All appearances are divine and luminous

Rongzom Chokyi Zangpo, detail, Rubin Museum of Art

In my series of blogs (both in French and in English) on “Luminosity” and other divine Light metaphors, I try to look at general characteristics that esoteric Buddhism, and more specifically Mahāyoga, the Guhyagarbha Tantra and Dzogchen may share with the theology of more overtly theistic traditions like Hermeticism, Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, etc. In the previous blog (Esoteric Buddhism as self-deification), the present one (All appearances are divine and luminous) and in blogs to come, I am trying to summarize some of my research on this theme.

The term Luminosity (s. prabhāsvaratā t. ‘od gsal), initially used as a metaphor[1], became an indispensable doctrinal element (“Sheer Luminosity”) in Mahāyāna and esoteric Buddhist theology, as I tried to convey through many examples in a long series of exploratory blogs (keywords Luminous, Light, Lumineux and Lumière). A key moment in the Luminous evolution was the introduction of a “Buddha Essence” (s. buddhadhātu) during the so called “Third Turning of the Wheel”. Sometimes there is said to have been a “Forth Turning”. That would certainly be in line with Luminosity taking on a definite divine turn. The coining of a Third Turning also corresponds to the time where Buddhist teachings were being classified in those having a “definitive meaning” (s. nītārtha t. nges don) and those having a “provisional meaning” (s. neyārtha t. drang don). The Buddha Essence theory was said to have a “definitive meaning”, no longer a “skilful means” (s. upāyakauśalya) or a “conditionally adopted position” (s. vyavasthā)[2], and so were the transmissions on the Vajra Body and Vajra Yoga, required to develop the Light vehicle.

Because of the idealist perspective of Luminosity/Divinity, the world of phenomena and facts is ultimately illusory or unreal, and exists only as “appearances” (s. ābhāsa t. snang ba), reflections or manifestations of a deeper, more fundamental reality. These can appear “pure” or “impure” from a divine point of view, and “correct” or “mistaken” from a conventional point of view, according to an individual’s spiritual and/or philosophical progress.

With time “Luminosity” and its numerous derivations have become more definite and absolute. It’s “inseparability” from a token emptiness (s. śūnyatā) kept/keeps it within the fuzzy frame of Mahāyāna Buddhist doctrine, but in all practical matters “Luminous” can be interpreted as “Divine”. Adepts of Luminosity even go as far to declare that emptiness can’t realize non-duality simultaneously (t. gcig car du), whereas “ (monist and divine) Luminosity” can.

This point was made repeatedly by teachers such as Rongzompa (11th)[3], Longchen Rabjam (14th), Ju Mipham[4] (19-20th) etc. The same teachers were also most explicit about the divine nature of appearance(s) (t. snang ba), or Luminosity (t. gsal ba, ‘od gsal). All three teachers commented on the Guhyagarbha tantra, The Secret Essence Tantra, “Reality Ascertained” (or “Definite Nature Just As It Is”). Ju Mipham explains that the “Essence” is the Buddha Essence with its primordially “enlightened body, speech, and mind”, the Trikāya. It is “secret”, concealed, because “due to the veils of temporary obscurations” it is not accessible to the non-initiated. All phenomena of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are inseparable with this primordially enlightened state[5].

The “phenomena of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa” are appearances (t. snang ba), and all appearances were/are established as divine by Rongzompa (11th) and others. Under the caveat that this work (“Gsang sngags rdo rje theg pa’i tshul las snang ba lhar bsgrub pa”), which only surfaced in the twentieth century in four different editions, had indeed been authored by Rongzompa.[6] The arguments found in this short work are very much in agreement with those exposed by Ju Mipham (19-20th) in his Luminous Essence Commentary on the Secret Essence Tantra (“Gsang ’grel phyogs bcu’i mun sel gyi spyi don ’od gsal snying po”). Rongzompa’s Establishing Appearances as Divine reads as very much as an apology or a defense.

“All phenomena are, in this way, primordially, fully, and completely enlightened. Phenomena appearing as various attributes are, therefore, indeed the maṇḍala of vajra body, speech, and mind. They are like the Buddhas of the three times, never transcending the essence of complete purity. Sentient beings and Buddhas are not differentiated in terms of their essence. Just like distinct causes and results appearing in a dream, they are nothing but perceptions of individual minds brought forth by the power of imputation.”

“Delusion is, by its own [Luminous] essence, completely pure and, hence, enlightened.[7]”

The Secret Essence, the divine maṇḍala of Vajra body, speech, and mind is also called the Ground (t. gzhi). This is the abiding reality/natural state of the Ground (t. gzhi’i gnas lugs), and all its appearances (t. gzhi snang) are “rigpa-dharmakāya” (t. rig pa chos kyi sku)[8].

“Remaining genuinely is the dharmakāya,
Accompanying awareness is the sambhogakāya,
And the non-duality of stillness and movement is the nirmāṇakāya.
This is what we call the “three-kāya rigpa[9].”

The conceptual mind doesn’t allow access to the divine maṇḍala of the Ground, and it can not perceive as such the divine appearances (t. lhar snang), pure appearances (t. dag snang), the appearances of the maṇḍala of the Ground (t. gzhi snang), which are the Ground’s own inherent appearances (t. rang snang), i.e. as epiphanies (or theophanies), but only in an adulterated (impure, t. ma dag) form, as objects of a dualist perception.

If appearances are not “seen” or rather not directly intuited (t. rig pa) as the “pure” or “divine” appearances of the Ground maṇḍala, then they turn into “impure” appearances, even if they were to be correctly perceived through valid cognition (s. pramāṇa). The latter Ju Mipham calls a “confined vision” (t. tshur mthong). Through this vision one may be seeing ordinary (impure) things without error (s. bhrānti)[10], perhaps even non-dualistically or without mental engagement, but without intuiting them as divine appearances, such as gods, mantras, maṇḍalas etc. According to the above mentioned Nyingma teachers, this is not seeing things “as they really are”, because appearances are divine… Confined vision does not allow for:

“[seeing] the appearance of as many buddha-fields as there are dust motes in the world in a single dust mote, performing activities of many eons in a single moment, displaying emanations while not departing from the unchanging basic space of phenomena, and knowing all objects of cognition in a single instant with a nonconceptual mind[11].” (Luminous Essence, p. 49)

Unless appearances are seen as divine, they are not seen as they really are. This turns into circular reasoning:

“Likewise, unless ordinary body, speech, and mind are understood to be divine, and revered [as divine], their [divine] qualities will not be seen. However, it is observed that [divine] qualities manifest wherever [body, speech, and mind] are understood and revered [as divine][12].” (Establishing Appearances as Divine, p. 98)

In order to see them as divine, one has to start viewing them as such through Deity Practice. "If you want to believe, pray; and you will believe." (Blaise Pascal, Pensées, section 418)

Here, we are however said to be in a different situation than Pascals solution. A preparation is required, and one sets off with conceptual means. Through “realizing the intrinsic nature by wisdom”, compassion and aspiration prayers (t. smon lam), one gets as ready as one can in order to receive the required grace and accomplishment (s. siddhi), allowing for direct, non sensorial, non conceptual access, Light on Light, through a channel of Light.

“[Some individuals with pure vision] will say, “Dear friends, these appearances of ordinary bodies and enjoyments commonly perceived by us human beings are, in fact, the divine maṇḍala as perceived by pure individuals. If an individual who has free access to the field of pure experience grants us accomplishment, then, even to us human beings, those objects will appear as divinities and we will experience them as such. It is just like when, from time to time in the past, some of us human beings gained accomplishment and thereby achieved the divine field of experience.[13]” (Establishing Appearances as Divine, p. 101-102)

“[T]he appearances to ordinary [perception] are shown to be a delusion, or deluded perceptions, while the appearances of divinities are not delusion, or are appearances free from delusion. This should be realized with certainty.[14]” (Establishing Appearances as Divine, p. 104)

The same appearances are seen by the pure as divine and by the impure as ordinary or worse, through their habitual patterns (s. vāsanā). These patterns are the objects of purification in Deity Practice.

“As long as there appear completely pure bodies and fields of experience, as well as completely impure bodies and fields of experience, then, since all that is differentiated with reference to location and time are appearances of a single moment of the all-ground consciousness, [the achievement of pure appearance] is not in any way an achievement of primordial properties. Just as, for example, the characteristics of space are not established within space. This is also an unmistaken proof.[15]” (Establishing Appearances as Divine, p. 108)

The single moment argument is a more important point IMO, when leaving aside the distinction between pure divine and impure bodies and fields. No reference to space and time, nor BTW to all-ground consciousness… “The characteristics of space are not established within space”. Then how can the divine qualities of Buddha Essence be established in Buddha Essence? As for all-ground consciousness, for Rongzompa, there is no distinction between the eight collections of consciousness, from a non-deluded level. More on that another time.

***

[1]"This mind is luminous monks, but it is defiled by adventitious defilements. The uninstructed worldling does not understand this as it really is ; therefore for him there is no mental development. This mind is luminous monks, and it is freed from adventitious defilements. The instructed noble disciple understands this as it really is ; therefore for him there is mental development." Aṅguttara Nikāya 1.49-52

[2] See Buddhist Philosophy of Language in India, Jñānaśrīmitra on Exclusion, Lawrence J. McCrea and Parimal G. Patil, Columbia University Press, New York, 2010, p. 26

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

[4] Jamgon Mipham, Luminous Essence: A Guide to the Guhyagarbha Tantra, Dharmachakra Translation Committee, Snow Lion, 2009

[5] Luminous Essence (2009), p. 6. The innate Trikāya and their respective associated contemplative experiences:
dharmakāya - non-conceptuality (t. mi rtog)
saṃbhogakāya - luminosity, clarity (t. gsal ba)
nirmāṇakāya - bliss (t. bde ba), as the meeting of non-conceptuality and luminosity

[6] Establishing Appearances as Divine (2013), p. 109

[7] Establishing Appearances as Divine (2013), p. 96

[8] Vajra Verses on the Natural State revealed by Rigdzin Jigme Lingpa

gzhi yi gnas lugs spros dang bral:
gzhi snang rig pa chos kyi sku:

[9] gnyug mar gnas pa chos kyi sku:
shes bzhin 'char ba longs spyod rdzogs:
gnas 'gyu gnyis med sprul pa'i sku:
sku gsum rig pa de la zer:

[10] “Liberation is merely the end of error” (Mahāyānasūtralaṅkara IX, 3)

[11] rdul gcig gi khyon la rdul snyed kyi zhing snang ba/ dus skad cig la bskal pa mang po'i mdzad pa ston pa/ chos dbyings 'gyur med las ma g.yos bzhin du sprul pa'i rol pa ston pa/ rnam rtog dang bral ba'i [96] thugs kyis shes bya thams cad dus gcig tu mkhyen pa sogs/ bsam gyis mi khyab pa'i spyod yul gang zhig tha mal pa'i tshur mthong gi yul du 'gal ba lta bur snang ste bsgrub par mi nus pa rnams p96-97

[12] tha mal pa'i lus dang ngag dang yid kyang lhar ma shes shing ma bkur na/ yon tan mi dmigs te/ shes shing bkur bas gzhi de nyid las yon tan dmigs pa'i phyir ro//

[13] kha cig gis yongs su dag pa'i gang zag rnams kyis lha'i dkyil 'khor du mthong ba dang /gsang sngags kyi tshul las lha'i dkyil 'khor nyid yin par ston pa'ang thos te/ de las la la ni tha mal pa'i lus dang longs spyod du snang ba ni dngos po'i mtshan nyid de/ lhar mthong ba ni kun brtags pa la sogs par 'dod pa la/ kha cig ni tha mal pa'i lus dang longs spyod ni snang ba _ma dag pa yin pas/ gang zag dag pa rnams kyis mthong ba dang*/_gsang sngags kyi tshul las grags pa bzhin du/ lha nyid dngos po rnams kyi mtshan nyid yin par 'dod pa las/ des smras pa/

grogs po dag bdag cag lta bu mi rnams la mthun par snang ba'i tha mal pa'i lus dang longs spyod yul du snang ba 'di ni/ gang zag dag pa rnams kyis mthong ba bzhin du lha'i dkyil 'khor nyid yin te/ dag pa'i spyod yul la spyod par dbang ba rnams kyis dngos grub byin na mi rnams la yang spyod yul 'di dag lha nyid du snang zhing longs spyod du yod pa'i phyir bdag cag lta bu'i mi las sngon cad par dbang ba rnams kyis dngos grub byin na lha'i spyod yul la longs spyod du yod pa'o/

