Luminosity and its slippery metaphors

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].
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]

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.”

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 ||

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)

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.

“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 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)

“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.

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.”

“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 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.

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)”

“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).

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?

“II. 46 Because of being stainless, because of being nonconceptual,
And because of being the sphere of yogins [yogināṃ gocaratvataḥ],
It is pure and luminous by virtue of
Having the nature of the dharmadhātu.”

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.

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,
And of the existence of families [gotra, rigs], all sentient beings are constantly endowed with Buddha-nature[6].” (Herbert V. Guenther, p.3)

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".

“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)

***

"Very well then, my friend, I will give you an analogy;
for there are cases where it is through the use of an
analogy that intelligent people can understand the
meaning of what is being said."
MN 24 (The Mind Like Fire Unbound: An Image in the Early Buddhist Discourses, Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu)

[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.
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)”

[3] “Dharmakīrti writes at the corresponding juncture of the Pramāṇaviniścaya, PVin 1.38:
“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
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.”

[8] “II. 46 Because of being stainless, because of being nonconceptual,
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).

Les métamorphoses d'un courant d'air chaud

"Dépolluer le Gange, une mission impossible ?" (La Croix)

Dans la “religion de terre” de la Grèce ancienne, avant l’invention du ciel, la mort et la naissance étaient vues comme faisant partie du cycle naturel, sans la notion d’une existence individuelle ou d’un destin individuel.

“La figure singulière que revêt dans ce système la mort. Elle n'est pas un événement mais un espace et, plus exactement, la moitié inférieure de l'espace. Elle est un lieu béni avec lequel il importe avant tout de garder le contact: comme l'est ailleurs le ciel dont, ici, on n'a pas besoin. (166) La mort purement spatiale et entièrement positive est le fondement même de la pensée de circulation. Mais elle est aussi l'obstacle majeur sur le chemin de la construction de l'identité. Elle interdit de penser la mort comme un événement et d'y voir un terme : celui de vie humaine. Fait répétitif, la mort enchaîne sur la naissance, elle aussi répétitive. Captées dans un rapport circulaire, la naissance et mort ne peuvent pas servir comme bornes propres à délimiter l’existence individuelle. Inscrites dans un cercle, elles ne peuvent pas être, la première un commencement, et la seconde une fin. Les repères les plus élémentaires pour concevoir le destin individuel restent ainsi hors de vue. L'homme ne peut pas se penser à partir de sa mort.[1]”

Pour Empédocle, la “quadruple racine”, ce sont les quatre éléments (Zeus-air, Héra-terre, Aidonerus/Hadès-feu, Nestis/Persephone-eau[2]), et il n’y a donc pour lui pas réellement de naissance et de mort,

“Il y a seulement un effet de mélange [des éléments]
Et de séparation de ce qui fut mêlé :
Naissance n'est qu'un mot qui a cours chez les hommes.[3]”

Les résultats des mélanges des quatre éléments peuvent être "un homme", "une bête", "un arbuste" ou "un oiseau". Pourtant on parle de “naissance”, de “production”, d’ “engendrement”, de “génération”, et de leurs contraires.

“Ce parler est injuste, et pourtant il convient
Que j'y recoure aussi pour observer l'usage.” (Plutarque, Contre Colotès, 11, 1113 A)

Comme le Bouddha utilisait des conventions (p.e. “je”), sans en être dupe.

“Colotès ne s'est pas rendu compte que les plantes, les bêtes, les arbustes et les oiseaux n'ont pas eu leur existence abolie par Empédocle, puisqu'il déclare qu'ils résultent du mélange des éléments. Au contraire, Empedocle, après avoir mis en garde ceux qui décrivent ce mélange et cette dissociation sous les termes de naissance, de trépas funestes, et de mort vengeresse, ne désavoue pas l'usage courant.” (Plutarque, Contre Colotès, 11, 1113 A.)

Empédocle semble parler de ce que l’on pourrait appeler ailleurs “non-production” et “non-destruction”. Les éléments, “non-engendrés”, se mélangent et se séparent

“Car de même que rien n'est produit à partir du non-étant, rien non plus n'est détruit en non-étant:

Ainsi du non-étant rien ne peut naître un jour;
Que l'étant soit détruit, cela ne veut rien dire
Et heurte la pensée; car il sera toujours
Là, quel que soit l'endroit où l'on veuille le mettre.[4]”

“Dans le tout point de vide.
Et d’où proviendrait donc
ce qui pourrait s’y ajouter?[5]” (Aétius; Pseudo-Aristote; Mélissos, Xénophane, Gorgias, 1, 28)

D’où pourrait être ajoutée une “identité individuelle” de courant avec sa mémoire propre ? Quand Empédocle dit :

“En vérité, j'étais un garçon et une fille, un buisson, un oiseau et un poisson dans le tourbillon de l'océan.” (Diogène Laërce; Hippolyte; Vies, VIII, 77; Réfutation de toutes les héresies I, 3.)

Christianisme et bouddhisme, KTO TV

Il recourt au “je” d’usage comme l’aurait pu le faire le Bouddha. Ni le même, ni un autre. Il ne parle pas d’un “esprit” “qui continuerait sa course” (18:52), qui serait “une succession de consciences”, un “courant de conscience”, “une sorte de fleuve qui traverse les frontières”, qui peut avoir un autre nom après chaque frontière traversée, tout en étant et restant le même fleuve. D’ailleurs, pourquoi ce fleuve, et pas un autre, pourquoi pas l’environnement, ou le tout dans son ensemble ? Empédocle ne fait pas référence à une succession de naissances spécifique qui serait la sienne, il se sent solidaire de tout, sans naissance, sans mort.

Philippe Cornu : “[Le courant de conscience] a traversé la frontière de la mort (19:34) et il peut également charrier des débris d'un côté puis de l'autre. D’où les conditionnements qui continuent d’être charriés par ce même courant de conscience. Il y a une continuité, donc on peut dire que la personne qui existe dans cette vie et la personne qui existe dans la vie suivante ne sont ni la même ni une autre.”

Si cette personne n’est ni la même ni une autre, et si on parlait dans ce cas de “naissance” pour “observer l’usage”, pourquoi aller plus loin et parler de re-naissance ? Re-naissance de quoi ?

Philippe Cornu : “(20:11) Notre personnalité va avec ce corps, et donc ça se désagrège, et ça se défait. Mais la mémoire de ce que nous avons fait se prolonge et se poursuit dans la vie suivante. Ce n'est pas la même personne ; il n'y a pas une ontologie de la personne.[6]”

Un fleuve est surtout un lit creusé dans la terre par l’eau, et à travers lequel l’eau s’écoule, quand et tant qu’il y en a. Sans lit, comment dire du volume d’eau qui s’y écoule qu’elle soit ni la même ni une autre. “On ne peut pas entrer deux fois dans le même fleuve” dit Héraclite. Empédocle semble comme Héraclite parler de la réalité mouvante et du flux universel, pour lequel il n’y a ni frontières, ni naissance, ni mort. Ce flux universel charrie-t-il des débris ou des mémoires individuelles, en les faisant passer d’une naissance à une autre, voire même à une re-naissance ? La mémoire de “ce qu’a fait”(20:16) un buisson, un oiseau, un poisson, ... les poursuit-elle dans leur vie suivante, et quel serait le support de cette mémoire ? De quelle manière le buisson et Empédocle ne sont-ils ni le même ni un autre ? La mémoire (individualisée) y joue-t-elle vraiment un rôle ? Et, charriés depuis le commencement du courant spécifique qui les emporte, si les débris passent, Empédocle arrivera-t-il à les séparer du courant de conscience de poisson, etc. ? Le transfert de la mémoire individuelle de “ce qui a été fait” ne semblait pas le préoccuper, car sa mémoire n’était pas individuelle, celle de tel garçon, telle fille, tel buisson, …

C’est pour éviter l'appropriation d’un mien et l’identification à un moi, que le Bouddha avait enseigné le non-soi et la vacuité. Dévaloriser ces moyens en les qualifiant d’enseignements “donnés aux imbéciles, aux êtres ordinaires et aux débutants comme un remède à l'attachement au soi[7]” pour promouvoir un Soi lumineux de fils de Lumière. Ou d’un “esprit”, une mémoire qui se poursuit dans la vie suivante, jusqu’à retrouver à terme sa Source noétique, au bout d’un cheminement bien défini

Le bouddhisme Lumineux pose à la fois un Soi lumineux avec sa réalité lumineuse inconditionnée, et l’ignorance de ce Soi lumineux avec sa réalité conditionnée considérée peu glorieuse. Pour ceux qui vivent par le Soi lumineux, il n’y a pas de naissance ou mort réelle, tout comme pour Empédocle d'ailleurs mais pour d'autres raisons. En même temps, ces fils de Lumière ont une très forte conscience des humains qui, ignorant le Soi lumineux, vivent une existence conditionnée marquée par la naissance et la mort. Il leur est insupportable que d’autres vivent en “homme”, “bête”, “arbuste” ou “oiseau”, en subissant une existence conditionnée, et veulent les ramener au Soi lumineux. Ils sont hyper conscients de cette différence entre eux-mêmes et les autres. Mettre fin à cette altérité, et célébrer tous ensemble le Soi lumineux et sa réalité lumineuse, semble être leur seule raison d’exister, sans quoi elles seraient déjà passés au nirvāṇa ou dans d’autres hautes sphères. Empédocle accepte la condition terrestre, quelle qu’elle soit. Il ne fait pas de différence entre lui-même, toutes les métamorphoses du passé (les siennes comme celles des autres), et celles encore à venir. Il ne perçoit pas de “débris”, qui sont au fond de simples modalités. La vie était sans doute moins complexe avant l’invention du ciel ou pour ceux qui attachaient plus d'importance à ce qui était déjà là.

