Contemplation et bonheur

Le jeune prince Siddharta contemplant la nature bucolique
Le prince Siddharta (livre d'enfants, ill. Janet Brooke)

Traduction française de Contemplation and Happiness, Tom Pepper, sur son blog The Faithful Buddhist, Forcing the Truth of the Ideological Event.

***

Essentia beatitudinis in actu intellectus consistit.
Ultima hominis felicitas [est] in contemplatione veritatis. (Aquinas)

Le bonheur est fondamentalement un acte intellectuel. Nous ne pouvons pas nous épanouir pleinement en tant qu'êtres humains sans utiliser notre intellect, car c'est notre capacité à penser qui nous définit en tant qu'humains.

Malheureusement, la compréhension actuelle des termes "contemplation" et "bonheur", notamment lorsqu'ils sont associés, est source de nombreuses souffrances humaines. Ou, pour le dire peut-être mieux, c'est la mauvaise interprétation de ces concepts qui nous empêche de travailler à soulager la souffrance et qui, finalement, contribue à accroître la misère humaine.

Il peut sembler qu'il y ait des enjeux plus pressants dans le monde d’aujourd'hui que la quête du bonheur par la contemplation. On pourrait penser que cela pourrait attendre la résolution de la faim dans le monde, du réchauffement climatique, du racisme, et des guerres... La liste est longue. Ce que je veux souligner, cependant, c'est que la raison pour laquelle nous ne trouvons jamais d’issu à ces problèmes est que nous ne comprenons pas ce que veut dire "contempler", et que nous avons une conception erronée de ce qu’est le bonheur.

J'écris ceci principalement pour clarifier mes propres idées, et je m'appuierai sur un texte que je connais bien : "Bonheur et Contemplation" (Glück und Kontemplation) de Josef Pieper. J'aurais pu choisir parmi une multitude de textes plus récents sur la méditation, ou sur le culte actuel du bonheur, mais je crois que Pieper décrit avec justesse ce que la plupart d'entre nous, dans ce qu'il appelle le monde occidental, entendent par les deux termes de son titre, une compréhension qui prévaut depuis au moins deux siècles.

Josef Pieper, théologien thomiste allemand dont la vie a embrassé presque tout le XXe siècle, est aujourd'hui principalement reconnu pour sa thèse selon laquelle la création du loisir est le fondement de la civilisation, une position qui a sans doute façonné sa compréhension de la contemplation (et, je dirais, a influencé la compréhension générale du concept depuis l'avènement du capitalisme). Dans ce petit livre, Pieper retrace l'histoire des concepts de bonheur et de contemplation d'Aristote à Thomas d'Aquin jusqu'à nos jours. Il tente de défendre la position aristotélicienne, souvent décriée, selon laquelle la contemplation est le bien ultime de l'homme, et donc la source de notre forme la plus élevée de bonheur. Je pourrais adhérer à cette conclusion, mais uniquement si nous reconsidérions d'abord l'interprétation que Pieper (et la plupart d'entre nous) donne aux termes "contemplation" et "bonheur". Pour mieux comprendre, il serait sans doute judicieux d'examiner d'abord comment ces concepts ont évolué considérablement au fil du temps.

Les termes "theoria" et "noûs" d'Aristote sont traduits par Thomas d'Aquin comme "contemplatio" et "intellectus", et deviennent simplement "Kontemplation" dans l'allemand de Pieper et "Contemplation" en français (bien que Pieper substitue parfois "intuition" à "noûs").

La difficulté ici est que ce que nous entendons normalement par contemplation aujourd'hui n'est pas du tout ce qu'Aristote entendait par theoria. Je pense que Pieper fait un excellent travail en définissant la contemplation pour nous : "la contemplation a été caractérisée comme une connaissance accompagnée d'étonnement. Dans la contemplation, on voit un mirandum, c'est-à-dire une réalité qui suscite l'étonnement parce qu'elle dépasse notre compréhension, même si nous la voyons et en avons une intuition directe" (75). La contemplation, pour Pieper (et je dirais pour à peu près tout le monde dans le monde occidental moderne) ne peut se produire que lorsque l' "âme" est dans un état de “présence immédiate, d'aisance absolue et de parfaite sérénité”. Plus fondamentalement, la contemplation doit être "désintéressée... totalement détachée des fins utilitaires". C'est "une perception silencieuse de la réalité".

J'ai précédemment souligné que l'interprétation erronée de la "theoria" aristotélicienne est à l'origine de nombreuses lectures déroutantes, voire méprisantes, de l'Éthique à Nicomaque. Contrairement à l'interprétation dominante parmi les philosophes aristotéliciens contemporains, Aristote ne concevait pas la contemplation comme une activité passive, détachée avec ironie, et purement esthétique. Cette vision réductrice, considérée à tort comme la seule forme de pensée possible, ne correspond pas à la conception originale d'Aristote. Au contraire, theoria fait référence à la tentative de comprendre pleinement le fonctionnement des choses, y compris la considération critique de la forme de vie dans laquelle nous vivons et l'utilisation de notre capacité humaine de raisonnement pour choisir activement notre façon de vivre. Ce n'est pas un hasard si Aristote conclut l'Éthique à Nicomaque en affirmant que la theoria est la forme suprême du bonheur. Cette assertion sert de pont vers La Politique, invitant à une réflexion approfondie sur l'organisation optimale de la société humaine. Ainsi, Aristote établit un lien intime entre la quête individuelle du bonheur et l'élaboration d'un ordre social propice à l'épanouissement collectif. Il est crucial de distinguer la theoria aristotélicienne de l'esthétique romantique du détachement ironique. Cependant, notre sensibilité contemporaine, profondément imprégnée de romantisme, nous rend presque incapables d'envisager qu'à une autre époque, on ait pu concevoir la réflexion rigoureuse comme un chemin vers le bonheur. Cette difficulté à nous extraire de notre cadre de pensée actuel nous empêche souvent de saisir pleinement la portée de la conception aristotélicienne.

