Blinded by Luminous realization?

The Conversion of Saul, Michelangelo (wikimedia)

Luminous realization seems to be what elsewhere is sometimes called deification (apotheosis), daimonification or self-deification (sometimes critically referred to as “egotheism” or “autotheism”). Deification is the possibility for humans to attain god-like powers and faculties and to become like gods. Daimonification is the same thing but on the lower level of a daimon or genius, and therefore less or not transcendental. Luminous realization requires the belief in the Luminous reality of gods and daimons (and their powers), a Luminous Self, and a Luminous subtle body allowing for transfers, rebirth, “resurrection” and the highest permanent realizations.

In the classical world Nature was enchanted, i.e. run by half-gods, titans, daimons, genii, etc. In order to have some limited power over this enchanted Nature regarding things that mattered in their lives: their health, that of their children and their cattle, fortune, longevity etc., human cults to daimons were established. The powers of daimons tend to be more magical and this-worldly, including a non-transcendental afterlife. Everything Natural or regarding “the creation” was/is run by daimons. The status of a daimon (yakṣa, siddha, vidyādhara, kami etc.), like their powers and faculties, were open to the more industrious and zealous humans in that field, who had access to certain levels of daimonification during or after their lives.

Those aspiring to higher and more permanent realizations went for deification and self-deification. In Buddhism and more in particular esoteric Buddhism, this would refer to the possibility and the means to become a Buddha oneself, in one of the Buddha’s numerous manifestations, including as a Deity (s. iṣṭa-devatā t. yi dam), a Heruka, etc. The Luminous Self already is a potential Buddha (tathāgatagarbha) that only needs to be actualised, through unifying the Luminous Self, the Deity and the Guru. The Luminous Body of the Deity and one’s own Luminous subtle body with its inherent Luminous energy system are one, and are the vessel of the Luminous Self undifferentiated from the Luminous inner Guru. It is simultaneous to the ascension into the Luminous spheres, leaving behind saṃsāra. This is a deification process (in ten, twelve or fourteen levels) authorized through Luminous empowerment and results in the actualisation of the “Triple Body” (trikāya) of a Buddha: dharmakāya, saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya. The “self-empowerment” (svādhiṣṭhāna) is the transformative practice of rituals, visualization techniques, meditative and pneumatic and inner alchemic practices etc. to transform delusioned states of consciousness (waking state, dream, sleep, etc.) in a “continuous luminous awareness that is one's own enlightened nature”[1] with the Luminous Triple Body of a Buddha. “Luminosity” and Luminous self-empowerment/deification are most often part of such esoteric Buddhist path. Was this the same method as Maitrīpa/Advaya-Avadhūtipa exposed in his Commentary (D2268) to the Dohākośagīti attributed to Saraha?

“The collection of twenty-six texts on non-conceptual realization is the result of blending the essence and tantric mahāmudrā teachings of Saraha, Nāgārjuna and Śavaripa with a particular form of Madhyamaka philosophy, called 'non-abiding' (apratiṣṭhāna), which aims at radically transcending any conceptual assessment of true reality. This goal is achieved by "withdrawing one's attention" (amanasikāra) from anything that involves the duality of a perceived and perceiver. The result is a "luminous self-empowerment [svādhiṣṭhāna]," Maitripa's (986–1063) final tantric analysis of amanasikāra.” A Fine Blend of Mahāmudrā and Madhyamaka, Klaus-Dieter Mathes, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2016.

This is indeed the by now traditional view of Tibetan Buddhism. Were these twenty-six texts all works written by Advayavajra? Have they been collected intentionally to "blend" Tantric Mahāmudrā and Madhyamaka 'non-abiding' (apratiṣṭhāna)? Was Advayavajra aware of such a teaching under the name of “Mahāmudrā”? Was he aware of the triple classification of “Mahāmudrā” teachings into Sūtra Mahāmudrā, Tantric Mahāmudrā and Essence Mahāmudrā? Does mental nonengagement (amanasikāra) result in "luminous self-empowerment”, i.e. “deification” in the Triple Body of a Buddha? Did Saraha (Dohākośagīti), Nāgārjuna (2nd-3rd century) and Śavaripa teach “Tantric Mahāmudrā”? Were Saraha, Nāgārjuna and Śavaripa the actual authors of the texts in which they are believed to have taught “Tantric Mahāmudrā”? Is Śavaripa a historical figure and did Advayavajra meet Śavaripa?

Advayavajra, Sahajavajra and Gampopa (originally a Kadampa monk) were most likely not aware of “Sūtra Mahāmudrā”. Gampopa, like Atiśa, followed “Apratiṣṭhāna-Madhyamaka” (tib. dbu ma rab tu mi gnas pa), and so did Sahajavajra when he comments his teacher Advayavajra’s Ten Verses on True Reality (Tattvadaśaka).

“The world itself, which is free from knowledge and knowable objects,
Is taken to be non-duality.
But even vain clinging to a state free of duality
Is taken, in like manner, to be luminous [s. prabhāsvaraḥ t. ‘od gsal ba]. (TD 7)

By the power of having realized this true reality,
The yogin, with eyes wide open,
Moves everywhere like a lion,
By any [chosen] means [and] in any [chosen] manner. (TD 8)

[The yogin] who has left the [eight] worldly dharmas behind
And adopted yogic conduct [that appears to be] crazy
Does everything without [any need for] a reference point,
Being adorned with self-empowerment [s. svādhiṣṭhānavi t. bdag byin brlabs pas]. (TD 9)” (translation by KD Mathes)

It is tempting in a small text with translations as “luminous” and “self-empowerment” to understand the “self-empowerment” to be luminous and therefore tantric, and the translation “empowerment” as having a link with “empowerment” (abhiṣeka). And this would allegedly be “Maitripa's (986–1063) final tantric analysis of amanasikāra”. Sva adhiṣṭhāna can also mean “self-standing”, “resolve” or “self-determination”, becoming the only reference point.

“In the late canonical literature of Theravada Buddhism, adhiṭṭhāna is one of the ten "perfections" (dasa pāramiyo), exemplified by the bodhisattva's resolve to become fully awakened.”

In this specific work attributed to Advayavajra and in Sahajavajra’s Commentary thereof, there is no need to apply a tantric or “deifying” (Form Bodies) reading. For Apratiṣṭhāna-Madhyamaka, and for Gampopa[2], the purified Dharmadhātu was the sole constituent of Buddhahood[3].

“The view of my spiritual friends is as follows: The nature of the Samyaksambuddha is Dharmakāya, the end of all error and natural harmony. But such statements are mere words. In reality Dharmakāya is unborn (so does not stand for any conception at all) and is ineffable.

