Démocratiser l'éveil

Mise en place de la scène pour une représentation (南中繁會圖, dynastie Ming, source)

Évolution doctrinale : de deux corps aux trois corps (trikāya)

Dans les sūtras de la perfection de lucidité (prajñāpāramitā), il est question de deux corps du Bouddha : le corps physique (rūpakāya), incluant ses trente-deux marques majeures et quatre-vingts signes mineurs, et le corpus des enseignements/qualités[1] (dharmakāya). Ces deux corps correspondent aux deux vérités : le rūpakāya (corps formel) à la vérité conventionnelle (saṃvṛtisatya) et le dharmakāya (corps du Dharma) à la vérité ultime (paramārthasatya).

La contribution du Yogācāra : substantialisation de l'éveil

La doctrine des trois corps (trikāya) a émergé et a été formalisée au sein de l'école Yogācāra. Cette évolution est associée aux penseurs indiens du IVe siècle de notre ère, Asaṅga et Vasubandhu. Le texte le plus ancien connu à utiliser explicitement la terminologie des trois corps est le chapitre "Bodhi" du Mahāyāna-sūtrālaṃkāra (MSA, rdo sde rgyan), une œuvre Yogācāra du IIIe ou IVe siècle[2]. Dans le schéma Yogācāra, les deux corps initiaux (rūpakāya et dharmakāya) sont réinterprétés et spécifiés en trois kāyas distincts :

1. Corps-essence (svabhāvikakāya), qui correspond au dharmakāya, ici représentant l'essence intrinsèque de l'éveil, une réalisation non-duelle et non-conceptuelle de la réalité telle qu'elle est. C’est le fondement ontologique unique de toutes les qualités de bouddhéité et des autres kāyas[3].

2. Corps de Jouissance ou symbolique (Sambhogikakāya), comme la part supramondain du corps formel (rūpakāya), précisément les trente-deux marques majeures et quatre-vingts signes mineurs, ainsi que les formes exaltées du Bouddha qui apparaissent aux grands bodhisattvas et autres disciples avancés dans des sphères pures.

3. Corps d'Émanation (Nirmāṇakāya), les manifestations illimitées du Bouddha qui entrent dans les mondes des êtres sensibles pour les guider vers la libération.

Le Yogācāra a identifié la bouddhéité dans son essence, non pas comme un ensemble de dharmas (qualités) du Bouddha, conceptuellement différenciés, mais comme l'ainsité purifiée (tathatā-viśuddhi), et comme la gnose non-conceptuelle (nirvikalpa-jñāna), les deux constituant le dharmakāya, la réalisation d'un Bouddha[4]. Le Suvarnaprabhāsa Sūtra (tib. gser 'od dam pa, Toh 555) le décrit comme le corps "réel" ou "authentique" (t. yang dag pa), par opposition aux deux rūpakāya (sambhogikakāya et nirmāṇakāya) qui sont "simplement désignés" ou "nominaux" (btags pa ba). La doctrine du nirvāṇa sans demeure (apratiṣṭhita nirvāṇa) est également liée au Dharmakāya, car elle explique comment la bouddhéité peut être à la fois inconditionnée (par le svabhāvikakāya) et active dans le monde conditionné (par les deux rūpakāya).

Le défi chinois : dépasser l'opposition phénoménal/absolu

“Le Mahāyāna, encore en évolution lors de son introduction en Chine, devait y trouver un lieu idéal pour se développer. Il lui suffisait de se plier à quelques principes premiers, notamment l'absence d'antinomie entre l'intelligible et le sensible. Il lui fallait apprendre qu'en Chine la pensée fonctionne par paires d'oppositions complémentaires : vide-plein, pureté-impureté, ordre-désordre. Le bouddhisme en effet, influencé par la pensée indienne, opposait l'absolu et les choses du monde phénoménal. Un tel rejet de ce qui relève des sens, du phénoménal et du changement ne pouvait être accepté par les Chinois. Ceux-ci se sont attachés à réduire l'opposition du phénoménal et de l'absolu; ils l'ont même abolie en établissant une sorte de communication ou d'identité entre les deux. Cette tâche était d'autant plus facile que, l'absolu bouddhique étant dépourvu de particularités, on ne peut rien en dire, si ce n'est qu'il est inhérent au phénoménal.” (Magnin, 2003[5])

Essence et fonction : la reformulation chinoise du trikāya

On peut cependant dire que les deux aspects de l'esprit selon le bouddhisme chinois – souvent exprimés comme l'essence (體, tǐ) et la fonction (用, yòng) – correspondent au trikāya, où le dharmakāya représente l'essence et les deux rūpakāya, représentent la fonction[6]. “L’essence” (體, tǐ) est très proche du concept de svabhāvikakāya dans le cadre du trikāya du Yogācāra. Selon ce concept, la vacuité, ou vérité ultime, devient une essence que l'on peut connaître positivement, "réaliser" comme une gnose (jñāna). C’est ce qui le différencie de la vacuité (svabhāva-śūnyatā) ou absence d'existence inhérente (niḥsvabhāva) des Prajñāpāramitā. La “vacuité” est substantialisée, devient l’objet d’une gnose (jñāna), et peut être “réalisée”. C'est la gnose non-conceptuelle (nirvikalpajñāna) qui est la réalisation directe et non duelle de l'ainséité (tathatā), où la distinction entre sujet et objet est abolie. Le Corps symbolique est son rayonnement gnostiquement perceptible, de façon supra-empirique et suprarationnelle, aux disciples avancés dans des sphères pures. C’est sa part lumineuse et divine.

Cette conception diffère de celle du corps physique (rūpakāya) et du dharmakāya (corps du Dharma). Aussi bien le “corps physique” ou plutôt formel (ce qui dénote déjà un glissement sémiotique) que le corps du Dharma ont évolué vers une notion plus essentialiste, positivement accessible par une gnose. Le Corps symbolique est gnostiquement perceptible, de façon supra-empirique et suprarationnelle, par les membres de la Saṅgha des nobles (āryasaṅghaḥ), qui ont atteint le chemin de la Vision (darśana-mārga[7]). La Saṅgha est divisée entre ceux dotés de la vision et ceux qui ne l’ont pas (encore), ce qui crée une hiérarchie pour le meilleur comme pour le pire.

Le Sūtra du Diamant/Vajracchedikā est l'une des œuvres les plus célèbres et historiquement significatives du vaste corpus Prajñāpāramitā. Il est important de noter que le Sūtra du Diamant lui-même, dans ses versions les plus anciennes et traditionnelles, ne mentionne pas les noms des trois kāyas. Les Sūtras du Prajñāpāramitā plus anciens connaissaient le concept de dharmakāya (le corps réel) et de rūpakāya (le corps formel), mais la systématisation et la dénomination spécifique des trois kāyas sont des développements ultérieurs, principalement au sein de l'école Yogācāra. Le commentaire le plus connu et le plus étudié sur le Vajracchedikā Sūtra est le Vajracchedikābhāṣya, attribué à Vasubandhu (Giuseppe Tucci). Asaṅga est par ailleurs associé à la systématisation des enseignements Prajñāpāramitā à travers l'Abhisamayālaṃkāra, un traité (śāstra) qui est traditionnellement attribué à Maitreya et révélé à Asaṅga.

Dignāga, qui l’avait étudié auprès de Vasubandhu, est l’auteur du Prajñāpāramitāpiṇḍārthasaṃgraha (PPS Toh 3809), qui commence avec une définition du Prajñāpāramitā :

“La prajñāpāramitā est une gnose non-duelle (jñānam advayam), elle est le Tathāgata [lui-même], et par l'union de ce qui est à accomplir et de son but, ce terme désigne [aussi] le texte et le chemin[8].”

Ce qui signifie selon Th. Stcherbatsky et E. Obermiller :

« La Prajñāpāramitā est le Monisme, c'est cette connaissance (dans laquelle sujet et objet fusionnent), c'est aussi le Bouddha (lui-même, personnifié dans son Corps Cosmique). Le mot prajñāpāramitā désigne en outre le texte (des sūtras de prajñāpāramitā) et le Chemin du Salut (qu'ils enseignent), parce que le but (du texte et du Chemin) est de produire cette (conscience moniste et la condition d'un Bouddha dans son Nirvāṇa)[9] ».

Entre Madhyamaka et Yogācāra : la synthèse de Huineng

L'Abhisamayālaṃkāra est une oeuvre fondamentale au Tibet et en Mongolie, mais qui n’a jamais été traduire en chinois, où elle est totalement inconnue. Elle enseigne une méthode sotériologique sans allusion aux théories du Yogācāra, et est classée par Butön Rinchen Drub (1290-1364) comme une oeuvre mādhyamika[10].

Or, Huineng (≈638-713) à qui est attribué le Soûtra de l’Estrade (六祖大師法寶壇經, Liùzǔ Dàshī Fǎbǎo Tánjīng ; Toh. 2008), dit se baser sur le Vajracchedikā Sūtra, tout en suivant la doctrine de la nature de Bouddha (tathāgatagarbha) et des trois Corps du Bouddha du Yogācāra. Huineng n'est ni strictement un Madhyamika ni un Yogācārin. Ses enseignements synthétisent des éléments des deux traditions, créant une voie distincte axée sur l'illumination soudaine (subitiste) par la réalisation directe et non-dualiste de la nature de Bouddha inhérente à chacun. Le Sūtra du Diamant/Vajracchedikā a été le catalyseur de l'éveil de Huineng. Sa doctrine de la "vision de sa nature" est explicitement basée sur ce sūtra.

