Atiśa’s Buddhism

Atiśa’s arrival in Tibet, Drepung monastery in Tibet (Daily Mirror)

James B Apple describes Atiśa’s conception of Buddhism’s theory and practice in Chapter 3 “The Buddhism of Atiśa Dīpaṃkaraśrījñāna” of his book “Atiśa Dīpaṃkara, Illuminator of the Awakened Mind”. Atiśa is a follower of Madhyamaka without further specification. This seems to have been quite rare at Vikramaśīla, where Yogācāra was the dominating trend. Another exception there was “Maitrīpa”, who is presented as a follower of Apratiṣṭhāna-Madhyamaka (t. dbu ma rab tu mi gnas pa). In Rong-zompa’s Discourses on Buddhology, Orna Almogi adds Atiśa also to the list of followers of Apratiṣṭhāna-Madhyamaka.

“In contrast to all of his known Vikramaśīla colleagues, Atiśa followed a lineage of Madhyamaka based on Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti that was transmitted through his teachers Avadhūtipa, Bodhibhadra, and Vidyākokila, with whom he studied under in his youth. Atiśa’s understanding of Madhyamaka may have been a source of conflict with his teachers and colleagues at Vikramaśīla.” (Illuminator, 2019)  

"Maitrīpa" and/or Avadhūtipa

Apple thinks that “Maitrīpa” was a ”junior contemporary” of Atiśa and gives the dates 986–1063 for “Maitrīpa”. Hagiographic sources mention an incident between Atiśa and “Maitrīpa” during their time at Vikramaśīla. In these sources Atiśa was the abbot, and”Maitrīpa” a practitioner of Vajrayoginī in full Tantric mode (“beer and women”). Atiśa would have expelled him from Vikramaśīla. Tārānātha mentions the incident, and the “ācārya” who saw “Maitrīpa”/Maitrīgupta and a woman drinking beer[1]. “Maitrīpa” would then have spread out an antelope hide on the river Ganges and crossed it. Jamgon Kongtrül tells the same incident, and adds a song of realization by “Maitrīpa”[2] in the Shangpa Song collection (Do ha rdo rje'i tshig rkang dang mgur dbyangs bsgrigs thos pa don ldan). A song of “realization” that comes a bit early since “Maitrīpa” still has to go all the way to the South, see Śavaripa and attain “mahāmudrā”, at least according to hagiographic sources.

“Maitrīpa” crossing the Ganges on a hide (detail HA60674)

“Maitrīpa” or “Maitrīgupta”, also goes by the names Advayavajra, Avadhūtipa, and Advaya-Avadhūtipa, etc. This causes confusion. In Cyrus Stearns’ Luminous Lives[3], The Story of the Early Masters of the Lam ’bras Tradition in Tibet, Gayadhara adds  to the confusion by pretending to be “Maitrīpa”.[4] Avadhūtipa, whoever he was, gave Atiśa instructions on Madhyamaka. Atiśa’s Special Instructions on Unique Mindfulness (my French translation) (s. Ekasmṛtyupadeśa t. Dran pa gcig pa’i man ngag) start with a homage to Nāgārjuna and Avadhūtipa.

“ The text succinctly outlines the practices of wisdom and means for a bodhisattva who has not yet received a consecration for Secret Mantra practice. Atiśa concludes by citing verses to illustrate that while buddhas are bereft of any mental element, they benefit all sentient beings.” (Illuminator, 2019, ch. 8)

Apple writes “ In addition, Avadhūtipa and Kamalarakṣita bestowed the teachings on the Great Seal to Atiśa” (Illuminator, 2019) and gives Phun tshogs tshe brtan[5] 2011, 25–26 as a reference. In the above mentioned Special Instructions on Unique Mindfulness:

“When at the level of a buddha there is no objective support, as the Inquiry of Suvikrāntavikrāmi states:
The gnosis of a buddha, a blessed one, sees nothing.
Why? Because there is no object of gnosis[6].

Well then, does gnosis exist at this juncture or not? Ārya Nāgārjuna denies that it does, as he states:
 The mind has not been seen, and will not be seen, by all buddhas.
What will one see of something that has the nature of having no nature.

Thus, this is in accordance with the transmitted oral instructions. Therefore, buddhas do not have any other activity except for accomplishing the purposes of others, and, in this way, the purposes of others are the principal result that is the desired purpose of their practice. The Ārya Nāgārjuna has stated:

The excellence of the purpose of others is accepted as the foremost
result of awakening. Other than buddhahood itself and so forth,
these other benefits are asserted as the result of this goal [i.e., awakening].

May these special instructions to penetrate reality reside in your mind.”

In Jewels of the Middle Way: The Madhyamaka Legacy of Atisa and His Early Tibetan Followers, James B Apple writes that Atiśa received “the special instruction (upadeśa) of apratiṣṭhita [madhyamaka] darśana” from Avadhūtipa. Here the specified view is "apratiṣṭhita", and "madhyamaka" is added between square brackets. Atiśa’s view was apratiṣṭhita madhyamaka. Atiśa writes about his teacher Avadhūtipa in Open Basket of Jewels (James B Apple, 2010):

“My lama, the great venerable [one], the lord of yogis, Avadhūtipa [Nāropa], with previously acquired supernatural cognition, had a vision and heard [Nāgārjuna’s] teaching, seeing him while dwelling on Śrī-Parvata. A disciple of the Ārya [Nāgārjuna], the Venerable Nāgābodhi, who is renowned as Śrī Śabaripāda, also always listened to the dharma. The Guru Avadhūtipa taught this.”

