Category:Rangjung Yeshe Institute: Difference between revisions

This talk will address syntheses forged in Tibet among the doctrines of Madhyamaka, Yogācāra, and buddha-nature (tathāgatagarbha). Buddha-nature is a distinctively Mahāyāna Buddhist doctrine, taking a place along side of the Yogācāra doctrine of the basic consciousness (ālayavijñāna) and the universal emptiness (śūnyatā) of Madhyamaka. In Tibet we see buddha-nature converge with and transform these central Mahāyāna doctrines. Paired with buddha-nature, the doctrine of emptiness in Madhyamaka pivots from a “self-empty” lack of intrinsic nature to an “other-empty,” pure ground that remains. In narratives of disclosure characteristic of the doctrine of buddha-nature, we see parallel shifts in the foundations of Yogācāra, as grounds of distortion like the basic consciousness, the dependent nature, and self-awareness are reinscribed into a causal story that takes place within a pure, gnostic ground. (Source Accessed July 15, 2020)

In this talk given to students during RYI's Buddhist philosophy class on The Sublime Continuum by Arya Maitreya, Khenpo Karma Gyurme (also known as Khenpo Tokpa Tulku) covers the following topics:

In the first talk, he explains what marks the beginning of the bodhisattva path and the distinction between a noble bodhisattva and an aspiring bodhisattva. Furthermore, he explains the difference between emotional compassion and wisdom-based compassion. He introduces the four means of magnetizing, a skillful method used by Bodhisattvas to benefit others.

In the second talk, he expands on the four means of magnetizing; generosity, pleasant speech, teaching according to the needs of beings, and being consistent in conduct. He explains how noble bodhisattvas implement these methods and provides practical advice to aspiring bodhisattvas on how to engage with them. The translation is by RYI's translator, Anya Zilman. (Source Accessed Sep 30, 2020)

Tibetans use the concept of the “Five Treatises of Maitreya” (Byams chos sde lnga) to refer to a group of texts that they attribute to Maitreya through Asaṅga, including the Abhisamayālaṃkāra (Mngon par rtogs pa’i rgyan, AA), the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra (Theg pa chen po’i mdo sde rgyan, MSA), the Madhyāntavibhāga (Dbus dang mtha’ rnam par ’byed pa, MV), the Dharmadharmatāvibhaṅga (Chos dang chos nyid rnam par dbye ba, DDV), and the Ratnagotravibhāga (RGV), which Tibetans most often refer to as the Mahāyāna-Uttaratantra (Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma). Some of the Five Treatises were present at the time of the first dissemination of Buddhism in Tibet (snga dar), and some were discovered or brought later to Tibet. The first set comprises the Abhisamayālaṃkāra, the Sūtrālaṃkāra, and the Madhyāntavibhāga, while the texts that were later discovered and translated are the Ratnagotravibhāga and the Dharmadharmatāvibhaṅga. Although the Five Treatises cover a variety of topics and seem to defend several philosophical positions about these topics, the Tibetan tradition still takes very seriously the idea that they form a unit, and share to some extent a single intent.
      Modern scholarship on the Five Treatises has so far privileged studying the texts of the Five Treatises individually, not giving much importance to the concept of the Five Treatises per se and its consequences on the interpretation of the texts that form it. In the following pages I argue that, on the contrary, the notion of the Five Treatises and the idea that they form a unit is crucial enough for Tibetan interpreters that we cannot fully understand Tibetan interpretations of those texts without taking this into consideration. If we look at the way Tibetan interpreters define the category and how they form their interpretations around it, we come to the conclusion that a study of Tibetan interpretations of individual treatises cannot represent fully the influence of those texts on Tibetan Buddhist literature and thought
      In order to establish that claim, having explained the concept of the Five Treatises as a unit and where that unit fits among Tibetan Buddhist scriptures, I will trace its origin and development from the recognition of Maitreya’s authorship of the Treatises to the notion that the Five Treatises form a single work. I will conclude by explaining how the study of the Five Treatises as a whole and of that concept itself allows us to understand things that the study of the texts individually cannot provide. (Turenne, introduction, 215–16)

“The Shentong interpretation of Tathagatagarbha doctrine does not imply there is no need for the path. However, according to Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche, it does try to counter an ambitious, goal orientated approach to it. If Buddha were something newly produced by following the path, it would be a conditioned phenomena, the product of self-effort; it would not arise simply through complete relaxation of conceptual contrivance.” (From: The Buddha Within) (Source Accessed August 13, 2020)

Lama Shenpen Hookham speaks with students at RYI about the Shentong interpretation of Tathāgatagarbha on April 15, 2019.

Abstract

Given the disregard many lamas and yogis have had towards the soteriological efficacy of epistemology, one may come to the false conclusion that epistemology is only relevant to the context of debate, without any application to meditation practice and the path to liberation. However, one can clearly see that this is not completely true, since Dharmakīrti (c. 600 CE), who is arguably Buddhism’s most influential epistemologist, provides an account of how a practitioner may attain the liberative cognition known as yogic direct valid means of cognition (rnal ’byor mngon sum tshad ma, hereafter referred to as yogic perception). In Tibet, the dGe lugs pa-s are particularly known for their soteriological use of epistemology, which is unsurprising given their emphasis on scholarship, but there are even thinkers in the meditation- oriented bKa’ brgyud school who have a soteriologically-oriented take on epistemology.
      The aim in thesis is to show how bKa’ brgyud epistemologists’ (most notably, the Seventh Karma pa’s (1454-1506)) view on yogic perception differs from that of Dharmakīrti and the dGe lugs pa-s, since most western scholarship on Buddhist epistemology has focused on them. Like Dharmakīrti and the dGe lugs pa-s, the Seventh Karma pa describes the gradual path to attaining yogic perception through inference and familiarization, although there are striking differences in their understandings of the nature of what is observed in this type of perception. His epistemology is not only relevant to the scholarly path of inference, as one finds with most epistemologists, however. His view on reflexive awareness represents a common ground between the theory attached to Mahāmudrā, and pramāṇa, which allows for an epistemological explanation of the Mahāmudrā method of “taking direct perception as the path.” Through showing first, how his view of yogic perception differs from Dharmakīrti and the dGe lugs pa-s,and secondly, how his view concerning reflexive awareness is connected to Mahāmudrā, I wish to show the unique characteristics of the Seventh Karma pa’s brand of soteriological epistemology.

This presentation will address the influences of the Tathāgatagarbha (“buddha nature”) model of reality in the three Yogācāra texts of the Maitreya Works (i.e., the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra, Madhyāntavibhāga, and Dharmadharmatāvibhāga). It will be argued that the integration of a particular understanding of buddha nature contributes to remedy the flaws Yogācāra has in the eyes of Mādhyamikas, namely that a considerable group of sentient beings is completely cut off from liberation, and that a dependently arising mind exists on the level of ultimate truth.
      Prof. Dr. Klaus-Dieter Mathes is a professor of Tibetan and Buddhist Studies at the University of Vienna. His research interests include the Indian origin of the Tibetan Mahāmudrā traditions, buddha nature and the Tibetan gzhan stong tradition. He spoke with students at RYI on April 3, 2018. (Source Accessed Aug 13, 2020)