Intro to Dzogchen and Buddha-nature

With roots stretching back to the 8th century, the notion of tathāgatagarbha was initially introduced into the lexicon of what would become the Nyingma tradition through scholastic works that sought to reconcile the philosophy of Madhyamaka and Yogācāra, as well as through Tantric literature that presented advanced paradigms for the path and the immediacy of enlightenment. Over the centuries these two streams of influence wove themselves together to help form the basis of a unique synthesis of Sūtra based philosophical inquiry and Tantric theories of praxis that would come to define the Nyingma approach. At the pinnacle of this system are the teachings of Dzogchen, the Great Perfection, the supreme vantage to which all these intertwined approaches aspire. As such, this lofty perspective has a tendency to draw everything it encounters into its fold and reimagine it in its own image. The relationship between Dzogchen and buddha-nature is one example of this trend.

Unlike the Kagyu tradition that can trace transmission lineages for both the Ratnagotravibhāga and the Mahāmudrā teachings through the single individual of Maitrīpa, the Nyingma tradition has a much more convoluted relationship with buddha-nature, which it often presents as a synonym for its own technical terms or concepts related to the ground or basis upon which its theories of soteriology are founded. This is especially true in the context of the Dzogchen teachings, which in their earliest iteration often closely paralleled the Mahāmudrā teachings that Gampopa is famously reported to have claimed had the Ratnagotravibhāga as their source. However, even though the Nyingma and their Dzogchen teachings don't have a direct correlation with what might be considered the main introduction of the buddha-nature theory to Tibet via the Ratnagotravibhāga, the Nyingma have their own history of engagement with this concept that in some ways predates it and in other ways absorbed it.

What we consider the earliest formation of the Nyingma tradition might more accurately be considered the foundation or base of Tibetan Buddhism, in general, as the notion of it being a distinct school of thought only truly developed once the so-called Sarma traditions began to coalesce in the 10th and 11th centuries as a counterpoint to the previously established forms of Buddhism that had been gestating in Tibet since the 8th century. Thus this proto-Nyingma tradition encompassed all of the forms of Buddhism that had been introduced via the activities of those involved in the early dissemination of the teachings (bstan pa snga dar). Among the numerous Indian scholars that were invited to Tibet during this period, two of the most prominent figures were Śāntarakṣita, the abbot of Tibet's first monastery Samye, and his student Kamalaśīla, who is eulogized in the Tibetan tradition for his participation in the famed Samye Debate, in which he is said to have bested his Chinese rival Hwashang Moheyan and thus paved the way for the adoption of primarily Indian forms of Buddhism by royal decree. And though the historicity of the Tibetan accounts of the debate are considered highly suspect by modern scholars, the influence of these two figures on the fledgling Tibetan tradition is widely accepted. Through his compositions such as the Tattvasaṃgraha and the especially the Madhyamakālaṃkāra, Śāntarakṣita introduced to Tibet a philosophy that has been characterized as a Yogācāra-Madhyamaka synthesis. In turn, Kamalaśīla wrote commentaries on both those works, as well as his renowned trilogy on the stages of meditation Bhāvanākrama. However, as pointed out by Ruegg he also introduced the concept of tathāgatagarbha in his Madhyamakāloka. This work was translated by Tibetan scholar Yeshe De (ye shes sde, c. 8th-9th century) who also composed a work on distinguishing philosophical views entitled the Lta ba'i khyed par, which has been discussed at length by Higgins. What is particularly pertinent about this text is Yeshe De's description of tathāgatagarbha as occurring in two distinct phases, as the impure mind of sentient beings in the form of the ālayavijñāna, which he references with the shorthand Tibetan form of kun gzhi, and as the natural spiritual disposition (rigs) of the sentient beings that when utterly pure or clarified is the dharmakāya, which he also refers to as the root (rtsa) and the ground (gzhi). Therefore, in the work of Yeshe De, which is perhaps the first indigenous Tibetan composition on Mahāyāna philosophy, we see the author set forth a disclosure model of buddha-nature in which it is naturally present in the minds of beings but needs to be brought forth through practices that remove that which obscures it. Moreover, the equation of the undefiled tathāgatagarbha with the dharmakāya as the ground or basis upon which such purification is possible, sets the stage for the way later Nyingma scholars would address these issues.

Of course, the early dissemination period also saw the introduction of Tantra into the Tibetan milieu and these works also mention tathāgatagarbha, often in the form of *sugatagarbha (bde gshegs snying po) as it is commonly iterated among the Nyingma. While these mentions are exceedingly brief, they come from such mainstays of the Nyingma Tantric canon as the *Guhyagarbha Tantra and the Dgongs pa 'dus pa'i mdo, which came to be considered by this school as the root Tantras of the Mahāyoga and Anuyoga classes, respectively. Though, while these Tantras are thus distinguished from Atiyoga, i.e. Dzogchen proper, at this early stage there was considerable overlap between these categories, especially in terms of exegesis in that it is common to see supporting citations from both of these works in early Dzogchen commentarial literature. Furthermore, the Atiyoga perspective can be applied to their exegesis as well, as is the case with Padmasambhava's Garland of Views (Man ngag lta ba'i phreng ba), which consists of pith instructions on the *Guhyagarbha, but is traditionally regarded as a Dzogchen teaching. Though references to buddha-nature related terms also appear in examples of early Dzogchen scriptural literature, such as the Srog gi 'khor lo and Byang chub sems bde ba'i myu gu. Thus Tibetan authors of the time writing from this perspective also mention *sugatagarbha, most notably being that of Nyenchen Palyang (gnyan chen dpal dbyangs) in his Thabs shes sgron ma and Nubchen Sangye Yeshe (gnubs chen sangs rgyas ye shes) in his Bsam gtan mig sgron, as well as in his commentary on the Dgongs pa 'dus pa'i mdo. As for the former reference, Higgins translates the relevant passage from Palyang as, "*sugatagarbha, the nature of mind, appears in each and every mind-stream that grasps a 'self' among the long-deluded sentient beings while its very nature remains one with the dharmakāya of the victorious ones." Here we again see a similar dichotomy as we saw in the writing of Yeshe De in which buddha-nature can exist in deluded minds, but is nevertheless pure in terms of its nature. Though in relation to Dzogchen, the fact that he equates *sugatagarbha with the nature of mind is noteworthy. As for Nupchen's use of this term, it is mentioned as one of many synonyms, of which Higgins singles out *bodhigarbha (byang chub snying po/ snying po byang chub) and its variations as being the preferred nomenclature of Nupchen, and later Rongzompa (rong zom chos kyi bzang po, 1042-1136), which he speculates is, "because of their kinship with the all-important concept bodhicitta and because of the tantric/rDzogs chen identification of buddha nature with this bodhicitta."

Now, all of the above usages of buddha-nature related terms predate Ngok Lotsāwa's translation of the Ratnagotravibhāga. With the Yogācāra-Madhyamaka stemming from Śāntarakṣita and his doctrinal heirs, on the one hand, and the introduction of Indian Tantric literature and the development of a Tibetan technical terminology related to their exegesis, on the other, we see the roots of a distinct Nyingma approach to buddha-nature theory already in place centuries before the Ratnagotravibhāga captured the Tibetan scholastic imagination. However, one of the striking differences is that early Nyingma authors tended to make use of these terms as a support for issues more central to their doctrinal theses, rather than trying to explicate buddha-nature itself. Therefore, we see terms like *sugatagarbha being equated with the ground, in the context of the Tantric notions of the three continuities of the ground, path, and fruition and *bodhigarbha acting as a stand in for Dzogchen terms referencing the nature of mind. And so their usage is largely in support of presenting a soteriological model based on these specific approaches, in which enlightenment is not something newly acquired but already naturally present. On the other hand, terms like kun gzhi were eventually rebranded to fit their own criteria. And so what was once used as shorthand for the ālayavijñāna by Yeshe De, later came to reference a pure basis, read literally as the "ground-of-all," which is at times synonymous with the dharmakāya that Yeshe De would have considered its opposite.

Once we get to the work of Rongzompa, who is perhaps the most apt representative of the culmination of this early period we get the following explanation, "In the higher vehicles, the characteristic of the ālaya [kun gzhi] is that it is the primordial awakened mind [bodhicitta]. The afflictions and the imprints that lead to birth in the lower realms are adventitious obscurations, like oxide covering gold, or dirt covering a precious jewel. Although the buddha qualities are temporarily hidden, their nature is not defiled." This is quite typical of the writings of Rongzompa, who was a contemporary of Ngok's and often considered the original architect of the Nyingma view, in which see the widespread use of the term *bodhigarbha, which he places in apposition to the Dzogchen understanding of bodhicitta that, as evidenced in the above quote, could easily be read as a synonym for buddha-nature. As he states in his Theg pa chen po'i tshul la 'jug pa, "...consider the nature of bodhicitta: all phenomena, outer and inner, appearance and existence, are nondual bodhicitta—the primordial nature of the quintessence of awakening (*bodhigarbha, snying po byang chub) is primordially perfected (yas nas sangs rgyas ba), not something refined and corrected through a path, and is accomplished spontaneously, without effort." In this passage we see a form of buddha-nature theory set entirely within the context of early Dzogchen. Though that is not to say he was unaware of other interpretations or models, as in response to the *Guhyagarbha passage "Ema ho, from the *sugatagarbha one's own discursive thinking manifests due to karma" Rongzom states in his commentary, "...the term *sugatagarbha is widely known in ordinary [scriptures] which claim that all sentient beings possess the cause of awakening [and] are endowed with the seed of incorruptability. According to the profound [scriptures], it is called the ‘quintessence of awakening’ (*bodhigarbha) because the very nature of mind is awakening. Thus, because this is so, it may appear as bondage and by virtue of it[s presence], it may appear as freedom. It has been taught because one has not [yet] seen the reality (don) wherein bondage and freedom do not exist."." Here, we see Rongzompa acknowledging other interpretations of buddha-nature, but giving precedent to a more profound take on this term. Therefore, at roughly the same time that Ngok and his compatriot Tsen Khawoche are importing lineages of the Ratnagotravibhāga from their mutual teacher Sajjana, Rongzompa is already developing a Nyingma model of buddha-nature that is sourced from Tantric and Dzogchen sources, though relies heavily on appropriated terminology from earlier Yogācāra-Madhyamaka thinkers.

Reconciling Immanence with Distinction: The Buddha Nature

As we have seen, the conflict between immanence and distinction is present within the scriptural texts of the Seminal Heart, from the Seventeen Tantras down to the Longchen Nyingtig's treasure texts. And it is in the Longchen Nyingtig's treasure texts themselves that some attempt to reconcile that conflict can be detected in the frequent appearance of the buddha nature model. There are many direct references and indirect allusions in these texts to the buddha nature (bde bzhin gshegs pa 'i snying po, Skt. tathāgatagarbha).

The term tathāgatagarbha, indicating the immanent presence of the state of buddhahood within all sentient beings, is found in many Mahāyāna sutras. These sources became the basis for a treatise, attributed to the Indian scholar Asal).ga by way of the bodhisattva Maitreya, called Ratnagotravibhāga or Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra. This treatise became the standard work on the subject in Tibet, where it was generally known by a shortened form of its second name: Uttaratantraśāstra (rGyud bla ma). In this treatise the buddha nature is said to be present in all beings but obscured by defilements; however, while the buddha nature is permanent, the defilements are merely adventitious. Several analogies for the presence of the buddha nature within the defilements are used, such as a nugget of gold in the dirt, or a buddha within a rotting lotus flower.

Although the buddha nature was discussed by Kamalaśīla in the eighth century, the doctrine remained relatively obscure in Tibet until the eleventh century, and there is correspondingly little or no reference to it in the earlier Great Perfection texts. The earliest known explicit use of the concept by an exponent of the Great Perfection is in the writings of Rongzom Chökyi Zangpo (1012?-1131?):

In the higher vehicles, the characteristic of the alaya is that it is the primordial awakened mind. The afflictions and the imprints that lead to birth in the lower realms are adventitious obscurations, like oxide covering gold, or dirt covering a precious jewel. Although the buddha qualities are temporarily hidden, their nature is not defiled.

In the fourteenth century the buddha nature doctrine was given a significant presence in Great Perfection literature by Longchenpa at the same time that Dölpopa (1292-1361) produced the texts drawing on the buddha nature concept that formed the basis for the Empty-of-Other (gzhan stong) Madhyamaka. Longchenpa's works on the Seminal Heart contain many citations from the Uttaratantraśāstra. The similarity, in the most general terms, between the Seminal Heart's ground and the buddha nature, as presented in the Uttaratantraśāstra, is clear. Both the buddha nature and the ground are entirely pure, and both are everpresent in the nature of sentient beings.

In the fifth chapter of YLG the buddha nature is explicitly identified with the ground of the Great Perfection, in the context of explaining how the saṃbhogakāya is able to manifest to non-enlightened beings while they are in the intermediate state after death (bar do):

For a person who has found the gate to this path of the supreme secret vehicle and trains in maintaining the great vows, even if he does not arrive at the full extent of the four visions in this life, the all-pervasive buddha nature remains in his heart as the luminosity of the great manifest ground. This is the five wisdoms (true expanse, mirror-like, sameness, discriminating, and all-accomplishing), the ground of arising that is the vast and spontaneously present nature.

In this passage the buddha nature is connected to the ground's nature, the second element of the threefold definition (essence, nature, and compassion) discussed earlier in this chapter. The ground's nature is here accompanied by many of its synonyms: luminosity (od gsal), spontaneous presence (lhun grub), the manifest ground (gzhi snang), and the ground of arising (char gzhi). It is also equated with the five wisdoms of Buddhist tantric discourse.

A slightly more specific identification of buddha nature with luminosity appears in the fourth chapter ofYLG, where it is identified with the luminosity that is apprehended in the four visions of leapover as the son (bu) luminosity, as opposed to the ultimate state of enlightenment, which is the mother (ma) luminosity. This luminosity is surrounded by the samsaric elements of skandhas, sensory elements, and sense bases, and illustrated with the simile of the space inside the vase, the samsaric elements being the vase itself. The meaning of this simile is brought out by Jigme Lingpa in SN, where he states that at death, when the seal (rgya) of the body is broken, it is like the smashing of a vase, when the space inside the vase becomes one with the space outside.

Along with YLG, all of the other Great Perfection treasure texts in the Longchen Nyingtig make some reference to the buddha nature. In KGN, it is identified with innate gnosis:

The awakened mind free from renouncing or obtaining,

The buddha nature endowed with gnosis abides in one's mindstream;

Yet one gets trapped in the cage of fabrication.

Here, where gnosis (and its synonym, the awakened mind) is identified with the buddha nature in the context of its innate presence in all beings, the samsaric element, in this case conceptual fabrication (bcos pa), becomes the entrapping element, the metaphorical cage. Then in the following verse from KGN, although there is no use of the word itself, it is obvious that the buddha nature model is being used. The verse is a discussion of mind itself (sems nyid):

How is it like a treasure in a poor man's house?

Although present in oneself, one is unaware of it;

This is like the poor man not changing his state.

Sentient beings, unrealized in samsara,

Are covered by the net of nescience and concepts. How sad!

This is a direct citation of the fifth example of the way the buddha nature is obscured in the Uttaratantraśāstra. The metaphor of the net is comparable to the cage in the passage above. In NSB the buddha nature model is invoked in a slightly different context: the discussion of the dharmakãya, which I touched on in the previous section:

The dharmakãya is like water that is clear of mud;

It embodies the expulsion of adventitious impurities,

And it is the essence of all the qualities of liberation.

Henceforth there is wisdom, undeluded awareness.

Although buddha nature is not explicitly referred to in this passage, the language here is even closer to the language of the tathāgatagarbha literature than that of YLG and KGN. The samsaric elements are described as adventitious, and the treatment of the dharmakāya is very close to the presentation of the dharmakāya in the Uttaratantraśāstra. The analogy with water appears in the latter, and the characteristic of expelling the obscurations is also present there, where the dharmakāya is associated with the result, and therefore, unlike the buddha nature, is designated as purifying or casting out the obscurations. The association made in this passage between the dharmakāya and enlightened qualities is also stated throughout the Uttaratantraśāstra. Furthermore the description of mind and gnosis in NSB (which was quoted in the previous section), where gnosis is described as being like the sky and mind like air, also owes much to the Uttaratantraśāstra.

In PK, the only authorial text where the buddha nature model is employed extensively, Jigme Lingpa uses it as a way of presenting and, in effect, justifying a gradual realization. These are the opening lines of the text:

Although the buddha nature pervades the nature of beings like oil in a sesame seed,

The two adventitious obscurations should be cleansed, just as one removes something unbearable.

Here Jigme Lingpa seems to identify the cleansing of obscurations as a primary factor in the path. This is confirmed further on in the text where Jigme Lingpa employs the Uttaratantraśāstra's nine similes for the way the buddha nature is obscured, and relates these to a gradual removal of obscurations as the practitioner progresses on the path. He does this to explain why he is writing about the errors in meditation that might occur right up until the level of buddhahood itself is attained. Invoking the Pāramitāyāna, he draws on the doctrine of different phases of development-impurity, partial purity, and purity. He then refers to the Uttaratantraśāstra, which uses these phases, and links them to the nine different similes for obscuration. In this instance Jigme Lingpa directly and explicitly draws upon the Uttaratantraśāstra, not only for the buddha nature model, but also for the use of that model to justify a gradual realization in a context where the nirvanic element is immanent: the gradual revelation of the obscured but primordially present buddha nature.

Another passage from PK illuminates Jigme Lingpa's use of the buddha nature model in a different way. Here the context is the higher levels of meditative experience, which, though very advanced, still present the danger of regression into normal awareness. In this passage Jigme Lingpa discusses the experiential aspects of the ālaya and the dharmakāya.

Furthermore, when [the meditator] has emerged from the ālayavijñāna, because of the blazing lamp of the dharmakāya's luminosity, his nature remains free from elaboration. However, if he has not perfected his skill in the wisdom that shines out in vipaśyanā, then, being enveloped in the ālaya as before, that lamp of luminosity will be extinguished and no longer present.

The ālaya and the dharmakāya are one of the pairs defined in opposition to each other in NSB and many other Seminal Heart texts. In this passage there is no acknowledgement that a different model of the relationship between these two, not simply an absolute distinction, is being used, or that it is (once again) the buddha nature model. However, it is just at this point-the discussion of the transition from samsaric to nirvanic awareness-that the need to establish some form of relationship between the two becomes essential. Though this might appear to be no more than a passing reference, it reveals that in Jigme Lingpa's authorial texts, as well as in the treasures, the buddha nature is not only explicitly invoked, but is implicitly present in the discourse on the relationship between samsaric and nirvanic states.

In the second section of this chapter I showed how in the Seminal Heart the awareness that comes forth as the ground's manifestation is said to have the capacity to arise in either nirvanic or samsaric mode, and that the mode that comes into effect depends on whether awareness is recognized as being nondual with the ground. Longchenpa attempted to use this model to explain the simultaneous identity and difference of the samsaric and the nirvanic. He writes in the Tsigdön Dzö:

General delusion is caused by the stain of gnosis not recognizing the manifest ground, through which gnosis itself becomes polluted with delusion. Though gnosis itself is without the stains of cognition, it becomes endowed with stains, and through its becoming enveloped in the seal of mind, the gnosis of the everpure essence is polluted by conceptualization. Chained by the sixfold manas, it is covered with the net of the body of partless atoms, and the luminosity becomes latent.

Here the mind is conceived of as having an enveloping effect on nirvanic awareness. The samsaric is derivative in that it is derivative of the ground, or of wisdom (ye shes), without having a bearing on the latter's essence. Elsewhere Longchenpa illustrates this argument with the analogy of sunlight, which is caused by the sun but has no causal effect on the sun. Longchenpa's argument was not especially new, since it is stated in the Uttaratantraśāstra itself that the samsaric elements (the skandhas and so on) are contingent on the buddha nature, but that it is not contingent upon them. The metaphor of envelopment used by Longchenpa is also, and more directly, an example of the use of the buddha nature model.

A slightly different approach to the modes of awareness is to define the enlightened state as the mode of awareness when it abides in the present moment. In SN Jigme Lingpa suggests that the Great Perfection statements identifying discursive thought with dharmakāya (that is, the identification of the samsaric with the nirvanic), which are relatively rare in the Seminal Heart, are true only when awareness abides in the present moment:

Therefore the name dharmakāya cannot be given to discursive thought before the awareness of the present moment is unimpaired and uncorrupted. This alone is the antidote for the agent of meditation, a total penetration not chained by attachment to the view.

There is an implication here of a way to reconcile the contradictions in the relationship between samsaric and nirvanic awareness, which is that, though distinct, they may be identified in the context of awareness abiding in the present moment. For a fuller explanation of this we must again look to Longchenpa, who states the following in the Tsigdön Dzö:

Because all appearances of the three realms of samsara are at first apprehended from the aspect of the expanse, they remain connected to that aspect. Like reflections, in ultimate truth they remain in the true condition, emptiness. As they manifest in the present moment, the skandhas, elements, and so on are connected with the aspect of the kayas and wisdoms.

Longchenpa states that all internal and external phenomena as. they appear in the present moment, prior to reification and conceptualization, can be identified with the dharmakāya. He suggests that the identification of the nirvanic and the samsaric is always true in the context of the present moment, a context accessible only when, in Jigme Lingpa's words, "the awareness of the present moment is unrestricted and uncorrupted." Although Jigme Lingpa was clearly aware of the idea that samsaric and nirvanic opposites can be identified where awareness abides in the present moment, he did not, in the Longchen Nyingtig texts, extend the idea to any kind of hermeneutical purpose. There is little explicit discussion even of the more general topic of awareness's different modes in the Longchen Nyingtig; in fact there seems only to be one instance, located in YLG:

Thus the all-creating king, the natural state of the mind itself, having been hidden invisibly in the expanse of the alaya, emerges from the primordial ground as the luminosity of the great manifesting ground, free from extremes, and abides as the ground of all samsara and nirvana. However when awareness moves away from the ground and enlightenment in the true expanse .. .it is transformed into the mano-vijñāna.

Note that the buddha nature metaphor reappears here, in a form very similar to the form in the passage from PK quoted earlier; in both passages the enveloping samsaric element is the ālaya.

The conflict between immanence and distinction raises some fundamental philosophical questions. If the enlightened state of mind, gnosis, is innate in sentient beings, what prevents it from functioning as such and releasing them from delusion? What kind of relationship does the everpresent, all-embracing nirvanic state have to the delusion of ordinary sentient beings? If the immanence of gnosis is not challenged, which it is not in these texts, two basic positions are open, either immanence without distinctions or immanence with distinctions. Although the first position could describe the Mahāmudrā and the Mind Series of the Great Perfection, as well as passages in certain Mahāyāna sutras, such as the Laṅkāvatārasūtra, the second position is a better description of the Seminal Heart, where frequent assertions of immanence coexist, often in the same text, with an insistence on certain distinctions between the samsaric and the nirvanic state of being: dharmakāya and ālaya, gnosis and the deluded mind (sems).

One solution for commentators such as Longchenpa was to turn to an old approach to this philosophical problem, the buddha nature. In this model, samsaric and nirvanic are conceived of as inhabiting a relationship between an obscuring agent and that which is obscured. The obscuring agent is adventitious with no inherent reality, while the obscured is the essential reality. The fact of obscuration explains why the nirvanic fails to manifest at all times.

Yet it is clear that neither the treasure texts nor Jigme Lingpa's authorial works in the Longchen Nyingtig are directly concerned with the actual philosophical problem of how to reconcile the contradictions in the relationship of samsaric and nirvanic elements. In his Namkhyen Shingta Jigme Lingpa dealt more discursively with this topic, though from my reading of the text, he does not seem to go beyond the interpretations offered by Longchenpa. Nonetheless the buddha nature is a strong presence in the Longchen Nyingtig. Although it is not discussed explicitly with the same depth of thought and awareness of the philosophical problems that is found in certain parts of Longchenpa's work, the buddha nature model does appear frequently and in contexts where it works to reconcile the problematic relationship between the samsaric and the nirvanic. It is apparent that Jigme Lingpa considered that this relationship had already found a natural resolution in the buddha nature model, which appears most frequently in the treasure texts, where it is invoked from within the nonpersonal, scriptural voice of the those texts rather than the interpretative voice of the authorial commentary.