The indefinable dharmadhātu

For the Tibetan Buddhist tradition and for many academics following it, Nāgārjuna (2nd-3rd century) is the author of all the works attributed to him, and the ideas, views, doctrines expressed in them should be considered as Nāgārjuna’s thought. Christian Lindtner[1] and others have tried to classify these works in works that are correctly attributed, wrongly attributed and those which may or may not be genuine, based on Nāgārjuna’s main work the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. If Nāgārjuna was indeed the author of all these works, he would have needed a remarkable lifespan and/or an exceptional foreknowledge of Buddhism’s later evolution. Some have even suggested there may have been several Nāgārjunas (Jean Naudou).

“In my view the decisive reason for the said variety of Nāgārjuna’s writings is to be sought in the author’s desire, as a Buddhist, to address himself to various audiences, at various levels and from various angles. This motive would of course be quite consistent with the mahāyāna ideal of upāyakauśalya [skill in means]” (Lindtner, 1990)

As we will see in some examples below, there would have been no need at all to qualify Nāgārjuna’s teaching as a Lion’s roar,[2] frightening and waking up the smaller creatures from their metaphysical sleep. The emptiness and essencelessness he was thought to have initially taught was greatly attenuated and harmlessly dissolved in the Luminosity of “Other Emptiness” (t. gzhan stong).

Madhyamaka used “dependent arising” (pratītyasamutpāda) to define emptiness (śūnyatā). Yogācāra approached emptiness as the interdependent reality through the idea of “domain of reality” or “realm of all phenomena” (dharmadhātu).

“According to the dharmadhātu theory in the Daśabhūmika Sūtra (DBh), all beings create themselves, and even the universe is self-created. Dharmadhātu has come to represent the universe as completely correlative, generally interdependent, and mutually originating. It is stated that there is no single being that exists independently[3].” (Suwanvarangkul, 2015)

Dharmadhātu seems to have appeared together with the idea of a ten-staged path to enlightenment. Suwanvarangkul investigates whether Madhyamaka’s dependent arising and Yogācāra’s dharmadhātu can go simultaneously together, or go rather in a contrary direction. The Tibetan Buddhist tradition seems to have chosen the first option. The Daśabhūmika Sūtra establishes a connection between dependent arising and dharmadhātu during the sixth stage (bhūmi)[4], through the three liberations (vimokṣa-traya): emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness. Yet, compassion for the creatures “left behind in saṃsāra” is the force that keeps a bodhisattva going, in spite of having realized “the condition of being without self, without being, without soul, without person”, and sometimes it is said because of this very realization.

“Then they leave behind the ideas of self and other, of agent and perceiver, of being and nonbeing. At this moment the Bodhisattvas turn themselves from contaminated beings into pure dharmadhātu.” (Suwanvarangkul, 2015)

Using terms like dhātu (buddhadhātu, dharmadhātu) is to approach positively a fundamental truth or absolute reality. Hakamaya Noriaki and Matsumoto Shirō qualify such theories as dhātu-vāda theory, a “generative monist” and Upaniṣadic model[5]. The universal dhātu is a “locus” that supports phenomenal dharmas as “super-loci”, sharing the same nature. Yet, this equality is only an apparent one like in Orwell's Animal Farm “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others”.

“Because the dharmadhātu has no distinction, any distinction among gotra is unreasonable. Nevertheless, because the dharmas to be posited [on the "locus" of dharmadhātu] are distinct, a distinction [among gotra] is proclaimed.” (verse 1.39 of the Abhisamayālaṅkāra)

Dharmadhātu is like a source from which emerge dharmā that may be perceived as pure or impure, according to a creature’s spiritual affiliation (gotra) and realization thereof. Yet these pure and impure dharmā share the same element (dhātu), so ultimately all are equal.

“Since there is no being [dharma] that can be exempt from dharmadhātu. (Madhyāntavibhāga l. 8)

Then there is no difference between own-self and other-self, as we have the same truth: dharmadhātu.” (Suwanvarangkul, 2015)

This understanding allows the bodhisattva to engage in saṃsāra, whilst receiving instructions directly flowing from dharmadhātu, and act in the pure interest of creatures to be saved, through emanations, beyond purity and affliction.

