 |
| Dulle Gret/Mad Meg by Pieter Brueghel the Elder (detail, wikimedia) |
The translations “light”, “clear light”, “luminosity” and “luminous” are used to refer to different Buddhist concepts, specifically in esoteric Buddhism, in the context of “Buddha nature” (tathāgatagarbha) or “Buddha essence” (buddha-dhātu). The doctrine of Buddha nature is considered as being particularly suitable for esoteric Buddhism and its use of deity practice, and is considered as a bridge leading from Madhyamaka to “Great Madhyamaka” and advanced esoteric practices.
“For example, Tārānātha (1575-1634), in his own presentation of the four tenets, the Gzhan stong snying po, divides the fourth tenet (Madhyamaka) into ordinary and Great Madhyamaka (dbu ma chen po). In this work, he based his Great Madhyamaka on a zhentong [gzhan stong] interpretation through a particular understanding of the Yogācāra combined with the Ratnagotravibhāga.[1]”
"Great Madhyamaka" brings "luminosity"to emptiness, defined as the lack of self-nature, creating space for positive qualities. Regarding Zhentong, this is how Dölpopa defined it:
Dölpopa considers the buddha nature, or sugata essence, to be natural luminosity (which is synonymous with the dharmakāya) and a primordial, indestructible, eternal great bliss inherently present in every living being. On the other hand, the incidental stains or impurities that veil the buddha nature are the various states of mind associated with the infinite experiences of mundane existence. While the veils of temporary affliction are empty of self-nature, the buddha nature is empty only of phenomena other than itself. (Jonang Foundation)
In his popular Mahāmudrā Prayer, the third Karmapa Rangjung Dorje (13-14th century) follows Dharmakīrti but introduces a luminous nature of mind.
“Looking at objects, there are no objects; we see only mind [citta].The 3rd Karmapa uses the substantive ‘od gsal, commonly translated as “luminosity” or “clear light”, and in English it is translated as such, whereas it was most often used as a metaphorical adjective: ‘od gsal ba. In Sanskrit prabhāsvara, and in Pāli pabhassara, can be translated both as an adjective and a substantive. E.g. “Pabhassaramidaṁ, bhikkhave, cittaṁ” (AN 1.51), translated in English by Bhikkhu Sujato as “This mind, mendicants, is radiant. But it is corrupted by passing corruptions/And it is freed from passing corruptions.”
Looking at mind, there is no mind; it is empty of an essence.
Looking at both, dualistic clinging is spontaneously liberated.
May we realize luminosity, the true nature of mind [‘od gsal sems kyi gnas lugs]. (18)” (Mahāmudrā Prayer, K3 Rangjung Dorje, tr. Nålandå Translation Committee, 1976)[2]
Here, “mind” is “citta”, and cittas are the awareness moments (kṣaṇa) of the mental continuum or series (s. saṃtāna). Is the whole “mental continuum”, or are all “cittas” radiant? Or is “this” (p. idaṁ) specific citta, in a series, radiant? If a specific citta in a mental continuum is radiant, i.e. “freed from passing corruptions”, then it may be the “citta” that Dharmakīrti had in mind, and the “luminous nature” thereof. The moment of its [self-]awareness.
“The experience is of that [moment of awareness, and] it is of the nature of that [moment of awareness]; it is not [the experience of; or, of the nature] of anything else at all. Moreover, the fact that the [moment of awareness] is the nature of that [experience] constitutes the property of [that moment of awareness] being directly (pratyakṣa), individually-known (prativedya). || 326 ||The cognition “illuminates” itself, the reflexive experience of that very experience is immediate (Yiannopoulos, 2020[3]). Immediate because it's devoid of subject and object ("prereflective"), that would follow in a second cognition. The light metaphor is used because of this reflexive, “self-illuminating” experience.
