Back to text page · Switch to: English
The nature of the mind, primordially immaculate,
Is the ultimate Manjushri, bodhisattva hero,
Who with the sharp blade of the path of reasoned certainty
Cuts through the webs of confusion and existence.
The heart of the teachings of all victorious ones past, present, and to come, the core of their enlightened mind, the single crucial point of all the teachings of the sutras and the tantras, is exclusively the all-pervading buddha-essence, the sugatagarbha. This matter is exceedingly profound, so much so that the Buddha said that even for the great and powerful bodhisattvas on the tenth ground, it is as difficult to realize the sugatagarbha correctly as it is to discern a form in the dark of night. This being so, what need is there to speak of the capacity of ordinary beings?
Moreover, in some of his discourses, the Sugata, our teacher elucidated the nature of the sugatagarbha by speaking about its emptiness. On other occasions, he elucidated its character by saying that it is primordially endowed with the [ten] strengths and other enlightened qualities. Now even though these two aspects are necessarily united without contradiction, some people—through their failure to find confidence in the crucial point of the inseparability of the two truths (which is more profound than the profound)—consider that the sugatagarbha is permanent and not empty by its nature. Others, by maintaining that it is mere emptiness, fail to assert that it is primordially endowed with the inalienable qualities of the kayas and wisdoms. They thus adopt a nihilistic view and make the mistake of underestimation. And in the hope of substantiating their opinions, they proclaim their refutations and assertions with all the clamor of a tempestuous sea.
By contrast, those who are fortunate enough to be guided by their teacher's essential instructions—a perfect nectar whereby their hearts are satisfied—have faith in primordial wisdom, the noncontradictory union of the expanse of emptiness and the wisdom of luminosity. They bring to rest any kind of fixation on the extremes of either appearance or emptiness. It is in accordance with their position that I shall now speak.
As a general principle, the words of the Tathagata, which are utterly trustworthy, are expressed in scriptures that are perfectly correct and reliable. The undeceiving and definitive character of these same scriptures is generally established through three kinds of examination. Specifically, the explicit meaning revealed in the words of the texts should be held as definitive when it is shown that reasoning does not disprove it and that it is moreover supported by valid demonstration. It is a mistake to neglect the reasoning by which the scriptures are substantiated and to proceed simply on the basis of a trust that one may feel in their regard. For there are in general scriptures that are true and scriptures that are false. And among those that are true, one cannot deny that some scriptures are of definitive meaning while some are of provisional meaning.
Consequently, ordinary beings are able to cut through their misconceptions by means of study and reflection, and thanks to the three types of valid cognition they are able to ascertain the points that should be assimilated. And it is thanks to this that they acquire irreversible conviction. If, on the other hand, they fail to ascertain through valid cognition the truth of their position for themselves, and they are unable to prove it to those who contest it, they are like those who, though unsure about the presence of [an invisible] flesh-eating spirit, proclaim that it is there in front of them. They are unable to convince either themselves or anyone else. Therefore, the learned should adopt a procedure of speaking in a way that accords with reason. If their position is logically established, their supporters with be filled with irreversible enthusiasm and the tongues of dissenters will be cut short. By contrast, when a path is not established by reason, then no matter how much it is decorated by all manner of assertions, a host of doubts will proliferate like water welling up from a spring.
Therefore, if we engage in the path that has been expounded by the buddhas and the bodhisattvas and their lineage, and that has not been muddled by mere intellectuals, and if we set biased partisanship aside and honestly assess the correct reasons that establish the sugatagarbha, we will see that there are no arguments for, and many arguments against, two false assertions. The first is that the sugatagarbha is permanent, truly existent, and not empty by its nature; the second is that it is simply emptiness and is devoid of qualities. Conversely, we will see that there are excellent arguments that support, and none that undermine, the assertion that the buddha-essence exists within sentient beings, and that, though empty by nature, it has the character of being primordially endowed with enlightened qualities.
1. The sugatagarbha is present in the minds of beings
Let us begin, therefore, by examining the arguments that demonstrate the presence of the buddha-essence, the sugatagarbha, within the minds of beings.
The Uttaratantra contains the following text:
Because the kaya of perfect buddhahood radiates,
Because in suchness there is no division,
Because they have potential for enlightenment,
All beings have at all times buddha-essence.
Now in order to establish the meaning of this text through the use of logical arguments, we will first mention the position of other traditions and then state the position of our own perfect tradition.
2. The assertions of earlier Tibetan masters
In Tibet, certain masters of former times understood the first line of the stanza, "because the kaya of perfect buddhahood radiates," to mean that all objects are simply pervaded by the dharmakaya wisdom. They understood the second line of the stanza, "because in suchness there is no division," to mean that suchness is similar in kind to mere emptiness. And they understood the third line, "because they have potential for enlightenment," to mean that sentient beings simply have the ability to become enlightened. These statements, however, are very summary and fail to capture the crucial and essential meaning of the Uttaratantra.
With regard to the first point (the kaya of perfect buddhahood radiates), the authentic buddha-potential is not established by the mere fact that objects are pervaded by the dharmakaya. For even though the wisdom of buddhahood, which is present within the mind stream of an [enlightened] being, embraces all [other] objects and is therefore present in all things, this does not mean that those same objects have themselves the cause for becoming buddhas. Furthermore, since the dharmakaya is not for the moment manifest in our minds, we may doubt that there is any evidence of its presence.
Regarding the second point (in suchness there is no division), the meaning of the buddha-potential is not at all to be equated with just the figurative ultimate, the mere concept of emptiness [as presented by these earlier masters]. These masters say that the buddha-potential is like a seed that will transform into a shoot. They say that this potential has no enlightened qualities at the moment but that these will develop when the potential is associated with the conditions of the path. In affirming this, however, they are saying that the emptiness of true existence—a conceptual aspect that is a nonimplicative negation, in other words, something uncompounded—is capable of performing a function. But it is completely illogical to ascribe such a characteristic to an emptiness of this kind. A seed that is a compounded entity is perfectly capable, on the conventional level, of transforming into a shoot. But it can never be possible for an absence of true existence superimposed onto a seed to transform into a shoot.
Furthermore, to claim that it is through the fact of being empty of true existence that one is able to attain buddhahood is to speak carelessly. For whereas it is quite true to say that if the mind exists truly, it cannot attain buddhahood, there is no certainty in saying that it is simply through the absence of true existence that buddhahood can be attained. All phenomena lack true existence, including earth and stones, but who could maintain that this gives them the ability to attain buddhahood?
Again, it is senseless to posit the buddha-potential as the lack of true existence just because focusing on the absence of true existence is able to remove the obscurations [of defilement]. For those who say this also say that the cognitive obscurations cannot be removed just by focusing on emptiness. They moreover think that [in any case] one must also be adorned with an infinite accumulation of merit.
It is pointless to give the name "sugatagarbha" to such a kind of nonimplicative negation [emptiness as defined by the earlier scholars]. A "potential" of this kind is the same as what the shravakas and pratyekabuddhas meditate on. On the contrary, the ability to attain buddhahood is not established by this means and, as far as concerns a sugatagarbha seen as a mere nonimplicative negation, it is quite untenable to say that, after removing the cognitive obscurations, the primordial wisdom of omniscience arises. For since within the very nature of a nonimplicative negation there is no element of knowing, it is impossible for any kind of knowledge to be present even at the time of enlightenment.
