Kadampa Mahāmudrā with or without "blessing"?

Screen capture, (Youtube Tse Chen Ling)

In the first decade of the 21st century (2006-2015), an important collection of texts was discovered in the Nechung Lhakhang of the 16 arhats, on the site of Drepung Monastery. The collection had been confiscated, and deposited there around 1642. The collection is one of Kadampa writings, referred to as “bKa’ gdams pa gsung ’bum, 2006–2015)” or “Bka’ gdams gsung ’bum phyogs bsgrigs[1]”, in English “the Collected Works of the Kadampas”. These texts are said to date from the eleventh to early fourteenth centuries. The Kadampa school was founded by Atiśa Dīpaṃkaraśrījñāna (982-1054), or rather his students, in the 11th century.

Screen capture, (Youtube Tse Chen Ling)

James B. Apple[2], an expert on Atiśa, follows the project closely, studied a selection of manuscripts and published their English translations, more specifically on the topic of Kadampa Mahāmudrā and “Pointing out” instructions (t. ngo sprod). I only discovered Apple's research work recently, and I am enthusiastic about his findings.

Apple has translated several works of the Kadampa Collection attributed to Atiśa, and wrote articles about it. Two examples.

Atiśa's Teachings on Mahāmudrā, 2017

“This paper examines the Mahāmudrā teachings of Atiśa Dīpaṃkaraśrījñāna (982-1054 CE) and his early bKa’ gdams pa (hereafter, Kadampa) followers based on previously unstudied canonical documents and manuscripts recently published in Tibet.” 

I don’t agree completely with the conclusion, because I think some materials may be later Kadampa (Kagyupa, or Gelugpa[3]) works attributed to Atiśa, and in particular the major part of the Great Seal Bestowed upon Gönpawa.

Pointing-Out Instructions in Sets of Five (Ngo sprod lnga tshoms) 2020

In his conclusion of Atiśa's Teachings on Mahāmudrā (2017), James B. Apple writes:

“Atiśa’s teachings on Mahāmudrā represent a teaching tradition stemming from Tilopa and supplemented with an exegesis, focused on Cakrasaṃvara and its explanatory tantras, influenced by his institutional base at Vikramaśīla monastery. His teachings consistently focus on meditating on clear light as the co-emergent nature of the mind. The teaching of clear light is often associated with instruction on Mahāmudrā and based on Yoginī tantras such as Cakrasaṃvara. Atiśa’s instruction on Mahāmudrā was initially structured along mainstream esoteric models of gradual progression through the creation stage followed by completion stage practices. He adapted his Mahāmudrā teachings to the contextual circumstances of his disciples in Tibet, providing instructions on the nature of the mind either as the culmination of the stages of the path or as a technique to recognize the coemergent mind as the dharmakāya.” (Apple, 2017)

Tilopa is a red flag for me, and always requires a closer look. I am not sure at all Tilopa was a historical figure, and if he isn’t, what is he, what does he stand for? In the Kagyu tradition Tilopa is presented as Nāropa’s teacher, who Marpa saw in a vision, like Śavaripa (a vision or apparition) was Maitrīpa’s teacher... Tilopa stands for the Nine cycles of instructions of the disembodied ḍākinī (t. lus med mkha' 'gro skor dgu S. ḍāka-niṣkāya-dharma), which he is said to have received directly from Vajravarāhī. These cycles and other aural transmissions entered the Kagyu tradition via Milarepa’s student Rechungpa, under the names Rechungpa’s aural transmission (t. ras chung snyan brgyud) and Cakrasaṁvara’s aural transmission (t. bde mchog snyan brgyud). We know this mainly through later hagiographic sources (15-16th century).

If we do indeed follow the hagiographic line and narrative of the Kagyu tradition, then an explanation is required why Atiśa, Advayavajra, Gampopa and others didn’t toe the Tantric party line as expected and came up with their own inventions… Why did they go “back” from a “Luminous dharmakāya” to a simple dharmakāya, from a Luminous Yogācāra-madhyamaka to a madhyamaka, adorned with the Guru’s (“Pointing-Out”) instructions?

Apple’s theory about Atiśa’s Mahāmudrā is based on texts attributed to Atiśa, where “Mahāmudrā” is the topic. Amongst others:
- Abhisamayavibhaṅga (mngon par rtogs pa rnam par ’byed pa. Tôh. no. 1490. Dergé Tanjur)
- Essential Condensed Summary on the Special Instructions of Co-emergent Union (Lhan cig skyes sbyor gyi gdam ngag mdor bsdus snying po)
- Stages of the Path to Awakening (Byang chub lam gyi rim pa, *Bodhipathakrama), 2020[4]
- Great Seal Bestowed upon Gönpawa (Jo bo rjes dgon pa ba la gnang ba’i phyag chen), 2016

James B. Apple suggests[5] that the references by Jamgon Kongtrül (1813–1899) (in Shes bya kun khyab) and the third Karmapa Mikyöd Dorje (1507–1554) to the “Phyag chen lhan cig skyes sbyor” composed by Lord Atiśa and “the esoteric instruction of The Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment, renowned as Coemergent Union of the great Geshé Dromtönpa and Geshé Gönpawa” could fit Pointing-Out instructions contained in “Stages of the Path to Awakening”, the “Great Seal Bestowed upon Gönpawa” and the “Special Instructions of Co-emergent Union”.

That may very well be the case. It is not excluded that these texts, included in the “Collected Works of the Kadampas”, confiscated and stored away around 1642, may have been written by Kadampa, Kagyu or Gelugpa apologists, trying to recapture elements of Tilopa’s “lineage of blessing”. On the other hand, if Karmapa Mikyöd Dorje distinguishes Atiśa’s or Gampopa’s mahāmudrā from “the authentic power [siddhi] of [Tantric] mahåmudrå” in “the lineage from the dharmakåya great Vajradhara to the great glorious Nāropa” etc., then he seems to think that what Atiśa’s Mahamudra/”lhan cig skyes sbyor” is lacking is that very “siddhi”. So if the above mentioned texts do indeed correspond to what the eighth Karmapa had in mind, why are they said to have the following "siddhi" "lineage of blessing":

“This Essential Condensed Summary of the Special Instructions on Co-emergent Union was written down by the Śākya monk Kumara. The lineage was transmitted successively from Vajradhara, Tilopa, Nåropa, Ḍombheruka, Lord [Atiśa], Gönpawa[6], [Geshe] Tönpa, Sharwapa (shar ba pa), and Tapkhawa (stabs kha ba). [Later, came] the great master Jamnyak (’jam nyag), the spiritual teacher Drakgyalwa (grags rgyal ba), then myself [Śākya monk Kumāra].”

The lineage of another "Kadampa" text called “General Meaning of the Stages of the Path” (Byang chub lam rim gyi spyi don), a brief work that is part of the Stages of the Path to Awakening, is also called a “lineage of blessing”.