Pieper, suivant le modèle post-romantique standard de la pensée, suppose que l'objectif est d'éviter les limitations de la raison : "La validité de la pensée repose sur ce que nous percevons par intuition directe ; mais la nécessité de penser est due à un échec de l'intuition. La raison est une forme imparfaite de l'intellectus. La contemplation est donc l'intuition." De plus, il insiste sur le fait que la contemplation est "une connaissance accompagnée d'étonnement", et que "l'étonnement n'est possible que pour celui qui ne voit pas encore le tout". Le problème réside dans le fait que cette prétendue "intuition" n'émerge en réalité que lorsque nous sommes profondément imprégnés d'une idéologie, en particulier celle du système capitaliste. Dans ce cadre, il est crucial pour ce système que notre perception reste fragmentaire, nous empêchant ainsi de saisir pleinement l'ensemble des dynamiques en jeu. C'est-à-dire que le plaisir esthétique que nous tirons d'un beau poème ou d'un paysage dépend exactement de son obscurcissement réussi de certaines caractéristiques causales essentielles. L'impact émotionnel d'un grand poème réside précisément dans sa capacité à suspendre momentanément notre raisonnement habituel, nous invitant ainsi à percevoir différemment la réalité ("veritatis") dans laquelle nous évoluons. Cette pause dans notre mode de pensée ordinaire ouvre la voie à une compréhension plus intuitive et sensible de notre existence. Loin d'être une forme imparfaite d'intuition (noûs, intellectus), la raison joue un rôle crucial : elle nous permet de dissiper les voiles et de transcender les limites de notre intuition. Ces limitations intuitives, profondément ancrées, façonnent notre compréhension quotidienne du monde – une compréhension que nous qualifions souvent de "bon sens", mais qui est en réalité imprégnée d'idéologie. Ainsi, la raison devient l'outil indispensable pour déconstruire et dépasser cette vision du monde souvent trompeuse que nous impose notre intuition.

En fait, nous pouvons la considérer comme un mécanisme récurrent de limitation conceptuelle dans toute l'histoire du bouddhisme, qui a souvent œuvré à circonscrire le potentiel radical de la vision pénétrante de la coproduction conditionnée. Les livres bouddhistes populaires, les retraites et tous les enseignants bouddhistes les plus "en vogue" d'aujourd'hui nous enjoignent d'éviter la "pensée discursive" et de privilégier l'approche intuitive. On nous assure que ce n'est qu'une fois que nous serons allés "au-delà" du piège mortel de la raison que nous pourrons être véritablement heureux.

Et qu'est-ce alors que le bonheur ? Pour Pieper, comme pour les romantiques et pour la plupart d'entre nous aujourd'hui, c'est un état affectif. Nous sommes heureux lorsque nous trouvons satisfaction dans la simple jouissance de ce que nous possédons. Nous ne pouvons pas, suggère-t-il, être heureux en agissant dans le monde. Nous ne pouvons nous sentir heureux qu'en jouissant de la "possession" de quelque chose que nous désirons. Clairement, une notion très capitaliste de ce en quoi consiste le bonheur. Pour Aristote, eudaimonia n'est pas un état passif d'affect, mais une activité. Nous nous épanouissons dans le monde lorsque nous sommes capables de comprendre notre réalité, y compris notre condition d'animal humain, et de déployer pleinement nos vertus, c'est-à-dire nos capacités d'action. À la fin de l'Éthique à Nicomaque, Aristote nous assigne une tâche qu'il poursuit lui-même dans la Politique : mobiliser notre faculté de raisonnement pour nous libérer des pièges de l'intuition et ainsi accroître notre potentiel d'épanouissement.

J'ai toujours soutenu que cette exigence s'impose à nous dès lors que nous reconnaissons la vérité de l'anatman[1] et de la coproduction conditionnée. Contrairement à ce que préconise Pieper, nous ne pouvons pas "consentir au monde dans son ensemble", même "au cœur des larmes et des horreurs les plus extrêmes". C'est cette interprétation erronée de la pensée et du bonheur, de la theoria et de l'eudaimonia, qui nous a menés à la situation actuelle : une multitude d'individus accablés par divers "troubles", plongés dans la misère, et persuadés que leur seul recours est de fuir la réflexion, de se détourner de ce qu'ils considèrent comme de "simples questions politiques", et de choisir le repli devant les défis inhérents à l'existence. Paradoxalement, c'est précisément ce repli, notre incapacité à saisir la réalité de notre monde et à façonner activement notre existence, qui engendre la misère que nous cherchons vainement à soulager par le repli, l’ignorance et une passivité toujours plus prononcés.

En tant que sujet fidèle[2], le bouddhiste se doit de remettre en question, sinon de rejeter, l'approche intuitive, et d'employer sa faculté de raisonnement pour concevoir les moyens les plus efficaces de transformer notre monde. L'insistance de la plupart des bouddhistes occidentaux serait, bien sûr, que ce n'est pas une "pratique". La "pratique" bouddhiste doit prendre la forme de la contemplation détachée que Pieper décrit, et doit au moins promettre de conduire à des états de plaisir affectif, de "joie de la possession". Il est difficile aujourd'hui de convaincre quiconque que la pensée critique et l'effort actif dans le monde pourraient précisément être une forme de pratique, et que le "bonheur" tel que nous le comprenons généralement aujourd'hui est la cause de notre misère, et est l'ennemi de l'épanouissement humain.

Fin du blog

Les illustration avec leurs légendes, ainsi que les notes ont été ajoutées par moi.

"Alors qu'il était encore jeune, le Prince Siddhartha vit un oiseau emporter un ver
qui avait été déterré par la charrue d'un fermier. Cette vision le fit réfléchir à
la triste situation des créatures tuées par d'autres créatures pour se nourrir." (Buddhanet)

Prince Siddharta confronté à la mort (Les 4 rencontres, Baocheng)

***

[1] Taking Anatman Full Strength, by Tom Pepper

[2] Le “sujet fidèle” selon la Théorie du sujet d’Alain Badiou, appliqué au bouddhisme dans p.e. l’article “Naturalizing Buddhism Without Being Reductive” de Tom Pepper.

“The historical emergence of Buddhism, what we might in Badiou’s terms call the Buddha Event, occurred at a time when the stagnation of the social system was becoming particularly difficult to maintain. The existing World of the ruling class sought to fix the social system, by insisting on the existence of a pure divine language in which truth existed, and the repetition of formal ritual. The truth that appeared in the world was the rejection of the Brahmanical ideology, the recognition of the socially produced nature of social formations, the chance to break out of stagnation and open up new possibilities for the exercise of human productive and creative potential. Buddhism, in short, is an attempt to produce a new social practice that enables a subject capable of escaping the endless circle of the reproduction of the existing relations of production—a primarily agricultural form of production and a “sacrificial” form of distribution and exchange. The history of Buddhism ever since can be seen as a struggle between the reactionary, obscurantist, and faithful subject, the dialectic of radical forcing of truth and mystical or institutional strategies of containment.”

Ces deux articles cités ont été publiés dans la collection d’essais “The Faithful Buddhist” (2014) par Tom Pepper, disponible sur Amazon.

Autre blog inspiré par un article de Tom Pepper
Un non-soi constructif et constructible

Universal Jumpiness: Being and Existence

"Leap of faith" by Jon Marro, here in mirror image

The following is Jamgon Kongtrul (1813-1899) writing about Rangjung Dorje (1284–1339) the third Karmapa’s conception of the workings of the deluded mind.