Therefore [instead of an uncompounded absence of true existence], it would fit the position of our opponents better to think of the buddha-potential in terms of a kind of compounded nature that is able to evolve—saying that within the mind streams of all beings there are, present from beginningless time, the seeds of wisdom, love, and power. After all, even wild beasts and demons feel love for their young; and they have the ability to recognize the difference between helping and harming. And if this capacity were to be informed by the path, and if it were gradually freed from hindrances and made to develop, such beings would eventually possess boundless knowledge, love, and power. If our opponents were to say that this is what the capacity for enlightenment is, it would be a far better position than to say that the buddha-potential is a nonimplicative negation. For it necessarily implies a causal sequence giving rise to a result; and to abandon this result-producing factor—which cannot but be a momentary entity—and say that the cause [of enlightenment] is an uncompounded nonthing, incapable of giving rise to anything at all, is truly an astonishing position to adopt.
Some people, reflecting upon such problems, say that the buddha-potential is not the absence of true existence in all things. Only the mind's absence of true existence is tenable as the buddha-potential. But even if we grant that the buddha-potential is the mind's lack of true existence, the fact remains that a "lack of true existence" is unable to perform the activity of giving rise to something, whereas the moments of the mind can quite rightly be said to perform the function of generating successive moments. An uncompounded buddha-potential [as they understand it] thus becomes irrelevant and our opponents should abandon it.
Now they may think as follows. They could say that they are not positing the buddha-potential on the basis of the separation of the two truths each on its own side but that, on the contrary, this same buddha-potential is the nature in which the luminosity of the mind (the phenomenon, chos can) and its emptiness (its ultimate nature, chos nyid) are inseparable. In answer to this, we would say that if, of the two—ordinary consciousness and primordial wisdom—our opponents are referring to primordial wisdom, which is unchanging and uncompounded, then what they are saying is proved by reasoning and scripture and is certainly true. But if, by the phenomenon that is to be united with emptiness, they mean the ordinary consciousness, which is momentary, then to think that this can be gradually transformed into buddhahood is very foolish. For it follows in that case that there are two aspects to the potential, one that is compounded and one that is uncompounded. This being so, the aspect that is uncompounded—and consequently powerless [to produce the enlightened qualities even at the stage of buddhahood]—is the buddha-potential only in name. On the contrary, the real buddha-potential must be the compounded aspect—which is able to produce results. But by such a thing, the wisdom intention of all the Mahayana sutras, which declare that the naturally present buddha-potential is the uncompounded dharmadhatu (the expanse of ultimate reality), is reduced to nothing. Since the buddha-potential, posited in terms of something produced and something that produces, is inevitably a matter for the [ordinary] mind, one may refer to this naturally abiding potential as the pure dharmadhatu, but in that case, what one believes and what one says are in blatant contradiction.
When one affirms that the potential for buddhahood is the unchanging dharmadhatu, one must recognize that the basis for the imputation of "dharmadhatu" must be the nonfigurative ultimate truth, the great union of the two truths, the very meaning of the middle way that is in no way found [in any ontological extreme]. If, failing to recognize this, one states that it is just the figurative ultimate, then the situation is like someone who sees a troop of monkeys in the forest and deludedly thinks that they are the gods of the Heaven of the Thirty-Three! For if one takes as the dharmadhatu something that is not the dharmadhatu and claims that it is the buddha-potential, and if focusing on this, one thinks that one is meditating on the prajnaparamita and thinks that it is the cause of the svabhavikakaya, one is simply inventing a path and claiming that it is the great vehicle—as the Wisdom Sutras themselves say.
The naturally pure dharmadhatu, or emptiness, is the expanse of the two truths free from all the webs of mental elaboration, and it is known by self-cognizing primordial wisdom. This is the authentic buddha-potential and is that which becomes the svabhavikakaya endowed with the twofold purity—as all the Mahayana sutras and their commentaries proclaim. This being so, the naturally present potential is uncompounded, and it is improper to say anything that suggests otherwise. It is unacceptable to say anything to deny that the qualities of the dharmakaya are a result that comes about through elimination. For it is untenable to say that something uncompounded can give rise to a result other than itself and then cease to exist—in the same way that a productive cause gives rise to a produced effect. This the Regent [Maitreya], a mahasattva abiding on the tenth ground, has declared in the Uttaratantra. And the glorious lord, Arya Nagarjuna, has also clearly said it in his Dharmadhatu-stava. For this reason, we in our tradition follow these texts and affirm that the buddha-potential is the uncompounded dharmadhatu.
This very expanse is the ultimate way of being of all phenomena and is in itself devoid of birth or cessation. It abides as the very essence of the inseparability of appearance and emptiness and never falls into either of these two extremes. So it is that compounded phenomena, which do appear to arise and cease, do not exist in the way that they appear. Consequently, the nature of the dharmadhatu is never stained by them. The causal process [that gives rise to] samsara is pure from the beginning; it is completely inseparable from the immaculate appearances of spontaneously present luminosity. By means of this crucial point, we should recognize the character of the sugatagarbha correctly.
2. The assertion of our own position
3. The meaning of the first line of the stanza from the Uttaratantra, "Because the kaya of perfect buddhahood radiates"
The meaning of this first line is as follows. The dharmakaya, the kaya of utterly perfect buddhahood, possesses qualities equal to the vastness of space. Therefore, if the dharmakaya is able to appear, to radiate, or to manifest at some later stage within the mind stream of a person who is at present ordinary and completely fettered, this shows that the sugatagarbha is present at this very moment in the mind streams of sentient beings. This proof is supported by arguments that are both common and uncommon [that is, belonging to the teachings in general and to the Nyingma tradition in particular].
4. The general approach
First of all, if there are sentient beings who have actualized the dharmakaya wisdom, it necessarily follows that the potential for enlightenment was already present in those beings' minds. For such an actualization would be impossible if the potential for it had been absent. As it is said in the Dharmadhatu-stava,
When the element [containing gold] is there,
Pure gold appears through work performed.
But when that element is absent, nothing but exhaustion
Will result from work performed.
4. The uncommon approach
It may be thought that while the above argument is tenable, it shows only that, following the example of crops growing in a field, the mind is indeed able to become buddha, but only in the manner of a [material] cause—how does it establish the presence of a special potential that is primordially endowed with the qualities of enlightenment? The latter is nonetheless established. The bhagavan buddhas possess the wisdom kaya, the nature of which is very clearly uncompounded. As both scripture and reasoning demonstrate, it is neither compounded nor impermanent.
5. The argument based on scriptural authority
As far as the scriptures are concerned, the Nirvana-sutra says, "O monks of excellent discipline, the tathagata is uncompounded. If you say that the tathagata is compounded, you will become tirthikas, and it would be better for you to die!" And in the same text we find, "O son of the lineage, the tathagata is a body of permanence, an indestructible body, a body of adamant. It is not a body of flesh. Look upon it as the dharmakaya." And again, "Rather than to say that the tathagata is impermanent, it would be better for your tongue to be touched by the blazing flames of a fire. It would be better to die! Do not allow such words to be heard!"
Moreover, in order to show that a nonimplicative negation (mere emptiness) cannot be nirvana, the state beyond all suffering, the same text says, "Emptiness, emptiness! The meaning is that though we search, we find nothing at all. But 'nothing at all' is an idea shared even by the Jains. Liberation is not at all like that." And the same text goes on to say, "What therefore is liberation? It is the [buddha] element, something uncontrived. It is the sugatagarbha."
The Vajracchedika-sutra also says,
Whoever sees me as a form,
Whoever knows me as a sound,
Has strayed upon the path of error.
Such beings see me not!
For the buddhas should be viewed as dharmata,
The guides are dharmakaya.
Since dharmata cannot be known,
Me these beings cannot know.
As these quotations indicate, this point is extensively explained in all the sutras of definitive meaning.