“This lineage of blessing mentions that the teachings come from Tilopa, Nāropa, and then Atiśa. From Atiśa the teachings went to Gönpawa Wangchuk Gyaltsen (dgon pa ba dbang phyug rgyal mtshan, 1016-1082), Gya Chakriwa (rgya lcags ri ba, eleventh century), then Gampopa, and then Pakmo Drupa (phag mo gru ba, 1110–1170 CE). This lineage closely replicates the lineage given in the final text of our survey for Atiśa’s Mahāmudrā teaching, the Essential Condensed Summary on the Special Instructions of Co-emergent Union.” (Apple, Atiśa’s Teachings on Mahāmudrā, 2017)

Why would "siddhi" and "blessings" lack in lineages alledgedly descending directly from Tilopa? If the instructions of these lineages attributed to Atiśa did indeed carry Tilopa’s "blessing" or “authentic siddhi”, then what was all the later fuss about the three sorts of Mahāmudrā? I think the addition of these "lineages of blessing" may have taken place later, i.e. when the lack of siddhi and blessings became a burning topic.

Let’s have a closer look at the Great Seal Bestowed upon Gönpawa (Jo bo rjes dgon pa ba la gnang ba’i phyag chen) that is said to have come down via Tilopa and Nāropa, and Lama Drakgyalwa (grags rgyal ba), “a Kagyu figure from the fourteenth century”. It starts like this.

“The teacher previously stated: what is called co-emergent union is an extremely profound special instruction that Atiśa bestowed upon Gönpawa, to the effect that the co-emergent mind itself is the dharmakāya and co-emergent appearance is the light of the dharmakāya[7].”

This sounds very much like the “Pointing-Out” instructions, such as they were given at Gampo (t. dwags lha sgam po), e.g. by Gampopa’s nephew Gomchung (Shes rab byang chub 1127-1171).

“The precious Gomchung stated: once the meditation of the pointing-out instructions of Mahāmudrā has been planted, natural consciousness (sems nyid lhen cig skyes pa) is dharmakāya and the appearances are the light of dharmakāya[8].”

Gomchung’s instructions (sNying po'i ngo sprod don dam gter mdzod) also contain the instruction to not track the past, nor anticipate the future and "let your perception of the present evolve entirely and authentically as it comes, without even focusing on the present perception”[9]. The actual Pointing-out instructions are very similar, but the instructions attributed to Atiśa are much more than a Ngo sprod. They explain the four yogas ("one-pointedness", "one taste", "bereft of proliferations" and "nonmeditation"), and then explain the transformation of the ordinary body and its “inner mind” (nang du sems), or rather the other way round. It could have been inspired by Milarepa’s song “Having Confidence in the View” composed by Tsangnyön Heruka in the 15-16th century.

“People call me a human, but
I am the son of the great snow lioness.
In my mother’s womb, I perfected three powers.”

“People call me a human, but
I am the son of the garuda, king of birds.
While inside the egg, I developed my wings[10].”

Then the “Great Seal Bestowed upon Gönpawa” goes into explaining the progressive dissolution of the elements at the moment of death, and we are instructed in the Bardo teachings (Karma Lingpa 1326–1386).

“...wind dissolves into consciousness, and when both wind and the mind enter into the central channel, they naturally ascend to the place where gnosis is co-emergent with reality (dharmatā). In this way, a person who is already familiar [with this] through the power of meditation recognizes it upon encountering it, and when the natural clear light and the clear light of meditation meet, one gains the accomplishment of the Great Seal.”

This is not all, because the disembodied Luminous “Great Self” after having reunited with the "Divine Light", then takes on the form of a deity for the benefit of sentient beings.

“Then, [878.5] having taken up a deity’s body unified from within the state of empty clear light [t. gsal stong pa’i ngang las zung ’jug lha’i skur langs nas], anyone trained in this who manifests such a body produces benefit for sentient beings, and further helps others through taking up an illusion-like mental body consisting of uncontaminated karma. If one does not meditate in this way, the natural clear light [t. rang bzhin gyi ’od gsal ba] will not be recognized."

If the “clear light” of the “The Luminous Bardo of Dharmatā” (t. chos nyid 'od gsal gyi bar do), or the clear light of Dharmatā (t. chos nyid kyi ‘od gsal) is not recognized, then the "Great Self" will end up wasted in another ordinary saṃsāric body[11]. The Luminous Bardo of Dharmatā is a later addition to earlier sets of intermediary states (bardo). See Henk Blezer, Kar glin Źi khro: A Tantric Buddhist Concept, 1997.

It is clear to me that this is a patchwork of instructions", attributed to Atiśa perhaps in order to “prove” that Atiśa knew Tilopa, and his instructions, and that he was also aware of Bardo yoga, Bardo teachings, the Luminous Bardo of Dharmatā, and everything else needed to continue to benefit sentient beings in Luminous divine forms. Remember that the path of mantrayāna is a path of "blessings" and "siddhi", and that Gampopa’s Path of direct perception (mngon sum lam du byed pa) is said to be different from the Sūtric epistemic “path of inference” (t. rjes dpag lam du byed pa) and the Tantric “path of blesisngs” (t. byin rlabs kyis lam s. anugraha). The first part of the “Great Seal Bestowed upon Gönpawa” attributed to Atiśa are very similar to Gomchung's Pointing-Out instructions, and can be considered as a path of direct perception, but the rest is clearly later Tibetan Tantric material. Does this really correspond to Atiśa’s teaching in the 11th century?

***

[1] Wangchen Lhamo (Dbyangs can lha mo), et al., eds. 2006-15. Collected Works of the Kadampas. Bka’ gdams gsung ’bum phyogs bsgrigs bzhugs so. 120 vols. Chengdu: Si khron Dpe skrun Tshogs pa, Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang.

[2] “James B. Apple is full Professor of Buddhist Studies at the University of Calgary. He received his doctorate in Buddhist Studies from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His current research focuses upon the critical analysis of Mahāyāna sūtras and topics within Indian and Tibetan Buddhist scholasticism.” Academia.edu

[3] Roger Jackson, “Assimilating the Great Seal: The Dge lugs pa-ization of the dge ldan bka ’brgyud Tradition of Mahāmudrā, Mahāmudrā in India and Tibet, Edited by Roger R. Jackson Klaus-Dieter Mathes, 2020

[4] Revue d'Etudes Tibétaines, no. 56, Octobre 2020, pp. 170-262

[5] Atiśa Teaching on Mahāmudrā, 2017

[6] Gönpawa is Gönpawa Wangchuk Gyaltsen (dgon pa ba dbang phyug rgyal mtshan, 1016-1082)

[7] "slob dpon pa’i zhal snga nas/ lhan cig skyes sbyor bya ba jo bos dgon pa ba la gnang ba’i gdam ngag shin tu zab pa yin gsungs/ de yang sems nyid lhan cig skyes pa chos kyi sku dang/ snang ba lhan cig skyes pa chos kyi sku’i ’od gnyis po de/"

[8] “rin po che sgom chung gi zhal nas/'o na phyag rgya chen po ngo sprod sgom pa 'di tsug yin pas/sems nyid lhan cig skyes pa chos kyi sku dang*/snang ba lhan cig skyes pa chos sku'i 'od/”

[9] 'o skol gyi blo rnam rtog snga ma'i phyir mi 'brang ba yin/ma 'ongs pa'i sngun mi bsu zer tsa na/'o skol gyi blos rnam rtog phyi ma'i mdun mi bsu ba yin/da ltar gyi shes pa rang gar rnal mar tsen gyis bzhag zer tsa na/da ltar gang du yang mi dmigs pa la zer ba yin/

[10] "This single cycle has three different names: “The Attack of Bhinayaka, King of Obstructing Spirits,” “The Six Remembrances of the Guru,” and “The Red Rock of Chonglung.”