Apple observes in a note that Jo bo rje’i gsung ’bum (806.18) adds “nā ro pa”, probably an interpolation. This Avadhūtipa, who, according to the hagiographic tradition, saw Śrī Śabaripāda in Śrī-Parvata “in the South”, also has “Maitrīpa” as one of his names. This statement would confirm Maitrīpa is Avadhūtipa, and also that Śrī Śabaripāda is (an emanation? of) Venerable Nāgābodhi (t. klu'i byang chub).

 

The source of Atiśa’s Mahāmudrā?

Apple writes in Atiśa's Teachings on Mahāmudrā (2017):

“Another problem with investigating the historical conditions of Atiśa’s Mahāmudrā teachings is that most, if not all, Kagyu historical records are politicized from the very beginning of Kagyu narratives of these teachings. Along these lines, a number of histories, both traditional and modern, record a narrative from Kagyu sources that Maitrīpa, a major figure in Kagyu Mahāmudrā teachings, taught Mahāmudrā to Atiśa. However, as illustrated below, Atiśa received Mahāmudrā instructions from Doṃbiheruka in a lineage stemming from Tilopa, and his exegesis of Mahāmudrā-related thought and practices reflects influence from his institutional environment of Vikramaśīla monastery.”

It seems clear to me, based on information from available hagiographic sources, including from texts attributed to Atiśa or his students, that if Atiśa received “Mahāmudrā” instructions from Avadhūtipa through “Śrī Śabaripāda in Śrī-Parvata”, this Avadhūtipa must be “Maitrīpa”. Not “Maitrīpa”, the “junior contemporary” chased from Vikramaśīla, but the Avadhūtipa who is said to have taught apratiṣṭhita madhyamaka and to have given “Mahāmudrā”/Great Seal Pointing-Out instructions to Atiśa.

As for my opinion about the Mahāmudrā instructions from Tilopa (e.g. Great Seal Bestowed upon Gönpawa (t. Jo bo rjes dgon pa ba la gnang ba’i phyag chen), see my blog Kadampa Mahāmudrā with or without "blessing"?


Atiśa’s utilitarian and allegorical attitude towards mantrayāna

Atiśa practiced mantrayāna while being aware of its many pitfalls. This can be found in his own writings and in anecdotes on his life. His Lamp for the Path to Awakening (t. Byang chub lam gyi sgron ma, in 68 verses) “outlin[es] the integration of three forms of discipline, including the vows of the prātimokṣa, bodhisattva precepts, and the precepts of the Secret Mantra Vehicle” (Illuminator, 2019, ch. 11). The last series of verses on mantrayāna begin with “If you wish to practice secret mantras” (t. gal te gsang sngags spyod 'dod na/).

“Then, to receive the ācārya consecration,
One must please an excellent spiritual teacher (s. ācārya t. slob dpon)
Through service, precious gifts, and so forth,
And follow his instructions.”

He warns monks and those with celibacy vows they can not receive “the secret and wisdom consecrations, because the Paramādibuddha Tantra strongly prohibits them”. The Paramādibuddha Tantra is the larger original tantra of the Kālacakra Tantra. For Atiśa Tantra has no precedence over prātimokṣa vows.

“One who has received the consecration of ācārya
May hear and explain all the tantras
And perform homa rituals and so forth.
There is no fault provided he has awareness of reality.”

“Provided he has awareness of reality (t. de nyid rig la)”... This is also Advaya-Avadhūtipa’s opinion in his Commentary[7] to Saraha’s Dohākośagīti n° 24 on gaṇacakra.

“Through eating, drinking and having sex
The [divine] circles (cakra) are constantly filled
With this instruction [they think] the other world will be realized
[But] the Lord of the world will thread on the heads of these idiots.”

Advaya-Avadhūtipa comments “if they succeed with these special instructions” the other world will be realized. “But if they don’t succeed” “the Lord of the world will thread on the heads of these idiots.[8]”

“Atiśa then added, “This path of the Mahāyāna Secret Mantra Vehicle is a blissful path, but it has great risks, benefits, and harms, like placing a snake in a bamboo tunnel or hanging a sword on an elephant’s trunk. Since the tantric way is very dangerous, Tibetans should not perform all four classes of tantras. Yoga tantras are suitable for Tibetans.” (Illuminator, 2019, ch. 2)

As for allegorizing Tantric instructions: “Atiśa was asked about the tantric practice of extracting the essence [rasāyana]. Atiśa said, “I extract the essence of the awakening mind.” (Illuminator, 2019, ch. 2). Also see his Wheel of Sharp Weapons (t. Blo sbyong mtshon cha'i 'khor lo). 

Unified sādhana practice

When Rinchen Zangpo told Atiśa he practiced a sādhana for each individual deity, Atiśa answered

“Although there are many teachings of dharma according to the inclinations of those to be disciplined, fundamentally they have the same flavor. It is sufficient to practice all creation and completion stage meditations in one single spot.[9]”

“Accordingly,” Atiśa concluded, “in terms of one deity, everything is completely practiced. The creation stage for one deity alone completely practices all of the deities[10].” (Illuminator, 2019, ch. 2)

“Atiśa practiced and taught the classical Mahāyāna Buddhism of the bodhisattva path blended with advanced meditative practices and rituals in the way of the Secret Mantra Vehicle.”