Avec l’invention du ciel, et sa bureaucratie, chaque âme avait un parcours, de ses origines jusqu’à son retour à la Source, ou le cas échéant sa transmigration, ou sa damnation, temporaire ou éternelle. Ses actes, paroles et pensées (crédit social) étaient enregistrés dans une mémoire, qui la suivait de métamorphose en métamorphose, et dont elle était comptable et responsable. Comment sait-on cela ? Ceux-là qui parlent de l’ignorance (avidyā) du Soi lumineux et sa réalité lumineuse, sont les mêmes que ceux qui parlent du ”courant”, de “l’esprit”, et de la “mémoire” individualisée qui suit chaque fil de métamorphose à la trace. Ils prêchent à la fois le Soi lumineux universel, et la transmigration des “courants” qui l’ignorent. Une double ignorance, car la plupart des êtres ignorent et le Soi lumineux, et la terrible souffrance de la transmigration, (dont il faut sortir à tout prix), à cause de leur "attachement" à un soi individuel séparé, et le fardeau de la mémoire que celui traîne avec lui de métamorphose en métamorphose. S’ils se sentent mal, c’est à cause de cette double ignorance, parole de fils de Lumière. C’est beaucoup plus complexe que l’approche d’un Empédocle, d’un Héraclite ou d'un Bouddha.

"Ce dont il y a vue, ouïe, perception, c'est cela que, moi, je préfère". (Héraclite, 74 (55), Marcel Conche, p. 264)

"Voilà comment tu dois pratiquer. Quand, pour toi, il y aura simplement

  ce qui est vu dans ce qui est vu,

  ce qui est entendu dans ce qui est entendu,

  ce qui est ressenti dans ce qui est ressenti,

  et ce qui est connu dans ce qui est connu,

Alors, Bahiya, il n’y aura pas de saisie de ces objets.

Quand il n’y a pas de saisie des objets, il n’y a pas de « toi » en eux.

Quand il n’y a pas de « toi » en eux, tu n’es ni ici ni au-delà ni entre les deux.

Cela, simplement cela, est la fin de la souffrance." (Bāhiyasutta, trad. Jeanne Schut) 

Ceux qui ont été convertis par les fils de Lumière sont-ils réellement plus heureux, soulagés, lumineux ? Ils n’en ont pas toujours l’air. Souvent même ils ont conscience de tous leur manquements par rapport aux devoirs de la voie lumineuse, et ne se sentent pas à la hauteur. Lire des hagiographies accentue ce sentiment. Sont-ils assez reconnaissants envers les fils de Lumière, qui leur ont enseigné leur double ignorance, et qui les guident sur la voie lumineuse vers la Lumière ? Ces fils de Lumière sont comme des Bouddhas, ils ne sont plus vraiment “sous la condition humaine” (11:34), “ils ne sont plus conditionnés”, “au-delà du temps”, “au-delà de toutes les causes et conditions” (11:47), “ni être humain, ni dieu” (11:54), “au-delà de l’existence habituelle”. Si l’on voit des défauts en eux, ce sont nos propres défauts que nous projetons sur eux, et qu’ils reflètent tels des miroirs, ce qui peut encore davantage renforcer notre sentiment d’échec...

Grâce au Soi lumineux naturellement présent, “l’esprit” individuel est une “transcendance intériorisée” (8:14), qui “intègre” le corps et la parole, intègre l'intériorité/extériorité, et “l’esprit” est “le boss” (9:05). Le déconditionnement, ou l’accès à l’inconditionné immanent, passe donc par un travail énorme sur “l’esprit”. L’inconditionné en l’homme (8:35) est sa nature fondamentale, que l’on appelle “nature de Bouddha”. La pratique bouddhiste (tib. nang pa) est tournée vers l’intérieur, vers “l’esprit”, individuel s'entend, c’est-à-dire “l’esprit” encombré par les débris spécifiques (karma) associés à son “courant de conscience” (19:09) spécifique, et qui accouchera un beau jour d’un Bouddha. La nature de Bouddha est partagée par tout le vivant, donc “homme”, “bête”, “arbuste”, “oiseau” ou protozoé (39:31), qui pourront en théorie, un jour, tous, individuellement, en fonction de leurs “débris” respectifs, devenir un Bouddha.

Le bouddhisme présenté ici par Philippe Cornu est le bouddhisme lumineux, celui pratiqué entre autres par l’école nyingmapa de son maître Sogyal Lakar. Régis Burnet (KTO) pose la question qui s’impose logiquement (9:11).

Question : Est-ce que je dis faux si je dis qu’en fait, nous avons une part de nature divine en nous, et puis plein de choses pas très divines et qu'il faut purifier ?

“C'est ça oui, on pourrait presque dire ça. Après ça dépend de l'approche bouddhiste, parce qu'il y a de multiples approches dans le bouddhisme. Il y a des approches où vraiment il faut renoncer à tout un tas de choses, il faut vraiment purifier [la voie des auditeurs, theravāda]. D'autres, il faut transformer [bouddhisme tantrique]. Et d'autres [tathāgatagarbha dotée de qualités intrinsèques, dzogchen], nous disent qu'en fait notre nature est déjà parfaite, mais qu'il faut la réaliser, l'actualiser. Il y a différents chemins dans le bouddhisme qui dépendent un peu des des besoins de chacun et des capacités de chacun.”

En effet, le bouddhisme présenté ici par Philippe Cornu est un bouddhisme Lumineux, centré sur la Lumière, que l’on pourrait appeler “divine” à cause de la transformation (tantrique) et le Soi lumineux qui intègre tout, et qui contient en elle la Perfection lumineuse. D’autres formes de bouddhisme sont plus près de l’homme et font davantage appel à la lumière humaine dans une nature (enchantée).