Huineng met un accent profond sur la vacuité (śūnyatā), l'alignant sur la vérité ultime du Madhyamaka, notamment dans son concept de « non-forme » (wúxiàng) et de « voir la nature de soi comme vacuité » (jiànxìng kōng). Il affirme que l'« éveil est une expérience des phénomènes vides et insubstantiels ». Le Sūtra du Diamant insiste sur le fait que le Tathāgata n'a enseigné aucun "dharma établi" (dìngfǎ) , ce qui encourage une réalisation au-delà des concepts, fondamentale pour le Ch’an.

La vacuité est pour lui une réalisation expérientielle. Sa notion de « vacuité du Dharma de l'Esprit » (心法空 xīnfǎ kōng) contraste avec la « vacuité du Dharma des Enseignements » (Madhyamaka, analytique et logique). Huineng privilégie la réalisation directe et vécue de la vacuité par la pratique active de la « non-pensée » et de la « non-demeure » (wúzhù) pour transcender la fixation conceptuelle et l'attachement. “L’esprit” prend de l’importance aux dépens du “Dharma”. L’esprit s’essentialise en ce que sa nature peut être vue. Cela est possible à l’apport yogācārin. Voir la nature de l’esprit c’est voir la nature de Bouddha (jiànxìng), inhérente en chaque être. Celle-ci est intrinsèquement pure et n'a pas besoin d'être acquise, mais simplement « vue » ou reconnue.

L'internalisation du trikāya : les trois corps dans le corps physique

Les Trois Corps du Bouddha (trikāya) sont dores et déjà présents dans son propre corps matériel. Cela montre une internalisation et une personnalisation du concept du trikāya, le rendant accessible par la réalisation intérieure plutôt que par des manifestations externes. Le dharmakāya (corps réel) yogācārin est identifié à la pureté et à la gnose non-conceptuelle (nirvikalpa-jñāna), tandis que les rūpakāyas (sambhogakāya et nirmāṇakāya) sont considérés comme des manifestations du dharmakāya. L'accent mis par Huineng sur la « vision de la nature » (jiànxìng) correspond directement à la réalisation du dharmakāya, et par extension, des autres deux corps comme ses fonctions ou manifestations.

Les "Préceptes sans forme" : première "Introduction" à la nature de l'esprit

Les fameux « Préceptes sans forme » (wúxiàng jiè) de Huineng (n° 14 et suivants) peuvent être considérés comme une Introduction (ngo sprod) à la nature de l’esprit. Nous y reviendrons plus loin.

Huineng met un accent profond sur l'« esprit pur » (jìng xīn) ou l'« essence de l'esprit » (xīntǐ) comme intrinsèquement pure et sans tache. Son concept de « non-pensée » (wúniàn) vise à transcender la pensée discursive et à reconnaître directement cette nature de Bouddha inhérente. Son dharmakāya est le Corps-essence (svabhāvikakāya) du Yogācāra. Le régime “non-pensée” garantie l’accès à la nature de Bouddha inhérente, mais sans référence lumineuse ou divine, de façon non-empirique et non-rationnelle.

Huineng promeut le concept d'« éveil soudain » (dunwu), un principe fondamental du Ch’an du Sud, et met l'accent sur l'expérience directe et la compréhension intuitive de l'esprit. Il soutient que « la méditation (śamatha) et la sagesse (vipaśyanā)[11] sont la même chose », préconisant une approche intuitive et spontanée axée sur le « Samadhi d'une seule pratique » (行三昧 yī háng sānmèi), qui consiste à pratiquer avec un esprit direct à tout moment et dans toutes les activités, au-delà de la posture assise formelle.

L’éveil, pour Huineng, est subite et surgit de l'intérieur de soi, plutôt que d'être recherchée à partir de sources externes ou par une accumulation graduelle, dans le cadre des « Préceptes sans forme ». Son approche est caractérisée par sa directivité, son intuition, sa spontanéité et sa forte orientation pratique. Il souligne le « Dharma de l'esprit » (心法 xīnfǎ), qui est compris comme étant au-delà des mots et ne peut pas être directement transmis par des enseignements conceptuel. Il combiné la Prajñāpāramitā (vacuité, non-dualité) avec les cadres psychologiques et sotériologiques du Yogācāra (nature de Bouddha, pureté de l'esprit, trikāya), en les réinterprétant par une approche directe, intuitive et expérientielle qui met l'accent sur la réalisation immédiate de la nature de Bouddha intrinsèquement pure, au-delà des discours et des distinctions conceptuelles.

Les termes positifs “gnose” (jñāna, 智 zhì) et réalisation (證 zhèng) et réalisation de la gnose (證智 zhèngzhì) relèvent souvent d’une optique yogācārine. Dans la voie des pāramitā, le dharmakāya, s’il est mentionné, n’est pas le Corps-essence (svabhāvikakāya), n’est pas atteint par une gnose, et n’est pas réalisé ou actualisé. Ce n’est d’ailleurs pas l’objectif.

La “troisième voie”, la “voie de l’Introduction” de Huineng, si l’on veut, est celle encadrée par les « Préceptes sans forme », où les trois Corps de la nature de Bouddha sont présents dans le corps physique même. Il n’y a pas à réaliser ou actualiser les trois Corps, il s’agit de les reconnaître, et de poursuivre le triple entraînement de la voie des bodhisattvas.

La différence avec les tantras et notamment les yogatantras supérieurs est que ces derniers veulent réaliser les trois Corps, qui ne sont pas présents dans le corps physique matériel, mais dans le corps subtil immatériel. Réaliser les trois Corps c’est réaliser les trois Corps d’un Bouddha parfaitement accompli. Cela requiert un guru, qui donne les abhiṣeka, les transmission, les instructions, et cela requiert la pratique de sādhanas théurgiques, de pratiques de purification et d’édification du corps subtil naturellement présent, qui est la base des trois Corps d’un Bouddha parfaitement accompli.

Le Pelliot Tibétain 116 : une "cérémonie de plateforme" tibétaine ?

Pour autant que je sache, Huineng était le premier à enseigner et pratiquer une forme d’Introduction (ngo sprod) sous la forme de ses « Préceptes Sans Forme ». Sam van Schaik (Tibetan Zen, 2015) avance l’hypothèse que le document Pelliot tibétain 116 avait une fonction cérémonielle ou rituelle, c’est-à-dire qu’il aurait pu être utilisé à l’occasion de cérémonies de masse d’ordination laïque (vœux de bodhisattva), appelées aussi des « cérémonies de plateforme », essentielles au développement du Ch’an. Le nom du Sūtra de la plateforme ou de l'estrade serait d’ailleurs associé à ce type de cérémonie.

“Il s’agit des préceptes de refuge, suivis des préceptes de bodhisattva. Après la prise des préceptes, le maître enseigne généralement la vacuité, en faisant référence au Sūtra du diamant. Van Schaik fournit la traduction anglaise du texte/sermon “Single method of non-apprehension” (tib. dmigs su med pa tsh'ul gcig pa′i gzhung). Le document Pelliot tibétain 116 poursuit avec une collection d'enseignements de 18 maîtres, un enseignement sur l’éveil immanent en chaque individu, des instructions de méditation et se termine avec un chant inspirant. Cette cérémonie, auquel van Schaik se réfère comme "une initiation Zen", aurait pu être le rituel central d’un événement annoncé bien en avance, afin de permettre aux convives de s’organiser et d’y participer. La transmission des préceptes pouvait être suivie d’une retraite de méditation.” (Blog L'Engagement Sage selon le Zen tibétain)

La méthode unique du sans-appui : du Vajracchedikā aux quadruple pratique (prayoga)

La méthode unique du sans-appui (tib. dmigs su med pa tsh'ul gcig pa′i gzhung) est structurée sous forme de questions et réponses principalement sur la non-conceptualisation (rnam par myi rtog pa) par la méthode du non-appui, inspirée par le Vajracchedikā, qui n’est ni une gnose (jñāna), ni une “réalisation”. On peut résumer la formule du Vajracchedikā par : "Ce qu'on appelle X n'est pas X, c'est pourquoi on l'appelle X". La Discrimination entre les attributs et la substance des attributs (Dharma-dharmatā-vibhaṅga) est un des Traités de Maitreya, reçus par Asaṅga, qui contient une pratique en quatre étapes[12], et que le troisième Karmapa Rangjung Dorje (1284-1339 à Beijing) résume dans les Instructions sur l'union Mahāmudrā/Sahaja-prayoga :

"C'est en s'appuyant sur un objet
Que l'absence d'appui se développe parfaitement
C'est en s'appuyant sur l'absence d'appui
Que l'absence d'appui se développe parfaitement[13]"

Puisque ce texte a été retrouvé en tibétain à Dunhuang, on est en droit de spéculer que de tels estrades de dharma ont pu avoir lieu au Tibet, avec un programme assez similaire à celui du Soûtra de l’Estrade de Huineng (≈638-713). Il n’est pas interdit de penser que Gampopa (1079-1153) et ses neveux à Dwags lha sgam po organisaient des sessions de prise de refuge, bodhicitta et une introduction à la méthode sans appui.

***

[1] Pour Buddhagoṣa (Ve siècle), le Dharmakāya représentait les cinq ensembles de qualités purifiées d'un éveillé, telles que la moralité, la concentration, la perspicacité, les dissociations et la cognition des dissociations, soit śila-skandha, samādhi-skandha, prajñā-skandha, vimokṣa-skandha et vimokṣa-jñāna-darśana-skandha.
The Doctrine of Kaya in Hinayana and Mahayana, Nalinaksha Dutt The Indian Historical Quarterly, vol 5:3, September, 1929, pp. 518-546

[2] Treatise on Awakening Mahāyāna Faith, Oxford, John Jorgensen, Dan Lusthaus, John Makeham, Mark Strange, University Press, USA, 2019.

