The Buddha's question that Saccaka could not refuse to answer

Buddha performing a miracle before ascetics, converting them. Kushan period, 2ndC-3rdC, British Museum
On the Buddha's left, Vajrapāṇi/Heracles, the "Gandhara Zeus"[1] 

In the Āryasatyaka-parivarta (see previous blog A Buddhist view on warfare?), Satyavādin (“truth-speaking”[2]), a non-Buddhist nirgranthaputra, comes with many other nirgranthas to the kingdom of King Caṇḍrapradyota. Satyavādin teaches Dharma the king and his retinue. The Āryasatyaka-parivarta/Ārya-Bodhisattva-gocara-upāyaviṣaya-vikurvaṇa-nirdeśa Sūtra is a Mahāyāna sūtra and a development (“sutrafication”) from a small part of earlier Pāli suttas[3]. Technically, in the Mahāyāna sūtra it’s Satyavādin who gives the advice to the king (rājavṛta/rgyal po'i tshul, a minor topic in Pāli sutta MN 35). Some extracts from The Range of the Bodhisattva: A Mahāyāna Sūtra. Trans. Lozang Jamspal. New York: American Institute of Buddhist Studies, 2011, ISBN 978-1935011071

“ Satyavādin considers how a ruler who becomes wicked should correct himself. A righteous ruler should protect beings by not burning or ruining their surroundings; a righteous ruler should protect local deities; how these deities may cause crop failures, etc., if there are wicked people such as householders who are disrespectful to elders, or who do not share with their families and workers, or who disrespect monks, priests, and others due homage. He states again that a ruler should not kill, cut off limbs, or destroy the sense organs of wicked people, but rather should tie them up or imprison them so that they may become good. Satyavādin also comments upon how a ruler should oversee stockpiles of food; the nature of taxes and who should pay them; and the ten perfect aspects of royal virtue and their characteristics.

Satyavādin then describes the ways in which a righteous ruler should deal with war: the ways of preventing it by settling disputes skillfully; the ruler's aims if war is unavoidable; the ways to conduct a war; and the ways that heedfulness and compassion can mitigate the retribution one would suffer from inflicting suffering and death upon others. He enumerates the righteous ruler's eight correct conceptions of his people and the results of righteous rule-proper rainfall, good harvests, lack of famine, etc. Finally, six verses summarize the most important attitudes and the most important aspects of conduct of a righteous ruler.”

Satyavādin lists all the faults he finds with kings and princes, whose names he mentions. The king asks him if he knows Gautama, and Satyavādin answers by describing all the virtues of the Buddha. The king then asked to come and visit the Buddha with him, and Satyavādin accepted and turned out to be a high rank bodhisattva who was actually already a Buddha, and the Buddha prophesied his future Buddhaship in the Mahāyāna sūtra.  

But in the Pāli Cūḷasaccaka sutta (The Shorter Discourse With Saccaka), Saccaka is a proud debater who wants to take on the Buddha[4]. He provokes, insults (he insuates the Budhha is "fat",  "the revered Gotama is both developed as to body and developed as to mind”) and taunts the Buddha by claiming that the five aggregates (kandhas[5]) are the self, whereas the Buddha claims they are not the self. The Buddha answers by comparing the power of a king over his territory and Saccaka's alledged power over his aggregates:

“Well then, Aggivessana, I will question you in return about this matter. You may answer me as you please. What do you think about this, Aggivessana? Would a noble anointed king, such as King Pasenadi of Kosala or such as King Ajātasattu of Magadha, the son of the lady of Videhā, have power in his own territory to put to death one deserving to be put to death, to plunder one deserving to be plundered, to banish one deserving to be banished?”

“Good Gotama, a noble anointed king, such as King Pasenadi of Kosala or such as King Ajātasattu of Magadha, the son of the lady of Videhā, would have power in his own territory to put to death one deserving to be put to death, to plunder one deserving to be plundered, to banish one deserving to be banished. Why, good Gotama, even among these companies and groups, namely of the Vajjis and Mallas, there exists the power in their own territories to put to death one deserving to be put to death, to plunder one deserving to be plundered, to banish one deserving to be banished. How much more then, a noble anointed king, such as King Pasenadi of Kosala or such as King Ajātasattu of Magadha, the son of the lady of Videhā? He would have the power, good Gotama, and he deserves to have the power.”

“What do you think about this, Aggivessana? When you speak thus: ‘Material shape is my self,’ have you power over this material shape of yours (and can say), ‘Let my material shape be thus”, ‘Let my material shape be not thus’?” When this had been said, Saccaka, the son of Jains, became silent.”

Just like the kings have power (life and death) over their subjects in their territory, does Saccaka have power over his aggregates? The Buddha asks a second time and Saccaka remains silent. Then he asks a third time (making him an offer he couldn't refuse...)

“Then the Lord spoke thus to Saccaka, the son of Jains: “Answer now, Aggivessana, now is not the time for you to become silent. Whoever, Aggivessana, on being asked a legitimate question up to the third time by the Tathāgata does not answer, verily his skull splits into seven pieces.”

And Saccaka concedes, “This is not so, good Gotama.” But was it under the threat by the Buddha, repeated by a “Thunderbolt-bearer yakkha” (Vajrapāṇi) that suddenly appeared on the scene, only to be seen by the Buddha and Saccaka[6]? 

Another question is whether this was just a “Thunderbolt-bearer yakkha”, or the seed of what was to become yakkha/yakṣa Vajrapāṇi, who later became the general of the yakṣa armies, the guardian of the Tantric scriptures and even Vajradhara (“the Gāndhāra Zeus”) …

This discussion actually already took place (in 2010) on Buddha-L, among Dan Lusthaus, Lance Cousins and others, and I am standing on the shoulders of giants.  

***

[1] Comment below the photo explaining the scene.

"Panel showing the Buddha performing a miracle before ascetics. Kushan period, 2ndC-3rdC. Schist, H. 29,5 cm. (complete, here: partial view). « On the Buddha's left, Vajrapāṇi, with long, bearded face, modelled planes of musculature, genitals, a long draped overgarment from his left shoulder passing across the legs, holds a faceted vajra with rounded ends in his left hand and raises a fly-whisk like a torch in the right. » (Museum Collection on line) : This is a detail of a frieze regarding the conversion of three brothers to Buddhism. It is cropped to focus on the Buddha flanked by a figure of his guardian, Vajrapāṇi. [1] In this image, Vajrapani is depicted in a more classically Grecian style than the surrounding figures, indicative of his cross-cultural status. Vajrapani is usually syncretized with Hercules,[2] but is also sometimes syncretized with Zeus. [3] (This particular piece could be understood either way) In one hand Vajrapani carries a vajra (usually syncretized with Zeus' lightening and/or Hercules' sacred club) and in the other he brandishes a chamara, which is a fly-wisk symbolic of the sovereignty of the Buddha. [4] References "On the Buddha's left, Vajrapāṇi, with long, bearded face, modelled planes of musculature, genitals, a long draped overgarment from his left shoulder passing across the legs, holds a faceted vajra with rounded ends in his left hand and raises a fly-whisk like a torch in the right." Panel #1961,0218.1. British Museum.[1] "Heracles became Vajrapani, guardian of Sakyamuni. There is a wealth of material and studies on the subject... to explain how Heracles went from being a purely classical Greek figure to being a guardian god in the Buddhist pantheon." HSING, I-TIEN, and WILLIAM G. CROWELL. “Heracles in the East: The Diffusion and Transformation of His Image in the Arts of Central Asia, India, and Medieval China.” Asia Major, vol. 18, no. 2, 2005, pp. 103–154. JSTOR, [www.jstor.org/stable/41649907] "In the art of Gandhara Zeus became the inseparable companion of the Buddha as Vajrapani." in Freedom, Progress, and Society, by K. Satchidananda Murty p.97 The Handbook of Tibetan Buddhist Symbols p.177"

[2] “The name has been deliberately altered. The usual Sanskrit form of Saccaka's name (e.g. in the Dīrghāgama) is Sātyaki. And, incidentally, -putra in this kind of context doesn't mean 'son'; it means something like 'community member'. So a nigaṇṭhaputta is a 'member of the Jain monastic community' “ Lance Cousins in a message posted on Buddha-L

[3] Majjhima Nikaya suttas 35 and 36, the The Shorter Discourse With Saccaka (Cūḷasaccaka sutta 35) and The Greater Discourse to Saccaka (Mahāsaccakasutta 36).

[4] “Now at that time at least five hundred Licchavis were gathered together in the conference hall on some business or other. Then Saccaka, the son of Jains, approached those Licchavis; having approached, he spoke thus to those Licchavis: “Let the good Licchavis come forward, let the good Licchavis come forward. Today there will be conversation between me and the recluse Gotama. If the recluse Gotama takes up his stand against me, as one of his well-known disciples, the monk Assaji, has taken up his stand against me, even as a powerful man, having taken hold of the fleece of a long-fleeced ram, might tug it towards him, might tug it backwards, might tug it forwards and backwards, even so will I, speech by speech, tug the recluse Gotama forwards, tug him backwards, tug him forwards and backwards. And even as a powerful distiller of spirituous liquor, having sunk his crate for spirituous liquor in a deep pool of water, taking it by a corner would tug it forwards, would tug it backwards, would tug it forwards and backwards, even so will I, speech by speech, tug the recluse Gotama forwards, tug him backwards, tug him forwards and backwards. And even as a powerful drunkard of abandoned life, having taken hold of a hair-sieve at the corner, would shake it upwards, would shake it downwards, would toss it about, even so will I, speech by speech, shake the recluse Gotama upwards, shake him downwards, toss him about. And even as a full-grown elephant, sixty years old, having plunged into a deep tank, plays at the game called the ‘merry washing,’ even so, methinks, will I play the game of ‘merry washing’ with the recluse Gotama. Let the good Licchavis come forward, let the good Licchavis come forward; today there will be conversation between me and the recluse Gotama.” Translation by I.B. Horner

[5] i.e. material shape, feeling, perception, habitual tendencies, and consciousness.

