent entities: we find that whatever we may have taken to be an entity, is in fact nothing but an aggregate of other entities (the ones constituting the parts of the entity under analysis); when we analyze the other entities (i.e. the “parts”), we find that whatever 4 4 4 4 4 653 4 we may have taken to be an entity, is in fact nothing more than an aggregate of other entities (the ones constituting the parts of the part under analysis)… and so on and on into microscopic levels that we cannot reach with our bare senses and with regard to which, no matter how ideological the sciences may be, we have no alternative but to resort to contemporary physics—which, as we have seen, clearly implies that that there are no hypostatically, inherently or truly existing entities at any level of the dimensional spectrum. From another perspective, it is clear that no samsaric, relative phenomenon of our experience, whether subject or object, exists inherently or independently, because all phenomena depend on the spurious subjectobject dichotomy that arises from the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of the directional threefold thought structure and the concomitant dualistic, directional structuring of consciousness. And those phenomena that appear as object also depend on being singled out by the mindand-mental-factors or mind-and-mental-events complex and on being recognized and perceived in terms of a concept. As we have seen, the concepts in terms of which we perceive our objects depend on the category that is its genus proximum and on the category that is its differentia specifica—or, in terms of the Pramāṇavāda philosophy of ācārya Dignāga (and his indirect disciple, Dharmakīrti), on the categories that the concept excludes, for concepts are defined by exclusion (Skt. apoha; Tib. sel ba; 除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chú; WadeGiles, ch’u ] or 遮 除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēchú; Wade-Giles, che -ch’u ]) or exclusion of other (Skt. anyāpoha; Tib. gzhan sel; Ch. 他感排除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tā gǎn páichú; Wade-Giles, t’a -kan p’ai -ch’u ]; another possibility, though less likely: 他者的遮除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tāzhědí zhēchú; Wade-Giles, t’a -che ti che -ch’u ]). Therefore, any phenomenon can also be said to depend on these categories and therefore on the whole of the phenomena that, upon being grouped together, gave rise to these categories. And since the above categories are established in relation to all other categories, our phenomenon can be said to depend on the totality of categories, and on the whole of the phenomena that, upon being grouped together, gave rise to the totality of categories. Therefore, all phenomena—including the mental subject and all the segments of the continuum of appearance that the mind-and-mental-factors or mind-and-mental-events complex can single out and establish as objects (whether of the kind that we consider to be mental or of the type that we consider to be physical)— qua phenomena are dependent and, as such, are empty of self-existence and hence exist relatively rather than absolutely. However, in truth they all are the energy of the continuum of the Base, which as such does not exclude anything—thus having no genus proximum and no differentiam specificam, and being absolutely unthinkable and ineffable. Furthermore, no map corresponds exactly to the territory of the given, and nothing whatsoever that can be asserted concerning any entity can exactly correspond to it or exhaust it. This fact implies the emptiness of self-existence of entities, for the fact that a cart can be equally said to be a cart and not to be a cart implies that it is not inherently a cart, and the fact that a cart can be equally said to be and not to be implies that it does not exist inherently as an entity. (It must be noted that in the rDzogs chen teachings the simile of the mirror may also be used to represent the final fusion of the rtsal and rol pa energies that takes place when a practitioner reaches the highest levels in the practices of Thod rgal and the Yang ti / Yang thig: this is so because at this point, as it is proper to the rol pa mode of manifestation of energy, all appears beyond the subject object duality and beyond the division into an internal dimension [Tib. nang dbyings] and an external one [Tib. spyi dbyings].) Some teachers insist that the energy of thugs rje aspect of the Base does not consist in the unimpededness that allows for the arising of phenomena, the ceaselessness of this arising, and the whole of the appearing phenomena, but exclusively in the unimpededness that makes the arising of phenomena possible, which may be noticed in the instant preceding the arising of appearances. The fact that the phenomena arising in the Base by the Base’s power cannot be external to or different from the Base may be easily understood in terms of the representation of the Base with a mirror and of the phenomena that appear with the reflections in the mirror. It is self-evident that it is not permissible to claim that the reflections that appear in a mirror are the mirror (for in that case the mirror would always show the same reflections); however, neither is it permissible to claim that the reflections (are) something different or separate from the mirror, for they (are) a function of the mirror, and they (are) certainly not outside the mirror or separate from it. The point is that they are nothing at all, for, in kLong chen pa’s words (Longchen Rabjam [1998], p. 84): “In accordance with the eight traditional metaphors for illusoriness, an examination of phenomena as forms of emptiness, clearly apparent yet unthinkable, ineffable and void... determines their equalness in having 2 1 2 1 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 480 654 3 no identity. One knows the basic space of unchanging emptiness through these natural manifestations of the nature of mind.” Likewise (Longchen Rabjam [2001], p. 156): “Using one of the eight metaphors for illusoriness, they are understood to be reflections that manifest clearly without existing anywhere, outwardly or inwardly.” What the Sems sde teachings represent with the simile of a mirror is the essence or nature of mind, which is a nonconceptual and hence nondual Awake awareness, also referred to as bodhicitta, single sphere (Tib. thig le gcig), total sphere (Tib. thig le chen po) etc. Phenomena arise naturally as the display, dynamic energy and adornment of this essence or nature of mind, Awake awareness or however we call it—and, as shown by the passages quoted, they (are) natural appearances of this nature of mind or however we call it. As kLong chen pa noted, one may say that the reflections are the mirror in the sense in which one uses the name “sun” to refer to the rays of the sun when one says, “Sit in the midday sun.” Furthermore, isn’t it said that the world such as it presents itself to our impure vision is the nirmāṇakāya? And isn’t it said that the dharmakāya (and in general the single nature of all reality) is utterly free from substances other than itself—which is what is referred to in Tibetan by the term gzhan stong, rendered into Sanskrit as paraśūnya? If phenomena were different and separate from the Base (or from the essence or nature of mind, Awake awareness, or however we call it), we could not say either that the world such as it presents itself to our impure vision is the nirmāṇakāya, or that the dharmakāya (and in general the Base that is the single true condition of all reality) is utterly free from substances other than itself, or that the whole of reality is the single sphere, the total sphere or the single condition of rDzogs chen qua Base. And it has never been said that the Base has a fourth aspect apart from essence, nature and energy that would consist in the arising of phenomena and the appearing phenomena. The point is that the referent of the Tib. gzhan gyi dngos po stong pa nyid (tentative Sanskrit translation, parabhāvaśūnyatā) or “absence of substances other than the single true condition of all reality” and the referent of the Tib. rang bzhing gyis stong pa nyid (Skt. svabhāvaśūnyatā) or “absence of the selfexistence of phenomena” imply each other, for, as previously noted, since phenomena (are) not different or separate from the single Base, they cannot be self-existent or substantial (which is why it was said that phenomena [are] nothing at all), and since phenomena are not self-existent or substantial there can be no substances other than the single Base. Furthermore, if phenomena were separate or different from the thugs rje aspect of the Base, the rDzogs chen teachings could not claim that energy manifests in the three different ways that are gdangs (which some have rendered as “glow” on the basis of one of the literal meanings of the word, and which I have tentatively rendered as “energy of the sphere of the mental”), rol pa (which literally means “play” or “display,” and which I have tentatively rendered as “visionary, rectifying / corrective energy”) and rtsal (which I have tentatively rendered as “projective, seemingly substantial energy”): if that were the case, the Base’s energy aspect would be circumscribed to that which precedes the arising of appearance of any of these three forms of manifestation of energy (and, since some instructions ask us to recognize as the thugs rje aspect of the Base the unimpededness preceding the arising of thought, in particular it would be circumscribed to the unimpededness that precedes the manifestation of gdangs energy as thoughts). The point is that although phenomena (are) forms of the Base’s energy, they are utterly nonexistent, and as such they may not be said either to be the Base’s energy or not to be the Base’s energy. And yet energy manifests as gdangs, rol pa and rtsal, and phenomena of these three forms of manifestation of energy are therefore all said to be the Base’s energy. However, it is also true that, as we have seen, thoughts are nothing at all, and hence there is no process of arising and dissolution of thoughts and other types of appearances, and on the basis of this it could be validly said that the Base’s energy/compassion aspect may not be defined as uninterrupted arising and dissolution of phenomena. Nonetheless, if this were the reason why some great Masters have claimed that the Base’s energy/compassion aspect is the unobstructedness that precedes the arising of appearances, then there would be no need to specify that the energy/compassion in question, rather than being the uninterrupted arising of phenomena, is the unimpededness that precedes this arising—for the aspect of the Base under consideration does not change in any way upon the arising of thought, which is the arising of nothing-at-all, and the dissolution of thought, which is the dissolution of nothing-at-all. In fact, since phenomena, including thoughts, visions, and material essents, (are) inconceivable and ineffable, anything we may assert concerning them—for example, that they (are) [the energy of] the Base or that they (are) something different from the [energy of the] Base—will necessarily fail to tally with reality. 655 Therefore, the only way we would be correct no matter what we said with regard to them, would be by being free of what Candrakīrti called “own view” (Skt. svamata; Tib. rang lugs)—also called “affirming from one’s heart,” “making self-directed/interior-directed assertions” or “having theses of one’s own” (cf. Capriles [unpublished 1, unpublished 3, 2005]; Chöphel & Capriles [unpublished]; cf. also the possibly upcoming definitive publication in print of electronic publication [2004], as well as the notes in Volume II of this book)—and hence not taking as true or false, either what we think or assert, or the contrary of what we think or assert. Saying something without “own view” amounts to being correct because one does not incur in the delusion of taking concepts or chains of concepts to perfectly match reality: this is called expressing a “view for others (to accept provisionally)” (Skt. paramata; Tib. gzhan lugs) or making “other-directed” or “exterior-directed” assertions (Tib. gzhan ngo khas len)—which is the way in which Buddhas teach. At any rate, on the basis of the above, we should conclude that the instructions advising us to recognize the Base’s energy/compassion aspect as the unimpededness that immediately precedes the arising of thought is a pith instruction for recognizing the characteristic disposition of each of this specific aspect of the Base, rather than being an attempt to explain the nature of phenomena, which as shown above can neither be or not be the [energy aspect of the] Base. In fact, attaining realization implies no longer perceiving phenomena as separate from the energy aspect of the single Base, and hence these instructions by no means imply that phenomena are not the energy aspect of the Base. The above is made crystal clear by the noted rDzogs chen Tantra of the Series of Pith Instructions, the Rig pa rang shar chen po’i rgyud (quoted by kLong chen ’rab byams in the Tshig don rin po che’i mdzod [12a/2]): “The Base’s primordial purity is manifest as essence (Tib. ngo bo), nature (Tib. rang bzhin) and energy (or compassion: Tib. thugs rje). The essence is the ceaselessness of changeless self-Awareness, and it is called the nature of the youthful vase body (Tib. gzhon nu bum sku). The nature is the ceaseless appearances of the five lights. The appearances of energy or compassion are [pervasive] like a cloudless sky.” (Alternative translation in Tulku Thöndup, 1989/1996, p. 206.) At any rate, as commented above, it is solely in the context of pith instructions that are skillful means for recognizing the characteristic disposition of each of the three aspects of the Base, that explanations of the energy or thugs rje aspect of the Base are offered like the ones discussed in this note. It could be objected that the uninterrupted arising of appearances is compassion in the case of Buddhas, but not in the case of deluded sentient beings, to whom appearances continue to appear inexorably even in the absence of compassion. However, as noted in the regular text, the Base is the Buddha-nature with the three kāyas, and it is only because sentient beings experience themselves as creatures inherently separate from the rest of the Base, that they fail to realize that appearances are the function of compassion. It is no doubt true that only fully Awake Ones, who do not experience themselves as beings thrown into the world by an external power and do not feel separate from the Buddha-nature that is the Base, are fully aware that the thugs rje aspect of the Base continues to generate appearances because of compassion. However, the same is the case with those sentient beings in saṃsāra who fail to realize this to be so; therefore, also in their case it is correct to say that the thugs rje aspect of the Base is a function of the compassion inherent in Buddhahood. The translation by W. Allan Wallace (in Dudjom Lingpa, 2015, pp. 29-9) is: “Some people take appearances to be the mind, and they may think that all outer appearances are (...) thoughts and really their own minds, but this is not so. This is demonstrated by the fact that appearances change from the very moment they arise, with former moments sequentially passing away and giving rise to later ones, while the mind does not take on the nature of any of these moments, which would render it nonexistent. Thus, as appearances to the eight types of consciousness sequentially emerge in their natural order, saṃsāra becomes fully operative. As they reabsorb back into the substrate consciousness (note by E.C.: the base-of-all: Tib. kun gzhi rnam [par] shes [pa]; Skt. ālayavijñāna; Ch. 阿賴耶識 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, ālàiyē shí; Wade-Giles, a -lai -yeh shih ] or 藏識 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zàngshì; Wade-Giles, tsang -shih ]), they subside into the peak of mundane existence (note by E. C.: Tib. srid [pa’i] rtse [mo]; Skt. bhavāgra; Ch. 有頂天 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, yǒudǐngtiān; Wade-Giles, yu -ting -t’ien ]). “In this way the whole world of appearances of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa is none other than the ground (...) (note by E. C.: the Base: Tib. gzhi; Skt. āśraya; Chinese: 依止 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn: yīzhĭ; Wade-Giles: i -chih ]), and is of one taste in that very ground. As an analogy, you must understand that even though various reflections of the planets and stars appear in the ocean, in reality they are of one taste in the water. The revelation of all phenomena to be your own appearances is the essential teaching of Vajradhāra.” 481 482 1 4 1 4 4 3 3 4 1 1 656 3 For an explanation of the first of the two paragraphs quoted above, cf. endnote 488, where I present another, different translation of the passages. Candrakīrti (1970), as rendered and cited in Candrakīrti (2003, p. 219, n. 16). The whole note reads: In MKV 492–93, Candrakīrti examines the two truths in detail. See May 1959, 225–29, and Sprung 1979, 230–32. Candrakīrti also discusses the two truths in MA 101–19, 175–78. See Huntington 1989, 160–61, 166–67, 231– 34 (nn. 38, 47, 49), and 246–47 n. 109. “In reality,” Candrakīrti concludes (MA 119), “there are not two truths but only one since the Buddha has said: ‘Monks, this is the unique ultimate truth, namely, Nirvana which is nondeceptive’.” Lang takes the quotation from Candrakīrti (1970). At any rate, the above clearly follows from Madhyamakāvatāra VI-28, which may be rendered from its Tibetan version as follows (corresponding yet not identical translation in Chandrakirti & Mipham, 2002, p. 72): “The true condition of phenomena (Tib. chos nyid), enshrouded by ignorance and delusion, is ‘all concealed’ (Tib. kun rdzob), yet what is conditioned by this delusion appears as true, and so the Buddha spoke of ‘concealing truth’ (Tib. kun rdzob bden pa).” The above is one rendering of the Tibetan translation of Candrakīrti’s text. If we took as our references the Sanskrit terms saṃvṛti and saṃvṛtisatya, rather than their Tibetan translations (which are kun rdzob and kun rdzob bden pa, respectively), then—as clarified by Gendün Chöphel (Cf. Chöphel & Capriles, unpublished 1; Capriles, unpublished 1; Chöphel, 2005; López, 2006; Capriles, 2013b)—what Candrakīrti asserted in Madhyamakāvatāra VI:23 and especially VI:28 was that relative truth is an obscuration to correctness or the spurious fruit of a thoroughly confused perspective—for these two phrases express the etymological meaning of saṃvṛti. This understanding is shared by nearly all Tibetan Masters—with the sole exception of rJe Tsong kha pa and his followers. In fact, the great bulk of Masters of the rNying ma, Sa skya and bKa’ brgyud schools (and even some unorthodox Gelug Masters) agree that the relative has no existence whatsoever and that relative truth is a deception rather than a truth, and hence that there (is) a single truth, which it the absolute truth that (is) the only truth there (is). In the words of Gendün Chöphel (as rendered in Chöphel & Capriles, unpublished 1): “Early translators rendered into Tibetan the Sanskrit term saṃvṛti, which [etymologically] means ‘obscuration to correctness’ or ‘thoroughly confused,’ as kun rdzob, which literally means ‘allconcealing’ (and which is the term that Gelug translators render as ‘conventional’ and non-Gelug translators render as ‘relative’). Since [the experience of relative truth is] deluded, we must understand relative truth as ‘mistaken [pseudo-]truth.’” And also: “We must admit that relative phenomena (Tib. kun rdzob gyi chos), which are by nature false, can be appraised only by the source of all falsity, which is our own mind. Those who search wholeheartedly for the absolute truth (Tib. don dam pa’i bden pa) must understand at the very outset that this master of falsity, the mind, cannot go beyond relative / all-concealing / all-distorting (Tib. kun rdzob) [pseudo-]truth (Tib. bden pa).” For his part, the Kar ma pa Mi kyod rdo rje, in dbU ma la ’jug pa’i rnam bshad dpal ldan lus gsum mkhyen pa’i shing rta, ff. 5, 306, cited in Thakchoe (2007, p. 177, n. 62), wrote that there are not two truths in the Madhyamaka system, for truths are posited only from the perspective of ordinary beings. Go rams pa agrees (corresponding yet not identical translation in Thakchoe, 2007, pp. 144-145a): “The relative truths enunciated in those contexts [e.g., in the texts of Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti] are nonexistent. Since [in absolute truth] there is no erroneous apprehending subject, this subject’s corresponding object—[relative truth]—does not exist.” Thought the images projected by a movie projector or a video beam are “made of” the light that has its origin inside the machine, they are perceived as being external to the latter. At any rate, it was to a prevailing way of apprehending rtsal energy that the first Heidegger was referring to when, in the terminology of Being and Time, he said that “in our understanding the world [being] according to the mode of being of ‘falling prey’ (Verfallen: “falling prey” in Heidegger’s sense; not in the Biblical sense of ‘the Fall’), being takes on the character of reality” (Heidegger, 1996, pp. 187 [first paragraph in the quote] and 188 [second paragraph in the quote]. Original German edition: pp. 201 and 202. I changed some words in order to adapt the quotation to the terminology used in this book): “Here the being of things initially at hand is passed over and essents are first conceived as a context of things (res) objectively present. Being acquires the meaning of reality (Note by E.C.: As the reader knows, the word “reality” derives from the Latin res-rei, meaning “thing,” and reor (meaning “I think;” the infinitive is reri, meaning “to think”). Substantiality becomes the basic characteristic of being… 483 484 657 “But intuitive cognition has always been viewed as the way to grasp what is real… Since the character of the in-itself and the independence belongs to reality, the question of the possible independence “from consciousness” of what is real, or of the real possible transcendence of consciousness in the “sphere” of what is real, is coupled with the question of the meaning of reality. The possibility of an adequate ontological analysis of reality depends on how far that from which there is independence, what is to be transcended, is itself clarified with regard to its being.” Heidegger realized that, when the entities of rtsal energy that he called “intraworldly” manifested as “reality,” consciousness experienced them as being in themselves, independently of human consciousness, and therefore that common sense did not need the independent existence of these entities to be proven, for it was inherent in the very mode of being of human consciousness, in apprehending reality, to experience those entities as being in themselves. However, the metaphor of rtsal energy is that of a crystal prism through which white light passes, thereby being split into a spectrum that is projected into an external dimension: this is due to the fact that, though the samsaric experience of rtsal energy is as explained by Heidegger, the realization of rDzogs chen shows very clearly that the phenomena of rtsal energy do not constitute an independent, self-existing external reality. (Higher realizations of the rDzogs chen practice of Thod rgal and the Yang ti / Yang thig involve going beyond this mode of apprehension of reality because the final result of this practice involves the blending of rtsal energy and rol pa energy—the latter being utterly free of the illusion of reality and substantiality.) The distinction between “reality” and “fantasy” may be reduced to that between rtsal and gdangs energy. For example, hallucinations and the experience of visions of spirits and the like, which seem to appear in an external dimension, may be appearances of rol pa energy that are apprehended in the manner of rtsal energy: they are experienced as a self-existing external reality with the capacity to produce effects— which is precisely how we experience the so-called “physical” world. We fear the vision of a spirit to the extent to which we take the spirit to be real in Heidegger’s sense, and as such to be beyond our control (unlike the figments of our imagination, which we can control at will), and insofar as we believe it has the type of capacity to produce effects—and in particular to harm our “physical body”—physical reality in general may have (even though we think a spirit is not solid, we fear it because we believe it has supernatural powers). Conversely, so far as we recognize figments of our imagination or fantasy to be so, we do not fear them in the same way, for we can control them to some extent—and, besides, we are aware that they lack the type of capacity to produce effects that rtsal energy possesses (we do not believe they can harm our “physical body” the way “physical” reality can harm it). Therefore, even in the case of phenomena that are widely regarded as “supernatural,” but which appear in the external dimension, we have a belief in their independent, real existence that we do not have in the case of phenomena of the internal dimension. However, as a Tantra revealed by Dudjom Lingpa notes (Dag snang ye shes drva la las gnas lugs rang byung gi rgyud rdo rje’i snying po; alternative translation in Dudjom Lingpa [2015, Vol. III, p. 85]): “When the demons that are brought into existence by [the reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of] thoughts [and by your] grasping at demons, appear as your enemies, it is as if you kill yourself with your own weapons. Therefore, observe how all ritual activities of subjugating demons, protecting the living, and guiding the deceased are impotent, and recognize the importance of abandoning activities that fail...” (The above explains why we cannot be utterly free until we have totally reintegrated the rtsal energy: so long as we do not do so, we are prone to experience fear of being harmed by the independently existing reality that we experience rtsal energy as being, and so our Contemplation may be interrupted by occurrences taking place in this type of energy. Furthermore, so long as we have not reintegrated rtsal energy we can experience pain, and thus we are prone to experience fear with regard to this possibility.) Śrī Siṃha o Śrīsiṃha—teacher of Padmasambhava, Bairotsana/Berotsana and Vimalamitra, who are held to be the three Masters who brought rDzogs chen into Tibet—expressed the insubstantiality of gods and demons as follows (this teaching, known as The Ten Profound Points of Essential Advice [Tib. gNad tig zhal gdams zab mo’i them bcu zhes bya ba bzhugs so], was revealed by the gter ston Rig ’dzin rGod ldem [alternative trans. in Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche, 2006, p. 116]): “...The dualistic perception of gods and demons is itself [reified / hypostasized / absolutized / valorized] thoughts in [deluded] mind. Look directly into this very thinking and See that it does not have any identity whatsoever, for it has an empty nature. In fact, benefit and harm, pleasure and pain, being empty, are also of the same taste [when the essence or nature of mind in which they arise and the energy of which they are becomes patent]. The rupture of clinging to thoughts is known as the dissolution of gods and demons.” 