All things are sheer Luminosity

Ruins of Vikramshila University

My main source for this blog: Defining Wisdom: Ratnākaraśānti’s Sāratamā
D.Phil Dissertation Gregory Max Seton
Wolfson College Trinity Term 2015

In the Tibetan tradition Ratnākaraśānti (ca. 970-1045 C.E.) and Maitreyanātha/Maitrīpa/Advayavajra are known for having had some disagreement. This is explained in various ways, sometimes with different players, under different names and in various hagiographical materials. Ratnākaraśānti is specifically known for having been an abbot of Vikramaśīla, near Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur district in Bihar. Ratnākaraśānti is presented as the most senior student of Dharmakīrtiśrī (gSer gling pa), who is famous for having been Atiśa’s teacher 982-1054). Atiśa is presented by the Tibetan tradition as having also been a student of Ratnākaraśānti. Other great scholars that are said to have stayed at Vikramaśīla at that time were the “four guardians”: abbot Ratnākaraśānti, Nāropā, Vidyākokila and bZhad pa’i rdo rje (in reconstituted sanskrit Hāsavajra), or in another version (e.g. Brog-mi’s hagiography) the “six guardians”: abbot Ratnākaraśānti, Vāgīśvarakīrti, Prajñākaramati, Nāropa, Jñānaśrīmitra and Ratnavajra. Brog-mi, the “founder” of the Sakya school, also studied with Ratnākaraśānti.

Ratnākaraśānti had a Luminous start for he was said (in Brog-mi’s hagiography) to be originally from Oḍḍiyāna (part of the larger historical region of Gāndhāra). His tutelar deity (yidam) prophesied him to go to Magadha. Ratnākaraśānti was a Yogācārin, to be more precise à Mādhyamika-Yogācārin, “blending” (see my conclusion) Madhyamaka (Nāgārjuna) and Yogācāra (Maitreya and Asaṅga). He was also a follower of Tantra (e.g. Hevajra Tantra), and taught that Deity practice was essential for a speedy attainment of full Buddhahood. “Ratnākaraśānti was not just an adept of the tantras, but specifically a master of Mahāmudrā practice.” (Defining Wisdom, 2015, p.27). That would of course be “Tantric Mahāmudrā”, Luminous Mahāmudrā, not “Sūtra-Mahāmudrā”.

In his writings, Ratnākaraśānti was more concerned with fighting against Buddhist “heresies” (“the enemy within” p.30), or rather restoring the --in his opinion-- right Buddhist view, than with debating with non-Buddhist authors. He saw himself as having the mission to refute the wrong positions of Candrakīrti the Mādhyamika “from the true purport of Nāgārjuna, (but who later abandoned nihilism in his Tantrik [Guhyasamāja] commentary)[1].” For Ratnākaraśānti and for esoteric Buddhism in general, Nāgārjuna (2nd-3rd century), Candrakīrti, etc. are both the historical authors of Mādhyamika works and the alleged authors of later Tantric (Guhyasamāja) commentaries. They either “abandoned” their Mādhyamika views or corrected them and ended up as full-fledged Tantrikas. This is what “blending” often boils down to.

Maitreyanātha/Maitrīpa/Advayavajra is presented in Tibetan hagiographies as a student of Ratnākaraśānti, although he appears not to have been close to him (Defining Wisdom, p. 33).

“[Maitreyanātha] studied Pramāṇa, Mādhyamika, the way of the Pāramitās, and other śāstras with Nāro-pā for twenty years. After that he stayed together with Rāgavajra, who knew the śāstra of the Way of Mantras, for five years. Afterwards, by the side of the great Paṇḍita Ratnākaraśānti, the revered guru and master, he studied the Nirākāra position for one year. Afterwards he went to Vikramaśīla and at the side of the great Paṇḍita Jñānaśrīmitra studied his compositions for two years.” (Defining Wisdom, p. 34[2])

According to later Tibetan traditions, Maitreyanātha left Vikramaśīla at one point, after a disagreement with Ratnākaraśānti (in some versions Atiśa), and having received a prophecy, went “searching for Śavaripa”

“The third notable aspect of this early biography of Maitreyanātha is that it makes no mention of any controversy or debate with Ratnākaraśānti. This is important because later sources claim that Ratnākaraśānti was the loser in an alleged debate between the two and was behind Maitreyanātha’s expulsion from Vikramaśīla.” (Defining Wisdom, p. 36)

Why would Maitreyanātha leave after having “won a debate”? Did Maitreyanātha win the debate after his two last years spent studying with Jñānaśrīmitra (a Sākāravāda ("with cognitive images") Yogācārin[3]), the opponent of Ratnākaraśānti’s view[4] If Maitreyanātha/Advayavajra’s Ten Verses on True Reality (Tattvadaśaka) and his student Sahajavajra’s Commentary thereof somehow represent Maitreyanātha’s view, then it is clear that he didn’t follow Ratnākaraśānti’s Nirākāravādin-Yogācāra-Mādhyamika view. His last Vikramaśīla teacher Jñānaśrīmitra did beat Ratnākaraśānti in a debate according to Ratnakīrti (one of Jñānaśrīmitra's other students) as Ratnakīrti wrote in his work Īśvarasādhanadūśaṇa (Refutation of the Proof of God)[5].

What then was Ratnākaraśānti’s view (supposedly in conformity with tantric Nāgārjuna and tantric Candrakīrti)? It is most easily summarized as the “Luminist” view of “Sheer Luminosity” (t. gsal ba tsam s. prakāśamātra).

“All phenomena (sarvadharma) are sheer mind [cittamātra], [i.e.] sheer consciousness [“vijñanamātra”, “vijñapti-mātra[6]” or perhaps ”saṃvidmātra”?][7], [i.e.] sheer luminosity [prakāśamātra][8].”

For Ratnākaraśānti’s these are three synonyms. As an aside, the expression “[saṃvit]prakāśamātra” can be found in non-Buddhist works.

