Rongzom Chökyi Zangpo‘s understanding of Buddhahood and Gnosis

[The Mantra Mongoose]

Hey everybody,

I was looking into Rongzom’s writings, and came across an interpretation of his views on Buddhahood that seem to suggest he believed that ultimately Buddhas do not have Gnosis rather Buddhahood is simply “the purified expanse of reality( Dharmadhatu, Chos Dbyings)” I’m referencing here the introduction to his work “ Entering the Way of the Great Vehicle” Published by Shambala. Could someone explain to me if this is actually correct, and does the lineage as a whole embrace his views or is it still debated? Also, if someone would be willing to show me how that compares to other views held in the Nyigmapa lineage on Buddhahood and Gnosis I would greatly appreciate it. Given the importance and erudition he is said to have in the Nyigmapa Lineage/Tibetan Buddhism I find him really interesting and would love to learn all I can about his views.

[Malcolm]

. Could someone explain to me if this is actually correct,

Yes. It is correct.

and does the lineage as a whole embrace his views or is it still debated?

Yes and no.

Also, if someone would be willing to show me how that compares to other views held in the Nyigmapa lineage on Buddhahood and Gnosis I would greatly appreciate it. Given the importance and erudition he is said to have in the Nyigmapa Lineage/Tibetan Buddhism I find him really interesting and would love to learn all I can about his views.

Rongzom’s view is the real Nyingma View. It is followed by both Longchenpa and Mipham.

[Johnny Dangerous]

It just sounds like the Dzogchen view to me, ymmv....gnosis just means the dissolution of non-recognition into that purified expanse.

I mean, in all Tibetan schools I think you could argue that the pinnacle teachings turn the lower ones on their head.

This reminds me to read Rongzom though.

[The Mantra Mongoose]

Hey Malcolm,

Thanks so much for your reply. I’m still trying to wrap my head around the ramifications/conclusions of having such a view in light of the other views of Buddahood I’ve encountered. Though it makes more sense if I look at it from a Dzogchen Mindset rather then trying to dip into sutra as well. I’m probably gonna pick up the two works I see that are out in English as you have peaked my interest. It also humbles me and makes me realize I didn’t have the understanding I though I had of My teachers instruction in Dzogchen.

[The Mantra Mongoose]

It just sounds like the Dzogchen view to me, ymmv....gnosis just means the dissolution of non-recognition into that purified expanse.

I mean, in all Tibetan schools I think you could argue that the pinnacle teachings turn the lower ones on their head.

This reminds me to read Rongzom though.

Hey Johnny,

I think your absolutely right. My problem was probably stemming from trying to fit sutra suppositions into Dzogchen unintentionally via the Uttaratantra Shasta rather then letting Dzogchen speak for itself.

[florin]

Hey everybody,

I was looking into Rongzom’s writings, and came across an interpretation of his views on Buddhahood that seem to suggest he believed that ultimately Buddhas do not have Gnosis rather Buddhahood is simply “the purified expanse of reality( Dharmadhatu, Chos Dbyings)” I’m referencing here the introduction to his work “ Entering the Way of the Great Vehicle” Published by Shambala. Could someone explain to me if this is actually correct, and does the lineage as a whole embrace his views or is it still debated? Also, if someone would be willing to show me how that compares to other views held in the Nyigmapa lineage on Buddhahood and Gnosis I would greatly appreciate it. Given the importance and erudition he is said to have in the Nyigmapa Lineage/Tibetan Buddhism I find him really interesting and would love to learn all I can about his views.

You may want to look into a work by Orna Almogi “Rong-zom-pa's Discourses on Buddhology: A Study of Various Conceptions of Buddhahood in Indian Sources”where Rongzom’s view on the matter is treated quite extensively. This is a gem of a work, not sure how well known though.

[The Mantra Mongoose]

Hey Florin,

I will! That sounds awesome I’ll keep it on my list. Thanks.

[Archie2009]

Hey everybody,

I was looking into Rongzom’s writings, and came across an interpretation of his views on Buddhahood that seem to suggest he believed that ultimately Buddhas do not have Gnosis rather Buddhahood is simply “the purified expanse of reality( Dharmadhatu, Chos Dbyings)” I’m referencing here the introduction to his work “ Entering the Way of the Great Vehicle” Published by Shambala. Could someone explain to me if this is actually correct, and does the lineage as a whole embrace his views or is it still debated? Also, if someone would be willing to show me how that compares to other views held in the Nyigmapa lineage on Buddhahood and Gnosis I would greatly appreciate it. Given the importance and erudition he is said to have in the Nyigmapa Lineage/Tibetan Buddhism I find him really interesting and would love to learn all I can about his views.