[6] “Now at that time the yakkha Thunderbolt-bearer, taking his iron thunderbolt which was aglow, ablaze, on fire, came to stand above the ground over Saccaka, the son of Jains, and said: “If this Saccaka, the son of Jains, does not answer when he is asked a legitimate question up to the third time by the Lord, verily I will make his skull split into seven pieces.” And only the Lord saw this yakkha Thunderbolt-bearer, and (Ed: ‘above’ rather than ‘and’) Saccaka, the son of Jains.

Then Saccaka, the son of Jains, afraid, agitated, his hair standing on end, seeking protection with the Lord, seeking shelter with the Lord, seeking refuge with the Lord, spoke thus to the Lord: “Let the revered Gotama ask me, I will answer.”

“What do you think about this, Aggivessana? When you speak thus: ‘Material shape is my self,’ have you power over this material shape of yours (and can say), ‘Let my material shape be thus”, ‘Let my material shape be not thus’?”

“This is not so, good Gotama.”

A Buddhist view on warfare?

Prince Siddhattha is shown travelling (WMS Burmese 22, nr: L0026534)

"[The Āryasatyaka-parivarta] offers sophisticated practical thought on violence, arguing that compassionate internal governance and benevolent international relations enhance political security and prosperity. The goodwill, trust, and economic well being of international neighbors are vital political assets. Just as domestic poverty leads to violence and moral degeneration domestically, international insecurity and exploitation are seeds of violent conflict. Exploitive international relations create conditions of hostility that engender the arising of dangerous enemies and undermine support from potential allies. Exploitive internal governance undermines the economy and creates a culture of tax evasion, rather than generosity. Rapacious greed ultimately diminishes the treasury. Failure to exhaust all other possibilities, such as negotiation, intimidation and bribes, leads to unnecessary warfare, which is generally regarded in Indian political ethics as a dangerous mistake entailing great risk even for a superior military force."

"When warfare is conducted, casualties should be avoided, particularly enemy casualties; destruction of infrastructure and the natural environment should be minimized; and prisoners should be treated with humanity. Before dismissing such concerns as politically naïve, we might consider, with some shock and awe, how ignoring each of these has been an enormously costly mistake for the victor in recent wars."

"Along with protecting his people and attempting to capture his enemies alive, the third chief concern of a Buddhist king going to war should be to win. Rather than arguing that political pragmatism must yield to ascetic ideals of compassionate pacifism, the scripture maintains that a measured and principled use of violence, governed by compassionate intentions, enhances security and serves the purposes of acquiring and retaining power, while maintaining moral integrity. Just as in personal ethics, where Buddhist texts argue that compassion is selfinterested, the sūtra claims that compassionate state policy is ultimately self-beneficial and rejects the idea that absolutizing national or personal interest is actually in the national or personal interest."

Extracts from The Range of the Bodhisattva: A Mahāyāna Sūtra Reviewed by Stephen L. Jenkins  The reviewed book: The Range of the Bodhisattva: A Mahāyāna Sūtra. Trans. Lozang Jamspal. New York: American Institute of Buddhist Studies, 2011, ISBN 978-1935011071

"Although the [Āryasatyaka-parivarta] allows for war, it does so only under special conditions and with special restrictions on its conduct. In a graded series of skillful means, a king must first try to befriend, then to help, and then to intimidate his potential enemy before resorting to war. This set of four stratagems diverges from an ancient and pervasive set only by substituting 'intimidation' for 'fomenting dissension.' "

"Should attempts to succeed without armed conflict fail, the king is then instructed in how to assemble and deploy the various divisions of an army. He is to go to war with three intentions: to care for life, to win, and to capture the enemy alive."

"The concern to care for life in the sūtra also includes the well-being of all innocents, including animals and the spirits that dwell in trees and water. In contrast to most Hindu dharmaśāstras, the sūtra forbids burning homes or cities, destroying reservoirs or orchards, or confiscating the harvest. This condition is extended to what might be called infrastructure in general, i.e., “all things well developed and constructed.”

Extracts from Making Merit through Warfare and Torture According to the Ārya-Bodhisattva-gocara-upāyaviṣaya-vikurvaṇa-nirdeśa Sūtra by Stephen Jenkins, published in Jerryson, Michael and Mark Juergensmeyer. Buddhist Warfare. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Interesting discussions on "Buddha Nature" and "Luminosity"

Venerable Dhammadipa (Thomas Peter Gutman)

I recently discovered a series of discussions with the Venerable Dhammadipa on the Tsadra Foundation Media Channel. I had the pleasure of meeting Thomas as he was called then in India in 1980. I was a monk then, traveling with other monks in India and staying most of the time at the monastery of Kalu Rinpoche I in Sonada. We received a series of private teachings by Kalu rinpoche I in his room (translated by Jerry), and Thomas was there as well. We were already impressed by his friendliness and knowledge and so was Kalu Rinpoche I, who, half jokingly half seriously, called him a “mahāpaṇḍita”. We met Thomas again later, while traveling through India, in Nālandā where he stayed at a local Chinese temple. I am happy to read how well he fared from there, how he became a very “complete” Buddhist, having studied and practiced many different forms of Buddhism, and how he conveys his knowledge with great simplicity.

I transcribed (and slightly edited) two short discussions (Boulder, CO, 30 January 2019) between the Venerable Dhammadipa and members of the Tsadra team, Marcus Perman and others.

1. “On the Roots of Tathāgatagarbha and His Position on the Concept”

The Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra you may know is a kind of a base for the whole of the Yogācāra tradition. In the Yogācāra tradition we have two traditions, one is based on the ālaya[-vijñāna], the other is based on what you may call the supermundane consciousness. The supermundane consciousness links us to the Buddha Nature, as you call it, and in Chinese tradition there is a very important text which I have translated into Czech and which is attributed to Aśvaghoṣa, The Awakening of faith in Mahāyāna. It is a very interesting text for this Tathāgatagarbha tradition, and in China it is like the most widely studied text especially in the Zen tradition. You may say that Zen tradition is also a Tathāgatagarbha tradition, and most of the Chinese tradition is also connected to the idea of Tathāgatagarbha. In it, you may find roots for Madhyamaka and for Yogācāra, but you will hardly find anything on the Tathāgatagarbha tradition, that's for sure. So Chinese Buddhists may not find any difficulty in accepting Tathāgatagarbha, but you will find it difficult to convince Theravada Buddhists that this teaching is to be traced back to the Buddha himself.

Marcus: Is that because it's not found in the Nikāyas?

You don't find any clear indication of that in the Nikāyas, maybe only in the Vinaya. There is a famous story that Buddha, after his enlightenment, sees all the beings as lotus flowers deeply merged in the mud. This story exists in the Vinaya and may be also the root for this tradition. What else are these lotus flowers than the Tathāgatagarbha?

Marcus: Do you find Tathāgatagarbha an interesting idea?

Well if as taught in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, if you consider it to be skillful means [upāya], then no one should have any problem with that, but if you consider it to be like the definitive truth of Buddhism as the, say substance, then I will have difficulty with that.

Marcus: Because it contradicts the teachings on emptiness or could you explain that a little more?

Well if you study Buddhism, you are not likely to accept the idea of any essence whatsoever. Finally it is the same in Madhyamaka and Yogācāra. However you explain, the basic idea of Buddhism is essencelessness (niḥsvabhāvatā). Learning buddhism is learning essencelessness. Essencelessness is selflessness. Normally, however you explain Buddhism, the principal idea of all its genuine traditions is selflessness. Where you find selflessness, there is buddhism. If you talk about a Self, then it is suspicious. But you can of course explain, like in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, that it is a skillful means. Then we have no problem with that. Because the Indian tradition of the Upaniṣads and so on is definitely concerned with the searching for the Self. In Buddhism, even in Dhammapada [Chapter 12], you find verses such as that the meaning of Buddhism is searching for the true self, it is there.

“The self is a master of the self
Where else would you find the self?[1]”

These are famous verses from the Dhammapada. You can explain it in this way. There is a very important sūtra for the Yogācāra tradition, called the great Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra. It also teaches permanence, happiness, Self and purity, the exact opposites… But it does not teach Tathāgatagarbha directly.

Marcus : That teaching you would accept as, I don't want to get absurdly technical, but do you accept that text as one of the texts that teaches…

It is a very important text for the Yogācāra tradition. The main disciple of Xuanzang, Kuījī, advises all to read the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra and the Great Nirvāṇasūtra. These are the two sūtras which are to be studied especially for understanding Yogācāra.

Marcus: Those two seem to have some links with, or at least in, other traditions. They point to those sūtras as being sources for Tathāgatagarbha teachings.

Indirectly yes, but not directly, not directly.


2. "On the Nature of Mind in Yogachara"

Marcus: When they talk about the nature of mind, there is often this word that comes up, luminosity [prabhāsvaratā], or there is sometimes the attempt to describe that nature.

As you know, the Yogācārabhūmi-śastra does not talk much about it, and the Prajñāpāramitā-śastras do not talk about luminosity. They talk about the original purity of the mind. They also have original enlightenment. The understanding of original enlightenment is the beginning of the practice. But they don’t speak about luminosity.

Marcus: How do they describe mind in that sense, or the nature of mind?

Simply as empty, emptiness. The light is just a skilful means for understanding the ungraspable [brtag tu med pa, arūpi?[2]]. But ungraspable is the truth, not the light. If you take the light as a truth, then you have something you can hold on to. But this is not the teaching of the Prajñāpāramitā, which is the basis of the whole of Mahāyāna. Without Prajñāpāramitā, there is no Mahāyāna. Prajñāpāramitā is the mother of Mahāyāna. So if you're holding on to the light, you are in a way rejecting the teachings of the Prajñāpāramitā.

[Discussion about luminosity not being an ideal translation. Clarity is suggested as another translation]

Clarity is alright.

[Discussion between Tsadra members
-It’s not like light emanating, it’s not radiation or luminosity or anything. That word in English, luminosity, being used, has gotten very confusing.
-But the key is that there is a basis at all which is upsetting to Madhyamika right? You can’t attribute anything to the nature of mind.
-There is a sense that you could cognize something, which is the clarity.]

Actually, the main idea of these sūtras and śastras and of the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra is that its practice is the practice of praśrabdhi[3] [shin tu sbyangs pa]. Praśrabdhi is the opposite of duṣṭatā [skyon chags pa], which means grossness. You find this also in Theravada suttas, it’s a very genuine tradition. Meditation practice, vipaśyanā-samatā is a practice of praśrabdhi, which you may translate as clarity and relaxation. It is the opposite of grossness. According to the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra, strictly speaking, you can not practice śamatha and vipaśyanā unless you have attained the state of clarity and relaxation. But they don’t mention any light/luminosity, no.

Marcus: Do they say anything beyond “Don’t describe it”? The question would be how do Buddha qualities, or how does the Buddha manifest, if the nature of mind and the dharmakāya is just nothing at all?

Actually, this is explained very clearly as the suchness [tathatā] of emptiness and non-emptiness. This is explained specifically in the Awakening of faith in Mahāyāna. If you explain emptiness, it is not complete. If you explain non-emptiness it’s not complete. The two aspects have to be explained. Emptiness and non-emptiness. The aspect of emptiness is non separated from the infinite virtues of suchness. This is a teaching of the Diamond Sūtra and so on. Suchness has these infinite virtues, not an individual. This is very important to understand.

Question: What is non-emptiness in Sanskrit?

It is in Chinese, so it is called bukong (不空). In sanskrit aśūnya.

Marcus: So it’s not that each being has Buddha-nature, it’s that everything is suchness anyway, and suchness has immeasurable qualities?

In the Buddhist translation, suchness has a mundane/worldly and a supramundane aspect. The worldly aspects are e.g. the solidity of earth, the perception of the senses, etc. In Pāli it’s called sadisa, which means “similar to this”. It's a very significant word to trace suchness in Pāli traditions. Sadisa or sadṛśa [in Sanskrit] means “similar to that”. Similar to what? Similar to ultimate reality. The solidity of earth, the fluidity of water, the heat of fire are “similar to that”. This is where Mahāyāna philosophy finds traces in the āgamas. You have suchness in the relative sense and in the ultimate sense. These two aspects of suchness represent the whole of reality.

In the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra, as long as you're not enlightened, you only know the differentiated and non-differentiated images in the mind. When you become enlightened you know the worldly reality which is called yāvadbhāvika[jñāna] (ji snyed pa mkhyen pa’i ye shes), as far as one can go. This includes the five aggregates (skandha), the twelve ayatanas, the eighteen dhātus, dependent origination. This is as far as one can go in the world. Then there is the yathāvadbhāvika[jñāna] (ji lta ba mkhyen pa’i ye shes), the aspect of suchness of this, which is on one side saṃsāric and on the other the ultimate. Rather than saṃsāric we call it relative. Some say the relative has a worldly aspect and the ultimate aspect. This is how you can bring all these things together[4].

Marcus: the two truths basically. That’s really interesting to me.

In Yogācāra, the most important is the third aspect, parikalpita, in which we live, because we don’t understand the nature of dependent origination. This is pure Yogācāra.

Marcus: The three natures (trisvabhāva, or three defining characteristics lakṣaṇa). Do these appear in other texts as a three natures set? In The Awakening of faith in Mahāyāna etc.?

You will find it everywhere in the Yogācāra scriptures. We are all subjected to parikalpita. This is our saṃsāra. Through removing the parikalpita from the paratantra, one attains the pariṇiṣpanna, ultimate reality. This is also the basis for meditation. Finally śamatha is the most important. In the Sandinirmochana sūtra, śamatha is defined as the state without object… the mind.

French language blogs on the ambiguous (non-allegorical) use of light and luminosity from a more mainstream Buddhist point of view:

La lumière est-elle la même en Inde qu'en Chine ? 22/10/2014
Petite genèse des lumières de la Lumière 25/11/2014
Théorie orientale de l’illumination 26/11/2014
Illumination et perception 30/11/2014
Illumination au sens propre 02/12/2014
Le monde imaginal 05/12/2014
Naturellement lumineux 09/12/2016
Esoterisme, illuminisme et mysticisme 14/11/2018
De la pensée lumineuse à la Claire Lumière 09/01/2020

***

[1] Dhammapada, Attavaggo 12. The Chapter about the Self, translated by Ānandajoti Bhikkhu (2nd edition, November 2017). E.g.

160 Attā hi attano nātho, ko hi nātho paro siyā?
Attanā va sudantena nāthaṁ labhati dullabhaṁ.

For the self is the friend of self, for what other friend would there be?
When the self is well-trained, one finds a friend that is hard to find.

380 Attā hi attano nātho, attā hi attano gati,
tasmā saṁyamayattānaṁ assaṁ bhadraṁ va vāṇijo.

Self is the protector of self, self is the refuge of self,
therefore one should restrain oneself, as a merchant his noble horse.

[2] A term found in the Ratnagotravibhāga/Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra and thus in Tathāgatagarbha theory, but perhaps Bhante has another term and theory in mind?

[3] Fifth among the branches or limbs of awakening (Skt. bodhyaṅga)

[4] See Apple, James. (2018). Khu lo tsā ba's Treatise: Distinguishing the Svātantrika/*Prāsaṅgika Difference in Early Twelfth Century Tibet.

“Section (6) covers the result of practice (nyams su blang ba’i ’bras bu) [15.3 – 16.10] and again makes a distinction between how Autonomists [15.3–15.5] and Consequentialists [15.5–16.9] have different understandings of what constitutes buddhahood. For the Consequentialists all appearances are ignorance, buddhas do not have ignorance and therefore do not have appearances. The state called “Buddha” is the pacification of all elaborations and the cessation of all mind and mental factors. The understanding of buddhahood being without conceptuality and inconceivable is found in the works of Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti and is strongly advocated throughout the works of Atiśa and his early Kadampa followers. The form bodies of a buddha appear to sentient beings like a wishfulfilling jewel or tree that manifests based on sentient beings own conceptual thought together with the condition of the buddha’s previous aspirations and virtues accumulated as a bodhisattva in previous lifetimes. This leads the author to state an unusual position in Mahāyāna Buddhist thought and buddhology, attributed to Atiśa that,

As wisdom is the cessation of differentiaton and objects of knowledge are not at all [16.8] established, the wisdom which does not conceptualize anything at all exists as the pristine wisdom which cognizes reality just-as-it-is and the pristine wisdom which cognizes reality to its utmost extent along with its appearances does not exist. 

The pristine wisdom which cognizes reality just-as-it-is, yathāvadbhāvikajñāna (ji lta ba mkhyen pa’i ye shes), and the pristine wisdom which cognizes reality to its utmost extent, yāvadbhāvikajñāna (ji snyed pa mkhyen pa’i ye shes), as far as known in current scholarship, are considered to be two forms of wisdom that a buddha possesses simultaneously. The currently known exegesis of these two types of wisdom is based on Yogācāra sources. Our manuscript therefore provides a previously unknown Madhyamaka exegesis on these two pristine wisdoms of a buddha.”

Strong young men wanted (disturbing quotes)

“First of all, our young men must be strong. Religion will come afterwards. Be strong, my young friends; that is my advice to you. You will be nearer to Heaven through football than through the study of the Gita. These are bold words; but I have to say them, for I love you. I know where the shoe pinches. I have gained a little experience. You will understand the Gita better with your biceps, your muscles, a little stronger. You will understand the mighty genius and the mighty strength of Krishna better with a little of strong blood in you. You will understand the Upanishads better and the glory of the Atman when your body stands firm upon your feet, and you feel yourselves as men.” Swami Vivekananda (1863–1902), Vedanta in its Application to Indian Life

How Swami Vivekananda helped popularise yoga in the West, Indian Express

“And the more I read the Upanishads, my friends, my countrymen, the more I weep for you, for therein is the great practical application. Strength, strength for us. What we need is strength, who will give us strength? There are thousands to weaken us, and of stories we have had enough. Every one of our Puranas, if you press it, gives out stories enough to fill three-fourths of the libraries of the world. Everything that can weaken us as a race we have had for the last thousand years. It seems as if during that period the national life had this one end in view, viz how to make us weaker and weaker till we have become real earthworms, crawling at the feet of every one who dares to put his foot on us. Therefore, my friends, as one of your blood, as one that lives and dies with you, let me tell you that we want strength, strength, and every time strength.” Swami Vivekananda (1863–1902), Vedanta in its Application to Indian Life

Some passages from Prof Dorothy M. Figueira’s The Afterlives of the Bhagavad Gītā (2023), Oxford University Press. Many anecdotes about Heinrich Himmler (1900–1945) come from his doctor/massage therapist Felix Kersten[1].