5. The argument based on reasoning
From the point of view of reasoning, the following may be said. If the primordial wisdom of omniscience—the final result that is nondual and of the same taste as primordial dharmadhatu—were impermanent, if it were newly produced from causes and conditions, it could not be self-arisen primordial wisdom. It would not be freed from the torment of change. It would constantly arise and cease. It would be unreliable, for by nature it would be destructible. It could not be a sure refuge, for as soon as it arose, it would be destroyed. It would remain only a little while when all the causes for it were assembled. Neither could it be of one taste with all phenomena. It would not be beyond all ontological extremes. The conceptual mind could not be prevented from arising. Finally, the [primordial wisdom of omniscience] would not be independent but would depend upon conditioning factors. The faults of all these consequences would be entailed. And since by making such a statement, the error of holding the view that the vajra body is impermanent is so enormous, one should abandon this evil path and say instead that the kaya of nondual primordial wisdom is uncompounded and supremely permanent.
Now if one assesses the matter just by reasoning based on ordinary perception, and if one objects that it is impossible for primordial wisdom to be uncompounded because it is impossible for cognition and permanence to go together, this is a very poor argument to make. There is indeed a lesser kind of knowledge that cognizes objects and is necessarily impermanent. But this is not the same as primordial wisdom, in which the knower and the things known are of a single taste, and which is endowed with the all-pervading indestructible expanse. For this is a state of unchanging luminosity, an uncompounded radiance—in which the phenomena of both samsara and nirvana are contained. This primordial wisdom is, from the very beginning, beyond both arising and cessation. This is established by the reasoning of final analysis.
Moreover, a primordial wisdom of this kind abides neither in the extreme of compoundedness nor in that of uncompoundedness. It is, so to say, "the great nonabiding uncompounded" and is utterly unlike something that is just "nonexistent." For existent things and nonexistent things are both relative phenomena: they either arise dependently or are designated dependently. And if they are examined correctly, they are found to be compounded, fallacious, illusory, and deceptive. By contrast, the sugatagarbha is the great uncompounded nature of all phenomena, the dharmata of all dharmas, both existent things and nonexistent things, and is itself perfectly incontrovertible. As it is said in the Mulaprajna,
Intrinsic being is not fabricated,
Is not contingent upon something else.
And,
Nirvana is an uncompounded state
While both existing things and nonexisting things are
composite.
Ultimately, therefore, the primordial wisdom of the dharmakaya pervades [the phenomena of] both samsara and nirvana. It is an uncompounded state, the state of equality, or evenness. It is unchanging, ultimate truth. This is established by the sutras of definitive meaning and by the reasoning that investigates the ultimate status of phenomena.
Within the mind, and endowed with the capacity to become manifest, the dharmakaya wisdom is already present from this very moment; and in the manner of the dharmata, it abides free of increase and decrease. Whether or not it is manifest, and however it may appear as being free or not free of adventitious stains, there is absolutely not the slightest difference in its actual way of being, whether in terms of bad or good, before or after [the removal of the said obscurations]. And this is so because it has the nature of being uncompounded and immutable. As it is said in the Uttaratantra,
As it was before, so later it will be,
It is unchanging dharmata.
And,
This nature of the mind, this luminosity,
Like space, is without change.
Craving and the rest are adventitious stains
Deriving from deluded thought, and they do not defile it.
As this and other texts show, all the phenomena of samsara are changing and unstable. But though they appear to change within the sphere of dharmata, nevertheless the pure essence of the mind, the sugatagarbha, is like space; it is unchanging. This should be clearly understood for it is affirmed again and again in the scriptures.
Accordingly, the vast expanse of uncompounded luminosity is not stained by delusion; it is intrinsically pure. Within the self-radiance of the undeluded nature, the [ten] strengths and so on, all the qualities of the resultant state, are spontaneously present and as inseparable from it as the sun's rays are from the sun itself. So it is as the Uttaratantra says,
The buddha-element is void of what is adventitious
And has the character of something separable.
The element is not itself devoid of supreme qualities,
Which have the character of what cannot be parted from it.
All the faults of samsaric existence derive from the deluded mind that clings to the personal and phenomenal self. But from the very beginning, the original and luminous nature [of the mind] is never stained by these deluded mental states and is never mixed with them. For they are entirely adventitious to it, like the clouds in the sky. For this reason, it is possible to distinguish these individual defects from the buddha-element and to separate them from it. The buddha-element in itself is empty of these defects and is unstained by them.
Moreover, being unaffected by the damage wrought by delusion, this element is not empty of the perfect qualities that are inseparable from self-arisen primordial wisdom—which is luminous by its very nature and is the very essence of all phenomena. The buddha-element is never without these qualities, for they belong to it in the same way that the rays of the sun belong to the sun itself.
Accordingly, given that the naturally present buddha-potential is established as the very dharmakaya—uncompounded and primordially endowed with its qualities—and given too that beings are able to attain enlightenment, it follows that the dharmakaya wisdom must of necessity subsist stably without increase or decrease within the mind streams of sentient beings. For it is established by the power of manifest fact that beings are able to attain enlightenment when they train on the path. And since the dharmakaya that manifests when buddhahood is attained is uncompounded, it cannot be something that is newly produced through causes and conditions. It is, therefore, proved that, from this very moment, the dharmakaya wisdom abides within beings as the nature of buddhahood.
5. A refutation of objections
Now regarding this assertion, certain people have objected that if the dharmakaya wisdom subsists right now in the present moment as the nature of buddhahood in beings, how is it that the primordial wisdom of omniscience does not [immediately] dispel the obscurations of these same beings? And clinging to the theory expounded in the common vehicle to the effect that buddhahood is the result of which the state of sentient being is the cause, such people also think that if the result is actually present in the cause, this is the same as saying that when one eats one's food, one eats one's excrement. And with these and other arguments, they think that they can undermine our position.
The minds of our opponents, however, are not trained in the meaning of the extremely profound sutras of definitive meaning; they are guided only by an interpretation supplied in texts of common understanding. It is not surprising, therefore, that doubts arise in their minds. But the truth of the matter is otherwise. Although the dharmata, the luminous primordial wisdom, is present equally in all beings, when the deluded mind arises adventitious to it, it is precisely this mind together with its object that supplies the basis for the designation of samsara. Because beings are deluded in this way, they do not cognize the dharmata as it is. The situation is analogous to the time of sleep when through the power of the mental consciousness alone, the appearances of bodies, objects, the visual consciousness, and so forth arise without limit. [The mind of the dreamer] perceives, and fixates upon, the subject and object [seen in the dream] as being separate. The mental consciousness is unable to understand that its nature does not correspond to a separate apprehender and something apprehended. But even though the mental consciousness fails to realize this, its nature does not change. In just the same way, even though all phenomena subsist in the nature of emptiness, people do not automatically realize this. Delusion is always possible owing to the fact that the way things are does not correspond to the way they appear.
Consequently, the ordinary mind (sems) and the primordial wisdom of the sugatagarbha are shown to be related in terms of a phenomenon (dharma, chos can) and the nature of that phenomenon (dharmata, chos nyid). Likewise, the state of buddhahood and the state of beings are shown to be related in terms of the way of being and the way of appearing respectively. Thus, the refutation just referred to, which uses the reasoning of the result's being present in the cause, is completely wide of the mark.
So it is that our argument is proved: the dharmakaya, clearly manifest at the time of the result, is the evidential sign that shows that, at the time of the cause, the buddha-potential is present and primordially endowed with perfect qualities. In terms of the actual mode of being (the way things are in their nature), there is no such thing as a cause and fruit distinguished in terms of a chronological sequence. Nevertheless, from the standpoint of the appearing mode (when we consider the way things appear), we are obliged to speak in terms of cause and result. This is the so-called reasoning of dependency, which deduces [the existence of] a cause from [the existence of] a result.
3. The meaning of the second line of the stanza, "Because in suchness there is no division"
All phenomena of both samsara and nirvana are of one taste, for in their ultimate way of being, the great primordial luminosity of emptiness, there is no division between them. The same is true for buddhas and sentient beings. Ultimately, there is no division between them. This is the equality of samsaric existence and the peace of nirvana. As a consequence, the reasoning of the nature of things shows that, owing to adventitious delusion, beings seem to exist even though they do not diverge in the slightest from the dharmata, the ultimate way of being. This being so, it is certain that beings possess the buddha-essence. It is said moreover in the sutras that all phenomena are primordial luminosity; they are beyond suffering and have the nature of manifest buddhahood.
4. A refutation of objections
Now our opponents could complain that previously when we were responding to others' objections, we said that the mere fact that suchness is indivisible proves that the buddha-potential is present [in things]. This being so, they argue [turning our previous argument against us] that it follows that the buddha-potential is present even in earth, stones, and so on.
To this we reply as follows: What we call the buddha-potential must be posited as the faultless cause of buddhahood: the full flowering of the mind that is undeluded with respect to the nature of knowledge objects. This occurs with the complete removal of the two obscuring veils, which have arisen through the power of the deluded mind. And since the ability to accomplish the path [to buddhahood] is not found in material, inanimate things like earth and stones, the latter should not be posited as having the buddha-potential, even though, on the conventional level, they are indivisible from suchness. Earth, stones, and so on appear through the power of the mind. It is not the mind that has arisen through the power of outer objects like earth and stones. This should be understood in the sense indicated by the example of dream visions and the dreaming consciousness.
Now within this mind—the creator of the three worlds—there dwells the dharmata, the sugatagarbha, endowed with the nature of ultimate and immaculate purity, in the same way that moisture inheres in water. With this understanding, we can say that the phenomena of samsara and nirvana are simply the display of the ordinary mind and of primordial wisdom, respectively. Thus it should never be thought that samsara and nirvana are separate. And furthermore, we hold strongly that all phenomena, which on the ultimate level never stray from the condition of the dharmata, primordial buddhahood, are likewise never beyond the sphere of tathagata.
As it is said in the Ratnaguna-samchaya-gatha,
The purity of form should be known as the purity of the
result.
The purity of both result and form becomes the purity of
omniscience.
The purity of omniscience, result, and form is like
The element of space: there's no dividing it.
What is the purity that consists in the cognitive subject's freedom from obscuring veils? It is the purity, or nature, of the object—namely, form and so on. This is because the obscurations that veil the subject's or mind's own experience only seem to be removed gradually, whereas from the point of view of its actual nature, the mind is primordially free of such obscurations. Accordingly, when the impurities within the cognitive subject, the mind, are exhausted and buddhahood is attained, no objects or things are left to be purified. It is just as when the defect in the eye is cured, the black lines [which are a symptom of the defect] automatically disappear.
Now it might be thought that when one individual attains buddhahood, all impure appearances should cease [right across the board]. This, however, is not the case because individual beings are obfuscated by the obscurations of their own particular subjective experience. Every being has a kind of perception in which the way things are is at odds with the way that they appear.
Another question may also be raised. On the level of buddhahood, when the way things appear corresponds in all respects to the way they are, is there an experience of all the impure appearances [perceived by unenlightened beings] or not? If there is, it follows that perfect and manifest enlightenment with regard to all things has not been attained. On the other hand, if there is no such experience, it follows that [enlightened beings] are unable to have knowledge of the paths and so on of wandering beings. The answer to this is that the primordial omniscient wisdom of the buddhas knows all phenomena of samsara and nirvana spontaneously and without effort as being of equal taste with itself. From the buddhas' own point of view, they see everything as great purity; and yet without ever diverging from this vision, they see all that appears to beings of the six realms exactly as these same beings perceive them. Because all the obscurations of dualistic perceptions are exhausted for them, all phenomena are contained—in a manner that is entirely complete and without being confused—within the expanse of the dharmata. Thanks to this crucial point, the primordial wisdom, which is beyond arising and cessation, sees them instantaneously and in a state of equal taste with itself. This is hard to understand even for those who are residing on the levels of realization; there is no need to speak of those who perceive phenomena in the ordinary manner.
It is said in the Bodhisattvapitaka,
The equality of all phenomena
Is understood as equal by the self-arisen wisdom.
Wherefore the manifest and perfect Buddha,
Tathagata, sees all equally.
And
Because it knows the naturally luminous character of the mind as it is, the wisdom of a single instant of mind is called the unsurpassable, genuine, perfect enlightenment of buddhahood.
In accordance with this, the master Chandrakirti has said,
Vessels may be different, but their space is one and
undivided.
Just so, phenomena are many, but their suchness is beyond
all multiplicity.
In understanding perfectly their single taste, such beings in
their perfect wisdom
Know all knowledge objects in a single instant.
Thus, the great primordial wisdom, which is indivisible from the vast expanse, embraces all phenomena and sees them in the same effortless way that the moon and the stars appear reflected in the ocean; it pervades them and sees them in the state in which all thoughts are stilled. And this is the self-arisen primordial wisdom of luminosity, the dharmata residing in the ground, which—once the obscuring veils have been removed—will manifest just as it is. On the basis of the correct reasoning of the nature of things, which examines the ultimate, one can acquire an irreversible conviction that this is so. By contrast, [if one is confined] to the assessment of the lesser, ordinary mind, one would have to conclude either that there is no wisdom in the state of buddhahood or that even if there is such a wisdom, it would be the same as the ordinary changing mind. One would have to conclude either that the buddhas are incapable of seeing the world of beings, or else that that they have impure perceptions. It would be impossible to establish the single taste of the wisdom that sees the nature of phenomena and the wisdom that sees phenomena in all their multiplicity. One would encounter only a chaos of turbulent contradictions and worries.
3. The meaning of the third line of the stanza, "Because they have potential for enlightenment"
The meaning of these words is that all sentient beings have a potential thanks to which they are able to attain buddhahood. It is established that adventitious defilements are, by definition, removable and that the dharmakaya, primordially endowed with the qualities of enlightenment, is present in all sentient beings without distinction. Conversely, the presence in beings of this potential for enlightenment means that they have the buddha-essence. For it is present at the time of buddhahood itself; and since the dharmakaya of the buddha is uncompounded, there can be no qualitative variation in it in terms of bad or good, before or after [defilements are removed].
The third of the three reasons [given in the stanza from the Uttaratantra], by which one understands that a result is generated from a cause, constitutes the argument of efficient causation. Nevertheless, owing to the crucial fact that no change occurs in the buddha-potential (that is, dharmata or suchness), this is not just a matter of deducing a result from the simple presence of a cause. When the result is gained, no change occurs within the nature of the buddha-potential. [It is not improved when enlightenment happens, nor is it worse beforehand.] Moreover, however long adventitious obscurations are present, it is always possible for them to be removed and therefore the potential is never deprived of the capacity for enlightenment.
There are, therefore, three arguments that prove that all beings possess the tathagata-essence—a conclusion that derives from the perfect path of reasoning based on the power of objective fact. The first is that there is no difference in nature between the buddha-potential at the time of the cause and the dharmakaya at the time of the result. The second is that because the dharmakaya is present when one attains the result, it must also be present at the time when one is a sentient being—without there being any increase or diminution [whether in the enlightened, or the unenlightened, state]. The third argument is that even if one makes a nominal distinction between the earlier cause and the later result, in reality, they are of one taste in the nature of the unchanging dharmadhatu.
The reasoning that proves that the tathagatagarbha is present in all sentient beings shows also that there is no difference between final liberation, the tathagata, and the ultimate nature of all phenomena. And if one understands that this happens thanks to the tathagatagarbha itself, a single final vehicle (the Mahayana) will be established.
