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

"Tout ce que tu veux croire est acceptable"

Réchungpa (à cause du chapeau pointu) et Milarepa discutent en se baladant (détail Himalayan Art 68329)

J’ai parlé de la vérité historique des sources hagiographiques, annales, chroniques tibétains dans deux blogs précédents :

Vérité historique et histoires édifiantes
Données hagiographiques et vérité historique

“Chapitre 13 du Discours du roi pancréateur, personnification de la conscience éveillée (S. bodhicitta), selon ses propres dires la source commune de toutes les traditions (T. chos thams cad kyi spyi lung), explique qu’il y a cinq principes d’enseignement (T. bshad lugs rnam lnga), qu’une transmission religieuse doit suivre. Ces cinq sont respectivement 1. Le principe historique (T. lo rgyus don) 2. le principe fondamental (T. rtsa ba'i don ) 3. Le principe yoguique (T. yo ga'i don) 4. le principe fonctionnel (T. dgos pa'i don) 5. Le principe descriptif (T. tshig gi don), qui a pour but de conduire à l’expérience non-discursive (T. mi rtog don). Voir l'article de Jim Valby. Je me limiterai ici au principe historique, qui a pour fonction d’inspirer confiance (T. yid ches pa'i khungs).

« Hé, grand être !
La raison du principe historique
Est de commencer par inspirer confiance en la source
La transmission du principe historique explique
La transmission de la grâce naturelle
La transmission de l’autorévélation de l’essence
La transmission des descriptions du sens. »[1]

Le terme « lo rgyus » n'est sans doute pas la meilleure traduction et ne peut pas traduire notre « histoire » dans le sens de « Recherche, connaissance, reconstruction du passé de l'humanité sous son aspect général ou sous des aspects particuliers, selon le lieu, l'époque, le point de vue choisi; ensemble des faits, déroulement de ce passé. » (Atilf). La fonction de « lo rgyus » est d’inspirer « confiance en la source », tandis que l’histoire aurait plutôt pour but de ré-établir des faits historiques et leur déroulement chronologique.

Andrew Quintman[2] résume un peu les échanges en matière de « lo rgyus » qui ont eu lieu parmi quelques tibétologues. Le niveau historique des textes qui sont dits appartenir au genre « lo rgyus », est souvent celui de la « Légende dorée » de Jacques de Voragine. Ils peuvent contenir des faits historiques, mais il est difficile de faire la part entre fait historique et la légende. La Légende dorée a d’ailleurs un objectif très proche du « principe historique » du Roi pancréateur : inspirer confiance en la source. C’est donc plutôt de l’histoire édifiante que de l’histoire.” Extrait de Vérité historique et histoires édifiantes

A cela, on peut encore ajouter cette citation d’une hagiographie de Milarepa[1] par Zhi byed ri pa (né ca 1320), ancienne de plus d’un siècle que la célèbre version de Tsangnyön Heruka.

“Lorsque [Mi la] transmettait l'initiation-vase des cinq Familles de Vajrasattva à Ras chung pa, ce dernier demanda : "Combien de fois le Rje btsun est-il allé en Inde ?". " Six fois ", répondit [Mi la ras pa]. "Au cours de ces séjours, quelles sortes de bouddhas ou de maîtres accomplis avez-vous rencontrés ?". "La première fois, j'ai rencontré le maître Ārya Nāgārjuna en vision pure, et j'ai reçu de nombreux enseignements du dharma sur le Madhyamaka et ainsi de suite. La deuxième fois, j'ai rencontré Ārya Āryadeva au Śrī Laṅka et il a enseigné les pāramitās. Lors du troisième voyage, j'ai rencontré le grand maître Lawapa [Kambala] sur les rives du Gānga en Inde et il a enseigné "les phénomènes comme une illusion." Lors du quatrième voyage, j'ai rencontré Candrakīrti et il a enseigné le sādhana pour Mārīcī Devī (lha mo 'od zer can). Lors du cinquième voyage, j'ai rencontré Matangi et il a enseigné sur Amoghapāśa. La sixième fois, j'ai rencontré Ḍoṃbipa et il a donné les instructions sur la Voie et le Fruit du puissant Seigneur des Yogins, le glorieux Birwapa [Virūpa]." Ras chung pa demanda en réponse : "Le Rje btsun a-t-il voyagé au moyen d'une manifestation miraculeuse ou s'y est-il rendu lui-même ?" Mi la a répondu : "Quoique tu veux bien croire est acceptable.[2] "

La réalité historique (un personnage historique, voyage dans son corps physique dans un lieu historique, où il rencontre un autre personnage historique, et reçoit des instructions de lui) importe peu, c’est la foi en la source qui est essentiel d’un point de vue religieux. Cet argument peut être recevable pour les adeptes d’une religion, qui croient en la possibilité de révélations autres qu’historiques.