“The awakening mind is the key point in his teachings, as it permeates the stages of the path from the level of the beginner bodhisattva to the most advanced Secret Mantra practices. (Illuminator, 2019, ch. 3)

About Tilopa’s and Nāropa’s Cakrasaṃvara based Mahāmudrā transmission

An interesting anecdote in Atiśa’s life as told in Apple’s Illuminator (2019), is that Atiśa, who lived in Vikramaśīla where Nāropa is said to have taught, mentions the death of Nāropa before Atiśa left for Tibet in 1042.

“Around this time the former abbot of Nālandā Monastery and famous mahāsiddha Nāropa (956–1040) visited Vikramaśīla. Nāropa descended from his transport, with Atiśa supporting him with his right arm and Jñānaśrīmitra supporting him with his left arm. While seated on a lion throne, Nāropa stated that he did not have much longer to live and said to Atiśa, “You, Dīpaṃkara, are now master of the Buddha’s teaching.” Twenty days after leaving Vikramaśīla in a southernly direction, Nāropa died.” (Illuminator, 2019, ch. 1[11])

Naktso Lotsāwa, who was in the region in order to travel with Atiśa to Tibet, also recounts[12] a meeting with an aged Nāropa during the same period.

“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.” (Ronald M. Davidson, Indian Esoteric Buddhism, 2002)

Nāropa died in 1040, and Atiśa arrived in Tibet in 1042. Atiśa arrived in the region of Tsang in 1046. During that period:

“In Upper Nyang, Atiśa met Marpa lotsāwa Chökyi Lodrö (1012–1097). Marpa lotsāwa attended a few sessions of Atiśa’s teachings. Atiśa asked Marpa to serve as his translator, but Marpa respectfully declined, as he was on his way to India.[13]” (Illuminator, 2019, ch. 2)

Ron Davidson writes:

“Part of the problem that has dogged Marpas record is the fact that Nāropa died around 1040-42 and that Marpa was supposed to have spent twelve or more years with Nāropa during his three trips to India. Even with an early birthdate for Marpa, this length of contact is difficult to justify. Although some scholars have tried to resolve this dilemma, the approved response seems to be to ignore the inconsistency altogether. Some Kagyiipa writers even resorted to the expedient of having Marpa meet Nāropa after the latter’s death during the Tibetan’s third trip to India. The question is germane, considering the testimony of the eminent Nagtso, the Tibetan who shouldered much of the responsibility for inviting Atisa and guiding him through West and Central Tibet. His story is found in a letter written by Drakpa Gyeltsen in response to three questions put to him by a teacher from Kham, Jangchub Senge, who indicated that there was a controversy as to whether Marpa ever actually met Nāropa. Drakpa Gyeltsen’s response is illuminating[14]” (Ronald M. Davidson, Tibetan Renaissance, 2005

Transmission restricted to a single lineage

It’s during his third trip to India (≥ 1046) that Marpa is told to have received the aural transmissions of Cakrasaṃvara, “restricted to a single lineage [gcig brgyud] holder for thirteen generations”, and to be passed onto Milarepa[15]. Marpa received these teachings only during this third trip, because “it was not yet the appropriate time to give this teaching to you” (Life of Marpa, p. 91). Nāropa explains he himself had to undergo twelve great trials and twelve lesser trials of body and life “in order to receive this teaching” from Tilopa.

“Now, since I have attained power over phenomena, I go to the twenty-four sacred places and the buddha fields and I am well received in the gaṇacakra gatherings of dākas and dākinīs. Sometimes I am even the master of the gathering.”

Remember all the information about Marpa’s third trip to India comes from the hagiographies of Tsangnyön Heruka (1452-1507). There are so many caveats in his narratives. Marpa may very well have met Nāropa in his luminous immortal body and received the “aural transmission” in that way, defying historicity laws.


Atiśa transmitted Tilopa’s Mahāmudrā in secret?

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 Teachings on Mahāmudrā, 2017)

Do Atiśa’s teachings indeed “consistently focus on meditating on clear light as the co-emergent nature of the mind”? How does that fit in with his Madhyamaka view?

If Atiśa’s “Mahāmudrā”, “focused on Cakrasaṃvara”, does indeed come from Tilopa, Nāropa etc., how and when did Atiśa receive it himself? Before 1042? It was “restricted to a single lineage” writes Tsangnyön Heruka in the 15-16th century. Perhaps through the mahāsiddha Ḍombheruka in his human or eternal luminous body? What does “receive” mean? Why go into the trouble of trying to establish a historicity or holding up one where there clearly is none.

The claim that Atiśa did receive an aural transmission stemming from Tilopa, and that Atiśa did “realize” it needs to be hagiographically proven in miracles, and so it was...

“At the time Atiśa passed away, everyone saw that he hovered about an inch above the ground. Atiśa heard the sound of bells, supplicating prayers by his students in India, and the playful sounds of gods worshipping. Atiśa said that ḍākiṇīs went around him, his teachers were in Tuṣita Heaven, and that he would soon go there.” (Illuminator, 2019, ch. 2[16])

Fortunately we have Atiśa’s own writings to get a better idea about his inner intellectual and spiritual life.