You may want to look into a work by Orna Almogi “Rong-zom-pa's Discourses on Buddhology: A Study of Various Conceptions of Buddhahood in Indian Sources”where Rongzom’s view on the matter is treated quite extensively. This is a gem of a work, not sure how well known though.

This excerpt from the preface of Orna Almogi's work found on Tsadra suggests there is a salient difference between Rongzom's and Mipham's positions?
https://buddhanature.tsadra.org/index.p ... Buddhology

Mi-pham attempts to interpret Rong-zom-pa's statements in which he unquestionably maintains that gnosis does not exist at the stage of a buddha as only referring to gnosis that had been generated on the path but not to gnosis as such, for Rong-zom-pa, Mi-pham argues, is an expounder of rDzogs-chen, a system in which what is called 'self-occurring gnosis' (rang byung gi ye shes: svayaṃbhūjñāna) features prominently. Nonetheless, from my examination of Rong-zom-pa's discussions of the whole issue, it has become evident that he did indeed deny the existence of any cognitive element whatsoever at the stage of a buddha, the sole constituent of Buddhahood being for him the purified dharmadhātu. Although he alludes to self-occurring gnosis on numerous occasions in his works, there is a salient difference between his and Mi-pham's understanding of the term: for Mi-pham self-occurring gnosis is something cognitive, whereas for Rong-zom-pa, who equates it with the dharmadhātu, it is not. Rong-zom-pa, however, does not deny that a buddha's gnosis, as mere appearance, manifests to those who have not yet attained release and thus have not yet eliminated all their delusions. A buddha, on the other hand, whose delusions have been completely exhausted, does not possess such gnosis.

(Full work here: https://www.academia.edu/5674549/Almogi_2009_Buddhology)

I recently ordered Rongzom's Entering the Way of the Great Vehicle and look forward to reading it.

[Malcolm]

Hey Malcolm,

Thanks so much for your reply. I’m still trying to wrap my head around the ramifications/conclusions of having such a view in light of the other views of Buddahood I’ve encountered. Though it makes more sense if I look at it from a Dzogchen Mindset rather then trying to dip into sutra as well. I’m probably gonna pick up the two works I see that are out in English as you have peaked my interest. It also humbles me and makes me realize I didn’t have the understanding I though I had of My teachers instruction in Dzogchen.

In reality, Ronzom's view is no different than that of Mañjuśṛīmitra's:

Since the awakening of the sugata does not exist, his magical apparitions appear to the deluded, similar to an illusion.

This is no different than Haribhadra's assertion that from beginning to end, the entire path is an illusion.

[The Mantra Mongoose]

Hey Malcolm,

Thanks so much for your reply. I’m still trying to wrap my head around the ramifications/conclusions of having such a view in light of the other views of Buddahood I’ve encountered. Though it makes more sense if I look at it from a Dzogchen Mindset rather then trying to dip into sutra as well. I’m probably gonna pick up the two works I see that are out in English as you have peaked my interest. It also humbles me and makes me realize I didn’t have the understanding I though I had of My teachers instruction in Dzogchen.

In reality, Ronzom's view is no different than that of Mañjuśṛīmitra's:

Since the awakening of the sugata does not exist, his magical apparitions appear to the deluded, similar to an illusion.

This is no different than Haribhadra's assertion that from beginning to end, the entire path is an illusion.

Hey Malcolm,

Thanks for the insight. I did have a question though which may shed light on were my confusion is coming from. How do those that follow specifically Jigten Sumgon’s Gongchick teachings square them away with Dzogchen? I know you’ve said in the past that you’ve had Drikung Dzogchen teachers and understand there Dzogchen terma lineage so I’m wondering how do they deal with what seems to me like two completely opposite approach’s to the path and Buddahood? I know question is a little off topic, but as someone who is drifting towards a Nyigmapa presentation from the standard Drikung presentation maybe it could help me see were I’m falling short in my understanding outside of just being woefully undereducated on the subject as a whole.

There so much to learn so these questions really help me pin point were to focus.