658 Discovering the true identity of thought does not mean that we come to conclude conceptually that the essence or nature of thought is empty and hence has no identity whatsoever; what it means is that we look into and discover the true condition of thought as a phenomenon of the energy of the sphere of the mental or gdangs energy, so that thought self-liberates in the disclosure of the dharmakāya. This is the sense in which Martin Heidegger used the term “substantiality” in Being and Time: whereas in my imagination I can make an elephant turn pink and also can make it fly, I cannot do the same with “physical” reality because it makes resistance to me—in fact, even if I try to push the elephant to the right, I won’t be able to do so without the help of heavy machinery. In the context of the three modes of manifestation of energy. In other contexts, the term rtsal may have many different meanings; for example, in the teachings of the Series of (the Nature or Essence of) Mind it often has the sense of expressive power, play, dynamic energy or potential, etc. This ampleness of meaning is reflected in the definition found in the Rangjung Yeshe Wiki: 1) skill, dexterity, adroitness, accomplishment, power, energy, creativity, strength, resourcefulness, might. 2) expression, function, manifesting power, [sm. gdangs. potency, capacity, potential, ability. 3) physical skill, play. expressive power or energy. creative; dynamic energy (of being); energy, creative energy, potentiality; potential; expression/ powerful RY 1) skill, dexterity, adroitness, accomplishment, power, energy, creativity, strength, resourcefulness, might; 2) expression, function, manifesting power, gdangs, potency, capacity, potential, ability; 3) physical skill, play lus rtsal ’gran pa,...ngag rtsal sbyong ba,...rig rtsal phul du byung ba,...gshog rtsal ldan pa,...rang gi nus rtsal bton nas rang ’khri ’i las ’gan sgrub pa - power[ful], manifestation, strength, acrobatics, energy, mighty IW dynamic energy (of the Base) RB external energy, skill, working, functioning, function, existential dynamics, potency, power, creativity, external projection, reflection, powers of manifestation, dexterity, adroitness, very powerful, prowess, adroit, conch shell, trumpet, manifestative power, expression, manifestation, strength, acrobatics, energy, mighty, feat, stunt, manifestative power of the ultimate mind, exterior manifestation of energy, capacity of energy to project itself externally just as a crystal illuminated by a ray of light has the capacity to project infinite rainbow colored rays around itself, reflective capacity, objectifying energy of potentiality of manifestation, See also: thugs rje, dynamic energy, display-energy, expression, expressive power, rtsal energy JV expressive power RY creative play/power, resourcefulness, display, creativity, agility, manifestation, display; power[ful], manifestation, strength, acrobatics, energy, mighty RY This is the sense of the term in the context of the three forms of manifestation of energy, but the term gdangs has an extremely wide meaning. For example, in the context of the practices of Thod rgal and the Yang ti / Yang thig the term often has the meaning or radiance: a radiance that shines from the center of the body at the level of the heart in what seems to be an internal dimension (Tib. nang dbyings) and that through a subtle bifurcated channel reaches the eyes, from where it is projected into an apparently external dimension (Tib. phyi dbyings). This ampleness of meaning is reflected in the definition found in the Ranjung Yeshe Wiki: 1) tone, pitch. 2) tune, melody 3) p. of gdang chant, slow formal chant. 3) manifestation, open, lustrous, refection, projection, tone, accent, voice, complexion, radiance, luster, open, gaping, music, harmony, melody; manifestation; manifestation, refection, projection; tone, sound, chant, melody, pitch, tune; accent, voice, tone of; color, complexion, radiance, luster; open, gaping; translucency, translucent [RY] radiance, lustre, (primordial, inner, natural) glow, self-radiance, (ultimate, subtle) clarity, resonance, creativity, actuality, lucid manifestation, incessant creativity, SA mdangs, dwangs, luminous nature, inner ultimate, subtle force, profundity, chant (slow & formal with syllables extended), manifestation, open tune, tone or pitch of one’s voice, music, harmony, melody, forehead, the very nature of energy, capacity of energy to manifest its own nature just as a crystal which is put into a colored cloth reveals the qualities by which it is characterized, past of gdang, primary energy of potentiality of manifestation, SA thugs rje, translucency, primal manifestation of energy, Dang energy [JV] 1) sgra’i nyams; 2) [arch] way of doing tone, pitch, tune, melody, [slow formal] chant, manifestation, open, lustrous, refection, projection, accent, voice, complexion, radiance, luster, open, gaping, music, harmony [IW] gsung gi gdangs - the sound of his voice [RY] (outwardly directed) radiance (of being) / radiant expression* [RB] 485 486 487 659 phyi gdangs externalized/ outwardly directed radiance (of being)* [RB] This applies to the Awake, nonconceptual and hence nondual awareness (Skt. vidyā; Pāḷi: vijjā; Tib. rig pa; Ch. 明 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, míng; Wade-Giles, ming ) that (is) inherent in rDzogs chen-qua-Base, as explained by the rDzogs chen teachings. In fact, although some terms used in the Sems sde series of rDzogs chen teachings are identical or similar to those in the Third Promulgation Sūtras that are the source of the Cittamātra School, rDzogs chen does not posit a “mind only” (Skt. Cittamātra; Tib. Sems tsam pa; Ch. 唯 ⼼ [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wéixīn; Wade-Giles, wei -hsin ]) view. However, this does not imply that rDzogs chen agrees with those dualistic Brahmanic tenets that, like the Yoga darśana of Patañjali, the Sāṃkhya darśana of Kapila, or the Advaita Vedānta of Śaṁkarācārya, posit a sākṣin inherently different / separate from extended appearances. That rDzogs chen avoids both extreme views—the one according to which phenomena are awareness and the one according to which awareness is inherently other than phenomena—is attested by the following quotation from a text on the Khregs chod practice of the rDzogs chen Upadeśavarga revealed by bDud ’joms gling pa (Dudjom Lingpa, 1994, p. 103; translation reworded in my own terminology): “Some people hold apparent phenomena to be mind. They might wonder whether all external apparent phenomena are actually [hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized] thoughts and therefore [whether they are] their own minds, but such is not the case. This is demonstrated by the fact that while apparent phenomena change from the very moment they arise, ceasing and passing away in a succession of later moments following former ones, ordinary mind does not take on the nature of these passing phenomena— [for if it did so it would] become itself nonexistent qua mind [the very moment it took on the nature of these phenomena]. “Through the usual progression of apparent phenomena manifesting in this manner to the eight aggregates of consciousness, cyclic existence emerges in its entirety. By tracing the process back to consciousness as the ground of all ordinary experience, one is still left stranded at the very pinnacle of conditioned existence. “Thus the world of all possible appearances, the whole of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, is none other than [rDzogs chen-qua-]Base and is of one taste with this Base. To give an example, although myriad reflections of the planets and stars appear in the ocean, in actuality they are of one taste with the water itself. Understand that things are like this. This demonstration that all apparent phenomena are inherently self-manifesting appearances is the direct transmission instruction of Vajradhāra.” According to the above argument, it is not permissible to assert that the apparent phenomena perceived by the mind are the mind, for if they were the mind, when the latter perceived a yellow phenomenon the mind would become itself yellow, and such yellow mind would forever be unable to perceive apparent phenomena of other colors; moreover, as noted in the above quote, if the mind became the phenomena it perceives, the moment it did so it would cease to be a mind. For their part, if apparent phenomena were the mind, insentient phenomena should be able to feel, experience and know as the mind does; when a phenomenon ceased to be, the mind would cease to be and subsequently it could not perceive further phenomena. This is why the rDzogs chen teachings make it clear that, just as the images projected in the movies are not the process of projection, snang yul—i.e. the seen, the presented, or what is experienced— is not snang ba—i.e. sensory presentation. And nonetheless all phenomena are of one taste with the nature-of-mind or Base-awareness where they occur, as in a mirror or LED screen: bodhicitta is like the mirror, and its energy or thugs rje gives rise to the plethora of phenomena, like the reflections that arise in the mirror, which are not the mirror, but are not at a distance from the mirror’s reflective capacity and therefore are not external to the mirror. This is the reason why, when we realize this essence-or-natureof-mind or Base-awareness in the disclosure of rig pa, the whole of phenomena has a single taste for us— and, contrariwise, if the whole of phenomena does not have a single taste for us, we are not in the state of rig pa. All of the above is directly related to the reasons why, unlike the Cittamātra School, the Sems sde series of rDzogs chen teachings asserts that sensory presentation (Tib. snang ba), whether in saṃsāra or in nirvāṇa, is the play (Skt. lila; Tib. rol pa) or ornament (Tib. rgyan) of primordial bodhicitta (i.e. of the Base). It is also related to the fact that the rDzogs chen teachings explain the samsaric perception of a seemingly external world as resulting from illusorily splitting the given into an apparently internal dimension (Tib. nang dbyings) and a seemingly external dimension (Tib. phyi dbyings), and then projecting (Tib. rtsal) a great deal of the appearances appearing as the energy (Tib. thugs rje) of bodhicitta into a seemingly external dimension, so that the phenomena of rtsal energy then seem to appear outside the mirror. (Cf. Lipman [1983/1986], p. 20.) 488 2 2 1 660 The above is closely related to the excerpt from kLong chen pa to which the reference mark for this note was appended, which I cite in full below (Longchen Rabjam [1998], pp. 84-87; the translation was adapted to the terminology used in this book): “Although phenomena appear as they do to the mind, they are not mind nor anything other than mind. Given their illusory nature as clearly apparent yet inconceivable, void manifestations, moment by moment they are beyond description, imagination or expression. For this reason know that all phenomena that appear to the mind are inconceivable, ineffable and empty even as they manifest. “The apparent phenomena that manifest as the five kinds of sense objects [visual forms and so forth], and the phenomena of the universe that seem to appear in their own right, manifest to the mind and [in fact] are nothing other than [manifestations appearing to the mind]. Even though they appear to be something other [than the mind], like dreams and illusions they are by nature empty, and, [being inconceivable and ineffable, they] have never been anything other [than mind] and have never been mind [either]. In accordance with the eight traditional metaphors for illusoriness, an examination of phenomena as forms of emptiness, clearly apparent yet inconceivable, ineffable and void—whether considered to be composed of reducible or irreducible particles—determines their equalness in having no identity. One knows the basic space of unchanging emptiness through these natural manifestations of the nature of mind... “‘Well’, you might ask, ‘aren’t you asserting everything to be mind?’ Let me clearly outline the distinction [between Mind-only and rDzogs chen]. In general, when the world of appearances and possibilities, whether [as] saṃsāra or nirvāṇa, is explained to be Awake awareness, what is meant is that phenomena are alike [in that they do not waver from the single awareness] and manifest naturally as the display, projective energy and adornment of that awareness. [On the basis of this, phenomena have been said] to be mind, just as one uses the name ‘sun’ to refer to the rays of the sun when one says, ‘Sit in the midday sun’. “There are two ways to refute the assertion [that “phenomena are mind”]. According to logical reasoning, this would require that mind exhibit color and other distinctive features, because apparent phenomena have color and such features...” However, if mind had color and other distinctive features, it could make only its own color and its other distinctive features appear, and hence it could not successively give rise to the countless colors and distinctive features of the variegated phenomena. This is obviously not the case, for awareness gives rise to innumerable phenomena one after the other as its display, projective energy and adornment—all of which appear successively to the human mind. kLong chen rab ’byams goes on to say (Longchen Rabjam, 1998, pp. 85-87): “It would also require that mind be external or that apparent phenomena be internal, and so their actual relationship would be thrown into chaos. And it would require that when one died the universe would collapse at the same time. In these and other ways, the assertion is disproved by its logical absurdity [as corresponds to the method of prāsaṅga or reductio ad absurdum]. “The [confusion of the view of Mind-only with that of rDzogs chen] can also be disproved by scriptural authority. [The Atiyoga Tantra] Kun tu bzang po thugs kyi me long (the extensive title of this Tantra is Kun tu bzang po thugs kyi me long gi rgyud ces bya ba thams cad ston pa’i rgyud) states: “‘To hold that apparent phenomena are mind is to stray from me.’ “...And the [Atiyoga Tantra] Nges don ’dus pa’i rgyud states: “‘Fools who do not perceive the ultimate meaning claim that apparent phenomena are one’s own mind. This is like taking brass to be gold.’ “In this regard, these days some who arrogantly assume that they understand the Dzogchen approach, or who follow ordinary spiritual approaches, hold apparent phenomena to be one’s own mind. They speak without defining the issues involved and so commit an extremely serious error, for ordinary mind and primordial awareness are not at all the same. ‘Ordinary mind’ refers to the eight modes of consciousness and their associated mental events, which together constitute the adventitious distortions affecting beings in the three spheres [of saṃsāra]. ‘Primordial awareness’ refers to the naturally occurring primordial gnosis having no substance or characteristics [that is] the basic space of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa... While that which manifests as saṃsāra and nirvāṇa is understood to be the projective energy of awareness, one should further understand that awareness itself is an unceasing ground for the arising of things, although it has never existed as anything, whether of saṃsāra or nirvāṇa. 661 “Apparent objects are understood to be clearly apparent yet inconceivable and ineffable, and never to have been mind or anything other than mind, [for they are] empty and yet clearly apparent, groundless, and timelessly pure. When freedom occurs, the projective energy and display [of awareness], in being [realized to be] groundless, are [realized to be] naturally pure—which is like awakening from a dream. Thus one should understand that the [Awake] awareness that is [nondualistically] aware of itself [as well as of sense-data and so on], without ever having wavered from the unchanging dharmakāya [that (is)] its original state of natural rest, is uncontaminated by any substance or characteristics, [as these have never existed in truth and thus have been timelessly void, or, which is the same, pure]... “In this regard, rtsal energy’ is the creative potential of awareness and accounts for the fact that saṃsāra and nirvāṇa arise differently, just as the very same ray of sunlight causes a lotus blossom to open and a night lily to close.” As suggested above, saṃsāra arises on the basis of the projection of rtsal energy that gives rise to an apparently external dimension (Tib. spyi dbyings); as soon as this occurs, gdangs energy, which is beyond dualism and beyond the division into internal and external, appears to be an internal dimension (Tib. nang dbyings), and most phenomena of gdangs energy (namely thoughts and objects of memory, imagination and fantasy) appear to be objects separate and different from the mental subject—which itself is a phenomenon of this mode of manifestation of energy. Thus there arise the subject-object and the interiorexterior divides, which are key features of saṃsāra. Conversely, nonstatic nirvāṇa implies the nonduality of a single, indivisible dimension beyond the subject-object split. However, both saṃsāra and nirvāṇa arise equally by the power and as the play (rol pa) of the energy aspect of the Base, which in terms of the above may be compared to the same ray of sunlight. kLong chen rab ’byams (Longchen Rabjam, 1998, p. 87) goes on: “‘Display’ is used in the sense of the radiance of awareness displaying itself, like a lamp displaying itself as light or the sun displaying itself as sunbeams. ‘Adornment’ refers to the fact that naturally manifest phenomena, appearing in full array, arise of themselves as adornment in the light of awareness. This is similar to rainbows, the sun and moon, stars and planets being adornments of the sky.” All of the above shows the primordial awareness of rDzogs chen to be utterly different from the Brahmanic concept of the sākṣin or Witness, for the sākṣin or disinterested witness is defined as being different from feelings, thoughts, sensations and images, which as shown in the quotations included above in this note is not the case with primordial awareness: these citations make it perfectly clear that apparent phenomena are neither mind nor awareness, and yet may not be said to be other than, or different or separate from, mind or awareness. Feelings, thoughts, sensations, images arise in primordial awareness just as reflections in a mirror or images in a plasma, LCD or LED screen, and thus their relation to that awareness is like that of reflections to the mirror or the images to the screen in which they appear: they cannot be said to be awareness (since awareness has no end in time, if they were awareness they would not have an end in time; since awareness has no shape or color, if they were awareness they would have no shape or color); however, they cannot be said to be other than awareness, for they are not made of a substance other than awareness, and they cannot be said to be separate from awareness, for they cannot exist as phenomena having form, color and other perceivable qualities separately from it. As kLong chen rab ’byams (1998, p. 84) tells us, all of the apparent phenomena that seem to exist in their own right, are forms appearing to the mind and are nothing other than forms appearing to the mind; though they appear to be other than the mind, like dreams, illusions and so forth, they are by nature empty, and, being inconceivable and ineffable, they have never been anything other than mind, nor have they ever been mind either: they are empty and yet clearly apparent, groundless, and timelessly pure. The sākṣin is supposed not to be any of the apparent phenomena it witnesses, and to be different from these, and thus it could not be the primordial awareness featuring the three kāyas that is introduced by rDzogs chen pith instructions, which may not be said to be different or separate from the phenomena it gives rise to: we must conclude that the sākṣin (is) the illusory, seemingly separate and autonomous knowerexperiencer-thinker-agent that, according to rDzogs chen Atiyoga and the Inner Tantras of the Path of Transformation, arises through the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of the threefold directional thought structure (Skt. trimaṇḍala; Tib. ’khor gsum; Ch. 三輪 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānlùn; Wade-Giles, san -lun ]), for only such illusory subject seems to be separate and different from all that appears as object—there being no true entity or principle that may be validly said to be separate and different from what appears as object. To conclude, in purportedly nondual Hindu systems such as the Upaniṣads, the Vedānta Sūtra, Gauḍapāda’s Māyāvāda view and Śaṅkarācārya’s Advaita Vedānta philosophy, the concept of sākṣin seems to partly correspond to what Kant called “pure apperception,” 1 4 662 which according to the philosopher that never left the little town of Königsberg is the condition of possibility of “empirical apperception” or awareness that one is perceiving, and which as such may partly correspond to my understanding of the meaning, when saṃsāra is active, of Sartre’s (1980) definition of the Soi or Self as non-thetic, non-positional awareness (of) consciousness—i.e. non-thetic, non-positional awareness (of) there being a consciousness that is aware of an object different and separate from itself. At any rate, in the last chapter of Capriles (2007a vol. I) I explained in great detail how Sartre’s Soi or Self, thus understood, referred to the dualistic delusion inherent in saṃsāra and as such radically contrasted with the nirvanic conditions that I am calling rDzogs chen-qua-Path and rDzogs chen-quaFruit, which correspond to my redefinition (Capriles, 2007a Vol. I) of Sartre’s Self and Sartre’s Self qua holon, respectively. As to Dudjom Lingpa, it must be remembered that he was a great treasure revealer (Tib. gter ston), and that treasure-revealers are the highly realized practitioners who reveal Spiritual Treasures or gter ma that convey teachings or consist in material objects, substances and so on, which respond to the needs and capacities of specific periods. This is why the phenomena of the rol pa mode of manifestation of energy are the key to some of the higher rDzogs chen practices (in the context of the Series of Pith Instructions [Tib. Man ngag sde; Skt. Upadeśavarga], they are the condition of possibility of the practices of Thod rgal and the Yang ti / Yang thig. The definition of the term in the Ranjung Yeshe Wiki evinces the polysemic character of the term: (rich) display...; to display/ play/ enjoy/ partake (of) [RB] play, revel [thd] merriment, playfulness, inside energy manifestation, internal manifestation, See also sprul pa, pleasures, enjoy, play, play of experience, excitement, display, manifestation, reflecting energy of potentiality of manifestation, See also: thugs rje, to manifest, creative energy, display, Rolpa energy JV 1) play, play of experience, display, array, unfoldment, manifestation, divulgence, expression, creative manifestation, 2) to partake, enjoy (sex); to eat and drink. 3) presence. 4) excitement. 5) to (be) manifest; materializing; revealing RY 1) arrangement, set-up; 2) emanation, manifestation, revelation; 3) play [of experience], display, array, unfoldment, divulgence, expression, materializing, enjoy, presence, excitement IW 1) arrangement, set-up gzugs dbyibs kyi rol pa; 2) emanation, display sprul pa, de sangs rgyas kyi rol pa yin ,//lha’i rol pa play, play of experience, display, array, unfoldment, manifestation, divulgence, revealing, expression, materializing, enjoy, presence, excitement - as verb, enjoy; as noun, play IW disported phan tshun ’dod pas mnar nas phug pa zhig tu rol drawn together by mutual desire, they disported themselves in a cave RY merriment, playfulness, inside energy manifestation, internal manifestation, See also: sprul pa, pleasures, enjoy, play, play of experience, excitement, display, manifestation, reflecting energy of potentiality of manifestation, See also: thugs rje, to manifest, creative energy, display, Rolpa energy, Rolpa JV In many instances of the base-of-all (Tib. kun gzhi) the continua of sensation of all our sensory fields are apparent, though there is no conceptual, dualistic consciousness of them. However, as noted in the rDzogs pa chen po kun tu bzang po ye shes klong gi rgyud, a rDzogs chen Tantra revealed by ’Jigs med gling pa, the potentiality of the base-of-all (Tib. kun gzhi) to produce saṃsāra and nirvāṇa is present even in the five unconscious states, which are: (1) the absence of all thoughts; (2-3) the two kinds of cessation (Skt. nirodha; Tib. gog pa) of all mental activity—namely (2) supreme wisdom of cessation resulting from perfect insight issuing from discrimination (Skt. pratisaṃkhyānirodha; Tib. so sor brtags ’gog; Ch. 擇滅 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zémiè; Wade-Giles, tse -mieh ]) and (3) nonperception of phenomena due to the absence of conditions (Skt. pratyaya; Pāḷi paccaya; Tib. rkyen; Ch. 緣 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn yuán; Wade-Giles yuan ]) and resulting from concentration (rather than from the perfect insight that issues from discrimination) (Skt. apratisaṃkhyānirodha; Tib. so sor brtags min gyi ’gog pa; Ch. ⾮擇滅 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fēizémiè; Wade-Giles, fei -tse -mieh ]); (4) swoon; and (5) deep sleep. See Guenther, Herbert, 1977, pp. 116-117 and note 11, p. 117. Let us take as an example the Atiyoga method for direct Introduction through the abrupt pronunciation of the syllable PHAT! Immediately after a realized Master explosively pronounces this Mantric syllable, fortunate disciples might have an experience of the dimension of the base-of-all or kun gzhi in the illusory experience (Tib. nyams) of clear, startled, empty awareness in which the latter is not dulled, and we are neither sleepy nor unconscious. This is the experience that in Tibetan is called had de ba, in which it is 489 490 491 2 4 2 1 2 4 492 663 possible to have a nonconceptual experience of the dharmadhātu—but in which, however, there is unawareness of the latter’s true condition. After an extremely brief lapse, that which is known as inherent disposition of the Base’s essence or ngo bo’i gshis might shine forth. This shining forth has the potentiality of revealing the “face” of the essence or ngo bo aspect of our awareness through the “arising” of the nonconceptual and hence nondual Awake self-awareness called rang rig (this term renders the Skt. svasaṃvedana and svasaṃvittiḥ—in Chinese, ⾃證 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìzhèng; Wade-Giles, tzu -cheng ] or ⾃覺 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìjué; Wade-Giles, tzu chüeh ]; it must be noted, however, that whereas in the Mahāyāna the term may refer either to apperception [a conceptual, dualistic, samsaric, indirect, reflective awareness that one as a separate subject is perceiving], or to nonconceptual and hence nondual Awake self-awareness either qua Base, qua Path or qua Fruit, in rDzogs chen Ati the term as a rule refers to the nonconceptual and hence nondual Awake self-awareness qua Path or qua Fruit that makes the true condition of nonconceptual and hence nondual Awake self-awareness patent). When the above happens in a deluded individual who has not received transmission, the true condition of this inherent disposition of the Base’s essence aspect or ngo bo’i gshis is immediately concealed by the unawareness that is the first aspect or type of avidyā; then by the second aspect or type of avidyā, which turns it into a conceptual, dualistic noticing; and then by the third aspect or type of avidyā, as the object (and possibly the subject as well) is perceived in terms of a hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized content of thought. This is why, in order to nonconceptually, nondually reGnize the shining forth of the inherent disposition of the Base’s essence aspect or ngo bo’i gshis, the very instant it arises one can, rather than perceiving [the conceptualization of] that aspect, “notice the awareness or presence that notices it.” This may also be described as turning back toward that awareness or, more precisely, turning back toward the place where, while we are under delusion, that awareness seems to lie or to have its source—which is that which dGa’ rab rdo rje’s mudra of Direct Introduction is instructing us to do. This “noticing the awareness or presence that notices” is impossible to achieve, because that which is to be noticed may be interpreted to be either, (a) the Awake nonconceptual and hence nondual awareness that in the rDzogs chen teachings is compared to a mirror’s reflectiveness, or (b) the illusory mental subject that by the power of delusion seems to be the owner and commander—or sometimes the impotent toy— of the Awake nonconceptual and hence nondual awareness. The point is that neither (a) nor (b) can be known as object, because (a) Awake nonconceptual and hence nondual awareness, being free from the subject-object duality, cannot become an object to itself, or to anything else, for that matter, whereas (b) dualistic consciousness, is the illusion, produced by the reification of the threefold directional thoughtstructure (Skt. trimaṇḍala; Tib. ’khor gsum; Ch. 