Ultimate truth being what it is and standing upright, it may seem like a small detail to approach it negatively (aprapañca), leaving the whole reality unadulterated, or positively, determining it, but it seems unavoidable that once the first positive cornerstone is laid, a whole building will follow, and another, and another yet. “All determination is negation”. Every determination gives rise to a contradiction, “pure dharmadhātu” (Buddha, bodhisattva) gives rise to impure dharmadhātu (creature), to inequality, hierarchy, bhūmis, etc. Anything positively defined as the ultimate truth logically ends up as a synonym. Just like dharmadhātu, buddhadhātu or tathāgata-garbha can also be contaminated. Another synonym for tathāgata-garbha is “luminous nature”[6]. In the Tibetan tradition, the Yogācārin dharmadhātu theory led to a split in the concept of emptiness, because it was decided that the Madhyamika definition was too nihilistic, and that the concept of “Other Emptiness” properly valorized the “luminous nature”, of which “emptiness” was said NOT to be empty of[7].

This was made possible by a merging of Yogācāra and Buddha Essence theory in the Five Treaties attributed to Maitreya the future Buddha who dwells in Tuṣita, and received “there” by Asaṅga (4th century). These treaties, Yogācāra and Buddha Essence theory were considered as the definite meaning (nitārtha) of the Buddha’s teaching taught during the third turning of the wheel, as explained in the Yogācārin Sandhinirmocana Sūtra, the source of this theory and its classifications.

This is as far as the theory goes. A positive approach of Buddha Essence comes with positive practice methods. After having been thus identified and defined, a pure dharmadhātu or buddhadhātu needs to be “realized” or “actualized” “non-conceptually”, so as nothing conceptual will contaminate it. It is no longer about thinking properly, not even about seeing “reality” as it is, i.e. as “dependent arising” or “emptiness”. It goes “deeper” than that. It is about fundamental Luminosity, of which “dependent arising”, or causality, is merely a dualistically, conceptually and therefore incorrectly perceived law. It’s not through dependent arising or any “analytical tradition” (mtshan nyid lugs) that a bodhisattva will access Luminosity.

Dhātuvādins can’t turn their backs completely on the first Nāgārjuna, also sometimes called the “Second Buddha”, and so it’s through attributing works and ideas to Nāgārjuna, via interpolations and interpretations, that his theories were made compatible with later theories and practices of “luminous nature”. Hymns were added to the Four Hymns (Catuḥstava) attributed to Nagajuna, one of them bearing the title “Hymn to Dharmadhātu” (Dharmadhātustava). “It is notable as perhaps the only work of Nāgārjuna that takes a positivistic view of emptiness and the existence of wisdom, in this case represented by the dharmadhātu.” (Tsadra Buddha-Nature). Attributing works and words to famous Buddhist teachers, because of their well established authority and charisma, is very commonplace in India, Nepal, China, etc., as it is in other religions and in other fields. Nineteen verses of the Dharmadhātustava can be found verbatim in the Dharmadhātudarśanagīti (t. chos kyi dbyings lta ba'i glu) attributed to Atiśa, an apratiṣṭhānavādin, and in another work on Madhyamaka Atiśa is said to have defined nirvāṇa as “luminosity that is free from all mental fabrications”[8]. Aprapañca Luminosity replaces emptiness. As long as no serious work is done in Tibetan Buddhism on the authorship and historicity of works, academics and researchers following it may remain hostage of tradition.

The influential zhentong thinker Shakya Chokden (1428–1507) wrote a Commentary on the Dharmadhātustava attributed to Nāgārjuna (Ascertainment of the Dharma-Sphere[9]). Once ultimate reality, and the source of all dharmas, is positively defined, all its names and definitions become synonyms, or like different names and aspects of the same god.

“In Reply to Lodrö Zangpo, for example, [Shakya Chokden] identifies the dharma-sphere as primordial mind, also calling it “primordial mind of the dharma-sphere” (chos dbyings ye shes), and then argues that this primordial mind is the focal point of Mahāyāna teachings, both tantric and nontantric, where it is referred to by such names as “all-creating king” (kun byed rgyal po), “unmixed complete perfection” (ma ’dres yongs rdzogs), “spontaneity” (lhun grub), “revelation of the hidden” (gab pa mngon du phyung pa), “great perfection” (rdzogs pa chen po), “great seal” (phyag rgya chen po), and “pacifier of sufferings” (sdug bsngal zhi byed).[10]”

In his affirmations about dharmadhātu, Shakya Chokden focuses on gnosis (jñāna) rather than nominal Luminosity. Yaroslav Komarovsk here translates jñāna as “primordial mind”.