There are, on the other hand, those who say that the sugatagarbha is not present in the state of sentient beings but that it is present at the time of buddhahood, and those who say that the qualities of enlightenment are not present at the causal stage but are newly acquired at the time of the result. All such people turn their backs on the meaning of the Mahayana, and the arguments they use to establish it as a single perfect vehicle become incoherent speculation. Consequently, those who aspire to the teachings of the supreme vehicle must make considerable use of their intelligence in order to understand this point.
This assertion that the buddha-element primordially endowed with enlightened qualities is present even at the time when one is a sentient being is indeed a profound point, beyond the reach of the conceptual mind. And it was for this reason that the Buddha told his disciples to trust his teaching, saying that it was undeceiving, however difficult it was for them to understand it using their own strength. This, therefore, is a doctrine of the utmost profundity.
Scholars of limited intelligence, however, produce a stream of objections to it. It follows, they say, that buddhas and sentient beings have the same kind of mind, and so on. But all their arguments and refutations, based as they are on conventional reasoning, are futile. As is it said in the Sandhinirmochana-sutra,
The ultimate and the compounded sphere
Are by nature neither different nor the same.
Whoever understands them to be different or the same,
Engages in them incorrectly.
So it is that the nature of the mind, the buddha-essence, and the mind that is a relative phenomenon must not be asserted as being either the same or different. As to their mode of being, they are never beyond the condition of the dharmata. As to their appearing mode, however, it is always possible for delusion to arise. And not only is there no contradiction here, but if one were to say otherwise, such a position would be defective since it would mean either that there is no possibility of liberation or that no one could ever be deluded. It is precisely because there is a discrepancy between the way things are and the way things appear, that it is established, on the one hand, that beings are deluded and, on the other hand, that they can enter the path, discard delusion, and achieve buddhahood. Through the kind of reasoning that examines the ultimate, it is established that all phenomena are emptiness. Nevertheless the qualities of the sugatagarbha are not invalidated thereby, for as the Buddha affirmed, although the unsurpassable qualities are present, they are—by that same reasoning—found to be, by nature, empty.
The meaning taught by the scriptures of the second turning of the dharma wheel is that all phenomena of both samsara and nirvana are empty—for these scriptures say that even the sugatagarbha is of the nature of emptiness. By contrast, the particular and essential teaching that the sugatagarbha is inseparable from the appearances of the kayas and wisdoms (which themselves possess an empty nature) corresponds to the wisdom intention of the sutras of definitive meaning belonging to the final turning of the dharma wheel—which, from this point of view alone, is superior to the second turning. This is why the Sandhinirmochana-sutra praises the meaning of the final turning as supreme—not as a general assessment but with reference only to the definitive teaching that sets forth the buddha-essence. This point can be clearly ascertained from other sutras such as the one that speaks about the buddha-element using the example of the cleansing of a jewel.
We therefore need to keep together the aspects of appearance and emptiness—that is, the teachings on emptiness as revealed in the scriptures of the second turning and the teachings on the kayas and wisdoms as revealed in the scriptures of the third turning. The omniscient Longchen Rabjam held that the meanings of both the second and third turnings—together and without separation—constituted the definitive teaching, and this is precisely the position that we too should hold.
There is no conflict between the second and third turnings of the dharma wheel. There is no need to say [as some do] that one turning is definitive while the other is provisional. What is more, when the two turnings are brought together and when it is understood that the causal [ground] continuum is the sugatagarbha, this becomes the crucial point of the essential instructions of the Vajrayana. One must therefore understand that all such teachings of the Buddha come together into a single point. Regarding this final meaning, Nagarjuna, Asanga, and all the aryas are of one mind—as we may understand clearly from such writings as (Nagarjuna's) Dharmadhatu-stava and Bodhichittavivarana and (Asanga's) Uttaratantra. Moreover, as master Nagarjuna has himself said,
Emptiness expounded in the sutras
And everything the Conqueror has taught—
All serve to take away defilement;
They do not cause the buddha-element to change.
As this text says, when one investigates with the kind of reasoning that examines the ultimate, the vajra-like inseparability of the [two] truths is established. And since this is the vast expanse, which cannot be broached by merely intellectual understanding, there is—with regard to the ultimate [in itself]—no basis for engaging in controversy.
1. The manner in which the sugatagarbha is present in the minds of beings
It is now time to explain the way in which the element is present in the minds of beings. From the standpoint of their own nature—their way of being—all phenomena are encompassed by the expanse of the dharmata. The dharmata rests in a state of equality, or evenness, without arising or ceasing. It is beyond the categories of good or bad, of samsara or nirvana, and so on. It is beyond the distinctions of transcendence and ordinariness, self and other, great and small—as well as differences of time, past, present, and so on. It is just the unchanging, unmoving, one and only sphere of the dharmadhatu. Although this is the case with regard to the nature of things, deluded adventitious perception nevertheless occurs—in accordance with which, the bodies, minds, and all the objects of the three worlds appear. Even when the nature of the dharmata is not perceived, the dharmata is not absent. It is present without diverging even slightly from its own nature. Thus, the dharmata, or nature of the mind, is, as it were, unmanifest, enclosed within a sheath of adventitious defilement. It is present in the midst of it like a kernel, an essential core, and is referred to as a "potential" or "essence." We are told to understand this by means of nine examples: the treasure hidden beneath the earth and so on. Moreover, the scripture speaks of how, in relation to adventitious defilement, the buddha-potential is found to be in three different situations—of impurity, of partial impurity, and finally, of complete purity. Nevertheless, in all these three situations, there is no difference whatever in the buddha-potential itself. As it is said in the Uttaratantra,
Because the wisdom of the Buddha resides in beings,
They are never parted from that stainless nature.
And since potential for enlightenment is named according
to the fruit,
It's said that beings all possess the buddha-essence.
It is also said in the same text,
This also is by nature dharmakaya;
It is suchness and potential.
And also,
As impure, impure-and-pure,
And completely pure
Are described respectively,
Beings, bodhisattvas, tathagatas.
If, failing to understand this, one thinks that the sugatagarbha is tucked away somewhere in the five aggregates, like a juniper berry in a metal basin, so that there are in effect two minds, one deluded, one undeluded, accompanying each other like light and dark—and if in this way one affirms or rejects the sugatagarbha, one succeeds only in making a lot of noise without getting any closer to the view of the Mahayana.
On the other hand, it serves no purpose to proclaim a teaching on the buddha-essence to a band of mere intellectuals whose minds are untrained in the meaning of the Great Vehicle. Indeed, a profound teaching such as this is not to be taught to those who are spiritually immature or to those who are outside the Dharma. For such people are unsuitable vessels for the reception of this profound doctrine. One should instead explain the Dharma to them beginning with the teachings on no-self, impermanence, and so on, demonstrating it with logical proofs. It is pointless to teach them the doctrine of the buddha-essence. For since it cannot be proved on the basis of ordinary valid cognition alone, it simply becomes an occasion for defective intellectual positions (affirming what is not the case and negating what is). On the other hand, when the minds of people are trained from the lower tenet systems of the Buddhist teaching onward, and when an extraordinary conviction arises in their minds regarding the nonfigurative ultimate of great emptiness—if, at that point, the teaching on the buddha-essence is gradually revealed to them, they will experience confident faith in its regard. Therefore one should avoid the mistake of thinking, on the one hand, that although this path is true, it cannot be proved by reasoning and can be realized only by experience, or of thinking, on the other hand, that since it cannot be proved on the basis of ordinary valid cognition, it is not a true path. [Avoiding this mistake,] one should become expert in the crucial ways of the practice of the path.
1. A refutation of certain false positions regarding the buddha-element
Certain wrong ideas about the nature of the buddha-element should now be dealt with. These are, first, the view that the element is not empty but truly existent; second, the view that the element is no more than an empty void; and third, the view that the element is impermanent and compounded.