“[...] According to Kersten, the Gītā was especially loved (Kersten 1953: 189, cited in Trimondi 32). Himmler had a ‘fondness’ for it. Kersten claimed that it was one of Himmler’s favourite books and that he carried the Gītā with him at all times. He ‘particularly prized’ the Gītā for its ‘great Aryan qualities’. Kersten reports Himmler was often in the habit of scrolling through his vade-mecum (a notebook or aidemémoire carried at all times) to recite quotes from the Gītā that he had taken down, along with citations from other sources such as the Edda, Ṛg Veda, Buddha’s Sermons, and his favourite astrological works” p.225

“The archaic warriors of the Indo-Aryans developed self-control in the Gītā. In Himmler’s Geheimreden, he presents them as a Herrenvolk that shows no Christian compassion (Barmlichkeit) (Trimondi 89). Here one is reminded of Hauer’s depiction of Krishna teaching Arjuna that it was his ‘hereditary duty’ to fight even when it entailed a repulsive fate and engendered guilt (Hauer 61). Hauer claimed that, in Indo-Aryan times, this innate duty was associated with one’s caste (Hauer 26).” p.225

“German belief demands no surrender to divine grace. Rather rebirth is tied to race; one is reborn ‘in the clan’ and ‘in the same blood’. p.223

“For Himmler, in modern times, the caste in question was his SS (Poewe and Hexham 2005: 206). Himmler could thus defend his lethal decisions and his call for detachment from their consequences with words spoken by Krishna to Arjuna that Hauer had disseminated. Hauer had systematically laid out the justification for slaughter by claiming that the Aryan warrior is called to act by his fate, even if his deeds are steeped in guilt; it was his hereditary duty (angeborene Pflicht) to perform such acts (Padfield 91–3: 403). p.225

"[...] He fully embraced the detachment in the SS and cited how, like the warriors in the Gītā, they should be detached from sorrow, pleasure, fear, and wrath (Poewe and Hexham 2005: 206–7)." p.227

“The most forceful image of Himmler’s appropriation of the Gītā appears in an episode described by Kersten. One day Himmler recited a passage to him of which he was particularly fond and often evoked. It is the memorable quote from 4.7–8:

‘Sooft der Menschen Sinn für Recht und Wahrheit verschwunden ist und Ungerechtigkeit die Welt regiert, wer ich aufs Neu geboren, so will es das Gesetz. Ich trage kein Verlangen nach Gewinn.’

‘Whenever men lose respect for the law and truth, and the world is given over to injustice, I will be born anew. Such is the law. I have no desire for gain.’ (Kersten 152)

"À chaque fois que l'ordre chancelle et que le désordre se répand, je me récrée moi-même.
Je renais ainsi d'âge en âge pour la protection des bons et la perte des méchants, pour la restauration de l'ordre." (trad. Michel Hulin)

 

Hitler holding the "blood flag"

"Himmler told Kersten that he felt this quote perfectly described Hitler; it was ‘made for Hitler’, who rose up out of the Germans’ deepest need. When the German people had come to a dead end, Hitler was one of those brilliant figures who appeared. Goethe had appeared for the sake of art, Bismarck for the sake of the military, and Hitler for the sake of the political, cultural, and military combined. His appearance had been ordained by the karma of the German world. It was preordained that he should wage war against the East and install Germanness in order to save the world (Kersten 1953: 189). Hitler was an avatar who descended to earth in a time of crisis in body, mind, and soul (152); he was a figure of the greatest brilliance who had become incarnate (152)." p.227

"The Gītā explained the appearance of Hitler as an avatar. It provided a template for what Himmler envisioned as the kṣatriya ethos, a fantasy he expressed as early as 18 March 1925, the founding year of the SS: Kschatrijakaste, dass műssen wir sein. Das ist die Rettung. Kṣatriya caste, that’s what we must be. It is our rescue/salvation.” "p.228

 

Mickey Mouse Army under the Rising Sun Flag

Harada Daiun Sogaku, blending Zen and Bushido: "[If ordered to] march: tramp, tramp, or shoot: bang, bang. This is the manifestation of the highest Wisdom [of Enlightenment]. The unity of Zen and war of which I speak extends to the farthest reaches of the holy war [now under way]." Zen at War, 1997, Brian Victoria

DT Suzuki: “Let us then shuffle off this mortal coil whenever it becomes necessary, and not raise a grunting voice against the fates. . . . Resting in this conviction, Buddhists carry the banner of Dharma over the dead and dying until they gain final victory.” (1906). “The Zen Sect of Buddhism,” Journal of the Pali Text Society, p. 34.

“There is no such thing as abstract Marxism, only concrete Marxism… The Sinofication of Marxism – that is, making certain that its manifestation is imbued with Chinese peculiarities – is a problem that must be understood and solved by the party without delay.” Mao Zedong, 1938

“The Red Army is like a furnace in which all captured soldiers are melted down and transformed the moment they come over.” Mao Zedong on the Red Army

“Liberal ideas are extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. They are a corrosive that eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension. It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organisation and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the party structure from the masses.” Mao Zedong, 1937

End scene Full Metal Jacket, singing the Mickey Mouse March

Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: "Today... is Christmas! There will be a magic show at zero-nine-thirty! Chaplain Charlie will tell you about how the free world will conquer Communism with the aid of God and a few Marines! God has a hard-on for Marines because we kill everything we see! He plays His games, we play ours! To show our appreciation for so much power, we keep heaven packed with fresh souls! God was here before the Marine Corps! So you can give your heart to Jesus, but your ass belongs to the Corps! Do you ladies understand?” Full Metal Jacket, Stanley Kubrick

Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: "Today, you people are no longer maggots. Today, you are Marines. You're part of a brotherhood. From now on until the day you die, wherever you are, every Marine is your brother. Most of you will go to Vietnam. Some of you will not come back. But always remember this: Marines die. That's what we're here for. But the Marine Corps lives forever. And that means YOU live forever.” Full Metal Jacket, Stanley Kubrick

Pogue Colonel: "Son, all I've ever asked of my marines is that they obey my orders as they would the word of God. We are here to help the Vietnamese, because inside every gook there is an American trying to get out. It's a hardball world, son. We've gotta keep our heads until this peace craze blows over.” Full Metal Jacket, Stanley Kubrick

Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: "The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle. It is your killer instinct which must be harnessed if you expect to survive in combat. Your rifle is only a tool. It is a hard heart that kills. If your killer instincts are not clean and strong you will hesitate at the moment of truth. You will not kill. You will become dead marines and then you will be in a world of shit because marines are not allowed to die without permission. Do you maggots understand?” Full Metal Jacket, Stanley Kubrick

Solarixx on Flickr, "i'm in a world of shit,yes...but i am alive and i am not afraid" (end line of Joker in Full Metal Jacket)

 

Mickey Mouse March

Who's the leader of the club
That's made for you and me
M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E

Hey! there, Hi! there, Ho! there
You're as welcome as can be
M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E
Mickey Mouse!
Mickey Mouse!

Forever let us hold our banner
High! High! High! High!
Come along and sing a song
And join the jamboree!
M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E

Mickey Mouse club
We'll have fun
We'll be new faces
High! High! High! High!
We'll do things and
We'll go places
All around the world
We'll go marching

Who's the leader of the club
That's made for you and me
M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E
Hey! there, Hi! there, Ho! there
You're as welcome as can be
M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E
Mickey Mouse!
Mickey Mouse!

Forever let us hold our banner
High! High! High! High!
Come along and sing a song
And join the jamboree!
M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E

***

MàJ "Le succès électoral de M. Narendra Modi depuis 2014 repose sur la combinaison sans précédent d’un style populiste et hindutva. Ce mouvement nationaliste hindou s’appuie sur le Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (Corps national des volontaires, RSS), une organisation paramilitaire née en 1925. Son projet : muscler les jeunes hindous tant au plan physique qu'au plan moral pour «résister» aux musulmans, accusés de menacer la majorité." 

Narendra Modi, une autre idée de la démocratie, Christophe Jaffrelot, Le Monde diplomatique, avril 2024.

[1] Kersten, Felix. The Kersten Memoirs, 1940–45. Introduction by H.R. Trevor-Roper. Translated by Constantine Fitzgibbon and James Oliver. New York: The Macmillan Co, 1957.

Three Indian Princes: to embrace or not to embrace the world

Prince Hamlet, a Danish prince (William Morris Hunt, 1864)

In Indian society every individual had a duty to follow (svadharma) according to their social class, caste or natural disposition.

