Ideas: Difference between revisions
((by SublimeText.Mediawiker)) |
No edit summary |
||
(177 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{FullPagePanel | |||
|title=Philosophical Ideas | |||
|image=File:Sthiramati.jpg | |||
|description=Is buddha-nature already perfected and simply obscured by delusion, or is it a seed or potential that must be cultivated and perfected? Is it the mind's natural luminosity, or is it the same as emptiness? Are buddha-nature teachings [[nītārtha|definitive]] or [[neyārtha|provisional]]? These are questions that cut to the heart of Mahāyāna Buddhist doctrine regarding the nature of enlightenment, reality, and the Path. This page introduces some of the key questions in buddha-nature theory, framed in terms of binaries. | |||
}} | |||
<div id="page-content" class="padding-offset container"> | |||
<div class="row sticky-container offset"> | |||
<div class="col-lg-9 p-0 px-lg-3"> | |||
<div class="drop-cap"> | |||
Binary opposites in Buddhism—such as saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, emptiness and luminosity, the relative and the ultimate, and scores more—have been the object of debates since Śākyamuni Buddha first preached in Sarnath. He himself became the subject of a central binary: on his ''parinirvāṇa'', did he dissipate into nonexistence, or does he abide as a numinous universal principle? It's an age-old dialectic of presence and absence that cuts to the heart of Buddhist metaphysics and is particularly relevant for buddha-nature theory. Similarly, over the centuries, teachers have explored multiple ways of explaining the relationship between ordinary deluded beings and fully perfect buddhas; at the moment of our enlightenment, will we be transformed, or will our true nature be revealed? Is something that isn't here now somehow produced? Do we share a common nature with the buddhas, or are we fundamentally different from them? The Buddha may have proposed a middle way between the extremes, but there's a lot of disagreement about where that middle falls. | |||
Buddha-nature theory seems to have been initially offered as one such middle way, a previously missing link between extremes offered by the Madhyamaka and Yogācāra schools of Mahāyāna doctrine. On the one hand was a theory of emptiness that was so extreme that, many argued, certain meditative practices were undermined. On the other hand was a theory of mind that proposed a permanently existent consciousness, an idea that was accused of violating the Buddhist doctrines of impermanence and no-self. In its earliest appearances buddha-nature was vague, more poetry than theoretical principle, hinting at possible interpretations and promising salvation for all without necessarily explaining much. But as the doctrine grew in popularity, debate lines developed. It has been categorized as provisional and definitive, defined as emptiness as well as luminosity, labeled Madhyamaka, Yogācāra, or neither, as it has been tugged one way and the other across the middle ground. | |||
To better understand what the debate lines are and where the great thinkers in Buddhist history have stood, the following outlines the various binaries that appear in buddha-nature theory. Each is briefly introduced, with suggestions for further reading. Great Buddhist thinkers who populate this website, as well as scriptures and classic works of doctrinal exegesis, are presented with a checklist of positions. | |||
</div> | </div> | ||
== Universal or Limited == | |||
Not all scriptures agree that buddha-nature is universal. Texts such as the ''Laṅkāvatārasūtra'' and the ''Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra'' describe a class of beings (''gotra'') called the ''icchantika'', who are so degraded through their lust and ignorance that they can never become enlightened. Such is the case only in the earliest version of the ''Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra'', however; the later version teaches the universality of buddha-nature, and all but one tradition has rejected the category. The exception was the Faxiang school (法相宗) of the great Chinese translator [[Xuanzang]] 玄奘 (born 602), which declined only a few generations after Xuanzang's death. Even without the icchantika on the scene, however, not all Buddhist schools accept the universality of buddha-nature. The Yogācāra theory of classes of beings divides beings into three basic categories determined by their potential liberation; only those belonging to the bodhisattva class will attain complete and perfect buddhahood, while those of the "disciple" (''śrāvaka'') and "solitary buddha" (''pratyekabuddha'') classes will attain the lesser enlightenment of the ''arhat''. These beings cannot be said, therefore, to possess buddha-nature the same as the bodhisattvas. In some Buddhist traditions the universality of buddha-nature is taken to include even inanimate objects such as grass and trees and even roof tiles. The logic here is that buddha-nature is identical to the ''dharmakāya'', the truth-body of the buddha, which is the true nature of all phenomena. Tantric texts often present the five elements of earth, water, fire, air and space and the five aggregates as being naturally perfect Buddhas. | |||
<div class="h3 m-0"> Universal </div> | |||
{{TopicPersonCall | |||
|property=PosAllBuddha | |||
|value=Yes{{!}}{{!}}Qualified Yes | |||
}} | |||
= | <div class="h3 m-0"> Limited </div> | ||
{{TopicPersonCall | |||
|property=PosAllBuddha | |||
|value=No{{!}}{{!}}Qualified No | |||
}} | |||
== Provisional or Definitive == | == Provisional or Definitive == | ||
Buddhist scholars classify all doctrine as either definitive or provisional. Concepts and statements are deemed definitive when they accurately describe reality. Those that do not, but are of practical value, are provisional. Buddha-nature has generated considerable controversy since the theory was first developed in the early centuries of the | Buddhist scholars classify all doctrine as either definitive or provisional. Concepts and statements are deemed definitive when they accurately describe reality. Those that do not, or require considerable interpretation, but are nonetheless of practical value, are provisional. Buddha-nature has generated considerable controversy since the theory was first developed in the early centuries of the Common Era. | ||
Some commentators have argued that the buddha-nature teachings are not definitive as they do not discuss emptiness free from elaborations, which is deemed to be the ultimate truth. It was taught merely to encourage those who might be dissuaded from a path to awakening that was said to take near-infinite lifetimes to traverse. As such, the concept was plainly intended as a provisional teaching, an encouragement to those on and not yet on the path, but not actually true. For example, [[Candrakīrti]], in his ''Entrance to the Middle Way'', considered buddha-nature teachings to be provisional, and claimed only teachings taking up emptiness as the main topic to be definitive. Many Indian Mādhyamika scholars espoused this position while others leaning towards the teachings of Maitreya and tantric theories of the ultimate, took the buddha-nature teachings to be definitive. | |||
Beginning in the eleventh century with the popularity of ''Ratnagotravibhāga'', the famous commentary on the buddha-nature sutras, the debates over whether the buddha-nature teachings were to be taken as definitive or provisional intensified in Tibet. Early Kadam scholars such as [[Ngok Loden Sherab]] and [[Chapa Chökyi Senge]], who were also staunch Mādhyamikas, took buddha-nature to be definitive by equating it directly with the emptiness taught as the ultimate in Madhyamaka philosophy. The view of ''tathāgatagarbha'' as definitive was also shared by certain Sakya and Geluk scholars that inherited [[Ngok]]'s scholastic tradition. | |||
Yet, many early Kadam, Kagyu and Nyingma scholars asserted the ultimate reality to be a union of emptiness and luminosity and thus maintained the buddha-nature teachings to be definitive as they described the ultimate reality. They took both the second and third turnings of the wheel to be definitive in nature. The scholars of Jonang tradition and some others in later centuries took this doctrine a step further as they expounded an absolutist theory of the other-emptiness (''zhentong''). According to this interpretation, buddha-nature exists as the eternal absolute truth while only being empty of other adventitious phenomena. They took the buddha-nature teachings to be definitive and considered scriptures teaching mere emptiness to be provisional. | |||
<div class="h3 m-0"> Provisional </div> | |||
{{TopicPersonCall | |||
|property=PosBuNayDefProv | |||
|value=Provisional | |||
|complicated=BuNayDefProvComplex | |||
}} | |||
<div class="h3 m-0"> Definitive </div> | |||
{{TopicPersonCall | |||
|property=PosBuNayDefProv | |||
|value=Definitive | |||
|complicated=BuNayDefProvComplex | |||
}} | |||
== Emptiness or Luminosity == | == Emptiness or Luminosity == | ||
The binary of luminosity and emptiness | The binary of luminosity and emptiness represents a fundamental Buddhist debate over using cataphatic or apophatic language—that is, whether one can use positive language to describe reality or whether one must always use the language of negation. Can the ultimate reality be pointed out in positive terms or is it merely the absence of what is negated? Emptiness theory posits that there is ultimately no permanent or independent nature to any phenomena, be it physical or mental. Yet scriptures, even the Perfection of Wisdom sūtras which highlight the topic of emptiness, teach that the mind itself is "luminous by nature." In luminosity theory, the stains of saṃsāra do not defile the mind but only cloud its nature, and enlightenment is simply a revealing of what is already there. Luminosity is a key factor in tantra, where a direct experience of the mind's luminosity is a goal. | ||
In rejecting such affirmative descriptions of mind, most analytical teachers such as [[Haribhadra]] and [[Sakya Paṇḍita]] have reconciled this binary by relegating luminosity to conventional status and regarding scriptures which teach luminosity as provisional teachings which are not completely accurate. But others such as [[Vasubandhu]] and [[Dolpopa]] maintained that luminosity is the actual characteristic of mind and is therefore not to be regarded as empty. | |||
== What Is Buddha-Nature? == | |||
Since the notion of ''tathāgatagarbha'' wasn't drawn from a single scriptural source nor predicated on the views of a single philosophical school or movement, there is no universally accepted definition of what buddha-nature actually ''is'' or ''is not''. Rather, there developed many different approaches to this topic based on how buddha-nature was interpreted from a variety of philosophical perspectives. Below are some of the major positions taken on buddha-nature and the individuals who supported them. Thinkers generally subscribe to more than one position. For example, [[Gyaltsap Je]] accepts buddha-nature is both a nonimplicative emptiness and a casual potential and Mipam asserts that it is non implicative negation, unity of emptiness and luminosity and latent state of buddhahood. Sometimes, a thinker espouses different positions in different writings according to the doxographical context. | |||