Venerable Mi.la.ras.pa used to say that transcending awareness is not discursive[4]. It is beyond any predication such as existence or non-existence, eternalism or nihilism, and beyond the realm of intellect. Whatever name it is called does not alter its nature. This is particularly true of the word 'transcending awareness'. It was coined by a numskull, so that even if a Buddha were to be asked to explain it, he could not do so. When it is stated that Dharmakāya is beyond the intellect, unborn and ineffable, or such that one can only say 'do not ask me, look into your own mind', the statement is not true of reality. As is written in the 'mDo.sde.rgyan' ('Mahāyāna-sūtrālańkāra' IX, 3):
Liberation (is) merely the end of error.

Therefore since the Buddha is Dharmakāya and since Dharmakāya is unborn and ineffable, it is not a transcending awareness. If you object that this contradicts the statement in the Sūtras about the two types of spiritual awareness, you must know that it does not. It is like saying that we see blue when we are merely conscious of an appearance of blueness, In other words, to that which (in a process of symbolic transformation) becomes Dharmadhātu and which is transcending awareness we attribute the name 'awareness which sees Reality as it is' and call it ultimate knowledge, while we speak of it as relative when it (the process of symbolic transformation) concerns those who have to be brought to spiritual maturity. This interpretation (of transcending awareness) is a good one. By means of it we can say that the most excellent renunciation and spirituality are the essence or the nature of a Buddha.[5]”

Was Gampopa, born after Maitrīpa’s death, and allegedly Milarepa’s student, stooping down to his students with lesser dispositions, teaching them only “Sūtra Mahāmudrā”? Did he have a personal dislike for Luminous Mahāmudrā since he didn't teach it? Did he not know it or receive it? The polemics followed after his death. We don’t know for certain and his Kagyupa descendants don’t want to know, because the whole Tibetan Buddhist tradition has turned “Luminous” since. The Yogācārin Ratnākaraśānti (T. rin chen 'byung gnas zhi ba, ca. 11th cent.), also called Śāntipa, was quite specific about the necessity of theurgic means to accomplish full Luminous Buddhahood. The practice of the Hearers (śrāvaka) and the Mādhyamika is not sufficient and results in “complete cessation, because of not perfecting the actions of purifying the [Luminous] Buddha qualities”. Theurgy, deity practice, in itself is not sufficient either, and neither is “meditat[ing] only on the true nature of what the deities stand for and not the deities”.

“(5) Therefore, the meditation of both [the mind as deities and the true nature of the deities at the same time], because it is extremely pleasant to the mind and because it is a special kind of empowerment, causes one to obtain the highest perfect awakening very quickly.[6]”

In other words “Luminous emptiness”, “Theurgic emptiness”, “Empty Luminosity”, “Empty Theurgy”, or somesuch, but it is clear theurgy or deity practice (deification) is the main ingredient here that can’t be sacrificed, and that is believed to be the only effective access to all the Luminous Buddha Qualities, inherent in the Luminous Self.

Without Luminous Buddhism no blessings, no siddhis and no formal Buddha Bodies. Why not practice Chinese Ch’an in that case?!

When traditional Tibetan Buddhism looks back on earlier times, they do so with the “hindsight” and bias of the later traditions. The whole history and evolution of Tibetan Buddhism is “blended” in a luminous ahistorical hagiographic mix, which is retroactively applied to the earlier situations. A blending and blinding Light.

***

[1] The Other Emptiness, Rethinking the Zhentong Buddhist Discourse in Tibet, edited by Michael R. Sheehy & Klaus-Dieter Mathes, 2019

[2] See Jewel Ornament of Liberation, Herbert V. Guenther, Rider, 1970, p. 261-262

[3] Rong-zom-pa’s Discourses on Buddhology, Orna Almogi, 2009, p. 177

[4] This may be a later interpolation. Also see Des citations qui font plus que citer (2015)

[5] Jewel Ornament of Liberation, Herbert V. Guenther, Rider, 1970, p. 261-262

"And in the 'mDo.sde.rgyan' ('Mahāyāna-sūtrālaṅkāra' IX, 12):  

Where the fog of conflicting emotions and primitive beliefs about reality,

Though present for a long time

Has been dispersed by very great renunciation 

The most excellent virtues and positive qualities are obtained. 

This is Buddhahood.”

[6] The Yogācārin theurgist Ratnākaraśānti (T. rin chen 'byung gnas zhi ba), also called Śāntipa, made a similar declaration about the superiority of the use of theurgy in esoteric Buddhism. He wrote about five different Buddhist contemplative scenarios[3], where the inclusion of theurgy would guarantee the quickest and most complete results.

“(1) If one meditates on the mind alone, then one would only obtain mundane mental concentration (ting nge ’dzin, *samādhi) like the stage of the infinity of consciousness (rnam shes mtha’ yas skye mched, *vijñānānantyāyatana).

(2) Yet if one meditates on emptiness above all, that [result] too becomes only complete cessation, because of not perfecting the actions of purifying the Buddha qualities.

(3) Or, if one meditates on [the mind] only as having the nature of the deities, in this case, one does not even become awakened at all through that alone because the perfection of actions is incomplete.

(4) Or, if one meditates only on the true nature of what the deities stand for and not the deities, then in this case too, one would attain Buddhahood in many countless aeons but not quickly.

(5) Therefore, the meditation of both [the mind as deities and the true nature of the deities at the same time], because it is extremely pleasant to the mind and because it is a special kind of empowerment, causes one to obtain the highest perfect awakening very quickly[4].” “Madhyamakanising” Tantric Yogācāra: The Reuse of Ratnākaraśānti’s Explanation of maṇḍala Visualisation in the Works of Śūnyasamādhivajra, Abhayākaragupta and Tsong Kha Pa Daisy S. Y. Cheung

Let the Luminous sunshine in?

King Louis XIV dancing the Ballet de la nuit (Gallica BnF)

In Tibetan Buddhism, in Buddhism and in other religions, no one is rarely really herself or himself. The XIVth Dalai-Lama is not only an avatar of Avalokiteśvara, the reincarnation of a former Dalai-lama but also “an incarnation of King Trisong Detsen” a Buddhist Tibetan emperor of the 8th century, because his dreams indicated that very clearly. One wonders how that works out in a democracy. A bit like in constitutional monarchies? A head of state is always incarnating their state in some way. In monarchies there often is a bloodline through which the royal ADN is passed on to another mortal terrestrial body, that at the same time “embodies the political and immortal body, the community constituted by the kingdom[1]”.

From: Man of Peace, Robert AF Thurman

In a theocracy like pre-invasion Tibet, the transmission does not necessarily pass through a bloodline, but in other more “spiritual” ways. Yet something divine is somehow incarnated in a mortal human body. A Dalai-lama can be “recognized”, or (auto) designed by divination, visions, dreams, etc. 