Le titre donné à l’interview est “Christianisme et bouddhisme”, mais le bouddhisme présenté était celui d’une branche très particulière, très Lumineuse, plutôt tardive, du “bouddhisme” dans son ensemble, qui est en effet très complexe. On pourrait dire la même chose de la philosophie. Présenter le néoplatonisme comme “LA philosophie” ne serait pas convenable. Un autre bouddhiste aurait pu sans doute répondre plus franchement, et de façon moins complexe, à la question de Régis Burnet.

***

[1] Maria Daraki, Dionysos et la déesse Terre, Champs, Flammarion, 1985/1994

[2] Aétius ; Sextus Empiricus.
“Connais premièrement la quadruple racine
De toutes choses : Zeus aux feux lumineux,
Héra mère de vie, et puis Hadès,
Nestis enfin, aux pleurs dont les mortels s’abreuvent.”
(Opinions, I, iii, 20 ; Contre les mathématiciens, X, 315). Les écoles présocratiques, Jean-Paul Dumont, Folio, Essais, p. 184

[3] Plutarque, Contre Colotès, 10, IIII F, Aetius, Opinions, I, XXX, 1. Les écoles présocratiques, Jean-Paul Dumont, Folio, Essais, p. 184

[4] Pseudo-Aristote, Mélissos, Xénophane, Gorgias, Ⅱ, 6, et Philon, De l'éternité du monde, 2, p. 3., cités dans Les écoles présocratiques, pp. 184-190

[5] Psuedo-Aristote, Mélissos, Xénophane, Gorgias, II, 28.), ibidd., p. 186

[6] KTO TV, Christianisme et bouddhisme, 07/04/2024. Philippe Cornu, spécialiste du bouddhisme tibétain et le frère Benoît Billot, bénédictin, spécialiste des pratiques méditatives.

[7] “The sphere [dhātu] is the ultimate truth. It is said that by seeing its nature [rang bzhin] you see ultimate truth. But again, it is not the case that an emptiness in which nothing exists at all is the ultimate truth. To fools, ordinary beings, and beginners, the teachings on selflessness and so forth were given as a remedy for being attached to a self. But [this selflessness or emptiness], it should be known, [is] in reality the sphere [or] luminosity, [which is] unconditioned and exists as something spontaneously present.” Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. A Direct Path to the Buddha Within: Gö Lotsāwa's Mahāmudrā Interpretation of the Ratnagotravibhāga. Studies in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2008.

Klong chen pa: Grub mtha' mdzod, 185.6-186.2: de'ang don dam pa'i bden pa dbyings yin la/ 'di'i rang bzhin mthong bas don dam bden pa mthong zhes bya'i/ cir yang med pa'i stong nyid kyang don dam bden pa ma yin no/ de'ang byis pa so so skye bo dang/ las dang po dag bdag tu zhen pa'i gnyen por bdag med pa la sogs pa bstan pa yin gyi (text: gyis)/ don la dbyings 'od gsal ba 'dus ma byas shing lhun grub tu yod pa shes par bya ste/.

Customizing Buddha-nature, Pimp your Ride

Badass Longchenpa

In the Treasure of Tenets (Grub mtha’ mdzod), the 14th-century dhātuvādin Longchenpa gives his customized version of the tathāgatagarbha, while glossing the “Ultimate Teaching of the Mahāyāna” (Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra, or Ratnagotravibhāga (RGV). This revelation is believed to have been taught by the bodhisattva Maitreya, the future Buddha, to Asaṅga (4th century), during his ascension to Tuṣita, and was then transmitted. One can sense an important change is about to happen, when revelations start taking place during ascensions[1]. I will be using the rendering of Longchenpa’s view on tathāgatagarbha that can be found in A Direct Path to the Buddha Within[2] authored by Klaus-Dieter Mathes.

Longchenpa divides his explanation of the nature of the highest vehicle (yāna) in five points. 1. the mode of abiding [gnas lugs] of the primordial ground [gzhi] as nature [rang bzhin] 2. the way sentient beings are confused through this 3. the mode of abiding of Luminosity/Nous [‘od gsal gyi] in the confused state [‘khrul du] 4. the way to practice the ground in its mode(s) of abiding 5. the way to accomplish the final result.

The “primordial ground” is also sometimes translated as the “ground of being” (e.g. Richard Barron). The essence of “the ground” is empty. The essence is manifested through its nature, and its nature manifests itself as Light (Nous). The spreading of the Light, like rays, is its goodness, compassion, messianity. Not unlike a Father, a Mother and selfarisen/autogene Son(s). Below Klaus-Dieter Mathes summarizes point 1 about the mode of abiding of “the primordial ground” (or being), at the lower receiving end, from the confused and the non-confused point of view of sentient beings (square brackets added by me):

“The nature of the fundamental state [gnas lugs], which is repeatedly equated with the primordial ground [gdod ma’i gzhi], selfarisen wisdom [rang byung gi ye shes], or awareness [rig pa], is described in line with the dzogchen categories essence (ngo bo), nature (rang bzhin), and compassionate responsiveness (thugs rje). The essence of the primordial ground is taken to be empty [stong pa] (like space), its nature is luminosity [gsal ba] (like that of the sun and the moon), and its compassionate responsiveness is all-pervasive [khyab pa] (like the rays of light). These three categories are further equated with, respectively, the dharmakāya, saṃbhogakāya, and nirmāṇakāya. Inseparable in essence, the three kāyas abide [gnas] throughout beginningless time as the nature of wisdom in an ever-unchangeable sphere [ 'pho ba dang 'gyur ba med pa'i dbyings].” (Buddha Within, p. 99, GTD 364.4-6[3])