Great Seal Bestowed upon Gönpawa:

"dper na gcan gzan gyi rgyal po ma’i khong du rtsal gsum rdzogs kyang ma’i lus kyi rgyar ’thum pa’am/ khyung sgong nga’i nang du gshog gru rgyas kyang sgong nga’i rgyas ’thum pa dang ’dra ste/"

 

Milarepa: mi nga dag nga rang mi zer te// nga ni dar seng dkar mo'i bu// a ma'i mngal nas rtsal gsum rdzogs// phru gu'i lo la tshang du nyal// thong ba'i lo la tshang sgo bsrungs// dar ma'i lo la gangs stod 'grims// nga gangs bu yug 'tshubs rung ya mi nga// brag g.ya nga sa che rung bag mi tsha//

mi nga dag nga rang mi zer te/nga ni bya rgyal khyung gi bu/sgo nga'i nang nas gshog sgro rgyas/phru gu'i lo la tshang du nyal/thong ba'i lo la tshang sgo bsrungs/khyung chen dar ma'i lo la nam 'phangs bcad/nga gnam kha zheng che rung ya mi nga /sa lung sul dog rung bag mi tsha/

 

From The Hundred Thousand Songs of Milarepa: A New Translation, by Tsangnyön Heruka, translated by Christopher Stagg. Shambhala Publications, 2017.

[11] Dzogchen Ponlop, Mind Beyond Death (Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications, 2006), Ch.6 'Egoless Journey: The Luminous Bardo of Dharmata'.

Blezer in his conclusion of cited work: "Several more or less distinct strands of bar do speculations seem to exist. Though a 'chi kha'i bar do (or an equivalent, the nomenclature is not always consistent or at all extant) and a sridpa'i bar do do appear in all traditions and texts, a chos nyid bar do appears to be a late development, not present in all of them. The (bKa' rgyudpa-)siddha-s, for instance, do not distinguish a chos nyid bar do (notwithstanding the reference to a chos nyid bar do in one of Na ro pa's biographies, which does not seem to pertain to a separate bar do there). The Bar do lnga'i ngo sprod from the Ka dag rang 'byung rang shar-cycle does not mention a chos nyid bar do either."

When Yogācāra took over

The Streetlight effect (graphics Datamotive)

The Three Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma (s. tridharmacakravartana) was first mentioned in the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra and the works of the Yogācāra school. This sūtra was translated into Chinese in 440 CE. It is thought to have been developed between the 1st and the 3rd century CE.

In this sūtra, the first turning of the wheel concerns the selflessness of the Hearers (śrāvaka, “hīnayāna”) and the second turning of the wheel the emptiness of the Prajñāpāramitā scriptures (“mahāyāna”). The underlying intent (s. saṃdhi t. dgongs pa) of  these “hīnayāna” and “mahāyāna” approaches require further explication, “for their meaning has to be drawn out (s. neyārtha, t. drang don) through the fully explicit (s. nitārtha, t. nges don) hermeneutic of the [ ] analysis of consciousness”, i.e. the three patterns of consciousness (s. trisvabhāva) according to Yogācāra. The Buddha Nature doctrine (tathāgatagarbha) is also included in the Third turning of the wheel, and as a fully explicit (nitārtha) teaching[1].

“This turning was the most marvelous and wonderful that had ever occurred in the world. It had no superior nor did it contain any implicit meaning nor occasion any controversy[2].”

Yogācāra reframes Buddhism according to its own views and needs and doesn’t refrain from depreciating those who “resist”, often through words put into the mouth of the Buddha uttering the fully explicit sūtras of the third turning. The more positive approach of “consciousness” and “the Great Self” (Buddha Nature) allows for future positive practices to approach and “realize” (t. rtogs pa) “true reality” in its various forms and stages (s. tattva), including deity practice. A philosophical understanding and even a more “mystic” or “inconceivable” abiding in “emptiness”, although liberating, is not enough to develop “luminous” or “divine” qualities, that allow for the attainment of the full potential of a Buddha’s trikāya.

This implies that the views of great Buddhist teachers from the past, such as Nāgārjuna, sometimes called “the Second Buddha”, could be in contradiction with the doctrines (and practices) of Yogācāra. To save past great teachers from their limited views, and to use their scriptural authority, later writings (pseudepigrapha, apocrypha, etc.) could be attributed to them, in which they adapt their first and second turning views to the correct, fully explicit third turning ones. It is also good for the unity of a Buddhist community and allows to integrate earlier teachings in a progressive curriculum. This was also to become the blueprint for the development of Buddhism in Tibet.

In this way Nāgārjuna could be considered to have taught Madhyamaka, Yogācāra and even Tantra, teaching at different levels, for different individuals, following their progression. There is no longer a contradiction in Nāgārjuna as the author of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, the Bodhicittavivaraṇa, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa (Dà zhìdù lùn), the Path and Grounds of the Guhyasamāja, etc. With time passing Nāgārjuna’s view seemed to become more and more clear and precise… Of course the earlier views of Nāgārjuna would have to be re-interpreted through the most recent ones.

In Yogācāra Buddhism (Yogācārabhūmi-Śāstra) transformation is central. Transformation is possible because of a more positive approach. States of purification and consciousness can be targeted, attained, realized, “measured”, and so can positive qualities and cognitions (jñāna). Qualities can be symbolized by attributes of deities, they can be visualized, and when properly integrated, they can appear “spontaneously” in dreams, visions, etc. as signs of progress. When Tantras are incorporated in the Yogācāra curriculum (or develop out of it…), they open up further possibilities.

Once former views have gradually integrated in a mainstream view and have been properly digested, and the associated polemics have been pacified, they are no longer a threat. We can have a look at how e.g. the Kagyu school looked at the evolution of Buddhism through Yogācārin eyes.

“The Buddha taught that of all the progressively subtle ways of explaining the true nature of reality, the ultimate description one can make is that the true nature of reality is the true nature of mind, the union of luminous clarity and emptiness[3].”

In practice, the union of luminosity and emptiness is the combination of Yogācāra ("luminosity") and Madhyamaka ("emptiness"). 