“Deluded mind [citta] consists of the eight impure groups of consciousness.
The essence of that abides as the pure foundation [dag pa'i kun gzhi].
In order to indicate the suchness [nyid] of that, the term "mind itself'' [sems nyid] is used.
The All-knowing Rangjung held that
the eight groups are the five sense consciousnesses, the mental consciousness,
afflictive mind, and the foundation consciousness.
Since the "instantaneous mind" conditions all of those,
when counted together, there are also held to be nine groups.
The sutras mention many terms such as "appropriating consciousness [len pa'i rnam shes],"
"deluded mind" ['khrul pa'i sems], "cognitive obscuration" [shes bya'i sgrib pa] and "foundation consciousness."
Since it is taught that the intrinsic nature [ngang lugs] of the foundation is virtue,
it is essentially self-liberated buddha nature [rang grol bde gshegs snying].
It is not the foundation [gzhi] itself that is removed, but it abides as the foundation [gzhi ru gnas] of what is removed[1].”

First a reminder

"This mind [citta] is luminous monks, but it is defiled by adventitious defilements. The uninstructed worldling does not understand this as it really is ; therefore for him there is no mental development. This mind is luminous monks, and it is freed from adventitious defilements. The instructed noble disciple understands this as it really is ; therefore for him there is mental development." Aṅguttara Nikāya 1.49-52

When both are reified, “Deluded mind” can become like a non-virtuous spin-off of the “self-liberated buddha nature” [s. sugathagarbha]. The all-ground's intrinsic system (t. ngang lugs) is wholesome (s. kuśala) in itself, but can go awry from an awakened point of view. Like “being” appearing as “existence”, and “essence” taking itself as an object while ignoring it is doing so (“co-emergent ignorance”). This ignored dualism (subject-object) is believed to lead to a wrong (t. ma dag), or later “impure” (t. ma dag), interpretation of the input of the five senses and consciousness(es) thereof, and of the sixth consciousness processing the input. This initial wrong interpretation leads to afflictions (“afflictive mind”).

Buddhism initially had an instant-based approach (s. kṣaṇa) to reality[2]. Every citta is an instant, and every instant is a citta, and every citta created karma through ignorance and afflictions. In Rangjung Dorje's view that which links these cittas are "instantaneous cittas", a sort of gap cittas[3]. The karma[4] created by wholesome (s. kuśala) and unwholesome (s. akuśala) cittas is thought to constitute a “foundation consciousness” and mature (t. smin) waiting to be triggered and activated, and associated with future cittas through the influence of the “afflictive mind”.

But even within such defunct setup it is possible to purify negative karma and create positive karma, thus improving the opportunities to see through the wrong dualistic interpretation of reality and recognize its Buddha Essence. Without the “co-emergent ignorance” and the “afflicted cittas”, Buddha Essence would then technically allow for a wholesome, non-dualistic and nonconceptual “pure” “existence” mode (as near to “being” as is possible for human bodies), with a wholesome functioning of the senses, ideally a non-engaged mind, and thus without creating new karma. Other possible modes are Gnosis-driven (jñānena), or a “divine mode”, complete with a divine eye (t. lha’i mig) and other purely gnostic divine faculties and siddhis. To non-initiates it may still look like a human body from the outside. Should we call it human? Posthuman? Buddha Essence traditions seem to leave a choice between the path of a bodhisattva who dwells in saṃsāra (while being spiritually based in the bhūmis, Akaniṣṭha or Sukhāvatī etc.) and with extraordinary knowledge and powers (abhijñā), or the path a vidyādhara etc. dwelling beyond saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, and operating through emanations in divine mode.

On the path of the bodhisattva, nonconceptuality is said to be achieved through suspending conceptuality/duality by not engaging mind and not investing it in dualist options. On the path of the vidyādhara, and in particular one following the Guhyagarbha Tantra, nonconceptuality and nonduality are also incidentally achieved through plugging directly (t. rig pa) into the Ground (gzhi) after having duly prepared one’s body, speech and mind. 

The main difference between both approaches seems to be that the former is genuinely non-dualist, whereas the latter is monist. The former is a nonconceptuality that is both beyond conceptuality and the absence of it, whereas the latter accesses “something”, an ever present essence, that can be attained, realized, re-actualized or identified with. This realization is thought to be beyond nonconceptualisation and non-duality, which in fact have no more meaning and reason-to-be within its monism, apart from perhaps “removing” empty veils and thereby facilitating to discern and "realize" it. It’s another game altogether.

Sarma traditions seem to hesitate between these two approaches or combine them, whereas in the Nyingma approach, more specifically Dzogchen, monism seems to have absolute priority. It seems to me that in our 20th-21st century, Sarma traditions moved further towards a monist approach too. One Vehicle: Tantric (4-mudrā) Mahāmudrā, and visionary Dzogchen, one object of valid knowledge (s. prameya): Divine Logos, one Source: the single Dharmakāya Sphere (t. chos sku thig le nyag gcig) where Space and Gnosis/Discernment meet, one moment: the first moment where subject and object still coincide or are one, one Guru: the root guru, one faith: no doubt (t. yid gnyis med pa s. vimati, vicikitsā). And the one-pointed arrow will hit the primordial bull’s eye.

The first moment where subject and object are thought to coincide, and the world is still perfect (“die Ganzheit der Welt”, Schleiermacher), is the moment the target is hit spontaneously. First thought best thought, probably because it isn’t really a thought (s. vikalpa) yet. When we return to the discussion above about the role of the instantaneous citta or immediate mind (t. de ma thag pa’i yid s. samanantaramanas), in theory this citta precedes the bull’s eye. The first perfect moment (t. skad cig dang po).

“For the practitioner [nyams len pa], this means that just as soon as the instantaneous mind barely arises [langs pa tsam nyid las] from the foundation consciousness, without any extension of duration [rgyun mi mthud de yi steng du bzhag], you should place the attention directly upon it. This is called liberation in the first moment [skad cig dang por grol], or vanquished at first sight [‘bur ‘joms mgo thug[5]], in certain doctrinal terms. When the sixth mind consciousness and afflictive mind have just arisen [langs tsam nas], and are recognized [zin] through mindfulness [dran pas] and thus liberated in their own place [rang sar grol], it is called liberation in the second or third moment [skad cig gnyis pa gsum par grol]. However, since that discursive thought [rnam rtog, s. vikalpa] is the dynamic energy of mind [sems kyi rtsal], it is impossible for thoughts [rtog pa] of attachment and aversion not to arise. However, if you rely on mindful awareness [dran shes], discursive thoughts cannot accumulate karma. It is like pouring water into a vase with a hole in the bottom[6].”

This method doesn’t require Deity Practice and all it implies. Similar ideas about a first moment where Paradise is still whole, complete with Adam and Eve, before the Fall, can be found in other traditions, mostly theistic.

“But when finally afflictive mind has taken over, for an ordinary person without recourse to view, meditation, and action, habitual patterns imprinted on the foundation will accumulate. For that reason you should try not to fall under its power.” (Creation and Completion)

In The Making of Buddhist Modernism (2009), David L. McMahan explains how the German idealist Friedrich W. J. Schelling sees "the restoration of Paradise".