“Better one's own duty though deficient
Than the duty of another [caste] well performed.
Better is death in one's own duty;
The duty of another invites danger.” (BG 3.35)[1]

The individuals of all castes have an “embodied Self” (dehī), eternally indestructible (BG 2.30), and, perceiving their own caste duty, they “should not tremble” (BG 2.31). No temporal incarnation (caste- varṇa, birth group - jāti) is to be mourned as long as Tradition/Dharma is upheld. The roles are fairly distributed thanks to Transmigration and Karma, and whatever an individual’s newly acquired caste duties, they ought to be followed. This is true for śūdras, the lowest class of laborers, but also for the higher classes they serve: the brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, and vaiśyas.

The kṣatra-dharma constitutes the duties of the kṣatriya caste of rulers, administrators and warriors. For doing their duties, the kṣatriya will be welcomed in Indra’s world after their death, and share in all the enjoyments of Indra, including his celestial nymphs (apsaras). By the numbers of kṣatriya flown in by apsaras[2], Indra knows whether kṣatriyas do their duty and if the Tradition is properly upheld. Sometimes he notices the number of kṣatriyas are dwindling.

“Those law-wise kings of the earth who fight risking their lives, and at the appointed time go unflinchingly to their death by the sword, theirs is this world forever, their cow of plenty, as it is mine! But where are the heroic barons now? For I do not see any kings coming as my favorite guests’ (MBh. 3.51.17, translation by J.A.B. van Buitenen)

Celestial nymphs, Apsaras, Bayon Temple, Cambodia, Musée Guimet

Arjuna statue in Bali (photo: Ilussion)

Prince Arjuna

As told by the Mahābhārata, at that time the kṣatriyas were too busy courting princess Damayantī. No war, no battles, no kṣatriyas slain on the battlefield, no entrance in Indra’s Heaven (Vīra-loka, Svarga/Indraloka). When the kṣatriyas don’t do their duty on Earth, the celestial nymphs can’t do theirs in Heaven.

In the first chapter of the Bhagavad-Gītā, Prince Arjuna is depressed and wonders about fulfilling his duties and killing his own friends and family. He is lucky to have Kṛṣṇa as his charioteer, who has been missioned as an avatar of Viṣṇu, to advice Arjuna and bring him back to Tradition and the duties of his caste. With his 16.100 junior wives Kṛṣṇa was no ordinary charioteer.  

“These bodies inhabited by the eternal,
The indestructible, the immeasurable
embodied Self,
Are said to come to an end.
Therefore fight, Arjuna!” (BG 2.18)

“He who imagines this (the embodied
Self) the slayer
And he who imagines this
(the embodied Self) the slain,
Neither of them understands
This (the embodied Self) does not slay,
nor is it slain.”(BG 2.19)

“Neither is this (the embodied Self)
born nor does it die at any time,
Nor, having been, will it again come
not to be.
Birthless, eternal, perpetual,
primaeval,
It is not slain when the body is slain.” (BG 2.20)

“He who knows this, the indestructible,
the eternal,
The birthless, the imperishable,
In what way does this man cause to
be slain, Arjuna?
Whom does he slay?” (BG 2.21)

“It is said that [the embodied Self] is unmanifest,
Unthinkable, and unchanging.
Therefore, having understood
in this way,
You should not mourn.” (BG 2.25)

“This, the embodied Self, is eternally
indestructible
In the body of all, Arjuna.
Therefore you should not mourn
For any being.” (BG 2.30)

“And if by good fortune they gain
The open gate of heaven,
Happy are the kshatriyas, Arjuna,
When they encounter such a fight.” (BG 2.32)

“Now, if you will not undertake
This righteous war,
Thereupon, having avoided your own
duty and glory,
You shall incur evil.” (BG 2.33)

As the members of all castes will incur evil through not following the duties of their respective castes in supporting the righteous wars of the higher castes, these verses of Bhagavad-Gītā were not only a source of inspiration for members of Indian society, but for all those aspiring to do their real or imagined kṣatriya duty heroically for a greater cause going beyond the fate of individuals[3].

Je meurs dans la foi de la ‘Bhagavad-Gītā’ et du ‘Zarathoustra’: c’est là qu’est ma verité, mon credo.’ Pierre Drieu la Rochelle, Journal 1939–45: 380.

“Let us then shuffle off this mortal coil whenever it becomes necessary, and not raise a grunting voice against the fates. . . . Resting in this conviction, Buddhists carry the banner of Dharma over the dead and dying until they gain final victory[4].” DT Suzuki, inspired by the Bushidō code.

Prince Gautama Siddharta (photo: Buddha Art)

 
Prince Gautama

According to the Buddhacaritam written in classical Sanskrit by the Brahman Aśvaghoṣa in the early second century CE, the future Buddha was born a prince in a kṣatriya clan. In other sources, when the Buddha himself talked about his own past he said:

“Later, while still young, a black-haired young man endowed with the blessing of youth, in the prime of life, though my mother and father wished otherwise and wept with tearful faces, I shaved off my hair and beard, put on the yellow robe, and went forth from the home life into homelessness[5].”

The Buddhacaritam would become the official version of the Buddha’s last life on Earth. Unlike Prince Arjuna and Prince Rama, Prince Gautama would abandon the kṣatra-dharma/Kṣatriya Ethos, and became a renunciate (śramaṇa). His charioteer Channa was an ordinary individual, and no avatar stopped Gautama from renouncing his caste duty, even though Channa gave it a last try by driving the Buddha to a forest, where women, beautiful like heavenly nymphs (apsara), were gathered (at what occasion?), who tried to bring Gautama to other ideas through their powers of seduction[6].

“4.54. But although thus attacked, he, having his senses guarded by self-control, neither rejoiced nor smiled, thinking anxiously, ―One must die.’ ”

“4.98. ―But I am fearful and exceedingly bewildered, as I ponder the terrors of old age, death, and disease; I can find no peace, no self-command, much less can I find pleasure, while I see the world as it were ablaze with fire.”

“5.12. ―It is a miserable thing that mankind, though themselves powerless and subject to sickness, old age, and death, yet, blinded by passion and ignorant, look with disgust on another who is afflicted by old age or diseased or dead.”[7]

The order that the Buddha started would initially live at the margins of society and was open to renunciates from all castes. The renunciates were to address each other as “Friend”. Was this ever really the case? We don’t know, but the caste society of the ecosystem never disappeared, and Buddhism continued to be influenced by Brahmanism, and vice versa in a continuous dialogue[8] until Buddhism’s disappearance from the subcontinent.

As can be expected, the influence of Brahmanism on Buddhism was vast and deep. A new dharma and conduct was developed for the “Sons of the Victorious One” (jinaputra), or Bodhisattvas, better reflecting and fitting the needs of brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, and vaiśyas than the ethos of renunciates. In the Mahāyāna sūtras and even more so in Buddhist Tantras, the Buddha became indissociable from a cakravartin, a cosmic ruler and his various circles of power in Heaven and on Earth, a model for Buddhist theocrats. This allowed for the kṣatriya ethos to slip back into Buddhism, if it had ever been completely lacking… Ascetics and warriors tend to share “manliness and valour” (pauruṣa: “size of a man with his arms and hands uplifted” Kavya glossary, "manspreading?). 

Nāgārjuna and the Madhyamaka approach that followed were often considered too nihilist, not only for the Indian ecosystem, but also beyond. Madhyamikas had not much time and room for hierarchies, castes, Families (kula, gotra, clans), avatars and nirmāṇakāyas, etc. The dialog with Buddhist Vijñānavādins, Yogācārins, Cittamātrins, Dhātuvādins, “Garbhavādins”, Vajrayānists, etc. was a lot more fruitful. It allowed for some sort of accomodated Embodied Self and for the valorisation of hierarchies between Bodhisattvas and beings “to be converted, tamed” and trainees (s. vaineya t. gdul bya)[9], Yogis and “children”, Wise and foolish, or in the case of Dharma kings (dharmarāja), theocrats and their subjects, the rulers and those to be ruled.

Another avatar of Viṣṇu, Kalki, "an eminent Brahman of Sambhala village" will appear at the end of the Kali age, in order to "destroy all the Mlechchhas and thieves, and all whose minds are devoted to iniquity [dasyu]" and "give birth to a race who shall follow the laws of the Krita age, or age of purity". (Viṣṇu Purāṇa, Book 4, chapter XXIV). The coming of "Kalki", and Shambala, are central to the Kālacakra Tantra, that was a source of inspiration to some illuminated minds and inspired Chogyam Trungpa to create his own enlightened kingdom in the United States.   

Prince Rāma and his brother at the top left of the battle scene, Sahib Din, British Library

Prince Rāma

Bodhisattvas would progressively become less like the Buddhacaritam’s or the Pāli Prince Gautama, and more like Prince Arjuna and Prince Rāma. If instead of trying to find the Truth for himself Prince Gautama would have listened to a ṛṣi or other sage, he would perhaps have been able to come out of his depression and return to the duties of his caste.

We know prince Rama from the Rāmāyaṇam. When Rāma is 16, the ṛṣi Viśhvāmitra arrives at his father’s court to search for help against demons (yakṣī) disturbing sacrificial rites. To cut a very long story short, after 14 years Rāma returned to Ayodhya with his wife Sita and was crowned king; his rule was just and fair.