[3] Makransky, John J., Buddhahood Embodied, Sources of Controversy in India and Tibet, State University of New York Press, 1997

[4] Makransky (1997), p. 60

[5] Paul Magnin, Bouddhisme, unité et diversité. Expériences de libération, Paris, Cerf, 2003, p. 435

[6] L'essence (體, tǐ) est l'aspect fondamental, sous-jacent, souvent quiescent, immuable et non-duel de l'esprit. C'est la nature propre (自性, zìxìng) ou la nature du Dharma (法性, fǎxìng). Dans le Sūtra de l'Estrade du Sixième Patriarche, Huineng relie l'essence à la concentration (定, dìng, śamatha). La "transcendance de la pensée" est l'essence.

La fonction (用, yòng) est l'aspect actif, dynamique, manifesté et phénoménal de l'esprit. Elle représente la capacité de l'esprit à connaître, à illuminer et à interagir avec le monde. Huineng associe la fonction à la sagesse (慧, huì, prajñā). Les fonctions externes autonomes sont liées à la sagesse subséquente.

[7] “Le chemin de vision (darśanamārga) doit être compris comme ayant pour caractéristique le calme mental et la vision pénétrante non-conceptuels (nirvikalpaśamathavipaśyanā), [survenant] immédiatement après les dharmas mondains suprêmes (laukikāgradharmā)." (Abhisamayālaṅkāra/Bhāṣya 55ka/76).
darśanamārgo laukikāgradharmānantaraṃ nirvikalpaśamathavipaśyanālakṣaṇaḥ veditavyaḥ
mthong ba'i lam ni 'jig rten pa'i chos kyi mchog gi 'og gi rnam par mi rtog pa'i zhi gnas dang lhag mthong gi mtshan nyid du rig par bya'o//

[8] prajñāpāramitā jñānam advayam, sa Tathāgataḥ, sādhya-tadārthya-yogena tācchābdyam grantha-mārgayoḥ

[9] “That means: «Prajñāpāramitā is Monism, it is that know-ledge (in which subject and object coalesce), it is also Buddha (himself, personified in his Cosmical Body). The word prajñāpāramitā means moreover the text (of the prajñāpāramitā sūtras) and the Path of Salvation (which they teach), because the aim (of the text and of the Path) is to produce this (monistic consciousness and the condition of a Buddha in his Nirvana) ».” Abhisamayalankara Prajna Paramita Upadesa Sastra, The Work of Boddhisattva Maitreya, Srisatguru Publication, Delhi, 1992, p. VI

[10] Th. Stcherbatsky et E. Obermiller (1992), pp. IV et V.

[11] Dans le bouddhisme chinois, la “méditation” et “la sagesse” sont respectivement le fruit de Śamatha et de Vipaśyanā.

[12] dmigs pa yi sbyor ba = "pratique avec appui"
mi dmigs pa yi sbyor ba = "pratique sans appui"
dmigs pa mi dmigs sbyor ba = "pratique [où] l'appui [devient] sans-appui"
mi dmigs dmigs pa'i sbyor ba = "pratique [où] le sans-appui [devient] appui"

[13] Phyag rgya chen po lhan cig skyes sbyor gyi khrid yig, bdr:MW3PD1288_ACA36C
dmigs pa la ni brten nas su//
mi dmigs pa la rab tu skye//
mi dmigs pa la brten nas su//
mi dmigs pa ni rab tu skye//

Kadampa Mahāmudrā with or without "blessing"?

Screen capture, (Youtube Tse Chen Ling)

In the first decade of the 21st century (2006-2015), an important collection of texts was discovered in the Nechung Lhakhang of the 16 arhats, on the site of Drepung Monastery. The collection had been confiscated, and deposited there around 1642. The collection is one of Kadampa writings, referred to as “bKa’ gdams pa gsung ’bum, 2006–2015)” or “Bka’ gdams gsung ’bum phyogs bsgrigs[1]”, in English “the Collected Works of the Kadampas”. These texts are said to date from the eleventh to early fourteenth centuries. The Kadampa school was founded by Atiśa Dīpaṃkaraśrījñāna (982-1054), or rather his students, in the 11th century.

Screen capture, (Youtube Tse Chen Ling)

James B. Apple[2], an expert on Atiśa, follows the project closely, studied a selection of manuscripts and published their English translations, more specifically on the topic of Kadampa Mahāmudrā and “Pointing out” instructions (t. ngo sprod). I only discovered Apple's research work recently, and I am enthusiastic about his findings.

Apple has translated several works of the Kadampa Collection attributed to Atiśa, and wrote articles about it. Two examples.

Atiśa's Teachings on Mahāmudrā, 2017

“This paper examines the Mahāmudrā teachings of Atiśa Dīpaṃkaraśrījñāna (982-1054 CE) and his early bKa’ gdams pa (hereafter, Kadampa) followers based on previously unstudied canonical documents and manuscripts recently published in Tibet.” 

I don’t agree completely with the conclusion, because I think some materials may be later Kadampa (Kagyupa, or Gelugpa[3]) works attributed to Atiśa, and in particular the major part of the Great Seal Bestowed upon Gönpawa.

Pointing-Out Instructions in Sets of Five (Ngo sprod lnga tshoms) 2020

In his conclusion of Atiśa's Teachings on Mahāmudrā (2017), James B. Apple writes:

“Atiśa’s teachings on Mahāmudrā represent a teaching tradition stemming from Tilopa and supplemented with an exegesis, focused on Cakrasaṃvara and its explanatory tantras, influenced by his institutional base at Vikramaśīla monastery. His teachings consistently focus on meditating on clear light as the co-emergent nature of the mind. The teaching of clear light is often associated with instruction on Mahāmudrā and based on Yoginī tantras such as Cakrasaṃvara. Atiśa’s instruction on Mahāmudrā was initially structured along mainstream esoteric models of gradual progression through the creation stage followed by completion stage practices. He adapted his Mahāmudrā teachings to the contextual circumstances of his disciples in Tibet, providing instructions on the nature of the mind either as the culmination of the stages of the path or as a technique to recognize the coemergent mind as the dharmakāya.” (Apple, 2017)

Tilopa is a red flag for me, and always requires a closer look. I am not sure at all Tilopa was a historical figure, and if he isn’t, what is he, what does he stand for? In the Kagyu tradition Tilopa is presented as Nāropa’s teacher, who Marpa saw in a vision, like Śavaripa (a vision or apparition) was Maitrīpa’s teacher... Tilopa stands for the Nine cycles of instructions of the disembodied ḍākinī (t. lus med mkha' 'gro skor dgu S. ḍāka-niṣkāya-dharma), which he is said to have received directly from Vajravarāhī. These cycles and other aural transmissions entered the Kagyu tradition via Milarepa’s student Rechungpa, under the names Rechungpa’s aural transmission (t. ras chung snyan brgyud) and Cakrasaṁvara’s aural transmission (t. bde mchog snyan brgyud). We know this mainly through later hagiographic sources (15-16th century).

If we do indeed follow the hagiographic line and narrative of the Kagyu tradition, then an explanation is required why Atiśa, Advayavajra, Gampopa and others didn’t toe the Tantric party line as expected and came up with their own inventions… Why did they go “back” from a “Luminous dharmakāya” to a simple dharmakāya, from a Luminous Yogācāra-madhyamaka to a madhyamaka, adorned with the Guru’s (“Pointing-Out”) instructions?

Apple’s theory about Atiśa’s Mahāmudrā is based on texts attributed to Atiśa, where “Mahāmudrā” is the topic. Amongst others:
- Abhisamayavibhaṅga (mngon par rtogs pa rnam par ’byed pa. Tôh. no. 1490. Dergé Tanjur)
- Essential Condensed Summary on the Special Instructions of Co-emergent Union (Lhan cig skyes sbyor gyi gdam ngag mdor bsdus snying po)
- Stages of the Path to Awakening (Byang chub lam gyi rim pa, *Bodhipathakrama), 2020[4]
- Great Seal Bestowed upon Gönpawa (Jo bo rjes dgon pa ba la gnang ba’i phyag chen), 2016

James B. Apple suggests[5] that the references by Jamgon Kongtrül (1813–1899) (in Shes bya kun khyab) and the third Karmapa Mikyöd Dorje (1507–1554) to the “Phyag chen lhan cig skyes sbyor” composed by Lord Atiśa and “the esoteric instruction of The Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment, renowned as Coemergent Union of the great Geshé Dromtönpa and Geshé Gönpawa” could fit Pointing-Out instructions contained in “Stages of the Path to Awakening”, the “Great Seal Bestowed upon Gönpawa” and the “Special Instructions of Co-emergent Union”.

