All things are sheer Luminosity

Ruins of Vikramshila University

My main source for this blog: Defining Wisdom: Ratnākaraśānti’s Sāratamā
D.Phil Dissertation Gregory Max Seton
Wolfson College Trinity Term 2015

In the Tibetan tradition Ratnākaraśānti (ca. 970-1045 C.E.) and Maitreyanātha/Maitrīpa/Advayavajra are known for having had some disagreement. This is explained in various ways, sometimes with different players, under different names and in various hagiographical materials. Ratnākaraśānti is specifically known for having been an abbot of Vikramaśīla, near Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur district in Bihar. Ratnākaraśānti is presented as the most senior student of Dharmakīrtiśrī (gSer gling pa), who is famous for having been Atiśa’s teacher 982-1054). Atiśa is presented by the Tibetan tradition as having also been a student of Ratnākaraśānti. Other great scholars that are said to have stayed at Vikramaśīla at that time were the “four guardians”: abbot Ratnākaraśānti, Nāropā, Vidyākokila and bZhad pa’i rdo rje (in reconstituted sanskrit Hāsavajra), or in another version (e.g. Brog-mi’s hagiography) the “six guardians”: abbot Ratnākaraśānti, Vāgīśvarakīrti, Prajñākaramati, Nāropa, Jñānaśrīmitra and Ratnavajra. Brog-mi, the “founder” of the Sakya school, also studied with Ratnākaraśānti.

Ratnākaraśānti had a Luminous start for he was said (in Brog-mi’s hagiography) to be originally from Oḍḍiyāna (part of the larger historical region of Gāndhāra). His tutelar deity (yidam) prophesied him to go to Magadha. Ratnākaraśānti was a Yogācārin, to be more precise à Mādhyamika-Yogācārin, “blending” (see my conclusion) Madhyamaka (Nāgārjuna) and Yogācāra (Maitreya and Asaṅga). He was also a follower of Tantra (e.g. Hevajra Tantra), and taught that Deity practice was essential for a speedy attainment of full Buddhahood. “Ratnākaraśānti was not just an adept of the tantras, but specifically a master of Mahāmudrā practice.” (Defining Wisdom, 2015, p.27). That would of course be “Tantric Mahāmudrā”, Luminous Mahāmudrā, not “Sūtra-Mahāmudrā”.

In his writings, Ratnākaraśānti was more concerned with fighting against Buddhist “heresies” (“the enemy within” p.30), or rather restoring the --in his opinion-- right Buddhist view, than with debating with non-Buddhist authors. He saw himself as having the mission to refute the wrong positions of Candrakīrti the Mādhyamika “from the true purport of Nāgārjuna, (but who later abandoned nihilism in his Tantrik [Guhyasamāja] commentary)[1].” For Ratnākaraśānti and for esoteric Buddhism in general, Nāgārjuna (2nd-3rd century), Candrakīrti, etc. are both the historical authors of Mādhyamika works and the alleged authors of later Tantric (Guhyasamāja) commentaries. They either “abandoned” their Mādhyamika views or corrected them and ended up as full-fledged Tantrikas. This is what “blending” often boils down to.

Maitreyanātha/Maitrīpa/Advayavajra is presented in Tibetan hagiographies as a student of Ratnākaraśānti, although he appears not to have been close to him (Defining Wisdom, p. 33).

“[Maitreyanātha] studied Pramāṇa, Mādhyamika, the way of the Pāramitās, and other śāstras with Nāro-pā for twenty years. After that he stayed together with Rāgavajra, who knew the śāstra of the Way of Mantras, for five years. Afterwards, by the side of the great Paṇḍita Ratnākaraśānti, the revered guru and master, he studied the Nirākāra position for one year. Afterwards he went to Vikramaśīla and at the side of the great Paṇḍita Jñānaśrīmitra studied his compositions for two years.” (Defining Wisdom, p. 34[2])

According to later Tibetan traditions, Maitreyanātha left Vikramaśīla at one point, after a disagreement with Ratnākaraśānti (in some versions Atiśa), and having received a prophecy, went “searching for Śavaripa”

“The third notable aspect of this early biography of Maitreyanātha is that it makes no mention of any controversy or debate with Ratnākaraśānti. This is important because later sources claim that Ratnākaraśānti was the loser in an alleged debate between the two and was behind Maitreyanātha’s expulsion from Vikramaśīla.” (Defining Wisdom, p. 36)

Why would Maitreyanātha leave after having “won a debate”? Did Maitreyanātha win the debate after his two last years spent studying with Jñānaśrīmitra (a Sākāravāda ("with cognitive images") Yogācārin[3]), the opponent of Ratnākaraśānti’s view[4] If Maitreyanātha/Advayavajra’s Ten Verses on True Reality (Tattvadaśaka) and his student Sahajavajra’s Commentary thereof somehow represent Maitreyanātha’s view, then it is clear that he didn’t follow Ratnākaraśānti’s Nirākāravādin-Yogācāra-Mādhyamika view. His last Vikramaśīla teacher Jñānaśrīmitra did beat Ratnākaraśānti in a debate according to Ratnakīrti (one of Jñānaśrīmitra's other students) as Ratnakīrti wrote in his work Īśvarasādhanadūśaṇa (Refutation of the Proof of God)[5].

What then was Ratnākaraśānti’s view (supposedly in conformity with tantric Nāgārjuna and tantric Candrakīrti)? It is most easily summarized as the “Luminist” view of “Sheer Luminosity” (t. gsal ba tsam s. prakāśamātra).

“All phenomena (sarvadharma) are sheer mind [cittamātra], [i.e.] sheer consciousness [“vijñanamātra”, “vijñapti-mātra[6]” or perhaps ”saṃvidmātra”?][7], [i.e.] sheer luminosity [prakāśamātra][8].”

For Ratnākaraśānti’s these are three synonyms. As an aside, the expression “[saṃvit]prakāśamātra” can be found in non-Buddhist works.

“The philosophic intellect, which is unclouded by prejudice, is the true form of the Great Brahma himself; who shines perspicuous in our consciousness, and has no other body besides.”
“nirāvaraṇavijñānamayī cidbrahmarūpiṇī |
saṃvitprakāśamātraikadehādehavivarjitā || 52 |” 7.186.52 Yoga-Vasiṣṭha attributed to Valmiki, in the Chapter "Demonstration of all nature (and thing) as brahma himself"

In order to prove that Nāgārjuna’s intention was actually “sheer luminosity” “shining forth” and illumining phenomena the nature whereof was sheer luminosity, Ratnākaraśānti wrote:

“Now, what is the proof here that these [phenomena] have as their nature sheer consciousness? It is taught in this [Nirākāravādin position] that the luminosity (prakāśa) of phenomena shining forth (prakāśamāna) is like a nature (ātmabhūta) established through direct experience. The nature of shining forth is [their] being known (prakhyāna), [their] appearing (pratibhāsana). This, obviously, is [their] completely clear (parisphuṭa) nature (rūpa) [that is] neither inanimate (jaḍa) nor inaccessible (parokṣa). And, if this [nature] were not established, then the unwanted consequence [would be] that nothing could be established, since nothing could be shining forth. Since [this nature must be] established, it is nothing but awareness. So, all phenomena are established as having awareness as their inherent nature.” (Defining Wisdom, p. 79)

“Awareness”, “Luminosity”, or “luminosity’s reflexive awareness” is the nature or even the stuff or substance (t. rdzas su grub pa) phenomena “are made” of.

“The Yogācāra [position] is that the sheer luminosity, which is the inherent nature of phenomena, exists as a real substance, whereas the Mādhyamika [position] is that it does not exist as a real substance. This itself is a baseless quarrel of Mādhyamika [scholars] with Yogācāra. [Such a pity], the coarseness of people.” (Defining Wisdom, p. 78)

This substance is the Light that shines forth from the Great Buddha’s true form as our luminous reflexive awareness, or “Luminous Self”. The forms (“phenomena”) that are directly/yogically perceived are without error. The reflexive awareness, that may perceive a grasped and a grasper (object and subject), is nonetheless luminous, because “it has the nature of luminosity”[9]. It’s Luminosity from the very top til the bottom, and again all the way back up.

As the old argument goes, even denying it is to confirm and prove it[10]! Consciousness is not an object of perception but the very subjectivity through which all perception and denial occurs. Consciousness or Luminosity is direct perception (pratyakṣa), it is the ultimate reliable cognition (pramāṇa). As for causality (at the conventional level) focusing on a grasper and grasped, Luminosity or Its true form is the only ultimate “Cause”, or “the only causally efficacious thing”[11]...

“Also, there is nothing that disproves (gnod par byed pa; bādhaka) the luminous nature of reflexive awareness, because there [can be] no other means of reliable cognition (pramāṇa) that surpasses it (de las lhag pa; tato ’dhika). And, this [luminous nature] is the direct perception (mngon sum; pratyakṣa) and direct experience (yang dag tu myong ba; pratisaṃvedana/anubhava) of reflexive awareness. Hence, this [luminous nature] is proven by means of reliable cognition to be the means of reliable cognition, which cannot be disproven even by one hundred means of reliable cognition. What need is there even to mention [that this luminous nature cannot be disproven] by others’ (pha rol) mere refutations (gnod pa) that are not means of reliable cognition? Therefore, [the above demonstrates] the proof and disproof through the two means of reliable cognition [namely, direct perception and inference].” (Defining Wisdom, p. 80)

And it is divine, which is where tantrism comes in. It is easier to recognize everything as divine, as the Lord (Īśvara), from top to bottom, through Deity practice, which is actually merely an elaborated form of Buddhānusmṛti. With Luminosity, in a Divine true form, shining forth as a “luminous self-awareness” (svasamvedana) or a Luminous Self, that when recognized as such is like “recognizing the Lord”[12].

“1.1.2 What sentient being could possibly prove or disprove God, when He is their very own Self, established from the beginning as that which makes cognition and action possible? Cognition (jñāna) and Action (kriyā) inhere solely within the Self of all beings, which is the ground [of being] that makes the experience of all objects possible. That Self embraces its own capacity for self-validation, being self-luminous: otherwise it could not establish all the various objects of its experience [which are illuminated by the inherent ‘light’ of its awareness]. Its nature is uniquely that of Knower; it is always already self-established & self-perfected (pūrvasiddha) and primordial. Its sovereignty is established through self-awareness; so only the foolish try to prove or disprove it.” (Stanzas on the Recognition of Divine Consciousness, Utpaladeva, translated by Christopher Wallis/Hareesh).

This Luminous Lord shines forth even in duality, and especially in duality, because the only way for the Lord to know himself is through reflecting and recognizing himself in his proper reflections. The same goes for our Luminous Selves that are made of the same Light as the Luminous Lord and that through recognizing the Lord will recognize their true Luminous nature and Self.

“Ratnākaraśānti was characterized as the only one in India able to distinguish Buddhists from non-Buddhists” (p.45). Dzongsar KR said the same thing about Atiśa and Maitrīpa. Since all three teachers are now dead, and nobody can distinguish Buddhists from non-Buddhists anymore, Śaiva in particular, I suggest to translate the Tibetan compound ‘od-gsal as Prakāśa-Vimarśa instead of "clarity-emptiness" or somesuch. Prakāśa for 'od and Vimarśa for gsal ba as the dynamic interplay (t. rtsal) of Luminous awareness (Ground, t. gzhi) abiding as the Great Buddha and its spontaneous (t. lhun grub) shining forth and Self-reflections (t. rang snang).

Many teachers of Vikramaśīla were said to be Yogācārins or Mādhyamika-Yogācārins, whatever that concretely means. Perhaps the simple fact that they participated in Yogācāra-derived practice? How does one combine the principle that all dharmas are sheer mind, sheer consciousness and sheer luminosity and exist as such, and that all dharmas are empty of inherent existence and natural property (svabhāva)? On the one hand one does not take position (Apratiṣṭhāna-Madhyamaka) and on the other one settles for the eternalist extreme of everything is sheer Luminosity and uses Deity practice as a means to unify the Luminous Self with the Luminous Source (Nous). It is clear that in this deal the Madhyamaka contribution is reduced to zero, and its only function is to serve as a quick honorable mention as a sort of Buddhism of the past. A simple stepping stone, like selflessness (anatta). Those who are still attached to these “obsolete” Buddhist methods in spite of the Third turning of the Wheel are invariably treated as fools, “coarse people” and "cattle-thieves". 

Ratnākaraśānti and others following him made it very clear that without the gods, and not only the “nature of the gods”, there is no Full Buddhahood. Both mundane (daimons) and supramundane gods or godlike entities. In the worship, theurgy, praise, offerings etc. of deity yoga practice, the mundane gods are present as representatives of Nature and asked and thanked for their good and loyal service. This will allow for the accumulation of merit (puṇya) and create the best conditions possible (s. abhyudaya t. mngon mtho) in the adept’s life to accomplish their higher Luminous goal (s. naiḥśreyasa t. legs pa).

***

[1] The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India, David Seyfort Ruegg (1981:122)

[2] Extract from “the so-called ‘Siddha Biography,’ which refers to the Sanskrit MS 142 in the Kaiser Library in Kathmandu that was likely written ca.1200 CE”. Also known as the “Sham Shere manuscript”, translated by Sylvain Lévi.

[3] Awareness contains a cognitive image (ākāra).

[4] “Historically, we know that Jñānaśrīmitra accepted the gauntlet and produced a brilliant response, which produced an interesting debate over the nature of determination (adhyavasāya) and the type of logic that should be employed by Buddhists. Unfortunately, we have little space to address that debate here. See Tani (1999) and (2004) for an excellent comparison of Jñānaśrīmitra’s and Ratnākaraśānti’s different logical systems. Although Tani pays closer attention to Jñānaśrīmitra’s system, toward which he has an affinity, his characterization of the two systems seems to be spot on.” footnote 270, Defining Wisdom, p. 125

[5] Lawrence J. McCrea & Parimal G. Patil, Buddhist Philosophy of Language in India, Columbia University Press, New York, 2010, p.3

[6] “Vijñapti-mātra. The doctrine of ‘mere imagining’ or ‘thought only’ associated with the Vijñānavāda school of Buddhist idealism. According to this teaching the empirical world of objects is regarded as the product of pure ideation, with no reality beyond the consciousness of the perceiving subject. In terms of the doctrine of Vijñapti-mātra, enlightenment is the realization of the imaginary status of phenomena and the non-substantiality of the self and external objects.” Oxford University Press

[7] Tantrāsara of Abhinavagupta, chapter 4

[8] Prajñāpāramitopadeśa by Ratnākaraśānti. Tibetan translation (Shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa'i man ngag). PPu (D145a5): rgyal ba’i sras dag khams gsum pa ’di ni sems tsam mo zhes gsungs te— de bas na chos thams cad sems tsam dang| rnam par shes pa tsam dang| gsal ba tsam yin pas…

[9] The Laṅkāvatārasūtra: “Just as a sword does not cut its own blade, just as a finger does not touch its own tip, just so is a mind when seeing itself...”

“[Ratnākaraśānti replies:] To this [interpretation of yours], I respond that this verse is denying the relationship (bhāva) between a grasped and grasper in a mind’s reflexive awareness, because that [relationship] depends upon a difference (bheda), just as touching and cutting do. However, [the verse is] not denying the reflexive awareness itself, because that [reflexive awareness] has the nature of luminosity, given that reflexive awareness is [something] being known (prakhyāna). So, since the contradiction regards [there being] a difference [when awareness knows itself], [the reflexive awareness here is merely being] restricted to [being] a nondifference (abheda), [it is] not denied. For this very reason, [we have to] supply the words “does not grasp itself” to the phrase “Just so the mind, when seeing itself.” [—i.e. “Just as a sword does not cut its own blade, just as a finger does not touch its own tip, just so the mind, when seeing itself, does not grasp itself."]” (Defining Wisdom, p. 85-86)

[10] See Utpaladeva’s Ajaḍapramātṛsiddhi.

[11] “By proving the ultimate reality of sheer luminosity, Ratnākaraśānti is simultaneously asserting that luminosity is causally efficacious, given his acceptance of Dharmakīrti’s principle that anything real has causal efficacy (arthakriyā).” (Defining Wisdom, p. 87)

[12] Utpaladeva, Īśvara-pratyabhijñā-kārikās (Verses on Self-Recognition).

La liberté à l'état pur

Un des textes principaux de la mouvance nāth est le Guide des principes des Siddha (Siddhasiddhānta-paddhati[1]) attribué à Gorak(ṣ)nāth et qui daterait du 12-14ème siècle. Cette œuvre se divise en 6 chapitres (upadeśa)

1) Origine du corps (piṇḍa),
2) Présentation du corps,
3) Connaissance du corps (microcosme/macrocosme),
4) Fondation du corps (śakti=piṇḍadhāra),
5) Union du corps (piṇḍa) et de la réalité suprême (parampada),
6) Caractéristiques du yogi avadhūta (=siddha).

Les premiers chapitres exposent la nature du corps, sa maîtrise et ses liens avec la réalité suprême. Le dernier chapitre explique la nature de l’avadhūta qui a atteint la perfection de la voie des nāths (et de toutes les autres) et qui en cette qualité est habilitée à instruire des disciples. Il est alors un sadguru (T. dam pa’i bla ma).

L’avadhūta est celui « qui a rejeté loin de lui toutes les transformations [T. ‘gyur ba] issues de Prakṛti[2] ». Le chapitre expose les caractéristiques et les attributs d’un avadhūta itinerant, mais en les « intériorisant ». Par exemple :

« Celui pour qui tient lieu de tonsure le fait qu’il a coupé les vagues de liens qui enserrent l’être humain et sont sources de souffrance, celui qui est ainsi entièrement libéré de tous les états conditionnés et transitoires, celui-là est reconnu comme un avadhūta. »

Comme ces caractéristiques sont intérieures, elles ne sont pas visibles de l’extérieur. La réalisation d’un avadhūta n’est pas visible de l’extérieur. Les avadhūta sont des « yogi cachés » (T sbad pa’i rnal ‘byor). On peut les trouver dans toutes sortes de fonctions et situations de la vie, à l’instar des mahāsiddhas.

« En certains lieux il apparaît comme quelqu’un qui jouit de la vie, en d’autres lieux comme un yogin renonçant, en certains endroits on le voit nu comme un diable, ailleurs il apparaît comme un roi, ou encore comme un homme traditionnel se conformant strictement aux règles de conduite, mais c’est lui qu’on appelle avadhūta. Comme ce qui le distingue dans tous ces rôles variés, c’est une illumination perpétuelle, il réalise bien sa propre nature véritable, et il comprend pleinement tous les systèmes philosophiques, métaphysiques ou doctrinaux, sachant voir en chacun d’eux sa vérité intrinsèque. Celui qui est honoré du nom d’avadhūta, c’est lui le vrai guru (sadguru). Du fait qu’il sait percer à jour la nature essentielle de chacun de ces darśana et qu’il est capable de dégager les concordances et l’harmonie entre tous ces points de vue philosophiques, il est un avadhūta-yogin. »[3]

L’avadhūta connaît la saveur unique (samarasa T. ro gcig) de la réalité, qu’elle soit celle du Soi suprême ou celle de l’âme incarnée (jīvātman). Incarnée dans la matière/Nature/Prakṛti, mais pas captive de celle-ci, et se délectant de l’unité. La plénitude est la délectation de la saveur unique.

« L’unification de ces deux est la connaissance suprême, c’est pourquoi elle a été nommée mudrā. »[4]

Nous avons vu que les bouddhistes, quand ils intègrent des éléments d’autres courants religieux, ils en changent le nom ou y ajoutent des qualificatifs (vajra-, mahā-,…) ou des suffixes (-tā, -tva, …). Il se peut que l’origine « sūtrayanique » du mot « mahāmudrā » ait des liens avec l’idée exprimée dans le vers n° 30 du Guide des principes des Siddha.

Certaines sources hagiograpiques de Maitrīpa/Advayavajra racontent qu’avant sa conversion au bouddhisme par Nāropa, il était un ascète ekadaṇdin[5], porteur d’un seul bâton.

« On appelle « ascète porteur d’un seul bâton » (ekadaṇdin) celui par qui a été dompté cet esprit qui, bien qu’unique, prend toutes sortes de formes diverses, étant toujours instable et oscillant. »[6]

Mais un des messages de ce chapitre est que quelque soit la voie spécifique que l’on suive, adepte de Śiva, jain digambara, kāpālika, vishnouïte (vaiṣṇava), connaisseur de la śakti (śakti-jñānin),kaula, bouddhiste,… comme autant de liens que l’avadhūta aura « fait tomber en se secouant » (racine dhū-)

« Celui qui observe le voeu dont le but suprême est l’omniprésence infinie exempte de la division entre contenu et contenant, c’est lui qui observe des voeux sévères (mahāvrata). »[7]

Le chapitre se poursuit en dénonçant les erreurs de chaque voie spécifique, très similairement aux critiques émises par Advayavajra dans son Commentaire des distiques de Saraha.

« Ceux qui par contraction de la śakti et en pressant très fort le mūlādhara allument un feu intérieur et éveillent Kuṇḍalinī dans son propre lieu et la font monter dans la tête, la conduisent en Pūrṇagiri (dans le front) puis la laissent retomber de là, ils n’obtiennent qu’une connaissance partielle et ils sont bien éloignés de l’état suprême. »

Fait étrange, même les pratiques propres aux yogis nāths (chapitres précédents) sont critiquées, comme pour rappeler qu’il s’agit de moyens et pas d’une fin, tout comme les upāya bouddhistes.

Advayavajra avait commencé sa carrière spirituelle dans le sillage des nāths comme « porteur d’un seul bâton » avant d’être converti par Nāropa au bouddhisme vajrayana. Il vivra comme moine bouddhiste à Nālandā et à Vikramaśīla, de 18 ans à 50 ans, puis sa soif spirituelle le poussera à rendre ses vœux et à se mettre à la recherche de la réalisation ultime. C’est sa rencontre, réelle ou visionnaire, avec Śavaripa qui fera de lui un avadhūta (avadhūti-pa), qui transmettra son message naturaliste (sahajika), hors de, ou en complément de tout système. Message appelé plus tard « mahā-mudrā ».

L’existence de textes tel que l’Avadhūt-gīta (toujours dans la mouvance Nāth, ), est peut-être un signe que l’idéal de l’Avadhūta pouvait être enseigné en dehors des traditions et qu’il n’était pas limité à des traditions particulières. Ce texte daterait du 14ème au 18ème siècle.[8] J’ai déjà écrit au sujet d’une mystique « siddha » au-dessus de toutes les écoles. Ce n’est pas un hasard que le Chant de l’avadhūta est attribué à une figure comme Dattātreya, avatār de la trinité hindoue (trimūrti), qui dépasse tous les castes. Ce texte est quelquefois[9] considéré comme un dialogue entre Dattātreya et Goraknāth. Le message de base de ce texte sont la saveur unique (sama-rasya, samatā, samatva) et le spontané (sahaja). Son message et sa forme sont exactement ceux du genre de dohākoṣa (T. do ha mdzod), très populaire au Tibet et considéré comme canonique du système de la mahāmudrā.

Quelques exemples :

1.36 Certains cherchent la non-dualité, d’autres la dualité. Ils ne connaissent pas l’essentiel (tattvaṁ), qui reste égal (samaṁ) [à tout temps et partout], libre de toute dualité et non-dualité (dvaita-advaita-vivarjita).[10]

3.45 Ma nature n’est ni vide (śūnya) ni le non-vide. Elle n’est ni pure ni impure. Je ne suis ni forme ni sans forme. Je suis la réalité suprême qui a pour forme sa propre forme.[11]

3.46 Renonce à l’existence passionnée (saṁsāra) de toutes les façons. Renonce au renoncement de toutes les façons. La pureté dans le renoncement et le non-renoncement (tyāgātyāgaviṣaṁ) est immortelle, naturelle (sahaja) et immuable.[12]

5.19 Il n’est pas un état de liberté (mokṣa-padam) ou d’asservissement (bandha-padam), ni un état vertueux ou non-vertueux. Il n’est pas un état de perfection ou de destitution. Pourquoi toi, qui reste le même en tous les états, te lamenterais-tu ?[13]

6.12 Il n’y a pas de telles distinctions entre la Matière et l’Esprit (Prakṛti et Puruṣa). Il n’y a pas de différence entre cause et effet. S’il n’y a que la plénitude, une et indivisible, comment parler d’Esprit et de Matière ?[14]

***

[1] Texte sanskrit et introduction en anglais

[2] Note de Tara Michaël : « 1. Sarvān prakṛti-vikārān avidhūnoti : Il s’est dégagé par une secousse fondamentale, il s’est affranchi du joug, il est venu à bout de tous les effets de la Nature productrice, il s’est débarrassé définitivement de tout empêchement existentiel. »

[3] Tara Michaël, Guide des principes des Siddha, dans La Centurie de Goraksha, éd. Almora, p. 132-133

[4] La Centurie de Goraksha, p. 134

[5] Tridanḍin selon les uns (Pema Karpo), ekadanḍin selon les autres (manuscrit Sham sher, Sylvain Levi).

[6] La Centurie de Goraksha, p. 135

[7] La Centurie de Goraksha, p. 137

[8] Dattātreya, The immortal guru, yogin and avatāra, Antonio Rigopoulos, p. 195

[9] Dattātreya, The immortal guru, yogin and avatāra, Antonio Rigopoulos, p. 197

[10] AR "Some seek nonduality, others duality. They do not know the truth, which is the same (sama) [at all times and everywhere], devoid of both duality and nonduality" (dvaita-advaita-vivarjita).
advaitaṁ kecidicchanti dvaitamicchanti cāpare | samaṁ tattvaṁ na vindanti dvaitādvaitavivarjitam ||36||

[11] AR "I am neither of the nature of the void(śūnya) nor of the nature of the non-void. I am neither of pure nature nor of impure nature. I am neither form nor formless. I am the supreme reality of the form of its own nature."

na śūnyarūpaṁ na viśūnyarūpaṁ
na śuddharūpaṁ na viśuddharūpam |
rūpaṁ virūpaṁ na bhavāmi kiñcit
svarūparūpaṁ paramārthatattvam ||45||

[12] AR "Renounce the world in every way. Renounce renunciation in every way. Renounce the poison of renunciation and non-renunciation. The Self is pure, immortal, natural and immutable."
muñca muñca hi saṁsāraṁ tyāgaṁ muñca hi sarvathā | tyāgātyāgaviṣaṁ śuddhamamṛtaṁ sahajaṁ dhruvam ||46||

[13] AR "There is no state of liberation (mokṣa-padam), no state of bondage (bandha-padam), no state of virtue, no state of vice. There is no state of perfection, and no state of destitution. Why dost thou, who art the same in all, grieve in thy mind ?"
na hi mokśapadaṁ na hi bandhapadaṁ
na hi puṇyapadaṁ na hi pāpapadam |
na hi pūrṇapadaṁ na hi riktapadaṁ
kimu rodiṣi mānasi sarvasamam ||19||

[14] AR "No such distinctions exist as Prakṛti and Puruṣa. There is no difference between cause and effect. If there is only one indivsible, all comprehensive bliss, how can one speak of Puruṣa and non-Puruṣa ?"
prakṛtiḥ puruṣo na hi bheda iti
na hi kāraṇakāryavibheda iti |
yadi caikanirantarasarvaśivaṁ
puruṣāpuruṣaṁ ca kathaṁ vadati ||12||

Oeuvre : Les dix versets sur le Réel (tattvadasaka)

Les dix versets sur le Réel (Tattvadaśaka)[1]

1. Ce qui est à l'abri de l'être ou du non-être
Qui [reste] immaculé (S. nirmala) en toute circonstance
Qui a pour être propre (S. svabhāva) l'accès à l'éveil (S. saṃbodhi)
Devant le Réel (S. tattva) je m'incline.

2. Ceux qui souhaitent connaître le Réel
N'y arriveront ni avec ni sans les formes mentales/représentations (S. ākāra)
La voie du Milieu qui n'est pas ornée[2] des instructions du Guide
N'est que la voie du Milieu intermédiaire

3. Ce qui est présent (S. bhāva) est l'éveil (S. saṃbodhi)
Et a pour être propre l'absence d'attachement
C'est à partir de l'attachement qu'il y a méprise (S. bhrānti)
Cette méprise n'a donc pas de fondement.

4. Qu'est-ce le Réel ? L'être propre de ce qui est présent (S. bhāva)
Ce qui est présent est non-existent (S. abhāva)
Mais même sans exister il est présent (S. bhāva)
En tant que (S svabhāva) causalité.

5. Ainsi les faits (S. dharmā) ont une saveur/sève identique (S. eka-rasa)
Ils sont libres (S. asaṅga) et ne durent pas
Quoiqu'il arrive pendant la méditation (S. samādhi)
Tous [les faits] sont les reflets de la Luminosité (S. ābhās-vara).

6. Quoiqu'il arrive pendant la méditation (S. samādhi)
Celle-ci est soutenue par un fort engagement (S. prasthānacitta) [d'éveil]
En faisant l'expérience (T. rig pa) de cet état (T. gnas)
Le Réel se produira sans cesse.

7. En absence de toute connaissance et de connaissable
La destinée (S. durgati) est dite non-duelle (S. advaya)
Même l'identification (S. mananā) de l'absence de dualité
Est dite n'être autre que la Luminosité et son rayonnement (S. ābhās-vara)

8. Ayant définitivement accès au Réel de cette façon
Quoiqu'il en soit et quoi qu'il fasse
Le contemplatif (yogi) aux yeux grands ouverts
Se comportera en toutes circonstances comme un lion[3].

9. En se détournant des [huit] arguments mondains[4]
Et en suivant le style de vie (S. vrata) d'un insensé (S. unmattaka)
Tout est fait sans appui/de façon insaisissable (S. ālambana)
Les formes mentales étant ornées de leur propre grâce (S. adhiṣṭhāna)

10. Ce qui est enseigné comme le principe immaculé[5]
Et tout ce à quoi adhèrent les adeptes de la non-dualité[6]
Est libre de notions d'égalité ou d'inégalité
Et convient (T. rigs) comme un objet de connaissance pour les philosophes.

***

Version en sanscrit (romanisé)

[1] Traduit à partir d'une version tibétaine que j'ai reconstituée à partir du commentaire de Sahajavajra, Tattvadaśakaṭīka - de kho na nyid bcu pa'i grel pa DGTG n° 2254 PKTG N° 3099

[2] Le mot ornement (S. alaṃkāra, qui peut aussi signifier "poésie") forme toujours une opposition avec la substance, la matière (S. vastu). Les ornements sont fabriqués avec de la matière, sans matière pas d'ornement. Quand il y ornement, il y a matière.

[3] Cette image se rattache aux quatre types d'activité (T. lus kyi spyod lam rnam bzhi : marcher, être assis, manger et dormir) et se trouve dans le dohākośagīti de Saraha (n° 56), dont deux commentaires ont été attribués à Advayavajra.

[4] L'équanimité (S. upekṣā T. tang snyoms) est définie comme l'indifférence à l'égard des profits et des pertes (lābha, alābha), des gloires et des déshonneurs (yasa, ayasa), des éloges et des blâmes (pasansā, nindā), des bonheurs et des malheurs (sukha, dukkha), bref des huit arguments mondains.