See also my blog Les problèmes d'intégration d'Atiśa (02112015)

***

[1] The Seven Instruction Lineages, KBD, David Templeman, LTWA p. 11

[2] bla ma rje btsun bsten na bde// gdams ngag bdud rtsi 'thungs na bde// de nyid nyams su myong na bde// nyams myong ci yang med na bde// re dogs med pa'i lta ba bde// lhun gyis grub na yongs kyang bde// gnyis 'dzin med pa'i bsgom pa bde// gza' gtad med na yongs kyang bde// blang dor med pa'i spyod pa bde// nyam nga med na yongs kyang bde// sems kyis sems la bltas na bde// re dogs gol sa bcad na bde// ri khrod dgon pa 'grims na bde// re dogs med pa'i lta ba bde// yul dang gnyen 'dun bzhag na bde// bsod snyoms zas la bsten na bde// bde chen zas su zos na bde// 'od gsal gos su gon na bde// pho nya lam du khyer na bde// dmigs pa sna rtser gtad na bde//

zhes gsungs nas chu la thad kar thogs med du gshegs pas thams cad kyis grub pa thob par shes nas 'gyod cing phyi nas phar la phyag byas so// bla ma mnga' bdag chen po de nyid lho phyogs dpal gyi ri la rje btsun ri khrod pa'i zhabs kyi rdul la reg nas/ phyag rgya chen po'i dbang bskur mdzad pa'i dus su/ dngos po'i gnas lugs gtan la dbab pa'i ched du rdo rje'i glu blangs pa'o/

[3] Cyrus Stearns, Luminous Lives, The Story of the Early Masters of the Lam ’bras Tradition in Tibet, Simon and Schuster, 2002, p. 53

[4] “During his next trip Gayadhara was invited to Tibet by 'Gos Lo tsā ba Khug pa lhas btsas, who had met him in Nepal. In order to compete with his former teacher 'Brog mi, 'Gos Lo tsā ba had left the country to invite the famous master Maitrīpa to Tibet. When 'Gos Lo tsā ba met Gayadhara in Nepal, Gayadhara said, "I am Maitrīpa." 'Gos Lo tsā ba was delighted and invited him to Tibet. Not only did Gayadhara begin this trip by impersonating Maitripa, he was apparently known during this visit by yet another name-Sprin gyi shugs can (*Megavegin).”

“The Guhyasamāja Tantra was among the many works that Gayadhara and 'Gos Lo tsa ba translated together.”

[5] Phun tshogs tshe brtan. 2011. Mnyam med jo bo rje dpal ldan a ti sha’i rnam par thar pa phyogs bsdus dad pa’i ’jug ngogs. Beijing: Krung-go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang.

[6] “In the course of the training, the bodhisattva alternates between cognizing the non–conceptual space–like realm of reality (dharmadhātu) in meditative stabilization and viewing things as illusions in the post– meditative state. The alternation ceases at the stage of buddhahood, where for Atiśa, based on numerous citations from the hymns (stava) of Nāgārjuna (§3.2), the purified realm of reality (dharmadhātu) directly and constantly fuses with the dharmakåya, without any mental element or gnosis (jñåna) existing at all.” James B Apple, Atiśa’s Open Basket of Jewels: A Middle Way Vision in Late Phase Indian Vajrayāna, 2010

[7] Dohākoṣahṛdayārthagītāṭīkā (D2268, P3120) Do ha mdzod kyi snying po don gyi glu'i 'grel pa shes bya ba

[8] Nang gi tshogs ni bdud rtsi lnga dang sha lnga ni za la/ rdo rje chu 'thung gi man ngag gis 'thung la/ bde ba dang stong pa dbyer mi phyed pas

za zhing 'thung la gnyis sprod kyis dga' zhing/
'khor lo rim pa bzhin du byang chub kyi sems kyi bde bas 'gengs pas na/
rtag tu yang dang yang du 'khor lo'i 'gengs// 

thabs khyad par can gyi man ngag rtogs na/ 

chos 'di lta bus 'jig rten pha rol 'grub ba 'gyur te/
de lta bu'i chos ma rtogs na rmongs pa 'jig rten mgo bor rdog pas mnan nas song/

[9] Quoted from Rinchen Zangpo’s biography (Snellgrove and Skorupski, 1980, vol. 2, 109.20–22).

[10] Universally Known Biography 2012, 133.11–34.16. Rnam thar yongs grags attributed to Chim Namkha Drak (1210–1285)

[11] Footnote: Extensive Biography 315, Eimer 1979, 231; Universally Known Biography 2012, 119.

[12] Indian Esoteric Buddhism, A Social History of the Tantric Movement, Ronald M. Davidson, Columbia University Press, 2002, p. 117, p.412 footnote 44 Rnal 'byor byang chub seng ge'i dris lan, SKB III.277.4.5-278.2.2:

[13] Footnote: Phun tshogs tshe brtan 2011, 77. Gtsang smyon He ru ka 1982, 77–78. Padma dkar po 1973, 445.

[14] Davidson, Ronald M. Tibetan Renaissance. pg 143-144. Columbia University Press, 2005.

[15] The Life of Marpa the Translator, Prajñā Press, Boulder, 1982, p.90

[16] Extensive Biography 372–73; Eimer 1979, 392; Universally Known Biography 2012, 192.15–93.5.

Realist Revolution: "How the Occult Transformed Philosophy & Spirituality"

"The Great Chain of Being"

A recent video about a “Realist revolution” by Dr. Justin Sledge of Esoterica drew my attention. “How the Occult Transformed Philosophy & Spirituality”, in the West, we could add. One could argue that similar developments on smaller local scales may have taken place in the East, although the Platonic corpus had never disappeared from the East, nor the “ancient theology”, nor the Kabbalah, see below. I will only transcribe an edited form of the parts of Dr. Sledge’s video that I found most relevant for this blog. I am thinking in particular of the power transition in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism from Prajñāpāramitā and Madhyamaka, via Buddhist “scholasticism” to Yogācāra, Tantra to Mahāmudrā and Dzogchen. From “Nominalism” to “Metaphysical Realism”, and from a realm of becoming to a realm of being, with a Great chain of being, a chain of Light.

“Following centuries where Platonic Forms and Ideas were taken to be eternally real, the middle ages saw a dramatic shift. And, by the mid-14th century, metaphysical categories were taken to be mere words, names - hence, Nominalism. However, this philosophical triumph of Nominalism would be short lived. In the mid-15th century, discoveries and translations of ancient texts would give rise to a Realist Revolution led by Platonism, Hermeticism and Kabbalah. This episode explores how this Realism brought on occult philosophy transformed western philosophy and spirituality.

Perhaps all Western philosophical problems emerged, the positions of Plato and Aristotle, in this case, in what we call the problem of the universals, language and logic, especially categorical logics. [ ] To what degree the language that I use to perform that categorization has any metaphysical impact on either the particular or the universal. Plato famously answered that, at least some universals are, in fact, metaphysically real. Those of course, are the forms, the ideas of Platonic philosophy.

These forms were witnessed by our pre-carnate souls largely forgotten when we got incarnated, and they're remembered as we come to learn new things. Thus, you actually don't learn geometry, but your soul remembers it as you study it in this life. Mathematical entities, and especially conceptual entities like goodness, justice and beauty exist as general categories in a perfect eternal realm of being. We live in the realm of becoming in which human beings interact through the organ, as it were, of their souls, for Plato. The soul is an organ of perception. Specifically the perception of the forms. Aristotle thought that the platonic forms, the universal categories are simply conventional names for sets of things. These two positions set the typologies of how to deal with the problem of universals down to this day.

Plato's position is that some abstract objects have their own independent existence, and those categories are in fact real entities just as real as you and I. Perhaps even more real than you and I. This position is known as realism, and those entities are variably said to exist in their own realm, in the mind of God, or in what we might call “moderate realism”, as found in folks like Don Scotus, where they actually exist as sort of concepts within the human mind, but they're still in there and they're still real.

On the other hand Nominalism is a position that universal categories or abstract objects like numbers exist in name only. From the Latin nomen. Categories, universals and mathematical objects were simply conventions of language and logic (t. tha snyed bden pa), by which we communicate ideas or perform mathematical and logical functions. Both Aristotle and Plato were more or less conventionalists when it came to the philosophy of language, which is just to say that they held that language was basically of no intrinsic, metaphysical bearing on either the particulars or the universals. Plato does sometimes seem to suggest that the language has its origins in natural science, which means they're not totally arbitrary in the way.

By the early European Middle Ages, it was Platonism that appeared to be the front-runner for philosophical dominance: Saint Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and John Scotus Eriugena, not to be confused with the later Duns Scotus. We're all much more in the camp of Plato. And therefore, something of the Realist camp, typically thinking that the forms were literally thoughts and the perfect ideas of God's mind.

Further language itself is considered to be a kind of divine gift. Linking human beings, with God being part of that whole, we're created in the Divine image. However, that Platonic bend was not the last. Attacks, starting with Abelard, and the translation projects of Aristotle from Arabic, especially as those translations were shaded as we might say with the commentaries of Averroes. The 12th and 13th century saw a dramatic shift to Nominalism, and while there were many moderate Realist holdouts, scholastics like Thomas Aquinas and Dun Scotus did hold on to a moderate form of Realism. Again with those categories existing really, but as mental objects primarily.

William of Ockham would lead a full frontal assault on the last vestiges of Realism with Nominalism or Terminism, flowering. After the mid 14th century Platonic Realism had basically been crushed. Occult practice would have gone on through that period ignoring the scholastic debates. Occult practitioners were concerned with experimental results, and not with metaphysical arguments. Dozens of magical manuals proliferated through the Latin West during this period. An intellectually rich occult philosophy can’t flourish under Nominalism, but three factors would boost it.

Firstly, the rediscovery and publication at the very heart of Metaphysical Realism, the works of Plato and his intellectual and spiritual inheritors, including Plotinus, Porphyrus, Iamblichus etc. Through the mid-15th century Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499) would translate the Platonic corpus along with the works of Neoplatonists. The recent invention of the printing press would help spread these. Metaphysical Realism was back on the agenda.

Secondly, and indirectly thanks to Marsilio Ficino again, was the arrival of the Corpus Hermeticum. It was believed to be the recovery of profoundly primeval wisdom. The pervasive belief was that ancient wisdom was nearer to the Divine source of all knowledge and was therefore more pure and more true. The Corpus Hermeticum was thought to be the teachings of the ancient Egyptian Sage Hermes, Trismegistus, Hermes, the Thrice great, sometimes heralded as the teacher of Moses himself. The Prisca theologia ("ancient theology") proved decisive over and against scholastic philosophy. Because insofar as this ancient wisdom was simply nearer to the Divine truth. It could simply undermine the entire scholastic corpus, without any argument, because it was more ancient and pure.

