can sutra mahamudra be justified

7/29/2019 Can Sutra Mahamudra Be Justified

1/22

Can siitra mahiimudrii be justified on the basisof MaitrIpa's A p r a t i ~ t h a n a v a d a ? l

Klaus-Dieter Mathes, Hamburg

General remarksThe term satra mahiimudrii is a controversial one, suggesting as it does that thepractice and realization of mahiimudrii is possible outside the Tantras, namelyon the basis of the Siitras. Such an approach was propagated by sGam po pa(1079-1153) but criticized by Sa skya P a ~ c ; I i t a (1182-1251), who maintainedthat there is no conventional expression for mahiimudrii in the piiramitii tradition, and that the wisdom of mahiimudrii can only be a wisdom arisen from empowerment. 'Gos Lo tsa ba gZon nu dpal (1392-1481), however, defendssGam po pa's mahiimudrii by pointing out that it has Indian origins, in thepersons of JfianakIrti and Maitrlpa (ca. 1007 - ca. 1085)2 (together with thelatter's disciple Sahajavajra, 11th cent.).3 Kon sprul Blo gros mtha' yas (1813-1899) thus distinguishes in his Ses bya kun khyab mdzod (vol. 3, 375f.) besidesthe generally accepted mantra mahiimudrii, a satra mahiimudrii and an essencemahiimudrii. Mantra mahiimudrii is transmitted according to the methodstaught by the Mantrayana, and this involves Tantric empowerment. Essencemahiimudrii leads to the sudden or instantaneous realization of one's naturalmind (tha mal gyi ses pa). Satra mahiimudrii is defined in the following way:

1 The present article was made possible through a research project financed by theGerman Research Council (DFG). I am grateful to Prof. Harunaga Isaacson for havingread this paper before it was published. Improvements to my English by Philip H.Pierce (Nepal Research Centre, Kathmandu) are gratefully acknowledged.2 Tatz 1994: 65. On the life of MaitrIpa, see Tatz 1987: 695-711.3 See Mathes in print a.B. Kellner, H. Krasser, H. Lasic, M.T. Much, H. Tauscher (eds.), P r a m a ~ l a k f r t i ~ . Papers dedicated to Ernst Steinkellner on the occasion of his 70th birthday. Part 2. (Wiener Studien zurTibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 70.2) Wien 2007, pp. 545-566.


2/22


3/22

Can sutra mahiimudrii be justified on the basis of MaitrIpa's A p r a t i ~ ! h a n a v a d a ? 547stanza 29cd, MaitrIpa informs us that mahiimudrii is also known as "[thepractice of] not abiding ( a p r a t i ~ t h i i n a ) in anything."ll In other words, the yoginsimply refrains from projecting wrong notions (such as an independentexistence or characteristic signs) onto anything arisen in dependence, whetherskandhas, dhiitus or iiyatanas.12 Philosophically, this amounts to the PrasaIigikaattitude of not postulating any position of one's own, and in fact, for 'Ba' ra barGyal mtshan dpal bzaIi (1310-1391), the A p r a t i ~ t h a n a - M a d h y a m a k a isidentical with PrasaIigika.13

The practice of not becoming mentally engaged (amanasikiira) is describedin such sutras as the Jiiiiniilokiila1flkiira (see below) and the Nirvikalpapravesadhiira1Jf. In the latter, the Bodhisattva abandons all wrong projections onto reality by not becoming mentally engaged. For Sahajavajra amanasikiira does notmean that one does not see any objects as a result of having closed one's eyes.It is rather that one does not focus on a putative own-being of entities as a result of analysis or the pith-instructions of one's guru. 14 In his Amanasikiiriidhiira, MaitrIpa gives the following mahiimudrii-interpretation of amanasikiira:

The letter a stands for luminosity, and manasikiira for blessing from within (sviidhi~ t h i i n a ) Y It is both a and manasikiira, so we get amanasikiira.16 Through this,namely by [operating with] the words amanasikiira and so forth,17 one arrives at theexpression "a blessing from within [that is] inconceivable luminosity" [i.e.,] anawareness which is a non-dual continuity in which inseparable emptiness and compassion are united as a pair. 18

to reify [anything], in virtue of not becoming mentally engaged." (rab tu mi gnas pa niyid la byed pa med pas sgror gdags pa med pa '0 / )10 Or also Sekanin:taya, as it is referred to in the Tattvaratniivalf(TRAs 21,14).11 SNs 36,11 (SN 29cd): sarvasminn a p r a t i ~ t h i i n a l ? ' t mahiimudreti kfrtyate /12 SNPS(C)' fol. 18a4; SNPS(Pe), fol. 15b6: sarvasminn iti pratftyasamutpaannaaskandha-dhiitviiyataniidau... a Pe omits13 Mimaki 1982: 34.14 See Mathes 2005: 15 and 19-20.15 For the meaning of v i i d h i ~ t h i i n a in the Tattvadasaka and its tfkii, see Mathes 2006:212.16 This means that a-manasikiira is taken here as a karmadhiiraya compound.17 I.e., luminosity and blessing from within.18 AMAs 142,17-20: a iti prabhiisvarapadarrt / manasikara iti s v i i d h i ~ t h i i n a p a d a m aseiisau manasikiiras eety amanasikiiraJ:t.f eteniimanasikiiriidipadair acintyaprabhiisva

r a s v i i d h i ~ t h i i n a p a d a 1 ? ' t sunyatiikarw;iibhinnayuganaddhiidvayaviihisal?'tvedal'tam iipiidi-


4/22

548 Klaus-Dieter MathesIn other words, the practice of A p r a t i ~ t h a n a - M a d h y a m a k a (amanasikara) nonly consists of not reifying anything by not focusing on an own-being or tlike, but also enables a direct experience of mind's inconceivable luminosijust as phenomena are said to be experienced as luminosity in the Tattvdasaka.

A p r a t i ~ t h a n a - M a d h y a m a k a in the Tattvaratnavalr 19Maitrlpa begins his Tattvaratnavalf by pointing out that there are three yan(namely the Sravakayana, Pratyekayana, and Mahayana) and four tene(namely V a i b h a ~ i k a , Sautdintika, Yogacara, and Madhyamaka). The Mahayais further divided into the Way (naya) of Paramitas and the Way of MantraWhile the Way of Paramitas can be pursued either on the basis of Sautdinti(sic!), Yogacara, or Madhyamaka, the Way of Mantras is explained in line withe tenets of Yogacara and/or Madhyamaka. The latter is 'further divided inthe tenet of Mayopamadvaya and the one of A p r a t i ~ t h a n a . 20 It is clear thA p r a t i ~ t h a n a - M a d h y a m a k a is considered the highest tenet within the WayMantras. The latter is not taken as a yana different from Mahayana, bexplained in line with Yogacara and/or Madhyamaka. It should be notehowever, that VajrapaIfi, another of the four main disciples of MaitrIpa,summarizes this part of the Tattvaratnavalf with the interesting comment ththe distinction among three yanas and four tenets is only made for the beneof gradualists, who are considered inferior:

In order that sentient beings of inferior intellect may realize them, I shall summariall [tenets on] reality, writing down just a little. [But] first of all, there are two typta1Jl bhavatfti .. .19 I may refer to Tatz (1994: 65-120), who has already translated (or paraphrasesome of the passages quoted in the present paper. It is only for terminological reasothat I present my own translation.20 TRAs 14,5-14 (=NGMPP Reel No. B 22/24, fol. 9al-4) tatra trfl}i yiiniini / sriivkayiina1Jl / pratyekayiina1Jl / mahiiyiina'!'l ceti / sthitayas c a t a s r a ~ / v a i b h i i ~ i k a s a u a t r i itikayogiiciiramadhyamakabhedena / ... mahiiyiina1Jl ca dvividha1Jl / piiramitiinayo matranayas ceti / tatra y a ~ b p i i r a m i t i i n a y a ~ sauCtriintikayogiiciiramadhyamakasthitvyiikhyiiyate / mantranayas tu yogiiciiramadhyamakasthityii vyiikhyiiyate / .. . evamiidhyamiko 'pi m i i y o p a m i i d v a y a v i i d i s a r v a d h a r m i i p r a t i ~ t h i i n a v i i d i b h e d i i t dvividhal; /

a The ms. reads -srau- instead of -sau-.b The ms. reads yii instead ofC The ms. reads sru- instead of sau-.

21 See Roerich 1949-53: 842.


5/22


6/22

550 Klaus-Dieter MathesWhat now follows is an examination of the S a r v a d h a r m a p r a t i ~ t h a n a v a d i n s . 2 7

The Rin chen phren ba'i bSad pa explains:The object of comprehension is the [two] inseparable truth[s]. As for reality, it isappearances [namely] the mind, and what is simply beyond all mental fabricatiThe appearance aspect of it is what is called "apparent [truth]" and the aspect othat is free from [mental] fabrication is called "ultimate [truth]." And these two connected to the point of identity just as what is created and what is impermanare. 28

In other words, the main stance of this Madhyamaka tenet is that the apparand ultimate must be taken as aspects of the same reality, and thus as sharan identity. Such a shared identity is also maintained by Zva dmar ehos graye ses (1453-1524) on the basis of Bodhicittavivara1}a,29 stanza 68:... This is because the apparent is explained as emptiness and emptiness alone is apparent, the one certainly not occurring without the other, as, for example, [tproperties] of a vase, namely [its having been] created and, as a consequencethis, [its] impermanence [share] the bond of identity.3D

This finds also support in MaitrIpa's p r a t i ~ t h a n a p r a k a a , stanza 7:The mere arising of phenomena is inconceivable [even] for original awareness.This very [arising] is called emptiness without falling into [the extreme of] niism.31

27 TRA.s 20,6 : a r v a d h a r m i i p r a t i ~ t h i i n a v i i d i n i i Y [ l tv ayaY[l viciira!; I28 Rin chen phren ba'i bSad pa 195bl-2: gial bya ni bden pa dbyer med do II de khofiid ni snan ba thams cad sems yin la I sems kyis spros pa thams cad las'das pa tsamste I snan ba'i cha nas kun rdzob ie s bya i inll spros pa dan bral ba'i cha nas don die s bya ste I de gfiis kyan byas pa dan mi rtag pa [tar bdag cig pa'i 'breI pa'o II29 For the role the Bodhicittavivara1}a plays in the mahiimudrii tradition of the bKbrgyud pas, see Mathes in print b.30 Zva dmar Chos grags ye ses: Tshig don gsal ba 104,4-7: kun rdzob de yan stonfiid du bSad la I ston fiid de kho na yan kun rdzob yin pas I gcig med na gcig mi 'byba nes pa'i phyir I dper na bum pa'i byas pa dan I de rkyen gyi dban du gyur nasrtag pa dag bdag gcig pa'i 'breI ba biin no I31 APPs 80,3-4: utpiida eva dharmii1}iim acintyo nijasaY[lvidii I sa eva sanyatii proniinuacchediinugiiminfII

a According to the manuscript from the National Archives in Kathmandu (NGMreel no. B 22/24, fol. 31a2) and the Tibetan (APPT(p) 122b3: chad pa'i rjes su 'gma yin no). The Japanese edition has niinyo-.


7/22

Can sutra mahiilnudrii be justified on the basis of MaitrIpa's A p r a t i ~ t h a n a v a d a ? 551The last piida "without falling into [the extreme of] nihilism" excludes the possibility that the arising of phenomena is simply being negated here. Calling itemptiness allows it, rather, to be admitted as dependent arising. 32 In otherwords, the equation of the apparent (i.e., dependent arising) with emptiness istaken as implying that any reification or denial of the members of dependentarising, that is, the mere appearances which are not abandoned in A p r a t i ~ ! h a n a -vada (see below), result in saqlsaric experiences of the apparent (which is themere arising of phenomena in piida 7a), whereas the absence of reification anddenial - or "non-abiding" - reveals dependent arising for what it is, namelyemptiness.

Tattvaratniivalf, A p r a t i ~ t h a n a section, stanza 1In the first stanza of the A p r a t i ~ ! h a n a section Maitrlpa thus denies the four ontological possibilities of reifying or denying the phenomenal world on the basisof a tetralemma formed with the pair "eternal" (siisvata) and "annihilated" (uc-chedin):

The manifold [world] is not taken to be eternal or said to be annihilated;Nor is it a combination of both eternal and annihilated, nor can it be that neither isthe case. 33 (TRA. 1) (= Mahiiyiinavi1?'lsikii, stanza 4)

The Rin chen phren ba'i bsad pa does not go into detail, but simply explainsthat "eternal" does not apply, for nothing is established in its own right (lio bosgmi yan ma grub pa), whereas annihilation (ucchedin) is ruled out on theground that the appearances of the apparent truth have not been abandoned.34The refutation of the third and fourth possibility is not further commentedupon, but the third one (i.e., something is existent and non-existent at the same

32 See Mulamadhyamakakiirikii XXIV.18ab (MMKs 35,18): yab pratftyasamutpiida('lsunyatiil?'l tiil?'l p r a c a k ~ m a h e I33 TRA.s 20,7-8 (=MV 74,7-8): na matmpa siivatm?'l visva1?'l na cocchedi samfhitam Isiisvatocchedi no yugmal?'lb niinubhaya1?'l vinobhaym?'l II

a MVs 74,7: netalJ'l (corrected to nedalJ'l in the Japanese edition).b According to NGMPP, B 22/24, fo1. 12b5-6a1; and MVs 74,8. Shastri reads yug-mymp.

34 Rin chen phreli ba'i bsad pa 195b3: "ucchedin" should not be taken as the mereinterruption of existence, but as a synonym of utter non-existence. "Is not said"[means:] the appearances of the apparent have not been abandoned (chad pa ni yod pargyun chad pa tsam la mi bya'i II med pa tsam gyi (text: gyis) mam grmis du bya'o IIkhas mi len ces pa ni II kun rdzob kyi snmi ba mi spans pa'o II).


8/22

552 Klaus-Dieter Mathestime) can be ruled out on the grounds that the combination of two impossiblepositions is likewise impossible. The fourth extreme, namely a negation of thiscombination ("nor can it be that neither is the case") must be suspended because the manifold world cannot be posited as something indeterminate,35namely as something in between the extremes, for this would be a mental fabrication, of which type of construction reality is considered to be free. Being aresult fabricated by analytical activity, this fourth extreme should not be confounded with the realization of a reality beyond the four extremes of mentalfabrication. This is clear from the Mahiiyiinavirrtsikii, in which Maitripa introduces his Mahayana presentation of the fruit or the union as a pair (yuganad-dha) by repeating the first stanza from the A p r a t i ~ ! h a n a section of the Tattva-ratniivair (namely the one on the exclusion of the four extremes). In the stanzawhich follows in the Mahiiyiinavirrtsikii .(in piidas 5ab) Maitrlpa adds the following explanation:

Knowers of reality know reality which is free from [these] four extremes.36 (MV5ab)

What this reality precisely relates to, is explained in the three introductorystanzas of the Mahiiyiinavirrtsikii. The first two define the goal as the "original/natural kiiya" (nijakiiya), which is the nature of the three kiiyas (sometimesequated with the sviibhiivikakiiya), and in the third stanza Maitrlpa declares:The seeing of this [nijakliya] is deep insight (vipasyanli), given that no [thing] is rei-fied.This will be explained now in accordance with the Mantrayana.37 (MV 3)

In other words, to see (without reification) the original kiiya is taken in MV 4a-5b as knowing a reality which is beyond the ontological possibilities of thetetralemma. The third introductory stanza is particularly noteworthy, for theonly thing Tantric about this general exposition of the Mahayana goal is a vi-pasyanii practice of seeing without reification, that is realizing the possibility ofworking with direct perceptions of reality or one's true nature of mind. This isprecisely what Kon sprul's sutra mahiimudrii, which is also taken as being inaccordance with Mantrayana (see above), is.

35 See Seyfort Ruegg 1981: 39.36 MVs 74,9: c a t u ~ k o t i v i n i r m u k t a r r t tattvarrt tattvavido viduf:z /37 MVs 74,5-6: darsanarrt ca bhaved asya anliroplid vipasyanli / mantraylinlinuslire1}atad idarrt v a k ~ y a t e 'dhunli II


9/22


10/22


11/22

Can sutra mahiimudrii be justified on the basis of Maitrlpa's A p r a t i ~ t h a n a v a d a ? 555dharmamudrii, but it does not need to be. 47 It is against this background thatMaitrlpa maintains in his Sekanirdesa (stanza 29):

Not to abide ( a p r a t i ~ t h i i n a ) in anything is known as mahiimudrii.Because self-awareness [i.e., mahiimudrii] is stainless, [the moments of enjoying]manifold [appearances] and so forth do not arise.48

RamapaJa comments in his paiijikii:"In anything" means in the dependently arisen skandhas, dhiitus, iiyatanas and soforth. "Not to abide" means not to reify, not to become mentally engaged. This isalso stated [in the JiiiiniilokiilaTllkiira]:

The mental factors of not becoming mentally engaged are virtuous. Those of becoming mentally engaged are not virtuous. 49Likewise it has been said [in the JiiiiniilokiilaTllkiira]:

Homage to You, who is without imagined thoughts, whose intellect is not based[on anything], who is without recollection, who does not become mentally engaged, and who is without any cognitive object. 50

... One should not think that this cannot be practised because thanks to the kindnessof [one's] venerable guru, Inahiimudrii, which has the defining characteristic ofbeing endowed with all supreme qualities, can certainly be made directly manifest.How is it then that [mahiimudrii] does not have the nature of the four moments? [In29c] it is stated: "Because self-awareness [i.e., mahiimudrii] is stainless." Beingstainless, the three stained moments of the manifold and so forth do not occur in it.Therefore the three [impure] joys do not arise in it either.51

47 Oral explanation from Thrangu Rinpoche (Kathmandu, April 2006).48 SNs 56,11-12: sarvasminn a p r a t i ~ t h i i l z a l l l mahiimudreti kfrtyate I vimalatviit svasa1Jlvitter vicitriider na SaTllbhavaJ:t II49 The same quotation is identified in AMAs 136,10-11 as being from the Jiiiiniilokii-1aTllkiira: amanasikiirii dharmiiJ:t kusalii(z I manasikiirii dharmii a k u s a l i i ~ l . In the JiiiiniilokiilaT?lkiira itself I could locate only the following (JAAs 94,14-15): s a 1 J l k ~ i p t e n asarve akusalii manaskiirii(z saTJ1klefasya hetu(z I sarve kusaliia a n a s k i i r i i ~ l (?) vyavadiinasya h e t u ~ l I

a The Japanese edition reads -lii(z.50 See JAAs 146,1-2: avikalpiaaSaT?lkalpa a p r a t i ~ t h i t a m i i n a s a b I asmrty amanasikiirabniriilamba namo stu te II

a The Japanese edition reads -pa-.b The Japanese edition reads -a(1.

51 SPNs(C), fol. 18a4-5; SPNs(Pe), fol. 15b6-9: sarvas11'linnskandhadhiitviiyataniidau la a p r a t i ~ t h i i n a b m abmanasikiiro

iti pratftyasamutpaannaa'niiropa(z ;c tad uktam


12/22

556 Klaus-Dieter MathesThe commentary is more than clear here. The mahamudra practice of apratsthana which does not involve becoming mentally engaged, is not only d. ,~ c r i b e d in a satra, namely the lfianalokala1'[lkara, but can be also performethrough the kindness of one's guru without the occurrence of the defiled joyand moments of Tantric practice.

Ramapala continues by calling aprati$?hana inconceivable wisdom whicdoes not arise from analysis. This kind of wisdom, rather, is without efforevolving as it does within its own sphere.52

Tattvaratnavalf, A p r a t i ~ t h a n a section, stanza 3All reification, whatever there is - all this does not exist in any respect;In Madhyamaka [everything] is without reification. Where is then denial or thestablishing [of anything]?53 (TRA. 3) (= Sekanirdesa, stanza 32)

In his Sekanirdesapafijika, Ramapala works through the differences betweeVijfiaptimatravada and Mayopamadvayavada on the one side and his guruA p r a t i ~ ! h a n a - M a d h y a m a k a on the other:

[Maitrlpa taught the stanza] beginning with "[all reification,] whatever there is" fothe following reason: Here in Madhyamaka any reification, i.e., determinatiowhatever there is - all this does not exist. [Objection:] Such a non-existencereification is also maintained in the tradition of VijiHina[ v ada] . Therefore he said "any respect." There [i.e., in Vijiianavada] is a trace of reification [by maintainingthe real existence of consciousness. Therefore reification is not entirely absent

pravaeane la amanasikarad dharma/:t kusala/:t I manasikara edharma akusala/:te I tatheaf Ig aavikalpitasal!lkalpa a p r a t i ~ t h i t a m a n a s a I asmrty amanasikara niralamba namstu te iti II .., h a s a k y a h n u ~ t h a n a t a ea naa mantavya I sadgurupadaprasadenavasya1s a r v a k a r a v a r o p e t a l a k ~ a l } a m a h a m u d r a y a / : t p r a t y a k ~ f k a r t u 1 J l i sakyatvat ;c nan v atra katha1Jl na e a t u / : t k ~ W l a r u p a t a ;c aha ;C vimalatvat svasa1Jljvitter< nirmalataya ;a vieitrade

k ~ a 1 J a t r a y a s y a samalasya natra sambhava/:t ;C tato nanandatrayasambhava/:ta Pe omits b C omits C Pe II d C -ra- e Pe dharma/:t kusala/:t f C omits g CPe omiPe -defaka- i Pe -kartur j Pe -san- k C -vitti Pe -vitter

52 SPNs(C), fol. l8b3-4; SPNS(Pe)' fol. 16a4-5: tae e a p r a t i ~ t h a n a m aeintyajfiana1Jl na taviearagata1Jl Ib cki1Jl tarhic d anabhoga1Jl svarasabhyagata1Jle Ida C -am b Pe II C Pe kin tu hi d C omits, Pe II e Pe -ta

53 TRAs 20,11-12 (=SNs 58,6): yavana sarvasamaropa/:t sa sarva/:t sarvatha na himadhyamarthe niraropas tatrapobhavidhf kuta/:t IIa According to the Sekanirdefapafijika (see below).b Shastri reads -ro-. Corrected according to NGMPP, B 22/24, fol. 13al.


13/22


14/22


15/22


16/22

560 Klaus-Dieter MathesIn line with this understanding, Vajrapa1).i first takes the manifold appearancesof dependent arising and their emptiness as being inseparably connected, just as,the "non-existence of water" and the "appearance of water" in a mirage:

The appearance of water in a mirage has no water; it is empty of water. It is thenon-existence of water which appears as water. The appearance of water and itsnon-existence are not separate.67Such a presentation harbours the danger of reifying emptiness. Vajrapa1).i warnsus that the latter does not subsist independently of the appearance, just as thereis no more fire when the fuel has been exhausted:

An appearance and [its] emptiness in terms of an own-being are not separate. Whenvarious [logs] of firewood are burning, for example, [they all have] the same natureof fire. Eventually the firewood will be exhausted, but no "fire-ness" will remain.Likewise, when the state of manifold appearances has been established as emptinessby reasoning, [the appearances] are neither established as entities, nor does emptiness remain.68Appearances are thus only provisionally called empty. In terms of definitivemeaning they even do not abide as this emptiness. V a j r a p ~ i summarizes hisanalysis of p r a t i ~ t h a n a v a d a in the following way:In order to refute the conceptual adherence of [followers of] other [tenets] or [inother words] terminate reification and denial, [appearances] are called empty, without arising and non-dual in a provisional sense. But these [attributions] do not remain in a definitive sense for those who are expert.69

In his analysis, Vajrapa1).i fails to address the second part of our famous Mahayana stanza of not adding or removing anything (i.e., the real should be seen asreal, and seeing the real, one becomes liberated), but in his explanation of theview (defined as working for the sake of sentient beings after purifying the firstfive piiramitiis with the help of a prajfiiipiiramitii which is without reification

67 GPKDT 298a5: .. . smig rgyu la chur snan ba fiid la chu med de chus ston la / chumed pa fiid chur snan ste / chur snan ba dan chu med pa gfiis tha mi dad pa yin no /68 GPKDT 298a6-bl: snan ba ran biin med pa'i ston pa fiid ni tha mi dad do / dper nabud sin du ma mes bsregs na me'i no bor gcig ste / de nas bud sin zad pa dan me fiid mignas so / de biin du sna tshogs su snan ba fiid rig pas ston pa fiid du byas na dnos porma grub pa dan / ston pa fiid kyan mi gnas so /69 GPKDT 298b2: .. . gian gyi ien pa bzlog pa 'am / sgro skur gcad pa 'am / dran ba'idon du ston pa dan skye ba med pa gfiis su med pa ie s brjod kyi / mkhas pas gialpa'am / nes pa i don du de fiid mi gnas te- /


17/22

Can sutra Inahamudra be justified on the basis of Maimpa's A p r a t i ~ t h a n a v a d a ? 561and denial?O it is the non-abiding in any reification or denial which is taken asthe knowledge of reality:

Given that it is the nature of all phenomena not to have arisen in terms of an ownbeing, they do not abide in any [extreme of] existence or non-existence. Therefore,not to abide in any reification and denial [by calling them] existent or non-existentis the knowledge ofreality.71

Vajrapa1).i does not say anything about reality itself. This would be counterproductive in the context of describing a practice which strictly avoids reification and denial. Still, when Maitrlpa maintains in Mahiiyiinavi1!1Sikii, stanza 3,that the original nature of the three kiiyas (i.e., the nijakiiya) is seen in vi-pasyanii by avoiding any reification, an interpretation along the lines of theRatnagotravibhiiga (i.e., the third dharmacakra) is required. The Buddha-element with its inseparable qualities as reality corresponds to the nijakiiya, and todeny or reify the experience of any of the latter would lead the yogin astray,just as denying or reifying the appearances of the ordinary world would. Vajrapa1).i does in fact follow such an interpretation when he explains in his presentation of mahiimudrii that the latter is not different from conceptual thought,just as a rope and its wrong appearance as a snake:

As long as one fails to realize that it is a rope, it appears to be a snake, but once onerealizes [the truth, it is clear] that its nature of appearing to be a snake is [sharedwith that of being] a rope. The very rope is the snake. The snake does not need to beremoved, nor does anything of the rope need to be added. Likewise, as long as onefails to realize mahamudra .. . , it appears to be a conceptual variety.72 When it isproperly realized, its nature of [appearing to be] a conceptual variety is united as apair with its nature of [being] the non-conceptual. It is the non-conceptual (i.e.,mahamudra) which appears to be a conceptual variety. No thought whatsoeverneeds to be removed here, nor does anything non-conceptual need to be added.73

70 GPKUT 298b4-5: sgro skur med pa dali ien pa med pa'i ses rab kyi pha rol tu phyinpas pha rol tu phyin pa bia m,i dmigs pa gsum gyis 'khor gSUln po yolis su dag par byasnas / sems can gyi don byed pa ni Ita ba'0 /71 GPKUT 298b6-299a1: ... chos thams cad rali biin gyis ma skyes pa'i lio bo iiid kyisyod med gali ymi mi gnas pas / yod med kyi sgro skur gali du' ali mi gnas pa ni de khona iiid kyi ses pa '0 /72 I.e., the manifold appearances of the world produced by false imagining.73 GPKUT 315b5-316a1: ... thag par ma rtogs nas sbrul du snali gi / rtogs na sbrul dusnali ba'i rali biin iiid thag pa yin la / thag pa iiid sbrullo / sbrul bsal bar bya'am / thagpa giag par bya ba ci'ali med do / de biin du phyag rgya chen po .. . ma rtogs nas rtog

,pa sna tshogs su SlJ.ali ste / ymi dag par rtogs na rtog pa sna tshogs kyi rali biin iiid m,i


18/22

562 Klaus-Dieter MathesMahtimudrti is here taken as the true nature of mind, which is non-conceptual.Until one realizes this original state, it appears as a conceptual variety. In termsof these two categories, our stanza of neither removing nor adding anything canbe taken as being in line with the Ratnagotravibhtiga (stanza 1.154), and just asthe rope is empty of its mistaken appearance as a snake, or the original mind ofthe conceptual variety, the Buddha-element is taken to be empty of adventitiousstains. This is clear from Ratnagotravibhtiga, stanza 1.155, against the background of which stanza 1.154 must be understood:

The [Buddha]-element is empty of adventitious [stains], which have the definingcharacteristic of being separable; but it is not empty of unsurpassable qualities,which have the defining characteristic of not being separable.74The Ratnagotravibhtigavytikhyti on stanzas 1.154 and 1.155 is as follows:

What is taught by that? There is no characteristic sign of any of the defilements(sa1'(lklea) whatsoever to be removed from this naturally pure Buddha-element, forit is naturally devoid of adventitious stains. Nor does anything need to be added to itas the characteristic sign (nimitta) of purification, for it is of the nature to have pureproperties which are inseparable [from it] . . . . Thus one truly sees that something isempty of that which does not exist in it, and one truly realizes that that whichremains in place is present, [and] hence exists there. Having [thus] abandoned theextremes of reification and denial, these two stanzas (RGV 1.154-5 correctlyelucidate the defining characteristic of emptiness.75

ConclusionIt could be shown that the practice of mahtimudrti does not need to be Tantric,but can be performed by not abiding in any extreme of reification or denial.