A song by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso summarizes the Buddha’s teaching of “the union of luminous clarity and emptiness” in five “schools” and steps. It is called the Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness and can be found in the online e-book Dancer of Great Bliss (t. bDe chen gyi gar mkhan).

Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso (Dancer of Great Bliss)

“1. The Way to Meditate on Selflessness
In order to gain knowledge about the abiding nature of reality,
Know that the five aggregates are not the self
And that the mind believing in the self is not the self, either,
And when you gain certainty in this, rest right within that.

2. The Way to Meditate in the Mind-Only Tradition
Since perceived objects are the confused projections of habitual tendencies, they do not truly exist.
Therefore, the mind that perceives them does not truly exist either.
When you gain certainty that reality is empty of this duality,
Settle naturally into that—without contrivance, let go and relax.

3. The Way to Meditate in the Autonomy Tradition
Since they are neither one nor many, phenomena have no inherent nature.
Since they neither arise, abide, nor cease, thoughts have no inherent nature.
Since there is neither bondage nor liberation, the disturbing states of mind have no inherent nature.
Knowing this well, rest within great emptiness.

4. The Way to Meditate in the Consequence Tradition
Existent, nonexistent, and so forth,
Empty, not empty, and so forth,
Permanence, extinction, and so forth—
Genuine reality transcends all such conceptual fabrications.

5. The Way to Meditate in the Empty-of-Other Tradition
When we analyze this mind, we cannot find any essence,
But when we do not analyze, experiences of luminosity are unceasing.
Therefore, mind is luminosity and emptiness, primordially inseparable,
And this is known as luminous clarity, the buddha nature[4].”

I will quote parts of the explanation by Karl Brunnhölzl in his book The Center of the Sunlit Sky[5] to go into more detail about the view of the Kagyu Tradition, resuming the Buddha’s teaching of “the union of luminous clarity and emptiness” in five “schools” and steps.

1. “The first step—the meditation on personal identitylessness, or looking for a self in relation to our five aggregates.”

2. “Now, from the second step (Cittamātra) onward, we deal only with phenomenal identitylessness. This second step of “mere mind” basically says that all our experiences, whatever they and their objects may look like, do not occur anywhere other than within our mind. In other words, both the apprehending subject and the apprehended object are of a mental nature.”

3. “The third step in the progressive stages of meditation on emptiness is named after the Autonomists [Svatantrika] and refers to emptiness as a spacelike nonimplicative negation. Even if we realize that there are neither really existent outer objects nor subjects to perceive them, there is still the subtle clinging to the reality of our mere mental experience free from perceiver and perceived.”

4. “The fourth step in the progressive stages of meditation on emptiness is called the stage of Consequentialists and presents emptiness as utter freedom from discursiveness. As was explained, any nonimplicative negation is still a conceptual object and thus a reference point. So even the nonimplicative negation of emptiness in the sense of the mere absence of a real nature, nonarising, and such (as in the third step) is still a subtle reference point. In order for our mind to be able to fully relax within the space of the expanse of dharmas free from center or edge, it has to let go of even its most subtle grasping at any reference point including the freedom from reference points. This is the space of the actual freedom from all discursiveness that we allow for during the fourth step.”

5. “The fifth step in the progressive stages of meditation on emptiness is named after Shentong-Madhyamaka and presents emptiness as inseparable from mind’s luminosity. Since the very freedom from discursiveness and reference points described in the last step is not just some blank space or mere absence (which would be the extreme of extinction or nihilism), it is also described as luminosity, or the unity of wisdom and expanse. Hence, in terms of the actual nature of mind, the fifth stage is not really an additional or higher stage above the freedom from discursiveness.”

The Kagyu tradition focuses on “the eventual experiential unity of the last two steps [4 and 5]”: emptiness and luminosity. But in reality and in practice, Luminosity swallows emptiness “whole and soul”, and follows Ratnākaraśānti’s “Sheer Luminosity” (t. gsal ba tsam s. prakāśamātra), centered on “deity practice”, as do the other schools of Tibetan Buddhism.

As it says in Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso’s song, “And this is known as luminous clarity, the buddha nature”, the “Great Self” with emptiness contained in its stomach. It may be called “Yogacara-Madhyamaka”, “Great Yogacara-Madhyamaka”, “other-emptiness” (t. gzhan stong), it remains Yogācāra.

Karl Brunnhölzl writes “[ ] what is called Shentong is nothing other than the Yogācāra (Yoga Practice) system of Maitreya, Asaṅga, and Vasubandhu, also called “the lineage of vast activity.” He adds in a note

“In its most general sense, in all Buddhist schools, it just refers to the practice of yoga, i.e., meditation practice as opposed to study and reflection (in this sense it is also used in the title and content of Āryadeva’s Four Hundred Verses on the Yogic Practice of Bodhisattvas [Catuḥśataka]).”

The practice of “Yoga” in a Yogācāra and Tantric sense is always centered on deity practice (unifying macrocosm and microcosm). Here too, the above mentioned Āryadeva, supposedly Naragjuna’s student, has this and other Yogācāra texts attributed to him, and even Tantric texts. Yogācāra authors are without scruples. In a future blog I will give another example of this Yogācāra/Shentong strategy of recuperating earlier teachers for their cause.

Religions evolve, and may evolve differently in different times and places, and the narratives change accordingly. Is it acceptable for Western Buddhists to simply follow the latest sectarian narrative of Buddhism’s history as it is presented to them by their teachers, and by the religious literature recommended by them? Wouldn’t it be far more interesting to find out how, when and why the narratives changed? Markus Vinzent thinks so and made some interesting discoveries for Christianity.

“History, as I have tried to show, is much more retrospection than reception and, accordingly, more retrospective reconstruction than reproduction. To put it another way, the subject of any historiography is its author. The historian is an actor in and of the story of history, not a passive listener to stories told. The protagonists who appear in historian’s stories and the evidence on which these stories are based are always selected and shaped by those who write and interact with them. And writers use the narratives, protagonists and evidence that have been conveyed to them in various and unpredictable ways and from their respective perspectives and contexts. We write history as a chronological narrative, but we also retrospectively create it from our current point of view; what sounds to us to be representative of the past is, in fact, eminently subjective. We cannot escape this subjective moment. The best we can do is to bring our own subjectivity into conversation with that of the authors of our sources and their readers. This is exactly how I understand the discourse of scholarship, with regard to early Christianity and in other contexts as well: as creating a conversation open to those who want to share, expand or correct this story, who love it and even devote their lives to it – as I enthusiastically do with so many of my days.” Markus Vinzent (Resetting the Origins of Christianity, A New Theory of Sources and Beginnings

Looking for something in the Light

***

[1] See Keenan, John (2000), Scripture on the Explication of the Underlying Meaning, Berkeley: Numata Center

[2] Keenan, John (2000), p. 49

[3] Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso, Nāgārjuna, Ari Goldfield - The Sun of Wisdom, Teachings on the Noble Nāgārjuna's Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way, Shambhala, 2003