That may very well be the case. It is not excluded that these texts, included in the “Collected Works of the Kadampas”, confiscated and stored away around 1642, may have been written by Kadampa, Kagyu or Gelugpa apologists, trying to recapture elements of Tilopa’s “lineage of blessing”. On the other hand, if Karmapa Mikyöd Dorje distinguishes Atiśa’s or Gampopa’s mahāmudrā from “the authentic power [siddhi] of [Tantric] mahåmudrå” in “the lineage from the dharmakåya great Vajradhara to the great glorious Nāropa” etc., then he seems to think that what Atiśa’s Mahamudra/”lhan cig skyes sbyor” is lacking is that very “siddhi”. So if the above mentioned texts do indeed correspond to what the eighth Karmapa had in mind, why are they said to have the following "siddhi" "lineage of blessing":

“This Essential Condensed Summary of the Special Instructions on Co-emergent Union was written down by the Śākya monk Kumara. The lineage was transmitted successively from Vajradhara, Tilopa, Nåropa, Ḍombheruka, Lord [Atiśa], Gönpawa[6], [Geshe] Tönpa, Sharwapa (shar ba pa), and Tapkhawa (stabs kha ba). [Later, came] the great master Jamnyak (’jam nyag), the spiritual teacher Drakgyalwa (grags rgyal ba), then myself [Śākya monk Kumāra].”

The lineage of another "Kadampa" text called “General Meaning of the Stages of the Path” (Byang chub lam rim gyi spyi don), a brief work that is part of the Stages of the Path to Awakening, is also called a “lineage of blessing”.

“This lineage of blessing mentions that the teachings come from Tilopa, Nāropa, and then Atiśa. From Atiśa the teachings went to Gönpawa Wangchuk Gyaltsen (dgon pa ba dbang phyug rgyal mtshan, 1016-1082), Gya Chakriwa (rgya lcags ri ba, eleventh century), then Gampopa, and then Pakmo Drupa (phag mo gru ba, 1110–1170 CE). This lineage closely replicates the lineage given in the final text of our survey for Atiśa’s Mahāmudrā teaching, the Essential Condensed Summary on the Special Instructions of Co-emergent Union.” (Apple, Atiśa’s Teachings on Mahāmudrā, 2017)

Why would "siddhi" and "blessings" lack in lineages alledgedly descending directly from Tilopa? If the instructions of these lineages attributed to Atiśa did indeed carry Tilopa’s "blessing" or “authentic siddhi”, then what was all the later fuss about the three sorts of Mahāmudrā? I think the addition of these "lineages of blessing" may have taken place later, i.e. when the lack of siddhi and blessings became a burning topic.

Let’s have a closer look at the Great Seal Bestowed upon Gönpawa (Jo bo rjes dgon pa ba la gnang ba’i phyag chen) that is said to have come down via Tilopa and Nāropa, and Lama Drakgyalwa (grags rgyal ba), “a Kagyu figure from the fourteenth century”. It starts like this.

“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[7].”

This sounds very much like the “Pointing-Out” instructions, such as they were given at Gampo (t. dwags lha sgam po), e.g. by Gampopa’s nephew Gomchung (Shes rab byang chub 1127-1171).

“The precious Gomchung stated: once the meditation of the pointing-out instructions of Mahāmudrā has been planted, natural consciousness (sems nyid lhen cig skyes pa) is dharmakāya and the appearances are the light of dharmakāya[8].”

Gomchung’s instructions (sNying po'i ngo sprod don dam gter mdzod) also contain the instruction to not track the past, nor anticipate the future and "let your perception of the present evolve entirely and authentically as it comes, without even focusing on the present perception”[9]. The actual Pointing-out instructions are very similar, but the instructions attributed to Atiśa are much more than a Ngo sprod. They explain the four yogas ("one-pointedness", "one taste", "bereft of proliferations" and "nonmeditation"), and then explain the transformation of the ordinary body and its “inner mind” (nang du sems), or rather the other way round. It could have been inspired by Milarepa’s song “Having Confidence in the View” composed by Tsangnyön Heruka in the 15-16th century.

“People call me a human, but
I am the son of the great snow lioness.
In my mother’s womb, I perfected three powers.”

“People call me a human, but
I am the son of the garuda, king of birds.
While inside the egg, I developed my wings[10].”

Then the “Great Seal Bestowed upon Gönpawa” goes into explaining the progressive dissolution of the elements at the moment of death, and we are instructed in the Bardo teachings (Karma Lingpa 1326–1386).

“...wind dissolves into consciousness, and when both wind and the mind enter into the central channel, they naturally ascend to the place where gnosis is co-emergent with reality (dharmatā). In this way, a person who is already familiar [with this] through the power of meditation recognizes it upon encountering it, and when the natural clear light and the clear light of meditation meet, one gains the accomplishment of the Great Seal.”

This is not all, because the disembodied Luminous “Great Self” after having reunited with the "Divine Light", then takes on the form of a deity for the benefit of sentient beings.

“Then, [878.5] having taken up a deity’s body unified from within the state of empty clear light [t. gsal stong pa’i ngang las zung ’jug lha’i skur langs nas], anyone trained in this who manifests such a body produces benefit for sentient beings, and further helps others through taking up an illusion-like mental body consisting of uncontaminated karma. If one does not meditate in this way, the natural clear light [t. rang bzhin gyi ’od gsal ba] will not be recognized."

If the “clear light” of the “The Luminous Bardo of Dharmatā” (t. chos nyid 'od gsal gyi bar do), or the clear light of Dharmatā (t. chos nyid kyi ‘od gsal) is not recognized, then the "Great Self" will end up wasted in another ordinary saṃsāric body[11]. The Luminous Bardo of Dharmatā is a later addition to earlier sets of intermediary states (bardo). See Henk Blezer, Kar glin Źi khro: A Tantric Buddhist Concept, 1997.

It is clear to me that this is a patchwork of instructions", attributed to Atiśa perhaps in order to “prove” that Atiśa knew Tilopa, and his instructions, and that he was also aware of Bardo yoga, Bardo teachings, the Luminous Bardo of Dharmatā, and everything else needed to continue to benefit sentient beings in Luminous divine forms. Remember that the path of mantrayāna is a path of "blessings" and "siddhi", and that Gampopa’s Path of direct perception (mngon sum lam du byed pa) is said to be different from the Sūtric epistemic “path of inference” (t. rjes dpag lam du byed pa) and the Tantric “path of blesisngs” (t. byin rlabs kyis lam s. anugraha). The first part of the “Great Seal Bestowed upon Gönpawa” attributed to Atiśa are very similar to Gomchung's Pointing-Out instructions, and can be considered as a path of direct perception, but the rest is clearly later Tibetan Tantric material. Does this really correspond to Atiśa’s teaching in the 11th century?

***

[1] Wangchen Lhamo (Dbyangs can lha mo), et al., eds. 2006-15. Collected Works of the Kadampas. Bka’ gdams gsung ’bum phyogs bsgrigs bzhugs so. 120 vols. Chengdu: Si khron Dpe skrun Tshogs pa, Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang.

[2] “James B. Apple is full Professor of Buddhist Studies at the University of Calgary. He received his doctorate in Buddhist Studies from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His current research focuses upon the critical analysis of Mahāyāna sūtras and topics within Indian and Tibetan Buddhist scholasticism.” Academia.edu

[3] Roger Jackson, “Assimilating the Great Seal: The Dge lugs pa-ization of the dge ldan bka ’brgyud Tradition of Mahāmudrā, Mahāmudrā in India and Tibet, Edited by Roger R. Jackson Klaus-Dieter Mathes, 2020

[4] Revue d'Etudes Tibétaines, no. 56, Octobre 2020, pp. 170-262

[5] Atiśa Teaching on Mahāmudrā, 2017

[6] Gönpawa is Gönpawa Wangchuk Gyaltsen (dgon pa ba dbang phyug rgyal mtshan, 1016-1082)

[7] "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/"

[8] “rin po che sgom chung gi zhal nas/'o na phyag rgya chen po ngo sprod sgom pa 'di tsug yin pas/sems nyid lhan cig skyes pa chos kyi sku dang*/snang ba lhan cig skyes pa chos sku'i 'od/”

[9] 'o skol gyi blo rnam rtog snga ma'i phyir mi 'brang ba yin/ma 'ongs pa'i sngun mi bsu zer tsa na/'o skol gyi blos rnam rtog phyi ma'i mdun mi bsu ba yin/da ltar gyi shes pa rang gar rnal mar tsen gyis bzhag zer tsa na/da ltar gang du yang mi dmigs pa la zer ba yin/

[10] "This single cycle has three different names: “The Attack of Bhinayaka, King of Obstructing Spirits,” “The Six Remembrances of the Guru,” and “The Red Rock of Chonglung.”

Great Seal Bestowed upon Gönpawa:

"dper na gcan gzan gyi rgyal po ma’i khong du rtsal gsum rdzogs kyang ma’i lus kyi rgyar ’thum pa’am/ khyung sgong nga’i nang du gshog gru rgyas kyang sgong nga’i rgyas ’thum pa dang ’dra ste/"

 

Milarepa: mi nga dag nga rang mi zer te// nga ni dar seng dkar mo'i bu// a ma'i mngal nas rtsal gsum rdzogs// phru gu'i lo la tshang du nyal// thong ba'i lo la tshang sgo bsrungs// dar ma'i lo la gangs stod 'grims// nga gangs bu yug 'tshubs rung ya mi nga// brag g.ya nga sa che rung bag mi tsha//

mi nga dag nga rang mi zer te/nga ni bya rgyal khyung gi bu/sgo nga'i nang nas gshog sgro rgyas/phru gu'i lo la tshang du nyal/thong ba'i lo la tshang sgo bsrungs/khyung chen dar ma'i lo la nam 'phangs bcad/nga gnam kha zheng che rung ya mi nga /sa lung sul dog rung bag mi tsha/

 

From The Hundred Thousand Songs of Milarepa: A New Translation, by Tsangnyön Heruka, translated by Christopher Stagg. Shambhala Publications, 2017.

[11] Dzogchen Ponlop, Mind Beyond Death (Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications, 2006), Ch.6 'Egoless Journey: The Luminous Bardo of Dharmata'.

