Ngog Loden Sherab's Analytical Interpretation of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga''

{{BookExcerpt
|Title=Ngog Loden Sherab's Analytical Interpretation of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga''
|ExcerptImage=https://commons.tsadra.org/images-commons/d/de/Ngok_Lotsawa.jpg
|BookTitle=A Direct Path to the Buddha Within: Go Lotsāwa's Mahāmudrā Interpretation of the Ratnagotravibhāga
|AuthorPage=Mathes, K.
|TopCitation=Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. "Ngog Loden Sherab's Analytical Interpretation of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga''." In ''A Direct Path to the Buddha Within: Go Lotsāwa's Mahāmudrā Interpretation of the Ratnagotravibhāga'', 25–34. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2008.
|Content====Ngog Loden Sherab's Analytical Interpretation of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga''===
Loden Sherab (1059-1109) played a crucial role in the transmission of the
''Ratnagotravibhāga'' in Tibet. Not only were his translations of the
''Ratnagotravibhāga'' and its ''vyākhyā'' the ones included in the Tengyur, but
he also composed a "summarized meaning" or commentary of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'',
in which he tries to bring the teaching of buddha nature into
line with his Madhyamaka position. The latter is usually identified as
being Svātantrika.<ref>109 See Cabezón 2003:294.</ref> Since this summary, which is of great significance for
the understanding of Zhönu Pal's mahāmudrā interpretation of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'',
has received little attention by Western scholars up till
now,<ref>110 This gap will be filled, however, by the forthcoming thesis of Kazuo Kano.</ref> the main points of Loden Sherab's strategy will be presented in this
section.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Some ten years ago, the text of the summarized meaning was reproduced
from blockprints of the edition by Geshé Sherab Gyatso (Dge bshes Shes
rab rgya mtsho) (1884-1968) and published with an extensive introduction
by David Jackson (1993).<ref>111 In July 1994 I managed to find a complete block print of this commentary in the library of the Shel ri sprul skus in Dolpo and could thus restore the first folio, which was missing in the copy of Dvags po Rin po che (the NGMPP reel number of the text from Dolpo is L 519/4).</ref> Seyfort Ruegg, who must have had access to the
blockprint in the possession of Dagpo Rinpoché (Dvags po Rin po che) in
Paris, only briefly refers to Loden Sherab's commentary when discussing
the ineffable and inconceivable nature of ultimate truth.<ref>112 Seyfort Ruegg 1969:302—4.</ref> Contrary to the
Gelug position, Loden Sherab radically rejects the possibility that the ultimate
can be grasped by conceptual thought:
<blockquote>This is because the ultimate [truth] is not an object amenable to speech; for the ultimate [truth] is not an object of thought, since conceptual thought is apparent [truth]. The intended meaning of not being able to be expressed by speech is here [because the ultimate is] not a basis for any verbal or conceptual ascertainment. This does not [mean] that [the ultimate] merely does not appear directly<ref>113 Lit., "actually."</ref> to the verbal consciousness. For if it were so, then it would follow that [objects] of apparent [truth], such as a vase, would also be such (i.e., not a basis for verbal ascertainment<ref>114 But they are, in fact. In other words, the ultimate does even not appear in a nonconceptual direct cognition. Thus, it does not become the basis for a verbal ascertainment in the same way as a vase.</ref>).<ref>115 Rngog Blo ldan shes rab: ''Theg chen rgyud bla'i don bsdus pa'', 6b1—2: ''don dam pa ni Ngagi yul ma yin pa'i phyir te / rnam par rtog pa ni kun rdzob yin pas don dam pa rtog pa'i yul ma yin pa'i phyir ro // ngagis brjod du med pa'i don yang 'dir sgra dang rtog pa'i zhen gzhi ma yin pa la dgongs te / dngos su sgra'i shes pa la mi snang ba tsam ni mayin no // 'di ltar yin na ni kun rdzob pa bum pa la sogs pa yang de ltar thai ba'i phyir ro //''. See also Jackson 1994:18—19.</ref></blockquote>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This position is in accordance with the interpretations of Sakya Paṇḍita