rtog pa'i ran biin du zun du 'jug pa yin la I mi rtog pa iiid rtog pa sna tshogs su snanste I 'dir rtog pa bsal bar bya'am I mi rtog pa giag par bya ba d'an med do I74 RGVVs 76,3-4: sanya ligantukair dhlituJ;, s a v i n i r b h l i g a l a k ~ a ~ a i / : l l asanyo 'nuttarairdharmair a v i n i r b h l i g a l a k ~ a ~ a i J ; , 1 I75 RGVVs 76,5-11: kim anena paridfpitam I yato na ki1'(lcid apaneyam asty ataJ;, prakrtiparisuddhlit tathligatadhlitoJ;, sa1'(lklesanimittam ligantukamalasanyatliprakrtitvlidasya I nlipy atra ki1'(lcid upaneyam asti vyavadlinanimittam avinirbhligasuddhadharmatliaprakrtitvlitI ... eva1'(l yad yatra nlisti tat tena sanyam iti samanupasyati I yat punar

a t r l i v a s i ~ f a 1 ' ( l bhavati tat sad ihlistzti yathlibhata1'(l prajlinliti I samliroplipavlidlintaparivarjanlid aviparzta1'(lb s a n y a t l i l a k ~ a ~ a m anena slokadvayena paridfpitam I

a See A 19a4 and B 39b3. Johnston omits, probably inadvertently, -tli-.b Corrected according to A (19a4) and B (39b5).


19/22


20/22

564 Klaus-Dieter MathesAPPs: p r a t i ~ ! h i i n a p r a k i i s aEd. by the Study Group on Sacred Tantric Texts. (Mikkyo-seiten kenkyukai): "ThResults of a Joint Study on the Buddhist Tantric Texts: Advayavajrasrupgraha -New Critical Edition with Japanese Translation." AICSB 13 (March 1991), p259-256 (=78-81).APPT: A p r a t i ~ ! h i i n a p r a k i i s a (Tibetan translation)Rab tu mi gnas pa gsal bar ston pa. Peking Tanjur, rgyud 'grel, vol. mi, fol. 122a-bCMAs: CaturmudriinvayaIn Advayavajrasarrtgraha. Ed. by the Study Group on Sacred Tantric Texts. AICS

11 (March 1989), pp. 253-238 (=92-107).CMAr : Caturmudriinvayatfkii (Tibetan translation)"Phyag rgya bzi'i rgya cher 'grel pa rin po che'i suing po". Phyag rgya chen po

rgya giwi, vol. Orrt, fols. 255a-317a.CMUT: Caturmudrii-Upadesa (Tibetan translation)"Phyag rgya bzi'i man nag." Phyag rgya chen po'i rgya giwi, vol. hurrt, fols. 9a

13b. dPal spuns block print.GPKUT: Guruparampariikrama-Upadesa (Tibetan translation)"Bla rna brgyud pa'i rim pa'i man nag." Phyag rgya chen po'i rgya giwi, vol. hurrfols. 290b-320b. dPal spuns block print.JA..As: lfiiiniilokiilarrtkiiraEd. by the Study Group on Buddhist Sanskrit Literature, The Institute for Comprehensive Studies of Buddhism, Taisho University. Tokyo: Taisho University Pres2004.MMKs: MalamadhyamakakiirikiiEd. by J.W. de Jong (The Adyar Library Series 109). Madras: The Adyar Librar

and Research Centre 1977.MV : MahiiyiinavirrtsikiiIn Advayavajrasarrtgraha. Ed. by the Study Group on Sacred Tantric Texts. AICS12 (March 1990), pp. 291-286 (=74-79).PTMVs: PaficatathiigatamudriivivaralJaIn Advayavajrasarrtgraha. Ed. by the Study Group on Sacred Tantric Texts. AICS10 (March 1988) pp. 189-178 (=44-57).RGVs: Ratnagotravibhiiga MahiiyiinottaratantrasiistraEd. by Edward H. Johnston. Patna: Bihar Research Society 1950. (Includes th

Ratnagotravibhiigavyiikhyii)RGVVs: Ratnagotravibhiigavyiikhyii. See Ratnagotravibhiiga[The manuscripts A and B on which Johnston's edition is based are described iJohnston 1950: vi-vii. See also Bandurski et al. 1994: 12-3].SNs: Sekanirdesa (also: SekanirlJaya)In Advayavajrasarrtgraha. Ed. by the Study Group on Sacred Tantric Texts. AICSB

13 (March 1991), pp. 289-271 (=48-66).


21/22


22/22

can sutra mahamudra be justified

Documents