Blezer in his conclusion of cited work: "Several more or less distinct strands of bar do speculations seem to exist. Though a 'chi kha'i bar do (or an equivalent, the nomenclature is not always consistent or at all extant) and a sridpa'i bar do do appear in all traditions and texts, a chos nyid bar do appears to be a late development, not present in all of them. The (bKa' rgyudpa-)siddha-s, for instance, do not distinguish a chos nyid bar do (notwithstanding the reference to a chos nyid bar do in one of Na ro pa's biographies, which does not seem to pertain to a separate bar do there). The Bar do lnga'i ngo sprod from the Ka dag rang 'byung rang shar-cycle does not mention a chos nyid bar do either."

Maitrīpa's Singularity?

Maitrīpa leaving Vikramaśīla behind, crossing the Ganges, detail Himalayan Art HA60674

Integrating a subculture in a culture?

It is generally assumed that Yoginī Tantras or Annutarayogatantras were integrated into monastic mainstream mahāyāna culture with the contribution of authors like Advayavajra/Maitrīpada, According to Tibetan tradition, Maitrīpa rediscovered and reintroduced treatises attributed to Maitreyanātha[1], specifically the Mahāyanottaratantra-śastra/Ratnagotravibhāga (RGV), considered as a bridge between pāramitāyāna and mantranaya. And so would be the Tattvadaśaka authored by Advayavajra and commented by his student Sahajavajra. That’s how the story goes.

This theory assumes there was a certain initial reluctance to incorporate tantras (“subculture”), that included sexual yogas (sequence of the four mudrās[2]), into an otherwise monastic culture, and that needed to be overcome in Tibet like in India. Tibetan hagiographies of the Tibetan RenaissanceTibetan Renaissance are centered on how “deified” or “daimonified” “mahāsiddhas” (favoured with eight siddhis) received practices associated with the most advanced Buddhist Tantras from divine or semi-divine Buddhas or Bodhisattvas. They have also been called “sorcerers”[3] in the past (Grünwedel).

Buddhist Tantras like the Hevajra Tantra had already been integrated in Indian vihāras such as Vikramaśīla and Ratnavajra’s vihāra in Kashmir. According to Tibetan hagiographies several "mahāsiddhas" or other accomplished beings (t. mkhas grub) used to be monastics before they left Vikramaśīla and its abbot Ratnākaraśānti, and started their careers as “advanced” Tantric teachers/mahāsiddhas. Even abbot Ratnākaraśānti was considered a specialist of the Hevajra Tantra and other high Tantras, so one may wonder what “subculture” still needed to be integrated into mainstream Mahāyāna monasticism ? Tibetan hagiographies tell us that these future siddhas were not satisfied with what they had learned in Vikramaśīla. Nāropa left and is said to have found Tailopa. Maitrīpa, who became a legendary figure in Tibet, is said to have been Nāropa’s student in Vikramaśīla for twelve years, yet left too, in spite of his training with a (future ?) mahāsiddha, and is said to have found or seen Śavaripa. Tailopa and Śavaripa may very well be mythical or legendary beings. Ratnavajra, also an ex-student from Vikramaśīla, became the head of a Buddhist vihāra in Kashmir, although being a layman and the vihāra's direction was passed on from father to son. None of this seemed to have been particularly problematic in India at that time. Nagtsho (Tshul khrims rgyal ba), one of Atiśa’s translators, is said to have had a glimpse of Nāropa (towards the end of his life) in India. The anecdote shows that Nāropa was celebrated, including by the local elites, as a Tantric teacher.

“Because I went alone as an insignificant monk to invite the Lord Atiśa- and because he tarried for one year in Magadha-I thought that I would go see the Lord Nāropā, since his reputation was so great. I went east from Magadha for a month, as I had heard that the Lord was staying in the monastery known as Phullahari. Very great merit arose from being able to go see him. On the day I arrived, they said some feudal prince had come to pay homage. So I went to the spot, and a great throne had been erected. I sat right in front of it. The whole crowd started buzzing, "The Lord is coming!" I looked and the Lord was physically quite corpulent, with his white hair [stained with henna] bright red, and a vermilion turban bound on. He was being carried [on a palanquin] by four men and chewing betel-leaf. I grabbed his feet and thought, "I should listen to his pronouncements!" Stronger and stronger people, though, pushed me further and further from his seat and finally I was tossed out of the crowd. So, there I saw the lord's face, but did not actually hear his voice.[4]”

The same goes for Tantric Buddhism in Kathmandu ( e.g. support by the Newar clan Bharo). Buddhist Tantras were considered as Buddhavacana, more so than Mahāyāna treatises (s. śastras), including those attributed to the future Buddha Maitreya. Tantras (e.g. the Hevajra Tantra) were quoted as Buddhavacana and because they were Buddhavacana, even by monastics, such as Gampopa. To quote Tantric Buddhavacana doesn’t mean one follows, practices and teaches that specific Tantra following its commentaries, etc. Quotes (often without context) of authoritative Buddhavacana are merely used to strengthen one’s point, in particular if one is in dialogue with a follower of that specific Tantra tradition.


Autocriticism and new focus?

There was no specific need to write treatises and texts such as the Tattvadaśaka, in order to make Tantras acceptable to mainstream Mahāyāna monasticism. They already were, and with the support of the leading classes, who loved Tantrism for obvious reasons. Think of the origin of the word mandarin, mantrin. Criticism of the siddha movement came often from the siddha movement itself[5].

“Many criticisms, however, were not so subtle, and the contentious nature of the siddha movement is sometimes turned against itself rather than toward other agonistic religious communities. Overall, three kinds of critiques are emphasized in the esoteric literature. In the first, Buddhist yogins are critiqued for exhibiting a level of egotism appropriate to Brahmans, for they have both come to consider themselves divine. In the second, the criticism is voiced that siddhas have become deluded in their obsession with artificial means of meditation, breath control, visualization of letters, or psychic heat, and by the siddhas' search for nubile consorts. Finally, siddhas were criticized for consorting with non-Buddhist yogins and expressing non-Buddhist doctrines.”

Saraha’s Dohākośagīti (D 2224, P 3068) and Advaya-Avadhūtipa’s Commentary (Dohākoṣahṛdayārthagītāṭīkā, D2268, P3120) are examples of texts that are critical of Non-Buddhist and Buddhist approaches and even of practitioners of the Highest Yoga Tantras. Klaus-Dieter Mathes (2015)[6] would probably qualify Advaya-Avadhūtipa’s commentary as “Sahaja tradition”, as he does for the commentary of the Nepalese author of the Dohākoṣapañjikā and I would agree.

According to Gö Lotsawa Zhönu Pal (1392-1481), Dīpaṅkaraśrījñāna/Atiśa had received the Mahāyanottaratantra-śastra, the Dohā[kośagīti], etc. (t. “do ha la sogs pa[7]”) from the legendary Maitrīpa[8]. Atiśa transmitted these and other instructions to his Tibetan lay student 'Brom ston (1008-1064). Gö Lotsawa considers this occasion as the earliest transmission of “Mahāmudrā” (t. snga ba) in Tibet. This teaching transmission was said to have been aborted, but some form of it is thought to have spread discretely within the Kadampa lineage.

“Atiśa is, to the best of our knowledge, the first person to bring Saraha's Treasury of Dohā Verses to Tibet. He was, as we shall see, rebuffed in his efforts by his student Dromton, and a lineage of dohā teaching and practice was never to develop during his time in Tibet. His involvement with dohā literature, and poetic spiritual songs in general, seems to have been great. He is credited with number of diamond-songs (rdo rje'i glu), as well as a commentary to his own song, in the Tanjur. However, his teachings on the Treasury of Dohā Verses, as Karma Trinlaypa [1456-1540] informs us, were cut short at the outset. He writes: "Jowoje [Atiśa] heard them from Maitrīpa, and when he arrived in Ngari, he began teaching dohās such as, "What use are butter lamps, What use offerings to gods?" He explained them literally, and out of fear that ethical conduct practiced by the Tibetans would become debased, he was requested not to recite them. Therefore, though he was somewhat displeased, he is not known to have taught them henceforth." (Kurtis R. Schaeffer[9])

The first “Mahāmudrā”/”Lhan cig skye sbyor (“Sahaja-tradition”)” Gampopa received was very likely through the Kadampa lineage. Because of later polemics and hagiographic attempts to save Gampopa’s Tantric Kagyu pedigree, it is difficult to know what exactly he may have received from Lama Mila. We learn in the Shangpa hagiography[10] of Mogchok Rin chen brTson 'Grus, that Gampopa had vowed to not teach “the sādhanas and six yogas”. We know that the “Six Yogas” [of Nāropa] didn’t exist yet in that form at Gampopa’s time, which may be an excellent reason for not having transmitted them…


Gampopa’s Path of direct perception

Whether Gampopa’s “Mahāmudrā” was a genuine transmission (t. man ngag), perhaps coming from Maitrīpa via Atiśa and the Kadampa lineage, or merely a cunning plan to attract students (see Sakya Paṇḍita), or a beginner’s teaching (see Karmapa VIII), Gampopa was clearly more eager to teach “it” than to teach the “Six Yogas” (t. thabs lam) and seemed to have considered it as a special category, namely the “path of direct perception” (t. mngon sum lam du byed pa, pratyakṣa[11]), different from the Sūtric epistemic “path of inference” (t. rjes dpag lam du byed pa) and the Tantric “path of Grace” (t. byin rlabs kyis lam s. anugraha), that generates a divine body (t. lha’i sku), with a pneumatic energetic structure (t. rtsa rlung thig le), mantra recitation etc. This third path of direct perception is neither “Sūtric” nor “Tantric” and doesn’t use Deity practice with its associated mythology, cosmogony, emanationism, etc.. It’s not “Luminous” (Nous) in that sense. Its “luminosity” in the sense of purity, refers to a “citta”, instantaneous “like a finger-snap” (AN 1.51-60), not to a Buddha-essence (buddhadhātu) thought to be “eternal, blissful, characterized by a personal self, and pure” (Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra). The often quoted “This mind, O monastics, is luminous” (Pabhassaramidaṁ, bhikkhave, cittaṁ, AN 1.51) refers to an instantaneous citta, not an eternal Buddha-essence.