But the Rāmāyaṇam was to have a “spin-off” (10th century) in the Mokṣopāya(śāstra) or later the Yoga-vāsiṣṭham alias Mahā-Rāmāyaṇa, inserted at the moment where we find Prince Rāma at  the age of 16 in the middle of a serious depression. The ṛṣi Viśhvāmitra invites the ṛṣi Vasiṣṭha to serve as a therapist to Prince Rāma, and what a wonderful therapy the Mokṣopāya is! It is quite an eclectic and inclusive work that wants to focus on “engaged” emancipation (mokṣa). Its “philosophy” or position (s. siddhānta t. grub mtha’) is “the position of all positions” (sarvasiddhāntasiddhānta)[10]. In her thesis (2023), Yoga in the Mokṣopāya, Tamara Cohen, qualifies the Mokṣopāya as follows

“I suggest that the Mokṣopāya is a Yoga text grounded in a unique and idiosyncratic nondual Sāṃkhya system of knowledge with a strong Yogācāra Buddhist influence and similarities to early Haṭha Yoga. In fact, I suggest that a similar historical context could have led to the development of both Haṭha Yoga and the Mokṣopāya since many common elements are found between the two traditions. Specifically, the Mokṣopāya shares elements with Haṭha Yoga that include the raising of kuṇḍalinī, the intonation of the syllable OṂ, the central focus on prāṇa and kumbhaka, a doctrine of siddhis, a goal of jīvanmukti or embodied liberation, a notion of immortality in the body, a practice of conscious Yogic dying, a doctrine of the prāṇa-sun which is fire that consumes the apāna-moon which is water in a centre in the core of the body, and descriptions of yogins retreating to clean and beautiful but simple Yogic huts or caves to practice nirvikalpa samādhi on animal skin seats in the lotus posture with the openings of the body closed off to keep the flow of prāṇa inside.”

Indrabhūti with Lakṣmīṅkārā on the lap, Virūpa to his back to the left and,
possibly Padampa Sangye to the right Wanla Interior Christian Luczantis p107

Lakṣmīṅkārā and King Indrabhūti

The Mokṣopāya seems to reflect its era (10th century) and a convergence, or the shared use, of various means to a sometimes differently defined ultimate goal (mokṣa). This is also the era of the legendary royal couple of Oḍḍiyāna, King Indrabhūti and his sister Lakṣmīṅkārā, if they ever lived... Lakṣmīṅkārā was the first one to search for mokṣa, and inspired King Indrabhūti to do the same, i.e. to practice absorption in the natural state (sahajasamādhi). He relinquished his kingdom, and practiced “Mahāmudrā” for twelve years in his palace. That’s Abhayadatta’s version[11]. Lakṣmīṅkārā gives a different version in the Sahajasiddhi-paddhati[12]. There we learn that King Indrabhūti abdicated because of Lakṣmīṅkārā, and became a Buddhist monk: the popular Guru Suptabhikṣu (Kambala/Lvavapa). He received the instruction from his sister Lakṣmīṅkārā to go and practice in a carnal ground, in order to escape the many students that had followed their king as a guru.

The absorption in the natural state (sahajasamādhi) referred to in the Sahajasiddhi-paddhati, is grounded in the most Tantric setting, but is presented at the same time as its apogee and a natural, spontaneous, innate state, requiring no effort (yoga). As long as there is any effort, “it can not be called the natural state”[13], Lakṣmīṅkārā keeps reminding us. Her message is very similar to that of Saraha, as interpreted in the Dohākoṣahṛdayārthagītāṭīkā (Do ha mdzod kyi snying po don gi glu'i 'grel pa D2268, P3120) by Advaya-Avadhūtipa. Absorption in the natural state (sahaja-stha) is also to be found in the Amanaska Yoga. There seem to be shared interests between the Mokṣopāya or Yogavāsiṣṭha, the Amanaska(-yoga), the Sahajasiddhi(paddhati), and Saraha’s Dohākoṣahṛdayārthagītā for a state not unsimilar to that of a jīvanmukti, a “continuous absorption in the natural state”, in one's natural body, that allows a yogi, or anyone thus inclined, to remain active in our world, without abandoning one’s “kingdom”. All this will need to be further explored.

***

[1] Sargeant, Winthrop. (2009). Baghavad Gītā, Sunny Series

[2] This aspect of a hero's end bears similarity to the end of heroic Yogis, carried off by khecarī (apsaras) to a Khecara. See my French blog Rapide survol de l'évolution du transfert de "la conscience" 29/09/2023

[3] Figueira, Dorothy M. (2023). The Afterlives of the Bhagavad Gita: Readings in Translation, Oxford University Press. Chapter 8 The Nazi Kṣatriya Ethos: Hauer and Himmler.

“ [Jakob Wilhelm Hauer (1881–1962, the most prominent historian of religion in National Socialist Germany) would contribute to the seriousness of the Ahnenerbe by devoting his scholarship to showing Germans how their forebearers, the Indo-Aryans, accepted their destiny and acted in fulfilment of their duties (Alles 188). From 1934–58, Hauer published three almost identical versions of his essay on karmayoga in the Gītā. The first iteration in 1934, which we will examine here, Eine indo-arische Metaphysik des Kampfes und der Tat ‘validated the bellicose aims of the National Socialists in power’ (Benavides 263–4). It was the task of the modern German to fulfil his heroic duty violently (Benavides 264). This was the central theme of the Gīta for Hauer, its core that all other translations heretofore had failed to discern. It was necessary for modern Germans to access this message, since it preserved a significant phase of their Indo-German religious history, even though it had been diluted by other influences.

[4] Suzuki, DT. (1906). “The Zen Sect of Buddhism,” Journal of the Pali Text Society, p. 34.

[5] M26 Ariyapariyesanā [Pāsarāsi], and in several other suttas, e.g. M36 Mahāsaccakasutta.

So kho ahaṃ, bhikkhave, aparena samayena daharova samāno susukāḷakeso, bhadrena yobbanena samannāgato paṭhamena vayasā akāmakānaṃ mātāpitūnaṃ assumukhānaṃ rudantānaṃ kesamassuṃ ohāretvā kāsāyāni vatthāni acchādetvā agārasmā anagāriyaṃ pabbajiṃ.

[6] Cowell, Edward B. (2005). The Buddha-Carita, or The Life of Buddha by Aśvaghoṣa, Book IV: [Strīvighātano] [The Women Rejected].

[7] Ibid. Book V: [Abhiniṣkramaṇo] [Flight]

[8] Bronkhorst, Johannes. (2011). Buddhism in the Shadow of Brahmanism, Brill.

[9] Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra, chapter 41

[10] “In the Mokṣopāya we find a unique nondual idealist philosophy that teaches that the entire world is a dream of the cosmic mind— nothing is fundamentally real—and professes to convey the ultimate truth of all established philosophies while adhering to none in particular.” Tamara Cohen, presentation of her thesis.

[11] Robinson, James B. (1979) Buddha’s lions, The Lives of the Eighty-Four Siddhas, Dharma publishing. Translated into Tibetan by sMon grub Shes rab (Grub thob brgyad cu rtsa bzhi’i lo rgyus).

[12] Vriens, Joy. (2017) Sahajasiddhi-paddhati, Le Guide du Naturel, Tsadra, Yogi Ling, p. 115

[13] De ni lhan cig skyes brjod min/

Fools and Children, Wise men and Yogis

"I will be good" - Dunce Cap 

Reading Rob Hogendoorn's interesting Yogis And Children, I stumbled on these apparently quite often quoted and famous verses from the 4th century Laṅkāvatāra[1].

“My doctrine has two modes,
Advice and tenets
To children I speak advice
And to yogis, tenets[2]”

This quote is a translation from the Tibetan. The same quote in DT Suzuki’s English translation[3]:

“I have two forms of teaching the truth: self-realisation and discoursing. I discourse with the ignorant and [disclose] self-realisation to the Yogins.”

For context, the full passage of LXXII can be found in the footnote below. The term that here expresses “children”, "childish", “ignorant”, “fools” and other pejorative synonyms in the Sanskrit original of the Laṅkāvatāra is bāla, and appears 231 one times in the multilingual version of Bibliotheca Polyglotta[4]. I will vary the translation of bāla in this blog in order to show its pejorative intent. For the very polemical Laṅkāvatāra, the (Buddhist) world is divided between children/fools and Yogis, between those who follow the suttas/sūtras or discourses[5] and those who practice and obtain the state of “self-realisation” (pratyātmagatikaṃ, t. rang gi grub pa'i mtha'). What Suzuki translates as “self-realisation” is in fact the access to the absolute, the ultimate truth.

“The knowledge which knows the ultimate truth is a central topic of the Lanka and is variously termed pratyātmāryajñānagati (the state of noble knowledge realized by oneself), svapratyātma (inner self-realization), pratyātmagati (that which is realized by oneself), pratyātmagatigocara (the field realized by oneself) and pratyātma dharmatā (the Dharma nature realized by oneself) in the sutra. Akira Suganuma writes that this "inner wisdom" is "that which all the teachings in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra indicate to us is to realize or accomplish." (Wikipedia).

“Yogis” are simply those who directly know the “ultimate truth” and know how to access it, and even to transmit it, sometimes directly from “mind to mind”. Knowing absolute truths is the domain of religion and gnosis. According to the Laṅkāvatāra, the Buddha intentionally taught differently to “fools” (bāla) and “wise men” (paṇḍitas, later Yogis). But not all paṇḍitas and logicians (tārkika) are “Yogis”, that follow the tenant of the Laṅkāvatāra and thereby come to know the ultimate truth. The “foolish” (t. mi mkhas pa) are no longer contrasted with paṇḍitas or logicians (t. mkhas pa), but with “Yogis”.