“Through “intellectual intuition,” the subject recognizes this activity, along with its own ultimate identity with objects. Restoring this lost identity between the self and the world is true happiness and overcomes the “fall”—the arising of opposition and differentiation out of the primordial unity of the spirit. All human beings are ultimately one, though on the empirical level they appear as many. The infinite absolute, however, is ineffable and beyond all distinctions (Schelling 1800 [1978]; Marx 1984).”

Another German idealist, Friedrich Schleiermacher, focuses on the “first moment” of purity.

“Schleiermacher understood religion as an intuition or feeling of the Infinite: “the immediate consciousness of the universal existence of all finite things, in and through the Infinite, and of all temporal things in and through the Eternal” (1988: 47[7]). This experience of “the Whole” [Ganzheit] or “God” does not occur through the intellect or reason but through a prereflective awareness that precedes the division between subject and object.” (McMahan 2009)

For Schleiermacher the pinnacle of religious experience and feeling (Gefühl) was a direct, intuitive awareness of the Infinite or the Universe.

"The intuition (Anschauung) and the feeling that the intuited (das Angeschaute) triggers are immediately connected in the first moment, the 'highest bloom of religion'. In this moment, the Universe reveals itself."[8]

This implies there is a “prereflective awareness” (or similar) before “mental engagement” (t. yid la byed pa s. manasikāra), that has access to a full “nonconceptual” experience of “the Universe”, “the Whole”, before it is “known” through subject-object. Is it possible to remain, to dwell or to abide continuously in “prereflective awareness” or in prereflective mode? Or, from the POV of a Buddhist instant-based approach, to successively jump on each “first moment” (Infinite) as soon as it emerges? And would this be worth its while?

The 8- or 9-consciousnesses theory also seems to want us to jump on each first undivided moment to avoid “deluded mind” in a sort of “awakened jumpiness” or “jumpy awakening”, and, with time, this could become a routine… One would automatically pick the "first moments". Once a routine, one merely needs to sit out the natural exhaustion of the residual karma of the Foundation consciousness and … Poof!

Plugging into the Infinite, the Divine, the Whole, Other Power etc., in the divine mode, would allow to wholly bypass mind, including prereflective awareness, moment jumping, and even ejaculating the sound Phaṭ to cut conceptuality[9] would be superfluous. We and all we are, we are not the solution, we are the problem, but from a Divine point of view, we are also that which allows the Divine to know itself as the Divine. Why would the Divine or Essence need to know itself one may wonder? It is said it is too full of itself and overflows (Ausfließen[10]), thus giving rise to existence, Universal jumpiness.

***

[1] From Sarah Harding, Creation and Completion, Essential Points of Tantric Meditation by Jamgon Kongtrul, Wisdom Publications, 2002, p. 51

rnam shes tshogs brgyad ma dag 'khrul sems yin//
de yi ngo bor dag pa'i kun gzhi gnas//
de la nyid sgras smras bstan phyir sems nyid bya//
sgo lnga'i rnam par shes dang drug pa'i yid//
nyon yid kun gzhi'i rnam shes bcas pa la//
tshogs brgyad zhes su rang byung kun mkhyen bzhed//
de ma thag yid de kun 'du byed phyir//
zur du mi 'dren tshogs dgur bzhed pa'ang yod//
mdo las len pa'i rnam shes gsungs pa dang*//
'khrul pa'i sems dang shes bya'i sgrib pa dang*//
kun gzhi'i rnam shes ming gi rnam grangs yin//
kun gzhi ngang lugs dge ba zhes gsungs phyir//
de yi ngo bo rang grol bde gshegs snying*//
bral bya'i gzhi min bral ba'i gzhi ru gnas//

[2] “Cittas which are resultant states of consciousness, vipāka, the effects of previous kamma.

Cittas which are causes for action (kamma) through body, speech, or mind. We may call these "causative cittas." A wholesome citta (kusala citta) will issue in wholesome action and an unwholesome one (akusala citta) in unwholesome action.

Cittas which are neither kamma nor its result. These are called kiriya cittas. They are kammically ineffective, being merely functional. Some kiriya cittas perform simple functions in the process of consciousness, others represent the actions and thoughts of arahants, who no longer generate fresh kamma.” The Abhidhamma in Practice by N.K.G. Mendis © 2006

[3] “When the sixth mind is counted together with the instantaneous mind, perceiving externally with the five senses, it is the object;”

[4] “when the afflictive mind functions with the instantaneous mind, directed inward, it leaves habitual patterns in the foundation.”

[5] Also seen as phrad 'joms, e.g. in Geshe Chakriwa’s instructions (lcags ri ba), one of Gampopa’s teachers. Gampopa mentions this in his rNam rtog don dam ngo sprod. See also Serlingpa’s song Blo sbyong rtog pa 'bur 'joms.

[6] Sarah Harding, Creation and Completion, Essential Points of Tantric Meditation by Jamgon Kongtrul, Wisdom Publications, 2002, p. 55

[7] Schleiermacher, Friedrich. On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers. Translated and edited by Richard Crouter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988

[8] Friedrich D. E. Schleiermacher, Über die Religion. Reden an die Gebildeten unter ihren Verächtern (1799)
“Die Anschauung und das Gefühl, das das Angeschaute auslöst, sind im ersten Moment unmittelbar miteinander verbunden, die „höchste Blüthe der Religion“. In diesem Augenblick offenbart sich das Universum.”

[9] “As for the view, Longchen Rabjam, the instruction is the three statements that strike the vital point. As a means of introducing the view, first, relax and release your mind without contriving. Wisdom has always been present from the very beginning, so rest in a state that is neither scattered, nor concentrated, without thoughts. When you do so, as a beginner it is impossible to avoid attachment to experience, so, while resting in this even state, at ease, suddenly let out a mind-shattering ‘phaṭ!’, in order to reveal naked and transparently clear awareness. To cut the chain of thoughts make the sound of 'phaṭ' fierce, forceful and abrupt. Emaho! Immediately you will experience awareness without reference point, nakedly clear dharmakāya, wisdom that is beyond the ordinary mind.” Annotation Commentary on the Special Teaching of the Wise and Glorious King, by Pema Kunzang Rangdrol