“The path of direct perception (s. pratyakṣa) is e.g. an authentic teacher saying that “the natural (sahaja) state of mind (t. sems nyid t. cittatva) is dharmakāya’s radiance (prakāśa)”, and thus giving the right instruction on its final meaning (nītārtha). The spontaneous natural perception of this determined truth (s. niścaya) is free from theory (t. lta), meditation (t. sgom) and observance (t. spyod), and deployed through natural perception (t. gnyug ma'i shes pa). This is the path of direct perception.” (Tshogs chos yon tan phun tshogs)

 

Ngo sprod as the pith-instruction from an authentic teacher

The instruction of the “authentic” teacher (t. dam pa’i bla ma), in the sense of a teacher who experienced this directly for himself and can transmit it to another, is what is sometimes called an “Introduction” (t. ngo sprod). An example of such an instruction is the sNying po'i ngo sprod don dam gter mdzod, an instruction attributed to Gomchung (sLob dpon sGom Chung Shes rab Byang chub 1127-1171), Gampopa’s nephew. In this “Introduction” (to the nature of mind), we find almost verbatim what an authentic teacher is to say to his/her student.

“Well, this is how the Introduction to the Mahāmudrā is carried out. The natural state of mind is dharmakāya and its natural appearance (t. snang ba s. abhāsa) is dharmakāya’s radiance. If one has access to mind (citta) as the nature of awareness, then one is awakened, and if one doesn’t one goes astray.[12]”

This “Introduction” (t. ngo sprod), also used by Zhang G.yu-brag-pa Brtson-'grus-grags-pa (1123-1193), is possibly what Advayavajra’s Tattvadaśaka and Sahajavajra’s Tattvadaśakaṭīkā refer to in the verse “Adorned with the pith-instructions of the Guru” (t. bla ma'i ngag gis ma brgyan pa'i s. guruvāgan). The awareness that is the result of the Introduction is something like the “mahāmudrājñāna” (t. phyag rgya chen po’i ye shes), Gö Lotsawa Zhönu Pal refers to in the Blue Annals’ chapter XI on Mahāmudrā.

“Thus the antidote (of this inference, i.e. understanding of Relativity) which is not a mere theory, represents the knowledge of the Mahāmudrā. This (knowledge) can be gained only through the blessing of a holy teacher (i,e. through initiation, and not through reasoning). Thus I have explained the stages of the general Doctrine.” (Roerich’s translation, interpretation and interpolations)

 

The “pith-instructions” changed into the “blessing” and “kindness” of the guru

Zhönu Pal writes “This (knowledge) can be gained only through the blessing [byin rlabs] of a holy teacher” and replaces “the words of the guru” (s. guruvāgan, perhaps corresponding to an “Introduction” ngo sprod) by "the Guru’s blessing" (t. byin rlabs), thus somehow leaving the path of direct perception (t. mngon sum lam du byed pa) and moving to the Tantric path of Grace (t. byin rlabs kyi(s) lam). What initially was a path of direct perception, different from “inference” and “blessings”, becomes a Tantric path of blessings, and the “path of direct perception” undergoes a double process. As a method, it becomes “Sūtra Mahāmudrā” and is treated as a “path of inference” and renamed “theory of Relativity” by Roerich and Gendün Chöphel. Whereas “Tantric Mahāmudrā” (method AND realization) is henceforth presented as the authentic “Mahāmudrā”. Admittedly, using the Tantric term “Mahāmudra” for what is a direct perception that recognizes the natural appearance of mind as dharmakāya’s radiance is/was not a good idea.

At the same time “the path of direct perception”, as a realization, also becomes “Essence Mahāmudrā” (t. snying po’i lugs[13]), only accessible for the most exceptionally spiritually advanced individuals and within a Tantric Guru-Student relationship (guru-śishya system) through the “blessing” or the “favor” of the Guru (see below for these terms).

In order to make Maitripa/Advyavajra into a full-fledged Tantric teacher and blend his nuanced method into a mainstream Tibetan Tantric path, all writings (rightfully of wrongfully) attributed to him are considered as one single block, where passages on different topics from different texts (and possibly different authors) can comment and “shed light” (mostly a Tantric one) on other passages, thus drowning all possible nuances in one single Tantric blend.


Maitrīpa’s life changing experience?

In Tibetan hagiographic materials Maitripa is presented as someone who, rather late in his spiritual career, around 50 years old, had a radical change of direction. He is said to have started as an obviously brilliant student of the Tantric Nāropa, and some of his texts may have been written during this first period of life in Vikramaśīla. Did he stop writing after his alleged radical change around 50 or did he perhaps author different texts? Did he continue to write at all, or did he mainly teach or guide students? What does Tārānātha (16-17th century) mean when he writes that Śavaripa told Maitrīpa, who desperately wanted to become a vidyādhara, “what need do you have for these illusions, rather spread the meaning of the natural state (t. gnas lugs kyi don)![14]” Can we treat all texts attributed to Advayavajra (dating from before and after the alleged change) as sharing one single topic? (Tantric) Mahāmudrā with the objective to become a “deified” vidyādhara? Are there not signs that show we ought to be more careful? Would it not be worthwhile to look for those signs? Forget about “Mahāmudrā” and “Nāgārjuna’s” “four mudrās”, what could be the core message of Saraha’s Dohākośagīti, Advaya-Avadhūtipa’s commentary, Advayavajra’s Tattvadaśaka and Sahajavajra’s commentary, Gampopa’s “path of direct perception”, the Ngo sprod method? Could there be a link between all of these? “Sahaja-tradition”? Are we capable of commenting on these texts without systematically shedding a Tantric light on them and explaining them through later interpretations?

Why would Tibetan tradition have Śavaripa say to Maitrīpa “what need do you have for these illusions, rather spread the meaning of the natural state!”, and the following moment give him Tantric empowerments (s. abhiṣeka) and Mahāmudrā teachings, Mahāmudrā being one the four Tantric mudrās? Yet tradition does so without hesitation.


Gradual transformation of radiant citta into luminous Buddha-essence

The “radiance” of dharmakāya is what is experienced all the time, with or without defilements, so what is “Tantric”[15] about it ? Is the “radiance” of the instantaneous citta of  "self-illuminating" awareness the same as Tantric “luminosity”? For both Ulrich T. Kragh and Klaus-Dieter Mathes, Maitrīpa’s work is about building a bridge between mainstream Mahāyāna and “four-mudrā”[16] Tantrism, or the Hevajra Tantra tradition, the buzz of the day, and particularly through the utilization of the Buddha nature doctrine.​​ Yet that bridge had already been built in India, e.g. in Vikramaśīla. Was there perhaps a more specific Tibetan need that required such a bridge, when the Hevajra Tantra and its commentaries and associated practices were brought to Tibet by Tibetans?

One could say that perceiving things as they are (tathatā) is the essence of Buddhism. With that experience one could pursue any goal, including living a normal life as a “yogi”, as also shown in the life stories of the Sahajasiddhi-paddhati.

“The wise one awakens towards supreme full enlightenment, But even after that, [he will be engaged] in initial activity (s. ādikarma t. dang po’i las pa).” (Advayavajra, Kudṛṣṭinirghātana 5[17])

In Tibet social success and political careers were open both in the monastic and sngags-pa path. One could follow a monastic path or become a sngags-pa, an esoteric Buddhist yogi. One could also become a hermit/yogi, with the project (t. gtad sa) to die in solitude[18]. The path of direct perception is a path of freedom (“bliss”). The other paths are also careers (spiritual ones if you like), social constructs, with bonuses during and at the end of if. Those not interested in a career, were bound anyway by "the accumulation path of the perfections" (t. pha rol tu phyin pa tshogs kyi lam)[19], which means they were expected to live as active participating members of the religious community (Saṅgha), and to accumulate both merit (s. puṇya) and gnosis (s. jñāna).

Before the Tibetan Renaissance and before the invitation of Atiśa to Tibet, monastic (mūlasarvāstivādin) networks of temples and monasteries were the ones in power. The new Tantras opened up careers for lay yogis and their circles, and promised greater and concrete benefits “Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger”... and political power… But were they still Buddhist mainstream? History, being written by the victors, tells us that, yes they were indeed, and even more so than the so called mainstream Buddhist teachings... Perhaps the “bridging” and “blending” arguments were to convince the more nostalgic tepid ones that still had doubts on the subject. But was that Tibetan concern really shared by the Indian teacher Maitrīpa/Advayavajra (and his Saraha) and other Indian teachers from Vikramaśīla?


Refocusing and reframing rather than integrating?

