Shentong madhyamaka and via negativa, a buddhist and a christian approach to the absolute

SHENTONG MADHYAMAKA AND VIA NEGATIVA, A BUDDHIST AND A CHRISTIAN APPROACH TO THE ABSOLUTE; WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON THE TEACHINGS OF THE BLESSED ANGELA OF FOLIGNO (1248/49-1309)
 AND THE OMNISCIENT DOLPOPA SHERAB GYALTSEN (1292-1361)
 
A thesis by
Ellen Rozett
presented to
The Faculty of the
Graduate Theological Union
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
Berkeley, California
April, 1996

                                        Committee signatures
                                        
                                        ____________________
                                        Coordinator
                                        ____________________
                                        ____________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
FOREWORD viii
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION 1
   A. In Search of a Common Language . . . . . . . . . . . 1
   B. Perennialists and Constructivists 4
   C. The Role of Mystics and their Teachings 16
CHAPTER TWO
THE CHARACTER AND HISTORICAL ROOTS OF VIA NEGATIVA
   AND UMA SHENTONG 24
   A. What Is Via Negativa? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 B. What Is Shentong Madhyamaka? 31
   C. The Development of Via Negativa 42
      1. Biblical Roots 42
      2. Hellenistic Roots 47
    3. Negative-Mystical Theology During the First
      500 Years 55
 4. The Pseudo-Dionysian Corpus 62
 5. Via Negativa in the European Middle Ages 65
   D. The Development of Uma Shentong 78
 1. In Search of a Positive Nirvana 78
 2. Tathagatagarbha and Anatman 86
 3. Buddha-gotra, Family of the Buddha, or Arya-
     gotra, Noble Family 90
 4. Tathagatagarbha and Madhyamaka 93
 5. Madhyamaka and Yogacara 99
CHAPTER THREE
THE HISTORICAL AND RELIGIO-CULTURAL SETTING OF
   ANGELA AND DOLPOPA 111
   A. Angela 111
      1. Her Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111
 2. Her Religious Inheritance 116
    a. Generally Catholic 116
       i. The Medieval Women's Movement 116
       ii. Union with God 121
       iii. Christian Silence 124
    b. Her Franciscan Inheritance 129
       i. Poverty 129
       ii. Penance and Mortification 132
 3. Her Person 134
 4. Her Position as a Woman 137
 5. The Impact of Her Work 145
   B. Dolpopa 148
      1. His Time 148
 2. His Religious Inheritance 152
    a. Tantra in Tibetan Buddhism 152
    b. The Sakya and Jonang Schools 156
    c. Buddhist Silence 158
 3. His Person 161
 4. His Position as an "Omniscient" Male Lineage
     Holder 164
 5. The Impact of His Work 169
CHAPTER FOUR
THE BASIC TEACHINGS 177
   A. The Textual Sources 177
      1. Angela's Works 177
      2. Dolpopa's Works 188
   B. What Angela Says About God 191
 1. Identity of Soul and God 196
 2. Nothingness of Soul and God 202
 3. God is Nothing and Everything 205
 4. Is God Inexpressible and Inconceivable? 206
   C. What Dolpopa Says About Buddha Nature 209
 1. Buddha Nature Is Absolute and the Ultimate
   Meaning of Buddha's Teachings 209
 2. Buddha Nature Has Inseparable, Uncompounded,
     and Inconceivable Qualities 212
      3. The Wisdom of Buddha Nature or: Buddha Jnana . .221
      4. The Compassion of Buddha Nature or:
            Buddha Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .224
 5. Buddha Nature Is No Other than Form 226
CHAPTER FIVE
COMMONALITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DOLPOPA'S BUDDHA
      NATURE AND ANGELA'S GOD. 232
   A. How Angela's Teachings Match Shentong Philosophy 234
      1. The Nothingness of Things 234
  2. The No-thing-ness or Inconceivability of the
      Absolute 235
 3. The Qualities of Buddha Nature and God 241
    a. Absolute Wisdom 242
    b. Unborn, Uncreated Love 248
   B. How Buddhism Could Help Angela 252
   C. How Angela Could Resolve Buddhist Debates 256
   D. Public Logic Versus Private Intuition 259
   E. Angela's Silence and Buddhist Non-conceptuality 262
CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSION 270
ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .276
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 277

"Qui nescit orare non cognoscit Deum." Gil of Assisi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks be to the One who transcends one and many, for inspiration and sustenance.
Thanks also to Shenpen Hookham, my unknown sister in the Dharma, for her faithful and thorough research without which this thesis would have been impossible.
Thanks to my advisors for tolerating my stubbornness and a thesis they agree with only partially.
Thanks to my parents in law, Kathryn and Walter Rozett. During the last phase of writing, they kept my body from illness or starvation, my mind from insanity, and my thesis from the most grave mistakes and crude language.
A Moroccan once told me that Muslim carpet manufacturers purposefully leave one mistake in their pieces of art in order to acknowledge that only God can do anything perfectly. I am so taken with that idea that the reader will most likely find many mistakes in this thesis - the sole purpose being, of course, to remind us just how limited the human intellect is and how unable to portray spiritual matters appropriately.

FOREWORD
The objective of this study is to help dispel the widespread view that Buddhism and Christianity are irreconcilable. To this end Christian-Buddhist dialogue has already accomplished a lot. Hence it may no longer be difficult for many people to concede that there is a kinship between the two religions as far as their basic emphasis on ethics, compassion, and spiritual rather than worldly values is concerned. But when it comes to the core, namely how does each religion think of the absolute and consequently of reality as a whole, most people still think that Buddhism and Christianity are incompatible.
It is true that much of Christian and Buddhist theologies and philosophies are indeed quite distinct. One generally affirms a real God who created a real world. The other negates a creator-God and often also the reality of this world. Buddhist philosophy calls this absence of any reality that could be grasped as truly existent "emptiness".
However, even in regard to the absolute there are Buddhist and Christian schools of thought that are very much akin. This thesis seeks to show that Shentong Madhyamaka and Mystical-Negative theology are one example. Although Shentongpas do not negate the validity of emptiness, they nonetheless affirm (in a certain way) positive characteristics of the absolute such as existence, wisdom, compassion, and even form. And although Mystical- Negative theologians do not negate the usefulness of thinking of God as the Creator, they also speak of an absolute reality that transcends all human concepts of existence and non-existence, Creator and created.
It is obviously not my intent to add arguments to the rhetoric of those who would prove Shentong Madhyamaka "unbuddhist" because of its similarity to theism, or negative theology "unchristian" by pointing to its kinship with Eastern thought. On the contrary, my hope is that religious people around the world can learn to rejoice in their commonalities without fearing a loss of identity. Hopefully it will become clear that in spite of all commonalities the Blessed Angela of Foligno, one of the greatest medieval mystics, is very Christian; just as the Omniscient Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen, who systematized the Shentong Madhyamaka, is very Buddhist.
Hence, other preconceptions I would like to help dispel are those concerning what the "mainstream" or "majority" of Christians and Buddhists believe or do not believe. Narrow views of what it means to be Christian or Buddhist are often held not only by outsiders of different faiths but equally by masses of insiders who think of their particular species of tradition (or denomination) and school of thought as the standard for their whole family of religion. Yet it would seem that two thousand or more years after their founders left their bodies, it is time to concede that each and every Christian or Buddhist sect is but a variation on a theme. Unless we want to continue a tradition of religious intolerance, wars and persecutions, we have little choice but to accept that neither religion has produced only one "mainstream" or "true" form of its tradition. Both religions include such a plurality of distinct teachings, practices, approaches and denominations that one may even dispute the propriety of referring to Buddhism or Christianity in the singular.
If we can embrace all Christian and Buddhist traditions (as well as other religions) as true and authentic, it then becomes meaningful for dialogue to find parallels between certain traditions, even if inevitably others do not consider them "mainstream". For if all schools can be respected by other schools within that religion then, in order, for example, for one particular Buddhist concept to be respected by Christians, it no longer has to match all of Christian doctrine and practice; it suffices if it is akin to one particular Christian school of thought.
Naturally I have other presuppositions that are bound to color my work. While objectivity remains a worthwhile guideline, the academic community has begun to acknowledge that it is impossible to achieve. Therefore it is a matter of academic honesty and accuracy for me to disclose the religious institutions that have framed my thinking.
I was brought up Protestant in Germany. Since 1983 I consider myself a Christian Buddhist. I practice Tibetan Buddhism. My guru, the late Kalu Rinpoche (1905-1989), was not only the head of the Shangpa Kagyu lineage but also one of Dolpopa's Jonang lineage holders. Under normal circumstances this would mean that Dolpopa's practices and teachings have been transmitted to him via an uninterrupted line of masters and disciples (Sanskrit, hereafter Skt., parampara) going back all the way to Sherab Gyaltsen himself. But since the Tibetan government banned the Jonangpas in the second half of the seventeenth century, the transmission that reached Kalu Rinpoche, while authentic, was apparently not as complete as it should have been.
Since I am mystically inclined, and since Tibetan Buddhism has much more in common with Catholicism than with any other Christian denomination I am personally familiar with, my Christian parts feel most at home in the Catholic church.
According to constructivist thinking, which will be elucidated in the introduction, I could never be sure whether I understand what Dolpopa (or, for that matter, any other ancient Buddhist master) tried to say. And I must admit that my knowledge of Sherab Gyaltsen's philosophy is quite limited. I am not Tibetan; my Tibetan language skills are extremely limited; and, as will be explained in section IV.A.2. "Dolpopa's Works", Western knowledge of his teachings in general is quite scarce. On the other hand I am a practicing Buddhist who has been steeped in Shentong thought by a master who was just about as closely linked to Dolpopa as anyone could be in our era. Furthermore I am relying, to a great extent, on the accounts and translations of excerpts given by Shenpen K. Hookham. She is a very serious Buddhist practitioner and also received teachings on the subject from Jonang lineage holders. Moreover Cyrus Stearns, a Western authority on Dolpopa, has confirmed during a conversation that my understanding of the master's thought was good. Hence I believe that while my grasp of Shentong doctrine is limited, it is reasonably accurate.
A note on methodology: Within the framework of this thesis it is essential to investigate the philosophical, historical, and social background of Dolpopa's and Angela's teachings. Without such work they would be difficult to evaluate, especially because very little of Dolpopa's teachings are directly available to me and because Angela's words were edited to a great extent as soon as they were spoken. On Angela's side this requires some feminist analysis of her tradition, time, and sayings. By taking such factors into account, one can begin to sift out which statements best reflect the core of their experiences.
My approach is based on the perennialist view which allows me to be "interreligiously engaged". I do not believe in the myth of neutral scientific research. The eerie regularity with which "neutral" academic studies have been used for destructive ends compels me to be quite frank about my socio-political goals: I want Buddhists and Christians to know, respect, and help each other.
As much as possible, I will try to refrain from interpreting Angela's revelations from a Buddhist perspective. It may at times seem to Christian readers as if I were superimposing Buddhist structures onto Christian thinking. In determining whether this is really the case, one must remember that Mystical Theology by definition transcends ordinary theology as Christians know it. Thus it is conceivable that Christians, even more so than Buddhists, may be prone to read their own presuppositions into Negative Theology.
As appropriate for inter-religious dialogue, I will depict events in an emic (insider) rather than etic (outsider) fashion, analyzing what occurrences mean to those experiencing them, not how outsiders might interpret them.
Sanskrit words that are not printed in italics and bear no diacritical marks can be found in Webster's Third New International Dictionary and can therefore be considered English words. Regrettably the dictionary we are following, leaves the diacritical marks out without changing the spelling so as to reflect proper pronunciation. May the reader be advised that c is always pronounced ch and s is often pronounced sh, for example sunyata is read as shunyata.
Comparing the teachings of Angela, a Christian woman, and Dolpopa, a Buddhist man has the added advantage of revealing how gender has influenced philosophical expression. The disadvantage, in this case, is that all the inescapable feminist critique is directed against Christianity, while Buddhism is spared that embarrassment. To avoid a wrong impression it should be noted that the situation of Buddhist women was comparable to that of their Christian sisters. Their only advantage was that they were never physically persecuted and slaughtered as witches or heretics, as were Christians. But in their spiritual development Buddhist women probably received less support than Christian women did. When all is said and done it is probably safe to remark that Buddhist women have been just as oppressed as their Christian sisters. It took, however, much more effort on the Christian side to secure women's subordination. Let me briefly explain, for these issues play an important role in this study.
Jesus threatened patriarchy far more than Buddha Shakyamuni did. Judging by the sutras, Gautama was a sexist who had to be persuaded by his favorite disciple to allow the ordination of women as nuns. He only agreed to this wish after fixing women's subordination in the rules of the order and predicting that because of women's presence it would last only five hundred instead of one thousand years. He made it quite clear that spiritual truths were not to interfere with the social hierarchy. No matter how enlightened a woman was, she was socially inferior to the youngest monk. And no matter of what cosmic significance it may have been to join the Buddha's order, one was not allowed to do so without the permission of parents and kings. In short, patriarchs had nothing to fear from the Buddha.
Jesus on the other hand was much more subversive. To follow him explicitly meant to break with all hierarchy of gender, classes, and personal interaction. He constantly went against social customs that were discriminatory against women, the poor, or any detested group. And he demanded from his disciples that they not abide by customs that stood in the way of following him immediately and one- pointedly. No wonder women were drawn to him and his teachings in great masses, probably outnumbering the men. For at least three hundred years their lot was significantly improved and they probably never expected this development to reverse.
To "re-establish order" in the patriarchal sense took great effort on the part of church men more than once in the history of Christianity. It required not only the intimidation, persecution, and murder of women but also the suppression of many Christian teachings and practices, including the Via Negativa.
That is why the subordination of women is to be dealt with in this thesis. It is heart breaking and representative of the suppression of humanity all over the world. I say 'humanity' because in order for men to suppress women they also have to suppress other things, including great parts of themselves. The Catholic church is an example, not an exception in this.

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
A.In Search of a Common Language
Each religion has created its own jargon some of which is easily translated into the language of other traditions while other portions are not easily transferable. Part of the task of interreligious dialogue is to find a language that all conversation participants can accept. In this thesis, and perhaps in all interreligious dialogue, one of the most important tasks is for dialogue partners not to be disturbed by each other's terms for the absolute. Many Buddhists, for example, are very uncomfortable with the thought of addressing the ultimate as "Lord" or "divine". Yet the Buddhist tradition knows many Lords. For example the Lord Avalokiteshvara (Tibetan: jo bo spyan ras gzigs), who embodies the love and compassion of all buddhas. Buddha Shakyamuni as well is often referred to as Bhagavan Buddha, which literally means "the Sublime" or "Holly" and is a Hindu appellation for God. He is also said to possesses "the divine eye" and "the divine ear". Not altogether unlike the Christian God, the Buddha came to embody
 absolute truth or reality, and many seekers of enlightenment interpret everything they meet with as "the blessing of the Buddha". Of course I do not mean to say that there is no difference between the Christian and Buddhist Lords. But one need not be overly sensitive; and foreign words should not detract from possible commonalities.

Particularly Western Buddhists often overreact to language they consider loaded with Christian thinking. A good example is Alex and Hideko Wayman's use of the term "uncreate (reality)" rather than "uncreated". Apparently they prefer using a grammatically incorrect word to a Buddhist term that might be shared with Christians. Others may insist that there is a tremendous difference between Absolute and absolute, one designating a more reified or personalized reality/being, the other an abstract variable.
In the search for the most correct and acceptable words one would do well to remember that there is probably not one important Christian or Buddhist term that is used and interpreted consistently within its religion or even within any one denomination; not the absolute, or God, or divinization, enlightenment, or emptiness, or buddha nature. Any one of such terms has been filled with a wide variety of meaning in its own tradition, why should one cast one of them in concrete when entering dialogue? Interreligious encounter would certainly be easier if all participants could admit that their own religion has not come to an unanimous agreement concerning definitions within their own language.
So when I use lower case for words like 'the ultimate', this does not mean that it would be inappropriate to regard the designated reality with great respect, awe, or love. For example, when many people agree that Belgium is a country in Europe, this does not mean that they all have to feel the same way about it or have exactly the same information about it.
In an effort to use the most neutral terms available, I will call 'the absolute' unconditioned, ultimate, or uncreated when describing it in a way relevant to both Christian and Buddhist traditions. When the word "reality" is used in conjunction with these terms, it refers to the absolute as viewed from an ordinary, relative viewpoint. When it stands alone, it reflects the view that "relative reality" is not separate from, but an aspect of the ultimate.
Furthermore, I have not put terms that are only used within one religion and perhaps not condoned by the other (like God, Spirit, or buddha nature) in quotation marks so as to accommodate those who would doubt the adequacy of these words for describing the relevant reference. For example, I will not question whether in each one of Angela's visions it is truly God who speaks to her. As long as it is consistent with her own tradition to say that the things she sees or hears stem from the Holy Spirit, that should be an acceptable way, within interreligious dialogue, of expressing the occurrence.
  B. Perennialists and Constructivists
Elucidating, as I do in the second half of chapter V, how Buddhist and Christian teachings could help each other overcome some of their own limitations, presupposes that representatives of both religions can and frequently do experience the same reality and are able to realize highest enlightenment.
This is what modern religious studies scholars call a "perennialst" view. For decades Western thinkers have debated the character of cross-cultural mystical experiences. Two camps have evolved, the "perennialists" and "constructivists". Their controversies deal with the following issues:
(1) Is there one absolute reality that permeates and transcends all cultures and religions?
(2) Can it be experienced in a pure, unmediated way or is (as constructivists maintain) all experience of reality colored, shaped or constructed by the cultural, religious, linguistic, historical, and conceptual biases of the experiencing subject?
(3) Even if people of different cultural and linguistic backgrounds had the same experiences, could they ever ascertain this, or can a person from one cultural- linguistic background never be sure that s/he correctly understands a person from a different background?
(4) Some constructivists combine the first two questions and maintain that since what is perceived as absolute truth varies and depends on the practices and views of the individual, one cannot speak of one absolute truth but must acknowledge a plurality of relative truths that only seem to be absolute.
My first reason for adopting a mostly perennialist perspective is that it appears to be the view best suited to support religious tolerance and a profound kind of interreligious dialogue that goes beyond just getting to know each other. Only on the basis of acknowledging a common ground to all human experience in general and to mystical experience in particular, can dialogue lead to deep mutual respect and to a positive transformation of all partners. Some are afraid of such transformation because they worry about the purity of their faith and the possibility of syncretism. Others stress that in the present state of our world, religious institutions must take some risks and acknowledge their responsibility for promoting world peace by bringing peace to interreligious relations.
Another reason why I lean towards perennialist views is that I find constructivist arguments alienated from human realities, perhaps in a typically "academic" way. If it were true that "language itself constitutes the encompassing horizon of life and thought" and that "there is no experience independent of language", would that not mean that babies and toddlers do not experience reality until they are able to speak? Surely psychology would prove such a notion wrong. (Or does body language, laughing and crying in different intonations count as language?) If language and culture determined how we experience reality to the point where one could never truly understand statements made in a foreign language, why do we study different languages, cultures, and history? Would this not be a futile and meaningless endeavor?
I wonder how much time the leading constructivists have spent in other countries and how well they speak foreign languages. Have they ever immersed themselves in a foreign culture and experienced the clarity with which one knows whether one understands the other not at all, partially, or quite fully? Based on my own experience of having spent years in foreign countries and being fluent in four languages, I can report that humor is one good indicator of how well one understands a foreign culture. It took me two years of living in the USA before I could find at least some American news paper comics funny. On the other hand in India it took me less than a month to be just as entertained by watching Westerners as my Indian friends were.
Furthermore, if language is the all-decisive factor in human reality, how would one evaluate dialects. German dialects for example vary to such a degree that people from Southern, Central, and Northern Germany cannot understand each other when they speak in their respective tongues. And although I know the dialect of my hometown to some degree, when it is spoken in its pure form, I understand less than if someone spoke to me in French. Nonetheless one could not deny that all Germans, and especially the people of Cologne, share much of the same cultural reality.
Moreover, if all our experiences were constructed by biases, could we ever be surprised? How would one explain the frequent shock and disbelief of mystics when they reflect on their experiences? How would one interpret Angela's statements that things were revealed to her of which she had never heard before, which were not taught in churches, and which preachers would not understand?
I would conclude that it is possible to experience reality immediately. I also believe that one can learn enough about a foreign language, culture, and historical epoch to understand what its natives are trying to communicate. In John C. Maraldo's opinion, understanding a spiritual tradition requires learning its "language" by practicing it. He says:
Part of the way we transform the chaos of sounds in a foreign language into meaningful utterances is by actually venturing to speak in that language. We learn to hear clearly by practicing speaking. Sometimes a religious tradition appears to speak in a foreign language, and we learn to translate by practicing within that tradition.
According to such reasoning, practicing two religions (as I do) should be a hermeneutical advantage in comparing them.
The most significant reason, however, for basing this thesis on at least some degree of perennialism is that without such an attitude neither Buddhism nor Via Negativa make any sense. Neither Buddhist nor Christian schools usually question the existence of one absolute reality. Buddhists may say that it is not graspable in words or concepts and that any comprehensible reality is an illusion, yet they always presuppose the ability to awaken to the one true reality. If Buddhists did not believe that humans are able to deconstruct all their gross and subtle biases and realize one ultimate reality, they would have to renounce enlightenment, the very core and raison d'etre of their religion. At times it may seem as though they did just that. But even when some masters say that there is no such thing as enlightenment, they do not hold their own words to be true to the point where one should act on them, for they are only a partial truth. When it is taught that nirvana is an illusion, it does not mean that monks should go home and stop meditating; it is taught precisely for the purpose of reaching (an ineffable) nirvana. As Nagarjuna says: "Without dependence on everyday practice (vyavahara) the ultimate is not taught. Without resorting to the ultimate, nirvana is not attained."
Similarly the Via Negativa depends on the presupposition that wo/man is able to forget all cultural and linguistic biases or to cover all s/he has learned with a "cloud of unknowing". Again we find here the statement that the deconstruction of all presuppositions is possible (even if rare and difficult) and constitutes the path to perfect, unmediated union with the Uncreated. Furthermore many mystics insist that their experience of the absolute transcends all possibilities of verbal description.
Hence the Buddhist as well as Christian mystics who will be encountered in this thesis have strong perennialist tendencies. To discount their accounts one would have to question either the very validity of mysticism (which aims at direct, increasingly less mediated, encounters with the absolute) or the mental health of many of the greatest mystics. This is not the place to argue the case of mysticism. It must suffice to say that many Christians as well as most Buddhists generally accept mystical insight as a "valid means of cognition". As far as the mental health and intelligence of mystics is concerned, it was never taken for granted. Both Dolpopa and Angela were suspected, questioned, and challenged. Yet, although people at times disagreed with their views, their contemporaries certified, after thorough investigation, that they were neither possessed by the devil, nor crazy, nor stupid. Rather, as their titles clearly point out, the Omniscient and the Blessed were acknowledged as personifying the pinnacle of human development.
Thus, unless one is strongly predisposed against all forms and expressions of mysticism, I see no reason to believe that in comparing Angela of Foligno and the Via Negativa with Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen and Shentong Madhyamaka one is relating two comparable delusions. Nor, since both come to very similar conclusions, would it make sense to declare one completely mistaken but not the other.
Nonetheless it must be acknowledged that many Christians as well as Buddhists who display strong perennialist tendencies might, for various reasons, also sympathize with constructivist notions.
Many might like the idea that one cannot ascertain that mystics from different religious backgrounds experience the same reality. Such an argument appears to accommodate the claim of so many Buddhist and Christian schools that only they lead to the highest goal attainable. It seems to be common among exclusivists to explain the experiences of followers of other traditions as being constructed by biases and therefore not absolutely true. Meanwhile their own biases are excluded from such a constructivist critique and are taken to be absolute or at least uniquely true.
Furthermore, Buddhists may be drawn to constructivism because they have a strong millennia old tradition not only of perennialism but also of deconstructing reality by means of logic. As we will see, many Buddhist schools have embraced a combination of what might be termed perennialism and constructivism. For example, Shentong Madhyamikas and their predecessors speak of two nirvanas, two buddha- gotras (buddha family), or two purities. One set is relative and conditioned; it is reflected in the constructivist view. The other set is absolute and changeless; it is mirrored in the perennialist position.
Angela of Foligno and Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen also both transcend the constructivist-perennialist controversy when they speak of an absolute reality that is at once one and a union of many, one reality with many modes or qualities.
To conclude this debate, I am inclined to agree with John Cobb Jr. when he says that: "both [perennialists and constructivists] are correct in fundamental ways, although wrong in excluding one another." In my opinion neither one of these camps, when taken to an extreme, nor Lonergan's "Interiority Analysis", represent satisfying theories; they tend to be one-sided. I think Queen Srimala's proposition of a constructed and an unconstructed conventional as well as ultimate reality (samsara and nirvana) is a very intriguing concept that Western scholars would do well to explore in greater depth.
C. The Role of Mystics and their Teachings
Comparing, as this thesis proposes to do, teachings on the essence of absolute reality is a delicate matter. In doing so, one is dealing with something that lies beyond ordinary perception and human concepts; something that cannot adequately be described in words. What then can mystics say about uncreated reality that will at least point our gaze in the right direction? For something must be said. How many mystics tried to be silent because they found the truth to be inexpressible but were commanded to speak anyhow? When the Buddha thought it would be useless to speak about the reality he had awakened to, because no one would understand it, the Hindu god Brahma Sahampati appeared before him, imploring him to teach. Similarly, many Christian women mystics were commanded by God or the angels to speak though they tried everything to remain silent.
Some mystics' role is to confirm the existing tradition. But the greater ones, in my opinion, are in the dual position of affirming as well as negating their religion. It is their function to be outrageous, to burst through the limits of their religion in order to be more true to that which is limitless. As Raoul Mortley says, what the Via Negativa negates of God is "parasitic on prior affirmations [the negations] cannot invent themselves." I.e. Negative theology negates not just anything, but precisely what was first affirmed. Nor would it negate certain characteristics if they were not generally established as positive truth. Correspondingly, what Shentong Madhyamaka affirms of the absolute is parasitic on prior Madhyamika negations.
Both traditions are rooted in agreement with their religion but also point to their limitations and try to overcome them. That is why mystics of the Via Negativa are drawn to negate God, while Shentong Madhyamaka type mystics are drawn to affirm a quasi theistic absolute. But these teachings cannot be independent; they draw their life blood from a tradition which they transcend. If they come to be understood as autonomous they lose their initial purpose. Then they will exchange positions; the former parasite will become the host and vice versa. In Buddhism this happens more easily than in Christianity because there is no strong centralized institution that freezes the status of host and parasite.
The way this dynamic is played out in a religion is in the relationship between exoteric and esoteric, or public and "secret", "hidden", "special" teachings, or between officially established doctrine and freely improvising mysticism. And if what has been said sounds confusing, it is precisely because in the history of both Buddhism and Christianity this relationship has been anything but clear. In both religions there is conflict as to whether or not there should be graded teachings. The Catholic church has long accepted a difference between teachings and practices for the laity and for the ordained, but has never openly acknowledged the existence of esoteric teachings. And this although the Bible contains quite a few references to graded teachings corresponding to the understanding of the audience or to teachings whose mystical depths will be understood by some while others may hear the words but not grasp any of the more subtle meaning. There is also mention of spiritual secrets that will be revealed to some but not to others. Clement of Alexandria (second century) speaks of secret teachings that were transmitted from the time of the apostles and hidden in scripture under symbols and allegorical language.
There has been wide-spread agreement in the Christian world that the Negative Way is not suited for beginners. But whether or not it should be the pinnacle of the contemplative way has never been clearly decided.
In Buddhism the situation is even more controversial. Nikaya-Buddhism generally does not acknowledge any esoteric instructions. Yet, most of traditional Mahayana Buddhism explains its very existence as secret teachings of Buddha Shakyamuni to especially advanced disciples. But once the Mahayana had become established as public, another layer of special oral instructions was added to it. Of what these consist or even if there are any at all, varies from school of thought to school of thought. As will be explained in section II.B.4. "His Person", Dolpopa's revolution consisted of little more than an attempt to change the status of "special instructions" to that of public normative doctrine.
What further complicates the issue of esoteric teachings is that religions keep certain teachings secret for a multitude of reasons. There are spiritual considerations for the development of individuals, but there is also concern for the identity, establishment, and expansion of religious institutions. And finally there are connections between these institutions and worldly powers that make churches of all religions seats of political power. Once they have become entangled in worldly struggles for control, it is often difficult to sort out purely worldly from spiritual motivations.
As we shall see in the cases of Via Negativa and Shentong Madhyamaka, their health, status, and expansion, or as the case may be, suppression, were rooted in all these areas of religious life: personal, institutional, and political affairs of state. What Dolpopa and Angela communicated of their visions always took the status of their more hidden tradition into account. In Angela's case this meant silence in order to comply with official church doctrine. In Dolpopa's case it meant rebellion and abundant writing in the effort to prove his orthodoxy.
When contemplating the spiritual reasons for regulating access to certain teachings, expounding on what has been kept a secret so diligently seems inappropriate. But when considering that the Via Negativa has been so hidden within the Catholic church that few know about it and even fewer are able to connect with it as a living tradition, it seems desirable to proliferate knowledge of it more widely than would be advisable under different circumstances. In so doing, hopefully a balance can be regained between the faithful knowing of its existence and not being able to explore all the details without spiritual direction.
On the Buddhist side the situation is different. So long as teachings contrary to the normative doctrine were treated as secret instructions, the powers of church institutions and state were not bothered by their contents. Thus Dolpopa's teachings survive as a practiced tradition, even if kept a little more hidden than he had perhaps intended. Today much of his thought is openly shared, except where it enters Tantric territory, which is generally secret. Though I have tried to persuade three great lamas to explain certain mysterious issues, they revealed very little.
And so this thesis will treat some of what Angela and Dolpopa shared of their treasures though for many reasons much of their revelations remain secrets.
As a perennialist I believe that these mystics can help us gain a fuller image of reality. I also hope that their findings can be expressed in a language that facilitates Christian-Buddhist communication.
CHAPTER TWO
THE CHARACTER AND HISTORICAL ROOTS OF VIA NEGATIVA
 AND UMA SHENTONG
   A. What Is Via Negativa?
Via Negativa is a way of approaching God by denying self, the world, and finally the ability to conceive God. When it is expressed in theological terms it is called Mystical or Negative theology and professes that one can only say what God is not, not what God is. Even merely stating that God always remains a mystery that no one can comprehend completely and that no words can describe adequately, is often considered "Negative theology". Though many people use these terms interchangeably some distinctions can be made.
When facing the divine mysteries, even scholastic theology admits that its talk of God is only an approximate analogy, not a true description. "In this sense negative theology is an essential element of the theology of all times" , though some thinkers have stressed it more than others.
Via Negativa, which is a prime focus of this study, is more radical in its denials and the mystical sibling of scholastic Negative theology. Both posit God's ultimate transcendence and inconceivability, but they do so from different points of view and draw quite distinct conclusions.
Scholastics approach God from an intellectual point of view and thus his unknowable nature presents to them a final and insurmountable gulf between wo/man and God. They conclude from this gulf that humans will in essence always be separate from God and that they have no inner tool whatsoever for knowing him directly and empirically. Thus, in their view, any human knowledge about God depends exclusively on what is revealed and recounted in scripture about the incarnate Word. Furthermore, supposing wo/man's incapacity to know God directly, salvation comes to depend completely on the mediation of the Church and its officials.
On the other hand, when the mystic says that God is inconceivable and "unknowable", s/he is coming from a direct experience of the divine that shattered all s/he thought s/he knew. Now s/he no longer knows the God of scripture intellectually but s/he has become one with a completely transcendental unnameable reality. As St. Gregory of Nyssa (c. 330-395) puts it: "The Lord does not say that it is blessed to know something about God, but rather to possess God in oneself." Here God's transcendence of the human intellect does not make him inaccessible, it just warrants a specific approach if one is to become one with him. More than a theology, the Via Negativa is a method of contemplating the divine stripped of ideas and bare of any human concepts yet full of a loving yearning that knows neither object nor subject. As Dionysius the Areopagite says, one is to strive for complete "unity in unknowing fashion with the one superior to all being and knowledge." Such "unio mystica" brings the soul so close to God that there is no room between them for any dogmas, theologies, beliefs, or even the Church. Then the soul becomes "divinized", i.e. one with God with very little or no distinction, depending on whose teaching one follows. At this highest stage of union there is consciousness and things are "seen", but Christian mystics sometimes call it "unknowing" , because in this state the soul knows of neither world, nor soul, nor God. What it experiences is inexpressible.
Yet what is revealed during union with the absolute often demands to be communicated. When the contemplative obeys, the result is not a teaching based on studying books, but an "infused theology" (inspired by the Holy Spirit) that stresses all the things God is not. It is quite radical in that it negates in a transcending way, most everything that is said in the Bible. For example Denys says:
The cause of all things intelligible in its pre-eminence is not any of the intelligible things. . . . It is not life, nor being nor eternity. . . . It is not truth, nor kingship, nor wisdom; not one, nor unity or goodness; nor is it a spirit as is visible to us, not sonship, not fatherhood. . .
 
Yet "infused theology" does not render the Scripture useless. Rather, it follows the regular path to holiness as it is laid out in the Bible. Only when the apostolic ideals are realized can the affirmative way be transcended for the sake of indistinguishable unity with the divine. The Bible contains the most holy part of all human concepts within "created reality". Nevertheless no intelligible thing is relevant in regards to the "Uncreated". Within created reality God's qualities are celebrated, but when speaking of the Uncreated, even God's existence cannot be affirmed. Instead, as Denys puts it: "the cause of all things intelligible . . . is beyond affirmation, and beyond all denial."
Denys indicates that these teachings were meant for those who had been "initiated" into the divine mysteries by having been baptized not only with water but also with the Spirit. The Via Negativa was a method for those who had dedicated their lives to striving for union with God by way of asceticism and contemplation. As Lees explains, much of the Negative theology of St. Gregory of Nyssa "was directed to furnishing the newly-founded monastic movement in Cappadocia with a substantial literature expounding the theological basis for the contemplative life." It was a theology that was congruent with individuals making every effort to uncover the divinity that lay hidden inside or underneath their souls. (Depending on whom one follows.)
The distinction between scholastics and church men on the one hand, and mystical hermits on the other is, according to Louth, a later invention of the West where spirituality became separated from dogma. He states that: "in the Fathers, there is no divorce between dogmatic and mystical theology;" Even much-later theologians such as Thomas Aquinas (1225?-1274) managed to maintain for themselves a mystical side. Nonetheless, the fact that mysticism and dogmatism were not "divorced", does not mean that they were indistinguishable. It seems to me that the early church Fathers struck a different tone, depending on the function they were fulfilling: mystic or church man. Some of the confusion about Negative theology seems to stem from the fact that their mystical teachings changed just a little when they tried to accommodate the concerns of the church institution. Those slight alterations unfortunately had tremendous consequences which the Fathers may not have foreseen.
Thus we have not only a mystical Via Negativa and a scholastic Negative theology but also a grey zone between the two, marking an ongoing meeting point as well as an historical transition. Sometimes the distinction lies only in the motivation or the inner experience of the author. That's why it is at times difficult to discern which spirit speaks through a Negative theologian: the mystic or the church bureaucrat. And thus it happens that great contemplatives like Athanasius (295?-373) and Gregory of Nyssa are at times accused of rejecting mysticism.
So in spite of the importance of distinguishing between Via Negativa or Mystical theology on the one hand and purely scholastic Negative Theology on the other hand, I use the term Negative Theology interchangeably with Via Negativa or Mystical theology, although the first two expressions will be reserved for the more mystical sibling.
B. What Is Shentong Madhyamaka?
Madhyamaka (Sanskrit) means "of the middle". It is translated into Tibetan as uma (dbu ma = middle). Since the "Middle School" is known in the West by its Sanskrit name, either term is used in this thesis, depending on whether the reference is to the Indian or the Tibetan context.
Madhyamaka is the name by which the Indian master- philosopher Nagarjuna (second/third century) called his philosophy, referring back to Buddha Shakyamuni's Middle Way of avoiding extremes (Madhyama-Pratipad). Nagarjuna's teachings can be summarized as expounding that all phenomena, including any kind of "Absolute", are empty of a conceivable existence as well as a graspable non-existence. Things appear in a relative way, but they are free from an independent, real self that can be established, i.e. "self- empty" (Tibetan: rang stong, hereafter 'rangtong'). Since nothing correct can be said about reality, the only flawless position to take is to not take any at all. In his Madhyamakakarika 13:8 Nagarjuna explains that emptiness is taught as an antidote to all views (Skt. drsti), not as a view itself. He declares grasping at emptiness as though it were a philosophical position the most difficult view to remedy. (This did not keep Madhyamikas from spending much time and effort refuting everybody else's position. And it has been argued from early on that this in itself constitutes a position. )
The Tibetan word shentong (gzhan stong) means 'empty of other'. Uma shentongpas agree with the statement that all phenomena are self-empty, but they do not agree with Nagarjuna's (as well as Tibetan Rangtongpas') position that ultimate reality is empty of self-being just like any other phenomenon. Rather they profess an absolute which transcends phenomena, truly exists and is full of real qualities. It is empty only of any accidental defilements or qualities that are other than its very nature, that is to say anything not absolute like defilements, dualistic perception, and graspable qualities that could be separable from its essence, etc.
Tibetan Shentongpas and their Indian predecessors refer to this ultimate reality as tathagatagarbha (or Tib. de bzhin gshegs pa'i snying po). This term is alternately translated as: buddha-embryo, -seed, -womb, -storehouse, - nature, -essence, or -core. Buddha nature is a rendering that only became acceptable in China because it implies a quasi substantial essence that pervades not only all sentient beings but the whole universe, including matter. More often than not, Indians shied away from such a use of the term. But it is implied and in some cases even explicitly stated in a number of Indian texts. Therefore I use the term "buddha nature" when describing Indian ideas wherever this seems appropriate.
In how far it is justified to call Uma Shentong a Madhyamika system, is a complex and much debated issue that is dealt with in later chapters.
The Philosophical Category of Shentong Thought
As opposed to Negative Theology, the Shentong school of thought enjoyed centuries of public recognition and support, though it was never unrivaled. Rather, the debates involving its Indian forerunners continued in Tibet and still excite people to this very day. The controversy has been carried out in public with heated enthusiasm but most of the time also with a decent measure of good will and tolerance towards the opponent. This led to Shentongpas developing perhaps a little more of a philosophical footing than their sisters and brothers of the Via Negativa did.
Nonetheless, Michael Broido seems to maintain that Dolpopa never aspired to compose philosophy but merely recounted his own personal experience. He emphasizes the distinction between siddhanta (grub mtha') and darsana (lta ba). According to the "Lexikon der östlichen Weisheitslehren" a siddhanta is "the opinion [or view) of an Indian philosophical school that is fixed by written transmission and argumentation and collected in a compendium." Darsana on the other hand means "seeing". In Buddhist contexts it denotes:
a realization that is based on reason and able to extinguish intellectual passions, wrong views, doubt, and attachment to rituals and rules. The path of seeing (darsana-marga) leads from mere faithful trust in the Four Noble Truths to actually realizing them.
According to Broido, Dolpopa reserves the term siddhanta for Rangtong Madhyamaka and never intended to present Uma Shentong as a fixed philosophical system. Broido stresses the different areas siddhantas and darsanas cover, one referring to philosophical systems, the other to the experience of seeing the way things really are. He seems to think that siddhantas are something higher or more real than darsanas and that Dolpopa never intended to elevate the account of his realization to the level of philosophy. He accuses "modern Shentongpas" of not maintaining the master's clarity and instead confusing accounts of mystical experience and epistemic teachings on how to acquire insight with a philosophical system. By doing so, Broido maintains, they read an ontology into his Madhyamaka teachings that is not there. But can he, on the one hand, profess to understand Dolpopa better than modern Shentongpas do when he, on the other hand, denounces the master's teachings on absolute form as an "absurd ontological view"? What he fails to recognize, in my opinion, is that to the mystically inclined Shentongpas direct experience seems far more able to reveal the truth than "a fixed philosophical position based on axioms and set rules of argument". To a Shentongpa, the latter will by its fixed nature always be dualistic. As Hookham explains in her section on "Direct Experience as Valid Cognition", in order to determine which means of cognition is most suited for which object of cognition one has to analyze the characteristics of the means and the object. Then it becomes apparent that reason and inferential logic can only know concepts but not the true nature of reality. Since the latter lies beyond the conceptual mind, only direct yogic awareness (Skt. yogi pratyaksa) represents a valid means of cognizing ultimate reality.
Nonetheless, a darsana is not incapable of philosophy. As the Lexikon says it is based on reason and leads to the realization of all that can be realized and to the eradication of wrong views. But perhaps it is not stuck in fixed philosophical rules. Shentong Madhyamikas strive to encompass the purpose of Madhyamaka and to transcends it.
In this context it is important to consider that to divide Buddhist teachings into Western categories of philosophy, epistemology, ontology, soteriology, pedagogy, etc. is most often a superimposition. The results are misunderstandings and accusations such as Broido's: "Note Kong-sprul's typical confusion of epistemology with ontology." Is Jamgon Kongtrul the Great really confused? I think the problem is that Western scholars like Broido sometimes forget that in a system where what ordinary people call "reality" is seen as a mere misconception, an illusory projection of the mind, there is no distinction between "epistemology" and "ontology". (This is true for all schools of thought that were influenced by Cittamatra thought, including many Madhyamika thinkers.) Dolpopa backs his view that different realities are merely different ways of perception or different levels of realization with the following quote from Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakavrtti Akutobhaya:
(Seeing that circumstances arise is called] worldly samvrtisatya" . . . ; it is the relative truth (samvrtisatya) because of the two (truths) it is the one which is true in the relative sense. Seeing that circumstances are free from arising, . . . is called "paramarthasatya"; it is the absolute truth because of the two it is the one which is true in the absolute sense.
 
It is in keeping with Rangtong critique to judge Uma Shentong as too ontological to constitute Madhyamaka. Yet Indian pramana (=proof) literature accepts direct or yogic perception as a valid means of cognition. And does something being correctly perceived and validly cognized not allow the inference of its ontological status to be existence? For how can something be validly cognized if neither a cognizer nor a cognized exist? According to Paul Williams, even "Tsong kha pa observes that if the ultimate truth doesn't exist then there is no way it could be eventually cognized and the holy path would be pointless." Nevertheless he continues to show that: The formal difference between the dBu ma rang stong and the dBu ma gzhan stong marks the situation of Madhyamaka anti-ontology in opposition to the felt needs of the mystical as a content-bearing experience.
In short: shentong doctrine is the account of the shared experiences of many masters who have validated their encounters to reflect an inconceivable but existent reality. It contains descriptions of mystical encounters with the absolute formulated, as much as possible, in accordance with philosophy. It also encompasses psychological explanations of what is helpful on the path to realizing ultimate reality. Broido may call it a "frequently made ridiculous claim" that the contrast between Uma Rangtong and Shentong lies in relying on reason rather than faith as the primal force to guide one to enlightenment. It is nonetheless true and in accordance with much of the tathagatagarbha tradition. For example in the Srimaladevi Sutra the Buddha says: Queen, whatever disciples of mine are possessed of faith and [then] are controlled by faith, they by depending on the light of faith have a knowledge in the precincts of the Dharma, by which they reach certainty in this.
 