[4] stong nyid sgom rim/
gang zag gi bdag med ni/
gnas lugs rtogs pa'i shes rab ldan 'gyur na//
bdag 'dzin sems kyang bdag tu ma grub par//
phung lnga gang zag bdag tu ma grub cing*//
nges shes rnyed na de'i ngang bzhag par bya//

sems tsam ni/
bag chags 'khrul snang yin phyir gzung ba med//
gnyis stong don la nges shes rnyed pa na//
de phyir 'dzin pa'i sems kyang ma grub pas//
de'i ngang rang babs ma bcos lhod kyis glod//

rang rgyud ni/
gcig dang du ma bral phyir chos kun rang bzhin med//
bcing dang grol ba med phyir nyon mongs rang bzhin med//
skye 'gag gnas pa med phyir rnam rtog rang bzhin med//
de ltar legs par shes te stong chen ngang du zhog//

thal 'gyur ni/
yod dang med pa la sogs dang*//
rtag dang chad pa la sogs pa'i//
stong dang mi stong la sogs dang*//
spros pa kun bral shes par bya//

gzhan stong ni/
sems de dpyad na ngo bo ma dmigs kyang*//
gsal stong dbye ba med par gdod nas grub//
ma dpyad gsal nyams 'gags med shar ba'i phyir//
'od gsal bde gshegs snying po zhes su grags//

[5] Karl Brunnhölzl, The Center of the Sunlit Sky, Madhyamaka in the Kagyu Tradition, Nitartha Institute Series, 2004, p.

Resetting "Mahāmudrā" history?

Reception history is a method for studying historical events and figures by examining how they've been perceived and interpreted throughout history. It  shifts the focus from a straightforward chronological telling of events to analyzing how those events have been understood by different people in different times.

Markus Vinzent (Resetting the Origins of Christianity, A New Theory of Sources and Beginnings) applies reception history to the study of Early Christianity, and retrospectively. Traditionally, scholars have studied this period by analyzing historical documents at face value. Markus Vinzent argues for a  "retrospective" approach.  He examines how later Christians interpreted  earlier figures and writings. This allows him to challenge traditional assumptions and shed new light on the development of Christianity.

With this method one might look at how a writing from the 2nd century AD was understood by someone in the 10th century. By seeing how the meaning changed over time, one can gain new insights into both the original text and the later reader's perspective. Instead of going straight back to the ”original text” and its “initial reception” and then following their evolution throughout history, Vinzent's method looks at its receptions nearer to our times and then goes gradually back into history, to see where and how changes occurred.

“6:09 It occurred to me that when we take the movement backwards, we cannot have it as a continuous movement. All we can do is choose sections. Let's take [Bishop] Ignatius [of Antioch 35 AD to 108/110 AD]. We can take that section, and as soon as we reflect about that particular section, we have to give a chronological explanation. We think writing history is a continuous process, as we almost emulate when we say we write from the year zero to the year 100, as if we have a continuity. But when we reflect backwards, it is anything but continuous. It is always a choice of sections, and within those sections we then establish a pseudo continuity. So that was the rough framework”

“7:43 I've chosen to slice the history by those sections where the new consensus was created, slice by slice like an archaeologist, who traces back the findings in the ground. From today backwards, a few sections where a new kind of discourse had been established.” (Youtube Channel, New Books Network Book of the Day).

When we apply this sort of “retrospective reception history” to Tibetan Buddhism and more specifically to “Maitrīpa”/Advayavajra/Avadhūtipa, it could give us insights into how Maitrīpa and his role were perceived at different times. We have to be aware of the added difficulty that manuscript texts were hardly ever fixed, and were continuously recopied, with the possibility of later later amendments, interpolations, additions, “prophesies”, deletions etc. This needs to be looked into properly, with the proper means… and especially time. Below I will do a quick and dirty “reception history” (not really “retrospective”), to illustrate how it could be done. In what follows the selected authors and their opinions on Maitrīpa are simply those that come to mind first. I ought to have started with Jamgön Kongtrül for the retrospective method, but I went for Tsangnyön Heruka first.

Maitrīpa is firstly known through the texts that are attributed to him (Amanasikāra t. yid la mi byed pa’i skor), and through texts and commentaries attributed to those considered to have been his students. This scriptural “Maitrīpa” appears to have been a respected all-round scholar, and his “scholarship” was not a problem at the beginning of the second millennium, on the contrary. With the “Tibetan Renaissance” (Davidson), and the freshly imported “new” Tantras (gsar ma), things changed very quickly. Yogis became a very competitive new model, and tensions between monastic and yogic communities were the norm. When the new Tantras were generally accepted, mainly through their gradual canonization (e.g. Bu-ston Rinchen Grub 1290-1364), often based on an authentic Indic pedigree, their further evolution and continuing success became dependent on the so called “aural transmissions” (t. snyan rgyud), rediscovered revelations (t. gter ma), etc., allowing for new interpretations and updated doctrines and practices.

These new inputs, that did not necessarily come from an Indic cultural sphere, were often composed in Nepal or Tibet, needed to be authentified by attributing their origin to known Indian masters, and for yogic materials, very often to Indian mahāsiddhas, their direct disciples (fictional or not), and by establishing their Transmission lineages. Narratives were developed in order to authenticate the new transmissions, and hagiographies became the most popular genre. Approximately at the same time as the picaresque novels appeared in Europe.

The new canonized Tantras already came with their transmission lineages, sometimes including teachers that could not have received the newly appeared “aural transmissions”, but were important to authenticate the general transmissions of the more recently formed major Tibetan schools. If a new “aural transmission” had been integrated later in such a school, how could an important earlier teacher of that school have received and transmitted it? It was the job of hagiographists and chroniclers to explain this, and they used all the means they had, before all their creativity, to succeed in their missions.

Most mahāyāna sūtras had been taught by the Buddha in saṃbhogakāya settings. Most “aural transmissions” are said to have an Indian origin with often the following pattern. A saṃbhogakāya entity appears to an Indian (mahā)siddha and gives him an “aural transmission”. The (mahā)siddha passes it on to his Indic disciples, and at one point a Tibetan student (shing rta bgyad) that traveled to India or Nepal will receive it, bringing it back to Tibet. Or the Indic disciple of a (mahā)siddha travels to Tibet and passes it on to a Tibetan student. Often exclusively and in exchange for gold.

Later on, time passing as it always does, gaps could appear in these --let’s call them fictional lineages-- hagiographers used various solutions to fill up the gaps. One of the earlier solutions was an exclusive lineage (t. gcig brgyud) for lack of a better translation. A teacher would pass on the transmission to one student at the same time. That student would do the same, and this would last for several generations (five, seven). The teacher would indicate to the student for how many generations the transmission needed to be kept secret.

Theses and other procedures allowed for Tibetan Buddhism to develop in ways that fitted in best with Tibetan society and its particular needs in later times. Because of the requirements regarding “authenticity” and “transmission”, narratives were needed to explain why the early masters (Milarepa, Gampopa, …) of a lineage did not completely fit in with later forms of Tibetan Buddhism. Maitrīpa was one of them.               