It seems to me that in those days (10-11th century), there was a tendency to refocus on intrinsic simplicity (s. nija t. gnyug ma), “co-emergence”/naturalness (s. sahaja), the heart matter (s. hṛdayārtha), reflexive awareness (s. svasaṃvitti), that can be found in different traditions, and that expressed itself amongst other things in the “dohā” genre  (distichs)[20]. A sort of a Back to Basics (and to what is essential) movement. It can be found in Saraha’s Dohākośagīti, in Rāja-yoga’s no-mind (amanaska), Advayavajra’s mental non-engagement (s. amanisakāra,t. yid la mi byed pa), etc., Yogindu’s Light of the Supreme Self (Paramātmaprakāśa, Jain tradition) and Offering of Dohās (Dohāpāhuda), Dattātreya’s Avadhūt Gītā, Sureśvara’s Demonstration of non-action (Naiṣkarmyasiddhi), etc. Not doing (karma, effort, ritualism), but knowing was/is the path. Just like Gampopa’s path of direct perception, which may be equivalent to mahāmudrājñāna and the “older” more “radical” forms of “Mahāmudrā” and “Dzogchen”. At least the names of these deeply misunderstood paths are popular in the West, until it will finally dawn upon new converts that the real work (yoga, visionary practices, etc.) has yet to begin, that there is plenty left “to do”, and that “knowing” or “intuiting” is overrated. What would be its purpose?

In fact the experience of the path of direct perception was too simple to be good. Here below it is captured in a four verse fridge magnet formula

“Too close to be recognised,
Too deep to grasp,
Too easy to believe,
Too amazing to be understood intellectually[21].” (Mahamudra reliquary attributed to Khyungpo Neljor)

Khyungpo Neljor’s text finishes by “Homage to ordinary mind”[22]. But knowing “ordinary mind” and mental non-engagement (amanisakāra) were not enough to build an “enlightened” or theocratic society. Because of  the“bridging” and “blending” since the 13th century, when Maitrīpa/Advayavajra and others mention “mental non-engagement” (KD Mathes: “non-conceptual realization”) they imply to mean Tantric “luminous self-empowerment”[23]. And Maitrīpa’s “Non-abiding” (apratiṣṭhāna) madhyamaka”, via Maitrīpa’s student Rāmapāla’s definition of it as “Mental non-engagement” becomes by equivalence “to realise the luminous nature of mind”[24]. The initially negative (apophatic) terms are reinterpreted positively and tantrically in terms of “realization”, within a Guru-student relationship, which comes with a far higher maintenance than an "Introduction".

“Maitrīpa’s student Rāmapāla equates apratiṣṭhāna with mental non-engagement (amanasikāra), a term that Maitrīpa also interprets as luminous self-empowerment. This means that the practitioner not only refrains from projecting mistaken notions (such as an independent existence or characteristic signs) onto anything arisen in dependence, whether skandhas, dhātus, or āyatanas, but also realises the luminous nature of mind. With such a fine blend of mahāmudrā and Madhyamaka, Maitrīpa and his disciples considerably contributed to integrating the new teachings and practices of the great Siddha into mainstream Buddhism.” (Sahajavajra's Integration of Tantra)

Not sure Maitrīpa and his disciples (except perhaps those who went to Tibet) were aware of their considerable contribution. Knowing the “nature of mind” (citta-tva) is not sufficient, the adjective “luminous” seems to have to be added as a marker. A marker of what? A marker of “Tantric Mahāmudrā”, or “deification”. All this goes far beyond the meaning and intention of “inattention”, “mental non-engagement”, “non-thinking”, “non-mentation”, etc. (amanasikāra). Non-abiding and mental non-engagement point towards non-identification as per the Dhātuvibhaṅga-sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 140), rather than any identification with or noetical realization of the Divine or with “Light”, in all its many forms, evoking different things to different persons. Obviously the potential of dependent origination and emptiness, and even Tantric “luminosity”, can be “blended” with anything, but why would a Buddhist (including Advayavajra) identify with whatever “positive” seems to come out of that? Abide “in it”, “realize” “it”?

Unless the bridging and blending is part of the Vaiṣṇava conspiracy to ultimately bring “atheist Buddhists” to “believe in God in the form of Lord Buddha”[25]?


Conclusion

I don’t like writing conclusions because I merely want to make myself and others aware of things that may be overlooked, in this case what I consider to be Advayavajra’s singularity. I have no proof for Advayavajra’s “change of mind” that his hagiographies mention, but I tend to think there may be some truth to it. I am not sure everything attributed to Advayavajra has indeed been authored by him. I am not sure Advayavajra has one and the same Tantric message to convey in all the writings attributed to him. I am not sure either that all those said to have been his students were indeed his students and/or are representing or trying to represent Advayavajra’s single one message. If there indeed was a “change of mind” in Advayavajra’s life, some students may have followed him in it, and others not. Trying to follow myself both a “path of inference” and a “path of direct perception”, I look at Advayavajra’s writings with the bias of these paths. Texts written from a “path of blessing” perspective are intriguing and open to interpretation for me, just as they must have been for Buddhist teachers around the first millennium. I particularly value the emphasis and revaluation of the human body and experience of immanence found in some Tantric writings. However, I do not perceive the body as an ontologically subtle luminous entity, except as temporary mental images one may cultivate during practice.

Maitrīpa, finally a vidyādhara, Himalayan Art HA60674

I accept that others, the huge majority of Tibetan Buddhism and Tibetan hagiography, may look at Advayavajra’s or “Maitrīpa’s” works from a different perspective, and find him more useful as a Tantric vidyādhara -- one more -- very similar to Nāropa, and in fact consider that Advayavajra and Nāropa both teach the same realization of the luminous nature of mind following the “four mudrā” method. For both teachers, the guru plays a key role. What is it that “enables a direct realisation of true reality [tattva]” ? We find various expressions implying a different function of a guru. A transmission through “the words of the guru” (s. guruvāgan), “the blessing of the guru” (t. bla ma’i byin rlabs, s. guru-anugraha), “the kindness/favour of the guru” (t. bla ma’i bka’ drin, s. guruprasāda). The blessing (s. anugraha) and the kindness (s. prasāda) of the guru are terms that are commonly used within a Tantric or initiatory (s. dīkṣā) context. The “words of the guru” are more open to interpretation and it seems to me that for Advayavajra/Advaya-Avadhūtipa, and more specifically Sahajavajra, it may refer to the method of Introduction (t. ngo sprod). Not through inference, not through “blessing” or “kindness/favour”, but through directly pointing out and perceiving the nature of mind (s. citta-tva), “luminosity”, or alternatively “radiance” or “clarity”, being only one of mind’s experiences[26], and not its ontological essence (-mātra), in the form of a Luminous Self with its luminous structure, symbolically represented.

The “three realms” are three concretisations of mind (citta). Kāmadhātu (desire realm), Rūpadhātu (form realm), and Arūpyadhātu (formless realm), when the triple experience of the nature of mind, bliss (sukha), clarity (prabhāsvara) and non-thought (nirvikalpa) is not recognized as such. If it is recognized as such, bliss is the adornment (alaṃkāra) of nirmāṇakāya, clarity of saṃbhogakāya and non-thought of dharmakāya. To single out clarity/luminosity and make it into a single essence seems to be mistaken from the point of view of a triple world, a triple experience of the nature of mind, and the three kāyas of one that sees them as they are.

***​

[1] Dharmadharmatāvibhāga and Ratnagotravibhāga.

[2] The four mudrā and four moments are first mentioned in the Hevajra Tantra (8-9th century) and are explained in its commentaries, in particular the Caturmudrānvaya (phyag rgya bzhi'i man ngag), attributed to “Nāgārjuna” and translated into Tibetan by Marpa lotsawa (11th century). I am not aware of translations into other languages. Obviously, “Nāgārjuna”, the author of the commentary is not the famous 2nd century Nāgārjuna, but the Tantric Nāgārjuna.

[3] “Die Geschichten der Vierundachtzig Zauberer Mahāsiddhas”, Albert Grünwedel, 1916.

[4] Indian Esoteric Buddhism, A Social History of the Tantric Movement, Ronald M. Davidson, Columbia University Press, 2002, p. 117

[5] See Indian Esoteric Buddhism, p. 327. See also Vajradhara’s Prediction (chapter I of the Samdhivyakarana-nama-tantra (t. dgongs pa lung bstan pa zhes bya ba’i rgyud), an Explanatory Tantra of the Guhyasamāja, and my French translation in Le Guide du Naturel, Sahajasiddhi-paddhati, Yogi Ling, 2017 p. 151

“In the first instance, the potential for publicly enacting the self-glorification inherent in the yogin's visualization of himself as divine was given a devastating review by the anonymous authors of the "commentarial scriptures" within the first century of this doctrine's articulation. The most trenchant critique I have encountered is in the Sandhivyakarana-tantra, which is a late eighth- or early ninth-century lengthy expansion on the Guhyasamaja, an eighth-century tantra that has been cited throughout our investigation of the siddhas' world. In the middle of a longer discussion of potential problems, the scripture en- gages in a strong broadside on the self-absorption of mantrins employing the esoteric system for their own personal glorification.” Indian Esoteric Buddhism

[6] Saraha’s Sahaja Tradition in the Light of the Dohakosa Commentary by a Nepalese (?) Advayavajra, from Sahaja the Role of Dohā & Caryāgīti in the Cultural Indo-Tibetan Interface, Buddhist World Press, 2015

“To sum up, it has been shown that the Advayavajra who has authored this commentary to Saraha’s Dohās is not only someone other than Maitrīpa, but that he also differs from the latter in a crucial interpretation of the Tantras, that is, the sequence of the four joys. Moreover, while Tibetan commentaries tend to relativize Saraha´s critical attitude towards all forms of religion (including Buddhism), Advayavajra fully elaborates on this attitude without restriction. This is most evident by the fact that he lists Buddhism as among the six systems of philosophy to be criticized and by quoting a Sūtra which warns that all future Buddhist monks will belong to the retinue of Māra. It is clear, however, that Advayavajra endorses, still within a Buddhist context, a goal called co-emergent nature or simply the co-emergent, while his favored path is the immediate realization of this goal through the pith instructions of a genuine guru. I would thus even go further than Bagchi´s Sahajay a to name this system of instruction, and use Advayavajra´s designation “Sahaja Tradition.”