三輪 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānlùn; Wade-Giles, san -lun ]), that a mental subject occupying no space whatsoever (and located roughly where Descartes’ res cogitans was supposed to be located) is aware of an object: though it is a mere appearance, it appears as a subjectthat-is-aware-of-an-object, and therefore it is simply impossible for it to appear as object, either to itself or to some other mental subject. In fact, as just noted, the mental subject is the illusion that the awareness that gives rise to experiences and in which experiences arise is a perceiver-agent-thinker separate from the appearances that appear as object and from countless other subjects, and therefore it simply cannot appear and be perceived as object: if we try to perceive it as object, the subject will be the illusion that awareness is a separate perceiver-agent-thinker that is perceiving an object, which in this case will be a conceptualization of the mental subject rather than the latter. Due to this, some texts of Madhyamaka philosophy define the mental subject as the “clear knower that appears in the image of its object” and assert this mental subject to appear “implicitly and indirectly,” whereas the objects appear “explicitly and directly.” It is precisely because of the above impossibility to know the mental subject as object, that the attempt to do so is self-defeating and may result in the collapse of the subject-object duality—which for its part may be the condition of possibility of the disclosure or reGnition (of) the transparent, unimpeded, unobstructed primordial gnosis or ye shes zang thal. In fact, just as happens when someone is walking and one places one’s leg in from of him or her to make her or him fall, by trying to achieve the impossible in this way, all three types or aspects of avidyā or ma rig pa may collapse, thus allowing vidyā / rig pa to appear in a perfectly clear way. Because of all of the above, and because vidyā / rig pa (is) by definition asaṃskṛta (Pāḷi, asaṅkhata; Tib. ’dus ma byas; Ch. 無爲 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwéi; Wade-Giles, wu -wei ]) and hence it cannot be produced, contrived, induced or caused, there is no guarantee that the reGnition of the inherent disposition of the 4 4 4 2 1 2 664 2 4 Base’s essence aspect will occur. However, if it does, it will (be) the reGnition of the nonconceptual and hence nondual Awake self-awareness called rang rig, which will become patent in what is known in Tibetan as rang ngo shes pa. Since in this case the emphasis would be on the essence (Tib. ngo bo) aspect of this awareness and the gdangs form of manifestation of the Base’s energy aspect, this will (be) the disclosure of the true condition of the essence or ngo bo aspect of the Base, which (is) ye shes zang thal: a transparent, unimpeded, unobstructed primordial gnosis which may be illustrated with a crystal ball, which corresponds to the dharmakāya, and which (is) operative as the famous gcik shes kun grol or allliberating single gnosis that is responsible for the self-liberation that is the trademark of rDzogs chen. (Cf. the short gter ma revealed by ’Jigs med gling pa called rDzogs pa chen po’i gnad gsum shan ’byed, which is part of the kLong chen snying gi thig le, and that was translated in Guenther, 1977, pp. 142-147.) This gnosis is all-liberating because it involves a keen, clear, alert awareness the true condition of which is neither concealed by the unawareness that is the first sense or aspect of avidyā in the threefold division adopted here, nor distorted by the duality of the grasper and the grasped that is the second sense or aspect of avidyā, nor deluded by the perception of the grasped in terms of a hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized content of thought. Therefore, thoughts liberate themselves as they arise without leaving traces, rather than been fixated and leaving traces because an illusory perceiver clings to them as percepts, due to a manifest interest in their hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized contents. At any rate, if rang rig—which may also be called rang byung gi ye shes or “self-arisen, self-aware primordial gnosis”—actually arises, it will be perfectly evident that it arose in a way that is absolutely spontaneous (Tib. rang, which has the acceptations of self-, spontaneous and intrinsic, among others)—which, as stated in a previous note, is not necessarily the case in the Anuyoga, or even less so in any of the lower vehicles. In brief, in order to facilitate the reGnition of the inherent disposition of the Base’s essence or ngo bo’i gshis when it arises, one may look and check what or who is noticing the had de ba, or in what awareness, just like a reflection in a mirror, is it appearing. As stated above, the point is that, since the illusory mental subject can perceive objects only and by no means can it perceive itself, and since nondual awareness cannot be perceived as object, the above instruction may offer a most precious opportunity for the subjectobject duality that is the core of the delusion that makes up the second of the senses the term avidyā in the threefold classification adopted here, to short-circuit and collapse in what the rDzogs chen teachings call ru log or “reverting [saṃsāra].” Saṃsāra is reverted because the very instant at which the nondual, nonconceptual reGnition that makes Awake nondual self-awareness’ face patent arises, all aspects or types of avidyā instantly dissolve, abruptly disrupting the neutral condition of the base-of-all (Tib. kun gzhi lung ma bstan) of which the had de ba was an instance, and hence this self-awareness functions as the “all-liberating single gnosis:” while the true condition of gdangs energy is patent, the true condition of those seeming condensations of gdangs energy which thoughts are, becomes patent—and therefore thoughts, rather than concealing the true condition of gdangs energy, simply self-liberate. If this happens, it will be self-evident that it occurred spontaneously: that it was in no way produced by an action, and that it cannot be produced by any means whatsoever. If there is no reGnition (of) Awake awareness, of if after its reGnition avidyā / ma rig pa arises again in the first of the senses it has in the threefold classification adopted here and therefore the dimension of the base-of-all arises anew, the process discussed in the immediately following endnote may take place. To conclude, it must be noted that though most of the terms the rDzogs chen teachings use in the descriptions of Gnitive events (whether purely Gnitive and nirvanic or cognitive and samsaric) are either identical or very similar to those used in Mahāyāna texts of the Third Promulgation such as the Laṅkāvatārasūtra, in philosophical schools such as the Yogācāra and the Madhyamaka-Svātantrika-Yogācāra and so on, the rDzogs chen teachings do not give these terms exactly the same sense they have in the Mahāyāna. (A more detailed explanation of the combined term ngo bo’i gshis will be offered in Part Two of this book, and also in the possibly upcoming definitive version in print of Capriles, electronic publication 2004.) Many teachings, especially in the Vajrayāna, rather than positing nirvāṇa as the Fruit, assert the latter to consist in going beyond fear of saṃsāra and desire for nirvāṇa. However, such a Fruit can only result from the recurrent realization of the single taste of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa that takes place when the single true nature of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa is realized in nonstatic nirvāṇa. Furthermore, since it is in nirvāṇa that the single taste of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa is realized, to identify realization with going beyond fear of saṃsāra and desire for nirvāṇa would only make sense in the case of individuals who are so familiar with nirvāṇa or so firmly established in it that, firstly, they no longer can be enticed by the projects of saṃsāra, 493 665 and secondly, they no longer hope for nirvāṇa or fear saṃsāra. Since this amounts to being utterly beyond hopes and fears, it can only result from having become free from the reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valorization of thought through the repeated dissolution of delusion in nonstatic nirvāṇa. At any rate, so long as we discriminate between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa and prefer one to the other, it would be simply a lie to say that we have attained the realization of the sameness of both conditions. Although the above conception is in full agreement with the rDzogs chen teachings, the latter have radical methods whereby the total surpassing of saṃsāra in the uninterrupted continuity of nonstatic nirvāṇa can be achieved, and at the end one of the modes of death or deathlessness exclusive to the rDzogs chen teachings can be attained. In order to reach such Fruits, rDzogs chen practitioners will have to spend periods facing conditions that are most effective for activating saṃsāra, so that again and again delusion arises and, immediately, liberates itself instantly and spontaneously—until the propensities for the arising of saṃsāra are fully neutralized / burned out and finally the individual, even under these conditions, can remain unwaveringly established in the condition of nonstatic nirvāṇa. As stated in the section “Terminology and Titles of Eastern Texts,” Plato emphasized the etymological sense of the Greek term for presence (παρουσία), which—just as is the case with its Latin translation and its translation to various modern European languages—is that of “being before” (in the sense of “being in front of”). The nondual, delusion-free state in which the nonconceptual and hence nondual primordial gnosis that is the Base has become perfectly evident is designated in the rDzogs chen teachings by the term rig pa, which may render the Sanskrit vidyā or, when the particle rang is placed before it (rang rig), often may render Sanskrit terms such as svasaṃvedana or svasaṃvittiḥ (Ch. ⾃證 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìzhèng; WadeGiles, tzu -cheng ] or ⾃覺 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zìjué; Wade-Giles, tzu -chüeh ]), and which in this book I translate as “Awake awareness,” as “absolute Presence” (where the term is capitalized to make it clear that it should not be understood in the dualistic Platonic sense of “being before”), as “instant Presence” or “instant Awake awareness” (where “instant,” which renders the Tib. skad chig ma, means that, (1) awareness is free from the division of the temporal continuum into past, present and future that arises when the reification / hypostatization / absolutization / valuation of the threefold directional thoughtstructure sunders the uninterrupted Base into subject and object, and thus into space, time and knowledge as different dimensions (cf. the explanation above in the regular text), and (2) sense data are apprehended without mediation by concepts and hence without the lapse that it takes for recognition (Skt. saṃjñā; Pāli saññā; Tib. ’du shes; Ch. 想 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, xiǎng; Wade-Giles, hsiang ]) to occur. For a thorough discussion of this, cf. endnote 30 to this volume. For a thorough discussion of this, cf. endnote 30. The problem has to do with the Dignāga’s and Dharmakīrti’s concept of a nondual awareness that could either nondually reveal its own nature and thus disclose the absolute condition, or become apperception (Skt. svasaṃvedana pratyakṣa; Tib. rang rig mngon sum): a reflexive awareness that has as its content the illusion that a subject different from its object is perceiving the latter (one of the two main senses of the Skt. svasaṃvitti; Tib. rang rig) —which is the core of the unawareness-cum-delusion called avidyā. In an as yet unpublished work I wrote: “Even Dharmakīrti was aware that the true condition of phenomena cannot be unconcealed by what I am rendering as yogic preperception (Skt. yogipratyakṣa; Tib. rnal ’byor mngon sum), for it can only be disclosed by a yogic nonconceptual and as such nondual gnosis.” For the relevant citations from Dharmakīrti’s Pramāṇavārttika (3.212-213, as rendered in Dunne, 2004, pp. 406 and 408, with modifications to adapt the translation to the terminology of this book) and clarifications from Subcommentator Śākyabuddhi’s Pramāṇavārttikaṭikā (adapted from Dunne’s [2004, pp. 406-407 n. 15], cf. note 65 to this book. In other words, the spyod pa or Behavior of rDzogs chen is intended to preclude “to be-having oneself” (which if my memory does not fail me, is how at some point Alan Watts spelled “behaving oneself”), as the latter would be a function of dualism and of the directionality of mind, for the Behavior in question lies simply in the spontaneous flow of the nondual state of rig pa. (However, as will be shown below in the regular text, even though strictly speaking the courses of behavior arising from the ignorance-cumdelusion called avidyā / ma rig pa are not part of the spyod pa or Behavior of rDzogs chen, practitioners of rDzogs chen use the courses of behavior of delusion in order to spontaneously—rather than premeditatedly or self-consciously—curb the drive to project a consistent image of their selves that, whenever it is perceived by those who mater for them, may be a source of pride and thus of unauthentic, momentary well-being.) 494 495 4 4 4 2 3 496 497 497 498 666 In fact, in order to integrate all experiences of daily life into the state of Contemplation first we must have a state of Contemplation into which they may be integrated—which can only be developed if we practice Contemplation in sessions (Tib. thun) and, ideally, spend a period in strict retreat. The condition for this to work is that we have a sense of shame and restraint (Tib., ngo tsha khrel yod) of the type emphasized by the teachings of the Sūtrayāna—which implies that we have a wholesome integrity and that we have a profound respect for the sensitivity of others—and also that we have a genuine understanding of the meaning of samaya. The above may seem strange because rDzogs chen must make us immune to shame. In fact, Mi la ras pa’ statement that “this Path of Mi la ras pa is such that one is not ashamed of oneself” expresses an essential trait of the Path of rDzogs chen Atiyoga. The point is that in order to attain such a Fruit at some point, initially the yogi must have a sense of shame, as the only way in which one can become immune to shame is by initially relying on the propensity for shame to arise, and in particular on being ashamed of specific type of ways of behavior that are not always among those that common sense views as shameful. For its part, this sense of shame depends on the degree to which we are committed to the Path—which in turn depends on the extent to which we do not remain in doubt but, contrariwise, we have developed the faith that derives from the repetition of genuine insight into the true condition. As stated in a previous note, the Tibetan term sems nyid, which I am rendering as Base-awareness, Awake awareness qua Base, essence of mind, or nature of mind, is the common Base of both saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, and has the potentiality to give rise to both possibilities—which is expressed by the assertion that in the single Base two paths can become operative: that of saṃsāra and that of nonstatic nirvāṇa. However, since the phenomena of saṃsāra are utterly nonexistent and the Base if the Buddha-nature in act, the Base has the nature of nonstatic nirvāṇa—which is related to the reason why the Northern Treasures note that that which has two paths is not the Base, but the base-of-all understood as a dynamic, river-like “depot” of potentialities. In saṃsāra, this nondual awareness is concealed by the arising, firstly of the stupefaction referred to as rmongs cha, and then of the illusory subject-object duality; therefore, the ignorance of the true condition and the dualistic delusion impedes spontaneous liberation, and thereon the awareness designated by the Tibetan term shes successively arises as the series of eight dualistic consciousnesses: (1) consciousness of the all-ground or kun gzhi rnam shes, (2) defilement-consciousness or nyong mongs pa can yid kyi rnam shes, (3) consciousness of thoughts and mental contents or yid kyi rnam [par] shes [pa], and (4 to 8) the consciousnesses of the five senses acknowledged by Western Philosophy and Psychology, as well as by common sense. In nonstatic nirvāṇa, this nondual awareness is not veiled, and thus, since its all-liberating quality is not impeded, it becomes operative as gcig shes kun grol or “all-liberating single gnosis.” Therefore, it is utterly wrong to understand the example of the mirror to mean that in saṃsāra our awareness is also like a mirror in which reflections leave no traces. In fact, in saṃsāra our clinging to appearances through acceptance, rejection or indifference (and their various subclasses, which are the five, six, and so on up to eighty-four-thousand passions) establishes karmic traces that reaffirm and sustain saṃsāra, and hence it would be utterly wrong to speak of spontaneous liberation in this regard. In fact, when a subtle thought (Skt. arthasāmānya; Tib. don spyi; Ch. 總事 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngshì; WadeGiles, tsung -shih ] or 總義 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngyì; Wade-Giles, tsung -i ]) is reified / hypostasized / absolutized / valorized, rather than liberating itself while leaving no traces, it leaves a karmic imprint in the base-of-all understood as a state of experience (namely, the blank space between a thought and the next), which gives rise to a drive to express it and possibly to clarify it discursively in binary, conceptual terms. When a discursive thought (Skt. śabdasāmānya; Tib. sgra spyi; Ch. 論聲總 [simplified 论声总] [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, lùnshēngzǒng; Wade-Giles, lun -sheng -tsung ]) is reified / hypostasized / absolutized / valorized, rather than liberating itself leaving no traces, it leaves a karmic imprint in the base-of-all that gives rise to an interest in the next thought in a reasoning and thus impels us toward the next thought at each stage of the reasoning: this is what is called “the chain of saṃsāra.” Vase-breathing (Skt. kumbhaka; Tib. [rlung] bum [pa] can) is a yogic technique for holding, retaining and possibly rotating the inhaled air, in such a way as to achieve that which the Tantric teachings refer to as injecting the winds into the Central Channel and in this way bringing the illusion of dualism to a halt for the lapse during which the air is retained. That which this term refers to is at the root of practices such as the famous mystic heat (Skt. caṇḍālī; Tib. gtum mo; Ch. 旃陀利 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhāntuólì; Wade-Giles, chan -t’o -li ]) practiced by Mi la ras pa and by scores of other yogis, the three varieties of the last of the seven mind trainings (Tib. blo sbyong [don] bdun [ma]) of the rDzogs chen Series of Pith Instructions 499 500 501 3 4 3 4 502 1 2 4 667 1 3 4 and many other Tantric and rDzogs chen practices (note that whereas in the Tantric teachings of the Path of Transformation practices based on the vase-breathing are main practices, in rDzogs chen all such practices are secondary practices). In ’Gos lo tsa ba gzhon nu dpal’s (2d English Ed. 1976) Blue annals (R 167) we read: “At lDan glong thang sgron ma there appeared an ascetic named A ro ye shes ’byung gnas, who possessed the secret precepts of the seventh link in the chain of the Indian Lineage, as well as those of the seventh link of the Chinese Lineage of Hwa shang (Ho shang). He preached the system to Cog ro zangs dkar mdzod khur and to Ya zi bon ston. These two taught it to Rong zom. This (Lineage) is called the ‘(Lineage) of the Great Perfection (rDzogs chen) according to the Khams method…’” The practices that may be said to correspond to śamatha and vipaśyanā are applied successively in the Khams tradition of the Series of [the Essence or Nature of] Mind (Sems sde), which posits four yogas (Tib. rnal ’byor bzhi) or four samādhis (Tib. ting ’dzin bzhi). The original form of the Series of [the Essence or Nature of] Mind did not involve either practices of concentration or a sequential order of practices that could be regarded as a gradual Path. This is merely a generalization. For example, it is a fact that the sems ’dzin of the Sems sde series of rDzogs chen teachings require practitioners to act directly on the organism’s energetic systems by means that loosely correspond to those used in the Tantric Path of Transformation. Originally, the whole of the teachings of Ati were referred to as pith instruction (Skt. upadeśa; Tib Man ngag). However, nowadays the terms upadeśa and man ngag are automatically taken to refer to the Series of Pith Instructions established by Mañjuśrīmitra on the basis of dGa’ rab rdo rje’s testament. Whenever we are directly and explicitly aware of something, we have the illusion that there is someone who is somehow “behind the scene” but who is aware of it, even though we can never become directly and explicitly aware of this “someone”—the reason being that “it” (is) no more than the illusion that there is someone inside ourselves who is the knower of the known (an illusion that René Descartes turned into the cornerstone of truth of his whole system). This is the reason why some texts of Madhyamaka define the mental subject as “the clear knower that appears in the image of its object:” we are directly and explicitly aware of the object but we can never become aware of the mental subject in the same way— yet whenever we are aware of an object there is the clear, yet implicit and indirect impression that there is a knower who is aware of it. Some translators have rendered the term Thod rgal as “taking the leap,” which is far more imprecise because it mistakenly suggests that it involves an action (illustrated by leaping) on the part of the illusory mental subject. Probably it was at least in part for this reason, that Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu has remarked that a more precise translation of the term would be “as soon as you are here, you are there.” However, such a long title would be encumbering if found again and again in a text, and so I opted for a term that expresses most correctly the essence of thod rgal, for it responds to the Tibetan sense of the term, which gives the idea of crossing over a mountain pass to the other side, and to the essence of the practice, which is its swiftness, because it catalyzes the spontaneous liberation proper to Khregs chod, forcing it to occur as soon as dualism arise and hence making the process of Awakening much swifter. As stated elsewhere in this book, another understanding of the Tibetan term’s etymology, favored by mKhan po dPal ldan shes rab (Khenpo Palden Sherab; cf. Wilkinson, 2016, p. 83, note 21) is “to move beyond the skull,” which may be rendered as “project from the head [to the space] in front of it,” because the practice involves the projection of the luminosity that, originating in the heart, ascends and shines in the eyes, being projected in front of the skull as “rays” which may appear as thigles (thig le) with deities inside them. In Namkhai Norbu (E. Capriles, Ed. unpublished), we are told that when we see someone coming toward us, or when a plane first becomes visible over the horizon, the first thing we see is a thig le, which is the potentiality for these things to appear later on as a person or a plane, respectively. Likewise, subatomic particles are thig les. For a longer and more thorough discussion of the term thig le see Part Two of this book. Another alternative translation of yang thig would be “kernel of the innermost potentiality.” In this volume I have distinguished three main types of thought, which are: (1) coarse, among which most significant are discursive ones (Skt. śabdasāmānya; Tib. sgra spyi; Ch. 論聲總 [simplified 论声总] [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, lùnshēngzǒng; Wade-Giles, lun -sheng -tsung ]); (2) subtle or intuitive (Skt. arthasāmānya; Tib. don spyi; Ch. 總事 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngshì; Wade-Giles, tsung -shih ] or 總義 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zǒngyì; Wade-Giles, tsung -i ]); or (3) super-subtle, the paradigmatic instance of which is the threefold directional 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 4 1 3 3 3 4 668 4 thought structure (Skt. trimaṇḍala; Tib. ’khor gsum; Ch. 三輪 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānlùn; Wade-Giles, san lun ]). And I have also distinguished the three main modes or capacities of spontaneous liberation, which are: (1) liberation upon observing (Tib. gcer grol), which refers to the self-liberation of thought through the reGnition of the stuff and essence of a thought which is already established as object; (2) liberation upon arising (Tib. shar grol), which refers to the self-liberation of thought as it begins to arise; and spontaneous liberation (Tib. rang grol) properly speaking, which occurs when thoughts at no point yield delusion. The example of the spontaneous rupture of the string tying a hack of firewood, or of hay, etc., which Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu used in the teachings he offered in the retreat that took place in Lhun grub gar, Venezuela, from November 28 to December 2, 1996, and which he employed recurrently in the retreats on Khregs chod he led throughout the world, refers to the first of the above three modes or capacities of spontaneous liberation that were briefly discussed in the discussion of Khregs chod in the regular text and that will be dealt with in some detail in Part Two of this book, and may partly apply also to the second mode or capacity of spontaneous liberation, but does not apply to the third. However, no matter what capacity or mode of spontaneous liberation is operative, or what kind of thoughts the practitioner is dealing with among the three main classes distinguished in this volume, in all cases spontaneous liberation will dissolve whichever thoughts were concealing the Base—and, in particular, it will dissolve the supersubtle thought that, upon being reified, gives rise to the subject-object duality: this is the reason why it is said that, upon reGnition (of) the phenomena of gdangs energy as the dharmakāya, subject and object dissolve like feathers entering fire—which is why tensions instantly break in the first mode of spontaneous liberation. (It must be noted, however, that in the practices of Khregs chod and the sNying thig one deals mainly with coarse thoughts of the discursive kind, and that it is in the practices of Thod rgal and the Yang ti / Yang thig that the yogin deals mainly with subtle and supersubtle thoughts.) In the long run, calm abiding may allow the individual to transcend all conceptuality in the state known as the base-of-all (Tib. kun gzhi), in which relaxation may be absolute. However, this state is neither Awakening nor liberation, but a condition that, since it involves avidyā, clearly pertains to saṃsāra, but in which neither saṃsāra nor nirvāṇa are actively functioning, and therefore abiding in it can in no way be useful on the Path. In fact, the rDzogs chen teachings often compare abiding in this thoughtless condition to “cutting one’s own head,” for so long as one remains in it one’s possibilities of proceeding on the Path will be blocked and hence one will be squandering one’s precious human birth. The mahāsiddha Sarahapāda wrote (in Guenther, 1993, p. 39 [Kāyakośāmṛtavajragīti (Kāyakośa-amṛtavajragīti), fol. 81a.]; all citations in this note were adapted to the terminology used in this book): “The proposition that the phenomenal has subsided means that dran pa has been swept away and dran med has increased its vitality.” In terms of the rDzogs chen teachings, the above is due to the fact that the uncontrived true condition cannot be sustained or grasped with mindfulness (Tib. dran pa ma bzung). However, it does not mean that dran med is for Saraha the absolute, primordial and final condition, for in the same text he writes (same text, fol. 80a, cited in Guenther, 1993, p. 33): “Mahāmudrā’s precise characteristic is [its] unorigination (skye med) in view of the fact that in it neither dran nor dran med are involved; [Being] beyond the intellect (blo las ’das), it does not abide as one thing or another.” Saraha also wrote (same text, fol. 82a, cited in Guenther, 1993, pp. 33-34): “By dran pa as a necessary condition divisive concepts come about in an incidental manner —dran pa’s antecedent, dran pa med, as well as unorigination (skye med) and beyond the intellect (blo ’das) [are] alike in [their] wondrousness.” And also (same text, fol. 83a, cited in Guenther, 1993, p. 33): “Inflated by divisiveness and addictivity, dran pa becomes the cause of saṃsāra.” For a discussion of dran pa and dran med and their relationship with unorigination and Mahāmudrā in Saraha’s Mahāmudrā teachings, cf. Guenther (1993, Chapter 2 [pp. 16-43]). At any rate, the constant recurrence of this type of liberation sets the condition for thoughts to cease arising, so that one may remain in the natural abiding condition of the [essence or nature of] mind (Tib. sems rang bzhin kyi gnas cha)—the primordial gnosis of nonthought (Tib. mi rtog pa’i ye shes), which is the expression (Tib. rtsal) of the essence which is emptiness (Tib. ngo bo stong pa)—in which “the natural face of Awake awareness (Tib. rig pa’i rang ngo)” / “the intrinsic essence of the true condition of phenomena” (Tib. chos nyid kyi rang ngo) remains patent, vividly clear and totally alert (Tib. dvangs 1 4 512 513 514 669 seng nge), so that one may use the term self-illuminating [nonconceptual and hence nondual Awake] selfawareness (Tib. rang rig rang gsal). The point is that in rDzogs chen, and in particular in the Series of Pith Instructions, the terms thoughtlessness (Tib. mi rtog pa) or emptiness, clarity (Tib. gsal ba) and pleasure or bliss (Tib. bde ba), rather than referring to illusory experiences that pertain to saṃsāra but that are made to arise on the Path as means to reGnize the Base in the state of rig pa, refer to qualities inherent in the state of rig pa. In fact, in rig pa the primordial gnosis of clarity (Tib. gsal ba’i ye shes), which is self-arisen (Tib. rang gsal ba’i ye shes) and which is the expression of our clear nature (Tib. rang bzhin gsal ba), arises coincidently with the primordial gnosis of thoughtlessness, and with the primordial gnosis of bliss or pleasure (Tib. bde ba’i ye shes), also called primordial gnosis of all-embracing capacity (Tib. thugs rje kun khyab pa’i ye shes)— which involves the bliss inherent in the true condition of phenomena (Tib. chos nyid kyi de ba), which is the one that arises from resting in the continuity of the natural state (Tib. gnas lugs bde’i ngang) and which is the expression of all-pervading energy (Tib. thugs rje kun khyab). In his Commentary to ’Jigs med gling pa’s The Lion’s Roar (Seng ge’i nga ro), sMyo shul mkhan po (Nyoshul Khenpo, 2015, p. 189) stated those three primordial gnoses—the primordial gnosis of thoughtlessness of the dharmakāya, the primordial gnosis of clarity of the saṃbhogakāya, and the primordial gnosis of bliss or pleasure of the nirmāṇakāya—develop from the corresponding experiences (Tib. nyams), yet the gnoses in question—unlike the corresponding illusory experiences or nyams—correspond to the kāyas themselves. What is progressively neutralized by the repeated spontaneous liberation of delusion is the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of thought that charges thoughts with illusory truth, illusory existence, illusory importance and so on, rather than the arising of thoughts themselves—even though it happens often that thoughts cease to arise for long whiles, and, moreover, in the pinnacle of realization, the total cessation of the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization to charge thoughts with illusory truth, illusory existence, illusory importance and so on amounts to the cessation of the arising of that which we usually regard as thoughts. In fact, when thoughts arise but there is absolutely no hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization, we are no longer conditioned by concepts, ideas or judgments; therefore, the final realization of rDzogs chen while the body is still alive involves the implicit working of concepts totally beyond hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization, so that the individual automatically makes the distinctions that are necessary for life, but does so without experiencing fire as fire, water as water, the floor as floor, shoes as shoes, and so on. Cf. the citation from Se ra mkha’ ’gro in endnote 520. As the bSam gtan mig sgron notes, A ti rDzogs pa chen po is the primordial ancestor of all vehicles. In fact, the Anuyoga practice of zhi khro arose to fulfill different functions, but a main one is to make the individual familiar with the association of the wrathful with the head and the peaceful with the heart that will serve as a catalyzer to practices such as that of the yang thig, in which one practices in the dark with successive visualizations that at some point may involve one based on the association of the wrathful with the head and of the peaceful with the heart, for once the individual has developed the capacity for the natural appearing of rol pa visions, this will catalyze the spontaneous zhi khro proper to the practice in question. (Other of their functions are that of preparing individuals who will not practice thod rgal or the yang thig, for meeting the intermediate state of the true condition of phenomena after physical death; that of helping dead practitioners who had no Thod rgal or Yang thig / Yang ti realizations or who have not brought their practice of Khregs chod to the necessary level of proficiency; etc.). For a more extensive and in-depth explanation of ’pho ba chen po, see Part Two of this book. As noted in the discussion of the Path, on the rDzogs chen Path the practitioner successively deals with the three forms of manifestation of the energy or thugs rje aspect of the Base, which in saṃsāra seem to be inherently separate from each other. Through working with the continuity of these three forms of energy manifestation one comes to the point at which one no longer experiences them as discontinuous—i.e. at which one no longer experiences them as being separate and independent from each other. Moreover, at the end the three may fuse, which, as noted in the discussion of the Path and the Fruit, would result in that which others may perceive as a “capacity of miracles.” This concept was taken from Jean-Paul Sartre’s (1980) phenomenological, existentialist ontology. As stated in a previous endnote, Sartre distinguished between identifying with and establishing a link of being with, and offered as an example of the latter a man who is looking through a keyhole and suddenly realizes that someone is looking at him: the man “feels touched in the heart by the Other’s look,” becoming the shameful object that the Other perceives as him. 515 516 517 518 519 670 In Rang bzhin rdzogs pa chen po ma bsgom sangs rgyas kyi zin bris dpal ldan bla ma’i zhal rgyun nag ’gros su bkod pa tshig don rab gsal skal ldan dgyes pa’i mgul rgyan (alternative translation in Dudjom Lingpa, 2015, Vol. II, p. 152), Se ra mkha’ ’gro bde ba’i rdo rje explained this gnosis of variety as follows: “Even while dwelling in the essential nature of rig pa, and without slipping into an unknowing state of bewilderment, the state of not being tainted by objects, neither grasping at them nor cutting them off, and not falling under their influence, is the primordial gnosis of variety.” The term also has been taken to refer to a primordial gnosis that is able to discern and ascertain anything that may be known in the relative realm, without thereby falling into the experience of relative truth. However, on the basis of Buddhist sources of provisional meaning (Skt. neyārtha; Tib. drang don: texts having an implicit, occult and nonliteral meaning, for they have secret intentions [Skt. ābhiprāyika] and motivations [Skt. paryāyadeśita]), as well as on the literal translation of the Skt. term sarvākārajñatā and the Tib. rnam pa thams chad mkhyen pa as Buddha omniscience, some Western authors and translators have taken this gnosis to be an extrasensory capacity to perceive all phenomena in the universe simultaneously, without needing to move from one’s place. It is important to remark once more that in each of these levels of realization all three kāyas are realized. For example, the first level of realization is the realization of the dharmakāya because it is the realization of the true condition of the gdangs form of manifestation of energy or “energy of the sphere of the mental,” which is the dharmakāya and which illustrates the essence or ngo bo aspect of the Base or gzhi, which from another standpoint (which, however, is also taught in the rDzogs chen teachings), being the emptiness aspect of the Base, is also identified with the dharmakāya. However, in this level we realize the emptiness of gdangs energy simultaneously with its clarity and with the unceasing arising of the phenomena of this form of manifestation of energy, and therefore in the sense in which realization of the Base’s emptiness (its essence or ngo bo aspect) is realization of the dharmakāya, realization of the Base’s clarity (its nature or rang bzhin aspect) is realization of the saṃbhogakāya, and realization of the Base’s unobstructedness and unceasing arising of appearances (its energy or thugs rje aspect) is the nirmāṇakāya, the realization of the three kāyas is complete in the realization of the true condition of gdangs energy that, in the special sense proper to the rDzogs chen Series of Pith Instructions (Skt. Upadeśavarga; Tib. Man ngag sde), is the dharmakāya. Likewise, the second level of realization is the realization of the saṃbhogakāya because it is the realization of the true condition of the rol pa form of manifestation of energy or “visionary, rectifying / corrective energy,” which is the saṃbhogakāya, and which illustrates the nature or rang bzhin aspect of the Base or gzhi, which from another standpoint (which, however, is also taught in the rDzogs chen teachings), since it is the clarity aspect of the Base is also identified with the saṃbhogakāya. However, in this level we realize the emptiness of rol pa energy simultaneously with its clarity and with the unceasing arising of the phenomena of this form of manifestation of energy, and hence in the sense in which realization of the Base’s emptiness (its essence or ngo bo aspect) is realization of the dharmakāya, realization of the Base’s clarity (its nature or rang bzhin aspect) is realization of the saṃbhogakāya, and realization of the Base’s unobstructedness and unceasing generation of appearances (its energy or thugs rje aspect) is the nirmāṇakāya, the realization of the three kāyas is complete in the realization of the true condition of rol pa energy that, in a special sense proper to the rDzogs chen Series of Pith Instructions (Skt. Upadeśavarga; Tib. Man ngag sde), is the saṃbhogakāya. Similarly, the third level of realization is the realization of the nirmāṇakāya because it is the realization of the true condition of the rtsal form of manifestation of energy or “projective, seemingly substantial energy,” which is the nirmāṇakāya, and which illustrates the energy or thugs rje aspect of the Base or gzhi, which from another standpoint (which, however, is also adopted by the rDzogs chen teachings), since it is the aspect of the Base that ceaselessly gives rise to appearances, is also identified with the nirmāṇakāya. However, in this level we realize the emptiness of rtsal energy simultaneously with its clarity and with the unceasing arising of appearances, complete in the realization of the true condition of rtsal energy, and hence in the sense in which realization of the Base’s emptiness (its essence or ngo bo aspect) is realization of the dharmakāya, realization of the Base’s clarity (its nature or rang bzhin aspect) is realization of the saṃbhogakāya, and realization of the Base’s unobstructedness and unceasing arising of appearances (its energy or thugs rje aspect) is the nirmāṇakāya, the realization of the three kāyas is complete in the realization of the true condition of rtsal energy that, in a special sense proper to the rDzogs chen Series of Pith Instructions (Skt. Upadeśavarga; Tib. Man ngag sde), is the nirmāṇakāya. Thus we could say that in a sense specific of the rDzogs chen Series of Pith Instructions realization of the true condition of gdangs energy is the dharmakāya, but that this dharmakāya has a dharmakāya, a 520 521 671 saṃbhogakāya and a nirmāṇakāya aspect in a sense that is not limited to the rDzogs chen Series of Pith Instructions. Likewise, we could say that in a sense specific of the rDzogs chen Series of Pith Instructions realization of the true condition of rol pa energy is the saṃbhogakāya, but that this saṃbhogakāya has a dharmakāya, a saṃbhogakāya and a nirmāṇakāya aspect in a sense that is not limited to the rDzogs chen Series of Pith Instructions teachings. And we could say that in a sense specific of the rDzogs chen Series of Pith Instructions realization of the true condition of rtsal energy is the nirmāṇakāya, but that this nirmāṇakāya has a dharmakāya, a saṃbhogakāya and a nirmāṇakāya aspect in a sense that is not circumscribed to the rDzogs chen Series of Pith Instructions. However, as shown in another endnote, the rDzogs chen tantras of the Series of Pith Instructions, Rig pa rang grol rgyud and Mu tig phreng ba’i rgyud posit a sequence of realization according to which, in Thod rgal or the Yang thig / Yang ti, the nirmāṇakāya is realized in the first vision, the saṃbhogakāya is realized in the second vision, and the dharmakāya is realized in the third vision (cf. for example Smith, Ā.M. 2018a, Introduction, pp. 10-11). So far as I know, in the gradual Mahāyāna only the Mahāmadhyamaka School acknowledges that the rūpakāya is not the result of the accumulation of merits, and that the dharmakāya is not the result of the accumulation of wise knowledge (referred to as primordial gnosis). However, Tathāgatagarbhasūtras of the Third Promulgation and treatises based on them have acknowledged this by noting that the three dimensions of Buddhahood are inherent in the Buddha-nature qua Base, and that the accumulation of wise knowledge (referred to as primordial gnosis) is the dharmakāya qua Base and the accumulation of merits is the rūpakāya qua Base. For an explanation of this, see the possibly upcoming edition in print of Capriles (electronic publication 2004). Furthermore, for the rūpakāya to be the result of the accumulation of merits carried out in the postContemplation state (Skt. pṛṣṭhalabdha; Tib. rjes thob; Ch. 後得 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, hòudé; Wade-Giles, hou -te ]), and for the dharmakāya to be the result of the accumulation of wise knowledge (lit. primordial gnosis) carried out in the Contemplation state (Skt. samāhita; Tib. mnyam bzhag; Ch. 等引 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, děngyǐn; Wade-Giles, teng -yin ]), the practice would have to comprise these two stages. However, in Atiyoga one has to go beyond the distinction between a state of Contemplation or mnyam bzhag in which the base is unveiled, and a state of post-Contemplation or rjes thob in which it is again concealed. As would be shown in the possibly upcoming edition in print of Capriles (electronic publication 2004), the rDzogs chen teachings do not particularly value samsaric states, even when they are of a kind in which delusion is less pronounced. In fact, these teachings are not concerned with a division into absolute and relative truth, or, regarding the latter, into correct and inverted relative truth, but with the basic division into: (1) active saṃsāra, (2) nonstatic nirvāṇa (Skt. apratiṣṭhitanirvāṇa; Tib. mi gnas pa’i myang ’das; Ch. 無住涅槃 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúzhù nièpán; Wade-Giles, wu -chu nieh -p’an ]), and (3) samsaric states wherein neither of these two functional possibilities is active (namely the neutral base-of-all). The phenomena of post-Contemplation being strictly samsaric, in rDzogs chen they have to be reGnized the same way as any other samsaric state so that they liberate themselves spontaneously and nonstatic nirvāṇa arises, for the practice of rDzogs chen consists in uninterruptedly sustaining the Contemplation state, from the standpoint of which it is not possible to go either forwards or backwards. In Mahāyogatantra, the maṇḍala of symbolic attributes is held to be the rūpakāya; however, the Mahāyoga maṇḍala of symbolic attributes is not the Atiyoga rūpakāya. In fact, as we have seen, that which the vehicles of the Path of Transformation regard as the successive realization of the three kāyas is not so regarded by the Atiyoga Path of Spontaneous Liberation: in order to attain the rūpakāya in the Atiyoga sense of the term, the yogin still will have to go through the intermediate state of the true condition of phenomena (Skt. dharmatā antarābhava; Tib. chos nyid bar do) in practices such as Thod rgal or the Yang ti / Yang thig, in which lights and visions of rol pa energy are projected into the external dimension (Tib. spyi dbyings), as corresponds to the rtsal mode of manifestation of energy, and thereafter the dynamic associated with the rol pa mode of manifestation of energy unleashes a process of uninterrupted spontaneous liberation that results in the rūpakāya in the Atiyoga sense of the term, and that leads the rtsal and rol pa modes of manifestation of energy to fuse. (This is the case no matter which order is posited for the realization of the kāyas, because in both cases the meanings of the terms dharmakāya, saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya in the Tantras of the Path of Transformation and in the Atiyoga Path of Spontaneous Liberation are totally different: the sequence dharmakāya-saṃbhogakāya-nirmāṇakāya begins after the level that the Tantras of Transformation call the svabhāvikāya and deem to be the final, ultimate realization, and in the sequence nirmāṇakāya-saṃbhogakāya-dharmakāya posited in the Rig pa 522 523 4 2 3 3 2 524 672 4 4 2 rang grol rgyud and Mu tig phreng ba’i rgyud of the Series of Pith Instructions (cf. Smith, Ā.M. 2018a, Introduction, pp. 10-11) these three kāyas are realized in the first three visions of Thod rgal and / or the Yang thig / Yang ti. In the Bön tradition, a symbol of rDzogs chen Atiyoga seems to have been the mythological khyung bird, related to the family of eagles, whose name, according to Nam mkha’i nor bu rin po che, was reproduced in the initial word of the name Khyung lung—that of the capital of the Tibetan region of the kingdom of Zhang-Zhung—and even the word Zhung in Zhang-Zhung may have been inspired by the bird’s name (Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal], E. Capriles, Ed. unpublished). This bird seems to be the same as the Persian simurgh, called kerkes by the Turks; it also seems to correspond to the fènghuáng (鳳凰; Wade-Giles, fêng -huang ) of Chinese mythology—and it might have corresponded also, at least in part, to the Phoenix of Greek mythology, even though the characteristics of the latter fail to precisely correspond to those of its Asian counterparts. Later, in Moslem times, the famous Persian Sufi poet, ʿAṭṭār (‫ﻋﻄﺎر‬, meaning “the Apothecary;” his name was Abū Ḥamīd bin Abū Bakr Ibrāhīm [c. 1145 – c. 1221; Persian: ‫]اﺑﻮ ﺣﺎﻣﺪ ﺑﻦ اﺑﻮﺑﮑﺮ اﺑﺮاھﯿﻢ‬, but he was better known by his pen-names, which were the one by which we are calling him here, and Farīd ud-Dīn [‫)]ﻓﺮﯾﺪاﻟﺪﯾﻦ‬, in his work The Conference of the Birds, symbolized the Ṣūfī search for the “Master of the times” (i.e. the greatest teacher of a given period, who possessed the teachings corresponding to his time) in terms of the search for the simurgh (‫ )ﺳﯿﻤﺮغ‬by different types of common birds—and, even though Attar was born a Moslem, this extremely special bird was finally found… in non-Moslem China! (Note that in the book in question a play of words is used to show that the supreme bird called simurgh or simorgh was the thirty birds [sī morgh] that were looking for him: the supreme bird was the true condition of all of them.) In Indian mythology, the king of the birds is the garuḍa (Pāḷi garuḍa or garuḷa; Tib. mkha’ lding or nam mkha’i lding [which assimilated the khyung—the pre-Buddhist firebird of Bön]; Ch. 迦樓羅 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, jiālóuluó; Wade-Giles, chia -lou -lo ]), who serves as a mount for the god Viṣṇu and who feeds on serpents (which, as a result of his mother’s quarrel with Kadru, the mother of serpents, he is always intent on destroying) and on those beings which are partly anthropomorphic, partly serpent-like, called nāgas (Tib. klu; Ch. ⻯ [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, lóng; Wade-Giles, lung ]; note that the Ch. ⻯ , unlike the Tibetan translation, also renders the English word “dragon,” which corresponds to the Tib. ’brug). It is very likely that the origins of the Indian garuḍa be linked to those of the Tibetan khyung and their Persian, Turk and Chinese equivalents; whatever the case, as a result of the assimilation of Indian Buddhism, Tibetans fused their khyung bird with the garuḍa, giving rise to the mkha’ lding or nam mkha’i lding, which occupies an important place in Tibetan Buddhist mythology and which, in Buddhist rDzogs chen Atiyoga, symbolizes the manner in which the practitioner of rDzogs chen obtains realization: the mkha’ lding is said to be born ready to fly, fully developed, and self-reliant. It may be pointed out that the eggshell the garuḍa breaks upon hatching represents the unawareness of the true condition and delusion referred to as avidyā and the whole of the conditionings that keeps us from apprehending reality as it truly is, and that impede the freedom of our movements. Once freed from this shell, nothing blocks our correct apprehension of reality and nothing obstructs our free flight. At any rate, it is a fact that, in the supreme vehicle, development through the levels is swift and the characteristics of each successive bhūmi do not arise in a clear-cut sequence. With the exception of the hair and nails, the totality of the human body is sensitive—including the teeth and bones, which are highly so (as anyone who has had a cavity fixed without anesthetic and anyone who has needed traction after breaking a bone knows from personal experience). Moreover, nails and hair are always growing into the outside, thus being regarded as execrations and as such, in a particular sense, as impurities. Human existence does not mean simply that one was born from human beings and that the shape of one’s body is human. In Buddhist terms, for our existence to be called “human,” we must count with the conditions necessary for realization to be attainable, and in particular with the eight leisures and the ten endowments described in Maitreya’s Ratnagotravibhāga and many other Buddhist texts, which are the conditions and natural endowments that are held to be indispensable for really practicing the dharma. For example, it was traditionally held that one could not be deaf (as in antiquity a deaf person would have been unable to listen to the teachings), and that one could not be mentally retarded to the level of being unable to understand the teachings, and so on. Moreover, in order to be human it is necessary to have access to the teachings of the dharma and the effective possibility of practicing them. In brief, if one’s 525 4 2 1 2 2 2 526 527 528 673 human existence does not involve the eight leisures and ten endowments, one does not actually possess the precious human birth. As to the reasons why human existence is precious, in Maitreya’s Ratnagotravibhāga or Uttaratantraśāstra (Tib. rGyud bla ma, which the Chinese attribute to Sthiramati and which is one of the most important texts of the Mahāyāna, the preciousness of human existence is explained in five different ways: (1) it is difficult to achieve and therefore it is precious; (2) the true nature of mind is primordially pure, so it is also precious for this reason; (3) it has a profound capability that can be used to achieve enlightenment and benefit human beings; (4) it is the greatest ornament and of supreme worth, so that ordinary jewels cannot compare with it; (5) it possesses the immutable, indestructible buddha nature, which is of incomparable worth. So for these reasons it is called precious. Among the four common preliminary practices, the first is awareness of the preciousness of human existence. This noun refers to a group of essential, direct teachings of the rDzogs chen Man ngag sde (Skt. Upadeśavarga). As noted in Namkhai Norbu (Ed. E. Capriles, unpublished), this term has been translated erroneously into Western languages as “heartdrop.” However, in this case the word snying does not refer to the physical heart, but to the innermost essence, to what is most central and essential. For its part, thig is the root syllable of the word thig le, which here has the twofold sense of potentiality and absence of limitations (which is what the roundness of thig les represents), and which therefore may be said to refer to a limitless potentiality. (Since angles/corners confine and restrict space, in the teachings they represent limits, and since circles, spheres and so on have no angles/corners, they represent the absence of limits and therefore are used to symbolize the true condition of all phenomena: as stated repeatedly in the regular text, the very nature of concepts consists in establishing limits or bounds that exclude all that does not fall within their own scope—for example, the concept of table automatically implies the exclusion of all that is not a table. Thus roundness represents the absence of limitations and hence the lack of concepts: the true condition of all phenomena, which cannot be contained in concepts, as well as the realization of this true condition, in which there is no hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of any content of thought—this being the reason why Buddhism represents the state of dharmakāya with a circle, and why the rDzogs chen teachings represent our true condition with a sphere.) In short, rather than “heartdrop,” Nyingthik means “the most essential potentiality.” Furthermore, in the same book Nam mkha’i nor bu rin po che points out that in Tibetan the word “drop” is not thig but thigs: it has a final sa that is not part of the term snying thig or of the root syllable of the word thig le. Therefore, it is hard to fathom how so many translators rendered Nyingthik as “heart drop.” Although in general the essential teachings of rDzogs chen Man ngag sde (Skt. Upadeśavarga) are those known as sNying thig, in the same work the Master Nam mkha’i nor bu points out that: “The most concentrated essence of the Nyingthik consists in the body of teachings grouped under the term Yang thig. In Tibetan, yang means “even more.” For example, something profound is zab mo, and something even more profound is yang zab. “Essential” is snying po, and “even more essential” is yang snying… “Thus, the Yang thig—explained in many volumes of teachings, among which perhaps the most widespread are those revealed by the gter ston Dung mtsho ras pa—is deeper and more essential than other teachings. All Yang thig teachings transmit methods to develop the capacity of Contemplation, which these teachings assume the practitioner already has, because it is the requisite for practicing these methods.” Unlike the “Four Reflections,” the Seven blo sbyong of the rDzogs chen Series of Pith Instructions are not circumscribed to the Hīnayāna level of the lamrim Path; in particular, the trainings in contemplation pertaining to the Seventh blo sbyong include Vajrayāna and/or Atiyogatantrayāna elements. rDzogs chen Atiyoga has an Ati-Ati section that is based exclusively on properly Atiyoga methods, and an Ati-Anu and an Ati-Mahā sections that, although based on an Atiyoga View, incorporate methods from the Anuyoga and the Mahāyoga, respectively. The teachings referred to in the passage of the regular text to which this note was appended are not teachings of the Ati-Ati section of Atiyoga, for they incorporate elements that are proper to Tantric teachings of the Path of Transformation (Tib. sgyur lam). Note that, in the case of the sudden Mahāyāna, purportedly the direct source would not be any of the three promulgations, but the “transmission of Mind” that Mahākāśyapa is held to have received from Buddha Śākyamuni and which would have continued to be passed on from Master to disciple until our time. Cf. the Platform Sūtra of the Sixth Patriarch (Ch. 