From: Man of Peace, Robert AF Thurman

“Those of us gathered here are all followers of the same Buddha. We uphold the Nalanda Tradition, the complete teaching of the Buddha, which we kept alive in Tibet, Mongolia and the Himalayan regions. I’ve had dreams that clearly indicate I am an incarnation of King Trisong Detsen and I have done my best to preserve the tradition established under his direction. I would like to thank all of you for the trust you’ve placed in me." Dharamsala, HP, India on April 19, 2024

He also can have dreams himself that confirm his own divine, or mythological imperial status, as was the case for Tenzin Gyamtso. No doubt the Tibetan State Oracle would confirm that information. What does that sort of information do with a member of the Tibetan democracy-in-exile in India? It is no longer a theocracy and therefore members of that community are legally no subjects anymore, but would you vote against a(n) (re)incarnation of King Trisong Detsen?

 

Aten shining on his earthly representatives (Hymn to Aten)

"At daybreak, when thou arisest on the horizon,
When thou shinest as the Aton by day,
Thou drivest away the darkness and givest thy rays." 

The Egyptian pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty, Akhenaten (reign app. 1353-1336 BCE) is thought to have reformed the Egyptian polytheistic cultus by introducing a form of monotheism (henotheism) centered around Aten, the sun disk, who got the status of a supreme deity, giver of life and sustenance, who directly controlled the cosmos. “Metaphor of Divine Light meet Aten, Aten meet the Divine Light”. The ancient polytheistic Egyptian sun god Rê/Ra could still be present as the solar element in henotheistic combinations such as Amun-Ra. In the Pyramid Texts (2400-2300 BCE) Ra is already depicted as the embodiment of divine order and balance. 

“He was known as the Self-Created-One who appears in creation myths as the deity (interchangeably known as Atum) who stands on the primordial mound amidst the swirling waters of chaos and establishes order, gives birth to the other gods, and creates the world.[2]"

For a period, the priesthood of Amun and the other Egyptian gods lost their power and strengthened the political power of Akhenaten, Ra's earthly embodiment or son. The sun is a universal symbol for the greatest majesty, and divinity. Atenism arrived at the right time of the new Egyptian empire, where universalism came in handy, as is the case for many empires. Sun gods and solar heroes are a great soft power for empires, and often appear at the right moment… The light of the sun makes everything appear and apparent, everything that was hidden can be seen and known. Light, sight and knowledge fuse.

In Book VI of his “Republic” Plato writes:

“As goodness stands in the intelligible realm to intelligence and the things we know, so the sun stands in the visible realm to sight and the things we see.” (Analogy of the Sun)

The sun allows for sight, which is the capability to perceive the visible world, just as the Good allows for knowledge, which is the understanding of the forms. In Neoplatonism, the One is the Source of Light and Good, and in the Gospel of John:

“In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." (John 1:4-5)

Gandharan Bodhisattva with ornate halo, 3rd c. CE (photo)

Disc of Sol Invictus, (3rd century, British Museum)

“[Sol] Invictus”[3] (Ajita) Maitreya and his golden robe (given by the Buddha[4]) has everything from a solar messiah. The Buddha is said to have taught the Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra specifically for him and other (future) bodhisattvas, so that they could progress and one day become Buddhas/Suns themselves.

“Moreover, there are bodhisattvas who cultivate (bhāvayanti) the concentration of recollection of the Buddhas (buddhānusmṛtisamādhi). In order that they progress in this samādhi, the Buddha preached the Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra to them. Thus, in the first chapter of the Prajñāpāramitā, it is said: “Manifesting the basis of his miraculous power (ṛddhipāda), the Buddha emits golden (suvaṇarūpa) rays (raśmi) that light up in the ten directions (daśadiś) universes as numerous as the sands of the Ganges (gaṅgānadīvālukopama lokadhātu). Showing his great body (mahākāya) of pure light (viṣuddhāvabhāsa) and of various colors (nānāvudharūpa), he fills all of space (ākāśa). In the middle of the assembly (parṣad), the Buddha is upright (ṛju), beautiful (abhirūpa), peerless (asama), like Sumeru, king of the mountains, in the center of the great ocean.” The bodhisattvas, seeing this miracle (prātihārya) of the Buddha, progress ever further in the recollection of the Buddha. It is for this reason that the Buddha preaches the Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra.” (4-5th century) (Maha Prajnaparamita Śastra 2001)

Gandhara Buddha 1st-2nd century

This description of the Buddha as a Sun lighting up the ten directions, “like Sumeru, king of the mountains, in the center of the great ocean” reminds the above description of Ra “the self-created one”, appearing anew every day.

King Trisong Detsen (8th century) is considered as an emanation of Mañjuśrī the “Superbodhisattva”, personification of the Logos. And Padmasambhava, as told in the the Chronicle of Padma (pad+ma bka’ thang, discovered by Urgyan Lingpa born in 1323) was sent from the heart of Buddha Amitabha to spread Buddhism in Tibet.

“CANTO 2 THE EMANATIONS EMITTED BY BUDDHA AMITABHA FOR THE SAKE OF THE WORLD

Buddha Amitabha of this western paradise. wishing to subjugate those imprisoned by their own pride- the rulers of the world and their haughty like- from his head-cone, brought forth by means of a red ray, a king, in the happy-land of the lotuses. This was a universal king, Sangbo Chog, Best of the Good. Over the four continents he extended his rule, his prosperity, his power. He had a thousand queens and yet not one son, although all his actions were works of the Dharma. In the southwest spreads the Milky Sea. A lotus flower had just unfolded there; now the king, in order to offer it to the Three Jewels, sent a servant to obtain it. So it was taken and given to the king, and when the king made an oblation to the Three Jewels, from the middle of Amitabha's tongue rays of five colors darted toward the sea.“ The Life and Liberation of Padmasambhava, Dharma Publishing (1978)

The Lotus born one, detail (HA90161)

When this flower of udumbara opened, the Precious Guru, Padmasambhava, the Lotus born one appeared as a young child, a young Sun, a Second Buddha. In whatever forms Buddhas and their manifestations appear, their origin is the metaphorical Divine Light of the Sun, Luminosity, Luminous Emptiness or whatever else one wants to call it. How metaphorical, depends on the individuals using and understanding it.

Young Louis XIV, Jean Nocret

The French king Louis XIV (1638 – 1715) called himself the “Sun King”, after the Sun God Apollo, whom he identified with. He considered himself to be the direct representative of God. King by divine right, he wielded the absolute power of the monarchy. Identifying himself with a pagan god didn’t stop him from persecuting Huguenots (of which I happen to be a Dutch descendant). In Ballet royal de la nuit, the young king participated himself. Night and Silence are in conversation during the Night. The four luminaries (elements) appear and gradually the world is awakened by the Sun, played by the King.

Ballet royal de la nuit

"Première Entrée.