“The philosophic intellect, which is unclouded by prejudice, is the true form of the Great Brahma himself; who shines perspicuous in our consciousness, and has no other body besides.”
“nirāvaraṇavijñānamayī cidbrahmarūpiṇī |
saṃvitprakāśamātraikadehādehavivarjitā || 52 |” 7.186.52 Yoga-Vasiṣṭha attributed to Valmiki, in the Chapter "Demonstration of all nature (and thing) as brahma himself"

In order to prove that Nāgārjuna’s intention was actually “sheer luminosity” “shining forth” and illumining phenomena the nature whereof was sheer luminosity, Ratnākaraśānti wrote:

“Now, what is the proof here that these [phenomena] have as their nature sheer consciousness? It is taught in this [Nirākāravādin position] that the luminosity (prakāśa) of phenomena shining forth (prakāśamāna) is like a nature (ātmabhūta) established through direct experience. The nature of shining forth is [their] being known (prakhyāna), [their] appearing (pratibhāsana). This, obviously, is [their] completely clear (parisphuṭa) nature (rūpa) [that is] neither inanimate (jaḍa) nor inaccessible (parokṣa). And, if this [nature] were not established, then the unwanted consequence [would be] that nothing could be established, since nothing could be shining forth. Since [this nature must be] established, it is nothing but awareness. So, all phenomena are established as having awareness as their inherent nature.” (Defining Wisdom, p. 79)

“Awareness”, “Luminosity”, or “luminosity’s reflexive awareness” is the nature or even the stuff or substance (t. rdzas su grub pa) phenomena “are made” of.

“The Yogācāra [position] is that the sheer luminosity, which is the inherent nature of phenomena, exists as a real substance, whereas the Mādhyamika [position] is that it does not exist as a real substance. This itself is a baseless quarrel of Mādhyamika [scholars] with Yogācāra. [Such a pity], the coarseness of people.” (Defining Wisdom, p. 78)

This substance is the Light that shines forth from the Great Buddha’s true form as our luminous reflexive awareness, or “Luminous Self”. The forms (“phenomena”) that are directly/yogically perceived are without error. The reflexive awareness, that may perceive a grasped and a grasper (object and subject), is nonetheless luminous, because “it has the nature of luminosity”[9]. It’s Luminosity from the very top til the bottom, and again all the way back up.

As the old argument goes, even denying it is to confirm and prove it[10]! Consciousness is not an object of perception but the very subjectivity through which all perception and denial occurs. Consciousness or Luminosity is direct perception (pratyakṣa), it is the ultimate reliable cognition (pramāṇa). As for causality (at the conventional level) focusing on a grasper and grasped, Luminosity or Its true form is the only ultimate “Cause”, or “the only causally efficacious thing”[11]...

“Also, there is nothing that disproves (gnod par byed pa; bādhaka) the luminous nature of reflexive awareness, because there [can be] no other means of reliable cognition (pramāṇa) that surpasses it (de las lhag pa; tato ’dhika). And, this [luminous nature] is the direct perception (mngon sum; pratyakṣa) and direct experience (yang dag tu myong ba; pratisaṃvedana/anubhava) of reflexive awareness. Hence, this [luminous nature] is proven by means of reliable cognition to be the means of reliable cognition, which cannot be disproven even by one hundred means of reliable cognition. What need is there even to mention [that this luminous nature cannot be disproven] by others’ (pha rol) mere refutations (gnod pa) that are not means of reliable cognition? Therefore, [the above demonstrates] the proof and disproof through the two means of reliable cognition [namely, direct perception and inference].” (Defining Wisdom, p. 80)

And it is divine, which is where tantrism comes in. It is easier to recognize everything as divine, as the Lord (Īśvara), from top to bottom, through Deity practice, which is actually merely an elaborated form of Buddhānusmṛti. With Luminosity, in a Divine true form, shining forth as a “luminous self-awareness” (svasamvedana) or a Luminous Self, that when recognized as such is like “recognizing the Lord”[12].

“1.1.2 What sentient being could possibly prove or disprove God, when He is their very own Self, established from the beginning as that which makes cognition and action possible? Cognition (jñāna) and Action (kriyā) inhere solely within the Self of all beings, which is the ground [of being] that makes the experience of all objects possible. That Self embraces its own capacity for self-validation, being self-luminous: otherwise it could not establish all the various objects of its experience [which are illuminated by the inherent ‘light’ of its awareness]. Its nature is uniquely that of Knower; it is always already self-established & self-perfected (pūrvasiddha) and primordial. Its sovereignty is established through self-awareness; so only the foolish try to prove or disprove it.” (Stanzas on the Recognition of Divine Consciousness, Utpaladeva, translated by Christopher Wallis/Hareesh).

This Luminous Lord shines forth even in duality, and especially in duality, because the only way for the Lord to know himself is through reflecting and recognizing himself in his proper reflections. The same goes for our Luminous Selves that are made of the same Light as the Luminous Lord and that through recognizing the Lord will recognize their true Luminous nature and Self.

“Ratnākaraśānti was characterized as the only one in India able to distinguish Buddhists from non-Buddhists” (p.45). Dzongsar KR said the same thing about Atiśa and Maitrīpa. Since all three teachers are now dead, and nobody can distinguish Buddhists from non-Buddhists anymore, Śaiva in particular, I suggest to translate the Tibetan compound ‘od-gsal as Prakāśa-Vimarśa instead of "clarity-emptiness" or somesuch. Prakāśa for 'od and Vimarśa for gsal ba as the dynamic interplay (t. rtsal) of Luminous awareness (Ground, t. gzhi) abiding as the Great Buddha and its spontaneous (t. lhun grub) shining forth and Self-reflections (t. rang snang).

Many teachers of Vikramaśīla were said to be Yogācārins or Mādhyamika-Yogācārins, whatever that concretely means. Perhaps the simple fact that they participated in Yogācāra-derived practice? How does one combine the principle that all dharmas are sheer mind, sheer consciousness and sheer luminosity and exist as such, and that all dharmas are empty of inherent existence and natural property (svabhāva)? On the one hand one does not take position (Apratiṣṭhāna-Madhyamaka) and on the other one settles for the eternalist extreme of everything is sheer Luminosity and uses Deity practice as a means to unify the Luminous Self with the Luminous Source (Nous). It is clear that in this deal the Madhyamaka contribution is reduced to zero, and its only function is to serve as a quick honorable mention as a sort of Buddhism of the past. A simple stepping stone, like selflessness (anatta). Those who are still attached to these “obsolete” Buddhist methods in spite of the Third turning of the Wheel are invariably treated as fools, “coarse people” and "cattle-thieves". 

Ratnākaraśānti and others following him made it very clear that without the gods, and not only the “nature of the gods”, there is no Full Buddhahood. Both mundane (daimons) and supramundane gods or godlike entities. In the worship, theurgy, praise, offerings etc. of deity yoga practice, the mundane gods are present as representatives of Nature and asked and thanked for their good and loyal service. This will allow for the accumulation of merit (puṇya) and create the best conditions possible (s. abhyudaya t. mngon mtho) in the adept’s life to accomplish their higher Luminous goal (s. naiḥśreyasa t. legs pa).

***

[1] The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India, David Seyfort Ruegg (1981:122)

[2] Extract from “the so-called ‘Siddha Biography,’ which refers to the Sanskrit MS 142 in the Kaiser Library in Kathmandu that was likely written ca.1200 CE”. Also known as the “Sham Shere manuscript”, translated by Sylvain Lévi.