“This ultimate primordial mind of reality (chos nyid don dam pa’i ye shes) is the basis of all dharmas of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. It is experienced by the individually self-cognizing primordial mind (so sor rang gis rig pa’i ye shes), and it becomes the primordial mind of a buddha upon the fundamental transformation (gnas yongs su gyur pa). On the conventional level, this primordial mind has to be accepted as the actual ultimate reality because it is experienced by the yogic direct perception of āryas, and also because it is identified as the dharma-sphere, disposition of the sugata-essence (khams bde bar gshegs pa’i snying po), and mind-vajra (sems kyi rdo rje).”

The “yogic direct perception of āryas” becomes a luminous/divine or noetic perception, especially in the Guhyagarbha Tantra and in Dzogchen[11], but also for Shakya Chokden. If there is only Nous and Logos, great equality (mnyams pa chen po) and great purity (dag pa chen po), then there are no creatures produced by dependent arising, no “contaminated” or misperceived dharmadhātu(s), no veiled buddhadhātu(s)…

“Only endless purity (dag pa rab ’byams) exists in buddhas’ own appearance (rang snang), and only buddhas—not sentient beings—exist from buddhas’ perspective (gzigs ngo).” (Opening a Hundred Doors[12], Shakya Chokden)

If there are no “sentient beings”, then there is no “mind-stream”, not even a buddha-nature. Even from a creatural point of view, “there is no buddha-nature in the mind-stream”, actually rather the other way round, and no preposition would apply anyway, the ultimate “container” being “Buddha gnosis” (buddhajñāna). Tārānātha (1575–1634) compares Shakya Chokden’s view in Twenty-One Differences with Regard to the Profound Meaning[13] to that of Dolpopa (1292-1361):

“Shakya Chokden: There is no buddha-nature in the mind-stream of sentient beings. The natural luminosity of the mind of sentient beings is merely the cause of the buddha-nature and [its] “basic element” (khams). Therefore, there is a buddha-nature or basic element as a cause in all ordinary sentient beings, but it is not like the actual [buddha-nature], which is rather the [same as] buddha wisdom.” (Comparing the Views of the Two Zhentong Masters Dolpopa and Shakya Chokden, Klaus-Dieter Mathes)

Luminosity equals Buddha gnosis, which can save a creature, or a self-perceived dharmadhātu… Shakya Chokden writes something that strikes me as quite astonishing from a Lion’s roar Buddhist point of view.

[In] Opening a Hundred Doors [...] he addresses the following question: If all dharma-spheres (chos dbyings ji snyed pa, i.e., dharma-spheres of all beings) are primordially free from all stains, will it not follow that they primordially possess all buddha-qualities, such as powers and so forth? He rejects this position, arguing that such statements found in sūtric and tantric traditions as “There is nothing at all to eliminate or establish here[14]”.

Here I am not so much interested in Shakya Chokden’s question itself about Buddha qualities being present from the beginning, and that therefore liberation would be obtained without effort, but in his notion of plural individual dharma-spheres (dharmadhātu-s). From whose perspective is this question being asked? Who perceives multiple individual “dharma-spheres”? A Buddha, a creature? Does every being have an individual “dharma-sphere”? Even if we translated

“The dharmadhātu in all its extent,
Being primordially free of all defilements,
Would have all qualities like the powers
Established from the very beginning”

Is there one dharmadhātu fragmented in as many contaminated “buddha-essences” as there are creatures, who BTW are said to create themselves (see above)? Who sees all these creatures, who sees their buddha-essence(s), who sees buddhas? Already in asking this question and wanting to provide an answer to it, it would seem impossible to avoid ontological arguments. Emptiness would help avoid this, Luminosity has to provide answers, and it does, more answers than there are questions. Thanks to Luminosity and Other Emptiness, Nāgārjuna's Lion's roar doesn't scare any antelopes anymore, including Buddhist ones. Even Nāgārjuna himself seems to have been seduced by the Essence sutras of the Third turning. 

***

[1] Nāgārjuniana Studies in the Writings and Philosophy of Nāgārjuna, 1990
Others are Jan Yün-hua, Joseph Walser, David Seyfort Ruegg, Jean Naudou, Ian Mabbett etc.

