 |
| Thirst for special knowledge (Kwenko Tech) |
Mahāyāna apologists behaved towards the “historic” Buddha’s first students (hearers/śrāvaka) as Christian heresiologists behaved toward early Christians (“Gnostics”). In their various writings (mahāyāna sūtras) they implicitly and repeatedly confirm the seniority of the śrāvaka vehicle (nicknamed “hīnayāna”), and the centrality of the anatta doctrine, adding that the Buddha had to stoop down to their level and adapt the first expositions of his Buddhadharma to the lower capacities of the hearers. Meanwhile they claim that their mahāyāna teachings were taught at the same time, and often in the same places, albeit in dimensions that were not accessible to common śrāvakas. They also (later?) blamed śrāvakas for “stealing” the Buddha’s Dharma like “cattle-thieves” and for changing the essential tenets of his core message (anatta and śūnyatā, instead of the Luminous Self of the tathāgatagarbha). These accusations were not written down in human authored treatises, but in mahāyāna sūtras attributed to the Buddha or his many Luminous manifestations. All these “liberties” and the hostility towards the śrāvaka vehicle are openly and proudly acknowledged and sometimes converted into precepts, for the best of all good causes (see the Concentration of Heroic Progress, Śūraṃgamasamādhi).
When Luminous Buddhism further develops in Tibet, this attitude doesn’t change and mahāyāna followers of emptiness are included as well. The 14th-century teacher Longchenpa states:
“The sphere [dhātu] is the ultimate truth. It is said that by seeing its nature [rang bzhin] you see ultimate truth. But again, it is not the case that an emptiness in which nothing exists at all is the ultimate truth. To fools, ordinary beings, and beginners, the teachings on selflessness and so forth were given as a remedy for being attached to a self. But [this selflessness or emptiness], it should be known, [is] in reality the sphere [or] luminosity, [which is] unconditioned and exists as something spontaneously present[1].”Dharmatā, the nature of “dharma”[2], phenomena or mental objects, all conditioned things, is no longer their “suchness”, free(d) from passions and confusion, but a Luminous reality that is “eternal, blissful, characterized by a personal self, and pure”. In esoteric Mahāyāna Buddhist theory and practice this Luminous reality is presented as a divine reality. The Buddhist cosmos was/is one inhabited by gods and genii that manage and run the whole thing, as an intrinsic part of co-dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), which is not the same as “our” philosophical causality. It is a magical, “enchanted” and astro-dependent causality, i.e. dependent on the position and movements of stars and planets and acts of gods and genii as well. Performative acts, vows, prayers (smon lam), rituals, etc. can have “real” results (vipāka) in the near or far future and influence our fate. The maturation of “real” physical, verbal and mental acts can be made undone, through rituals, formulas (mantras) and through pleading with the proper mythocosmic managers (bribing them). This development may be due to a Brahmanist influence. Recognition of the gods, their scope (astrology, etc.) and the role they play in co-dependent origination (“reality”) is integrated in esoteric Mahāyāna Buddhism.
The gods can’t be ignored because they are part and parcel of co-dependent origination. Even though the gods may not be visible or otherwise detectable for us due to avidyā, their divine “laws” are part of Buddhist co-dependent origination. That is why the many different Buddhist rituals, prayers, paritta, dhāraṇīs, mantras, etc. implying gods or their scope are thought to “work”.
The gods and their role can’t be interpreted away by pointing to a “nature of gods” as Yogācārin theurgist Ratnākaraśānti (late-10th century to mid-11th century) wrote. If one doesn’t put everything to work in order to achieve “full” Buddhahood, including the favour of the gods, and the siddhi they can grant, then Buddhahood will be delayed. Whereas by using all means, including divine means, Buddhahood is possible within one lifetime. This is to show the strong link between “full” Buddhahood and the Luminous reality. Ratnākaraśānti writes:
“(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.The “Luminous” part of mind is its divine part. Meditating on what “the true nature” of gods is or “what they stand for” (symbols,qualities of the mind, archetypes, etc.) won’t do. Gods are part of our make-up, our Luminous Self, our immortal Luminous subtle body with its microcosmic circles of gods (cakra). Worshiping (puja) them as gods ought to be worshiped through Praise, offerings and prayers will help us receive their favours, grace and siddhis and attain “full” Buddhahood 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.[3]”
The objective of the first Buddhists seemed to have been mere liberation from saṃsāra, arhantship. The objective of Mahāyāna is “buddhification” and that of esoteric Buddhism deification, to become like gods, hypercosmic and/or encosmic gods, with Buddhist features. Vajrayāna offers all means for self-deification, which is possible thanks to the Luminous reality that is the real nature of the Divine Cosmos and our Divine Self, of which co-dependent origination and “bare” emptiness are but a fragment. Even the old Buddha had to admit:
“ ‘How do you conceive this, bhikkhus, which is more, the few leaves that I have picked up in my hand or those on the trees in the wood?The Luminous reality is the whole forest, visible and invisible. So don’t get it wrong, don't let yourself get fobbed off with a handful of leaves and go for the whole forest, full omniscience, here and now, by Zeus (Ὕπερ Διός).
‘The leaves that the Blessed One has picked up in his hand are few, Lord; those in the wood are far more.’
‘So too, bhikkhus, the things that I have known by direct knowledge are more; the things that I have told you are only a few.” [Samyutta Nikaya, LVI, 31]
***
[1] Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. A Direct Path to the Buddha Within: Gö Lotsāwa's Mahāmudrā Interpretation of the Ratnagotravibhāga. Studies in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2008
Klong chen pa: Grub mtha' mdzod, 185.6-186.2: de'ang don dam pa'i bden pa dbyings yin la/ 'di'i rang bzhin mthong bas don dam bden pa mthong zhes bya'i/ cir yang med pa'i stong nyid kyang don dam bden pa ma yin no/ de'ang byis pa so so skye bo dang/ las dang po dag bdag tu zhen pa'i gnyen por bdag med pa la sogs pa bstan pa yin gyi (text: gyis)/ don la dbyings 'od gsal ba 'dus ma byas shing lhun grub tu yod pa shes par bya ste/.
[2] Traditionally the three characteristics (“three marks of existence”): impermanence (anicca), imperfection (dukkha), and not-self (anatta).
[3] “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
Tibetan: Ratnākaraśānti’s *Guhyasamājamaṇḍalavidhiṭīkā ad Guhyasamājamaṇḍalavidhi 349 (D120b2-5, P428b8-429a4): gal te sems tsam (sems tsam ] em.; sems tsam du DP) bsgoms na rnam shes mtha’ yas skye mched dang ’dra bar (P429a) ’jig rten pa’i (pa’i ]D; ma’i P) ting nge ’dzin tsam thob par ’gyur la | ’on te stong pa nyid (stong pa nyid ]D; stong pa nyid kyi P) khyad par du bsgoms na ni de yang yongs su mya ngan las ’das pa (pa ]D; ba P) tsam du ’gyur te | sangs rgyas kyi chos rnams sbyang ba’i las rdzogs par med (med ]P; byed D) pa’i phyir ro || yang na lha’i bdag nyid can ’ba’ zhig (’ba’ zhig ]D; ’bab zhing P) tsam bsgoms na de lta na ni de tsam gyis (gyis ]D; gyi P) ’tshang rgya ba nyid du mi ’gyur te | las rdzogs pa ma tshang ba’i phyir ro || yang na lha rnams kyi de kho na nyid bsgom gyi lha rnams ma yin na ni de lta na yang bskal pa grangs med pa mang pos sangs rgyas nyid thob par ’gyur gyi myur du ni ma yin no || de bas na gnyi ga bsgom pa ni shin tu yid du ’ong ba yin pa’i phyir dang | byin gyis brlabs (byin gyis brlabs ]P; byin gyi rlab D) kyi khyad par gyis mchog tu myur bar bla na med pa yang dag par rdzogs pa’i byang chub ’thob (’thob ]D; thob P) par ’gyur ro.