Famous hagiographers and chroniclers such as Tsangnyön Heruka (1452-1507), Dakpo Tashi Namgyal (1511, 1512, or 1513 – 1587), Padma Karpo (1527-1592), Tārānātha (1575-1634), Jamgön Kongtrül (1813–1899) showed and/or explained why Maitrīpa was a special case that didn’t fit in seamlessly, and yet was an important chain in the transmission.

Tsangnyön Heruka (1452-1507) is like Mary Poppins, he never explains anything. He simply tells things as he thinks they were/are. Nāropa and Maitrīpa are important chains in Rechungpa’s Tantric Yogic Kagyu lineage (pace Gampopa!), and there hardly is a difference between them. He has Marpa say so himself in the hagiography dedicated to this Tibetan lotsāva. The English translation team (with Chogyam Trungpa) of Tsangnyön Heruka’s Life of Marpa the Translator,  write that Saraha wrote “three cycles of dohās”, and was “a teacher in the lineage of mahāmudrā, that Marpa received from Maitrīpa” (p. xliv). Marpa saw Saraha in a dream.

Saraha wearing a freshly flayed human skin (Tsadra website)
For a Saraha with bone ornaments: here

“In the cool shade of a grove of plakśa trees.
On a tira corpse seat
Sat Lord Saraha, the Great Brahman.
I had never before seen such majestic brilliance.
He was flanked by two queens.
His body was adorned with charnel ground ornaments.
His joyous face was beaming.” (Life of Marpa, p. 45)

Saraha/Śavaripa, illumination Nepalese Dohākośagīti manuscript

In Life of Marpa, Marpa later remembers his gurus Nāropa and Maitrīpa with nostalgia. Marpa's hagiography author Tsangnyön Heruka seems to totally identify with Marpa, as he imagines him.

Maitrīpa doing tantra (detail HA 60674)

“Lord Marpa thought,“If it were my gurus Nāropa and Maitrīpa, they would prefer to actually sit on a corpse and acquire human flesh in the charnel ground. If they could not acquire these, they would visualize them through samādhi, and so enjoy them. Even when rows of kśetrapala ḍākinīs lined up in person to receive torma, they would not be afraid. But tonight these people are afraid of the howls of the jackals in this empty valley and the natural sounds of the elements.” (Life of Marpa, p. 122)

Lakṣmīṅkārā (ལྕམ་ལཀྵྨཱི) as a mahāsiddha, the alleged
authoress of the Sahajasiddhi-paddhati.
The sweeper Hāḍipa Jālandharanāth looking at her? (detail HA65204)

Dakpo Tashi Namgyal (1511, 1512, or 1513 – 1587), abbot of Gampo (t. dwags lha sgam po) tries to make a compromise between Gampopa’s contemplative “direct perception” approach and Tantric techniques (t. thab lam), nonetheless giving full priority to the latter. He is likely to have read Maitrīpa’s writings, and being aware of the gap, he could have been expected to have a more mitigated view of Maitrīpa. He was one of the teachers of the eighth Karmapa Mikyö Dorje, who was quite outspoken about his post-classic Mahāmudrā preferences. 

“Maitripa, also, having been dissatisfied with his proficient knowledge of the sutras and tantras followed [the mystic teacher] Śavarivara and received the illuminating instructions on the quintessential great seal, which were not based on the tantric teachings[1].” (Lhalungpa, p. 101)

Dakpo Tashi Namgyal accepts the full heteroclite “Mahāmudrā” system as it was transmitted at his time, and defends non-tantric “Mahāmudrā” against the attacks of Sakya Paṇḍita (Lalungpa p. 109). Perhaps following the semi-fictional 12th century Par phu pa Blo gros seng ge and others, he establishes the “Mahāmudrā” lineage of the Kagyu schools as originally descending from Buddha Vajradhara (Lhalungpa, p. 116). In order to account for all the heteroclite “Mahāmudrā” materials, integrated in different ways and in different times, Dakpo Tashi Namgyal introduces or reaffirms a role for two saṃbhogakāya bodhisattvas, Mañjughoṣa  and Avalokiteśvara, whom the Buddha, “at the city of Vidarbha” in the South of India, prophesied as being the future expounders of “this quintessential dharma”. These two bodhisattvas “reincarnated” as “Devaputra Ratnamati and Devaputra Sukhanatha” and are said to have transmitted this teaching to Saraha. “It was said that [Saraha] achieved liberation instantly”. “Ratnamati was the reincarnation of Buddha himself, and Sukhanātha that of Guhyapati [bodhisattvaVajrapāṇi].”

“Saraha transmitted it to [the Tantric] Nāgārjuna, who was renowned as the second Buddha. Both of them were the gurus of most of the great Indian saints. Nāgārjuna especially guided Śrī Śavariśvara toward his liberation.”

“According to certain traditions, Śavari later received the quintessential dharma from the two bodhisattvas and also from Saraha. They had achieved enlightenment through illusory form or the spacelike mystical form.  It is said that these masters appeared before fortunate devotees at the mountain retreat of Śrī Parvata until recent times.” (Lhalungpa, p. 117)

In this transmission ("the quintessential dharma") Dakpo Tashi Namgyal includes “the Druppa Dedun [grub pa sde bdun] of mahāmudrā, the Nyingpo Kordruk [snying po skor drug], the twenty-four [sic] sections of [Advayavajra’s] Amanasi[kāra], and the extensive and concise texts of the Dohā [that] were known in India.” Or authored later in Nepal, Tibet or elsewhere… Maitrīpa is said to have seen “the spacelike mystical form” of Śavari in Śrī Parvata, and “received the instructions on "the quintessential dharma” from Śavari, implying he received the whole set.

As for the lineage of “Maitrīpa’s Mahāmudrā” mentioned above by Dakpo Tashi Namgyal, some elements are found back in the Complete works (t. gsung ‘bum) attributed to the 12th century Tsalpa Zhang. These works are not all by his hand (often memos etc. by members of his school), and may have undergone modifications at various times. In one of his works (Phyag rgya chen po thog babs, translated in German[2]), we find a transmission lineage that follows Dakpo Tashi Namgyal’s one: 1. Vajradhara  2. Ratnamati 3. Śavaripa  4. Avadhūtipa/Maitrīpa 5. Vajrapāṇi  6. Lha rje gtsang shod pa 7. Me lha khang pa 8. Yer pa ba 9. Zhang[3]. It is always possible that Zhang’s Tsalpa lineage had its own source. What source and when? What would be the origin of the Ratnamati narrative? Dakpo Tashi Namgyal continues:

“The fact that the mahāmudrā instructions, made known in Tibet by Maitrīpa's disciples such as the Indian Vajrapāṇi by way of the treatises like the Dohā, the Datsa [Brda-rtsa], and the Sangjor [Rgya-gar gsang-spyod[4]], were identical with those of Gampopa's affirmed the authenticity of the mahāmudrā system. This being so, some [teachers] asserted that any meditation on the perfect meaning of reality must be based only on the classical commentaries of the sūtras. They criticized the key instructions of the great saints [of the mahāmudrā lineage], which emphasized the attainment of insight from the beginning. Such criticism would imply their disregard for the exponents of the tantric instructions, especially their sources like Nyingpo Kordruk [snying po skor drug] and the Truppa Dedun [grub pa sde bdun].” (Lhalungpa, p. 144)

As Dakpo Tashi Namgyal wrote, Śavari was still saṃbhogakāyically hanging around in Śrī Parvata “until recent times”, because the Kagyu yogi Lhatsun Rinchen Namgyel (lHa btsun Rin chen rnam rgyal 1473–1557), Tsangnyön Heruka’s disciple is said to have received the “brDa-tsa” and the “Rgya-gar gsang-spyod” from Śavari himself in his “spacelike mystical form”, a vision actually. What Lhatsun Rinchen Namgyel received at that time (15-16th century) was probably thought to be, at least essentially, the same set of instructions as the ones Maitrīpa received 500 years earlier, but hadn’t made public… A saṃbhogakāya is not a spatiotemporal dimension. And therefore a “lineage” isn’t either. For a full list of instructions received saṃbhogakāyically by Lhatsun Rinchen Namgyel, see Michaela Clementes’ “The Literary Work of Lha bTsun Rin chen rNamrgyal”. The consequence of these extratemporal additions is that according to the tradition, Maitrīpa's transmisison of  "the quintessential dharma” from Śavari can’t be reduced to the writings attributed to Maitrīpa in the 11th century. Do we want to rely on faith or on history? If history has some importance, then some important mahāsiddhas may not have existed, and if they did, they probably didn't look like their representations above. If faith prevails, then the sky, and beyond, is the limit.  

Padma Karpo (1527-1592) is pretty tough on Maitrīpa. He recognises his “full” heritage, but for him something went wrong with Maitrīpa, no doubt due to his scholastic patterns (t. mtshan nyid pa) and past training. Padma Karpo gives a full account of Maitrīpa’s encounter with the “spacelike mystical form” of Śavari[5], and repeatedly insists on the fact that Maitrīpa had doubts about his teacher. In order to show the reader how Maitrīpa ought to have behaved, he introduced another character, prince Sakara, a fellow traveler of Maitrīpa, who behaves like a model student and complies with all the requirements in this regard, as known in the 16th century, especially faith. It is because of Maitrīpa's deficiency that Padma Karpo has Śavari say: “Since you had doubts about me, you won’t receive the ultimate accomplishment in this life. When you die Vajrayoginī will come and meet you and you will receive the ultimate accomplishment[6].”

After delivering this prophecy the mystical form of Śavari disappeared. What is the reason behind this consistent hagiographic defiency of Maitrīpa? 

In his Seven Instruction Lineages[7] (t. bka’ babs bdun ldan), Tārānātha (1575-1634) follows Padma Karpo’s line, including the incomplete spiritual career of Maitrīpa and his students, due to lack of faith. See my blog Maitripa et ses disciples vus par Tārānātha (01/10/2010).

Jamgön Kongtrül (1813–1899) probably follows up on the 8th Karmapa’s division between what later what be called sūtra mahāmudrā and tantra mahāmudrā[8], and creates a three-fold mahāmudrā.

“Kon sprul Blo gros mtha' yas (1813-1899) thus distinguishes in his Shes bya kun khyab mdzod (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khan 1982 vol. 3, 375f.) besides the generally accepted mantra mahāmudrā, a sūtra mahāmudrā and an essence mahāmudrā. Mantra mahāmudrā is transmitted according to the methods taught by the Mantrayāna, and this involves Tantric empowerment. Essence mahāmudrā leads to the sudden or instantaneous realization of one's natural mind (tha mal gyi shes pa)[9].” (Klaus-Dieter Mathes, Can Sūtra mahamudra be justified on the basis of Maitrīpa's Apratiṣṭhānavāda?, 2007)

Kongtrül specifies:

“This means that at a time when a degenerated understanding was widespread, people with great potential (skal) and extraordinary dispositions for the Vajrayāna were very rare, but that in spite of this, people of lesser potential and mediocre faculties could follow the gradual path of the three individuals and eventually further their potential, become fit to receive the instructions of the Mantrayāna and [SKK III. p. 388] obtain liberation in one lifetime. Even failing that, as many people were to glimpse the meaning of the Mahāmudrā by this means, they were thus setting out on an irreversible path. At least that is what [Gampopa] must have thought[10].”

Obviously “Essence Mahāmudrā” can only occur “suddenly” after a long preparation in Mantrayāna, at least according to Kongtrül:

“This is the direct and powerful path to the sudden (t. btsan thabs su) realisation of the deep heart (t. zab mo’i snying po), even deeper and more wonderful than the previous two. It is the grace (adhiśṭhāna; byin rlabs) of consecration (abhiśeka; dbang) of indestructible gnosis, conferred by a realised lama, which descends upon a highly predisposed disciple and awakens ordinary knowledge in the heart centre, simultaneously producing realisation and liberation without artificial technique or learning process. This happened frequently in the hagiographies of the siddhas of the four great and eight small schools of the Kagyupa lineage.[11]”

There is no mention of Gampopa’s third path of direct perception, beyond sūtra and tantra. According to Kongtrül, the path of direct perception does not correspond to “Essence Mahāmudrā”, since “Essence Mahāmudrā” requires a “consecration (abhiśeka; dbang) [ ] by a realised lama”. Consecrations are not beyond tantra. 

Once more, this is not about the name of a method/realization, in this case “Mahāmudrā”, a tantric term, but about the unifying method (t. zung ‘jug s. yuganaddha), thought to have been taught by Maitrīpa/Advayavajra, inspired or not by Saraha’s Dohākośagīti, the first one, not the other two dohākośa that were written later. A method beyond “sūtrayāna” and “mantrayāna”, but that certainly can be combined with “sūtrayāna” and “mantrayāna” practice, or not… It is considered as a liberation (s. mokṣa), it is compatible with the Apratiṣṭhānavāda view, and it is accessible through an Introduction (t. ngo sprod) by a teacher who realized “yuganaddha” himself. It is also called “Mahāmudrā” by some, perhaps to imply its realization is similar. Could this be how this method is compatible with mantrayāna (t. sngags kyi lugs kyi rjes su mthun pa)? On the level of the result, on the level of liberation?

Mantrayāna wants to go further than simple liberation. It goes for “full Buddhahood”, with three fully realized Buddhakāyas, especially the saṃbhogakāya and the nirmāṇakāya. As a bodhisattva, the follower of mantrayāna wants to have all possible powers of a Buddha to save all sentient beings and to empty saṃsāra to the best of their ability. Salvation happens through liberation (s. mokṣa t. grol ba), and on the level of dharmakāya. The other two form bodies (rūpakāyas) allow a Buddha to act as a Buddha. Some believe an enlightened activity (t. phrin las) is the natural natural outflow of liberation. Others think that to be a powerful Buddha, a bodhisattva needs to work real hard, follow mantrayāna, accumulate merit, wisdom and siddhis, rely on a guru, on the most powerful mantric expedients (upāya) and to identify with a deity, sometimes, as in the case of Tsangnyön Heruka, theopathically.