The Ratnagotravibhaga, summarizing this sutra and the Mahaparanirvana Sutra, echoes: "This, the Absolute, the Self-Arisen One, is realizable through faith. The disc of the sun blazing with light is not visible to those without eyes."
Williams summarizes the Jonangpa position very well: When one goes beyond reasoning one realizes something new, a real, inherently existing Absolute beyond all conceptualization but accessible in spiritual intuition and otherwise available, as the Tathagatagarbha texts stress, only to faith.
   C. The Development of Via Negativa
Wherever Christian mysticism was allowed to flower, one of its blossoms was the Negative Way. Correspondingly, whenever it was strictly regulated or suppressed, the Via Negativa was the first to wilt and die, until its next spring. Thus, the history of Via Negativa is the history of Christian mysticism.
      1. Biblical Roots
Two Biblical elements contributed to the development of Via Negativa: On the one hand, God's absolute transcendence and ineffableness, and on the other hand, the ability of the human soul to reach perfect union with God in spite of his incomprehensible nature.
Before looking at Judeo-Christian scripture it should be observed that to Jews as well as Christians, most Biblical stories have represented not only outer historical occurrence but also revelations about the characteristics of absolute reality whose symbolism was meant to be contemplated. Since Origen of Alexandria (185-253) theologians have formally distinguished "four interpretations of the Holy Scripture": the literal, semantic, allegorical and anagogical (leading the initiated towards seeing God).
In Exod 3:14 God seems to introduce himself to the Children of Israel by identifying himself as Being as such. He gives his name as: "I am that I am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." His being is near as well as far; it fills heaven and earth (Jer 23:23-24), and goes beyond it all such that " the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee". (1 Kgs 8:27) God is so far beyond the limits of everything humans know that it is prohibited to depict him using any image whatsoever from our cosmos. (Exod 20:4)
In the Hebrew Bible JHVH does not show himself directly to anyone. When he speaks to his prophets, he hides in a dense cloud and/or in fire (Exod 19:9 and 18), or else in darkness, as in Exod 20:21: "And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where[in] God was." This passage is important to remember because of the mass of scholars who maintain that when Denys and other mystics talk about divine darkness they use Platonic language; yet in reality they refer explicitly to this passage in Exodus. Another important episode is described in Exod 24:15-18. God appears on Mount Sinai in a cloud. To the Israelites he looks like "devouring fire on the top of the mount". Nonetheless God calls Moses and the prophet enters "into the midst the cloud", climbs the mountain and stays there "forty days and forty nights" (which is symbolic of a very long time).
Traditionally, two reasons are given to explain why God veils himself in fire, clouds, and darkness: Either that he is invisible (1 Tm 1:17 and 6:16, and Col 1:15) or that to see him face to face is to die. (Exod 33:20) Those who are pure and whom God chooses however, are permitted to see him indirectly or in passing.
In this latter episode God's glory passes by Moses; the Lord protects him from viewing his face but he allows him to see his back as his glory disappears. Isaiah is another prophet who is granted a glimpse of God. After having seen him, he fears that he will die because he was impure when he saw the Lord. But an angel purifies him and he lives. (Isa 6:1-7) At the occasion of sealing the covenant between JHVH and the Israelites, God even grants seventy four elders at once to see him from a distance (only Moses is allowed to approach). (Exod 24:9-11)
Thus even in the Hebrew Bible God's nature does not prevent all humans from being able to see him. There are, however, stringent prerequisites for being allowed to behold the divine. And even then the image resists grasping, for it presents itself only in passing. Osborn paraphrases Philo as explaining Moses' view of God's back thus: "From here it [the soul) comes to the greatest good of all, to grasp that the being of God is beyond the grasp of every creature ... To see him is to know that he is invisible."
The New Testament goes a step further. Rather than merely granting a rare chosen one a glimpse of the Lord, it talks about an intimate and ongoing, at times complete union of the believer with the divine in an inner kingdom of God. Through Jesus, it is said, the faithful can become children of God (Rom 8:14) who are born 'not of the flesh but of God'.(Jn 1:12-13) Then they are able to fulfill his command: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Mt 5:48) Jesus assures his disciples that not only will God's spirit be with and in them, but: "I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you." (Jn 14:20) This is how Christ wants it to be, for: "He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit." (Jn 15:5) St. Paul fulfills his wish and the result is his famous exclamation: "I live, yet not I, Christ lives in me." (Gal 2:20) Starting with Athanasius, many Christian mystics have summarized the Good News by proclaiming: "The Word became man that we might become divine."
Putting the Old and the New Testaments together, one ends up with many children of God who strive to follow and become completely one with a God who became man, but whose divine nature is utterly ineffable and transcendent. It seems that the natural result of such endeavors is Via Negativa. For, like Moses, Christians are called to purify themselves and enter the dark cloud wherein the inconceivable God is found. Will they not talk about the meaning of this cloud? And will they not share their experiences of how they managed to enter it and what they experienced therein?
      2. Hellenistic Roots
Although the Bible supports the development of Mystical theology, many theologians over the centuries have spoken of the "Pagan" (i.e. Hellenistic) roots of abstract Christian contemplation and the corresponding teachings. Indeed, it has to be admitted that Greek culture had a tremendous influence on Christianity. This is quite obvious not only in the Gospel according to St. John but also in many other Biblical passages.
Exploring all the tenets of Greek philosophy that are said to have helped shape Christian thinking is beyond the scope of this study. Suffice it to say that some Greek schools of thought, particularly Platonism, know of an impersonal divine. It is sometimes called the One and constitutes the essential nature of wo/man's soul. Through initiations into divine mysteries and introspection the spiritual nature of the mind (nous) can be realized. But there were many variations of Platonism as well as many individual Platonists whose statements vary. While some affirm the divinity of the mind, others speak of transcending any concept of individual souls.
Supposedly such terms as the negative way, the mystic way, the purgative, illuminative, and unitive ways were all introduced into Christianity from Neoplatonism. Nevertheless one should not conclude that they are un- Christian, as perhaps especially Protestant theologians are prone to think. For how was Christianity born? Jesus did not found "Christianity". He was a Jew and the head of a Jewish movement which was rejected by the vast majority of his own people. In order to survive, the sect depended on a fusion with Greek culture. This was possible because his teachings already contained many elements that were akin to Hellenistic thinking. One must not forget that the two cultures shared the same territory. Thus the more Hellenistic Christians were able to expand upon certain teachings of Jesus without introducing anything completely alien. Perhaps one can characterize Christianity as the marriage of a certain Jewish movement with Greek thought. Without Judaism and Greek philosophy it is doubtful whether "Christianity" would have ever been born. The Jesus sect would probably have been just another Jewish movement that came and went, much like the Essenes.

A good example of the role Hellenism played for the Via Negativa is the development of the idea of the soul's divinization. One thing all Negative Mystics have in common and the reason why many discover the Negative Way even if no one tells them about it, is that they strive for the perfect divinization of their souls.
Where did this idea come from? Many theologians would agree with Irénée-H. Dalmais: "The vocabulary of divinization is foreign to Biblical language, which is concerned about preserving the divine transcendence as an absolute." Dalmais goes on to express amazement that the idea even arose in Christianity. To explain why it did and was able to stick, he proceeds to quote one Biblical passage after another that proves his opening statement utterly wrong. These quotes fall into three main areas:
(1) There is the passage in Genesis where God "created [wo/]man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." And when they have eaten of the tree of wisdom they are expelled from the garden of Eden because: "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden". (Gen 1:27 and 3:22-3) Yet, some time later, God does not seem to mind company in his divinity for he sends his son to grant believers precisely the eternal life which would make wo/man completely "as one of us". (Nonetheless Dalmais asserts that it is a characteristically Greek idea to think that possessing eternal life makes one divine.)
(2) The Bible has much to say about Christians being God's adopted children and heirs to his kingdom, not unlike Jesus being God's son. (Gal 4, etc.)
(3) There is Jesus' command: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Mat 5:48)
It is a widespread opinion among Christian theologians that the Greek Fathers were more mystical than the Roman Fathers. But that does not mean that they introduced foreign concepts. As far as I can see, Hellenistic Christians did no more than three things:
   (1) They recognized these teachings for what they were: the proclamation of the soul's capacity to become completely divine.
(2) They placed these teachings in the very center of their faith, regarding them as the goal of a Christian life and the only end which could satisfy wo/man's spiritual nature. The Roman Fathers on the other hand, pushed divinization as much to the background as they could. Instead they stressed a saintliness of strictly human ethics and the Jewish roots of Christianity. As will be explained below, divinization did not fit well with their concerns. So they termed the idea "pagan" and dispensable because it matched Hellenistic philosophy. Nonetheless the Church could not ban the concept completely because it is unmistakably rooted in the Bible. Instead theologians distorted its content to the point of rendering it unrecognizable. They invented an indissoluble difference between divinity by nature (as in God) and by gift or grace (as in humans). Yet, even if eternal life and divinization were a free gift, it is by definition for ever and cannot be revoked; i.e it becomes one's nature. The Bible itself likens it to a fruit that one eats, that is absorbed into one's body and changes everything irreversibly. Whether one steals the fruit or it is given, does not seem to change the outcome.
I would conclude that Hellenism enabled Christians to accept Biblical teachings which the Roman Fathers later distorted.
(3) It seems that Hellenistic Christians were much less afraid than their Jewish brethren to share their revelations. While St. Paul and many others before and after him remained silent about much that was revealed to them, Greek influence may have encouraged others to speak their truth. For the Greeks had at this point a great tradition of seeking verity at all cost and in a very public manner. They were not ruled by a wrathful God who drew a strict boundary around the secret of his being and who promised to kill anyone who would willingly or accidentally penetrate his hiding place. (Cf: Exod 19:12-3)
Nor does it seem like Greeks were afraid of how truth might impact their social structures. They had already learned to appreciate some degree of democracy and, in Egypt, of women's equality. Since the earliest centers for Christian learning were Alexandria and Athens, not just Greek but also Egyptian culture had an enormous influence on early Christianity. Perhaps these factors made "Egypto- Hellenistic" Christians less afraid when finding a truth that divinized the soul, whether male or female, and made God inaccessible to human concepts and categories, as it were, lifting the Uncreated out of human control or monopoly.
That such a truth has repercussions on the social aspect of the Church becomes quite evident in church history. Where and when ever such truth was allowed to be sought and expressed, it immediately inaugurated an emancipation of women. Christian Via Negativa was born at a time when women studied the scriptures in classes with renowned teachers and were allowed to express themselves as deaconesses and other church officials, prophetesses, teachers, missionaries, nuns, hermits, lay recluses in their homes, etc. But the more Roman the Catholic church became, the more it strove for a powerful, centralized, institution and an orderly all male hierarchy. That meant that mysticism and women (whom Christian mysticism tends to liberate) had to be kept in their "orderly" place, i.e. clearly subordinated to the male institution. To achieve this truth itself had to be controlled and guarded jealously.
   3. Negative-Mystical Theology During the First 500 Years
It took a few centuries and the help of the Roman empire to achieve the goal of women's "orderly" subordination. First of all the egalitarian Greek influence had to be relegated to a decorative position. Instead of it the Jewish roots, which were far more conducive to maintaining a patriarchal power structure, were declared to be the only true Christian heritage. Yet "Christian Platonism" was not easily eradicated for it was justified by too many Biblical passages.
Mystical theology, suffered its first major defeat at the Council of Nicea in 325. Here it was decided that God created the world ex nihilo. This was a direct rejection of the Platonic teachings about an essential kinship between the divine and the soul which is realized in contemplation. In contrast to this, the patriarchs sought to maintain an essential indissoluble gulf between God and his creation. This had direct repercussions on Christian practice. The soul was no longer expected to become completely divinized by contemplating God and finding him to be one's true nature. Instead the believer was to strive for ethical perfection and become an immaculate image of the selfless, suffering, obedient Jesus. It was no longer said that God had become human so that humans could become divine. Rather it was asserted that people could not become any more divine than imitating God's human incarnation. Louth describes the theological development that the council of Nicea inaugurated as being clearly anti- mystical. This is perhaps not surprising, considering that the emperor Constantine called it not for mystical reasons but in order to achieve uniformity of doctrine throughout the empire which would serve as a basis for the centralization of the Church's power.
St. Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, played a major and somewhat schizophrenic role in this development from free mysticism to orderly institutionalization. He was not only a very influential man in the Church but also symptomatic of what was going on in the fourth century. Being quite conscious of the discrepancy between Christianity's Jewish and Hellenistic roots and its dependency on both, he sought to find a compromise between them. His mystical side was drawn to Christian Platonism. But, as Lees puts it, his church functionary side saw in it "an immediate threat to the consolidation of the Christian church".
His theology was to influence all future mystical theologians and it reflects many of the conclusions the Blessed Angela came to. The teachings of the bishop of Nyssa are by no means anti-mystical but they transcend neo- Platonism in a "negative way", much like Buddhist sunyata (emptiness) transcends Hindu atman-brahman (God-soul). The Platonic Christian soul is divine and able to know the transcendent God in a definitive and final way. It can actively work towards such knowledge by uniting so to say its "inner" divinity with God's "outer" divinity in contemplation. To St. Gregory on the other hand, the soul is not part of God but part of creation. As the whole universe, it is not only created out of nothing, in the last analysis it is nothing. In speaking of Moses' meeting with God in the burning bush (Exod 3:2) Gregory declares: It seems to me that at the time the great Moses was instructed in the theophany he came to know that none of those things which are apprehended by sense perception and contemplated by the understanding really subsists, but that the transcendent essence and cause of the universe, on which everything depends, alone subsists.
It cannot be said much more clearly: the soul and the world have no real own being and if one desires to see absolute reality, one has to leave behind all one can contemplate, which includes God's existence. "For as much as the stars are beyond the grasp of the fingers, so much and many times more does that nature which is above all human minds transcend our earthly thoughts."
Clearly these teachings are not the first thing people need to hear about God and the world. The Christian path does not start out with an ever deeper penetration into divine darkness until one sees the incomprehensible God whom no soul can see because no soul truly exists in the first place. So Gregory shortens his mystical theology and the result is an anti-mystical theology that sounds like this: The soul is a created thing, defiled by sin. God is beyond wo/man's reach, except in his human form, Jesus. All humans can do to approach God is emulate his son. Complete union with God is impossible.
This is the part of Gregory's teachings that allowed the church institution to take Christianity out of the hands of the people and deposit it into official controllable shrines. He does so at a time when many Roman citizens convert to Christianity for no other reason than that it is the preferred religion of the emperor. Since the prosecutions have stopped; becoming a Christian is no longer a question of life and death. The parishes and the church institution are becoming much more worldly. From this point on those who want to dedicate their lives to God leave the cities and retreat to the desert. There they seek the same austerities to which they were formerly exposed in the towns. Thus the Christian community becomes split between worldly lay followers and more earnestly dedicated renunciates. Before then there was one unified theology for all, of which all Christians were worthy by virtue of risking their lives for it. But now there arises the possibility of Roman citizens converting for personal gain. They are proud already and not in need of deifying their egos. It seems that St. Gregory does not want to throw the pearls of the Kingdom of Heaven before the swine of merely nominal Christians. And so he develops two strands of theology which might rightly be called 'exoteric and esoteric'. The real treasure is meant only for earnest seekers of God. These he encourages not to take his anti- mystical teachings too seriously:
All you mortals who have within yourselves a desire to behold the supreme Good, when you are told that the majesty of God is exalted above the heavens, that the divine glory is inexpressible, its beauty indescribable, its nature inaccessible [all things he teaches] do not despair at never being able to behold what you desire. For you do have within your grasp the degree of knowledge of God which you can attain.
To the true children of God the fact that the soul is a created and defiled entity that will never become God does not mean that they cannot be united with God. It means that mystical union will be achieved in an ecstasy that is not only an out of body experience but also, so to say, an out of soul experience. Or, as Lees puts it: "the soul's abandonment of self is at once an initiation into a higher state of perfection." Because the soul is not God, and the Absolute is not any of the human ideas about it, all human concepts of soul as well as God have to be transcended in order to become united with the Uncreated.
Similarly, that no final and complete union with God is possible does not mean that the soul cannot be completely divinized. It just means that its divinization will never come to an unsurpassable end because there is no end to the absolute. Paradoxically, God's unchanging eternal nature does not preclude it from enormous dynamics. Since it is infinite, there is always more to see in God. And thus the divinized soul's curiosity and desire to expand will never come to an end. Rather: "...the bride [i.e. the soul) realizes that she will always discover more and more of the incomprehensible and unhoped for beauty of her Spouse [i.e. God) throughout all eternity."
The tragedy is that during the next couple of centuries church functionaries blew anti-mystical theology out of proportion while hiding the Via Negativa even from monks, nuns, and ascetics. Though waning, it managed to survive uninterrupted publicly from Clement of Alexandria to Pseudo-Dionysius and then, for all we know, it lay as if dead for about 400-600 years!
      4. The Pseudo-Dionysian Corpus
Since it played a special role in the eventual revival of Via Negativa, a few things must be said about this collection of texts. To this day nobody knows who really wrote the works that were spuriously attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite. The latter is mentioned in the Bible in Act 17:34 as one of the Greek philosophers whom St. Paul converted while preaching on the Areopag, the hill of Athens' tribunal which was famous for its justice. 'Areopagite' denotes Dionysius' membership in that council. Since no works of the real Dionysius are transmitted, whenever writers refer to him, be it as Dionysius, Pseudo- Dionysius, or Denys, they mean the anonymous author who used that pseudonym. The works have been dated to stem from the late 5th or early 6th century. More or less from the start their authenticity was questioned, but they were only irrevocably proven spurious in the 19th century when it really did not matter anymore because they had already left an indelible imprint on Christendom.
The pseudonym that was chosen for the Dionysian corpus, and the care that was taken to support the claimed author, indicate that the name was picked for good reason. It points to somebody's expectation that the work together with the whole stream of theology it represents, will not be given the attention and respect it deserves. And rightly so, for already in 533 the orthodoxy and authenticity of the Dionysian corpus were doubted and by the end of the century this particular style of Christian Neo-Platonism had been silenced in the Church. Yet the forgery was so successful that it forced the same theologians who were fighting parts of its content, to defend the work's righteousness. It was also defended by John of Scythopolis (early 6th century). Interestingly, Hans Urs von Balthasar thinks that this John might have been a member of the circle around Dionysius and even might have known of the forgery. It is also regarded as probable that one or more later editors added passages to the original in order to adapt it more to church standards.
That is to say, already in the fifth century mystics who experienced God's radical transcendence of human concepts felt so threatened that they invented themselves a patron saint, Dionysius the Areopagite. In him all future mystics of the Via Negativa had indeed a powerful protector. Without him, I am convinced, people like St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, Angela of Foligno, and many more, would either never have experienced what they did, would not have dared to talk about it, or, if they had shared their realizations, would have immediately been burnt at the stake. But a well planned and executed lie that provided an unknown mystic with a quasi-apostolic status, saved the tradition of the Via Negativa for all of Christendom!
      5. Via Negativa in the European Middle Ages
Except for John Scottus Eriugena (c. 810-880), modern Christianity knows of no negative theologian between the Patristic period and the 12th century. Even of cataphatic mystics we know only few by name. As Evelyn Underhill points out: "We need not suppose from this that the mystical life died out, but merely that its experiences were seldom registered." (i.e. neither fostered nor valued by the Church.)
Yet the church institution could not delete the scripture. No matter how much the preachers spoke of God's humanity, the Bible still was full of his transcendence. No matter how much they dwelled on human sinfulness, the Bible still said that God created humans in his image (Gen 1:27). He produced them not out of nothing, but of earth and his very own breath of life. (Gen 2:7) No matter how often they assured the people that the Church should be rich and powerful, the Biblical Jesus was still poor and powerless in the worldly realm. The clergy sought to impose its dogma by trying to control who read the Bible, when, and how. Then as to this day, it was proclaimed that only official ministers were able to interpret correctly what each passage meant. Yet then as now, the Church was unable to keep people from reading the Holy Scripture and recognizing its truths.
The more the Church became rich and powerful, the more obvious became its discrepancy to Jesus' example. So people turned to the scripture and the early church fathers for guidance rather than to the preachers. Soon a movement swept over all of Europe, demanding a return to the apostolic roots of Christendom. Part of what was rediscovered amongst the ruins of the early Church was Mystical Theology and Dionysius the Areopagite.
Hugo and Richard of St.Victor (12th century) were the first to popularize the Via Negativa in the West. Yet it was not easily reintroduced. The same political factors that had led to its demise were still in full swing and were to keep all mysticism in check, not just the Negative Way.
Moreover, Christians had been fixated for so long on God being knowable and approachable only in his humanity, that they were no longer used to facing his transcendence. It terrified them. Many scholars have commented on the difference between Patristic and medieval expositions on the Via Negativa. Lossky, Lot-Bordine, and von Ivanka all remark how, compared to antiquity, the medieval mystics' approach of God's transcendence is much more dramatic and tortured. The contemplatives of the Dark Ages speak of a horrifying "dark night of the soul", a term which the early Fathers did not know. The scholars explain this distinction with differences in style, genre, emphasis, and culture. Hausherr argues fairly convincingly that the "Greek Fathers" suffered just as much as their later brethren for the sake of the beatific vision. He calls it an utopia to think that anyone will reach the Promised Land without passing through a desert, and, paraphrasing the Bible, he affirms that no one will be reborn (as a new wo/man in Christ) unless s/he has first died a spiritual death. I would not disagree with him on this point, but it seems that he draws some incorrect conclusions.
Hausherr analyzes the sum of suffering necessary for enlightenment in the early Church and then compares it to the amount of suffering during the medieval "dark night of the soul". The problem is that he summarizes St. John of the Cross' dark night as a general active and passive purification of reason and spirit. Yet the saint only speaks of those last layers of purification of reason and spirit which "cause in the soul the said negation of itself and all things." Hausherr is quite possibly right that the Greek Fathers (and Mothers) suffered as much as their later brethren for the sake of divine union. But here the issue is only one very specific kind of anguish, namely that which is experienced when the "dark night of the soul" forces one to negate the self and all things, including God.
As St. John of the Cross says, during the dark night of the soul a person is confronted with God's absence until s/he comes to love the darkness (of his inconceivability and nothingness). ("Nothingness' is the term St. John of the Cross, Marguerite Porete, Master Eckhart, and others employ.) Here the soul is forced to let go of everything it ever thought God (and anything else) was. Dealing with this realization is, as far as I can see, what "death and resurrection" refers to within the context of Via Negativa.
Johnston compares the Christian "dark night" with "the great death" in the Zen tradition where the practitioner also "loses" everything s/he thought was real. Yet here, with the right guidance and support, death is not traumatic.
If a similar "death" in the context of the medieval Church leads mystics to a specific and horrendous kind of suffering, it is for a specific reason. It seems that the amount of psychological pain is proportionate to a contemplative's connection with the Negative tradition. If the mystic is surrounded by guides who are trained in the Via Negativa and by a community that understands and embraces where Mystical Theology leads, the experience does not have to be traumatic. But if s/he is cut off from the Negative Way, often not even knowing such a thing exists, much suffering ensues.
There are many accounts of great women mystics who are not only completely isolated in their quest for perfect union, but whose every step is questioned or opposed by their "guides". St. Teresa of Avila describes the torments women will frequently be led into by "a confessor who is so discreet and has so little experience that... he fears everything and finds in everything something to doubt." She describes in great detail the "almost unbearable" suffering these women are plunged into when: "Everything is immediately condemned as from the devil or melancholy." The soul is incapable of explaining the facts to the confessor and, overwhelmed by his condemnation, eventually loses sight of the truth itself. In the end it believes that it is rejected by God. Not all the devils together torment the soul as much as such confessors. And there is no remedy other than to wait for the mercy of God to calm the tempest and to hope that meanwhile one will not lose one's mind.
The clerics are trying to "discern the spirits". They are taught by the Bible, and especially by their patriarchal tradition, to distrust any spiritual experience. Paul as well as John already admonish the earliest Christian communities to appreciate influxes of the Holy Spirit, but also to test every one of them in order to ascertain that they do not stem from an evil spirit. Paul in particular, warns that Satan can "masquerade as an angel of light". But why did the Church take these warnings so much more seriously than many others? And why were so many clerics apparently completely unable to judge women's experiences correctly? Because it fit their agenda and their millennia old tradition of misogyny. They took men to be the norm and everything characteristically feminine to be deviant and suspect. St. Teresa is well aware of this. She mourns the fact that women are intimidated:
. . . so that we may not do anything worthwhile for You (God) in public or dare speak some truths that we lament over in secret". [Invoking Christ who, as opposed to the men of her time, does not despise women, she continues:] "You are a just judge and not like those of the world. Since the world's judges are sons of Adam and all of them men, there is no virtue in women that they do not hold suspect.
Angela of Foligno suffers in much the same way from the suspicion and ignorance of her confessor. She says that at times she tries to communicate things which she has never heard any mortal speak of. Yet, more often than not she remains silent even though it is painful, because she knows from experience that she will not be understood. What is striking in her case is that she is actually in contact with people who understand and approve of her experiences. Her unofficial inquisitors, amongst whom is a Cardinal, seem to be familiar with the Via Negativa. This certainly seems to put her in a better position than the one St. Teresa describes. But Angela does not seem to receive any guidance from these other men. They do not share information about former Negative theologians with her. All they grant is an affirmation that so far she is not a heretic. Her "spiritual direction" (if one can call it that) rests entirely in the hands of her inept confessor.
This brings us to an important point. In some traditions, like Buddhism or even Russian Orthodox Christianity, people are free to travel around and choose their soul guide from any monastery or parish they like. But Roman Catholic practitioners are generally expected to be content with a local parish priest. And, perhaps especially for a woman, it would be regarded as inappropriate to seek guidance from another, especially a higher ranking man. Since women were not regarded as independent individuals but always as proprietary to one man or another, a religious woman was probably seen as the domain of her confessor. This would be one explanation why other, more understanding men did not actively help Angela. Another is that men did not want women to develop their individual potentials in any way, spiritually or otherwise. St. Teresa recounts men's objections to female spirituality:
You will hear some persons frequently making objections: "there are dangers"; . . . "it's harmful to virtue"; "it's not for women, for they will be susceptible to illusions"; "it's better they stick to their sewing"; "they don't need these delicacies".
What does all this have to do with the position of the Via Negativa in the European Middle Ages? It means that the Church did everything in its power to keep the Negative Way as contained as possible and to hide it away especially from women and the laity. When mystics discovered it anyway, it was due only to the official status of the Greek Fathers and especially Dionysius that they were not condemned.
Some Christian mystics did use the language of Negative Theology because they had read the relevant literature. The famous male negative theologians, such as the author of the Cloud of Unknowing and St. John of the Cross, are known to have read Dionysius the Areopagite. Through them Denys' theology spread amongst the Carthusian, Carmelite, and other contemplative orders who guarded it for an elect few in the manner typical of esoteric teachings. Yet others shared the same negative mystical language simply because they used basically the same methods within the same tradition. This was particularly true for many lay women like Angela of Foligno, who had no theological training, usually no access to books other than the Bible and whose confessors or parish priests probably would not have discussed the highest divine secrets with them, even if they had known of them.
Angela confirms that Mystical Theology was revealed to her without her having any knowledge of it as a tradition within the Church when she says: "The soul speaks about these things, though it never heard them spoken by any mortal, and understands them with such great clarity that to be silent about them is painful." She also lets us know that the entire source of her "theological education" is the sermons and admonitions of ordinary parish priests. One day, when she experiences an ecstacy that makes her forget the world and herself, she affirms: "with the utmost certainty, that nothing of these delights of God is being preached. Preachers cannot preach it; they do not understand what they preach." Her ignorance of higher theology is probably representative of the vast majority of medieval women mystics. It was the direct and intended result of church policies.
Some scholars point out that the noble women of the feudal system were almost as learned as the men. They maintain that not only nuns but even beguines (female lay ascetics) of the upper classes were endowed with much literary as well as spiritual culture and were "inspired by the Greek Fathers". However for the majority of less fortunate women mystics this was certainly not the case. And even for the richer ones things changed in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. If during the preceding era religious women were encouraged to study theology, they were now dissuaded, and any in depth study became the exclusive privilege of ordained men.
Hence, class and education (they go together), gender, and being born at the right time were the decisive criteria for access to Greek thought and Mystical Theology. Often the same ideas that were shared amongst those who knew Greek and Latin were regarded as extremely dangerous if they were to get out to the masses. It would be worthwhile investigating how many thousands of people the Church ordered killed because they shared in the vernacular and with the lower classes what educated men could read about in monastic libraries.
So while the Greek Fathers never directly reached masses of mystics who would have greatly appreciated their help, their writings did spare some from condemnation and death.
   D. The Development of Uma Shentong
In the Grub mtha' shel gyi me long (History of Philosophical Doctrines) the first argument made for "proving" that Shentong doctrine is "wrong" consists of showing how similar or identical it is to Hindu Samkhya philosophy. According to this logic Shentong thought could not possibly be Buddhist if it is almost identical with a Hindu school of thought that Madhyamikas already consider "refuted". Since many Western scholars have been influenced by such anti-Shentong polemics, it might be helpful to trace the Buddhist roots of this school.
1. In Search of a Positive Nirvana
The history of Buddhism as a religion started with Buddha Shakyamuni's enlightenment. Ever since then Buddhists have asked themselves what the characteristics of this enlightenment were. Both de La Vallée Poussin and Schmitthausen argue that early canonical texts reveal a struggle concerning how to define enlightenment. The scriptures try to reconcile an "open antagonism between the followers of the 'positive-mystical' current and those of the 'negative-intellectual' one." While the former stressed what is revealed in meditation, the latter trusted more in wisdom gained from intellectual analysis. To appease the two groups Anguttara, III, 355 calls samadhi and prajna "the two wings that are necessary to fly out of transmigration". The basic questions are: is nirvana really the mere extinction of one individual by the cessation of suffering and its cause, and is it enough to realize such an extinction intellectually through prajna? Or does enlightenment consist of something inconceivably positive that one "physically" experiences in this life? (The scriptures speak of "touching nirvana with one's body")
It is true that talk about nirvana (literally: extinction) often uses exclusively negative and apophatic language. (Negative in respect to samsara, apophatic in respect to nirvana.) In the Pali canon the highest meditational state, the one that actually comes into contact with nirvana, is called nirodhasamapatti, which de La Vallée Poussin translates to "recueillement de la déstruction" (concentration of destruction). According to the Mahavedalla Sutta it is a state similar to death.
Of course nirvana as the ultimate good was also described in positive terms as arising by awakening and "having seen the truths" (Skt. drstasatya). It is called permanent, eternal, the highest, calm, secure, existent, the immortal element (Skt. amata dhatu), peace, bliss, etc. Yet at this time the defining characteristic of Buddhism - that which set it apart from Hinduism - seems to have been the negative and apophatic approach.
Yet there were three things all Buddhists held to be positive without qualifications: the Buddha, the Dharma and the sangha. With the help of these Three Jewels, positive- mystical elements quickly gained importance. Of these the Buddha was considered most important, since without him there would have been neither Dharma nor Sangha. And what was the Buddha? He was the Awakened One who had achieved realization of the absolute and gave expression to it. His enlightenment made him the personification of ultimate reality and eventually he came to be seen as no other than the Absolute. This development started with his passing into utter extinction or parinirvana. The problem was that since 'nirvana' meant complete extinction, there could be no absolute that was in any way accessible, benevolent or helpful to the unenlightened. This is the position stated in such texts as the Mahaparinibbana Sutta of the Pali canon. Here the Buddha leaves his disciples behind without any promise of continued presence or even a successor. He admonishes his followers: "you should live as islands unto yourselves, being your own refuge, with no one else as your refuge, with the Dhamma as an island, with the Dhamma as your refuge, with no other refuge." But were his "questing disciples" ready to be islands unto themselves when for the past almost half a century of the Buddha's activity in the world, the quintessence of being a Buddhist had been taking refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and sangha? Could one of the Three Jewels suddenly be wiped out without a trace, leaving Buddhists with only two refuges, the Dharma and the sangha? Apparently some were able to accept that and they carried the negative-analytical tradition on. But many were not, and they concentrated on the Dharma's positive-mystical aspects.
The Buddha had stated: "Verily, seeing the Norm, [others translate 'Dhamma'] Vakkali, one sees me: seeing me, one sees the Norm." The Buddha's teachings were not just his personal opinion, rather he himself regarded them as a timeless truth that he had discovered just like all other buddhas had and would discover it. On one level his words were the Dharma, but on another level, as the Ratnagotravibhaga explains, the Dharma "cannot be speculated upon and is beyond explanation, but is revealed by introspection". Such approaches to the Buddha and the Dharma led to their identification with ultimate reality. Henceforth one of the names by which the absolute was known was 'Dharmakaya' - the 'Dharma-body' of the Buddha which did not vanish in nirvana but revealed itself to people in meditation.
Another positive-mystical way for staying in touch with the master's presence after his parinirvana was worshipping him at the stupas containing his remains. A whole sutra (Adbhutasutra) was composed "whose main subject is the admiration of merits of the Stupa worship as the highest observance of Buddhist(s)." What did people do at the stupas? They performed the customary Indian rituals for the burial grounds of very important people and they sang eulogies to the Buddha by reciting his epithets. Here, the Buddha (and thereby enlightenment as such) was, without qualifications, praised as something positive. He was lauded as the perfection of wisdom, physical form, and manner, he had attained "the summit of the world", he was the mahapurusa, the great cosmic person, the cakravartin, the Lord bhagavan, the teacher of gods and humans, the Blessed One, the caravan leader, the Omniscient, the Fearless, the Incomparable, etc. Not all monks accepted this kind of worship as properly Buddhist but eventually they had to recognize that there were several categories of enlightened people: pannavimutta, saddhavimutta, and ubhatobhaagavimutta (Pali: those freed by wisdom, those freed by faith, and those freed both ways). For those who were drawn to the path of faith a method of visualization was developed that consisted of contemplating the epithets. This became an important practice in the lay as well as monastic Theravada communities. Hence, faith in a powerful positive entity as one possible vehicle to liberation became rooted in the Buddhist tradition.
Takasaki claims the proposition that enlightenment is attained by the purification of accidental obscurations (agantukaklesa) on the essential nature of the mind (cittaprakriti) as the basis for positive assertions about the Buddha. Both terms are found in the Pali canon and form, according to him, the starting point of the garbha theory. Though most schools did not agree with such a view, at least some did. The Theravada of Ceylon, certain Vaibhasika of the southern sects, the Vatsiputriya, and the Mahasanghika schools held that consciousness is intrinsically luminous and pure and defiled only by adventitious defilements.
 
