 |
| Third International Conference on Vajrayāna Buddhism |
Before starting this blog, I want to point out the difference between “liberating knowledge” (dharmatā, tathatā) and an“operational knowledge”, that knows how to use the “laws” of pure (divine) creation and impure (daimonic creation). The latter could also include our “science”, but for the purpose of this blog will apply to the workings of the daimonic world. Based on Advaya-Avadhūtipa’s Commentary (D2268, P3120) on Saraha’s Dohākośagīti (D2224), I believe that both Saraha and Advaya-Avadhūtipa point to a method that merely focuses on “liberating knowledge” and shows itself quite critical of the use of “operational knowledge”, including pure divine operational knowledge. What here below is referred to as “Techniques in Vajrayāna Buddhism” can be a mixture of “daimonic” and “divine” operational knowledge. It seems to me that a Gnostic “Knowledge of the Father” in Gnosticism/Early Christianity would stand a comparison to the Omniscience of a Cosmic Buddha, or Adibuddha, in Vajrayāna. Operational knowledge is passed on in the form of revelations (aural transmissions, etc.) via spiritual “middle management”. Operational knowledge evolves with time, and new revelations can be added to an existing corpus. The state of operational knowledge in the 11th century differs from what was available in the 16th century. More information, more details, more anecdotes as time goes by… which is a giveaway.
The techniques in Vajrayāna Buddhism are “operational knowledge”, considered as skilful means (upāya) to find “liberating knowledge” (t. grol) and to help convert others (t. smin), so that they can be liberated too, and help more others including through “operational knowledge”. I see Vajra Yoga as operational knowledge.
The Third International Conference on Vajrayāna Buddhism was held from 19 to 20 April 2019 in Bhutan. The papers covered a range of topics within the broad theme of “Techniques in Vajrayāna Buddhism”. Vajrayāna Buddhism offers “concrete” techniques to achieve its metaphysical goals, such as “The Profound Path of Vajra Yoga”.
“A person who is able to experience the infinite qualities of their buddha-nature is known as a “Buddha.”
“On the basis of this extraordinary mind of bodhichitta, we then need to consider our strategy for actually accomplishing our goal. The way that we approach our practice of the path will have direct impact on how quickly we are able to manifest the desired result. For every second that we waste, sentient beings must endure suffering. This is unacceptable. Therefore, we must rely on the most efficient methods we have available in order to achieve the best results in the least amount of time possible. This is the very definition of “skilful means.[1]”
“[C]onceptuality [...] obscures our buddhanature and prevents it from manifesting fully. However, merely stopping the flow of thoughts does not completely stop the effects of conceptuality. As long as the energetic basis of dualistic perception is still active then the world will continue to manifest from the perspective of dualistic conceptions. This means that in order to actually transcend samsara, we must take into account the relationship between the physical and non-physical bases of conceptuality.”
Vajra Yoga works on the of the Vajra Body and does so through “conceptual methods” that are not “purely mental in nature” and that are “integrated with knowledge of the subtle energetic system”, i.e. the Vajra Body. Whereas mainstream Buddhism uses conceptual meditation, that may lead to non-conceptual experience as long as the meditation lasts, and perhaps “realization”, only Vajrayogic non-conceptual meditation “is joined with the subtle body”. Non-conceptual meditation on “the nature of mind”, such as the initial phases of “Mahāmudrā” and “Dzogchen”, does not (necessarily) lead to Luminous Buddhahood, with the full capacity to help sentient beings most quickly, efficiently and skilfully. Only Vajrayogic non-conceptual meditation can dissolve “the energetic support for dualistic consciousness”, thus
“...allowing the practitioner to overcome the subtlest form of conceptuality and thus allowing for the experience of primordial wisdom [jñāna] to manifest. This form of practice is referred to as Vajra Yoga and is the only form of meditation which fully transcends both coarse and subtle forms of conceptuality.”