There is not something else to be experienced by the [cognition]. There is not something else that is the experience of that. [This is so] because there would be the same problem on the part of a [second-order experience], as well. Therefore, the [cognition] illuminates itself. || 327 ||” (Yiannopoulos, 2020)
“Just as an illuminating (prakāśamāna) light (prakāśa) is considered to be the illuminator (prakāśaka) of itself (svarūpa), because of having that nature (tādātmyāt), just so, awareness (dhī) is aware of itself (ātmavedinī). || 329 ||”When a metaphor is used repeatedly, without the original context, it starts leading a life of itself. And we may recite on a daily basis : “May we realize luminosity, the true nature of mind [‘od gsal sems kyi gnas lugs]”, planting the idea in our minds that the true nature of "mind" is clear light or luminosity. Followed by the affirmation in the verse following it, that this “luminous nature” and “clear light” is the basic idea of all the different paths.
“Free from mental contrivance, it is Mahamudra,“Free from mental contrivance” here is the translation for mental non-engagement (s. amanasikāra, t. yid la mi byed pa), Advayavajra’s singular method. The "great Middle Way" is probably not Tārānātha’s Great Madhyamaka, but it suggests it is not the “middling Madhyamaka” and therefore likely a Madhyamaka “adorned with the guru’s words” (Tattvadaśaka). "Dzogchen" at K3 Rangjung Dorje’s time is not yet the full-fledged Dzogchen of later times and our times, but more likely the Dzogchen of the Sems-sde, Gö Lotsawa Zhönu Pal (1392-1481) writes about it in his Blue Annals (p. 167). Gö Lotsawa didn’t write much or hardly all about Dzogchen’s kLong sde and Man ngag sde. What K3 Rangjung Dorje, who died in 1339, knew about Dzogchen was probably also limited to Sems de.
Free from extremes, it is the great Middle Way,
Since it encompasses everything, it is Dzogchen –
May we gain the confidence of realizing all through knowing one.” (19)” (Ari Goldfield)
After the use of the light metaphor in Pāli and Sautrāntika sources and Dharmakīrti’s epistemology, things got more substantial with Yogācāra and Buddha nature.
“In [the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra] buddha nature is said to be the purity of natural luminosity and to abide in the body of all sentient beings as the bearer of the thirty-two marks [of a great being][4].” (Buddha within, p. 17)In the same text the Buddha explained that Buddha nature was only thought “to avoid [giving] fools a reason for becoming afraid of the lack of essence[5]”. The Buddha expressed a different opinion in the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra where those teaching non-self and nirvāṇa are scolded as being “cattle-thieves”.
“Therefore I want you to know that after the Tathāgata passes from this world, at that time there will be such people who lecture on the topic of permanence, bliss, self, and purity.”The light metaphor gradually evolved into a “Luminous Self[7]” with Buddha nature as the embryo of “the bearer of the thirty-two marks”. The thirty-two marks refer to the symbolic body of a Buddha, i.e. his saṃbhogakāya so to speak, inseparable from his dharmakāya. A Buddha’s symbolical body is not his physical body (rūpakāya, in the original sens), but an immaterial charismatic body, “of light”, such as that gods or some great beings (mahāpuruṣa) have, and that can be seen by spiritually advanced beings, who would be qualified to receive their more exceptional teachings.
“When a dharma wheel-turning king appears in the world, ordinary people [=śrāvakas] will no longer be able to preach about morality, meditation, or wisdom; they will retreat from such activities, just as the cattle thieves retreated.” (Blum 2013[6])
The Ratnagotravibhāga (I.29) affirms “the unchangeability of the [ultimate buddha] element and inseparability of its qualities in terms of the ultimate aspect of buddha nature” (Buddha within, p. 10).
“Now two different sets of qualities can be taken as pertaining to the ultimate. First, an ultimate kāya (paramārthakāya) is said to be endowed with the “thirty-two qualities of the dharmakāya” (i.e., the ten strengths, the four fearlessnesses, and the eighteen exclusive features)”The objective of Deity practice and ways of cultivating the “Hidden Vajra Body[9]” or other forms of immortality could be captured in the idea of “deification”. Is this sort of “luminosity” still a metaphor?