So at this point in the development, Buddhist thought as a whole did not agree upon but did include the idea of an essentially positive nature of consciousness and of the absolute as dharmakaya. It would seem that within the Indian framework only a very small intellectual step would have been necessary to put dharmakaya and an essentially pure nature of consciousness together and come up with buddha nature. But there was an obstacle in the way called "anatman".
      2. Tathagatagarbha and Anatman
No-self (anatman) was one of the most central doctrines of Buddha's teachings. It was not only one of the three marks of existence (trilaksana: suffering, impermanence, no-self).
Indeed, 'seeing no-self' is said to be the opposite of the cause of suffering, (Pramanavarttika II.136b) and hence itself the most important single method for achieving liberation; . . . all subsequent commentators simply equate it with the path.
According to the Sariputrabhidharma "Liberating insight consists in a realization of all the four Noble Truths under the aspect of "Lack of Self" (anatman)" Clinging to atman, a Hindu concept, on the other hand was considered one of the greatest obstacles to liberation.
Thus "lack of self" (which includes a lack of God) became the main point of reference for determining whether something was Hindu or Buddhist. Other than that the two religions had so much in common that Buddhism could easily be taken as a reform movement within Hinduism. Indeed, it has been seen as such by Hindu as well as Western scholars. In my opinion anatman became singled out to carry the burden of Buddhist identity. This is not the place to fully prove my point. Suffice it to say that Snellgrove confirms that Buddhism was always open to the influence of other Indian philosophies and practices so long as they had proven to be effective in producing wholesome results. Therefore, he says, it became essential for Buddhists to hold fast to the central doctrines (in my opinion especially anatman) in order to separate Buddhism from other Indian religious systems. Buddha nature, it seems, was perceived as betraying anatman and thereby Buddhist identity as a whole. To this day the question whether buddha nature is a Hindu or a Buddhist concept occupies a central position in controversies about this subject. Sallie King found it necessary to make one of three goals of her book "Buddha Nature": to grapple with the common charge that the notion of Buddha nature (or tathagatagarbha) introduces into Buddhism the non-Buddhist, crypto-Hindu element of atmavada . . . . I will explore the extent to which it is possible to defend the Buddha nature concept from a purely Buddhist perspective, in terms of purely Buddhist philosophical principles.
It is questionable whether there are very many "purely Buddhist perspectives" in Buddhism. Yet there is a tendency to reject buddha nature thought, simply on the grounds that it is perceived as too Hindu, while many other concepts are accepted as Buddhist no matter how blatantly Hindu their origin. In order to maintain a Buddhist identity it appears that the line of what was acceptable Hindu influence and what was not, had to be drawn somewhere. And in India many felt that atman-brahman seemed like an appropriate place to draw it, even though Nagarjuna points out that one should not cling to any teaching no matter what it is. For, he admits,: "Both 'The self exists' has been expounded and 'The self does not exist' has been taught too. And 'Neither self nor non-self exist' has been taught as well by the Buddhas."
In China, far away from Hindu surroundings, tathagatagarbha was finally translated into words that represent what many people already took it to mean: buddha nature (Chinese: hsing). While Indians had to avoid saying that buddha nature pervades the whole universe (not just all beings) in order to be acceptable as Buddhists, the situation in China was exactly the other way around. Here, just as in India, statements as to an absolute essence pervading all things were in agreement with the indigenous religions and matched the cultural preference. Yet in China, far from this being an obstacle, the acceptance of Buddhism depended on the Dharma having at least something in common with the local traditions. As opposed to India not much else was shared.
How important a sense of identity and belonging must have been to most Buddhist practitioners is elucidated by the term used for that concept which marked the next step towards the naming of tathagatagarbha: buddha-gotra.
   3. Buddha-gotra, Family of the Buddha, or Arya-gotra, Noble Family
Like many other Buddhist expressions, the term buddha- gotra underwent a significant development and many variations were established. Since Buddhism embraces the possibility of valid Dharma revealing itself to practitioners in meditation, one cannot expect to find monolithic definitions.
While not appearing in the Pali canon, Buddha-gotra is nonetheless a concept that originated before the Mahayana. This term denotes "a pure lineage or family to which all knowledgeable beings belong". It also represented the essential characteristic of a saint which enabled her/him to attain arhatship. The Abhidharmakosa and the Vaibhasikas define it as the element of absence of desire. To the Sautrantikas it is a special force (one of the 'pure forces', viprayukta-samskara) that governs the element of consciousness. This element is said to be inherent in sentient beings from the outset, but only at the time of enlightenment does it give rise to primordial wisdom.
   In the differences between these definitions one can again detect the thread of negative, analytical, psychological versus positive, mystical tendencies that run all the way from the first characterizations of enlightenment to the last rangtong versus shentong explanations of tathagatagarbha. And along with it run the efforts to try and harmonize those two poles. One example of such compromise is the Yogacarins' (Skt.: practitioners of yoga) proclamation that sentient beings have two kinds or aspects of Buddha-gotra. One that they posses by nature, a primordial immutable force that constitutes the seed of enlightenment, and an other which is active, mutable, and undergoes a process of development.
   Statements like these bring Buddhist thought once more very close to affirming a buddha nature. But probably perceiving the "dangerous" affinity of such ideas to Vedanta philosophy, thinkers resist and confirm instead that while the gotra is an outflow of the absolute, it is not identical with it and is instead annihilated at the time of final nirvana.
In the Kasyapa parivarta and the Dasabhumika sutra, the gotra represents a potential for supreme enlightenment due to one's belonging to the Buddha's family-lineage and being "knowledgeable" which is actualized at the eighth bodhisattva bhumi. This seems to imply an elitist approach which makes liberation available only to those belonging to the right tradition. Yet, counteracting such tendencies, the Kasyapa parivarta also affirms a radically egalitarian view by defining the arya-gotra as "the lineage in which one realizes the equality of all dharmas. In this lineage there also is no distinction of inferior, mediocre, or superior. That gotra is equal to space in its nature." The text even describes the noble lineage, as unconditioned, immaculate, permanent, and real, perhaps pre-figuring the four guna-paramitas in the Srimaladevi sutra.
      4. Tathagatagarbha and Madhyamaka
Despite periodic attempts of reconciliation, the old disharmony between "mystics" and "logicians" has never been permanently attuned. In the second/third century C.E. the Madhyamaka arose and took a strong stance on the negative- intellectual side. (Although they characterize their approach as "not taking a stance".) Calling their teachings "of the Middle" meant to denote a faithful return to Shakyamuni's original Middle Way (Madhyama Pratipad). The Madhyamikas' most important representative, Nagarjuna, was regarded as so brilliant and powerful that no one could escape having to subject their own views to his dialectics. Such investigation was to determine whether one was still in the Middle or "Madhyamika" and thus faithful to the Buddha's teachings. There is evidence that something like a philosophical cleansing campaign might have swept the Buddhist world. Sallie King makes clear just how great the challenge was. She paraphrases the Yogacarins as saying that "Madhyamaka drove people from the Dharma". . . [because] "literary or logical perfection was not sufficient for most religious practitioners." Most likely, this was not just polemics. Given the fact of Hindu presence all around the Buddhists, it is not at all unlikely that people were prepared to leave if they couldn't be true to Buddhism and to their own religiosity. Kuijp comments on the difference in religious-psychological disposition between the later Madhyamikas and (what some call) Yogacara-Madhyamikas. He suggests that these two schools are not only rooted in different texts but also in a different "sort of relationship with the religious or mystical experience". Ruegg even speaks of the negative- analytical current as it came to be represented by Uma Rangtong and the positive-mystical one, later represented by Uma Shentong, as "belonging to distinct universes of religious-philosophical discourse". (Micro-universes, to be precise, as they could be found in neighboring monks' cells.)
The mystics reacted strongly to the intellectual Madhyamikas. Rather than becoming more careful in their statements at least some paid no more heed to how Hindu, i.e. un-Buddhist, they may have sounded. Rather they echoed the Prajnaparamita's list of characteristics of "wrong view", only this time calling them the "four perfect transcendental qualities (gunaparamita as opposed to prajnaparamita) of the tathagatagarbha: Nitya (permanence), sukha (bliss), atman (self), and subba (purity).
Venting age-old aversions, the positive-mystical current attacked the very root of the scholastics' arguments: nirvana as extinction. Sallie King confirms that the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana sutra "emphasizes the eternity of the Buddha, implicitly criticizing the idea that nirvana means extinction, and linking this belief with the idea of the tathagatagarbha." Yogacarins and related thinkers were quite frank in their assessment that enlightenment needed to be presented as a positive goal worth striving for and that freedom from suffering was not enough unless it meant freedom to see a positive Truth.
Nevertheless buddha nature thought was kept in check by the Madhyamaka and toned down quite a bit. There is an almost complete absence of Indian commentaries on tathagatagarbha texts. Nor did this group of sutras manage to give rise to an established school of thought with its own name.
It seems that a sort of truce or compromise was established between the mystics as they came to be represented by the Yogacara schools and the scholastic Madhyamikas. Eventually everyone accepted emptiness and tathagatagarbha, only with differing interpretations. The mystics claimed that all appearances (characterized as stains on the pure mind) were indeed empty, but not the womb of the Buddha. It was the one truly existing essence of all dharmas. The logicians on the other hand maintained that all beings did posses tathagatagarbha, but only in the form of the potential to reach buddhahood. It was just as empty as all other dharmas.
The teachings of the logicians are called the Second Turning of the Wheel of Dharma (dharmacakra). While most tathagatagarbha scriptures belong to the third Turning of the Wheel. Since all three turnings described reality a bit differently, people wanted to determine which teachings were to be regarded as definitive and absolute (nitartha) and which were preliminary (neyartha) teachings whose temporary purpose would ultimately be interpreted and superseded by higher teachings. From very early on all Buddhist schools (except for the Mahasanghika ) accepted this distinction of preliminary and ultimate meaning. Yet not many schools agreed on which teachings fell into the "absolute" category, each feeling their view was the ultimate. Katz summarizes the three wheel theory in conjunction with the two meanings (artha) as propounded by the Sandhinirmocana sutra thus:
the first turning of the wheel was the Buddha's hinayana teachings which consisted of naively positivistic statements, his second turning was the Madhyamaka which negated the first turning on an ultimate level, both of which it [the Sandhinirmocana-sutra) considered neyartha because they were extremes, that is, their positions were defined by each other. The third tuning, that which proclaims what was really intended in each of the first two, is the only set of doctrines to be considered as nitartha and is best exemplified by the Sandhinirmocana and related texts. This real intention, or samdha bhasa, speaks of the ultimate as non-dual, of one taste, and of having been affirmed by the Buddha.
The Madhyamaka is often presented as a unified philosophy which all Buddhists regard as the highest teachings. But this is not a very realistic view. Many who accept it as the highest logic nevertheless do not regard it as the ultimate teaching.
      5. Madhyamaka and Yogacara
Even within the Madhyamika school there was controversy as to what the "highest teaching" was. Soon after Nagarjuna's passing the Madhyamikas began to be challenged by other schools of thought, especially by the Yogacara. Based on distinct methods of dealing with such outer criticism, two kinds of Middles arose. Much later Tibetans would name them after their defining characteristics: Prasangika-Madhyamaka and Svatantrika- Madhyamaka. Prasangikas (literally: "using inferences") refuted other positions by merely logically leading their tenets ad absurdum, without positing any proper stance. But Svatantrikas (literally: "self-sufficient") felt it was possible and necessary in order to avoid nihilism, to affirm one's own logical conclusions. Then, under the influence of Bhavaviveka (c. 490-570 C.E.), Yogacara thought was permitted to enter Madhyamika schools and form a synthesis. Now, in addition to the two former sub- schools, we find a third, called Yogacara-Svatantrika- Madhyamaka, or simply Yogacara-Madhyamaka.
Since Uma Shentong is often equated with Yogacara- Madhyamaka, it would be helpful if a clear definition of that school could be found. Unfortunately this is impossible for several reasons.
(1) As mentioned above, Madhyamikas and Yogacarins shared many cycles of controversy, rapprochement, truce, and renewed controversy. Hence there are authors and evidence that support regarding these schools of thought as separate as well as mingled.
(2) One should keep in mind that these are not denominations or any other kind of group to which one commits with some sort of ritual. Rather they are loosely assorted clusters of ideas all of which are bounced around in the Buddhist community. Even "schools of thought" is too stringent a term, although perhaps the best available. Anyone is more or less free to combine these clusters as they like and to call themselves whatever they please. Thus it often becomes impossible to pin down what exactly it means to think as a Madhyamikan, as a Yogacarin, or as any combination thereof.
Rather than providing clear-cut definitions of schools, one can only list possibilities of what it meant to be a member of those currents, and which of those possibilities most closely matches Dolpopa:
(1) As was explained above, Nagarjuna equated his particular system of dialectics with a return to Gautama's 'Madhyama Pratipad' or Middle Way. But no school could lay an exclusive claim on the term. And since everyone felt the need to be "of the Middle" a variety of "Madhyamikas" arose. The minimum requirement to pass as some kind of Mahayana Middle school seems to be to hold all dualistically grasped phenomena to be empty of inherent independent existence.
(2) The minimum of what it means to be a Yogacarin is to regard all conventional phenomena as mere projections of the mind, or as 'Mind Only' (Skt.: cittamatra), a synonym for this cluster of ideas. Cittamatrins deny that "outer" objects ever arise. They affirm non-dual consciousness in which there is no distinction between subject and object as truly existing. Maitreya and the brothers Asanga and Vasubandhu are usually regarded as the founders of Yogacara.
(3) Tathagatagarbha is, so to say, a wild card that can be combined in different ways with many clusters of ideas. There is Madhyamaka as well as Yogacara without tathagatagarbha or with different interpretations of buddha nature.
(4) There are combinations of the above listed variables that are subsumed under the appellation "Yogacara(-Svatantrika)-Madhyamaka". On the negative- intellectual side we find more Nagarjunian definitions like the one by the Tibetan Cang-kya. According to this Rangtongpa, Yogacara-Svatantrika-Madhyamikas differ from Yogacarins in that they do not affirm any kind of consciousness, nor even a non-dual suchness, as truly existent. They only incorporate Cittamatra thought into their explanations of relative reality by maintaining that conventionally the appearance of phenomena is caused by projections of mind. Representatives of this faction of Yogacara-Svatantrika-Madhyamikas were Santarakshita (8th century) and his disciple Kamalsila, both extremely influential Indian missionaries to Tibet.
Rangtongpas and people who were educated by them accept only this version as "Yogacara-Madhyamaka". Ruegg, e.g. does not mention anyone more "positive-mystical" in this category. Even when he lists a few masters and treatises that are the product of a synthesis of Yogacara, Madhyamaka, and Vajrayana (the Tantric vehicle) none of them match Shentongpas' definition of Yogacara- Madhyamikas.
On the other (very positive-mystical) side there are people who declare the Yogacara of Maitreya, Asanga, and Vasubandhu to be Yogacara-Madhyamaka. Dolpopa says that "Absolute Cittamatra" is nothing other than Yogacara- Madhyamaka, since in it there is no duality of perceiver and perceived. He managed to gain widespread acceptance for this stance though it was severely challenged by Rangtongpas.
In between these two versions of Yogacara-Madhyamaka there is a third definition of later thinkers such as Jamgon Kongtrul the Great and Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche. In contrast to Dolpopa, they try to reconcile Uma Rangtong and Shentong by saying: "No Shentong without a proper understanding of Rangtong" These people maintain that even as a Shentongpa one has to first recognize the self-empty nature of the absolute before one can affirm its qualities. They say one does so when one really understands just how inconceivable buddha nature is. To Dolpopa however, inconceivability (Skt.: acintya or acintika, Tib.: bsam med or bsam gyi mi khyab pa) is not the same as self- emptiness. No matter how inconceivable thusness is, it will never be self-empty.
If one was to take Rangtong as Madhyamaka and Dolpopa's Shentong as Yogacara, then the efforts of later Shentongpas could indeed be called Yogacara-Madhyamaka.
So whose ideas does Dolpopa match? Hookham confirms that Dolpopa's stance is: "in essence as well as in expression, no different from the Tathagatagarbha Sutras and the Sutras on the Absolute Dharmata". But he systematized and interpreted older scriptures, particularly seeking to harmonize the two diverging definitions of emptiness he found. His formula for reconciling them was: When it is said that samvrti (Skt. conventional, relative) phenomena are empty, it is meant that they are empty of own nature (rangtong). But when the absolute is said to be empty, it is meant to be empty of other, (shentong), but not empty of itself. According to Williams, even Nagarjuna characterized the nature of reality as "not dependent of an-other" and admits that the Madhyamika does "not totally deny" the non-contingent on another self- essence of the true nature of reality. Dolpopa agreed with Nagarjuna that all phenomena are empty, but interpreted buddha nature, not interdependent co-arising, as emptiness.
What other scholars (particularly Gelugpas) took such offense with was that he did something that had not been done in Tibet up to that point: he took the third turning of the wheel of Dharma literally, stating that, as opposed to the official view then held in Tibet, it was not in need of interpretation, but represented the highest teachings of the Buddha.
Now the third turning of the wheel of Dharma consisted of Yogacara and tathagatagarbha teachings. In my view, these are precisely what makes up Shentong thought. Why then did it become known as Shentong Madhyamaka? And why did many Tibetan scholars insist that they corresponded to Yogacara-Svatantrika-Madhyamaka? Whence all that controversy amongst great Tibetan Buddhist masters as well as Western scholars as to which masters and texts belong to which school of thought, who wrote which treatise, and what are the tenets of each school anyway?
This uncertainty is neither an accident nor is it caused by mere ignorance. Rather it is the outcome of specific Buddhist characteristics. One of these is that the followers of the Buddha have always been able to accept people as highly enlightened even if they did not agree with all their teachings. When they could not negate a person's enlightenment, they would try to interpret his or her teachings as ultimately being in agreement with their own tenets. Thus many different schools claim the same masters as expounding their teachings. An extreme example is the Jodo Shinshu (Japanese Pure Land Buddhism) referring to Nagarjuna as one of its patriarchs. A more typical case is the Gelugpa Cang-kya's (1717-1786) evaluation of Marpa's view (1012-1096 C.E.) as "unquestionably that of the Great Madhyamika-Prasangika". Yet at the heart of Marpa's instructions lies "Mahamudra", which Hookham calls a "typical Shentong-type teaching". Cang-kya does concede that Marpa received and taught a vast variety of teachings. But, he says, "it is not necessary that all the instructions deriving from the lama Mar-ba be of the Madhyamika system [in order to call him a Prasangika)." - Perhaps we need to learn to take it as the hallmark of a real master if it is impossible to match him entirely with one particular cluster of ideas.
I see two reasons for the tendency to call Yogacara cum tathagatagarbha teachings "Yogacara-Madhyamaka":
(1) In Tibet Madhyamaka had been proclaimed by royal edict as the highest and only acceptable teaching. Even when it was no longer punished by law to hold different views, this was still a difficult tradition to reject.
(2) The relevant Yogacara teachings had arisen not independently of Madhyamaka but as a response and, as indicated earlier, as a kind of "parasite" on Nagarjuna's proclamations. They had grappled with Nagarjuna; had assimilated of his teachings as much as they found digestible, and had argued against the rest. These were Yogacara cum tathagatagarbha teachings that had gone through the Madhyamaka mill and come out the other side all the more confident that Madhyamaka could neither destroy them nor even prove them inferior.
Perhaps there was a Yogacara-Madhyamaka school in India that corresponded to this description, but I have found no convincing evidence for it. I only found Yogacara schools to coincide with this characterization.
In my opinion, Shentongpas who are true to Dolpopa's teachings are the most honest when they call their views Great Madhyamaka (dbu ma chen po). This term expresses the sentiment of superiority to Nagarjuna's school and an absence of fear to digress from him. For example, Hookham summarizes Jamgon Kongtrul's evaluation of Uma Shentong as "incorporating the superior dialectic of the Madhyamaka with the superior yogic insight of the Yogacarins, producing the 'highest summit of all the Mahayana pitakas'."
To many Shentongpas, Rangtong doctrine reflects merely what views must be let go of to reach realization while Shentong teachings reflect what one (sometimes quite literally) sees when one reaches the goal.
In the end the whole Rangtong-Shentong controversy is a faithful continuation of the old differences between "positive mystics" (that came to be represented by the Yogacara) and "negative intellectuals" (that came to be represented by the Madhyamaka), between sraddhavimukta and prajnavimukta. While the latter mistrust experience unless it corresponds to logical analysis, (their own kind of "discernment of spirits") the former have more faith in experience than in man-made logic.
In India and Tibet the two streams were never completely separate but rather in continual exchange. They influenced and complemented each other.

 
CHAPTER THREE
THE HISTORICAL AND RELIGIO-CULTURAL SETTING OF ANGELA AND DOLPOPA
A. Angela
   1.Her Time
All was not well in the Church at Angela's time. Ever since the Roman Emperor Constantine had raised Christianity to the status of state religion in the early fourth century the papacy had become more and more preoccupied with worldly power politics. By the end of the twelfth century the Papal Curia was the most powerful feudal lord with more vassals than any other European court. Feudal dues were paid in form of money and/or military services. Many high church offices were sold amongst Roman nobles (simony) or granted by secular rulers to opportune allies (lay investiture). True, in the tenth century the Benedictine monks of Cluny, France started a reform movement that had a great impact on the Church. It eventually led to men having to choose between marriage and church offices. This was to guarantee that the Church would be run by men who had at least some spiritual inclination. Yet the hunger for temporal riches and power had seeped deep into the church structure. On the international level this resulted in drawn out, open warfare between popes and emperors in the struggle for supremacy.

During Angela's life time political consciousness, even within the Church, had developed to the point where many demanded a certain separation between papacy and states. As Broderick puts it: "the monarchic function of the pope came to be questioned." Yet the Curia was far from willing to relinquish power and so the confrontation between pope and kings reached a new peak. When Boniface VIII (1294-1303) announced a decree that every human's salvation depended upon his or her submission to the "Vicar of Christ", Philip the Fair ordered his assassination. The pope barely managed to save his life by fleeing from Rome, which was in revolt. On his way to Perugia he probably came through Foligno, or at least passed through its vicinity in 1303.
On the local level as well, much of the clergy lived a life style quite opposed to that of the apostles. This was not conducive to convincing the laity of the Church's moral superiority and claim to power. In order to keep the masses docile the papacy used two strategies:
On the peaceful side the most powerful of all medieval popes, Innocent III (1198-1216), encouraged the establishment of mendicant friars such as the Franciscans. Travelling the country as poor missionaries, they served as spokesmen for the established ecclesiastical hierarchy, while also embodying the kind of Church many wanted.
On the wrathful side was the Inquisition. Although the Church sought to eliminate diverging views from its very inception, only the thirteenth century brought a systematized and deadly persecution of "heretics". By 1246 (two years before Angela's birth) the Inquisition recruited its spies in every parish. By 1252 torture and executions were part of its legal tools.
Only two generations after St, Francis, these two forces: a mighty, authoritarian Church and an order of "Little Brothers" whose highest ideal was poverty of body and spirit (humbleness), would determine the context of Angela's life.
      2. Her Religious Inheritance
a. Generally Catholic
i. The Medieval Women's Movement
The laity, but particularly women, reacted to the more and more grotesque secularization of the Church with a heightened interiority of faith. The middle of the twelfth century saw the rise of a veritable mystical "women's movement". All over Europe the laity strove to take the matters of God into its own hands and hearts. Many were condemned as heretics just for that, even if they maintained a connection to the Church. Some of the lay communities that the Church finally acknowledged as legitimately Christian (after initial suspicion and accusations) included the Humiliates (=humble) around Milan, the Beguines in the Low Countries and the Tertiary lay orders that were affiliated with established orders such as the Franciscans and Dominicans. In all of these women were a successful, public, and energetic presence of leadership. Women were not only more emotional but also more mystical. It was characteristic for these sisters, far more often than their brothers, to experience ecstasies, visions, miracles such as levitation and stigmata, and mystical union with the overflowing love of God. Apparently men felt so threatened by this development that they declared masses of women to be possessed.
To this day one can detect the repercussions. Up until recently the relevant literature contained much discussion of which neuroses or generally unhealthy female states of mind might have led to the specific character of medieval women's mysticism. Discussion of this issue might have its place in dialogue between science and religion but not in inter-faith dialogue. Here it seems obvious that within both religions mystics with all their particular mental states were prevalent and important for the tradition.
Although most theologians are prone to investigate only which male figures influenced the masses of women mystics, the influence also flowed in the opposite direction. For each of these women had a male confessor and spiritual guide, and often the roles of penitent and guide reversed as the women advanced on their paths. Denifle suggests that the recorded mystical movement in Germany began when learned Dominican friars were charged with the spiritual care of nuns and lay religious women. Several scholars have pointed out that the most famous traits of the mysticism of Master Eckhart and Ruysbroeck were already formulated by a number of beguines several generations before these men joined their style.
Much research and speculation has been undertaken to investigate what drew and pushed so many women to a selfless mysticism of divine loving union. Was it a natural result of healthy, archetypical femininity? Was it a society and a
Church that barred women from any self-realization other than mother or saint? Were women's selves so devalued that they were more than willing to detach from a self that nobody wanted anyway? I leave this for others to explore. In my opinion an explanation of Angela's spirituality does not directly depend on answering these questions, which may not be answerable anyway.
What is important in the context of this study is what orthodox symbols, teachings and methods were available to women. For all of them were bent on living according to God's will as it was revealed in the scripture. When they came into conflict with the Church it was usually not because they were not trying to be orthodox, but because they were, so to say, "holier than the Pope". The great majority was thoroughly dedicated to "the twin causes of reform and orthodoxy". While willingly submitting to the laws of the Church, mystical women clearly saw that this same Church itself did not follow the way of Christ. The Blessed Angela is a perfect example: On the one hand she rigorously spoke against the heresy of "the Spirit of Freedom", saying that one must subject oneself to "the law, to divine precepts, and even to [[[Wikipedia:church|church]]] counsels." On the other hand she just as willingly lent her lips to Jesus who let it be known through her that those abounded inside the Church who trampled on and attacked his truth and kept it hidden.
Academics tend to want to trace similarities in ideas to historical influences. They would ask: where did Angela get her negative theological ideas? Did her confessor read Dionysius the Areopagite who in turn studied Greek philosophy? This kind of questioning is not very fruitful for understanding the Blessed Angela. The available evidence suggests that the one book she and her confessor took to be authoritative was the Bible. Although the influence of Dionysius the Areopagite pervaded much of the Church in a subtle manner, many were not conscious of it. Perhaps one might say that Denys' influence had led to Negative theology being part of the Christian 'collective unconscious'.
Angela was not learned and the people she associated with and looked to for guidance, her spiritual peers and St. Francis, were rather suspicious of theological learning. Since Francis' death his order engaged in a bitter inner struggle between two fractions that came to be known as the "Spirituals" or the "Observants" and the "Conventuals". The latter, supported by the popes, strove to join the privileged world of learned priests and powerful, well established monasteries. But Angela was associated with the Spirituals who clung to St. Francis' ideal of utter material as well as intellectual poverty.
There is also no evidence that she had direct contact with any other negative theologian. Thus we need to search the Bible and the very basic ideals of Christian monastic life at the time, for seeds of the negative way that might have led to related fruits in independent parts of the world.
            ii. Union with God
In the Middle Ages the original concept of divinisation or deification re-emerged under the cloak of beatific vision (i.e. seeing the Divine as it really is in its true essence) and mystical union with God. Ileana Marcoulesco calls these three 'synonyms'. While this is not a precise statement, it is true that all three concepts were closely related. For the goal of an ever more complete and indestructible union with God was a lasting beatific vision and deification.
The contemplative's union was regarded as a mystical marriage of the soul with God. This idea is rooted in the "Song of Songs" (or "Canticles") of the Hebrew Bible which is an erotic love poem. Jewish theologians had long interpreted it as an allegory of the love between God and his people, the Hebrews. Christians assimilated this interpretation into the love between Christ and either the Church or the Christian soul. St. Gregory of Nyssa made it a cornerstone of his Via Negativa. In the Middle Ages St. Bernard brought it back into the center of mystics' attention throughout Europe. It opened the door to a most intimate fusion without intermediary of the contemplative's soul with its beloved God.
The concept of perfect union between soul and God was accosted by the same debates as divinization and beatific vision. Inevitably the Church preferred the views of its less mystical thinkers who maintained that complete deification was possible only after death. On the other side were many mystics like Master Eckhart, Marguerite Porete, and perhaps William of St. Thierry who, already in their lifetimes, saw no boundary between their souls and the absolute. Marcoulesco paraphrases William as maintaining that (even before death): "Seeing God's face is tantamount to possessing of God the same knowledge that God has of himself." Probably the majority of Christian mystics that were not condemned by the inquisition, and whose writings were censured and edited, find themselves caught between these two poles, sometimes affirming one side, sometimes the other. Angela of Foligno falls into this category, as well as Teresa of Avila. In a typical manner the latter begins a chapter on mystical marriage by paying her dues to the Church. The abbess confirms that the marriage "does not come to its perfect fullness as long as we live; for if we were to withdraw from God, this remarkable blessing would be lost." Yet only four paragraphs later she distinguishes union and marriage by saying that only the first is a temporary oneness that can be divided again, while the latter is permanent. She compares the union of spiritual marriage to the water of a creek which flows into the ocean and can no longer be divided or separated from it.

Besides the Song of Songs, the other paradigm for the soul's marriage with God is the union in Jesus Christ of his two natures, human and divine. Becoming one with him means becoming "truly human and truly God". As Evelyn Underhill points out, it also means that the divine does not pour into the soul, as if it could come to a stop upon arrival, but pours through it in order to touch the world and transform it.
            iii. Christian Silence
Whenever Angela's students ventured to inquire about her revelations, her favorite response was: "My secrets are mine". According to Lachance, William of Saint-Thierry told his spiritual sons to engrave these words in their hearts and at the entrance to their cells. Likewise St. Francis said: "Blessed is the servant who keeps the secret of the Lord in his heart." Whence this love of silence?
The apostle Paul was the first and formative Christian to say when and for whom it was appropriate to speak. Much of his first letter to the Corinthians deals with this issue. Here his foremost concern seems to be to create order in a church where people would come together and all speak at the same time, some prophesying, some speaking in tongues, others preaching, singing psalms, sharing revelations and interpretations, etc. The apostle never negates that it is the Holy Spirit who speaks through all these men and women, but he wants an orderly and intelligible expression of the Spirit. Chaos confuses and unsettles the man, who maintains that "God is not the author of confusion, but of peace". (1 Cor 14:33) He is also worried about making a bad impression on potential converts to whom the churches must seem like mad houses (verse 23).
So what does he do to create order? First of all he commands all women to be silenced. His letter responds to a dispute which the Corinthians had been struggling with: how to deal with women who speak in tongues and prophesy publicly just like men. In chapter 11 Paul demands that while praying and prophesying, they cover their heads as a sign of their submission under men. Yet only three chapters later he changes his mind; it seems that his patience for publicly speaking women has just run dry: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law." (14:34)
Those who maintain the myth that women's liberation is a brand new concern of the twentieth century would have us believe that Paul spoke and thus it was for the next nineteen centuries. Judging by Margaret Smith's account, however, it seems that the clergy did not manage to silence women until it had the Roman Empire as an ally. After that the patriarchs did succeed indeed. McNamara lists some frightening examples from the Middle Ages of illuminated women struggling to obey Paul's demand. There was Juliana of Cornillon who
kept silent for twenty years as she attempted to convince Jesus that he should make his revelations to a more suitable recipient. Finally, she determined to obey God's instructions to secure a feast in honor of the Eucharist, when her confessor reassured her that she could do so without fear of unorthodoxy. . . . Hildegard (of Bingen) concealed her visions for half her life until, in 1141, a sense of irresistible supernatural force overcame her paralysis. . . . Elisabeth of Schönau, in an exculpatory letter to Hildegard, wrote that an angel had beaten her until she agreed to reveal her visions.
Women who did dare to speak their truth, had to fear death. Marguerite Porete, a contemporary of the Blessed Angela, e.g. was burned at the stake in 1310, "while her book, mistakenly attributed to a man, was approved as orthodox and widely circulated for several centuries."
But Paul did not silence only the women. To create order he also had to regulate the men, ordaining that only two or at the most three should speak within one gathering, one at a time, and only if somebody was able to interpret their utterances for the edification of the community. In other words Paul was suppressing the free expression of the Spirit in men as well as women, but more rigorously in women.
Herein, it seems, lies the root for the Church's later suppression of mysticism for the sake of a "peaceful order". Part of that order (which Jesus incidently never strove to uphold) was that women would be subjugated under men. When the Spirit liberated Eve's daughters too much, men's peace was threatened, and they demanded silence.
The confusing thing is that besides anti-mystical reasons for silence there were also spiritual ones. In his second letter to the Corinthians, Paul holds himself up as a good example of how to remain quiet about visions and divine revelations. He recounts once having been caught up to the third heaven, into paradise, where he "heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter." (2 Cor 12:4)
Whenever the apostle refers to what is 'lawful' he confronts us with Jewish traditions. In this case it is a prevalent characteristic of the God of the Old Testament. JHVH guards his secrets jealously and wrathfully. He may reveal himself to a chosen few but direct and intimate knowledge of him is definitely not public property. On the contrary, receiving it without his explicit permission is punishable by death. Therefore it is "unlawful" to share with others the secrets God has revealed to a designated individual.
On a more psychological note, Paul warns of the danger of becoming proud and boastful of one's revelations. He refers to what was probably a painful physical handicap of his and interprets it as God's precaution against the apostle's pride of his revelations.

Hence in general Christian terms there are four reasons for the widespread reluctance to disclose highest divine "secrets":
(1) It avoids pride and the use of realizations for worldly gains and satisfaction.
(2) It avoids blaspheming the highest truth by attempting to express what is inexpressible.
(3) It keeps the Spirit from bringing chaos and women's liberation to the Church.
(4) Many Christians saw no epistemological benefit in sharing God's highest truth. St. Francis for example reasons that revealing divine visions is of no profit, "for the Most High Himself will manifest His deeds to whomever He wishes."
         b. Her Franciscan Inheritance
            i. Poverty
The Poverello of Assisi is most famous for his adoration of "Lady Poverty". So who is this maiden?
Poverty became a powerful catchword in the 13th century that had implications on all levels of religious life. In particular its discussion also influenced the Church's attitude towards the Blessed Angela's type of spirituality and her later career. At the time a new economy was arising, based on money and international trade. It created a new class of rich merchants but also a rapidly growing number of desperately poor. At a time when everybody was concerned about money, poverty became, to the masses, the defining characteristic of God's incorporated life on earth. Not only did he set an example, he also called for imitation: "Go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and come, take up the cross, and follow me." (Mk 10:21) Yet the Church was extremely rich.
Lachance points to two aspects of Franciscan concern for poverty: A life of solidarity with the poor was not only "perceived as the cure for the ills of the times" but also as a way to communion with Christ who was one with the poor. Angela gives a memorable expression to seeing the poor as Christ when she drinks the water she used to wash a leper, feeling as though she had received holy communion. To many earnest Christians taking Christ's poverty seriously meant:
a) that society was to be more concerned with taking care of its marginalized than with catering to its rich and powerful. St. Francis criticized the rank that private property held in society and regarded involuntary helpless poverty not as bad luck or fate, but as the result of social injustice. Accordingly, alms were to him "a just right due to the poor."
b) Christ's example of poverty was seen as a demand that the Church, as an institution, and its orders, as communities, were to be poor.
c) Christians as individuals were to be materially poor.
  d) They were also to be intellectually poor. Especially to the Franciscans this meant that the Bible was to suffice as intellectual food for the soul. Studying other literature and engaging in theological speculation was regarded as gluttonous.
e) Christ's example showed that the path to spiritual perfection was based not only on material and intellectual, but also on radical spiritual poverty. That is to say, one was called to give up everything without expecting any rewards in return. One's love of God was to sweep away the possession even of a self or of a "grip on reality". The last thing to remain would be the assurance of God's existence; and then it too would be taken away in the "dark night of the soul", swallowed by the "Cloud of Unknowing".
            ii. Penance and Mortification
Penance and mortification denote the annihilation of sin, of any attachment to the world, one's body and one's self, and the purification of even the faintest habitual dispositions to sin that remain in the psyche as a result of former shortcomings. The methods range from extreme self-torture over normal asceticism to internal prayer and combinations of these.
Its moderate aspects being rooted in the teachings of Jesus, penance and mortification were an essential part of Christian life from the beginning. But in the Middle Ages St. Francis of Assisi in particular made them the corner stone of his spirituality and helped spread practices and a life style of penance throughout Europe. To him they were identical with a life of Christian poverty.
The Blessed Angela was certainly not moderate in her penance. She defines it as punishment and discipline of each
member of body and soul and of all the senses. I do not mean to sanction such hate of self and body, but when investigating the means women like Angela used to arrive at divine union, one cannot ignore penance and mortification. She herself proclaims that there is no other way to divine union than that of following Christ's example of "most perfect, continual, and highest poverty, contempt, and suffering".
Penance and mortification have some redeeming qualities. Like poverty, they can help an individual let go of ego clinging, of grasping the world as real, and even of conceptual thought about the absolute. Ultimately mortification can lead to extinguishing the fundamental 'thirst for life' (which Buddha Shakyamuni regarded as the root cause of samsara, the painful cycle of existence.) St. John of the Cross is a good example of this when he says: "Through a method of true mortification, it [the soul) died to all things and to itself"
 
      3. Her Person
The Blessed Angela of Foligno (1248/49-1309) was one of the greatest mystics of the Franciscan orders. Christina M. Mazzoni even says that she "is usually considered together with Saint Catherine of Siena, and sometimes even above her, the foremost woman mystic of the Italian Middle Ages." Angela followed closely in the Poverello's footsteps, perhaps surpassing him in the realization of mystical union with God. In a vision St.Francis told her: "You are the only one born of me." (I.e. his only true spiritual child.) Early on her path God promises her: "I will do for you what I did for my servant Francis, and more if you love me." And love him she did.
Although the Church did not canonize Angela of Foligno, it did pronounce her "Blessed" (one rank below saint) in 1701 and allowed the Franciscans to celebrate her feast with special rites. Regardless of her official status her relics were venerated like those of a saint and most French theologians who write about her, call her "Saint Angela". Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758) acknowledged that she ranks on the same level as great mystics such as Teresa of Avila, Peter of Alcantara, John of the Cross, Brigitte and Catherine of Siena. Ever since then she was given the title "magistra theologiae".
What made her so great in Christian eyes was the frequency and depth with which she saw God "face to face". Almost as soon as this penitent embarked on her spiritual quest, God revealed himself to her on a regular basis. By the end of her journey she was continually in a state of seeing, understanding, and possessing the complete truth that is in heaven and in hell, in the entire world, in every place, in all things, in every enjoyment in heaven and in every creature. . . . [She always sees] the One who is and how he is the being of all creatures.
In other words, if we believe her, as her inquisitors did, she was omniscient!
The lady from Foligno spends all her life in her hometown, just a few miles from Assisi where she is born only about twenty five years after St. Francis' passing away. Thus her spirituality is deeply Franciscan from the start. She is born into a well to do, land owning family.
Her conversion to a profound spiritual life of penance happens only in 1285 when she is about thirty seven years old, still married and with children. For the rest of her life she will perform very harsh penances that are "remarkable" even to a Franciscan priest. Having entered the "way of the cross", she attempts to "become poor" like the Poverello has taught. Her family members are such a great obstacle in this pursuit that she prays for their deaths. Soon enough, (mysteriously) her mother, husband and all her sons die within a short period of time. She thanks God for that. Now she can live like a nun, though the local friars bar her way into the order. She decides to go to Rome to ask the Pope himself for permission to become "poor". Upon her return, in 1291, she is finally permitted to take the robes of the Third Order of St. Francis, the "Brothers and Sisters of Penance". (St. Francis founded this order for lay people in c. 1221.) The year 1291 is also the first mention of someone attached to her like a disciple whom she "converted". (Although she does not write her first instruction to a full fledged disciple until 1297/98.) In 1292 Brother Arnaldo, her confessor, starts recording her revelations. He continues to do so until she has reached the summit of her spiritual path in 1296, only eleven years after her conversion. Her fame keeps spreading until she dies in 1309.
      4. Her Position as a Woman Mystic
The status of Catholic women mystics depended entirely on how usable and necessary their revelations were for the Church. As long as the institution depended on its spiritual power and on women for the expansion of its territory and for defending its views against "heretics" it appreciated demure saint-missionaries. But once Christianity had conquered all of Europe, was well established, and its maintenance could depend on physical force in form of the Inquisition, the Church no longer needed mystics.
As Pattloch explains, God's revelation to humankind is concluded in the Bible; all contemplatives like Angela can do is unfold what is already known. As opposed to medieval scholars Pattloch greatly appreciates such inspired unfolding. Jean Gerson (1363-1429), the chancellor of the University of Paris, on the other hand, did not hesitate to list mendicants along with heretics and the Antichrist as "plagues of the church" because their very holiness disturbs the order. He effectively argued against all forms of mysticism. In his judgement: "neither a proliferation of visions nor of saints should be encouraged because God did not require repetitious and superfluous interventions in the regular course of events." On the one hand the Church was still proud of its saints and mystics, even at this time, so long as they were in complete agreement with the official dogma. And the longer they were dead, the more proud it dared to be, for the less they threatened to disturb "the regular course of events". On the contrary, they seemed to prove church doctrine right and effective for the attainment of salvation. But live mystics were messy, unpredictable, and difficult to control. Even if they were willing to conform in every detail to official dogma, as many were, their very lives were a plague to the Church for two reasons: (1) They proved that living according to Jesus' example was possible. (2) The discrepancy between their life styles and the character of powerful clerics clearly showed that the latter did not satisfy Jesus' recommendations or demands.
It is the very nature of mysticism to aim at direct experiences of God during one's life. But around Angela's time the Church found that in such experiences God had a tendency to reveal the shortcomings of the Roman Catholic institution. Thus it encouraged the faithful to put experiences of God off until death. It grew so afraid of mysticism that it did not even appreciate intense spirituality that was bound completely to rituals conducted in church. These are the recommendations of a sixteenth century Franciscan friar:
Since you see your wife going about visiting many churches, practicing many devotions, and pretending to be a saint, lock the door; and if that isn't sufficient, break her leg if she is young, for she can go to heaven lame from her own house without going around in search of these suspect forms of holiness.
As in the early Church, so also in the Middle Ages we find a clearly stated correlation between anti-mysticism and anti-feminism. The Dominican professor and confessor of St. Teresa of Avila, Domingo Banez, puts it bluntly when he says that mystical experiences: "are always to be greatly feared, especially in women, who are more inclined to believe that these are from God and to make sanctity consist of them." In the same way any other restrictive measure or teaching applied especially to women. Humans in general were seen as sinful, but women more so. Christians in general were supposed to be humble and hate their bodies, but especially women. Christians were not supposed to question authority; instead they were to have blind faith not only in God but in all authorities on earth as well; this was especially true for women. It was proper for Christians to remain silent about "divine secrets", but especially for women, whose voices were literally not to be heard in churches at all. During the High Middle Ages even nuns were not allowed to chant the liturgical responses during mass unless they were amongst themselves in their own convents.
At Angela's time the situation was not yet as bad as during St. Teresa's life, but it was during the Folignera's life time that the Church decidedly turned against women. Between the seventh and twelfth centuries many religious women, particularly abbesses with their nunneries, had become quite powerful in the spiritual as well as secular realm. The abbess Hroswitha of Gandersheim (c.930-c.990) for example was allowed her own court, knights, the right to coin money and to sit at the meetings of the Diet.
But between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries religious women's status dwindled. First nuns lost their lands to wars and with that their worldly power. The Church used the opportunity to gradually rob them of all independence , of access to higher learning , and finally of any freedom whatsoever. In 1293 Pope Boniface VIII decreed in the Bull Periculoso that all and sundry nuns, present and future, to whatever order they belong . . . shall henceforth remain perpetually enclosed . . .; so that no nun . . . shall henceforth have or be able to have the power of going out of those monasteries for whatever reason or excuse . . . [They shall remain] altogether withdrawn from public and mundane sights.
While the economic realities made it impossible for all nuns to obey the bull to the letter , the message was clear: the Church wanted religious women to be invisible.
Fortunately it never succeeded, for there was one thing ecclesiastics could not take away: the riches of women's inner lives. Many became great mystics and when God spoke through them to men, they had to be heard. Not that they had any authority to speak for themselves, to interpret their own experiences or to translate their own conclusions into actions.
But as God's mouthpiece women still at times influenced worldly and religious rulers and changed the course of history. Catherine of Siena (1347-1380) convinced the Pope to return from Avignon to Rome and Joan of Arc (1412-1431) led her people to a pivotal victory in Orleans and the French king to his coronation, to name just two.
Men were not happy with such developments. Having to listen to women was punishment to them. They interpreted God's speaking and acting through women not as actual communication between the Lord and women, but as God shaming and rebuking men. Since men were supposed to be the only ones through whom God was made known to mankind, something must have been wrong with them if he reverted to teaching through women. This is clearly stated in the epilogue to Angela's Instructions. In defense of the Holy Mother's position the author says:
It is not against the order of providence that God, to men's shame, made a woman a teacher-and one that to my knowledge has no match on earth. For Jerome said of the prophetess Huldah, to whom crowds ran, that the gift of prophecy had been transmitted to the female sex to shame men...
The era of the Bull Periculoso did significantly lower the status of religious women. But in the case of mystics God is the one who raises their status. So once a woman was recognized as being filled with the Spirit there was only so much lowering of status one could do. Hence, the objective was to keep it from happening and, when God chose women anyway, to not spread the news.
Accordingly, Angela was treated with ambiguity. The simple people, lay or religious, venerated her as a saint. Since Inquisitors had judged her to be orthodox and since she was not officially a nun she was not subject to the Bull Periculoso and the Church could do little to keep her hidden. (Until after her death, when it condemned the whole movement she was associated with.) As a lay follower of St. Francis her official status was below that of a fully ordained nun. Yet it allowed her to move around and have a public life, visiting hospitals, convents, and gathering many disciples. Thus her fame spread. (Though a prerequisite to such renown was that she embody the above mentioned characteristics of self-hate, submission to authority, etc. which effectively limit the possibilities of status.)
A church that does not ordain women as priests must naturally feel challenged when God raises some of them above priests to the status of prophetess. That this called into question the divine origin of men's status can be deduced from the above cited formulation in the epilogue. Obviously there was a question as to whether women teaching was "against the order of providence of God". The standard answer of people who wanted to listen to women mystics without meaning to topple the patriarchal structure was: As a general rule religious instruction should be up to men, but as an exception, when men are misbehaving, God has to rebuke them by teaching through women. Either way, God speaking through women meant that something was wrong with men; it called into question either their general superior status or their current behavior, or both.

