Property:BlogContent
From Buddha-Nature
This is a property of type Text.
R
[[People/Drukchen,_4th|Pema Karpo]] is perhaps the most well-known scholar of the Drukpa Kagyu tradition and undoubtedly the leading systemizer of the Mahāmudrā system in this tradition. In his famous work entitled [[Texts/Phyag_rgya_chen_po%27i_man_ngag_gi_bshad_sbyar_rgyal_ba%27i_gan_mdzod|''An Exposition of Mahāmudrā: The Treasure Vault of the Victors'']], he presents the Mahāmudrā, particularly the Co-emergent Union (ལྷན་ཅིག་སྐྱེས་སྦྱོར་), in five chapters.
In the first chapter on the Mahāmudrā of word or teachings, he discusses the texts and transmissions of Mahāmudrā teachings which primarily deal with the view. They are classified into three sets of (1) explanatory words (བཤད་པ་ཚིག་གི་སྐོར་), (2) practical instructions (གདམས་ངག་ཉམས་ལེན་གྱི་སྐོར་), and (3) blessings for realization (རྟོགས་པ་བྱིན་རླབས་ཀྱི་སྐོར་). He also discusses the concept of oral guidance, explaining who is being guided, what guides them, from where and to where one is guided, and the different types of oral guidance.
Next, in the second chapter, he explains what Mahāmudrā means by carrying out a discussion on the term ''mudrā'', the four different types of mudrās, and how Mahāmudrā is a universal panacea like the Single White Remedy (དཀར་པོ་གཅིག་ཐུབ་). In the third chapter, [[People/Drukchen,_4th|Pema Karpo]] explains the Co-emergent Union of [[People/Sgam_po_pa|Gampopa]] by categorizing it into (1) the co-emergent nature of the mind (སེམས་ཉིད་ལྷན་ཅིག་སྐྱེས་པ་) and (2) the co-emergent nature of appearance (སྣང་བ་ལྷན་ཅིག་སྐྱེས་པ་), which are dharmakāya and the radiance of dharmakāya respectively. He also cites the different interpretations and understandings of this practice while explaining the four practices of single-pointedness, nonelaboration, single-taste, and nonmeditation.
[[People/Drukchen,_4th|Pema Karpo]] starts the fourth chapter on the instructions for Co-emergent Union by discussing the Mahāmudrā of reality and Mahāmudrā of confusion and underscoring that the Co-emergent Union is the innate, primordial, and original awareness, the pristine wisdom of the Buddha, which is naturally pure, unconditioned, nondual, stainless, and ineffable, being beyond the realm of conceptual thought and language. In the course of this discussion, he goes on to refute the position held by the Jonangpas that buddha-nature is absolute reality which is totally different from the appearance of ordinary existence. The Jonangpas assert that while buddha-nature, which is the primordially pure ultimate truth, transcends dependent origination, the ordinary phenomena, which is the impure conventional truth, is characterized by conditioned existence through dependent origination. [[People/Drukchen,_4th|Pema Karpo]] refutes the Jonangpa position using various scriptural citations and reasoning. He goes on to argue that even nirvāṇa is relative to saṃsāra and therefore devoid of absolute self-existence. In the final chapter, [[People/Drukchen,_4th|Pema Karpo]] undertakes a detailed rebuttal of [[People/Sa_skya_paN%2BDi_ta|Sakya Paṇḍita]]'s criticism of Mahāmudrā in his [[Texts/Sdom_gsum_rab_dbye|''Distinguishing the Three Vows'']].
[[People/TA_ra_nA_tha|Tāranātha]] perhaps stands as the most prolific commentator on the ''Heart Sūtra'', having written three commentaries on it of different style and length. The first is a commentary in verse, which he wrote at the age of 29 at the request of a master named Śākya Gyaltsen. Containing 90 verses to explain the 25 stanzas of the ''Heart Sūtra'', he called the commentary [[Texts/%27phags_ma_shes_rab_kyi_pha_rol_tu_phyin_pa%27i_snying_po%27i_dka%27_%27grel_%27gran_zla_med_pa%27i_rgyal_po_tshig_le%27ur_byas_pa|''Incomparable King: A Verse Commentary of the Heart Sūtra'']] (འཕགས་པ་ཤེས་རབ་ཀྱི་ཕ་རོལ་ཏུ་ཕྱིན་པའི་སྙིང་པོའི་དཀའ་འགྲེལ་འགྲན་ཟླ་མེད་པའི་རྒྱལ་པོ་ཚིག་ལེའུར་བྱས་པ།) and indeed claimed the commentary to be unique in explicating how the ''Heart Sūtra'' treats the hidden theme of the eight topics (སྦས་དོན་དངོས་པོ་བརྒྱད་) of the Perfection of Wisdom teachings. In verses 85–86, [[People/TA_ra_nA_tha|Tāranātha]] declares that such sagacious interpretation, apart from his own writings, may be found only in the writings of his followers and those who may steal the idea from his works.
The ''Heart Sūtra'', [[People/TA_ra_nA_tha|Tāranātha]] argues, is the epitome of the Perfection of Wisdom teachings, although there are numerous other minor sūtras on Perfection of Wisdom. For this reason, masters throughout the ages have cherished this sūtra, and it was initially promoted in Tibet by Vimalamitra. The ultimate purport of the ''Heart Sūtra'', [[People/TA_ra_nA_tha|Tāranātha]] states, is of Vijñaptimādhyamika, although the sūtra can be interpreted according to other Mādhyamika philosophical positions. Building on this, [[People/TA_ra_nA_tha|Tāranātha]] argued that the ''Heart Sūtra'' presented the three forms of emptiness: (1) the emptiness of what is nonexistent (i.e., the nonexistence of what is imputed or superimposed, such as external matter even on the relative or conventional level), (2) the emptiness of what is existent (i.e., the lack of inherent existence of the dependent nature), and (3) the emptiness of real nature (i.e., the lack of duality in the consummate nature). Thus, [[People/TA_ra_nA_tha|Tāranātha]]'s comment that "form is emptiness" indicates the utter emptiness or nonexistence of external form, and his comment that "emptiness is form" indicates how the mental cognition which is empty of form appears as form and how "emptiness is not other than form" and "form is not other than emptiness" negates the identity and difference between the consummate nature and mental cognition which is projected as form.
He presents such an interpretation of the ''Heart Sūtra'' in accordance with his philosophical espousal of the other-emptiness more articulately in his second word-for-word commentary entitled the [[Texts/Sher_snying_gi_tshig_%27grel|''Marvellous Word Commentary on the Heart Sūtra'']] (ཤེར་སྙིང་གི་ཚིག་འགྲེལ་རྨད་དུ་བྱུང་བ་). At the very outset, he states in this commentary that the main referent of the term ''Perfection of Wisdom'' is buddha-nature, the nondual wisdom which is the true nature of all phenomena. This, he argues, is not empty of its nature. The ''Heart Sūtra'' sufficiently makes it clear that the five skandhas and other conventional phenomena are empty of their nature, but not buddha-nature or the ultimate truth. "Form is emptiness" means that form is utterly nonexistent and empty. "Emptiness is form" means that emptiness, which is the ultimate reality, is what appears as form to ordinary beings. "Emptiness is not other than form" means there is no emptiness which exists separately from form, but reality qua emptiness is rather the true nature of form. "Form is not other than emptiness" means there is no real form that is different from emptiness in the ultimate sense, because emptiness qua reality exists, whereas form doesn't.
[[People/TA_ra_nA_tha|Tāranātha]] presents a detailed exposition of his understanding of the ''Heart Sūtra'' in accordance with the theories of other-emptiness in his long commentary entitled the [[Texts/Shes_rab_kyi_pha_rol_tu_phyin_pa%27i_snying_po%27i_mdo_rnam_par_bshad_pa_sngon_med_legs_bshad|''Unprecedented Elegant Exposition: An Exegesis on the Heart Sūtra'']] (ཤེས་རབ་ཀྱི་ཕ་རོལ་ཏུ་ཕྱིན་པའི་སྙིང་པོའི་མདོ་རྣམ་པར་བཤད་པ་སྔོན་མེད་ལེགས་བཤད།). In this treatise, [[People/TA_ra_nA_tha|Tāranātha]] starts with the discussion of the different forms of Perfection of Wisdom in relation to the nature of phenomena, the path to enlightenment, the resultant state, and the doctrinal teachings which discuss the topic. In both this and the verse commentary, he cites Dignāga to claim that the true Perfection of Wisdom is the resultant wisdom of the buddhas. However, the most important point he underscores is that the ultimate message of all three turnings of the wheel and of the ''Heart Sūtra'' is the great other-emptiness. All conventional phenomena are primordially empty of their own nature, but the ultimate nature is only empty of other conventional phenomena but not empty of its own nature. This, he argues, is the ultimate truth, the reality, and the intent of all buddhas.