[GrapeLover]

Hey Malcolm,

Thanks so much for your reply. I’m still trying to wrap my head around the ramifications/conclusions of having such a view in light of the other views of Buddahood I’ve encountered. Though it makes more sense if I look at it from a Dzogchen Mindset rather then trying to dip into sutra as well. I’m probably gonna pick up the two works I see that are out in English as you have peaked my interest. It also humbles me and makes me realize I didn’t have the understanding I though I had of My teachers instruction in Dzogchen.

In reality, Ronzom's view is no different than that of Mañjuśṛīmitra's:

Since the awakening of the sugata does not exist, his magical apparitions appear to the deluded, similar to an illusion.

This is no different than Haribhadra's assertion that from beginning to end, the entire path is an illusion.

Hey Malcolm,

Thanks for the insight. I did have a question though which may shed light on were my confusion is coming from. How do those that follow specifically Jigten Sumgon’s Gongchick teachings square them away with Dzogchen? I know you’ve said in the past that you’ve had Drikung Dzogchen teachers and understand there Dzogchen terma lineage so I’m wondering how do they deal with what seems to me like two completely opposite approach’s to the path and Buddahood? I know question is a little off topic, but as someone who is drifting towards a Nyigmapa presentation from the standard Drikung presentation maybe it could help me see were I’m falling short in my understanding outside of just being woefully undereducated on the subject as a whole.

There so much to learn so these questions really help me pin point were to focus.

In turn, could I pester you for a resource where I might learn about the Drikung presentation?

[conebeckham]

Hey Malcolm,

Thanks so much for your reply. I’m still trying to wrap my head around the ramifications/conclusions of having such a view in light of the other views of Buddahood I’ve encountered. Though it makes more sense if I look at it from a Dzogchen Mindset rather then trying to dip into sutra as well. I’m probably gonna pick up the two works I see that are out in English as you have peaked my interest. It also humbles me and makes me realize I didn’t have the understanding I though I had of My teachers instruction in Dzogchen.

In reality, Ronzom's view is no different than that of Mañjuśṛīmitra's:

Since the awakening of the sugata does not exist, his magical apparitions appear to the deluded, similar to an illusion.

This is no different than Haribhadra's assertion that from beginning to end, the entire path is an illusion.

Nor from Niguma's view as expressed in the Gyuma LamRim (not Nyingma, per se.....)

[The Mantra Mongoose]

Hey Grapelover,

If your inquiry was directed at me, I would direct you to the recent translation of the Gongchick called “The Buddha’s Single Intention” by wisdom publications. It doesn’t deal with Dzogchen per say rather it gives Jigten Sumgeon’s understanding of the Whole path to Buddhahood. It’s a lot to take in but beautiful even if you disagree with it. I hope that helps.

[GrapeLover]

Hey Grapelover,

If your inquiry was directed at me, I would direct you to the recent translation of the Gongchick called “The Buddha’s Single Intention” by wisdom publications. It doesn’t deal with Dzogchen per say rather it gives Jigten Sumgeon’s understanding of the Whole path to Buddhahood. It’s a lot to take in but beautiful even if you disagree with it. I hope that helps.

Thank you very much!

[Malcolm]

Thanks for the insight. I did have a question though which may shed light on were my confusion is coming from. How do those that follow specifically Jigten Sumgon’s Gongchick teachings square them away with Dzogchen?

I honestly don't know what is says in Gongcik, I have never studied it.

I know however that Gampopa's view of gnosis is more or less the same as Rongzom's. You can discover this by reading chapter 20 of Gampopa's Jewel Ornament of Liberation, where he dismisses the idea that the twin gnosis of a buddha are anything but illusory and do not exist ultimately. He summarizes his position as follows:

"That being the case, the Buddha is the dharmakāya. Since the dharmakāya is nonarising and free from proliferation, it does not possess gnosis. Now then, if it is said that this contradicts the teachings in sūtra that that there are two gnoses, there is no contradiction. Just as when an eye consciousness arises appearing as blue, it is said "blue is seen," likewise, that gnosis that becomes the dharmadhātu is maintained to be the gnosis of how things are. Since the gnosis that knows as much as there is to know is relative, it is defined as an appearance for those to be tamed."

So, in this way, we can see that there is little difference between Rongzom and Gampopa's perspectives.

[The Mantra Mongoose]

Thanks for the insight. I did have a question though which may shed light on were my confusion is coming from. How do those that follow specifically Jigten Sumgon’s Gongchick teachings square them away with Dzogchen?