[2] “So by your proclaiming that nothing has its being in itself you destroy our hope for freedom and our aspiration for the attainment of the unsurpassable perfect enlightenment. You have succeeded in obscuring the great, luminous orb of the perfectly realized one by improperly generating a succession of clouds not unlike the ignorance of the world.
-Our reply is that we have destroyed the hope only of people who, like you, have been unable to bear the supremely profound lion's roar of the truth that there is no self, a truth absent from all heretical systems. You have, indeed, desiring freedom, abandoned the systems of the heretics and have followed the way of the supreme and incontrovertible Teacher, the perfectly realized one; but, because of the weakness of your aspiration you err about like antelopes on the evil paths of this forest, of this jungle, of this prison - this ineluctable cycle of birth and death ~ paths full of the pitfalls of faulty views which those astray follow. The perfectly realized ones never teach the reality of the factors of personal existence or of the self.” Candrakīrti’s Prasannapadā. English translation: Lucid Exposition of the Middle Way, The Essential Chapters from the Prasannapada of Candrakīrti translated from the Sanskrit by Mervyn Sprung in collaboration with T. R. V. Murti and U. S. Vyas

[3] Pratītyasamutpāda and Dharmadhātu in Early Mahāyāna Buddhism by Chaisit Suwanvarangkul published in Madhyamaka and Yogācāra, Allies or Rivals, edited by Jay L. Garfield, Jan Westerhoff, Oxford University Press, 2015.

[4] “In this bhūmi, the Bodhisattvas use their wisdom to contemplate the cycle of birth and death of all creatures in terms of the following ten aspects, forward and backward in time:

1. the interconnections of the elements of becoming (bhavāṅgānusaṃdhitas); 2. being all in one mind (ekacittasamavasaraṇatas); 3. differentiation of one’s own action (svakarmasaṃbhedatas); 4. inseparability (avinirbhāgatas); 5. the procession of the three courses of affliction, action, and suffering (trivartmānupravartantas); 6. the connection of past, present, and future ( pūr vāntapratyutpannāpa- rāntāvekṣaṇatas); 7. accumulation of the three kinds of suffering (triduḥkhatāsamudayatas); 8. production by causes (hetupratyayaprabhavatas); 9. attachment to origination and annihilation (utpādavyayavinibaṃdhatas); and 10. contemplation of becoming and annihilation (bhāvakṣayatāpratyavekṣaṇatas).” (Suwanvarangkul, 2015)

[5] Yamabe Nobuyoshi, The Idea of Dhātu-vāda in Yogācāra and Tathāgata-garbha texts, published in Pruning the Bodhi Tree, Honolulu, 1997, p. 194-195.

[6] Klaus-Dieter Mathes and Michael R. Sheehy, The Philosophical Grounds and Literary History of Zhentong, published in The Other Emptiness, Rethinking the Zhentong Buddhist Discourse in Tibet, Suny Press, 2019

[7] “Throughout the long intellectual history of Indian and Tibetan Buddhism, one of the major questions that remains unresolved is whether a systematic presentation of the Buddha’s doctrine requires challenging rangtong as the exclusive mode of emptiness, which has led some to distinguish between two modes of emptiness: (1) Rangtong (rang stong), that is, being empty of an own nature on the one hand, and (2) Zhentong (gzhan stong), that is, being empty of everything other than luminous awareness or buddha-nature (tathāgatagarbha, de bzhin gshegs pa’i snying po).”

“ In other words, all factors of existence, inasmuch as they are a mentally created misperception, need to be established as rangtong. This leads to a nonconceptual realization of their inconceivable and ineffable true reality that is zhentong in the sense of being empty of any reification that would be “other” to it.” (Other Emptiness, 2019 )

[8] Kyoton’s Instructions on Madhyamaka. Kyoton Monlam Tsultrim, Theg chen dbu ma’i gdams pa 190–191.
 “The no-appearance of all phenomena, luminosity free from all mental fabrication is called nirvāṇa”. de ltar yul dang yul can gnyis po’i ngo bo ma grub tsam na / de dpyod byed kyi shes rab de mi ‘grub par rang zhi nas chos thams cad snang pa med pa ‘od gsal ba spros pa thams cad dang bral ba de nyid la mya ngan las ‘das pa zhes bya ste / (Other Emptiness, 2019, pp. )

[9] Chos kyi dbyings su bstod pa zhes bya ba’i bstan bcos kyi rnam par bshad pa chos kyi dbyings rnam par nges pa

[10] Yaroslav Komarovski “There Are No Dharmas Apart from the Dharma-Sphere”, Shakya Chokden’s Interpretation of the Dharma-Sphere, published in The Other Emptiness, Rethinking the Zhentong Buddhist Discourse in Tibet, Suny Press, 2019.