Hermetic ideas such as the semi-divine nature of the human being, the macro-microcosm relation and an overall warming to theurgical and magical practices would also begin to transform European spiritual and intellectual life.

Abracadabra, I create as I speak (photo Dr. Justin Sledge)

Thirdly, Metaphysical Realism would get an unlikely boost from Kabbalah, that primarily developed in the 13th century in Spain and in France though inheriting important texts from late Antiquity Kabbalah. The indigenous Jewish Realism of the Kabbalah’s came about through Divine speech. The Hebrew language was no mere convention, it was a sacred language. The Torah had God speaking creation into being in texts like the Sefer Yetzirah, expounded upon and systematized into both a cosmogonic theory but also a magical practice. Thought and language are bound up with Divine activity in the mind of Kabbalah such that the human mind is said to commune with the Divine Mind through super-rational prophetic intercourse performed at some level in Hebrew and through Hebrew. For the first few centuries the development the Kabbalah was a highly esoteric literature and practice known only to a very tiny group of rabbinical elites. But at exactly this time period in the mid 15th century when Platonism and Hermeticism were also reemerging, Pico della Mirandola (1463-1494) would spearhead the introduction of Kabbalah into the wider European intellectual and spiritual landscape. He did this by employing several converted Jews. Pico would orchestrate translations of several key Kabbalistic texts arguing that the Kabbalah too contained primeval truths, necessary to restore the "proper dignity" to the human being (Oration on the Dignity of Man, 1486)  so much so that magic and Kabbalah were the best proofs of the truth of Christianity, over and against the dominant scholastic Paradigm and the scholastic philosophy. In fact Pico argued that through magic and Kabbalah was it possible for humans to become truly exalted, transforming themselves into something virtually angelic in character.

"The works of Christ could not be done either by the way of magic or by the way of the Kabbalah .

The miracles of Christ, not by reason of the thing done, but by reason of the manner of doing them, are the most certain proof of his divinity.

There is no science that certifies us more about the divinity of Christ: magic and Kabbalah."

Pico's argument (photo Dr. Justin Sledge)

In a sense, by the start of the 15th century some form of Nominalism was the dominant answer to the problem of universals, with a largely conventionalist theory of language. Then within the span of just about a generation, the Platonic Corpus including neoplatonism, the Prisca theologia in the form of the Corpus Hermeticum and the rise of Kabbalah in the form of Christian Kabbalah had united into what would become the foundations of modern Western esotericism, and a absolute spear against Nominalism which was triumphant only decades earlier. Nominalism was now facing a profound intellectual existential crisis and the effects were immediate. Ficino's magical practice adopted a Great chain of being model rather than the one in which the sublunar world was fundamentally distinct from the world of the celestial realm thus linking the human being with the Divine in a way that was almost blasphemous in the world of scholastic thinking which embraced a hardcore Aristotelian world. The Great chain of being broke that world.”

I recommend to watch the whole video, because Dr. Sledge makes some interesting connections with modern times. "Creating through speech" (Abracadabra) has the wind in the sails again... with Golems (chatbots) all over the place  

Gnostic Pointing-Out Instructions on Pure Light

Imperial Passport, Universal Seal "mahāmudrā"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thrice Male
Thrice Powerful
Thrice Named

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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."

When Yogācāra took over

The Streetlight effect (graphics Datamotive)

The Three Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma (s. tridharmacakravartana) was first mentioned in the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra and the works of the Yogācāra school. This sūtra was translated into Chinese in 440 CE. It is thought to have been developed between the 1st and the 3rd century CE.

In this sūtra, the first turning of the wheel concerns the selflessness of the Hearers (śrāvaka, “hīnayāna”) and the second turning of the wheel the emptiness of the Prajñāpāramitā scriptures (“mahāyāna”). The underlying intent (s. saṃdhi t. dgongs pa) of  these “hīnayāna” and “mahāyāna” approaches require further explication, “for their meaning has to be drawn out (s. neyārtha, t. drang don) through the fully explicit (s. nitārtha, t. nges don) hermeneutic of the [ ] analysis of consciousness”, i.e. the three patterns of consciousness (s. trisvabhāva) according to Yogācāra. The Buddha Nature doctrine (tathāgatagarbha) is also included in the Third turning of the wheel, and as a fully explicit (nitārtha) teaching[1].

“This turning was the most marvelous and wonderful that had ever occurred in the world. It had no superior nor did it contain any implicit meaning nor occasion any controversy[2].”

Yogācāra reframes Buddhism according to its own views and needs and doesn’t refrain from depreciating those who “resist”, often through words put into the mouth of the Buddha uttering the fully explicit sūtras of the third turning. The more positive approach of “consciousness” and “the Great Self” (Buddha Nature) allows for future positive practices to approach and “realize” (t. rtogs pa) “true reality” in its various forms and stages (s. tattva), including deity practice. A philosophical understanding and even a more “mystic” or “inconceivable” abiding in “emptiness”, although liberating, is not enough to develop “luminous” or “divine” qualities, that allow for the attainment of the full potential of a Buddha’s trikāya.