2. A refutation of the view that the buddha-element is not empty
3. A refutation based on scripture
Regarding the first of these ideas—namely, that the buddha-element is not empty, we find the following text in the noble Lankavatara-sutra:
The Bodhisattva Mahamati addressed the Lord, the Blessed One, and asked, "The Buddha has said in the sutra that the sugatagarbha, which abides within the sheath of impurity, is permanent, firm, and unchanging. How then is this different from the self [or purusha] proclaimed by the tirthikas? For they speak of a self [or purusha] that is devoid of the qualities or gunas." The Lord, the Blessed One, replied, "They are not the same. The buddhas taught the sugatagarbha in terms of the three doors of perfect liberation, of nirvana, and of the unborn nature. In order not to alarm the childish, who fear the absence of self, they taught an approach to the sugatagarbha, speaking of it as something beyond ordinary thought—the sphere beyond appearance. Regarding this, O Mahamati, the bodhisattvas, the great beings of the future as well as those of the present time, should not fixate on it as though it were a self. . . . Indeed, there is no liberation for those who entertain an idea of real existence."
The sutra also says,
If [this essence] is not empty by nature, then even if [you say that] it is empty of something other than itself, this does not count as its emptiness. Of the seven kinds of emptiness, the least is that of a thing's emptiness of something else. Among a myriad other assertions they made about it, [the buddhas] said that this should be discarded. Furthermore, O Mahamati, the Tathagata is not permanent, nor is he impermanent. And the reason for saying this is that there are faults in both these alternatives.
And,
These ideas are upheld by demons;
Existence, nonexistence—both should be transcended.
And,
If there is something higher than the supreme state of nirvana, this too is like a dream and an illusion.
3. A refutation based on reasoning
In accordance with the meaning of these and other scriptures, and thanks to the crucial point that the sugatagarbha is by nature empty, logical analysis shows that it is appropriate for this same sugatagarbha to be the nature of the mind. It shows too that it pervades all objects, that it is permanent for as long as time lasts, that it is inconceivable, and that it arises impartially as all qualities.
By contrast, it is altogether impossible for a sugatagarbha that is not empty and exists truly to be the nature of other things. Neither could [a truly existent sugatagarbha] be the outcome of the kind of reasoning that investigates the ultimate. For something established as both one and truly existent to be the result of an investigation that establishes all phenomena as devoid of true existence is as contradictory as light and dark. But neither is true existence established by conventional valid cognition. For even though, from the latter's point of view, [things seem to be] truly established, it can never be shown that these same things are not empty. An argument to establish the existence of something that cannot be established by either of the two investigations is as unreal as a flower growing in the sky—it is a meaningless waste of energy.
2. A refutation of the view that the buddha-element is an empty void
Now with regard to the second of the three views just mentioned, those who fail to grasp the point that the vast and ultimate expanse is the union of appearance and emptiness understand the buddha-potential (the dharmadhatu or emptiness) only in terms of a nonimplicative negation—in other words, the figurative ultimate. They contradict the texts that affirm the primordial presence of its enlightened qualities. This is completely incorrect.
3. A refutation based on scripture
As it is said in the sutra of the Jnanamudra-samadhi-sutra,
In times to come, there will be those
Who do not wish for truth but only profit for themselves,
Who neglect their vows yet say they strive to gain
enlightenment,
Who love to talk and say that all is emptiness.
And also,
Emptiness is unborn; no one fabricated it.
It is unseen; it neither comes nor goes.
"In emptiness we're trained," some say, yet fix upon it as an
object.
Those who speak like this are Dharma thieves!
And,
Concepts about nonexistence
Are distractions that ensnare the childish.
And as it is said in the Prajnaparamita-sanchaya-gatha,
Bodhisattvas, even if they think "These aggregates are empty,"
Are still engaged in concepts; they have no faith in the
unborn.
Finally, in the Samadhiraja-sutra,
Existence, nonexistence—these are two extremes.
Impure and pure are likewise two extremes.
Utterly rejecting both extremes therefore,
Even in the middle do the wise forbear to dwell.
And also in the Angulimalya-sutra we find,
Kye ma! In the world there are two kinds of people who destroy the holy Dharma: those who have an extreme view of emptiness and those in the world who proclaim a self. These are the ones who destroy the holy Dharma; by them the holy Dharma is upturned. . . .
. . . Emptiness indeed is the remedy that uproots every view. To grasp at emptiness itself—whether as a thing or a nonthing—is said to be a view for which there is no remedy. . . .
. . . Emptiness and the denial of emptiness do not transcend concepts and must be abandoned. This is repeatedly said in both the sutras and the shastras.
3. A refutation based on reasoning
Let us now subject this point to logical examination. The assertion of a nonimplicative negation (which simply counters the idea of true existence) is no more than an ascription contrived by the conceptual mind fixating on an object of refutation. It does not bring one into the very nature of things [the ultimate truth in itself], a state that is beyond all conceptual misapprehension. This point is easy to understand, and there is no need to discuss it in any great detail. Although the understanding of the emptiness of true existence, in the form of a nonimplicative negation, is not itself the authentic way of being of the dharmadhatu, beginners are quite right to contemplate it as the point of entry (but no more than the point of entry) into that same authentic nature. As we find in the sutra,
O Manjushri, compared with a bodhisattva who supplies the needs of the Triple Gem for a thousand years as calculated in the realm of the gods, if another bodhisattva were to examine and think—just for the time of a finger snap—that all compounded things are impermanent, that all compounded things are suffering, that all compounded things are empty, and that all compounded things are devoid of self—such a bodhisattva would generate far greater merit.
2. A refutation of the view that the buddha-element is impermanent and compounded
Now with regard to the third false view, it may be asked whether the ground, the sugatagarbha, the wisdom of omniscience fully manifest like the unclouded sun, is permanent or impermanent. After all, some sutras say that omniscience is permanent, while others say the contrary. For so it is that—in harmony with the outlook of beings to be trained, whose condition has not yet been completely transformed—the scriptures do say that omniscience is impermanent. The reason for this is given in the Pramanavartikka, which says,
Valid cognition is not permanent
For it validly cognizes entities.
Since knowledge objects are impermanent,
Cognition likewise is impermanent.
It is from a cause—namely, the path, the cultivation of bodhichitta and meditation on emptiness and so on, that omniscience arises. For it would be inappropriate for it to arise without a cause. Omniscience, moreover, is the valid perception of all phenomena, and if valid cognition is an unmistaken state of mind, it follows that it is the assessment of things just as they are. And none of these things is permanent. Since its objects are knowable phenomena, and since the latter are impermanent, it follows that the valid cognition that assesses them must also be impermanent, arising in sequence, stage by stage. If valid cognition were permanent, then it would be logically established as being void of any function—certainly void of any activity such as that of assessing objects. Therefore, it is highly inappropriate [in such a context] to say that omniscience is permanent; its impermanence is established. Likewise, all existing things are impermanent, and even though nonthings (general ideas and so on) are labeled as being permanent, they have no basis for permanent existence. Therefore, genuinely permanent entities cannot in any sense be found. It is necessary to demonstrate matters in this way for the tirthika philosophers outside the Dharma, as well as for those of the common vehicle whose minds have not been trained in the way in which the [ordinary] mind is transformed into the inconceivable dharmata. Indeed, there is no other way for things to appear to [ordinary] consciousness. However, from the point of view of the knowledge of primordial wisdom, which is the outcome of the complete transformation just referred to, omniscience is established as permanent. Objects of knowledge that arise and cease momentarily and that are set forth as the proof of impermanence, on the one hand, and wisdom as the knowing subject that also arises sequentially and momentarily, on the other, are no more than what appears in the perception of ordinary minds that have not been transformed. This is not the actual mode of being of things. If there are no phenomena that are born even in one instant, it goes without saying that there is no temporal sequence inaugurated by them. For example, in the case of a dream, although various aspects of a temporal sequence (earlier and later) or of space may endlessly appear, they do not exist in the way that they seem.