Les quatre Démons du Feu, de l’Air, de l’Eau , & de la Terre, qui rèpresentent les quatre humeurs ou temperamens du corps humain ; le Colérique, le Sanguin, le.-Flegmatique, & le Melancholique, d’où naissent les differens Songes." Ballet royal de la nuit

Isn’t our earth a blessed place for having carried and still carrying so many recognized, anointed, crowned and (self) appointed representative luminaries of the Sun, the Divine Light etc. etc.?

Gates of Versailles

***

Vajra ballet: Génèse de la danse Vajra ?

[1] “Comme l’avait remarqué Ernst Kantorowicz[2] pour des rois européens, le roi a deux corps : un « corps terrestre et mortel, tout en incarnant le corps politique et immortel, la communauté constituée par le royaume ».

« Parce qu'il est naturellement un homme mortel, le roi souffre, doute, se trompe parfois : il n'est ni infaillible, ni intouchable, et en aucune manière l'ombre de Dieu sur Terre comme le souverain peut l'être en régime théocratique. Mais dans ce corps mortel du roi vient se loger le corps immortel du royaume que le roi transmet à son successeur. » ‘Les Deux Corps du roi’ d'Ernst Kantorowicz, Patrick Boucheron L'Histoire, no 315 - décembre 2006.

See Les deux corps d'un tulkou

[2] Ra (Egyptian god), Joshua J. Mark, 2021

[3] Under Emperor Aurelian (3rd century AD), the cult of Sol Invictus ("Unconquered Sun") was established as an official religion. This deity was promoted above other gods in the pantheon, reflecting a kind of henotheism. Sol Invictus was celebrated as a source of life and victory, symbolizing the emperor's power and divine favor. Wikipedia

[4] Etienne Lamotte, The Treatise on the Great Virtue of Wisdom of Nāgārjuna Vol. II ( 1949 )
Part 1 - For what reasons did the Buddha preach Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra?, Maha Prajnaparamita Śastra by Gelongma Karma Migme Chödrön (2001)

The Dà zhìdù lùn was translated into Chinese by the Kuchean monk Kumārajīva (344–413 CE) and his Chinese team

The Luminous Mahāmudrā of Maitrīpa

"Maitrīpa" blending Madhyamaka and Luminous Mahāmudrā (HA60674). Will it blend? 

One of the characteristics of “Luminous Buddhism” is the notion of a Buddha-essence (dhātu) in every being, that is “eternal, blissful, characterized by a personal self, and pure” (Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra), often in the company of an inner luminous subtle body (astral body or spirit body). Luminous in the sense of immaterial, or formed by the most subtle material, similar to light.

Such a Buddha-essence, and its “presence” in all sentient beings, in all their successive (transmigrational) bodies is possible thanks to this inner luminous body, a body in a body, that seems to be whatever is transferred.

The orthodox Theravada Buddhism of Thailand has an influential version of Luminous Buddhism since the last century, thanks to the breakthrough (1916)[1] of Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro (1884 – 1959), the founder of the Dhammakaya tradition.

“He experienced "a bright and shining sphere of Dhamma at the centre of his body, followed by new spheres, each "brighter and clearer", which he understood to be the true Dhamma-body, or Dhammakāya. the "spiritual essence of the Buddha and nibbana [which] exists as a literal reality within the human body, and the true Self (as opposed to the non-self).”

The successful Luminous Theravada of Vijjā Dhammakāya (photo Wcsa.world)
The same movement also confirmed Steve Jobs' rebirth as a powerful daimon 

He then tried to authenticate his experience through reinterpreting a phrase from the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta. 'contemplating the body as a body' became 'contemplating the body in the body'. His experience was developed into a mediation method called “Vijjā Dhammakāya”, the direct knowledge [gnosis] of the Dhammakāya. Dhammakāya here is understood as the luminous body in the body, undifferentiated from the “true Self”[2].

The Luminous Self and the Luminous Body (“Dhammakāya”) open(ed) the possibility to integrate eternalist religious practices into Buddhism. The Luminous Body is the immanent recipient of the transcendent Self, which is the spark, the seed, embryon etc. of a Buddha, a God or an invisible Source (Nous). The vagueness of the notion of “luminosity” and “luminous” allows for authenticating Luminous Buddhism in canonical Buddhist scriptures, where it is most often used metaphorically.

“This mind, mendicants, is radiant.
“Pabhassaramidaṁ, bhikkhave, cittaṁ.
But it is corrupted by passing corruptions.
Tañca kho āgantukehi upakkilesehi upakkiliṭṭhaṁ.
An uneducated ordinary person does not truly understand this.
Taṁ assutavā puthujjano yathābhūtaṁ nappajānāti.
So I say that the uneducated ordinary person has no development of the mind.”
Tasmā ‘assutavato puthujjanassa cittabhāvanā natthī’ti vadāmī”ti.” (translation of AN 1.51 by Bhante Sujato)

“This” mind seems to refer to a specific mind in jhāna, and “luminous”, or rather “radiant” is used as a metaphor to describe the quality of such mind (citta), and not to refer to a Luminous Self, and even less to a Luminous mental body. The adjective luminous slips into a substantive and Luminosity or Clear Light become a substance and an essence, for that which is “eternal, blissful, characterized by a personal self, and pure”, i.e. the Buddha, his cosmic Body, Buddha fields etc., the whole Luminous reality, that in non-Buddhist traditions is often referred to as the Divine.

The Buddhist concept of emptiness (śūnyatā), essencelessness or dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), is used to certify the Divine of Luminous reality (Luminous Self, Luminous Body etc.) as being free of any essence (100% essence free), and yet Luminous or Divine. Emptiness is like the airlock between ordinary reality and Luminous reality. Both ordinary reality and Luminous reality lack any essence, or to put it differently “emptiness”, somehow losing its metaphorical meaning, and becomes like the essence of both realities. All sorts of combinations (“unions”) are possible with emptiness. Emptiness is like a canonical Buddhist approval mark.

Early Buddhist methods apply non-self and emptiness to ordinary reality, so it can be used skilfully, but ordinary reality was not enough for Luminous Buddhists, who saw what other religions had to offer: deification and self-deification. Human beings could be enhanced/luminified/deified/daimonified thanks to the Luminous potential of their Luminous Self and Body, directly linked to and undifferentiated from Luminous Buddhas and their Luminous realities. Through entering that reality, the birth and death that come with ordinary reality could be avoided altogether, and spiritual immortality became within reach. Other religions (Egyptian, Hellenistic, Chaldean, Roman, Gnostic, Christian etc.) already had this on offer, and Buddhism (Yogācāra) was ready to jump on the Luminous bandwagon. The Buddha’s nirvāṇa had to make place for “an undying, eternal state of supreme bliss”[3]. The former teachings of the Buddha, respectively selflessness and emptiness, were considered as preparations for the third turning of the wheel, that would open the way for Luminous Buddhism

“Such a presentation was bound to raise questions and arouse criticism from other Buddhists, and they surely came even as the sutras were being disseminated. We see one such criticism rebutted in the Lankavatarasutra, in which the term “self” is used to refer to buddhanature, but the Buddha, in conversation with Mahamati, explains that “self” here refers to emptiness and signlessness, and that it is being used to prevent the fear of emptiness among people and to attract the non-Buddhists to the Buddha’s teachings. The Ultimate Continuum, continuing this defense, defines the great sublime “self” or buddhanature as a transcendence of the notions of self and nonself and, for that matter, all forms of conceptual construction and mental fixation.” (Why Buddhanature Matters)

That “great sublime self” is Luminous and the core of the Luminous reality that will be built around it, or rather “entered into” (avatara), because it has always existed, only ignorance (avidyā) prevented us from experiencing it fully. Tantras teach how this reality can be accessed and how we can self-deify or “self-empower” (svādhiṣṭhāna) under the guidance of a guru.

In Tibetan Buddhism, “Maitrīpa” is presented as one of the teachers who helped to build a bridge between madhyamaka and Luminous Buddhism. The “Great Self” allegedly taught by Maitreya during Asaṅga’s ascension to Tuṣita heaven, would lead to the composition of The Ultimate Continuum and its commentaries that would serve as the canonical justification for the Element (dhātu) that became the basis for Tantric self-deification.

Maitrīpa is considered as the author of the Amanasikāra cycle, containing a variety of texts attributed to Advayavajra/Maitrīpa. Whether these have been effectively (all) authored by Advayavajra and have not been amended since the 11th century is not known. The cumulative meaning of all these texts is considered as Maitrīpa’s teaching by the Tibetan tradition and its scholars. Some Amanasikāra texts center on nonabiding (apratiṣṭhāna), others on tantric empowerment and practices. Klaus-Dieter Mathes and others see the occurrence of both topics in the same cycle as proof of the author’s (Maitrīpa?) intention to blend nonabiding and self-empowerment. In my opinion it’s no so much a “blend” than a bridge or a gateway to full Luminous tantric practice, since nonabiding on itself is considered by Luminous Buddhism as an incomplete method that will effectively be superseded by Luminous methods. This is also what happened.

“In this cycle, Maitrīpa blends Śavaripa’s Mahāmudrā with his favored Madhyamaka philosophy of nonabiding (apratiṣṭhāna), which aims at radically transcending any conceptual assessment of true reality.”

For Mathes and the Tibetan tradition Maitrīpa’s intention to blend madhyamika nonabiding with Tantric Mahāmudrā is based on a creative semiotic interpretation of the Sanskrit word for mental nonengagement, amanasikāra, found in one of the texts attributed to Maitrīpa, the Amanasikārādhāra, translated by Mathes as “Justification of Nonconceptual Realization”. In the “blending” process, we start with Mādhyamika nonabiding, pass through mental nonengagement, translated as “Nonconceptual Realization”, and end up with “Luminous self-empowerment".

“Nonabiding” is a translation for the Sanskrit apratiṣṭhāna, which is a basic term used by “Apratiṣṭhāna-Madhyamaka” (tib. dbu ma rab tu mi gnas pa). One of its earlier definitions can be found in the Gaganagañjaparipṛcchā.

“The essential nature is like space, the superficial mental effort is like wind, the actions and vices are like water, and the parts of personality, spheres and fields of perception are like earth. Therefore, it is said that all dharmas are devoid of any root, the root which is established in nothing, the root of purity, and the root of no root.[4]”

That sounds pretty radical and one wonders how this radical mādhyamika rootlessness can be effectively blended with Luminosity (s. prabhāsvara t. ‘od gsal) as a sort of “universal root”, and with practices centered on Luminosity.

“Maitrīpa, however, takes amanasikāra not only in this ordinary sense of mental nonengagement but also analyzes the compound a-manasikāra as “luminous self-empowerment.” In doing so, he understands the privative a as denoting luminous emptiness, with which one directly engages (manasikāra) in a nonconceptual way. This, in any case, is the conclusion in the Justification of Nonconceptual Realization:

“Moreover, a stands for the word “luminous,” and manasikāra for the word “self-empowerment” (svādhiṣṭhāna). It is both a and manasikāra, so we get amanasikāra. Because of that, the words a, manasikāra, and so forth, refer to the inconceivable state of being luminous and the one of self-empowerment.” (Maitrīpa, India’s Yogi of Nondual Bliss)

Luminosity (Nous) is perhaps not “a root” but certainly has the appearance of the all pervading “substance” everything is ultimately “made of”. For Luminists Luminosity goes deeper than mind and intellect, and the suspension thereof. It goes deeper than “emptiness”, conveniently considered as “empty emptiness”, that needs to be paired with “luminosity”, “bliss” etc. in order to be “complete”. Since Luminosity is eternal and all pervading, whatever is built in or on Luminosity will last. Whatever is Luminous is superior to what requires mental and intellectual effort and even the suspension of that effort.

Mathes explains:

“Maitrīpa thus introduces to the practice of not becoming mentally engaged a Mahāmudrā component (luminous emptiness) that allows him to continuously refrain from any form of reification and stabilize his nonconceptual realization of emptiness. In other words, amanasikāra not only means to refrain from projecting wrong notions (such as an independent existence or characteristic signs) onto anything arisen in dependence, whether skandhas, dhātus, or āyatanas,but also a sustained realization of the luminous nature of mind." (Maitrīpa, India’s Yogi of Nondual Bliss)

Mental nonengagement, [empty] emptiness and nonconceptuality are not “stable”, not “continuous”, and therefore not sufficient, when they are not integrated ("realized") in the lasting Luminous level of the transcendent Luminous Self. They would be interrupted when one’s Selfless little self disintegrates. It’s not a permanent realization. Therefore, Luminists say, mental nonengagement needs to be "realized" on the Luminous level of mind. The Luminous nature (prakṛti) “of mind” is the Luminous Self and its Luminous vessel. Whatever is "realized" on that level will continue to operate when dying, and after death. The Selfless little self disintegrates, but the Luminous Self fares on in its Luminous vessel and allows one to luminify/buddhify/daimonify/deify. The object of Buddhist Tantra is to connect with and prepare the Luminous vessel for every possible situation (waking state, dream, sleep, after death, becoming…). Without this, all the Buddhism you have (selflessness, emptiness, nonabiding, mental nonengagement, sūtra mahāmudrā, “cutting through rigidity” Dzogchen, etc.) won’t do, and you would have to start all over again in your next life. With this in mind you are ready to understand Maitrīpa’s and Sahajavajra’s intention properly.