Mantrayāna’s project is in fact a transexistential career, consisting of liberating (t. grol ba s. mokṣa) but also and foremost “ripening” (t. smin pa) those to be saved, together in short “smin grol”. Liberation for their own benefit, and “ripening” for the benefit of others. “Ripening” is done through giving empowerments and entering mantrayāna. Such is the theory. Liberation requires a teacher who realizes direct perception, who knows the nature of mind, and who can guide others in this regard. “Ripening” requires a whole religious set-up and everything required for the survival thereof. 

***

[1] Mahāmudrā, The Quintessence of Mind and Meditation, Takpo Tashi Namgyal, Translated & Annotated by Lobsang P. Lhalungpa, Foreword by Chogyam Trungpa, Shambala, 1987

[2] Andrea Prax, Edition und Übersetzung von Lama Zhangs Blitzschlag[gleicher] Mahāmudrā, Wien 2013, Adviser Klaus-Dieter Mathes

[3] Andrea Prax, Edition und Übersetzung von Lama Zhangs Blitzschlag[gleicher] Mahāmudrā, Wien 2013

[4] “The oral instructions of the essential meaning of rGya gar gsang spyod’ (rGya gar gsang spyod kyi don bsdu’i man ngag rnams) was composed by Rin chen rNam rgyal after a vision of Mar pa.” Clemente, M. (2015), "The Literary Work of lHa btsun Rin chen rnam rgyal". In: From Bhakti to Bon. Festschrift for Per Kvaerne, edited by H. Havnevik and C. Ramble, Oslo: Novus Forlag, pp. 185-200

[5] In Padma Karpo’s Brug pa’i chos ‘byung, xylography of Dodedrak Monastery, starting on page 87.

[6] “khyod nga la the tsom zos pas tshe ‘di la mchog gi dngos grub mi thob/ ‘chi kar rdo rje rnal ‘byor mas bsus ste bar dor mchog gi dngos grub thob par ‘gyur ro/ p. 89

[7] Templeman, David, Library of Tibetan Works and Archives (1983)

[8] “Ce n'est pas le siddhi authentique de la Mahāmudrā de la lignée Kagyupa, transmis du Dharmakāya Vajradhara jusqu'au grand Nāropa, qui est présent dans les intuitions analogique et réelle (dpe don gyi ye shes) authentiques[14], qui ne sont pas manifestes (ngon sum) avant les trois initiations supérieures des quatre initiations (mchog dbang gong ma gsum) mais ce sont le Parāmitāyāna causal[15] de nos jours et la tradition des instructions communes de Samātha-Vipassana qui viennent d’Atisha et font partie du chemin graduel de l’éveil, enseignés par Gampopa et Pamodroupa (1110-1170) pour répondre à la demande des étudiants de l’époque dégénérée, friands des enseignements les plus élevés, et qui l'ont appelés pour cette raison la mahāmudrā intégrée naturellement (phyag-chen skyes-sbyor). Dans la pratique de la plupart des étudiants de Gampopa, les instructions de la Mahāmudrā furent données avant l'initiation, ce qui est appelé la Tradition commune du Sūtrayāna et du Mantrayāna." Quoted in Shes bya kun khyab mdzod (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khan 1982 vol. 3, See Déclassement de la mahamudra de Maitrīpa 27/06/2011
'Di la dgongs nas rje mi bskyod zhabs kyis/ chos sku rdo rje 'chang chen po nas brgyud pa'i nA ro chen po'i bka' brgyud kyi phyag rgya chen po'i dngos grub mtshan nyid pa ni mchog dbang gong ma gsum gyi dpe don gyi ye shes mtshan nyid pa mngon sum du ma gyur pa la yod pa ma yin la/ deng sang gi rgyu phar phyin theg pa dang thun mong ba'i zhi lhag gi khrid srol mgon po a ti sha nas brgyud pa/ byang chub lam sgron gyi man ngag rje btsun sgam po pa dang mgon po phag mo gru pas/ snyigs ma'i gdul bya theg pa mtho mtho la dga' ba'i ngor phyag chen lhan cig skyes sbyor gyi ming btags par mdzad pa zhes gsungs la/ dwags po'i thugs sras phal mo che rnams kyi phyag bzhes su dbang bskur sngon song la phyag chen gyi gdams ngag bstan te mdo sngags thun mong gi lam srol du bzhed pa yin no//

[9] Essence Mahāmudrā may have been inspired by this observation:

“The meditational system of the Takpo Kagyupa order consists of two systems. The first system, which meets the needs of seekers inclined toward an instantaneous illumination, directs them, at the outset, to master the vision of reality by clearing doubts and distortions concerning the natural foundation of existence and then settle the mind [in a nondual] state. The second system, which meets the demands of seekers of gradual illumination, directs them first to achieve tranquility of mind and then gradually strive toward insight. The former method would be more suitable for highly intelligent and passionate persons. Nevertheless, I shall elucidate the latter at this stage because it is widely known in the country.” (Lhalungpa, p. 144)

[10] [SKK III. p. 388] de dag gi don ni snyigs ma shas cher bdo ba'i dus su son pas rdo rje theg pa'i thun mong min pa'i skal ldan ches nyung bar gyur kyang*/ dbang rtul skal ba dman pa'i gdul bya rnams la skyes bu gsum gyi lam rim gyi khrid pas/ mthar skal ba rab tu 'phos pas sngags kyi thun mong min pa'i snod du gyur te tshe gcig la grol ba thob pa'am/_de ltar ma yin kyang thabs des mang dag cig phyag rgya chen po'i don mthong nas/ phyir mi ldog pa'i lam la bkod pa la dgongs pa yin pa'i phyir ro//

[11] [SKK III. p. 389] snying po'i lugs ni/snying po rdo rje'i ye shes 'bebs pa yis// dbang rab smin grol dus gcig 'byung ba'o// snga ma gnyis ka las zab cing ngo mtshar la khyad par rmad du byung ba zab mo'i snying po btsan thabs su rtogs pa'i lam ni/ rtogs ldan gyi bla mas skal ldan gyi slob ma ches dbang rnon du gyur pa la rdo rje ye shes kyi dbang gi byin rlabs 'bebs pa tsam gyis/ tha mal shes pa snying dbus su sad nas rtogs grol dus mnyam du 'gyur bas spros bcas kyi thabs dang sbyangs pa'i rtsol ba la ma ltos pa'i phyir/ bka' brgyud che bzhi chung brgyad kyi grub thob sa chen po'i rdul tsam byon pa'i rnam thar dang lag rjes mngon sum snang ba 'di nyid yin cing*/