      5. The Impact of Her Work
Angela's impact on European Christendom would most likely have been much greater if it were not for the fact that only a few months after Cardinal James Colonna had approved and signed her revelations as orthodox, he and his nephew, Cardinal Peter Colonna, were excommunicated. They had conspired against the Pope, challenging the legitimacy of his election. It was also known that James Colonna was a friend of the Franciscan Spirituals. Though there is no evidence that Angela involved herself directly in political issues, she must be described as a Spiritual herself and could not remain unaffected by the conflict that was tearing at her order and the Church as a whole. The woman was like a second St. Francis, defending the purity of his rule against those who strove for a secularization. She criticized the Church for attacking the apostolic way of life and converted Ubertino Casale, the turbulent leader of the Spirituals, to a life of strict Christian poverty. Only seven years after her passing away the Spirituals, who venerated their Holy Mother as a rare embodiment of sacred truth in a worldly Church, came to be persecuted by the Inquisition.
The result of all this was that for the first century following her death it was not safe to mention her name and particularly not her connection with the Cardinal James Colonna. Consequently the original of her works and most of the early manuscripts were lost. Nonetheless, in the true manner of any esoteric teaching, her works and fame spread underground, only to re-emerge at a later time.
With them survived, it seems in no small part due to her influence, the movement of the Spirituals. In the 1400's they organized themselves under the name 'Observantines', still holding the Most Holy Mother up as their heroine. Finally the social situation demanded the official recognition of the Observantines as at least one faction within the Franciscan order. At the same time the penitent's writings start appearing in Spain and France and in the late 1500's in Germany. By the seventeenth century she is read by mystics and saints all over Europe. St. Francis de Sales mentions her often; St. Teresa of Avila read her, and perhaps also St. Ignacius of Loyola.
Today few people outside of Italy and France pay much attention to her. The things that made her famous in the past, her union with God through extreme poverty and self- mortification, do not make her popular in modern times. Her admonitions are perhaps impossible to swallow, particularly for feminists. True, her character is a bit extreme, at times perhaps even insane. But her phobias are typical of Christians of the "Dark Ages" and her passion characteristic of women mystics of the time. If post-modern wo/men are to recognize the full value of this mystic, they have to learn to distinguish between what God revealed to her and her own internalized oppression. This is not difficult, for again and again the Spirit makes quite clear that he does not appreciate her self-hate.
   B. Dolpopa
1. His Time
When Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen was born, in 1292, Buddhism had only been firmly rooted in the Country of Snow for barely three centuries. Though it came to Tibet under the reign of Songtsen Gampo (620-649 C.E.), it took more than three centuries to overcome the resistance of the Bon religion and its affiliated aristocratic patrons.
The biggest and most powerful monastery at the time was "Sakya", called after the place where it was founded in 1071. (This is where Dolpopa grew up and was educated.) And Sakya is to this day the name of the school that stems from that monastery and of the family that rules it. In the thirteenth century Sakya Pandita ("The great scholar from Sakya", 1182-1251) was called to the Mongol court in Beijing to heal the emperor of an illness. From then on the Sakyapas had a great influence on Mongolian affairs and eventually established Buddhism there. Since Tibet was a Mongolian protectorate, the Khan was in the position in 1270, (only two decades before Dolpopa's birth) to hand the Sakyapas the sovereignty over central Tibet (i.e. the greater part of the country). But their rule ended quickly, in 1345, during the height of Dolpopa's fame. Internal struggles made it possible for another, called "Situ" or "Phagmo-drupa", to gain the upper hand in political and religious affairs. Bell describes the situation thus: "Much of the country is parcelled out among powerful monasteries, who, while professing the religion of the peace-loving Buddha, fight each other for spiritual and worldly supremacy."
Yet, as opposed to European Christians, the Tibetans themselves do not seem to have viewed the worldly dealings of their religious institutions as a degeneration. The dharma had been connected to the court and its politics from the start. Even Buddha Shakyamuni had already accepted the sponsorship of kings, local rulers, and rich merchants. Thus most Tibetans never strove for the separation of "church and state". There were a few attempts to form a purely secular kind of government. But they failed because Buddhism was too powerful; rulers could not afford to seek leadership independent of the religion. Culturally the Tibetans were predisposed to link worldly and spiritual power. Snellgrove maintains that the indigenous religion of Tibet "appears to have centered upon a cult of divine kingship". This seems not unlikely since Tibetans continue to this day to seek spiritual ordination for their temporal rulers.
On the local level as well, there was no or very little separation between spiritual and temporal powers. Increasingly over the centuries, aristocratic clans had become the secular arm of the monasteries. It was a mutual relationship of power maintenance. The religious orders justified worldly rulers and supplied them with magical blessings. In return for such favors aristocrats protected the orders' financial aspects and boosted their image and influence.
After the decline of the great Tibetan empire in the ninth century, local chieftains had almost constantly been involved in one battle or another, bringing much suffering to the whole country. Under Buddhist influence the situation eventually improved considerably but it probably seemed only natural that the monasteries would be pulled into these feuds to some extent.
Threats to people's lives also came from the outside of Tibet on a regular basis, since the early 13th century especially from the Mongols. Thus the population may have appreciated the "golden army". Monks in the fortified monasteries were considered the third line of defense after the regular troops and lay-militias. Perhaps a rare burning down of each other's monasteries seemed peaceful compared to how things had been, first when the Tibetan empire stretched from Arab and Turkish territories to the heart of China and then during the times of local civil wars.
From the beginning of the introduction of Buddhism into Tibet the kings imposed a certain degree of uniformity in doctrine. In 794 C.E., following a two year long debate, Khri srong lde btsan issued an edict proclaiming the decision that henceforth the Yogacara-Svatantrika- Madhyamaka view of Santaraksita would be the only acceptable one in Tibet. He threw Ch'an (Zen) Buddhism and Chinese monks out and made the dissemination of their views punishable by law.
Yet at the same time that Santaraksita taught sutras and philosophical commentaries, the great master Padmasambhava introduced the Tantric system of secret teachings and initiations. Apparently the two were in agreement with each other and both worked in close connection with the king. Thus, from the start, only the public, exoteric teachings were controlled; in private and in the realm of Tantra one could teach whatever one pleased. As long as one designated teachings as "special oral instructions", not as sutra type teachings, there was great freedom.
Once Buddhism was firmly established in Tibet even exoteric teachings ceased to be closely regulated. Neither Tibetan geography nor mentality allowed for much supervision. Thus, as Williams points out: "Tibetan thought has never been as monolithic as some would portray it." On the contrary, one of Tibetans' favorite proverbs is: "Every country has its own customs; every monastery has its own lama; every lama has his own mode of Dharma." Surely Tibetan scholars of all times strove to be authentically Mahayana Buddhist, but that could mean selecting from a wide variety of teachings and even changing the selection according to their own development and the development of their students.
      2. His Religious Inheritance
         a. Tantra in Tibetan Buddhism
It is characteristic of Tibetan Buddhism as a whole to strive to combine all of what is considered Buddha Shakyamuni's teachings and the teachings of all other buddhas as well into one congruent system which one can practice as a whole or from which one can choose parts that suit one's personality and circumstances. Many Tibetan practitioners are ordained in the early Buddhist Sarvastivadin vinaya tradition and maintain these vows as long as they are not superseded by Tantric vows and other considerations such as climate. When it comes to philosophical and ethical attitudes, they follow the Mahayana, but their innermost view and meditation practice is Tantric.
From the start, there was a close connection between the Jonang school and the Kalacakra tantra. It constituted Dolpopa's main practice, though the commentaries to the Hevajra- and the Cakrasamvara-tantras were also essential to his formulation of Shentong philosophy. The Kalacakra tantra with its teachings on the Adibuddha, was one of the main pillars of Jonang doctrine. According to the "Lexikon der östlichen Weisheitslehren" Adibuddha means original buddha. He is represented by the bodhisattva Samantabhadra whose name translates as "the all-embracing good" or "the all round beneficial". Samantabhadra "embodies the "wisdom of identity in nature", i.e. the understanding of the unity of identity and alterity . . . and the content of experience of the dharmakaya." All three parts of the Kalacakra tantra, the "outer, inner, and other" are regarded as aspects of the Adibuddha. That is to say the outer universe, inner human physiology and psychology, as well as the "other" Tantric deities (in short, macro and micro cosmos) are nothing other than the All-embracing Good.
Seeing all manifestations as pure, blissful, radiant expressions of the dharmakaya is characteristic of all higher Buddhist Tantric approaches. This view is often regarded as diverging from sutra teachings in general and the Prajnaparamita in particular. Yet it is not alien to all scriptures. Rather it is closely related to the tathagatagarbha sutras' claim that buddha nature is the pure essence of all phenomena.
Why then would Dolpopa's teachings be so shocking to many scholars who accepted and practiced Tantra as their chosen method for striving for enlightenment? The reason is the difference in how Shentongpas and Rangtongpas integrate Tantra into their philosophies. According to Ruegg, what disturbed Rangtong scholars so much, was Dolpopa's mixing two elements into one system of public philosophy: on the one hand Tantric teachings and mystical intuition gained in Tantric meditation and on the other hand formal philosophy according to one set of related sutras. Other famous scholars of his time followed Dolpopa's example, but it seems that the majority rejected his method. (It is interesting to note that just as Rangtongpas appreciate Tantric and Third Turning of the Wheel teachings as long as they are treated as secret oral instructions from guru to disciple, in the same way strict Shentongpas appreciate Rangtong teachings as secret oral instructions.) Considering that it is the very nature of Tibetan Buddhism to encompass all these different systems and to mix them as far as what is taught to practitioners is concerned, it seems strange that there would be such resentment against a philosophical mixture.
Nonetheless it is true that in the field of scholastic philosophy Buddhists were expected to be very conservative purists. A commentary was supposed to explain only what the text itself meant to say; no personal intuition or opinion was condoned. To invent something new in the field of philosophy, was taboo. Thus it is a grave accusation when the Grub mtha' shel gyi me long states that the Jonang teaching is "a personal invention, it is not a source transmitted by the Indian scholars".

         b. The Sakya and Jonang Schools
The first spiritual home of Dolpopa, as well as the Jonang school as a whole, was the Sakya tradition. Ruegg explains that:
at first, in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, they [the Jonangpas) appeared closely linked with the Sa skya pas, only becoming clearly distinct after their doctrines had become the object of a formal philosophical presentation, for which Dol bu pa was chiefly responsible.
Morioka Sato suggests that the Sakya school does not follow one fixed system of Madhyamaka thought. Rather Sakyapas are free to follow any one of the common Madhyamikas. He says:
"In the Sa skya pa school we can find for example two main interpretations for the term sunyata (emptiness): ran ston and gzan ston or prasanga and svatantra; which can be traced back to the fact that two main streams are represented in this school."
Dolpopa was not only familiar with all the teachings within the Sakya school. It is quite common to this day that especially high ranking Tibetan lamas receive transmissions from all kinds of different lineages. Thus the man from Dolpo too was granted initiation into all the major and minor lineages of his day. When he was twenty nine years old, he went to visit Jonang, which, according to Stearns, "was considered an affiliate monastery of the Sakya school". Thoroughly impressed, he returned the next year, this time to stay and to remain a Jonangpa for the rest of his life. But this must by no means be considered the end of Sakya-Jonang relations.
The Jonangpas themselves trace the transmission of their teachings back to Yumo Mikyo Dorje (twelfth/thirteenth century), a Kashmiri pandit who was a student of Candranatha. As stated above, there was, from the start, a close connection between Shentong doctrine and Tantra. According to the tradition Uma Shentong thought "arose" in Yumo Mikyo Dorje's mind while he was practicing the Kalacakra Tantra. The school derives its name from its first monastery, established in Jonang by the great Kun spangs thugs rje brtson 'grus (1243-1313). After Dolpopa was enthroned as lineage holder and thus in control of the Jonang school, it became synonymous with radical Shentong teachings.

         c. Buddhist Silence
Lest one acts like so many Mahayanists who give credit to Nagarjuna that belongs to Gautama, let's consider for a moment what the Buddha taught. With regards to samsara, or relative reality, Gautama acted in accordance with Nagarjuna's conclusion: he did not take a stance. In the Cula-Malunkya sutta he refuses to answer questions about the eternity and infinity of the world or the status of body and soul. With regards to nirvana, or ultimate reality, he goes a little further. Rather than merely remarking that it is useless to ponder the ontological status of the world and of humans, he affirms that it is also impossible to determine such a status. In the Aggi- Vacchagotta sutta the monk Vacchagotta asks about the existence of the Tathagata in parinirvana. That is to say, he really asks about ultimate reality because in parinirvana there is no distinction between the Buddha and reality. This is what Shakyamuni replies: "Arise", Vaccha, does not apply.
Well, then, good Gotama, does he not arise? "Does not arise", Vaccha, does not apply. Well, then, good Gotama, does he both arise and not arise? "Both arises and does not arise", Vaccha, does not apply. Well, then, good Gotama, does he neither arise nor not arise? "Neither arises nor does not arise", Vaccha, does not apply.
When Vaccha is disappointed and confused by these answers, the Buddha continues:
You ought to be at a loss, Vaccha, you ought to be bewildered. For Vaccha, this dhamma is deep, difficult to see, difficult to understand, peaceful, excellent, beyond dialectics, subtle ...
In principal Nagarjuna concurs with Gautama's approach, yet he thinks it necessary to expand upon the Buddha's silence. He repeats the catuskoti (four edges) the way Shakyamuni had taught them, stating that all phenomena (and for him that includes the dharmata, the true nature of things) neither exist nor do not exist, nor exist and not exist, nor neither exist nor not exist. But, in my opinion, Nagarjuna diverges from the Buddha's approach when he proceeds to prove each one of the four edges by way of a dialectic of logical inferences, and then goes on to demonstrate that anyone who does not agree with him is wrong. While the Buddha understood that agreement as well as disagreement constitute opinionatedness, which in turn prevents one from seeing the truth, Nagarjuna did not recognize his logic as mere opinion.
Nagao summarizes Nagarjuna's efforts as aiming at: "preventing others from making noises by saying in a loud voice, 'Do not utter any sound!'" This is a very fitting image. The problem was that when nobody listened, the master himself kept talking and filling books with his opinions.
The Shentong position is that silence - the option Buddha Shakyamuni chose - or Nagarjuna's way of refuting everybody else without taking a stance himself, is not the most compassionate or skillful way of dealing with the dilemma of wanting to teach what is beyond words. As Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche says:
Many Shentong masters criticize the Prasangika Madhya- mikas for their claim that they do not hold any views. In the opinion of these masters, Prasangikas are just dodging the issue because they refute everyone else's views and then avoid the refutation of their own views by claiming not to have any.
If people are to strive for realization of ultimate reality, and especially if faith is to be one of their main motivators, one has to be able to tell them something positive about it, even if that requires a necessarily always deficient attempt to express the inexpressible.

      3. His Person
The Omniscient Dolpopa lived from 1292 to 1361. At an early age he started seriously studying sutras and tantras under several masters at Sakya, the headquarters of the Sakya school, then the most powerful school in Tibet. He was so successful that he was installed as a teacher of the "Four Great Teachings of the Buddha" (bka' chen bzi: vinaya, paramitas, abhidharma, and madhyamaka) when he was only a youth. Thus he became a proud young monk-scholar, with his own ideas about what should be preached. There seems to be a recurring theme in his life: he studies Buddhist works and scriptures that he finds very valuable but that his tradition either does not teach at all, treats as "secret knowledge" that is to be passed on only as "special instructions" from guru to disciple, or teaches only in a very specific sequence and context. Rather than obeying his tradition, he follows his own intuition and teaches them publicly whenever he feels is fitting. This starts early in his career when he teaches Shantideva's Bodhicaryavatara along with the "Four Great Teachings of the Buddha", as the Blue Annals say: "in spite of the fact that others did not like him doing so." The same pattern was repeated when he studied the tathagatagarbha sutras and received secret Shentong teachings: he could not see why these teachings should not be given to the general public and followed his own inclination to share them widely.
With regards to his knowledge of the Dharma he was "confident that he could not be humbled" until he came to Jonang where he met many "great male and female meditators" who had gained deep insight into the nature of reality. Impressed, he returned the following year and entered a Kalacakra retreat under the direction of the master Yon-tan rgya-mtso (1260-1327). After that he traveled for two years and then returned for another Kalacakra retreat that lasted one or three years. During this retreat (part of which was done in complete darkness) he had many visions of buddhas, pure lands, Shambhala (the mystical land whence the Kalacakra Tantra was obtained) etc. This is also when he realized ultimate reality to be shentong, empty of other, but not empty of qualities. He ascended the teaching throne of Jonang when he was thirty three or thirty five years old. From 1330-1333 he lead the construction of an enormous stupa in Jonang. According to his own interpretation, by the blessing of the Three Jewels and the Three Roots, as well as of the activity of building the stupa, the shentong rangtong distinction became very clear to him at this time. So he started to teach it publicly to large audiences as well as write about it in his main work Ri chos nges don rgya mtsho (The Ocean of Ultimate Meaning of Mountain Dharma[of yogi ascetics)). It seems that now that his Guru had passed away and he himself was enthroned as about the tenth lineage holder, he felt free to do "what was to be done for the benefit of the Buddhist doctrine".
Throughout his life Dolpopa meditated, taught the Dharma, and wrote. One of his most cherished experiences occurred one day in 1335 when he was forty three years old. He mystically traveled to Shambhala where, by the kindness of the Kalki emperors, he received inner teachings on the Kalacakra Tantra and the nature of this mythical land. At the age of seventy he "proceeded to Sukhavati", as the Blue Annals describe his passing away.
      4. His Position as an "Omniscient" Male Lineage Holder
The man from Dolpo was highly educated and encouraged by his tradition to write and thus enlighten his people. It was customary in India and Tibet that great scholars would compile philosophical works which were often held in higher esteem than the sutras themselves. The Tibetan standard of learning for (monks only) scholars was so high that they were sometimes able to correct Indian teachers' interpretations of sutras.
Beyond the customary training granted males, Dolpopa's education took place at the foremost center of learning, the most powerful Tibetan monastery of his time. And not only that, he even completed his meditation retreats so successfully that he was pronounced "omniscient" (Tib. kun mkhyen pa). One can find quite varied definitions of omniscience in Buddhism. What they all share is denoting the perfect knowledge of a fully enlightened buddha. But what exactly the content of that kind of knowledge might be, is much debated. (Each school of course wants it to correspond to its tenets.) The RGV (2.31-33) stresses the ineffableness of omniscience by stating that not even bodhisattvas on the ten bhumis have realized it. Hookham maintains that: "in Shentong terms, it means nondual Knowledge of the Absolute Inseparable Qualities."
On a less scholastic level Omniscient One is simply one of the highest religious titles. While it certainly is meant to convey a person's very far advanced realization, I do not think it always literally is meant to denote a full fledged buddha according to sutra definitions. Nevertheless, in his effort to gain renewed acceptability for Uma Shentong, Jamgon Kongtrul the Great refers to Dolpopa as the All-knowing Buddha of the Three Times. I suspect that Hookham follows him in her statement that Karmapa Rangjung Dorje, Dolpopa, and Longchenpa were the three great Omniscient Ones of the 14th century. Others grant this title to more than just these three. The Grub mtha' shel gyi me long e.g. calls Buton and Tsongkhapa (the founder of the Gelug tradition) thus.
Dolpopa's gender and advanced realization qualified him to become a Jonang lineage holder. That is to say, according to the Tantric tradition, he became a vital link in transmitting the magical blessings and teachings of Yumo Mikyo Dorje to future generations. All of Tibetan Buddhism, but especially Tantra, depends on lineage holders. If a lineage is broken, it can no longer be transmitted and the associated teachings, practices, and powers die out. Tibetans have a great appreciation for rich diversity and quantity of lineages, even if they do not completely agree with them. Thus lineage holders constitute an especially treasured elite within the Buddhist community. If Dolpopa had been condemned too harshly, his teaching and practice lineage might have been lost. This would not have been an option Tibetan Buddhists would tend to choose, especially since the Jonangpas were extremely important for the proliferation of the Kalacakra tantra in Tibet.
Hence his critics struggle with an interesting conundrum which is reflected in the Grub mtha' shel gyi me long. In dealing with Dolpopa's "omniscience", this text on the one hand lauds him as "an excellent and inconceivable being, . . . the white banner renowned as the Omniscient One who made the entire assembly of scholars tremble greatly". On the other hand his teachings are nevertheless judged as low, bad, wrong, incurable, even "severing the vital-artery of Liberation".
The result of being torn between his status and fame on the one hand, and a disliking of his teachings on the other, was ambiguity: "it is difficult to praise or criticize the Jo nang pa system". An other Gelug authority, Gung thang dken mchog bstan pa'i sgron me, confirms that although Dolpopa's understanding of philosophy was faulty, this did not make his omniscience inferior.
In summary, his learning and status prevented him from being attacked as a person. It did not prevent the rejection of his thought by masses of scholars, but it forced them to grapple with it, if for no other reason than that they wanted to preserve the blessing of his Tantric lineage. To this day he cannot be completely disregarded; rather his significance is acknowledged and his teachings respectfully criticized.
Scholars criticizing the teachings of a yogi-scholar whom they otherwise accepted as "omniscient" may seem strange until one realizes that Buddhism exhibits a similar rivalry between mystics and scholars as Christianity does. (Even if in both religions there are scholars who have a mystical side and mystics with a scholastic side.) Each thinks they are more important than the other. To scholars, mystical experiences are only useful if they are interpreted correctly, while many mystics thinks that scholarly precision is unnecessary for liberation.
The situation on the Buddhist side is different insofar as complete salvation is possible not only after death but in life. Since enlightenment is the final goal of all Buddhist philosophy, it must be the determining factor in judging whether a system is correct or not. There has long been great competition among Buddhist schools as to whose is the fastest path to buddhahood. If a tradition had no saints to back its claims up, it would not have much to stand on. Thus, the status of Buddhist mystics is perhaps higher than that of Christian visionaries.
      5. The Impact of His Work
Dolpopa was the first to put Jonang thought into systematized writing and to popularize the term shentong. Already during his life the reception of his teachings was mixed. On the one hand he became famous as a scholar and yogi who gathered many disciples whom he led to realization. His practice lineage spread throughout Tibet "filling all the mountain valleys and lands of U (dbus) and Tsang (gtsang) with adapts" For three centuries the school flourished, enjoying great prestige and influence.
On the other hand his ideas also came under heavy critique. As long as he was there to defend them, his opponents could not seriously harm his reputation. 'Gos Lotsawa Shonupal states: "When many scholars, disagreeing with his theory (grub-mtha'), came to discuss the matter with him, their refutations were melted similar to snow when reaching the ocean." But after his passing away, public opinion of scholars and yogis seems to have turned decidedly against Uma Shentong. The Jonangpas' standing deteriorated and became so weak that their opponents probably thought the controversy was won for good. Perhaps they were therefore all the more disappointed when the XIV and XVI Drol Chog (grol mchog) tulkus , Jonang Kunga (1495-1566) and Jonang Taranatha (born 1575) brought about a powerful revival in the first half of the sixteenth century.
The reaction to this revival was an unusually forceful suppression. It is justified to this day by citing philosophical reasons. But these do not explain why, in the second half of the seventeenth century, almost all Jonang monasteries were forced to close or convert into Gelug monasteries, while Shentong literature was banned, especially from Gelug monasteries. Snellgrove points out that other schools such as the Bonpos and the Nyingmapas are "far more unorthodox than ever the Jonangpas may have been". Yet they were never seriously harassed because they did not aspire to political power.
The Grub mtha' shel gyi me long sheds some light on this issue. Although it condemns the philosophical content of Jonang teachings, it also strives for historical objectivity. The author recounts the sudden demise of the school after it had reached a peak of "unprecedented support" achieved by Jonang Taranatha's activities and genius. Added to the expansion of Jonang influence in the field of religion was its connection to the house of Rin spungs which sponsored it and added even more luster not only to its spiritual but also its temporal power. As Ruegg explains, the influential princes of Rin spungs were separatists, pushing for the independence of the very important Tsang province from the central government. Their activities and lineage was put to an end when the fifth Dalai Lama called in the Mongol army. It defeated the Rin spungs princes in 1642 and with them went their source of spiritual power, Dolpopa's school. As soon as Jonang Taranatha died (shortly after the princes) the way was cleared for the Gelugpas to seize and convert all Jonang monasteries in U and Tsang, and seal their printing blocks.
Political and philosophical dissidents had stuck together and perished together in order to make way for a strong centralization of spiritual and temporal power in Lhasa. Nevertheless all, except perhaps the ruling Gelug school, continued to transmit Jonang teachings and practices as secret oral instructions.
Although the opponents of Uma Shentong, especially the Gelugpas, consistently try to portray it as crypto-Hindu school of thought that is alien to Buddhism, it has actually always been closely connected to "mainstream" Buddhism. Statements such as the one made by Tucci, that the Jonangpas were "regarded as equally heretical by almost all Tibetan schools", are simply wrong. The Blue Annals remind us that Dolpopa's image "is found in the Jo-khan of Lha-sa [the central sanctuary of the country] among those of the most famous Teachers of Tibet." Interestingly, Dolpopa's greatest opponent of his own time, Buton Rinchen Drub (1290-1364), was also a close comrade of his. The Blue Annals call them "the two great expounders of the Kalacakra in the Land of Snows." They obtained the transmission and the oral instructions of this tantra from the same teachers; which makes them Dharma and Vajra brothers. Later yogis practicing Kalacakra, studied the commentaries of both Dolpopa and Buton. Ironically, apparently three teachers of Tsongkhapa (in whose name the Jonangpas were banned) were Shentongpas and direct disciples of Dolpopa. Sparham lists Mati Panchen, and Ruegg names Phyogs las rnam rgyal and Nya dbon Kun dga' dpal. To this day Shentong teachings and practices are transmitted within Nyingma, Sakya, Kagyu, and perhaps even Gelug lineages.
In order to assess how far Dolpopa's influence reached, it would be helpful to be able to determine who is a Shentongpa and who a Rangtongpa. Yet for a number of reasons this is perhaps an impossible task:
(1) Unless they are defending their teachings against opponents, Tibetan Buddhist masters are generally quite willing to regard all Buddhist teachings, without exception as "skillful means" (upaya). That is to say, since different students need different teachings at different times, there is not one absolute best teaching. Rather at any given time the appropriate teaching is the best teaching. Both Dolpopa and Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro Thayay agree that Uma Rangtong and Shentong are each superior for specific occasions (skabs). The first serves best when studying the Dharma by listening and reflecting (thos bsam), the second when meditating (sgom). "Dolpopa explains that . . . the investigative time (so so rtog pa'i skabs) is when one examines the dharmas and finds them empty. The meditative time (mnyam bzhag skabs) is when one rests the Mind in its own Nature without concepts." Thus many masters teach both Uma Rangtong and Shentong and it is sometimes hard to tell which they prefer.
(2) Masters will teach both views in order to avoid falling into the extremes of eternalism or nihilism. Many actually hold both views simultaneously. When they adhere too strongly to one view only, they are often accused of being extreme.
(3) Kuijp states: "At times, the often flagrant lack of consensus [as to whether someone is a Shentongpa or Rangtongpa] may be attributed to the kind of thoroughgoing partisanship which tries to assimilate consciously or otherwise, great thinkers of the past into its own fold of institutionalized - and therefore legitimate - philosophical thinking, if it be still worthy of that name."
(4) Some thinkers agree with one view part of their lives and then change their minds.
(5) Some Buddhist authors may have propounded the Rangtong view because it was "politically correct" after the ban, but in the same work they may also have written according to Uma Shentong because it reflected their own experience.
(6) The term "Great Madhyamaka" which is most often used as a synonym for Uma Shentong is sometimes also used by Rangtongpas to describe Prasangika Madhyamaka. Therefore one can only gather from the context, which one is meant.

CHAPTER FOUR
THE BASIC TEACHINGS
   A. The Textual Sources
      1. Angela's Works
The records we have of this visionary's teachings and revelations are letters or "instructions" she wrote to her disciples, and a text called 'the Memorial'. The genre of this main work is termed "grace" or "revelation- biographies". It is a combination of her life story, interpreted as a product of divine grace, and a partial account of her revelations. This type of literature has more in common with a spiritual diary than with a philosophical treatise. It does bear testimony to her struggle to achieve faithfulness to her revelations as well as to Catholic dogma, but rarely does the penitent resolve this conflict in a creative intellectual way. Since Lady Poverty is her highest ideal (Or should I say 'idol' for she obeys her more than God?) she most often hides behind 'poverty of spirit' and avoids having to look at how her divine revelations might impact her indoctrination.

One may argue that her works would be better compared to the life stories and poems of such Tibetan yogis as Milarepa or Yeshe Tsogyal. But what Angela of Foligno says or hides is much more determined by church doctrine than the free speech of those tantricas. In their intent to harmonize revelations with the dominant doctrine, Angela and Dolpopa converge. But in her era being a woman precludes her from expressing herself in a "male", i.e. intellectual philosophical way.
The Blessed penitent did not even write herself. Whether this was because of her Christian and especially feminine humility or because she did not know how to write, is not ascertained. Yet she did know how to read and she wrote letters to disciples without a scribe being mentioned. In any case, even if she did know how to write, she was not the kind of woman who would have recorded her own revelations because she thought the world should know about them. Rather, it would be in keeping with her education to dictate her revelations as "confessions" because she considered it improper for a truly poor woman to preserve her knowledge for posteriority. Like other female mystics of her era, she most certainly would have written only if God had commanded her repeatedly to do so.
As it was, Angela's revelations were recorded because her confessor strongly suspected that she was possessed by the devil. This was because on her pilgrimage to Assisi in 1291 she was so overwhelmed by longing for God that she threw a fit in the church, screaming and shouting. Brother Arnaldo, who was not only her confessor but also her principal counselor and a relative of hers, witnessed the scene and was deeply embarrassed and angered. The following year he urged her to reveal all of her interior life to him so that he could submit it to an unofficial inquisition.
When she conceded her revelations were investigated by the Cardinal-deacon James Colonna before he was excommunicated, eight well known Franciscan lectors of whom two had been inquisitors for many years, "as well as many other trustworthy friars."
This process of investigation (or inquisition) continued throughout her life on several different levels.
(1) A team of "trustworthy friars" periodically examined everything Angela's scribe had written and discussed it with her.
(2) To the end, Brother Arnaldo questioned and reprimanded her whenever she revealed something that wasn't in accordance with scripture. As a good Franciscan friar he accepted only the Bible as authoritative. I doubt very much that Brother Arnaldo was familiar with the Greek fathers. The only other writing besides the Bible he ever mentioned was a book by St. Augustine, not because it was an authority to him but because he wanted Angela to explain a passage from it.
The friar's attitude towards the Holy Mother was partly due to his own fear that anything unorthodox must stem from the devil. But he also had to protect his project of recording her revelations from his own brothers. They suspected his motivation for spending so much time with a woman. For a while Brother Arnaldo was forbidden to see Angela. As a replacement scribe he sent a mere boy who was even much less capable than the confessor to grasp and record what the Mother was saying. When he was allowed to see her again, he did everything he could not to loose that privilege. With grief he confesses: Many of her words which seemed to me worthy of being written I had to omit in my haste, because of my inadequacy as a scribe, and out of my fear of my brothers who opposed my work. . . . there was much he (God) had told her which I could have put into writing but did not.
On top of all these problems he frequently omitted things because he just did not understand what she was talking about. Thus he edited her words from the moment they left her mouth. Thier and Calufetti, the editors of the critical edition of Angela's works, distinguish two further redactions of her words by Brother Arnaldo after they had been collected. But these brought mild changes compared to his earlier influence on what was written.
Brother Arnaldo held a strange and difficult position, a mixture of being the mystic's superior, guide, inquisitor, and closest disciple with whom the mistress shared her knowledge. Eventually he became completely devoted to the Mother and her teachings. Yet he also knew from unhappy experience that her sayings would not be allowed to survive and spread their blessings unless they conformed to church dogma in every detail.
(3) Angela had her own internalized inquisition. Even before Arnaldo became her "soul guide" she was already so concerned about being orthodox and orderly that she asked herself repeatedly whether she might be possessed by the devil. Then, God convinced her each time that it was truly him who was speaking to her. Only after Arnaldo told her many examples of people who had supposedly been deceived by the devil masquerading as an angel of light, she became so scared that she remained susceptible to doubts about this for the rest of her life. "When people said that I was possessed by the devil . . . I would concur with their judgment and likewise think of myself as very sick and possessed." I don't think she veiled some of her knowledge because she was afraid of being burnt at the stake. She loved suffering and was more than willing to be martyred for Christ. Most likely she was simply concerned about remaining a member of the Holy Church. As a Franciscan she was to believe that there is no salvation outside the Church. Furthermore her rules stated that she was not allowed to preach anything "contrary to the form and regulations of the holy Church."
To what extent she had to alter her own revelations in order to stay true to this principle, is well documented in instruction XIV. Therein she is said to have confessed that her "holy zeal" (for the teachings and institution of the church, I suppose) keeps a strict guard on the divine secrets that were revealed to her. "It makes what is certain, uncertain, and what is black, white." Thier and Calufetti maintain that the passage surrounding this statement was added during Brother Arnaldo's major second redaction of the Memorial. They speculate that it was meant to avert negative interpretations by Angela's spiritual sons of her refusal to share her revelations with them. While this is plausible, I think there is more to it. For one, even if it stemmed from Brother Arnaldo, it nonetheless reflects realistically Angela's spirit of rigorous self-inquisition which accompanied her throughout her path. Her suspicion of herself and of everything she saw and heard in her ecstasies rested only occasionally. Most of the time she only shared information about her revelations when she felt obliged to tell her confessor everything truthfully.
Secondly, her statement that "holy zeal" makes what is black, white, is a hint, if not a secret confession, to what extent Angela's divine revelations were tempered with in order to support church doctrine. In the interest of the institution that makes its faithful think it is divine by calling itself "the body of Christ", she questioned many things God had revealed to her so clearly and affirmed the opposite. Yet as she says, love sometimes made her slip and reveal some secrets.
Now it is for us to sort out which certain revelations were made uncertain and which "black" knowledge was made to look white. Often it does not take a great detective to figure this out. For example, when God tells his "temple" who is bent on being a penitent: "These are your words, not mine." On the other hand we know when she disregards church dogma and shares her unadulterated revelation when she adds: "Even if the whole world were to tell me otherwise, I would laugh it to scorn." Or when she speaks of learning things of which she knows "with the utmost certainty", that they are not preached in the Church. She is lucky enough to live at a time when many of the courageous things she says arouse suspicion but are not yet officially condemned. If she had been born one generation later, she would have found herself in quite a different situation.
One may wonder whether all that censuring and editing left anything of her original revelations. Angela repeatedly asks herself that same question. Sometimes she does not recognize what Brother Arnaldo presents to the mistress as her revelations. Nonetheless God informs her that despite her doubts, Arnaldo's records are "true and without any falsehood, but had been written very imperfectly."
In this thesis it is not my objective to recount those parts of Angela's teachings that are the product of Arnaldo's and her own censorship. Reading any Catholic catechism will plainly expound those teachings. What is of value for a comparison with Dolpopa's thought are the much less adulterated accounts of her direct communications with God, especially the late ones.
Her "Memorial" spans many years and an amazing development of more and more perfect union with God. Angela herself distinguished thirty steps or transformations that her soul went through on her way to complete unio mystica. But her confessor-scribe, unable to distinguish them all, lists only twenty six. When her steps are mentioned, the first nineteen correspond to her own classification, while the following "supplementary" steps represent those seven out of her ten phases which the scribe was able to identify. Her description of phases are in accordance with Catholic tradition which teaches a gradual path of increasingly higher enlightenment finally leading to perfect union with God. Hence it is in keeping with this spiritual doctrine to lay more emphasis on her late rather than her early revelations.
Many theologians prefer to proceed in the opposite way, disregarding any sequence of development and with it her more unusual statements, and pointing only to her censured passages.
The fact that one can pick and choose among the Blessed Mother's teachings and always find a quote to back one's view is one reason why she was never condemned by the Inquisition. It is the custom of the Catholic church to excuse unorthodox passages in the writings of visionaries as "rhetoric" as long as one of two things are given: Either the unorthodox statements are somewhere contradicted by orthodox ones, or the mystic assures the reader that s/he does not mean to say anything contrary to church teachings and recants anything with that appearance.
Angela's "confessions" are full of such apologies. How later theologians used them to misrepresent her spirituality is well demonstrated by Paul Doncoeur, S.J. Although he is a great admirer of the Holy Mother, he cannot overcome his male chauvinism. Whenever she is in agreement with church doctrine he presents that as her true teaching. When she transgresses he says it can be disregarded because it is merely a typical exaggeration of female temperament.
Women go beyond. Their love naturally lacks measure. When they lose the path it is always due to too much enthusiasm. This explains her passionate raptures at whose origin is God, but which end up in states not wanted by Him.

Because of such evaluations I feel compelled to back my analysis of Angela's thought with far more quotes than is necessary for Dolpopa. While the man feels confident about his knowledge and is able to back it up with scriptures, the woman is caught in a quandary, trying to do justice to God and the Church. Thus he can lay out one clear teaching, while she tries to juggle two, now opting for one, now for the other. Thus there is no controversy as to what Dolpopa taught and nothing he says is unusual in Buddhism. In Angela's case the opposite is true. As Doncoeur's example clearly shows, what is made known through this humble woman is not something most Christians will accept easily.

      2. Dolpopa's Works
To some extent the study of Dolpopa's works is still hindered by the fact that they were banned from the seventeenth to the nineteenth century. Their reputation of being a crypto-Hindu heresy may have led to few Buddhist scholars wanting to be associated with their study. Nor did monasteries necessarily publicize the fact that they possessed copies of Jonang literature. Many Western scholars know of Sherab Gyaltsen only second hand, through his critics or through his one defender and interpreter Jamgon Kongtrul the Great. Only within the last ten years have Westerners found Tibetan copies of Dolpopa's Collected Works. Hookham quotes from them, but no translation of a complete book is of yet available. Hence my information can only be preliminary.
Compared to the works of the Franciscan, Dolpopa's writings are very theoretical insofar as he does not explicitly recount his own personal experience. Yet his concern is to harmonize the experience of yogis such as himself and scriptures that reflect their revelations, with philosophical logic. As an "Omniscient" meditator we can assume that his "mystical" teachings are rooted in direct experience, even if he never says: "I saw this and that..." For the very definition of an enlightened master is that s/he has had direct and unequivocal perception of all levels of truth. Shentong teachings especially have a mystical visionary character because they grow out of what is called the "way of meditation". One of the main works they are backed up with is Maitreya and Asanga's Uttaratantrasastra. Following their Indian masters, Tibetans distinguish two lineages of teaching the works of Maitreya: the "way of meditation" (sgom lugs) and the "way of analysis or study" (thos bsam gyi lugs, literally: "the way or mode of hearing and listening"). The way of meditation is said to be less rigorously philosophically logical but more based on what is realized in meditation and conducive to successful meditation. Nevertheless this way of teaching also consists of commenting on sutras that support what is seen in meditation. Thus,just like the Blessed Angela of Foligno, Dolpopa's school of thought tried to bridge the gap between visionary revelations and philosophical doctrine.
Dolpopa wrote many treatises. They include commentaries on sutras, tantras, shastras, self- commentaries, treatises on meditation, astrology, etc. But the work that made the master and his doctrine famous is the Ri chos nges don rgya mtso (The Ocean of Ultimate Meaning of Mountain Dharma [i.e. Dharma of hermits)). Unfortunately as of date none of his writings are translated, but his thought is well paraphrased by Shenpen Hookham in her "The Buddha Within". Furthermore, contrary to common opinion, his main work does not really contain original thought. Rather it stands in the Tibetan tradition which prefers summaries and clarifications of sutras to the original scriptures themselves. Then as now, Tibetans hardly ever read an original sutra. Thus it became very important for people like Dolpopa to summarize related sutras in a way that made their message clear, without adding too much of his own thought. This is exactly what he did, and we do have in translation the works he summarized, combined and commented on; the Srimaladevi sutra, Mahaparinirvana sutra, Uttaratantrasastra, and some of the tantras. Since his comments consist mostly of taking their meaning literally and pronouncing it absolute rather than preliminary, these texts represent a good image of his thought.
Because of the lack of translations, I will at times rely upon other Shentongpas to elucidate certain points. In doing so, one has to remember that the Omniscient One, as opposed to thinkers like Jamgon Kongtrul the Great, when answering to Madhyamaka arguments, does not seek a middle ground between Shentong and Rangtong doctrine. For example whereas Dolpopa considers it a grave mistake to think that buddha nature is self-empty, as was explained above, many later Shentongpas feel an understanding of buddha nature's self-emptiness is a good foundation for understanding its other-emptiness. Thus whatever is uncompromisingly Shentong can be considered as part of Dolpopa's teachings.
   B. What Angela Says About God
     Mostly she teaches the way to perfect union with that which she calls God, the Uncreated, the One who is, the Supreme Being, and the one who "enjoys himself in all creatures, above all creatures, and beyond all creatures, without mode or measure." The way consists of following the examples of Christ and his mother. This means choosing poverty, contempt and suffering. To Angela, poverty is the antidote to pride, and pride is when the soul believes it possesses anything, including any kind of own-being. Poverty "is the mother of all virtues and the teacher of divine wisdom." Wisdom is the realization that nothing has being, except for the One who is being itself. As far as Angela is concerned, that's all one needs to know.
Still, sometimes she reveals a little more, for example what the goal of the "way of the cross" is: the "three transformations of the soul into God".
First, one is transformed according to God's will. He wants wo/man to follow his example of embracing poverty in material things, in human relations, and in being, as well as suffering, contempt and obedience to God.
During the second transformation one strives to adopt his qualities of love, kindness, humility, and equanimity (or 'immutability')
The third is the total transformation of the soul into God, where temporarily the soul is not in itself but in God. The New Testament formula recurs again and again: God is in us and we are in him. The soul "experiences and possesses God's sweetness"; it comprehends, sees, feels, and knows God, but in such a way that it simultaneously knows that it can never comprehend, see, feel and know the Uncreated. It knows God in a cloud of unknowing.
Our "sister of penance" makes contradictory statements as to how complete this union is. Sometimes she admits that there is no difference whatsoever between God and the soul but that: "God became flesh in order that he might make me God." The Lord also assures her: "Whatever is mine is yours,and whatever is yours is mine." Other times her concern for humbleness and orthodoxy muffles her enthusiasm and makes her stay away from formulations for which other women were burnt at the stake. Then the soul only becomes "almost totally divine".
Two Realities
For a long time Angela goes back and forth between being lost in God and then returning to the "miserable condition" of "our corrupted flesh", in this world "full of illusion". But eventually she reaches a state of being continually "plunged into the fathomless depths of God". Here she sees God in everything and maintains that nothing exists except insofar it is God. Nevertheless she persistently preaches that everything other than God is nothing but sin. Yet, how can something that has no being other than God's being be sinful? In effect she speaks of two levels of reality: the divine that is the only true one, and the world of sin that is full of illusion and into which humankind fell through ignorance. She calls them the created and the uncreated reality, saying that the highest goal is to be drawn out of all created reality by divine love and into the uncreated. The Almighty reflects these two realities in his two natures: "God as man and God as uncreated". Even here she judges God's humanity as the lesser reality and his divinity as the greater. Although she admits that "the lesser [is] in the greater and the greater in the lesser, [such that they are] united and conjoined". She also acknowledges that humans are "made in the same form" as the divine paradoxical unity of opposite realities.
Unfortunately the world of sin does not stop exerting its power just because someone has reached union with God and sees that ultimately even murderers are nothing but God. Thus, becoming transformed into God also means becoming like the Crucified, whose body suffered obediently until death. Angela says: "Truly, there is no greater charity on earth than to suffer for the sin of others."
It is not the woman's personal charity that takes on the sin of the world. Rather it is the primordial love of the Uncreated One that has inundated her soul. When activity is emitted from this love, it is not the soul that acts but the Uncreated.
 