Mahāmudrā is not the pedaling-in-the-air of Sūtra Mahāmudrā, but Luminous Mahāmudrā, Tantric Mahāmudrā (or alternatively Essential Mahāmudrā for the happy few) on the Luminous level. This requires a guru, Luminous empowerment and Luminous self-empowerment in order to realize full Luminification/Buddhification.

In the lower right corner of Maitrīpa's thanka above, we see a relaxed Milarepa who is clearly not blending... A critical touch or wink of the painter in the style of Breughel ? Unless it is Maitrīpa himself crossing the Ganges as told in one of his Tibetan hagiographies.

***

[1] “Thus, on the full-moon day in the 10th lunar month of 1916, he sat down in the main shrine hall of Wat Botbon, resolving not to waver in his practice of meditation. He meditated for three hours on the mantra sammā araham, which means "righteous Absolute of Attainment which a human being can achieve." Then "his mind [suddenly] became still and firmly established at the very centre of his body," and he experienced "a bright and shining sphere of Dhamma at the centre of his body, followed by new spheres, each "brighter and clearer." According to Luang Pu Sodh, this was the true Dhamma-body, or Dhammakāya, the "spiritual essence of the Buddha and nibbana [which] exists as a literal reality within the human body.” Mackenzie, Rory (2007), New Buddhist Movements in Thailand: Towards an understanding of Wat Phra Dhammakaya and Santi Asoke (PDF), Routledge, ISBN 978-0-203-96646-4.

[2] Wikipedia, Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro.

[3] Why Buddhanature Matters, Lopen Karma Phuntsho, Lion’s Roar

[4] Han, Jaehee. 2021. The Sky as a Mahāyāna Symbol of Emptiness and Generous Fullness: A Study and Translation of the Gaganagañjaparipṛcchā. PhD dissertation, University of Oslo. Online source
For the Sanskrit and Tibetan version of the quote:

Rgvbh: tatra yathākāśadhātus tathā prakṛtiḥ | yathā vāyudhātus tathāyoniśomanasikāraḥ | yathābdhātus tathā karmakleśāḥ | yathā pṛthivīdhātus tathā skandhadhātvāyatanāni | tata ucyante sarvadharmā asāramūlā apratiṣṭhānamūlāḥ śuddhamūlā amūlamūlā iti |

RgvbhTib: de la nam mkha’i khams ji lta pa de ltar ni raṅ bźin no || rluṅ gi khams ji lta ba de ltar ni tshul bźin ma yin pa yid la byed pa’o || chu’i khams ji ta ba de ltar ni las daṅ ñon moṅs pa’o || sa’i khams ji lta ba de ltar ni phuṅ po daṅ | skye mched daṅ | khams rnams so || des na chos thams cad ni rtsa ba yoṅs su chad pa ste | sñiṅ po med pa’i rtsa ba can | mi gnas pa’i rtsa ba can | dag pa’i rtsa ba can | rtsa ba med pa’i rtsa ba can źes brjod do źe’o ||

Les métamorphoses d'un courant d'air chaud

"Dépolluer le Gange, une mission impossible ?" (La Croix)

Dans la “religion de terre” de la Grèce ancienne, avant l’invention du ciel, la mort et la naissance étaient vues comme faisant partie du cycle naturel, sans la notion d’une existence individuelle ou d’un destin individuel.

“La figure singulière que revêt dans ce système la mort. Elle n'est pas un événement mais un espace et, plus exactement, la moitié inférieure de l'espace. Elle est un lieu béni avec lequel il importe avant tout de garder le contact: comme l'est ailleurs le ciel dont, ici, on n'a pas besoin. (166) La mort purement spatiale et entièrement positive est le fondement même de la pensée de circulation. Mais elle est aussi l'obstacle majeur sur le chemin de la construction de l'identité. Elle interdit de penser la mort comme un événement et d'y voir un terme : celui de vie humaine. Fait répétitif, la mort enchaîne sur la naissance, elle aussi répétitive. Captées dans un rapport circulaire, la naissance et mort ne peuvent pas servir comme bornes propres à délimiter l’existence individuelle. Inscrites dans un cercle, elles ne peuvent pas être, la première un commencement, et la seconde une fin. Les repères les plus élémentaires pour concevoir le destin individuel restent ainsi hors de vue. L'homme ne peut pas se penser à partir de sa mort.[1]”

Pour Empédocle, la “quadruple racine”, ce sont les quatre éléments (Zeus-air, Héra-terre, Aidonerus/Hadès-feu, Nestis/Persephone-eau[2]), et il n’y a donc pour lui pas réellement de naissance et de mort,

“Il y a seulement un effet de mélange [des éléments]
Et de séparation de ce qui fut mêlé :
Naissance n'est qu'un mot qui a cours chez les hommes.[3]”

Les résultats des mélanges des quatre éléments peuvent être "un homme", "une bête", "un arbuste" ou "un oiseau". Pourtant on parle de “naissance”, de “production”, d’ “engendrement”, de “génération”, et de leurs contraires.

“Ce parler est injuste, et pourtant il convient
Que j'y recoure aussi pour observer l'usage.” (Plutarque, Contre Colotès, 11, 1113 A)

Comme le Bouddha utilisait des conventions (p.e. “je”), sans en être dupe.

“Colotès ne s'est pas rendu compte que les plantes, les bêtes, les arbustes et les oiseaux n'ont pas eu leur existence abolie par Empédocle, puisqu'il déclare qu'ils résultent du mélange des éléments. Au contraire, Empedocle, après avoir mis en garde ceux qui décrivent ce mélange et cette dissociation sous les termes de naissance, de trépas funestes, et de mort vengeresse, ne désavoue pas l'usage courant.” (Plutarque, Contre Colotès, 11, 1113 A.)

Empédocle semble parler de ce que l’on pourrait appeler ailleurs “non-production” et “non-destruction”. Les éléments, “non-engendrés”, se mélangent et se séparent

“Car de même que rien n'est produit à partir du non-étant, rien non plus n'est détruit en non-étant:

Ainsi du non-étant rien ne peut naître un jour;
Que l'étant soit détruit, cela ne veut rien dire
Et heurte la pensée; car il sera toujours
Là, quel que soit l'endroit où l'on veuille le mettre.[4]”

“Dans le tout point de vide.
Et d’où proviendrait donc
ce qui pourrait s’y ajouter?[5]” (Aétius; Pseudo-Aristote; Mélissos, Xénophane, Gorgias, 1, 28)

D’où pourrait être ajoutée une “identité individuelle” de courant avec sa mémoire propre ? Quand Empédocle dit :

“En vérité, j'étais un garçon et une fille, un buisson, un oiseau et un poisson dans le tourbillon de l'océan.” (Diogène Laërce; Hippolyte; Vies, VIII, 77; Réfutation de toutes les héresies I, 3.)

