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.”

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).

Blinded by Luminous realization?

The Conversion of Saul, Michelangelo (wikimedia)

Luminous realization seems to be what elsewhere is sometimes called deification (apotheosis), daimonification or self-deification (sometimes critically referred to as “egotheism” or “autotheism”). Deification is the possibility for humans to attain god-like powers and faculties and to become like gods. Daimonification is the same thing but on the lower level of a daimon or genius, and therefore less or not transcendental. Luminous realization requires the belief in the Luminous reality of gods and daimons (and their powers), a Luminous Self, and a Luminous subtle body allowing for transfers, rebirth, “resurrection” and the highest permanent realizations.

In the classical world Nature was enchanted, i.e. run by half-gods, titans, daimons, genii, etc. In order to have some limited power over this enchanted Nature regarding things that mattered in their lives: their health, that of their children and their cattle, fortune, longevity etc., human cults to daimons were established. The powers of daimons tend to be more magical and this-worldly, including a non-transcendental afterlife. Everything Natural or regarding “the creation” was/is run by daimons. The status of a daimon (yakṣa, siddha, vidyādhara, kami etc.), like their powers and faculties, were open to the more industrious and zealous humans in that field, who had access to certain levels of daimonification during or after their lives.

Those aspiring to higher and more permanent realizations went for deification and self-deification. In Buddhism and more in particular esoteric Buddhism, this would refer to the possibility and the means to become a Buddha oneself, in one of the Buddha’s numerous manifestations, including as a Deity (s. iṣṭa-devatā t. yi dam), a Heruka, etc. The Luminous Self already is a potential Buddha (tathāgatagarbha) that only needs to be actualised, through unifying the Luminous Self, the Deity and the Guru. The Luminous Body of the Deity and one’s own Luminous subtle body with its inherent Luminous energy system are one, and are the vessel of the Luminous Self undifferentiated from the Luminous inner Guru. It is simultaneous to the ascension into the Luminous spheres, leaving behind saṃsāra. This is a deification process (in ten, twelve or fourteen levels) authorized through Luminous empowerment and results in the actualisation of the “Triple Body” (trikāya) of a Buddha: dharmakāya, saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya. The “self-empowerment” (svādhiṣṭhāna) is the transformative practice of rituals, visualization techniques, meditative and pneumatic and inner alchemic practices etc. to transform delusioned states of consciousness (waking state, dream, sleep, etc.) in a “continuous luminous awareness that is one's own enlightened nature”[1] with the Luminous Triple Body of a Buddha. “Luminosity” and Luminous self-empowerment/deification are most often part of such esoteric Buddhist path. Was this the same method as Maitrīpa/Advaya-Avadhūtipa exposed in his Commentary (D2268) to the Dohākośagīti attributed to Saraha?

“The collection of twenty-six texts on non-conceptual realization is the result of blending the essence and tantric mahāmudrā teachings of Saraha, Nāgārjuna and Śavaripa with a particular form of Madhyamaka philosophy, called 'non-abiding' (apratiṣṭhāna), which aims at radically transcending any conceptual assessment of true reality. This goal is achieved by "withdrawing one's attention" (amanasikāra) from anything that involves the duality of a perceived and perceiver. The result is a "luminous self-empowerment [svādhiṣṭhāna]," Maitripa's (986–1063) final tantric analysis of amanasikāra.” A Fine Blend of Mahāmudrā and Madhyamaka, Klaus-Dieter Mathes, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2016.

This is indeed the by now traditional view of Tibetan Buddhism. Were these twenty-six texts all works written by Advayavajra? Have they been collected intentionally to "blend" Tantric Mahāmudrā and Madhyamaka 'non-abiding' (apratiṣṭhāna)? Was Advayavajra aware of such a teaching under the name of “Mahāmudrā”? Was he aware of the triple classification of “Mahāmudrā” teachings into Sūtra Mahāmudrā, Tantric Mahāmudrā and Essence Mahāmudrā? Does mental nonengagement (amanasikāra) result in "luminous self-empowerment”, i.e. “deification” in the Triple Body of a Buddha? Did Saraha (Dohākośagīti), Nāgārjuna (2nd-3rd century) and Śavaripa teach “Tantric Mahāmudrā”? Were Saraha, Nāgārjuna and Śavaripa the actual authors of the texts in which they are believed to have taught “Tantric Mahāmudrā”? Is Śavaripa a historical figure and did Advayavajra meet Śavaripa?

Advayavajra, Sahajavajra and Gampopa (originally a Kadampa monk) were most likely not aware of “Sūtra Mahāmudrā”. Gampopa, like Atiśa, followed “Apratiṣṭhāna-Madhyamaka” (tib. dbu ma rab tu mi gnas pa), and so did Sahajavajra when he comments his teacher Advayavajra’s Ten Verses on True Reality (Tattvadaśaka).

“The world itself, which is free from knowledge and knowable objects,
Is taken to be non-duality.
But even vain clinging to a state free of duality
Is taken, in like manner, to be luminous [s. prabhāsvaraḥ t. ‘od gsal ba]. (TD 7)

By the power of having realized this true reality,
The yogin, with eyes wide open,
Moves everywhere like a lion,
By any [chosen] means [and] in any [chosen] manner. (TD 8)

[The yogin] who has left the [eight] worldly dharmas behind
And adopted yogic conduct [that appears to be] crazy
Does everything without [any need for] a reference point,
Being adorned with self-empowerment [s. svādhiṣṭhānavi t. bdag byin brlabs pas]. (TD 9)” (translation by KD Mathes)

It is tempting in a small text with translations as “luminous” and “self-empowerment” to understand the “self-empowerment” to be luminous and therefore tantric, and the translation “empowerment” as having a link with “empowerment” (abhiṣeka). And this would allegedly be “Maitripa's (986–1063) final tantric analysis of amanasikāra”. Sva adhiṣṭhāna can also mean “self-standing”, “resolve” or “self-determination”, becoming the only reference point.

“In the late canonical literature of Theravada Buddhism, adhiṭṭhāna is one of the ten "perfections" (dasa pāramiyo), exemplified by the bodhisattva's resolve to become fully awakened.”

In this specific work attributed to Advayavajra and in Sahajavajra’s Commentary thereof, there is no need to apply a tantric or “deifying” (Form Bodies) reading. For Apratiṣṭhāna-Madhyamaka, and for Gampopa[2], the purified Dharmadhātu was the sole constituent of Buddhahood[3].

“The view of my spiritual friends is as follows: The nature of the Samyaksambuddha is Dharmakāya, the end of all error and natural harmony. But such statements are mere words. In reality Dharmakāya is unborn (so does not stand for any conception at all) and is ineffable.

Venerable Mi.la.ras.pa used to say that transcending awareness is not discursive[4]. It is beyond any predication such as existence or non-existence, eternalism or nihilism, and beyond the realm of intellect. Whatever name it is called does not alter its nature. This is particularly true of the word 'transcending awareness'. It was coined by a numskull, so that even if a Buddha were to be asked to explain it, he could not do so. When it is stated that Dharmakāya is beyond the intellect, unborn and ineffable, or such that one can only say 'do not ask me, look into your own mind', the statement is not true of reality. As is written in the 'mDo.sde.rgyan' ('Mahāyāna-sūtrālańkāra' IX, 3):
Liberation (is) merely the end of error.

Therefore since the Buddha is Dharmakāya and since Dharmakāya is unborn and ineffable, it is not a transcending awareness. If you object that this contradicts the statement in the Sūtras about the two types of spiritual awareness, you must know that it does not. It is like saying that we see blue when we are merely conscious of an appearance of blueness, In other words, to that which (in a process of symbolic transformation) becomes Dharmadhātu and which is transcending awareness we attribute the name 'awareness which sees Reality as it is' and call it ultimate knowledge, while we speak of it as relative when it (the process of symbolic transformation) concerns those who have to be brought to spiritual maturity. This interpretation (of transcending awareness) is a good one. By means of it we can say that the most excellent renunciation and spirituality are the essence or the nature of a Buddha.[5]”

Was Gampopa, born after Maitrīpa’s death, and allegedly Milarepa’s student, stooping down to his students with lesser dispositions, teaching them only “Sūtra Mahāmudrā”? Did he have a personal dislike for Luminous Mahāmudrā since he didn't teach it? Did he not know it or receive it? The polemics followed after his death. We don’t know for certain and his Kagyupa descendants don’t want to know, because the whole Tibetan Buddhist tradition has turned “Luminous” since. The Yogācārin Ratnākaraśānti (T. rin chen 'byung gnas zhi ba, ca. 11th cent.), also called Śāntipa, was quite specific about the necessity of theurgic means to accomplish full Luminous Buddhahood. The practice of the Hearers (śrāvaka) and the Mādhyamika is not sufficient and results in “complete cessation, because of not perfecting the actions of purifying the [Luminous] Buddha qualities”. Theurgy, deity practice, in itself is not sufficient either, and neither is “meditat[ing] only on the true nature of what the deities stand for and not the deities”.

“(5) Therefore, the meditation of both [the mind as deities and the true nature of the deities at the same time], because it is extremely pleasant to the mind and because it is a special kind of empowerment, causes one to obtain the highest perfect awakening very quickly.[6]”

In other words “Luminous emptiness”, “Theurgic emptiness”, “Empty Luminosity”, “Empty Theurgy”, or somesuch, but it is clear theurgy or deity practice (deification) is the main ingredient here that can’t be sacrificed, and that is believed to be the only effective access to all the Luminous Buddha Qualities, inherent in the Luminous Self.

Without Luminous Buddhism no blessings, no siddhis and no formal Buddha Bodies. Why not practice Chinese Ch’an in that case?!

When traditional Tibetan Buddhism looks back on earlier times, they do so with the “hindsight” and bias of the later traditions. The whole history and evolution of Tibetan Buddhism is “blended” in a luminous ahistorical hagiographic mix, which is retroactively applied to the earlier situations. A blending and blinding Light.

***

[1] The Other Emptiness, Rethinking the Zhentong Buddhist Discourse in Tibet, edited by Michael R. Sheehy & Klaus-Dieter Mathes, 2019

[2] See Jewel Ornament of Liberation, Herbert V. Guenther, Rider, 1970, p. 261-262

[3] Rong-zom-pa’s Discourses on Buddhology, Orna Almogi, 2009, p. 177

[4] This may be a later interpolation. Also see Des citations qui font plus que citer (2015)

[5] Jewel Ornament of Liberation, Herbert V. Guenther, Rider, 1970, p. 261-262

"And in the 'mDo.sde.rgyan' ('Mahāyāna-sūtrālaṅkāra' IX, 12):  

Where the fog of conflicting emotions and primitive beliefs about reality,

Though present for a long time

Has been dispersed by very great renunciation 

The most excellent virtues and positive qualities are obtained. 

This is Buddhahood.”

[6] The Yogācārin theurgist Ratnākaraśānti (T. rin chen 'byung gnas zhi ba), also called Śāntipa, made a similar declaration about the superiority of the use of theurgy in esoteric Buddhism. He wrote about five different Buddhist contemplative scenarios[3], where the inclusion of theurgy would guarantee the quickest and most complete results.

“(1) If one meditates on the mind alone, then one would only obtain mundane mental concentration (ting nge ’dzin, *samādhi) like the stage of the infinity of consciousness (rnam shes mtha’ yas skye mched, *vijñānānantyāyatana).

(2) Yet if one meditates on emptiness above all, that [result] too becomes only complete cessation, because of not perfecting the actions of purifying the Buddha qualities.

(3) Or, if one meditates on [the mind] only as having the nature of the deities, in this case, one does not even become awakened at all through that alone because the perfection of actions is incomplete.

(4) Or, if one meditates only on the true nature of what the deities stand for and not the deities, then in this case too, one would attain Buddhahood in many countless aeons but not quickly.

(5) Therefore, the meditation of both [the mind as deities and the true nature of the deities at the same time], because it is extremely pleasant to the mind and because it is a special kind of empowerment, causes one to obtain the highest perfect awakening very quickly[4].” “Madhyamakanising” Tantric Yogācāra: The Reuse of Ratnākaraśānti’s Explanation of maṇḍala Visualisation in the Works of Śūnyasamādhivajra, Abhayākaragupta and Tsong Kha Pa Daisy S. Y. Cheung

The Luminous Mahāmudrā of Maitrīpa

"Maitrīpa" blending Madhyamaka and Luminous Mahāmudrā (HA60674). Will it blend? 

One of the characteristics of “Luminous Buddhism” is the notion of a Buddha-essence (dhātu) in every being, that is “eternal, blissful, characterized by a personal self, and pure” (Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra), often in the company of an inner luminous subtle body (astral body or spirit body). Luminous in the sense of immaterial, or formed by the most subtle material, similar to light.

Such a Buddha-essence, and its “presence” in all sentient beings, in all their successive (transmigrational) bodies is possible thanks to this inner luminous body, a body in a body, that seems to be whatever is transferred.

The orthodox Theravada Buddhism of Thailand has an influential version of Luminous Buddhism since the last century, thanks to the breakthrough (1916)[1] of Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro (1884 – 1959), the founder of the Dhammakaya tradition.

“He experienced "a bright and shining sphere of Dhamma at the centre of his body, followed by new spheres, each "brighter and clearer", which he understood to be the true Dhamma-body, or Dhammakāya. the "spiritual essence of the Buddha and nibbana [which] exists as a literal reality within the human body, and the true Self (as opposed to the non-self).”

The successful Luminous Theravada of Vijjā Dhammakāya (photo Wcsa.world)
The same movement also confirmed Steve Jobs' rebirth as a powerful daimon 

He then tried to authenticate his experience through reinterpreting a phrase from the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta. 'contemplating the body as a body' became 'contemplating the body in the body'. His experience was developed into a mediation method called “Vijjā Dhammakāya”, the direct knowledge [gnosis] of the Dhammakāya. Dhammakāya here is understood as the luminous body in the body, undifferentiated from the “true Self”[2].

The Luminous Self and the Luminous Body (“Dhammakāya”) open(ed) the possibility to integrate eternalist religious practices into Buddhism. The Luminous Body is the immanent recipient of the transcendent Self, which is the spark, the seed, embryon etc. of a Buddha, a God or an invisible Source (Nous). The vagueness of the notion of “luminosity” and “luminous” allows for authenticating Luminous Buddhism in canonical Buddhist scriptures, where it is most often used metaphorically.

“This mind, mendicants, is radiant.
“Pabhassaramidaṁ, bhikkhave, cittaṁ.
But it is corrupted by passing corruptions.
Tañca kho āgantukehi upakkilesehi upakkiliṭṭhaṁ.
An uneducated ordinary person does not truly understand this.
Taṁ assutavā puthujjano yathābhūtaṁ nappajānāti.
So I say that the uneducated ordinary person has no development of the mind.”
Tasmā ‘assutavato puthujjanassa cittabhāvanā natthī’ti vadāmī”ti.” (translation of AN 1.51 by Bhante Sujato)

“This” mind seems to refer to a specific mind in jhāna, and “luminous”, or rather “radiant” is used as a metaphor to describe the quality of such mind (citta), and not to refer to a Luminous Self, and even less to a Luminous mental body. The adjective luminous slips into a substantive and Luminosity or Clear Light become a substance and an essence, for that which is “eternal, blissful, characterized by a personal self, and pure”, i.e. the Buddha, his cosmic Body, Buddha fields etc., the whole Luminous reality, that in non-Buddhist traditions is often referred to as the Divine.

The Buddhist concept of emptiness (śūnyatā), essencelessness or dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), is used to certify the Divine of Luminous reality (Luminous Self, Luminous Body etc.) as being free of any essence (100% essence free), and yet Luminous or Divine. Emptiness is like the airlock between ordinary reality and Luminous reality. Both ordinary reality and Luminous reality lack any essence, or to put it differently “emptiness”, somehow losing its metaphorical meaning, and becomes like the essence of both realities. All sorts of combinations (“unions”) are possible with emptiness. Emptiness is like a canonical Buddhist approval mark.

Early Buddhist methods apply non-self and emptiness to ordinary reality, so it can be used skilfully, but ordinary reality was not enough for Luminous Buddhists, who saw what other religions had to offer: deification and self-deification. Human beings could be enhanced/luminified/deified/daimonified thanks to the Luminous potential of their Luminous Self and Body, directly linked to and undifferentiated from Luminous Buddhas and their Luminous realities. Through entering that reality, the birth and death that come with ordinary reality could be avoided altogether, and spiritual immortality became within reach. Other religions (Egyptian, Hellenistic, Chaldean, Roman, Gnostic, Christian etc.) already had this on offer, and Buddhism (Yogācāra) was ready to jump on the Luminous bandwagon. The Buddha’s nirvāṇa had to make place for “an undying, eternal state of supreme bliss”[3]. The former teachings of the Buddha, respectively selflessness and emptiness, were considered as preparations for the third turning of the wheel, that would open the way for Luminous Buddhism

“Such a presentation was bound to raise questions and arouse criticism from other Buddhists, and they surely came even as the sutras were being disseminated. We see one such criticism rebutted in the Lankavatarasutra, in which the term “self” is used to refer to buddhanature, but the Buddha, in conversation with Mahamati, explains that “self” here refers to emptiness and signlessness, and that it is being used to prevent the fear of emptiness among people and to attract the non-Buddhists to the Buddha’s teachings. The Ultimate Continuum, continuing this defense, defines the great sublime “self” or buddhanature as a transcendence of the notions of self and nonself and, for that matter, all forms of conceptual construction and mental fixation.” (Why Buddhanature Matters)

That “great sublime self” is Luminous and the core of the Luminous reality that will be built around it, or rather “entered into” (avatara), because it has always existed, only ignorance (avidyā) prevented us from experiencing it fully. Tantras teach how this reality can be accessed and how we can self-deify or “self-empower” (svādhiṣṭhāna) under the guidance of a guru.

In Tibetan Buddhism, “Maitrīpa” is presented as one of the teachers who helped to build a bridge between madhyamaka and Luminous Buddhism. The “Great Self” allegedly taught by Maitreya during Asaṅga’s ascension to Tuṣita heaven, would lead to the composition of The Ultimate Continuum and its commentaries that would serve as the canonical justification for the Element (dhātu) that became the basis for Tantric self-deification.

Maitrīpa is considered as the author of the Amanasikāra cycle, containing a variety of texts attributed to Advayavajra/Maitrīpa. Whether these have been effectively (all) authored by Advayavajra and have not been amended since the 11th century is not known. The cumulative meaning of all these texts is considered as Maitrīpa’s teaching by the Tibetan tradition and its scholars. Some Amanasikāra texts center on nonabiding (apratiṣṭhāna), others on tantric empowerment and practices. Klaus-Dieter Mathes and others see the occurrence of both topics in the same cycle as proof of the author’s (Maitrīpa?) intention to blend nonabiding and self-empowerment. In my opinion it’s no so much a “blend” than a bridge or a gateway to full Luminous tantric practice, since nonabiding on itself is considered by Luminous Buddhism as an incomplete method that will effectively be superseded by Luminous methods. This is also what happened.

“In this cycle, Maitrīpa blends Śavaripa’s Mahāmudrā with his favored Madhyamaka philosophy of nonabiding (apratiṣṭhāna), which aims at radically transcending any conceptual assessment of true reality.”

For Mathes and the Tibetan tradition Maitrīpa’s intention to blend madhyamika nonabiding with Tantric Mahāmudrā is based on a creative semiotic interpretation of the Sanskrit word for mental nonengagement, amanasikāra, found in one of the texts attributed to Maitrīpa, the Amanasikārādhāra, translated by Mathes as “Justification of Nonconceptual Realization”. In the “blending” process, we start with Mādhyamika nonabiding, pass through mental nonengagement, translated as “Nonconceptual Realization”, and end up with “Luminous self-empowerment".

“Nonabiding” is a translation for the Sanskrit apratiṣṭhāna, which is a basic term used by “Apratiṣṭhāna-Madhyamaka” (tib. dbu ma rab tu mi gnas pa). One of its earlier definitions can be found in the Gaganagañjaparipṛcchā.

“The essential nature is like space, the superficial mental effort is like wind, the actions and vices are like water, and the parts of personality, spheres and fields of perception are like earth. Therefore, it is said that all dharmas are devoid of any root, the root which is established in nothing, the root of purity, and the root of no root.[4]”

That sounds pretty radical and one wonders how this radical mādhyamika rootlessness can be effectively blended with Luminosity (s. prabhāsvara t. ‘od gsal) as a sort of “universal root”, and with practices centered on Luminosity.

“Maitrīpa, however, takes amanasikāra not only in this ordinary sense of mental nonengagement but also analyzes the compound a-manasikāra as “luminous self-empowerment.” In doing so, he understands the privative a as denoting luminous emptiness, with which one directly engages (manasikāra) in a nonconceptual way. This, in any case, is the conclusion in the Justification of Nonconceptual Realization:

“Moreover, a stands for the word “luminous,” and manasikāra for the word “self-empowerment” (svādhiṣṭhāna). It is both a and manasikāra, so we get amanasikāra. Because of that, the words a, manasikāra, and so forth, refer to the inconceivable state of being luminous and the one of self-empowerment.” (Maitrīpa, India’s Yogi of Nondual Bliss)

Luminosity (Nous) is perhaps not “a root” but certainly has the appearance of the all pervading “substance” everything is ultimately “made of”. For Luminists Luminosity goes deeper than mind and intellect, and the suspension thereof. It goes deeper than “emptiness”, conveniently considered as “empty emptiness”, that needs to be paired with “luminosity”, “bliss” etc. in order to be “complete”. Since Luminosity is eternal and all pervading, whatever is built in or on Luminosity will last. Whatever is Luminous is superior to what requires mental and intellectual effort and even the suspension of that effort.

Mathes explains:

“Maitrīpa thus introduces to the practice of not becoming mentally engaged a Mahāmudrā component (luminous emptiness) that allows him to continuously refrain from any form of reification and stabilize his nonconceptual realization of emptiness. In other words, amanasikāra not only means to refrain from projecting wrong notions (such as an independent existence or characteristic signs) onto anything arisen in dependence, whether skandhas, dhātus, or āyatanas,but also a sustained realization of the luminous nature of mind." (Maitrīpa, India’s Yogi of Nondual Bliss)

Mental nonengagement, [empty] emptiness and nonconceptuality are not “stable”, not “continuous”, and therefore not sufficient, when they are not integrated ("realized") in the lasting Luminous level of the transcendent Luminous Self. They would be interrupted when one’s Selfless little self disintegrates. It’s not a permanent realization. Therefore, Luminists say, mental nonengagement needs to be "realized" on the Luminous level of mind. The Luminous nature (prakṛti) “of mind” is the Luminous Self and its Luminous vessel. Whatever is "realized" on that level will continue to operate when dying, and after death. The Selfless little self disintegrates, but the Luminous Self fares on in its Luminous vessel and allows one to luminify/buddhify/daimonify/deify. The object of Buddhist Tantra is to connect with and prepare the Luminous vessel for every possible situation (waking state, dream, sleep, after death, becoming…). Without this, all the Buddhism you have (selflessness, emptiness, nonabiding, mental nonengagement, sūtra mahāmudrā, “cutting through rigidity” Dzogchen, etc.) won’t do, and you would have to start all over again in your next life. With this in mind you are ready to understand Maitrīpa’s and Sahajavajra’s intention properly.

Mahāmudrā is not the pedaling-in-the-air of Sūtra Mahāmudrā, but Luminous Mahāmudrā, Tantric Mahāmudrā (or alternatively Essential Mahāmudrā for the happy few) on the Luminous level. This requires a guru, Luminous empowerment and Luminous self-empowerment in order to realize full Luminification/Buddhification.

In the lower right corner of Maitrīpa's thanka above, we see a relaxed Milarepa who is clearly not blending... A critical touch or wink of the painter in the style of Breughel ? Unless it is Maitrīpa himself crossing the Ganges as told in one of his Tibetan hagiographies.

***

[1] “Thus, on the full-moon day in the 10th lunar month of 1916, he sat down in the main shrine hall of Wat Botbon, resolving not to waver in his practice of meditation. He meditated for three hours on the mantra sammā araham, which means "righteous Absolute of Attainment which a human being can achieve." Then "his mind [suddenly] became still and firmly established at the very centre of his body," and he experienced "a bright and shining sphere of Dhamma at the centre of his body, followed by new spheres, each "brighter and clearer." According to Luang Pu Sodh, this was the true Dhamma-body, or Dhammakāya, the "spiritual essence of the Buddha and nibbana [which] exists as a literal reality within the human body.” Mackenzie, Rory (2007), New Buddhist Movements in Thailand: Towards an understanding of Wat Phra Dhammakaya and Santi Asoke (PDF), Routledge, ISBN 978-0-203-96646-4.

[2] Wikipedia, Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro.

[3] Why Buddhanature Matters, Lopen Karma Phuntsho, Lion’s Roar

[4] Han, Jaehee. 2021. The Sky as a Mahāyāna Symbol of Emptiness and Generous Fullness: A Study and Translation of the Gaganagañjaparipṛcchā. PhD dissertation, University of Oslo. Online source
For the Sanskrit and Tibetan version of the quote:

Rgvbh: tatra yathākāśadhātus tathā prakṛtiḥ | yathā vāyudhātus tathāyoniśomanasikāraḥ | yathābdhātus tathā karmakleśāḥ | yathā pṛthivīdhātus tathā skandhadhātvāyatanāni | tata ucyante sarvadharmā asāramūlā apratiṣṭhānamūlāḥ śuddhamūlā amūlamūlā iti |

RgvbhTib: de la nam mkha’i khams ji lta pa de ltar ni raṅ bźin no || rluṅ gi khams ji lta ba de ltar ni tshul bźin ma yin pa yid la byed pa’o || chu’i khams ji ta ba de ltar ni las daṅ ñon moṅs pa’o || sa’i khams ji lta ba de ltar ni phuṅ po daṅ | skye mched daṅ | khams rnams so || des na chos thams cad ni rtsa ba yoṅs su chad pa ste | sñiṅ po med pa’i rtsa ba can | mi gnas pa’i rtsa ba can | dag pa’i rtsa ba can | rtsa ba med pa’i rtsa ba can źes brjod do źe’o ||