Dang po rang sems ma bcos par lhod de bzhag/ ye shes ye nas rang la yod pas/ mi spro mi bsdu rnam rtog med pa'i// ngang la mnyam par bzhag kyang las dang po pas nyams zhen las 'da' mi srid pas/ ngang la phyam gnas lhod de'i ngang*// rig pa zang thal rjen pa ngo sprod pa'i phyir/ thol byung blo rdeg phaT cig rgyab// rnam rtog gi rgyun thag bcad phyir phaT sgra drag la ngar thung e ma ho// de ma thag rig pa gtad so bral ba chos sku zang thal rjen pa sems las 'das pa'i ye shes ci yang ma yin had de ba// had de ba la zang thal le// skye 'gags sogs mtha' dang bral ba/ ye shes bsam brjod bral ba zang ma thal byung brjod du med pa de ni gzhi gnas rig pa chos sku'i rig pa ka dag spros bral gyi lta ba yin pas ngos zungs shig/ ye shes rang la gnas pa yin gzhan nas btsal du yod pa min pas/ ngo rang thog tu sprad pa ste gnad dang po'o//

[10] “You should know that God must act and pour Himself into the moment He finds you ready.” [Eckhart, German sermon 4, trans M.O’C. Walshe]
“There is a power in the soul which touches neither time nor flesh, flowing from the spirit, remaining in the spirit, altogether spiritual.” [Eckhart, German sermon 7, trans M.O’C. Walshe]

“So, when I am able to establish myself in nothing, and nothing in myself, uprooting and casting out what is in me, then I can pass into the naked being of God, which is the naked being of the Spirit.” [Eckhart, German sermon 7, trans M.O’C. Walshe]

All appearances are divine and luminous

Rongzom Chokyi Zangpo, detail, Rubin Museum of Art

In my series of blogs (both in French and in English) on “Luminosity” and other divine Light metaphors, I try to look at general characteristics that esoteric Buddhism, and more specifically Mahāyoga, the Guhyagarbha Tantra and Dzogchen may share with the theology of more overtly theistic traditions like Hermeticism, Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, etc. In the previous blog (Esoteric Buddhism as self-deification), the present one (All appearances are divine and luminous) and in blogs to come, I am trying to summarize some of my research on this theme.

The term Luminosity (s. prabhāsvaratā t. ‘od gsal), initially used as a metaphor[1], became an indispensable doctrinal element (“Sheer Luminosity”) in Mahāyāna and esoteric Buddhist theology, as I tried to convey through many examples in a long series of exploratory blogs (keywords Luminous, Light, Lumineux and Lumière). A key moment in the Luminous evolution was the introduction of a “Buddha Essence” (s. buddhadhātu) during the so called “Third Turning of the Wheel”. Sometimes there is said to have been a “Forth Turning”. That would certainly be in line with Luminosity taking on a definite divine turn. The coining of a Third Turning also corresponds to the time where Buddhist teachings were being classified in those having a “definitive meaning” (s. nītārtha t. nges don) and those having a “provisional meaning” (s. neyārtha t. drang don). The Buddha Essence theory was said to have a “definitive meaning”, no longer a “skilful means” (s. upāyakauśalya) or a “conditionally adopted position” (s. vyavasthā)[2], and so were the transmissions on the Vajra Body and Vajra Yoga, required to develop the Light vehicle.

Because of the idealist perspective of Luminosity/Divinity, the world of phenomena and facts is ultimately illusory or unreal, and exists only as “appearances” (s. ābhāsa t. snang ba), reflections or manifestations of a deeper, more fundamental reality. These can appear “pure” or “impure” from a divine point of view, and “correct” or “mistaken” from a conventional point of view, according to an individual’s spiritual and/or philosophical progress.

With time “Luminosity” and its numerous derivations have become more definite and absolute. It’s “inseparability” from a token emptiness (s. śūnyatā) kept/keeps it within the fuzzy frame of Mahāyāna Buddhist doctrine, but in all practical matters “Luminous” can be interpreted as “Divine”. Adepts of Luminosity even go as far to declare that emptiness can’t realize non-duality simultaneously (t. gcig car du), whereas “ (monist and divine) Luminosity” can.

This point was made repeatedly by teachers such as Rongzompa (11th)[3], Longchen Rabjam (14th), Ju Mipham[4] (19-20th) etc. The same teachers were also most explicit about the divine nature of appearance(s) (t. snang ba), or Luminosity (t. gsal ba, ‘od gsal). All three teachers commented on the Guhyagarbha tantra, The Secret Essence Tantra, “Reality Ascertained” (or “Definite Nature Just As It Is”). Ju Mipham explains that the “Essence” is the Buddha Essence with its primordially “enlightened body, speech, and mind”, the Trikāya. It is “secret”, concealed, because “due to the veils of temporary obscurations” it is not accessible to the non-initiated. All phenomena of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are inseparable with this primordially enlightened state[5].

The “phenomena of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa” are appearances (t. snang ba), and all appearances were/are established as divine by Rongzompa (11th) and others. Under the caveat that this work (“Gsang sngags rdo rje theg pa’i tshul las snang ba lhar bsgrub pa”), which only surfaced in the twentieth century in four different editions, had indeed been authored by Rongzompa.[6] The arguments found in this short work are very much in agreement with those exposed by Ju Mipham (19-20th) in his Luminous Essence Commentary on the Secret Essence Tantra (“Gsang ’grel phyogs bcu’i mun sel gyi spyi don ’od gsal snying po”). Rongzompa’s Establishing Appearances as Divine reads as very much as an apology or a defense.

“All phenomena are, in this way, primordially, fully, and completely enlightened. Phenomena appearing as various attributes are, therefore, indeed the maṇḍala of vajra body, speech, and mind. They are like the Buddhas of the three times, never transcending the essence of complete purity. Sentient beings and Buddhas are not differentiated in terms of their essence. Just like distinct causes and results appearing in a dream, they are nothing but perceptions of individual minds brought forth by the power of imputation.”

“Delusion is, by its own [Luminous] essence, completely pure and, hence, enlightened.[7]”

The Secret Essence, the divine maṇḍala of Vajra body, speech, and mind is also called the Ground (t. gzhi). This is the abiding reality/natural state of the Ground (t. gzhi’i gnas lugs), and all its appearances (t. gzhi snang) are “rigpa-dharmakāya” (t. rig pa chos kyi sku)[8].

“Remaining genuinely is the dharmakāya,
Accompanying awareness is the sambhogakāya,
And the non-duality of stillness and movement is the nirmāṇakāya.
This is what we call the “three-kāya rigpa[9].”

The conceptual mind doesn’t allow access to the divine maṇḍala of the Ground, and it can not perceive as such the divine appearances (t. lhar snang), pure appearances (t. dag snang), the appearances of the maṇḍala of the Ground (t. gzhi snang), which are the Ground’s own inherent appearances (t. rang snang), i.e. as epiphanies (or theophanies), but only in an adulterated (impure, t. ma dag) form, as objects of a dualist perception.