[5] nirmala-tathatā). Dans le Ratnagotravibhāga chapitre 6, premier verset le principe souillé (S. samala-tathatā) est un terme pour l'Elément (S. dhātu) non-libéré des voiles, le Tathāgatagarbha. Nirmala-tathatā est un terme pour le même Elément caractérisé par la parfaite manifestation à la base (āśraya-parāvṛt) dans le stade de Bouddhéité, le Dharmakāya du Tathāgatagarbha.

[6] advayavādin T. gnyis su med pa smra ba

Version translitérée (Wylie)
La version bilingue tibétain/français peut être téléchargée ici (PDF bilingue).

1. gang zhig yod med sbyor ba spangs//
gang la rnyog pa med pa nyid//
byang chub rtogs pa’i rang bzhin can//
de bzhin nyid la phyag ‘tshal btud//

2. de bzhin nyid ni shes ‘dod pas//
rnam bcas ma yin rnam med min//
bla ma’i man ngag gis ma brgyan pa’i//
dbu ma ‘bring po tsam nyid do//

3. dngos po ‘di ni byang chub ‘gyur//
chags pa spangs pa’i rang bzhin nyid//
chags pa las ni ‘khrul par ‘gyur//
‘khrul pa gnas ni med par ‘dod//

4. de nyid ci na dngos rang bzhin///
dngos po dngos med gang yin pa’i//
dngos po med par yang dngos por ‘gyur//
rgyu dan ‘bras bu’i rang bzhin gyis//

5. de ltar chos rnams ro gcig ste//
thogs pa med cing gnas med par//
ji ltar ‘byung ba’i ting ‘dzin gyis//
‘di dag thams cad ‘od gsal te//

6. ji ltar ‘byung ba’i ting ‘dzin yang*//
rab tu ‘jug pa’i sems kyis ‘gyur//
gang phyir de yi gnas rig pas//
de nyid rgyun mi ‘chad las skye//

7. shes dang shes bya rnam bral ba//
‘gro ba nyid ni gnyis med ‘dod//
gnyis dang bral bar rlom pa yang*//
gang phyir de ni ‘od gsal ‘dod//

8. de lta’i de nyid nges rtogs nas//
ji lta de ltar gang de na//
rnal ‘byor mig ni rgyas ‘gyur ba//
kun tu seng ge de bzhin rgyu//

9. ‘jig rten chos las rnam log ‘dis
smyon pa’i brtul zhugs la brten nas//
dmigs pa med pas thams cad byed//
rang byin brlabs pas rnam brgyan pa’o//

10. rnyog med de nyid gang bstan cing*//
gnyis su med pas gang smras pa//
mnyam dang mi mnyam spang pa’o//
blo gtan rnams kyis shes byar rigs//

Sanscrit

20 | tattvadaśaka | sadasadyogahīnāyai tathatāyai namo namaḥ |anāvilā yataḥ saiva bodhato bodhirūpiṇī ||1||na sākāranirākāre tathatāṁ jñātumicchataḥ |madhyamā'madhyamā caiva guruvāganalaṅkṛtā ||2||bodhirasau bhaved bhāvaḥ saṅgaṁ tyaktā svabhāvataḥ |āsaṅgo bhrāntito yāto bhrāntirasthānikā matā ||3||kiṁ tattvaṁ vastuno rūpaṁ rūpaṁ cārūpakaṁ yataḥ |arūpaṁ ca bhaved rūpaṁ phalahetusvabhāvataḥ ||4||evameva rasā dharmmā nirāsaṁṅgā nirāspadāḥ |prabhāsvarā amī sarvve yathābhūtasamādhinā ||5||yathābhūtasamādhiśca bhavet prasthānacittataḥ |ajasraṁ jāyate tattvaṁ yasmāt tat padavedinām ||6||jñānajñeyavihīnaṁ [tu]jagadevādvayaṁ matam |dvayahīnābhiropaśca tathaiva hi prabhāsvaraḥ ||7||etat tattvāvarodhena yena tena yathā tathā |vivṛtākṣo bhramed yogī keśarīva samantataḥ ||8||lokadharmmavyatīto'sau unmattavratamāśritaḥ |sārdhaṁ karotyātālambaḥ svādhiṣṭānavibhūṣitaḥ ||9|| --------------------------------------------------------samāsamamatā hitvā jñātumahānāyādhanāḥ ||10||

||tattvadaśakaḥ samāptaḥ |kṛtiriyaṁ paṇḍitāvadhūtādvayavajrapādānāmiti ||