壇經 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Tánjīng; Wade-Giles, T’an -ching ], 六祖壇經 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Liùzǔtánjīng; Wade-Giles, Liu -tsu T’an -ching ], which abbreviate 六祖⼤師法 寶壇經 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Liùzǔdàshī fábǎotánjīng; Wade-Giles, Liu -tsu -ta -shih Fa -pao -t’an -ching ]; full title: 南宗頓教最上⼤乘摩訶般若波羅蜜經六祖惠能⼤師於韶州⼤梵寺施法壇經). 529 530 531 532 2 4 3 2 4 674 1 1 3 4 1 2 3 2 1 As we have seen, the Hīnayāna schools do not accept the validity of the Mahāyāna, and assert that the latter’s teachings did not originate from Śākyamuni’s. However, the Mahāyāna and the rest of the higher vehicles as taught in Tibet assert that, after giving the teachings that constitute the Hīnayāna and that make up the First Promulgation, Śākyamuni’s taught two further series of teachings in the Second and Third Promulgations, which conform the basis of the Mahāyāna. The Pāḷi Canon, which conforms the doctrinal foundation of the Hīnayāna and which is based on the first Promulgation, was compiled before the Sanskrit Canon, doctrinal basis of the Mahāyāna, which is based on the Second and Third Promulgations. According to the Mahāyāna, the Buddha Śākyamuni preached some of the teachings of the Ample vehicle while living (though he is held to have done so by empowering the higher Bodhisattvas so that they would enunciate them), entrusted others to the King of the nāgas so that he would deliver them later on to Nāgārjuna, and so on. Therefore, the teachings of the Mahāyāna arose shortly after those of the Hīnayāna and, just like the latter, we must accept that they come from Śākyamuni—in spite of the fact that they were compiled at a later time, and of the fact that many of them were taught through the mouths of the higher bodhisattvas after they were empowered by Śākyamuni to expound them. In particular, we are told that, as outlined above, upon realizing that his immediate disciples were of the śrāvaka type, who would panic before the teachings on śūnyatā or emptiness, Śākyamuni’s decided to give the sūtras of the Prajñāpāramitā in custody to the King of the nāgas (elementals who live in the bottom of the waters and also under the earth, represented as having a human shape from the waist upwards and the shape of a snake from the waist downwards), who kept them as “hidden treasures” (Tib. gter ma) until the time of Nāgārjuna (according most Western scholars, around the second century CE, though according to Tibetan tradition Nāgārjuna lived from about 80 BCE to circa 520 CE), who was the prophesized revealer (Tib. gter ston) who taught them in the human world. As already noted, the sudden or abrupt Mahāyāna is “a transmission beyond the scriptures” and as such is not based on any particular set of scriptures. However, as we have already seen, Chán or Zen prizes a set of canonical sources in which it sees clear references to the principles of the sudden Mahāyāna (such as various Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras, the Laṅkāvatārasūtra, the Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra, the gTsug gtor gyi mdo; as stated in a footnote to the regular text, this text could well be the Uṣṇīṣavijayadhāraṇīsūtra [Ch. 佛頂尊勝陀羅尼經; Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, Fódǐng Zūnshèng Tuóluóní Jīng; Wade-Giles, Fo -ting tsun -sheng t’o lo -ni ching ], from which the Sarvadurgatipariśodhanatantra allegedly developed—a maṇḍala of which was widely used in Dùnhuáng—and so on). At any rate, as stated in the preceding endnote, according to Chán or Zen, its own “transmission beyond the scriptures” originated from the nirmāṇakāya Śākyamuni, who passed on this transmission to his disciple Mahākāśyapa in the so-called “silent sermon.” In the original transmission of the inner Tantras of the Path of Transformation, the saṃbhogakāya manifestations appeared from the state of dharmakāya. The texts I am using state that the two subdivisions of the Hīnayāna and also the gradual Mahāyāna have Śākyamuni as their source, but do not refer to the sudden Mahāyāna. However, we have seen that according to the Platform Sūtra of the Sixth Patriarch the sudden Mahāyāna also has Śākyamuni’s as its root. As stated in note before last, in the original transmission of the inner Tantras of the Path of Transformation, the saṃbhogakāya manifestations appeared out of the state of dharmakāya. This is referred to in Tibetan as dgongs pas thugs su brgyud, which has been wrongly understood as implying a “telepathic” transmission. In truth no telepathy is involved, for the “transmission” takes place in a dimension beyond distances, in which the separation of space and time has utterly dissolved together with the illusion that there are two different individuals. Furthermore, “telepathy” usually refers to the purported transmission of thought, but here neither thought nor anything else (information, energies or anything else, for that matter) is transmitted. There is simply the state of dharmakāya in which there are no distances and in which there is neither duality nor plurality, so that in it there can simply be no transmission whatsoever. As we have seen, Yogatantra cannot be classified either as pertaining completely to the outer Tantras, or as pertaining completely to the inner Tantras. This explanation is found in many sources, including several texts translated either fully or partially into Western languages. Adriano Clemente writes in Namkhai Norbu and Clemente (English 1999, p. 22): “The Vairo Drabag, which is believed to relate an ancient tradition, speaks of the transmission of the teaching through four kāyas or dimensions: svabhāvikāya, or dimension of the fundamental nature, dharmakāya, 533 2 2 2 1 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 675 3 1 2 saṃbhogakāya and the secret kāya or dimension (gsang ba’i sku). However, this subdivision takes into consideration only the transmission of the Tantric and rDzogs chen teachings.” For an explanation of this tradition, see Appendix One to Namkhai Norbu and Clemente (English 1999, pp. 237-238). According to the story, Śākyamuni manifested in his usual nirmāṇakāya form as a monk surrounded by a retinue of śrāvakas, and began to expound the teachings of the Path of Renunciation. However, the King objected that he wasn’t ready to renounce his kingdom, for then his subjects would lose the trustworthy protector he was for them, and there would be the possibility that subsequently they could fall prey to unscrupulous rulers; moreover, he did not see the reason why in order to attain Awakening he should renounce his royal wife and secondary consorts, his delicacies, his palace, his clothes and so on. Realizing that the King had a definitely superior capacity, Śākyamuni’s “magically” sent his retinue of śrāvakas back to Central India, and instantly transforming into Śrī Guhyasamāja in union with his consort, granted the King the initiation of the Guhyasamājatantra. However, even though it was the Sage of Śākyas who granted the transmission, he did so as a saṃbhogakāya deity and hence the source of the transmission may be said to have been the saṃbhogakāya; moreover, he did not break his monk’s vows, as he did not make love in the physical plane. (Actually, as noted in the regular text when the examples of Mi la ras pa taking shelter inside a dried yak’s horn and of Mi la ras pa’s corpse being cremated simultaneously in different places were offered, there is no magic involved in what people see as a Buddha’s “miracles.”) Here the word “energy” refers mainly to the rol pa form of manifestation of the energy (Tib. thugs rje) aspect of the Base. As was pointed out in a previous note, in Part Two of this book, the three forms of the manifestation of energy, which are the gdangs, rol pa and rtsal energies, will be explained in greater detail. In the case of the fire element, everyone will agree that, on the level of the “physical” world in general, the latter is represented by all that is in an incandescent state. On the level of our own “physical” body, this element corresponds to the heat of our body, that remains in it so long as we are alive and our human organism functions normally. Qua function in general, it represents that of ripening. Qua Buddha-family it is the Padma family, and qua direction in the maṇḍala it is the West. On the other hand, in the dimension of the true nature of the elements, corresponding to energy, the fire element is simply the color red. Etc. In the same place (Dudjom Rinpoche, English 1991, vol. I. p. 460) the following prediction found in a Tantra (Tibetan Text 16) is quoted: “The Mahāyoga Tantras will fall on the palace of King Ja.” King Ja is King Indrabhūti (AKA King Indrabodhi; Tib. rGyal po dza). Reference to these Tantras falling on the Palace of Indrabhūti is also found, among many other texts, in Tulku Thöndup (1984, p. 13). Dudjom Rinpoche (English 1991, vol. I. p. 460) bases himself on the prediction found in a Tantra (Tibetan Text 16), which reads: “The Mahāyoga Tantras will fall on the palace of King Ja. The Anuyoga Tantras will emerge in the forests of Siṃgāla.” Dharmabodhi of Magadha, author of the mDo’i dob bsdu ba, of the Shes rab sgron ma and of the bKol mdo. Vasudharā, King of Nepal; Tib. Nor ’dzin. According to Giuseppe Tucci (English 1980, p. 214), this country corresponds to Gilgit and neighboring areas, which are currently under Pakistaki control. Furthermore, as stated in the section on the Anuyoga, even in this, the highest of Tantras on the Path of Transformation, practitioners lack the capacity to perform the practice in the state of rig pa (Awake Awareness or Truth) corresponding to the dharmakāya. 55 CE is perhaps the most widely accepted date for dGa’ rab rdo rje’s birth (in the West, this date was offered in Tarthang Tulku, 1977b, p. 182). Moreover, according to some of the accounts of the way Mañjuśrīmitra received the Atiyoga transmission from dGa’ rab rdo rje (for one such account, see Namkhai Norbu [Ed. J. Shane, 1986, revised edition 1999]), Mañjuśrīmitra was much older than his Master, as he was a highly respected ācārya from Nālandā University at the time he went to debate against dGa’ rab rdo rje, whereas the latter was still a child. The Tibetan term zag pa refers to all that is contaminated by the worldly sphere of interests and actions, and thus particularly to all that is contaminated by passional delusive obstructions (Skt. kleśāvaraṇa; Pāḷi kilesāvaraṇa; Tib. nyon [mongs pa’i] sgrib [pa]; Ch. 煩惱障 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, fánnǎozhàng; Wade-Giles, fan -nao -chang ]) and cognitive delusive obstructions (Skt. jñeyāvaraṇa; Pāḷi ñeyyavāvaraṇa; Tib. shes [bya’i] sgrib [pa]; Ch. 所知障 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn suǒzhīzhàng; Wade-Giles so -chih -chang ]). The term does 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 2 3 4 3 676 1 4 not refer to material existence per se, which is not viewed by any school of Buddhism as being contaminating or evil; in particular, in the teachings of the rDzogs chen Atiyoga, in the experience of sentient beings, matter is the paradigmatic expression of the rtsal form of manifestation of the energy (Tib. thugs rje) aspect of the Base, which is a wisdom or primordial gnosis; therefore, it must be regarded as sacred. For a criticism of Greek antisomatic traditions, see Capriles (2000b; work in progress; etc.). The title ston pa, literally meaning “(Primordial) Revealer,” but usually translated as “Primordial Master,” is given to Masters who introduce or reintroduce to the physical world a teaching directed toward true Awakening, after teachings of the kind have disappeared from our world. For example, Śākyamuni, gShen rab mi bo and dGa’ rab rdo rje are all considered to be ston pa; however, of these three, only Śākyamuni figures in the Buddhist rDzogs chen list of the Twelve Primordial Masters: dGa’ rab rdo rje is not included in it because he is regarded as an emanation of Śākyamuni, and gShen rab mi bo che is not mentioned because he was not a Buddhist Master (however, the latter sometimes has been regarded as an independent emanation of the same ston pa as dGa’ rab rdo rje, for he reintroduced rDzogs chen teachings for roughly the same period of humankind as dGa’ rab rdo rje, even though he did so much earlier than the latter). Though this is not the standard method of Atiyoga practice, it is often used for directly Introducing rig pa. The standard method of Atiyoga practice is best exemplified by the principle of Khregs chod and Thod rgal: when delusion is active, as charged thoughts are arising, and often in situations of great intensity (which in Khregs chod is emotional), there is an instant rupture of conceptuality and hence of dualism, as the dharmakāya is instantly disclosed in a perfectly clear manner. According to this tradition (Namkhai Norbu, Italian 1988), he did so after receiving rDzogs chen teachings from the second Mañjuśrīmitra. According to the Bon po sources favored by Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu, sTon pa gShen rab mi bo che—who, according to Chögyal Namkhai Norbu (2019/2013a), was a Tajik—lived some 3.800 years ago or, which is the same, around year 1.800 BCE. If Tönpa dGa’ rab rdo rje was born in 55 CE and the dates offered by Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu were correct, then he would have lived over 1800 years after sTon pa gShen rab mi bo che. However, other accounts offer quite different dates for ston pa gShen rab mi bo che, ranging from some sixteen thousand years BCE to the eighth century CE. In fact, according to a Bon po chronicle put into writing by Nyi ma bstan ’dzin in his bsTan rtsis (see Kvaerne, 1971), gShen rab mi bo che lived about eighteen thousand years ago. We are told that Bon po texts were written in the language of Zhang-zhung, which was a Tibeto-Burman language, from which they were translated into Tibetan, but we cannot be certain that gShen rab originally taught in that language, for it is also conceivable that his teachings could have been translated into it from another language. However, if we assume that ston pa gShen rab taught in a Tibeto-Burman language, then in order to ascertain the plausibility of the different datings of ston pa gShen rab we would have to establish the time of arrival of Tibeto-Burman languages to the region of Mount Kailāśā and Western Tibet in general (perhaps as far as La dvags [Ladakh]). Alejandro Gutman and Beatriz Avanzati (2013) write: “The ancestral language [predating current Chinese and Tibeto-Burman languages], Proto-Sino-Tibetan, would have been spoken to the east of the Tibetan Plateau, perhaps in the Yellow River valley, at least 6,000 years ago (a time-depth comparable to that of Proto-Indo-European). From there, migrations to the west and south carried what would become the Bodish or Tibetan languages to Tibet, while a different wave of migrations from the homeland, in a southwesterly direction, following the river valleys down into Myanmar, India, and Nepal, produced the other branches of the family.” According to Cordaux, Weiss, Saha & Stoneking (2004), the arrival of Tibeto-Burman speakers and hence languages to Northeast India occurred not longer than 2,100 BC: “...Our coalescence analysis suggests that the expansion of Tibeto-Burman speakers to northeast India most likely took place within the past 4,200 years...” Even if we assume that the migrations from the region “to the east of the Tibetan Plateau, perhaps in the Yellow River valley” where Proto-Sino-Tibetan was spoken, to Eastern, Central and Western Tibet, were earlier than migrations to the regions that nowadays are part of Northeast India, the establishment of a Tibeto-Burman speaking people in the region of Mount Kailāśā by 16,000 BCE would have been simply impossible. On the other hand, 1,800 BCE, which is the dating calculated by Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu, seems quite plausible for teachings to have been imparted in the language of Zhang Zhung in the area where gShen rab mi bo che taught. Moreover, in this case the migration of a Tajik Master to the area around Mount Kailāśā could be understood as an attempt to safeguard his life and especially his teachings 552 553 554 555 677 and his transmission from the Indo-European invaders who were moving East from their original territories in the Caucasus, conquering and subjecting all the peoples they found on their way. For their part, most Buddhist Masters give us a much later date for the origin of Bon po rDzogs chen, which they claim originated about the eight century CE, for according to them that was the time when Bön began to assimilate the Buddhist teachings in Tibet (some of them claiming that gShen rab mi bo che lived in the eighth century CE and that he was the Master who appropriated the teachings of Buddhist rDzogs chen). A Bon po tradition that Bon po Master sLob dpon bsTan ’dzin rnam dag has communicated to his disciples also posits a genetic link between Buddhist and Bon po rDzogs chen, but asserts transmission to have taken place in the opposite direction: Buddhist rDzogs chen would have derived from Bon po rDzogs chen, for in truth dGa’ rab rdo rje would have been the famous Bon po rDzogs chen Master Ra sangs ta pi hri tsa, who would have given teachings to a group of Buddhist Masters, thereby giving rise to the Buddhist transmission of rDzogs chen Atiyoga. Other Bon pos (whose views were quoted in Namkhai Norbu, 1997, p. 27) have identified dGa’ rab rdo rje with Zhang-zhung Garab, the thirteenth link in the lineage of the Oral Transmission of rDzogs chen of Zhang Zhung. The view I deem most reasonable and methodologically sound is Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu’s. Concerning the claims that the rDzogs chen of the Bon pos derived from Buddhist rDzogs chen, this Master and scholar tells us that this is not so: Bon po rDzogs chen was taught by gShen rab mi bo che long before the rise of Buddhism, but rather than doing so eighteen thousand years ago, he did so around 1,800 BC (moreover, the rDzogs chen teachings transmitted by gShen rab were extremely simple and succinct, and as such they contrast with the sophistication of present-day Buddhist rDzogs chen). Concerning the claims that Buddhist rDzogs chen may have derived from Bon po rDzogs chen, this Master tells us that whoever may be interested in asserting this hypothesis would have to demonstrate it with scientifically sound evidence—but that presently there is no evidence whatsoever that may sustain this thesis. In Namkhai Norbu (E. Capriles, ed., unpublished) Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu asserts the town of Khyung lung to be the capital of Zhang zhung as a whole. However, a more recent work by the same Master on the kingdom or empire of Zhang zhung—namely The Light of Kailāśā, Vol. I (Namkhai Norbu, 2009/2013a) asserts Zhang zhung to have included Persia, where he locates its capital—even though he continues to assert the region of Mount Kailāśā to be the place where the Primordial Revealer gShen rab mi bo che taught the rDzogs chen zhang zhung snyan rgyud, which is the seminal rDzogs chen of Bön. Śaivism was the religion of the Dravidians—i.e. of the pre-Indo-European civilization that thrived in the Indus valley. It was centered in the god Śiva and it is supposed to have featured the methods that later on became associated with Tantrism. After the Indo-European invasion, Śaivism was replaced by the Vedic religion, which implemented the Caste system, ending the egalitarianism and the celebration of the body and its impulses proper to Śaivism and introducing a tight sexual repression. Then at some point Hinduism was compounded, which featured the god Śiva as the Destroyer (of illusion) in a trinity in which Brahmā was the Creator and Viṣṇu was the Preserver. Of these three only Śiva was not an Indo-European deity. Tucci writes (p. 214): “[The evolution of Bön into a sophisticated, elaborate structure of teachings] took place under the influence, not only of Buddhism, but also of other religious concepts and doctrines, knowledge of which the Tibetans owed to their Central Asian conquests, and to their contacts with China and India. The Bön traditions themselves preserve allusions to particular places of origin of the most famous masters and codifiers of their doctrine. Areas named include Bru zha (Gilgit and neighboring regions) and Zhang zhung, a geographical term normally used for West Tibet but which also served as the name of a very much larger region extending from the west of the country to the north and north-east (a region within which eight main languages and twenty-four less important languages were spoken). In addition masters from Ka che (Kashmir), from China and from the Sum pa are named. Gilgit (the same goes for Kashmir) indicates an area whose religion was strongly affected by Śaivism, and in the immediate neighborhood of which, in Hunza, gnostic teachings of origin both Iranian and Shaivite had spread. These gnostic teachings found their expression in a famous book of the Ismaili schools, and enjoyed great popularity in this area. Zhang zhung also, that vast frontier land, was destined to transmit not only its indigenous religious ideas but also the echoes of foreign concepts. The Bon po tradition also knows a country called Tagzig (sTag gzig), a name which in Tibetan literature refers to the Iranian (or Iranian-speaking) world, or even the world of Islam. From all this we can deduce the influence of Śaivism in the doctrinal field… Admittedly some agreements with Shaivite ideas can be explained indirectly through the mediation of rDzogs chen (rDzogs chen); in other words they may have taken place after this sect, which had much in common with Śaivism, 556 557 558 678 had exerted an influence on the systematization of the Bon po teachings. Other, clearly older, elements indicate perceptible influences of Iranian beliefs, especially, it would seem, those of Zurvanism (cf. Gabain, A. von [1961], Das uigurische Köningreich von Chotscho 850-1250. Sitzungsberichte Dtsch. AdW zy Berlin, Kl.f.Sprachen, Literatur u. Kunst, Jg. 1961 Nr.5, Berlin).” Tucci acknowledges that all that he wrote in this chapter was based on Bon po literature available before 1970. And in fact, upon coming to Italy at Tucci’s invitation, Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu challenged most of the ideas expressed in this quotation, for the direction Tucci ascribes to the influences between traditions often was not the correct one: compare with the quotation from Namkhai Norbu (Chögyal) 1997 below in the regular text and the continuation of the quotation in one of the immediately following notes. (Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu has also noted that the land of Bru sha [this is the correct spelling of the term, rather than Bru zha] roughly corresponded to the present ex-Soviet republic of Kyrgyzstan.) At any rate, it is significant that Tucci acknowledges that the posterior doctrines of the Buddhist Tantras were already present in ancient Bön. He writes (pp. 221-222): “Often the primal state of nonbeing or of the pure potentiality of being consists simply of a light—an indication of the extremely ancient origin of the ‘photism’, that doctrine of light, which was later organized into a theoretical system through the Tantras, but which had long been an object of reflection for the Tibetans, who had populated their indigenous Olympus with numerous gods of light.” Is it so strange and difficult to accept that the teachings of the Tantras may have come from Tibet? In Bharati (1972), we are told that the Śaiva Hindu Tantric tradition contains three Tantras that assert that the Tantric methods were imported into India from Bhoṭa (a term that still today is used in Nepal and some regions of North India in order to refer to Tibet; for example, in Nepal, Tibetans are referred to contemptuously as Bothe), Cina (China) and Mahācina (Great China). Moreover, D. C. Bhattacharya (in Tan Chung, ed. 1998, p. 198), acknowledges that Bhoṭa is Tibet and quotes the Tantratattvasamuccaya—a Nepalese work—as saying that the people of Bhoṭa are called lamas and are associated with the Kambojatantra, whereas those of Mahācina—which in the preceding page the author associated with non-Tibetan Central Asia—are called vratyas and are associated with the Misratantra (however, the Kamboja people has been associated with the Sakas and with Balkh or Bactria—which is particularly interesting in the light of the theories put forward by Christopher Beckwith [2015], for if that author were right that Śākyamuni was a Saka, and that some Saka sages had a proto-Buddhist outlook, this could be due to the reception of an ancient wisdom tradition that could be Bon po rDzogs chen and Bon po proto-Tantra or some other analogous system). According to one of these stories, Brahmā’s own son had been meditating for one thousand years by the sea, yet had not managed to obtain the vision of the goddess; therefore the yogin went to his father for advice, and Brahmā told him to go to the countries in question in order to seek the Tantric teachings. Also in the other two Tantras referred to by Bharati the hero of the story is advised to seek the Tantric methods in those countries. It must be noted that according to two of those Tantras it was Śiva who, in the form of Buddha, was teaching the Tantras in Bhoṭa, whereas according to the other of the three Tantras it was Viṣṇu who, in the form of Buddha, was teaching them. Likewise, it is important to remember that the tradition of the Kānphaṭa yogins and their lay associates, the Uyghur, derives from Macchendranātha and his disciple Gorakhnātha (cf. Briggs, 1974), both of whom are listed by the Tantric Buddhist tradition as two of its own 84 mahāsiddhas (cf. e.g. Dowman, Ed. and Trans. 