This implies that the views of great Buddhist teachers from the past, such as Nāgārjuna, sometimes called “the Second Buddha”, could be in contradiction with the doctrines (and practices) of Yogācāra. To save past great teachers from their limited views, and to use their scriptural authority, later writings (pseudepigrapha, apocrypha, etc.) could be attributed to them, in which they adapt their first and second turning views to the correct, fully explicit third turning ones. It is also good for the unity of a Buddhist community and allows to integrate earlier teachings in a progressive curriculum. This was also to become the blueprint for the development of Buddhism in Tibet.

In this way Nāgārjuna could be considered to have taught Madhyamaka, Yogācāra and even Tantra, teaching at different levels, for different individuals, following their progression. There is no longer a contradiction in Nāgārjuna as the author of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, the Bodhicittavivaraṇa, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa (Dà zhìdù lùn), the Path and Grounds of the Guhyasamāja, etc. With time passing Nāgārjuna’s view seemed to become more and more clear and precise… Of course the earlier views of Nāgārjuna would have to be re-interpreted through the most recent ones.

In Yogācāra Buddhism (Yogācārabhūmi-Śāstra) transformation is central. Transformation is possible because of a more positive approach. States of purification and consciousness can be targeted, attained, realized, “measured”, and so can positive qualities and cognitions (jñāna). Qualities can be symbolized by attributes of deities, they can be visualized, and when properly integrated, they can appear “spontaneously” in dreams, visions, etc. as signs of progress. When Tantras are incorporated in the Yogācāra curriculum (or develop out of it…), they open up further possibilities.

Once former views have gradually integrated in a mainstream view and have been properly digested, and the associated polemics have been pacified, they are no longer a threat. We can have a look at how e.g. the Kagyu school looked at the evolution of Buddhism through Yogācārin eyes.

“The Buddha taught that of all the progressively subtle ways of explaining the true nature of reality, the ultimate description one can make is that the true nature of reality is the true nature of mind, the union of luminous clarity and emptiness[3].”

In practice, the union of luminosity and emptiness is the combination of Yogācāra ("luminosity") and Madhyamaka ("emptiness"). 

A song by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso summarizes the Buddha’s teaching of “the union of luminous clarity and emptiness” in five “schools” and steps. It is called the Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness and can be found in the online e-book Dancer of Great Bliss (t. bDe chen gyi gar mkhan).

Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso (Dancer of Great Bliss)

“1. The Way to Meditate on Selflessness
In order to gain knowledge about the abiding nature of reality,
Know that the five aggregates are not the self
And that the mind believing in the self is not the self, either,
And when you gain certainty in this, rest right within that.

2. The Way to Meditate in the Mind-Only Tradition
Since perceived objects are the confused projections of habitual tendencies, they do not truly exist.
Therefore, the mind that perceives them does not truly exist either.
When you gain certainty that reality is empty of this duality,
Settle naturally into that—without contrivance, let go and relax.

3. The Way to Meditate in the Autonomy Tradition
Since they are neither one nor many, phenomena have no inherent nature.
Since they neither arise, abide, nor cease, thoughts have no inherent nature.
Since there is neither bondage nor liberation, the disturbing states of mind have no inherent nature.
Knowing this well, rest within great emptiness.

4. The Way to Meditate in the Consequence Tradition
Existent, nonexistent, and so forth,
Empty, not empty, and so forth,
Permanence, extinction, and so forth—
Genuine reality transcends all such conceptual fabrications.

5. The Way to Meditate in the Empty-of-Other Tradition
When we analyze this mind, we cannot find any essence,
But when we do not analyze, experiences of luminosity are unceasing.
Therefore, mind is luminosity and emptiness, primordially inseparable,
And this is known as luminous clarity, the buddha nature[4].”

I will quote parts of the explanation by Karl Brunnhölzl in his book The Center of the Sunlit Sky[5] to go into more detail about the view of the Kagyu Tradition, resuming the Buddha’s teaching of “the union of luminous clarity and emptiness” in five “schools” and steps.

1. “The first step—the meditation on personal identitylessness, or looking for a self in relation to our five aggregates.”

2. “Now, from the second step (Cittamātra) onward, we deal only with phenomenal identitylessness. This second step of “mere mind” basically says that all our experiences, whatever they and their objects may look like, do not occur anywhere other than within our mind. In other words, both the apprehending subject and the apprehended object are of a mental nature.”

3. “The third step in the progressive stages of meditation on emptiness is named after the Autonomists [Svatantrika] and refers to emptiness as a spacelike nonimplicative negation. Even if we realize that there are neither really existent outer objects nor subjects to perceive them, there is still the subtle clinging to the reality of our mere mental experience free from perceiver and perceived.”

4. “The fourth step in the progressive stages of meditation on emptiness is called the stage of Consequentialists and presents emptiness as utter freedom from discursiveness. As was explained, any nonimplicative negation is still a conceptual object and thus a reference point. So even the nonimplicative negation of emptiness in the sense of the mere absence of a real nature, nonarising, and such (as in the third step) is still a subtle reference point. In order for our mind to be able to fully relax within the space of the expanse of dharmas free from center or edge, it has to let go of even its most subtle grasping at any reference point including the freedom from reference points. This is the space of the actual freedom from all discursiveness that we allow for during the fourth step.”