I honestly don't know what is says in Gongcik, I have never studied it.

I know however that Gampopa's view of gnosis is more or less the same as Rongzom's. You can discover this by reading chapter 20 of Gampopa's Jewel Ornament of Liberation, where he dismisses the idea that the twin gnosis of a buddha are anything but illusory and do not exist ultimately. He summarizes his position as follows:

"That being the case, the Buddha is the dharmakāya. Since the dharmakāya is nonarising and free from proliferation, it does not possess gnosis. Now then, if it is said that this contradicts the teachings in sūtra that that there are two gnoses, there is no contradiction. Just as when an eye consciousness arises appearing as blue, it is said "blue is seen," likewise, that gnosis that becomes the dharmadhātu is maintained to be the gnosis of how things are. Since the gnosis that knows as much as there is to know is relative, it is defined as an appearance for those to be tamed."

So, in this way, we can see that there is little difference between Rongzom and Gampopa's perspectives.

Hey Malcolm,

Just so I’m I know I’m understanding you correctly. Rongzom’s main contention is with people who believe that the so called twin Gnosis of the Buddha’s exist substantially as constituents of enlightenment itself.he believes they are the illusionary means Manifested by Buddha’s due to there past aspirations/compassion to assist sentient beings and lead them towards enlightenment alone. Rongzom/Gampopa would both agree though that in Buddhahood there is a so called Gnosis, but that it’s only constituents are the purified space of the Dharmadhatu which is ultimately inconceivable. Is this correct?

[Malcolm]

Thanks for the insight. I did have a question though which may shed light on were my confusion is coming from. How do those that follow specifically Jigten Sumgon’s Gongchick teachings square them away with Dzogchen?

I honestly don't know what is says in Gongcik, I have never studied it.

I know however that Gampopa's view of gnosis is more or less the same as Rongzom's. You can discover this by reading chapter 20 of Gampopa's Jewel Ornament of Liberation, where he dismisses the idea that the twin gnosis of a buddha are anything but illusory and do not exist ultimately. He summarizes his position as follows:

"That being the case, the Buddha is the dharmakāya. Since the dharmakāya is nonarising and free from proliferation, it does not possess gnosis. Now then, if it is said that this contradicts the teachings in sūtra that that there are two gnoses, there is no contradiction. Just as when an eye consciousness arises appearing as blue, it is said "blue is seen," likewise, that gnosis that becomes the dharmadhātu is maintained to be the gnosis of how things are. Since the gnosis that knows as much as there is to know is relative, it is defined as an appearance for those to be tamed."

So, in this way, we can see that there is little difference between Rongzom and Gampopa's perspectives.

Hey Malcolm,

Just so I’m I know I’m understanding you correctly. Rongzom’s main contention is with people who believe that the the so called twin Gnosis of the Buddha’s exist substantially as constituents of enlightenment itself.he believes they are the illusionary means Manifested by Buddha’s due to there past aspirations/compassion to assist sentient beings and lead them towards enlightenment alone. Rongzom/Gampopa would both agree though that in Buddhahood there is a so called Gnosis, but that it’s only constituents are the purified space of the Dharmadhatu which is ultimately inconceivable. Is this correct?

No, they do not agree that there is gnosis in buddhahood. They expressly deny this position. Gampopa states it clearly here:

The Buddha is the dharmakāya. Since the dharmakāya is nonarising and free from proliferation, it does not possess gnosis.

[The Mantra Mongoose]

Ah ok, I see we’re I was messing up thanks.

[The Mantra Mongoose]

Hey Johnny,

If my reading of the Gonchick was correct then no it isn’t. It seems from my reading of that text that any attempt to separate the path to Buddhahood apart from a gradual presentation is dealt with swiftly and said to not even be Buddhism. I believe it’s Vajra statements 1:13 and 1:14 in the Wisdom edition. Again I could be completely wrong in how I understood the text but that’s what it seemed like to me.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Hey Johnny,

If my reading of the Gonchick was correct then no it isn’t. It seems from my reading of that text that any attempt to separate the path to Buddhahood apart from a gradual presentation is dealt with swiftly I believe it’s Vajra statements 1:13 and 1:14 in the Wisdom edition. Again I could be completely wrong in how I understood the text but that’s what it seemed like to me.

It's all good, I'm out of my depth without more reading, that's why I deleted my original comment. I am not understanding some of the subtlety of the argument I think.