Whether he really existed or not, Saraha is thought to be the author of the Dohākośagīti (D2224), “What is the point of uttering mantras?” etc., commented by Advaya-Avadhūtipa (Dohakoṣa-hṛdayārtha-gīta-ṭīkā-nāma, D2268, P3120). This is the dohākoṣa that Atiśa wanted to teach in Tibet and was refrained from doing so according to hagiographical sources. Later, two other dohākoṣa were attributed to Saraha, and since these additions Saraha is considered to be the author of a set of three dohākoṣa, a trilogy. Having “the same author”, all three dohākoṣa are commented as one set. One dohākoṣa can shed light on the other dohākoṣa and the original Dohākośagīti could and was invariably commented on and interpreted through the two later ones. Hagiographies explained that in this trilogy, the first one, Dohākośagīti (D2224, was nicknamed the “People dohākoṣa”, and the two later ones respectively the “Queen dohākoṣa” and the “King dohākoṣa”. Those who refer to the Dohākośagīti as the “People dohākoṣa” consider that Saraha is the author of a trilogy and may interpret it by using elements of the two later dohākoṣa attributed to Saraha. I refer to them as “Trilogists”.
Karma Trinlaypa (Karma Phrin las pa 1456-1539), was a "trilogist", a student of the Seventh Karmapa Chödrak Gyatso (1454–1506) and a teacher to the Eighth Karmapa Mi skyod rdo rje (1507-1554). He is considered as one of the greatest experts in Saraha’s set of three dohākoṣa. As can be expected, he commented on the dohākoṣas, including the Dohākośagīti, with the hindsight of the trilogy as one set, but also through the views and practices of his own 15-16th century, notably Vajrayogic ones. During the Conference on “Techniques in Vajrayāna Buddhism”, Klaus-Dieter Mathes presented the paper “The Four Signs of Mahāmudrā Meditation – The Prevailing Topic in Karma Phrin las pa’s Dohā Commentary”.
“In his commentary on Saraha’s Peoples’ Dohās (dMangs do hā), Karma Phrin las pa (1456-1539) repeatedly comments on various verses in terms of secret pith instructions, the so-called four signs or symbols (Tib. brda) in ḍākinī language. They are mindfulness (dran pa), beyond mindfulness (dran med), non-arising (skye med), and transcending the intellect (blo ‘das), and stand for a four-step Mahāmudrā meditation.” (KD Mathes, Four Signs)
“Saraha’s Peoples’ Dohās” is the Trilogist title that refers to the Dohākośagīti (D2224). The 15-16th century Kagyupa scholar Karma Trinlaypa interprets four key terms from the 11-13th century scholar Advaya-Avadhūtipa’s Commentary (D2268, P3120) as “secret pith instructions” and in a Vajrayogic fashion as “signs or symbols (Tib. brda) in ḍākinī language”, and as a “four-step Mahāmudrā meditation”. The Dohākośagīti and Advaya-Avadhūtipa’s Commentary are very critical of anything claimed as a “method”, and certainly of anything presented as a concrete method, including Vajrayāna ones. The word “ḍākinī” doesn’t occur in them. Karma Trinlaypa and/or Klaus-Dieter Mathes seem justified in interpreting the four key terms as “symbols in ḍākinī language”, because of Karma Trinlaypa’s own commentary on the Trilogist “Queen dohākoṣa” (t. bTsun mo do ha’i ṭī ka ‘bring po).
“Ḍākas and yoginīs magically fly through the sky and their secret language, spoken in a language of ‘signs’ (brda), such as “mindfulness,” and “beyond mindfulness,” is difficult to understand by ordinary persons. Therefore it is amazing.” (KD Mathes, Four Signs)
For Karma Trinlaypa and those following him, to understand these key terms in an ordinary conceptual way would be to miss their point, i.e. “Saraha” ’s Trilogist point. When Advaya-Avadhūtipa (D2268, P3120) comments on Saraha’s critical Dohākośagīti verse
“Eating, drinking, enjoying intercourse, And always filling the cakras, again and again – Through such a teaching, one attains the other world (i.e., mahāmudrā). [The master] stamps on the heads of those in the ignorant world and moves on.” (tr. Mathes)
Advaya-Avadhūtipa gives different levels of interpretations of these verses on gaṇacakra, external, internal and secret, and brings them back to the four key terms, allegorizing the Tantric methods on the secret level.