Consequently, when the dharmata, which is free of arising and cessation, and also the primordial wisdom of buddhahood (in which the ordinary mind is completely transformed) are perfected, this is the wisdom body in which the knower and the known are inseparable. Even at the time of sentient beings (when the mind is not transformed), the fundamental condition of the ordinary mind, or dharmata, which is naturally united with luminosity, is unchanging. And this unchanging nature of the mind, referred to as the naturally present buddha-potential, is not different before or after [the removal of] the defilements, which are changing, adventitious, and removable—and occur sequentially, arising and ceasing momentarily. The inequality of samsara and nirvana, good and bad, and so on (all of which are the dualistic perceptions of the untransformed ordinary mind) appears ineluctably and undeniably. Yet dualistic phenomena, as well as arising and cessation, have no place in the fundamental nature itself, which abides in the state of great equality, or evenness. Within that nature, all distinctions of spatial and temporal location are encompassed. This nature is the object of the self-cognizing primordial wisdom enjoyed by the aryas. And since it is unspoiled, unaltered by change in the course of time, why not label it with the conventional name of "great permanence"? For it is there—unaffected by the momentary process of arising and cessation.
So it is that all functioning things, which change, as well as space and other nonthings—in other words, all objects of knowledge, whether in time or space—are contained in, and encompassed by, the dharmata. It is not the dharmata that is encompassed by phenomena—just as it is the sky that contains the clouds, not the clouds that contain the sky.
Therefore, the fundamental nature of the luminous expanse, the great equality of the dharmata, is the single, self-arisen primordial wisdom that naturally embraces all things, abiding innately within them. Nevertheless, people conditioned by adventitious impurity do not realize this nature. And yet when these impurities are removed through the elimination [of obscurations] and the realization [of qualities] included within the five paths, and when great primordial wisdom, in which there is no separation between knower and known, is attained, all knowable objects of that unchanging, self-arisen primordial wisdom are cognized—nonconceptually, effortlessly, and spontaneously—as being of equal taste with the dharmata. And thus the wisdom of omniscience is achieved.
Nevertheless, this manner of knowing does not imply that self-arisen wisdom is born from causes. The dharmakaya, which is completely free of adventitious defilement, is the result of elimination. Though it seems to arise newly from causes, it is only perceived in this way by those who have yet to transform their minds. According to how things really are, however, within the dharmata, the nature of the dharmakaya, there is neither arising nor destruction: all phenomena are equally, and from the very beginning, manifest buddhahood. From the very beginning, they are the peace beyond suffering; they are luminosity by their nature and so on. This ultimate view of the profound sutras is something difficult to conceive of even for the bodhisattvas on the pure grounds. There is no need even to mention ordinary beings. On the other hand, if an authentic confidence that this is how things are arises in one's mind, it is praised as being comparable to the reception of the prophecy that one has become a nonreturner. It is something to which we should aspire. Moreover, if one considers that the wisdom kaya of the Tathagata is permanent, this is itself a source of merit.
As it is said in the Prashanta-vinishchaya-pratiharya-samadhi-sutra,
O Manjushri, sons or daughters of the lineage may give whatever is desired by the four ordained assemblies in every region of the world in the ten directions for ten million kalpas as calculated in the realm of the gods. But other sons or daughters of the lineage who, acting appropriately, declare that the Tathagata is permanent, that the Tathagata is changeless, will generate far more merit.
And also we find in the Mahanirvana-sutra,
O Kashyapa, at all times and with one-pointed mind, the sons and daughters of the lineage should persistently declare two things: the Buddha is permanent; the Buddha remains. . . .
Anyone who acts on the understanding that the inconceivable is permanent is an object of refuge.
By contrast, the scriptures tell us that in considering the kaya of the Tathagata to be impermanent one fails even to take refuge and that to think that the indestructible kaya is impermanent is a source of boundless defects. With this understanding, one should cultivate respect for the perfect teaching.
So it is that the sugatagarbha, according to its own nature, is free from all mental elaborations: existence and nonexistence, permanence and annihilation, and so on. It is the union of the two truths, the state of equality, or evenness, the one and only sphere [of the dharmakaya]. Within such a way of being, all phenomenal existence is of the single taste of suchness. To see this as it is amounts to reality in itself, from which there is nothing to remove and to which there is nothing to add. It is the perfect view, free from every kind of grasping, that realizes the ultimate truth.
As we find in the Bodhipaksha-nirdesha-sutra,
O Manjushri, anyone who sees that all phenomena are not unequal, that, being nondual, they are not two, possesses the perfect view.
And in the Gaganaganja-paripriccha-sutra it is said,
Things and nonthings both are objects of consciousness,
But the learned who dwell in utmost purity
Forbear to grasp at them
By viewing them as things and nonthings.
And as it is said in the Bodhisattvapitaka,
Ultimately speaking, for the aryas' wisdom (in their postmeditation experience) and primordial wisdom (in their meditation), there is not a single thing that can be known, that can be discarded, that can be meditated upon or actualized.
However, when we make correct distinctions by means of valid conventional reasoning, we understand as true what is true—for example, that the path of the aryas is an undeceiving path. We understand as false what is false—for example, that one is liberated through meditating on the atman. We understand as impermanent what is impermanent—for example, that all compounded things are momentary. We understand as permanent what is permanent—for example, that the sugatagarbha, self-arisen primordial wisdom, is unchanging in all its aspects. We understand as nonexistent what is nonexistent—for example, that the self and dualistic perceptions do not exist. To uphold the existence of what does exist is like understanding the way in which dependent arising appears—namely, the ineluctable law of cause and effect. It is like understanding that the spontaneously present qualities of the sugatagarbha, or dharmata, abide by their very nature within all sentient beings. These and other distinctions are means whereby unmistaken wisdom perceives the nature of things on the conventional level. Therefore, from understanding it and from assimilating it, great and excellent qualities are attained. For this is the root of a virtue that is free from all confusion.
Generally or specifically, the sutras provide us with many teachings. In particular, they say that the personal self does not exist, and yet they speak of the sugatagarbha, which is beyond the two conceptual elaborations of self and no-self, calling it the "great self." They say that this great self has supreme transcendent qualities of purity, bliss, and permanence. They do so in order that we might know of the existence of the great nonabiding nirvana that possesses the unchanging perfect qualities of peace, solace, and excellence. It is as we find in the Mahanirvana-sutra,
That which is true and perfectly permanent is called "self." That which is sovereign, which does not change and does not pass, is called "self."
Therefore, when one hears an explanation of this profound sugatagarbha, unbounded benefit accrues from merely taking a devoted interest in it. As it is said in the Uttaratantra,
The wise who yearn for this domain of the victorious ones
Will be vessels for a host of buddha qualities.
Rejoicing in this mass of inconceivable perfection,
They rise above the merit of all living beings.
Some there are who, wishing for enlightenment,
Present both gold and jewels
In number equal to the dust in all the buddhafields,
And offer them each day to all the dharma kings.
Others who, hearing but one word
Of such a teaching, long for it
Attain far greater merit
Than the virtue that derives from such a gift.
The wise who yearn for many kalpas
For an unsurpassable enlightenment
Without effort keep in body, speech, and mind,
Their discipline unstained.
Others who, hearing but one word
Of such a teaching, long for it
Attain far greater merit
Than the virtue that arises from such discipline.
There are those who through absorption cool the fires
Of the defilements in the three worlds of existence—
Perfecting the samadhis of the gods and the abodes of Brahma
As a means for perfect and unwavering enlightenment.
Others who, hearing but one word
Of such a teaching, long for it
Attain far greater merit
Than the virtue gained from such absorption.
The teaching in question is indeed hard to fathom, but it is very important to know about it and to aspire to it. Because the irrevocable lion's roar, the doctrine of the sugatagarbha, the essence of the supreme vehicle, is exceedingly profound, those of inferior mind, whose previous training is slight, find it hard to take an interest in it. As we find in the Tathagata-sangiti-sutra,
Regarding this my wisdom,
Those of childish mind have doubts.
[My wisdom] does not change its state.
It is like space in which an arrow flies and falls.
Also the Sarvavaidalya-sangraha-sutra says,
Through the blessing of the maras, these foolish people fall into the lower realms. For they have blamed and criticized this teaching. They even want to blame and criticize those who set forth the Tathagata's teaching.
And it is written in the Brahmadatta-paripriccha-sutra,
When this well-turned teaching of the Dharma is expounded,
Those of evil conduct think that it is incorrect.
When without faith they harbor doubts,
They're driven mad for myriads of kalpas.
Through thoughts bereft of faith, they turn to evil deeds.
The minds of those with angry thoughts are uncontrolled.
Repudiating all things that are meaningful,
Through lack of faith they cling just to the dregs.
Puffed up with pride, forever arrogant,
These faithless ones bow down to none. . . .
They contradict with words devoid of virtue,
Defiling thus the doctrine of victorious ones.
Like tirthikas, they waver and have doubts.
They go against the Dharma, which they bring to ruin—
The Dharma that these faithless ones forsake.
And in the Dushila-nigraha-sutra it is said,
O Shariputra, this world of ours will be completely filled with unholy beings who sink to pursuing nothing but their own livelihood, who are addicted to controversy, harming both themselves and others.
When I reflect on all these texts, [I cannot help thinking that] the age of dregs is well advanced and that the beings born now, when the teachings are at their end, have a distorted understanding of the four reliances. As a result, the crucial point of the tradition of the supreme vehicle [that is, the teaching on the tathagatagarbha] has greatly declined and a contrived and counterfeit teaching has arisen. It is indeed rare to find people who treasure this doctrine, the very life force of the Mahayana path.
Simply through the fact of being born in the end-time of the teachings of the vidyadhara lineage of the Old Translation school, I have seen and heard many precious teachings of that same lineage. Thanks to my good fortune, I have been able to place upon my head the lotus feet of several perfect spiritual friends, notably the omniscient Dorje Ziji (Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo], who, as the regent of the powerful Buddha Padmasambhava, is Manjushri ever youthful appearing in human form. And though I am immature in years and intelligence, a certain slight capacity regarding these profound teachings has, as a result, been born in me.
Therefore, this well-turned explanation of the naturally present buddha-potential, the dharmadhatu—in the manner of a nonabiding union [of appearance and emptiness] free from all extremes—constitutes a lion's roar.
Now, as we find in the Brahma-visheshachinti-paripriccha-sutra,
O Devaputra, teachings that speak of nonattachment constitute the lion's roar. Teachings that speak of attachment are not a lion's roar but the yapping of foxes. Those who teach with some secondary purpose in mind do not express the lion's roar.
And we find too in the Mahanirvana-sutra,
The lion's roar is the definitive teaching that the buddha-nature lies within every sentient being; that the tathagata constantly abides without fluctuation. . . .
However extensive the explanations given in solitary places may be, do not, O son of the lineage, refer to them as the roaring of a lion. A great lion's roar occurs only when something is proclaimed in the midst of many scholars endowed with wisdom. Moreover, the lion's roar is not an explanation of the fact that all phenomena are impermanent, that they are suffering, that they are without self and utterly impure. It occurs only when the Tathagata is explained as permanent, as blissful, as self, and as utterly pure.
The scriptures speak about the lion's roar with many examples, and we should understand the matter accordingly.
Now if this clear description of the Sugata's own path is not in accordance with the opinions of certain people, it is nevertheless a statement of the perfect path and therefore it should not disturb their minds. As it is said in the Madhyamakavatara,
The arguments contained within our treatises were not
contrived through love of disputation.
They set forth suchness only for the sake of freedom.
They are not to be blamed if while expounding emptiness,
They show the falseness of discordant doctrines.
This is how to protect the teachings. As we find in the Samadhiraja-sutra,
What does it mean to protect the Dharma? It means to demolish any attack against the Dharma through the application of what is in agreement with that Dharma.
It is also the way to uphold the teachings as this is described in the Gaganaganja-paripriccha-sutra,
Those who gain the true enlightenment of the victorious
ones,
Perfectly uphold the authentic Dharma.
Those with perfect understanding of this unstained
state
Uphold the teaching of all enlightened beings.
To uphold the Dharma is a way of repaying the kindness of the buddhas as well as of accumulating unbounded merit. The Tathagata-mahakaruna-nirdesha-sutra says,
Those who keep close company with Buddha's teaching,
And thereby have renunciation, uninterested by worldly
things,
Will be upholders of the teaching of the Blissful One
And will repay the kindness of the buddhas.
And as it is said in the Gaganaganja-paripriccha-sutra,
Even if he taught throughout a hundred million kalpas,
Never would the Buddha's wisdom reach its end.
Those who hold the teachings of the Tathagata
Will likewise have immeasurable merit.
1. Conclusion
Although I may have gained some slight proficiency
In speaking of the scriptural tradition of the supreme vehicle,
I am still young and immature in training.
So who would trust the chatter of a silly shaveling?
People these days follow those who are well known,
Bereft of the intelligence to test what's good and bad.
And most are utterly disturbed by demons of their envy.
So I readily admit, it's not the time for well-turned discourse.
And yet because my supreme teacher and my yidam deity
I constantly revere within the lotus of my heart,
An explanation of the words and meanings of the perfect
scriptures
Clearly dawned within the space of my awareness.
Long-lasting joy arose and lively interest
In the practices of well-turned explanations—
A delight that in my later lives and other realms
Will grow and increase like the waxing moon.
The joy arising in the hearts of the intelligent
That comes from this discussion of the ultimate profundity,
Is not the bliss of those who fall in the extremes that are samsara
and nirvana.
It is indeed a joyous feast for those of perfect fortune.
The lion's roaring of the supreme vehicle—the union
Of appearances and emptiness, beyond all clinging—
Subjugates the herd of savage beasts, all evil views.
May the essence of the Buddha's teaching spread in all the ten
directions!
My dharma brother, who bears the name of Guna (Khenpo Yönten Gyatso), a holder of the jeweled treasury of the three trainings, once said to me, "Writing down whatever comes into your mind, please compose an explanation of the stanza in the Uttaratantrashastra beginning 'Because the kaya of perfect buddhahood radiates.'" So in order to comply with his request, I bhante Lodrö Drime wrote this text just as it occurred to me. May virtue increase!
After lying unnoticed for two whole cycles of years (twenty-four years) among the Lord Mipham's papers, this text was at length discovered. As the great master Lungtok was arranging for wood blocks to be carved for it, the master Yönten Gyatso, who had first requested the text, visited and with the learned Lekpa'i Lodrö inquired whether any additions or modifications were to be made. Therefore Lodrö Drime Jampel Gyepe Dorje (Mipham Rinpoche himself) spent two days preparing a new copy, bringing into focus several passages from the original text and adding several important points that had not been previously mentioned. This was done on an auspicious date in the second half of the fourth month (Saga Dawa) in the iron hare year of the fifteenth rabjung cycle (1891) at the retreat place of Dule Namgyal Ling.