Commenting on the four statements on form and emptiness, he presents what he considers to be the interpretations among the proponents of the Mind Only (སེམས་ཙམ་པ་) and the Naturelessness (ངོ་བོ་ཉིད་མེད་པར་སྨྲ་བ་), both of which are acceptable in certain contexts but do not capture the ultimate reality. The ultimate understanding, he reasons, must be obtained by putting the four statements in the context of the three characteristics (མཚན་ཉིད་གསུམ་). He goes on to explain how the four statements should be understood in relation to the imputed nature, the dependent nature, and the consummate nature. In the first case, "form is emptiness" refers to form and all other phenomena of imputed and illusory nature being empty or utterly nonexistent even in relative terms. "Emptiness is form" refers to such emptiness appearing as an illusory form to ordinary beings. "Emptiness is not other than form" and "form is not other than emptiness" refer to there being no form and emptiness which are distinct and separate from each other. This is the first emptiness of what is actually nonexistent (མེད་པའི་སྟོང་པ་ཉིད་).
In the case of the dependent nature, "form is emptiness" refers to the mental cognition that is projected as form being empty of real external existence and subject-object duality, although it seemingly appears as form. "Emptiness is form" refers to such emptiness or lack of subject-object duality being the nature of the mental cognition which is projected as form. "Emptiness is not other than form and form is not other than emptiness" refers to how emptiness of a real existence of form and the mental cognition projected as form are not different or distinct entities. This is the explanation of the emptiness of that which exists (ཡོད་པའི་སྟོང་ཉིད་) in relation to the dependent nature.
In the context of the final understanding in connection to the consummate nature, "form is emptiness" refers to the form of reality — which in this case may be understood as a metaphorical body of truth or reality instead of external physical form — being ultimate emptiness, and "emptiness is form" refers to emptiness of duality that is the consummate nature being the form of reality. The emptiness qua consummate nature and form of reality are not separable and different. This is the exposition of the emptiness of nature (རང་བཞིན་སྟོང་པ་ཉིད་). These three understandings of emptiness, [[People/TA_ra_nA_tha|Tāranātha]] asserts, are the true understanding of emptiness as taught by [[People/Maitreya|Maitreya]].
The Eighth Karmapa, [[People/Karmapa,_8th|Mikyö Dorje]], is undoubtedly one of the most prolific authors of the Karma Kagyu tradition, having written some twenty-six volumes of works including extensive commentaries on four of the five great sūtra treatises. He wrote commentaries on vinaya, abhidharma, prajñapāramitā and madhyamaka, while the Seventh Karmapa, [[People/Karmapa,_7th|Chödrak Gyatso]], wrote an extensive commentary on pramāṇa.
In his commentary on [[People/Candrakīrti|Candrakīrti]]'s [[Texts/Madhyamakāvatāra|''Madhyamakāvatāra'']], [[People/Karmapa,_8th|Mikyö Dorje]] presents a detailed account of the Middle Way and buddha-nature, including a brief account of the transmission of Middle Way teachings. He considers the founding father [[People/Nāgārjuna|Nāgārjuna]] and other luminaries such as Āryadeva, Āryaśūra, and Śāntideva as masters of the primary Middle Way treatises (གཞུང་ཕྱི་མོའི་དབུ་མ་), accepted by all later followers of this school, before the school split into two groups based on the interpretation of the logical and hermeneutic approach through Buddhapālita and [[People/Candrakīrti|Candrakīrti]] on one side and [[People/Bhāvaviveka|Bhāvaviveka]] and his followers on the other. [[People/Karmapa,_8th|Mikyö Dorje]] comments that in spite of the differences, both camps present the ultimate understanding of the Middle Way ''qua'' ultimate truth.
Elaborating further on the transmission of the Middle Way teachings, he writes that there are transmissions of the actual wisdom of the Middle Way and the transmission of the scholarly study and letter of the Mādhyamika tradition. For the first one, there are three lines of transmission to Tibet. The first one is the lineage of the profound teachings through the Kagyu hierarchs, and this includes two sublineages. One was received via [[People/Nāropa|Naropa]], [[People/Mar_pa_chos_kyi_blo_gros|Marpa]], and [[People/mi_la_ras_pa|Milarepa]], while the other was received through [[People/Maitrīpa|Maitrīpa]], particularly in the context of his ''amanasikāra'', or nonmentation practice. Despite some criticism from scholars such as [[People/Gro_lung_pa_blo_gros_%27byung_gnas|Drolungpa]] and [[People/Sa_skya_paN%2BDi_ta|Sakya Paṇḍita]], which according to [[People/Karmapa,_8th|Mikyö Dorje]] are unjustified, this line has come down to [[People/Sgam_po_pa|Gampopa]], who championed it and spread it vigorously using the term ''Mahāmudrā''.
The second line of transmission was received in Tibet through [[People/Atiśa|Atiśa]] and was passed down through Kadam masters to [[People/Sgam_po_pa|Gampopa]], who was a Kadampa before he became a disciple of [[People/mi_la_ras_pa|Milarepa]]. This transmission through [[People/Atiśa|Atiśa]], [[People/Karmapa,_8th|Mikyö Dorje]] states, is the same in content or purport as the transmission received via [[People/Maitrīpa|Maitrīpa]] in the name of Mahāmudrā, but this line adopts a more analytical and apophatic approach to highlight the negational aspect of ultimate reality, while [[People/Maitrīpa|Maitrīpa]]'s approach takes one beyond both apophatic and cataphatic framing to an utter groundlessness. [[People/Sgam_po_pa|Gampopa]] is said to have mastered the practice according to the Kadampa approach, but when he met [[People/mi_la_ras_pa|Milarepa]] and shared his experience, his realization was considered by [[People/mi_la_ras_pa|Milarepa]] to be incomplete and only capable of overcoming partial problems of grasping and not all forms of grasping to extremes. As such a contemplative practice risks leading to a rebirth in some celestial world, [[People/Sgam_po_pa|Gampopa]] is said to have remarked that he risked being born as a celestial being if he did not meet [[People/mi_la_ras_pa|Milarepa]].
The third transmission comes through [[People/Pa_tshab_lo_tsA_ba_nyi_ma_grags_pa|Patsab Lotsāwa Nyima Drakpa]], who translated [[People/Candrakīrti|Candrakīrti]]'s [[Texts/Madhyamakāvatāra|''Madhyamākavatāra'']] and is known to have introduced the Prāsangika Mādhyamika thought in Tibet. Except for subtle differences in the analytical and contemplative procedure, this line of thought, [[People/Karmapa,_8th|Mikyö Dorje]] comments, is similar to the transmission via [[People/Atiśa|Atiśa]], even in the use of words. [[People/Karmapa,_8th|Mikyö Dorje]] also explains that the differences between the three transmissions also depend on the emphasis and effort of the individuals, and it is also possible that adherents of these different transmissions adopt the approaches and techniques from the other transmission lines.
The transmission of the study and interpretation of letters of the [[Texts/Madhyamakāvatāra|''Mādhyamakāvatāra'']] in Tibet only begins with [[People/Pa_tshab_lo_tsA_ba_nyi_ma_grags_pa|Patsab Lotsāwa]], from whom it was passed down to [[People/Karmapa,_8th|Mikyö Dorje]] himself through some twenty-four masters in the lineage. [[People/Karmapa,_8th|Mikyö Dorje]], then, engages in a long polemical discussion on the difference between the Middle Way transmitted through the sūtra schools and the secret tantric tradition.
The text [[Texts/Bka%27_yang_dag_pa%27i_tshad_ma_zhes_bya_ba_mkha%27_%27gro_ma%27i_man_ngag|''Instructions of Ḍākiṇīs entitled Validity of the True Word'']] (བཀའ་ཡང་དག་པའི་ཚད་མ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་མཁའ་འགྲོ་མའི་མན་ངག) is one of the primary sources for Mahāmudrā meditation and the six yogas of [[Nāropa]] passed down through the Kagyu tradition. In this text, one finds the six dharmas of Tilopa (ཏི་ལི་ཆོས་དྲུག་), which are fundamental techniques for meditation to cultivate single-pointed concentration and nonconceptuality. These six features of meditation are captured by the following verse:
:མི་མནོ་མི་བསམ་མི་དཔྱོད་ཅིང་།<br>མི་བསྒོམ་མི་སེམས་རང་བབས་གཞག །
:Do not reflect, think, or analyze,<br>Do not ponder or meditate, but let it be in the natural state.