If appearances are not “seen” or rather not directly intuited (t. rig pa) as the “pure” or “divine” appearances of the Ground maṇḍala, then they turn into “impure” appearances, even if they were to be correctly perceived through valid cognition (s. pramāṇa). The latter Ju Mipham calls a “confined vision” (t. tshur mthong). Through this vision one may be seeing ordinary (impure) things without error (s. bhrānti)[10], perhaps even non-dualistically or without mental engagement, but without intuiting them as divine appearances, such as gods, mantras, maṇḍalas etc. According to the above mentioned Nyingma teachers, this is not seeing things “as they really are”, because appearances are divine… Confined vision does not allow for:

“[seeing] the appearance of as many buddha-fields as there are dust motes in the world in a single dust mote, performing activities of many eons in a single moment, displaying emanations while not departing from the unchanging basic space of phenomena, and knowing all objects of cognition in a single instant with a nonconceptual mind[11].” (Luminous Essence, p. 49)

Unless appearances are seen as divine, they are not seen as they really are. This turns into circular reasoning:

“Likewise, unless ordinary body, speech, and mind are understood to be divine, and revered [as divine], their [divine] qualities will not be seen. However, it is observed that [divine] qualities manifest wherever [body, speech, and mind] are understood and revered [as divine][12].” (Establishing Appearances as Divine, p. 98)

In order to see them as divine, one has to start viewing them as such through Deity Practice. "If you want to believe, pray; and you will believe." (Blaise Pascal, Pensées, section 418)

Here, we are however said to be in a different situation than Pascals solution. A preparation is required, and one sets off with conceptual means. Through “realizing the intrinsic nature by wisdom”, compassion and aspiration prayers (t. smon lam), one gets as ready as one can in order to receive the required grace and accomplishment (s. siddhi), allowing for direct, non sensorial, non conceptual access, Light on Light, through a channel of Light.

“[Some individuals with pure vision] will say, “Dear friends, these appearances of ordinary bodies and enjoyments commonly perceived by us human beings are, in fact, the divine maṇḍala as perceived by pure individuals. If an individual who has free access to the field of pure experience grants us accomplishment, then, even to us human beings, those objects will appear as divinities and we will experience them as such. It is just like when, from time to time in the past, some of us human beings gained accomplishment and thereby achieved the divine field of experience.[13]” (Establishing Appearances as Divine, p. 101-102)

“[T]he appearances to ordinary [perception] are shown to be a delusion, or deluded perceptions, while the appearances of divinities are not delusion, or are appearances free from delusion. This should be realized with certainty.[14]” (Establishing Appearances as Divine, p. 104)

The same appearances are seen by the pure as divine and by the impure as ordinary or worse, through their habitual patterns (s. vāsanā). These patterns are the objects of purification in Deity Practice.

“As long as there appear completely pure bodies and fields of experience, as well as completely impure bodies and fields of experience, then, since all that is differentiated with reference to location and time are appearances of a single moment of the all-ground consciousness, [the achievement of pure appearance] is not in any way an achievement of primordial properties. Just as, for example, the characteristics of space are not established within space. This is also an unmistaken proof.[15]” (Establishing Appearances as Divine, p. 108)

The single moment argument is a more important point IMO, when leaving aside the distinction between pure divine and impure bodies and fields. No reference to space and time, nor BTW to all-ground consciousness… “The characteristics of space are not established within space”. Then how can the divine qualities of Buddha Essence be established in Buddha Essence? As for all-ground consciousness, for Rongzompa, there is no distinction between the eight collections of consciousness, from a non-deluded level. More on that another time.

***

[1]"This mind is luminous monks, but it is defiled by adventitious defilements. The uninstructed worldling does not understand this as it really is ; therefore for him there is no mental development. This mind is luminous monks, and it is freed from adventitious defilements. The instructed noble disciple understands this as it really is ; therefore for him there is mental development." Aṅguttara Nikāya 1.49-52

[2] See Buddhist Philosophy of Language in India, Jñānaśrīmitra on Exclusion, Lawrence J. McCrea and Parimal G. Patil, Columbia University Press, New York, 2010, p. 26

[3] Heidi I. Koppl, Establishing Appearances as Divine, Rongzom Chokyi Zangpo on Reasoning, Madhyamaka, and Purity, 2013, Snow Lion

[4] Jamgon Mipham, Luminous Essence: A Guide to the Guhyagarbha Tantra, Dharmachakra Translation Committee, Snow Lion, 2009

[5] Luminous Essence (2009), p. 6. The innate Trikāya and their respective associated contemplative experiences:
dharmakāya - non-conceptuality (t. mi rtog)
saṃbhogakāya - luminosity, clarity (t. gsal ba)
nirmāṇakāya - bliss (t. bde ba), as the meeting of non-conceptuality and luminosity

[6] Establishing Appearances as Divine (2013), p. 109

[7] Establishing Appearances as Divine (2013), p. 96

[8] Vajra Verses on the Natural State revealed by Rigdzin Jigme Lingpa

gzhi yi gnas lugs spros dang bral:
gzhi snang rig pa chos kyi sku:

[9] gnyug mar gnas pa chos kyi sku:
shes bzhin 'char ba longs spyod rdzogs:
gnas 'gyu gnyis med sprul pa'i sku:
sku gsum rig pa de la zer:

[10] “Liberation is merely the end of error” (Mahāyānasūtralaṅkara IX, 3)

[11] rdul gcig gi khyon la rdul snyed kyi zhing snang ba/ dus skad cig la bskal pa mang po'i mdzad pa ston pa/ chos dbyings 'gyur med las ma g.yos bzhin du sprul pa'i rol pa ston pa/ rnam rtog dang bral ba'i [96] thugs kyis shes bya thams cad dus gcig tu mkhyen pa sogs/ bsam gyis mi khyab pa'i spyod yul gang zhig tha mal pa'i tshur mthong gi yul du 'gal ba lta bur snang ste bsgrub par mi nus pa rnams p96-97

[12] tha mal pa'i lus dang ngag dang yid kyang lhar ma shes shing ma bkur na/ yon tan mi dmigs te/ shes shing bkur bas gzhi de nyid las yon tan dmigs pa'i phyir ro//

[13] kha cig gis yongs su dag pa'i gang zag rnams kyis lha'i dkyil 'khor du mthong ba dang /gsang sngags kyi tshul las lha'i dkyil 'khor nyid yin par ston pa'ang thos te/ de las la la ni tha mal pa'i lus dang longs spyod du snang ba ni dngos po'i mtshan nyid de/ lhar mthong ba ni kun brtags pa la sogs par 'dod pa la/ kha cig ni tha mal pa'i lus dang longs spyod ni snang ba _ma dag pa yin pas/ gang zag dag pa rnams kyis mthong ba dang*/_gsang sngags kyi tshul las grags pa bzhin du/ lha nyid dngos po rnams kyi mtshan nyid yin par 'dod pa las/ des smras pa/

grogs po dag bdag cag lta bu mi rnams la mthun par snang ba'i tha mal pa'i lus dang longs spyod yul du snang ba 'di ni/ gang zag dag pa rnams kyis mthong ba bzhin du lha'i dkyil 'khor nyid yin te/ dag pa'i spyod yul la spyod par dbang ba rnams kyis dngos grub byin na mi rnams la yang spyod yul 'di dag lha nyid du snang zhing longs spyod du yod pa'i phyir bdag cag lta bu'i mi las sngon cad par dbang ba rnams kyis dngos grub byin na lha'i spyod yul la longs spyod du yod pa'o/