“Dran pa” doesn’t have the sense of “mindfulness” in this context, but
rather of mnemic activity, or mnemic engagement, as Matthew Kapstein translates it
in The Amnesic Monarch and the Five Mnemic Men “Memory" in the Great
Perfection Tradition (in: The Tibetan assimilation of buddhism: conversion, contestation, and memory, 2000, Oxford, New York : Oxford
University Press, pp 178–196). Quite similar to the meaning of the Tibetan term “dran rtog”. When
external objects are seen, mnemic engagement emerges (phyi rol yul mthong nas
dran rtog 'char ba), and then disappears. “Dran” and “dran med” are these two
moments. For lack of a better translation (minding and nonminding are also a
possibility, tr. Karl Brunnhölzl), and for now, I will use "mnemic engagement" here.
“During the secret gaṇacakra mnemic engagement (t. dran pa) is “eaten” and mnemic non-engagement (t. dran med) is “drunk”. Both are united in non-arising (t. skye ba med pa).
24.1c They eat, they drink and they enjoy intercourse
Mnemic engagement and mnemic non-engagement are the dharmakāya, their non-arising is saṃbhogakāya and the suprarational (t. blo las 'das pa).
24.2c Always filling the cakras, again and again
If they access the nature of dharma (dharmatā) correctly
24.3c The other world is established
But if they don't access the suprarational, the nature of phenomena,.
24.4c “[The master] stamps on the heads of those in the ignorant world and moves on”[3]
Advaya-Avadhūtipa then goes on (DKG 25) to interpret karmamudrā allegorically, bringing it back to the four key terms. Mnemic engagement and mnemic non-engagement are the Relief (t. dbugs phyung) of the tathāgata, revealed through the instructions of the teacher. Non-arising is the Relief of Vajradhāra, and the suprarational is the Relief of great bliss (s. mahāsukha). A reminder from the Jñānasiddhi (t. Ye shes grub pa) attributed to Indrabhūti:
"Bliss produced through the two organs
Is true reality (tattva)’, say [some] bad individuals.
“This is great bliss”
The supreme victorious one didn’t teach this. (7.1)How could anything produced by dependent arising (s. pratītyotpādasaṃbhūtaṃ)
Ever be proven as knowledge of true reality (tattva)?
In any [dependent arising]
Nothing exists as an essence (svabhāvena) (7.2)The knowledge of all tathāgatas (sarvatāthāgataṃ jñānaṃ)
Has self-awareness as its essence (svasaṃvedyasvabhāvakam)
This being the principal bliss
It is called “great bliss” (mahāsukha). (7.3)"
When the 15-16th century Trilogist Karma Trinlaypa comments on the so called “People Dohākoṣa”, the above verses from the Dohākośagīti (the actual title) are interpreted as follows:
“As for the outer explanation, having received empowerment, one eats the meat and drinks the alcohol of the gaṇa[cakra] substances. Then, after having blessed her secret space, one unites with a qualified karmamudrā, who is endowed with three authentic perceptions. Through this intercourse, the four joys are recognised and sustained, namely as they arise in progressive and reverse order – all this is in accordance with the pith instructions of the lama. During this process one fills the four cakras [with the drops moving down] from above and then [returning] from below. Through such a practice one transcends the world and becomes a transmundane Buddha. [The master] stamps on the heads of worldly people who are, without empowerment, ignorant about spiritual maturation, and without guidance, ignorant about pith instructions. Stamping down on the ignorant, he moves on to the level of a Buddha through the means of removing delusion.” (tr. KD Mathes)
Here the ones that are trampled on are those “without empowerment”, “ignorant about pith instructions”. “Stamping down on the ignorant”, the Vajrayogi “moves on to the level of a Buddha”. Here Karma Trinlaypa himself steps over and stamps down on Saraha’s criticism and Advaya-Avadhūtipa’s allegorizations. But to be fair, Karma Trinlaypa does also give a more allegorical interpretation with regard to “true reality” (t. de kho na nyid du ‘chad na, see p. 53 of the Proceedings).
Following Karma Trinlaypa, KD Mathes interprets the four key terms of Advaya-Avadhūtipa’s Commentary, called “dharmas” by Vajrapāṇi (Toh. 3820), as the “four signs” (in Ḍākinī language). For Vajrapāṇi the first “dharma” (= dran pa) is common to everybody, and the three following one’s are practiced through the three samādhis[4]. Mathes wrongly[5] concludes that the remaining “three signs” constitute the actual practice, and affirms that in the Mahāmudrātattvanākṣaropadeśa (Toh. 2325), these “three signs” are attributed to Saraha[6].
This allegedly “Indian” text is included in The Nine Lamp Cycles (t. sGron ma skor dgu) of the “Kashmiri” Zhi byed Middle Transmission, and attributed to “Kamalaśīla”, probably Dampa Sangyé. Its Tibetan title is De kho na nyid phyag rgya chen po yi ge med pa'i man ngag[7]. It was translated into Tibetan by the Kashmiri ācārya Jñānaguhya and the Tibetan translator Lama Lo btsun chung. It is part of a transmission “received” by the “super lineage holder” Rog Serab Ö (1166-1244, see Blue Annals pp. 939-948, and his brother Zhigpo). It is a pretty doubtful source for me. This name dropping text summarizes its transmission and does indeed mention Saraha as a lineage holder (t. mDa’ bsnun)[8]. As an aside, it is not Saraha who mentions the four “dharmas” (or three “signs”) in his Dohākośagīti, but Advaya-Avadhūtipa in his Commentary (D2268, P3120).
In his very own interpretation Karma Trinlaypa links the four “dharmas” of Advaya-Avadhūtipa’s commentary (and more specifically Vajrapāṇi’s Heart Sūtra Commentary), considered as Saraha’s four or three “signs”, with the four mudrās and the four yogas of Mahāmudrā.
“As for the four signs and the four Mahāmudrā yogas, it makes perfect sense to equate mindfulness to the yoga of onepointedness, and the yoga of freedom from mental fabrication to the second sign (beyond mindfulness). In addition, the third sign (nonarising) can be easily brought in line with the yoga of one taste, nonarising or emptiness being the unique taste of everything. Finally, both “transcending the intellect” and yoga of non-meditation are perfect descriptions of the ultimate goal.” (Mathes, p. 55)
This is how integrating and systematizing is done, and it all joins perfectly together in a Vajrayogic interpretation of Mahāmudrā as practiced in the Kagyupa lineage, following the “transmissions” of both Saraha and Tilopa. The four or three signs are the Vajrayogic interpretation of the four “dharmas” as explained in Advaya-Avadhūtipa’s Commentary. Karma Trinlaypa uses Advaya-Avadhūtipa’s Commentary and updates it with Tantric material, which Advaya-Avadhūtipa merely mentions as a method, not necessarily to be followed in his own approach[9]. Advaya-Avadhūtipa’s Commentary was forgotten and Karma Trinlaypa’s "improved" Trilogy commentary became the new reference for Saraha’s set of three dohākoṣa.
