by Dalai Lama
From the perspective of it cognizing all veiled and ultimate truths simultaneously, the purified primordial clear light mind of a buddha is called the omniscient mind, the wisdom dharmakāya. From the perspective of its existing from beginningless time and now becoming the purified basis of the emptiness that is the unconditioned nature body, it is called the composite nature body. The Seventh Dalai Lama refers to it as the “seed that has the capacity to give rise to the three kāyas of a buddha.” Although “seed” usually refers to an abstract composite, here it is a mind that serves as the basis for the three buddha bodies. This innate, primordial, ever-present mind also transforms into the wisdom dharmakāya. Thus in Tantra, the composite nature body and the wisdom dharmakāya of a buddha are the same mind seen from different perspectives.
In summary, Sūtra speaks of two buddha natures. One is the naturally abiding buddha nature; the other is the transforming buddha nature. The naturally abiding buddha nature is the emptiness of the mind that is not free from defilements. The transforming buddha nature is the mind that is the basis of that emptiness as well as any other neutral or virtuous qualities of mind that continue on to buddhahood.
If an intelligent person who is inclined toward Tantra hears of the third factor of tathāgatagarbha as explained by the Seventh Dalai Lama — the seed having the capacity to give rise to the three kāyas — she will understand that there is some aspect of her own mind that is a composite phenomenon and the buddha nature. What is that? It cannot be the defiled coarse mind because that mind does not continue to awakening. It must be a subtle mind that is hinted at but not explained extensively in Sūtra. She turns to Tantra, where there is a lengthy and explicit presentation of this mind. In this way, she enters Tantrayāna.
Pristine Wisdom Abiding in the Afflictions
There is an area of potential confusion about tathāgatagarbha that we must take care to avoid. It stems from such statements as “Within afflictions, wisdom (jñāna) abides,” found in Nāgārjuna’s Praise to the Sphere of Reality. Jñāna usually refers to āryas’ pristine wisdom that directly realizes emptiness. Does this mean that afflictions are in fact wisdom? If so, are we already buddhas?
Statements such as this need to be understood correctly. Here jñāna refers not to āryas’ wisdom realizing emptiness but to the clear light nature that can transform into the wisdom of the resultant state. Jñāna is the aspect of the mind — found even in an afflictive mind — that can become the wisdom realizing emptiness. The cause — the clear light mind of sentient beings — will eventually become the result — a buddha’s pristine wisdom — and for this reason the clear light mind of sentient beings is called wisdom even though it has yet to become that wisdom. How is that aspect of the mind transformed into the nonconceptual wisdom directly realizing emptiness? By means of learning, reflecting, and meditating on the Dharma. This wisdom is generated in dependence on or in relation to the clear light mind.
Giving the cause the name of the result is reminiscent of Nāgārjuna’s discussion of the three kāyas (buddha bodies) in the ordinary state, on the path, and at the resultant level. The expression “three kāyas in the ordinary state” does not mean that the three resultant kāyas are already present in us in our ordinary state. Rather, in the ordinary state we possess the basis upon which we can actualize the three kāyas. This basis is given the name of the result.
Similar ways of speaking are found in other scriptures. In Treasury of Dharmadhātu (T. chos dbyings mdzod), Longchenpa says that what is primordially awakened becomes reawakened. Some people take such passages literally, thinking that we are already buddhas. But if that is the case, then we are very strange and disgraceful buddhas! Longchenpa’s statement echoes the notion of natural nirvāṇa found in Madhyamaka texts. Natural nirvāṇa refers to the mind’s emptiness of inherent existence. This ultimate nature of the mind is pure and clear light; the defilements have not penetrated into it. Because this nature is naturally untainted, it is possible to remove the defilements that obscure it. While natural nirvāṇa is not the nirvāṇa of liberated beings, it serves as the basis upon which actual nirvāṇa can be attained. This is similar to the meaning of Longchenpa’s statement that what is the primordially awakened becomes reawakened.
Nāgārjuna’s statement that wisdom exists in the afflictions is made from the Sūtra point of view where wisdom refers to the continuity of the mental consciousness. According to Dzogchen and Mahāmudrā, the wisdom that is present in the afflictions is much subtler and refers to the innate clear light mind. They say this wisdom is a noncomposite phenomenon. Dodrubchen Jigme Tenpai Nyima (1865–1926), the Third Dodrup Rinpoche, explains that noncomposite in this context does not have its usual meaning of permanent and unconditioned. Rather, wisdom is said to be noncomposite because it has existed beginninglessly and is not newly created by causes and conditions. In the same way, the Sublime Continuum refers to the buddhas’ activities as permanent because they have existed beginninglessly and will exist eternally. Here “permanent” means eternal and unending; it doesn’t mean unchanging or unconditioned.
Gyaltsab Darma Rinchen has another view. He says that the term “wisdom” in this statement is not to be understood literally. Rather it refers to the emptiness of the mind, which is noncomposite, permanent, and always present.
I believe the Dzogchen and Mahāmudrā interpretations are more applicable when trying to understand the presentation in the Sublime Continuum. There is not much difference between the Seventh Dalai Lama’s view of buddha nature and that of Dzogchen and Mahāmudrā. However, Dzogchen and Mahāmudrā speak from the viewpoint of highest yoga tantra and thus they identify the innate ever-present clear light mind as buddha nature, whereas the Seventh Dalai Lama speaks from the Sūtra viewpoint that points to Tantra.