5. “The fifth step in the progressive stages of meditation on emptiness is named after Shentong-Madhyamaka and presents emptiness as inseparable from mind’s luminosity. Since the very freedom from discursiveness and reference points described in the last step is not just some blank space or mere absence (which would be the extreme of extinction or nihilism), it is also described as luminosity, or the unity of wisdom and expanse. Hence, in terms of the actual nature of mind, the fifth stage is not really an additional or higher stage above the freedom from discursiveness.”

The Kagyu tradition focuses on “the eventual experiential unity of the last two steps [4 and 5]”: emptiness and luminosity. But in reality and in practice, Luminosity swallows emptiness “whole and soul”, and follows Ratnākaraśānti’s “Sheer Luminosity” (t. gsal ba tsam s. prakāśamātra), centered on “deity practice”, as do the other schools of Tibetan Buddhism.

As it says in Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso’s song, “And this is known as luminous clarity, the buddha nature”, the “Great Self” with emptiness contained in its stomach. It may be called “Yogacara-Madhyamaka”, “Great Yogacara-Madhyamaka”, “other-emptiness” (t. gzhan stong), it remains Yogācāra.

Karl Brunnhölzl writes “[ ] what is called Shentong is nothing other than the Yogācāra (Yoga Practice) system of Maitreya, Asaṅga, and Vasubandhu, also called “the lineage of vast activity.” He adds in a note

“In its most general sense, in all Buddhist schools, it just refers to the practice of yoga, i.e., meditation practice as opposed to study and reflection (in this sense it is also used in the title and content of Āryadeva’s Four Hundred Verses on the Yogic Practice of Bodhisattvas [Catuḥśataka]).”

The practice of “Yoga” in a Yogācāra and Tantric sense is always centered on deity practice (unifying macrocosm and microcosm). Here too, the above mentioned Āryadeva, supposedly Naragjuna’s student, has this and other Yogācāra texts attributed to him, and even Tantric texts. Yogācāra authors are without scruples. In a future blog I will give another example of this Yogācāra/Shentong strategy of recuperating earlier teachers for their cause.

Religions evolve, and may evolve differently in different times and places, and the narratives change accordingly. Is it acceptable for Western Buddhists to simply follow the latest sectarian narrative of Buddhism’s history as it is presented to them by their teachers, and by the religious literature recommended by them? Wouldn’t it be far more interesting to find out how, when and why the narratives changed? Markus Vinzent thinks so and made some interesting discoveries for Christianity.

“History, as I have tried to show, is much more retrospection than reception and, accordingly, more retrospective reconstruction than reproduction. To put it another way, the subject of any historiography is its author. The historian is an actor in and of the story of history, not a passive listener to stories told. The protagonists who appear in historian’s stories and the evidence on which these stories are based are always selected and shaped by those who write and interact with them. And writers use the narratives, protagonists and evidence that have been conveyed to them in various and unpredictable ways and from their respective perspectives and contexts. We write history as a chronological narrative, but we also retrospectively create it from our current point of view; what sounds to us to be representative of the past is, in fact, eminently subjective. We cannot escape this subjective moment. The best we can do is to bring our own subjectivity into conversation with that of the authors of our sources and their readers. This is exactly how I understand the discourse of scholarship, with regard to early Christianity and in other contexts as well: as creating a conversation open to those who want to share, expand or correct this story, who love it and even devote their lives to it – as I enthusiastically do with so many of my days.” Markus Vinzent (Resetting the Origins of Christianity, A New Theory of Sources and Beginnings

Looking for something in the Light

Update: I just learned the passing away of Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche (1935- 22/06/2024). Very grateful for everything he taught us

***

[1] See Keenan, John (2000), Scripture on the Explication of the Underlying Meaning, Berkeley: Numata Center

[2] Keenan, John (2000), p. 49

[3] Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso, Nāgārjuna, Ari Goldfield - The Sun of Wisdom, Teachings on the Noble Nāgārjuna's Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way, Shambhala, 2003

[4] stong nyid sgom rim/
gang zag gi bdag med ni/
gnas lugs rtogs pa'i shes rab ldan 'gyur na//
bdag 'dzin sems kyang bdag tu ma grub par//
phung lnga gang zag bdag tu ma grub cing*//
nges shes rnyed na de'i ngang bzhag par bya//

sems tsam ni/
bag chags 'khrul snang yin phyir gzung ba med//
gnyis stong don la nges shes rnyed pa na//
de phyir 'dzin pa'i sems kyang ma grub pas//
de'i ngang rang babs ma bcos lhod kyis glod//

rang rgyud ni/
gcig dang du ma bral phyir chos kun rang bzhin med//
bcing dang grol ba med phyir nyon mongs rang bzhin med//
skye 'gag gnas pa med phyir rnam rtog rang bzhin med//
de ltar legs par shes te stong chen ngang du zhog//

thal 'gyur ni/
yod dang med pa la sogs dang*//
rtag dang chad pa la sogs pa'i//
stong dang mi stong la sogs dang*//
spros pa kun bral shes par bya//

gzhan stong ni/
sems de dpyad na ngo bo ma dmigs kyang*//
gsal stong dbye ba med par gdod nas grub//
ma dpyad gsal nyams 'gags med shar ba'i phyir//
'od gsal bde gshegs snying po zhes su grags//

[5] Karl Brunnhölzl, The Center of the Sunlit Sky, Madhyamaka in the Kagyu Tradition, Nitartha Institute Series, 2004, p.