At the end of her recorded assent to perfect union with God Angela is told "most high words". Unfortunately she does not want anything written about this level of her realizations, nor does she share it with her students. Among the things that Angela resists verbalizing clearly are the identity of soul and God and the nothingness of soul and God.
      1. Identity of Soul and God
Throughout her journey, to the day she dies, the hardest thing for her to accept and the thing that God most persistently tries to convince her of is that she is not a mere heap of sin, but instead the temple of God, his most beloved mate, who carries the trinity inside her, never again to be separated from it. Time and again the nobility and holiness of the soul and the world are shown to her. She describes God as delightfully present in everything, angel or demon, saint or murderer. In the end she is never separated from this vision. Then she says: "My heart is God's heart and his mine." She is everywhere he is and "holds dominion over and comprehends the whole world." But even then she always faithfully returns to her heap of sin, insisting on her unworthiness. This is when the Lord replies (as quoted above): "These are your words, not mine." Yet the Lord's patience in trying to wean her from the concept of sin never falters. The trouble is that while the Blessed woman gave all her heart to God, she surrendered her brain to the patriarchal church institution. She is terrified of letting the divine enter that part of her. She expresses this fear when her confessor sends her back to find out how God could possibly be in heaven and in Angela at the same time. In response it is revealed to her that the trinity is "at once one, and a union of many". To explain this, the ultimate is compared to the sun; but Angela is too concerned about being humble and orthodox to listen. She says: "I rejected these [examples], for when I hear such great things I push them aside fearfully because I feel unworthy of them." She knows how to love and suffer, not how to receive unorthodox divine instructions. She obeys Paul when he asks Christians to follow Christ in his kenotic self-abasement to the point of loosing his identity. (Cor 2) What is difficult for her to digest is that when Jesus let go of his (divine) identity he became human, when wo/man lets go of her/his (human) identity s/he becomes divine.
It is important to remember that the last thing she reveals before refusing to say anything more is her astonishment at the ineffable nobility of her soul. In realizing the divinity of her own soul, she reaches the limit of what she is willing to think and communicate to others.
Similarly, she only talks about the identity of her disciples' souls with God when pressed persistently; and even then she is extremely brief and resistant to revealing what she sees. The following is an account by one of her pupils of her vision concerning the "transubstantiation" of her disciples into God. It is a good example of the way she deals with divine 'secrets':
Every purification adorns the soul with much beauty, but the beauty of the second purification is very great and very attractive, and the third gives such an extraordi- nary beauty that she absolutely refused to tell me any- thing about it, except that it was totally indescriba- ble. As I kept insisting, she finally told me: "What do you want me to say? My sons seem to be so transformed in God that it is as if I see nothing but God in them, in both his glorified and suffering state, as if God had totally transubstantiated and absorbed them into the unfathomable depths of his life."
Several things should be observed here. She sounds almost irritated that she is coerced into revealing just how divine and beautiful a soul can be. She is uncomfortable when she is put in the position of revealing divine secrets, unless she feels forced to do so by canonical law as part of her confession or as an object of Inquisition. When her revelations become too esoteric, or too good and liberating, she shuts down. First she tries not to receive what goes against church dogma. When God finally breaks through that barrier, she hears but tries to forget again. When she cannot forget anymore she starts to keep secrets and only hints at what she knows.
I believe she fears that the soul's divine beauty might become a source of pride, the emotion she calls "the root of all evil" and which blocks humility, the root of all virtue and wisdom.
Other Christian schools of thought of her time draw conclusions from the divinization of the soul that she does not agree with. For one, there is the classical threefold division of the way towards perfect union with God into the paths of purification, illumination, and union. It suggests that penance, a means of purification, is performed mostly during the first path and completed during the second. After that it would get in the way of perfect union because at that point penance keeps the soul trapped in the illusion of a self that is separate from God. Marguerite Porete saw this very clearly. She writes that once the Christian virtues have been perfected, the soul who has become nothing (devenir neant) or annihilated (aneantie) must free itself from concern with virtue lest it endangers the soul's divine union.
A whole movement of "heretics" was built on this line of thinking. They called themselves "The Brothers and Sisters of the Spirit of Freedom and refused to heed any laws that were other than God Himself. Their ideas were congruent with St. Augustine's (354-430) famous precept: "Love and do what you want." Some of them infiltrated the Franciscan order, but Angela, backing the Inquisition, fought them vehemently. To her, awareness of one's sinful nature should never stop because penance is not a method of purification but the way of life which St. Francis had prescribed for the Brothers and Sisters of Penance. Her disciples, familiar with the via purgativa as only the first stage on the path, ask: "How long must we do penance?" In contrast to other teachers Angela responds: "Penance as long as one lives, penance as great and harsh as possible."
Yet, in stark contrast to her own overpowering perception of sin, God keeps telling her how beautiful she is and how worthy of being his spouse. Just before her death, as if he were still trying to clear her negative programming, God urges her once more: "I do not want you to come to me burdened with these pains and sorrows, but jubilant and filled with ineffable joy. For it is only fitting for a king to wed his long-loved bride, clothed in royal garments." (She, so to say, wanted to wed him nailed to a cross.)
In summary one can conclude that the identity of soul and God is revealed to the Blessed penitent again and again and part of her accepts it. Yet, when faced with fellow Christians, i.e. the Church, she is neither emotionally nor philosophically equipped to stand for her own and other's divinity. Not knowing how to reconcile wo/man's divinity and sinfulness, she mostly affirms the latter and rarely discloses the former.
      2. Nothingness of Soul and God
The Most Holy Mother Angela does not have any problem accepting the nothingness of the soul and all things that are not God. "For neither angel nor man nor anything else has being; only one has it, God." She says they are nothing, illusion, without own being. She speaks of the soul's nothingness on two levels and it is not always very clear which level she is operating on, because they are connected. On the one hand she refers to ordinary Christian humility and the recognition of one's own sinfulness and insignificance. Yet such apparently simple meekness gives birth not only to all other virtues, but also to divine wisdom and love. When this knowledge of the soul's nothingness results in the recognition of God's presence in all creatures, 'nothingness' transcends morality and becomes an ontological statement about the true nature of phenomena.
But how does Angela's realization of the illusory character of all things influence her view of God? When she dwells in this nothingness she does not remember anything that is conceivable, not even Jesus Christ or anything that the Bible says about God.
...whatever is said about the gospel or about any other divine revelation seems to me as nothing, for what I saw of God was incomparably greater. . . . For in the cross of Christ in which I used to take such delight, . . . I find nothing; in the poverty of the Son of God, I find nothing; and in everything that could be named, I find nothing.
The triune God in the conventional Christian sense is not part of this uncreated reality. He is left behind as part of created reality. When she first gets to know this nothingness, she does not even want to hear God's name, for the ultimate she experiences is "incomparably greater" than the God of scripture.
Left behind with him, are the cardinal Christian virtues with which the soul used to respond to the God of its imagination: faith, love, and hope. Angela recounts: "I saw the light . . . I did not see love there. I then lost the love which was mine and was made nonlove." This must not worry the Christian reader for the utter transcendence of God's essence makes human concepts of the Ultimate meaningless only at the time of complete union. Furthermore, judging by the accounts of many Christian mystics throughout the centuries, it seems to be God's will that his closest followers should realize his no-thing- ness. This is also what the well known Franciscan friar Aegidius (or Giles) of Assisi, a close companion and disciple of St. Francis, seems to say: I know a person, [meaning himself] who has seen God so clearly that he lost all faith. . . . True, before that I did not have faith the way I should have had it, nevertheless God took it from me. Whoever has it in a perfect manner, like one should have it, God will also take it from him.
For two years Angela experiences an agonizing dark night that prepares her for the very pinnacle of her path. What is left for her to learn when God already affirmed that his trinity dwells in her perfectly and permanently? It seems that she has to endure hell until she finally lets go of all concepts of God and embraces his no-thing-ness. Only then does God once more share his "divine sweetness" with her.
      3. God is Nothing and Everything
After Angela has affirmed and negated God, she recounts seeing him as everything and nothing all at once: "[I saw] nothing that the lips or even the heart could afterward speak about. It [the soul) sees nothing and everything at once." It knows that God is nothing and yet it sees all of creation overflowing with God's presence, power, and wisdom.
In Marguerite Porete we find the same correlation between nothing and everything. She writes: "... this Soul possesses all and so possesses nothing, she knows all and so knows nothing . . . . Now she is All and so she is Nothing for her Lover makes her One."
Our Blessed penitent keeps speaking in this obscure paradoxical manner. She says that the soul sees the All Good free from any conceivable good one could place hope in, yet endowed with a "secret" or "hidden" good that is "accompanied with darkness", in which her hope (that is also no hope) lies.
Like the three persons of the trinity, the empty and the full side of God seem to be one but not mixed. At least at the stage where she still speaks about all this, she sometimes sees one, sometimes the other. His nothingness leaves her in a state of perfect equanimity that does not bring a smile to her face, his fullness fills her with highest bliss. In the end she can only repeat again and again that: "there is absolutely nothing which can explain God."
      4. Is God Inexpressible and Inconceivable?
When Blessed Angela does surrender to nothingness, all that is left for her to say is that absolutely nothing can be said about God.
Yet I suspect that there is more to her insistence on the inexplicability of the Uncreated than the mere fact that it cannot be properly described in words. For are not all experiences inexpressible unless they are shared? In this respect seeing the ultimate is no different from any other experience. As Gregory of Nyssa affirms: [Once a man has seen God, he] will then despise all human utterance as absolutely incapable of expressing what he has experienced. . . . It is the same thing with the sunshine. If a man has not seen it from his earliest days [i.e. ever], any effort to translate the experience into words is useless and meaningless. You cannot make the brilliance of the sunlight shine through his ears.
Nonetheless one can describe something in a way that would make others long for it, even if they did not know it. And once an experience is shared, the mere mention of one word is enough to communicate a whole realm of experience. Ultimate reality is no more inexpressible than any other reality; it is merely much less frequently shared and correspondingly harder to convey.
Above we have seen just one example of how Angela tends to hide her knowledge behind the inexpressibility of God. And she is not the only one. It may well be a common trait amongst Christian mystics.
Angela's instruction no. IV was recorded by a close disciple who, only with much pleading, praying, and powerful arguments finally managed to draw some "secrets" out of the mistress. He recounts that she did not think it to be at all proper to speak of her revelations. She lists many "good and virtuous" reasons for this, but emphasizes in particular her inability to describe them in an acceptable manner. When she does reveal a few things anyway, he takes on her same line of reasoning, saying that he cannot repeat everything she told him because her experiences are "totally indescribable". In this case it is obviously not true because he only heard about those "indescribable" experiences by her describing them to him. Yet he uses her same excuse for sharing only a few of her descriptions.
One may conclude that when Angela insists on not being able to say anything about God, what she really means is:
  (1) Whoever she is addressing at the time has not experienced the Uncreated in the same way she has.
(2) She has been misunderstood and accused of unorthodoxy frequently enough to know that she cannot describe her realizations in a way that will lead to anything positive.
(3) Describing the Uncreated as realistically as one can is of no pedagogical value but may be quite counterproductive. I believe she is concerned for faith, love, and hope, for, as Giles says, seeing God clearly, takes these away. But will one see God if one has not first engendered them? Angela's answer would certainly be, 'no'. Since it is difficult to feel faith, love, and hope for an inconceivable no-thing-ness, it would not make sense for her to tell her disciples that God isn't any of the things they think he is.
(4) The Holy Trinity is absolutely indescribable because on the absolute, uncreated level of reality one cannot say that it either exists or does not exist. As Denys said, "the cause of all things . . . is beyond affirmation, and beyond all denial."
      
   C. What Dolpopa Says About Buddha Nature
      1. Buddha Nature Is Absolute and the Ultimate Meaning
           of Buddha's Teachings
One of Dolpopa's main concerns is to resolve the confusion around two distinct concepts that were introduced into Tibet from India and which are both posited as absolute in different scriptures: buddha nature and emptiness. He says great mistakes arise when one confuses the two kinds of emptiness, i.e. when one takes empty of other buddha nature to be self-empty sunyata. Yet he admits that such mistakes are understandable since one can only tell by the context of any particular scripture which emptiness is meant; they are not explicitly demarcated.
Though he attempts to clarify the relationship between the two without negating either, he cannot get around having to decide which is more absolute. And in the end precisely this decision determines whether one holds the view of a Rangtongpa or a Shentongpa.
To Dolpopa, buddha-nature is absolute, not empty of existence. It is the one and only thing that is real and permanent. The ordinary concept of existence, which means that something is born, exists for a while, and then dies, is not real; but unborn absolute being is real. He says: "Liberation, which is ultimate Buddha, is not empty. . . . Dharmakaya is not empty of its own essence." And: "The dharmadhatu as the subject of the proposition will exist in reality because it is real." It is empty of other, i.e. graspable things or dualistic defilements (such as conceptual thought and categories). It is not empty of qualities (such as inconceivable, pure and absolute existence, wisdom, power, and compassion).
Due to Madhyamikan influence, many Buddhist scholars have become accustomed to regarding such statements as
extreme. Yet perhaps they sound less far fetched when one compares them to what Tibetan Rangtong Madhyamikas have to say about the ontological status of the universe's essential nature. According to the great scholar Pema Karpo: "Bu ston held that the dharmadhatu though real is non-existent in reality (bden par med)." Similarly Paul Williams reiterates Tsongkhapa's thought thus: This reality uncovered in mystical experience, although non-contingent, stable and existent is nevertheless not essentially established [as having a self-essence)(rang gi ngo bor ma grub), it is not truly proved or established (bden par grub pa yin no zhes smra bkag pa yin no).
In other words, Rangtongpas and Shentongpas actually agree in that ultimate reality is real. The whole debate that supposedly establishes whether one is a Buddhist or a closet-Hindu centers around the argument as to whether "to be real" is the same or different from "to exist in reality" or "to be essentially established as real"! Hair cannot be split any thinner than this!
      2. Buddha Nature Has Inseparable, Uncompounded, and
            Inconceivable Qualities
It has been stated many times that buddha nature is empty of defilements, but not empty of qualities. So what are its qualities? They are all the perfect characteristics of complete enlightenment such as primordial love, wisdom, and power. According to Dolpopa and many of the tathagatagarbha scriptures, there is no difference whatsoever between the qualities of a perfect buddha (samyaksambuddha) and those hidden within all other things. The only distinction lies in perception: those who see the enlightened qualities pervading all phenomena are awakened, those who do not, are ordinary and ignorant.
It follows that enlightenment is not attained by producing compassion and wisdom in our stream of consciousness, but by purifying the veils that hide our true nature, the compassion and wisdom that are already at the core of our being.
The RGV likens the enlightened qualities hidden in defiled and ignorant beings to a poor and ugly woman who does not know that she is carrying in her womb a future emperor, with a buddha statue wrapped in stinky rags and tossed on a heap of garbage, with gold covered by dirt, etc.
Why are the qualities called inseparable, uncompounded, and inconceivable? Because Nagarjunian Madhyamika proved by logic that phenomena composed of qualities or characteristics cannot truly exist, much less be absolute. For anything that is defined by qualities, arises dependent on those qualities and the qualities arise dependent on the thing they qualify. For example, fire has the qualities of heat and burning. Without heat and burning there is no fire and without fire there are no heat and burning. Thus fire is compounded by different elements which arise in interdependence and are therefore empty of own nature.
Such arguments were widely accepted in the Buddhist community and the "Great Madhyamikas" were familiar with them. But that does not mean that they agreed that such logic applied to ultimate reality. Already the RGV argues that relative qualities may be separable from what they qualify, but not the characteristics of suchness. "The element is empty of the accidental which has the characteristic of being separable. It is not empty of the supreme dharmas which have the characteristic of being inseparable." In another chapter the RGV deals with the same issue, saying that the qualities of absolute reality are "indivisible from Reality by nature as the brightness, color and shape of the jewel are inseparable from the latter."
  Hookham says: "According to the Shentongpas, the Madhyamaka refutes separable but not inseparable qualities." For example there may be water with or without warmth but there is no fire without heat and burning, nor is there tathagatagarbha without its countless inconceivable qualities.
If one argues that the qualities must be separable because they are distinguished from each other, Shentongpas respond that the distinction into separate qualities is only a conventional concept and does not reflect reality. One may describe the Dharmata in terms of different attributes, but it is nonetheless uncompounded, beyond the concept of one and many.
In short, Dolpopa called the qualities 'indivisible' or 'inseparable' in order to avoid the category "compounded and therefore ultimately non-existent". To him "empty of other" necessarily means not only empty of accidental defilements but also of qualities that could be seen as other than the very nature of suchness. (Just as the Christian God does not have love but is love, so buddha nature does not have qualities but is its qualities.)
Again, the Madhyamika proved that anything conceivable does not really exist. So Shentongpas argue that the buddha qualities are not conceivable by discursive thinking, and that whatever cannot be the object of conceptual thought is not negated by Madhyamaka reasoning.
Conceptual thought is by definition dualistic. Freedom from conceptual thought or "naked awareness" (rig pa rjen bu as it is called in Mahamudra and other meditation texts), is non-dual. For Dolpopa, as for many Tibetan schools, realizing inconceivability and non-duality means realizing sunyata. Thus "inconceivable" became a very handy word (not without good reason). Whatever was said about the tathagatagarbha could not be proved wrong as long as it was prefixed by "inconceivable". For example 'inconceivable existence' denotes an existence beyond human concepts of existence and non-existence, 'inconceivable compassion' is compassion free of subject-object duality.
One characteristic of non-dual awareness is that it is not bound by logic but often paradoxical. Hookham calls buddha nature a "mystery"; Broido says it "exists pre- analytically . . . at the level of experience". This seems to translate appropriately to the Western mind what is meant by the "inconceivability" of buddha nature with its qualities.
Shentong thought is often summarized by listing the four great paradoxes or "inconceivabilities" as they are described in the Srimaladevi sutra and commented on in the RGV.
1. Inconceivable buddha nature: It is primordially completely pure; yet in order to reach enlightenment, it has to be purified of adventitious defilements.
2. Inconceivable enlightenment: Although the mind is clear by nature, enlightenment is the result of a purified mind.
3. Inconceivable qualities: The immaculate qualities of a buddha are found even in absolutely defiled beings.
4. Inconceivable buddha-activity: Although a buddha acts without effort, plans, intentions or concepts, s/he fulfills everything sentient beings want and need according to their intentions and faculties.
Why all this debate about changeless, non-compounded, eternal, unconditioned, and inconceivable buddha qualities? Because Rangtong Madhyamikas argue that the qualities of enlightenment are at best an unbroken continuity of conditioned moments of consciousness. Yet, if that were true they would not be beyond samsara; they would constitute just another illusion and would have no liberating qualities. Which is of course exactly what the Prajnaparamita says: there is no such thing as enlightenment; buddhahood is an illusion. Vimalakirti echoes: "...you should urge these sons of heaven to give up thinking that enlightenment is something real, or something different; for enlightenment cannot be attained by the body, and it cannot be attained by the mind." Shentongpas feel that such statements, although not completely wrong, are not conducive to attaining liberation and do not realistically convey why supreme enlightenment is worth striving for. According to Dolpopa two nirvanas must be taught and are found in the scriptures: a relative one that is the conditioned result of the Eightfold Path and that can indeed be refuted by reasoning, and an absolute one that is the eternal and changeless dharmata. The latter is described in the Mahaparinirvana sutra: Son of the family, Nirvana is not previously non- existent. It is not like a pot when it is unworked clay. It is not like a pot that is destroyed and becomes nothing. It is not nothing whatever, as is a turtle's hair. It is like something in which something else is absent.

In short it seems that one could summarize the difference between the two schools of thought thus: While Rangtongpas affirm kleshas (defilements) as existing at least conventionally and deny a truly existing enlightenment, Shentongpas affirm the qualities of enlightenment and deny even the relative existence of the kleshas.
So how many buddha qualities are there? According to the Srimaladevi sutra the qualities of the tathagatagarbha are as numerous as the sands of the Ganges. Dolpopa is one of the very few Tibetan scholars who feel comfortable making this assertion in public, outside of a Tantric setting. He explains it as referring to the inseparability of form and emptiness, which will be explained in section 5.
Most of the time the qualities of buddha nature are explained in a more limited way. Hookham remarks that: "the exact meaning of the countless qualities is nowhere explained in the RGV and RGVV." Under the heading "The Qualities of the Buddha" Maitreya and Asanga explain merely the sixty four properties of the trikaya (three bodies of the buddha) after the purification of all veils. They are the specific qualities of the dharmakaya and the formkaya (nirmanakaya and sambhogakaya), whereby the thirty two marks of the formkaya are a reflection of absolute qualities, like the moon on the water. Elsewhere, according to Hookham, the authors categorize the qualities into three: wisdom, love, and power. These discrepancies just show once more that there is no monolithic explanation for any Buddhist term.
No matter how one classifies the qualities of buddha nature, two of them are of particular importance because Mahayana Buddhism tends to view the whole cosmos in terms of these two: wisdom and compassion.
      3. The Wisdom of Buddha Nature or: Buddha Jnana
As should be expected of any Buddhist term, jnana can mean many things. The "Lexikon der östlichen Weisheitslehren" defines it as the knowledge of all dharmas or off all rational things that are taught by the Buddha. It calls this one component of prajna (wisdom). Takasaki translates it simply as 'wisdom'. Hookham gives its Tibetan equivalent as yeshe (ye shes) and translates it as Wisdom Mind. Tibetans often (though not always) distinguish between yeshe as primordial unborn wisdom, and sherab as a more intellectual wisdom.
Buddha jnana encompasses all of this and more. It is the characteristic of having access to all information, whether this access is taken advantage of or not. When it is mostly a potential to know all things including itself, it is called the luminous and clear nature of mind (i.e. of Reality). Without this luminosity, neither samsara nor nirvana could come about. For as long as buddha jnana is not conscious of itself it manifests as samsara. When its ability for self-awareness is activated and it recognizes itself without falling into subject-object dualism, it manifests as nirvana. Then it is called "non-dual Wisdom Mind". Either way it is the true nature of all beings and all phenomena. And since phenomena and their essence are inseparable, when buddha nature has "clear and knowing awareness" of itself, it thereby has perfect awareness of all phenomena, i.e. omniscience.
Because this consciousness manifests buddhahood when it recognizes itself, it is called Buddha jnana; because it "makes its appearance" spontaneously as soon as misconceptions are removed, the RGV also calls it "self- born wisdom". Because it is absolute consciousness and lies at the root of all other consciousness, it is also simply called "the mind", or "pure mind".
Essentially there is no difference between buddha jnana in ordinary beings and in a perfect fully enlightened buddha. It is only because ordinary eyes are veiled by ignorance, karma, and habitual tendencies that they cannot see their own buddha nature.
Rangtongpas object to the idea that mind can know itself. They say that this is logically impossible; it would be like a sword cutting itself or like an eye seeing itself (without the help of a mirror, I suppose). Furthermore, assuming that 'absolute' means 'unchangeable', it is impossible for absolute consciousness to sometimes be aware of itself, and sometimes not. As we have seen, Shentongpas recognize the paradoxical nature of such assertions but hold that logic cannot describe the absolute.
Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche seeks to defend these Shentong teachings against Rangtong criticism that they constitute nothing other than Cittamatra eternalism because they posit a truly existent consciousness. To do so he insists that the "aware quality of mind . . . is not a consciousness (vijnana)." But if it is aware and knowing mind, how is it different from consciousness? According to Rinpoche all forms of Cittamatra consciousness are dualistic, divided into seeing and seen. Yet we saw in section I.D.5. that this is by no means in keeping with all of Cittamatra thought.
In this case I would agree with Rangtong scholars when they say that there is no difference between certain Cittamatra theories positing a truly existent consciousness and the Shentong view of a truly existent buddha mind. But as opposed to them, I do not believe that being a Yogacarin is a hindrance to enlightenment.
      4. The Compassion of Buddha Nature or: Buddha Activity
The love and compassion of the tathagatagarbha are expressed through its activity. It is able to help all beings without falling into dualistic grasping. Such buddha activity is characterized as "spontaneous" (Tib. lhun grub) in the sense of natural, automatic, not dependent on external factors but primordial and effortless. Hookham affirms: "It is taught in the Mahayana and even in the Hinayana Buddhist traditions that the Buddha is eternal and non-compounded and yet compassionately acting in the world." This is essentially the Shentong position. The eternal Buddha is the dharmakaya or buddha nature. If it is non-compounded, eternal, and yet helping beings, then its beneficial qualities must be part of the true nature of reality.
The RGV compares the natural automatic way in which Reality benefits beings with the way rain clouds bring rain without effort or planning that this is to make crops grow.
If per chance, buddha nature does not help us, it is not because it doesn't put out energy but because we are not receiving it. This is compared to the sun to which lotus flowers respond by opening, but the night flower Kumuda responds by closing. In the same way, though the Buddha's wisdom permeates everywhere, its effect differs depending on the recipient.
The way in which buddha activity manifests is said to depend on two things: on the vows a bodhisattva proclaims before attaining enlightenment and on the aspirations of beings. Buddhas appear in ways that satisfy the devotees' wishes, dispositions, and capabilities of understanding. It is also tradition amongst bodhisattvas to make quite precise vows as to how they will benefit beings once buddhahood is attained. Pure Land Buddhism, for example is based on Buddha Amitabha's vow that whoever has thought of him and his paradise even only ten times will be reborn there. A buddha's outer appearance also depends on this vow. For example it is often recounted that when the Savioress Tara was still a human princess, she resisted her androcentric culture and vowed to always benefit beings in a female form.
Buddha nature's effectiveness in alleviating suffering and purifying defilements is called the 'power' (Skt. _akti) of the tathagatagarbha's wisdom and compassion.
      5. Buddha Nature Is No Other than Form
All tathagatagarbha scriptures agree that buddha nature is all-pervading. But what does that mean? Some, like the author of the RGV, define the "all-pervading" buddha nature as none other than thusness (Skt. tathata) or the true nature of all phenomena, (Skt. dharmata). As such it is also called "the dharmakaya". Robert Thurman says: "The Absolute Truth Body (Skt. dharmakaya) of the Buddha is transcendent and eternal, yet omnipresent and immanent in every atom of infinity." Similarly, the self-commentary to the RGV states that: "all dharmas are Perfect Enlightenment."
Yet the Indian philosophical tradition shies away from elaborating the point. When pressed on the issue, thinkers seem to fear for their Buddhist identity or the purity of their doctrine. Hence they usually explain that what is really meant by tathagatagarbha pervading all phenomena as the dharmata is that it is unobstructed by form and can thus constitute the potential of full enlightenment that is present in all sentient beings.
Mostly in Chinese texts, in the Tantras, and in Dolpopa is matter granted its proper status and liberated from the "superior mind over inferior matter" dualism. For where all phenomena are pervaded by buddha nature, there is no longer a clear boundary between matter and consciousness. Dolpopa backs his teachings with sutric as well as with tantric material.
On the sutra level he builds on the above mentioned identification of the sugatagarbha with the dharmata. As opposed to others, he is not afraid to express what that means. The Me long paraphrases him by saying that buddha jnana "exists penetrating everything static and mobile;"
Then, Dolpopa analyses the Heart sutra and finds, once more, two kinds of emptiness described within only one page! On the one hand the sutra negates form altogether, stating: "in emptiness there is no form, feeling, perception, mental activity or consciousness; in emptiness no eye, ear, nose, tongue, body or mind;". On the other hand it also says: "form is emptiness, the very emptiness is form; form is not different from emptiness; nor emptiness different from form".
Dolpopa resolves this contradiction with his rangtong- shentong formula. According to him, when the sutra says "in emptiness there is no form, feeling, etc.", it means that apparent form is empty of own-nature. But when it says: "form is not different from emptiness; nor emptiness different from form" it means that ultimately form lies beyond the grasp of conceptual thinking and is endowed with all the qualities of buddha nature, i.e. 'other-empty'. To him, this second emptiness with its qualities is superior to the former emptiness which is merely the ultimate non-existence of appearances.
The Omniscient master also makes use of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana sutra which elaborates in much greater detail what it might mean when the Heart sutra says: "the very emptiness is form". He quotes it thus: "By the circumstance of empty-form ceasing, the Non-Empty Form which is Liberation is attained." Apparently the sutra also calls "Non-Empty Form" "Tathagatagarbha Form" and asserts that each apparent phenomenon, even ignorance, has a pure non-compounded counterpart in the realm of the absolute.
This is quite an unusual contention for any religious text to teach, but especially for a Buddhist sutra. No wonder Broido calls it "absurd" and Jamgon Kongtrul "controversial". But just the fact that it sounds absurd and Westerners have never heard of such an idea, does not mean that Dolpopa made it up. Considering what little percentage of Buddhist literature is translated into Western languages and the secrecy of tantra, for all we know this may be a very common concept in the esoteric Buddhist world.
On the tantra level there is actually much that backs Dolpopa, except that no one wants to speak about it in public. The Me long gives a hint, stating that Dolpopa's buddha nature "is identical with . . . the hundred Families (kula) etc. mentioned in the Tantras." "Et cetera" is an important word in Tibetan Buddhist literature. It can stand for long lists of terms with all their related teachings; it can represent whole stories, lines of argumentation, and doctrines. Without knowing what exactly the etc. stands for, one will often be unable to understand a text. Not seldom this is just the intention. There is reason to believe that this "etc." is such a case. It may denote vast areas of the tantras that are not to be shared with the uninitiated.
Hookham gives another hint, saying that the tantras refer to 'absolute form', also called 'empty form having all the supreme aspects'. For a source of this expression she refers the reader to Ruegg's La Théorie. Yet all he mentions is "emptiness equipped with all the excellent modes", not "empty form". He does however report that the Kalacakra tantra, a major source of Shentong doctrine, develops this idea further, to the point where some scholars doubt the authenticity of the relevant passages. I suspect that Hookham knows that the tantras speak of 'absolute form' and wishes to "blame" Ruegg for making this information public. Yet it seems to me that the Mahaparinirvana sutra and the Omniscient Dolpopa are to blame for this "treason".
In summary I think it is not difficult to concede that Dolpopa's teachings on pure form are to a great extent in accordance with sutras, while parts of them are rooted mostly in tantras.
What is however much more difficult to embrace is the inseparability of emptiness and form, the radical equality of all reality that is already expressed in the Kasyapa parivarta when it says that the noble family of the Buddha is: "the lineage in which one realizes the equality of all dharmas. In this lineage there is also no distinction of inferior, mediocre, or superior." This, it seems, must include no hierarchical, qualitative distinction between form and the absolute.
Form does not dissolve into thin air when somebody realizes sunyata, but it is seen in a radically different way. Dolpopa describes it as the luminosity and clarity of pure consciousness which spontaneously manifests infinite diversity, as infinite as the sands of the Ganges. All this diversity is part of the inseparable, uncompounded, and inconceivable qualities of buddha nature.

CHAPTER FIVE
COMMONALITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DOLPOPA'S BUDDHA NATURE AND ANGELA'S GOD
   
     It is the occupation of theologians as well as buddhologians to try to organize human experiences into reasonable systems of conduct and thought. Each experience can be compared to pieces in a jigsaw puzzle and the way these pieces are arranged will determine the image of reality. Since philosophers tend to take their job very seriously, they usually think they have to come up with the one and only perfect way of putting the puzzle together. But reality is a magical puzzle and unlike any other. It can be composed into different images and still it can never be completed perfectly. No matter how it is arranged, there will always be some pieces left over that just do not fit anywhere.
   On the Buddhist side we have seen that different thinkers arrange the same pieces in different ways, according to which experiences they hold to be more central and which they judge to be peripheral. prajnavimuktah, who were liberated by wisdom, place the negative-intellectual pieces in the center. sraddahvimuktah, those liberated by faith, organize their picture around the positive-mystical pieces.
On the Christian side, Angela, and other unlearned women mystics like her, are less tempted to arrange their revelations into systems. They are prohibited by society at large and by the Church in particular to do so. Perhaps they do not mind for they know that no image could ever be a correct representation of reality and, unlike men, they are not expected to provide society with one anyway. They can take God's command not to make an image of the absolute seriously. Hence Angela simply lays out the pieces of the puzzle as they are handed to her, without arranging them.

   A. How Angela's Teachings Match Shentong Philosophy
For the purpose of proving that, despite her lack of organization, Angela's realization is not inferior to Buddhist thought, I shall show that all the pieces of the Shentong Madhyamaka puzzle can also be found in her sayings.
  At the heart of Angela's and Dolpopa's teachings lies that which she calls nothingness and he emptiness and which is of two kinds.
      1. The Nothingness of Things
     The Blessed and the Omniscient agree that no thing has any own being whatsoever. Every thing perceived in an ordinary way is mere illusion and in itself completely insignificant, unless it represents a step towards seeing ultimate reality.
     Yet paradoxically all illusory and insignificant or sinful things, while empty of an independent existence, are full of another reality: "God" or "buddha nature". The way Angela puts it: "The world is pregnant with God" is an interesting linguistic parallel to the Buddhist term "buddha embryo" or "buddha womb". Perceived in this pregnant way, the multiplicity in which the unconditioned expresses itself is neither nothing nor inferior or evil. Rather it is a quality of its very nature to be "at once one and a union of many" like the sun and its many rays (Angela) or like one nature with innumerable qualities (Dolpopa). Since the Folignera has internalized her oppression to the point where she does not allow herself to receive in full the instructions God wants to give her, maybe the famous Tibetan master Gampopa (1079-1153) can fill in a little. He also compares the unity in diversity of Pure Mind and appearances with the sun: "although the rays of the sun travel into the ten directions, they do not part from the sun; . . . Similarly appearance does not part from Mind-as-such, nor does the latter from the former."
To both Dolpopa and Angela things are not things, they are the absolute poured out into different shapes.
  2. The No-thing-ness or Inconceivability of the Absolute
Neither Angela nor Dolpopa profess a graspable non- existence of the absolute. Rather they characterize it as lying beyond the grasp of conceptual thought, being not like anything the human mind can conceive.
Dolpopa in fact affirms the "true existence" of buddha nature and all its qualities, but he defines "true existence" as a non-dual, inconceivable reality, not as existence in the conventual sense of something being born, remaining for a while, and then dying.
Angela never explicitly tackles the ontological status of the Absolute, and I do not mean Jesus. As far as "the God-man" is concerned, she is very clear that he is not to be found in the divine essence. But even the latter is not always clearly affirmed as existing. One can deduce from her statements that she is in agreement with Dionysius' conclusion that the divine lies "beyond affirmation and beyond all denials".
Where Dolpopa speaks of an inconceivable absolute she speaks of God "in a darkness precisely because the good that he is, is far too great to be conceived or understood." If at times she sounds more negative or more consistent in her insistence upon God's inconceivability or darkness than Dolpopa, it might be (amongst other reasons that will be elucidated below) because she comes from a different point of reference. She has a lot more to negate to get to the same place he is: a 1300 year old tradition of describing the absolute in extremely positive, graspable terms. He on the other hand, to be on a par with her, has to affirm what had been negated for roughly 1800 years.
Besides "darkness" she uses many other terms that lend themselves to a comparison with Buddhist emptiness.
1. Most obvious of course is the term "nothingness" which Angela shares with mystics like Master Eckehart, Marguerite Porete, and John of the Cross.
2. There is "poverty of being" as explained above. For example, the Blessed woman says: "I even saw him [[[Wikipedia:Jesus|Jesus]]] poor of himself." That is to say, Jesus Christ did not possess Jesus Christ; he was empty of Jesus Christ, but nonetheless full of "the divine power"; in Dolpopa's terms he was self-empty and other-empty.
3. Another expression is "nakedness". Lachance calls a leitmotif of Angela's era: "to follow naked the naked Christ". She herself describes her path as: ". . . stripping myself of everything worldly . . . and even [of] my very self." This might be compared to Buddhists letting go of ego clinging in order to realize non-self and gain the "naked awareness" (Tib.: rig pa rjen bu) that is discussed in Tibetan meditation texts. In his article "Letting Go: Buddhist and Christian Models" Jay Rochelle comes to the conclusion that Christian "actively passive" Gelassenheit or a trusting detachment "matches mindful concentration of Buddhism".
4. There are also "secret", "hidden", or "dark" emotions that echo the "vajra" or "maha" emotions of Tantrism.
But one of Angela's favorite terms for the absolute is "the Uncreated". The renderings of this term are not consistent as to whether it is personalized or not. Each text is inconsistent in itself and translations diverge from each other. Lachance's English version seems to follow the Latin, but the latter at times does not follow the Italian. For example in instruction II Lachance translates "a vision of the Uncreated", which corresponds to the Latin "visio Increati"; but the Italian version is "la vixione de lo increato Dio". This is a typical example of how Angela's words were manipulated. But since she also edited herself in the same way, it is safe to assume that she sometimes spoke of a personalized uncreated God and other times of an impersonal uncreated reality. For example when she says: "divine love . . . draws everyone out of themselves and out of all created reality, and totally into the uncreated." When regarding her more advanced phases, there is reason to believe that the impersonal version corresponds more closely to her inner experience and the personal one stems from her desire to communicate effectively (skillfully) with her Christian brethren.
Her "uncreated reality" closely resembles the Shentong notion of "unborn" characteristics that are part of a reality beyond life and death or existence and non- existence. Guenther confirms that:
'Unborn' refers to a central idea in Buddhism. Basic to it is an absolute reality principle which implies that reality or Being is one and that there can be no other being or reality without contradicting the initial premise.
Again he quotes Gampopa who speaks of the unborn radiant light nature of Mind: "As has been said in a sutra: 'Profound, peaceful, wordless, radiant, uncreated.' When the universe is thus understood as unborn, one settles in the sphere where no subjectivism obtains,"
When Angela insists again and again that she can say nothing to describe the uncreated, this inability should be taken to include any statements as to its ontological status. That is to say she cannot say that God exists, nor that he does not exist, for when she is completely one with him she "sees nothing and everything at once."
Is this not Shentong Madhyamaka in a nutshell? Is not Angela's Uncreated nothing because it is empty of everything we think it is, yet everything because it is the true essence of all phenomena? Like Dolpopa she acknowledges that the absolute is dark or inconceivable, but like him she also insists that its qualities or modes can be known with light. In the end darkness and inconceivability have cleared the way for light and perfect knowledge. Or, to say it in the Omniscient One's terms, the realization of self-emptiness purifies the veils that hide other-emptiness, perfectly enlightened awareness (buddha jnana).
      3. The Qualities of Buddha Nature and God
What are those qualities? We have already seen that both the Christian and the Buddhist see all appearances as modes of the absolute. To Angela God's presence in all the phenomena humans distinguish so carefully is only one of his countless "modes". His darkness is another. But there are also more specific characteristics. Angela says that she experienced "thousands and thousands" of "manifestations of God" each one being "fresh, novel, and different".
Dolpopa's absolute form and countless buddha qualities seem to be something quite similar to Angela's experience. His Chinese colleague Chih-i also makes a statement that closely resembles Angela's: "The Tathagata is eternally quiescent yet his transformations fill the universe." But the details of what Dolpopa really saw are not translated and present day lamas do not reveal them. The only qualities that are elaborated on publicly are wisdom and love.
         a. Absolute Wisdom
Few philosophers doubt that there is such a thing as wisdom, that it is graded, and that somewhere there is ultimate wisdom. (Even if it is defined as docta ignorantia, learned ignorance.) The questions that have been discussed most enthusiastically on the Buddhist as well as the Christian side are: 1. Whose wisdom is it, the absolute's or human's? 2. Who gets to partake in it, the human mind, the divinized soul, the soul that is no soul, or only God himself, while humans can only know that they do not know?
As opposed to Rangtong-Madhyamikas, Dolpopa and Angela both seem to agree that there is real wisdom in the absolute and that this wisdom is accessible to humans.
According to Dolpopa this is because absolute consciousness, which is described as wisdom, is our only true nature and by simply purifying all the veils that hide it, we have access to its entirety.
If Angela were in agreement with many of the Platonic schools of thought, she would also agree with the man from Dolpo. Once she realized that she possessed a divine essence and became completely one with it, her consciousness would be God's consciousness and she would hold knowledge of everything at all times.
If she were in agreement with the theologians of a more Jewish bent, like Gregory of Nyssa, who are more "negative" than the Platonists, she would never be able to be completely and finally one with God because he is infinite and the soul is not. Accordingly human consciousness of reality could never be final but would have to expand incessantly. Then she would not be in agreement with Dolpopa because according to this thinking primordial consciousness is not in its entirety accessible to beings rather its fullness always remains beyond human reach.
But Angela's intimacy with God is not restricted by such categories. Rather her revelations encompass them both though her "Platonic" side is perhaps more prevalent. In it there is no difference between her and God. She says she is everywhere God is, and:
My heart is God's heart and his mine." "I understand and possess the complete truth that is in heaven and in hell, in the entire world, in every place, in all things, in every enjoyment in heaven and in every creature. . . . I hold dominion over and comprehend the whole world.
It seems she would agree with William of Saint-Thierry when he says that seeing God's face is tantamount to possessing of God the same knowledge that God has of himself.
On the more negative side she concedes (even only two years before her death) that: "no matter how perfect the soul, . . . it comprehends nothing of God, the ordainer, uncreated and infinite. From looking at what it sees, feels and knows, it sees, feels, and knows that it cannot see, feel, and know." This is precisely what Nicholas of Cusa means when he speaks of "learned ignorance". In such statements Angela is also in full agreement with St. Gregory who says that a soul's true satisfaction lies in never being fulfilled because one can never fully possess the divine and thus one's "desire for the Transcendent" will never come to an end.
As is typical for the Blessed Folignera, she lets these two versions stand side by side, without explaining how they go together. We are left in much the same situation Dolpopa found himself in, confronted with two seemingly contradictory teachings about ultimate knowledge. Perhaps his rangtong-shentong formula can help even here. Angela herself makes one remark that may reconcile her two versions. She says: "the extent of the soul's elevation corresponds to the extent of its humiliation and abasement." That is to say, only when the dualistically grasped soul is recognized as utterly bereft of itself, can it find that it is nothing other than the inconceivable absolute. Angela appears to be in agreement with Marguerite Porete who says, only when the soul is completely annihilated, is it completely one with the uncreated. And thus only when the soul knows nothing because it does not exist anymore, does it know everything because it is now pure.... There is no word for what it now is. As Marguerite says, at this point the soul can no longer speak of God. Angela does not even want to hear his name, because none of the concepts associated with the word "God" match even vaguely what she sees.
The other thing that speaks for a rangtong-shentong interpretation of Angela's description of highest wisdom is her saying that "from looking at what it knows" the soul knows that it cannot know. This sounds like Thrangu Rinpoche's explanation that yogis do see the true nature of mind with its qualities, but when they look at it in an investigative way, i.e. with conceptual thought, they find nothing. In the same way Angela knows everything but when she looks to see what she knows, she can find neither a soul that could know something nor a graspable object that could be known in a definite way. She "finds nothing that the lips or even the heart could afterward speak about". To put it in Rangtong terms, she finds nothing that could be established in reality. Yet she sees "nothing and everything at once" because her wisdom, which is no other than divine wisdom, is on the one hand empty of itself or self-empty and on the other hand empty of dualistic defilements but not empty of qualities.
One may conclude that the Blessed and the Omniscient agree in that there is perfect all-encompassing wisdom in the absolute and that this wisdom is accessible to consciousness when it does not fall under the illusion of being a separate self. Being accessible does not however mean that it is a conceivable object. It is not. It is like the ocean: one really can swim in it and enjoy its qualities but if one tries to grasp the water in one's hands to show it to others, it runs through one's fingers and one has nothing to show. Or, as St. John of the Cross says: "It is like air that escapes when one tries to grasp it in one's hand."
What about Dolpopa's teachings that the luminosity of buddha jnana pervades all phenomena and brings forth samsara and nirvana? Would Angela agree with this too? Since she is so secretive and does not dare be a philosopher, she does not specifically speak about this issue. She does, however, mention many times how "God" or "Christ" or "God's presence" fills all of creation, enjoying itself "in all creatures, above all creatures, and beyond all creatures without mode or measure." Without mode or measure is to say not just parts of God pervade creation but all of him, including his wisdom.
It is not nearly as unusual as it may seem for a Christian to say such things. Martin Luther maintains in the same way (backing himself up with scripture) that God is "completely and entirely present in every single body, every creature and object everywhere, and on the other hand, must and can be nowhere". Hence, if Angela maintains that the same divine wisdom which pervades all things also creates and ordains everything, then she must agree with Dolpopa that absolute consciousness brings forth "samsara and nirvana" or "heaven and hell".
         b. Unborn, Uncreated Love
As explained above, shentong love is an unborn quality that spontaneously produces beneficial effects without someone planing: "I as a subject, will help you, as an object because I love you." Rather, without intention the right things happen automatically.
Does Angela know such love? It appears that she does. At the pinnacle of her journey, at the beginning of the seventh supplementary step, she becomes completely one with God. The result is that she loses the love that was hers, which was an ordinary kind of love in the sense that it perceived a subject that loved an object. Instead she is made into divine "nonlove". In the same way God's goodness changes into something so inconceivable that one cannot place ordinary, dualistic hope in it. It becomes a "dark and most secret" good. In this nonlove and secret goodness she cannot find her own soul, nor a personal God, nor anything conceivable. Later she calls this nonlove "uncreated love" and says that it acts through the soul without the soul acting, i.e. the soul acts with divine (non-)activity and loves with divine nonlove. They inspire the soul to withdraw from all things and to unite with the uncreated. When uncreated love manifests itself in human acts for others, works are performed "without any intention and without concern for merit" but with the wisdom that one possesses nothing of one's own, not even one's being.
So yes, she knows an inconceivable, different, secret kind of love in which there is neither subject nor object, but which draws the soul in, much in the same way as the tathagatagarbha of Srimaladevi draws people to renounce samsara and to strive for nirvana.
How does uncreated love draw wo/men's attention unto itself? The tathagatagarbha, also called dharma body of the buddha, manifests itself in two kinds of form bodies for the benefit of beings. The nirmanakaya takes on human forms and the sambhogakaya manifests celestial buddhas that are usually also depicted in more or less human shapes. Asanga confirms what has been explained in section III.C.4., namely that the places and ways the formkayas appear, depend on the needs of beings.
Does Angela's God act differently from this? The Folignera knows that Jesus, the suffering God-man, is only one expression of God's love but is not to be found in the divine essence. She often dwells in that place where the God-man means nothing to her, where she cannot even remember anything about him, and where she does not want to hear his name because what she experiences is incomparably greater. Yet she always returns to Jesus because somehow he is still real to her. He is the only way to the essence she knows of and she wants to share that way with others. So she prays to have Christ "made present" to her in the way that she has been contemplating and preaching him: poor, suffering, in contempt, wounded, bloodied, crucified, and finally dead on the cross. When her wish is granted she exclaims happily: "he was present to me just as I had asked from the most holy angels." Is it a coincidence? No. In an instruction on human liberty God says to his beloved: "I want nothing more than what you want." No matter what she wants to see, God nailed to the Cross, a child-bearing virgin, angels, he is more than willing to manifest it for her sake, not because it were absolute.
If Buddhists and Christians could agree that there is only one absolute essence then it would not be so difficult to see that most of the differences between religions stem from the level we are dealing with here: uncreated love manifesting itself in different ways according to the differing needs and wishes of beings.
   B. How Buddhism Could Help Angela Levels of Reality
Dealing, all at once, with the outer world of illusion and sin, with the spiritual world of angels, saints, and deities, and with the divine essence where everything seems to melt into one, must be one of the most difficult tasks on the spiritual path. Angela is struggling with it to the end of her days. During the fifth supplementary step she begins to "marvel how these two expressions of love (God sharing his total transcendence and his human incarnation with her] could co-exist." She also wonders: "If the All Good is already in me, why am I to receive him again [in the Eucharist]?" She is told: "One does not exclude the other", but not why or how they co-exist. I think when dealing with all these levels of reality, Buddhist systems are very helpful in making sense of the pieces in her jigsaw puzzle. There is much talk in Mahayana Buddhism of the "two truths" that correspond to two realities. Vajrayana Buddhism adds a third reality. Although there may be differences between such theories, they all agree on the reality of simultaneously existent, "reciprocally exclusive" truths. Let me briefly trace one possible model here:
1. The outer level of reality is ultimate reality "co- emergent with appearance". Its appearances should be taken as a teacher sent by the absolute.
Angela understands this. She knows that outer phenomena are nothing but God, and she repeats several times that anything that happens, good or evil, is ordained by him in order to instruct souls and give them opportunities to grow.
2. The inner level of reality denotes a spiritual view of the world. Here all phenomena are regarded as pure manifestations of the absolute. Gampopa's remark that "the five poisons (of emotionality) are (their own) remedy" points to the tantric method of viewing all people as divine beings and emotions as divine energies. Here, things are given a radically different than ordinary meaning and accordingly produce extraordinary results.
Angela also knows this level. It becomes apparent when she regards a leper as Christ and drinks the water she washed the person with, convinced that she is receiving holy communion.
3. On the secret level (or mystic, as Guenther translates) nothing ever changes, nothing arises and disappears; there is only "one taste" (Tib.: ro chig) or "unborn radiant light". Though things appear in this light, they are nothing but the sparkle of the Mind's luminosity.
Since Angela already uses the words 'secret' and 'dark' in quite a "tantric" way, when she speaks of love that is nonlove, etc. it seems to me that it is not too much of a violation to speak of "outer, inner and secret" levels of reality in her as well as Dolpopa's experience.
It is not necessary to agree with every detail of this classification in order to benefit from it. All one needs to know if one is to make some sense of contradictory experiences, is that there are different levels of reality that are all valid in some sense though each seems to be contradicted by another. This is very confusing until one gets used to juggling realities. For example one may say that from the outer perspective humans are truly defiled or sinful, but from the inner perspective we are all bodhisattvas or children of God, while on the secret level we are nothing at all and thereby everything.
It is part of Buddhist training to learn when to think or act in terms of which reality without taking any too seriously.
Since Angela does not have such a system or training available, she does not know which reality to trust or how to act on them. Her internalized oppression is so strong that she decides to take the safe road and cling to the most superficial reality with all her might, all her life resisting God's pull to draw her away from it. Most of the time she remains silent about her knowledge of deeper realities, teaching and living as though there were only the outer one of sin. Hiding what she knows becomes such a strong habit that she never learns to trust her own truths. Hence she still asks just before her death: "My God, will I be deceived [by the devil)?" He in turn laments that she is still "burdened with these pains and sorrows" (that the Church lay on her and that she clings to).
   C. How Angela Could Resolve Buddhist Debates
On the one hand Buddhist systems could help mystics like Angela become comfortable acting and teaching on more than one level of reality. On the other hand her revelations could help resolve century old Buddhist debates. She seems to have seen all the options they debate so hotly, the absolute's emptiness and its qualities, its knowing and its not knowing, highest bliss and highest equanimity. Just like each Buddhist opponent thinks he has seen the absolute truth, every time she experiences a new mode of God's being she feels that it is the ultimate. Yet each time it is just another mode or a deeper level of what she already knew.
There is much discussion in Buddhism as to whether enlightenment is gradual or sudden. Tibetans accept that it is gradual and list ten, eleven, or sometimes thirteen levels of enlightenment (Skt.: bhumis). Yet, although it would fit perfectly well into the bhumi system, I have never heard or read anything about degrees of realizing emptiness or buddha nature and how this would affect discussions like the rangtong-shentong controversy.
Yet recently Thrangu Rinpoche, one of the great Tibetan masters, hinted in that direction. Commenting on the ongoing debate as to whether emptiness or Buddha nature is absolute, he used the following example. He said, if you hold up two incense sticks of different length, one is absolutely longer than the other. But then you can add another stick and the one which was the longest is suddenly of medium length, and so on. I suppose, as opposed to myself, Rinpoche was too polite to elucidate how such a statement effectively wipes away thousands of years of debate. What I understand it to mean, after having studied the Blessed Angela, is that levels of enlightenment also include levels of realizing emptiness and buddha nature. That is to say whether emptiness or buddha nature is more absolute depends on whose realization of them one is talking about. What one can gather from Angela's account is that the absolute has countless "gifts" and modes, one of them being darkness, inconceivability, or emptiness, which produce equanimity in her and another being clarity or perfect knowledge which brings highest bliss. Just as the three persons of the trinity, these modes are clearly distinguishable yet inseparably one. The tantras also speak of Reality as emptiness and bliss or clarity inseparable and Gendun Rinpoche affirms: "Although emptiness and clarity are manifest simultaneously as one unit they are nonetheless not mixed up, so that one can always distinguish between emptiness and clarity."
It is fascinating to me to contemplate how Buddhism, which is famous for non-dualistic thinking, has brought forth centuries of men arguing whether absolute reality is all (Shentongpas) or nothing (Rangtongpas), and whether absolute consciousness knows all or nothing. Christianity, on the other hand, which has a reputation for dualistic thought, has produced simple sisters who resolve the issue in one sentence by saying, because it is all it is nothing; because it knows all, it knows nothing!
Not that both religions came by their reputation without any good reason, but what they are famous for does not tell the whole story.
   D. Public Logic Versus Private Intuition
There are three reasons why Uma Shentong is surrounded by debates and forced to strive to make logical sense while Via Negativa is shrouded in silence and simple mystical statements, forced rather to hide.
  1. There is a basic difference between Catholic and Tibetan Buddhist ways of determining truth. The former think of it as being revealed by God to a chosen few. If questions arouse controversy that are not clearly answered in the scripture, they are terminally decided at church councils. Little is left open to debate. Once a council has come to certain conclusions, they are regarded as divine Truths. Further mention that those "Truths" were ever subject to debate is avoided and opposing views are suppressed and kept secret. True, there was some debate at the few medieval universities, but it was held within tight limits and was to serve to find logical justifications for what the Church held to be true already.
On the Buddhist side there are the words of Buddha Shakyamuni encouraging his disciples not to believe anything just because it is tradition, written in a holy book, or expounded by teachers such as himself. Rather: "As the wise test gold by burning, cutting and rubbing it, so are you to accept my words after examining them and not merely out of regard for me." Thus meditation, intellectual analysis, and public debate became tools for divining truth, and nothing could ever permanently avoid controversy. An issue was only decided so long as no one could counter the last argument put forward.
2. If truth has been established by ancient revelations and by a church that possesses and controls those revelations, then that institution is not interested in other sources of truth, such as mysticism. As I have explained several times, Catholic scholasticism served from the start to keep mysticism in check, first a little, then ever more. Hence Christian mystics associated theological arguing with the Church's corruption. It was considered the apostolic way of life to renounce intellectual speculations. Tibetan yogis on the other hand, were perhaps not naturally drawn to scholasticism but neither did they associate anything very negative with it. If asked, they were more willing than Christian mystics to engage in it.
3. Roger Corless finds the same difference between Nicholas of Cusa and Nagarjuna as we can observe between Angela and Dolpopa: the Buddhist has "greater logical cohesion". This although Cardinal Cusa was infinitely more scholastic than Angela and attempted a synthesis between the scholasticism and the mysticism of his time. Corless suggests that Buddhists are expected to be more logical because Mahayana Buddhism regards avidya (Skt., lit.: not knowing, also: delusion, mental error) as the root problem of existence, while for most Christians it is original sin. If not knowing is the problem then knowing intellectually is at least a good start towards the solution and will be fostered in that tradition. But if disobedience out of curiosity is the problem then unquestioning obedience, not logic, is the solution.
   E. Angela's Silence and Buddhist Non-conceptuality
More specifically, many of the differences between Dolpopa's and Angela's teachings stem from the difference in status between a male lineage holder who received the best education available at the time from the most powerful monastery in Tibet, and an unschooled female penitent.
Tibetan society expected the master to educate his people and to shape his environment. He would not have been allowed to remain silent, even if he had tried. (It is common for male Tibetan saints to wish to remain in seclusion but to be commanded by their gurus to re-enter "the world" in order to guide others.) Neither his enlightenment nor his disagreement with his colleagues were private matters. The man was something like a national treasure. As such he could not help but be pulled into the scholastic discussions of the time. He actually held faith to be far more liberating than logic. He says, just to believe in the essential goodness of humans and their ability to uncover their enlightened nature purifies many veils. But he had to defend his realization in the field of scholasticism, while Angela was expected, if anything, to reveal a darsana, everything in his life begged him to add a siddhanta to his darsana. He tries to harmonize faith and logic by emphasizing non- conceptuality (nisprapanca), a common goal both are supposed to lead to. Only, potential prajñavimuktah strive to attain it by proving reality to be absurd while potential sraddhavimuktah seek it by surrendering to inconceivability without anything having to make sense to begin with.
Angela's situation is quite different. As a Christian penitent and especially as a woman she is expected to be silent and the Church hopes and prays that God will not speak through her. Since she knows this, just like all her sisters know it, she makes it very clear to God that she does not want to receive philosophical knowledge and that she would much appreciate being commanded to remain silent. Since God, like he says, wants nothing more than what she wants, he grants her that command. And thus she suffers silently, like a good Christian woman ought to, from not being able to share with others what really fills her heart, nor to understand it fully herself, nor to live according to it.