[3] Awareness contains a cognitive image (ākāra).

[4] “Historically, we know that Jñānaśrīmitra accepted the gauntlet and produced a brilliant response, which produced an interesting debate over the nature of determination (adhyavasāya) and the type of logic that should be employed by Buddhists. Unfortunately, we have little space to address that debate here. See Tani (1999) and (2004) for an excellent comparison of Jñānaśrīmitra’s and Ratnākaraśānti’s different logical systems. Although Tani pays closer attention to Jñānaśrīmitra’s system, toward which he has an affinity, his characterization of the two systems seems to be spot on.” footnote 270, Defining Wisdom, p. 125

[5] Lawrence J. McCrea & Parimal G. Patil, Buddhist Philosophy of Language in India, Columbia University Press, New York, 2010, p.3

[6] “Vijñapti-mātra. The doctrine of ‘mere imagining’ or ‘thought only’ associated with the Vijñānavāda school of Buddhist idealism. According to this teaching the empirical world of objects is regarded as the product of pure ideation, with no reality beyond the consciousness of the perceiving subject. In terms of the doctrine of Vijñapti-mātra, enlightenment is the realization of the imaginary status of phenomena and the non-substantiality of the self and external objects.” Oxford University Press

[7] Tantrāsara of Abhinavagupta, chapter 4

[8] Prajñāpāramitopadeśa by Ratnākaraśānti. Tibetan translation (Shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa'i man ngag). PPu (D145a5): rgyal ba’i sras dag khams gsum pa ’di ni sems tsam mo zhes gsungs te— de bas na chos thams cad sems tsam dang| rnam par shes pa tsam dang| gsal ba tsam yin pas…

[9] The Laṅkāvatārasūtra: “Just as a sword does not cut its own blade, just as a finger does not touch its own tip, just so is a mind when seeing itself...”

“[Ratnākaraśānti replies:] To this [interpretation of yours], I respond that this verse is denying the relationship (bhāva) between a grasped and grasper in a mind’s reflexive awareness, because that [relationship] depends upon a difference (bheda), just as touching and cutting do. However, [the verse is] not denying the reflexive awareness itself, because that [reflexive awareness] has the nature of luminosity, given that reflexive awareness is [something] being known (prakhyāna). So, since the contradiction regards [there being] a difference [when awareness knows itself], [the reflexive awareness here is merely being] restricted to [being] a nondifference (abheda), [it is] not denied. For this very reason, [we have to] supply the words “does not grasp itself” to the phrase “Just so the mind, when seeing itself.” [—i.e. “Just as a sword does not cut its own blade, just as a finger does not touch its own tip, just so the mind, when seeing itself, does not grasp itself."]” (Defining Wisdom, p. 85-86)

[10] See Utpaladeva’s Ajaḍapramātṛsiddhi.

[11] “By proving the ultimate reality of sheer luminosity, Ratnākaraśānti is simultaneously asserting that luminosity is causally efficacious, given his acceptance of Dharmakīrti’s principle that anything real has causal efficacy (arthakriyā).” (Defining Wisdom, p. 87)

[12] Utpaladeva, Īśvara-pratyabhijñā-kārikās (Verses on Self-Recognition).

Blinded by Luminous realization?

The Conversion of Saul, Michelangelo (wikimedia)

Luminous realization seems to be what elsewhere is sometimes called deification (apotheosis), daimonification or self-deification (sometimes critically referred to as “egotheism” or “autotheism”). Deification is the possibility for humans to attain god-like powers and faculties and to become like gods. Daimonification is the same thing but on the lower level of a daimon or genius, and therefore less or not transcendental. Luminous realization requires the belief in the Luminous reality of gods and daimons (and their powers), a Luminous Self, and a Luminous subtle body allowing for transfers, rebirth, “resurrection” and the highest permanent realizations.

In the classical world Nature was enchanted, i.e. run by half-gods, titans, daimons, genii, etc. In order to have some limited power over this enchanted Nature regarding things that mattered in their lives: their health, that of their children and their cattle, fortune, longevity etc., human cults to daimons were established. The powers of daimons tend to be more magical and this-worldly, including a non-transcendental afterlife. Everything Natural or regarding “the creation” was/is run by daimons. The status of a daimon (yakṣa, siddha, vidyādhara, kami etc.), like their powers and faculties, were open to the more industrious and zealous humans in that field, who had access to certain levels of daimonification during or after their lives.

Those aspiring to higher and more permanent realizations went for deification and self-deification. In Buddhism and more in particular esoteric Buddhism, this would refer to the possibility and the means to become a Buddha oneself, in one of the Buddha’s numerous manifestations, including as a Deity (s. iṣṭa-devatā t. yi dam), a Heruka, etc. The Luminous Self already is a potential Buddha (tathāgatagarbha) that only needs to be actualised, through unifying the Luminous Self, the Deity and the Guru. The Luminous Body of the Deity and one’s own Luminous subtle body with its inherent Luminous energy system are one, and are the vessel of the Luminous Self undifferentiated from the Luminous inner Guru. It is simultaneous to the ascension into the Luminous spheres, leaving behind saṃsāra. This is a deification process (in ten, twelve or fourteen levels) authorized through Luminous empowerment and results in the actualisation of the “Triple Body” (trikāya) of a Buddha: dharmakāya, saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya. The “self-empowerment” (svādhiṣṭhāna) is the transformative practice of rituals, visualization techniques, meditative and pneumatic and inner alchemic practices etc. to transform delusioned states of consciousness (waking state, dream, sleep, etc.) in a “continuous luminous awareness that is one's own enlightened nature”[1] with the Luminous Triple Body of a Buddha. “Luminosity” and Luminous self-empowerment/deification are most often part of such esoteric Buddhist path. Was this the same method as Maitrīpa/Advaya-Avadhūtipa exposed in his Commentary (D2268) to the Dohākośagīti attributed to Saraha?

“The collection of twenty-six texts on non-conceptual realization is the result of blending the essence and tantric mahāmudrā teachings of Saraha, Nāgārjuna and Śavaripa with a particular form of Madhyamaka philosophy, called 'non-abiding' (apratiṣṭhāna), which aims at radically transcending any conceptual assessment of true reality. This goal is achieved by "withdrawing one's attention" (amanasikāra) from anything that involves the duality of a perceived and perceiver. The result is a "luminous self-empowerment [svādhiṣṭhāna]," Maitripa's (986–1063) final tantric analysis of amanasikāra.” A Fine Blend of Mahāmudrā and Madhyamaka, Klaus-Dieter Mathes, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2016.

This is indeed the by now traditional view of Tibetan Buddhism. Were these twenty-six texts all works written by Advayavajra? Have they been collected intentionally to "blend" Tantric Mahāmudrā and Madhyamaka 'non-abiding' (apratiṣṭhāna)? Was Advayavajra aware of such a teaching under the name of “Mahāmudrā”? Was he aware of the triple classification of “Mahāmudrā” teachings into Sūtra Mahāmudrā, Tantric Mahāmudrā and Essence Mahāmudrā? Does mental nonengagement (amanasikāra) result in "luminous self-empowerment”, i.e. “deification” in the Triple Body of a Buddha? Did Saraha (Dohākośagīti), Nāgārjuna (2nd-3rd century) and Śavaripa teach “Tantric Mahāmudrā”? Were Saraha, Nāgārjuna and Śavaripa the actual authors of the texts in which they are believed to have taught “Tantric Mahāmudrā”? Is Śavaripa a historical figure and did Advayavajra meet Śavaripa?

Advayavajra, Sahajavajra and Gampopa (originally a Kadampa monk) were most likely not aware of “Sūtra Mahāmudrā”. Gampopa, like Atiśa, followed “Apratiṣṭhāna-Madhyamaka” (tib. dbu ma rab tu mi gnas pa), and so did Sahajavajra when he comments his teacher Advayavajra’s Ten Verses on True Reality (Tattvadaśaka).

“The world itself, which is free from knowledge and knowable objects,
Is taken to be non-duality.
But even vain clinging to a state free of duality
Is taken, in like manner, to be luminous [s. prabhāsvaraḥ t. ‘od gsal ba]. (TD 7)

By the power of having realized this true reality,
The yogin, with eyes wide open,
Moves everywhere like a lion,
By any [chosen] means [and] in any [chosen] manner. (TD 8)

[The yogin] who has left the [eight] worldly dharmas behind
And adopted yogic conduct [that appears to be] crazy
Does everything without [any need for] a reference point,
Being adorned with self-empowerment [s. svādhiṣṭhānavi t. bdag byin brlabs pas]. (TD 9)” (translation by KD Mathes)

It is tempting in a small text with translations as “luminous” and “self-empowerment” to understand the “self-empowerment” to be luminous and therefore tantric, and the translation “empowerment” as having a link with “empowerment” (abhiṣeka). And this would allegedly be “Maitripa's (986–1063) final tantric analysis of amanasikāra”. Sva adhiṣṭhāna can also mean “self-standing”, “resolve” or “self-determination”, becoming the only reference point.

“In the late canonical literature of Theravada Buddhism, adhiṭṭhāna is one of the ten "perfections" (dasa pāramiyo), exemplified by the bodhisattva's resolve to become fully awakened.”

In this specific work attributed to Advayavajra and in Sahajavajra’s Commentary thereof, there is no need to apply a tantric or “deifying” (Form Bodies) reading. For Apratiṣṭhāna-Madhyamaka, and for Gampopa[2], the purified Dharmadhātu was the sole constituent of Buddhahood[3].

“The view of my spiritual friends is as follows: The nature of the Samyaksambuddha is Dharmakāya, the end of all error and natural harmony. But such statements are mere words. In reality Dharmakāya is unborn (so does not stand for any conception at all) and is ineffable.

Venerable Mi.la.ras.pa used to say that transcending awareness is not discursive[4]. It is beyond any predication such as existence or non-existence, eternalism or nihilism, and beyond the realm of intellect. Whatever name it is called does not alter its nature. This is particularly true of the word 'transcending awareness'. It was coined by a numskull, so that even if a Buddha were to be asked to explain it, he could not do so. When it is stated that Dharmakāya is beyond the intellect, unborn and ineffable, or such that one can only say 'do not ask me, look into your own mind', the statement is not true of reality. As is written in the 'mDo.sde.rgyan' ('Mahāyāna-sūtrālańkāra' IX, 3):
Liberation (is) merely the end of error.

Therefore since the Buddha is Dharmakāya and since Dharmakāya is unborn and ineffable, it is not a transcending awareness. If you object that this contradicts the statement in the Sūtras about the two types of spiritual awareness, you must know that it does not. It is like saying that we see blue when we are merely conscious of an appearance of blueness, In other words, to that which (in a process of symbolic transformation) becomes Dharmadhātu and which is transcending awareness we attribute the name 'awareness which sees Reality as it is' and call it ultimate knowledge, while we speak of it as relative when it (the process of symbolic transformation) concerns those who have to be brought to spiritual maturity. This interpretation (of transcending awareness) is a good one. By means of it we can say that the most excellent renunciation and spirituality are the essence or the nature of a Buddha.[5]”

Was Gampopa, born after Maitrīpa’s death, and allegedly Milarepa’s student, stooping down to his students with lesser dispositions, teaching them only “Sūtra Mahāmudrā”? Did he have a personal dislike for Luminous Mahāmudrā since he didn't teach it? Did he not know it or receive it? The polemics followed after his death. We don’t know for certain and his Kagyupa descendants don’t want to know, because the whole Tibetan Buddhist tradition has turned “Luminous” since. The Yogācārin Ratnākaraśānti (T. rin chen 'byung gnas zhi ba, ca. 11th cent.), also called Śāntipa, was quite specific about the necessity of theurgic means to accomplish full Luminous Buddhahood. The practice of the Hearers (śrāvaka) and the Mādhyamika is not sufficient and results in “complete cessation, because of not perfecting the actions of purifying the [Luminous] Buddha qualities”. Theurgy, deity practice, in itself is not sufficient either, and neither is “meditat[ing] only on the true nature of what the deities stand for and not the deities”.

“(5) Therefore, the meditation of both [the mind as deities and the true nature of the deities at the same time], because it is extremely pleasant to the mind and because it is a special kind of empowerment, causes one to obtain the highest perfect awakening very quickly.[6]”

In other words “Luminous emptiness”, “Theurgic emptiness”, “Empty Luminosity”, “Empty Theurgy”, or somesuch, but it is clear theurgy or deity practice (deification) is the main ingredient here that can’t be sacrificed, and that is believed to be the only effective access to all the Luminous Buddha Qualities, inherent in the Luminous Self.

Without Luminous Buddhism no blessings, no siddhis and no formal Buddha Bodies. Why not practice Chinese Ch’an in that case?!

When traditional Tibetan Buddhism looks back on earlier times, they do so with the “hindsight” and bias of the later traditions. The whole history and evolution of Tibetan Buddhism is “blended” in a luminous ahistorical hagiographic mix, which is retroactively applied to the earlier situations. A blending and blinding Light.

***

[1] The Other Emptiness, Rethinking the Zhentong Buddhist Discourse in Tibet, edited by Michael R. Sheehy & Klaus-Dieter Mathes, 2019

[2] See Jewel Ornament of Liberation, Herbert V. Guenther, Rider, 1970, p. 261-262

[3] Rong-zom-pa’s Discourses on Buddhology, Orna Almogi, 2009, p. 177

[4] This may be a later interpolation. Also see Des citations qui font plus que citer (2015)

[5] Jewel Ornament of Liberation, Herbert V. Guenther, Rider, 1970, p. 261-262

"And in the 'mDo.sde.rgyan' ('Mahāyāna-sūtrālaṅkāra' IX, 12):  

Where the fog of conflicting emotions and primitive beliefs about reality,

Though present for a long time

Has been dispersed by very great renunciation 

The most excellent virtues and positive qualities are obtained. 

This is Buddhahood.”

[6] The Yogācārin theurgist Ratnākaraśānti (T. rin chen 'byung gnas zhi ba), also called Śāntipa, made a similar declaration about the superiority of the use of theurgy in esoteric Buddhism. He wrote about five different Buddhist contemplative scenarios[3], where the inclusion of theurgy would guarantee the quickest and most complete results.

“(1) If one meditates on the mind alone, then one would only obtain mundane mental concentration (ting nge ’dzin, *samādhi) like the stage of the infinity of consciousness (rnam shes mtha’ yas skye mched, *vijñānānantyāyatana).

(2) Yet if one meditates on emptiness above all, that [result] too becomes only complete cessation, because of not perfecting the actions of purifying the Buddha qualities.

(3) Or, if one meditates on [the mind] only as having the nature of the deities, in this case, one does not even become awakened at all through that alone because the perfection of actions is incomplete.

(4) Or, if one meditates only on the true nature of what the deities stand for and not the deities, then in this case too, one would attain Buddhahood in many countless aeons but not quickly.

(5) Therefore, the meditation of both [the mind as deities and the true nature of the deities at the same time], because it is extremely pleasant to the mind and because it is a special kind of empowerment, causes one to obtain the highest perfect awakening very quickly[4].” “Madhyamakanising” Tantric Yogācāra: The Reuse of Ratnākaraśānti’s Explanation of maṇḍala Visualisation in the Works of Śūnyasamādhivajra, Abhayākaragupta and Tsong Kha Pa Daisy S. Y. Cheung

Let the Luminous sunshine in?

King Louis XIV dancing the Ballet de la nuit (Gallica BnF)

In Tibetan Buddhism, in Buddhism and in other religions, no one is rarely really herself or himself. The XIVth Dalai-Lama is not only an avatar of Avalokiteśvara, the reincarnation of a former Dalai-lama but also “an incarnation of King Trisong Detsen” a Buddhist Tibetan emperor of the 8th century, because his dreams indicated that very clearly. One wonders how that works out in a democracy. A bit like in constitutional monarchies? A head of state is always incarnating their state in some way. In monarchies there often is a bloodline through which the royal ADN is passed on to another mortal terrestrial body, that at the same time “embodies the political and immortal body, the community constituted by the kingdom[1]”.

From: Man of Peace, Robert AF Thurman

In a theocracy like pre-invasion Tibet, the transmission does not necessarily pass through a bloodline, but in other more “spiritual” ways. Yet something divine is somehow incarnated in a mortal human body. A Dalai-lama can be “recognized”, or (auto) designed by divination, visions, dreams, etc. 

From: Man of Peace, Robert AF Thurman

“Those of us gathered here are all followers of the same Buddha. We uphold the Nalanda Tradition, the complete teaching of the Buddha, which we kept alive in Tibet, Mongolia and the Himalayan regions. I’ve had dreams that clearly indicate I am an incarnation of King Trisong Detsen and I have done my best to preserve the tradition established under his direction. I would like to thank all of you for the trust you’ve placed in me." Dharamsala, HP, India on April 19, 2024

He also can have dreams himself that confirm his own divine, or mythological imperial status, as was the case for Tenzin Gyamtso. No doubt the Tibetan State Oracle would confirm that information. What does that sort of information do with a member of the Tibetan democracy-in-exile in India? It is no longer a theocracy and therefore members of that community are legally no subjects anymore, but would you vote against a(n) (re)incarnation of King Trisong Detsen?

 

Aten shining on his earthly representatives (Hymn to Aten)

"At daybreak, when thou arisest on the horizon,
When thou shinest as the Aton by day,
Thou drivest away the darkness and givest thy rays." 

The Egyptian pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty, Akhenaten (reign app. 1353-1336 BCE) is thought to have reformed the Egyptian polytheistic cultus by introducing a form of monotheism (henotheism) centered around Aten, the sun disk, who got the status of a supreme deity, giver of life and sustenance, who directly controlled the cosmos. “Metaphor of Divine Light meet Aten, Aten meet the Divine Light”. The ancient polytheistic Egyptian sun god Rê/Ra could still be present as the solar element in henotheistic combinations such as Amun-Ra. In the Pyramid Texts (2400-2300 BCE) Ra is already depicted as the embodiment of divine order and balance. 

“He was known as the Self-Created-One who appears in creation myths as the deity (interchangeably known as Atum) who stands on the primordial mound amidst the swirling waters of chaos and establishes order, gives birth to the other gods, and creates the world.[2]"

For a period, the priesthood of Amun and the other Egyptian gods lost their power and strengthened the political power of Akhenaten, Ra's earthly embodiment or son. The sun is a universal symbol for the greatest majesty, and divinity. Atenism arrived at the right time of the new Egyptian empire, where universalism came in handy, as is the case for many empires. Sun gods and solar heroes are a great soft power for empires, and often appear at the right moment… The light of the sun makes everything appear and apparent, everything that was hidden can be seen and known. Light, sight and knowledge fuse.

In Book VI of his “Republic” Plato writes:

“As goodness stands in the intelligible realm to intelligence and the things we know, so the sun stands in the visible realm to sight and the things we see.” (Analogy of the Sun)

The sun allows for sight, which is the capability to perceive the visible world, just as the Good allows for knowledge, which is the understanding of the forms. In Neoplatonism, the One is the Source of Light and Good, and in the Gospel of John:

“In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." (John 1:4-5)

Gandharan Bodhisattva with ornate halo, 3rd c. CE (photo)

Disc of Sol Invictus, (3rd century, British Museum)

“[Sol] Invictus”[3] (Ajita) Maitreya and his golden robe (given by the Buddha[4]) has everything from a solar messiah. The Buddha is said to have taught the Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra specifically for him and other (future) bodhisattvas, so that they could progress and one day become Buddhas/Suns themselves.

“Moreover, there are bodhisattvas who cultivate (bhāvayanti) the concentration of recollection of the Buddhas (buddhānusmṛtisamādhi). In order that they progress in this samādhi, the Buddha preached the Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra to them. Thus, in the first chapter of the Prajñāpāramitā, it is said: “Manifesting the basis of his miraculous power (ṛddhipāda), the Buddha emits golden (suvaṇarūpa) rays (raśmi) that light up in the ten directions (daśadiś) universes as numerous as the sands of the Ganges (gaṅgānadīvālukopama lokadhātu). Showing his great body (mahākāya) of pure light (viṣuddhāvabhāsa) and of various colors (nānāvudharūpa), he fills all of space (ākāśa). In the middle of the assembly (parṣad), the Buddha is upright (ṛju), beautiful (abhirūpa), peerless (asama), like Sumeru, king of the mountains, in the center of the great ocean.” The bodhisattvas, seeing this miracle (prātihārya) of the Buddha, progress ever further in the recollection of the Buddha. It is for this reason that the Buddha preaches the Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra.” (4-5th century) (Maha Prajnaparamita Śastra 2001)

Gandhara Buddha 1st-2nd century

This description of the Buddha as a Sun lighting up the ten directions, “like Sumeru, king of the mountains, in the center of the great ocean” reminds the above description of Ra “the self-created one”, appearing anew every day.

King Trisong Detsen (8th century) is considered as an emanation of Mañjuśrī the “Superbodhisattva”, personification of the Logos. And Padmasambhava, as told in the the Chronicle of Padma (pad+ma bka’ thang, discovered by Urgyan Lingpa born in 1323) was sent from the heart of Buddha Amitabha to spread Buddhism in Tibet.

“CANTO 2 THE EMANATIONS EMITTED BY BUDDHA AMITABHA FOR THE SAKE OF THE WORLD

Buddha Amitabha of this western paradise. wishing to subjugate those imprisoned by their own pride- the rulers of the world and their haughty like- from his head-cone, brought forth by means of a red ray, a king, in the happy-land of the lotuses. This was a universal king, Sangbo Chog, Best of the Good. Over the four continents he extended his rule, his prosperity, his power. He had a thousand queens and yet not one son, although all his actions were works of the Dharma. In the southwest spreads the Milky Sea. A lotus flower had just unfolded there; now the king, in order to offer it to the Three Jewels, sent a servant to obtain it. So it was taken and given to the king, and when the king made an oblation to the Three Jewels, from the middle of Amitabha's tongue rays of five colors darted toward the sea.“ The Life and Liberation of Padmasambhava, Dharma Publishing (1978)

The Lotus born one, detail (HA90161)

When this flower of udumbara opened, the Precious Guru, Padmasambhava, the Lotus born one appeared as a young child, a young Sun, a Second Buddha. In whatever forms Buddhas and their manifestations appear, their origin is the metaphorical Divine Light of the Sun, Luminosity, Luminous Emptiness or whatever else one wants to call it. How metaphorical, depends on the individuals using and understanding it.

Young Louis XIV, Jean Nocret

The French king Louis XIV (1638 – 1715) called himself the “Sun King”, after the Sun God Apollo, whom he identified with. He considered himself to be the direct representative of God. King by divine right, he wielded the absolute power of the monarchy. Identifying himself with a pagan god didn’t stop him from persecuting Huguenots (of which I happen to be a Dutch descendant). In Ballet royal de la nuit, the young king participated himself. Night and Silence are in conversation during the Night. The four luminaries (elements) appear and gradually the world is awakened by the Sun, played by the King.

Ballet royal de la nuit

"Première Entrée.

Les quatre Démons du Feu, de l’Air, de l’Eau , & de la Terre, qui rèpresentent les quatre humeurs ou temperamens du corps humain ; le Colérique, le Sanguin, le.-Flegmatique, & le Melancholique, d’où naissent les differens Songes." Ballet royal de la nuit

Isn’t our earth a blessed place for having carried and still carrying so many recognized, anointed, crowned and (self) appointed representative luminaries of the Sun, the Divine Light etc. etc.?

Gates of Versailles

***

Vajra ballet: Génèse de la danse Vajra ?

[1] “Comme l’avait remarqué Ernst Kantorowicz[2] pour des rois européens, le roi a deux corps : un « corps terrestre et mortel, tout en incarnant le corps politique et immortel, la communauté constituée par le royaume ».

« Parce qu'il est naturellement un homme mortel, le roi souffre, doute, se trompe parfois : il n'est ni infaillible, ni intouchable, et en aucune manière l'ombre de Dieu sur Terre comme le souverain peut l'être en régime théocratique. Mais dans ce corps mortel du roi vient se loger le corps immortel du royaume que le roi transmet à son successeur. » ‘Les Deux Corps du roi’ d'Ernst Kantorowicz, Patrick Boucheron L'Histoire, no 315 - décembre 2006.

See Les deux corps d'un tulkou

[2] Ra (Egyptian god), Joshua J. Mark, 2021

[3] Under Emperor Aurelian (3rd century AD), the cult of Sol Invictus ("Unconquered Sun") was established as an official religion. This deity was promoted above other gods in the pantheon, reflecting a kind of henotheism. Sol Invictus was celebrated as a source of life and victory, symbolizing the emperor's power and divine favor. Wikipedia

[4] Etienne Lamotte, The Treatise on the Great Virtue of Wisdom of Nāgārjuna Vol. II ( 1949 )
Part 1 - For what reasons did the Buddha preach Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra?, Maha Prajnaparamita Śastra by Gelongma Karma Migme Chödrön (2001)

The Dà zhìdù lùn was translated into Chinese by the Kuchean monk Kumārajīva (344–413 CE) and his Chinese team

The Luminous Mahāmudrā of Maitrīpa

"Maitrīpa" blending Madhyamaka and Luminous Mahāmudrā (HA60674). Will it blend? 

One of the characteristics of “Luminous Buddhism” is the notion of a Buddha-essence (dhātu) in every being, that is “eternal, blissful, characterized by a personal self, and pure” (Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra), often in the company of an inner luminous subtle body (astral body or spirit body). Luminous in the sense of immaterial, or formed by the most subtle material, similar to light.

Such a Buddha-essence, and its “presence” in all sentient beings, in all their successive (transmigrational) bodies is possible thanks to this inner luminous body, a body in a body, that seems to be whatever is transferred.

The orthodox Theravada Buddhism of Thailand has an influential version of Luminous Buddhism since the last century, thanks to the breakthrough (1916)[1] of Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro (1884 – 1959), the founder of the Dhammakaya tradition.

“He experienced "a bright and shining sphere of Dhamma at the centre of his body, followed by new spheres, each "brighter and clearer", which he understood to be the true Dhamma-body, or Dhammakāya. the "spiritual essence of the Buddha and nibbana [which] exists as a literal reality within the human body, and the true Self (as opposed to the non-self).”

The successful Luminous Theravada of Vijjā Dhammakāya (photo Wcsa.world)
The same movement also confirmed Steve Jobs' rebirth as a powerful daimon 

He then tried to authenticate his experience through reinterpreting a phrase from the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta. 'contemplating the body as a body' became 'contemplating the body in the body'. His experience was developed into a mediation method called “Vijjā Dhammakāya”, the direct knowledge [gnosis] of the Dhammakāya. Dhammakāya here is understood as the luminous body in the body, undifferentiated from the “true Self”[2].

The Luminous Self and the Luminous Body (“Dhammakāya”) open(ed) the possibility to integrate eternalist religious practices into Buddhism. The Luminous Body is the immanent recipient of the transcendent Self, which is the spark, the seed, embryon etc. of a Buddha, a God or an invisible Source (Nous). The vagueness of the notion of “luminosity” and “luminous” allows for authenticating Luminous Buddhism in canonical Buddhist scriptures, where it is most often used metaphorically.

“This mind, mendicants, is radiant.
“Pabhassaramidaṁ, bhikkhave, cittaṁ.
But it is corrupted by passing corruptions.
Tañca kho āgantukehi upakkilesehi upakkiliṭṭhaṁ.
An uneducated ordinary person does not truly understand this.
Taṁ assutavā puthujjano yathābhūtaṁ nappajānāti.
So I say that the uneducated ordinary person has no development of the mind.”
Tasmā ‘assutavato puthujjanassa cittabhāvanā natthī’ti vadāmī”ti.” (translation of AN 1.51 by Bhante Sujato)

“This” mind seems to refer to a specific mind in jhāna, and “luminous”, or rather “radiant” is used as a metaphor to describe the quality of such mind (citta), and not to refer to a Luminous Self, and even less to a Luminous mental body. The adjective luminous slips into a substantive and Luminosity or Clear Light become a substance and an essence, for that which is “eternal, blissful, characterized by a personal self, and pure”, i.e. the Buddha, his cosmic Body, Buddha fields etc., the whole Luminous reality, that in non-Buddhist traditions is often referred to as the Divine.

The Buddhist concept of emptiness (śūnyatā), essencelessness or dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), is used to certify the Divine of Luminous reality (Luminous Self, Luminous Body etc.) as being free of any essence (100% essence free), and yet Luminous or Divine. Emptiness is like the airlock between ordinary reality and Luminous reality. Both ordinary reality and Luminous reality lack any essence, or to put it differently “emptiness”, somehow losing its metaphorical meaning, and becomes like the essence of both realities. All sorts of combinations (“unions”) are possible with emptiness. Emptiness is like a canonical Buddhist approval mark.

Early Buddhist methods apply non-self and emptiness to ordinary reality, so it can be used skilfully, but ordinary reality was not enough for Luminous Buddhists, who saw what other religions had to offer: deification and self-deification. Human beings could be enhanced/luminified/deified/daimonified thanks to the Luminous potential of their Luminous Self and Body, directly linked to and undifferentiated from Luminous Buddhas and their Luminous realities. Through entering that reality, the birth and death that come with ordinary reality could be avoided altogether, and spiritual immortality became within reach. Other religions (Egyptian, Hellenistic, Chaldean, Roman, Gnostic, Christian etc.) already had this on offer, and Buddhism (Yogācāra) was ready to jump on the Luminous bandwagon. The Buddha’s nirvāṇa had to make place for “an undying, eternal state of supreme bliss”[3]. The former teachings of the Buddha, respectively selflessness and emptiness, were considered as preparations for the third turning of the wheel, that would open the way for Luminous Buddhism

“Such a presentation was bound to raise questions and arouse criticism from other Buddhists, and they surely came even as the sutras were being disseminated. We see one such criticism rebutted in the Lankavatarasutra, in which the term “self” is used to refer to buddhanature, but the Buddha, in conversation with Mahamati, explains that “self” here refers to emptiness and signlessness, and that it is being used to prevent the fear of emptiness among people and to attract the non-Buddhists to the Buddha’s teachings. The Ultimate Continuum, continuing this defense, defines the great sublime “self” or buddhanature as a transcendence of the notions of self and nonself and, for that matter, all forms of conceptual construction and mental fixation.” (Why Buddhanature Matters)

That “great sublime self” is Luminous and the core of the Luminous reality that will be built around it, or rather “entered into” (avatara), because it has always existed, only ignorance (avidyā) prevented us from experiencing it fully. Tantras teach how this reality can be accessed and how we can self-deify or “self-empower” (svādhiṣṭhāna) under the guidance of a guru.

In Tibetan Buddhism, “Maitrīpa” is presented as one of the teachers who helped to build a bridge between madhyamaka and Luminous Buddhism. The “Great Self” allegedly taught by Maitreya during Asaṅga’s ascension to Tuṣita heaven, would lead to the composition of The Ultimate Continuum and its commentaries that would serve as the canonical justification for the Element (dhātu) that became the basis for Tantric self-deification.

Maitrīpa is considered as the author of the Amanasikāra cycle, containing a variety of texts attributed to Advayavajra/Maitrīpa. Whether these have been effectively (all) authored by Advayavajra and have not been amended since the 11th century is not known. The cumulative meaning of all these texts is considered as Maitrīpa’s teaching by the Tibetan tradition and its scholars. Some Amanasikāra texts center on nonabiding (apratiṣṭhāna), others on tantric empowerment and practices. Klaus-Dieter Mathes and others see the occurrence of both topics in the same cycle as proof of the author’s (Maitrīpa?) intention to blend nonabiding and self-empowerment. In my opinion it’s no so much a “blend” than a bridge or a gateway to full Luminous tantric practice, since nonabiding on itself is considered by Luminous Buddhism as an incomplete method that will effectively be superseded by Luminous methods. This is also what happened.

“In this cycle, Maitrīpa blends Śavaripa’s Mahāmudrā with his favored Madhyamaka philosophy of nonabiding (apratiṣṭhāna), which aims at radically transcending any conceptual assessment of true reality.”

For Mathes and the Tibetan tradition Maitrīpa’s intention to blend madhyamika nonabiding with Tantric Mahāmudrā is based on a creative semiotic interpretation of the Sanskrit word for mental nonengagement, amanasikāra, found in one of the texts attributed to Maitrīpa, the Amanasikārādhāra, translated by Mathes as “Justification of Nonconceptual Realization”. In the “blending” process, we start with Mādhyamika nonabiding, pass through mental nonengagement, translated as “Nonconceptual Realization”, and end up with “Luminous self-empowerment".

“Nonabiding” is a translation for the Sanskrit apratiṣṭhāna, which is a basic term used by “Apratiṣṭhāna-Madhyamaka” (tib. dbu ma rab tu mi gnas pa). One of its earlier definitions can be found in the Gaganagañjaparipṛcchā.

“The essential nature is like space, the superficial mental effort is like wind, the actions and vices are like water, and the parts of personality, spheres and fields of perception are like earth. Therefore, it is said that all dharmas are devoid of any root, the root which is established in nothing, the root of purity, and the root of no root.[4]”

That sounds pretty radical and one wonders how this radical mādhyamika rootlessness can be effectively blended with Luminosity (s. prabhāsvara t. ‘od gsal) as a sort of “universal root”, and with practices centered on Luminosity.

“Maitrīpa, however, takes amanasikāra not only in this ordinary sense of mental nonengagement but also analyzes the compound a-manasikāra as “luminous self-empowerment.” In doing so, he understands the privative a as denoting luminous emptiness, with which one directly engages (manasikāra) in a nonconceptual way. This, in any case, is the conclusion in the Justification of Nonconceptual Realization:

“Moreover, a stands for the word “luminous,” and manasikāra for the word “self-empowerment” (svādhiṣṭhāna). It is both a and manasikāra, so we get amanasikāra. Because of that, the words a, manasikāra, and so forth, refer to the inconceivable state of being luminous and the one of self-empowerment.” (Maitrīpa, India’s Yogi of Nondual Bliss)

Luminosity (Nous) is perhaps not “a root” but certainly has the appearance of the all pervading “substance” everything is ultimately “made of”. For Luminists Luminosity goes deeper than mind and intellect, and the suspension thereof. It goes deeper than “emptiness”, conveniently considered as “empty emptiness”, that needs to be paired with “luminosity”, “bliss” etc. in order to be “complete”. Since Luminosity is eternal and all pervading, whatever is built in or on Luminosity will last. Whatever is Luminous is superior to what requires mental and intellectual effort and even the suspension of that effort.

Mathes explains:

“Maitrīpa thus introduces to the practice of not becoming mentally engaged a Mahāmudrā component (luminous emptiness) that allows him to continuously refrain from any form of reification and stabilize his nonconceptual realization of emptiness. In other words, amanasikāra not only means to refrain from projecting wrong notions (such as an independent existence or characteristic signs) onto anything arisen in dependence, whether skandhas, dhātus, or āyatanas,but also a sustained realization of the luminous nature of mind." (Maitrīpa, India’s Yogi of Nondual Bliss)

Mental nonengagement, [empty] emptiness and nonconceptuality are not “stable”, not “continuous”, and therefore not sufficient, when they are not integrated ("realized") in the lasting Luminous level of the transcendent Luminous Self. They would be interrupted when one’s Selfless little self disintegrates. It’s not a permanent realization. Therefore, Luminists say, mental nonengagement needs to be "realized" on the Luminous level of mind. The Luminous nature (prakṛti) “of mind” is the Luminous Self and its Luminous vessel. Whatever is "realized" on that level will continue to operate when dying, and after death. The Selfless little self disintegrates, but the Luminous Self fares on in its Luminous vessel and allows one to luminify/buddhify/daimonify/deify. The object of Buddhist Tantra is to connect with and prepare the Luminous vessel for every possible situation (waking state, dream, sleep, after death, becoming…). Without this, all the Buddhism you have (selflessness, emptiness, nonabiding, mental nonengagement, sūtra mahāmudrā, “cutting through rigidity” Dzogchen, etc.) won’t do, and you would have to start all over again in your next life. With this in mind you are ready to understand Maitrīpa’s and Sahajavajra’s intention properly.

Mahāmudrā is not the pedaling-in-the-air of Sūtra Mahāmudrā, but Luminous Mahāmudrā, Tantric Mahāmudrā (or alternatively Essential Mahāmudrā for the happy few) on the Luminous level. This requires a guru, Luminous empowerment and Luminous self-empowerment in order to realize full Luminification/Buddhification.

In the lower right corner of Maitrīpa's thanka above, we see a relaxed Milarepa who is clearly not blending... A critical touch or wink of the painter in the style of Breughel ? Unless it is Maitrīpa himself crossing the Ganges as told in one of his Tibetan hagiographies.

***

[1] “Thus, on the full-moon day in the 10th lunar month of 1916, he sat down in the main shrine hall of Wat Botbon, resolving not to waver in his practice of meditation. He meditated for three hours on the mantra sammā araham, which means "righteous Absolute of Attainment which a human being can achieve." Then "his mind [suddenly] became still and firmly established at the very centre of his body," and he experienced "a bright and shining sphere of Dhamma at the centre of his body, followed by new spheres, each "brighter and clearer." According to Luang Pu Sodh, this was the true Dhamma-body, or Dhammakāya, the "spiritual essence of the Buddha and nibbana [which] exists as a literal reality within the human body.” Mackenzie, Rory (2007), New Buddhist Movements in Thailand: Towards an understanding of Wat Phra Dhammakaya and Santi Asoke (PDF), Routledge, ISBN 978-0-203-96646-4.

[2] Wikipedia, Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro.

[3] Why Buddhanature Matters, Lopen Karma Phuntsho, Lion’s Roar

[4] Han, Jaehee. 2021. The Sky as a Mahāyāna Symbol of Emptiness and Generous Fullness: A Study and Translation of the Gaganagañjaparipṛcchā. PhD dissertation, University of Oslo. Online source
For the Sanskrit and Tibetan version of the quote:

Rgvbh: tatra yathākāśadhātus tathā prakṛtiḥ | yathā vāyudhātus tathāyoniśomanasikāraḥ | yathābdhātus tathā karmakleśāḥ | yathā pṛthivīdhātus tathā skandhadhātvāyatanāni | tata ucyante sarvadharmā asāramūlā apratiṣṭhānamūlāḥ śuddhamūlā amūlamūlā iti |

RgvbhTib: de la nam mkha’i khams ji lta pa de ltar ni raṅ bźin no || rluṅ gi khams ji lta ba de ltar ni tshul bźin ma yin pa yid la byed pa’o || chu’i khams ji ta ba de ltar ni las daṅ ñon moṅs pa’o || sa’i khams ji lta ba de ltar ni phuṅ po daṅ | skye mched daṅ | khams rnams so || des na chos thams cad ni rtsa ba yoṅs su chad pa ste | sñiṅ po med pa’i rtsa ba can | mi gnas pa’i rtsa ba can | dag pa’i rtsa ba can | rtsa ba med pa’i rtsa ba can źes brjod do źe’o ||