<div class="h3 m-0"> Emptiness That Is a Nonimplicative Negation (without enlightened qualities) </div> | |||
: This position refers to the sheer emptiness that most classical Mādhyamikas subscribe to. From the standpoint of analysis to establish the ultimate reality, all points of apprehension such as inherent existence are negated and nothing is implied. According to this interpretation, buddha-nature is another term for emptiness in which all qualities of the Buddha, like all phenomena, are negated and nothing is affirmed. This position is held mostly by those who assert the ''rangtong'' view. Proponents of this view typically hold the second turning of the Dharma wheel to be definitive. | |||
{{TopicPersonCall | |||
|property=PosEmptyLumin | |||
|value=Tathāgatagarbha as the Emptiness That is a Non-implicative Negation (without enlightened qualities) | |||
|complicated=BuNayEmptyLuminComplex | |||
}} | |||
<div class="h3 m-0"> Emptiness That Is an Implicative Negation (with enlightened qualities) </div> | |||
: This position refers to an emptiness in which the object of negation such as inherent existence is negated but the presence of another such as emptiness itself is implied. In the case of buddha-nature, it is seen to be empty of adventitious defilements and impure phenomena but not empty of enlightened qualities. This interpretation corresponds to what became known as the ''zhentong'' view or the emptiness of the other. Proponents of this view typically hold the third turning of the Dharma wheel to be the most definitive. | |||
{{TopicPersonCall | |||
|property=PosEmptyLumin | |||
|value=Tathāgatagarbha as the Emptiness That is an Implicative Negation (with enlightened qualities) | |||
|complicated=BuNayEmptyLuminComplex | |||
}} | |||
<div class="h3 m-0"> Mind's Luminous Nature </div> | |||
: This position refers to the assertion that buddha-nature is the luminous nature of the mind itself. | |||
{{TopicPersonCall | |||
|property=PosEmptyLumin | |||
|value=Tathāgatagarbha as Mind's Luminous Nature | |||
|complicated=BuNayEmptyLuminComplex | |||
}} | |||
<div class="h3 m-0"> Unity of Emptiness and Luminosity </div> | |||
: This position refers to the assertion that buddha-nature is the inseparable unity of appearance and emptiness. Proponents of this view typically hold the second turning and third turning of the Dharma wheel to be equally definitive. | |||
{{TopicPersonCall | |||
|property=PosEmptyLumin | |||
|value=Tathāgatagarbha as the Unity of Emptiness and Luminosity | |||
|complicated=BuNayEmptyLuminComplex | |||
}} | |||
<div class="h3 m-0"> Causal Potential or Disposition </div> | |||
: This position refers to the understanding that buddha-nature is the basic or primary cause for beings to attain enlightenment but it is not endowed with latent qualities of the Buddha. Sentient beings have the capacity or potential to become enlightened should they choose to embark on the path. In this case, buddha-nature is often equated with a disposition or spiritual gene, ''gotra'', that guarantees the possibility of enlightenment. | |||
{{TopicPersonCall | |||
|property=PosEmptyLumin | |||
|value=Tathāgatagarbha as a Causal Potential or Disposition (gotra) | |||
|complicated=BuNayEmptyLuminComplex | |||
}} | |||
<div class="h3 m-0"> Resultant State of Buddhahood </div> | |||
: This position is held by some scholars who argue genuine buddha-nature only exists in those who have already achieved enlightenment. Typically this means equating buddha-nature with the dharmakāya of a fully enlightened buddha. | |||
{{TopicPersonCall | |||
|property=PosEmptyLumin | |||
|value=Tathāgatagarbha as the Resultant State of Buddhahood | |||
|complicated=BuNayEmptyLuminComplex | |||
}} | |||
<div class="h3 m-0"> Latent State of Buddhahood </div> | |||
: This position claims that buddha-nature is a latent form of enlightenment that is fully present in sentient beings but is obscured, and therefore inactive, at this stage of their development. In this sense, it is called buddha-nature when it has yet to manifest, and it is called enlightenment or buddhahood when it has been actualized. | |||
{{TopicPersonCall | |||
|property=PosEmptyLumin | |||
|value=Tathāgatagarbha as the Latent State of Buddhahood that is Obscured in Sentient Beings | |||
|complicated=BuNayEmptyLuminComplex | |||
}} | |||
<div class="h3 m-0"> Different Types of Tathāgatagarbha </div> | |||
: This position refers to those that assert multiple versions of buddha-nature that correspond to various stages of its manifestation. In other words, rather than asserting a single buddha-nature that applies to everyone, they divide it into different types that apply to specific circumstances. | |||
{{TopicPersonCall | |||
|property=PosEmptyLumin | |||
|value=There are several types of Tathāgatagarbha | |||
|complicated=BuNayEmptyLuminComplex | |||
}} | |||
<div class="h3 m-0"> Buddha-Nature as a Device to Encourage Sentient Beings to Enter the Path </div> | |||
: This position asserts the teachings on buddha-nature are merely provisional tool utilised to encourage students in the right direction rather than being an exact representation of the way things truly are. In this case, those who subscribe to this view tend to suggest that buddha-nature was taught in order to alleviate fears of emptiness or of the tremendously time-consuming path to enlightenment. | |||
{{TopicPersonCall | |||
|property=PosEmptyLumin | |||
|value=Tathāgatagarbha was Taught Merely to Encourage Sentient Beings to Enter the Path | |||
|complicated=BuNayEmptyLuminComplex | |||
}} | |||
== Potential or Already-perfected == | == Potential or Already-perfected == | ||
The Tathāgatagarbhasūtra, one of the earliest scriptures on tathāgatagarbha, or buddha-nature, has the Buddha state that "all beings, though they find themselves with all sorts of kleśas | The ''Tathāgatagarbhasūtra'', one of the earliest scriptures on ''tathāgatagarbha'', or buddha-nature, has the Buddha state that "all beings, though they find themselves with all sorts of ''kleśas''—the adventitious stains—have a ''tathāgatagarbha'' that is eternally unsullied and that is replete with virtues no different from my own." The sūtra gives nine similes to describe that buddha-nature. These are: | ||
* A buddha encased in a decaying lotus blossom | * A buddha encased in a decaying lotus blossom | ||
Line 49: | Line 180: | ||
* A statue cast in gold still encased by its earthen mold | * A statue cast in gold still encased by its earthen mold | ||
Of these seven describe a perfect object that is obscured by something else. The object is unaffected by its obscuration, yet is made either unknown to people, such as the treasure under the house, or rendered difficult to obtain, as in the case of the honey surrounded by bees. The message is that buddha-nature is already present, already perfected, yet obscured by the stains of ignorance, desire, and hatred. The similes of the mango pit and the noble child in the base woman's womb have a different message, however: both indicate a potential to transform into something that is not currently present. The noble being in the womb is only an embryo, and the pit merely carries the genetic material to grow into the tree. Whether buddha-nature is properly understood as an already-present perfection or a potential to attain that perfection is debated | Of these, seven describe a perfect object that is obscured by something else. The object is unaffected by its obscuration, yet it is made either unknown to people, such as the treasure under the house, or rendered difficult to obtain, as in the case of the honey surrounded by bees. The message is that buddha-nature is already present, already perfected, yet obscured by the stains of ignorance, desire, and hatred. The similes of the mango pit and the noble child in the base woman's womb have a different message, however: both indicate a potential to transform into something that is not currently present. The noble being in the womb is only an embryo, and the pit merely carries the genetic material to grow into the tree. Whether buddha-nature is properly understood as an already-present perfection or a potential to attain that perfection is debated. If the former, then the obscurations that conceal that natural luminosity need only be removed in order to attain liberation, for one's buddhahood is already present. If the latter, then that buddhahood is not present and must be cultivated. Among those who take the position that buddha-nature is a potential, there are multiple avenues of explaining how the potential is actualized, with various terms to label buddha-nature in its various stages. | ||
== Madhyamaka or Yogācāra == | == Madhyamaka or Yogācāra == | ||
Buddha-nature does not easily align with either Madhyamaka or Yogācāra doctrine, though it has been appropriated by members of both schools. The theory seems to have developed outside of either | Buddha-nature does not easily align with either Madhyamaka or Yogācāra doctrine, though it has been appropriated by members of both schools. The theory seems to have developed outside of either community in response to their assertions on the nature of reality and human nature, such that some scholars have posited the existence of a "Tathāgatagarbha school" of Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism. The assertion of the existence of a buddha-nature that possesses characteristics conflicts with Madhyamaka teachings of the fundamental absence of all independent phenomena; that is to say, buddha-nature would appear to contradict emptiness theory. At the same time, the assertion of the universality of buddha-nature conflicts with Yogācāra theories that classify beings according to their potential for liberation. Nevertheless, both Madhyamaka and Yogācāra authors have employed various interpretive strategies to make it conform to their school's orthodoxy. Both were aided by the relatively late ''Laṅkāvatārasūtra'', which in separate sections equated buddha-nature with both emptiness and the ''ālayavijñāna''. However, Yogācara never really gained a foothold in Tibet other than as part of some relatively short-lived attempts to establish a synthetic Yogācāra-Madhyamaka philosophy. Hence, buddha-nature teachings in Tibet were generally associated with Madhyamaka rather than with Yogācara, which, characterized by the Mind-Only view (''sems tsam''), was generally considered inferior to Madhyamaka. | ||
== | == Scholastic or Meditative Tradition == | ||
The Tibetan traditions generally divide the primary modes of exegesis on the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' into two lines of transmission known as the exegetical tradition of Maitreya's teachings (''byams chos bshad lugs'') and the meditative tradition of Maitreya's tradition (''byams chos sgom lugs''). These two traditions originated with the Tibetan disciples of the Kashmiri master [[Sajjana]]—namely [[Ngok Lotsāwa]] and [[Tsen Khawoche]], respectively. Therefore, these two are also commonly referred to as the Ngok tradition (''rngog lugs''), representing the scholarly or analytic approach, and the Tsen tradition (''btsan lugs''), representing the more practice-oriented, meditative approach. It is likely the diverging motivations of these two figures that would set the respective trajectories of these traditions, with Ngok as the aspiring scholar, translator, and heir apparent to Sangpu Neutok, one of the first major Tibetan scholastic institutions, on the one hand, and the elder Tsen looking to devote the rest of his life to practice and hoping to apply the teachings of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' in preparation for his own death, on the other. In terms of the official stances of these traditions, they are typically associated with the above debates over emptiness or luminosity, which sometimes pits philosophical reasoning against yogic experience. Thus we see the exegetical tradition branch out from Ngok's base of Sangpu Neutok, an institution that evolved in association from the Kadam to the Sakya and finally the Geluk school, all stalwarts of the classical Madhyamaka philosophy that would come to be associated with the rangtong position. Likewise, the meditative tradition would become a vehicle for the practical instructions on the treatise that would feed into and bolster the experiential approaches of the Mahāmudrā teachings, as well as the more positivistic position of zhentong Madhyamaka that would take root in the Kagyu and Jonang schools. | |||
<div class="h3 m-0"> Analytic Tradition </div> | |||
{{TopicPersonCall | |||
|property=PosAnalyticMedit | |||
|value=Analytic Tradition | |||
|complicated=BuNayAnalyticMeditComplex | |||
}} | |||
<div class="h3 m-0"> Meditative Tradition </div> | |||
{{TopicPersonCall | |||
|property=PosAnalyticMedit | |||
|value=Meditative Tradition | |||
|complicated=BuNayAnalyticMeditComplex | |||
}} | |||
{{BottomExploreSection | |||
|exclude=Ideas | |||
}} | |||
</div> | |||
{{StickySideBar | |||
|columns=3 | |||
|ContributeTile=yes | |||
}} | |||
</div> | |||
</div> | |||
<noinclude>[[Category:Buddha-Nature Project Tests]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:Buddha-Nature Project Tests]]</noinclude> |
Latest revision as of 09:49, 10 February 2023
Binary opposites in Buddhism—such as saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, emptiness and luminosity, the relative and the ultimate, and scores more—have been the object of debates since Śākyamuni Buddha first preached in Sarnath. He himself became the subject of a central binary: on his parinirvāṇa, did he dissipate into nonexistence, or does he abide as a numinous universal principle? It's an age-old dialectic of presence and absence that cuts to the heart of Buddhist metaphysics and is particularly relevant for buddha-nature theory. Similarly, over the centuries, teachers have explored multiple ways of explaining the relationship between ordinary deluded beings and fully perfect buddhas; at the moment of our enlightenment, will we be transformed, or will our true nature be revealed? Is something that isn't here now somehow produced? Do we share a common nature with the buddhas, or are we fundamentally different from them? The Buddha may have proposed a middle way between the extremes, but there's a lot of disagreement about where that middle falls.
Buddha-nature theory seems to have been initially offered as one such middle way, a previously missing link between extremes offered by the Madhyamaka and Yogācāra schools of Mahāyāna doctrine. On the one hand was a theory of emptiness that was so extreme that, many argued, certain meditative practices were undermined. On the other hand was a theory of mind that proposed a permanently existent consciousness, an idea that was accused of violating the Buddhist doctrines of impermanence and no-self. In its earliest appearances buddha-nature was vague, more poetry than theoretical principle, hinting at possible interpretations and promising salvation for all without necessarily explaining much. But as the doctrine grew in popularity, debate lines developed. It has been categorized as provisional and definitive, defined as emptiness as well as luminosity, labeled Madhyamaka, Yogācāra, or neither, as it has been tugged one way and the other across the middle ground.
To better understand what the debate lines are and where the great thinkers in Buddhist history have stood, the following outlines the various binaries that appear in buddha-nature theory. Each is briefly introduced, with suggestions for further reading. Great Buddhist thinkers who populate this website, as well as scriptures and classic works of doctrinal exegesis, are presented with a checklist of positions.
Universal or Limited
Not all scriptures agree that buddha-nature is universal. Texts such as the Laṅkāvatārasūtra and the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra describe a class of beings (gotra) called the icchantika, who are so degraded through their lust and ignorance that they can never become enlightened. Such is the case only in the earliest version of the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra, however; the later version teaches the universality of buddha-nature, and all but one tradition has rejected the category. The exception was the Faxiang school (法相宗) of the great Chinese translator Xuanzang 玄奘 (born 602), which declined only a few generations after Xuanzang's death. Even without the icchantika on the scene, however, not all Buddhist schools accept the universality of buddha-nature. The Yogācāra theory of classes of beings divides beings into three basic categories determined by their potential liberation; only those belonging to the bodhisattva class will attain complete and perfect buddhahood, while those of the "disciple" (śrāvaka) and "solitary buddha" (pratyekabuddha) classes will attain the lesser enlightenment of the arhat. These beings cannot be said, therefore, to possess buddha-nature the same as the bodhisattvas. In some Buddhist traditions the universality of buddha-nature is taken to include even inanimate objects such as grass and trees and even roof tiles. The logic here is that buddha-nature is identical to the dharmakāya, the truth-body of the buddha, which is the true nature of all phenomena. Tantric texts often present the five elements of earth, water, fire, air and space and the five aggregates as being naturally perfect Buddhas.
Written as a supplement to Nagarjuna’s Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way, Candrakīrti’s text integrates the central insight of Nagarjuna’s thought—the rejection of any metaphysical notion of intrinsic existence—with the well-known Mahayana framework of the ten levels of the bodhisattva, and it became the most studied presentation of Madhyamaka thought in Tibet.
Completed the year before the author’s death, Tsongkhapa’s exposition of Candrakīrti's text is recognized by the Tibetan tradition as the final standpoint of Tsongkhapa on many philosophical questions, particularly the clear distinctions it draws between the standpoints of the Madhyamaka and Cittamatra schools.
Written in exemplary Tibetan, Tsongkhapa’s work presents a wonderful marriage of rigorous Madhyamaka philosophical analysis with a detailed and subtle account of the progressively advancing mental states and spiritual maturity realized by sincere Madhyamaka practitioners. (Source: Thupten Jinpa, Illuminating the Intent, 2021.)principal stages that Tsong kha pa composed. The others include (1) the Lam rim chung ba ("Short Treatise on the Stages of the Path"), also called the Lam rim 'bring ba ('"Intermediate Treatise on the States of the Path") and (2) the Lam rim bsdus don ("Concise Meaning of the Stages of the Path"), occasionally also referred to as the Lam rim chung ngu ("Brief Stages of the Path"). The latter text, which records Tsong kha pa's own realization of the path in verse form, is also referred to as the Lam rim nyams mgur ma ("Song of Experience of the Stages of the Path"). The Lam rim chen mo is a highly detailed and often technical treatise presenting a comprehensive and synthetic overview of the path to buddhahood. It draws, often at length, upon a wide range of scriptural sources including the Sūtra and śāstra literature of both the hīnayāna and Mahāyāna; Tsong kha pa treats tantric practice in a separate work. The text is organized under the rubric of the three levels of spiritual predilection, personified as "the three individuals" (skyes bu gsum): the beings of small capacity, who engage in religious practice in order to gain a favorable rebirth in their next lifetime; the beings of intermediate capacity, who seek liberation from rebirth for themselves as an arhat; and the beings of great capacity, who seek to liberate all beings in the universe from suffering and thus follow the bodhisattva path to buddhahood. Tsong kha pa's text does not lay out all the practices of these three types of persons but rather those practices essential to the bodhisattva path that are held in common by persons of small and intermediate capacity, such as the practice of refuge (śaraṇa) and contemplation of the uncertainty of the time of death. The text includes extended discussions of topics such as relying on a spiritual master, the development of bodhicitta, and the six perfections (pāramitā). The last section of
the text, sometimes regarded as a separate work, deals at length with the nature of serenity (śamatha) and insight (vipaśyanā); Tsong kha pa's discussion of insight here represents one of his most important expositions of emptiness (śūnyatā). Primarily devoted to exoteric Mahāyāna doctrine, the text concludes with a brief reference to Vajrayāna and the practice of tantra, a subject discussed at length by Tsong kha pa in a separate work, the Sngags rim chen mo ("Stages of the Path of Mantra"). The Lam rim chen mo's full title is Skyes bu gsum gyi rnyams su blang ba'i rim pa thams cad tshang bar ston pa'i byang chub lam gyi rim pa. (Source: "Lam rim chen mo." In The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, 465-66. Princeton University Press, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt46n41q.27.)
The Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra is one of the main scriptural sources for buddha-nature in China and Tibet. Set around the time of Buddha's passing or Mahāparinirvāṇa, the sūtra contains teachings on buddha-nature equating it with the dharmakāya—that is, the complete enlightenment of a buddha. It also asserts that all sentient beings possess this nature as the buddhadhātu, or buddha-element, which thus acts as a cause, seed, or potential for all beings to attain enlightenment. Furthermore, the sūtra includes some salient features related to this concept, such as the single vehicle and the notion that the dharmakāya is endowed with the four pāramitās of permanence, bliss, purity, and a self.
The first, made up entirely of the so-called root verses, corresponds to the Sanskrit title Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra, though it is usually referenced in this tradition by the Tibetan equivalent of the latter subtitle, Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos, which is commonly rendered into English as the Treatise on the Ultimate Continuum of the Great Vehicle and is abbreviated as RGV. However, the full title, Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos dkon mchog gi rigs rnam par dbye ba, does appear at the end of each chapter of the canonical Tibetan recensions. Nevertheless, this version is likely a Tibetan redaction, in that thus far there is no evidence of a Sanskrit version written entirely in verse that excludes the commentarial sections that explain them.
The second, which combines the verses with their accompanying prose commentary, corresponds to the *Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā as it has become known in academic circles where it is referenced with the abbreviation RGVV. However, in Tibetan the subtitle is merely appended with the equivalent of vyākhyā, i.e. Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos rnam par bshad pa, and thus a translation of the Tibetan title of the complete text would be something akin to the Explanatory Commentary on the Treatise on the Ultimate Continuum of the Great Vehicle. However, the extant Sanskrit recension of the Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra directly corresponds to the Tibetan version known as the *Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā, in that it contains both the root verses and the prose commentary. Though, again, lacking a Sanskrit work entitled the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā, we can surmise that its corresponding Tibetan title was likely manufactured in order to delineate it from the streamlined verse redaction, while the Sanskrit title *Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā was in turn a product of modern scholars. On the surface it would seem that this title is a combination of the Chinese title back translated into Sanskrit as the Ratnagotraśāstra and the one found in the Tibetan editions, which state the Sanskrit title as the Mahāyānottaratantraśāstravyākhya. Nevertheless, in terms of content, the Sanskrit RGV corresponds to the Tibetan RGVV, in that the Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra is the same text as Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos rnam par bshad pa.
Also, see the Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra and for a recent essay on the text: On the Ratnagotravibhāga by Alexander Gardner.According to the Kālacakra tradition, the extant version of the Kālacakratantra is an abridged version of the larger original tantra, called the Paramādibuddha, that was taught by the Buddha Śākyamuni to Sucandra, the king of Śambhala and an emanation of Vajrapāṇi, in the Dhānyakaṭaka stūpa, a notable center of Mahāyāna in the vicinity of the present-day village of Amarāvatī in Andhra Pradesh. Upon receiving instruction on the Paramādibuddhatantra and returning to Śambhala, King Sucandra wrote it down and propagated it throughout his kingdom. His six successors continued to maintain the inherited tradition, and the eighth king of Śambhala, Mañjuśrī Yaśas, composed the abridged version of the Parāmadibuddhatantra, which is handed down to us as the Sovereign Abridged Kālacakratantra (Laghukālacakratantrarāja). It is traditionally taught that it is composed of 1,030 verses written in the sradgharā meter. However, various Sanskrit manuscripts and editions of the Laghukālacakratantra contain a somewhat larger number of verses, ranging from 1,037 to 1,047 verses. The term an “abridged tantra” (laghu-tantra) has a specific meaning in Indian Buddhist tantric tradition. Its traditional interpretation is given in Naḍapādas (Nāropā) Sekoddeśaṭīkā, which states that in every yoga, yoginī, and other types of tantras, the concise, general explanations (uddeśa) and specific explanations (nirdeśa) make up a tantric discourse (tantra-saṃgīti), and that discourse, which is an exposition (uddeśana) there, is an entire abridged tantra.
The tradition tells us that Mañjuśrī Yaśas's successor Puṇḍarīka, who was an emanation of Avalokiteśvara, composed a large commentary on the Kālacakratantra, called the Stainless Light (Vimalaprabhā), which became the most authoritative commentary on the Kālacakratantra and served as the basis for all subsequent commentarial literature of that literary corpus. The place of the Vimalaprabhā in the Kālacakra literary corpus is of great importance, for in many instances, without the Vimalaprabhā, it would be practically impossible to understand not only the broader implications of the Kālacakratantra' cryptic verses and often grammatically corrupt sentences but their basic meanings. It has been said that the Kālacakratantra is explicit with regard to the tantric teachings that are often only implied in the other anuttara-yoga-tantras, but this explicitness is actually far more characteristic of the Vimalaprabhā than of the Kālacakratantra itself. (Source: Wallace, Vesna A. The Inner Kālacakratantra: A Buddhist Tantric View of the Individual. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001: pp. 2-3.)
འོད་གསལ་བདེ་གཤེགས་སྙིང་པོ་ལྷུན་གྲུབ་སྟེ། །སྟོང་གསལ་རིག་པ་དབྱེར་མེད་ཆོས་ཉིད་དོ།། The luminous buddha-nature is indivisible reality Which is spontaneous, empty, and clear awareness.
His presentation on buddha-nature theory and associated practices in his writings became the most authoritative references which determine the interpretation of buddha-nature theory and practice in the Nyingma tradition to this day.
Indian literature of Madhyamaka philosophical positions. In it, Candrakīrti provides a detailed discussion of the two truths—ultimate truth (paramārthasatya) and conventional truth (saṃvṛtisatya)—arguing that all things that have these two natures and that conventional truths (which he glosses as "concealing truths") are not in fact true because they appear falsely to the ignorant consciousness. He also discusses the crucial question of valid knowledge (pramāṇa) among the unenlightened, relating it to worldly consensus (lokaprasiddha). The sixth chapter also contains one of the most detailed refutations of Yogācāra in Madhyamaka literature, treating such topics as the three natures (trisvabhāva), the foundational consciousness (ālayavijñāna), and the statements in the sūtras that the three realms of existence are "mind-only" (cittamātra). This chapter also contains Candrakīrti's most famous contribution to Madhyamaka reasoning, the sevenfold reasoning designed to demonstrate the absence of a personal self (pudgalanairātmya). Adding to and elaborating upon a fivefold reasoning found in Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, Candrakīrti argues that the person does not intrinsically exist because of it: (1) not being the aggregates (skandha), (2) not being other than the aggregates, (3) not being the basis of the aggregates, (4) not depending on the aggregates, (5) not possessing the aggregates, (6) not being the shape of the aggregates, and (7) not being the composite of the aggregates. He illustrates this reasoning by applying it to the example of a chariot, which, he argues, is not to be found among its constituent parts. The sixth chapter concludes with a discussion of
the sixteen and the twenty forms of emptiness (śūnyatā), which include the emptiness of emptiness (śūnyatāśūnyatā). The work was the most widely studied and commented upon Madhyamaka text in Tibet among all sects, serving, for example, as one of the "five texts" (zhung lnga) that formed the Dge lugs scholastic curriculum. The work is preserved only in Tibetan, although a Sanskrit manuscript of verses has been discovered in Tibet. (Source: "Madhyamakāvatāra." In The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, 489. Princeton University Press, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt46n41q.27.)He begins with a cogent presentation of Mahāmudrā covering its sources, the objective Mahāmudrā, the subjective Mahāmudrā, its synonyms, the actual Mahāmudra experience among sublime beings, the analogous Mahāmudrā understanding among ordinary practitioners, and the Mahāmudrā concept according to the philosophical and tantric schools. Following this, he delves into how some later followers of Sakya and Kagyu tradition do not fathom the understanding of their respective teachings. He also points out how the followers of Kadampa tradition have missed the important original teachings of Atīśa and founding fathers.
In summary, Śākya Chokden underscores the point that there are two ways in which misconceptions are overcome: through an extrovert rational analysis and an introvert yogic contemplation. The Mahāmudrā tradition of Gampopa belongs to the latter category while the former includes the postulations of self-emptiness and other-emptiness.1. The emptiness posited through Mādhyamika reasoning. 2. The union of emptiness and bliss which fills the network of channels after tantric practice of consecration. 3. Experience of bare consciousness free from all mentation. 4. Non-apprehension of the mind either inside or outside, having colour and shape, etc. 5. The ground consciousness which is the cause of all experience.
Śākya Choden states that none of these capture the profound, precise, effective Mahāmudrā technique of Gampopa, which is compared to the Single White Remedy, and explains how they are not the same as Gampopa’s Mahāmudrā. Śākya Chokden also distinguishes the Chinese Chan practice from Gampopa’s Mahāmudrā and goes on to explain their differences. He elaborates on the practice of Mahāmudrā through the four points of single-pointedness (རྩེ་གཅིག་), non-elaboration (སྤྲོས་བྲལ་), one taste (རོ་གཅིག་), and non-meditation (སྒོམ་མེད་).Provisional or Definitive
Buddhist scholars classify all doctrine as either definitive or provisional. Concepts and statements are deemed definitive when they accurately describe reality. Those that do not, or require considerable interpretation, but are nonetheless of practical value, are provisional. Buddha-nature has generated considerable controversy since the theory was first developed in the early centuries of the Common Era.
Some commentators have argued that the buddha-nature teachings are not definitive as they do not discuss emptiness free from elaborations, which is deemed to be the ultimate truth. It was taught merely to encourage those who might be dissuaded from a path to awakening that was said to take near-infinite lifetimes to traverse. As such, the concept was plainly intended as a provisional teaching, an encouragement to those on and not yet on the path, but not actually true. For example, Candrakīrti, in his Entrance to the Middle Way, considered buddha-nature teachings to be provisional, and claimed only teachings taking up emptiness as the main topic to be definitive. Many Indian Mādhyamika scholars espoused this position while others leaning towards the teachings of Maitreya and tantric theories of the ultimate, took the buddha-nature teachings to be definitive.
Beginning in the eleventh century with the popularity of Ratnagotravibhāga, the famous commentary on the buddha-nature sutras, the debates over whether the buddha-nature teachings were to be taken as definitive or provisional intensified in Tibet. Early Kadam scholars such as Ngok Loden Sherab and Chapa Chökyi Senge, who were also staunch Mādhyamikas, took buddha-nature to be definitive by equating it directly with the emptiness taught as the ultimate in Madhyamaka philosophy. The view of tathāgatagarbha as definitive was also shared by certain Sakya and Geluk scholars that inherited Ngok's scholastic tradition.
Yet, many early Kadam, Kagyu and Nyingma scholars asserted the ultimate reality to be a union of emptiness and luminosity and thus maintained the buddha-nature teachings to be definitive as they described the ultimate reality. They took both the second and third turnings of the wheel to be definitive in nature. The scholars of Jonang tradition and some others in later centuries took this doctrine a step further as they expounded an absolutist theory of the other-emptiness (zhentong). According to this interpretation, buddha-nature exists as the eternal absolute truth while only being empty of other adventitious phenomena. They took the buddha-nature teachings to be definitive and considered scriptures teaching mere emptiness to be provisional.
Indian literature of Madhyamaka philosophical positions. In it, Candrakīrti provides a detailed discussion of the two truths—ultimate truth (paramārthasatya) and conventional truth (saṃvṛtisatya)—arguing that all things that have these two natures and that conventional truths (which he glosses as "concealing truths") are not in fact true because they appear falsely to the ignorant consciousness. He also discusses the crucial question of valid knowledge (pramāṇa) among the unenlightened, relating it to worldly consensus (lokaprasiddha). The sixth chapter also contains one of the most detailed refutations of Yogācāra in Madhyamaka literature, treating such topics as the three natures (trisvabhāva), the foundational consciousness (ālayavijñāna), and the statements in the sūtras that the three realms of existence are "mind-only" (cittamātra). This chapter also contains Candrakīrti's most famous contribution to Madhyamaka reasoning, the sevenfold reasoning designed to demonstrate the absence of a personal self (pudgalanairātmya). Adding to and elaborating upon a fivefold reasoning found in Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, Candrakīrti argues that the person does not intrinsically exist because of it: (1) not being the aggregates (skandha), (2) not being other than the aggregates, (3) not being the basis of the aggregates, (4) not depending on the aggregates, (5) not possessing the aggregates, (6) not being the shape of the aggregates, and (7) not being the composite of the aggregates. He illustrates this reasoning by applying it to the example of a chariot, which, he argues, is not to be found among its constituent parts. The sixth chapter concludes with a discussion of
the sixteen and the twenty forms of emptiness (śūnyatā), which include the emptiness of emptiness (śūnyatāśūnyatā). The work was the most widely studied and commented upon Madhyamaka text in Tibet among all sects, serving, for example, as one of the "five texts" (zhung lnga) that formed the Dge lugs scholastic curriculum. The work is preserved only in Tibetan, although a Sanskrit manuscript of verses has been discovered in Tibet. (Source: "Madhyamakāvatāra." In The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, 489. Princeton University Press, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt46n41q.27.)
Written as a supplement to Nagarjuna’s Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way, Candrakīrti’s text integrates the central insight of Nagarjuna’s thought—the rejection of any metaphysical notion of intrinsic existence—with the well-known Mahayana framework of the ten levels of the bodhisattva, and it became the most studied presentation of Madhyamaka thought in Tibet.
Completed the year before the author’s death, Tsongkhapa’s exposition of Candrakīrti's text is recognized by the Tibetan tradition as the final standpoint of Tsongkhapa on many philosophical questions, particularly the clear distinctions it draws between the standpoints of the Madhyamaka and Cittamatra schools.
Written in exemplary Tibetan, Tsongkhapa’s work presents a wonderful marriage of rigorous Madhyamaka philosophical analysis with a detailed and subtle account of the progressively advancing mental states and spiritual maturity realized by sincere Madhyamaka practitioners. (Source: Thupten Jinpa, Illuminating the Intent, 2021.)principal stages that Tsong kha pa composed. The others include (1) the Lam rim chung ba ("Short Treatise on the Stages of the Path"), also called the Lam rim 'bring ba ('"Intermediate Treatise on the States of the Path") and (2) the Lam rim bsdus don ("Concise Meaning of the Stages of the Path"), occasionally also referred to as the Lam rim chung ngu ("Brief Stages of the Path"). The latter text, which records Tsong kha pa's own realization of the path in verse form, is also referred to as the Lam rim nyams mgur ma ("Song of Experience of the Stages of the Path"). The Lam rim chen mo is a highly detailed and often technical treatise presenting a comprehensive and synthetic overview of the path to buddhahood. It draws, often at length, upon a wide range of scriptural sources including the Sūtra and śāstra literature of both the hīnayāna and Mahāyāna; Tsong kha pa treats tantric practice in a separate work. The text is organized under the rubric of the three levels of spiritual predilection, personified as "the three individuals" (skyes bu gsum): the beings of small capacity, who engage in religious practice in order to gain a favorable rebirth in their next lifetime; the beings of intermediate capacity, who seek liberation from rebirth for themselves as an arhat; and the beings of great capacity, who seek to liberate all beings in the universe from suffering and thus follow the bodhisattva path to buddhahood. Tsong kha pa's text does not lay out all the practices of these three types of persons but rather those practices essential to the bodhisattva path that are held in common by persons of small and intermediate capacity, such as the practice of refuge (śaraṇa) and contemplation of the uncertainty of the time of death. The text includes extended discussions of topics such as relying on a spiritual master, the development of bodhicitta, and the six perfections (pāramitā). The last section of
the text, sometimes regarded as a separate work, deals at length with the nature of serenity (śamatha) and insight (vipaśyanā); Tsong kha pa's discussion of insight here represents one of his most important expositions of emptiness (śūnyatā). Primarily devoted to exoteric Mahāyāna doctrine, the text concludes with a brief reference to Vajrayāna and the practice of tantra, a subject discussed at length by Tsong kha pa in a separate work, the Sngags rim chen mo ("Stages of the Path of Mantra"). The Lam rim chen mo's full title is Skyes bu gsum gyi rnyams su blang ba'i rim pa thams cad tshang bar ston pa'i byang chub lam gyi rim pa. (Source: "Lam rim chen mo." In The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, 465-66. Princeton University Press, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt46n41q.27.)The first, made up entirely of the so-called root verses, corresponds to the Sanskrit title Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra, though it is usually referenced in this tradition by the Tibetan equivalent of the latter subtitle, Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos, which is commonly rendered into English as the Treatise on the Ultimate Continuum of the Great Vehicle and is abbreviated as RGV. However, the full title, Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos dkon mchog gi rigs rnam par dbye ba, does appear at the end of each chapter of the canonical Tibetan recensions. Nevertheless, this version is likely a Tibetan redaction, in that thus far there is no evidence of a Sanskrit version written entirely in verse that excludes the commentarial sections that explain them.
The second, which combines the verses with their accompanying prose commentary, corresponds to the *Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā as it has become known in academic circles where it is referenced with the abbreviation RGVV. However, in Tibetan the subtitle is merely appended with the equivalent of vyākhyā, i.e. Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos rnam par bshad pa, and thus a translation of the Tibetan title of the complete text would be something akin to the Explanatory Commentary on the Treatise on the Ultimate Continuum of the Great Vehicle. However, the extant Sanskrit recension of the Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra directly corresponds to the Tibetan version known as the *Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā, in that it contains both the root verses and the prose commentary. Though, again, lacking a Sanskrit work entitled the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā, we can surmise that its corresponding Tibetan title was likely manufactured in order to delineate it from the streamlined verse redaction, while the Sanskrit title *Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā was in turn a product of modern scholars. On the surface it would seem that this title is a combination of the Chinese title back translated into Sanskrit as the Ratnagotraśāstra and the one found in the Tibetan editions, which state the Sanskrit title as the Mahāyānottaratantraśāstravyākhya. Nevertheless, in terms of content, the Sanskrit RGV corresponds to the Tibetan RGVV, in that the Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra is the same text as Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos rnam par bshad pa.
Also, see the Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra and for a recent essay on the text: On the Ratnagotravibhāga by Alexander Gardner.According to the Kālacakra tradition, the extant version of the Kālacakratantra is an abridged version of the larger original tantra, called the Paramādibuddha, that was taught by the Buddha Śākyamuni to Sucandra, the king of Śambhala and an emanation of Vajrapāṇi, in the Dhānyakaṭaka stūpa, a notable center of Mahāyāna in the vicinity of the present-day village of Amarāvatī in Andhra Pradesh. Upon receiving instruction on the Paramādibuddhatantra and returning to Śambhala, King Sucandra wrote it down and propagated it throughout his kingdom. His six successors continued to maintain the inherited tradition, and the eighth king of Śambhala, Mañjuśrī Yaśas, composed the abridged version of the Parāmadibuddhatantra, which is handed down to us as the Sovereign Abridged Kālacakratantra (Laghukālacakratantrarāja). It is traditionally taught that it is composed of 1,030 verses written in the sradgharā meter. However, various Sanskrit manuscripts and editions of the Laghukālacakratantra contain a somewhat larger number of verses, ranging from 1,037 to 1,047 verses. The term an “abridged tantra” (laghu-tantra) has a specific meaning in Indian Buddhist tantric tradition. Its traditional interpretation is given in Naḍapādas (Nāropā) Sekoddeśaṭīkā, which states that in every yoga, yoginī, and other types of tantras, the concise, general explanations (uddeśa) and specific explanations (nirdeśa) make up a tantric discourse (tantra-saṃgīti), and that discourse, which is an exposition (uddeśana) there, is an entire abridged tantra.
The tradition tells us that Mañjuśrī Yaśas's successor Puṇḍarīka, who was an emanation of Avalokiteśvara, composed a large commentary on the Kālacakratantra, called the Stainless Light (Vimalaprabhā), which became the most authoritative commentary on the Kālacakratantra and served as the basis for all subsequent commentarial literature of that literary corpus. The place of the Vimalaprabhā in the Kālacakra literary corpus is of great importance, for in many instances, without the Vimalaprabhā, it would be practically impossible to understand not only the broader implications of the Kālacakratantra' cryptic verses and often grammatically corrupt sentences but their basic meanings. It has been said that the Kālacakratantra is explicit with regard to the tantric teachings that are often only implied in the other anuttara-yoga-tantras, but this explicitness is actually far more characteristic of the Vimalaprabhā than of the Kālacakratantra itself. (Source: Wallace, Vesna A. The Inner Kālacakratantra: A Buddhist Tantric View of the Individual. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001: pp. 2-3.)
འོད་གསལ་བདེ་གཤེགས་སྙིང་པོ་ལྷུན་གྲུབ་སྟེ། །སྟོང་གསལ་རིག་པ་དབྱེར་མེད་ཆོས་ཉིད་དོ།། The luminous buddha-nature is indivisible reality Which is spontaneous, empty, and clear awareness.
His presentation on buddha-nature theory and associated practices in his writings became the most authoritative references which determine the interpretation of buddha-nature theory and practice in the Nyingma tradition to this day.He begins with a cogent presentation of Mahāmudrā covering its sources, the objective Mahāmudrā, the subjective Mahāmudrā, its synonyms, the actual Mahāmudra experience among sublime beings, the analogous Mahāmudrā understanding among ordinary practitioners, and the Mahāmudrā concept according to the philosophical and tantric schools. Following this, he delves into how some later followers of Sakya and Kagyu tradition do not fathom the understanding of their respective teachings. He also points out how the followers of Kadampa tradition have missed the important original teachings of Atīśa and founding fathers.
In summary, Śākya Chokden underscores the point that there are two ways in which misconceptions are overcome: through an extrovert rational analysis and an introvert yogic contemplation. The Mahāmudrā tradition of Gampopa belongs to the latter category while the former includes the postulations of self-emptiness and other-emptiness.1. The emptiness posited through Mādhyamika reasoning. 2. The union of emptiness and bliss which fills the network of channels after tantric practice of consecration. 3. Experience of bare consciousness free from all mentation. 4. Non-apprehension of the mind either inside or outside, having colour and shape, etc. 5. The ground consciousness which is the cause of all experience.
Śākya Choden states that none of these capture the profound, precise, effective Mahāmudrā technique of Gampopa, which is compared to the Single White Remedy, and explains how they are not the same as Gampopa’s Mahāmudrā. Śākya Chokden also distinguishes the Chinese Chan practice from Gampopa’s Mahāmudrā and goes on to explain their differences. He elaborates on the practice of Mahāmudrā through the four points of single-pointedness (རྩེ་གཅིག་), non-elaboration (སྤྲོས་བྲལ་), one taste (རོ་གཅིག་), and non-meditation (སྒོམ་མེད་).Emptiness or Luminosity
The binary of luminosity and emptiness represents a fundamental Buddhist debate over using cataphatic or apophatic language—that is, whether one can use positive language to describe reality or whether one must always use the language of negation. Can the ultimate reality be pointed out in positive terms or is it merely the absence of what is negated? Emptiness theory posits that there is ultimately no permanent or independent nature to any phenomena, be it physical or mental. Yet scriptures, even the Perfection of Wisdom sūtras which highlight the topic of emptiness, teach that the mind itself is "luminous by nature." In luminosity theory, the stains of saṃsāra do not defile the mind but only cloud its nature, and enlightenment is simply a revealing of what is already there. Luminosity is a key factor in tantra, where a direct experience of the mind's luminosity is a goal.
In rejecting such affirmative descriptions of mind, most analytical teachers such as Haribhadra and Sakya Paṇḍita have reconciled this binary by relegating luminosity to conventional status and regarding scriptures which teach luminosity as provisional teachings which are not completely accurate. But others such as Vasubandhu and Dolpopa maintained that luminosity is the actual characteristic of mind and is therefore not to be regarded as empty.
What Is Buddha-Nature?
Since the notion of tathāgatagarbha wasn't drawn from a single scriptural source nor predicated on the views of a single philosophical school or movement, there is no universally accepted definition of what buddha-nature actually is or is not. Rather, there developed many different approaches to this topic based on how buddha-nature was interpreted from a variety of philosophical perspectives. Below are some of the major positions taken on buddha-nature and the individuals who supported them. Thinkers generally subscribe to more than one position. For example, Gyaltsap Je accepts buddha-nature is both a nonimplicative emptiness and a casual potential and Mipam asserts that it is non implicative negation, unity of emptiness and luminosity and latent state of buddhahood. Sometimes, a thinker espouses different positions in different writings according to the doxographical context.
- This position refers to the sheer emptiness that most classical Mādhyamikas subscribe to. From the standpoint of analysis to establish the ultimate reality, all points of apprehension such as inherent existence are negated and nothing is implied. According to this interpretation, buddha-nature is another term for emptiness in which all qualities of the Buddha, like all phenomena, are negated and nothing is affirmed. This position is held mostly by those who assert the rangtong view. Proponents of this view typically hold the second turning of the Dharma wheel to be definitive.
Written as a supplement to Nagarjuna’s Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way, Candrakīrti’s text integrates the central insight of Nagarjuna’s thought—the rejection of any metaphysical notion of intrinsic existence—with the well-known Mahayana framework of the ten levels of the bodhisattva, and it became the most studied presentation of Madhyamaka thought in Tibet.
Completed the year before the author’s death, Tsongkhapa’s exposition of Candrakīrti's text is recognized by the Tibetan tradition as the final standpoint of Tsongkhapa on many philosophical questions, particularly the clear distinctions it draws between the standpoints of the Madhyamaka and Cittamatra schools.
Written in exemplary Tibetan, Tsongkhapa’s work presents a wonderful marriage of rigorous Madhyamaka philosophical analysis with a detailed and subtle account of the progressively advancing mental states and spiritual maturity realized by sincere Madhyamaka practitioners. (Source: Thupten Jinpa, Illuminating the Intent, 2021.)principal stages that Tsong kha pa composed. The others include (1) the Lam rim chung ba ("Short Treatise on the Stages of the Path"), also called the Lam rim 'bring ba ('"Intermediate Treatise on the States of the Path") and (2) the Lam rim bsdus don ("Concise Meaning of the Stages of the Path"), occasionally also referred to as the Lam rim chung ngu ("Brief Stages of the Path"). The latter text, which records Tsong kha pa's own realization of the path in verse form, is also referred to as the Lam rim nyams mgur ma ("Song of Experience of the Stages of the Path"). The Lam rim chen mo is a highly detailed and often technical treatise presenting a comprehensive and synthetic overview of the path to buddhahood. It draws, often at length, upon a wide range of scriptural sources including the Sūtra and śāstra literature of both the hīnayāna and Mahāyāna; Tsong kha pa treats tantric practice in a separate work. The text is organized under the rubric of the three levels of spiritual predilection, personified as "the three individuals" (skyes bu gsum): the beings of small capacity, who engage in religious practice in order to gain a favorable rebirth in their next lifetime; the beings of intermediate capacity, who seek liberation from rebirth for themselves as an arhat; and the beings of great capacity, who seek to liberate all beings in the universe from suffering and thus follow the bodhisattva path to buddhahood. Tsong kha pa's text does not lay out all the practices of these three types of persons but rather those practices essential to the bodhisattva path that are held in common by persons of small and intermediate capacity, such as the practice of refuge (śaraṇa) and contemplation of the uncertainty of the time of death. The text includes extended discussions of topics such as relying on a spiritual master, the development of bodhicitta, and the six perfections (pāramitā). The last section of
the text, sometimes regarded as a separate work, deals at length with the nature of serenity (śamatha) and insight (vipaśyanā); Tsong kha pa's discussion of insight here represents one of his most important expositions of emptiness (śūnyatā). Primarily devoted to exoteric Mahāyāna doctrine, the text concludes with a brief reference to Vajrayāna and the practice of tantra, a subject discussed at length by Tsong kha pa in a separate work, the Sngags rim chen mo ("Stages of the Path of Mantra"). The Lam rim chen mo's full title is Skyes bu gsum gyi rnyams su blang ba'i rim pa thams cad tshang bar ston pa'i byang chub lam gyi rim pa. (Source: "Lam rim chen mo." In The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, 465-66. Princeton University Press, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt46n41q.27.)
- This position refers to an emptiness in which the object of negation such as inherent existence is negated but the presence of another such as emptiness itself is implied. In the case of buddha-nature, it is seen to be empty of adventitious defilements and impure phenomena but not empty of enlightened qualities. This interpretation corresponds to what became known as the zhentong view or the emptiness of the other. Proponents of this view typically hold the third turning of the Dharma wheel to be the most definitive.
- This position refers to the assertion that buddha-nature is the luminous nature of the mind itself.
The first, made up entirely of the so-called root verses, corresponds to the Sanskrit title Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra, though it is usually referenced in this tradition by the Tibetan equivalent of the latter subtitle, Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos, which is commonly rendered into English as the Treatise on the Ultimate Continuum of the Great Vehicle and is abbreviated as RGV. However, the full title, Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos dkon mchog gi rigs rnam par dbye ba, does appear at the end of each chapter of the canonical Tibetan recensions. Nevertheless, this version is likely a Tibetan redaction, in that thus far there is no evidence of a Sanskrit version written entirely in verse that excludes the commentarial sections that explain them.
The second, which combines the verses with their accompanying prose commentary, corresponds to the *Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā as it has become known in academic circles where it is referenced with the abbreviation RGVV. However, in Tibetan the subtitle is merely appended with the equivalent of vyākhyā, i.e. Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos rnam par bshad pa, and thus a translation of the Tibetan title of the complete text would be something akin to the Explanatory Commentary on the Treatise on the Ultimate Continuum of the Great Vehicle. However, the extant Sanskrit recension of the Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra directly corresponds to the Tibetan version known as the *Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā, in that it contains both the root verses and the prose commentary. Though, again, lacking a Sanskrit work entitled the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā, we can surmise that its corresponding Tibetan title was likely manufactured in order to delineate it from the streamlined verse redaction, while the Sanskrit title *Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā was in turn a product of modern scholars. On the surface it would seem that this title is a combination of the Chinese title back translated into Sanskrit as the Ratnagotraśāstra and the one found in the Tibetan editions, which state the Sanskrit title as the Mahāyānottaratantraśāstravyākhya. Nevertheless, in terms of content, the Sanskrit RGV corresponds to the Tibetan RGVV, in that the Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra is the same text as Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos rnam par bshad pa.
Also, see the Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra and for a recent essay on the text: On the Ratnagotravibhāga by Alexander Gardner.According to the Kālacakra tradition, the extant version of the Kālacakratantra is an abridged version of the larger original tantra, called the Paramādibuddha, that was taught by the Buddha Śākyamuni to Sucandra, the king of Śambhala and an emanation of Vajrapāṇi, in the Dhānyakaṭaka stūpa, a notable center of Mahāyāna in the vicinity of the present-day village of Amarāvatī in Andhra Pradesh. Upon receiving instruction on the Paramādibuddhatantra and returning to Śambhala, King Sucandra wrote it down and propagated it throughout his kingdom. His six successors continued to maintain the inherited tradition, and the eighth king of Śambhala, Mañjuśrī Yaśas, composed the abridged version of the Parāmadibuddhatantra, which is handed down to us as the Sovereign Abridged Kālacakratantra (Laghukālacakratantrarāja). It is traditionally taught that it is composed of 1,030 verses written in the sradgharā meter. However, various Sanskrit manuscripts and editions of the Laghukālacakratantra contain a somewhat larger number of verses, ranging from 1,037 to 1,047 verses. The term an “abridged tantra” (laghu-tantra) has a specific meaning in Indian Buddhist tantric tradition. Its traditional interpretation is given in Naḍapādas (Nāropā) Sekoddeśaṭīkā, which states that in every yoga, yoginī, and other types of tantras, the concise, general explanations (uddeśa) and specific explanations (nirdeśa) make up a tantric discourse (tantra-saṃgīti), and that discourse, which is an exposition (uddeśana) there, is an entire abridged tantra.
The tradition tells us that Mañjuśrī Yaśas's successor Puṇḍarīka, who was an emanation of Avalokiteśvara, composed a large commentary on the Kālacakratantra, called the Stainless Light (Vimalaprabhā), which became the most authoritative commentary on the Kālacakratantra and served as the basis for all subsequent commentarial literature of that literary corpus. The place of the Vimalaprabhā in the Kālacakra literary corpus is of great importance, for in many instances, without the Vimalaprabhā, it would be practically impossible to understand not only the broader implications of the Kālacakratantra' cryptic verses and often grammatically corrupt sentences but their basic meanings. It has been said that the Kālacakratantra is explicit with regard to the tantric teachings that are often only implied in the other anuttara-yoga-tantras, but this explicitness is actually far more characteristic of the Vimalaprabhā than of the Kālacakratantra itself. (Source: Wallace, Vesna A. The Inner Kālacakratantra: A Buddhist Tantric View of the Individual. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001: pp. 2-3.)
He begins with a cogent presentation of Mahāmudrā covering its sources, the objective Mahāmudrā, the subjective Mahāmudrā, its synonyms, the actual Mahāmudra experience among sublime beings, the analogous Mahāmudrā understanding among ordinary practitioners, and the Mahāmudrā concept according to the philosophical and tantric schools. Following this, he delves into how some later followers of Sakya and Kagyu tradition do not fathom the understanding of their respective teachings. He also points out how the followers of Kadampa tradition have missed the important original teachings of Atīśa and founding fathers.
In summary, Śākya Chokden underscores the point that there are two ways in which misconceptions are overcome: through an extrovert rational analysis and an introvert yogic contemplation. The Mahāmudrā tradition of Gampopa belongs to the latter category while the former includes the postulations of self-emptiness and other-emptiness.1. The emptiness posited through Mādhyamika reasoning. 2. The union of emptiness and bliss which fills the network of channels after tantric practice of consecration. 3. Experience of bare consciousness free from all mentation. 4. Non-apprehension of the mind either inside or outside, having colour and shape, etc. 5. The ground consciousness which is the cause of all experience.
Śākya Choden states that none of these capture the profound, precise, effective Mahāmudrā technique of Gampopa, which is compared to the Single White Remedy, and explains how they are not the same as Gampopa’s Mahāmudrā. Śākya Chokden also distinguishes the Chinese Chan practice from Gampopa’s Mahāmudrā and goes on to explain their differences. He elaborates on the practice of Mahāmudrā through the four points of single-pointedness (རྩེ་གཅིག་), non-elaboration (སྤྲོས་བྲལ་), one taste (རོ་གཅིག་), and non-meditation (སྒོམ་མེད་).
- This position refers to the assertion that buddha-nature is the inseparable unity of appearance and emptiness. Proponents of this view typically hold the second turning and third turning of the Dharma wheel to be equally definitive.
འོད་གསལ་བདེ་གཤེགས་སྙིང་པོ་ལྷུན་གྲུབ་སྟེ། །སྟོང་གསལ་རིག་པ་དབྱེར་མེད་ཆོས་ཉིད་དོ།། The luminous buddha-nature is indivisible reality Which is spontaneous, empty, and clear awareness.
His presentation on buddha-nature theory and associated practices in his writings became the most authoritative references which determine the interpretation of buddha-nature theory and practice in the Nyingma tradition to this day.
- This position refers to the understanding that buddha-nature is the basic or primary cause for beings to attain enlightenment but it is not endowed with latent qualities of the Buddha. Sentient beings have the capacity or potential to become enlightened should they choose to embark on the path. In this case, buddha-nature is often equated with a disposition or spiritual gene, gotra, that guarantees the possibility of enlightenment.
- This position is held by some scholars who argue genuine buddha-nature only exists in those who have already achieved enlightenment. Typically this means equating buddha-nature with the dharmakāya of a fully enlightened buddha.
The Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra is one of the main scriptural sources for buddha-nature in China and Tibet. Set around the time of Buddha's passing or Mahāparinirvāṇa, the sūtra contains teachings on buddha-nature equating it with the dharmakāya—that is, the complete enlightenment of a buddha. It also asserts that all sentient beings possess this nature as the buddhadhātu, or buddha-element, which thus acts as a cause, seed, or potential for all beings to attain enlightenment. Furthermore, the sūtra includes some salient features related to this concept, such as the single vehicle and the notion that the dharmakāya is endowed with the four pāramitās of permanence, bliss, purity, and a self.
- This position claims that buddha-nature is a latent form of enlightenment that is fully present in sentient beings but is obscured, and therefore inactive, at this stage of their development. In this sense, it is called buddha-nature when it has yet to manifest, and it is called enlightenment or buddhahood when it has been actualized.
- This position refers to those that assert multiple versions of buddha-nature that correspond to various stages of its manifestation. In other words, rather than asserting a single buddha-nature that applies to everyone, they divide it into different types that apply to specific circumstances.
- This position asserts the teachings on buddha-nature are merely provisional tool utilised to encourage students in the right direction rather than being an exact representation of the way things truly are. In this case, those who subscribe to this view tend to suggest that buddha-nature was taught in order to alleviate fears of emptiness or of the tremendously time-consuming path to enlightenment.
Potential or Already-perfected
The Tathāgatagarbhasūtra, one of the earliest scriptures on tathāgatagarbha, or buddha-nature, has the Buddha state that "all beings, though they find themselves with all sorts of kleśas—the adventitious stains—have a tathāgatagarbha that is eternally unsullied and that is replete with virtues no different from my own." The sūtra gives nine similes to describe that buddha-nature. These are:
- A buddha encased in a decaying lotus blossom
- Pure honey surrounded by a swarm of bees
- A kernel of wheat not yet removed from its husk
- A piece of pure gold fallen into a pit of waste
- Treasure hidden beneath an impoverished household
- The pit of a mango that can grow into a mighty tree
- A statue of pure gold concealed in rags
- A vile woman who carries in her womb the embryo of a great man
- A statue cast in gold still encased by its earthen mold
Of these, seven describe a perfect object that is obscured by something else. The object is unaffected by its obscuration, yet it is made either unknown to people, such as the treasure under the house, or rendered difficult to obtain, as in the case of the honey surrounded by bees. The message is that buddha-nature is already present, already perfected, yet obscured by the stains of ignorance, desire, and hatred. The similes of the mango pit and the noble child in the base woman's womb have a different message, however: both indicate a potential to transform into something that is not currently present. The noble being in the womb is only an embryo, and the pit merely carries the genetic material to grow into the tree. Whether buddha-nature is properly understood as an already-present perfection or a potential to attain that perfection is debated. If the former, then the obscurations that conceal that natural luminosity need only be removed in order to attain liberation, for one's buddhahood is already present. If the latter, then that buddhahood is not present and must be cultivated. Among those who take the position that buddha-nature is a potential, there are multiple avenues of explaining how the potential is actualized, with various terms to label buddha-nature in its various stages.
Madhyamaka or Yogācāra
Buddha-nature does not easily align with either Madhyamaka or Yogācāra doctrine, though it has been appropriated by members of both schools. The theory seems to have developed outside of either community in response to their assertions on the nature of reality and human nature, such that some scholars have posited the existence of a "Tathāgatagarbha school" of Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism. The assertion of the existence of a buddha-nature that possesses characteristics conflicts with Madhyamaka teachings of the fundamental absence of all independent phenomena; that is to say, buddha-nature would appear to contradict emptiness theory. At the same time, the assertion of the universality of buddha-nature conflicts with Yogācāra theories that classify beings according to their potential for liberation. Nevertheless, both Madhyamaka and Yogācāra authors have employed various interpretive strategies to make it conform to their school's orthodoxy. Both were aided by the relatively late Laṅkāvatārasūtra, which in separate sections equated buddha-nature with both emptiness and the ālayavijñāna. However, Yogācara never really gained a foothold in Tibet other than as part of some relatively short-lived attempts to establish a synthetic Yogācāra-Madhyamaka philosophy. Hence, buddha-nature teachings in Tibet were generally associated with Madhyamaka rather than with Yogācara, which, characterized by the Mind-Only view (sems tsam), was generally considered inferior to Madhyamaka.
Scholastic or Meditative Tradition
The Tibetan traditions generally divide the primary modes of exegesis on the Ratnagotravibhāga into two lines of transmission known as the exegetical tradition of Maitreya's teachings (byams chos bshad lugs) and the meditative tradition of Maitreya's tradition (byams chos sgom lugs). These two traditions originated with the Tibetan disciples of the Kashmiri master Sajjana—namely Ngok Lotsāwa and Tsen Khawoche, respectively. Therefore, these two are also commonly referred to as the Ngok tradition (rngog lugs), representing the scholarly or analytic approach, and the Tsen tradition (btsan lugs), representing the more practice-oriented, meditative approach. It is likely the diverging motivations of these two figures that would set the respective trajectories of these traditions, with Ngok as the aspiring scholar, translator, and heir apparent to Sangpu Neutok, one of the first major Tibetan scholastic institutions, on the one hand, and the elder Tsen looking to devote the rest of his life to practice and hoping to apply the teachings of the Ratnagotravibhāga in preparation for his own death, on the other. In terms of the official stances of these traditions, they are typically associated with the above debates over emptiness or luminosity, which sometimes pits philosophical reasoning against yogic experience. Thus we see the exegetical tradition branch out from Ngok's base of Sangpu Neutok, an institution that evolved in association from the Kadam to the Sakya and finally the Geluk school, all stalwarts of the classical Madhyamaka philosophy that would come to be associated with the rangtong position. Likewise, the meditative tradition would become a vehicle for the practical instructions on the treatise that would feed into and bolster the experiential approaches of the Mahāmudrā teachings, as well as the more positivistic position of zhentong Madhyamaka that would take root in the Kagyu and Jonang schools.
Written as a supplement to Nagarjuna’s Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way, Candrakīrti’s text integrates the central insight of Nagarjuna’s thought—the rejection of any metaphysical notion of intrinsic existence—with the well-known Mahayana framework of the ten levels of the bodhisattva, and it became the most studied presentation of Madhyamaka thought in Tibet.
Completed the year before the author’s death, Tsongkhapa’s exposition of Candrakīrti's text is recognized by the Tibetan tradition as the final standpoint of Tsongkhapa on many philosophical questions, particularly the clear distinctions it draws between the standpoints of the Madhyamaka and Cittamatra schools.
Written in exemplary Tibetan, Tsongkhapa’s work presents a wonderful marriage of rigorous Madhyamaka philosophical analysis with a detailed and subtle account of the progressively advancing mental states and spiritual maturity realized by sincere Madhyamaka practitioners. (Source: Thupten Jinpa, Illuminating the Intent, 2021.)principal stages that Tsong kha pa composed. The others include (1) the Lam rim chung ba ("Short Treatise on the Stages of the Path"), also called the Lam rim 'bring ba ('"Intermediate Treatise on the States of the Path") and (2) the Lam rim bsdus don ("Concise Meaning of the Stages of the Path"), occasionally also referred to as the Lam rim chung ngu ("Brief Stages of the Path"). The latter text, which records Tsong kha pa's own realization of the path in verse form, is also referred to as the Lam rim nyams mgur ma ("Song of Experience of the Stages of the Path"). The Lam rim chen mo is a highly detailed and often technical treatise presenting a comprehensive and synthetic overview of the path to buddhahood. It draws, often at length, upon a wide range of scriptural sources including the Sūtra and śāstra literature of both the hīnayāna and Mahāyāna; Tsong kha pa treats tantric practice in a separate work. The text is organized under the rubric of the three levels of spiritual predilection, personified as "the three individuals" (skyes bu gsum): the beings of small capacity, who engage in religious practice in order to gain a favorable rebirth in their next lifetime; the beings of intermediate capacity, who seek liberation from rebirth for themselves as an arhat; and the beings of great capacity, who seek to liberate all beings in the universe from suffering and thus follow the bodhisattva path to buddhahood. Tsong kha pa's text does not lay out all the practices of these three types of persons but rather those practices essential to the bodhisattva path that are held in common by persons of small and intermediate capacity, such as the practice of refuge (śaraṇa) and contemplation of the uncertainty of the time of death. The text includes extended discussions of topics such as relying on a spiritual master, the development of bodhicitta, and the six perfections (pāramitā). The last section of
the text, sometimes regarded as a separate work, deals at length with the nature of serenity (śamatha) and insight (vipaśyanā); Tsong kha pa's discussion of insight here represents one of his most important expositions of emptiness (śūnyatā). Primarily devoted to exoteric Mahāyāna doctrine, the text concludes with a brief reference to Vajrayāna and the practice of tantra, a subject discussed at length by Tsong kha pa in a separate work, the Sngags rim chen mo ("Stages of the Path of Mantra"). The Lam rim chen mo's full title is Skyes bu gsum gyi rnyams su blang ba'i rim pa thams cad tshang bar ston pa'i byang chub lam gyi rim pa. (Source: "Lam rim chen mo." In The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, 465-66. Princeton University Press, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt46n41q.27.)The first, made up entirely of the so-called root verses, corresponds to the Sanskrit title Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra, though it is usually referenced in this tradition by the Tibetan equivalent of the latter subtitle, Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos, which is commonly rendered into English as the Treatise on the Ultimate Continuum of the Great Vehicle and is abbreviated as RGV. However, the full title, Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos dkon mchog gi rigs rnam par dbye ba, does appear at the end of each chapter of the canonical Tibetan recensions. Nevertheless, this version is likely a Tibetan redaction, in that thus far there is no evidence of a Sanskrit version written entirely in verse that excludes the commentarial sections that explain them.
The second, which combines the verses with their accompanying prose commentary, corresponds to the *Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā as it has become known in academic circles where it is referenced with the abbreviation RGVV. However, in Tibetan the subtitle is merely appended with the equivalent of vyākhyā, i.e. Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos rnam par bshad pa, and thus a translation of the Tibetan title of the complete text would be something akin to the Explanatory Commentary on the Treatise on the Ultimate Continuum of the Great Vehicle. However, the extant Sanskrit recension of the Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra directly corresponds to the Tibetan version known as the *Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā, in that it contains both the root verses and the prose commentary. Though, again, lacking a Sanskrit work entitled the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā, we can surmise that its corresponding Tibetan title was likely manufactured in order to delineate it from the streamlined verse redaction, while the Sanskrit title *Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā was in turn a product of modern scholars. On the surface it would seem that this title is a combination of the Chinese title back translated into Sanskrit as the Ratnagotraśāstra and the one found in the Tibetan editions, which state the Sanskrit title as the Mahāyānottaratantraśāstravyākhya. Nevertheless, in terms of content, the Sanskrit RGV corresponds to the Tibetan RGVV, in that the Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra is the same text as Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos rnam par bshad pa.
Also, see the Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra and for a recent essay on the text: On the Ratnagotravibhāga by Alexander Gardner.1. The emptiness posited through Mādhyamika reasoning. 2. The union of emptiness and bliss which fills the network of channels after tantric practice of consecration. 3. Experience of bare consciousness free from all mentation. 4. Non-apprehension of the mind either inside or outside, having colour and shape, etc. 5. The ground consciousness which is the cause of all experience.
Śākya Choden states that none of these capture the profound, precise, effective Mahāmudrā technique of Gampopa, which is compared to the Single White Remedy, and explains how they are not the same as Gampopa’s Mahāmudrā. Śākya Chokden also distinguishes the Chinese Chan practice from Gampopa’s Mahāmudrā and goes on to explain their differences. He elaborates on the practice of Mahāmudrā through the four points of single-pointedness (རྩེ་གཅིག་), non-elaboration (སྤྲོས་བྲལ་), one taste (རོ་གཅིག་), and non-meditation (སྒོམ་མེད་).
འོད་གསལ་བདེ་གཤེགས་སྙིང་པོ་ལྷུན་གྲུབ་སྟེ། །སྟོང་གསལ་རིག་པ་དབྱེར་མེད་ཆོས་ཉིད་དོ།། The luminous buddha-nature is indivisible reality Which is spontaneous, empty, and clear awareness.
His presentation on buddha-nature theory and associated practices in his writings became the most authoritative references which determine the interpretation of buddha-nature theory and practice in the Nyingma tradition to this day.