[7] Deb ther sngon po, smad cha, p. 987, “do ha dang grub snying gi skor dang*/ kun tu bzang po’i spyod pa byed tshul rnams ‘brom la gsungs pa las”.
For Gö Lotsawa and those after him, the “grub snying” seems to refer to the “Seven Demonstrations” (t. Grub pa sde bdun s. Saptasiddhi-saṅgraha) and the “Three Hearts” (t. snying po skor gsum). Gö Lotsawa mentions there was a translation, by ‘Brom, of at least the Jñānasiddhi (ye shes grub pa, T2219), The Demonstration of Gnosis, one of the Seven Demonstrations texts, attributed to Indrabhūti. It is possible that Atiśa’s transmission (1042) was “limited” to Saraha’s Dohākośagīti (and Commentary?) and Indrabhūti’s Jñānasiddhi, and that grub-snying (Siddhi-Hṛdaya) in this context referred to these two texts ?

[8] “The Blue Annals” by George N. Roerich (1902-1960) and Gendün Chöphel (1903–1951), p. 844, Chapter XI on Mahāmudrā.

[9] Dreaming the Great Brahmin: Tibetan Traditions of the Buddhist Poet-Saint Saraha, Kurtis R. Schaeffer, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 61

[10] Shangpa Texts, Volume KA, p. 180 and following ones. ngas sgrub thabs dang chos drug 'di mi bshad pa'i dam bca' gcig byas yod gsungs pas p. 182

[11] Tshogs chos yon tan phun tshogs : rje dwags po rin po che'i zhal nas/ lam rnam pa gsum yin gsung*/ de la lam rnam pa gsum ni/ rjes dpag lam du byed pa dang*/ byin rlabs lam du byed pa dang*/ mngon sum lam du byed pa dang gsum yin gsung*/ de la rjes dpag lam du byed pa ni/ chos thams cad gcig dang du bral gyi gtan tshigs kyis gzhigs nas/ 'gro sa 'di las med zer nas thams cad stong par byas nas 'jog pa ni rjes dpag go /lha'i sku bskyed pa'i rim pa la brten nas rtsa rlung dang thig le dang*/ sngags kyi bzlas brjod la sogs pa byin rlabs kyis lam mo/ /mngon sum lam du byed pa ni bla ma dam pa cig gis sems nyid lhan cig skyes pa chos kyi sku 'od gsal bya ba yin gsung ba de lta bu nges pa'i don gyi gdams ngag phyin ci ma log pa cig bstan pas/ rang la nges pa'i shes pa lhan cig skyes pa de la lta spyod sgom gsum ya ma bral bar gnyug ma'i shes pa lam du khyer ba ni mngon sum lam du byed pa'o/ /lam gsum la 'jug pa'i gang zag ni gnyis te/ rim gyis pa dang*/ cig char ba'o/ /cig char ba ni/ nyon mongs pa la sogs pa mi mthun pa'i bag chags srab pa/ chos kyi bag chags mthug pa sbyangs pa can gyi gang zag la zer ba yin te/ de shin tu dka' ba yin/ nga ni rim gyis par 'dod pa yin gsung*/

[12] 'o na phyag rgya chen po ngo sprod sgom pa 'di tsug yin pas/sems nyid lhan cig skyes pa chos kyi sku dang*/snang ba lhan cig skyes pa chos sku'i 'od/sems rig pa'i ngo bo 'di rtogs na sangs rgyas/ma rtogs na 'khor ba yin

[13] gsum pa snying po'i lugs ni/ snying po rdo rje'i ye shes 'bebs pa yis// dbang rab smin grol dus gcig 'byung ba'o// snga ma gnyis ka las zab cing ngo mtshar la khyad par rmad du byung ba zab mo'i snying po btsan thabs su rtogs pa'i lam ni, rtogs ldan gyi bla mas skal ldan gyi slob ma ches dbang rnon du gyur pa la rdo rje ye shes kyi dbang gi byin rlabs 'bebs pa tsam gyis, tha mal shes pa snying dbus su sad nas rtogs grol dus mnyam du 'gyur bas spros bcas kyi thabs dang sbyangs pa'i rtsol ba la ma ltos pa'i phyir, bka' brgyud che bzhi chung brgyad kyi grub thob sa chen po'i rdul tsam byon pa'i rnam thar dang lag rjes mngon sum snang ba 'di nyid yin cing

Treasury of Knowledge (shes bya kun khyab), mi rigs dpe skrun khang) in three volumes, 1982 (ISDN M17049(3)28). volume III (smad cha), pages 375 - 390.

[14] bKa' babs bdun ldan p. 566, "da ni ral gri la sogs pa grub pa brgyad bsgrubs nas/ tshe bskal par gnas pa'i rig pa 'dzin pa bya snyam rdzas bsgrubs pas grub pa'i ltas byung ba na/ shA bA ris sdigs 'dzub mdzad pas thal bar song / da khyod sgyu ma des ci bya gnas lugs kyi don rgya cher shod ces gsung ba bzhin.”

[15] “The most well-known text of the cycle is probably "Ten Verses on Reality" (Tattvadaśaka, De kho na nyid bcu pa), wherein Maitrīpa explains Tantric concepts, such as 'radiance' (prabhāsvara, 'od gsal), through the Madhyamaka philosophy of emptiness.” Ulrich T. Kragh, Yogas of Nāropa,2015, p. 73

[16] The four mudrās are originally a Hevajra Tantra concept.

[17] A Fine Blend of Mahāmudrā and Madhyamaka Maitrīpa’s Collection of Texts on Non-conceptual Realization (Amanasikāra), KD Mathes, p. 43. ādikarma refers to the five perfections other than the prajñāpāramitā.

[18] dka' gdams chos bzhi or gtad sa bzhi: blo phug chos la gtad// chos phug sprang la gtad// sprang phug shi la gtad// shi phug brag khung skam po la gtad.

“Direct your mind to the dharma.
Conduct your dharma practice in poverty.
Stay poor until you die.
Die in a lonely cave.”

Drops of Nectar, Khenpo Kunpal’s Commentary on Shantideva’s Entering the Conduct of the Bodhisattvas, Volume One, 2004

[19] Kragh, Yogas of Naropa (2015), p. 229 Tibetan Yoga and Mysticism: A Textual Study of the Yogas of Naropa and Mahamudra Meditation in the Medieval Tradition of Dags po

“The question of when to practice and achieve realization is underlined by contrasting sayings from an unspecified (Bka' gdams pa) dge bshes and Mi la ras pa. Even if the radiance ('od gsal) of the nature of the mind is not fully grasped in the interim, a practitioner who has successfully given rise to seeing the essence (ngo bo mthong ba) will in future lives have a special meditative ability (ting nge 'dzin khyad par can). Such an individual is said to be someone supported by a past accumulation (bsags pa'i rgyab can). Consequently, the practitioner ought now to strive towards realizing radiance in the interim and even if that should fail he will consequently be in a position to achieve full realization in a future life. It is said that no teaching is more important than this.” p. 475

[20] Introduction, Chants de plénitude, Joy Vriens, éditions Yogi-Ling, 2015

[21] de nyid skyon bzhi dang bral bar bya ste/
chos sku dang 'du 'bral med kyang /
nye drags pas ngo ma shes/
rang la shar kyang zab drags pas ngos ma zin/
sla drags pas yid ma ches par yengs med dang bral lo/

[22] yid la mi byed re dogs kun bral ba'i/
tha mal shes pa khyod la phyag 'tshal lo/

[23] Klaus-Dieter Mathes, Sahajavajra's integration of Tantra into mainstream Buddhism, p. 138


[24] A Fine Blend of Mahāmudrā and Madhyamaka Maitrīpa’s Collection of Texts on Non-conceptual Realization (Amanasikāra), KD Mathes, 2015, p. 1

“The collection of twenty-six texts on non-conceptual realization (in the following referred to as the amanasikāra cycle) 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 selfempowerment,” Maitrīpa’s (986-1063)2 final tantric analysis of amanasikāra.”

[25] Bhaktivedanta Vedabase. 

Tataḥ kalau sampravṛtte sammohāya suradviṣām |
Buddho nāmnāñjanasutaḥ kīkaṭeṣu bhaviṣyati || 24 || (Śrīmadbhāgavatapurāṇa 03)

Commentary by Bhaktivedanta Vedabase :

“Lord Buddha preached nonviolence, taking pity on the poor animals. He preached that he did not believe in the tenets of the Vedas and stressed the adverse psychological effects incurred by animal-killing. Less intelligent men of the Age of Kali, who had no faith in God, followed his principle, and for the time being they were trained in moral discipline and nonviolence, the preliminary steps for proceeding further on the path of God realization. He deluded the atheists because such atheists who followed his principles did not believe in God, but they kept their absolute faith in Lord Buddha, who himself was the incarnation of God. Thus the faithless people were made to believe in God in the form of Lord Buddha. That was the mercy of Lord Buddha: he made the faithless faithful to him.”

[26] bDe gsal mi rtog pa gsum.