Christianisme et bouddhisme, KTO TV

Il recourt au “je” d’usage comme l’aurait pu le faire le Bouddha. Ni le même, ni un autre. Il ne parle pas d’un “esprit” “qui continuerait sa course” (18:52), qui serait “une succession de consciences”, un “courant de conscience”, “une sorte de fleuve qui traverse les frontières”, qui peut avoir un autre nom après chaque frontière traversée, tout en étant et restant le même fleuve. D’ailleurs, pourquoi ce fleuve, et pas un autre, pourquoi pas l’environnement, ou le tout dans son ensemble ? Empédocle ne fait pas référence à une succession de naissances spécifique qui serait la sienne, il se sent solidaire de tout, sans naissance, sans mort.

Philippe Cornu : “[Le courant de conscience] a traversé la frontière de la mort (19:34) et il peut également charrier des débris d'un côté puis de l'autre. D’où les conditionnements qui continuent d’être charriés par ce même courant de conscience. Il y a une continuité, donc on peut dire que la personne qui existe dans cette vie et la personne qui existe dans la vie suivante ne sont ni la même ni une autre.”

Si cette personne n’est ni la même ni une autre, et si on parlait dans ce cas de “naissance” pour “observer l’usage”, pourquoi aller plus loin et parler de re-naissance ? Re-naissance de quoi ?

Philippe Cornu : “(20:11) Notre personnalité va avec ce corps, et donc ça se désagrège, et ça se défait. Mais la mémoire de ce que nous avons fait se prolonge et se poursuit dans la vie suivante. Ce n'est pas la même personne ; il n'y a pas une ontologie de la personne.[6]”

Un fleuve est surtout un lit creusé dans la terre par l’eau, et à travers lequel l’eau s’écoule, quand et tant qu’il y en a. Sans lit, comment dire du volume d’eau qui s’y écoule qu’elle soit ni la même ni une autre. “On ne peut pas entrer deux fois dans le même fleuve” dit Héraclite. Empédocle semble comme Héraclite parler de la réalité mouvante et du flux universel, pour lequel il n’y a ni frontières, ni naissance, ni mort. Ce flux universel charrie-t-il des débris ou des mémoires individuelles, en les faisant passer d’une naissance à une autre, voire même à une re-naissance ? La mémoire de “ce qu’a fait”(20:16) un buisson, un oiseau, un poisson, ... les poursuit-elle dans leur vie suivante, et quel serait le support de cette mémoire ? De quelle manière le buisson et Empédocle ne sont-ils ni le même ni un autre ? La mémoire (individualisée) y joue-t-elle vraiment un rôle ? Et, charriés depuis le commencement du courant spécifique qui les emporte, si les débris passent, Empédocle arrivera-t-il à les séparer du courant de conscience de poisson, etc. ? Le transfert de la mémoire individuelle de “ce qui a été fait” ne semblait pas le préoccuper, car sa mémoire n’était pas individuelle, celle de tel garçon, telle fille, tel buisson, …

C’est pour éviter l'appropriation d’un mien et l’identification à un moi, que le Bouddha avait enseigné le non-soi et la vacuité. Dévaloriser ces moyens en les qualifiant d’enseignements “donnés aux imbéciles, aux êtres ordinaires et aux débutants comme un remède à l'attachement au soi[7]” pour promouvoir un Soi lumineux de fils de Lumière. Ou d’un “esprit”, une mémoire qui se poursuit dans la vie suivante, jusqu’à retrouver à terme sa Source noétique, au bout d’un cheminement bien défini

Le bouddhisme Lumineux pose à la fois un Soi lumineux avec sa réalité lumineuse inconditionnée, et l’ignorance de ce Soi lumineux avec sa réalité conditionnée considérée peu glorieuse. Pour ceux qui vivent par le Soi lumineux, il n’y a pas de naissance ou mort réelle, tout comme pour Empédocle d'ailleurs mais pour d'autres raisons. En même temps, ces fils de Lumière ont une très forte conscience des humains qui, ignorant le Soi lumineux, vivent une existence conditionnée marquée par la naissance et la mort. Il leur est insupportable que d’autres vivent en “homme”, “bête”, “arbuste” ou “oiseau”, en subissant une existence conditionnée, et veulent les ramener au Soi lumineux. Ils sont hyper conscients de cette différence entre eux-mêmes et les autres. Mettre fin à cette altérité, et célébrer tous ensemble le Soi lumineux et sa réalité lumineuse, semble être leur seule raison d’exister, sans quoi elles seraient déjà passés au nirvāṇa ou dans d’autres hautes sphères. Empédocle accepte la condition terrestre, quelle qu’elle soit. Il ne fait pas de différence entre lui-même, toutes les métamorphoses du passé (les siennes comme celles des autres), et celles encore à venir. Il ne perçoit pas de “débris”, qui sont au fond de simples modalités. La vie était sans doute moins complexe avant l’invention du ciel ou pour ceux qui attachaient plus d'importance à ce qui était déjà là.

Avec l’invention du ciel, et sa bureaucratie, chaque âme avait un parcours, de ses origines jusqu’à son retour à la Source, ou le cas échéant sa transmigration, ou sa damnation, temporaire ou éternelle. Ses actes, paroles et pensées (crédit social) étaient enregistrés dans une mémoire, qui la suivait de métamorphose en métamorphose, et dont elle était comptable et responsable. Comment sait-on cela ? Ceux-là qui parlent de l’ignorance (avidyā) du Soi lumineux et sa réalité lumineuse, sont les mêmes que ceux qui parlent du ”courant”, de “l’esprit”, et de la “mémoire” individualisée qui suit chaque fil de métamorphose à la trace. Ils prêchent à la fois le Soi lumineux universel, et la transmigration des “courants” qui l’ignorent. Une double ignorance, car la plupart des êtres ignorent et le Soi lumineux, et la terrible souffrance de la transmigration, (dont il faut sortir à tout prix), à cause de leur "attachement" à un soi individuel séparé, et le fardeau de la mémoire que celui traîne avec lui de métamorphose en métamorphose. S’ils se sentent mal, c’est à cause de cette double ignorance, parole de fils de Lumière. C’est beaucoup plus complexe que l’approche d’un Empédocle, d’un Héraclite ou d'un Bouddha.

"Ce dont il y a vue, ouïe, perception, c'est cela que, moi, je préfère". (Héraclite, 74 (55), Marcel Conche, p. 264)

"Voilà comment tu dois pratiquer. Quand, pour toi, il y aura simplement

  ce qui est vu dans ce qui est vu,

  ce qui est entendu dans ce qui est entendu,

  ce qui est ressenti dans ce qui est ressenti,

  et ce qui est connu dans ce qui est connu,

Alors, Bahiya, il n’y aura pas de saisie de ces objets.

Quand il n’y a pas de saisie des objets, il n’y a pas de « toi » en eux.