[14] de bas na khyab pa nges pa'i gtan tshigs 'di nyid kyis tha mal par snang ba ni snang ba 'khrul ba'o// 'khrul ba'i snang ba'o// lha ni snang ba ma 'khrul ba'o// ma 'khrul pa'i snang ba'o// zhes nges par rtogs par bya'o//

[15] mdor bsdus te bsgrub par bya na ji srid du yongs su dag pa dang ma dag pa'i lus dang spyod yul du snang ba yul dang dus la sogs pa rnam pas rab tu phye ba thams cad ni kun gzhi rnam par shes pa'i skad cig ma gcig gi snang ba yin pa'i phyir gdod ma thob par bya ba'i chos ni gang yang med de/ dper na nam mkha' la nam mkha'i mtshan nyid sgrub tu med pa bzhin no// zhes bya ba 'di yang skyon med par grub pa yin no//

Gnostic Pointing-Out Instructions on Pure Light

Imperial Passport, Universal Seal "mahāmudrā"

The Secret Book of John/The Apocryphon of John  (BG, 2 ; NH III, 1) is an early Christian (Gnostic) dialogue between Jesus and his “favorite disciple” John. John’s vision of Jesus will introduce John into the knowledge needed to escape the limitations of the material world and to reunite with the higher realm from which he came. That is, the most essential and pure part of “John”, his part of the divine, his soul or higher Self we could say.

Jesus appears as a young man and an old man “in whom Light was present”). Jesus says to John:

“I am with you (plural) always.
I am the Father
The Mother
The Son
I am the incorruptible
Purity[1].”

Jesus then goes on to introduce John into the knowledge (gnosis) of the origination of all things, and explains the “Monade” or “the One”, “that rules all” and over which “nothing has authority”, a “monarchy” (BB).

“It is uncontaminated
Pure light no eye can bear to look within.
The One is the Invisible Spirit [Esprit].
It is not right to think of it as a God or as like God.
It is more than just God.
Nothing is above it.
Nothing rules it.
Since everything exists within it
It does not exist within anything.
Since it is not dependent on anything
It is eternal.

It is absolutely complete and so needs nothing.
It is utterly perfect
Light.”

The authors of the Secret Book of John were early Christians (Gnostics), with Sethian elements, and who identified with “the immovable race and the seed of Seth[2]”. They believed in what could be called a soul and in the survival of a soul after death. The “souls” can be "given over to the powers created by the rulers (archons), bound in chains, and cast into prison again". Until the liberating spiritual knowledge (gnosis) is found. The archons try to trap the divine spark within humans and keep them from gnosis.

The One, the Monad, the Invisible Spirit, “the Light” is “more than God”. “God” is a lower reality of “the Light”. Our own created or emanated “reality” is a lower and impure, “contaminated reality”, including causality and all the natural laws. Everything is like sealed by the One, carrying the Seal of the One. When a divine spark leaves its temporal lower prison at the moment of death, it can be reunited with higher realms (the Kingdom, the Monarchy,...), nearer to the One, and the Light. Jesus tells John how this is possible and gives him the required gnosis. (25,3-14)

“The One is without boundaries
Nothing exists outside of it to border it
The One cannot be investigated
Nothing exists apart from it to investigate it
The One cannot be measured
Nothing exists external to it to measure it

The One cannot be seen
For no one can envision it
The One is eternal
For it exists forever
The One is inconceivable
For no one can comprehend it
The One is indescribable
For no one can put any words to it.

The One is infinite light
Purity
Holiness
Stainless, (23,15-24,9)

The One is incomprehensible
Perfectly free from corruption.
Not “perfect”
Not “blessed”
Not “divine”
But superior to such concepts.
Neither physical nor unphysical
Neither immense nor infinitesimal
It is impossible to specify in quantity or quality
For it is beyond knowledge.

The One is not a being among other beings
It is vastly superior
But it is not “superior.”

It is outside of realms of being and time
For whatever is within realms of being was created
And whatever is within time had time allotted to it
The One receives nothing from anything.
It simply apprehends itself in its own perfect light” (24,9-25,9)

In the fullness (“plénitude”) of its Light, the Invisible Spirit apprehends itself. Its Light produces more Light ("saṃbhogakāya"). All its respective qualities produce images of its qualities: life, blessedness, knowledge, goodness, mercy, generosity. (25,9-22)

“[The Invisible Spirit] is conscious of his image everywhere around him,
Perceiving his image in this spring of Spirit
Pouring forth from himself.
He is enamored of the image he sees in the light-water [s. amṛta, t. bdud rtsi]
The spring of pure light-water enveloping him.

His self-aware thought (g. ennoia) came into being.
Appearing to him in the effulgence of his light.
She stood before him.” (26,15-27,10)

She, the Mother, the Father’s “self-aware thought (g. ennoia)”, stood before him, “in the effulgence of his light” through Providence (g. pronoia), Barbelo, the Virgin Spirit, the perfect power, the initial power [s. śaktī, t. nus pa] and “she is from His image in His light” (g. protennoia). (27,10-19)

“She is the universal womb
She is before everything
She is:
Mother-Father
First Man
Holy Spirit

Thrice Male
Thrice Powerful
Thrice Named

Androgynous eternal realm
First to arise among the invisible realms.” (27,19-28,4)

Barbelo becomes the androgynous Primordial Man, to whom five gifts/qualities by the Invisible Spirit, such as Eternal Life, are associated. Five eons (s. kalpa) of the father taking form in Barbelo the Image of the Invisible. Barbelo turns to the Pure Light (of the Father), looks into it and gives birth to a spark of Light (29,19-30,9).

The universal womb of the pure invisible realms. Image of the Invisible Spirit endowed with all its qualities. The “Father”, the One, liked his own Image, the “Mother”. In the translation of Stevan Davies “The Father looked into Barbelo [into the pure light surrounding the Invisible Spirit]” and “Barbelo conceived and bore a spark of light”. In the French translation of Bernard Barc (La Pléiade, p. 225), it is “Barbelo who looks intensely towards the pure light”, the Father, and “bore a spark of light”[3] 28,5-29,18). A spark of light...

“Who had blessedness similar to, but not equal to, her blessedness,
Who was the only child of that mother–father
The only offspring ["Monogenes"],
The only begotten child of the pure light, the Father.

The Invisible Virgin Spirit celebrated the light that had been produced
Coming forth from the first power who is
The Providence
Barbelo” (29,19-30,9)

The Father anoints the Only Child, and the Child “glorifies” the Father and the Mother, thus recognizing their authority over him (30,9-31,4). The Child is invested with qualities and intellect (g. nous), and obtains a mission through the Word and the“Will” of the Father/Invisible Spirit, the Source of Light (31,12-32,3). He is the Christ, the divine Autogenes, who created everything through the Word.

The pure emanations/creations of eons (s. kalpa) start, and the Perfect true Man, Adamas, the (Autogenes) “proceeds” from the divine Autogenes, the Christ, as his image, in the first perfect eon (s. kalpa), with the first of the four “Lights” (“luminaires”), the first angel, Harmozel (“Armozel”) of “the realm of the Light”. We are still at the level of pure creation (s. śuddha, t. dag pa). The fourth “Light” is Eleleth, with whom stand Perfection, Peace and Wisdom (Sophia) (33,5-34,18). The Perfect true Man, Adamas, “glorifies” and blesses the Invisible Spirit. Adamas’ son Seth was appointed over the second realm with the second Light Oriel, and “the seed of Seth” over the the third realm, containing “the souls of saints”.

“In the fourth realm were placed the souls of those ignorant of the fullness [“plénitude”]
Those who did not repent at once
But who, after some time, eventually repented,
They are with the fourth Light Eleleth.”

This would be the realm with Sophia and the universal disaster of creation that followed… They all “glorified” the Invisible Spirit (35,20-36,15), the Source of Light. This early Gnostic Sethian Christian text bears multiple influences (Egyptian, Judaic, Hellenist, Platonist, …), but the Pure Light, beyond God, is central, and runs through everything like a lifeline, like the sole truly real thing. Recognizing and knowing it is salvation. Those who recognize, but “don’t repent at once”, will do so after some time, but their multi-existential career won’t be a picnic. One expects that “the souls of saints” in the third realm, are those that recognized the Light at once, repented at once and “glorified” the Invisible Spirit at once.

It seems to me that the concept of “Pure Light” (“Sheer Luminosity” t. gsal ba tsam s. prakāśamātra), in esoteric Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism in particular, and their associated doctrines and practices bear similarities with these Gnostic doctrines. Why is deity practice necessary in Buddhism, that sometimes claims to be atheistic, non-theistic or at least “nāstika”? Why is the Luminous Self or Buddha-essence (s. buddhadhātu) the truly real element? It survives death, and for those who are lucky it will recognize “the natural clear light” and be reunited with it, thus "gain[ing] the accomplishment of the Great Seal”

“The teacher previously stated: what is called co-emergent union is an extremely profound special instruction that Atiśa bestowed upon Gönpawa, to the effect that the co-emergent mind itself is the dharmakāya and co-emergent appearance is the light of the dharmakāya[4].” (James B. Apple, Great Seal Bestowed upon Gönpawa (Jo bo rjes dgon pa ba la gnang ba’i phyag chen)

“Mahamudra in Tibetan is chak-gya chenpo--chak-gya meaning mudra or symbol and chenpo meaning great. A mudra is a symbol of a characteristic, like the seal of a powerful king, for example. When a powerful king makes a rule and puts his seal on the rule, everyone is subject to follow that rule; no one can escape the rule, because the king has put his seal on it. Similarly, no sentient being is beyond Dharmata, or the nature of mind; all sentient beings are subject to it. Therefore, it is like the seal of a great king in that sentient beings cannot escape from the nature of mind, Dharmata.

What I'm really trying to convey here with this example is that not only all beings but all phenomena are within the scope of clarity, emptiness, and luminosity, not beyond them. So, having explained the idea of "mudra," why is there then the word "maha," meaning "great"? In general language, the word implies that a person or thing is greater than someone or something else that is inferior. Similarly, this very nature of the mind being supreme, being the highest or ultimate, it is hence called the "mahamudra" or "great symbol."
(from a traditional explanation given by Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche)[5]

***

[1] Online Translation Stevan Davies merely for practical reasons. I also follow the French translation by Bernard Barc (BB), La Pléiade, pp. 219-222, that seems more complete and precise.

A similar statement, except the triple reference to Father, Mother and Son, was also made by Śavaripa when he appeared to Maitrīpa/Advayavarja in Tibetan hagiographies.

[2] Dr. M. David Litwa, Secret Book of John: A Christian Text Youtube, 15:46).,

[3] "Barbélô regarda intensément vers la lumière pure. Elle entoura celle-ci (et) enfanta une étincelle de lumière qui ressemble à la lumière bienheureuse, mais qui ne lui était pas égale en grandeur.
« C’est le Monogène manifesté par le Père, le Dieu autogène, le Fils premier engendré de tous ceux (qui appartiennent) au Père, la lumière pure.” 

[4] "slob dpon pa’i zhal snga nas/ lhan cig skyes sbyor bya ba jo bos dgon pa ba la gnang ba’i gdam ngag shin tu zab pa yin gsungs/ de yang sems nyid lhan cig skyes pa chos kyi sku dang/ snang ba lhan cig skyes pa chos kyi sku’i ’od gnyis po de/"

[5] Also see Paul Demiéville, Entretiens de Lin-tsi, p. 51-52

"Il y eut alors un moine qui demanda : “Qu'est-ce que supprimer l'homme sans supprimer l'objet ?”
Le maître dit :
a. “La chaleur du soleil fait naître sur le sol tapis de brocart ; Les cheveux pendants de l'enfant sont blancs comme fils de soie.””

“Le moine : “Qu'est-ce que supprimer l'objet sans supprimer l'homme ?”
Le maître :
b. “Les ordres du roi sont en vigueur dans l'univers entier ; Pour le général aux frontières, point de fumée ni de poussière.”

Le moine : “Qu'est-ce que supprimer à la fois l'homme et l'objet ?”
Le maître :
c. “Les préfectures de Ping et de Fen sont coupées de toutes nouvelles ; Elles restent à part, isolées dans leur coin.

Le moine : “Qu'est-ce que ne supprimer ni l'homme ni l'objet ?”
Le maître :
d. « Le roi monte sur son palais fait de matières précieuses; Dans la campagne les vieillards se livrent aux chansons.”

De la lumière solaire sans soleil ?

Le soleil se levant sur un champ de panneaux solaires (photo)

Selon la perspective d’un terrien, la lumière vient d’en haut, du soleil.

“L’énergie solaire transmise par le rayonnement solaire rend possible la vie sur Terre par apport d'énergie lumineuse (lumière) et d'énergie thermique (chaleur), permettant la présence d’eau à l’état liquide et la photosynthèse des végétaux.” “Il tire son énergie de réactions de fusion nucléaire qui transforment, dans son noyau, l'hydrogène en hélium, et se trouve dans un état d’équilibre hydrostatique, ne subissant ni contraction, ni dilatation continuelles.” (wikipedia)

La lumière et la luminosité du soleil, ainsi que sa capacité d’illuminer, sont utilisées comme une métaphore pour la conscience (s. saṃvit t. rig pa). Dans les diverses approches ontologiques idéalistes du Yogācāra, le marqueur “mātra” (t. tsam) indique souvent une réduction de la réalité ultime à une essence idéaliste tel le mental (cittamātra), les représentations mentales (vijñaptimātra), la conscience perceptive (vijñānamātra), la “conscience” (saṃvidmātra), la luminosité (prakāśamātra), la conscience réflexive (svasaṃvedanamātra[1]), etc. Dans ces réductions, il y a une tendance à fixer uniquement ou principalement sur la conscience, la luminosité, l’auto-illumination de la conscience réflexive, à l’exclusion de tout ce qui permet la production ou l’émergence (“spontanée”) de la lumière, et de l’énergie qui la produit, si l’on permet cette observation bassement matérielle. Comme si la lumière du soleil pouvait exister sans le soleil, et que cette lumière serait même la réalité ultime (paramārtha, la cerise sur le gâteau), de toute chose illuminée par elle. Dans un monde où règne l’illusion, la seule réalité ultime est la luminosité (prakāśamātra), et cela de façon établie depuis Dharmakīrti (VIIème siècle) en passant par Ratnākaraśānti (XIème siècle).

“Ainsi, si ni l’exemple de la lampe, ni la métaphore de la "luminosité" (prakāśa) comme un terme pour la conscience réflexive, ne constituent l'apport original de Dharmakīrti, il est néanmoins possible d'observer ici, sous une forme embryonnaire, une synthèse de la métaphore de l'illumination, avec l'affirmation d'une ontologie idéaliste, et la réfutation de la dualité phénoménologique. Cette synthèse résonnera pendant des siècles, jusqu'à nos jours, comme la superstructure théorique ou le cadre philosophique des pratiques contemplatives avancées de Mahāmudrā et de rDzogs chen.[2]” Yiannopoulos (2020)

Les “pratiques contemplatives avancées de Mahāmudrā et de rDzogs chen” sont des pratiques d’ “autodéification” ou “bouddhafication” révélées par des Corps symboliques, et s’appuyant sur des éléments devayogiques ésotériques. Chez le Yogācārin Dharmakīrti, la “doctrine de la Luminosité” n’avait pas les proportions qu’elle a prises au cours des siècles qui ont suivi.

Dharmakīrti était en dialogue avec les sarvāstivādins et les sautrāntika (“representationnalistes”), pour qui les dharma existent (ontologiquement) de façon momentané (kṣaṇikatva), et sont produits par des enchaînements de causes et de conditions. C’est donc dans le cadre de ce dialogue que Dharmakīrti s’appuie sur ces doctrines pour exposer sa propre doctrine davantage idéaliste.

“Il propose une définition technique de la "perception" comme une cognition à la fois non-conceptuelle et non-erronée (a-bhrānta)[3]. La définition de la perception donnée par Dharmakīrti inclut donc délibérément trois types supplémentaires de cognition "perceptuelle", en plus de la conscience sensorielle vérifiée : l'appréhension mentale non-conceptuelle d'une cognition immédiatement antérieure ("perception mentale"), la vive apparition d'objets de pratique contemplative sotériologiquement efficaces ("perception yogique"), et la présence pure et simple du contenu de la cognition - quel qu'il soit - à la conscience cognitive ("conscience réflexive").[4]”

Toute cognition ou connaissance (perception) est rendue possible par une bifurcation (ou scission) entre un “sujet” (grāhaka) et un “objet” (grāhya). C’est ce “deuxième temps” phénoménologique[5] qui constitue la dualité de la cognition. Toute connaissance phénoménologique est ainsi conceptuelle (vikalpa) et sans réalité (ultime). Que l’objet externe existe ou non, pour les sautrāntika, la cognition passe par une “représentation” (vijñāpti), une image cognitive (ākāra) de cet objet. Des débats ont eu lieu sur la conformité d’une image cognitive avec un objet extérieur. Est-ce que l’image permet de déterminer la réalité (momentané) d’un objet extérieur ? Qu’est-ce qui constitue la réalité d’un facteur (qui n’a pas d’existence indépendante) dans un enchaînement causal ? L’expérience authentique (anubhava) de cette causalité. Pour les sautrāntika, exister est être capable d’exécuter une fonction dans l'instant présent. L’expérience n’est pas le fait que la conscience “voit” la chaîne causale ou “agit” en fonction, puisque “l' "action" de connaître est dépourvue d'agent (kartṛ), de "patient" (karman) ou d'instrument (karaṇa)[6]”, ces trois étant aussi connus sous le nom des trois sphères (t. ‘khor gsum s. trimaṇḍala).

Pour déterminer (niścaya) la conformité de l’objet et sa réalité à partir de la cognition sensorielle, d’une cognition conceptuelle (vikalpa), le bouddhisme utilise des instruments de connaissance (épistémiques, pramāṇa). En dernier analyse, ces instruments servent plutôt à déterminer l’action à suivre dans une perspective bouddhiste, qu’à déterminer ce qui est réel (“épistémiquement fiable”) ou une illusion.

Dans une perspective idéaliste, les “particuliers uniques” (svalakṣana) et les universaux (samanyalakṣana) jouent un rôle crucial. Pour Dharmakīrti, les universaux n’ont pas d’existence réelle, et servent à classer les particuliers en des groupes (genus, p.e. une vache parmi les vaches, les mammifères, etc.). Les particuliers sont des objets de perception qui suscitent un éclair de conscience vive s’ils sont près, et moins vive s’ils sont loin[7]. Cette vivacité est due à toute l’information d’un “particulier unique” brut[8], sans filtrage, avec sa part d’efficience apte à produire de l’effet (arthakriya), laquelle est considérée comme ultimement réel (paramārthasat). Ce qui est réel est momentané et non-conceptuel (nirvikalpa), et n’est plus évident dans la cognition conceptuelle (vikalpa) qui suit, ou qui la “recouvre”, dans un sens davantage idéaliste et réifié. Le particulier unique est la conscience (réflexive, svasaṃvedana), qui est “non-duelle, auto-illuminante (auto-révélatrice), libre de toute impureté”, c’est-à-dire libre de distorsion “interne” (antarupaplava)[9]. Pour le Yogācāra, la vacuité est l’absence de toute dualité sujet (grāhaka)/objet (grāhya)[10]. C’est cette “absence de dualité” dans laquelle le Yogācārin s’entraîne (bhāvanā), et qu’il/elle essaie de rendre “irréversible”.

“Dans la tradition tibétaine, ce point est souvent exprimé en termes d'une distinction, faite à l'origine par Asaṅga dans le huitième chapitre du Mahāyānasaṃgraha, entre "l'équilibre méditatif" (t. mynam gzhag, s. samāpatti) qui correspondrait à la véritable "conscience non-conceptuelle" (s. nirvikalpajñāna), au cours de laquelle la vacuité de la dualité sujet-objet est directement expérimentée, et la "post-méditation" ou "cognition postérieure à cette [expérience]" (t. rjes thob s. tatpṛṣthalabdhajñāna), qui est conceptuelle et/ou dualiste.” Yiannopoulos (2020)

L’objectif étant de ne pas faire de distinction entre l’expérience de l’équilibre méditatif et les activités “post-méditatives” quotidiennes (voir Dyayulpa et Gampopa, Blue Annals, p. 290). Le bouddhisme des perfections (pāramitāyāna), et surtout ésotérique (mantranaya), essaieront par tous les moyens de proposer des solutions sous la forme d’une “continuité” sous jacente. La Luminosité deviendra une de ses stars.

“Les bodhisattvas Ārya de niveau inférieur oscillent entre la vision et la non-vision de la "nature de la non-dualité" - selon qu'ils méditent ou non de manière appropriée - jusqu'à ce qu'ils atteignent l'indestructible, vajra ou "samādhi adamantin" (rdo rje lta bu'i ting nge 'dzin), qui se déclenche au dixième et dernier bhūmi, et l'on s'élève alors vers la cinquième et dernière "voie de ne plus être un étudiant" (aśaiksamārga), c'est-à-dire vers la bouddhéité parfaite et complète.”

“[Le troisième Karmapa] Rangjung Dorje, dans le contexte d'une synthèse du Yogācāra et du Mahāmudrā, articule [...] un modèle de cognition dans lequel toutes les diverses modalités cognitives opèrent simultanément "en un seul moment".” Yiannopoulos (2020)

Cette approche sera classée ultérieurement “mahāmudrā selon le sūtrayāna” (t. mdo lugs), et inapte à produire la réalisation des (trois) kāyas et des (quatre ou cinq) “sagesses” (jñāna) d’un parfait Bouddha, qui requiert le passage par les pratiques théistes du vajrayāna ou d’autres approches visionnaires ésotériques, où il y a une continuité Lumineuse entre la cause, le chemin et le fruit (t. gzhi lam 'bras).

Au niveau des particuliers uniques (svalakṣana), et selon Dharmakīrti, seule la conscience réflexive (svasaṃvedana) est l’instant réel (tattva). Est-ce que ces instants réels sont une continuité dans la série psychique, interrompues par et/ou temporairement noyés dans des instants de conscience dualiste ? Est-ce qu’il s’agirait au fond d’une même conscience réflexive, continue ? S’agirait-il de rester continuellement dans cette conscience réflexive “continue”, qui “revient” après chaque interruption d’instants conscients dualistes ? Est-elle différente du Soi (ātman) des brahmanes ou du Soi Lumineux du tathāgatagarbha ? Est-elle, comme le Soi (ātman) identique au Brahman (divin) ? Ou comme le Soi Lumineux identique au Bouddha cosmique ? C’est-à-dire divine ? La Cause première ?

Cela marquerait un changement par rapport à la véracité considérée déficiente d’universaux (samanyalakṣana).

“Comme son prédécesseur Diṅnāga, le père de la logique indienne médiévale Dharmakīrti nie également la validité des "idées universelles" (Samanya lakṣana) telles que le Dieu créateur éternel qui est conçu dans certaines traditions non-bouddhistes comme la cause de ce monde. Selon lui, "Dieu" ne peut être considéré comme une "idée universelle" car son existence éternelle ne peut être prouvée par la connaissance inférentielle, ni ne peut-il être considéré comme la cause en raison de sa nature immuable[2].

Dharmakīrti nie la réalité des universaux (Vastu-śūnyo vikalpaḥ) car ils ne sont que des constructions mentales qui ne représentent pas la réalité extérieure. Selon lui, notre illusion transcendantale est la cause de notre méprise sur leur réalité. La connaissance de l'"universel" n'est pas directe, mais s'obtient uniquement par l'intermédiaire des organes sensoriels. Cette connaissance indirecte est dérivée de l'inférence ou de l'imagination ? Pour lui, l'idée d'"universel" n'existe pas réellement, mais n'est qu'une fausse notion mentale produite à partir d’une distinction mentale entre les particuliers[11].” (Dr. V.V.S Saibaba)

Les débats théologiques à Vikramaśīla ont dû être vivants. Entre un Ratnākaraśānti (ca. 970-1045 C.E.), pour qui les dieux, leur nature ET leurs rituels étaient indispensables, et un Ratnakīrti[12], disciple Yogācārin de Jñānaśrīmitra (le dernier prof de Maitrīpada), qui écrit un traité contre Dieu (Īśvara), intitulé "Réfutation des arguments établissant Īśvara" (Īśvarasādhanadūṣaṇa).

L’idée de “Luminosité”, telle qu’elle est souvent utilisée et comprise par les bouddhistes ésotériques, notamment par les bouddhistes ésotériques convertis, est clairement d’ordre divine. Qu’évoquent les termes Luminosité, Lumière, Lumineux, dans l’esprit d’un auditeur ou un lecteur contemporain ? Interrogez-les, une enquête à ce sujet serait intéressante.

Quand on parle d’ “une approche directe de l'expérience de la Réalité (“true reality”, tattva) en tant que luminosité (via eminentiae)[13]”, on ne peut que comprendre qu’il s’agit d’une “voie positive” (en opposition à la “voie négative” analytique du Madhyamaka), où la Réalité est expérimentée comme “luminosité”. L’analyse de la voie du Madhyamaka peut conduire à une expérience que l’on pourrait dire “mystique”, complète, ni négative ni positive. Cette expérience n’est ni “analytique”, ni “négative”, ni “positive”, ni “vraiment réelle”, etc.

Le terme prakāśa, “luminosité” pointe vers la conscience réflexive (svasaṃvitti), ou instant de conscience réflexive, considérée comme “vraiment réelle” (tattva), parce qu’elle met en évidence l’instant de conscience où celle-ci se connaît elle-même, où elle “s’illumine” elle-même (svaprakāśa) telle une lumière, une lampe qui s’éclaire aussi elle-même du même coup, et transcende ainsi la dualité sujet-objet un instant. Faut-il s’attendre à une lumière ou une luminosité, ou autre vision lumineuse, quelque chose de “positif” ? Dans une perspective lumineuse divine (Noûs), on sort du cadre épistémologique de Dharmakīrti, quel que soit le discours justificateur, et la "luminosité", perd son statut de métaphore et change de nature.  

Dans le Sermon de la lignée du sang (Xuemai lun 血脈論), “exhortation à chercher le Bouddha en cherchant sa propre nature”, qui est attribué à Bodhidharma, se trouve l’échange suivant :

“L'étudiant : Mais si je ne vois pas ma nature, puis-je quand même atteindre l'illumination en invoquant les Bouddhas, en récitant des sutras, en faisant des offrandes, en observant les préceptes, en pratiquant des dévotions ou en faisant de bonnes œuvres ?

Bodhidharma : Non, vous ne pouvez pas.

Étudiant : Pourquoi ?

Bodhidharma : Si vous atteignez quoi que ce soit, c'est conditionnel, c'est karmique. Il en résulte une rétribution. Cela fait tourner la roue. Et tant que l'on est soumis à la naissance et à la mort, on n'atteindra jamais l'illumination. Pour atteindre l'illumination, vous devez voir votre nature. Si vous ne voyez pas votre nature, toutes les discussions sur les causes et les effets sont des dharmas des voies extérieures. Les bouddhas ne pratiquent pas les dharmas des voies extérieures. Un bouddha est libre de karma, libre de cause et d'effet. Dire qu'il atteint quoi que ce soit, c'est calomnier un bouddha, comment celui qui énonce ce propos peut-il atteindre l'Éveil ?

Si vous êtes attaché à une seule pensée, à une seule capacité, à une seule compréhension ou à un seul point de vue, vous ne pouvez pas égaler le Bouddha. Un Bouddha ne garde ni ne brise rien, la nature de son cœur est fondamentalement vide, ni pure ni impure. Il est libre de pratique et de réalisation, il est libre de cause et d'effet.[14]”

***

[1] Śākyabuddhi

[2] Traduction FR automatique.
“Accordingly, while neither the simile of the lamp, nor the metaphor of “luminosity” (prakāśa) as a term for reflexive awareness, is Dharmakīrti’s original contribution, it is nevertheless possible to observe here, in embryonic form, a synthesis of the metaphor of illumination, with the affirmation of an idealistic ontology, and the refutation of phenomenological duality. This synthesis would resound for centuries, right down to the present day, as the theoretical superstructure or philosophical framework for the advanced contemplative practices of Mahāmudrā and rDzogs chen.”

Alexander Yiannopoulos, The Structure of Dharmakīrti’s Philosophy, 2020, Dissertation, p. 377

[3] “Perception is free from concepts and non-erroneous” pratyakṣam kalpanāpoḍhamabhrāntam. NB 4, PVin 1.4a. Yiannopoulos (2020), p.58
“In brief, a cognition exhibits “error” (bhrānti) insofar as it construes something that is not X as being X (atasmiṃs tadgrahaḥ).” “A cognition exhibiting bhrānti thus “errs” or “deviates” from reality, as in the classic example of a rope that is mistaken for a snake.” p.55

[4] “Dharmakīrti advances a technical definition of “perception” as a cognition which is both nonconceptual and non-erroneous. Dharmakīrti’s definition of perception is thereby deliberately inclusive of three additional types of “perceptual” cognition, in addition to veridical sensory awareness: the nonconceptual mental apprehension of an immediately-preceding cognition (“mental perception”), the vivid appearance of soteriologically efficacious objects of contemplative practice (“yogic perception”), and the sheer unmediated presence of the contents of cognition—whatever these might be—to the cognizing mind (“reflexive awareness”).”

[5] “Comme la plupart des autres traditions épistémologiques indiennes, les Sautrāntikas considèrent que le moment initial de la perception est indéterminé ou non conceptuel (avikalpika), et que la connaissance actionnable de l'objet sensoriel - de manière paradigmatique, un jugement déterminé tel que "C'est une cruche" - ne survient qu'après la cognition initiale indéterminée.” p.48

“Like most other traditions of Indian epistemology, the Sautrāntikas held that the initial moment of perception is indeterminate or nonconceptual (avikalpika), and that actionable knowledge about the sensory object—paradigmatically, a determinate judgment such as, “That is a jug”—only arises after the initial indeterminate cognition.” Yiannopoulos (2020), p.48

Voir aussi L'éveil, une question de sensibilité ou de volonté ? sur le “premier instant mystérieux” selon Schleiermacher.

[6] “The “action” of cognizing is devoid of agent (kartṛ), patient (karman), or instrument (karaṇa).” Yiannopoulos (2020), p. 47
Abhidharmakoṣabhāśya de Vasubandhu

[7] Commentaire de Dharmottara sur le Nyāya -Bindu

[8] Le “premier instant mystérieux” de Schleiermacher.

[9] PV 1.210 vyāvṛttau pratyayāpekṣamadṛḍhaṃ sarpabuddhivat |prabhāsvaramidaṃ cittaṃ prakṛtyāgantavo malāḥ ||210|| Nagarjuna Institute of Exact Methods

[10] Voir la note 175, à la page 375-376.

“In emic Buddhist terms, this may be understood as follows. From a Yogācāra perspective, “emptiness” primarily means the absence of subject-object duality. In terms of the “five paths” model (see Chapter 1, note 160), the third “path of seeing” (darśanamārga) constitutes the first time that the Bodhisattva has a direct, authentic experience of emptiness; in other words, what is “seen” on the “path of seeing” is just this absence of subject and object. Immediately subsequent to this moment, the fourth “path of training” or “path of meditation” (bhāvanāmārga) begins. Again, it is just this emptiness of subject and object in which one “trains,” to which one is “habituated,” or upon which one “meditates” (bhāvanā). Later “stages” (bhūmis) are understood to be irreversible, but until some more advanced point along the path, even Ārya Bodhisattvas—that is, extraordinary “noble beings” who have directly experienced emptiness on the “path of seeing”—do not continually experience emptiness.

In the Tibetan tradition, this point is frequently expressed in terms of a distinction originally made by Asaṅga in the eighth chapter of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, between “meditative equipoise” (mynam gzhag, samāpatti) or genuine “nonconceptual awareness” (nirvikalpajñāna), during which the emptiness of subject-object duality is directly experienced, and “post-meditation” or “cognition subsequent to that [experience]” (rjes thob, tatpṛṣthalabdhajñāna), which is conceptual and/or dualistic. As expressed in the famous dictum of the Third Karmapa, Rangjung Dorje (1284-1339) (trans. Mathes 2013, 63): “When you do not realize this, you are confused; when you realize it, you are liberated… if you see the nature of nonduality, buddha nature (rgyal ba’i snying po) is actualized.” On this account, in other words, lower-level Ārya Bodhisattvas oscillate between seeing and not seeing the “nature of nonduality”— depending upon whether or not they are meditating appropriately—until the unbreakable, vajra-like or “adamantine samādhi” (rdo rje lta bu’i ting nge ’dzin) kicks in at the tenth and final bhūmi, and one thereby ascends to the fifth and final “path of no longer being a student” (aśaiksamārga), which is to say, perfect and complete Buddhahood. See also, in this regard, Mipham’s comments ad MSĀ XIX.69, translated in Maitreyanātha et al. (2014). 176 The Third Karmapa, Rangjung Dorje, writes (trans. Mathes 2013, 64): “This very mind presents the aspect of an unfolding play that, in its momentary consciousness, is unimpeded in itself. In view of this, [its] nature (rang bzhin) is present as emptiness and as natural luminosity. These two are the ground, given that from it the individual forms of the accumulation of mental factors and the seven accumulations of consciousness appear unimpeded and in one moment. In the impure state it has been taught as being the “mind,” “mental faculty,” and “consciousness.” When pure, it is expressed by the terms three kāyas and wisdom.” In other words, as Mathes (ibid.) summarizes, “The true nature of mind (sems nyid) [is] called mind in an impure state and wisdom in a pure state.” Nota bene that Rangjung Dorje here, in the context of a synthesis of Yogācāra and Mahāmudrā, articulates a model of cognition in which all the various cognitive modalities operate simultaneously “in one moment.” See Chapter 1, Section II.D.2: Simultaneous Cognition and Re-cognition (pratyabhijñā).

[11] THE PHILOSOPHY OF ‘UNIVERSALS’ AND ‘PARTICULARS’ IN DHARMAKIRTI’S WORKS by V.V.S. SAlBABA, Translated into Chinese by chen-huang Cheng

Pour la note 2) “Rahula Sankrtyayana, Pramana-Vartika with Pramana-Vartika-bKagya by Dharmak'irti and Prajnakara Gupta (Patna: Kashi Prasad Jaiswal Research Institute. 1953) II. 12-28.”

“Like his predecessor Diṅnāga the father of medieval of Indian Logic Dharmakīrti also denies the validity of “universal ideas'’ (Samanya lakṣana) such as the Eternal Creator God who is conceived in some of the non-Buddhist traditions as the cause of this world. According to him ‘God’ cannot be considered as an ‘universal idea’ because his eternal existence cannot be proved by inferential knowledge and he cannot be regarded as the cause owing to his unchangeable nature[2].

Dharmakīrti denies the reality of the universals (Vastu-śūnyo vikalpaḥ) as they are merely mental constructions which do not represent the external reality. According to him our transcendental illusion is the cause of our misconception about their reality. The knowledge of the ‘universal’ is not direct, but is obtained only through sense-organs. This indirect knowledge is derived from inference or imagination? For him, the idea of ‘universal’ is not really existent, but is only a false mental notion produced out of the mental distinction among particulars.”

[12] Toward a better Understanding of Ratnakirti's Ontology, Shinya MORIYAMA,

[13] “A key role in this process is played by the Tattvadaśaka, or “Ten Verses on True Reality,” a text in which Maitrīpa combines an analytic Madhyamaka path of excluding what true reality is not (via negationis) with a direct approach of experiencing true reality as luminosity (via eminentiae).” Klaus-Dieter Mathes, Sahajavajra’s integration of Tantra into mainstream Buddhism: An analysis of his *Tattvadaśakaṭīkā and *Sthitisamāsa.

[14] Traduction automatique de Bodhi-dharma's Bloodstream Sermon, traduit en anglais par Red Pine en 1987.

“Student: But suppose I don't see my nature, cant I still attain enlightenment by invoking Buddhas, reciting sutras, making offerings, observing precepts, Practicing devotions, or doing good works?

Bodhidharma: No, you can't.

Student: Why not?

Bodhidharma: If you attain anything at all, it's conditional, it's karmic. It results in retribution. It turns the Wheel. And as long as you're subject to birth and death, you'll never attain enlightenment. To attain enlightenment you have to see your nature. Unless you see your nature, all the talks about cause and effect are the dharmas of the Exterior-Paths. Buddhas don't practice Exterior-Paths dharmas. A Buddha is free of karma, free of cause and effect. To say He attains anything at all is to slander a Buddha, how can the speaker achieve the Awakening?

If you are attached to even one thought, one ability, one understanding, or one view, you can not match the Buddha. A Buddha does not keep or break anything, the nature of His Heart is basically empty, neither pure nor impure. He is free of practice and realization, He is free of cause and effect.”