In the state of meditation particularly to still all mentation and conceptual construction, one should not reflect on the past, not think of the future, or analyze the current object. One must not contrive to meditate, or be occupied with present matters. +
The term ''bodhisattva'' is commonly used in Buddhism and has now entered most of the English dictionaries. Who, then, is a bodhisattva, or what makes someone a bodhisattva? In early Buddhism, a bodhisattva is considered to be a rare being of exceptional caliber who can become a buddha. Not many beings were said to have the bodhisattva spiritual gene and to possess the capacity to become a buddha.
The rise of Mahāyāna Buddhism changed this narrative. Some Mahāyāna traditions argued that those capable of seeking enlightenment would have one of the three dispositions to pursue a śrāvaka arhathood, pratyekabuddha arhathood, or buddhahood. Many beings of superior caliber and disposition became bodhisattvas, seeking buddhahood for the sake of all sentient beings. As the opportunity to become a bodhisattva increased, the pantheon of bodhisattvas also grew. Thus, we find many names of bodhisattvas in the Mahāyāna sūtras. Other Mahāyāna traditions took this even further and argued that all beings have the capacity to become a buddha and would eventually become one if they followed the path. Thus, any sentient being could become a bodhisattva, and the bodhisattva disposition was not restricted to any specific type of being. Anyone who generated ''bodhicitta''—the thought of enlightenment—and engaged in the practice of the six perfections was a bodhisattva. A bodhisattva, in brief, is a buddha in the making.
The ''Ratnagotravibhāga'', the main text on buddha-nature, explains that a bodhisattva or an heir of the Buddha is someone who is born from the seed of faith in the Supreme Vehicle and the womb of blissful samādhi. Their mother is understood to be wisdom, and their nanny is compassion. To discover more on this, read [[Texts/Ratnagotravibhāga_Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra/Root_Verses/Verse_I.34|Verse I.34]]. +
Jikten Sumgön, the founder of the Drikung Kagyu tradition, presented Mahāmudrā practice in five parts in his short poetic work called [[Texts/Phyag_rgya_chen_po_lnga_ldan_rtogs_pa%27i_mgur|''Hymns on the Fivefold Path of Realization'']] (ལྔ་ལྡན་རྟོགས་པའི་མགུར།). Capturing an important topic in each verse and using an effective analogy for each topic, his poetic work has become a well-known, concise text on Mahāmudrā and is widely cited in the later works. The five verses with translation by [[Khenchen Konchog Gyaltsen]] of the Drikung lineage are given below.
༡) བྱང་སེམས་ཕྱག་ཆེན།
བྱམས་དང་སྙིང་རྗེའི་རྟ་ཕོ་ལ། །གཞན་ཕན་གི་དཀྱུས་ཐོག་མ་བཅད་ན། །ཁྲོམ་ལྷ་མིའི་འོར་ཆེ་མི་འབྱུང་བས། །སེམས་སྔོན་འགྲོ་འདི་ལ་ནན་ཏན་མཛོད།།
1. The Great Seal of Bodhichitta<br>
If the steed of love and compassion<br>
Does not run for the benefit of others,<br>
It will not be rewarded in the assembly of gods and humans.<br>
Attend, therefore, to the preliminaries.
༢) ཡི་དམ་ལྷ་སྐུའི་ཕྱག་ཆེན།
རང་ལུས་ལྷ་སྐུའི་རྒྱལ་པོ་ལ། །གཞི་འགྱུར་མེད་ཀྱི་བརྟན་ས་མ་ཟིན་ན། །མ་མཁའ་འགྲོའི་འཁོར་འབངས་མི་འདུ་བས། །ལུས་ཡི་དམ་གི་ལྷ་ལ་ནན་ཏན་མཛོད།།
2. The Great Seal of Yidam Deity<br>
If one’s body, the King of Deities<br>
Is not stabilized on this Unchanging Ground,<br>
The retinue of dakinis will not assemble.<br>
Be sure, therefore, of your body as the yidam.
༣) བླ་མའི་མོས་གུས་ཕྱག་ཆེན།
བླ་མ་སྐུ་བཞིའི་གངས་རི་ལ། །མོས་གུས་ཀྱི་ཉི་མ་མ་ཤར་ན། །བྱིན་རླབས་ཀྱི་ཆུ་རྒྱུན་མི་འབྱུང་བས། །སེམས་་མོས་གུས་འདི་ལ་ནན་ཏན་མཛོད།།
3) The Great Seal of Devotion<br>
If on the Guru, the Snow Mountain of the Four Kayas,<br>
The Sun of Devotion fails to shine,<br>
The Stream of Blessings will not flow.<br>
Attend, therefore, to this mind of devotion.
༤) གནས་ལུགས་ཕྱག་ཆེན།
སེམས་ཉིད་ཀྱི་ནམ་མཁའ་ཡངས་པ་ལ། །རྣམ་རྟོག་གི་སྤྲིན་ཚོགས་མ་དེངས་ན། །མཁྱེན་གཉིས་ཀྱི་གཟའ་སྐར་མི་བཀྲ་བས། །སེམས་མི་རྟོག་འདི་ལ་ནན་ཏན་མཛོད།།
4. The Great Seal of the True Nature<br>
If in the vastly spacious space of the mind itself (cittata)<br>
The clouds of conceptual thoughts do not dissipate,<br>
The stars and the planets of the Dual Knowledge་will not shine.<br>
Attend, therefore, to nonconceptuality.
༥) བསྔོ་བ་ཕྱག་ཆེན།
ཚོགས་གཉིས་ཡིད་བཞིན་གྱི་ནོར་བུ་ལ། །སྨོན་ལམ་གྱིས་བྱི་དོར་མ་བྱས་ན། །དགོས་འདོད་ཀྱི་འབྲས་བུ་མི་འབྱུང་བས། །རྗེས་བསྔོ་བ་འདི་ལ་ནན་ཏན་མཛོད།།
5. The Great Seal of Dedication<br>
If the two wish-fulfilling gems of Accumulations<br>
Are not cleaned and polished with aspiration prayers,<br>
The results of (your) hopes and expectations will not come to fruition.<br>
Attend, therefore, to the dedication of merits at the end.
Among the collection of short texts by the Narthang hierarch [[People/Skyo_ston_smon_lam_tshul_khrims|Kyotön Monlam Tsultrim]] recently revealed from the Drepung library is the ''[[Instructions on the Path to Reality]]'' (ཆོས་ཉིད་ཀྱི་ལམ་ཁྲིད།). The text claims to highlight the intent of Maitreya and does so by blending the main topics of the ''[[Ratnagotravibhāga]]'' and the ''[[Dharmadharmatāvibhāga]]''. It discusses the four topics of the basis for the spiritual path, the manner of confusion in the cycle of existence, the cultivation of the path, and the actualization of buddhahood. Under the first topic, it presents buddha-nature, or the spiritual gene (རིགས་), as the luminous nature of the mind and as the cause for spiritual awakening. The text also gives the categories of beings with or without a functional spiritual gene.
Under the second topic, Kyotön uses the structure in Maitreya's ''[[Dharmadharmatāvibhāga]]'' to discuss how the cycle of existence is the work of conceptual fabrication. He then discusses the path to buddhahood and ends with the fourth main topic of how the pristine wisdom of the Buddha shines forth by explaining the different enlightened bodies. +
[[People/Phywa_pa_chos_kyi_seng%2Bge|Chapa Chökyi Senge]] is one of the most prominent early Kadam scholars of Sangpu Neutok scholastic center and well known as a logician and dialectician, his approach being a continuation of [[People/Rngog_blo_ldan_shes_rab|Ngok Loden Sherab]]'s tradition with some differences. Later scholars such as [[People/Sa_skya_paN%2BDi_ta|Sakya Paṇḍita]] considered his tradition to be part of the earlier pramāṇa school (ཚད་མ་སྔ་རབས་པ་) and critiqued his dialectical approach. Chapa was also a leading commentator on the works of Maitreya, authoring a very detailed commentary on the [[Texts/Ratnagotravibhāga_Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra|''Ultimate Continuum'']] and a summary which primarily presents an outline of the [[Texts/Ratnagotravibhāga_Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra|''Ultimate Continuum'']].