Speaking in triune Godhead terms the invisible essence can be compared to the Father, the creative nature (Physis, φύσις) of the Light (through five Luminaries), to the Mother, and the messianity/”compassionate responsiveness” to the “rays” of the Son(s). The Mother is the Thought (dgongs pa) of the Father, that possesses the triple Image of the Father. This “Trinity” is the primordial ground (gzhi) manifesting itself authentically in the Pure creation of the Intelligible/Luminous realm, that corresponds to a theological “real Reality” (chos nyid), without the distorted appearances (’khrul snang) an individual in the material sensible realm is exposed to, including astral influences. Therefore an individual in the sensible realm (‘dod khams) can only have access to epiphanies (gzhi snang) of the real Reality through “[primordial] awareness [rig pa][4]”, serving as a direct link, like universal Logos. At the top of the (macro)cosmos abides the triune Godhead of "the ground of being", whilst at the same time being all-pervasively and microcosmically, spontaneously present (lhun grub) beneath the level of sun and moon, like a reflection, since beginningless times, or at least since the triune Godhead abides.

The Celestial Pure Creation is already there (“déjà-là”), and perfectly so, and so, in essence, are its reflections, including for those who experience them in distorted ways.

“There is nothing to be removed from this
And not the slightest to be added.
Actual reality [bhūtato, yang dag nyid] is to be seen as it really is—
Whoever sees actual reality is liberated.[5]”

What is “actual reality”? Pontius Pilate could have asked.

I will digress a bit. As can be deduced from the title Ratnagotravibhāga, the gotra (rigs), spiritual affiliation, is an important part of its tathāgatagarbha theory. Verse I,28 is quoted by Gampopa in his Jewel Ornament of Liberation:

“Because of the permeation of Sambuddhakāya, of the undifferentiatedness of Tathatā,
And of the existence of families [gotra, rigs], all sentient beings are constantly endowed with Buddha-nature[6].” (Herbert V. Guenther, p.3)

What is gotra? “Disposition” as it is translated on the Tsadra website, does not cover the full semantic load of this term. Moreover, one could also miss out on the implications of the term “man” (puruṣa- pauruṣa) used to describe the power/ability of a human existence (rten) to achieve the Buddhist goal. In the above mentioned text, Gampopa canonically bases his understanding of the inferior, mediocre and excellent power (pauruṣa) of the “precious human body” on the Bodhicaryāvatāra and the Bodhipathapradīpa:

“Since man's aim is achieved”.
'Man' is in Sanskrit puruşa, which means by etymology to have power or ability. Since within the body which presents a unique occasion and effects the right juncture, there is the power or the ability to secure rebirth in higher forms of life and also to realize ultimate good, we speak of 'man'. Further, since this power is of three kinds, strong, mediocre and weak, man also is of three types, excellent, mediocre and inferior. This is declared in the 'Byan.chub. lam.gyi sgron.ma' (Bodhipathapradīpa)[7]”.

Translating puruṣa- pauruṣa simply as “human potential” is missing out on its misogynistic implications, as would be the case with references to a “male soul”, the most intelligent, active and bold part of a soul. I will regress a bit further before returning to KD Mathes' discussion in the Buddha Within. The “undifferentiatedness of Tathatā”. Tathatā (chos nyid) in Guenther’s translation of the Ratnagotravibhāga quote has the meaning of suchness, reality. But when this term appears in Nyingma funerary doctrine, it (e.g. chos nyid bar do) refers to the real Reality of Pure creation, or emanation for that matter. On the one hand we have the nature of phenomena (suchness) and on the other the Pure Celestial realms of Divine Light (Noûs) sharing the same term chos nyid/dharmatā . The luminous or radiant mind initially referred to a mind freed from incoming defilements[8], but it took on more positive connotations of being linked to the Light of Nous.

Back to the discussion in the Buddha Within (p. 100). When Longchenpa glosses verse RGV I,28, he intentionally changes “rigs” (gotra) in “rig [pa]” following its specific Nyingma semantics.

“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

All sentient beings microcosmically possess the triune essence of a Buddha because they have a triune pneumatic “sphere” (dhātu) or “spirit”, directly connected to the Nous, to be distinguished from psyche and reason deriving from it, but in “confused mode” (‘khrul lugs). Longchenpa speaks of “the perfectly pure sphere (dhātu) “beyond meeting and parting” regarding the luminous kāyas and wisdom (ye shes)”[9]. This (theologically) perfectly pure (or authentic) sphere is only obnubilated by adventitious distortions, due to its temporary immersion in the sensible realm and its consequently confused state. These distortions can be neutralized through temporary inner contemplative ascensions and escapes from the sensible realm, or a more consequential post mortem ascension, when the Luminous Son can reunite with his Luminous Mother[10]. Longchenpa is quite outspoken about the “ultimate reality” of that “sphere” or spirit (pneuma) and its correspondence with the Luminous kāyas and wisdom at the high end.

“The sphere [dhātu] is the ultimate truth. It is said that by seeing its nature [rang bzhin] you see ultimate truth. But again, it is not the case that an emptiness in which nothing exists at all is the ultimate truth. To fools, ordinary beings, and beginners, the teachings on selflessness and so forth were given as a remedy for being attached to a self. But [this selflessness or emptiness], it should be known, [is] in reality the sphere [or] luminosity, [which is] unconditioned and exists as something spontaneously present[11].”

Badass Longchenpa gives it to us straight, Keep your Buddhism, we have Dzogchen!

That emptiness is not nothing(ness) is something the “second Buddha” Nāgārjuna stated in a simple treaty (śastra)[12] and Candrakīrti glossed. The famous 11-th century Nyingmapa lama Rongzompa identifies himself as a mādhyamika and more precisely as a “sarvadharmāpratiṣṭhānavādin” in his lTa ba’i brjed byang, but excludes “pure phenomena”, such as Buddha bodies and pure lands from the scope of dependent origination[13]. For Rongzompa, the purified dharmadhātu is nirvāṇa. “Ultimate awakening, he states, means the coming to rest of both the unwholesome and the wholesome”. He rejects the existence of non-conceptual gnosis and pure mundane gnosis at the stage of a Buddha." “A Buddha, on the other hand, whose delusions have been completely exhausted, does not possess such gnosis”[14]. If a Buddha, up there, doesn’t have intrinsic qualities and wisdom, then how could the sphere (dhātu) down here possess them spontaneously?

For most later Nyingmapa lamas this is not in conformity with their own view. Ju Mipham tried to save Rongzompa through reinterpreting his words, but to no avail for those who try to do reception history.

“Qualities” (attributes) are another part of eternalistish view of Longchenpa. They are naturally and spontaneously present (lhun grub) in “self-arisen wisdom” (rang byung ye shes) and considered as intrinsic “pure phenomena” of being (or rather “being-as-nature”), excluded from the scope of dependent origination.

“Since self-arisen wisdom, great perfection (rdzog chen) itself, exists throughout beginningless time as the spontaneously present qualities of the Buddha's vast abundance [of treasures], the three kayas are [already] complete as his own possession. Therefore, they do not need to be searched for once [the alayavijñana] has been turned back[15].”

Longchenpa creates the duality “kun gzhi rnam shes” (alayavijñana) versus “kun gzhi”, hence perhaps my mental association with a flipped over (“turned back”) heads or tails coin.

The spontaneously present (lhun grub) qualities of the Buddha’s are the real Reality (chos nyid), the Pure Celestial Reality, manifested in a distortional manner (‘khrul lugs su) down in the sensible realm. It makes total sense when viewed from a Gnostic point of view, but does it from a non-esoteric Buddhist point of view? Or even the sarvadharmāpratiṣṭhānavādin one? Buddha bodies (kāyas) and Pure lands are considered part of the effortless Buddha’s skilful activity (upāya), mind-dependent and empty, and therefore within the scope of dependent origination.

“It has been declared that buddhahood is characterized by being without arising and without ceasing. How is it then that from this unconditioned buddhahood, which has the characteristic of lacking functionality, effortless, uninterrupted, and nonconceptual buddha activity manifests functionality here for as long as the world lasts? In order to give rise to faith in the inconceivable object of the Buddha in those in whom dissent and doubt about the Buddha’s nature of magnanimity have arisen, [there follows] a verse on his magnanimity.” RGVV Commentary on Verse IV.13[16].

 

Family watching Vishnu's Vaikuntha through beryl glass

This inconceivable Buddha activity[17] is compared to the appearance of Śakra/Indra’s palace to humans.

“Suppose the ground of the earth
Consisted of pure beryl
And, due to its clarity, one would see in it
The chief of gods with his host of apsaras” (Ratnagotravibhāga Root Verse IV.14)

The RGV commentary and Gampopa’s Jewel Ornament of Liberation explain in detail[18], but from a sarvadharmāpratiṣṭhānavādin point of view, the Buddha’s “messianic” activity is non-conceptual (phrin las rtog med). There is no wisdom (ye shes) involved on the part of a Buddha. The example of the reflection of the gods above on the earth below inspiring others to want to become gods, mentioned as such in the RGV is interesting. So is the effect of (social) mimetism[19]…

When metaphors or analogies are “skillfully” used, “like an illusion” etc., the “like” is so quickly dropped and forgotten and the analogy becomes a thing in itself. The whole saṃsāra-karma-mokṣa cycle and the 5/6-world cosmos, with hells below and gods above is preciously preserved, but not the “selflessness” and “emptiness” taught by the Buddha. Dzogchen keeps the 6-world cosmos because it needs it, if only for funerary Great Perfection. And when pristine, seminal and funerary Great Perfection have grown into one Great Perfection package, everything in it is “crucial”... for its own survival.

Apart from a quickly forgotten token Emptiness-Luminosity, there is not really a place left for selflessness and emptiness in the real Reality with Samantabhadra, Samantabhadrī, the Celestial realms and their eternal “pure phenomena” without the reach of dependent origination, because it’s mind-independant and Luminous. As if the sphere (dhātu) had some intrinsic luminous hardwired firmware, beyond being a “ remedy” (upāya), like is the case for “the teachings on selflessness and emptiness” destined for “fools, ordinary beings, and beginners”...