[14] de bas na khyab pa nges pa'i gtan tshigs 'di nyid kyis tha mal par snang ba ni snang ba 'khrul ba'o// 'khrul ba'i snang ba'o// lha ni snang ba ma 'khrul ba'o// ma 'khrul pa'i snang ba'o// zhes nges par rtogs par bya'o//

[15] mdor bsdus te bsgrub par bya na ji srid du yongs su dag pa dang ma dag pa'i lus dang spyod yul du snang ba yul dang dus la sogs pa rnam pas rab tu phye ba thams cad ni kun gzhi rnam par shes pa'i skad cig ma gcig gi snang ba yin pa'i phyir gdod ma thob par bya ba'i chos ni gang yang med de/ dper na nam mkha' la nam mkha'i mtshan nyid sgrub tu med pa bzhin no// zhes bya ba 'di yang skyon med par grub pa yin no//

Esoteric Buddhism as self-deification

Nicolas Poussin (1594–1665), A Dance to the Music of Time (detail) (c 1634-6)

Mahāyāna Buddhism now generally accepts that because of Buddha Essence (buddhadhātu), all sentient beings are potential Buddhas, and through the “purification” of that Essence they can become Buddhas themselves or have access to a Buddha’s realization. In Mahāyāna, Buddhas are not human beings, although they are thought to be able to manifest in a human body, follow the career of a future Buddha, become a full blown Buddha and “pass into nirvāṇa”, in order to reveal and show the path to Buddhahood.

“The basis of purification is the eternal, noncomposite realm of reality [dharmadhātu] that fully permeates all beings as the buddha nature [sugatagarbha][1].”

Although the heart is often seen as the seat of the Essence (t. khams s. dhātu), dharmadhātu permeates the entire body. Compare with Logos (divine energy) permeating the entire body through the soul in e.g. Hermetism and Gnosticism. Esoteric Buddhism (vajrayāna, Dzogchen, etc.) teaches that Buddha Essence abides in the human body as a divine body (t. lha’i sku) or Vajra Body. The Mahāyāna Trikāya theory[2] allows for that possibility.

“The basis of purification, which is this very buddha nature, abides as the body with its clear and complete vajra signs and marks. A similar form is used as the path and leads to the fruition of purification: that very divine form that existed as the basis[3].”

The “purification” of the Buddha Essence, the dharmadhātu and their “innate” divine body can be seen as a “self-deification” process from a human point of view. This “self-deification” takes place in two main stages called Generation/Creation Stage and Completion/Perfection Stage, hence the title of Jamgon Kongtrul’s text and the English translation : Creation and Completion.

The Buddha Essence and its innate “pure” divine form is what we “really” are, the “impure” human form we inhabit is temporary and due to impure perception. As long as we don’t recognize and realize our true Essence, we will continue to inhabit “impure” forms and live in an illusion.

Compare with e.g. Gnostic writings such as The Apocalypse of Peter and what Elaine Pagels (The Gnostic Gospels, 1990, Penguin Books) writes about light as a vehicle and about becoming “spiritually alive”.

“Peter, deep in trance, saw Christ, who explained that "I am the intellectual spirit, filled with radiant light[4]."

“Through this vision, Peter learns to face suffering. Initially, he feared that he and the Lord "would die"; now he understands that only the body, "the fleshly counterpart," the "substitute," can die. The Lord explains that the "primal part," the intelligent spirit, is released to join "the perfect light with my holy spirit[5]." (Elaine Page 1990, p. 108)

In the different parts of the Creation Stage (t. bskyed rim), self-deifiers and candidates for full future Buddhahood imagine themselves already as Deities, and purify their current human existence and previous existence, whilst reappearing as the Deity and identifying with it, instead of continuing to identify with their impure human form. The identification with the divine form requires working with the subtle energies of the psychophysical body, through visualizations, haṭhayoga (t. rtsa rlung thig le), yantras, Mudrā practice, etc., simultaneously purifying the human form and letting emerge the divine form, that is already there in essence, and that will serve as a light vehicle before and after the death of the impure human body[6].

When seen as they really are, all appearances are no longer ordinary and impure, but pure and divine, because of “The Secret Essence, Definite Nature Just As It Is[7]” (dPal gsang ba’i snying po de kho na nyid nges pa). This is not presented as a “skilful method”, but as a definite (t. nges pa) method that cuts through illusion so that the divine essence can freely flow. Once illusion/darkness is removed the Divine Light shines forth unimpededly. Full Buddhahood is not different from this, according to esoteric Buddhism, and more specifically in Dzogchen as taught by teachers like Rongzompa (11th), Longchen Rabjam (14th), Ju Mipham (19-20th) etc. To them it actually is the only path to become a perfect Buddha, and Madhyamaka’s emptiness (or anatta, the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path) won't get you there, at least not all the way.

It seems difficult to use the Divine as the highest reality and authority, and also present it as a skillful method or technique (Buddhism), but it does seem one can “skillfully” use Buddhism to lead non-theists to the Perfect Light...

“Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Añjanā, in the province of Gayā, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist.” (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.3.24[8] also see “Purport”)

There is nothing wrong with the divine objectives and methods of esoteric Buddhism or of Dzogchen[9], if they were clearly presented as such, including and especially to a Western audience of newly converted Buddhists, but unfortunately most often they are not, hence the many “misconceptions” and “misunderstandings” in Buddhism, and almost as many books and articles on how Buddhism is misunderstood. The reality of esoteric Buddhism does not hold up against the common understanding of what “Buddhism” is about, and in particular the notion of “skilful means” (upāyakauśalya). Doctrines and methods qualified as “definitive meaning” (t. nges don s. nitārtha) changed that. Unless “definitive meaning” is considered as having a similar function as movies announced as based on “real events”...

“Tibetan Buddhist spiritual practice centers around the deities in its devotional rituals and meditation techniques. It may be disconcerting for those who have heard that Buddhism is a "nontheistic" religion to discover an elaborate system of worship with a pantheon of goddesses and gods. It is for this reason that some other Buddhist schools have considered the Buddhism in Tibet to be corrupt or untrue to its original form. However, these deity practices are deeply rooted in the very foundations of Buddhist thought and represent an exceptionally skillful use of technique to evoke realization of those ideas on the deepest levels.” (Creation and Completion, 2002)

A distinction must be made between gods and rebirth in saṃsāric heaven(s), to which mainstream Buddhism has the same attitude, and supermundane deities (yidams, herukas, etc.) and Buddhas.