1985). (There is also a myth according to which a Buddhist mahāsiddha attained realization by applying the secrets that Śiva transmitted to his consort, Pārvatī, which he had overheard by swimming under the floating home of the famed god and goddess; however, this might as well be intended to suggest that Buddhism took its Tantric teachings from a pre-existing tradition, common to Bön, Śaivism and other traditions. At any rate, in the lack of solid, concrete proofs demonstrating that the Buddhist Vajrayāna and the Buddhist rDzogs chen were the result of the assimilation by Buddhism of pre-existing nonBuddhist traditions, we must continue to assume that they originated independently of such traditions.) For his part Abhinavagupta, the master who reintroduced and/or revitalized Kashmiri Śaivism, had among his fifteen plus teachers at least one Buddhist master (Pandey, 2d revised and enlarged ed. 1963; Reynolds, 1996). This is extremely important, because Kashmiri Śaivism is widely seen as the most authentic form of Śaivism, in the sense of being most faithful to original Śaivism, and its Kashmiri form is the one that Tucci posited as the source of Buddhist rDzogs chen: moreover, it was in that variety of Śaivism that Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu (E. Capriles, ed. unpublished) identified a series of terms having a clear Tibeto-Burman etymology and a clear rDzogs chen origin. Note that it was during the eighth century CE that Padmasambhava, Vimalamitra and shortly thereafter Ba gor bē ro tsa na taught rDzogs chen in Tibet, and was just over one century after that time that Abhinavagupta and his Buddhist 679 teacher lived. At any rate, Abhinavagupta’s time was also that of the rise of the Sarma or Newer Buddhist schools in Tibet, and Rin chen bzang po (958-1055) himself—the master who initiated the Newer Translations—travelled to Kashmir, where he studied under and received transmission from his main teacher, Śrāddhakaravarman, and then proceeded to (other parts of) India and studied with several important teachers. As we know, in the language of Oḍḍiyāna, Ati, meaning “primordial,” is an abbreviation of Atiyoga, the name of rDzogs chen qua vehicle, corresponding to the Path of Spontaneous Liberation. sPyi ti is the name given to the more general methods of Ati and in particular to certain gter ma teachings transmitting methods considered more essential and important than the more common ones of that tradition. In turn, the gter ma teachings of the Yang ti / Yang thig are deemed even more important than the ones called sPyi ti. The English version of this book (Namkhai Norbu, 2004) reads “apex” instead of “final aim.” I kept the term “final aim” that appears in the Italian version (Namkhai Norbu, Chögyal, 1997) because “apex” conveys the idea that Śākyamuni’s himself taught rDzogs chen, which is certainly not the case: he taught in person only methods of renunciation, but the conceptual expressions of his realization evince rDzogs chen wisdom and point to rDzogs chen realization. Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu goes on: “Some could object that rDzogs chen arose in Oḍḍiyāna and that therefore it could not have been taught by gShen rab mi bo che. The origin of the rDzogs chen [of the Buddhist tradition] no doubt has its source in the Master from Oḍḍiyāna dGa’ rab rdo rje, and Oḍḍiyāna has been traditionally considered as the birthplace of all Buddhist Anuttaratantras, but it is difficult to establish the precise geographical location of this country. “Many Western scholars have identified Oḍḍiyāna with the Swat region of Pakistan, and other scholars are still carrying out research in this regard, but all ancient sources agree in localizing Oḍḍiyāna vaguely at the North-West of India. Likewise, the legendary country of Shambhala [referred to in] Buddhist literature has never been really identified, but by examining the texts that refer to it we would be led to place it in the same region as Oḍḍiyāna. In many texts it is explained that at some point Oḍḍiyāna and Shambhala became pure dimensions, disappearing from ordinary vision, but in truth it seems more logical to think that those countries were conquered by the Turkish Islamic peoples that in some texts are called Turuka. Therefore, all Buddhists were converted to Islam and the Buddhist teachings and the various branches of their culture were radically annihilated. Later on, with the passing of time, all traces of the history and even of the existence of this civilization were lost. Consequently, it is likely that the countries known in antiquity as Oḍḍiyāna and Shambhala, where the Indian siddhas went overcoming countless risks and difficulties, belonged to Zhang-zhung or bordered on it. This in turn could lead to speculate that the archaic rDzogs chen taught by gShen rab mi bo che may have later on developed [as Buddhist rDzogs chen], because in the history of the Oral Transmission of Zhang-zhung we read that the thirteenth Master of the rDzogs chen lineage having its source in gShen rab mi bo che was a certain Zhang-zhung Garab, who could have been the same person as dGa’ rab rdo rje, whereas the tradition of the “Twelve Primordial Masters” quoted in Buddhist rDzogs chen literature could have derived from the lineage of twelve Masters who preceded Zhang-zhung Garab in the lineage of the rDzogs chen of Zhang-zhung. “These hypotheses simply outlined could surprise and disturb many Tibetan scholars, but it is indispensable to research and reflect accurately concerning the true origins of the culture and the spiritual traditions of Tibet. “At any rate, the true principle of the Dzogchen teaching is Knowledge, that is, the Understanding of the Primordial State, natural and unmodified, of each and every individual, male or female. Therefore Dzogchen cannot be assimilated to a religion or a philosophical doctrine, nor to the content of some sacred scriptures. Ancient Dzogchen texts assert that also among primitive peoples, where the Buddhist teachings never arrived, there could be many yogins and yoginīs possessing the perfect knowledge of the state of Dzogchen. Hence one should not be surprised that, both in Bön and in Buddhism, there may be teachings that explain how to realize this state of true Knowledge, and there is no need to keep the limited mentality of wanting to attribute by all means the origins of Dzogchen to Bön or to the rNying ma [Buddhist] tradition. Dzogchen is a knowledge that transcends the limits of time: in fact, it is said that countless Masters possessing this Knowledge and their teachings are present throughout the universe. In particular, the Tantra All-surpassing Sound (Tib. sGra thal ’gyur) asserts that the Dzogchen teaching is diffused in thirteen dimensions called thal ba or “beyond our solar system.” Therefore, it is fundamental to surpass the sectarianism of a limited vision.” 559 560 561 680 For his part, Dudjom Rinpoche wrote (1991, including all paragraphs quoted below, pp. 936-7): “[801.2-803.1] Again, some say that the Pön (Bön) tradition and the Great Perfection seem to be intimately connected because the diction of the rNying ma pa and Pönpo (Bon po) is similar. There are indeed many similarities in their doctrinal terminology and so forth, but since these [Pön (Bön) works] were written so as to resemble the Buddhist doctrine how could they be dissimilar? For example, it is taught that in India there were ten conventional [non-Buddhist schools] which paralleled the pious attendants, and, in the same manner, the self-centered Buddhas, Mind Only, Madhyamaka, Kriyā, Caryā, Yoga, Father Tantra, Mother Tantra, and Nondual Tantra. Likewise, in Tibet as well, Buddhist doctrines including all the texts of the Madhyamaka, Transcendent Perfection, Vinaya, Treasury of Abhidharma, and mantras; [means for attainment] of deities such as Cakrasaṃvara, Bhairava, and Vajrakīla; and [the instructions of] the inner heat, Great Seal, Great Perfection, and so forth, have all had their Pönpo (Bon po) imitations. Those, however, are not original. So, how can one begin to refute such limitless, adventitious fantasies?” However, right after the above paragraph, bDud ’joms rin po che goes to say that original Bon po teachings that coincide with Buddhist views could have been revealed by the enlightened activities and emanations of (pre-Buddhist?) Buddhas and bodhisattvas: “None the less, the priests of good fortune, Pön (Bön) mantras, and so forth, which appear to be immediately beneficial, may well have been revealed by the enlightened activities and emanations of the buddhas and bodhisattvas, because the range of the skillful means of the conquerors and their sons is inconceivable, as exemplified by the career of the “Truth-speaking Mendicant.” (Note by the translators of D.R.’s book: this perhaps refers to the nirgrantha ascetic Satyaka-Māyāvādin, which was brought into the fold with six thousand of his followers through the Buddha’s skillful means. See the Sūtra of the Arrayed Bouquet, p. 277, II. 10-16.) In general, there are a great many [teachings] which, except for being merely called “Pön” (Bön), in fact manifestly belong to the Buddhist doctrine. It is not right to pass final judgment as to whether they may be proven or not, for that merely generates misology. “Moreover, it has been said that there was a causal basis for the origination in pairs of Hinduism and Buddhism in India; Buddhist monks and Pönpos (Bon pos) in Tibet, thought there were no actual extremist schools there; and Buddhists and Taoists in China. Therefore, so long as other traditions do not harm the teaching, we should just let them be…” Concerning the assertion that after the Islamic invasion all Buddhists from Oḍḍiyāna and Shambhala were converted to Islam and the Buddhist teachings and the various branches of their culture were radically annihilated, so that later on, with the passing of time, all traces of the history and even of the existence of this civilization were lost, it must be noted that some of the Buddhist Masters who were given the choice of dying or converting to Islam opted for the second possibility as a means to give continuity to their own soteriological traditions within Ṣūfīsm (the esoteric tradition within Islam, which thrived principally in Sunnī [‫ﺳِﻨّﻲ‬ ُ ] Islam, but which also thrived among the Shīʿah [‫ ]ﺷﯿﻌﺔ‬of Persia and Afghanistan) and the Ismā‘īlī tradition (the most esoteric branch of Shīʿah [‫ ]ﺷﯿﻌﺔ‬Islam, often regarded as heterodox and even as non-Islamic, from which—as shown in under the direction of Y. Belaval, 1981, p. 120, which will be cited below—the Ismā‘īlī “mysticism of light” was introduced into Iranian Ṣūfīsm). Keep in mind that, as shown in a previous endnote, as noted by Tucci (1970, English 1980) and others, the Ismā‘īlīs are or were one of the religious groups whose members regularly went in pilgrimage to Mount Kailāśā. At any rate, Sayyed Idries Shah, who was the head of the Khwājagān (Naqshbandī) school of Sufism, writes (Shah, 1964, retranslated into English from the Spanish translation 1975, p. 197): “Jabir Ibn el-Hayyam (Abu Musa Jābir ibn Hayyān [Arabic, ‫ ;ﺟﺎﺑﺮ ﺑﻦ ﺣﯿﺎن‬Persian, ‫ )]ﺟﺎﺑﺮ ﺑﻦ ﺣﯿﺎن‬was for a very long time an intimate associate of the Barmakies (or Barmecides), viziers to Harun ar-Rashid. These Barmakies were descendants from the priests of the Afghani Buddhist temples, and it was believed that they possessed the ancient teaching that had been transmitted to them from that area…” According to Shah, Jābir ibn Hayyān transmitted to his Ṣūfī disciples the doctrines he received from the Barmakies, which therefore found their continuity within Ṣūfīsm. But what does the term Barmakies mean? In Parain (Director of the collection, 1969, Spanish translation 1972, p. 244), we read: “Associated with the region of Bactria (or Zariaspa) and its capital, Bactra (or Bactra-Zariaspa = Balkh), are the names of the Barmakies (Barmecides), who gave a determinant impulse to the penetration of Iranianism in the Abbaside court and to the ascension of this Iranian family to the first ranks of the Caliphate (750-804). Their name comes from the term Barmak, which designated the hereditary dignity of the supreme priest of the Buddhist temple of Nawbahar (in Sanskrit, Nova Bihara, “New Monastery”) in Balkh, which later on legend transformed into the “Temple of Fire.” In Balkh, the “mother of cities” (destroyed, and then reconstructed in 726 by the Barmak), there co-existed the Greek, Buddhist, Mazdean, 681 Manichean and Nestorian Christian cultures, accumulated in the course of the centuries. Mathematics and astronomy, astrology and alchemy, medicine and mineralogy, and, next to these sciences, a vast apocryphal literature, saw their birth in the cities located in the great route to the East, which Alexander had traveled in the past. From these cities, beginning in the middle of the eighth century, astronomers, astrologers, physicians and alchemists moved to the new center of spiritual life created by Islam.” With regard to Ṣūfīsm, it must be born in mind that Khwājagān (Naqshbandī) Ṣūfīs have a most secret “Swift Path” that might perhaps have some genetic relation to the rDzogs chen Atiyogatantrayāna that had been transmitted by Buddhists Masters in Oḍḍiyāna and Bactria, and possibly also in Sogdia and so on. With regard to the Ismā‘īlī connection, it may perhaps be relevant to mention that Shah also tells us that (Shah, 1964, Spanish translation 1975, p. 197): “Who was Jafar Sadiq, teacher of [the great Sufi Master and alchemist] Jabir [Ibn el-Hayyam]? No one less than the Sixth Imam [of Islam]…” For an ampler discussion of all of this and an exploration of possible connections between rDzogs chen and Western traditions via Ṣūfīsm cf. Capriles (2011a). In that paper we read: “Now, Ṣūfīsm sems to have drank from the source of Kailāsa also through the Ismā‘īlīs. For example, the British Encyclopædia asserts the early Ṣūfī Master Mansūr al-Hallāj (c. 858 – 922 / hijrī c. 244 - 309) to have belonged to the Carmatian circles (cf. also Sellers, 1997-2003, and Wassermann, 2001)—which, as I have noted in other works (Capriles, 2007, 2009, 2012a) represented the egalitarian political branch of Ismā‘īlīsm. According to the British Encyclopædia, al-Hallāj could have been an instigator of the rebellion of the [black African] Zanj slaves that took place in Basra and Kuwait, imposed by the Ismā‘īlī Carmatians (keep in mind that another of the coincidences between Ismā‘īlīs, Śaivas and Tantrics in general, Taoists and the rest of the traditions related to Mount Kailāśā were their egalitarianism and their opposition to divisions of cast and [extreme divisions of] wealth [cf. Capriles, 1994, 2009, 2012a and minor works]). Likewise, the teacher of Rūmī, Shams-i-Tabrīzī, would have been the grandson of a lieutenant of Hassan-i Sabbāh (Iqbal, 1978), the great Ismā‘īlí chief of Alamūt (who would have been the source of Templarian spirituality and, through that order, of Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, the Carbonieri, etc. [cf. Shah, 1975, 1978]). Finally, Iranian and Central Asian Ṣūfīsm took from Ismā‘īlīsm its mysticism of light (under the direction of Y. Belaval, 1981, p. 120), which was mentioned above, and in which, as also suggested, Iranian-Tibetan elements are evident. In the just mentioned work we read: “Under the cloak (the jirqa) of Ṣūfīsm, Ismā‘īlīsm survived in Iran after the destruction of Alamūt, and ever since there has been always an ambiguity in the very literature of Ṣūfīsm. The great poem by Maḥmūd [ibn ʻAbd al-Karīm] Shabistarī [The Rose Garden of Mystery] exhibits Ismā‘īlī reminiscences and there is a partial Ismā‘īlī commentary [to that poem]. For that reason it is frequent that the Nizārī literature of the tradition of Alamūt found its continuity in the form of treatises in verse. Al-Quhistānī (who died around 720 [hijrī] / 1320 [EC] sems to have been the first to have used Ṣūfī terminology to express Ismā‘īlī doctrines. The Imām Ŷalāl al-Dīn Mustanṣir Bi’llāh II (880 / 1480), who resided and was buried in Anŷūdan (under the nickname of Shāh Qalandar), wrote the Exhortation to Spiritual Cavalry (Pandilla-i Ŷavānmardī), a concept [that is significant] both for Shīʿism and for Ṣūfīsm… Both Sayed Suhrāb alWalī al Badajshānī (who wrote in 880 / 1480) and Abu Īshaq Al-Quhistānī (second half of the fifteenth century) left a good exposé of Ismā‘īlī philosophy. Jayr Hwāh (the Benevolens) from Herat (who died after 960 / 1553), a prolific author, is the main responsible for the Kalām-i Pīr (Discourse of the Sage), which amplifies on the seven chapters of Abu Īshaq Al-Quhistānī, which constitutes, together with the Rawzat al-taslīm by Naṣīr al-Tūsī, the most complete summary we possess of the Ismā‘īlī philosophy of the Alamūtian tradition. Jākī al-Jurasānī (who wrote in 1056 / 1645) and his son Raqqāmī Dizbādī left long philosophical poems. Gulām ’Alī of Aḥmadnagar (1110 / 1690) left a work in verse, the Lama’āt alTāhirīn (The Flashes of the Extremely Pure Ones), which is no longer than one thousand and one hundred pages, slightly chaotic, with their philosophical leitmotivs enunciated in prose. Pīr Shihāb al-Dīn Shāh alḤuṣaynī (the eldest son of Aghā Khān II), born in 1850 and dead in full youth in 1884, left several treatises which are at least excellent recapitulations of the Ismā‘īlī gnosis.” Creel (1970, I, p. 22) and Watts (1975, written in 1973 with the collaboration of Al Chung-Liang Huang, p. 91) note that in the Bàopúzǐ (抱朴⼦; Wade-Giles, Pao P’u -tzu ) or Nèipiān (內篇; Wade-Giles, Nei p’ien ), Gěhóng (葛洪; Wade-Giles, Ko -hung ) tells us that Zhuāngzǐ (莊⼦; Wade-Giles, Chuang -tzu )… “…says that life and death are just the same, brands the effort to preserve life as laborious servitude, and praises death as a rest: this doctrine is separated by millions of miles from that of [the] shénxiān (神仙; Wade-Giles, shen -hsien : holy immortals).” 561 561 561 562 4 1 3 2 2 2 3 4 1 1 682 3 (A partial English translation of Gěhóng’s writings appeared in 1967 in the book now available as Ware, trans. 1981.) As noted above, what Herrlee G. Creel (1970) called “Contemplative Taoism” and that I have called “Taoism of Unorigination” encompassed the teachings and praxis of Lǎozǐ (⽼⼦; Wade-Giles, Lao -tzu ), Zhuāngzǐ (莊⼦; Wade-Giles, Chuang -tzu ) and Lièzĭ (列⼦; Wade-Giles, Lieh -tzu )—and, I believe, the Masters of Huáinán (淮南; Wade-Giles, Huai -nan ) as well. I have not found the metaphor of the snake shedding its skin or any reference to any of the special modes of death resulting from rDzogs chen practice in the extant texts attributed to these Masters. However, as shown in the main text of this note, the Primordial Revealer of Bon po rDzogs chen, gShen rab mi bo che, had disciples from China, India, Kashmir, and Persia or surrounding areas, who diffused their Master’s teachings in their respective countries. In this light, the coincidence between the views of Taoism of Unorigination and those of rDzogs chen, and the fact that some forms of Taoism used the image of the snake shedding its skin, may be taken to suggest that Taoism of Unorigination derived from rDzogs chen Atiyoga via gShen rab mi bo che’s Chinese disciple (whose Tibetan name was, as we have seen, Legtang Mangpo). Were it true that Unorigination Taoism led to the attainment of the body of light, since the latter can only be attained through spontaneous perfection / spontaneous arising / spontaneous rectification / spontaneous accomplishment (Tib. lhun grub), which is utterly beyond action and as such may correspond to the Daoist principles of wúwéi (無為; Wade-Giles wu -wei : nonaction, the term also renders the Skt. asaṃskṛta and the Pāḷi asaṅkhata), wéiwúwéi (為無為; Wade-Giles wei -wu -wei :action through nonaction) or that of zìrán (⾃然; Wade-Giles tzu -jan : spontaneity or “self-so”), the relevant practice must have been based on the principle of spontaneous liberation rather than on that of Tantric transformation or on that of Sutric renunciation, which do not lead to the special modes of death. (The fact that in the extant texts of Taoism of Unorigination there is no reference to the snake shedding its skin or any other of the four modes of death attained through rDzogs chen practice, or to the methods for attaining these modes of death, could be explained by the fact that these texts were intended to be public treatises, which should not deal with the innermost methods of this type of Taoism and their results.) Most scholars associate the image of the snake that sheds its skin with what Creel termed Xiān (神仙; WadeGiles, Hsien ) or Shénxiān (神仙; Wade-Giles, Shen -hsien ) Taoism, which since the eighth century BCE has been using generative means comprising visualization, recitation, retention of the seed-essence, erotic relationships, alchemy, breathing exercises, diet and so on, in order to prolong the human lifespan and allegedly produce an immortal body (since, as shown in the main text of this note, this is impossible because whatever is produced, created, born, compounded or conditioned is impermanent, in general practitioners of this form of Taoism felt satisfied with attaining long lifespans). This system must have been concocted by deluded individuals who, after seceding from Taoism of Unorigination, appropriated methods from Tantrism or analogous doctrines in order to pursue aims contrary, not only to those of Taoism of Unorigination and rDzogs chen, but to those of Tantrism as well. Furthermore, as stated in the regular text of this section, after seceding from Taoism of Unorigination, Xiān pseudo-masters turned against the greatest Masters of the latter form of Taoism. However, as shown in the regular text, the term Shénxiān (神仙; Wade-Giles, Shen -hsien ) and the image of the snake that sheds its skin were not exclusive to so-called Xiān / Hsien Taoists such as Gěhóng (葛洪; Wade-Giles, Ko -hung ) and his like. In fact, in the doctrines of what later on came to be known as Quánzhēn (全眞; Wade-Giles, Chuan -chen : Complete Reality) Taoism, there seemed to coincide the views (and therefore perhaps also the methods) of what I have called Taoism of Unorigination—which rather than proposing that we create or produce something, exhort us to discover our unborn and undying true nature or condition of everything—with the image of the snake that sheds its skin and with the use of the term “holy immortal” or shénxiān to refer to those who attain the highest realization possible. As also shown in the regular text, if the hypothesis according to which Taoists of Unorigination practiced rDzogs chen and therefore had the possibility of attaining the body of light (which as we have seen is the attainment illustrated with the image of the snake that sheds its skin) were correct, Quánzhēn Taoism may have been the form of Taoism that in later times gave continuity to the views, doctrines and practices of the Taoism of Unorigination (independently of whether or not it maintained the original doctrines and methods and therefore could lead to the body of light). In fact, Quánzhēn Taoism made it perfectly clear that in their system “becoming an immortal” did not refer to the production of a new produced / fabricated / induced / conditioned / compounded state or condition. According to the eighteenth century commentator Líu Yīmíng (劉⼀明; Wade-Giles, Liu I -ming ) (Liu I563 3 1 3 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 683 1 2 3 ming, trans. Thomas Cleary, 1988), the term referred to the unveiling of the pure and perfect primordial (“pre-natal”) awareness that... “is not born and does not die.” In Quánzhēn terminology this primordial state is variously referred to as the “precious pearl,” the “pre-natal mind,” the “triplex unity of essence, energy, and spirit” (essence, nature and energy?) or simply the “Way” (Dào: 道; Wade-Giles Tao ). Líu Yīmíng tells us that “awake or asleep, it is always there,” and the same applies to stillness and movement, which are the yīn (陰; Wade-Giles, yin ) and yáng (陽; Wade-Giles, yang )—passive and creative, dark and light, empty and full—facets of the ever-present primordial state, comparable to waves rising and falling on the sea, or wind stirring the air. Líu Yīmíng describes the realization of the primordial condition as “a stateless state… tranquil and unstirring, yet sensitive and effective—call on it and it responds [with movement]; in quietude it is [perfectly] clear.” Since movement is an indivisible aspect of the primordial state, in order to integrate it, Taoism has tàijíquán (太極拳; Wade-Giles, t’ai -chi -ch’üan ), the eight pieces of brocade, and other moving Qìgōng (氣功; Wade-Giles, Ch’i -kung ) forms. For a period, the aspiring Quánzhēn adept retires from the world and goes into seclusion in the mountains in order to practice the teachings and attain spontaneous perfection—a process known as Xiūdào (修道; Wade-Giles, hsiou -tao : “cultivating the Way”). Finally, when the “complete reality” of Dào (道; WadeGiles Tao ) has been realized, the adept “returns to the towns and markets” to apply the Way “among ordinary people” in all the myriad activities of daily life. Despite the fact that, as noted above, Quánzhēn Taoism referred to its own realized ones as shénxiān ( 神仙 ; Wade-Giles, shen -hsien ), the contrast between this system and that of Gěhóng and other forgers is further evidenced by the following words by Líu Yīmíng: “The Dào is a treasure… having nothing to do with material alchemy. It is utterly simple, utterly easy… It is completely spiritual, true goodness. The ridiculous thing is that foolish people seek mysterious marvels, when they do not know enough to preserve the mysterious marvel that is actually present.” (Quotes from Líu Yīmíng were taken from Reid [2002/2003], who for his part took them from Liu I-ming [trans. Thomas Cleary, 1988].) For a more extensive discussion of this matter, cf. Capriles (2009a). In fact, the paradigmatic expression of phrin las and mdzad pa qua characteristic expressions of the dynamics of the lhun grub aspect of the Base, is the dynamic of rol pa energy in the intermediate state of the true condition of phenomena (Skt. dharmatā antarābhava; Tib. chos nyid bar do) known as phrin las drag po, as it operates in the practices of Thod rgal and the Yang thig / Yang ti. kLong chen pa and Rong zom pa, do not coincide in their usages of the two terms (cf. kLong chen pa’s Theg pa’i mchog rin po che’i mdzod I, p. 17, II, pp. 47ff and Rong zom pa’s Rong ’grel: rgyud rgyal gsang ba snying po’i ’grel pa dkon cos ’grel, fol. 115a. Cf. also gYung ston rdo rje dpal bzang po, gSal byed me long [dpal gsang ba snying po’i rgyud don gsal byed me long], fols. 163a f.), whose interpretations are widely accepted. For a discussion of interpretations in these texts, cf. Guenther (1984, pp. 251 note 27, 277 note 3 and 278 note 8). As shown in a previous note, there are quite different dates for sTon pa gShen rab mi bo che, ranging from some sixteen thousand years BC to the eighth century CE. In Namkhai Norbu and Adriano Clemente, English 1999, Note 244 by Adriano Clemente, p. 215, we read: “The traditional lineage of the rDzogs pa chen po zhang zhung snyan brgyud is as follows: Kun tu bzang po, gShen lha ’od dkar, rGyal ba gShen rab, Tshad med ’od ldan, ’Phrul gshen snang ldan, Bar snang khu byug, bZang bza’ ring btsun, ’Chi med gtsug phud, gSang ba ’dus pa, Yong su dag pa. In Namkhai Norbu and Adriano Clemente, English 1999, Note 247 by Adriano Clemente, p. 217, we are told that in Tibetan the twelve verses read: rang rig gnyug ma kun gyi gzhi / rtsol bral bgrod med lhun grub lam / ci bzhin lhun grub ’bras bu ste / yang dag don la lta ru med / yang dag don la bsgom du med / yang dag don la spyod du med / sems kyi dpe ni nam mkha’ ’dra / sems kyi rtags ni sems nyid yin / sems kyi don ni bon nyid do / skye ba med pa’i bon dbyings na / ’gag pa med pa’i ye shes gnas / skye ’gag gnyis med thig le gcig. Their translation in full is: Regarding the condition of the base, (op. 24, p. 171, 5) says: “One’s original state of rig pa is the base of everything.” Regarding the nature of the path, (op. 24: p. 171, 5) says: “The path is spontaneously perfect / self-rectifying / self-accomplishing beyond effort and progress.” Regarding the nature of the fruit, (op.24: p.171, 5) says: “The fruit is spontaneously perfect in its own condition.” Thus is explained the nature of base, path and fruit. Regarding the nature of the Vision (Tib. lta ba), (op. 24: p. 171, 5) says: “In terms of the real meaning there is no view to uphold.” 