Nonetheless it is not easy to evaluate her silence because it has many facets. Yes, the Church wanted mystics and especially women to remain silent, but many spoke anyway and sometimes they were heard at least by some. Even Angela voices her opinion once in a while. When she feels that a certain current within the Church directly hinders the faithful in following Christ by declaring that the poverty of the Lord and his disciples is not an established fact, she protests loud and clearly. Again, she is lucky enough to no longer be alive when things get worse. In 1322 when the Papal bull "Cum inter Nonnullos" "condemned as heretical the doctrine of the absolute poverty of Christ and his disciples." If this decision had been made at her time, she probably would not have spoken against it.
Besides the issues of gender and church politics, one has to recognize that the Blessed Folignera stands in a long tradition of humble silence in the face of the absolute that had been practiced by men as well as women. This silence is not just an absence of spoken words but also of writings and even analytical thought. Perhaps one could call it Christian non-conceptuality. It is an essential characteristic of her mysticism to let divine truths float freely without trying to organize them into a system.
Thus, after having matched her teachings with a Buddhist system, they must now be released again into a mystical, silent, unorganized freedom.
It seems to me that Angela's refusal to reveal her secrets comes closer to Buddha Shakyamuni's silence than to any of the Madhyamikan schools. Both Gautama and Angela refuse to answer questions, explaining that it would be of no benefit to seekers to satisfy their curiosity. According to them, all one needs to know is that striving for nirvana or divine union is the most worthwhile thing to do in the universe, for oneself as well as for others. It is worth losing one's self and letting go of the world.
Dolpopa certainly agrees with this, but he feels that the negative-intellectual current in his tradition does not make clear enough just how worthwhile enlightenment is and how easy it is to let go of one's self if one trusts in a positive absolute. If he is to spread the good news that faith in the unborn goodness of the universe will lead to liberation, he must speak.
Angela's surroundings already presuppose that. She has to affirm nothing in order to support that view. Therefore it almost seems as though she had a side that is more "negative" than he is. It seems that she has realized emptiness and bliss inseparable, or the darkness of inconceivability and the light of knowledge inseparable.
Dolpopa is in a different situation. His learned colleagues negate a positive absolute and negative intellectuals usually have little if any regard for faith. If he remained silent, their views would stand unchallenged. He certainly does not have to add more weight to the negative side; hence he insists that though buddha nature is ineffable it nonetheless exists in reality and leaves the other side of the coin for his colleagues to elucidate.
After considering all this, I agree with the many great Kagyu masters following Dolpopa when they say that the Omniscient was a great being, that his concerns were valid, but that he went a little overboard in his affirmations. It is a matter of balance. Seen against the background of his philosophical surroundings, he is not too extreme, but viewed independently, he leans a little too much in one direction. It's not that he affirmed too much; everything he professed is in agreement with sutras or tantras and, I believe, with reality. Yet the master seems to have neglected the negative side in comparison.
His understanding of inconceivability and non-duality must have been true to the negative side of unborn reality; otherwise he would not have been proclaimed and accepted as omniscient, nor would he have withstood all the criticism he fended off. But just as there are many levels of understanding and realizing emptiness and luminosity, there are many levels of inconceivability. Throwing the term into a religious treatise here and there, does not let people know what it really means in all its consequences. One expects to find that little word in every spiritual text and it never kept religions from pretending that they knew enough to torment and kill in the name of their "knowledge". We have seen how Angela can hide behind "the inconceivable" without this communicating anything to her brethren. It has also been mentioned how scholastic theology claims to incorporate Via Negativa by calling God ineffable, without, it seems, having a clue that true ineffableness dissolves all its concepts into thin air. (Whence they can be retrieved, but only in a transformed way.) If "inconceivability" is to convey the "dark" side of the absolute it needs to be put in a much more central position.

To me Angela conveys much more clearly than any Tibetan scholar what the tantras mean by "bliss and emptiness inseparable" or "clarity-emptiness both at once" (Skrt: yuganaddha, Tib: zhung 'jug) She describes experiencing both as distinct but equally absolute aspects of the uncreated. (As a Shentongma, I trust her unadulterated description of an enlightened experience (darsana) more than any philosophical system (siddhanta) which always can be suspected of some degree of mental self-gratification.) Outside of Tantra, it seems to me, self-emptiness and other-emptiness is often separated too much, even by many who affirm both. Dolpopa says the absolute is empty of one set of characteristics, but not empty of another, and that at the investigative time (so so rtog pa'i skabs) one finds dharmas to be self-empty, whereas at the meditative time (mnyam bzhag skabs) one sees their other-empty nature. Mediators like Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche teach that thorough understanding of Uma Rangtong has to precede grappling with Uma Shentong.
I agree with the VIII Karmapa Mikyo Dorje (1507-1554) who criticized both Dolpopa and Tsongkhapa for being one- sided in their emphasis on absolute and conventional truth respectively. Along with the Kadampas such as Chapa, Ngog, and Patsab, he stressed the simultaneousness of the "two" truths, that are actually one Reality. That is to say, it is not a matter of first understanding one thing and then the other or of conventional reality being self-empty and the ultimate being other-empty. Rather at one and the same time one has to realize that all of reality is simultaneously self-empty in the most negative way and other-empty in the most positive way.
Such an understanding can be reached by studying the views of Uma Rangtong and Shentong, Via Affirmativa and Negativa, negative-intellectual Buddhist traditions and positive-mystical Christian ones and allowing both sides to complement each other.
CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSION
Hopefully I made plausible that the authentic Blessed Angela of Foligno, not the puppet her censor tries to make of her, is more "negative" than the Omniscient Dolpopa. While she affirms an absolute with positive qualities, just like he does, unlike him she also describes a side of the unborn that escapes all affirmations whatsoever.
If one defined all of Christianity as the belief in a Real God who has a Real son and created a Real world Angela would not be a Christian. And if one defined all of Buddhism as the negation of a truly existent and positively characterized absolute, Dolpopa would not be a Buddhist. Such assessments would not be completely wrong. In a way Angela is not a Christian and Dolpopa is not a Buddhist. I think it is reasonable to conclude that they have become one with the absolute which transcends any definition of a religion but pervades them all. If we trust their own judgement, they must have experienced the same reality. It is not as though Angela spoke of a creator-god who lives in heaven while Dolpopa describes something that is experienced in the mind. Both claim to experience the indivisible one true nature of all phenomena and the whole cosmos. Both describe this nature as being completely ineffable and yet completely knowable by experience. Both characterize it as highest ungraspable wisdom and compassionate love that non-dualistic or "nonlove" when compared to ordinary human love. Both maintain that the uncreated has countless qualities, modes, or transformations, being at once one and many.

Although Angela of Foligno and Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen seem to meet in an all-transcending realm, they are nonetheless partially and just as truly Buddhist and Christian as anybody else. For they have arrived at union with the transcendent by travelling Buddhist and Christian paths respectively, and from their place of union they turn toward their Buddhist and Christian brethren, guiding them on their Buddhist and Christian paths.
Furthermore what makes them truly Christian and truly Buddhist is that rather than being rare exceptions, there are many in their traditions who were led to their same conclusions. Many Christians have come to know God's nothingness and many Buddhists have realized a positive absolute.
Why is this not more widely known? Because some do not want us to know and others are not interested in this knowledge. There are several reasons why we are not to know. Firstly, there are the spiritual concerns of keeping esoteric instructions hidden until seekers are properly prepared to hear that everything they held to be true is false and gain maximum benefit from such a revelation. But there is more to it.
Though for centuries the Via Negativa presented the very pinnacle of Christian practice, the Church tolerated it only within very tight boundaries and suppressed its proliferation outside those parameters. The ecclesiastical establishment was interested first and foremost in maintaining a position of absolute and centralized power that was supposed to be a representation of the hierarchy in heaven. The maintenance of this position was to be insured by a strictly ordered hierarchical society. Anything that upset this order was detested. Mysticism liberated people, and especially women from men. Liberated women were a sign of disorder and threatened the whole hierarchical structure. As far as I can see, this was a major reason for suppressing mysticism and with it the Via Negativa. Hence, Christians themselves are only beginning to recover (often with the help of Christian-Buddhist dialogue) what has been hidden.
On the Buddhist side there is no centralized power comparable to the papacy. Buddhism is also the only religion with a self-destruct-mechanism: the emptiness of its own teachings. Hence the positive-mystical current was able to find wide proliferation even if it opposes to some extent Buddha Shakyamuni's teachings. (What could be "unbuddhist" in a religion that supports the slogan: "If you meet the Buddha in the road, kill him."?) There are several reasons why positive Buddhist currents have not received due attention in the West.
1. They are not the first nor the main thing Buddha Shakyamuni taught.
2. Buddhism became interesting and famous in the West for those things other religions did not have to offer: a religion without God and beliefs that is either very rational, like Nikaya Buddhism, or very paradox, like Zen, or very magical while still rational, like Tibetan Buddhism.
3. Particularly the Western academic community has represented Buddhism as predominantly "negative- intellectual" perhaps because that view attracts those who are drawn to scholarship. David Seyfort Ruegg for example, contends that:
To sum up, in Buddhist Mahayanist thought we find both a via negationis, in which reality is represented negatively and approached apophatically, and a via eminentiae, in which it is represented positively and approached cataphatically. The former approach is no doubt characteristic of the vast majority of Buddhist texts of both the earlier and later periods. But the latter approach is to be found both in the earliest texts . . . and in the Mahayana.
Hence, in the West, Christians as well as Buddhists are still discovering currents within their own religions that can prove to be bridges between them.

If this thesis showed that to be a "Christian" or a "Buddhist" can mean many things one does not necessarily expect, it will have served its purpose. My goal was to dispel a few prejudices, to show that being a Christian is not necessarily unbuddhist, ignorant, and a hindrance to highest enlightenment.
Most Buddhists do not believe this, because, just like Christians, they are taught that only their own path leads to the highest attainable goal. Many disciples of the Buddha are convinced that whoever professes a personal creator-God has not seen and cannot see the Truth. Yet, as was shown above, it was not atypical for Christians who felt led by just such a creator-god to realize that God's transcendence lies beyond creator, person, and even the human concept of existence. Hopefully it was made plausible that Christianity does contain a path to highest enlightenment and that it was much traveled in Angela's era.
John Maraldo's opinion is that when adherents of different religions experience the same reality it might be due to a kinship in their disciplines. He compares the practices of Dogen and St. Francis and comes to the conclusion that much of Christian rapture and Zen enlightenment are indeed related because they result from the same approach to spiritual exercise: "seeing religious practice as the constant performance of a particular activity which does not aim at, but embodies unconditioned truth." I would add that both Dolpopa's and Angela's practices entail renouncing all worldly possessions, pleasures, and thinking, performing severe asceticism, and a complete surrendering, through faith, of one's self to an inconceivable absolute reality. From a constructivist perspective one might argue that the similarities between these building blocks resulted in the parallels between their experiences.
Hopefully, it also became plausible to the Christian reader that being a Buddhist is not necessarily unchristian. It may not automatically preclude one from salvation or union with the uncreated reality as many mystics and saints experienced it.

Abbreviations
Ch Chronicles
Col Paul's letter to the Colossians Cor Paul's letters to the Corinthians DdSp Dictionaire de spiritualite Exod Exodus
Gal Paul's letter to the Galatians Gen Genesis
Hebr Paul's letter to this Hebrews Jer Jeremiah
Jn the gospel according to John Kgs Kings
Mountain Dharma The Ocean of Ultimate Meaning of Mountain Dharma, by Dolpopa Mt the gospel according to Matthew RGV Ratnagotravibhaga, also called
                        Uttaratantrashastra Rom Paul's letter to the Romans Tm Paul's letters to Timothy TRE Theologische Realenzyklopaedie

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES
Angela of Foligno, Blessed. Angela of Foligno, Complete Works.
Translated and introduction by Paul Lachance, O.F.M.
Preface by Romana Guarnieri. New York: Paulist Press, 1993.

---

. Il libro della Beata Angela da Foligno (Edizione critica). Translated and edited by Ludger Thier, O.F.M. and Abele Calufetti, O.F.M. Grottaferrata: Editiones Collegii S. Bonaventurae ad Claras Aquas, 1985.

Athanasius, Saint, Patriarch of Alexandria. "De Incarnatione."
In Oxford Early Christian Texts. Edited and translated by
Robert W. Thomson. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971.
The Bible. King James Version.
Clement of Alexandria, Saint. "Christ the Educator." In The
Fathers of the Church 23. Translated by Simon P. Wood, C.P.
New York: Fathers of the Church Inc. 1954.
Dionysius the Areopagite. The Armenian Version of the Works
Attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite. Translated by
Robert W. Thomson. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum
Orientalium, Vol.489. Scriptores Armeniaci Tomus 18.
Louvain, Belgium: Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum
Orientalium, 1987.
Francis, Saint and Saint Clare. Francis and Clare: The
Complete Works. Translated and edited by Regis J.Armstrong,
O.F.M. Cap. and Ignatius C. Brady, O.F.M. New York: Paulist
Press, 1982.
Gregory of Nyssa, Saint. From Glory to Glory: Texts from
Gregory of Nyssa's Mystical Writings. Selected and
introduction by Jean Danielou, S.J. Translated and edited
by Herbert Musurillo, S.J. New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1961.

---

. The Life of Moses. Translated, introduction,

and notes by Abraham J. Malherbe and Everett Ferguson.
Preface by John Meyendorff. New York: Paulist Press, 1978.
The Heart Sutra. Translation in Edward Conze. Buddhist Wisdom
Books. London: George Allan and Unwin, 1958.


John of the Cross, Saint. The Collected Works of Saint John of
the Cross. Translated by Kieran Kavanaugh, O.C.D. and
Otilio Rodriguez, O.C.D. Washington, D.C.: Institute of
Carmelite Studies, 1991.
The Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala: A Buddhist Scripture on the
Tathagatagarbha Theory. Translated, with introduction and
notes by Alex Wayman and Hideko Wayman. New York: Columbia University Press, 1974.
Luther, Martin. Luther's Works, Vol, 37: Word and Sacrament
III, ed. Helmut Lehmann. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
1961.
The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana-Sutra: A Complete Translation
from the Classical Chinese Language in 3 Volumes.
Translated by Kosho Yamamoto. Tokyo: The Karinbunko, 1973.
The Pali Canon. The Pali Text Society version.
Takasaki, Jikido. A Study on the Ratnagotravibhaga
(Uttaratantra), Being a Treatise on the Tathagatagarbha
Theory of Mahayana Buddhism. Seir Orientale Roma XXXIII.
Rome: Instituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente,
1966.
Teresa of Avila, Saint. The Collected Works of St. Teresa of
Avila, Vol. 2. Translated by Kieran Kavanaugh, O.C.D. and
Otilio Rodriguez, O.C.D. Washington, D.C.: Institute of
Carmelite Studies, 1980.
Vimalakirti. "Vimalakirti-nirdesa." In: Stephen Beyer. The
Buddhist Experience: Sources and Interpretations. Belmont,
Ca.: Wadsworth Pub. Co., 1974.

Walshe, Maurice. Thus Have I Heard: A New Translation of the
Digha Nikaya, the Long Discourses of the Buddha. London:
Wisdom Publications, 1987.

SECONDARY SOURCES, BUDDHISM
Bell, Charles, Sir. The Religion of Tibet. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970.
Broido, Michael. "The Jo-nang-pas on Madhyamaka: A Sketch."
The Tibet Journal: a Publication for the Study of Tibet
XIV, no. 1 (1989): 86-91.
Chung, In Yang. "A Buddhist View of Women: A Comparative Study
of the Rules for Bhiksunis and Bhiksus Based on the Chinese
Pratimoksa". IBS/GTU M.A. thesis, Berkeley: 1995.
Gendün Rinpoche. Wir haben vergessen, dass wir Buddhas sind.
Translated from Tibetan by Yeshe Nyingpo. Translated into
German by Tashi Öser. Mechernich: Kagyü-Dharma-Verlag,
1991.
Griffiths, Paul J. On Being Buddha: The Classical Doctrine of
Buddhahood. SUNY Series, Towards a Comparative Philosophy
of Religions. Albany: State University of New York Press,
1994.
Gross, Rita. Buddhism After Patriarchy: A Feminist History,
Analysis, and Reconstruction of Buddhism. Albany: State University of New York Press. 1993.
Guenther, Herbert V. The Tantric View of Life. The Clear Light
Series. Boulder: Shambhala Publications. 1976.

---

. "The Theoretical Content of Naropa's Training."

Chap. in The Life and Teaching of Naropa. Translated from
the Original Tibetan with a Philosophical Commentary based
on the Oral Transmission by Herbert V. Guenther. Boston: Shambhala Publications, 1986.
Hakeda, Yoshito S. Transl. with commentary. The Awakening of Faith. Attributed to Asvagosha. New York: Columbia University Press, 1967.
Hookham, S[henpen] K. The Buddha Within: Tathagatagarbha Doctrine According to the Shentong Interpretation of the
Ratnagotravibhaga. SUNY Series in Buddhist Studies. Albany:
State University of New York, 1991.
Jackson, Roger R. "Luminous Mind Among the Logicians: An
   Analysis of Pramanavarttika II.205-211." In: Buddha Nature:
A Festschrift in Honor of Minoru Kiyota. Ed. Griffiths
and
Keenan. Tokyo: Buddhist Books International, 1990.

Jeffrey, Meg. "Consumerism in the Monastery." Turning Wheel:
Journal of the Buddhist Peace Fellowship (sum. 1995): 11-
2.
Jones, Elvin W. "Buddhist Theories of Existence." in: Minoru
Kiyota. ed. Mahayana Buddhist Meditation: Theory and
Practice. The University of Hawaii Press: 1978.
Katz, N., "Tibetan Hermeneutics and the Yana Controversy." In:
Contributions on Tibetan and Buddhist Religion and Philosophy: Proceedings of the Csoma de Koros Symposium Held at Velm-Vienna, Austria, 13-19 Sep. 1981, Vol. 2. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 11. 107- 131.

King, Salliee B. Buddha Nature. Albany: State University of New York, 1991.

Kuijp, Leonard W.J., van der. Contributions to the Development
of Tibetan Buddhist Epistemology: from the Eleventh to the
   Thirteenth Century. Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien, 26.

Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag. 1983.
La Vallee Poussin, Louis, de. "Musila et Narada: le chemin du
   Nirvana." Melanges chinois et bouddhiques 5 (1936-1937):
   189-222.
Lopez, Jr. Donald S. A Study of Svatantrika. Ithaca, New York:
Snow Lion Publications, 1987.
Mimaki, K. "The Blo gsal grub mtha', and the Madhyamika
Classification in Tibetan Grub tha' Literature." In:
Contributions on Tibetan and Buddhist Religion and Philosophy: Proceedings of the Csoma de Koros Symposium Held at Velm-Vienna, Austria, 13-19 Sep. 1981, Vol. 2. Ed.

Ernst Steinkellner and Helmut Tauscher. Wiener Studien zur
Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 11, 161-9.
Nagao, Gadjin M. Madhyamika and Yogacara: A Study of Mahayana
   Philosophies: Collected Papers of G. M. Nagao. Edited,
collated, and translated by L. S. Kawamura, in
collaboration with G. M. Nagao. SUNY Series in Buddhist Studies. Ed. Kenneth K. Inada. New York: State University of New York Press. 1991.
Naughton, Alex. "Buddhist Omniscience." The Eastern
Buddhist XXIV, no. 1 (sring 1991): 28-51.
Obermiller, E. trans. The Sublime Science of the Great Vehicle to Salvation: Being a Manual of Buddhist Monism:
  The Work of Arya Maitreya with a Commentary by Aryasanga.
Acta Orientalia, IX, 1931, rpt. Shanghai: 1940.
Paul, Diana Mary. The Buddhist Feminine Ideal: Queen Srimala
   and the Tathagatagarbha. Madison: Scholar Press, 1980.
Reynolds, Frank E. and Charles Hallisey. "Buddha." In:
Encyclopedia of Religion. 1973 ed.
Richardus, Peter. "Selected Tibetan Proverbs." The Tibet
Journal XIV, no. 3 (1989): 55-72.
'Gos Lotsawa Shonupal. The Blue Annals. Translated by George
N. Roerich. Banarsidass: Motilal. 1979.
Ruegg, David Seyfort. Buddha-nature, Mind and the Problem of
Gradualism in a Comparative Perspective: On the
Transmission and Reception of Buddhism in India and Tibet.
London: University of London. 1989.

---

. "The Jonangpas: A School of Buddhist Ontologists

According to the Grub mtha' sel gyi me lon." Journal of the
   American Oriental Society 83, no. 1 (1963): 73-91.

---

. The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of

Philosophy in India. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1981.

---

. La Theorie du Tathagatagarbha et du Gotra: Etudes

sur la Soteriologie et la Gnoseologie du Buddhisme.
Publications de l'ecole francaise d'extreme-orient, LXX.
Paris: Ecole francaise d'Extreme-Orient, 1969.
Sastri, N.A. "Sunyata and its Significance in Buddhism."
Bulletin of Tibetology XII, no. 2 (1975): 5-18.
Schmitthausen, L[ambert]. On Some Aspects of Descriptions or
Theories of 'Liberating Insight' and 'Enlightenment' in
Early Buddhism. In: "Studien zum Jainismus und Buddhismus:
Gedenkschrift fuer Ludwig Alsdorf". ed.K. Bruhn and A.
Wezler. Wiesbaden: 1981.
Schuhmacher, Stephan, and Gert Woerner. ed. Lexikon der
östlichen Weisheitslehren: Buddhismus, Hinduismus,
Taoismus, Zen. Bern: Otto Wilhelm Barth/Scherz Verlag.
1986.
Schumann, Hans Wolfgang. Buddhismus, Stifter, Schulen und
   Systeme. Olten: Walter Verlag, 1985.
Snellgove, David. Indo-Tibetan Buddhism: Indian Buddhists and
their Tibetan Successors. Vol. 1&2. Boston: Shambhala
Publications 1987.
Sparham, Gareth. transl. and intro. Ocean of Eloquence: Tsong Kha Pa's Commentary on the Yogacara Doctrine of Mind.
Albany: State University of New York Press. 1993.
Stearns, Cyrus. University of Washington. "Dol-po-pa Shes-rab
rgyal-mtshan and the Genesis of the Gzhan-stong position in
Tibet." Unpublished to be published in Asiatische Studien/
  Études asiatiques XLIX, 4.
Takasaki, Jikido. "Structure of the Anuttarashrayasutra (Wu-
shang-i-ching)". in: Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies
VIII, no. 2 (March 1960): 748-741.
Tauscher, Helmut. Die Lehre von den zwei Wirklichkeiten in
Tson Kha Pas Madhyamaka-Werken. Wiener Studien zur
Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, 36. ed. Ernst
Steinkellner. Wien: Arbeitskreis fuer tibetische und
buddhistische Studien Universitaet Wien. 1995.
Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche, Khenpo. Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness. Oxford: Longchen Foundation. 1988.
Tucci, Giuseppe. The Religions of Tibet. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1988.
Williams, Paul. "Introduction - some random reflections on the
study of Tibetan Madhyamaka." The Tibet Journal: a
   publication for the study of Tibet XIV, no. 1 (spring
1989): 1-9.

---

. Mahayana Buddhism: the Doctrinal Foundations.

London: Routledge, 1989.

---

. "Silence and Truth-Some Aspects of the Madhyamaka Philosophy in Tibet." The Tibet Journal: an International

Publication for the Study of Tibet VII, no. 1&2
(spring/summer 1982): 67-80.

SECONDARY SOURCES, CHRISTIANITY
Adnes, Pierre. "Penitence." In: DdSp. 1984 ed.
Anderson, Bonnie S. and Judith P. Zinsser. A History of their
Own: Women in Europe from Prehistory to the Present. Vol. 1
paperback ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1989.
Bardy, Gustav. "Divinisation, III. Chez les Peres Latins".
DdSp. 1957 ed.
Broderick, J. F. "Papacy". in: New Catholic Encyclopedia. 1967
ed.
Buber, Martin. ed. Ekstatische Konfessionen. 5th edition.
Heidelberg: Lambert Schneider Verlag, 1984.
Dalmais, Irenee-H. "Divinisation, II. Patristique Grecque".
in: DdSp. 1957 ed.
Delhaye, P. "Celibacy, History of." in: New Catholic
Encyclopedia. 1967 ed.
Dettloff, Werner. "Franziskaner." in: TRE. 1981 ed.
Dinzelbacher, Peter, and Dieter R. Bauer. Frauenmystik im
Mittelalter. Ostfildern bei Stuttgart: Schwabenverlag,
1985.
Doncoeur, Paul, S.J. "Angele de Foligno: Maitresse d'oraison."
La Vie Spirituelle 39 (1934): 34-50.

Egan, Harvey D., S.J. "Negative Way." In: New Dictionary of
Catholic Spirituality. 1993 ed.
Epiney-Burgard, G. and E. Zum Brunn. Femmes troubadours de
Dieu. Belgium: Editions Brepols, 1988.
Gage, Matilda Joslyn. Woman, Church & State: The Original
Expose of Male Collaboration Against the Female Sex.
Introduction by Sally Roesch Wagner. Foreword by Mary Daly.
Watertown, Ma.: Persephone Press, 1980. First published
1893.
Flood, David. "Armut VI". TRE. 1979 ed.
Hausherr S. I., Irénée. Hesychasme et prière. Orientalia
Christiana Analectica no. 176. Rome: Pont. Institutum
Orientalium Studiorum, 1966.
Heschel, Susannah. "Anti-Judaism in Christian Feminist
Theology". in: Tikkun 5, no 3 (1990): 25-8, 95-7.
Hopkins, Jasper. Nicholas of Cusa on Learned Ignorance: A
Translation and an Appraisal of De Docta Ignorantia.
Minneapolis: The Arthur J. Banning Press. 1981.
Kamen, Henry. "Inquisition." In: TRE. 1987 ed.
Kesich, Veselin. "Via Negativa." In: The Encyclopedia of
Religion, 1987 ed.
Lees, Rosemary Ann. The Negative Language of the Dionysian
School of Mystical Theology: an Approach to the Cloud of
Unknowing, Vol. 1 & 2. Analecta Cartusiana. Salzburg:
Institut für Anglistik and Amerikanistik, 1983.
Louth, Andrew. "Mystik II." In: TRE. 1994 ed.

---

. The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition:

From Plato to Denys. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1981.
Marcoulesco, Ileana. "Mystical Union." In: The Encyclopedia of
Religion. 1987 ed.
Mazzoni, Cristina M. "Feminism, Abjection, Transgression:
Angela of Foligno and the Twentieth Century." Mystics
Quarterly XVII, no. 2 (June 1991): 61-70.
McNamara, Jo Ann. "The Rhetoric of Orthodoxy: Clerical
Authority and Female Innovation in the Struggle with
Heresy." In: Ulrike Wiethaus. ed. Maps of Flesh and Light:
The Religious Experience of Medieval Women Mystics.
Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1993.
Morel, Charles. "Mortification." In: DdSp. 1980 ed.
Mortley, Raoul, "What is Negative Theology? The Western
Origins." In: "The Via Negativa", Prudentia: A Journal of
the Intellectual History of the Ancient World,
Supplementary Number 1981. 5-13.
O'Daby, Gerard. "Dionysius Areopagita." In: TRE. 1981 ed.
Osborn, E.F. "Negative Theology and Apologetic." In: "The Via
Negativa". Prudentia: A journal of the Intellectual History
of the Ancient World: The Via Negativa. (Supplementary
Number 1981): 49-65.
Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Random House,
First Vintage Books Ed., 1981.
Pattloch, Paul. ed. Angela von Foligno, Gesichte und
Troestungen : Nach ihren eigenen Worten aufgezeichnet von
Bruder Arnaldus O.F.M. Aschaffenburg: Paul Pattloch-Verlag.
1971.
Power, Eileen. Medieval English Nunneries. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1922.
Quint, Josef. transl. and ed. Meister Eckehart, Deutsche
Predigten und Traktate. paperback. Muenchen: Diogenes,
1979.
Ryan, Edward A., S.J. "Inquisition." in: Encyclopaedia
Britannica. 1969 ed.

Slade, Carol. "Alterity in Union: The Mystical Experience of
Angela of Foligno
and Margery Kempe." Religion and Literature 23 (Autumn 1991): 109-26.
Smith, Margaret. The Way of the Mystics: The Early Christian
Mystics and the Rise of the Sufis. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978.
Spanneut, M. "Clement of Alexandria." In: New Catholic
Encyclopedia. 1967 ed.
Underhill, Evelyn. The Mystic Way: a Psychological Study in
Christian Origins. London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1913.

---

. The Mystics of the Church. New York: Schocken Books,

1964.
Vauchez, Andre. "Penitents." In: DdSp. 1984 ed.
Vorgrimler, H. "Negative Theologie." In: Lexikon für Theologie
und Kirche. 1962 ed.
Walsh, S.J., James. ed. and intro. Preface by Simon
Tugwell, O.P. The Cloud of Unknowing. Ramsey, N.J.:
Paulist Press, 1981.
Weismayer, Josef. "Erleuchtung." In: Lexikon für Theologie
und Kirche. 1995 ed.

SECONDARY SOURCES, COMPARATIVE STUDIES
Abe, Masao. "Kenotic God and Dynamic Sunyata." in: John Cobb,
Jr. and Christopher Ives, ed., The Emptying God: A
Buddhist-Jewish-Christian Conversation. Faith Meets Faith
Series. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1990.
Bagger, Matthew C. "Critical Notice: Ecumenicalism and
Perennialism Revisited". Review of Robert K. C. Forman, ed.
The Problem of Pure Consciousness. in Religious Studies 27
(summer 1991): 399-411.
Bishop, Steve. "Science and Faith: boa constrictors and

warthogs?" Themelios (Feb. 1994):

Cobb, Jr., John B. Beyond Dialogue: Towards a Mutual
Transformation of Christianity and Buddhism. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1982.

---

. "Is Religious Truth Many or One". Unpublished paper

presented and distributed at a gathering at Ryukoku
University, Japan in the fall of 1995.
Corless, Roger. "Speaking of the Unspeakable: Negation as the
Way in Nicholas of Cusa and Nagarjuna." Buddhist-Christian
Studies 2. (1982): 107-117.
Hick, John and Paul F. Knitter. ed. The Myth of Christian
Uniqueness: Toward a Pluralistic Theology of Religions.
Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1987.
Johnston, William. "All and Nothing: St. John of the Cross and
the Christian-Buddhist Dialogue." The Eastern Buddhist XXI,
no. 2 (Autumn 1988): 124-43.

---

. "Buddhists and Christians Meet". The Eastern

Buddhist III, no. 1 (June 1970): 139-46.
Joyce, Kevin Patrick. "Beyond Perennialism and Constructivism:
Lonergan's 'Interiority Analysis' as a New Method for
Cross-Cultural Studies in Mysticism." Dialogue & Alliance:
A Journal of the International Religious Foundation 8,
no.1 (spring/summer 1994): 75-89.
Küng, Hans. Projekt Weltethos. München: Piper, 1990.
Maraldo, John C. "The Hermeneutics of Practice in Dogen and
Francis of Assisi: An Exercise in Buddhist-Christian
Dialogue." The Eastern Buddhist XIV, no. 2 (Autumn 1981):
22-44.
Odin, Steve. "A Critique of the Kenosis/Sunyata Motif in
Nishida and the Kyoto School." Buddhist-Christian Studies 9
(1989).
Rochelle, Jay C. "Letting Go: Buddhist and Christian Models."
The Eastern Buddhist XXII, no. 2 (Autumn 1989): 27-47.
Shizuteru, Ueda. "Freedom and Language in Meister Eckhart and
Zen Buddhism." The Eastern Buddhist XXIV, no. 1 (spring
1991): 52-80.
       Steve Bishop confirms that even science is now viewed as "subjective and value-laden. It is not neutral. . . . facts are often determined by culture . . . Our world view affects all that we do . . . it is therefore impossible to be a neutral observer." "Science and Faith: Boa Constrictors and Warthogs?" Themelios (February 1994): 5.
       A sub-school of the Karma Kagyupa, described by Matthew Kapstein in: "The Shangs-pa bKa'-brgyud: an Unknown Tradition of Tibetan Buddhism", Tibetan Studies (1979): 138- 144.
       For more on the ban see below, section III.B.5. "The Impact of His Work", 161-3.
S[henpen] K. Hookham maintains that since the ban the Jonang lineage has been transmitted through masters of the Nyingma, Kagyu, and Sakya schools. She says: "The late Kalu Rinpoche is a great representative of this tradition (as well as of many others) and includes the Jonangpas as a branch of the Kagyupas." The Buddha Within: Tathagatagarbha Doctrine According to the Shentong Interpretation of the Ratnagotravibhaga, SUNY Series in Buddhist Studies (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991), 135.
Cyrus Stearns on the other hand, insisted in a conversation that, within the Kagyu school, only the tantric Jonang teachings were transmitted uninterruptedly. According to him, we cannot tell whether they include Dolpopa's Shentong teachings or not, but we know that the Kagyu masters have not, in recent history, had his non- tantric works directly available and transmitted to them.
My own impression is that Dolpopa's Shentong teachings were transmitted to Kagyu masters as "secret oral instructions" along with the tantric transmissions.
       For an excellent analysis of Buddhist androcentrism see: Rita Gross, Buddhism After Patriarchy: A Feminist History, Analysis, and Reconstruction of Buddhism, (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993).
       After the discovery of the historical-critical method for analyzing ancient texts, one can no longer be certain that all the sayings attributed to the Buddha or to Jesus were actually pronounced by them. I respect the work of Buddhist women such as In Yang Chung who strive to show that certain sexist statements do not reflect the Buddha's mind frame but were probably later additions. ("A Buddhist View of Women: A Comparative Study of the Rules for Bhiksunis and Bhiksus Based on the Chinese Pratimoksa", IBS/GTU M.A. thesis, Berkeley: 1995)
Such research is very helpful when we try to decide for our time what to take as the true and authoritative teachings of Buddha or Jesus. But when studying the historical character of a religion, these considerations are of no concern. Christian and Buddhist traditions were built on what was transmitted as Jesus' and Gautama's teachings, not on what they actually said. Thus, when it is noted within the framework of this thesis: "The Buddha or Jesus said such and such." it does not refer to the historical founders but to the personas as they are depicted in scriptures.
       The Bible only mentions that "many women" followed Jesus around. (Mat 27:55 and Mk 15:41) Women were never counted in those days, but Margaret Smith maintains that they: "seem, indeed, to have been in the majority, at least among the upper classes, in the early Christian Church, and in the persecution of Licinius, about A.D. 322, special prohibitions were directed against women, as if the emperor realized that the strength of Christianity lay in its women members." The Way of the Mystics: The Early Christian Mystics and the Rise of the Sufis, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), 35.
  For the Waymans' translation see below p.15 n.29. For other Buddhist and Angela's uses of the word "uncreated" see section V.A.2. "The No-thing-ness or Inconceivability of the Absolute", 225-6.
  Even among differing Buddhist traditions this is an issue. S[henpen] K. Hookham, for example, distinguishes between self-empty absolute reality and other-empty Absolute Reality. See: The Buddha Within, 364.
  Buddhism acknowledges the existence of "pratyeka-buddhas" (lonesome awakened ones) who gain realization without help from outer teachers or instructions. But they are not respected very highly; rather they are denounced as selfish in their liberation.
The word 'enlightenment' itself is representative of the confusion as to who can reach it. To whom does it belong? In the West it is generally identified with the final goal of Eastern religions, even by Christians. Nonetheless none of the Sanskrit words which are translated as enlightenment, actually has to do with light. 'Bodhi' for example means 'awakening'. The word 'enlightenment' is rooted in Greek thought and in the Bible, where it describes the infusion of the Holy Spirit into the soul. (e.g. Hebr 6:4) At first this was described as happening during baptism, later during contemplation. Christian 'contemplation' is what Buddhists call 'meditation' and Christian 'meditation' is what Buddhists would call 'contemplation' or 'thinking about the Dharma. Similarly in the mystical Christian tradition 'enlightenment' denotes not the final goal of the Christian path but the powerful direct teaching of God in one's soul. During the following stage it is superseded by 'divine union'. (Josef Weismayer, "Erleuchtung" in Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, 1995 ed.) Many Christians have forgotten that enlightenment could be a central element of their religion. They are now reminded of it by inter-faith dialogue. I will use the term 'highest enlightenment' to denote the final goal of each religion, i.e. perfect buddhahood or union with God. This seems fair enough at a time when it is not clear to which religion the word "enlightenment" belongs.
  Opinions as to whether constructivists address this question vary, but for perennialists it is certainly a central issue. Cf. Matthew C. Bagger, Ecumenicalism and Perennialism Revisited: Critical Notice, review of Robert K. C. Forman, ed. The Problem of Pure Consciousness (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), in Religious Studies 27 (summer 1991): 404.
  John B. Cobb Jr. also points out that those holding the constructivist view "eschew dialogue", while most people involved in dialogue justify their interest by affirming that behind all philosophical differences among religions there lies one absolute reality to which they all point. See: "Is Religious Truth Many or One", unpublished paper presented and distributed at a gathering at Ryukoku University, Japan in the fall of 1995, 1.
  John B. Cobb Jr. proposes such a process in his Beyond Dialogue: Towards a Mutual Transformation of Christianity and Buddhism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982). I must admit that some of his suggestions are too syncretistic for my taste, but since they are nothing more than suggestions I can still appreciate his line of thinking.
  Hans Küng writes: "What would it mean for tomorrow's world if religious leaders . . ., instead of inciting conflict, helped solve it? Today all religions of the world have to realize their responsibility for world peace . . . [because there will be] no peace among the nations without peace among the religions." In: Projekt Weltethos, (München: Piper, 1990), 102.
  Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, 1989 ed. defines "academic" amongst other things as: of or pertaining to a college, academy, school, or other educational institution; not practical, realistic, or directly useful; learned or scholarly but lacking worldliness, common sense, or practicality; conforming to set rules, standards, or traditions; conventional.
  John B. Cobb Jr., "Is Religious Truth Many or One", 1+4.
  See below section II.C.5. "Via Negativa in the European Middle Ages", 72-3, and section IV.A.1. "Angela's Works", 174.
  John C. Maraldo, "The Hermeneutics of Practice in Dogen and Francis of Assisi: An Exercise in Buddhist-Christian Dialogue", The Eastern Buddhist XIV (No. 2 Autumn 1981): 44. See also 24 and 43.
  Paul J. Griffiths defines enlightened awareness as free from: "vikalpa or constructive mental activity as a property that the awareness of non-Buddhas almost always possesses, and which is entirely absent from the awareness of Buddhas." (p. 154) He quotes from the Madhyantavibhagatika: "(Buddha's awareness) is ultimate rather than relative, because of the absence of construction in it." (p. 158) On Being Buddha: The Classical Doctrine of Buddhahood, SUNY Series, Towards a Comparative Philosophy of Religions (Albany, State University of New York Press: 1994)
  E.g. Vimalakirti says: "...you should urge these sons of heaven to give up thinking that enlightenment is something real, or something different; for enlightenment cannot be attained by the body, and it cannot be attained by the mind." Vimalakirti-nirdesa, cited in: Stephen Beyer, The Buddhist Experience: Sources and Interpretations (Belmont, Ca.: Wadsworth Pub. Co., 1974), 222.
  Madhyamakakarika 24:8-10/14, cited in Paul Williams, Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations (London: Routledge, 1989), 69.
  Chapter five of the Cloud of Unknowing explains how: "During this exercise, all creatures and all the works of creatures, past, present or future, must be hidden in the cloud of forgetting. . . . in this exercise it is of little or no profit to think of the kindness or the worthiness of God". The Cloud of Unknowing, ed. and intro. by James Walsh, S.J., pref. by Simon Tugwell (Ramsey, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1981), 128-9.
  Jaroslav Jan Pelikan (professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale University) defines mysticism as "the immediate experience of oneness with Ultimate Reality." "Mysticism", 1129, in: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1969 ed.
  More on the Buddhist debate of this issue in section II.B. "What is Shentong Madhyamaka?", 39.
  There are of course many people who would stipulate just that. If I had to take them into account I could not write this thesis in the first place. One example is the German Protestant theologian Wilhelm Herrmann who reflects the attitude of many of his colleagues to this day when he says: "True, outside of Christianity, mysticism will everywhere arise, as the very flower of the religious development. But a Christian is bound to declare the mystical experience of God to be a delusion". Cited in Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, "Mysticism", 1129.
  Modern scholars who reflect on interreligious dialogue often distinguish between exclusivism, inclusivism, universalism, and pluralism. See e.g. John Hick and Paul F. Knitter, ed., The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Toward a Pluralistic Theology of Religions, (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1987), introduction. Exclusivists are generally true to certain passages of their scriptures. Indeed, most spiritual traditions tell their faithful that theirs is the only, best, surest, or fastest way to salvation. This may indicate that such beliefs are necessary and skillful means (upaya) on the path of the individual seeker and on the path of religious institutions, but they need not be taken as absolute.
  Recognizing the relativity of everything except one's own religion, has a long tradition. Rosemary Ann Lees recounts: "Like Gregory, too, Ps.-Dionysius concedes that, although God is essentially beyond the scope of the human institution of language . . . , scriptural language nevertheless has a unique claim to have some bearing on God in that it is held to be divinely inspired." The Negative Language of the Dionysian School of Mystical Theology, 123, my emphasis. I do not mean to judge this kind of attitude negatively, but I believe the same standards should be applied to all religions.
  The Srimaladevi Sutra not only professes "created and uncreated kinds of explanations of the Four Noble Truths" but also "both a constructed and an unconstructed samsara and nirvana". The Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala: A Buddhist Scripture on the Tathagatagarbha Theory, Alex Wayman and Hideko Wayman, transl. with intro. and notes (New York: Columbia University Press, 1974), 96-7. (Their translation says "Create and Uncreate explanations".)
For more on two nirvana see below section IV.C.2. "Buddha Nature Has Inseparable, Uncompounded, and Inconceivable Qualities", 212.
  See below section II.D.3. "Buddha-gotra, Family of the Buddha, or Arya-gotra, Noble Family", 87.
  See below section IV.C.2. "Buddha Nature Has Inseparable, Uncompounded, and Inconceivable Qualities", 204.
  See below section V.A.1. "The Nothingness of Things", 221.
  John B. Cobb, Jr. "Is Religious Truth Many or One?", 9.
  See: Kevin Patrick Joyce, "Beyond Perennialism and Constructivism: Lonergan's 'Interiority Analysis' as a New Method for Cross-Cultural Studies in Mysticism", Dialogue & Alliance: A Journal of the International Religious Foundation 8, (No.1, spring/summer 1994):75-89. Lonergan seeks to reconcile the two camps by formulating mystical experience in terms of Western psychology.
  Cf. Ulrike Wiethaus, ed., Maps of Flesh and Light: The Religious Experience of Medieval Women Mystics (Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1993), 11.
  Raoul Mortley, "What is Negative Theology? The Western Origins," in: "The Via Negativa", Prudentia: A Journal of the Intellectual History of the Ancient World, Supplementary Number (1981): 9.
  See below, section II.D.4. "Tathagatagarbha and Madhyamaka", 91-2 for an explanation of how tathagatagarbha affirmations are a direct negative echo of Prajnaparamita negations.
  exoteric: readily understood, commonplace; esoteric: from Greek esoteros, inner; taught only to a select number, and not intended for the general body of disciples, designed for and understood only by the initiated, characterized by secrecy and mystery. Cf. Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, 1979 ed., s.v. "esoteric" and "esotery".
  Shentong Madhyamaka is a good example of a school of thought whose status frequently changed from being public to secret and vice versa. Its status also varies from denomination to denomination. See below, sections II.D. "The Development of Uma Shentong" and II.B. "Dolpopa".
  When I subsequently speak of "the Church" in this thesis, I mean the institution of the Roman Catholic Church, the one that tolerated no other church next to itself until it had no choice but to co-exist with Protestant churches; the one also that is heir to the West European Via Negativa we are mostly dealing with here.
  E.g. Mat 13:10-3: "And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but unto them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand."
Cf. also Matthew 13:35, Isaiah 45:3, and Daniel 2:47.
  M. Spanneut, "Clement of Alexandria" in: New Catholic Encyclopedia, 944, 1967 ed.
  In the Mahaparinibbana Sutta (ii.100.2.25) the Buddha says: "I have taught the Dhamma, Ananda, making no "inner" and "outer": the Tathagata has no "teacher's fist" in respect of doctrines." (I.e. he taught no hidden, esoteric teachings.) Maurice Walshe, Thus Have I Heard: A New Translation of the Digha Nikaya, the Long Discourses of the Buddha (London: Wisdom Publications, 1987), 245.
  Paul Williams explains that in order to support the claim that Mahayana sutras were taught by Buddha Shakyamuni (although hidden from ordinary hearers) "the sutras themselves almost invariably start with Ananda's phrase 'Thus have I heard at one time', plus the geographical location of the discourse." Yet: "from the point of view of the pre-Mahayana tradition all the Mahayana sutras were spurious!" Mahayana Buddhism, 29 and 39.
  In the glossary to his translation of Yeshe Tsogyal, Dakini Teachings: Padmasambhava's Oral Instructions to Lady Tsogyal, revealed by Nyang ral nyima oser and Sangye lingpa, (Boston: Shambhala, 1990), 180, Erik Pema Kunsang gives the following explanation: "SECRET MANTRA (gsang sngags; Skt. Guhyamantra) Synonymous with Vajrayana or tantric teachings. Guhya means secret, both concealed and self-secret. Mantra in this context means eminent, excellent, or praiseworthy."
  Bokar Rinpoche, a Shentong lineage holder, Thrangu Rinpoche, an expert on Dolpopa, and Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche, one of the greatest Kagyu scholars.
  H. Vorgrimler, "Negative Theologie", in: Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, 1962 ed.
  Harvey D. Egan, S.J. classifies Via Negativa as (a) a philosophical-theological position, (b) a mode of speaking about God, and (c) a mode of contemplative ascent to God. "Negative Way", 700, in: New Dictionary of Catholic Spirituality, 1993 ed.
  "On the Beatitudes", sermon VI, quoted in: Rosemary Ann Lees, The Negative Language of the Dionysian School of Mystical Theology: An Approach to the Cloud of Unknowing, Vol 1, Analecta Cartusiana, Dr. James Hogg, ed., (Salzburg: Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik Universität Salzburg, 1983), 16.
  Cf.: E.F. Osborn, "Negative Theology and Apologetic" in: "The Via Negativa", Prudentia: 55.
  Dionysius the Areopagite, The Armenian Version of the Works Attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite, Robert W. Thomson, trans., Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Vol.489, Scriptores Armeniaci Tomus 18, (Louvain, Belgium: Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 1987) 160. This c. fifth-sixth century mystic, also known as Pseudo-Dionysius, or Denys, was one of the most influential mystical theologians.
  More on divinization in section II.C.2. "Hellenistic Roots".
  Greek: agnosia, is a key word in the writings of Pseudo- Dionysius. Famous of course is "The Cloud of Unknowing" by an anonymous English mystic of the late fourteenth century.
  Cf. Catherine of Genua (1447-1510): "Thus my being, my self, my strength, my beatitude, my desire is in God. But this which I now call self so many times, - I do that because otherwise I can't speak, but in reality I no longer know what the self may be, or the mine, or desire, or the good, or even beatitude. I can no longer fix my eye on any thing, no matter where it may be, in heaven or on earth." quoted in: Martin Buber, Ekstatische Konfessionen, 5th ed. (Heidelberg: Lambert Schneider, 1984), 150.
  Dionysius, The Armenian Version, 163-4.
  'Apostles' are those direct disciples of Jesus who, having left behind all worldly things, wandered around with him penniless. St. Paul is the only later follower who is granted this title although he never saw Christ in the flesh. 'Apostolic life style' denotes living according to Jesus example and exhortations.
  'Created' and 'Uncreated' reality are the terms Angela uses. Others, like Gregory of Nyssa, speak of 'earthly' and 'spiritual' reality.
  Dionysius, The Armenian Version, 163-4.
  While many scholars comment on the "Hellenistic" character of talk about mysteries and initiation, it may have been more "Christian" than our modern, rational, post- Inquisition and Enlightenment language.
  Rosemary Ann Lees, The Negative Language, 13.
  The modern term for mystical thinking.
  Andrew Louth, The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition: From Plato To Denys, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), xii.
  See below section II.C.3. "Negative-Mystical Theology During the First 500 Years", especially 55-60.
  Andrew Louth, The Origins, 78 and 90.
  I am sorry that this has to be so complicated, but I cannot simplify the history of Catholicism in order to simplify descriptions of it. Ambiguity is a major factor in theology and cannot be ignored just because it is complex.
  Though several strands of Madhyamaka arose in the course of time, in the context of this thesis 'Madhyamaka' without other prefixes refers to Nagarjuna's teachings.
  Many scholars refer to the term 'rangtong' as a Tibetan invention because what would have been the direct Sanskrit equivalent, namely svasunya, does not appear in Indian texts. But does turning 'empty of self-existence' into 'self-empty' really constitute an invention?
  Paraphrased in Paul Williams, Mahayana Buddhism, 62.
  E.g. by Bhavaviveka (c. 490-570) and Dignaga (c. 480-540).
  the Tibetan ending 'pa' denotes a person pertaining to the preceding characteristic. Hence 'Umapa' e.g. is a person holding the Uma view. Similarly, Madhyamaka denotes the philosophy of the Middle while Madhyamika is a person or group holding such views.
Uma Shentong is also called Great Madhyamaka (dbu ma chen po), Yogacara Madhyamaka ('rnal 'byor spyod pa'i dbu ma), or Knowledge Madhyamaka ('rnam rig gi dbu ma). Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp, Contributions to the Development of Tibetan Buddhist Epistemology: From the Eleventh to the Thirteenth Century, Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien, 26 (Wiesbaden: Steiner 1983), 39.
  It is not a dharma, but dharmadhatu, the realm of dharmas, or dharmata, the suchness or true essence of dharmas.
  The formula "empty of defilements but not empty of qualities" stems from sutras like the Srimaladevi Sutra: "Lord, the Tathagatagarbha is void of all the defilement- stores, which are discrete and knowing as not liberated. Lord, the Tathagatagarbha is not void of the Buddha dharmas which are nondiscrete, inconceivable, more numerous than the sands of the Ganges, and knowing as liberated." The Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala, 99.
  Many Madhyamikas, and in particular Tibetan Rangtongpas, define tathagatagarbha not as the ultimate reality but merely as the potential of beings to reach buddhahood. But to Shentongpas tathagatagarbha is identitcal with tathata (thusness). More on this debate below in section II.D.4. "Tathagatagarbha and Madhyamaka" 92.
  S[henpen] K. Hookham writes: "The Tathagatagarbha Sutras were hardly commented on by the Indians, presumably because the use of terms such as paramatman and so on threaten Buddhism's identity vis à vis Hinduism. They spread to Khotan and China where they were quickly adopted and commented upon." The Buddha Within, 143.
For more on the difference between the reception of buddha nature thought in India and in China see section II.D. "The Development of Uma Shentong", 85 and 91.
  For examples see below section IV.C.5. "Buddha Nature is No Other than Form", 213-4.
  Michael Broido, "The Jo-nang-pas on Madhyamaka: a Sketch", in: The Tibet Journal: a publication for the study of Tibet, Vol. XIV, No. 1, 1989, 86-90.
   Stephan Schuhmacher and Gert Woerner (ed.), Lexikon der östlichen Weisheitslehren, s.v. "Siddhanta" and "Darshana".
  Michael Broido, The Jo-nang-pas on Madhyamaka, 87-89.
  ibid., 88.
  Broido's recount of Dolpopa's usage of the term siddhanta. Ibid. 87.
  This word often creates confusion in Christian-Buddhist dialogue because to Christians it means a too strict cosmological separation between good and evil as is found e.g. in gnosticism. In the Buddhist context it denotes a perceived separation between subject and object which is valid within conventional reality but does not reflect the absolute.
  S[henpen] K. Hookham, The Buddha Within, 63.
  Even Michael Broido recognizes that Uma Shentong includes Uma Rangtong; but nowhere does he contend that the reverse is true also. See: The Jo-nang-pas on Madhyamaka, 87.
  ibid., 90.
  (Jam mgon kong sprul blo gros mtha' yas) 1813?-1899, one of the most important Tibetan scholars. Together with his teacher, Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo (1820-1892), co-founder of the Rimay (rigs med) non-partisan movement. He attempted to synthesize Rangtong and Shentong doctrines and did much to renew the recognition of Uma Shentong. See: Lexikon der östlichen Weisheitslehren, s.v. "Jamgon Kongtrul" and "Rime".
  More on the "mind only" school in section II.D.5. "Madhyamaka and Yogacara".
   Aku 88b7-89a3, quoted in: Helmut Tauscher, Die Lehre von den zwei Wirklichkeiten in Ton Kha Pas Madhyamaka-Werken, Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, ed. Ernst Steinkellner, Heft 36, (Wien: Arbeitskreis füer tibetische und buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, 1995), 70. For more details about how the two truths are two kinds of perception, see also pp. 187, 226, 230, 261-3, etc. Tauscher confirms that Dolpopa "determines the ontological status of the two truths by using these epistemological categories [paramarthatah and samvrtya]" Ibid, 70.
  Paul Williams, "Silence and Truth - Some Aspects of the Madhyamaka Philosophy in Tibet", in: The Tibet Journal: an International Publication for the Study of Tibet, Vol. VII, No. 1&2, spring/summer 1982, 70 and 72.
 Michael Broido, The Jo-nang-pas on Madhyamaka, 89.
  The Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala, 107.
  Verse 1.153 as cited in: S[henpen] K. Hookham, The Buddha Within, 229.
  Paul Williams, Mahayana Buddhism, 108
  Luther translates: "I will be who I will be." This is closer to the Hebrew, which could also be translated as: "I was who I was." Jews neither translate nor pronounce God's name because of the magical power of names. They simply spell it out loud: JHVH.
  E.g.: Dionysius the Areopagite, Armenian Version, 161. And Gregory of Nyssa, Life of Moses II:162-4, I am using the translation by Abraham J. Malherbe and Everett Ferguson, (New York: Paulist Press, 1978).
  A first century Jewish-Platonic philosopher from Egypt.
  E.F. Osborn, "Negative Theology and Apologetic", in: "The Via Negativa" Prudentia, 55-6.
  St. Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria, "De Incarnatione", ed. and trans. Robert W. Thomson, Oxford Early Christian Texts, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), 54.
  If Greek philosophy were considered within the framework of Christian-Buddhist dialogue, it should include, in my opinion, an investigation of possible Indian influence on Greek philosophers such as Plato and Plotinus. It is clearly evidenced in the Buddhist scripture "The Questions of King Milinda". Andrew Louth recounts that Plotinus was "drawn to Eastern thought - Persian and Indian". The Origins, 36. William Johnston also mentions possible Buddhist influence on Christianity via Neoplatonism, saying that: "it is not impossible that sunyata, somehow Christianized by early theologians and mystics, made its way into the Western world at the beginning of the Christian era." "All and Nothing: St. John of the Cross and the Christian-Buddhist Dialogue", The Eastern Buddhist XXI (no. 2 Autumn): 1988, 124.
  See: Veselin Kesich, "Via Negativa", 252, in: The Encyclopedia of Religion, 1987 ed. And: Evelyn Underhill, The Mystics of the Church, (New York: Schocken Books, 1964), 26. Rosemary Ann Lees on the other hand, maintains that: "The basic threefold division of the mystic life was a development from Origen's philosophy." The Negative Language of the Dionysian School of Mystical Theology, 51.
  William Johnston concedes that: "some Christians (among them the great Karl Barth) looked on mysticism with suspicion as a Neoplatonic contamination in the pure stream of Christian thought." (Unfortunately there were not just "some" but there are many.) "Buddhists and Christians Meet", The Eastern Buddhist III (no. 1, June): 1970, 141.
  When Western theologians had robbed "divinization" of its initial meaning, mystics started expressing the original idea by speaking of complete and indestructible union with God.
  Le vocabulaire de la divinisation est étranger a la langue biblique, soucieuse de préserver l'absolu de la transcendance divine. Irénée-H. Dalmais, "Divinisation, II. Patristique Grècque", 1376, Dictionaire de Spiritualité (hereafter DdSp), 1957 ed.
  They are usually called "Latin Fathers". But the difference between Greek and Latin Fathers is great not because of their distinct languages but because of their cultures and political setting. The Roman thinkers fathered the Roman Catholic church. They were members of an immense empire which they had been taught to regard as divine. They brought their love of great empires into the Church. For all these reasons I find it more appropriate to call them Roman Fathers.
In defense of the Roman Fathers, Irénée Hausherr S. I. says that the "slogan" "The Greek Fathers are much more mystical than the Latins." is, for most people, practically unverifiable. (La force de ce slogan tient à ce qu'il est pratiquement inverifiable pur la plupart des gens.) Hesychasme et prière, Orientalia christiana analectica 176, (Rome: Pont. institutum orientalium studiorum, 1966), 91.
  See: Irénée-H. Dalmais, "Divinisation, II. Patristique Grècque", 1387 and Gustav Bardy, "Divinisation, III. Chéz les Pères Latins", ibid., 1389.
  Margaret Smith describes how Egyptian women's rights enabled them to follow their religious calling in very great numbers and in much the same way as men. The Way of the Mystics, 35-7.
  St. Clement of Alexandria already formulated a correlation between spiritual and social realities. He affirmed that the equality of men and women in the realm of God as well as in the realm of basic human reality warrants their equal religious training. Cf.: Christ the Educator, The Fathers of the Church 23, transl. by Simon P. Wood, C.P. (New York: Fathers of the Church Inc., 1954) 4.
  Elaine Pagels recounts how repulsed Roman Fathers like Tertullian (third century) were by the practices of equality in Gnostic communities where no status distinction was made between clergy and laity or men and women. See: The Gnostic Gospels (New York: Random House, First Vintage Books Ed., 1981), 49-50.
  Especially as a German it pains me to have to say this. I am aware of the danger of "Anti-Judaism in Christian Feminist Theology". Susannah Heschel wrote an article by that name in: Tikkun 5, (no 3, 1990) 25-8, 95-7. Unfortunately I cannot resolve the dilemma here. I can only acknowledge that there is a lot of material in the Hebrew Bible that speaks about women's strength, leadership, subjugation, and struggle against oppression. Yet many more Biblical books are a recount and manual of patriarchy which the apostle Paul introduced into the Jewish-Christian movement as a tool for the oppression of women.
  Andrew Louth, The Origins, 76.
  Ibid., 78.
  Rosemary Ann Lees, The Negative Language of the Dionysian School of Mystical Theology, 14.
  Rosemary Ann Lees says: "Gregory's theory of ecstasy nevertheless differs significantly from its counterpart in neoplatonist thought: it involves transcendence not only of the phenomenal world, but also of the self." Ibid., 22.
  Gregory of Nyssa, Life of Moses, II:24, 60.
  St. Gregory of Nyssa, "Against Eunomius", in: Jean Danielou, S.J., (selec. and intro.) trans. and ed. by Herbert Musurillo, S.J., From Glory to Glory: Texts from Gregory of Nyssa's Mystical Writings, (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1961), 122.
  Cf. Mt 7:6: "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."
  St. Gregory of Nyssa, "On the Beatitudes", sermon VI, in: Jean Danielou, tr. Herbert Musurillo, From Glory to Glory, 101.
  Rosemary Ann Lees, The Negative Language, 22.
  Gregory of Nyssa, "Commentary on the Song of Songs" XII: 1037, in: Jean Danielou, From Glory to Glory, 270-1.
Buddhists tend more towards the neo-platonic version of a final perfect end product called 'buddhahood'. Yet this does not explain why Buddha Shakyamuni and other great yogis keep meditating long after they have reached this state, and why so many of them display a resistance to leaving their hermitages when they are called into the world. Unfortunately Buddhists don't usually address this question.
  Dionysius himself is referred to as the bishop of Athens and all his works are addressed to important people surrounding the apostle Paul. Moreover the work refers to other texts that are completely unknown. O'Daby supposes that they never existed but were made up as part of the forgery to make it look like the works of Dionysius were in agreement with a whole body of literature. Gerard O'Daby, "Dionysius Areopagita", 774, in: Theologische Realenzyklopädie (hereafter TRE), 1981 ed.
  See ibid., 773.
  Hans Urs von Balthasar, "Das Scholienwerk des Johannes von Scythopolis: Schol. 15" (1940), 38. Cited in ibid., 773.
  Evelyn Underhill, The Mystics of the Church, 74.
  So as to severely limit the Bible's readership, translations into the vernacular were discouraged. In his introduction to "The Cloud of Unknowing" Walsh states: "It could also be argued that, in the later treatises,the author is exercising a prudence in citing his scripture from the Latin Vulgate, since vernacular translations are by this time [late 14th century] suspect. The Cloud of Unknowing, ed. and intro. by James Walsh, S.J. 11.
Martin Luther's translation of the Bible into German was not motivated by scholarly zeal but a politically subversive activity.
  By the 16th century the Spanish inquisition, in its effort to suppress 'mental prayer', forbade almost all books on prayer. The Collected Works of St. Teresa of Avila, Vol.2, trans. by Kieran Kavanaugh, O.C.D. and Otilio Rodriguez, O.C.D., (Washington, D.C.: Institute of Carmelite Studies, 1980), 24.
As Kieran Kavanaugh, O.C.D. states: "The Spanish people in general were officially taught to follow the "level" and "safe" paths of both the ascetical life and vocal prayer and to shun the extraordinary ways of mysticism, especially its accessory phenomena of locutions, visions, and revelation. In the case of women the teaching was put forward with greater urgency." ibid, 22. (The suppression of mysticism, was by no means limited to Spain.)
  For a summary of all these discussions see: Louth, The Origins, 182-9.
  Irénée Hausherr S. I., Hesychasme et prière, chapter 8: "Les Orientaux connaissent-ils les "nuits" de Saint Jean de la Croix?" 121-2 and 125.
  "Donc, purification active et purification passive du sens et de l'esprit, voila le contenu reel du symbolisme de la nuit." ibid., 89.
  "...una noche oscura, que aqui entiende por la contemplacion purgativa... la cual pasivamente causa en el alma la dicha negacion de si misma y de todas cosas." Cited in ibid. 89.
  Cf: St. John of the Cross, "The Dark Night" cited and paraphrased in: William Johnston, All and Nothing, 133.
  Ibid., 133.
  Teresa of Avila, The Collected Works of St. Teresa of Avila, The Interior Castle, The Sixth Dwelling Place, I:8, 362-3.
Though Teresa lived two and a half centuries after Angela, and the situation for women had done nothing but gotten worse since the beginning of the 14th century, the basic interactions between church men and women were identical in both eras and in all of Europe.
  See ibid., I:8-14, 362-6.
  2 Cor 11:13-15. See also: 1 Thess 5:19-22, 1 Jn 4:1, etc.
  The Collected Works of St. Teresa of Avila, 50-1.
  Angela of Foligno, Complete Works, 188.
  See below, chapter 2.
  Saint John of Kronstadt (1829-1909) e.g. had disciples all over Russia.
  St. Teresa of Avila, "The Way to Perfection" 21:2, in: The Collected Works of St. Teresa of Avila, 118.
Yes, there were men who helped women. I can imagine that the male readers would prefer to hear about these exceptions. But we must first bare to look at the rule before we indulge in exceptions. Yes, they did exist, but they had little influence on the culture and the policies. If the Church could have stamped them as heretics, I'm sure it would have. But again, it couldn't delete the whole scripture from which it deduced its authority.
  The author of "The Cloud of Unknowing" e.g. stresses over and over again that his exercises are not meant to be known by great masses but only by those who are called by God to be perfect followers of Christ. And even these should be taught his teachings only during the last phases of their path, i.e. during the "Unitive Way". Nobody else should learn of his book. (The Cloud of Unknowing, 101-2 and 262- 4.) How much of his emphasis on restricting the dissemination of his work stemmed from concern for souls and how much was due to trying not to upset an authoritarian Church, remains to be researched. On orders guarding these teachings for "narrowly religious contexts" see: Rosemary Ann Lees, The Negative Language of the Dionysian School of Mystical Theology, 437.
  These means will be explained in chapter II.A.2. as seeking complete union with the all transcending God by way of a three-fold poverty.
  Angela of Foligno, Complete Works, 188.
  ibid., 131.
  E.g.: G. Epiney-Burgard and E. Zum Brunn, Femmes troubadours de Dieu: Temoins de notre histoire (Belgium: Editions Brepols, 1988), 7 and 15.
  See: Bonnie S. Anderson and Judith P. Zinsser, A History of their Own: Women in Europe from Prehistory to the Present, Vol. 1, paperback ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1989), 191.
  "It has been shown, and it seems plausible, that neither Master Eckhart nor Marguerite Porete would have been condemned if they had only published their arguments in Latin." ibid., 13.
  In our modern post enlightenment and reformation era it may be difficult to imagine the European continent inhabited by "masses of mystics". Nonetheless the "women's movement", dealt with in section III.A.2.a.i. truly was part of a mass movement that swept over large parts of the continent, inside and outside the established Church.
  Hereafter, Me long, written by the Gelugpa Thu'u-bkwan blo-bzang chos-kyi nyi-ma's (1737-1802). Its chapter on the Jonangpas is translated in: David Seyfort Ruegg, "The Jonangpas: A School of Buddhist Ontologists According to the Grub mtha' sel gyi me lon," Journal of the American Oriental Society 83, (no. 1, 1963): 79 and 84.
  What is not mentioned is that the Samkhyas in turn were criticized by their Hindu brethren for being crypto-Buddhist.
  Giuseppe Tucci,e.g. quite mistakenly maintains that Uma Shentong: "was regarded as equally heretical by almost all Tibetan schools". The Religions of Tibet, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 69.
Similarly, in The Jonangpas, David Seyfort Ruegg characterizes Shentongpas as "apparently un-Buddhist", (74) "extreme and somewhat isolated" (73); although he also concedes that Dolpopa "continued to he held in great respect, . . . also by his dGe lugs pa opponents" (80).
  L[ambert] Schmitthausen, "On Some Aspects of Descriptions or Theories of 'Liberating Insight' and 'Enlightenment' in Early Buddhism", in: K. Bruhn and A. Wezler, ed., Studien zum Jainismus und Buddhismus: Gedenkschrift für Ludwig Alsdorf, (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1981), 223.
   Ruegg also uses these same categories, tracing the negative, analytical, apophatic approach to the 'scholastic corpus' (Tib: rigs tshogs) and the positive, mystical, cataphatic one to the 'hymnic corpus' (Tib: bstod tshogs). see: David Seyfort Ruegg, Buddha-nature, Mind and the Problem of Gradualism in a Comparative Perspective: On the Transmission and Reception of Buddhism in India and Tibet, (London: University of London, 1989), 10.
   For a lack of better categories and out of the need to distinguish two character traits, I will stick with these terms, not withstanding that the scholastics, logicians, those freed by wisdom (prajnavimukta, more on this term below in this section), and who ever else might be in this category also show mystical traits. Furthermore, for the intent of this paper, it seems sometimes practical to subsume everyone who is interested in positive affirmations about the Ultimate under the term "mystic", even though in some respects there are great differences e.g. between an advanced siddha and a pious, faith-based lay follower.
  Louis de La Vallée Poussin describes the sutra as admonishing two groups of monks who blame each other to appreciate each other instead. "Musila et Narada: le chemin du Nirvana", Mélanges chinois et bouddhiques 5, 1936-1937, 191.
  Ibid., 191.
  Majjhima-Nikaya, I.296, pp. 356-7. Unless otherwise indicated, all Pali sutras are quoted from the Pali Text Society translation of the Pali canon.
  in sutras cited in ibid., pp.208, 209, 216, and 219 as Samyutta-Nikaya I..136, III.133, V.251, Anguttara IV.414, and Mahavastu II.285.
  "(...) the Buddha and other Buddhas are, in a very profound sense, identical with ultimate reality itself." Frank E. Reynolds and Charles Hallisey, "Buddha" in: Encyclopedia of Religion, 320.
  Mahaparinibbana Sutta, ii.100.2.26. in: Maurice Walsh, Thus Have I Heard, 245.
  Vakkali Sutta, Samyutta-Nikaya III:120, p.103.
  Jikido Takasaki, A Study on the Ratnagotravibhaga: [hereafter RGV or Uttaratantrasastra) (Uttaratantra): Being a Tratise on the Tathagatagarbha Theory of Mahayana Buddhism, Serie Orientale Roma XXXIII, (Rome: Istituto italiano per il medio ed estremo oriente, 1966), 163.
  see: Frank E. Reynolds and Charles Hallisey, "Buddha", 320, and: G.P. Malalasekera, "Buddha", Encyclopedia of Buddhism, 1973 ed., 371-2.
  Jikido Takasaki, "Structure of the Anuttarasrayasutra (Wu-shang-i-ching)",in: Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies VIII (No.2, March 1960): 744.
  They are mentioned in several suttas. E.g. Bhaddali Sutta, Majjhima-Nikaya, Vol II, I.439, pp. 110-11. The Kitagiri Sutta (Majjhima-Nikaya, Vol II, I.477-80, pp. 152- 5) describes those who are freed both ways as the most fully enlightened. Those who are freed by wisdom are also completely freed, although they have not "apprehended with the person those peaceful Deliverances which are incorporeal having transcended material shapes". Those liberated by faith have utterly destroyed some of their cankers but for them some work is left to be done. Eventually their faith will also lead them to the "faculty of wisdom". Then they will be "freed both ways".
  Frank E. Reynolds and Charles Hallisey maintain that this kind of buddhanusmrti meditation (recollection of the Buddha) "was instrumental in the development of the Mahayana notion of the "three bodies" (trikaya) of the Buddha, parti-cularly the second, or visualized, body that was known as his sambhogakaya ("body of enjoyment")." See: "Buddha", 323.
  Jikido Takasaki, A study on the RGV, 34 and 59.
  See: The Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala, 42.
And David Seyfort Ruegg, La Théorie du Tathagatagarbha et du Gotra: Études sûr la Soteriologie et la Gnoseologie du Buddhisme, Publications de l'école francaise d'extrème- orient, LXX, (Paris: École francaise d'Extrème-Orient, 1969), 5 and 50.
  Roger R. Jackson, "Luminous Mind Among the Logicians: An Analysis of Pramanavarttika II.205-211", in: Paul J. Griffiths and John P. Keenan, ed., Buddha Nature: A Festschrift in Honor of Minoru Kiyota (Tokyo: Buddhist Books International, 1990), 101-2.
  Cited in: Lambert Schmitthausen, 'Liberating Insight' and 'Enlightenment', 212.
  Schumann for example, describes Buddhism in its first stages as being just another order of wandering ascetics within the anti-brahmanical Samana movement of frustrated Hindus in the 6th century B.C.E. Hans Wolfgang Schumann, Buddhismus, Stifter, Schulen und Systeme, (Olten: Walter Verlag, 1985), 19 and 24.
  Cf. David Snellgrove, Indo-Tibetan Buddhism: Indian Buddhists and their Tibetan Successors, Vol.1 (Boston: Shambhala Publications, 1987), 124.
  Sallie B. King, Buddha Nature, (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991), 28.
  For example the "four dhyanas" are certainly an essential part of the Buddha's teaching. Yet they were inherited from Hindu yoga and are also called "brahmin exercises", with the heaven of the first dhyana being the vedic world of Brahma. see: Louis de La Vallée Poussin, Musila et Narada, 210-11.
  verse 6 of Mulamadhyamakakarikas as translated by Mervyn Sprung, Lucid Exposition of the Middle Way, 175.
  Paul Williams, Mahayana Buddhism, 111-112
  Diana Mary Paul, The Buddhist Feminine Ideal, Queen Srimala and the Tathagatagarbha, (Madison: Scholar Press, 1980), 64.
  E. Obermiller, trans., The Sublime Science of the Great Vehicle to Salvation, Being a Manual of Buddhist Monism, The Work of Arya Maitreya with a Commentary by Aryasanga (Shanghai: Acta Orientalia, Vol. IX, 1931, rpt., 1940), 98.
  ibid., 100.
  Cited in: Diana Mary Paul, The Buddhist Feminine Ideal, 64-5.
  Sallie B. King, Buddha Nature, 11.
  Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp, Tibetan Buddhist Epistemology, 39-40.
  David Seyfort Ruegg, Buddha-nature, Mind and the Problem of Gradualism, 11.
  See: The Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala, 102.
Madhyamikas consider the characteristics of "right view" to be anitya, duhkha, anatman, and asubha.
The Mahaparinirvana sutra also brakes the taboo and calls the whole tathagatagarbha as such 'atman': "The Buddha said: 'O good man! 'Self' means 'tathagatagarbha'. Every being has Buddha Nature. This is self.'" The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana-Sutra: A Complete Translation from the Classical Chinese Language in 3 Volumes, transl. by Kosho Yamamoto (Tokyo: The Karinbunko, 1973), 181.
Jikido Takasaki says that the word atman "was a sort of taboo among early Buddhists." He also refers to the four gunaparamitas as "prohibited terms". A Study on the RGV, 40 and 56.
  Sallie King, Buddha Nature, 14.
  See: ibid., 160.
  If not the Indians then the Tibetans gave names to every little sub-school of tenets. But none of them dared to name tathagatagarbha doctrine. Only in China did Fa-tsang (643- 712 C.E.) recognize it as a tradition separate from either Yogacara or Madhyamaka, even assigning it a separate 4th 'Turning of the Wheel'. See: Paul Williams, Mahayana Buddhism, 96.
According to Yoshito Hakeda, Fa-tsang: "for the first time drew attention to the great importance of this concept (tathagatagarbha) to which he felt proper notice had hitherto not been paid either in India or China." See introduction to The Awakening of Faith: Attributed to Asvagosha, transl. with commentary by Yoshito S. Hakeda, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 14.
  Many texts of the tathagatagarbha tradition identify buddha nature with suchness or thusness (tathata).
RGV 1.24 states: "1) 'The Reality mingled with pollution (samala tahata)' is a term for 'the Essence (dhatu), unreleased from the sheath of defilements', i.e. the Matrix of Tathagata. 2) 'The Reality apart from pollution' (nirmala tathata) is a term for the same Essence, when it is characterized as the Perfect Manifestation of Basis (asrayaparivrtti) in the Stage of Buddha, i.e. the Absolute Body of the Tathagata." Jikido Takasaki, A Study on the RGV, 187.
Alex Wayman and Hideko Wayman also confirm that "the 'Suchness' in The Awakening of Faith is equivalent to Sri- Mala's 'Tathagatagarbha'." The Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala, 11.
Sallie B. King quotes from the Buddha Nature Treatise and says: "This text, which closely follows the Ratnagotra in many respects, states in unmistakable terms: "Buddha nature is the Thusness revealed by the dual emptiness of person and things. . . . If one does not speak of Buddha nature, then one does not understand emptiness" (787b)." Buddha Nature, 17.
  N. Katz, "Tibetan Hermeneutics and the Yana Controversy", in: Ernst Steinkellner and Helmut Tauscher, ed., Contributions on Tibetan and Buddhist Religion and Philosophy, Proceedings of the Csoma de Koros Symposium Held at Velm-Vienna, Austria, 13-19 Sep. 1981, Vol.2, Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 11, 117.
  ibid., 119.
  K. Mimaki comes to the conclusion that the Tibetan system of categorizing Indian schools of thought was only stabilized (at least to some extent) during Tsongkhapa's life time.(15th century) He implies what Paul Williams formulates: that the Tibetan categorizations draw far more rigid delineations between Indian thinkers than perhaps truthful to the situation on the sub-continent. Yet both of them also acknowledge the depth of Tibetans' understanding of Indian philosophical discourse. Nor can be denied that Indian philosophers accused each other of falsity to the point where it is difficult to imagine that they would accept their opponents as being of the same school. See: K. Mimaki, "The Blo gsal grub mtha', and the Madhyamika Classification in Tibetan Grub tha' Literature", in: Ernst Steinkellner and Helmut Tauscher, ed., Contributions on Tibetan and Buddhist Religion and Philosophy, 161-7. And: Paul Williams, "Introduction - Some Random Reflections on the Study of Tibetan Madhyamaka", in: "Special Issue: Tibetan Contributions to the Madhyamaka" Tibet Journal: a Publication for the Study of Tibet XIV (no.1, 1989), 2-4.
  This short form is used in Tibetan texts. For an example see: van der Kuijp, Tibetan Buddhist Epistemology, 39.
  Paul Williams confirms that: "It certainly should not be presupposed that all or even most of the Cittamatra masters and texts teach exactly the same doctrine. Nevertheless they do have some teachings in common". Mahayana Buddhism, 83.
  Yogacarins also profess 'three natures' (svabhava) rather than (or in addition to) 'two truths': the imagined, dependent, and perfect natures. But the interpretations of these differ so vastly that they can hardly be taken as a defining characteristic. Nor is it clear that only Cittamatrins teach the three natures. According to Dolpopa, a number of second dharmacakra sutras also expound upon them. See: S[henpen] Hookham, The Buddha Within, 20.
For examples of diverging interpretations compare Hookham to: Gadjin M. Nagao, Madhyamika and Yogacara: A Study of Mahayana Philosophies: Collected Papers of G. M. Nagao, ed., collated, and transl. by L. S. Kawamura, in collaboration with G. M. Nagao, SUNY Series in Buddhist Studies, Kenneth K. Inada, ed., (New York: State University of New York Press, 1991), 62-7, and Paul Williams, Mahayana Buddhism, 82-5.
  Maitreya (lit., the loving One) is the buddha of the future eon who will reside in the Tushita heaven until his time comes to descend to earth. He is said to have inspired Asanga to compose five very important treatises, amongst which is the RGV. Since Western scholars find it difficult to accept a buddha as the author of books, they argue that the author "Buddha Maitreya" may have been Asanga's guru whom they call Maitreyanatha. Since they are just as unable to prove that a Maitreyanatha wrote these books as others are to prove Buddha Maitreya as the author, I see no reason to diverge from the accepted Buddhist tradition.
  See: Lcang skya rol pa'i rdo rje, "Grub pa'i mtha'i rnam par bzhag pa" (Presentation of Tenets), translation of the Svatantrika chapter by Donald S. Lopez, A Study of Svatantrika, (Ithaca, N.Y.: Snow Lion Publications, 1987), 347-8.
  David Seyfort Ruegg, The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1981), 104-8.
  e.g. in: Ri chos nges don rgya mtsho 211.6 (The Ocean of Ultimate Meaning of Mountain Dharma[of yogi ascetics)) hereafter, "Mountain Dharma". See: S[henpen] Hookham, The Buddha Within, 123, 143-4 and 4.
  As a student of Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche, Shenpen Hookham testifies to this tradition in her section baring that same name. See: ibid., 26-9.
The Khenpo himself writes that in Tibet Svatantrika and Prasangika Madhyamikas were called Uma Rangtongpas, and Yogacara-Madhyamikas were called Uma Shentongpas. See: Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness, transl. and arranged by Shenpen K. Hookham, 2nd edition (Oxford: Longchen Foundation, 1988), 55 and 93.
  S[henpen] K. Hookham, The Buddha Within, 141.
According to the Me long Dolpopa based his doctrine on the following canonical texts: the Tathagatagarbha sutra, the Mahabheri sutra, the Jnanalokalamkara sutra, the Srimaladevi simhanada sutra, the Anunatvapurnatva nirdesa, the Mahaparinirvana sutra, the Avatamsaka, the Ratnakuta, the Suvarnaprabhasottama sutra, and the Uttaratantra sastra. David Seyfort Ruegg, The Jonangpas, 83
  The Srimaladevi sutra (III.8-9) already distinguishes "two kinds of voidness knowledge of the Tathagatagarbha": (1) knowing that it is void of accidental defilements (2) knowing that it is not void of qualities or "Buddha- dharmas". The Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala, 99.
  Paul Williams, Silence and Truth, 75 and 69.
  In his Madhyamakakarika (24.18) Nagarjuna says: "It is interdependent co-arising (pratitya-samutpada) that we call emptiness." Cited in: Paul Williams, Mahayana Buddhism, 61.
  See: S[henpen] K. Hookham, The Buddha Within, 143-4, 149-50, 156-7.
  Donald S. Lopez, A Study of Svatantrika, 265.
  S[henpen] K. Hookham, The Buddha Within, 16. David Seyfort Ruegg also states that according to the Me long; "the gzhan stong and the mahamudra are in certain respects comparable." The Jonangpas, 76.
  Donald S. Lopez, A Study of Svatantrika, 265.
  For more characteristics that make it difficult to categorize masters and their teachings see section II.B.5. "The Impact of His Works".
  This concern is reflected in Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp's quote of Gser mdog pan chen: "the madhyamaka which became the peak of the four (Buddhist) philosophical systems is found to be two-fold.... While the first is that which was explicated in the 'Collection of Arguments' (rigs-tshongs) of the protector Nagarjuna, the second [type] is that which was explained by Asanga having followed the teaching of Maitreya(natha)." (Tibetan Buddhist Epistemology, 39.)
It seems that the author dares not contradict the official proclamation that Madhyamaka is the highest philosophy. If he wants to portray his own view as inhabiting the peak of philosophy, he must call it a Madhyamaka system and be willing to share the place of highest honor with other Umapas.
  Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp traces the earliest occurrence of this term to the rNying ma'i rgyud 'bum (Nyingma Tantric Collection) where it is related to Dzog Chen and Chag Chen. See: Tibetan Buddhist Epistemology, 36 ff.
  Ibid., 141.
  See: J. F. Broderick, "Papacy", 956, in: New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967 ed.
  Although P. Delhaye suggests that from the papal point of view strict legislature against priests marrying was ordained for another reason: "The purpose of these canons (similar to that, perhaps, of the Justinian Corpus) was to prevent the secularization of ecclesiastical property by the families of priests." "Celibacy, History of", 372, in: New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967 ed.
  J. F. Broderick, "Papacy", 958-9.
  As P. Delhaye points out: "Many laymen, indeed, were gravely scandalized by clerical immorality" and fell under the influence of "heretical" movements. "Celibacy, History of", 373.
  (inquisito = inquiry, investigation) Lay spies hired by the Church were called "familiars". They formed their own gild and chose as their patron "Saint" Peter of Verona, an in 1252 assassinated inquisitor. Henry Kamen, "Inquisition", 191, in: TRE, 1987 ed.
  Though some church men like Edward A. Ryan, S.J., argue that the Church only followed what was civil custom at the time, they have to concede that it was not the practice of secular powers to persecute "heretics" until "the fourth Lateran council (1215) decreed that rulers who failed to rid their territories of heresy were threatened with deposition and loss of their dominions". See: "Inquisition", 271, in: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1969 ed.
  This is a term commonly used to describe the spirit of women in the high Middle Ages. See e.g. Jo Ann McNamara, "The Rhetoric of Orthodoxy: Clerical Authority and Female Innovation in the Struggle with Heresy", in: Ulrike Wiethaus, ed., Maps of Flesh and Light: The Religious Experience of Medieval Women Mystics (Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1993), 9, and Andrew Louth, "Mystik II", 570, in: TRE, 1994 ed.
  see: Paul Lachance, O.F.M., intro. and transl., Angela of Foligno, Complete Works, 36.
  Spontaneous bleeding from the places where Jesus was nailed to the cross and pierced by a lance.
  see: Andrew Louth, "Mystik II", 570.
  Siegfried Ringler presents a critical summary of these debates. "Die Rezeption mittelalterlicher Frauenmystik als wissenschaftliches Problem, dargestellt am Werk der Christine Ebner" in: Peter Dinzelbacher and Dieter R. Bauer, ed., Frauenmystik im Mittelalter, (Ostfildern bei Stuttgart: Schwabenverlag, 1985), 182.
  For example: Ulrich Köpf, Bernard von Clairvaux in der Frauenmystik, in: ibid.
  Angela of Foligno is one example. Brother Arnaldo starts out as her confessor and ends up as her devout disciple. According to Jo Ann McNamara many women under Dominican tutelage brought sinning clergy to repentance, preaching to them under the secrecy of the confessional. Catherine of Siena and Yvetta of Huy are just two examples. The Rhetoric of Orthodoxy, 17-18.
  Denifle, "Über die Anfänge der Predigtweise der deutschen Mystiker," in: Archiv für Literatur- und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters, 2. Bd., (1886), 641-52. Cited in: Meister Eckehart, Deutsche Predigten und Traktate, trans. and ed. Josef Quint (München: Diogenes, 1979, paperback), 11.
  See: G. Epiney-Burgard and E. Zum Brunn, Femmes troubadours de Dieu, 21, 23, 25, no.26.
   Jo Ann McNamara, The Rhetoric of Orthodoxy, 23.
   Angela of Foligno, Complete Works, 235.
  See ibid., 246 and 249.
  The only other book that is mentioned in Angela of Foligno, Complete Works is a text by Augustine, probably his "Sermons on the Liturgical Seasons". Brother Arnaldo is confused about the "subtle arguments" that are advanced therein about the issue whether the saints in heaven stand or sit or dwell at God's side. He asks for clarification from Angela, but instead of responding directly, she is "swept up in ecstasy" and later affirms once more that absolutely nothing can be said about the All Good. See: 203.
  See: Werner Dettloff, "Franziskaner", in: TRE, 1981 ed.
  More on the Spirituals in section III.A.5. "The Impact of Her Work" 138-9. More on Franciscan concepts of intellectual poverty in section III.A.2.b.i. "Poverty", 124-5.
  Ileana Marcoulesco, "Mystical Union", 239. in: The Encyclopedia of Religion, (1987 ed.).
  ibid., 243.
  St. Teresa of Avila, "The Interior Castle" VII.2.1 and 4, in: The Collected Works, 432 and 4.
  See: Evelyn Underhill, The Mystic Way: A Psychological Study in Christian Origins, (London and New York: E.P. Dutton & Co, 1913) 146-7
  See: Angela of Foligno, Complete Works, 401, no. 57.
  Ibid., 402, no. 57.
  see: 1 Cor 14.
  In Rom 6 and 7 Paul elaborates how through Christ "we are delivered from the law [of Moses]" (Rom 7:6) But I guess women are not included amongst those Christians who are delivered from the law.
  Margaret Smith, The Way of the Mystics, chapter III, "Asceticism and the Monastic Life among Women".
  Jo Ann McNamara, The Rhetoric of Orthodoxy, 11.
  ibid., 11.
  See: 1 Cor 14:27-31
  E.g. in Exod 19:11-24 the Lord has Moses draw a line around Mt. Sinai to cordon off the holy site where God will descend. Any human (other than Moses) or animal who touches the area will be struck dead.
  Cf. Angela's statements in Angela of Foligno, Complete Works, 244.
  Quoted in ibid., 402, no. 57.
  see: David Flood, "Armut" VI, 91-96, TRE.
  Paul Lachance, O.F.M. Intro. to Angela of Foligno, Complete Works, 26.
  Saint Francis, Francis and Clare: The Complete Works, transl. and ed. by Regis J. Armstrong, O.F.M. Cap. and Ignatius C. Brady, O.F.M. (New York: Paulist Press, 1982), 117.
  In his "regula non bullata" St.Francis prescribes his monks: "And they may have only the books necessary to fulfill their office. And the lay [followers] who know how to read the psalter may have it." in ibid., 111.
  Similarly Eihei Dogen Zenji, the thirteenth century founder of Soto Zen in Japan, draws a correlation between poverty and spiritual attainment when he says: "Students of the Way should be thoroughly poor. . . Since monks do not possess any other property except for three robes and one bowl, and never worry about where to live, nor are greedy for food and clothing, they will obtain benefit as long as they devote themselves to learning the Way according to their capacity. This is because being poor is being intimate with the Way." Quoted in: Meg Jeffrey, "Consumerism in the Monastery", in: Turning Wheel: Journal of the Buddhist Peace Fellowship (summer 1995): 12.
  Cf: Pierre Adnes, "Penitence", 1007, in: DdSp, 1984 ed.
  see: Andre Vauchez, "Penitents", 1021, in DdSp, 1984 ed.
  Angela of Foligno, Complete Works, 257.
  Ibid., 303.
  It is part of a penitent's life style to renounce the study or preaching of theology and the need for things to make logical sense.
  Cf.: Charles Morel, "Mortification", 1792, in: DdSp, 1980 ed.
  Saint John of the Cross, The Collected Works of Saint John of the Cross, transl. Kieran Kavanaugh, O.C.D. and
Otilio Rodriguez, O.C.D. (Washington, D.C.: Institute of Carmelite Studies, 1991), 360.
  Cristina M. Mazzoni, "Feminism, Abjection, Transgression: Angela of Foligno and the Twentieth Century", in: Mystics Quarterly, Vol. XVII, No. 2, June 1991, 61.
  St. Francis' nickname, meaning 'the little poor One'.
  Angela of Foligno, Complete Works, 277.
  Ibid., 140.
  (Blasucci: MF 48, 189) paraphrased by Sophronius Clasen, "Angela von Foligno", 710, in: TRE, 1978 ed.
  Angela of Foligno, Complete Works, 215.
  Ibid., 125.
  Considering all the Buddhist bragging about who offers the fastest path to enlightenment, this is an interesting detail.
  Bonnie S. Anderson and Judith P. Zinsser summarize the position of Christian women thus: "Just as in the second and third centuries when Christianity had fought for converts and for recognition, in the seventh and eighth centuries when Rome had wanted its beliefs spread across the Germanic and Celtic kingdoms, so in the sixteenth century women knew a brief interlude of "equality", . . . [until men] reasserted the traditional pronouncements about women's proper function and roles. As in the earlier centuries power was given and then taken away." A History of their Own, 243-4, see also: 80-1, 83, 72-3, 77.
Henry Kamen gives as one of three reasons for the emergence of the inquisition the simple fact that the Church had at that time enough worldly power to establish and maintain an institution for the eradication of diverging views. (Ihr Aufkommen zu dieser Zeit lässt sich wohl teils . . . erklären . . . aus der Entwicklung von Formen kirchlicher wie weltlicher Machtausübung, deren man sich zur Ausmerzung abweichender Einstellungen bedienen konnte.) "Inquisition", 189.
  Paul Pattloch, ed., Angela von Foligno, Gesichte und Troestungen : Nach ihren eigenen Worten aufgezeichnet von Bruder Arnaldus O.F.M. (Aschaffenburg: Paul Pattloch- Verlag, 1971), 11-2.
  Paraphrased in: Jo Ann McNamara, The Rhetoric of Orthodoxy, 25.
  Quoted in intro. to: St. Teresa of Avila - The Collected Works, 23.
  Quoted in ibid., 23, my emphasis.
  See: Bonnie S. Anderson and Judith P. Zinsser, A History of Their Own, 200.
  See: Ibid., 186.
  Now the formerly independent nunneries were placed under direct supervision of male clergy which had the power to regulate their property as well as their spiritual lives. While many nuns had previously been allowed to avow novices, hear confessions, preach, and sing the Gospel, restrictions against such acts were now uniformly enforced. Ibid. 190-1.
  Anderson and Zinsser write: "In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the excitement of study, of disputation and explication passed from the great monastic centers, whether female or male, to the exclusively male enclaves of the episcopal schools of bishops in their cathedral chapters. . . . A prerequisite to study became ordination, and by the thirteenth century this sacrament and the priesthood had been officially closed to women." Ibid. 191.
Dominican nuns were still allowed and even expected to study, but no longer the classical texts. Now they were to read books of moral instructions and some mystics that were prepared for them in the vernacular. Ibid., 200-1.
  Cited in: Eileen Power, Medieval English Nunneries (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1922), 344.
  See: Bonnie S. Anderson and Judith P. Zinsser, A History of Their Own, 203-4.
  Angela of Foligno, Complete Works, 318.
The story of the prophetess Huldah is recounted in 2 Ki 22 and 2 Ch 34:14-28. For St. Jerome's (c.347 - c.420) interpretation of Huldah's capabilities as "a secret reproof of the king, and priests, and all men" see his: "Dialogus contra Pelagiamos" II:22, in: St. Jerome: Dogmatic and Polemical Works, trans. John Hritzu (Washington, 1965), 660. (Cited in Angela of Foligno, Complete Works, 416, #189.
  Cf. ibid., 415 #186.
  Cf.: The epilogue to Angela of Foligno's Complete Works, 317-8.
  For a much more complete list of all the important church people who were inspired by the Blessed Angela see the section "Angela's Influence" in ibid., 109-17.
  Carole Slade's article is a good start in this direction. She points to the possibility of women's social oppression being reversed in the transcendental realm, i.e. to God's efforts to provide women with what is denied them by men.
See: "Alterity in Union: The Mystical Experience of Angela of Foligno and Margery Kempe", Religion and Literature 23 (Autumn 1991) 109-26.
  Sir Charles Bell, The Religion of Tibet, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, first published 1931, 1970 ed.), 69.
  See: David Snellgrove, Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, Vol.2, 515.
  Ibid., 514.
  Giuseppe Tucci, The Religions of Tibet, 40.
  Sir Charles Bell, The Religion of Tibet, 76-7.
  Paul Williams, Introduction - some random reflections on the study of Tibetan Madhyamaka, 3.
  my translation of: Peter Richardus, "Selected Tibetan Proverbs", in: The Tibet Journal, Vol.XIV, No.3, 1989, 70.
  See: Cyrus Stearns, The Genesis of the Gzhan-stong Position in Tibet, unpublished paper, University of Washington, 10-11. To be published in Asiatische Studien XLIX, (4, 1995).
  See: David Seyfort Ruegg, The Jonangpas, 75.
  His name presents an interesting parallel to Christians (among them Angela) who refer to God as the "sumum bonum".
  Lexikon der östlichen Weisheitslehren, s.v. "Samantabhadra".
  Ibid., s.v. "Kalachakra".
  David Seyfort Ruegg, The Jonangpas, 75.
  Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp lists masters on both sides. See: Tibetan Buddhist Epistemology, 13.
  in: David Seyfort Ruegg, The Jonangpas, 88.
  David Seyfort Ruegg, The Jonangpas, 75-6.
  Morioka Sato, "Die Madhyamaka-Philosophie der Sa skya pa- Schule - Red mda' ba gZon nu blo gros", in: Ernst Steinkellner and Helmut Tauscher, ed., Contributions on Tibetan and Buddhist Religion and Philosophy, 244.
This is not the place to analyze in how far rangtong- shentong distinctions coincide with prasanga-svatantra arguments, but I believe that Sato is not wholly unjustified in drawing this parallel.
  Cyrus Stearns, The Genesis of the gzhan- stong Position in Tibet, 9.
  Some scholars like Tucci, deduce from this Kashmir connection a possible Saivite influence on Shentong doctrine, without showing any other evidence. (The Religions of Tibet, 69) Yet Kashmir was a Buddhist stronghold from very early on and played an important role in the history of the Dharma for a millennium. It produced many great scholars and Sanskrit-Tibetan translators. After Buddhism was expelled from central Tibet under the reign of Langdarma (mid-eighth century), its places of refuge were the far West and East of Tibet. The West remained the Buddhist center of Tibet for a few centuries and its main source for Indian material was Kashmir. (David Snellgrove, Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, Vol.2, 505.) At Yumo Mikyo Dorje's time (the end of the 12th century) Muslim invaders had long since wiped out Buddhism in much of India, while it was breathing its last in Kashmir.
  According to Cyrus Stearns it also "arose" in Dolpopa's mind during a long meditation retreat. This does not mean that they invented it, but that they now realized and knew from experience what others had seen as well. The Genesis of the gzhan- stong Position in Tibet, 1.
  The Me long states that after Dolpopa had settled at the Jonang monastery and spread the Uma Shentong teachings "those who maintained this tradition received the name of Jo nan pas." (David Seyfort Ruegg, The Jonangpas, 80.)
  Majjhima Nikaya I.63
  Majjhima Nikaya, I.72,486-7, p. 165.
  N. Katz, Tibetan Hermeneutics and the Yana Controversy, 117.
  Gadjin M. Nagao, Madhyamika and Yogacara, 45.
  Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche, Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness, 75.
  'Gos Lotsawa Shonupal, The Blue Annals, transl. George N. Roerich, (Banarsidass: Motilal. 1979), 776.
  ibid., 776. Cyrus Stearns explained to me that in this case Dolpopa had been criticized for teaching too many subjects and texts at the same time. His response was to also add the Bodhicaryavatara.
  (sgom chen pho mo) Cyrus Stearns, The Genesis of Gzhan- stong Position in Tibet, 2, and no. 3.
  Depending on which source one follows, his disciple Kun- spangs-pa or Taranatha. See: ibid., 3-4.
  According to Stearns, he became lineage holder in 1325, but according to the Blue Annals, he did so in 1327. See: Cyrus Stearns, ibid., 5, and 'Gos Lotsawa, The Blue Annals, 776.
  Lha'i rgyal-mtshan, Gha-rung-ba, Kun mkhyen dol po pa'i rnam thar rgyas pa slar yang bsdus pa lha'i rgyal mtshan gyis bkod pa, The 'Dzam-thang Edition of the Collected Works of Kun-mkhyen Dol-po-pa Shes-rab rgyal-mtshan,(Delhi, Shedrup Books: 1992) f.22a., translated in: Cyrus Stearns, The Genesis of the Gzhan-stong Position in Tibet, 6.
  See: ibid., 11-12.
  'Gos Lotsawa Shonupal, The Blue Annals, 777.
  Sir Charles Bell, The Religion of Tibet, 68 and 76.
  For a detailed account of the history of the term see: Alex Naughton, "Buddhist Omniscience", The Eastern Buddhist XXIV, (No.1, spring 1991).
  S[henpen] K. Hookham, The Buddha Within, 341.
  Quoted in: Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp, Tibetan Buddhist Epistemology, 41.
  S[henpen] K. Hookham, The Buddha Within, 341.
  There are very rare examples of female lineage holders, like e.g. Machig Labdron. But Rita M. Gross points out that, as far as she knows, Yeshe Tsogyal (757-817), the consort of Padmasabhava, is the only woman who is depicted in lineage trees and supplicated in lineage prayers. See: Buddhism after Patriarchy, 253.
  See: 'Gos Lotsawa Shonupal, The Blue Annals, 776-7.
  in: David Seyfort Ruegg, The Jonangpas, 84 and 79. Could this hint at the fact that Buton did not accept Dolpopa's invitation to debate their views in public,(ibid., 76) preferring to criticize him in writing?
  Ibid., 88.
  See: Ibid., 88, 90, and 78 respectively.
  'Gos Lotsawa Shonupal, The Blue Annals, 777.
  Ibid. 777. This Nyingmapa, who studied "at the feet of famous teachers of his time, belonging to different religious and philosophical schools of Tibet" (Ibid., ii) is obviously sympathetic. Nonetheless I think that his judgements deserve some credence.
  Tib. sprul sku: body of transformation, i.e. the identified reincarnations of enlightened masters.
  The Blue Annals make it sound like only the more philosophical texts of the Jonangpas, not the Tantric translations and commentaries, were forbidden within the precincts of Gelug monasteries. (p.777) The Me long has this to say about the ban: "The other Jo nang pa monasteries... were equally changed into dGe lugs pa ones, and the majority of the xylographs of their scriptures were sequestered and sealed. Except that mention is made of a monastery in mDo khams Dsam thang . . . and of some monasteries which are its dependents, at the present time [1801] no foundation maintaining the Jo nang doctrine exists in dBus or gTsang." David Seyfort Ruegg, The Jonangpas, 82. From this account and other passages of the Me long we can gather that the Jonang lineage did survive in several places outside the central provinces of Tibet where the Gelugpas had far less influence. The ban was lifted in the nineteenth century.
  David Snellgrove, Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, Vol.2, 490 and 515.
  See: David Seyfort Ruegg, The Jonangpas, 77.
  It is interesting to note how in The Jonangpas Ruegg first characterizes them as "an extreme and somewhat isolated position" (p.73) but has to admit later that they were "one of the most renowned ... Tibetan schools". (p.75) The discrepancy between these two statements can perhaps be traced back to the discrepancy between what Ruegg's Gelug teachers told him (whom he deeply thanks in the first sentence) and what his scholarly research proved.
  Giuseppe Tucci, The Religions of Tibet, 69.
  'Gos Lotsawa Shonupal, The Blue Annals, 776.
  Ibid., 755.
  Ibid., 782.
  Tsong Kha Pa, Ocean of Eloquence: Tsong Kha Pa's Commentary on the Yogacara Doctrine of Mind, SUNY Series in Buddhist Studies, ed. Matthew Kapstein, intro. and trans., Gareth Sparham with Shotaro Iida, Albany: SUNY, 1993), 29.
David Seyfort Ruegg, The Jonangpas, 78.
  Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche, Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness, 87.
  S[henpen] K. Hookham, The Buddha Within, 27.
  Cf. Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp, Tibetan Buddhist Epistemology, 38. More on holding both views simultaneously in chapter IV.
  Ibid., 38.
  Ibid., 37.
  "Gnaden- und Offenbarungsviten", see: Peter Dinzelbacher, "Die 'Vita et Revelationes' der Wiener Begine Agnes Blannbekin (gest. 1315) im Rahmen der Viten- und Offenbarungsliteratur ihrer Zeit", in: Peter Dinzelbacher und Dieter R. Bauer, ed., Frauenmystik im Mittelalter, 169.
  Angela of Foligno, The Complete Works, 123.
  Ibid., 138 and 217.
  see: ibid., 207.
  Ludger Thier O.F.M. and Abele Calufetti O.F.M., Il libro della Beata Angela da Foligno: (Edizione critica), 2nd ed. (Grottaferrata, Rome: Editiones Collegii S. Bonaventurae ad Claras Aquas, 1985), 108-13.
  Cf.: Paul's second letter to the Corinthians, 11:14.
  Angela of Foligno, Complete Works, 131.
  St. Francis, The Complete Works, 122. This is a quote from the earlier rule for the monks. All the more it applies to the tertiaries. In a letter St. Francis writes: "And let all of us firmly realize that no one can be saved except through the holy words and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which the clergy pronounce, proclaim and minister. And they alone must administer [them], and not others." ibid., 69.
  Angela of Foligno, Complete Works, 267-8.
  Ludger Thier O.F.M. and Abele Calufetti O.F.M., Il Libro, 565, no.4.
  Angela of Foligno, Complete Works, 143.
  Ibid., 215.
  Ibid., 131.
  E.g. only three years after her death the Council of Vienne, France rules that it is heretical to profess the opinion that one can attain the beatific vision without intermediary while still alive (something Angela affirms many times).
  See ibid. 137-8.
  Paul Doncoeur, S.J., "Angèle de Foligno: Maitresse d'oraison" La Vie Spirituèlle: Ascetique et mystique 39 (no.175, Avril 1934), 49.
Les femmes vont au dela. Leur amour manque naturellement de mesure. C'est toujours un elan trop fort qui leur fait perdre la piste. Ainsi s'expliquent ces transports passionnes ou Dieu agit a l'origine, mais qui aboutissent a des etats non voulus par Lui.
  Cyrus Stearns' Ph.D. dissertation will soon provide us with the first English translation of one of Dolpopa's major works.
  Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche paraphrases Jamgon Kongtrul the Great: "In Kongtrul's Encyclopedia of Knowledge, he says that Rangtong is the view for when one is establishing certainty through listening, studying and reflecting. Shentong is the view for meditation practice." Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness, 87. see also: S[henpen] K. Hookham, The Buddha Within, 158-9, and Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp, Tibetan Buddhist Epistemology, 39-44.
  For a complete list see: The Collected Works (gsung 'bum) of Kun-mkhyen Dol-po-pa Shes-rab rGyal-mtshan, bKa' bsdu bzhi pa'i don gtan tsigs chen po, reproduced from the copies of prints from the rGyal rtse rdzong blocks preserved at the Kyi chu Monastery in the Paro Valley, Bhutan. (Paro, Bhutan/Delhi, Lama Ngodrup and Sherab Drimay, 1984).
  See: Paul Williams, Mahayana Buddhism, 103.
  See: Angela of Foligno, Complete Works, 298.
  Ibid., 195.
  See: ibid., 260-61.
  See: ibid., 294.
  Ibid., 308 and 13.
  See: ibid. 301.
  Cf.: ibid., 272., and 193: "All worldly enticement is illusory, for the world is full of illusion."
  Ibid. 247.
  See: ibid., 239.
  Ibid., 295. The council of Nicea (325) established the doctrine of the "two natures of Christ" which states that Jesus Christ was truly God and truly human.
  Ibid. 314. Throughout the Middle Ages it was a widespread practice of nuns to do penance for the world at large. Whole communities of nuns punished their own bodies with fasting, self-flagellation and all sorts of discomforts for the sins particularly of the Church and those who tried to subvert it with heresy. See: Jo Ann McNamara, The Rhetoric of Orthodoxy, 13 and 21.
  See: Angela of Foligno, Complete Works, 228.
  Ibid., 212.
  Ibid., 272.
  Ibid., 215-16.
  Ibid., 145.
  In ibid., 196 she links kenosis with the realization of her non-existence.
This is the only way I see fit to compare kenosis and emptiness: When mystics follow Christ's example and relinquish/renounce/divest themselves (Greek: kenosis) of themselves, they often come to realize emptiness. All other attempts by Masao Abe to get the two terms to converge, are in my opinion neither necessary nor helpful. (See his "Kenotic God and Dynamic Sunyata" in: John Cobb, Jr. and Christopher Ives, ed., The Emptying God: A Buddhist-Jewish- Christian Conversation, Faith Meets Faith Series, (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1990).) I agree with Steve Odin when he calls Abe's syncretism "a kenotic buddhology rather than a kenotic christology". "A Critique of the Kenosis/Sunyata Motif in Nishida and the Kyoto School" Buddhist-Christian Studies 9 (1989): 77.
  Angela of Foligno, Complete Works, 249.
  Cf.: Marguerite Porete, "Le Miroir des Simples Ame Aneanties" in: G. Epiney-Burgard and E. Zum Brunn, Femmes troubadour, 210 and 212.
  Angela of Foligno, Complete Works, 229.
  Ibid., 315.
  Ibid., 195. This is not a one time slip. She often repeats these kinds of statements. E.g. on p.223: "The soul then sees the One who is, and it sees that all else is nothing except insofar as it takes its being from him."
  These kinds of statements are not nearly as atypical for Christians as Buddhists might think. According to William Johnston even the great Thomas Aquinas held that "separated from God all things are nothing". All and Nothing, 127.
  Cf.: Angela of Foligno, Complete Works, 251-3.
  Ibid., 184 and 212, also see 205.
  Ibid., 202.
  Martin Buber, Ekstatische Konfessionen, 59-60. Another example is St. Terèse of Lisieux who, when already very close to God, "passed through a stage in which she felt she had lost all faith and had become an atheist." William Johnston, All and Nothing, 133.
  Angela of Foligno, Complete Works, 203.
  Marguerite Porete, "Le miroir des simples ames", chapters 13 and 118, Cited in ibid., 383, no. 120 and 125.
  ibid., 213.
  Gregory of Nyssa, "On Virginity", 46.360 C-D, in: Jean Danielou, S.J., selec. and intro., Herbert Musurillo, transl. and ed., From Glory to Glory, 104.
  Angela of Foligno, Complete Works, 244.
  In the seventh supplementary step Angela's love is made "non-love". Of Giles the following dialogue is transmitted: "An other time Brother Andreas said to him: 'You say that God took your faith from you in a vision; tell me if you like, whether you have hope.' He answered: 'He who does not have faith, how should he have hope?'" Martin Buber, Ekstatische Konfessionen, 59.
  See: S[henpen] K. Hookham, The Buddha Within, 138.
  Ibid., 138.
  David Seyfort Ruegg, The Jonangpas, 76.
  Ibid., 76.
  Paul M. Williams, Silence and Truth, 69.
(Is that more logical than Shentong thought?)
  Jikido Takasaki, A Study on the RGV, 272, 4, and 5.
  This translation by S[henpen] K. Hookham, The Buddha Within, 38, makes the point more clear than Jikido Takasaki's version: "The Essence [of the Buddha) is [by nature) devoid of the accidental [pollutions] which differ from it; but it is by no means devoid of the highest properties which are, essentially, indivisible from it." (his brackets) A Study on the RGV, 301.
  Ibid., 336.
  S[henpen] K. Hookham, The Buddha Within, 48.
  See: Ven. Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche, Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness, 76. Rinpoche goes on to explain that, in order to avoid being refuted by Prasangikas, it is often said that buddha qualities are "not something that even supreme wisdom (prajna) can take as its object". Yet, it seems to me that since "supreme wisdom" is by definition non-dual, it can obviously not take anything as its object. Thus this statement seems a little redundant and does not necessarily exclude the possibility of prajna recognizing the qualities as part of knowing its own nature.
  Non-conceptuality or, more literally "absence of elaboration" is also called nisprapanca in Sanskrit (Tib. spros bral). S[henpen] K. Hookham, The Buddha Within, 66.
  N.A. Sastri writes: "The later schools of Buddhism in Tibet and Mongolia which sprang from the Yogacara school have admitted the mind as the ultimate principle and viewed it as sunya with the implication of advaya, non-dual." in: "Sunyata and its Significance in Buddhism", Bulletin of Tibetology, XII (no. 2, 1975), 17.
  S[henpen] K. Hookham, The Buddha Within, 35.
  Michael Broido, The Jo-nang-pas on Madhyamaka, 89.
  See: Jikido Takasaki, A Study on the RGV, 188-194.
  Shentongpas back this view up with a quote from the Sandhinirmocana sutra III:3: "If one is not (essentially) free from the mark of compoundedness, one does not become free from the bondage of marks when seeing reality. Not being free from the bondage of marks, one is also not free from the bondage of inferior births. If one is not free from those two bondages, one does not succeed [ever] in seeing reality and attaining the nirvana of supreme bliss." Quoted in: S[henpen] K. Hookham, The Buddha Within, 44.
  Vimalakirti-nirdesa, quoted in: Stephen Beyer, The Buddhist Experience: Sources and Interpretations, 222.
  See "Mountain Dharma", 435, quoted in: S[henpen] K. Hookham, The Buddha Within, 140.
  He quotes it in his "Mountain Dharma", 187-188, and Hookham quotes him in ibid., 138.
  Ibid., 220.
   See: Jikido Takasaki, A Study on the RGV, 349-50.
The 64 qualities are called: the ten powers, the four forms of intrepidity, the eighteen exclusive properties and the thirty two marks of the universal monarch. Since Dolpopa does not limit the buddha dharmas (as the infinite qualities are called in the Srimaladevi sutra) to these qualities, it is not necessary to explain them here.
  S[henpen] K. Hookham, The Buddha Within, 221. Though the relevant section (RGV 1.4) lists this trinity as part of "The Eightfold Quality of the Buddhahood", Hookham may be right in singling it out as complete in itself.
  Lexikon der östlichen Weisheitslehren, s.v. "jnana".
  Chandra Das's Tibetan-English Dictionary renders ye shes as "the perfect absolute divine wisdom" and shes rab as "absolute or sublime wisdom, intelligence, or understanding."
  See: Ven. Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche, Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness, 75-6.
  The pure mind's ability to know and to illumine itself is called svasamvedanasvaprakasa (Skt.) or rang rig rang gsal (Tib.)
  Ibid., 77-8.
  S[henpen] K. Hookham, The Buddha Within, 33.
  Jikido Takasaki, A study on the RGV, 189.
  Ven. Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche, Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness, 76-7.
  S[henpen] K. Hookham lists the Mahasanghikas as "Hinayana"; which may be debated. But in any case they are a very early school right on the verge from Nikaya Buddhism to Mahayana. See: The Buddha Within, 43.
  Jikido Takasaki, A Study on the RGV, 364.
  Ibid., 369-70.
  Ibid., 158.
  Robert A.F. Thurman, "Tathagata-garbha" in: Encyclopedia of Religion, 354. For more on identity of tathagatagarbha and tathata see above n.184, p.92.
  Ratnagotravibhaga-vyakhya, quoted in: S[henpen] K. Hookham, The Budha Within, 52.
  David Seyfort Ruegg, The Jonangpas, 83, my emphasis.
  Rupam sunyata, sunyataiva rupam.
Translation in Edward Conze, Buddhist Wisdom Books (London: George Allan and Unwin, 1958), 81.
  See: S[henpen] K. Hookham, The Buddha Within, 36.
  "Mountain Dharma", 189.2, in: ibid., 139.
  Ibid. 36.
  David Seyfort Ruegg, The Jonangpas, 83, my emphasis.
  David Seyfort Ruegg, La Théorie, 357.
  Quoted in: Diana Mary Paul, The Buddhist Feminine Ideal, 64-5.
  Angela of Foligno, Complete Works, 170.
  Quoted in: Herbert V. Guenther, The Tantric View of Life, The Clear Light Series (Boulder: Shambhala Publications, 1976), 25.
  Angela of Foligno, Complete Works, 203.
  For Masao Abe's sake I will list a few, in the hope that future Christian-Buddhist dialogue will not depend on forcefully bending concepts that do not match. The most severe problem I see in Abe's work is that the verb "self- emptying" presupposes a subject (the preexisting logos) and an object (its divine nature). In order to make this verb match the Buddhist noun 'sunyata', which denotes the illusory nature of subject, object, and act, Abe demands nothing less than the elimination of the preexisting logos from Christian theology, on the grounds that it is "incompatible with critical rationality". (Kenotic God and Dynamic Sunyata, 13.) On the Buddhist side he attempts to gloss over the differences between emptiness and form by stressing their inseparability. But to be inseparable does not mean to be mixed into one indistinguishable soup. (Cf. Gendun Rinpoche's statement below, p. 246.)
  Angela of Foligno, Complete Works, 179.
  Intro. to Ibid., 37. It is a traditional expression that goes back to St. Jerome but is particularly prevalent in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.
  Angela of Foligno, Complete Works, 126-7.
Similarly John of the Cross advises: "desire to enter into complete nakedness, emptiness, and poverty in everything in the world." Ascent to Mount Carmel, 1.13.6, Collected Works, 149.
  Jay C. Rochelle, "Letting Go: Buddhist and Christian Models", The Eastern Buddhist XXII (No. 2 Autumn 1989): 47.
  Another term used by many Christians and worthy of being compared to emptiness, is "desert" as e.g. in Eckehart's "desert of the Godhead".
  Ludger Thier and Abele Calufetti, Il libro della Beata Angela da Foligno, 436-7 and: Angela of Foligno, Complete Works, 228.
  Ibid., 292.
  Herbert V. Guenther, The Tantric View of Life, 150, note 33.
  Ibid., 32, my emphasis. One of the sutras that calls buddha nature 'uncreated' is the _rimaladevi sutra: ". . . the Dharmakaya of the Tathagata is named 'cessation of suffering,' and it is beginningless, uncreate, unborn, undying, free from death; permanent, steadfast, calm, eternal;" The Lion's Roar of Queen _rimala, 98.
  See: Angela of Foligno, Complete Works, 212-3.
  Ibid., 215-6.
  Chih-i, The Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra, trans. Paul Swanson
  Ibid., 272, also see 217.
  Ibid., 215.
  Paraphrased in: Ileana Marcoulesco, Mystical Union, 243.
  Angela of Foligno, Complete Works, 294.
  St. Gregory of Nyssa, "Commentary on the Canticle", in: Jean Danielou, From Glory to Glory, 270.
  Angela of Foligno, Complete Works, 202.
  Cf.: "Alors cette Âme, devenue néant, a tout et pourtant n'a rien, elle veut tout et ne veut rien, elle sait tout et ne sait rien. . . . Cette Âme ne peut plus parler de Dieu, car elle est anéantie en tous ses desirs extérieurs et en ses sentiments interieurs ainsi qu'en toute affection de son esprit," Excerpt from her "Miroir des simples âmes" in: Femmes troubadours de Dieu, 202.
  As the Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa says, in response to Thomas Aquinas's doctrine of the divine characteristics being at least analogous to what humans can imagine: "the symbolic likenesses to God are altogether disproportional." Quoted in Jasper Hopkins, Nicholas of Cusa on Learned Ignorance: A Translation and an Appraisal of De Docta Ignorantia (Minneapolis: Arthur J. Banning Press, 1981), 3.
  Angela of Foligno, Complete Works, 203.
  St. John of the Cross, "The Dark Night" 1.9.6, in: Collected Works, 379.
  Ibid., 298.
  Luther's Works, Vol, 37: Word and Sacrament III, Helmut Lehmann, ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1961), 60.
  See: Angela of Foligno, Complete Works, instruction II, 228-9.
  Ibid., 195-6.
Similarly, Ueda Shizuteru summarizes Master Eckehart's teachings on unborn activity, saying that the latter "flows" out of the fullness of God's being (who is also nothing). Eckehart's formula is: the divine and the just man act without why or wherefore. See: "Freedom and Language in Meister Eckhart and Zen Buddhism", The Eastern Buddhist XXIV (no. 1 spring 1991): 65.
  "Lord, if there were no Tathagatagarbha, there would be neither aversion towards suffering nor longing, eagerness, and aspiration towards Nirvana." The Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala, 105.
  Mahayanasamgraha 10:35, paraphrased in Paul Williams, Mahayana Buddhism, 177.
  See: Angela of Foligno, Complete Works, 184.
  Ibid.: 275.
  Ibid., 282.
  Ibid., 184 and 186.
  Elvin W. Jones explains: "In the Buddhist systems, the distinctions and bases for making the distinctions between the two truths are so varied that it is impossible to generalize them beyond stating that the Buddhist systems always treat the two truths as a genuine dichotomy, which is to say that (1) all things admissible as existent are included in the two truths, and (2) the two truths are reciprocally exclusive." In: "Buddhist Theories of Existence", in: Minoru Kiyota, (edit.), Mahayana Buddhist Meditation: Theory and Practice, (The University of Hawaii Press: 1978), 23.
  This summary is partially based on Herbert V. Guenther's section "The Theoretical Content of Naropa's Training" in The Life and Teaching of Naropa: Translated from the Original Tibetan with a Philosophical Commentary based on the Oral Transmission (Boston: Shambhala Publications, 1986), 227-9. Guenther quotes at length from Gampopa's Collected Works.
  Christianity knows something like this in its teachings on the "two natures of Christ" who is said to be truly human and truly God. Only that in Buddhism everything is, so to say, "truly relative and truly absolute".
  Public teaching at Kagyu Droden Kunchab, San Francisco on 9/12/1995.
  Gendün Rinpoche, Wir haben vergessen, dass wir Buddhas sind, transl. from Tib. Yeshe Nyingpo, transl. into German Tashi Öser, (Mechernich: Kagyü-Dharma-Verlag, 1991) 117.
  Cited in: Gadjin Nagao, Madhyamika and Yogacara, 39. Cf. also: Mahatanhasankhaya sutta, Majjhima-Nikaya, Vol I, I.265, p.321.
  It is true that Buddhists have been tempted at times to force their views on others and that they had scriptures to condone such acts. E.g. Srimaladevi prays: "Lord, may I defeat in the manner of a royal decree those persons who have turned their backs on the Illustrious (Mahayana) Doctrine and who have the rotten seed of the heretics." The Lion's Roar of Queen _rimala, 110. But this attitude is always softened by the Buddha's words.
  Roger Corless suggests that even Nicholas of Cusa may have regarded scholasticism as a "stone of stumbling". (See: "Speaking of the Unspeakable: Negation as the Way in Nicholas of Cusa and Nagarjuna" Buddhist-Christian Studies 2 (1982): 115.) This was certainly more true for mystics like St. Francis.
  Ibid., 115.
  Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen, "Mountain Dharma" 374.1, paraphrased in S[henpen] K. Hookham, The Buddha Within, 63.
  In instruction XIV she excuses herself to her disciples, saying that the Uncreated has imposed silence upon her. Angela of Foligno, Complete Works, 268.
  See: Ibid., 304-5.
  Paul Lachance, Introduction to: ibid., 33.
  Some may argue that she does try to fasten her revela- tions to church dogma. But I would say that when she does edit her truths, always with the most active help of her confessor, she is very conscious that she is making "what is certain, uncertain, and what is black, white". It is an exercise in obedience not in truthfulness, and she laments many times how the result has so little to do with what God revealed to her that she does not even recognize it.
  Somebody like Angela, from a different religion, with different presuppositions, coming to similar conclusions as Dolpopa in my mind adds weight to his credibility.
  See: "mountain Dharma", 383, paraphrased in S[henpen] K. Hookham, The Buddha Within, 27.
  Shenpen Hookham, his student, echoes him when she says: "Before one can even begin to understand Shentong one has to understand that the nature of all apparent (samvrti) and absolute dharmas is self-emptiness". Ibid., 27.
  See: ibid., 87.
  Ruegg, David Seyfort, Buddha-nature, Mind and the Problem of Gradualism in a Comparative Perspective, my emphasis, 42-3.
  S[henpen] K. Hookham directly opposes such opinions. She stresses that in Tibet (and this is representative, I think, of the whole Buddhist world), compared to Uma Rangtong, Shentong is neither less orthodox nor a minority position. See: The Buddha Within, 17, 29 and 53.
  John C. Maraldo, The Hermeneutics of Practice in Dogen and Francis of Assisi, 42.

Source

www.google.com.au