Quand on veut faire de l’histoire, autre que de l’histoire religieuse pour l’édification des adeptes, on ne peut pas reprendre les données religieuses et hagiographiques telles quelles, sans filtres. Cela a l’air d’être évident. Établir l’historicité de sources indiennes et tibétaines est très/trop laborieux. Il me semble cependant que ce travail est indispensable, ne serait-ce que pour faire prendre conscience aux adeptes bouddhistes contemporains de ce que semblaient comprendre déjà des auteurs et hagiographes du Moyen-Âge.

***

[1] Rje btsun mid la ras pa’i rnam par thar pa gsal byed nyi zla’i ’od zer gyi sgron ma
Andrew Quintman, “Between History and Biography: Notes on Zhi byed ri pa’s Illuminating Lamp of Sun and Moon Beams, a Fourteenth-Century Biographical State of the Field”, Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines, no. 23, Avril 2012, pp. 5-41.

[2] “When [Mi la] was imparting the vase initiation of the five families Vajrasattva to Ras chung pa, Ras chung pa asked, “How many times did the Rje btsun go to India?” “Six times,” replied [Mi la ras pa]. “During those times, what sort of buddhas or accomplished masters did you meet?” “The first time, I met Master Ārya Nāgārjuna in pure vision and I received many dharma teachings on Madhyamaka and so forth. The second time, I met Ārya Āryadeva in Sri Lanka and he taught the pāramitās. During the third trip, I met the great master Lawapa on the banks of the Gānga in India and he taught “phenomena like an illusion.” During the fourth trip, I met Candrakīrti and he taught the sādhana for Mārīcī Devī (lha mo ’od zer can). During the fifth trip, I met Matangi and he taught on Amoghapāśa. The sixth time, I met Ḍoṃbipa and he gave the instructions on the Path and Fruition of the Powerful Lord of Yogins, the glorious Birwapa.” Ras chung pa asked in response, “Did the Rje btsun travel by means of miraculous manifestation or did he actually go himself?” Mi la replied, “Whatever you like to believe is okay.”

Zhi byed ri pa, NDO, 31. yang ras chung ba <pa> la| rdo rje sems dpa’ rigs lnga’i bum dbang dngos su gnang dus na| rang <ras> chung pas rje btsun gyis rgya gar du lan du byed zhus pas| thebs drug phyin gsung| de’i dus na sangs rgyas sam grub thob ci ’dra dang mjal zhus pas| dang po re la slob dpon ’phags pa klu grub dang dag snang gis mjal| dbu ma la sogs chos mang po thob gsung| lan gnyis pa’i dus su| rgya gar seng ga la na ’phags pa arya de ba dang mjal nas phar phyin gnang gsung| lan gsum pa’i dus na| rgya gar gang gā’i ’gram na slob dpon chen po la ba pa dang mjal nas| sgyu ma lta bu’i chos gnang gsung| lan bzhi pa’i dus na| zla ba grags pa dang mjal nas| lha mo ’od zer can gyi sgrub thabs gsungs| lan lnga pa’i dus na ma tang gi dang mjal nas don zhags gnang gsung| lan drug pa la ḍom bhi pa dang mjal nas| rnal ’byor gyi dbang phyug dpal ldan bir wa pa’i lam ’bras kyi gdams ngag rnams gnang gsungs| der ras chung pas rje btsun chen pos rdzu ’phrul gyis byon pa lags sam| dngos su byon la <pa> lags zhus pas| mi la’i zhal nas de ci yin ’o na yang khyod rang gang dga’ ba byas pas chog pa mi ’dug gam gsung|.