4 1 2 4 4 1 2 2 1 4 4 2 564 565 566 684 1 Regarding the nature of Contemplation, (op. 24: p. 172, 1) says: “In terms of the real meaning there is nothing to meditate on or contemplate.” Regarding the nature of the Behavior, (op. 24; p. 172, 1) says: “In terms of the real meaning there is no conduct to adopt.” Thus is explained the nature of view, meditation and behavior. Regarding the nature of the example, (op. 24: p. 172, 1) says: “The example of mind is space.” Regarding the nature of the characteristic sign, (op. 24: p. 172, 1) says: “The characteristic sign of mind is the essence or nature of mind.” Regarding the nature of the meaning, (op. 24: p. 172, 1) says: “The meaning of mind is the ultimate nature of phenomena.” This is the explanation of the nature of the example, of the characteristic sign and of the meaning. Regarding the nature of the unborn, of the uninterrupted and of the non-duality between birth and cessation, (op. 24: p. 172, 1) says: “In the ultimate unborn dimension Abides primordial gnosis without interruption, The single sphere beyond the duality of birth and cessation.” In Namkhai Norbu and Adriano Clemente, English 1999, Note 249 by Adriano Clemente, p. 217, we read: “Gyer chen snang bzher lod po (the Wylie transliteration of this name had to be amended, for it appeared as “Gyer chen snang bzhed lhod po”), seventh to eighth centuries CE, received the teachings of the Zhang zhung snyan brgyud from a nirmāṇakāya manifestation of the ‘rainbow body’ (’ja’ lus) of Tapihritsa, a teacher who had lived some centuries earlier.” Therefore those interested in asserting that rDzogs chen leaked into the Bön tradition from Buddhist rDzogs chen could adduce that Gyer spungs chen po sNang bzher lod po (Cherchen Nangzher Löpo) received rDzogs chen teachings from Buddhist Masters and then put their essence into writing, claiming that he had received them from a nirmāṇakāya manifestation of the ‘rainbow body’ (Tib. ’ja’ lus) of Tapihritsa. As stated in a previous endnote, Dudjom Rinpoche (English 1991; Trans.: G. Dorje and M. Kapstein. pp. 706-7) notes that he possessed both the instructions of seven successive Masters of India and those of seven successive Masters of China, and notes that it was from him that the Khams tradition of the Sems sde series of rDzogs chen teachings arose (which continued through Cog ro zangs dkar mdzod khur and to Ya zi bon ston, to Rong zom pa). As previously remarked, different types of Akaniṣṭha are spoken of according to the different manifestations of wisdom. Keep in mind that, in many texts of the rDzogs chen Atiyoga, the term bdag nyid chen po (Skt. mahātma), which could be translated as “total I-ness,” is used to refer in a poetic and metaphorical way to the single true condition of all individuals and of all entities in the universe (which would be inexpressible in literal terms), in order to emphasize the fact that there is nothing external to this single true condition. This usage of the term occurs in root Tantras of the rDzogs chen Atiyoga, and in particular in the root Tantra of the Series of [the Essence or Nature of] Mind (Tib. Sems sde; Skt. Cittavarga) series of rDzogs chen, the Kun byed rGyal po’i rgyud, in which it recurs throughout the text (cf. Namkhai Norbu and Adriano Clemente, English 1999). Since an explanation of this Tantra exists in English and so the reader may easily confirm the facts by reading the book, let me quote another example of this way of using the term “I,” which appears in Tibetan Text 18: “Great Master, we See the I.” The most ancient rDzogs chen texts from the Bön tradition, on the one hand, and the Śaiva tradition, on the other, designated the true condition of everything as “I.” In order to make it more difficult for people to conceive of this true condition as a substance, or for them to attribute anthropomorphic characteristics to it such as those that monotheistic religions attribute to their God, in Buddhism the existence of a universal “I” is negated, and a great emphasis is placed on the concept of selflessness or “not-I” (Skt. anātman / nairātmya; Pāli anattā; Tib. bdag med; Ch. 無 我 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, wúwǒ; Wade-Giles, wu -wo ]). Nevertheless, neither of the two terminologies—the one that designates the true condition of everything as “I” and the one that emphasizes that an “I” may not be spoken of in this respect—is either totally correct or totally incorrect. In fact, as the master Buddhapālita put it in the Mūlamadhyamakavṛtti (cf. Guenther, Herbert V. 1957, 2d. Ed. 1974): “A position (Skt. pakṣa; Tib. phyogs) implies a counter-position (Skt. pratipakṣa; Tib. gnyen po), and neither of them is true.” 567 568 569 570 2 685 3 As we have seen, no concept can correspond exactly to the true essence and nature of everything, for every concept is defined by exclusion (Skt. apoha; Tib. sel ba; 除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chú; Wade-Giles, ch’u ] or 遮 除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēchú; Wade-Giles, che -ch’u ]) of all other concepts, or, as it is also called, by exclusion of other (Skt. anyāpoha; Tib. gzhan sel; Ch. 他感排除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tā gǎn páichú; WadeGiles, t’a -kan p’ai -ch’u ]; another possibility, though far less likely: 他者的遮除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tāzhědí zhēchú; Wade-Giles, t’a -che -ti che -ch’u ]). Or, in terms of Aristotelian logic, definitio fit per genus proximum et differentiam specificam. At any rate, this implies that the concept necessarily has to establish a limit in order to exclude something that could not be included in it unless it were destroyed qua concept (which, as Buddhapālita pointed out well, implies that it has to have its counterposition or pratipakṣa). Therefore, if a concept is used to refer to this true condition, it is indispensable to keep in mind that it cannot be totally precise, and that the opposite concept would be just as valid and as imprecise as the one we have chosen to refer to it: it is equally valid and at the same time equally imprecise to designate the true condition as “I” as to call it “not-I,” for the first of these terms implies that there is something “other” in relation to it, which is erroneous, while the second implies that it is “other” with respect to itself, which is equally erroneous. The “lords of the three families” (Tib. rigs gsum gyi lha) are: Ārya Mañjuśrī (from the Tathāgata family), Ārya Avalokiteśvara (from the Padma family) and Śrī Guhyapati Vajrapāṇi (from the Vajra family), who represent, respectively, the essence of the three vajras—Body, Voice and Mind—of all Awake ones. In the cycle bDe gshegs bka’ brgyad from the Old School tradition they correspond to Mañjuśrī the Body (Tib. ’Jam dpal sku), Lotus the Voice (Tib. Pad ma gsung) and Great Glorious Awake Awareness (Tib. Yang dag thugs). According to the texts, these three Masters transmitted the teachings to gods, nāgas, yakṣas, rākṣasas and humans. An example of this type of classification of the lineages of the kama transmission is what is known as mdo rgyud sems gsum, which distinguishes between: (1) the rgyud section of Mahāyoga, which is the one containing the eighteen Tantric cycles of this vehicle, which has the Guhyagarbha Tantra as its root text; (2) the mdo or sūtra section (where do or sūtra does not refer to the sūtras of the Path of Renunciation, but to the Anuyoga Tantras), which comprises five texts, and which has as its root text the ’Dus-pa’i mdo; (3) the sems section, which includes the three subdivisions of rDzogs chen Atiyoga. If we took the first of the groups referred to above as an example, it would have to be noted that the Buddha Śākyamuni’s had prophesized the teaching, after his parinirvāṇa (physical death of a Buddha), of an “essential doctrine that Śrī Guhyapati Vajrapāṇi would reveal to King Indrabhūti of Oḍḍiyāna” (it is not clear which of the Kings bearing this name received this transmission, but since the one in question was a contemporary of the mahāsiddha Kukurāja [the “Lord of the dogs”], to whom he transmitted this lineage, it is presumed that it must have been an intermediate Indrabhūti). After the king had marvelous dreams foretelling something exceptional, he received the volumes of the eighteen Mahāyoga Tantras (the root Tantra, which is the Guhyagarbha; the five principal Tantras; the five Tantras of sādhana [which should not be confused with the eight sādhanas of the section with this same name]; the five Tantras of action, and the two supplementary Tantras). As just mentioned, Indrabhūti transmitted this lineage to Kukurāja, and then it continued to pass through successive links until it was established in Tibet, where it has continued to be transmitted until our days. Some Buddhist teachers have claimed that even the present-day rDzogs chen teachings of the Bön tradition originate from dGa’ rab rdo rje, because, with the passing of time, the Bon pos gradually appropriated the totality of the teachings of all rNying ma pa vehicles, until, finally, they came to have a canon that nearly mirrors that of the Ancient School of Tibetan Buddhism (including the totality of the Buddhist Sūtras and Tantras). According to this view, since the Buddhist rDzogs chen teachings were far more sophisticated than the Bon po ones, after having received them the Bon pos might have gradually forgotten their own, much older rDzogs chen teachings. As stated in a previous endnote, some Bon po Masters, such as sLob dpon bsTan ’dzin rnam dag and his disciples, give an inverted account of the above, according to which in reality dGa’ rab rdo rje was the Bon po Master Tapihritsa, and the Buddhist teachings of the Mahāyāna, the Vajrayāna and the Atiyogatantrayāna were all introduced by Bon po Masters. It is not clear to me whether, according to this view, the Bon po Masters are supposed to have written their texts in Buddhist terminology because Buddhism had become the official religion in the region of Zhang-zhung where they resided [probably the land that at the time was known as Oḍḍiyāna], or whether they were originally written in Bön terminology and then translated into Buddhist language when the Indian-originated new religion became dominant. 2 1 1 3 2 2 2 1 3 2 1 2 571 572 573 686 At any rate, so far such interpretations are not sustained by any historical or archeological evidence, and that so long as this continues to be so such interpretations should not be given much weight (we know that all traditions insist in being the source of their teachings and transmissions, and that each tradition believes his teachings and practices to be the supreme ones—so much that a Western teacher of Kashmiri Śaivism was offended by the idea I took from Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu and then expressed in papers and books that their system derived from Bon po rDzogs chen). It is thus wise to keep one’s mind open with regard to the source, lineage and history of the rDzogs chen teachings. In any case, it is a fact that not all current rDzogs chen Atiyoga teachings originated from dGa’ rab rdo rje. In particular, the teachings of the Series of Pith Instructions (Tib. Man ngag [gyi] sde; Skt. Upadeśavarga) series of rDzogs chen Atiyoga that dGa’ rab rdo rje bequeathed us were extremely brief and bare, but thereon the teachings of this section gradually multiplied and became more and more sophisticated as the greatest Masters of each period codified their experience of the practice. It may also be noted that (as will be seen in the second part of the book and as was already suggested in a previous footnote), as the teachings of the “vajra bridge” (Tib. rDo rje zam pa) of the Series of Space (Tib. kLong sde) seemed to gradually lose their power to rapidly eradicate or neutralize the delusory valorization of subtle and supersubtle thoughts and thereby lead practitioners to levels of realization as complete as the rainbow body, progressively more and more emphasis was placed on the Series of Pith Instructions and in particular on the sNying thig, which developed as successive series of treasure teachings (Tib. gter ma) were successively revealed, and as the greatest Masters codified the instructions they discovered in the course of their own practice. Also the Thod rgal and Yang thig / Yang ti practices of the Series of Pith Instructions kept on developing and possibly even becoming more precise and sophisticated—and hence the body of light (’od kyi sku or ’od phung) has continued to appear right in our time. However, examples of other of the realizations of the Series of Pith Instructions and the corresponding ways to put an end to human existence have not been brought to my notice. Firstly, no example has been brought to my notice of the realization of Khregs chod reaching the point at which it gives rise to the realization that culminates in putting an end to human existence through dissolution into space by means of the integration of the thatness or thusness (Skt. tathatā; Tib. de bzhin nyid; Chin. 眞如 [性] [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēnrú (xìng); Wade-Giles, chen -ju (hsing )]) of one’s own intrinsic awareness in the ultimate natural sphere or rang bzhin chos kyi dbyings, just like the inner space of a jar fuses with external space when the jar breaks (for an explanation of this, see Part Two of this book). Likewise, I have heard of no cases of achievement of the total transference (Tib. ’pho ba chen po), for the last case that came to my notice was that of lCe btsun seng ge dbang phyug, who lived between the eleventh and the twelfth centuries CE. Back to the teachings of the Nyingthik, perhaps the most important teachings of this class have been: (a) Those of the Bi mai snying thig originating from Vimalamitra. This great Master transmitted the instructions of the Explanatory Tantras to Myang ting ’dzin bzang po, who transmitted the pith instructions to his disciple ’Bro rin chen ’bar, who bequeathed them to sBas blo gros dbang phyug, who for his part transmitted them to lDang ma lhun rgyal the elder. Seeing that conditions were not right to hand over the root text at that time, Vimalamitra hid it as a treasure teaching (Tib. gter ma) at the dGe gong of mChims phu near bSam yas (mChims phu brag dmar dge gong - Red Rock Cavern of Chimphu). For his part, Myang ting ’dzin bzang po hid the Explanatory Tantras in the Zhwe temple that he built in Uru, and these were later revealed by lDang ma lhun rgyal the elder, who between the eleventh or twelfth century CE communicated the two forms of the teaching he possessed—the oral instruction and the Explanatory Tantras—to the above-mentioned lCe btsun Seng ge dbang phyug, who as a result of his direct encounters with the vajra body of Vimalamitra, received the sNying thig teachings directly from him and later on revealed the original texts that the latter had concealed in mChims phu—and then, at the age of hundred and twenty five, demonstrated the total transference (Tib. ’pho ba chen po). It was at a later stage that kLong chen rab ’byams pa edited these teachings into their present form. (b) Those of the [Man ngag] mkha’ ’gro snying thig originating from Padmasambhava. The great Master from Oḍḍiyāna hid the eighteen Tantras of this transmission, which were extensive pith instructions (Skt. upadeśa; Tib. man ngag), in a rock in lower Bum thang (in the current kingdom of Bhutan), and the profoundly condensed upadeśas in Dwags po (in the south of current Tibet); the texts in Dwags po were revealed centuries later by revealer (Tib. gter ston) Pad ma las ’brel rtsal, who had been recognized as the Tulku of the daughter of King Khri srong lde btsan to whom Padmasambhava had entrusted them after her early death, upon summoning her back to life, while the Bum thang texts were revealed later by kLong chen rab ’byams pa (recognized as the sprul sku of revealer Pad ma las ’brel rtsal), who edited the teachings into their definitive form. 1 2 4 687 (c) In our times, the most practiced sNying thig teachings are perhaps those of the kLong chen snying thig revealed by the great revealer (Tib. gter ston) ’Jigs med gling pa (who had visions of kLong chen rab ’byams pa, as well as of Mañjuśrīmitra and Padmasambhava, among others). For an account of the lineages of the Bi ma sNying thig and the [Man ngag] mKha’ ’gro snying thig, see Chögyal Namkhai Norbu’s Foreword to: Reynolds (trans., 1996). Some teachings of the Sūtrayāna were also transmitted as treasure teachings (Tib. gter ma): as already noted, it is held that Śākyamuni’s left the Prajñāpāramitāsūtras in the custody of the King of the nāgas for Nāgārjuna to take them out as gter ma when the times were ripe. This is a well-known fact, diffused in the West at a relatively early date thanks to the publication, in EvansWentz (ed.; Sangdup, trans. 1954), of the translation of a gter ma by Padmasambhava revealed by Kar ma gLing pa. In this publication it is asserted that “the supreme revealer cannot be a eunuch,” which is an obligatory reference when presenting the translation of a treasure teachings discovered by that revealer, who died prematurely as a result of not having been able to unite with the consort prophesized to him and not having obtained certain required omens. One of the footnotes from a recent translation of the same gter ma of Kar ma gLing pa—namely Reynolds (1989b)—reads (p. 130): “If a tertön discovers a complete cycle of terma teachings, he must then meet with his secret consort (gsang yum) in order to pursue certain secret practices; and if (the tertön has until then been) a monk, generally he will have to give up the robe and become a sngags pa or Tantric yogin.” In Tulku Thöndup’s essay “The Terma Tradition” (in Tulku Thöndup, 1995, pp. 100-101) we read: “Most of the tertöns, before discovering any ter, seem to be ordinary people. They do not necessarily appear as scholars, meditators or tulkus. However, due to their inner spiritual attainments and the transmissions they have received in their past lives, they suddenly begin discovering mystic ters at the appropriate time, without the need of any apparent training. At the beginning, skeptics often raise doubts about these discoveries from such unexpected people. In some cases, a tertön’s natural directness and honesty may appear as unconventional or even impolite to those who hold conservative values. But gradually, if they are true ter discoveries, they gain the recognition of higher spiritual authorities and the respect of the people, whom they benefit. It is important to understand this cultural context; otherwise a great tertön may be mistaken for a charlatan. For example, it is unfortunate that a Western author recently disparaged a great tertön of the rNying ma tradition by citing criticism of the tertön by some of his unqualified contemporary detractors and by portraying the tertön’s expressions of humility (on the one hand) and confidence in realization (on the other hand) as contradictions, even though these are characteristics of the writings of many Buddhists sages.” According to some accounts, Ye shes mtsho rgyal was a Chinese consort of King Khri srong lde btsan; however, the most widely accepted version is that she was a Tibetan noble lady (or princess). According to some accounts, she was married to the King. As we have seen repeatedly, the dharmadhātu is primordial space, where everything that appears and can be known arises. The counterpart of the dharmadhātu is the Awake awareness that pervades it and that is absolutely indivisible from it. If the dharmadhātu is nam mkha’ or boundless space, and rang rig or self-arisen rig pa is the source of treasures, then rang rig is like a nor bu (Skt. cintāmāṇi; Tib. yid bzhin nor bu) or wish-fulfilling jewel. In this sense, it may be said that the source of treasures is Nam mkha’i nor bu. Furthermore, there is a direct relation between the discovery of gter ma and the original Greek meaning of the term “symbol:” two friends would tear a piece of cardboard in such a way that the two resulting sides would fit, so that by putting the two pieces of cardboard together they could either recognize each other in the future, or send someone unknown to the other party to seek help. A gter ston receives from outside what could be compared to the other side of the cardboard, and this awakens him to the existence and meaning of his own side of it—and thus the whole comes out in the form of the treasure. The mutual recognition of the gter ston and the one providing a key for his discoveries, or of the gter ston and the holder of the treasures (i.e. his lineage holder), is also related to the original Greek meaning of the term “symbol.” And so on. For an “intermediate” explanation of treasures or gter ma, I particularly recommend Tulku Thöndup’s essay “The Terma Tradition,” reproduced in Tulku Thöndup (1995). For a more extensive discussion, Tulku Thöndup (1986), may be consulted. Namkhai Norbu (1999/2001, p. 93). In Namkhai Norbu and A. Clemente (English 1999), Note 9 by Adriano Clemente, p. 275, we read: 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 688 “The mantras called rigs sngags have the characteristic feature of always having specific functions related to diverse requirements or needs.” In Chán or Zen there is another esoteric explanation of the Three Jewels (Skt. ratnatraya or triratna; Pāḷi ratanattaya or tiratana; Tib. dkon mchog gsum; Ch. 三寶 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, sānbǎo; Wade-Giles, san -pao ; Jap. sanbō]), which posits three levels of meaning: (1) “the three precious ones as one single body;” (2) “the three precious ones as manifestation;’ and (3) “the three precious ones as verification.” For an explanation of these, see: Fischer-Schreiber, Erhard, & Diener (1989, entrance on Sambo, pp. 183-184). (Also Schumacher & Woerner (1993, entrance on Sambo, p. 302). When the three Paths are taken into account, the Path of Renunciation of the Sūtrayāna is the outer Path, the Path of Transformation of the Vajrayāna is the inner Path, and the Path of Spontaneous Liberation of the Atiyogatantrayāna is the secret Path; therefore, in this context Sūtrayāna-style Refuge is the outer Refuge, Vajrayāna-style Refuge is the inner Refuge, and Atiyogatantrayāna-style Refuge is the secret Refuge. The rDzogs chen teachings (and also the sudden Mahāyāna, consisting in Chán or Zen) emphasize the fact that beings are our own hypostasized / reified / valorized / absolutized thoughts. When we are possessed by malevolent thoughts, we are beings of the purgatories (Skt. nāraka; Pāli nerayika; Tib. dmyal ba; Ch. 地獄有情 or 地獄衆⽣ [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, dìyù yoǔqíng or dìyù zhòngshēng; Wade-Giles, ti -yü yu -ch’ing or ti -yü chung -sheng ); when we are possessed by craving thoughts, we are craving spirits or Tantaluses (Skt. preta; Pāli peta; Tib. yi dwags; Ch. 餓⻤ [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, èguǐ; Wade-Giles, o -kuei ]); and so on. Insofar as we become a certain kind of individual due to being consistently possessed by various classes of recurrent thoughts, which succeed each other in consistent ways, we make ourselves continuous individuals, becoming a given “seed of direction of energies” (Skt. bīja; Tib. sa bon; Ch. 種⼦ [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhǒngzí; Wade-Giles, chung -tzu ]). Furthermore, whenever we act under the influence of hypostasized / reified / absolutized / valorized thoughts of any of the six realms, it is ourselves (rather than the thoughts) who create karma for rebirth in that realm, for our consciousness volitionally puts itself under the influence of a given type of thoughts and then acts under their sway. In fact, by acting under the influence of a given type of thoughts we create the cause for putting ourselves under the influence of the same type of thoughts in the future, and thus to take birth in the corresponding realm. In rDzogs chen, in particular, “emptying saṃsāra” does not signify that there are no longer human beings, animals and so on in a physical, external reality; it means that the uninterrupted process of spontaneous liberation of thought burns out the seed for delusory thoughts to arise, and therefore such thoughts can no longer occur. Once this happens, as ’Jigs med gling pa, among other realized masters, remarked, though sentient beings having the right view and propensities perceive the fully realized individual as acting on their behalf, the latter no longer perceives sentient beings to be helped or Awakened. As noted in an endnote before last, when the three Paths are taken into account, the Path of Renunciation of the Sūtrayāna is the outer Path, the Path of Transformation of the Vajrayāna is the inner Path, and the Path of Spontaneous Liberation of the Atiyogatantrayāna is the secret Path; therefore, in this context the Refuge proper to the Sūtrayāna is the outer Refuge, the Refuge proper to the Vajrayāna is the inner Refuge, and the Refuge proper to the Atiyogatantrayāna is the secret Refuge. The Refuge of the Path of Renunciation only lasts until our death in the present life, as only the level of body is taken into account—and the level of the body, unlike that of energy, ends up when this life ends. I used the Tibetan term thig le because, as we have seen, it comprises the meaning of the Skt. term bindu— which I render as seed-essence—and also has a sense similar to that of kuṇḍalinī—being on the latter context that I render the term as energetic volume determining the scope of awareness. It must be noted that according to an ampler interpretation of the term thig le, the whole of the “physical” world is made of thig le. Since thig le is energy, this interpretation is reminiscent of Einstein’s Field Theory. (However, Einstein’s theory may be interpreted as assuming that there is an objectively existing universe external to the individual, which is not the case in the rDzogs chen teachings: though they also posit the Base as an “objective” reality, they do not assert the universe to exist objectively as a reality that is external to the individual.) It has been stated that these energetic “winds” carry “red and white” drops along the structural pathways called rtsa (discussed in the immediately following note), and that the ovum and the sperm are the gross referents of these “drops.” This should not be understood literally: the “winds” do not carry drops of different colors, and if they are said to do so this is a symbolic statement proper to the Tantric Path of Transformation. The point is that it is the thig le energy discussed in the preceding note that, in a polarized form, is said to circulate through the “structural pathways” called rtsa (see the following note for a 583 1 3 584 585 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 3 2 586 587 588 589 689 3 3 2 consideration of the mode of existence of these pathways) as the different types of rlung or srog. Since, as we have seen, the energetic volume determining the scope of awareness is directly related to retention of the thig les or bindus consisting in the ovum and the sperm, one pole of the energy called thig le is symbolically represented with the color of sperm and the other pole is represented with that of menstrual blood. Furthermore, some particular experiences associated with these colors are directly related to the subtle energetic winds. (The translation of the terms thig le and bindu as “drop” seems to be mainly related to the fact that both semen when ejected and menstrual blood when it oozes out, do so as drops.) In terms of the interpretation according to which the whole universe is made of thig le, which in a previous note was compared to Einstein’s Field Theory, all moving patterns of this constituting energy may be referred to as rlung, and all structures associated with or generated by these moving patterns may be referred to as rtsa. (Though in note before last I compared this interpretation to Einstein’s Field Theory, I warned that the rDzogs chen teachings posit the Base as an “objective” reality, but do not assert the universe to exist objectively as a reality external to the individual.) Skt. nāḍī; Tib. rtsa. These are not materially existing channels, but possible structure-functions of the circulation of energy. In fact, Rig ’dzin byang chub rdo rje, root teacher of Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu, asserted that the fact that these structural pathways are not physical channels is proven by the fact that different Tantras describe their structure differently, and yet the practices taught in the different Tantras are effective in producing their respective results. As stated in the preceding endnote, in terms of the interpretation according to which the whole of reality is made of thig le, perhaps the rtsa may correspond to the structures of reality. As stated in a previous endnote, the state free from delusion in which the nondual primordial gnosis that is the Base has become evident is designated in the rDzogs chen teachings by the term rig pa, which corresponds to the Sanskrit vidyā, and which I translate in this book as “Awake awareness” (because it refers to the patency of sems nyid, which is best translated as “nature of mind,” “essence of mind,” or “Base Awareness,” and which is the essential awareness that is the Base of all experiences of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa), or as Instant or Absolute Presence (the term is capitalized to make it clear that it should not be understood in the dualistic Platonic sense of “being before”, for it is an absolute Presence beyond dualism rather than the dualistic, relative presence of some entity). As stated in a previous note, the Master Nam mkha’i nor bu initially translated the same term as “Knowledge,” which corresponds to explanations in the rDzogs chen Tantras of the Series of Pith Instructions according to which rig pa in rDzogs chen, just like in the Buddhist explanations of the four vidyās, refers to knowledge, which in this case is the knowledge of the true condition. However, in translations of the Master’s teachings I used to write the term “Knowledge” with a capital letter in order to contrast its meaning with the one that the word has in ordinary language, which corresponds to its dualistic etymology (as we have seen, according to Paul Claudel, knowledge [la connaissance] is the co-birth [la co-naissance] of the subject and the object— which clearly refers to the state characterized by dualism and delusion). For a more exhaustive explanation of the reasons why I translate the term rig pa by three different English words, the reader may refer to the relevant note. As we have seen repeatedly, when the three Paths are taken into account, the Path of Renunciation of the Sūtrayāna is the outer Path, the Path of Transformation of the Vajrayāna is the inner Path, and the Path of Spontaneous Liberation of the Atiyogatantrayāna is the secret Path; therefore, in this context Sūtrayāna-style Refuge is outer Refuge, Vajrayāna-style Refuge is inner Refuge, and Atiyogatantrayānastyle Refuge is secret Refuge. I have used the term “element of Refuge” rather than “object of Refuge” because the word “object” could not be validly applied to the condition that is free from the subject-object duality. In Namkhai Norbu (1999/2001, p. 102), Padmasambhava’s words were rendered as “gompa should be based on experience;” however, the great Master of Oḍḍiyāna did not mean that gompa should be based on dualistic, conditioned appearances that veil our true condition (which as we have seen is the meaning of the word “experience”), but on the continuity of the direct, nondual unveiling of the latter condition. As stated repeatedly, concepts are limits because they automatically and by their own nature: (1) include whatever they refer to into a higher-level, larger category (genus proximum), and (2) exclude a category or set of categories of the same level and extension (differentia specifica)—the latter being that which Ācārya Dignāga meant by saying that the contents of thought are defined by exclusion (Skt. apoha; Tib. sel ba; 除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chú; Wade-Giles, ch’u ] or 遮除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhēchú; Wade-Giles, che ch’u ]) of all other concepts, or, as it is also called, by exclusion of other (Skt. anyāpoha; Tib. gzhan sel; Ch. 