“This is indeed not a mental realm to be reached by the philosophers and the Śrāvakas; what is taught by the leaders [nāthāḥ, Lords] is the realm of self-realisation[6].”

Śrāvakas, "hearers" were the Buddha’s first direct disciples, to whom the Buddha gave his teachings (suttas), considered by the Laṅkāvatāra as “discourses” intended for “children”.

The Laṅkāvatāra, written in sanskrit, reconfirmed a form of Buddhism that, following a mind-only philosophy, focussed more on the “ultimate truth” (rather than a middle way) as a goal, and requalified the first teachings of the Buddha as “discourses” intended for the “ignorant”. Most of these discourses were not even transmitted in “Vedic” or proper Sanskrit, but in vernaculars...

“In the Pali canon (Cullavagga 5.33; Vin. ii.139.1 ff.) occurs a famous passage which, in abbreviated form, may be rendered thus:

Two monks, brothers, brahmans by birth, of fine language and fine speech, came to the Buddha and said: Lord, here monks of miscellaneous origin (literally, of various names, clan-names, races or castes, and families) are corrupting (dūsenti) the Buddha’s words by (repeating them in) their own dialects; let us put them into Vedic. The Lord Buddha rebuked them: Deluded men, how can you say this? This will not lead to the conversion of the unconverted. . . And he delivered a sermon and commanded (all) the monks: You are not to put the Buddha’s words into Vedic. Who does so would commit a sin. I authorize you, monks, to learn the Buddha’s words each in his own dialect.[7]”

There were quite “A Few Good Men[8]” among the Buddha’s crowd of rowdy śramaṇa, who “sutraficated[9]” more positive materials for those (“Yogis”) who looked for direct knowledge of the “ultimate truth” (paramārtha), and that were not suitable for and accessible to “children” holding “a destructive and nihilistic view concerning such subjects as continuation, activity, rising, breaking-up, existence, Nirvāṇa, the path, karma, fruition, and truth[10].”

“Because they have not attained an intuitive understanding [of the Truth], because they have no fundamental insight of things[11].”

For these “good men”, Bodhisattvas and, later, Yogis, some Buddhist śramaṇas were too much into philosophy, logic, and held “nihilistic” (nāstika) views, which may reflect the old Sāṃkhya-Yoga tension. Too much into Sāṃkhya (analytic knowledge, prajñā, or jñāna), not enough into “Yoga” (intuition of the ultimate truth, through karma, i.e. effort and ritual). Obviously, the Yogis following the Laṅkāvatāra considered their approach very much superior to that of “fools” and “children”.

The distinction between a “Yogi” and a “child” finally comes down to this: to “intuit” or not to “intuit” “the Truth” (paramārtha). Those who intuit the Truth are awakened, those who don’t are not. For Yogis the “discourses” (sūtras) of the Buddha don’t lead to a direct knowledge of the Truth, but do allow to deal with passions (kleśa) and imaginations (vikalpa), and to accumulate merit (puṇya) in order to hopefully obtain more favorable conditions to practice the way of the Yogis in another existence. Followers of the Laṅkāvatāra and other Yogācārins, “Yogis”, needed to find ways to decide among themselves who intuits the Truth and who doesn’t, who is awakened, and to what degree, and who is still a “child”. Once “awakened”, always awakened, in whatever one does. It is the duty of the “Awakened”, “Yogis”, “Leaders” (nāthāḥ), to lead “children”.

“It is the Tathāgata's great love (mahākaruṇā) of all beings, which never ceases until everyone of them is happily led to the final asylum of Nirvāṇa”

“He is ever devising for the enlightenment and emancipation of all sentient beings. This is technically known as the working of Skilful Means (upāyakauśalya). Upāya is the outcome of Prajñā and Karuṇā. When Love worries itself over the destiny of the ignorant [bāla], Wisdom, so to speak, weaves a net of Skilful Means whereby to catch them up from the depths of the ocean called Birth-and-Death (saṃsāra). By Upāya thus the oneness of reality wherein the Buddha's enlightened mind abides transforms itself into the manifoldness of particular existences.”[12]

From the “intuition of the Truth” (prajñā) and the Love (karuṇā) of the “Awakened” for the ignorant (bāla) arise the Skilful Means (upāyakauśalya) and the Awakened’s “particular existences” (nirmāṇakāya t. sprul sku) that will help fishing the ignorant out of the Ocean of ignorance (saṃsāra) by leading them certainly and surely to the intuition of the Truth.

How can the ignorant recognize and identify these “particular existences” of a Buddha or one of his avatars, capable of leading them? They can’t because they are ignorant. But there has been an unbroken line of spiritual generations of “particular existences” and patriarchs, said to go back all the way to the Buddha himself. Hagiographies recount how these were recognised by other “particular existences”, who all intuited the Truth. If a recognised and enthroned nirmāṇakāya performatively declares someone to be a nirmāṇakāya or an equivalent thereof, or if a master (recognised as such by his master or patriarch) declares someone else a master, then an ignorant ought to trust that “particular existence” and follow his lead. Being an island to oneself may sound good, but can “children” really be left alone?

The blind leading the blind, Pieter Bruegel the Elder

To this sort of transmissions and lineages of nirmāṇakāyas and Masters, the “old” Buddha of the “discourses” could have objected:

“Suppose there was a queue of blind men, each holding the one in front: the first one does not see, the middle one does not see, and the last one does not see. In the same way, it seems to me that the brahmins’ statement turns out to be comparable to a queue of blind men: the first one does not see, the middle one does not see, and the last one does not see. Their statement turns out to be a joke—mere words, void and hollow.” Tevijjasutta DN13[13]

Lineages of Yogis intuiting the ultimate truth are perhaps not that different from queues of Brahmins knowing the path to Brahmā, the Absolute. Only, Bodhisattvas and especially Yogis don’t accept to be treated as the Buddha treated the Brahmins. They are beyond any assessment. Didn’t the 3rd century Śūraṃgamasamādhi Sūtra state:

“'Monks, a man [pudgala] should not judge a man, for he harms himself very quickly, O monks, that man who judges a man. I myself or someone like me can assess a man. In accordance with this teaching, O Kasyapa, a bodhisattva and a śrāvaka should consider all beings as being the Master himself, and ask themselves cautiously if some individual adhering to the Bodhisattva Vehicle is not before them[14].”

A Buddha or someone like the Buddha (e.g. representing him) can assess a common man (pudgala, t. gang zag), but a common man can’t assess a bodhisattva. That would be his ruin. So therefore a man better avoids to specifically assess any superior, since he doesn’t know whether a certain individual isn't in fact a bodhisattva. This is even more true if an individual is his Guru or his Vajra Brother…

There definitely is a Brahmanist influence at work in Mahāyāna Buddhism, allowing for the establishment of a hierarchy, a caste of clerks and priests, often in the service of the ruling classes, where bodhisattvas can better serve the general interest than among the ignorant, that are merely advised to accept their karma or embrace their fate, to stay in their place (svadharma) and obey. 

Whilst assessing is not recommended for common pudgalas, it’s part of the duty of holy men, wise men, good men, Yogis to assess them, to put them back in their place, beat, condemn and execute them when necessary, while essentialising them as ignorant. 

Karma is also called to the rescue. When one is born in a poor bāla family, it is because one did not follow the teachings of the wise in a previous life. The only way out is to follow their teachings, to obey and serve them, without assessing or criticizing them. 

There will always be wise men around to help the ignorant, if not to become wise, then at least to remain harmless until all the ignorant will have been fished out of the Ocean of ignorance. All those in charge are bodhisattvas, the Buddha and karma wouldn’t have allowed it to be otherwise.

This has been repeated ad nauseam by the wise, but the ignorant won’t listen. In his Elegant Sayings (Legs bshad rin po che’i gter)[15], Sakya Paṇḍita (1182-1251) could sometimes get quite upset by this.

“One that has not gained knowledge in his former birth
Is ignorant in the present life.
He who fears ignorance in his next life,
Must study assiduously in this one.[16]”

“Acquire knowledge though you may die next year.
Although in this life you may not become wise,
In your future birth, if take with you,
It will become a precious thing[17].”

“Even if you strive for the sake of this present life,
you will succeed happily if you act in accord with Dharma.
Observe the difference between the prosperity
of virtuous people and that of thieves.[18]”

“He that understands well
The difference between an excellent and low man
Knows how to act.
This is the great foundation of prosperity[19].”

“Ignorant people believe a monkey-catcher
To be greater than a wise man.
When great delicacies are served along with bread and meat,
They come back uneaten[20].”

“Offering sweet scents to dogs and pigs,
A light to the blind, meat to those with indigestion,
Or instructions to the foolish -
These actions are senseless.[21]”

Diligently conceal your own conduct,
or most of it will be destroyed if you demonstrate it openly.
If the monkey didn’t dance,
why would anyone put a rope around its neck?[22]”

“Though low-minded men may be angry with a holy man,
How could that holy man become wrathful in return?
Though the jackal may utter a nonsense language,
The king of the forest mercifully protects him[23].”

“The generous, though angry, are gentle when one bows before them.
The mean, yielded to, glow haughty.
Gold and silver, though hard, may be melted.
Dog's dung stinks when burned[24].”

Knowledge is said to be power, and creates a gap between those who have and have not access to it. But what sort of knowledge are we talking of here, and is it really about a specific knowledge or even gnosis, in this case the intuition of “the ultimate truth”? 