(Sa skya Paṇḍita) (1182-1251) but greatly at variance with the position maintained
by Chapa Chökyi Sengé (Phya pa Chos kyi Seng ge) (1109—69) and
many later Gelug scholars.<ref>116 Jackson 1994:19.</ref> Loden Sherab differs from Sakya Paṇḍita,
however, in taking the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' to be a commentary on the discourses
with definitive meaning:
<blockquote>When the illustrious Maitreya clarified in an unmistaken way the intention of the discourses of the Sugata, he presented reality, which is the true meaning of Mahāyāna, by composing the treatise of the ''Mahāyānottaratantra [Rātnagotravibhāga]'', which<ref>117 This translation as a relative clause requires taking the preceding clauses ending in ''ston pa'' as (genitive?) attributes depending on the following ''Mahāyānottaratantra''.</ref>
teaches the precious sūtras of definitive meaning, [namely] the irreversible dharmacakra, the dharmadhātu as a single path;<ref>118 Tib. ''tshul gcig'' (Skt. ''ekanaya'') "single mode" refers to the theory of ''ekayāna'' (see Blo ldan shes rab's {op. tit., 44bi—2) explanation of ''ekanayadharmadhātu'' [RGW, 77.7]).</ref> and which precisely teaches the meaning of all the very pure and certain discourses.<ref>119 Rngog Blo ldan shes rab: ''Theg chen rgyud bla'i don bsdus pa'', 1b2-4: ''bcom ldan 'das byams pas bde bar gshegs pa'i bka'i dgongs pa phyin ci ma log par gsal bar mdzad pa na / nges pa'i don gyi mdo sde rin po che phyir mi ldog pa'i chos kyi 'khor lo / chos kyi dbyings tshul gcig tu ston pa / shin tu rnam par dag pa gdon miza ba'i chos kyi mam grangs thams cad kyi don rab tu ston pa / theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos 'di mdzad pas / theg pa chen po'i don gyi de kho na rnam par gzhag pa yin no/''.<br> That the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' has definitive meaning for Blo ldan shes rab is also clear from his commentary on RGV I.159-60 (J I.156-57); see Rngog Blo ldan shes rab: op. tit., 44b6—4635.</ref></blockquote>
It should be noted, however, that the remaining four Maitreya works,
namely die ''Abhisamayālaṁkāra'' and the three Yogācāra works, are taken to
be commentaries on sūtras with provisional meaning.<ref>120 Rngog Blo ldan shes rab: op. tit., ib4—2ai.</ref>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Zhönu Pal informs us in his ''Blue Annals'' that Loden Sherab equated
buddha nature with the inconceivable ultimate, whereas Chapa took the
latter (and thus buddha nature) to be a nonaffirming negation, bringing it
within reach of logical analysis:
<blockquote>The great translator (i.e., Loden Sherab) and Master Tsangnagpa (Gtsang nag pa) take the so-called buddha nature to be the ultimate truth, but say, on the other hand: "Do not regard the ultimate truth as being an actual object corresponding to words and thoughts." They say that it is by no means a conceptualized object. Master Chapa for his part maintains that nonaffirming negation (which means that entities are empty of a true being)
is the ultimate truth, and that it is a conceptualized object corresponding to words and thoughts.<ref>121 Gzhon nu dpal: ''Deb ther sngon po'', 309.5-7: ''...lo tsā ba chen po dang slob dpon gtsang nag pa ni de bzhin gshegs pa'i snying po zhes bya ba don dam pa'i bden pa la zer mod kyi / don dam pa'i bden pa ni sgra dang rtog (text: rtogs) pa'i dngos kyi yul ma yin pa lta zhog / zhen pa'i yul tsam yang ma yin zhes gsung / slob dpon Phya pa ni dngos po rnams bden pas stong pa'i med pa dgag pa ni don dam pa'i bden pa yin zhing / de sgra rtog gi zhen pa'i yul du yang bzhed /''.</ref></blockquote>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The way in which Loden Sherab equates buddha nature with the ultimate
becomes clear in his commentary on the third vajra point of the Noble
Saṅgha, where he explains the awareness of how reality is (''yathāvadbhāvikatā'')
and the awareness of its extent (''yāvadbhāvikatā'') in the following
way:
<blockquote>Awareness of the extent refers to the "vision that a perfect buddha is present in all [sentient beings]." The awareness that the common defining characteristics—the very selflessness of phenomena and persons—are the nature of a tathāgata, [namely] buddha nature, and that [this reality] completely pervades [its] support, [i.e.,] the entire element of sentient beings, is the [awareness of] the extent. Furthermore, the unmistaken awareness of mere selflessness, which exists in all sentient beings, is the awareness of how [reality] is. The apprehension that every support is pervaded by it is the awareness of its extent. Both are supramundane types of insight, [and so] ultimate objects, not a perceiving subject bound to the apparent [truth].<ref>122 Rngog Blo ldan shes rab: op. cit., 22b4-23a1: ''ji snyed yod pa nyid rig pa ni thams cad la rdzogs pa'i sangs rgyas rjes zhugs gzigs pa zhes bya ba ste / thun mong gyi mtshan nyid chos dang gang zag gi bdag med pa de nyid ni / de bzhin gshegs pa'i rang bzhin sangs rgyas kyi snying po yin la / de'ang rten sems can gyi khams thams cad la khyab par rjes su zhugs par rig pa ni ji snyed yod pa shes pa'o // de la 'gro ba thams cad la yod pa'i bdag med pa nyid de kho na phyin ci ma log par rig pa ni ji lta ba rig pa yin la / des rten thams cad la khyab par dmigs pa ni ji snyed pa rig pa yin no // gnyis ka yang 'jig rten las 'das pa'i shes rab don dam pa'i yul yin gyi / kun rdzob kyi yul can ni ma yin no /''.</ref></blockquote>
This passage not only shows that awareness of emptiness is an ultimate
object, but also that buddha nature is taken as the mere lack of a self in sentient
beings. How buddha nature is defined becomes clearer in the commentary
on the first and third reasons for the presence of a buddha nature
in sentient beings, in RGV I.28:
<blockquote>Pure suchness is the kāya of the perfect buddha. [Its] radiation (''spharaṇa'') means being pervaded by it (the kāya)—pervaded inasmuch as all sentient beings are fit to attain it (i.e., a kāya of their own). In this respect, the tathāgata [in the compound ''tathāgata-nature''<ref>123 Otherwise translated as "buddha nature."</ref>] is the real one, while sentient beings' possession of his [i.e., the tathāgatas] ''nature'' is nominal,<ref>124 I take Tib. ''btags pa'' in the sense of Skt. ''prājñaptika'' (Tib. ''btags pa ba''), which is usually opposed to Skt. ''lākṣaṇika'' (Tib. ''mtshan nyid pa'') "the real one" (see Ārya Vimuktisena's ''Abhisamayālaṁkāravṛtti'' on 1.39 and Kano 2003:109—11).</ref> because "being pervaded by it" has been metaphorically applied to the opportunity to attain it (i.e., such a kāya) With regard to the [reason] "because of the existence of a potential," ''tathāgata'' is nominal, because the [tathāgata-nature] is the cause for attaining suchness in the [resultant] state of purity—[is, in other words,] the seeds of knowledge and compassion, the mental imprints of virtue, and [thus only] the cause of a tathāgata. The only real [in ''tathāgata-nature'' here] is the "nature" of sentient beings (and not that the latter consists of an actual tathāgata).<ref>125 Rngog Blo ldan shes rab: op. tit., 29a4—29b2: ''/ de la rnam par dag pa'i de bzhin nyid rdzogs pa'i sangs rgyas kyi sku yin la / de la 'phro ba ni des khyab pa ste / sems can thams cadkyis thob tu rung ba'i phyir khyab pa yin no // phyogs 'di la ni de bzhin gshegs pa ni dngos po yin la / sems can 'di'i snying po can du ni btags pa yin te / de thob pa'i skal ba yod pa la des khyab par btags pa'i phyir ro //... rigs yod pa'i phyir na zhes bya ba nil de bzhin nyid rnampar dag pa'i gnas skabs thob pa'i rgyu dge ba'i bag chags shes rab dang snying rje'i sa bon ni de bzhin gshegs pa'i rgyu yin pas de bzhin gshegs pa zhes btags pa yin la / sems can gyi snying po ni dngos po kho nayin no /''.</ref></blockquote>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Buddha nature is thus not only taken as emptiness (namely the lack of
self in sentient beings) but also as the seed or cause of buddhahood. We
wonder, then, how Loden Sherab explains similes such as the huge silk
cloth from the ''Avataṁsakasūtra'',<ref>126 This is quoted in RGVV I.2.5. The immeasurable qualities are compared to a one-to-one scale painting of the universe on a silk cloth that has been put inside an atom.</ref> which illustrates the presence of
immeasurable buddha qualities in sentient beings. Against the purport of
the sūtra, according to which each sentient being has its own buddha wisdom,
Loden Sherab claims that this buddha wisdom is the one of the illustrious
one himself:
<blockquote>As the picture on a silk cloth exists in an atom, just so the wisdom of the Buddha exists in the [mind] stream of sentient beings. If you ask what [this wisdom] is, [the answer is] the dharmadhātu. If you ask how this [can] be wisdom, [the answer is:] Since the illustrious one came to know that all phenomena lack defining characteristics thanks to the insight that encompasses [everything] in a single moment, this insight is inseparable from its objects. Therefore the ultimate, the very dharmadhātu itself, is [in this respect also] the wisdom that is aware of this [dharmadhātu]. Since [the dharmadhātu] abides in all sentient beings without exception, the example and the illustrated meaning are fully acceptable.<ref>127 Rngog Bloldan shes rab: op. cit., 28b4—6: ''/ 'dir dar yug gi ri mo rdul phra rab la yodpa de bzhin du / sangs rgyas kyi ye shes sems can gyi rgyud la yod pa de gang zhe na / chos kyi dbyings so // deji ltar ye shes yin zhe na / bcom ldan 'das kyis chos thams cad mtshan nyid med par skad cig gcig dang ldan pa'i shes rab kyis mkhyen pas (text: bais) na / shes rab de shes bya dang dbyer med do // des na don dam pa chos kyi dbyings nyid de rig pa'i ye shes yin la / de yang sems can thams cad la ma tshang ba med par gnas pas dpe don 'di ni shin tu 'thad pa'o /''.</ref></blockquote>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The question arises whether this contradicts Loden Sherab's presentation
of the first reason for sentient beings having buddha nature in RGV
I.28. In his explanation of the nine examples from the ''Tathāgatagarbhasūtra'',
Loden Sherab specifies exactly how sentient beings are pervaded by
the dharmakāya:
<blockquote>As to the phrase "[the dharmakāya that] pervades the entire sphere of sentient beings": The Dharma of realization of previous tathāgatas was accomplished on the basis of immeasurable accumulation [of merit and wisdom]. [The resulting dharmakāya, i.e.,] the very pure suchness and the wisdom apprehending it, namely that which by nature is separate [from sentient beings], pervades all sentient beings, for this dharmakāya is emptiness, and it is emptiness, too, that exists in sentient beings.<ref>128 Ibid., 41a6—b1: ''lus pa med pa'i sems can gyi khams khyab pa zhes bya ba ni/ de bzhin gshegs pa snga ma rnams kyi rtogs pa'i chos dpag tu med pa'i tshogs las yang dag par grub pa / shin tu mam par dag pa'i de bzhin nyid dang /de dmigs pa'i ye shes tha dad pa'i rang bzhin des sems can thams cad la khyab pa ste / chos sku de ni stong pa nyid yin la / stong pa nyid kyang sems can la yod pa'i phyir ro/''.</ref></blockquote>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In other words, even though the buddha nature of sentient beings is different
from the wisdom of the buddhas, the former is still pervaded by the
latter since the buddha wisdom realizes the emptiness of sentient beings'
minds. The space-like buddha qualities of RGV II.29-37, which Loden
Sherab, in accordance with the ''vyākhyā'', also subsumes under the ultimate
truth,<ref>129 Ibid., 49b3-50a3.</ref> must be taken in the same way. They pertain to the ordinary mind
only insofar as it, too, is emptiness. Equally inconceivable as the ultimate
is natural luminosity, as this must be actualized through wisdom without
any objective support, so that luminosity is actually taken to be wisdom.<ref>130 Ibid., 19b5—6 and 20a5.</ref>
To review, the emptiness of the ultimate cannot become the object of ordinary
perception. But being the object of a buddha, it is pervaded by the
wisdom or luminosity of the Buddha, this insight being no different from
its object.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The buddha nature or element, which is repeatedly said to be the emptiness
of each mindstream,<ref>131 Ibid., 5b3: "The continuum of mind, which has the nature of emptiness, is the [buddha] element" (''...stong pa nyid kyi rang bzhin du gyur pa'i sems kyi rgyud ni khams yin no'').</ref> can become the objective support of inferential
cognitions that negate without affirming anything. As such it becomes
the substantial cause for the attainment of buddha qualities:
<blockquote>As to the [buddha] element that has become the conventional object of a nonaffirming negation, it is called the substantial cause that has become the conventional object of a nonaffirming negation; but something that amounts to human effort [as a substantial cause of buddhahood] does not actually exist. As to the conventional object, it has the meaning of a nonaffirming negation—namely that anything that is established as an own-being does not exist in reality.<ref>132 Ibid., 4a2—3: ''... med par dgag pa'i tha snyad kyi yul du gyur pa'i khams ni med par dgag pa'i tha snyad kyi yul du gyur pa'i nyer len du brjod kyi skyes bu byed pa'i don nyid ni dngos su yod pa ma yin no // tha snyad kyi yul zhes bya ba ni / med par dgag pa rang bzhin du grub pa de kho nar med pa'i don te /''.</ref></blockquote>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This leads to the question whether the qualities are for Loden Sherab
something newly produced. In his introduction to the second chapter of
the ''Ratnagotravibhāga''—a commentary on stanza RGV II.3—the notion of
nothing being newly produced is brought up in the presentation of the
essence of enlightenment (compared to natural luminosity, the sun, and
the sky in RGV II.3a). But with the unchangeability of buddha nature
restricted to its true nature, the possibility of development with nonconceptual
wisdom as a cause remains untouched:
<blockquote>[Verse RGV II.3c:] "Buddhahood is endowed with all stainless buddha qualities; it is permanent, stable, and eternal"<ref>133 RGVV, 148.2—4: ''buddhatvam...sarvair buddhaguṇair upetam amalair nityaṁ dhruvaṁ śāśvataṁ /''.</ref> expresses wisdom, abandonment, and the qualities based on them. [It further states] that it is not the case that these [qualities] have arisen as something that did not exist before, and that they existed in previous state [s] [still] accompanied by hindrances. In all this the essence [of enlightenment] is taught. As for the cause, here [in this stanza] it is the wisdom of not conceptualizing phenomena, and the distinguishing wisdom attained after that.<ref>134 Rngog Blo ldan shes rab: op. cit, 473.6—hi: ''...dri med sangs rgyas yon tan kun ldan / rtag brtagg.yung drung ni sangs rgyas nyid do // zhes bya has ye shes dang spangs pa dang / de la brten pa'i yon tan dang / de yang sngon med pa skyes pa ni ma yin te / sngon gyi sgrib pa dang bcas pa'i gnas skabs na yod pa nyid du brjod pas ni ngo bo bstan pa to // de'i rgyu ni de la chos la mi nog pa'i ye shes dang / dei rjes las thob pa rnam 'byed ye shes te /''.</ref></blockquote>
In other words, in terms of the essence of enlightenment nothing is newly
produced, which means that emptiness is present throughout beginningless
time and nothing needs to be added to it (see below).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Of particular interest is, in this respect, Loden Sherab's commentary on
RGV I.51,<ref>135 "Because it is endowed with the state of having adventitious faults, and naturally endowed with qualities, it is of an unchangeable nature—as it was before, so it is after." (RGVV, 41.20—21: ''doṣāgantukatāyogād guṇaprakṛtiyogataḥ /yathā pūrvaṁ tathā paścād avikāritvadharmatā //''.)</ref> in which he restricts the statement of being naturally endowed
with qualities to the very pure state in which these qualities are not experienced
as something disconnected. In the same way as they are experienced
as something inseparable from the pure state, their cause, or the dharmadhātu,
can be apprehended in impure states:
<blockquote>[The verse RGV I.51b] "being naturally endowed<ref>136 Gzhon nu dpal explains in this context that "endowed" (Tib. ''ldan pa'') has to be understood in the sense of "being connected" (''<nowiki>'</nowiki>brel pa''), To support his interpretation, Gzhon nu dpal quotes Vinayadeva's ''Hevajravajrapadoddharaṇanāmapañjikā'', and explains that defining the relation between buddha nature and the qualities in terms of ''<nowiki>'</nowiki>brelpa'' underscores both that the qualities have arisen from buddha nature and that the two have an identical nature (see DRSM, 29.18-21 and DRSM, 323.19-23).</ref> with qualities" shows that the immutability of the properties of qualities (i.e., the buddha qualities) in the very pure state is acceptable. This means that the true nature is not tarnished when qualities suddenly manifest, nor is [this nature] experienced as being separate from any natural [ly endowed] qualities, in the same way as it [cannot] be established as something that possesses a particular qualitative feature that did not exist before in the impure state, for example. For the meaning of naturally established qualities lies in their being naturally<ref>137 Tib. ''yon tan rang bzhin'' is difficult to construe. Either yon tan is taken as a genitive attribute (''yon tan gyi rang bzhin''), or ''rang bzhin'' as an adverb (''rang bzhin gyis'').</ref> established as an objective support without superimposition; or rather as the objective support that is the cause of [these very] qualities. This is because the correct apparent [truth] abides without superimposition, or because the ultimate abides in such a way, respectively. The realization of the ultimate is the cause of all qualities, because all buddha qualities are summoned as if called when you realize the dharmadhātu.<ref>138 Rngog Blo ldan shes rab: op. cit., 33a6—33b3. ''/ yon tan rang bzhin nyid ldan phyir // zhes bya ba ni shin tu mam par dagpa'ignas skabs nayon tan gyi chos kyi mi 'gyur ba'i 'thad pa bstan te / yon tan glo bur du gsal ba'i gnas skabs kyi rang bzhin la ma gos pa'i don te / rang bzhin gyi yon tan mtha' dag dang bral ba ma myong ba'o // dper na ma dag pa'i gnas skabs na sngon medpa'iyon tan gyi khyad par can du ma bsgrubs pa bzhin no // yon tan rang bzhin gyis grub pa'i don yang / yon tan rang bzhin dmigs pa sgro ma btags par grub pa'am / yon tan gyi rgyu'i dmigs pa rab tu grub pa'i phyir te /yang dag pa'i kun rdzob sgro ma btags par gnas pa'am / don dam pa de ltar gnas pa'i phyir / rim (text: rigs)' pa bzhin no / don dam pa nogs pa ni yon tan kun gyi rgyu yin te / chos kyi dbyings rtogs na sangs rgyas kyi yon tan thams cad bos pa bzhin du 'du pa'i phyir ro //''.<br>a The conjecture is according to Kano.</ref></blockquote>
In other words, the naturally established (or endowed) qualities are nothing
else than the cause of these qualities, which is mind's emptiness. To put
it another way, to perceive your mind as it is, •without superimposing an
ultimately existing own-being, is the buddha nature that causes qualities.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The crucial stanzas RGV I.157-58 (J I.154-55) on emptiness, which state
that nothing needs to be added and that buddha nature is not empty of
inseparable qualities, are explained in the following way:
<blockquote>Neither superimposing the ultimate existence of an objective support for all defilements nor denying the relative<ref>139 Tib. ''kun rdzob'', otherwise translated as "apparent."</ref> existence of an objective support for the mind and the mental factors of purification, one abides in the two truths as they are. With regard to this it has been said: "The meaning of emptiness is unmistaken." This has been expressed [in the following verses RGV I.157ab (J I.154ab)]: "In it<ref>140 According to the Skt. and DRSM, 439.25: ''<nowiki>'</nowiki>di las bsal bya ci yang med/''.</ref> nothing is to be removed [and nothing to be added]." [That is,] in this reality, nothing is to be removed—[namely,] an objective support for all defilements—because [no such thing] has ever been established. [Likewise,] in this reality nothing need to be added—[namely,] characteristic signs of purification, such as the strengths and clairvoyance, because the objective support for [the attainment of the ten] strengths, etc., and purification, which exists on the level of apparent [truth], abides throughout beginningless time....<ref>141 Rngog Blo ldan shes rab: op. cit., 42b3-6: ''kun nas nyon mongs pa'i dmigs pa don dam par yod par sgro mi 'dogs pa dang / rnam par byang ba'i sems dang sems las byung ba'i dmigs pa kun rdzob tu yod pa la skur ba mi debs pas / bden pa gnyis ji lta ba bzhin gnas pani / stong pa'i don phyin ci ma log pa yin no zhes brjod pa ni / 'di la bsal bya ciyang med ces bya ba'o // de kho na nyid 'di la bsal bar bya ba kun nas nyon mongs pa'i dmigs pa ni ci yang med de / gdod ma nas ma grub pa'i phyir ro // de kho na nyid 'dir gzhag par bya ba rnam par byang ba'i mtshan ma stobs dang mngonpar shes pa la sags pa'ang cung zad med do // stobs la sogs pa rnam par byang ba'i dmigs pa kun rdzob tu yod pa ni / tho gma med pa nas gnas pa'i phyir ro /''.</ref></blockquote>
<blockquote>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The phrase "possessing the defining characteristic of being inseparable" means that the nonapprehended unsurpassable qualities exist on the level of apparent [truth], and since reality and existence on [the level of] apparent [truth] do not contradict each other, they are said to exist as mere nature. If you therefore directly realize illusion-like apparent [truth], you [automatically] establish the qualities, because the nature of qualities is simply such that one has them (i.e., the illusory phenomena of the apparent) as an objective support.<ref>142 Ibid., 43a3—5: ''rnam dbyer med pa'i mtshan nyid can / zhes bya ba ni bla na med pa'i yon tan mi dmigs pa kun rdzob tu yod pa ste / de kho na nyid dang kun rdzob tu yod pa mi 'gal ba'i phyir / rang bzhin nyid la yod par brjod do // des na kun rdzob sgyu ma ha bu de mngon sum du rtogs nayon tan de dag 'grub pa yin te / yon tan gyi rang bzhin ni de dagla dmigs pa kho na yin pa'i phyir ro /''.</ref></blockquote>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The quoted passages clearly show that Loden Sherab avoids defining
what exactly the qualities of which buddha nature is not empty are, or
rather, instead of accepting the literal meaning of RGV I.158 (J I.155) that
the buddha element is not empty of unsurpassable properties, Loden
Sherab suggests replacing the ''unsurpassable properties'' by the conditioned
phenomena of apparent truth. In fact, qualities are circumscribed by "having
the illusory phenomena of the apparent as an objective support." Such
phenomena are conducive to purification, if an ultimate own-being is not
wrongly superimposed. As we have seen above, this is the correct apparent
truth. What it comes down to is the objective support that is the mere cause
of qualities, the dharmadhātu, or rather to the ability to meditate on emptiness
by taking buddha nature as the conventional object of a nonaffirming
negation. This observation is also shared by Śākya Chogden (Śākya mchog
ldan) (1428-1507), who asserts that Loden Sherab sees buddha nature as a
"nonaffirming negation that is not qualified by qualities such as the [ten]
strengths."<ref>143 Śākya mchog ldan: "Blo mchog pa'i dri lan," 568.6—7: ''dang po la gnyis te / snying po'i ngos 'dzin stobs la sogs yon tan gyis khyad par du ma byas pa'i med dgag gi cha la bzhed pa dang... dang po ni rngog lo tsa chen po ryes 'brang dang bcas pa'o''. For a discussion of this dri lan see also Kano 2001:55—56.</ref>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Finally, it should be noted that Loden Sherab brings the buddha element
into relation with the ''ālayavijñāna'' when he explains, on the basis of the
''Mahāyānābhidharmasūtra'',<ref>144 "The beginningless [buddha] element is the basis of all phenomena." (RGVV, 72.13: ''anādikāliko dhātuḥ sarvadharmasamāśrayaḥ/''.)</ref> that the buddha element is the seed of the
buddha qualities, and that all sentient beings, too, arise from it. Sentient
beings are, however, affected through additional conditions.<ref>145 Rngog Blo ldan shes rab: op. cit., 4234-6.</ref>
}}