他感排除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tā gǎn páichú; Wade-Giles, t’a -kan p’ai -ch’u ]; another possibility, though 590 591 592 593 594 595 2 1 2 1 690 3 2 2 far less likely: 他者的遮除 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, tāzhědí zhēchú; Wade-Giles, t’a -che -ti che -ch’u ]). Limits are represented with corners because corners confine space (just like concepts create limits), and the absence of limits is represented with circles, spheres and so on, because such geometrical figures have no corners. The dharmakāya is represented with a circle for one of the same reasons why the state of rDzogs chen (whether qua Base, qua Path or qua Fruit) is represented with a total sphere (Tib. thig le chen po): because it cannot be confined into concepts (perhaps another reason why the state of rDzogs chen is represented with a total thig le could be because the term thig le refers to the energy that makes up the whole of reality, but here we are not concerned with listing all of the reasons why the term thig le chen po is used to refer to the condition of rDzogs chen). It so happens that the dharmakāya, rDzogs chen qua Path, rDzogs chen qua Fruit and so on, are a state beyond the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of concepts, and therefore they are is totally beyond limits (which in terms of the above way of representing reality, means that it is free from corners). Furthermore, the state of rDzogs chen qua Path or of rDzogs chen qua Fruit is the unveiling of the Base that is the true condition of ourselves and the universe and that, since it encompasses everything and thus has neither genus proximum nor differentiam specificam— the latter signifying that it does not exclude anything—cannot be cast into the Procrustean bed of concepts. The same is the case with the dharmakāya, which since it consists in the direct unveiling of the ngo bo or “essence” aspect of the Base, also cannot be cast into the Procrustean bed of concepts. In particular, the Behavior (Tib. spyod pa) of gCod has always been an excellent catalyst of the practice of rDzogs chen. Practitioners of gCod traditionally hanged around with outcasts, lepers (as will be shown in Part Three of this book, the successful practitioners of gCod become immune to infectious illnesses) and in general the most despised individuals, and therefore they were object of extremely negative judgments on the side of the respectable members of society and of whoever was not an outcast, a leper and so on. Furthermore, in the case of beginners, the contact with lepers, with septic charnel grounds, with filth and so on, would easily elicit judgments giving rise to apprehension and fear. Since all such things may cause contradiction to turn into conflict, giving rise to unpleasant feelings, anguish and so on, this mode of conduct was an excellent catalyst for the practice of the Path of Spontaneous Liberation of A ti rDzogs pa chen po. Likewise, as shown in Namkhai Norbu and Adriano Clemente (English 1999), quite a few of the female lineage-holders of the rDzogs chen teachings earned a living as prostitutes. This allowed them not to be confined to a home as fully-time housewives or to be under the power of a husband as her lord, and served the same purpose as the behavior of the practitioners of gCod because it made them object of the negative judgments of “respectable” members of society, and forced them to have recurrent contact with sources of contamination and filth. The Vajra Essence (Tib. Dag snang ye shes drva pa las gnas lugs rang byung gi rgyud rdo rje’i snying po)—a treasure teaching revealed by Dudjom Lingpa—notes (alternative trans. by A. Wallace in Dudjom Lingpa, 2015, Vol. 3, pp. 182-183): “Until you reach the state of extinction into the absolute condition [(i.e. the fourth vision of the practice of Thod rgal)], you must rightly avoid the bad and adopt the good in terms of actions and their consequences. Until you obtain the four kinds of great, fearless confidence that are the indications of having attained liberation, suffering will result from non-virtue and joy will result from virtue.” For his part, Atīśa’s guru from Suvarṇadvīpa (a name often taken to designate the island of Sumatra) known as Dharmakīrti or Dharmapāla told his excellent disciple: “So long as there is the slightest grasping [in you], you must [most] carefully observe the law of cause and effect.” However, in this case the practice may be much simpler than in Tantrism, for rather than visualizing a complete Refuge tree, it may suffice to have one’s own teacher in the form of the supreme Master dGa’ rab rdo rje, lord of all rig ’dzin, who was the historic source of the transmission and teachings of the Buddhist form of rDzogs chen Atiyoga by directly transmitting the effortless single state in which our own primordial condition of total plenitude and perfection (ati rdzogs pa chen po) is disclosed, and teaching the means to stabilize this unveiling. If one so wishes, to the Master’s right (from our perspective, to his left) one may visualize the deva, devatā or yi dam one uses the most in one’s practice, and to his left (from our perspective, to his right) one may visualize the ḍākinī or mkha’ ’gro one uses the most in one’s practice. (If one so wishes, in addition to one’s own Master in the form of dGa’ rab rdo rje and to the devatā and the ḍākinī, one may visualize other teachers, other devatās and other ḍākinīs.) If one so prefers, one may visualize the image of one’s own teacher instead of dGa’ rab rdo rje’s, but this is less common, since it is more difficult to maintain pure vision with regard to a teacher whom we see in a 1 596 597 598 691 3 2 1 2 physical body just like ours, than with respect to a Master whom we have never met in this life and who has a legendary spiritual stature for us—and who, moreover, left the human existence in a most extraordinary way. At any rate, if one’s own teacher is visualized as the central figure, dGa’ rab rdo rje should be visualized in the center of his/her heart, or above his/her head, as a symbol of our connection with the rDzogs chen lineage through our teacher. In any case, another difference of this practice with regard to those of Tantrism is that here we consider that the image of dGa’ rab rdo rje represents, not only the Master from whom we receive rDzogs chen teachings, but the unification of the totality of the vajra Masters that we may have had in our present lifetime, no matter the school, tradition or transmission lineage to which they may have belonged. As it has been shown, there are also those pratyekabuddhas who live at a time when there is neither a living nirmāṇakāya Buddha, nor dharma, nor saṃgha, and who, nonetheless, attain realization by meditating on the twelve links of interdependent origination. An example of this was given in a previous endnote. As we have seen, according to a Mahāyāna explanation of the outer, inner and secret meaning of the term saṃgha, the outer saṃgha consists of the whole of the Buddhist monks and nuns, the inner saṃgha is constituted by the superior (Skt. ārya; Tib. ’phags pa; Ch. 聖 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, shèng; Wade-Giles, sheng ]) bodhisattvas (i.e. the bodhisattvas who have attained the first bhūmi and the corresponding third path, but who have not yet reached the eleventh bhūmi and the corresponding fifth path), and the secret saṃgha is the nirmāṇakāya of Buddha. In this sense, lay superior bodhisattvas are not only counted among the “true helpers of the practice” from whom one receives teachings, information and example, but, moreover, may be helpers of this kind in a more effective way and in a truer sense than monks and nuns. Tib. rig ’dzin; Skt. vidyādhara. As we have seen, the first element of this composite term, which in Tibetan is rig (the root syllable of the word rig pa) and in Sanskrit is vidyā, refers to the state of nonconceptual and hence nondual Awake awareness, instant Presence or absolute Presence in which the totally complete form of nonstatic nirvāṇa is patent and operative. In both languages the second element of the term (Tib. ’dzin; Skt. dhara) means “to hold” or “to possess.” Four principal types of rig ’dzin (Tib. rig ’dzin rnam bzhi) are listed: the rig ’dzin of maturation (Tib. rnam smin rig ’dzin), the rig ’dzin of the power of long life (Tib. tshe dbang rig ’dzin), the rig ’dzin of Mahāmudrā or total symbol (Tib. phyag chen rig ’dzin) and the rig ’dzin of spontaneous perfection / spontaneous arising / spontaneous rectification / spontaneous accomplishment (Tib. lhun grub rig ’dzin). The key point to hold in mind is that, although there are different types of rig ’dzin, the supreme rig ’dzin are those whose condition corresponds to the etymological meaning of the term: the realized ones who are established in the unveiling of the primordial state transmitted by the rDzogs chen teaching and the inner Tantras. In Atiyoga zhi khro terms, rig ’dzin of this type are those who have mastered the dynamics of the peaceful and wrathful deities in practices such as Thod rgal or the Yang thig / Yang ti—for which reason they are visualized between both types of deities in the Tantric versions of the practice of zhi khro. (Wrathful deities symbolize the conflict resulting from the arising of aversion [Skt. dveṣa; Pāḷi dosa; Tib. zhe sdang; Ch. 瞋 (Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, chēn; Wade-Giles ch’en ), and peaceful ones here represent the state of nonduality in which there is neither conflict nor aversion: see my own brief explanation of the rDzogs chen Menngagde or Upadeśavarga as a lhun grub zhi khro in the discussion of the practice of Thod rgal or the Yang thig / Yang ti in this volume and, in greater detail, in Vol. II [and perhaps Vol. III] of this book and in Capriles [2013b].) Fuel for the Guru-yoga is provided by the Master’s exhibiting apparent contradictions, or scolding and / or berating the disciple, for such occurrences make the disciple’s contradictions turn into conflict, thereby potentiating the practice of Guru-yoga. This is so because if the disciple is a serious practitioner, her or his tendency to incur in mental violations of the samaya will create a greatly enhanced awareness of his or her contradictions, and as these become conflict it will be impossible to ignore them and thus she or he will be forced to deal with them the rDzogs chen way. (It seems important to note that the Master’s behavior is not planned, but responds to the needs of disciples and is based on the spontaneous activation of the Master’s propensities, which have become skillful means operating as vehicles of wisdom.) In fact, in the case of some especially gifted or advanced students, the external teacher might even go so far as to offer them instructions that do not correspond to the true meaning of the teaching, in order to ascertain if they have or have not acquired sufficient confidence in the View and skill in the practice as to point this out, or as to act differently than they are told. However, one should not use this as an alibi in order to disobey the Master: one must never assume one has a great capacity. At any rate, since snakes quite often show themselves as such precisely when they are trying to act like dragons, thereby the teacher may succeed in having the former and latter stand apart and show their true colors. (Snakes symbolize 599 600 4 601 1 602 603 692 the ego, which always leaves its trail, just as snakes inevitably do by slithering on the earth; dragons represent Awakening, with its qualities of power and energy, and in this case symbolize the impossibility of determining the mental state of the Awake Ones through their activities: since dragons fly through the skies, they do not leave any tracks, and even as they glide through the skies they cannot be seen, for they hide within a cloud, which moves along with them.) rDzogs chen Masters teach their students to live without rules: so long as the state of rig pa (Awake Awareness, Presence or Truth) is manifest, their behavior flows through the selfless spontaneity of that state; when it is not manifest, their behavior must be completely based on “the presence of responsible awareness” (Skt. smṛtisaṃprajanya; Pāḷi satisampajañña; Tib. dran pa dang shes bzhin; Ch. 正念慧 [Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, zhèngniànhuì; Wade-Giles, cheng -nien -hui ]; Italian, “presenza della consapevolezza”). With regard to the latter, Chos rgyal Nam mkha’i nor bu has given in a book on practice the following examples: responsible awareness is to know that a glass full of poison is indeed full of poison, and that if we drink it we will die or suffer a serious intoxication; presence is not to be distracted, for otherwise even if we know the glass if full of poison we might drink it inadvertently. In this example, drinking the poison represents producing harm, no matter whether the harm is suffered by ourselves or others (the latter being doubly toxic because it harms both those others and ourselves equally). The statements of rDzogs chen Masters arise to cut through the limits established in their students by the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of thoughts, which constitute a mental prison, rather than being intended to establish either a philosophical viewpoint concerning reality, or a series of norms to follow (which may be illustrated very well by the answers that the Chán Master Dàzhū Huìhǎi (⼤珠慧海; Wade-Giles, Ta -chu Hui -hai ; Jap. Daishu Ekai) gave a Tripiṭaka Master who tried to ridicule him, which will be reproduced in the possibly upcoming definitive version in print of Capriles (electronic publication 2004.) However, in general all that Masters say in order to free their disciples from clinging to laws and to allow them to overcome the hypostatization / reification / absolutization / valorization of thought, is turned into a law by their unrealized disciples. This has been compared to prisoners using the instructions given by a liberator who sneaked into a jail to which they are confined with the intent to allow them to escape, in order to establish a “prison cult” that would keep anyone else from escaping from jail. (In the simile, the liberator manages to help a group of prisoners to escape from jail, and it is after his or her death that those who remain in jail use his or her teachings to build the prison cult,) There are seven sets of prātimokṣasaṃvara (Tib. so sor thar pa’i sdom pa) or prātimokṣa vows: (1) that of the bhikṣu or dge slong, for those who have been fully ordained as monks; (2) that of the bhikṣuṇī or dge slong ma, for those who have been fully ordained as nuns; (3) that of the śrāmaṇera or dge tshul, for novice monks who have not been fully ordained; (4) that of the śrāmaṇerikā / śrāmaṇerī or dge tshul ma, for novice nuns who have not been fully ordained; (5) that of the upāsaka or dge bsnyen, for laymen; (6) that of the upāsikā or dge bsnyen ma, for laywomen, and (7) śikṣamāṇā or dge slobs ma, for nuns who aspire to the vow of dge slong ma. If we also consider the sets of temporal vows for lay practitioners known as upavāsa or bsnyen gnas in the case of the male, and as upavāsi and bsnyen gnas ma in the case of the female, but we list them as a single set of vows, there are a total of eight sets of prātimokṣa vows. In a different listing of these vows that also enumerates seven of them, that of śikṣamāṇā or dge slobs ma is excluded, and the temporal vows for lay practitioners of the two sexes are listed as one. In this case, when the set of vows of the dge slobs ma is added, we have eight sets of vows of the prātimokṣa. I am using the term “ejaculate” in a particularly ample sense. It is universally known that normally the word refers to the emission by males of their seed-essence, and since the seed-essence of females only comes out in menstruation, there is no exact equivalent of ejaculation in their case. However, the analogy between so-called squirting by females upon vaginal orgasm and the emission of semen by males seemed to justify the use of the term “ejaculation” in the case of women also. Note 284, written by the author, in Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal] (1999/2001, p. 253), reads: The terms translated here (as) ‘ascetic practice’ and ‘resolute conduct’ are dka’ thub and brtul zhugs, respectively. In their regard Rong zom pa comments (Tibetan Text 4: p. 265, 5): “The term dka’ thub (asceticism) corresponds to the (Sanskrit) tapasya [note by the author of this book: more properly, tapas, as tapasya refers to the one who practices tapas], and means self-sacrifice: a particular conduct in which, wishing to realize the fruit of the supreme qualities, one mortifies one’s body. The word brtul zhugs (resolute conduct) instead corresponds to the (Sanskrit) vrata and means ‘(to) alter’: a particular conduct in which, wishing to realize the fruit of the supreme qualities, one alters one’s past attitude in order to acquire a new one.” In Dudjom Rinpoche (English 1991, Vol. I, p. 277), we read: 604 4 4 1 4 3 605 606 607 693 4 4 “Above all, the distinctive feature of skillful means is that, if one is endowed with the foundation of the View, and practices the discipline of Behavior which directly overpowers the three poisons (ignorance, aversionfear and attachment-desire) without renouncing them, (one) is not only unfettered but also obtains swiftly the result (that consists in) liberation. If, on the other hand, one who is not so endowed were to practice (this discipline), liberation would not be obtained and there would be a great risk (that he or she may fall) into evil existences, so that there is a great danger, as in the (alchemical use of) mercury (for the sudden transformation of iron into gold).” Note 267, by the translators, in Dudjom Rinpoche (English 1991, Vol. II, p. 19), explains the meaning of the word “mercury” in the above passage: “Skt. mākṣika. This is a specific kind of mercury that is reputedly employed as a catalyst for the transmutation of iron into gold. Refer to ’Ju Mi pham rin po che, sPyi don’od gsal snying po, pp. 48-49.” In the ritual known as gaṇapūja, practitioners are constrained to drink alcohol and eat meat, in spite of the first being absolutely forbidden by the Vinaya (the “basket” or section of the Tripiṭaka that regulates conduct on the Path of Renunciation and, in particular, in the Hīnayāna) and the second being allowed (and, moreover, being compulsory) only when the meat is put in the begging bowl of a monk or nun (provided that the recipient knows for certain that the animal was not sacrificed with the specific aim of offering him or her the meat, and that the animal involved is not a dog, a viper, a tiger, a bear or a hyena). Despite the above, a series of Mahāyāna sūtras including the Laṅkāvatārasūtra, the Śūraṅgamasūtra, the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra, the Hastikakṣyasūtra, the Mahāmeghasūtra and the Aṅgulimālīyasūtra strongly discourage the consumption of meat and, in many cases, that of other “nonwhite” foods (in terms of the Hindu guṇas, “nonsattvic” foods). Furthermore, traditionally a Tantric practitioner would have to consume the mixture of menstrual blood and semen that the Master and his or her consort periodically produce in order to provide disciples with the means for maintaining their samaya. However, nowadays this and the consumption of other substances such as feces and urine are not carried out by the bulk of a Tantric Master’s disciples. The state of Mahāmudrā may be attained by means of the practice of the Anuttarayogatantras or by means of the formless practice associated with the Tantric teachings that is also called Mahāmudrā, and which in its formless form is most widespread in the bKa’ brgyud School (which incorporated both Tantric and Sutric forms) and the Sakya School (which teaches a purely Tantric form); Gelug texts bearing the title Mahāmudrā seem to me to differ widely from both the bKa’ brgyud and Sa skya forms of Mahāmudrā. The state of Mahāmudrā is the same no matter which way we follow for attaining it; however, the methods whereby it is attained in the practice with form of Anuttarayogatantra could hardly be more different from those whereby it is attained in the formless practice called Mahāmudrā. Wylie, thig le. It has been repeatedly stated that this Tibetan term renders the Sanskrit word bindu and also has a meaning similar to that of the Sanskrit word kuṇḍalinī. Since there are various types of bindu, it is important to note that in this case the term makes specific reference to the seminal bindu; however, it must be clear by now that the reason for retaining the seminal bindu is in order to maintain a high thig le in the sense that is near to that of kuṇḍalinī. Here reference is being made to the meaning of the word when body, energy or voice and mind are spoken of. The stopping of menstruation is achieved by means of practices of rtsa-rlung-thig le associated with yantra yoga, and the oral ingestion of a traditional medicine. In Namkhai Norbu and Adriano Clemente, English 1999, Note 146 by Adriano Clemente (in p. 275) reads: “The most common classification of the “ten natures of Tantra” (rgyud kyi rang bzhin bcu or rgyud kyi dngos po bcu) consists of: lta ba, spyod pa, dkyil ’khor, dbang, dam tshig, ’phrin las, sgrub pa, ting nge ’dzin, mchod pa, sngags. See, for example, the chapter of the Byang chub kyi sems shes bya mtha’ gcod kyi rgyud titled rGyud kyi dngos po bstan pa’i le’u; in rNying-ma rgyud ’bum, mTshams brag edition, vol. Ka, pp. 288-352, Thimpu 1982). The list given by kLong chen pa (Longchen Rabjam, You Are the Eyes of the World, pp. 34-35) has: lta ba, sgom pa, dam tshig, ’phrin las, dkyil ’khor, dbang, sa sbyang ba, lam bgrod pa, sgrib pa sbyang ba, ye shes dam sangs rgyas. See also Dudjom Rinpoche (English 1991, vol. II, p. 164). Sometimes there are variations in the chapters of the Kun byed rgyal po and in other Sems sde texts also regarding the “ten absences” (Tib. med pa bcu) that are the true meaning of the ten natures.” In Anuyoga four aspects of the samaya commitment are also spoken of that imply something similar to the four med pa: (1) there are no limits to abide by because the essence of the supreme commitment is freedom with respect to transgressions and violations; (2) there is total equality and equanimity because the subject-object duality has been overcome; (3) there is nothing more than the expanse of the nature of 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 694 mind; (4) the state of rig pa is never abandoned. Cf. Tibetan Text 11, B: vol. 2, p. 189; quoted in Dudjom Rinpoche, English 1991, Vol. II, p. 138. In fact, if we judge the Master and/or other practitioners we will be violating the rDzogs chen samaya, which requires us to continue uninterruptedly in the state of rig pa beyond judgments and all types of dualism. For this reason, this samaya with the Master is not totally apart from the rDzogs chen samaya requiring us to be in the state of rig pa beyond judgments and dualism—which as we have seen is violated by the dualistic attempt to keep one’s various samayas or commitments. The ten nonvirtuous actions are the most general actions to be avoided by Buddhists. They comprise three actions that are carried out with the body, four that are carried out with the voice, and three that are carried out with the mind. In Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal] (1991/2001, pp. 55-56), we read: “The ten nonvirtuous actions include three actions related to the body: 1. Killing. 2. Stealing. 3. Sexual misconduct (in the case of ordained persons this means indulging in sexual intercourse, and in the case of lay people indulging in those forms of sexual conduct that may be harmful to others or that are ruled out by their respective precepts). “Four actions related to the voice: 4. Lying. 5. Slandering. 6. Insulting. 7. Speaking in vain. “Three actions related to the mind: 8. Craving other people’s property. 9. Malevolence. 10. Upholding an erroneous view (the most important erroneous view being not believing in the law of cause and effect of karma).” Other forbidden actions are: the five actions with immediate result, the five actions near to those with immediate result, the four groups of four heavy actions each, and the eight contrary actions. Cf. Namkhai Norbu [Chögyal] (1991/2001, pp. 54-62). 615 616 695