The four "dharmas" are linked with “secret pith instructions", the so-called four signs or symbols (Tib. brda) in ḍākinī language” and will be interpreted as such. See for instance E. Callahan’s introduction to Saraha’s Dohākośagīti in the Damngak Dzö Collection, Volume 7 (ཇ་). The “four signs” are also connected with verse DKG42c, non existent in the Indic version but added to the Tibetan translation and commented by Advaya-Avadhūtipa. Here translated in English by KD Mathes:
“When wind, fire, and earth are stopped – And when the nectar flows, the wind enters the mind.As the four connections [of the winds with the elements] enter the single place, All of space cannot contain supreme great bliss.”
In Advaya-Avadhūtipa’s Commentary there is no mention of the “sign language of the ḍākinīs”, through whose power the “outward moving winds of thought are interrupted and forced to enter the mind inside” (p. 58). Nor does Saraha mention it in the Dohākośagīti. Advaya-Avadhūtipa does mentions four junctions, not of the winds and the elements, but junctions (yogas) at various moments: four junctions each for physical, verbal and mental “karmamudrā”, the four yogas of the wisdom at the time of death, and the four junctions with the natural state of mind[10].
What Saraha does mention (DKG 66) about the “ḍākinī” or rather the Yoginī, including in the Indic version:
“Without closing your eyes and by stilling the mind (s. citta-nirodha)
The energy is stopped thanks to the respected guru
Even when energy moves, he remains immovable
What could the yoginī do [for you] at the time of death?[11]
In his commentary on this verse, Advaya-Avadhūtipa (like Indrabhūti, see above) is critical of bliss through a consort (karmamudrā)[12] and of instructions for the moment of death (Bardo?). The yogic or natural “dissolution of elements” is not considered, as such, as giving access to reality (dharmatā). The “real” Yoginī or lady friend seen by Saraha is mind as such (t. sems nyid), as in verse 86
“She eats and drinks, and does not care.
This female friend [does] whatever comes to mind.
I have seen that external objects [cannot be] identified [as anything other than] mind”. KD Mathes
The “Advayavajra”[13] author of the Dohākoṣapanjikā (Peking 3101) on the other hand writes that “For those who have the wisdom of the yoginīs [yoginījñāna], [all this] is dissolved, as [explained] before.” And Karma Trinlaypa very creatively sees “eat”, “drink”, “does not care” [there is nothing to conceive] and “female friend” as the “four sign” practice and relates them to the four mudrās…
There are different ways of viewing “Saraha”. One can focus on how he was seen in literature of the 11-12th century, concerned mostly to transmit “liberating knowledge”. Both Saraha and Advaya-Avadhūtipa (especially the latter) show that they have full knowledge of the state of the “operational knowledge” of their time, but are critical of a “technique” & result oriented approach. For them liberating knowledge is accessible rather through “nonmethod” and “nonmeditation”, and the pointing-out instructions of a teacher.
“Saraha” is especially used as the forefather of Vajrayāna, and an eternal source of operational knowledge (Guhyasamāja, Maitrīpa's vision,Marpa's vision, etc.). Later commentators such as Karma Trinlaypa (15-16th century), having access to the 16th century state of “operational knowledge”, may interpret all Saraha’s and “Maitrīpa” ‘s writings with that hindsight. They all seem to need to be colored by 15th century “operational knowledge”. As seen above, Karma Trinlaypa can read secret signs (t. brda’) in ḍākinī language into specific verses of Saraha’s Dohākośagīti and link them to “techniques” that appeared or spread later. Even the four “dharmas” on the level of mind as such (t. sems nyid) of Advaya-Avadhūtipa and Vajrapāṇi are interpreted as ḍākinī “signs”. In this way the singularity of Saraha’s and Advaya-Avadhūtipa gets lost in 16th century operational knowledge of "techniques".
Towards his conclusion (p. 66), Klaus-Dieter Mathes equates “Maitrīpa” ‘s
“mental non-engagement” (amanasikāra) with “luminous self-empowerment” (svādhiṣṭhāna),
calling this “Maitrīpa’s final analysis”, adding in a footnote “This is clear
from Maitrīpa’s Amanasikārādhāra (see Mathes 2015:245-47)[14]. And
elsewhere he writes: “To which extent
this needs empowerment and formal tantric practice remains a controversial
issue.” (KD Mathes, A Fine Blend 2015, p. 113).
“Luminosity” and anything “luminous” stand for the positive constructive methods of the “via affirmativa”. For Klaus-Dieter Mathes, Nāgārjuna stands for the “via negationis”, and so Saraha, and “Maitrīpa” stand for the “via affirmativa”[15], including what is written in the Dohākośagīti and Advaya-Avadhūtipa’s Commentary. The Luminosity of Sahara’s via affirmativa is believed to lead to positive wisdom, gnosis, jñāna, whereas the “Emptiness” of Nāgārjuna’s via negationis leads to negative, deconstructive wisdom, prajñā, but does not lead to the reintegration (yoga) of pure creation. And it does not lead to the merging of the natural luminosity of mind “into the Ground Luminosity”.
I don’t see how apratiṣṭhāna madhyamaka can be associated with “luminous realization”. Gnosis, jñāna, is considered a positive “realization”. The word “realization” (t. rtogs pa) comes with its own etymology, I prefer to translate it as “access” btw. In the 16th century, the French word “réaliser” meant "to make real" in a more literal sense, “bringing something into existence” or “making something concrete”.
Dharmatā (t. chos nyid), positively defined, developed into “Luminous Bardo of Dharmatā” (t. chos nyid 'od gsal gyi bar do) in Karma Lingpa's Bardo cycle. It is not simply “reality” or “true reality” but the Luminous reality of what boils down to “pure creation” (s. śuddha t. dag pa), a “divine creation” consisting of maṇḍalas or circles of deities, Luminous entities. BTW in theory saṃbhogakāya doesn’t need to have a set form, i.e. an eternal form that is traditionally transmitted. If it does have a set form, it is a sign it got stuck in tradition.
Penor Rinpoche (1932-2009) explained that when yogis, at the time of the “Luminous Bardo of Dharmatā”, “connect with it”, they realize “the sambhogakāya state of enlightenment”. If mādhyamika practitioners “grasp that moment, [they] remain in that state, and merge with the dharmakāya”. It is said in Bardo teachings that the “Luminous Bardo of Dharmatā” invariably manifests to all indifferently, because it is the “true reality”. Not dependent on causes and conditions, not empty, like anything that can be (dualistically or conceptually) “known”, independent from the two realities, conventional and absolute. It is a “positive absolute”, beyond conceptuality, it is “divine”, it is true Luminous “sacred outlook” (t. dag snang), symbolic, yet authentic and correct (t. dag). Either one “sees” or “knows” “it” or not. In this view, Luminosity (nous, logos) is a higher level than “Emptiness”, and
in fact contains it. Luminosity has swallowed “Emptiness” and digested it.
Those seeing the sacred outlook of Pure creation or merging into Ground
luminosity, uttering Emaho or Alleluia, won’t have a second moment of “Yes, but
it’s empty!”, when they are on “Luminosity” level.
I will end this blog with quotes by Johan Huizinga on symbolism as an intellectual shortcut, and about what seems like an advantage and disadvantage of the “via affirmativa”.
“There was no great truth of which the medieval mind was more certain than those words from the Corinthians, “Videmus nunc per speculum in aenigmate, tunc autem facie ad faciem” (“For now we see through a glass darkly; but then face to face”). They never forgot that everything would be absurd if it exhausted its meaning in its immediate function and form of manifestation, and that all things extend in an important way into the world beyond. That insight is still familiar to us as an inarticulate feeling in those moments when the sound of rain on leaves or the light of a lamp on a table penetrates momentarily into a deeper level of perception than that serving practical thought and action. It may surface in the form of a sickening obsession to the effect that all things seem to be pregnant with a threatening personal intent or with an enigma that we must solve but cannot. It may also, more frequently, fill us with that calm and strengthening certainty that our own life shares in the mysterious meaning of the world. The more that feeling condenses into awe of the One from which all things flow, the more readily it will move from the clear certainty of isolated moments to a lasting, ever present feeling or even to an articulated conviction. “By cultivating the continuous sense of our connection with the power that made things as they are, we are tempered more towardly for their reception. The outward face of nature need not alter, but the expressions of meaning in it alter. It was dead and is alive again. It is like the difference between looking on a person without love, or upon the same person with love. . . . When we see all things in God, and refer all things to him, we read in common matters superior expressions of meaning.”
“Viewed from the standpoint of causal thinking, symbolism represents an intellectual shortcut. Thought attempts to find the connection between things, not by tracing the hidden turns of their causalities, but rather by suddenly jumping over these causal connections. The connection is not a link between cause and effect, but one of meaning and purpose. The conviction that such a link exists may come into existence whenever two things share an essential quality that relates to something of general value. Or, in other words, any association on the basis of any identity may be directly transformed into an awareness of an essential and mystic connection. From an ethnological viewpoint we can see that it is very primitive. Primitiveness of thought reveals itself in its weak ability to perceive the boundaries between things; it attempts to incorporate into the idea of a particular thing all that which constitutes by its very presence any kind of connection based on similarity or membership in a particular category. The symbolizing function is most intimately related to this.” Johan Huizinga, The Autumn of the Middle Ages, trans. Rodney J. Payton and Ulrich Mammitzsch (Chicago, 1996), p. 235-236.
***
[1] Seizing
the Extraordinary Opportunities of the Profound Path, Khentrul Rinpoché Jamphel
Lodrö & Joe Flumerfelt, in Techniques in Vajrayāna Buddhism: Proceedings of the Third Vajrayāna Conference Copyright © 2019 by Centre for
Bhutan & GNH Studies
[2] “Depending
on which group one finds oneself, we can then speak of two paths: (1) the
non-conceptual path of yogic practitioners and (2) the conceptual path of
worldly practitioners. The former is focused on transcending the worldly, whereas
the latter is focused on working within the worldly in order to transcend it in
the future.”
[3] gsang
ba'i tshogs ni zas su dran ba za/ skom du dran pa 'thung la/ skye ba med ba
dbyer med pas/
[4] “Now
those [practices] based on the profound nature of phenomena, which is not the
experiential object of ordinary people, are [the remaining three dharmas of] “beyond
mindfulness,” “non-arising,” and “transcending the intellect.” They are the
three samādhis of emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness, and the direct
perception of the mental faculty, the direct perception of self-awareness, and
yogic direct perception. Through them together with the non-foundation of
empti[ness], nonfoundation of equanimity, and non-foundation of interruption
[we present instruction relating to] the threefold insight (prajñā) beyond the
three conditions [of cognition]. Śāriputra, in this way all phenomena are [seen
to be] emptiness.” tr. KD Mathes
[5] Both
minding and nonminding are the unborn.
[6] “To sum
up this introduction, there are indications that the four-step Mahāmudrā
meditation of the four signs has its origin in India, the *Mahāmudrātattvanākṣaropadeśa
attributing the final three signs even to Saraha. Together with initial
mindfulness, Saraha’s three signs become an ideal commentarial structure, which
plays into the hands of Karma Phrin las pa’s hermeneutical project of
systematically reading a gradual Mahāmudrā path into Saraha’s dohās.”
[8] bde bas
rgyas pa'i za ma tog//sku gsum mnyam gzhag mda' bsnun na//dran med skye med blo
las 'das//
[9]
Everything may be mentioned and explained, but this doesn’t entail Saraha or
Advaya-Avadhūtipa agrees with methods such as they are explained. Two stanzas
are missing in the Tibetan translation. See Shahidullah verses 94 and 95. Their
meaning seems to be that [Saraha’s] dohās, always new, show everything and
nothing remains hidden. Why would [Saraha] speak secretly about what the Guru
taught him? This is said just before speaking of the practice of sexual yoga
(karmamudrā), perhaps implying the four joys, etc. The secrecy of these
instructions, doesn’t imply that Saraha can’t mention them (even to criticize
them), since he follows the “instructions”/dohās of his Guru, that are always
new.