Those with knowledge, any knowledge that is in favour at any time, will always side with those in power. Those with the required “knowledge” or expertise at a certain time associating with those that have power and means will be at the top, those without “knowledge”, power and means at the bottom. 

The justification of why those at the top and bottom end up there is built into this “knowledge” and reproduced by it. And this rests on the respective “merit” of each party. The extent of this “knowledge” is determined by those “in the know” using their discretion. One’s karmic “merit” will only be known after one’s death, when one is reborn in such and a such a clan, caste, class, et ceter. Meanwhile, knowledge and expertise can be bought with power and means. Intelligence can acquire the knowledge en vogue. With such “knowledge” one can serve the good ones and become good and even somewhat prosperous oneself, as Sakya Paṇḍita reminds us.

This article has also been published on Open Buddhism.

***

[1] Lang kar gshegs pa'i mdo las/

nga yi chos tshul rnam gnyis te//
bstan pa dang ni grub mtha'o//
byis pa rnams la bstan pa bshad//
rnal 'byor pa la grub mtha'o//

[2] Geshe Lhundub Sopa, & Jeffrey Hopkins. (1989). Cutting Through Appearances: Practice and Theory of Tibetan Buddhism. Snow Lion Publications. p. 149

Tenets (t. grub mtha’, s. siddhānta) seems to be the wrong translation here. The right word in Sanskrit is svapratyātma, in Tibetan rang gi grub pa'i mtha', as can be read further on.

[3] Suzuki, Daisetz Teitaro. (1932). The Lankavatara Sūtra, A Mahayana Text, LXXII. 61. For the full passage:

“Further, Mahamati, the ignorant and simple-minded keep on dancing and leaping fascinated with their wrong reasonings, falsehoods, and self-discriminations, and are unable to understand the truth of self-realisation and its discourse in words; clinging to the external world which is seen of the Mind itself, they cling to the study of the discourses which are a means and do not know properly how to ascertain the truth of self-realisation which is the truth unspoiled by the fourfold proposition.

Said Mahamati: Blessed One, it is just as you say. Pray tell me, Blessed One, about the characteristic features of the truth of self-realisation and about the discourses on it, whereby I and other Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas in future time, understanding what they are, may keep ourselves away from the wrong logicians such as the philosophers and those who belong to the vehicles of the Sravaka and the Pratyekabuddha.

(172) Said the Blessed One: Then, Mahamati, listen well and reflect well within yourself; I will tell you.

Certainly, Blessed One; said Mahamati the Bodhisattva-Mahasattva and gave ear to the Blessed One.

The Blessed One said this to him: Mahamati, there are two forms of teaching the truth attained by the Tathagatas, Arhats, Fully-Enlightened Ones of the past, present, and future. They are: the teaching by discourses, and the teaching by the establishment of self-realisation. What is meant by the studying of the discourses is this, Mahamati: there are various materials and canonical texts and discourses by which sentient beings are taught according to their dispositions and inclinations. What then is the truth of self-realisation by which the Yogins turn away from discriminating what is seen of the Mind itself? There is an exalted state of inner attainment which does not fall into the dualism of oneness and otherness, of bothness and not-bothness; which goes beyond the Citta, Manas, and Manovijnana; which has nothing to do with logic, reasoning, theorising, and illustrating; which has never been tasted by any bad logicians, by the philosophers, Sravakas, and Pratyekabuddhas, who have fallen into the dualistic views of being and non-being— this I call self-realisation. This, Mahamati, is what characterises the truth of self-realisation and discoursing on it, and in this you and the other Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas are to discipline themselves. So it is said:

61. I have two forms of teaching the truth: self-realisation and discoursing. I discourse with the ignorant and [disclose] self-realisation to the Yogins.”

[4] There also is the sanskrit version of Gretil, where it occurs 232 times.

[5] De la bstan pa'i tshul ni 'di lta ste/ sems can rnams kyi sems kyi mos pa ji lta ba bzhin du tshogs sna tshogs kyi mdo sde bshad pa ste/ de ni bstan pa'i tshul zhes bya'o/

[6] Laṅkāvatāra:

tārkikāṇām aviṣayaṃ śrāvakāṇāṃ na caiva hi |
yaṃ deśayanti vai nāthāḥ pratyātmagatigocaram || 2.122 ||

[7] Edgerton, Franklin. (1985 reprint). Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary (2 Vols.), Motilal Banarsidass, Volume 1, Introduction, p. 1

[8] Nattier, Jan. (2003). A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path According to the Inquiry of Ugraparipṛcchā, University of Hawaii Press.

[9] “Whether the Ugra began its life as a sūtra - that is, whether the person who first formulated what was to become this canonical document deliberately placed his own words in the mouth of the Buddha - we will never know. It is by no means certain that it did: there are examples in the Buddhist canon of texts originally attributed not to the Buddha, but to a particular (and named) individual, which were only gradually subjected to a process of "sūtrafication" during which the standard features of the sutra genre were added and the Buddha introduced into the text.” A Few Good Men, p. 11

[10] Ye kecin mahāmate śramaṇā vā brāhmaṇā vā abhūtvā śraddhāhetuphalābhivyaktidravyaṃ ca kālāvasthitaṃ pratyayeṣu ca skandhadhātvāyatanānāmutpādasthitiṃ cecchanti, bhūtvā ca vyayam, te mahāmate saṃtatikriyotpādabhaṅgabhavanirvāṇamārgakarmaphalasatyavināśocchedavādino bhavanti | (41*)

[11] Tat kasya hetor yad idaṃ pratyakṣānupalabdher ādyadarśanābhāvāt. 

Tib. mngon sum dang*/ mi dmigs pas/ thog ma mthong ba med pa’i phyir ro//

[12] Introduction of Suzuki’s translation of The Lankavatara Sūtra.

The “particular existences” of the Buddha are one of the main subjects of the 3rd century Śūraṅgamasamādhi Sūtra.

“This is Sakyamuni in Heroic Progress, a pure ray of wisdom and power, who manifests himself simultaneously in our little universe of four continents, in the Great Cosmos ... and in all the great cosmic systems ...; there, he is some divinity .... He is the same as the Buddha Vairocana.”
Lamotte, E. (1998), Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra, The Concentration of Heroic Progress: An Early Mahayana Buddhist Scripture, translated by Sara Boin-Webb, London, Curzon Press

[13] Experts in the Three Vedas, DN13, Bhikkhu Sujato

“What do you think, Vāseṭṭha? Do the brahmins proficient in the three Vedas see the sun and moon just as other folk do? And do they pray to them and exalt them, following their course from where they rise to where they set with joined palms held in worship?”

“Yes, Master Gotama.”

“What do you think, Vāseṭṭha? Though this is so, are the brahmins proficient in the three Vedas able to teach the path to the company of the sun and moon, saying: ‘This is the only straight path, the direct route that leads someone who practices it to the company of the sun and moon’?”

“No, Master Gotama.”

“So it seems that even though the brahmins proficient in the three Vedas see the sun and moon, they are not able to teach the path to the company of the sun and moon.

But it seems that even though they have not seen Brahmā with their own eyes, they still claim to teach the path to the company of that which they neither know nor see.

What do you think, Vāseṭṭha? This being so, doesn’t their statement turn out to have no demonstrable basis?”

“Clearly that’s the case, Master Gotama.”

[14] Etienne Lamotte (2005), Śūraṃgamasamādhi Sūtra, English translation, Motilal Banarsidass.

[15] Tarthang Tulku. (1977). Elegant Sayings, Nāgārjuna and Sakya Paṇḍit, Dharma Publishing.

[16] skye ba snga mar ma bslabs pas//
tshe 'dir blun por mthong nas ni//
phyi mar blun por skye dwogs pas//
tshe 'dir dka' yang 'bad de mnyan//

[17] rig pa ngan par ‘chi yang bslab//
tshe ‘dir mkhas par ma gyur kyang*//
skye ba phyi mar btsol ba yi//
nor la rang nyid len par ‘dra//

[18] glo ldan tshe 'di bsgrub na yang*/
chos kyis bsgrub na bde bar 'grub//
dam pa rnams dang chom rkun gyi//
phun sum tshogs pa'i khyad par ltos//

[19] Mi gang skye bo dam pa dang*//
dman pa’i khyad par legs shes nas//
de yi bya ba bsgrub shes pa//
phun sum tshogs pa’i gzhi chen yin//

[20] blun po'i drung du mkhas pa bas//
spre'u 'dzin pa khyad par 'phags//
sprel 'dzin zas dang nor gyis mchod//
mkhas pa lag pa stong par 'gro//

[21] khyi phag rnams la dri zhim dang*//
dmus long ba la sgron me dang*//
ma zhu ba la kha zas dang*//
blun po rnams la chos ci dgos//

[22] rang spyod ‘bad pas sba bar bya//
phal cher gsal bar bstan pas nyams//
spre’us zlos gar mi byed na//
mgul du thag pa ci ste ‘dogs//

[23] skye bo dman rnams dam pa la//
khyad gsod byed kyi dam pas min//
seng ges wa tshogs legs skong ste//
wa nyid wa yi rigs la 'gran//

[24] dam pa khros kyang btud na zhi//
dman rnams btud na lhag par rengs//
gser dngul sra yang bzhu nus kyi//
khyi lud bzhu na dri ngan 'byung*//