Video on Gompopa and Buddha Nature.

Post Reply
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Video on Gompopa and Buddha Nature.

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

The Karma Kagyu school more or less embraced the Shentong view at the time of Karmapa III, Rangjung Dorje. However the teachings on Buddha Nature were present long before that in the Kagyu school. In fact the lecturer mentions that Marpa received the teachings of Maitreya from Maitripa. I hadn’t heard that before.

Anyway this video focuses on Gompopa’s views on Buddha Nature. The whole idea of Shentong hadn’t come into being at that time, so I personally had wondered about how the idea was presented. Gompopa talks about it a bit in his “Jewel Ornament” text.

So I had a reason to be interested. YMMV.



https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MoMUdg40Qv8
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 5707
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Video on Gompopa and Buddha Nature.

Post by conebeckham »

Rangjung Droje would not have called himself a Shentongpa, I don't think. You know Dolpopa was his student, but I don't think Rangjung Dorje would have agreed with all of Dolpopa's positions. Clearly, though, the idea of Buddha Nature is central to Gampopa, it is the first chapter of the TharGyen, and is unique amongst Lam Rim literature in that regard, as far as I know. Even Taranatha's Lam Rim starts with Precious Human Existence, like most.
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Video on Gompopa and Buddha Nature.

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

conebeckham wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:39 pm Rangjung Droje would not have called himself a Shentongpa, I don't think. You know Dolpopa was his student, but I don't think Rangjung Dorje would have agreed with all of Dolpopa's positions. Clearly, though, the idea of Buddha Nature is central to Gampopa, it is the first chapter of the TharGyen, and is unique amongst Lam Rim literature in that regard, as far as I know. Even Taranatha's Lam Rim starts with Precious Human Existence, like most.
I’ve read Rangjung Dorje didn’t use the term “Shentong”. I’ve also read he is one of the foremost Shentongpas among the Karmapas. So I assume he was retroactively designated a Shentongpa. That’s my simplistic reconciliation of the two conflicting statements.

Gompopa’s “Jewel Ornament” starts with a chapter on Buddha Nature, and ends with a chapter on Buddha Activity. The last chapter quotes extensively from the Uttaratantra’s last chapter. Thus he puts a fairly standard Lam Rim into the lofty context of being literally “contained” (between the pages of) the idea of Buddha Nature. That’s actually why I was curious about the video.

Gompopa named his main student “Karmapa”, which I’ve always have been told means “the enlightened activity of the Buddhas”. Given the importance Gompopa places on the Uttaratantra’s chapter on Buddha Activity, I’ve begun to suspect Karmapa I, and subsequently the past 900 years of his entire school, was inspired by the last chapter of the Uttaratantra.

But that’s just my dilettante’s guess.

The big thing I got out of the video was that Marpa received the “5 Treatises of Maitreya” from Maitripa. It’s not talked about like the sexier “6 Yogas of Naropa”, but Buddha Nature has been there from the beginning of the Kagyu lineage.

Cool.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
sherabpa
Posts: 125
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:26 pm

Re: Video on Gompopa and Buddha Nature.

Post by sherabpa »

BTW its Gampopa not Gompopa.

'Lamrim' generally refers to texts that use Atisha's model of the 'Inferior, Middling and Superior Persons' from his Lamp of the Path of Enlightenment. Jewel Ornament of Liberation does not use this model but that of the five families of the Uttarantantrasastra. As such it is better classified as a 'Tenrim', i.e. a treatise on the stages of the path. Another tenrim text which begins with the Buddha nature teachings is Sakya Pandita's 'Elucidating the Thought of the Sage', which also relies extensively on the teachings of Maitreya. So this idea that following Maitreya is a special characteristic of the Dakpo Kagyu is not really true. What is probably true however is that Tsongkhapa was very influential in 'demoting' the lineage of Maitreya/Asanga below that of Nagarjuna/Madhyamaka, whereas more traditionally these two lineages were seen as equal.

The name 'Karmapa' I think is usually ascribed to an apocryphal prediction supposedly from the Samadhirajasutra on the coming of 'a man of Buddha activity'. Though no such prediction is extent, I think this is generally considered the origin of the name 'Karmapa' and not the teachings of Maitreya.

Its true that the term 'shentong' has been applied only retroactively to Rangjung Dorje. I have seen some people dispute this attribution to him but such disputation is always based on quite a narrow definition of 'shentong', usually defining it solely in terms of a special understanding of the 'three natures' which is a little controversial, and ignoring other important aspects of 'shentong' such as lineages, tathatagarbha, terminology, key texts etc. Really there are many 'shentongs'. It is a family resemblance concept, and should not be limited to a single characteristic.

It certainly has been said in the histories that Marpa received the Uttaratantra from Maitripa but most famously Gampopa is reported by Go Lotsawa and others to have said 'The Uttaratantrasasta of the Jina Maitreya is the root text of our sutra mahamudra tradition'. However Gampopa does seem to have been an innovator his association of the term 'mahamudra' with the non-tantric teachings.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Video on Gompopa and Buddha Nature.

Post by Malcolm »

sherabpa wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 6:39 pm What is probably true however is that Tsongkhapa was very influential in 'demoting' the lineage of Maitreya/Asanga below that of Nagarjuna/Madhyamaka, whereas more traditionally these two lineages were seen as equal.
This is definitely not so. For example, Sapan, whom you mention above, considered only the Abhisamayālaṃkāra to be definitive. Also Tsongkhapa followed suit.

For example, the Hevajra Tantra explicitly places Yogācara below Madhyamaka, and so on.

First explain Vaibhāṣika,
likewise, Sautrantika,
after that, Yogācara,
and likewise, Madhyamaka.


Also Sapan held the view that Uttaratantra itself viewed tathāgatagarbha as a provisional doctrine. Not only this, but the scholars of the Imperial Period held that Yogacāra was below Madhyamaka, since they were all students, directly or indirectly, of Santarakṣita.
Natan
Posts: 3685
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: Video on Gompopa and Buddha Nature.

Post by Natan »

Malcolm wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:30 pm
sherabpa wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 6:39 pm What is probably true however is that Tsongkhapa was very influential in 'demoting' the lineage of Maitreya/Asanga below that of Nagarjuna/Madhyamaka, whereas more traditionally these two lineages were seen as equal.
This is definitely not so. For example, Sapan, whom you mention above, considered only the Abhisamayālaṃkāra to be definitive. Also Tsongkhapa followed suit.

For example, the Hevajra Tantra explicitly places Yogācara below Madhyamaka, and so on.

First explain Vaibhāṣika,
likewise, Sautrantika,
after that, Yogācara,
and likewise, Madhyamaka.


Also Sapan held the view that Uttaratantra itself viewed tathāgatagarbha as a provisional doctrine. Not only this, but the scholars of the Imperial Period held that Yogacāra was below Madhyamaka, since they were all students, directly or indirectly, of Santarakṣita.
Now I see the crux of the difference in approach. So Kagyu view buddhanature as a segue to tantra and Madhyamaka as a discourse on Prajnaparamita. Why it may matter is knowledge of philosophy is not really important. The tantras demonstrate what the discourses explain. Buddha didn't teach Madhyamaka. He taught sutras and tantras.
Last edited by Natan on Sat Apr 17, 2021 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Video on Gompopa and Buddha Nature.

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

I think this is generally considered the origin of the name 'Karmapa' and not the teachings of Maitreya.
Maybe so, but my idea is so much more fun!
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Volan
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:27 am

Re: Video on Gompopa and Buddha Nature.

Post by Volan »

sherabpa wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 6:39 pm What is probably true however is that Tsongkhapa was very influential in 'demoting' the lineage of Maitreya/Asanga below that of Nagarjuna/Madhyamaka, whereas more traditionally these two lineages were seen as equal.
Maitripa himself places Yogachara below Madhyamaka in his "Tattvaratnavali" - he calls them average practitioners of Mahayana, while followers of Madhyamaka are superior. Funny thing is that he is considered one of the fundamental gurus of the Kagyu lineage.

Also there is Atisha, who taught Madhyamaka meditation in his upadesha. These instructions look like typical mahamudra meditation in the Kagyu tradition: "the past mind has ceased and perished. The mind of the future has not yet arisen or occurred. Even the mind of the present is extremely difficult to examine: it has no color and is devoid of shape..." (transl. by James B. Apple)

There is a quote from "Satyadvayavatara" in "Lam rim" vol.5, where Atisha says that for a proper understanding of emptiness one has to follow Chandrakirti.

Also one should understand that there are many teachings from Asanga: his ethical prescriptions, meditation instructions (shamatha and four immeasurables), Yogachara view, view on Tathagatagarbha, Abhidharma teachings... A target audience of some of his texts are yogacharas (Yogacharabhumi, Mahayanasamgraha), some texts are for the general Mahayana followers (Bodhisattvabhumi), and even for the Hinayana followers
(Shravakabhumi).

Yogachara approach based on the "Ch’eng wei-shih lun" (Dharmapala`s lineage) does not refer to the notion of Tathagatagarbha at all. And that lineage became the mainstream school of Yogachara in China.

Tsongkhapa only 'demoting' the view of that lineage, while having some serious influence from Asanga`s practices and prescriptions. Some Yogachara Abhidharma teachings are fundamental to Gelugpas, yet they prefer to study Vasubandhu`s "Kosha". So, maybe the view of yogacharas is not important, yet their practices are.
User avatar
tobes
Posts: 2194
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Video on Gompopa and Buddha Nature.

Post by tobes »

Volan wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 11:03 pm So, maybe the view of yogacharas is not important, yet their practices are.
This is the way I have been taught, within the Kagyu tradition. Madhyamaka leaves a lot implicit, practically speaking.
Natan
Posts: 3685
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: Video on Gompopa and Buddha Nature.

Post by Natan »

Volan wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 11:03 pm
sherabpa wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 6:39 pm What is probably true however is that Tsongkhapa was very influential in 'demoting' the lineage of Maitreya/Asanga below that of Nagarjuna/Madhyamaka, whereas more traditionally these two lineages were seen as equal.
Maitripa himself places Yogachara below Madhyamaka in his "Tattvaratnavali" - he calls them average practitioners of Mahayana, while followers of Madhyamaka are superior. Funny thing is that he is considered one of the fundamental gurus of the Kagyu lineage.

Also there is Atisha, who taught Madhyamaka meditation in his upadesha. These instructions look like typical mahamudra meditation in the Kagyu tradition: "the past mind has ceased and perished. The mind of the future has not yet arisen or occurred. Even the mind of the present is extremely difficult to examine: it has no color and is devoid of shape..." (transl. by James B. Apple)

There is a quote from "Satyadvayavatara" in "Lam rim" vol.5, where Atisha says that for a proper understanding of emptiness one has to follow Chandrakirti.

Also one should understand that there are many teachings from Asanga: his ethical prescriptions, meditation instructions (shamatha and four immeasurables), Yogachara view, view on Tathagatagarbha, Abhidharma teachings... A target audience of some of his texts are yogacharas (Yogacharabhumi, Mahayanasamgraha), some texts are for the general Mahayana followers (Bodhisattvabhumi), and even for the Hinayana followers
(Shravakabhumi).

Yogachara approach based on the "Ch’eng wei-shih lun" (Dharmapala`s lineage) does not refer to the notion of Tathagatagarbha at all. And that lineage became the mainstream school of Yogachara in China.

Tsongkhapa only 'demoting' the view of that lineage, while having some serious influence from Asanga`s practices and prescriptions. Some Yogachara Abhidharma teachings are fundamental to Gelugpas, yet they prefer to study Vasubandhu`s "Kosha". So, maybe the view of yogacharas is not important, yet their practices are.
The refrain there is no mind in the past or future or present etc. Comes from Buddha in some of the earliest Pali suttas. Madhyamaka was Nagarjuna's attempt to expand on the implications of a Pali sutta on interdependence, From this comes that, with the ceasing of this comes the ceasing of that... Since that is the case, Madhyamaka is the original buddhist view. It is part and parcel of everything that follows. It's foundational. Yogacara is coming out of Mahayana. It seems mind only is sort of misconstrued as relating with thought or a final reality of mind. One.would have to filter that through Madhyamaka. In the third turning we get that buddhanature is independent in the sense of having its own qualities that naturally emit like light from the sun. It is difficult to parse this through Madhyamaka and Yogacara. But it is resolved in the Kalachakra. It's simply not atomic. It has energy and causal efficacy, but is not composite. It is one's own very nature to be seen and experienced, even in the transparent awareness, but with siddhis and wisdoms flowing out. That's really all there is to say. But Tathatagarbha Sutras are essential. Buddha taught them for a reason.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Video on Gompopa and Buddha Nature.

Post by Malcolm »

Crazywisdom wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:58 pm But Tathatagarbha Sutras are essential. Buddha taught them for a reason.
Yes, as he says in the Lanka, he taught tathāgatagarbha for those who were terrified of the doctrine of anatma.
Natan
Posts: 3685
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: Video on Gompopa and Buddha Nature.

Post by Natan »

Malcolm wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 1:26 pm
Crazywisdom wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:58 pm But Tathatagarbha Sutras are essential. Buddha taught them for a reason.
Yes, as he says in the Lanka, he taught tathāgatagarbha for those who were terrified of the doctrine of anatma.
He does. But it's not limited to that. Analysis is limited by the mechanism utilized in the process. Qualities of buddhanature are those which have no substrate or causal predecessor. Yet, they appear to benefit beings nonetheless. Should be impossible. Anatman is referencing absence. There is also presence. Tathatagarbha sutras and the methods of mantra elucidate that. It's not a provisional path back to the ultimate absence. It's the reverse. Anatman is provisional and necessary step to eliminate all that is provisional and reducible so that luminosity may be seen truly.

But correct me if I am misrepresenting your view. Are you saying that Tathatagarbha Sutras are a subsumed within Prajnaparamita and Madhyamaka and are a sort of palliative, also not offering any further substantial teaching?
Last edited by Natan on Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Natan
Posts: 3685
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: Video on Gompopa and Buddha Nature.

Post by Natan »

conebeckham wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:39 pm Rangjung Droje would not have called himself a Shentongpa, I don't think. You know Dolpopa was his student, but I don't think Rangjung Dorje would have agreed with all of Dolpopa's positions. Clearly, though, the idea of Buddha Nature is central to Gampopa, it is the first chapter of the TharGyen, and is unique amongst Lam Rim literature in that regard, as far as I know. Even Taranatha's Lam Rim starts with Precious Human Existence, like most.
I have heard Milarepa advised Gampopa against writing Jewel Ornament, saying it was a conceptual obscuration. He wanted him to focus on completion stage.
Natan
Posts: 3685
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: Video on Gompopa and Buddha Nature.

Post by Natan »

Sādhaka wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:23 pm Well the point is to get beyond the concepts of the four extremes, in favor of the Four Noble Truths, yes?

That being said:

Existence (Atman)

Non-existence (Anatman)

Both (Atman & Anatman)

Neither (Atman nor Anatman)

I’m sure you can see where I’m going with this....
Surety is atman
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Video on Gompopa and Buddha Nature.

Post by Malcolm »

Crazywisdom wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:34 pm But correct me if I am misrepresenting your view. Are you saying that Tathatagarbha Sutras are a subsumed within Prajnaparamita and Madhyamaka and are a sort of palliative, also not offering any further substantial teaching?
I am saying that the tathāgatgarbha sūtras can be understood to be definitive if they are correctly understood (tathātagarbha as the luminous, original nature of the mind), and if understood incorrectly, provisional in meaning at best (and at worst, an atmanavāda). As they stand, tathāgatgarbha sūtras require interpretation, unlike Madhyamaka and the PP Sūtras.

I am saying that the Lanka and Candrakīrti offer the final word on the subject. The Uttaratantra itself defines tathāgatagarbha as a provisional teaching, in the chapter one, the fourth vajra topic, towards the end, verses 156-160:

Having stated that all knowable things are empty in every aspect, like clouds, dreams, and illusions,
here, the buddhas have stated that the buddha element (buddhadhātu) exists in all sentient beings.
They have stated this for the purpose of having [sentient beings] abandon five faults: timidity, contempt for inferior sentient beings,
grasping the impure, deriding pure phenomena, and excess attachment to themselves.

While the limit of reality (bhūtakoṭi) is devoid of all compounded aspects,
the meaning of affliction, karma, and ripening are said to be like clouds, and so on.
Afflictions are like clouds, karma is like an experience in a dream,
and ripening of karma and afflictions, the aggregates, are like an illusory emanation.

Having presented this above, this ancillary or supplemental tantra repeats
the explanation "the dhātu exists" in order to abandon five faults.


The Uttaratantra's actual goal is to explicate luminosity aka clear light, and its realization.
Natan
Posts: 3685
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: Video on Gompopa and Buddha Nature.

Post by Natan »

Malcolm wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 7:11 pm
Crazywisdom wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:34 pm But correct me if I am misrepresenting your view. Are you saying that Tathatagarbha Sutras are a subsumed within Prajnaparamita and Madhyamaka and are a sort of palliative, also not offering any further substantial teaching?
I am saying that the tathāgatgarbha sūtras can be understood to be definitive if they are correctly understood (tathātagarbha as the luminous, original nature of the mind), and if understood incorrectly, provisional in meaning at best (and at worst, an atmanavāda). As they stand, tathāgatgarbha sūtras require interpretation, unlike Madhyamaka and the PP Sūtras.

I am saying that the Lanka and Candrakīrti offer the final word on the subject. The Uttaratantra itself defines tathāgatagarbha as a provisional teaching, in the chapter one, the fourth vajra topic, towards the end, verses 156-160:

Having stated that all knowable things are empty in every aspect, like clouds, dreams, and illusions,
here, the buddhas have stated that the buddha element (buddhadhātu) exists in all sentient beings.
They have stated this for the purpose of having [sentient beings] abandon five faults: timidity, contempt for inferior sentient beings,
grasping the impure, deriding pure phenomena, and excess attachment to themselves.

While the limit of reality (bhūtakoṭi) is devoid of all compounded aspects,
the meaning of affliction, karma, and ripening are said to be like clouds, and so on.
Afflictions are like clouds, karma is like an experience in a dream,
and ripening of karma and afflictions, the aggregates, are like an illusory emanation.

Having presented this above, this ancillary or supplemental tantra repeats
the explanation "the dhātu exists" in order to abandon five faults.


The Uttaratantra's actual goal is to explicate luminosity aka clear light, and its realization.
Final word. I don't know. You're still referencing text talking about buddhanature, rather than texts revealing it. I agree Tathatagarbha Sutras are provisional and talking about Buddhanature for first time. Maybe they are definitive bc they are defining what buddhanature is. But one cannot see one's own buddhanature by reading a TGS.

Buddha is the final word on Buddhism, and that word is probably a bija mantra from a tantra where the flashlight illuminates exactly was was talked about. Can be a bindu.

All these writers Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti, Asana, why do they even write? What's the point? They are seeing errors in some followers and want to fix that. They see doubters and want to fix that. How come the Buddha didn't say, You guys don't get me; in the future it will take team of acolytes to explain me. They will have the final word?

No. He spoke plenty clear and always for the right reason, never saying more or less than necessary. He surpassed Bodhisattvas by a lot. The myriad teachings were not all understand by all recipients at the same time because they were of varying levels on inteligence. But the body of work over time forms a pattern if revealing more and more precisely exact buddhahood.

Lankavatara cannot be a final word on Tathatagarbha. Clear light is mentioned in Pali. If clear light is the final word on TGS then all these sutras are pointless. That's s not the case. Lankavatara is a Prajnaparamita sutra because it's talking about Bodhisattvas on the path. Tathatagarbha Sutras are talking about buddhood itself, which is not a frame of reference of human language, which is why buddha had to explain it by means of another language, the mandala and mantra, up to and including Dzogchen, but can be others as well.
Last edited by Natan on Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:33 am, edited 6 times in total.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Video on Gompopa and Buddha Nature.

Post by Malcolm »

Crazywisdom wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 8:48 am
Lankavatara cannot be a final word on Tathatagarbha.
Sure it can, and it is.
Natan
Posts: 3685
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: Video on Gompopa and Buddha Nature.

Post by Natan »

Malcolm wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:18 pm
Crazywisdom wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 8:48 am
Lankavatara cannot be a final word on Tathatagarbha.
Sure it can, and it is.
Sort of a ridiculous statement. It's about Yogacara. Tathatagarbha is just barely summarized.
Last edited by Natan on Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply

Return to “Kagyu”