“[Misconception n° 10]. All spiritual traditions, Buddhism included, are different paths to the same mountaintop. Many great Buddhist figures, from the Japanese Zen master Dogen to the current Dalai Lama, state unequivocally that enlightenment is accessible only to those who follow the Buddhist path. One can get only so far (generally, rebirth in heaven) by following other religions; only Buddhism has the path to liberation from suffering. All roads may lead to the base camp, but only Buddhism leads to the summit.” (Ten misconceptions about Buddhism, Robert E. Buswell Jr. and Donald S. Lopez Jr., November 19, 2013)

Icarus and Daedalus (1799), Charles Paul Landon

“Only Buddhism has the path to liberation from suffering”, the proof remains in the pudding. Besides, Tibetan Buddhism and Dzogchen are quite clear about the summit and that not all Buddhism leads there. Nirvāṇa, the end of suffering (t. mya ngan las 'das pa), is not the mountaintop for Mahāyāna and esoteric Buddhism. A teacher like Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche (1933-2023) is quite outspoken about deities not being a skillful means, but supermundane beings, including Dharmapalas. Some Dharmapalas, e.g. Six-armed Māhakāla, are yidams. In an interview with Thrangu Rinpoche published in Creation and Completion.

“Devas can be gods of the desire realm, gods of the form realm, or gods of the formless realm. They are mundane, samsaric beings. The other type of being, referred to as lha or deva or deity, is supermundane, beyond the world. These are beings who have such wisdom, and especially such stable bodhichitta, such commitment to the welfare of others and to benefiting the teachings, that they are entirely unlike a mundane being. Dharmapalas can be thought of as beings who are completely and utterly committed to the welfare of others and therefore are very active in accomplishing their welfare. You could say that dharmapalas are included within the class of things that we call "devas," just as some awakened people are included within the class of what we call "humans." But not all humans are awakened, and not all devas are dharmapalas. There are all different sorts of people. Some people are wonderful and some are horrific. It is the same way with devas. There are wonderful devas, horrific devas, and everything in between. Dharmapalas are a kind of wonderful deva.“ (Creation and Completion, 2002)

All qualities and activities are already present on the level of Buddha Essence and need a perfected divine form or vehicle to join with the Perfect Light and/or become fully operational. Without deification (saṃbhogakāya) these supramundane activities for the sake of mundane beings would be impossible.

***

[1] Sarah Harding, Creation and Completion, Essential Points of Tantric Meditation by Jamgon Kongtrul, Wisdom Publications, 2002, p. 8. The quote is from Jamgon Kongtrul’s Lam zhugs kyi gang zag las dang po pa la phan pa'i bskyed rdzogs kyi gnad bsdus:

sbyang gzhi chos dbyings rtag brtan 'dus ma byas//
bde gshegs snying pos gro kun yongs la khyab//

[2] The earliest source for a dharmakāya and rūpakāya as prototype for the three kāyas is generally considered to be the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra (Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Verses), composed around the 1st century BCE. The Trikāya theory is explicitly taught in the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra, the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, the Lotus Sūtra, etc.

[3] Sarah Harding (2002), p. 10. Quote from bsKyed rdzogs gnad bsdus :

de yang sbyang gzhi bde gshegs snying po nyid//
rdo rje mtshan dpe gsal rdzogs skur bzhugs pas//
de dang 'dra ba 'i rnam pa lam byed kyis//
sbyangs 'bras gzhi la yod pa 'i lha sku nyid//

[4] “Gnostic accounts often mention how the recipients respond to Christ's presence with intense emotions—terror, awe, distress, and joy.

Yet these gnostic writers do not dismiss visions as fantasies or hallucinations. They respect—even revere—such experiences, through which spiritual intuition discloses insight into the nature of reality. One gnostic teacher, whose Treatise on Resurrection, a letter to Rheginos, his student, was found at Nag Hammadi, says: "Do not suppose that resurrection is an apparition [phantasia; literally, "fantasy"]. It is not an apparition; rather it is something real. Instead," he continues, "one ought to maintain that the world is an apparition, rather than resurrection." Like a Buddhist master, Rheginos' teacher, himself anonymous, goes on to explain that ordinary human existence is spiritual death. But the resurrection is the moment of enlightenment: "It is . . . the revealing of what truly exists . . . and a migration (metabole—change, transition) into newness." Whoever grasps this becomes spiritually alive. This means, he declares, that you can be "resurrected from the dead" right now: "Are you—the real you—mere corruption? . . . Why do you not examine your own self, and see that you have arisen?" A third text from Nag Hammadi, the Gospel of Philip, expresses the same view, ridiculing ignorant Christians who take the resurrection literally. "Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error." Instead they must "receive the resurrection while they live." The author says ironically that in one sense, then, of course "it is necessary to rise 'in this flesh,' since everything exists in it!” Elaine Pagels, 1990.

[5] Apocalypse of Peter, 83.12-15, in NHL 344

[6] For further reference on Self-deification in a different context and with a different meaning I add below a footnote (103) of M. David Litwa’s Desiring Divinity, Self-deification in Early Jewish and Christian Mythmaking, Oxford University Press Inc, 2016, .

“Neoplatonists believed that our souls, though immaterial, needed a physical, luminous vehicle. See further E. R. Dodds, Proclus: The Elements of Theology (Oxford: Clarendon, 1963), 313–21; H. J. Blumenthal, “Soul Vehicles in Simplicius,” in Platonism and Late Antiquity, eds. Stephen Gersh and Charles Kannengiesser (South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992), 173–88; John Dillon, “Plotinus and the Vehicle of the Soul,” in Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World: Essays in Honour of John D. Turner, eds. Kevin Corrigan and Tuomas Rasimus, NHMS 82 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 485–96.”

[7] Title of the English translation of the Guhyagarbha Tantra followed by the Commentary by Longchen Rabjam entitled Thorough Dispelling of Darkness throughout the Ten Directions, translated by Lama Chonam and Sangye Khandro of the Light of Berotsana Translation Group under the guidance of Khen Rinpoche Namdrol, Snow Lion Publications 2011.

[8] tataḥ kalau sampravṛtte
sammohāya sura-dviṣām
buddho nāmnāñjana-sutaḥ
kīkaṭeṣu bhaviṣyati

[9] E.g. this video by Mingyur Rinpoche (What is Dzogchen) to get an idea.

“[Father Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche] said, "Are you meditating?"
I said, "Yes."
He said, "Oh, actually there's nothing to meditate on. The view is fake, the meditation is fake.”
“Wow!” My mind became like "huh." It was a great introduction of Dzogchen for me, really cutting through concepts. That was really beneficial for me. So this is the Dzogchen style of cutting through the conceptual mind.”

"Trekchö" means "cutting through" — cutting through concept, or our ordinary conceptual box, or what we sometimes call a "prison."

After this introduction (khregs gcod), the student is ready for the real work, self-deification (thod bgal).