Quand il n’y a pas de « toi » en eux, tu n’es ni ici ni au-delà ni entre les deux.

Cela, simplement cela, est la fin de la souffrance." (Bāhiyasutta, trad. Jeanne Schut) 

Ceux qui ont été convertis par les fils de Lumière sont-ils réellement plus heureux, soulagés, lumineux ? Ils n’en ont pas toujours l’air. Souvent même ils ont conscience de tous leur manquements par rapport aux devoirs de la voie lumineuse, et ne se sentent pas à la hauteur. Lire des hagiographies accentue ce sentiment. Sont-ils assez reconnaissants envers les fils de Lumière, qui leur ont enseigné leur double ignorance, et qui les guident sur la voie lumineuse vers la Lumière ? Ces fils de Lumière sont comme des Bouddhas, ils ne sont plus vraiment “sous la condition humaine” (11:34), “ils ne sont plus conditionnés”, “au-delà du temps”, “au-delà de toutes les causes et conditions” (11:47), “ni être humain, ni dieu” (11:54), “au-delà de l’existence habituelle”. Si l’on voit des défauts en eux, ce sont nos propres défauts que nous projetons sur eux, et qu’ils reflètent tels des miroirs, ce qui peut encore davantage renforcer notre sentiment d’échec...

Grâce au Soi lumineux naturellement présent, “l’esprit” individuel est une “transcendance intériorisée” (8:14), qui “intègre” le corps et la parole, intègre l'intériorité/extériorité, et “l’esprit” est “le boss” (9:05). Le déconditionnement, ou l’accès à l’inconditionné immanent, passe donc par un travail énorme sur “l’esprit”. L’inconditionné en l’homme (8:35) est sa nature fondamentale, que l’on appelle “nature de Bouddha”. La pratique bouddhiste (tib. nang pa) est tournée vers l’intérieur, vers “l’esprit”, individuel s'entend, c’est-à-dire “l’esprit” encombré par les débris spécifiques (karma) associés à son “courant de conscience” (19:09) spécifique, et qui accouchera un beau jour d’un Bouddha. La nature de Bouddha est partagée par tout le vivant, donc “homme”, “bête”, “arbuste”, “oiseau” ou protozoé (39:31), qui pourront en théorie, un jour, tous, individuellement, en fonction de leurs “débris” respectifs, devenir un Bouddha.

Le bouddhisme présenté ici par Philippe Cornu est le bouddhisme lumineux, celui pratiqué entre autres par l’école nyingmapa de son maître Sogyal Lakar. Régis Burnet (KTO) pose la question qui s’impose logiquement (9:11).

Question : Est-ce que je dis faux si je dis qu’en fait, nous avons une part de nature divine en nous, et puis plein de choses pas très divines et qu'il faut purifier ?

“C'est ça oui, on pourrait presque dire ça. Après ça dépend de l'approche bouddhiste, parce qu'il y a de multiples approches dans le bouddhisme. Il y a des approches où vraiment il faut renoncer à tout un tas de choses, il faut vraiment purifier [la voie des auditeurs, theravāda]. D'autres, il faut transformer [bouddhisme tantrique]. Et d'autres [tathāgatagarbha dotée de qualités intrinsèques, dzogchen], nous disent qu'en fait notre nature est déjà parfaite, mais qu'il faut la réaliser, l'actualiser. Il y a différents chemins dans le bouddhisme qui dépendent un peu des des besoins de chacun et des capacités de chacun.”

En effet, le bouddhisme présenté ici par Philippe Cornu est un bouddhisme Lumineux, centré sur la Lumière, que l’on pourrait appeler “divine” à cause de la transformation (tantrique) et le Soi lumineux qui intègre tout, et qui contient en elle la Perfection lumineuse. D’autres formes de bouddhisme sont plus près de l’homme et font davantage appel à la lumière humaine dans une nature (enchantée).

Le titre donné à l’interview est “Christianisme et bouddhisme”, mais le bouddhisme présenté était celui d’une branche très particulière, très Lumineuse, plutôt tardive, du “bouddhisme” dans son ensemble, qui est en effet très complexe. On pourrait dire la même chose de la philosophie. Présenter le néoplatonisme comme “LA philosophie” ne serait pas convenable. Un autre bouddhiste aurait pu sans doute répondre plus franchement, et de façon moins complexe, à la question de Régis Burnet.

***

[1] Maria Daraki, Dionysos et la déesse Terre, Champs, Flammarion, 1985/1994

[2] Aétius ; Sextus Empiricus.
“Connais premièrement la quadruple racine
De toutes choses : Zeus aux feux lumineux,
Héra mère de vie, et puis Hadès,
Nestis enfin, aux pleurs dont les mortels s’abreuvent.”
(Opinions, I, iii, 20 ; Contre les mathématiciens, X, 315). Les écoles présocratiques, Jean-Paul Dumont, Folio, Essais, p. 184

[3] Plutarque, Contre Colotès, 10, IIII F, Aetius, Opinions, I, XXX, 1. Les écoles présocratiques, Jean-Paul Dumont, Folio, Essais, p. 184

[4] Pseudo-Aristote, Mélissos, Xénophane, Gorgias, Ⅱ, 6, et Philon, De l'éternité du monde, 2, p. 3., cités dans Les écoles présocratiques, pp. 184-190

[5] Psuedo-Aristote, Mélissos, Xénophane, Gorgias, II, 28.), ibidd., p. 186

[6] KTO TV, Christianisme et bouddhisme, 07/04/2024. Philippe Cornu, spécialiste du bouddhisme tibétain et le frère Benoît Billot, bénédictin, spécialiste des pratiques méditatives.

[7] “The sphere [dhātu] is the ultimate truth. It is said that by seeing its nature [rang bzhin] you see ultimate truth. But again, it is not the case that an emptiness in which nothing exists at all is the ultimate truth. To fools, ordinary beings, and beginners, the teachings on selflessness and so forth were given as a remedy for being attached to a self. But [this selflessness or emptiness], it should be known, [is] in reality the sphere [or] luminosity, [which is] unconditioned and exists as something spontaneously present.” Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. A Direct Path to the Buddha Within: Gö Lotsāwa's Mahāmudrā Interpretation of the Ratnagotravibhāga. Studies in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2008.

Klong chen pa: Grub mtha' mdzod, 185.6-186.2: de'ang don dam pa'i bden pa dbyings yin la/ 'di'i rang bzhin mthong bas don dam bden pa mthong zhes bya'i/ cir yang med pa'i stong nyid kyang don dam bden pa ma yin no/ de'ang byis pa so so skye bo dang/ las dang po dag bdag tu zhen pa'i gnyen por bdag med pa la sogs pa bstan pa yin gyi (text: gyis)/ don la dbyings 'od gsal ba 'dus ma byas shing lhun grub tu yod pa shes par bya ste/.