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 ||