“In RGV II.46c-47d it is further specified how the endowment of immeasurable qualities is to be understood:
Since its nature is [that of] the dharmadhātu, [the svabhāvika-kāya] is luminous and pure[8].
The svabhāvika-kāya is endowed with qualities that are immeasurable, innumerable, inconceivable, and incomparable, and that have reached the [state of] final purity [viśuddhi].” (Buddha within, p. 10).
“II. 46 Because of being stainless, because of being nonconceptual,The first verse refers to emptiness and cognition of emptiness, metaphorically “luminous” by its own right. The pure creation, within the dharmadhātu, which is the “pure” symbolic project of yogins, is luminous in a different way and makes the yogins’ project clearly one of deification and immortality. A lot of ground has been covered from the “luminous” citta (see above) to this pure luminous reality. This is the union of emptiness and “yogic luminosity” (Mahāmudrā Prayer 7), i.e. the yogin’s creation, like anything else, “mind’s magical play” (t. sems kyi rnam ‘phrul), “Empty and unimpeded, it can appear as absolutely anything (t. cir yang)” (Mahāmudrā Prayer 9), including the pure luminous reality, only this time mastered and efficacious (arthakriyā) in the yogic sphere.
And because of being the sphere of yogins [yogināṃ gocaratvataḥ],
It is pure and luminous by virtue of
Having the nature of the dharmadhātu.”
In “Emptiness and Luminosity” luminosity is the experience of true reality (tattva), which is empty of inherent existence yet appears vividly. But true reality, or suchness, as defined by Dharmakīrti or Sahajavajra, is not necessarily the luminous yogic reality, the luminous true reality (t. chos nyid 'od gsal kyi bar do) experienced in the Bardo, the post-mortem visionary experiences (the "luminous manifestation of one’s own primordial gnosis for up to five days", D.Germano in Funerary Transformation), or astral travels to hidden and pure lands, ascensions of yogis, etc. “Luminosity” can point to, and evoke all that, and it's all linked to emptiness. For Klaus-Dieter Mathes, Luminosity can point to Buddha Nature, Dharmadhātu, “non-conceptual realization” or "luminous self-empowerment" (s. amanasikāra), intrinsic primordial awareness (t. rig pa).
For the latter, KD Mathes explains in the Buddha Within (p. 100) how Longchenpa (14th c) amended verse I.28 of the Ratnagotravibhāga, to pull it towards his own doctrine. Verse I,28 is quoted by Gampopa (11-12th c) in his Jewel Ornament of Liberation:
“Because of the permeation of Sambuddhakāya, of the undifferentiatedness of Tathatā,Gampopa respects the original wording and meaning of the term gotra, spiritual filiation. but Longchenpa “corrects” the Tibetan word “rigs” (gotra) in “rig (pa)”, "intrinsic primordial awareness".
And of the existence of families [gotra, rigs], all sentient beings are constantly endowed with Buddha-nature[6].” (Herbert V. Guenther, p.3)
“In his explanation of the third reason ("because of the potential"), Longchenpa equates potential [gotra] with the dzogchen term awareness [rig pa], adopting as he does the reading rig instead of rigs (potential), and glossing buddha nature as rig pa in the following paraphrase. In other words, all sentient beings possess buddha nature because of their intrinsic primordial awareness [rig pa].” (Buddha Within, p.100)The Dzokchen “rig pa” is thus equated in shorthand with Buddha Nature and joins the long Luminous list. “Citta” (t. sems) has been abandoned for “rig pa” and "mind" lost its momentariness (s. kṣaṇika).