[11] See Heidi I. Koppl, Establishing Appearances as Divine, Rongzom Chokyi Zangpo on Reasoning, Madhyamaka, and Purity, 2013, Snow Lion.

“The classification of phenomena with reference to two truths is not only applied in the Sūtrayāna, but can also be found in the esoteric teachings. In the Nyingma school, a prominent esoteric explanation of the two-truths paradigm is the inseparability of the "two superior truths" (hag pa'i bden pa gnyis), i.e., great purity (dag pa chen po) as the relative truth (kun rdzob den pa, samvrtisatya) and great equality (mnyams pa chen po) as the ultimate truth (don dam den pa, paramārthasatya). Often this is pointed out as the defining view of Mahayoga (rnal 'byor chen po). More generally, the tradition also tends to differentiate the view of the esoteric teachings as a whole from that of the sūtric teachings by ascribing a full realization of the inseparability of the two truths to the esoteric teachings alone.”

Great Purity is Appearance, as being luminous and divine and as the authentic “relative”, manifested truth (super-locus). Great Equality is its essence (locus). 

[12] Chos kyi dbyings rnam par nges pa’i gter sgo brgya ’byed

[13] Tāranātha’s Twenty-One Differences with Regard to the Profound Meaning: Comparing the Views of the Two Zhentong Masters Dolpopa and Shakya Chokden, Klaus-Dieter Mathes, published in Other Emptiness (2019).
Tāranātha, Zab don nyer gcig pa 7903–5: sems can kyi rgyud la bde gshegs snying po med sems can kyi sems rang bzhin ‘od gsal de / bde gshegs snying po’i rgyu dang khams tsam yin pas / rgyu bde gshegs snying po’am khams bde gshegs snying po sems can thams cad la yod kyang / de ni de ‘dra mtshan nyid pa min / sangs rgyas kyi ye shes bde gshegs snying po’o.

[14] The corresponding Tibetan passage from gSung 'bum/ shAkya mchog ldan, vol 13, Chos kyi dbyings rnam par nges pa'i gter sgo brgya 'byed ces bya ba. The full extract 

rdzogs sangs rgyas kyi rang snang la//dag pa rab 'byams pa nyid na//thams cad ye nas sangs rgyas phyir//'bad med grol bar thal zhe na//rdzogs sangs rgyas kyi gzigs ngo la//sangs rgyas ma gtogs sems can ni//ci yang yod pa ma yin mod//'khrul ngor de dang der snang phyir//'bad nas grol ba 'khrul ba'i ngor//'khrul pa nyid kyang med pa'i phyir//de de'i sgrub byed min zhe na//dung gi kha dog ser min kyang //ji srid ser snang ma bzlog na//de srid dkar po rtogs min pa//de'i dpe las de shes pa'am//rmi lam dus kyi dga' bde'i yul//gdod nas yod ma myong yin yang //ji srid gnyid sad ma gyur pa//de srid dga' ba de myong bzhin//gdod nas rdzogs sangs rgyas pa la//ha cang thal bar mi bsam ste//dri ma zad dang skye med pa'i//sgrub byed nyid kun gdod ma nas//yod ma myong ba'i phyir zhes dang*//yod na ston pas sgrib pa kun//spang du mi rung spangs par yang //mi 'thad ces bshad ma yin nam//'o na chos dbyings ji snyed pa//gdod nas dri ma kun bral phyir//gdod nas stobs sogs yon tan kun//grub pa nyid du thal zhe na//gcig med phyir na gcig yod pa//thal ba ngo bo nyid med du//smra ba'i gzhung lugs ma yin mod//mdo dang sngags lugs thun mong du//'di la bsal dang bzhag bya ba//cung zad med ces bshad pa na//phyogs gcig gdod nas grub pa dang //cig shos gdod nas yod min pa//rdzogs sangs rgyas kyi gzigs ngo la//dgongs so de bzhin gshegs snying po//rdzogs parmthong ba sangs rgyas las//gzhan la med par bshad phyir ro//slob pa'i lam gyi them skas la//'dzeg byed mkhan po'i gzigs ngo na//bsal dang bzhag par byar yod de//dri ma rang rig gis grub cing //stobs sogs lkog tu gyur phyir ro/