In his commentary on verse I.154–55, Chapa argues that one avoids the extreme of superimposition (སྒྲོ་འདོགས་) as one rejects the self-existence of persons and phenomena. There is nothing to be negated or cleared which previously existed. Persons and phenomena do not ever exist on the ultimate level. This shows the unmistaken understanding of the ultimate nature through a nonimplicative negation. One avoids the extreme of annihilation (སྐུར་འདེབས་), as qualities such as the ten powers primordially exist in buddha-nature. There is nothing to be maintained or ascertained, as they naturally exist on the conventional level. This shows the unmistaken understanding of the conventional aspect through an implicative negation. The nonexistence or emptiness on the ultimate level and the existence on the conventional level indicate the unmistaken coalescence of the two truths.
Similarly, one avoids the extreme of superimposition (སྒྲོ་འདོགས་) as one understands buddha-nature to be empty of the separable aspects—that is, the ultimate existence of persons and phenomena which serve as objects of ordinary grasping and emotions. No self-existent person or phenomena which previously existed is being negated or annihilated. One avoids the extreme of annihilation (སྐུར་འདེབས་) as one understands the buddha-nature to be not empty of the unsurpassable qualities such as the ten powers on the conventional level.
[[People/Maitrīpa|Maitrīpa]], according to a common account of the [[Texts/Ratnagotravibhāga_Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra|''Ultimate Continuum'']] passed down through Tibetan lineages, is said to have rediscovered the text of the [[Texts/Ratnagotravibhāga_Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra|''Ultimate Continuum'']] and [[Texts/Dharmadharmatāvibhāga|''Distinguishing Phenomena and Their Nature'']]. He in fact cites the [[Texts/Ratnagotravibhāga_Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra|''Ultimate Continuum'']] in his work. Yet, it is curious that [[People/Maitrīpa|Maitrīpa]] does not use the terms ''tathāgatagarbha'', ''sugatagarbha'', or ''dhatu'' in his writings to refer to buddha-nature. He does, however, discuss the luminous and empty nature of the mind both in the contexts of sūtra and tantra traditions.
He uses the term ''luminosity'' (འོད་གསལ་) in many of his writings, and it is this innate nature of the mind, which is empty, nondual, open, and luminous, that is the focus of his ''amanasikāra'' system. In his presentation of true reality in [[Texts/Tattvadaśaka|''Ten Verses on True Reality'']], which succinctly captures his philosophical and experiential stance on reality, [[People/Maitrīpa|Maitrīpa]] points out how all phenomena are of single taste (རོ་གཅིག་) and without a point of fixation (གནས་མེད་པ་), that the entire world is free from the duality of knowledge and knowables, and that even the assumption of nonduality is itself empty and luminous. Such reality is to be realized through the instructions of a guru, and having realized such "suchness," a yogin moves in the world with eyes wide open, with no fear, like a lion, in any manner he or she chooses, and is beyond worldly concerns, often taking up what looks like crazy behaviors. +
In his commentary on Maitreya's [[Texts/Dharmadharmatāvibhāga|''Distinguishing Phenomena and Their Nature'']], [[People/Mi_pham_rgya_mtsho|Mipam Gyatso]], one of the most polymathic thinkers of nineteenth-century Tibet, explains that scholars differ in the doxographical classification of the five treatises taught by Maitreya as commentarial works on the Buddha's teachings. Some scholars, he reports, considered the five treatises to be parts of a single work, while others refuted such a position, saying that they cannot be coherent parts of a single work, as the five treatises diverge on the issue of whether there is only one vehicle or three vehicles which lead to ultimate liberation. The latter scholars then take the five treatises to be commenting on different turnings of the wheel of Dharma.
Among Maitreya's five treatises, some consider the first, the [[Texts/Abhisamayālaṃkāra|''Abhisamayālaṃkāra'']], or ''Ornament of Clear Realization'', and the last, the [[Texts/Ratnagotravibhāga_Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra|''Ratnagotravibhāga'']], or the ''Ultimate Continuum'', to fall within the Mādhyamika system and the middle three to fall under the Cittamātra system. Others maintain that only the ''Sūtrālaṅkāra'', or the ''Ornament of Sūtra'', belongs to the Cittamātra system and the rest to Mādhyamika thought. Still others argue that all the five treatises are fully works of Cittamātra thought or that of Mādhyamika.
Against such differences, [[People/Mi_pham_rgya_mtsho|Mipam]] states that it is indisputable that the [[Texts/Abhisamayālaṃkāra|''Ornament of Clear Realization'']] is a commentarial work on the Perfection of Wisdom taught in the middle turning and the [[Texts/Ratnagotravibhāga_Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra|''Ultimate Continuum'']] is clearly a commentary on the definitive teachings of the third turning, which deals with the buddha-nature. These two treatises also agree on the theories of the single spiritual gene and the single vehicle, which accords with the Mādhyamika thought. In contrast to these two, the ''Ornament of Sūtra'' is a commentary on other sūtras, and it clearly presents theories aligned to the Cittamātra thought, such as the acceptance of more than one spiritual gene and vehicle to ultimate liberation.
The two treatises, [[Texts/Dharmadharmatāvibhāga|''Distinguishing Phenomena and Their Nature'']] and [[Texts/Madhyāntavibhāga|''Distinguishing the Middle and Extremes'']], deal with the profound and vast aspects of general Mahāyāna thought and therefore cannot be categorized as belonging to either Cittamātra or Mādhyamika thought. They deal with topics which are common to all adherents of Mahāyāna. While [[Texts/Madhyāntavibhāga|''Distinguishing the Middle and Extremes'']] primarily discusses the vast aspects of the Mahāyāna path, [[Texts/Dharmadharmatāvibhāga|''Distinguishing Phenomena and Their Nature'']] discusses the nonconceptual wisdom of the union of the two truths, which is the essence of the Mahāyāna teachings. Because of the profundity of the topics that [[Texts/Dharmadharmatāvibhāga|''Distinguishing Phenomena and Their Nature'']] and the [[Texts/Ratnagotravibhāga_Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra|''Ultimate Continuum'']] deal with, [[People/Mi_pham_rgya_mtsho|Mipam]] reasons that these two treatises are considered to have been protected and thus their texts unavailable until [[People/Maitrīpa|Maitripa]] rediscovered them from a stūpa after seeing a light shining from a crack in it. When Zhama Lotsāwa Senge Gyeltsen translated [[Texts/Dharmadharmatāvibhāga|''Distinguishing Phenomena and Their Nature'']], the paṇḍita is said to have only spared one page at a time and advised the translator to strongly cherish them as the texts were rare.
[[People/Dge_rtse_ma_hA_paN%2BDi_ta_tshe_dbang_mchog_grub|Getse Mahāpaṇḍita Tsewang Chokdrup]] composed his short work entitled [[Texts/Nges_don_dbu_ma_chen_po%27i_tshul_rnam_par_nges_pa%27i_gtam_bde_gshegs_snying_po%27i_rgyan|''Ornament of Sugatagarbha: A Discourse Ascertaining the Definite Great Middle Way'']] (ངེས་དོན་དབུ་མ་ཆེན་པོའི་ཚུལ་རྣམ་པར་ངེས་པའི་གཏམ་བདེ་གཤེགས་སྙིང་པོའི་རྒྱན།), as he would put, as a mere key which can unlock the door of sūtras and tantras (ལྡེ་མིག་ཙམ་འདིས་མདོ་སྔགས་སྒོ་ཕྱེ་). He structures his short work by aligning the four Buddhist tenet systems to the three sets of turnings of the wheel of Dharma. The first two tenet systems of Vaibhāṣika and Sautrāntika, which espouse the ultimate existence of atomic particles and moments of consciousness as building blocks for the empirical world, correspond to the first turning of the wheel, while the third tenet system, the Cittamātra system of idealist thinkers, who assert the true existence of an innate self-cognizing mind, is based on some sūtras of the last turning of the wheel.
These schools were overshadowed by the rise of the Middle Way tradition, which was promoted by Nāgārjuna and his followers based on the Perfection of Wisdom sūtras of the middle turning. [[People/Dge_rtse_ma_hA_paN%2BDi_ta_tshe_dbang_mchog_grub|Getse]] recounts the development of the Mādhyamika school and its bifurcation into Svātantrika and Prāsaṅgika subschools among Nāgārjuna's followers, who for some reason also considered Asaṅga's tradition to be the Cittamātra tradition, thereby leading many biased scholars of India and Tibet to classify Asaṅga and his followers as Cittamātra masters. [[People/Dge_rtse_ma_hA_paN%2BDi_ta_tshe_dbang_mchog_grub|Getse]] rejects that the ultimate understanding of Asaṅga and his followers is of Cittamātra thought.
Furthermore, the Middle Way tradition focusing on the emptiness of all phenomena as primarily shown in the middle turning, based on rational analysis to eliminate ordinary superimposition of self and other characteristics, and passed down through Nāgārjuna’s followers, according to [[People/Dge_rtse_ma_hA_paN%2BDi_ta_tshe_dbang_mchog_grub|Getse Mahāpaṇḍita]], is only the coarse, outer Middle Way (རགས་པ་ཕྱིའི་དབུ་མ་). The inner, subtle Middle Way (ཕྲ་བ་ནང་གི་དབུ་མ་) is what is taught in the last turning through the tathāgatagarbhasūtras, the innate self-awareness, buddha-nature, or element, which is also elucidated in the works of Maitreya and passed down through Nāgārjuna, Asaṅga, and their followers as the ultimate and quintessential message. This, [[People/Dge_rtse_ma_hA_paN%2BDi_ta_tshe_dbang_mchog_grub|Getse Mahāpaṇḍita]] calls the Great Madhyamaka of other-emptiness (གཞན་སྟོན་དབུ་མ་ཆེན་པོ་) and the ultimate truth, the luminous nature of the mind, the adamantine mind, and the main point of Kālacakra, Mahāmudrā, and Dzogchen teachings. A mere emptiness that is a nonimplicative negation is not the ultimate reality. The ultimate intent of the great masters converges on this point of innate luminous awareness, although they showed different types of provisional paths. The short work of [[People/Dge_rtse_ma_hA_paN%2BDi_ta_tshe_dbang_mchog_grub|Getse Mahāpaṇḍita]] is aimed at establishing the Great Middle Way or other-emptiness as the ultimate and absolute reality which forms the basis of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, and he does so with great precision and vigor in a short work.
The Kadampa master [[People/Skyo_ston_smon_lam_tshul_khrims|Kyotön Mönlam Tsultrim]] authored several short works related to buddha-nature and the [[Texts/Ratnagotravibhāga_Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra|''Ultimate Continuum'']]. One of them is the [[Texts/%27od_gsal_snying_po%27i_don|''Meaning of Luminous Essence'']] (འོད་གསལ་སྙིང་པོའི་དོན།), a text which provides a clear and concise account of buddha-nature. He presents the work under three subheadings of:
:1. How the luminous nature of mind is naturally awakened<br>2. How to clear the adventitious stains of thoughts<br>3. How the essential pristine wisdom arises
He illustrates the first point through explaining the three points of dharmakāya, reality, and spiritual gene, the nine similes and three stages of buddha-nature at the ordinary level when it is fully impure, on the transcendental path when it is partially pure, and on the level of buddhahood when it is fully pure.
The second topic covers the process of eliminating the adventitious stains by following the path. Unfortunately, the only copy of this text available to us is the one recently obtained from the Nechu library in Drepung monastery, and this text abruptly ends while discussing the path to remove the adventitious stains. Despite being incomplete, the text gives a clear idea of how [[People/Skyo_ston_smon_lam_tshul_khrims|Kyotön Mönlam Tsultrim]] adopts a cataphatic approach to buddha-nature as the nature of mind, which, like space, cannot be pinpointed but is at the same time the inconceivable and inexpressible luminous presence which constitutes the eternal, absolute, peaceful, and adamantine nature free from mentation and conceptual construction. +
[[Texts/Dpal_dus_kyi_%27khor_lo%27i_nges_don_gsal_bar_byed_pa_rin_po_che%27i_sgron_ma|''The Jewel Lamp Illuminating the Definitive Meaning of the Glorious Kālacakra'']] (དཔལ་དུས་ཀྱི་འཁོར་ལོའི་ངེས་དོན་གསལ་བར་བྱེད་པ་རིན་པོ་ཆེའི་སྒྲོན་མ།) is a very clear and concise explanation of the soteriological aspect of the [[Texts/Kālacakratantra|''Kālacakratantra'']] by the great Sakya scholar [[People/Red_mda%27_ba_gzhon_nu_blo_gros|Rendawa Zhönu Lodrö]]. Right at the outset, [[People/Red_mda%27_ba_gzhon_nu_blo_gros|Rendawa]] remarks that he wrote the work in order to dispel the misunderstanding of some who have not grasped the profound purport of the [[Texts/Kālacakratantra|''Kālacakratantra'']] and misled others with their wrong understanding. He lays out the five chapters of the [[Texts/Kālacakratantra|''Kālacakratantra'']] and argues that the content of the five chapters can be included in the three topics of the causal continuum (རྒྱུ་རྒྱུད་), referring to the ground or foundational state of reality, method continuum (ཐབས་རྒྱུད་), or the path, and the resultant continuum (འབྲས་རྒྱུད་), or the ultimate state of buddhahood epitomized by the pervasive adamantine body.
[[People/Red_mda%27_ba_gzhon_nu_blo_gros|Rendawa]] discusses the first continuum of the cause or the ground by dividing it into the conventional continuum of the external container world (ཕྱི་སྣོད་ཀྱི་འཇིག་རྟེན་) and the internal content of sentient beings (ནང་བཅུད་ཀྱི་སེམས་ཅན་), on the one hand, and the ultimate continuum of the pervasive adamantine body (ཁྱབ་བྱེད་རྡོ་རྗེའི་སྐུ་) and luminous nature of the mind (སེམས་ཉིད་འོད་གསལ་བ་), on the other. The last one, he states, is what is also called tathāgatagarbha, luminous nature, ground continuum, coemergent nature, naturally abiding spiritual gene, element of the mind, dharma sphere, adamantine mind, and reality with stains. This reality with stains remains in the mindstream of sentient beings and should not be identified with the resultant adamantine body of the Buddha. He remarks that it is a mistake to conflate the causal reality obscured by stains with the resultant adamantine body and argue they are indivisible, identical, eternal, and permanent. No permanent entity can be changed from being stained to becoming stainless.
He repeatedly refutes the philosophical interpretation of buddha-nature, or ''tathāta'', as an absolute and eternal entity. Explaining the terms self-emptiness and other-emptiness, [[People/Red_mda%27_ba_gzhon_nu_blo_gros|Rendawa]] argues that adventitious phenomena caused by ignorance are empty of self (རང་སྟོང་) because they cannot be perceived by the correct enlightened cognition, whereas the innate phenomena associated with the luminous nature of the mind is considered empty of others (གཞན་སྟོང་) because they are empty of the adventitious stains but not because they are established to be absolute and unassailable by analysis.
[[People/Red_mda%27_ba_gzhon_nu_blo_gros|Rendawa]] reiterates this point again while discussing the resultant continuum, or the state of buddhahood, which he argues is a result of the practices on the path and not an unconditioned absolute entity which is not generated through causes and conditions. The resultant continuum is sometimes presented as being without arising and ceasing because there is no truly existent process of arising or ceasing, no apprehension of arising or ceasing, and because the Buddha’s adamantine body remains until the end of existence. However, it is not to be construed as an eternal entity like the non-Buddhist notion of ''ātman''. The resultant features of buddhahood are also to be viewed as illusory and dreamlike. To view the resultant buddhahood as an absolute, eternal, and ultimately existent entity is a childish way of being entangled by evil views.
[[People/Red_mda%27_ba_gzhon_nu_blo_gros|Rendawa]] provides a very clear and comprehensive presentation of the method continuum, or the path, through the six limbs of applications (སྦྱོར་བ་ཡན་ལག་དྲུག་) of Kālacakra, and the resultant continuum, or buddhahood, by discussing the adamantine body free from impurities, its causes, the time of attainment, its nature, the various bodies and qualities, and the period in which it remains. He concludes with the pompous remark that some scholars flaunt their husklike mistaken view, having discarded the grain, and he is the one who has captured the essence, just like the gods have obtained the nectar, while others got the poison having churned the sea. This is in reference to the Vedic lore of churning the sea out of which came a nectar, which the gods took, a poison which Śiva drank, making him get a dark throat and a moon which Śiva wore on his head.
[[People/PaN_chen_bsod_nams_grags_pa|Paṇchen Sonam Drakpa]], one of the most lucid writers in the Geluk tradition and an author of the ''yigcha'' curriculum in Drepung Loseling monastic college, has authored a commentary on the [[Texts/Ratnagotravibhāga_Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra|''Ultimate Continuum'']] entitled the [[Texts/Rgyud_bla_ma%27i_dka%27_%27grel_gnad_kyi_zla_%27od|''The Moonlight of the Crucial Points: A Commentary on the Difficult Aspects of the Ultimate Continuum'']] (རྒྱུད་བླ་མའི་དཀའ་འགྲེལ་གནད་ཀྱི་ཟླ་འོད།). While he does not provide a word-by-word explanation, he carries out a highly analytical exegesis on the root verses, often carrying out polemical discussions. He starts by providing a brief overview of the five works of [[People/Maitreya|Maitreya]] and the doxographical affiliation of their content.
As he starts his exegesis on the topic of buddha-nature, starting from [[Texts/Ratnagotravibhāga_Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra/Root_Verses#I.28|Verse I.28]], he refutes the philosophical interpretation of [[People/Rngog_blo_ldan_shes_rab|Ngok Lotsāwa]], [[People/Rong_ston_shes_bya_kun_rig|Rongtön]], and [[People/Dol_po_pa|Dolpopa]], those who hold buddha-nature to be identical with the ''ālaya'' ground and those scholars who hold the buddha-nature teachings to be provisional following [[People/Sa_skya_paN%2BDi_ta|Sakya Pañḍita]]'s interpretation of buddha-nature in his [[Texts/Sdom_gsum_rab_dbye|''Distinguishing the Three Vows'']].
[[People/PaN_chen_bsod_nams_grags_pa|Paṇchen Sonam Drakpa]] makes it amply clear in his commentary on [[Texts/Ratnagotravibhāga_Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra/Root_Verses#I.154|Verses I.154–57]] that he does not accept either an innate absolute buddha-nature which has all qualities of the Buddha latent in it, as do the Jonangpa scholars, or the luminous awareness of the mind, or the union of emptiness and luminosity to be buddha-nature as espoused by many scholars following the Sakya, Kagyu and Nyingma traditions. He argues that the first two lines of [[Texts/Ratnagotravibhāga_Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra/Root_Verses#I.154|Verse I.154]] present the essential characteristics of buddha-nature, the third line the correct view of such buddha-nature, and the fourth line the result of such view and realization. The [[Texts/Ratnagotravibhāga_Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra/Root_Verses#I.155|Verse I.155]] presents further arguments in support of the preceding verse. According to him, there is no need for two self-existent entities (i.e., the self of person and the self of phenomena) to be eliminated, as they never really exist, and there is no need of two non-selves (i.e., non-self of person and non-self of phenomena) to be newly added or maintained, as buddha-nature is by nature defined by lack of self-existence. Similarly, buddha-nature is empty of the separable adventitious impurities, as the impurities do not exist in its nature, and it is not empty of the inseparable qualities of the Buddha because it has the capacity for the Buddha's qualities to manifest. [[People/PaN_chen_bsod_nams_grags_pa|Sonam Drakpa]] considers the buddha-nature teachings to be definitive, in contrast to [[People/Sa_skya_paN%2BDi_ta|Sakya Paṇdita]]'s interpretations of the buddha-nature teachings.
It is quite interesting that two Sakya lamas, [[People/%27gro_mgon_chos_rgyal_%27phags_pa|Chögyal Phakpa]] (1235–80) and [[People/Bsod_nams_rgyal_mtshan|Lama Dampa Sonam Gyaltsen]] (1312–75), almost a century apart, wrote two texts which bear almost identical titles. The first one, [[Texts/Theg_pa_chen_po_rgyud_bla_ma%27i_bstan_bcos_kyi_bsdus_pa%27i_don|''Synopsis of the Mahāyāna Treatise the Ultimate Continuum'']] (ཐེག་པ་ཆེན་པོ་རྒྱུད་བླ་མའི་བསྟན་བཅོས་ཀྱི་བསྡུས་དོན།) was written by [[People/%27gro_mgon_chos_rgyal_%27phags_pa|Chögyal Phakpa]] in China in the Palace of Kubilai Khan, whom he describes as a bodhisattva. The second is a synopsis by [[People/Bsod_nams_rgyal_mtshan|Lama Dampa Sonam Gyaltsen]], who is best known for his history of Tibet called the ''Clear Mirror'', and is entitled [[Texts/Theg_pa_chen_po_rgyud_bla_ma%27i_bsdus_pa%27i_don|''Synopsis of the Ultimate Continuum of Mahāyāna'']] (ཐེག་པ་ཆེན་པོ་རྒྱུད་བླ་མའི་བསྡུས་དོན།).
[[File:DampaSonamGyaltsen 2 TOL.jpg|class=float-right rounded depth-1|link=|Lama Dampa Sonam Gyaltsen]]
Although both texts have the title "synopsis" (བསྡུས་དོན་), neither of them provide synoptic exegesis of the ''Ultimate Continuum''. Instead, both the texts are outlines (ས་བཅད་) of the ''Ultimate Continuum''. The former presents the ''Ultimate Continuum'' by dividing it into two main headings, while the latter does so through four main headings. While the former is signed off by the author himself, the latter was extracted from the author's commentary on the ''Ultimate Continuum'' by one Gyaltsen Zangpo. Neither of the texts provide any special philosophical interpretation or insight into the ''Ultimate Continuum''. +
''Dharma'' is perhaps one of the most popular Indic Sanskrit terms that is used widely in religious philosophy and practice. There is no single word in the English language that renders ''dharma'' and its numerous meanings. It refers to existence and phenomena in its broadest sense, but in specific contexts it also designates objects of mental faculty, the law of nature, truth, virtue, duty, spiritual path, religion, and religious doctrine. In his work entitled [https://adarsha.dharma-treasure.org/kdbs/degetengyur?pbId=2923477 ''Vyākhyāyukti''], or ''Principles of Exegesis'', Vasubandhu states that the term ''dharma'' can mean ten different things in the Buddhist context alone.
In its most common usage in Buddhism, ''dharma'' refers to the second object of refuge, the teachings of the Buddha. Again, Vasubandhu in his magnum opus, [https://adarsha.dharma-treasure.org/kdbs/degetengyur?pbId=2925443 ''Abhidharmakośa''], or the ''Treasury of Abhidharma'', explains that the dharma of the Buddha is twofold: the doctrinal scriptures and experiential understanding. The ''Ratnagotravibhāga'' presents a more abstruse and sophisticated Mahāyāna definition of ''dharma'' in the context of its explanation of the Three Jewels. The Dharma Jewel is said to be inconceivable, nondual, nonconceptual reality, which is pure, luminous, and remedial in nature. It comprises the third and fourth truths out of the four noble truths: the truth of cessation, which is free from attachment, and the truth of the path to cessation, which helps bring about the freedom from attachment. Learn more about this Mahāyāna definition of ''dharma'' by reading [[Texts/Ratnagotravibhāga_Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra/Root_Verses/Verse_I.10|Verse I.10.]] +
''The Golden Rosary'', a commentary on [[People/Maitreya|Maitreya]]'s [[Texts/Abhisamayālaṃkāra|''Ornament of Clear Realization'']], is the first major output of [[People/Tsong_kha_pa|Tsongkhapa]], finished in 1388 in Nyethang Dewachen. Like many Indian and Tibetan commentators before him, [[People/Tsong_kha_pa|Tsongkhapa]] saw the importance of the [[Texts/Abhisamayālaṃkāra|''Ornament of Clear Realization'']] as a core classic for the study of perfection (''pāramitās'', ཕར་ཕྱིན་). This text reveals in detail the layout of the Mahāyāna soteriological path, which was taught only covertly in the Perfection of Wisdom sūtras. Thus, it had come to be in [[People/Tsong_kha_pa|Tsongkhapa]]'s time one of the four main topical classics a scholar had to master, and in later times, one of the five doctrinal classics.
One of the important topics in the [[Texts/Abhisamayālaṃkāra|''Ornament of Clear Realization'']] is the basis of Mahāyāna practice, the spiritual gene or potential. While discussing this concept of spiritual gene in his ''Golden Rosary'', [[People/Tsong_kha_pa|Tsongkhapa]] presents three theories on the nature of the spiritual gene.
The first theory of the spiritual gene is of the ''śrāvaka'' (ཉན་ཐོས་) disciples, who, according to [[People/Tsong_kha_pa|Tsongkhapa]], identifies it with the sense of contentment in having modest robes, alms, beddings, and with the joy in renunciation and meditation. In brief, as [[People/Vasubandhu|Vasubandhu]] has stated in his ''Abhidharmakośa'', the spiritual gene is the disposition for nonattachment or desirelessness (''alobha'', མ་ཆགས་པ་), which leads to the state of sublime beings. He rejects the theory some scholars propound that the ''sūtrāntika'' accepts a spiritual gene which is the ability of a being to abandon obscurations.
The second theory he presents is of the Cittamātra school, in which there are in fact two different theories of the spiritual gene as a conditioned phenomena and an unconditioned nature of reality. The conditioned spiritual gene is also of two types: the naturally present one and the developed spiritual gene. The naturally present gene is the capacity found in the store consciousness to give rise to undefiled qualities, though it is not of the same nature as store consciousness. This is, therefore, a conditioned phenomena. When this naturally present spiritual gene is enhanced through study, reflection, and practice, it is given the label of being a developed or properly cultivated spiritual gene.
[[People/Tsong_kha_pa|Tsongkhapa]] further explains that such a concept of a conditioned spiritual gene is also tenable in systems which do not accept the concept of store consciousness. In that case, the spiritual gene is identified with the aspect of the internal sense-consciousness, which is inherited from beginningless time by nature (ཐོག་མ་མེད་པའི་དུས་ཅན་ཆོས་ཉིད་ཀྱི་ཐོབ་པ་) and gives the capacity to attain enlightenment (བྱང་ཆུབ་ཐོབ་པའི་ནུས་པ་). Like above, while this capacity or aspect rests in the sense-consciousness, it is not the same as the sense-consciousness.
Some Cittamātra proponents such as [[People/Ratnākaraśānti|Śāntipa]], [[People/Tsong_kha_pa|Tsongkhapa]] claims, hold the spiritual gene to be the unconditioned nature of reality as presented in the [[Texts/Abhisamayālaṃkāra|''Ornament of Clear Realization'']]. In this case, the spiritual gene is not a direct cause of the resultant qualities of enlightenment, as is the case in the theory of the spiritual gene as a conditioned phenomena, but it serves as an object, which, when realized properly, engenders enlightened qualities.
The third theory that [[People/Tsong_kha_pa|Tsongkhapa]] presents is that of the Middle Way school, in which one also finds the term being used to refer to two different things. In some texts, such as the ''Sūtra of Ten Dharmas'' and Candrakīrti's [[Texts/Madhyamakāvatāra|''Entering the Middle Way'']], [[People/Tsong_kha_pa|Tsongkhapa]] points out that the term ''gotra'', or spiritual gene, refers to the Mahāyāna disposition which gives rise to certain external behavior of bodhisattvas. Yet in other sūtras, he says, the spiritual gene is identified with the ''dharmadhātu'' (ཆོས་དབྱིངས), or sphere of reality, as done in [[People/Maitreya|Maitreya]]'s [[Texts/Abhisamayālaṃkāra|''Ornament of Clear Realization'']]. If asked what kind of sphere of reality is the spiritual gene, [[People/Tsong_kha_pa|Tsongkhapa]] explains that the sphere of reality refers to four or two categories which are taught in the [[Texts/Ratnagotravibhāga_Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra|''Ultimate Continuum'']]. He further clarifies that the Mādhyamika scholars, in the conventional sense, give the designation of the naturally present spiritual gene to the nature of the mind (སེམས་ཀྱི་རང་བཞིན་), which is emptiness without any real existence. When such an emptiness is realized, in conventional terms, illusory apprehensions in their entirety are removed and illusory antidotes in their entirety arise.
In contrast, the Cittamātra scholars, [[People/Tsong_kha_pa|Tsongkhapa]] claims, accept the luminous nature of the mind to be eternally and truly existent and that it serves as a basis for the removal of adventitious impurities and the attainment of the enlightened qualities. He remarks that the former (i.e., the Mādhyamika) argument seems to be what the [[Texts/Abhisamayālaṃkāra|''Ornament of Clear Realization'']] expounds, while the latter (i.e., the Cittamātra) position seems aligned with what the [[Texts/Ratnagotravibhāga_Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra|''Ultimate Continuum'']] presents. Is [[People/Tsong_kha_pa|Tsongkhapa]], then, suggesting that the [[Texts/Ratnagotravibhāga_Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra|''Ultimate Continuum'']] presents a Cittamātra theory of spiritual gene as a truly existent luminous nature of the mind? This is not clear. But what is amply clear is that [[People/Tsong_kha_pa|Tsongkhapa]] rejects that there are beings deprived of a spiritual gene, as it would entail that impurities, if they cannot be abandoned, are in the nature of the mind. According to him, those who are said to be deprived of a spiritual gene in the sūtras merely refer to those who have more difficulty reaching liberation (གྲོལ་དཀའ་བ་ཙམ་ལ་དགོངས་).
Buddhist texts talk about four ''viparyāsa'', or misperceptions. The most common enumeration of the four misperceptions include (1) perceiving what is impure as pure (མི་གཙང་བ་ལ་གཙང་བར་འཛིན་པ་), (2) holding what is dissatisfactory and suffering as blissful (སྡུག་བསྔལ་བ་ལ་བདེ་བར་འཛིན་པ་), (3) holding what is impermanent as permanent (མི་རྟག་པ་ལ་རྟག་པར་འཛིན་པ་), and (4) holding what is lacking in self as self (བདག་མེད་པ་ལ་བདག་ཏུ་འཛིན་པ་). In this context, our notion of things being pure, blissful, permanent, and self-existent is considered to be a wrong perception and contradictory to the way things are.
Yet in the Mahāyāna sūtras and the commentarial treatises, particularly those dealing with buddha-nature, we find the description of buddha-nature as pure, blissful, permanent, and self-existent. Purity, bliss, permanence, and self are ultimate qualities to be actualized. How do we, then, reconcile these two types of teachings dealing with the four ''viparyāsa''?
The sūtra entitled [[Texts/Śrīmālādevīsūtra|''Lion’s Roar of Queen Śrīmālā'']] provides one clear explanation of what the Buddha meant in the divergent teachings.
::བཅོམ་ལྡན་འདས། སེམས་ཅན་རྣམས་ནི་ཟིན་པའི་ཕུང་པོ་ལྔ་པོ་དག་ལ་ཕྱིན་ཅི་ལོག་པར་གྱུར་ཏེ། བཅོམ་ལྡན་འདས། དེ་དག་ནི་མི་རྟག་པ་ལ་རྟག་པར་འདུ་ཤེས་པ་དང་། སྡུག་བསྔལ་བ་ལ་བདེ་བར་འདུ་ཤེས་པ་དང་། བདག་མ་མཆིས་པ་ལ་བདག་ཏུ་འདུ་ཤེས་པ་དང་། མི་གཙང་བ་ལ་གཙང་བར་འདུ་ཤེས་པ་ལགས་སོ། །བཅོམ་ལྡན་འདས། ཐམས་ཅད་མཁྱེན་པའི་ཡེ་ཤེས་ཀྱི་ཡུལ་དང་། དེ་བཞིན་གཤེགས་པའི་ཆོས་ཀྱི་སྐུ་ནི་ཉན་ཐོས་དང་། རང་སངས་རྒྱས་ཐམས་ཅད་ཀྱི་ཤེས་པ་དག་པས་ཀྱང་སྔོན་མ་མཐོང་ལགས་སོ། །བཅོམ་ལྡན་འདས། སེམས་ཅན་རྣམས་དེ་བཞིན་གཤེགས་པ་ལ་དད་པས་རྟག་པར་འདུ་ཤེས་པ་དང་། བདེ་བར་འདུ་ཤེས་པ་དང་། བདག་ཏུ་འདུ་ཤེས་པ་དང་། གཙང་བར་འདུ་ཤེས་པའི་སེམས་ཅན་དེ་དག་ནི་བཅོམ་ལྡན་འདས་ཕྱིན་ཅི་ལོག་ཏུ་འགྱུར་བ་མ་ལགས་ཏེ། བཅོམ་ལྡན་འདས། སེམས་ཅན་དེ་དག་ནི་ཡང་དག་པའི་ལྟ་བ་ཅན་དུ་འགྱུར་བ་ལགས་སོ། །དེ་ཅིའི་སླད་དུ་ཞེ་ན། བཅོམ་ལྡན་འདས། དེ་བཞིན་གཤེགས་པའི་ཆོས་ཀྱི་སྐུ་ཉིད་རྟག་པའི་ཕ་རོལ་ཏུ་ཕྱིན་པ་དང་། བདེ་བའི་ཕ་རོལ་ཏུ་ཕྱིན་པ་དང་། བདག་གི་ཕ་རོལ་ཏུ་ཕྱིན་པ་དང་། གཙང་བའི་ཕ་རོལ་ཏུ་ཕྱིན་པ་ལགས་པའི་སླད་དུའོ། །
::Blessed One! Sentient beings have misperceptions regarding the five sentient aggregates. Blessed One! They are perceiving what is impermanent as permanent, perceiving what is suffering as blissful, perceiving what lacks self as self, and perceiving what is impure as pure. Blessed One! Even the pure cognition of ''śrāvakas'' and ''pratyekabuddhas'' has not previously perceived the objects of pristine omniscient wisdom and the ''dharmakāya'' of the buddhas. Blessed One! Those sentient beings who, out of faith, perceive the Buddha as permanent, blissful, self, and pure are not mistaken in their perception. Blessed One! These sentient beings possess the right view, for the ''dharmakāya'' of the buddhas, Blessed One, has reached the perfection of permanence, perfection of bliss, perfection of self, and the perfection of purity.
More on the ultimate nature of buddha-nature as permanent, blissful, pure, and peaceful can be found in the [[Texts/Śrīmālādevīsūtra|''Lion’s Roar of Queen Śrīmālā'']], the ''Great Cloud Sūtra'', the ''Great Drum Sūtra'', and others.
Set in the male-dominated society of ancient India and given the physical difficulties faced in the life of a renunciate in old times, most Buddhist sūtras present the female body as being a lesser physical medium for spiritual practice than the male body. These sūtras often teach how a female seeker would move on to a male body as she advances on the spiritual path. This was exactly the assumption Mahāmeghagarbha had while talking about a female bodhisattva named Vimalaprabhā in the ''Great Cloud Sūtra''. The Buddha berates Mahāmeghagarbha for having such a thought.<br>
::གསོལ་པ། ལྷ་མོ་དྲི་མ་མེད་པའི་འོད་གང་དུ་བུད་མེད་ཀྱི་ལུས་ལས་ལྡོག་པར་འགྱུར་བ་བཅོམ་ལྡན་འདས་དེ་བཞིན་གཤེགས་པས་ལུང་བསྟན་དུ་གསོལ།
::བཀའ་སྩལ་པ། སྤྲིན་ཆེན་སྙིང་པོ། བུད་མེད་ཀྱི་ལུས་ལས་གང་དུ་ལྡོག་པར་འགྱུར་ཞེས་དེ་ལྟར་མ་ལྟ་ཞིག །
::གསོལ་པ། བཅོམ་ལྡན་འདས་འོ་ན་ཇི་ལྟ་བུ་ལགས།
::བཀའ་སྩལ་པ། འདི་ནི། བུད་མེད་མ་ཡིན་ཏེ༑ ལྷ་མོ་དྲི་མ་མེད་པའི་འོད་འདི་ནི། བསྐལ་པ་བྱེ་བ་ཕྲག་གྲངས་མེད་པ་ནས་བྱང་ཆུབ་སེམས་དཔའི་བྱ་བ་བྱེད་པ་ཡིན་ཏེ། སེམས་ཅན་འདུལ་བའི་དབང་གིས་བུད་མེད་ཀྱི་ལུས་འཛིན་པས་ན།
::འདི་ནི༑ ཐབས་ཀྱི་ལུས་ཡིན་པར་བལྟའོ། །
::[Mahāmeghagarbha] asked: O Blessed Tathāgata! Please prophesy where the goddess Vimalaprabhā will switch from the female body.
::[The Blessed One] said: Mahāmeghagarbha! Do not think of where she will switch from the female body.
::Mahāmeghagarbha: Blessed One! How will it be, then?
::The Buddha: This is not just a case of a woman. The goddess has engaged in bodhisattva activities for countless decamillion eons.
::She holds the female body for the sake of taming sentient beings. View hers as a form of expedience.
The Buddha praises the qualities of Vimalaprabhā in the sūtra and goes on to prophesy how Vimalaprabhā will take the form of an attractive and loving princess in the future to promote the teachings of the Buddha and benefit the world. We also find a similar account of female power in the sūtra called [[Texts/Śrīmālādevīsūtra|''Lion’s Roar of Queen Śrīmālā'']]. In this sūtra, the main interlocutor is Queen Śrīmālā, daughter of King Prasenajit of Kosala but married to King Yaśamitra of Ayodhyā. Queen Śrīmālā is described as a lady of high caliber and confidence. She makes ten pledges and three special prayers, and the Buddha gives the prophecy that she will become a buddha in the future.
The buddha-nature teachings generally underscore the fact that all sentient beings, irrespective of their diverse physical forms, are the same in their innate state of being. Whether male, female, or otherwise, beings possess the same potential and capacity for enlightenment.
''Saṅgha'', the third of the Three Jewels, generally refers to the followers of the Buddhist path. The Sanskrit term ''saṅgha'' literally means a company, assembly, or association. The Tibetan translation for the word ''saṅgha'', ''dge ’dun'' (དགེ་འདུན་), literally "interested in virtue," refers to the spiritual seekers who are often classified into the two communities of saffron-colored renunciates (རབ་བྱུང་ངུར་སྨྲིག་གི་སྡེ་) and the community of white-clothed, long-haired ones (གོས་དཀར་ལྕང་ལོའི་སྡེ་).
The Saṅgha Jewel originally referred to the followers of the Buddha who have entered the path. In the early sūtras, they are described as those who have properly entered (ལེགས་པར་ཞུགས་པ་), correctly entered (རིགས་པར་ཞུགས་པ་), ethically entered (དྲང་པོར་ཞུགས་པ་), and harmoniously entered (མཐུན་པར་ཞུགས་པ་) the path. They are further described as those who are worthy of veneration (ཐལ་མོ་སྦྱར་བའི་འོས་སུ་གྱུར་པ་), worthy of homage (ཕྱག་བྱ་བའི་འོས་སུ་གྱུར་པ་), worthy objects of merit (བསོད་ནམས་ཀྱི་ཞིང་), worthy of offering (ཡོན་ཡོངས་སུ་སྦྱོང་བ་), and worthy recipients of gifts (སྦྱིན་པའི་གནས་སུ་གྱུར་པ་). They mainly include the celibate monks and nuns, particularly the fully ordained ''bhikṣus'' and ''bhikṣuṇīs''. Four such ordained persons are often believed to constitute a proper saṅgha.
In terms of a more technical explanation, the saṅgha in mainstream Buddhism comprises the four sets of spiritual persons, including the stream-runner (རྒྱུན་ཞུགས་), once-returner (ཕྱིར་འོང་), non-returner (ཕྱིར་མི་འོང་), and foe-destroyer (དགྲ་བཅོམ་). The first three are considered to be at different levels on the path to enlightenment, and the fourth one is considered to be an enlightened saint who has reached nirvāṇa. They are further divided into eight or twenty types of saṅgha. The great scholar Vasubandhu in his ''Abhidharmakośa'' (chapter IV.32) states that it is the inner spiritual realization and experience of the followers of the Buddha, not the physical or social person, which is the true saṅgha - the third object of refuge.
The classic literature on buddha-nature, the ''Ratnagotravibhāga'', presents a unique Mahāyāna understanding of the saṅgha. In chapter I.15, it argues that a true Mahāyāna saṅgha is the assembly of bodhisattvas who possess the virtue of the inner vision of suchness and multiplicity and have reached an irreversible stage on the path to buddhahood. Later commentators elaborate that a Mahāyāna saṅgha is marked by the eight qualities of knowledge and liberation (རིག་གྲོལ་གྱི་ཡོན་ཏན་བརྒྱད་). A Mahāyāna saṅgha possesses the knowledge of suchness or reality (ཇི་ལྟ་བ་རིག་པ་), the knowledge of multiplicity of phenomena (ཇི་སྙེད་པ་རིག་པ་), and the knowledge of inner pristine wisdom (ནང་གི་ཡེ་ཤེས་རིག་པ་). Furthermore, they possess the liberation or freedom from the obscuration of attachment (ཆགས་པའི་སྒྲིབ་པ་), the obscuration of obstructions of knowledge (ཐོགས་པའི་སྒྲིབ་པ་), and the obscuration of inferiority (དམན་པའི་སྒྲིབ་པ་). The overall categories of knowledge (རིག་པ་) and liberation (གྲོལ་བ་) are added to these six to make eight qualities. For more on this, read [[Texts/Ratnagotravibhāga_Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra/Root_Verses/Verse_I.14|Verses I.14–18]]