The combination of emptiness and “luminosity”/”clarity” in this regard is Yogācāra’s and Buddhist Tantrism’s way of stating that “emptiness” in and by itself is not efficacious (arthakriyā) to do “what needs to be done”, and that without “luminosity” (here yogic luminous activity) it would be sterile. “What needs to be done” is a variable. Yogācāra/Buddha Nature/Buddhist Tantrism have very specific ideas about “what needs to be done”, and judge other Buddhist paths on their interest and efficacy, or lack thereof, in this regard. Buddhist paths who have no interest in Yogācāra’s goals fall short and are judged insufficient. Without giving Luminosity its due, it is impossible to realize the full potential of the Luminous Self (“Luminous Dharmakāya”, with its intrinsic qualities (the 32 marks etc.) through luminous yoga and deity practice, and with the “blessing” (s. anugraha) and/or the “favour” (s. prasāda) of a sadguru. Once engaged in a relationship with a guru, the only way out is up, towards the light! Otherwise beware!
Light (“clear light”, “luminosity”, “luminous”) is not always what it seems, but it feels good. We all hate darkness and love light, and we naturally know where to stand in the battle between light and darkness.
 |
| Dulle Gret/Mad Meg by Pieter Brueghel the Elder (detail, wikimedia) |
***
[1] Mathes, Klaus-Dieter, A direct path to the Buddha within, Go Lotsawa's Mahāmudrā interpretation of the Ratnagotravibhaga,
[2] Alternative translation:
“Looking at objects – there are no objects, they are seen to be mind.[3] “Dharmakīrti writes at the corresponding juncture of the Pramāṇaviniścaya, PVin 1.38:
Looking at mind – there is no mind, it is empty of essence.
Looking at both, clinging to duality is self-liberated –
May we realize mind’s abiding nature, luminous clarity.” (18)”
“There is not something else to be experienced by cognition (buddhi). There is not something else that is the experience of that [cognition], because cognition is devoid of subject and object. The [cognition] just illuminates itself. || 38 ||”
[4] Note 93 LAS, 77.15-17: “You illustrated it as being pure in terms of the purity of natural luminosity and so forth and as being the bearer of the thirty-two marks and as being inside the body of all sentient beings.”
sa ca kila tvayā prakṛtiprabhāsvaraviśuddhyādiviśuddha eva varṇyate dvātriṃśallakṣaṇadharaḥ sarvasattvadehāntargataḥ / from Saddharmalaṅkāvatārasūtram, Gretil
[5] LAS 78.5-11 “Mahamati, my teaching of buddha nature does not resemble the heretical doctrine of a self (ātman). Rather, O Mahamati, the tathāgatas teach as buddha nature what [really] is emptiness, the limit of reality, nirvāṇa, nonorigination, signlessness, wishlessness, and similar categories, and then the tathāgatas, the arhats, the perfect buddhas, in order to avoid [giving] fools a reason for becoming afraid of the lack of essence, teach the nonconceptual experiential object without characteristic signs by means of instructions that make use [of the term] buddha nature.” (Buddha within, p. 17)
[6] BDK English Tripiṭaka Series, THE NIRVANA SŪTRA (MAHĀPARINIRVĀṆA-SŪTRA, VOLUME I (Taishō Volume 12, Number 374) Translated from the Chinese by Mark L. Blum, BDK America, Inc. 2013.
[7] Awakening Wisdom, The Luminous Self, Online course by Mingyur Rinpoche (Tergar).
“COURSE OVERVIEW[8] “II. 46 Because of being stainless, because of being nonconceptual,
The recognition of the luminous self is considered to be a powerful way to uproot the causes of suffering. The key to recognition begins with an understanding about the empty nature and the luminosity of the mind. Luminosity, or clarity, allows all experience to take place, and thus we can access innate wisdom in the midst of all situations in life.”
And because of being the sphere of yogins [yogināṃ gocaratvataḥ],
It is pure and luminous by virtue of
Having the nature of the dharmadhātu.” When the Clouds Part, Karl Brunnhölzl, p. 424
[9] Kurtis R. Schaeffer, The attainment of immortality: from Nāthas in India to Buddhists in Tibet (2003).
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire