La théologie lumineuse du vishnouïsme

Bouddha comme l'avatar de Vishnou entouré de deux disciples

Vishnou (Viṣṇu)[1] était à l’origine un dieu solaire mineur. Indra, Agni et Varuna formaient la triade divine (trimūrti) védique du cycle cosmique. Autour de l’époque des purāṇa (300 de l’ère commune), Viṣṇu, Śiva (anciennement Rudra) et Brāhma avaient pris leur place. Viṣṇu et Śiva sont actuellement considérés comme des dieux suprêmes, Brāhma étant le démiurge cyclique.

Viṣṇu peut être vu comme la Conscience universelle rayonnante, qui établit et maintient l’ordre (dharma) à l’aide de ses avatars-rayons Kṛṣṇa, Rāma, Kalki, Buddha, etc. (voir le Bhāgavata-Purāṇa 1.3.24). L’avatar Bouddha réussit à convertir les athées en dévots du Bouddha, ce qui était un pas dans la bonne direction pour les éternalistes (āstika).

“Alors, au commencement du kālī-yuga et afin de confondre les ennemis des dieux (suradviṣām), un Bouddha du nom de Fils d’Añjana apparaîtra dans le pays de Kīkaṭa.[2]”

En tant que Conscience universelle, Viṣṇu est comme l’Intellect cosmique d’Anaxagore et des platoniciens, la Lumière divine ou Noûs. Tout en brillant au sommet du cosmos, il s’étend partout dans le monde matériel et spirituel, et c’est à travers ses rayons descendants (avatāra) qu’il guide les humains. Ses avatars sont indissociables de lui-même, et tout (sarva) est pénétré de l’Intellect cosmique qui unifie tout. 

"A chaque fois que l'Ordre chancelle et que le désordre se répand, je me recrée moi-même.

Je renais ainsi d'âge en âge pour la protection des bons et la perte des méchants, pour la restauration de l'Ordre." IV.7-8, La Bhagavad-Gītā, trad. Emile Sénart et Michel Hulin. 

La descente des avatars n’est pas régie par la coproduction conditionnée ou le karma, mais dépend de la volonté divine, dans ce cas de celle de Viṣṇu. Dans le bouddhisme, les nirmāṇakāya se manifestent par les voeux passés du bodhisattva/Bouddha, ou sont la simple expression de “compassion” du Bouddha “cosmique”.

Pour les adeptes de Viṣṇu l’âme est éternelle et continue ses transmigrations jusqu’à sa libération (mokṣa). Viṣṇu accompagne et guide l’âme à travers ses avatars. La dévotion et l’amour inconditionnelle (bhakti) pour Viṣṇu ou un de ses avatars est un facteur de libération, plus fort que le karma. La grâce divine est indispensable pour la libération et le salut de l’âme. L’âme est distincte du divin, mais possède les mêmes qualités (voir Ramanuja). La libération n’est pas la sortie du saṃsāra (quelle que soit la carrière post-saṃsārique), mais la réunion de l’âme avec Viṣṇu, l’Intellect cosmique. Les quatre facteurs rendant possible ces retrouvailles sont la dévotion inconditionnelle (bhakti), l’abandon total (prapatti) à Viṣṇu, le respect de ses propres devoirs respectifs (svadharma), et la grâce (kṛpā/anugraha) de Viṣṇu.

Le concept de libération (mokṣa) diffère ainsi de celui dans le bouddhisme classique avec, par exemple, ses huit dissociations (aṣṭa vimokṣa), sans unification/identification divine ou autre. Dans le bouddhisme ésotérique cependant, ces quatre facteurs (ou équivalents) sont bien présents sous une forme ou une autre. Dans les sūtra du Mahāyāna, les tantras et dans d’autres sources mythologiques of hagiographiques, on voit un plérôme constitué d’un Bouddha cosmique entouré de dieux, de bodhisattvas, etc., prendre la décision d’envoyer un avatar, nirmāṇakāya ou autre sauveur avec une mission spécifique (voir p.e. le Dict de Padma), notamment l’enseignement de méthodes plus aptes aux besoins spécifiques de l’époque. Les “formes” (mūrti) mêmes des avatars s’adaptent à ces besoins. Ce qui ne change pas c’est l’approche top-down, la décision est prise en haut et a autorité divine, et celui qui est considéré comme avatar/nirmāṇakāya est porteur de cette autorité. N’ayant pas accès à la source eux-mêmes, les terriens doivent se satisfaire de ces intermédiaires.

L'apparition d’un avatar, son enseignement, etc., nous sont connus par des écrits humains, prétendument rédigés par des témoins directs. D’autres intermédiaires…

“- Bien, ô Vāseṭṭha. Si ces brāhmanes versés dans les trois Veda montrent la voie pour s'unir avec quelqu'un dont ils ne savent rien, qu'ils n'ont jamais vu en disant : "Voici la voie directe, voici la véritable voie, la voie qui mène l'individu qui la suit à l'état d'union avec Brahmā", c'est un fait qui ne tient pas debout. Ô Vāseṭṭha, la parole des brāhmanes versés dans les trois Veda est semblable à une rangée d'aveugles attachés ensemble - le premier ne peut pas voir, celui qui est au milieu ne peut pas voir et celui qui est à la fin ne peut pas voir. Alors, la parole de ces brāhmanes versés dans les trois Veda s’avère une parole qui mérite d’exciter le rire, une prétendue parole, une parole insensée, une parole vide. » [Sermons du Bouddha, Môhan Wijayaratna, Sagesses, pp. 141-161]

Des intermédiaires considérés comme des avatars, porteurs de l’autorité divine, transmise d’une détenteur à un autre. Ce dont il s’agit au fond, c'est cette autorité qui reste indiscutable pour ceux qui croient en un dieu suprême ou équivalent. Tout peut changer, tout peut être un variable, mais l’autorité doit rester. L’autorité et la volonté (ou liberté/līlā) divines, de l’Intellect cosmique, du Bouddha cosmique, de la Lumière incommensurable, etc.

Dans le vishnouisme, l’âme (ātma), de nature divine, est dite être “lumineuse”, “radieuse”, “claire” (prakāśa). Cette âme possède déjà potentiellement les qualités de Viṣṇu, l’âme suprême (Paramātmā). Selon Ramanuja (11ème s.), les qualités naturellement présentes de l’ātma sont la gnose (jñāna, omniscience), la félicité (ānanda), la pureté (śuddha), la permanence (nitya), et la conscience (cit). Ces qualités sont celles de l’Âme suprême, Viṣṇu. Le Soi lumineux est naturellement doté de ces qualités divines. C’est d'ailleurs aussi le cas chez le tibétain Longchenpa[3] (14ème s.). Selon Ramanuja, ces qualités peuvent être actualisées par la dévotion, la purification, et la grâce divine. Selon Ratnākaraśānti (ca. 970-1045), la grâce divine est également requise pour actualiser toutes les qualités du parfait état de Bouddha (“bouddhification”).

***

[1] Rigveda 1.154 sur les trois pas de Viṣṇu couvrant les trois niveaux : terre, espace intermédiaire, cieux, y établissant ainsi ses décrets.

[2] Tataḥ kalau sampravṛtte sammohāya suradviṣām |
Buddho nāmnāñjanasutaḥ kīkaṭeṣu bhaviṣyati || 24 ||

Commentaire du 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.”

[3] “Since self-arisen wisdom, great perfection (rdzog chen) itself, exists throughout beginningless time as the spontaneously present qualities of the Buddha's vast abundance [of treasures], the three kāyas are [already] complete as his own possession. Therefore, they do not need to be searched for once [the alayavijñana] has been turned back.” A Direct Path to the Buddha Within, Klaus-Dieter Mathes.

Klong chen pa: Grub mtha' mdzod, 329.5: rang byung gi ye shes rdzogs pa chen po nyid ye nas sangs rgyas kyi che ba'i yon tan lhun grub tu yod pas/ sku gsum rang chas su tshang ba'i phyir logs nas btsal mi dgos ....

L'idéologie lumineuse et ses appareils pas si spontanés

En bas, la cité terrestre encerclée par les daimons, détail, Manuscrit de Raoul de Presles, c.1469-73, BnF 

Ratnākaraśānti (ca. 970-1045 C.E.) fut un des prophètes indiens de l’idéologie lumineuse qui domine le bouddhisme tibétain contemporain. Pour lui, dans sa pratique (pas dans sa scolastique), tous les faits mentaux (dharmā) sont “rien que pensée”, “rien que conscience” et “rien que luminosité” (t. gsal ba tsam s. prakāśamātra), la Luminosité étant comme la substance réelle des “phénomènes” (dharmā)[1]. La coproduction interdépendante et la vacuité sont subordonnées à elle, et au fond contenues en elle. Les phénomènes, lumineux par nature, peuvent être directement perçus (pratyakṣa), sans images (nirākāravāda), et ne sont alors pas réfléchis. Quelle est la source de cette Lumière ? Le tathāgatagarbha ou “Essence de Bouddha” (buddhadhātu), qui est "éternelle, bienheureuse, caractérisée par un moi personnel et pure.”[2] Un Soi Lumineux en lien direct (Logos) avec la Source Lumineuse (Noûs), ou ses équivalents bouddhistes ésotériques, mais néanmoins obnubilé par l’Ignorance (avidyā). A cause d'une double obnubilation, la réintégration de la Luminosité, le parfait état de Bouddha au triple Corps (trikāya, primordialement présent en chacun), est impossible aux non-initiés.

Ratnākaraśānti insiste sur l’importance de l’identification à la réalité divine pour rejoindre la plus haute réalisation.

“(4) Ou bien, si l'on médite seulement sur la vraie nature de ce que les divinités représentent et non sur les divinités mêmes, alors dans ce cas aussi, on atteindra la bouddhéité en d'innombrables éons, mais pas rapidement.

(5) Par conséquent, la méditation des deux [l'esprit en tant que divinité et la vraie nature des divinités en même temps], parce qu'elle est extrêmement agréable pour l'esprit et parce qu'elle est une consécration (abhiṣeka) particulière, permet d'obtenir très rapidement l'éveil parfait le plus élevé."[3]

La pratique de la divinité (p.e. Guhyasamāja), requiert un Guru, une consécration et par conséquent le service au Guru[4]. Le disciple est ainsi admis dans un cercle d’initiés. La divinité, une manifestation du Bouddha cosmique, est indissociable du Guru. C’est à cause de cette forme de bouddhisme ésotérique que la société bouddhiste tibétaine a été dans le passé parfois qualifiée de “lamaïste”, “Lama” étant la traduction tibétaine de “Guru”. Ce terme avait été jugé péjoratif et fut abandonné, mais la société tibétaine était bien une société théocratique. La doctrine de la Luminosité (prakāśavāda) est religieuse dans le sens qu’elle est centrée sur un culte du divin. Cette Luminosité peut être considérée comme “Lumière incommensurable” (Noûs), ou “lumière noétique”[5] Quand cette doctrine est partagée au sein d’une même société (ou groupe), elle en devient l'idéologie (Mapping Ideology, Slavoj Žižek).

Une idéologie n’est pas simplement un ensemble passif d'idées, que l’on adopterait librement, mais participe activement à façonner les perceptions et la conscience des membres dune communauté, ou groupe, et, selon Žižek, souvent en masquant les structures de pouvoir sous-jacentes qu'elle soutient. Elle est “matérialisée” dans ce qu’Althusser appelait les Appareils Idéologiques d’État (AIE), ou dans une religion sous forme d' “églises”, de communautés (saṅgha), etc. Ces communautés représentent et propagent les croyances, mais surtout elles les incarnent matériellement à travers leur existence même et leurs pratiques. Les pratiques, cérémonies et rituels ne sont pas seulement des expressions de foi, mais aussi les mécanismes qui produisent et renforcent activement cette foi. Ils façonnent et reconfirment les croyances au sein d’une communauté.

“Lorsque Althusser répète, après Pascal[6] : "Agis comme si tu croyais, prie, agenouille-toi et tu croiras, la foi viendra d'elle-même", il décrit un mécanisme réflexif complexe de fondation rétroactive "autopoétique" qui dépasse de loin l'affirmation réductionniste de la dépendance de la croyance intérieure à l'égard du comportement extérieur. En d'autres termes, la logique implicite de son argument est la suivante : agenouillez-vous et vous croirez que vous vous êtes agenouillé à cause de votre croyance - c'est-à-dire que le fait de suivre le rituel est l'expression/l'effet de votre croyance intérieure ; en bref, le rituel "externe" génère de manière performative son propre fondement idéologique[7].” (Mapping Ideology, Slavoj Žižek)

Par leur simple performance, les pratiques et rituels créent une réalité qui confirme et perpétue l'idéologie. Ils mobilisent physiquement la communauté, confirment les croyances et légitiment et renforcent le pouvoir des institutions. Les fêtes religieuses, les jours auspicieux, les monuments symboliques (stūpa, caitya), les statues, les icônes, marquent le temps et l’espace. Les hagiographies offrent des exemples (souvent fictifs) de pratiquants modèles qui ont réussi. En baignant dans cette idéologie, qui se matérialise dans le temps et l’espace, elle finit par être intégrée et devient alors invisible, évidente, allant de soi. Cette évidence est l'un des stratagèmes fondamentaux d’une idéologie. Ce que l’on pourrait considère comme une perception spontanée ou naturelle est souvent façonnée par des structures idéologiques. Les monastères ne sont pas seulement des lieux de culte mais aussi et surtout des centres d'éducation et de formation, et donc de reproduction.

Quand Bernadette de Lourdes voit une apparition, elle parle de “la chose” (aquero), une “fille blanche”. Sa communauté lui explique qui était cette “chose”. Les visions de Mme Guyon, analysées par Henri Delacroix, se conforment à, et confirment l’idéologie dont elle était imprégnée. Une lumière blanche devient la vierge, le Christ, Hermès, Mañjuśrī, Kṛṣṇa, selon l’idéologie spirituelle spécifique qui est la nôtre.

La philosophie, et notamment la philosophie grecque (platonicienne, néo-pythagoricienne) pendant la période helléniste, a permis l’émergence d’un Dieu universel (“l’Intellect philosophique”[8], Noûs), quasiment philosophique, au-dessus du lot polythéiste. Les dieux et les daimons sont dits avoir des corps immatériels faits “de lumière”, ou "auto-illuminants" (svaprakāśa), voire “faits de pensée” (manomaya) ou de gnose (jñāna), et émanées de la Lumière incommensurable. Intellect et Lumière sont des traductions possibles pour le Noûs, la source ultime d’Intellect et de Lumière invisible. Nous serions en essence les étincelles de cet Intellect ou Lumière incommensurable. Telle semble être la croyance fondamentale qui alimente les croyances anciennes et nouvelles de notre temps (théosophie, anthroposophie, New age,...). Pour s’implanter et pour durer en devenant une idéologie, une religion ne peut pas se limiter à un ensemble de croyances abstraites ; elle doit s’incarner dans des pratiques matérielles, dans des “Appareils Idéologiques d’État” (AIE), et marquer la vie quotidienne des pratiquants. Pour ce qui est du bouddhisme ésotérique en Europe, nous en sommes très loin, et il y a peu de chance que cela se produise. L’idéologie bouddhiste (ésotérique) traditionnelle ne se répandra pas spontanément, par la force du karma. Les expériences et les réalisations, décrites dans les hagiographies, composées dans des sociétés où l’idéologie était profondément ancrée, ne pourront pas se produire ici avec la même force. Des rituels et des pratiques isolés et non-incarnés ne suffiront pas. Il s’agit de toute façon de moyens habiles (upāya) et provisoires, pas de méthodes scientifiques ou des techniques avec des résultats certains et prévisibles.

Une couche idéologique superficielle, temporaire et mal incarnée aura-t-elle le dessus d’une couche idéologique ancienne, bien plus profonde et matérialisée ? Et quelle influence aura la virtualisation et digitalisation généralisée avec ses intelligences artificielles recyclées sur ces couches ? Si notre vie “spirituelle”, dans l’air du temps, reste captive d’une idéologie “spectaculaire”, performatrice et consommatrice, elle restera forcément superficielle et ne durera pas. Si elle est uniquement un vécu intérieur “profond”, ne nous isole-t-elle pas des autres ? D’ailleurs, la patience, la compassion, et autres “perfections” (adikarma) ne peuvent que se pratiquer au milieu des autres.

La danger de l’idéologie Lumineuse telle que je la perçois, est qu’elle a une orientation très individualiste et qu’elle vise la réintégration de la Lumière. Dans l’idéologie Lumineuse, comme dans d'autres idéologies dualistes et hiérarchiques (de type "Cité de Dieu"), toute l’attention est tournée vers la Lumière, souvent --dans la pratique-- aux dépens du monde et des autres ; le monde et les autres n’étant que des simulacres, ou une illusion, et la Luminosité, le “vrai” réel. Ainsi, le roi Anala, le grand bodhisattva accompli que rencontre Sudhana pendant sa quête (Gaṇḍavyūha sūtra), explique avec conviction le principe de sa guerre juste contre le vice :

“Fils de famille, que penses-tu ? Ces simulacres de pécheurs (pāpaka) confrontés au fruit de leurs actes, existent-ils réellement ? Ces simulacres de corps splendides, existent-ils vraiment ? Ce simulacre de la cour, existe-il vraiment ? Ce simulacre de grand luxe, existe-t-il vraiment ? Ces simulacres de mon statut de monarque et d’un grand pouvoir, existe-t-il vraiment ? Non, dit Sa Majesté, cela n'existe pas vraiment. Il poursuivit: Fils de famille, je suis un bodhisattva libéré (vimokṣika) avec des pouvoirs magiques. La plupart des sujets qui habitent mon royaume, tuent, volent, se méconduisent sexuellement, mentent, médisent, tiennent des propos incohérents, sont cupides, malveillants, entretiennent des vues fausses (mithyā-dṛṣṭi) et commettent des actes négatifs. »[6]

« Fils de famille, c'est pour éduquer ces personnes, et pour les amener à maturité, pour leur parfaite édification, et pour leur propre bien, et surtout avec la plus grande compassion qu'ils sont amenés ici, et que des simulacres de tortionnaires sont omniprésents sur le territoire de mon royaume. »[7]

« Ce sont des simulacres de tortionnaires, qui saisissent des simulacres de condamnés à mort, afin de les exécuter. Ce sont des simulacres de juges, qui prononcent divers jugements contre des simulacres de personnes ayant commis les dix actes négatifs. Et ce sont des simulacres de souffrances insupportables, causées par des mains, des pieds, des oreilles, de membres, de doigts et de têtes tranchées qui sont déployées par magie. En voyant tout cela, les habitants de mon royaume, renoncent à leurs fautes et développent la force du regret, la frayeur et la crainte. Ils renonceront ainsi aux actes négatifs et deviendront vigilants. Fils de famille, cet expédient a pour effet de faire renoncer ces êtres aux fautes et à leur inspirer la crainte, et le regret, afin qu'ils se détournent des actes négatifs. » Voir La politique du Gaṇḍavyūha sūtra (2016). Traduction anglaise en ligne King Anala, chapter 20, traduit par 84.000.

Le pays, avec son roi, son régime de terreur, et ses sujets que rencontre Sudhana ne seraient que des simulacres. La guerre juste ne serait menée que contre les corps et les esprits d'une vie, tout en purifiant et galvanisant le Soi lumineux éternel. L’unique raison d’être de “ce pays” --la cité terrestre-- est de détourner les êtres du mal, de les tourner vers le bien, et ultimement de les faire se réintégrer dans le Bien, la réalité lumineuse (t. chos nyid 'od gsal gyi bar do) bouddhiste. L’illusion et l’idéologie de l’un sont le réel de l’autre, et vice-versa. Une double obnubilation d'un autre genre.

“Dans l'illusion, c'est-à-dire la forme la plus courante de mise à l'écart du réel, il n'y a pas à signaler de refus de perception à proprement parler. La chose n'y est pas niée : seulement déplacée, mise ailleurs. Mais, en ce qui concerne l'aptitude à voir, l'illusionné voit, à sa manière, tout aussi clair qu'un autre.”

“On peut dire que la perception de l’illusionné est scindée en deux : l'aspect théorique (qui désigne justement ‘ce qui se voit’, de theorein) s'émancipe artificiellement de l'aspect pratique (‘ce qui se fait’). C'est d'ailleurs pourquoi cet homme après tout ‘normal’ qu'est l'illusionné est au fond beaucoup plus malade que le névrosé : en ceci qu'il est lui, et à la différence du second, résolument incurable. L'aveuglé est incurable non d'être aveugle, mais bien d'être voyant : car il est impossible de lui ‘refaire voir’ une chose qu'il a déjà vue et qu'il voit encore. Toute ‘remontrance’ est vaine - on ne saurait en ‘remontrer’ à quelqu'un qui a déjà sous les yeux ce qu'on se propose de lui faire voir. Dans le refoulement, dans la forclusion, le réel peut éventuellement revenir, à la faveur d'un ‘retour du refoulé’ apparent, si l'on en croit la psychanalyse, dans les rêves et les actes manqués. Mais, dans l'illusion, cet espoir est vain : le réel ne reviendra jamais, puisqu'il est déjà là.” Clément Rosset, Le réel et son double, 1984, Folio, p. 11-13

En haut, la cité de Dieu, détail, Manuscrit de Raoul de Presles, c.1469-73, BnF 

***

[1] “The Yogācāra [position] is that the sheer luminosity, which is the inherent nature of phenomena, exists as a real substance, whereas the Mādhyamika [position] is that it does not exist as a real substance. This itself is a baseless quarrel of Mādhyamika [scholars] with Yogācāra. [Such a pity], the coarseness of people.” Defining Wisdom: Ratnākaraśānti’s Sāratamā D.Phil Dissertation Gregory Max Seton, Wolfson College Trinity Term 2015, p.78

[2] Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra

[3] “Madhyamakanising” Tantric Yogācāra: The Reuse of Ratnākaraśānti’s Explanation of maṇḍala Visualisation in the Works of Śūnyasamādhivajra, Abhayākaragupta and Tsong Kha Pa, Daisy S. Y. Cheung. Traduction automatique en français.

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

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

[4] Voir “Les Cinquante stances du service au Maître (skt. Gurupañcaśika tib. bla ma lnga bcu pa), un texte médiéval bouddhiste ésotérique

[5] Voir Western Esotericism: A Guide for the Perplexed, Wouter J. Hanegraaff, Bloomsbury Publishing

“The goal is spiritual knowledge, gnōsis – literally re-cognition or re-membering of one’s true self as identical with the divine Light and Life, as Poimandres points out to Hermes once again.”

[6] “Vous voulez aller à la foi, et vous n’en savez pas le chemin ; vous voulez vous guérir de l’infidélité, et vous en demandez les remèdes : apprenez de ceux qui ont été liés comme vous, et qui parient maintenant tout leur bien ; ce sont gens qui savent ce chemin que vous voudriez suivre, et guéris d’un mal dont vous voulez guérir. Suivez la manière par où ils ont commencé ; c’est en faisant tout comme s’ils croyoient, en prenant de l’eau bénite, en faisant dire des messes, etc. Naturellement même cela vous fera croire et vous abêtira. — Mais c’est ce que je crains. — Et pourquoi ? qu’avez-vous à perdre ?” Œuvres complètes de Blaise Pascal Hachette 1871, vol1.djvu/327

[7] “When Althusser repeats, after Pascal: ‘Act as if you believe, pray, kneel down, and you shall believe, faith will arrive by itself, he delineates an intricate reflective mechanism of retroactive ‘autopoetic’ foundation that far exceeds the reductionist assertion of the dependence of inner belief on external behaviour. That is to say, the implicit logic of his argument is: kneel down and you shall believe that you knelt down because of your belief — that is, your following the ritual is an expression/effect of your inner belief; in short, the ‘external’ ritual performatively generates its own ideological foundation.” Mapping Ideology, traduction automatique

[8] Idée qui s’est répandue dans d’autres civilisations, ne serait-ce que par la force de traductions orientalistes, p.e. “The philosophic intellect, which is unclouded by prejudice, is the true form of the Great Brahma himself; who shines perspicuous in our consciousness, and has no other body besides.” “nirāvaraṇavijñānamayī cidbrahmarūpiṇī |
saṃvitprakāśamātraikadehādehavivarjitā || 52 |” 7.186.52 Yoga-Vasiṣṭha attributed to Valmiki, in the Chapter "Demonstration of all nature (and thing) as brahma himself"

Luminosity is good for us…

A friendly luminous being

As I see it the main issue with Luminosity and its use in esoteric Buddhism is that the “human light” of the initial more empiricist approach of “Buddhist meditation” (four foundations of mindfulness - Satipaṭṭhāna, means of valid cognition - pamāṇa[1] etc.) is neutralized and superseded by the “sheer Luminosity” of a clearly idealist and essentialist approach, where “Luminosity” is the main substance or essence of everything, the highest and purest level of being. Unifying the Luminous Self, the Luminous Body, and the Luminous Source through the spontaneously present Luminous essence is the ultimate salvation, realization and actualization. Through lack of Knowledge (gnosis, vidyā) of the Luminous reality, sentient beings migrate from one destiny to another, until an authentic Knowledge holder (vidyādhara) transmits the Knowledge that will initiate them into the Luminous reality and open up the path of their sudden or future salvation and unification with the Luminous source. Genuine “Illumination” or Enlightenment”, not a simple metaphor. Luminosity is eternal and good[2] and certainly more attractive and spectacular than (pari)nirvāṇa.

Anything physical (kāyika) and mental (cetasika) is impermanent and imperfect. The Buddha’s more empiricist approach uses physical and mental methods, such as reasoning, deliberating, contemplating etc., where the individual, although a member of a larger community (saṅgha), is on their own as far as their salvation is concerned. The Buddha merely showed the path. There is no Luminous safety net, apart from dispassion, detachment and “dropping the burden”. The safety net here is impermanence, “anatta”, “dependent origination” or “emptiness”, without a welcoming committee (tariki "other power", "outside help"), unless the Four Brahmavihāras or altruism are considered as such, but these require human empathy not Divine Light.

In Luminous Buddhism, the Buddha is the Logos shining forth from the Luminous source continuously sending out its missionaries in order to convert and save sentient beings drowning in the Ocean of Ignorance of burning in the Fires of Ignorance, sometimes by tough but fair means. Those missionaries are not only avatars but also priests, kings, rulers, bankers and experts serving as guides to the more karmically challenged in a sort of Luminous metaverse. Luminosity is good for us…

"20.26 King Anala said, “Noble one, I have attained the bodhisattva liberation called the attainment of illusions. Noble one, most of the inhabitants of my kingdom kill, steal, practice sexual misconduct, lie, slander, abuse, indulge in idle talk, are avaricious, are malicious, hold false views, commit bad actions, and are fierce, aggressive, and cruel, and they maintain a behavior consisting of all kinds of bad actions.

“There is no other way to instruct them to turn away, to desist, from that sinful behavior.

20.­27

“Noble one, in order to guide, ripen, control, and benefit these beings, motivated by great compassion I manifest the illusory images of executioners, [F.26.b] through which I execute the illusory images of the condemned. I make the illusions of those who punish and execute in various ways the illusions of those who have followed a path of bad actions. I also emanate those who experience the unendurable sufferings of having their feet, hands, noses, ears, limbs, smaller parts, and heads cut off. When the beings who live in my realm see that, they become distressed, afraid, and terrified. After that, they are careful to avoid committing bad actions.

20.­28

“Noble one, when in that way I have used that method and see that these beings are distressed, terrified, and alarmed, I then turn them away from the path of the ten bad actions, cause them to possess the path of the ten good actions, and establish them in the path to omniscience, which is the ultimate attainment of joy and happiness and the cessation of all suffering.

20.­29

“Noble one, I do not cause harm to any being with my body, speech, or mind."  

Gaṇḍa­vyūha, King Anala, chapter 20, translation by 84.000."  

***

[1] "Valid cognition, judgment or measuring based on outward appearance (rūpappamāṇa), the opinion of others (ghosappamāṇa), economic status (lūkhappamāṇa) or reality (dhammappamāṇa". Buddhism was considered a “nihilist” (nāstika) tradition because of its rejection of śāstra pramāṇam, the authority of scriptures such as Revelations (śruti), Vedas etc. Also see the Rūpa Sutta (A 4.65) for measures (pamāṇa) regarding charisma. The Buddha’s followers may be followers by faith, followers of teachings and those understanding and seeing "these principles" (dhamma) are stream-enterers (SN 25.2).

[2] “Eternal, blissful, characterized by a personal self, and pure” Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra.

All things are sheer Luminosity

Ruins of Vikramshila University

My main source for this blog: Defining Wisdom: Ratnākaraśānti’s Sāratamā
D.Phil Dissertation Gregory Max Seton
Wolfson College Trinity Term 2015

In the Tibetan tradition Ratnākaraśānti (ca. 970-1045 C.E.) and Maitreyanātha/Maitrīpa/Advayavajra are known for having had some disagreement. This is explained in various ways, sometimes with different players, under different names and in various hagiographical materials. Ratnākaraśānti is specifically known for having been an abbot of Vikramaśīla, near Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur district in Bihar. Ratnākaraśānti is presented as the most senior student of Dharmakīrtiśrī (gSer gling pa), who is famous for having been Atiśa’s teacher 982-1054). Atiśa is presented by the Tibetan tradition as having also been a student of Ratnākaraśānti. Other great scholars that are said to have stayed at Vikramaśīla at that time were the “four guardians”: abbot Ratnākaraśānti, Nāropā, Vidyākokila and bZhad pa’i rdo rje (in reconstituted sanskrit Hāsavajra), or in another version (e.g. Brog-mi’s hagiography) the “six guardians”: abbot Ratnākaraśānti, Vāgīśvarakīrti, Prajñākaramati, Nāropa, Jñānaśrīmitra and Ratnavajra. Brog-mi, the “founder” of the Sakya school, also studied with Ratnākaraśānti.

Ratnākaraśānti had a Luminous start for he was said (in Brog-mi’s hagiography) to be originally from Oḍḍiyāna (part of the larger historical region of Gāndhāra). His tutelar deity (yidam) prophesied him to go to Magadha. Ratnākaraśānti was a Yogācārin, to be more precise à Mādhyamika-Yogācārin, “blending” (see my conclusion) Madhyamaka (Nāgārjuna) and Yogācāra (Maitreya and Asaṅga). He was also a follower of Tantra (e.g. Hevajra Tantra), and taught that Deity practice was essential for a speedy attainment of full Buddhahood. “Ratnākaraśānti was not just an adept of the tantras, but specifically a master of Mahāmudrā practice.” (Defining Wisdom, 2015, p.27). That would of course be “Tantric Mahāmudrā”, Luminous Mahāmudrā, not “Sūtra-Mahāmudrā”.

In his writings, Ratnākaraśānti was more concerned with fighting against Buddhist “heresies” (“the enemy within” p.30), or rather restoring the --in his opinion-- right Buddhist view, than with debating with non-Buddhist authors. He saw himself as having the mission to refute the wrong positions of Candrakīrti the Mādhyamika “from the true purport of Nāgārjuna, (but who later abandoned nihilism in his Tantrik [Guhyasamāja] commentary)[1].” For Ratnākaraśānti and for esoteric Buddhism in general, Nāgārjuna (2nd-3rd century), Candrakīrti, etc. are both the historical authors of Mādhyamika works and the alleged authors of later Tantric (Guhyasamāja) commentaries. They either “abandoned” their Mādhyamika views or corrected them and ended up as full-fledged Tantrikas. This is what “blending” often boils down to.

Maitreyanātha/Maitrīpa/Advayavajra is presented in Tibetan hagiographies as a student of Ratnākaraśānti, although he appears not to have been close to him (Defining Wisdom, p. 33).

“[Maitreyanātha] studied Pramāṇa, Mādhyamika, the way of the Pāramitās, and other śāstras with Nāro-pā for twenty years. After that he stayed together with Rāgavajra, who knew the śāstra of the Way of Mantras, for five years. Afterwards, by the side of the great Paṇḍita Ratnākaraśānti, the revered guru and master, he studied the Nirākāra position for one year. Afterwards he went to Vikramaśīla and at the side of the great Paṇḍita Jñānaśrīmitra studied his compositions for two years.” (Defining Wisdom, p. 34[2])

According to later Tibetan traditions, Maitreyanātha left Vikramaśīla at one point, after a disagreement with Ratnākaraśānti (in some versions Atiśa), and having received a prophecy, went “searching for Śavaripa”

“The third notable aspect of this early biography of Maitreyanātha is that it makes no mention of any controversy or debate with Ratnākaraśānti. This is important because later sources claim that Ratnākaraśānti was the loser in an alleged debate between the two and was behind Maitreyanātha’s expulsion from Vikramaśīla.” (Defining Wisdom, p. 36)

Why would Maitreyanātha leave after having “won a debate”? Did Maitreyanātha win the debate after his two last years spent studying with Jñānaśrīmitra (a Sākāravāda ("with cognitive images") Yogācārin[3]), the opponent of Ratnākaraśānti’s view[4] If Maitreyanātha/Advayavajra’s Ten Verses on True Reality (Tattvadaśaka) and his student Sahajavajra’s Commentary thereof somehow represent Maitreyanātha’s view, then it is clear that he didn’t follow Ratnākaraśānti’s Nirākāravādin-Yogācāra-Mādhyamika view. His last Vikramaśīla teacher Jñānaśrīmitra did beat Ratnākaraśānti in a debate according to Ratnakīrti (one of Jñānaśrīmitra's other students) as Ratnakīrti wrote in his work Īśvarasādhanadūśaṇa (Refutation of the Proof of God)[5].

What then was Ratnākaraśānti’s view (supposedly in conformity with tantric Nāgārjuna and tantric Candrakīrti)? It is most easily summarized as the “Luminist” view of “Sheer Luminosity” (t. gsal ba tsam s. prakāśamātra).

“All phenomena (sarvadharma) are sheer mind [cittamātra], [i.e.] sheer consciousness [“vijñanamātra”, “vijñapti-mātra[6]” or perhaps ”saṃvidmātra”?][7], [i.e.] sheer luminosity [prakāśamātra][8].”

For Ratnākaraśānti’s these are three synonyms. As an aside, the expression “[saṃvit]prakāśamātra” can be found in non-Buddhist works.

“The philosophic intellect, which is unclouded by prejudice, is the true form of the Great Brahma himself; who shines perspicuous in our consciousness, and has no other body besides.”
“nirāvaraṇavijñānamayī cidbrahmarūpiṇī |
saṃvitprakāśamātraikadehādehavivarjitā || 52 |” 7.186.52 Yoga-Vasiṣṭha attributed to Valmiki, in the Chapter "Demonstration of all nature (and thing) as brahma himself"

In order to prove that Nāgārjuna’s intention was actually “sheer luminosity” “shining forth” and illumining phenomena the nature whereof was sheer luminosity, Ratnākaraśānti wrote:

“Now, what is the proof here that these [phenomena] have as their nature sheer consciousness? It is taught in this [Nirākāravādin position] that the luminosity (prakāśa) of phenomena shining forth (prakāśamāna) is like a nature (ātmabhūta) established through direct experience. The nature of shining forth is [their] being known (prakhyāna), [their] appearing (pratibhāsana). This, obviously, is [their] completely clear (parisphuṭa) nature (rūpa) [that is] neither inanimate (jaḍa) nor inaccessible (parokṣa). And, if this [nature] were not established, then the unwanted consequence [would be] that nothing could be established, since nothing could be shining forth. Since [this nature must be] established, it is nothing but awareness. So, all phenomena are established as having awareness as their inherent nature.” (Defining Wisdom, p. 79)

“Awareness”, “Luminosity”, or “luminosity’s reflexive awareness” is the nature or even the stuff or substance (t. rdzas su grub pa) phenomena “are made” of.

“The Yogācāra [position] is that the sheer luminosity, which is the inherent nature of phenomena, exists as a real substance, whereas the Mādhyamika [position] is that it does not exist as a real substance. This itself is a baseless quarrel of Mādhyamika [scholars] with Yogācāra. [Such a pity], the coarseness of people.” (Defining Wisdom, p. 78)

This substance is the Light that shines forth from the Great Buddha’s true form as our luminous reflexive awareness, or “Luminous Self”. The forms (“phenomena”) that are directly/yogically perceived are without error. The reflexive awareness, that may perceive a grasped and a grasper (object and subject), is nonetheless luminous, because “it has the nature of luminosity”[9]. It’s Luminosity from the very top til the bottom, and again all the way back up.

As the old argument goes, even denying it is to confirm and prove it[10]! Consciousness is not an object of perception but the very subjectivity through which all perception and denial occurs. Consciousness or Luminosity is direct perception (pratyakṣa), it is the ultimate reliable cognition (pramāṇa). As for causality (at the conventional level) focusing on a grasper and grasped, Luminosity or Its true form is the only ultimate “Cause”, or “the only causally efficacious thing”[11]...

“Also, there is nothing that disproves (gnod par byed pa; bādhaka) the luminous nature of reflexive awareness, because there [can be] no other means of reliable cognition (pramāṇa) that surpasses it (de las lhag pa; tato ’dhika). And, this [luminous nature] is the direct perception (mngon sum; pratyakṣa) and direct experience (yang dag tu myong ba; pratisaṃvedana/anubhava) of reflexive awareness. Hence, this [luminous nature] is proven by means of reliable cognition to be the means of reliable cognition, which cannot be disproven even by one hundred means of reliable cognition. What need is there even to mention [that this luminous nature cannot be disproven] by others’ (pha rol) mere refutations (gnod pa) that are not means of reliable cognition? Therefore, [the above demonstrates] the proof and disproof through the two means of reliable cognition [namely, direct perception and inference].” (Defining Wisdom, p. 80)

And it is divine, which is where tantrism comes in. It is easier to recognize everything as divine, as the Lord (Īśvara), from top to bottom, through Deity practice, which is actually merely an elaborated form of Buddhānusmṛti. With Luminosity, in a Divine true form, shining forth as a “luminous self-awareness” (svasamvedana) or a Luminous Self, that when recognized as such is like “recognizing the Lord”[12].

“1.1.2 What sentient being could possibly prove or disprove God, when He is their very own Self, established from the beginning as that which makes cognition and action possible? Cognition (jñāna) and Action (kriyā) inhere solely within the Self of all beings, which is the ground [of being] that makes the experience of all objects possible. That Self embraces its own capacity for self-validation, being self-luminous: otherwise it could not establish all the various objects of its experience [which are illuminated by the inherent ‘light’ of its awareness]. Its nature is uniquely that of Knower; it is always already self-established & self-perfected (pūrvasiddha) and primordial. Its sovereignty is established through self-awareness; so only the foolish try to prove or disprove it.” (Stanzas on the Recognition of Divine Consciousness, Utpaladeva, translated by Christopher Wallis/Hareesh).

This Luminous Lord shines forth even in duality, and especially in duality, because the only way for the Lord to know himself is through reflecting and recognizing himself in his proper reflections. The same goes for our Luminous Selves that are made of the same Light as the Luminous Lord and that through recognizing the Lord will recognize their true Luminous nature and Self.

“Ratnākaraśānti was characterized as the only one in India able to distinguish Buddhists from non-Buddhists” (p.45). Dzongsar KR said the same thing about Atiśa and Maitrīpa. Since all three teachers are now dead, and nobody can distinguish Buddhists from non-Buddhists anymore, Śaiva in particular, I suggest to translate the Tibetan compound ‘od-gsal as Prakāśa-Vimarśa instead of "clarity-emptiness" or somesuch. Prakāśa for 'od and Vimarśa for gsal ba as the dynamic interplay (t. rtsal) of Luminous awareness (Ground, t. gzhi) abiding as the Great Buddha and its spontaneous (t. lhun grub) shining forth and Self-reflections (t. rang snang).

Many teachers of Vikramaśīla were said to be Yogācārins or Mādhyamika-Yogācārins, whatever that concretely means. Perhaps the simple fact that they participated in Yogācāra-derived practice? How does one combine the principle that all dharmas are sheer mind, sheer consciousness and sheer luminosity and exist as such, and that all dharmas are empty of inherent existence and natural property (svabhāva)? On the one hand one does not take position (Apratiṣṭhāna-Madhyamaka) and on the other one settles for the eternalist extreme of everything is sheer Luminosity and uses Deity practice as a means to unify the Luminous Self with the Luminous Source (Nous). It is clear that in this deal the Madhyamaka contribution is reduced to zero, and its only function is to serve as a quick honorable mention as a sort of Buddhism of the past. A simple stepping stone, like selflessness (anatta). Those who are still attached to these “obsolete” Buddhist methods in spite of the Third turning of the Wheel are invariably treated as fools, “coarse people” and "cattle-thieves". 

Ratnākaraśānti and others following him made it very clear that without the gods, and not only the “nature of the gods”, there is no Full Buddhahood. Both mundane (daimons) and supramundane gods or godlike entities. In the worship, theurgy, praise, offerings etc. of deity yoga practice, the mundane gods are present as representatives of Nature and asked and thanked for their good and loyal service. This will allow for the accumulation of merit (puṇya) and create the best conditions possible (s. abhyudaya t. mngon mtho) in the adept’s life to accomplish their higher Luminous goal (s. naiḥśreyasa t. legs pa).

***

[1] The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India, David Seyfort Ruegg (1981:122)

[2] Extract from “the so-called ‘Siddha Biography,’ which refers to the Sanskrit MS 142 in the Kaiser Library in Kathmandu that was likely written ca.1200 CE”. Also known as the “Sham Shere manuscript”, translated by Sylvain Lévi.

[3] Awareness contains a cognitive image (ākāra).

[4] “Historically, we know that Jñānaśrīmitra accepted the gauntlet and produced a brilliant response, which produced an interesting debate over the nature of determination (adhyavasāya) and the type of logic that should be employed by Buddhists. Unfortunately, we have little space to address that debate here. See Tani (1999) and (2004) for an excellent comparison of Jñānaśrīmitra’s and Ratnākaraśānti’s different logical systems. Although Tani pays closer attention to Jñānaśrīmitra’s system, toward which he has an affinity, his characterization of the two systems seems to be spot on.” footnote 270, Defining Wisdom, p. 125

[5] Lawrence J. McCrea & Parimal G. Patil, Buddhist Philosophy of Language in India, Columbia University Press, New York, 2010, p.3

[6] “Vijñapti-mātra. The doctrine of ‘mere imagining’ or ‘thought only’ associated with the Vijñānavāda school of Buddhist idealism. According to this teaching the empirical world of objects is regarded as the product of pure ideation, with no reality beyond the consciousness of the perceiving subject. In terms of the doctrine of Vijñapti-mātra, enlightenment is the realization of the imaginary status of phenomena and the non-substantiality of the self and external objects.” Oxford University Press

[7] Tantrāsara of Abhinavagupta, chapter 4

[8] Prajñāpāramitopadeśa by Ratnākaraśānti. Tibetan translation (Shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa'i man ngag). PPu (D145a5): rgyal ba’i sras dag khams gsum pa ’di ni sems tsam mo zhes gsungs te— de bas na chos thams cad sems tsam dang| rnam par shes pa tsam dang| gsal ba tsam yin pas…

[9] The Laṅkāvatārasūtra: “Just as a sword does not cut its own blade, just as a finger does not touch its own tip, just so is a mind when seeing itself...”

“[Ratnākaraśānti replies:] To this [interpretation of yours], I respond that this verse is denying the relationship (bhāva) between a grasped and grasper in a mind’s reflexive awareness, because that [relationship] depends upon a difference (bheda), just as touching and cutting do. However, [the verse is] not denying the reflexive awareness itself, because that [reflexive awareness] has the nature of luminosity, given that reflexive awareness is [something] being known (prakhyāna). So, since the contradiction regards [there being] a difference [when awareness knows itself], [the reflexive awareness here is merely being] restricted to [being] a nondifference (abheda), [it is] not denied. For this very reason, [we have to] supply the words “does not grasp itself” to the phrase “Just so the mind, when seeing itself.” [—i.e. “Just as a sword does not cut its own blade, just as a finger does not touch its own tip, just so the mind, when seeing itself, does not grasp itself."]” (Defining Wisdom, p. 85-86)

[10] See Utpaladeva’s Ajaḍapramātṛsiddhi.

[11] “By proving the ultimate reality of sheer luminosity, Ratnākaraśānti is simultaneously asserting that luminosity is causally efficacious, given his acceptance of Dharmakīrti’s principle that anything real has causal efficacy (arthakriyā).” (Defining Wisdom, p. 87)

[12] Utpaladeva, Īśvara-pratyabhijñā-kārikās (Verses on Self-Recognition).

Blinded by Luminous realization?

The Conversion of Saul, Michelangelo (wikimedia)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Though present for a long time

Has been dispersed by very great renunciation 

The most excellent virtues and positive qualities are obtained. 

This is Buddhahood.”

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

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

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

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

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

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