As a reminder, the initial “luminous mind” metaphor that sparked off this spin-off of an “absolutely true” view:

“Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements.
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements.” (Pabhassara Sutta, AN 1.49-52)

And for nirvāṇa as “the Unconditioned”, as discussed in SN 43.12

“And what is the unconditioned? The ending of greed, hate, and delusion. This is called the unconditioned.
And what is the path that leads to the unconditioned? Serenity. This is called the path that leads to the unconditioned.
So, mendicants, I’ve taught you the unconditioned and the path that leads to the unconditioned.”

***

[1] Paul of Tarse wrote that he was “caught up to the third heaven” (2 Corinthians 12:2).

[2] Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. A Direct Path to the Buddha Within: Gö Lotsāwa's Mahāmudrā Interpretation of the Ratnagotravibhāga. Studies in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2008.

[3] gnyis pa bla na med pa'i theg pa nyid bshad pa la gnyis te/_theg pa'i rang bzhin spyir bstan pa dang / de'i nges byed bye brag tu bshad pa'o/_/dang po la lnga ste/_rang bzhin gzhi'i gnas lugs/_de las sems can gyi 'khrul lugs/_/'khrul dus 'od gsal gyi gnas lugs/_gnas lugs nyams su blang lugs/ mthar phyin 'bras bu'i grub lugs so/_/dang po gdod ma'i gzhi rang byung gi ye shes rgya chad dang phyogs lhung med pa de nyid ngo bo stong pa nam mkha' lta bu/_rang bzhin gsal ba nyi zla lta bu/_thugs rje khyab pa 'od zer lta bu'o/_/de gsum ngo bo dbyer med pa sku gsum ye shes kyi rang bzhin du ye nas rtag par 'pho ba dang 'gyur ba med pa'i dbyings su gnas te/_ngo bo stong pa chos sku/[ (]290na[) ]rang bzhin gsal ba longs sku/_thugs rje khyab pa sprul pa'i sku'i snying po can 'khor 'das gang yang ma yin la/_go 'byed pa'i cha nas dbyings rang bzhin gyis rnam dag chen po zhes btags pa'o/_/

“My explanation of the unsurpassable approach has two parts: a general discussion of the nature of this approach and a detailed explanation of its authenticity.

A. The Nature of the Approach This discussion has five aspects: how the ground of being abides naturally, how ordinary beings experience confusion, how the way of abiding remains utterly lucid even as there is confusion, how one undertakes practice based on the way of abiding, and how the consummate fruition is ensured. 

1. HOW THE GROUND OF BEING ABIDES NATURALLY 

As to the primordial ground of being-naturally occurring timeless awareness itself, not subject to restrictions or extremes-its essence is empty, like space; its nature is lucid, like the sun and moon; its responsiveness is pervasive, like their light. These three aspects are essentially inseparable, abiding constantly as the nature of the three kayas and timeless awareness within basic space, which is without transition or change. This primordial ground, embodying the very heart of dharmakaya, sambhogakaya, and nirmanakaya-in that its essence is empty, its nature lucid, and its responsiveness pervasive-is not anything whatsoever that pertains to either samsara or nirvana. Yet from the standpoint of its providing an open dimension in which these can occur, it is referred to as "basic space, supremely and completely pure by its very nature." 

Longchen Rabjam, The Precious Treasury of Philosophical Systems, Padma Publishing (2007), transl. Richard Barron, p.340

[4] “[Primordial] awareness (rig pa) is empty in essence, exists by its own nature in the form of five lights, and its compassionate responsiveness pervades [everything] in the form of rays. Even though it is present as the great source of the kāyas and wisdom, it is hindered [in three ways]: The aspect where it is in essence the empty dharmakāya, [namely] the pure vision of wisdom, is hindered by the eight accumulations [of consciousness] together with the ground (kun gzhi). [Its] nature, the luminosity of the five lights, is hindered by the tangible skandha of flesh and blood. [Its] compassionate responsiveness, [which] abides [in a state of] manifesting [light] rays and awareness, is hindered by karman and mental imprints. Even though [this rigpa] is [only] present in a state that is very difficult to perceive, it is not the case that it does not exist. It pervades all sentient beings and exists in the body together with a support.” Buddha Within, p. 100

n.530 / shin tu blta bar dka' ba'i bdag nyid du bzhugs na yang*/ med pa ma yin te sems can kun la khyab par rang rang gi lus la rten bcas nas yod de/.

[5] Ratnagotravibhāga Root Verse I.154, When the Clouds Part, Brunnhölzl, 410-411


[6] In Tibetan:
rdzogs sangs sku ni 'phro phyir dang*//
de bzhin nyid dbyer med phyir dang*//
rigs yod phyir na lus can kun//
rtag tu sangs rgyas snying po can//

In Sanskrit:
saṃbuddhakāyaspharaṇāt tathatāvyatibhedataḥ
gotrataśca sadā sarve buddhagarbhāḥ śarīriṇaḥ

[7] Herbert V. Guenther, p. 17

The full verse of the Bodhicaryāvatāra (I, 4), translated by Stephen Batchelor:

“Leisure and endowment are very hard to find;
And, since they accomplish what is meaningful for man,
If I do not take advantage of them now,
How will such a perfect opportunity come about again?”

A Guide to the Bodhisattva’s Way of Life, LTWA, p. 4

Adam Pearcey, 2007

“4. This free and well-favoured human form is difficult to obtain.
Now that we have the chance to realise the full human potential,
If we don’t make good use of this opportunity,
How could we possibly expect to have such a chance again?”

[8] “Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind”.” Anguttara Nikaya (A.I.8-10)

[9] Klong chen pa: Grub mtha' mdzod, 282.3-6: 

... mtshan gzhi ni/ 'od gsal ba'i rang bzhin sku dang ye shes 'du 'bral med pa'i dbyings rang bzhin gyis dag pa dang de la brten pa'i chos sbyang bya sbyong byed dang bcas pa thams cad yin no/ ... dbyings 'od gsal ba'i chos nyid rang bzhin rnam dag ni sbyang ba'i gzhi'o // glo (text: blo) bur gyi sgrib pa las dang nyon mongs pa 'khor ba'i chos kun gzhi tshogs brgyad dang bcas pa ni sbyang bar bya ba'i dri ma'o/ de'ang bag chags sna tshogs pa'i kun gzhi ni 'khor ba'i rtsa ba yin pas ldog la/ gnas lugs don gyi kun gzhi'i don mi !dog kyang*/ tha snyad gzhir btags pa'i ming gi cha de log nas chos kyi dbyings kyi ye shes zhes bya bar 'gyur ba'o/. Buddha Within, p. 459

[10] 'Od gsal ma bu 'dres pa

[11] Ibid., 185.6-186.2: de'ang don dam pa'i bden pa dbyings yin la/ 'di'i rang bzhin mthong bas don dam bden pa mthong zhes bya'i/ cir yang med pa'i stong nyid kyang don dam bden pa ma yin no/ de'ang byis pa so so skye bo dang/ las dang po dag bdag tu zhen pa'i gnyen por bdag med pa la sogs pa bstan pa yin gyi (text: gyis)/ don la dbyings 'od gsal ba 'dus ma byas shing lhun grub tu yod pa shes par bya ste/.

[12] 24.7 Whatever is dependently arisen
Is said to be empty.
That, being a dependent designation,
Is itself the middle way.

Since there is nothing
Which is not dependent,
There is nothing
Which is not empty.

[13] Almogi, Orna. Rong-zom-pa's Discourses on Buddhology: A Study of Various Conceptions of Buddhahood in Indian Sources with Special Reference to the Controversy Surrounding the Existence of Gnosis (jñāna: ye shes) as Presented by the Eleventh-Century Tibetan Scholar Rong-zom Chos-kyi-bzang-po. Studia Philologica Buddhica Monograph Series 24. Tokyo: International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 2009, p. 190

[14] “Mi-pham attempts to interpret Rong-zom-pa's statements in which he unquestionably maintains that gnosis does not exist at the stage of a buddha as only referring to gnosis that had been generated on the path but not to gnosis as such, for Rong-zom-pa, Mi-pham argues, is an expounder of rDzogs-chen, a system in which what is called 'self-occurring gnosis' (rang byung gi ye shes: svayaṃbhūjñāna) features prominently. “ Rong-zom-pa's Discourses on Buddhology

[15] Klong chen pa: Grub mtha' mdzod, 329.5: 

rang byung gi ye shes rdzogs pa chen po nyid ye nas sangs rgyas kyi che ba'i yon tan lhun grub tu yod pas/ sku gsum rang chas su tshang ba'i phyir logs nas btsal mi dgos ....

[16] Brunnhölzl, Karl. When the Clouds Part: The Uttaratantra and its Meditative Tradition as a Bridge between Sūtra and Tantra. Boston: Snow Lion Publications, 2014.

[17] 'phrin las rtog med 'gro don mdzad//

[18] “Indra, king of gods, surrounded by a crowd of goddesses stays in his palace, which is pure and transparent as beryl, and outside it his reflection appears. Men and women living on the earth then see that reflection, perceive his enjoyments and resolve soon to be like him. To that end they strive for the good and wholesome and when they die are reborn in the heavenly world. The vision of Indra is not premeditated and cannot be shaken. It is the same with us. Having approached the Great Meaning of Reality, developed confidence and seen the Body of the Samyaksambuddha adorned with all attributes; having witnessed how variously he sits, rises, moves and goes out; having listened to the Dharma and concentrated on it, we gain confidence by this vision and long to attain this splendour. We then adopt an attitude towards enlightenment as the cause of the Buddha state and in the end realize Buddhahood. In this vision of the Body there is nothing of premeditation, it is something unshakable [skur snang ba de ni rnam rtog med cing g.yo ba med do/].” Jewel Ornament of Liberation, Rider, 1970, p. 271-272

[19] “This chapter analyzes social mimetism in the context of the theory of the self. It suggests that our thoughts and feelings take shape within a community and inevitably bear the mark of the customs and expectations we acquire within it and that our need to model ourselves on others can also take more complex forms. This chapter also argues that there is no “true self,” if it means a self not imbued with forms of thought that we have made our own by modeling ourselves on others.” The Practices of the Self, Charles Larmore