94. kandha-bhūa-āatana-īdi- bisaa-biāru apa hua/
ṇaü ṇaü dohā-saddena na kahabi kimpi goppia/
95. paṇḍia-loahu ! khamahu mahu ettha na kiaï biappu/
jo guru-baaṇě maï suaü tahī kiṃ kahami sugoppu
Lilian Silburn translates in Aux sources du bouddhisme, 1977, Fayard, p.
335
“92. Les ensembles, les univers, les organes sensoriels et leurs domaines
spécifiques, ainsi que leurs modifications, voilà l'eau [du mirage]. Dans ces
distiques toujours nouveaux, comment y aurait-il quelque secret ?
93. Ainsi, doctes, [écoutez-moi] avec patience, car ici nulle équivoque
: ce que m'a appris la parole du guru, pourquoi en parlerais- je de façon
secrète ?
[10] “sbyor
ba bzhi ni las kyi phag rgya'i sbyor ba bzhi dang/ 'da' ka ye shes kyi sbyor ba
bzhi dang/ sems nyid gnas lugs rtogs par byed pa'i sbyor ba bzhi”
[11] mig ni
mi 'dzums sems 'gog dang//
rlung 'gag pa ni dpal ldan bla mas rtogs/
gang tshe rlung rgyu de ni mi g.yo ste/
'chi(ng) ba'i tshe na rnal 'byor mas ci bya/
In Damngak Dzö Volume 7: mig ni mi 'dzum pa sems kyang mi 'gog dang //
rlung 'gog pa ni dpal ldan bla mas rtogs// gang tshe rlung rgyu de ni mi g.yo
ste// 'ching ba'i tshe na rnal 'byor pas ci bya// The last line is also the
same in Shahidullah (1928), p. 150,who translates as “dying” and “yogi”.
Apbhramsa: aṇimisa-loaṇa citta-ṇirohẽ
pabaṇa ṇirūhaï siri-guru-bohẽ.
pabaṇa bahaï so niccalu jabbẽ,
joi kālu karaï ki re tabbẽ? || 68 ||
[12] Like
Indrabhūti, see above.
[13] KD
Mathes note 99 concerning the Dohākoṣapanjikā commentary: “Advayavajra’s style,
numerous flagrant grammatical violations, and, most important, the varying view
on the sequence of the four moments and four joys, exclude the possibility that
he is the famous Maitrīpa, who also goes under this name. See Mathes
2015a:17-18.”
[14] In: A
Fine Blend of Mahāmudrā and Madhyamaka: Maitrīpa’s Collection of Texts on Non–conceptual
Realization (Amanasikāra). Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Also : "In his cycle of amanasikāra texts, Maitrīpa (986–1063) combines the
tantric Mahāmudrā teachings of Saraha, Nāgārjuna,1 and Śavaripa with a
particular form of Madhyamaka philosophy, called apratiṣṭhāna (“non-abiding” or
“nonfoundation”), 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. At the same time, the adept experiences “luminous
self-empowerment,” Maitrīpa’s final Mahāmudrā understanding of amanasikāra.
Considering this double meaning, the term amanasikāra is best rendered as “non-conceptual
realization.” Chapter 9 Maitrīpa’s Amanasikāra-Based Mahāmudrā in the Works of
the Eighth Karma pa Mi bskyod rdo rje, In: Mahāmudrā in India and Tibet, Brill,
2020
[15] Chapter 9 Maitrīpa’s Amanasikāra-Based Mahāmudrā
in the Works of the Eighth Karma pa Mi bskyod rdo rje, In: Mahāmudrā in India
and Tibet, Brill, 2020
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire