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).