Causal Clear Light Mind
The causal clear light mind can be spoken of from the perspective of both Sūtra and Tantra. Sūtra speaks of the continuity of the mental consciousness, which is present at all times. The jñāna that abides in the afflictions refers to the continuum of this mental consciousness. While the continuum of the mental consciousness is not actual pristine wisdom, it will become this wisdom as we progress through the paths and grounds to buddhahood.
Highest yoga tantra differentiates two types of mind — the temporary, adventitious consciousnesses and the innate ever-present clear light mind. When all the coarser levels of mind — including the white appearance, red increase, and black near attainment — have dissolved, the subtlest innate clear light mind becomes manifest. Only this mind remains. The fact that all the other minds have dissolved indicates that they are adventitious, while the subtlest innate clear light mind, which has existed since beginningless time and continues on endlessly to awakening, persists.
From the viewpoint of highest yoga tantra, the clear and cognizant nature of the mind that is the fundamental innate clear light mind underlies all consciousnesses. But we should not equate clarity and cognizance in general with the fundamental innate clear light mind. All consciousnesses are clear and cognizant because that is the definition of consciousness. The fundamental innate clear light mind is the subtlest mind. The coarser minds of the waking state are derivatives of this everlasting mind. Although they have a clear and cognizant nature, they are not this subtlest innate mind.
Neither the continuum of the mental consciousness spoken of in Sūtra nor the fundamental innate clear light mind spoken of in Tantra is a soul or inherently existent self. Both are empty of inherent existence.
What Continues to Awakening?
Who is the person that goes from being an ordinary being to an ārya to a buddha? To answer this, we speak of the general I — the continuity of the merely designated I from one life to another — and the specific I of each lifetime that constitutes that continuity. The specific I of each lifetime is designated in dependence on the aggregates of that life. Since our physical and mental aggregates change from one lifetime to the next, the I designated in depend
ence on them also changes. In one lifetime we may be Susan, in the next John. In one lifetime we may be a monkey, in another a human being, and in yet another a deva. These are the specific Is of those three lifetimes.
The general I or person that goes from one life to the next is designated in dependence on the series of specific Is. The Buddha spoke of the general I when he said, “In my previous life I was a king, in the present life I am Śākyamuni Buddha.” The person or I that exists continuously in the past, present, and future without interruption is the general I. That general I encompasses the monkey of one life, the human in the next, and the deva in the life after that. The monkey, human being, and deva are the specific persons of those individual lives. They are born and die; the general I goes from saṃsāra to full awakening.
When speaking of the self that exists in the three times, we are not referring to a subtle self or a coarse self — no distinction like that is made. It is simply the general I. Likewise, without making any distinction in terms of subtle or coarse, we say there is a general mental consciousness that exists in the three times.
Although the general mental consciousness goes from one life to the next and on to awakening, the specific mental consciousnesses of the sentient beings in that continuum do not. The consciousness aggregate of the monkey is not the substantial cause of the consciousness aggregate of the human being in the next rebirth. However, the last moment of the consciousness of one life is the substantial cause for the first moment of the consciousness of the next life. In this way, it is said that the continuity of the mental consciousness goes on to awakening. However, this mental consciousness is not a truly existent self or soul.
As discussed above, because afflictions such as ignorance are eradicated on the path and do not go on to awakening, they cannot be considered buddha nature. Although afflictions do not continue on to awakening, the clear and cognizant characteristic of the afflictions does. Here it is helpful to understand two kinds of continuities: (1) a continuity of type in which the cause and the result share similar characteristics, and (2) a continuity of substance in which one thing is the substance that transforms into another thing.
For example, a log burns and becomes ashes. The ashes are the substantial continuity of the log because the material of the log turned into the ashes. The ashes are not the continuity of type of the log because the log and the ashes do not have similar characteristics. Applying this to the question of afflictions continuing to awakening: the awakened mind is not the continuity of type of afflictions. Afflictions are polluted, they are the true origin of duḥkha. The awakened mind is unpolluted and is not the true origin. The two do not share the same characteristics. However, the clear and cognizant nature of the awakened mind is in the substantial continuity of the clear and cognizant nature of the afflictions.
From one perspective, it seems that if the mind grasping inherent existence changed objects and apprehended emptiness, it would be a virtuous mind. In that case, from the viewpoint of substance — clarity and cognizance — ignorance and wisdom would be in the same substantial continuity. But from the viewpoint of their characteristics, ignorance and the wisdom realizing emptiness are total opposites. The ignorance grasping true existence does not go to awakening; it is a totally distorted consciousness that cannot improve or become virtuous. In fact, when the antidote of wisdom realizing emptiness is applied, ignorance degenerates and becomes nonexistent. But when we look just at the clear and cognizant nature of ignorance, we can say that it can be purified and its purified continuum goes on to awakening.
Dzogchen and Mahāmudrā
According to Sūtra, meditation on the clear and cognizant nature of the mind or on the transforming buddha nature alone will not eradicate afflictions. However, it does lead us to have more confidence that afflictions are not an inherent part of the mind and therefore that becoming a buddha is possible. This, in turn, leads us to question: What defiles the mind and what can eliminate these defilements completely? Seeking the method to purify the transforming buddha nature, we will cultivate the wisdom realizing the emptiness of inherent existence and eradicate ignorance.
According to Dzogchen and Mahāmudrā, meditation on the clear and cognizant nature of the mind could lead the coarse winds to dissolve and the subtlest clear light mind to become manifest. When this happens, practitioners who have previously cultivated a correct understanding of emptiness then incorporate that understanding in their meditation and use the innate clear light mind to realize emptiness and abolish afflictions.
It is important to understand the Sublime Continuum correctly from a Dzogchen and Mahāmudrā point of view. Some people take it literally, leading them to incorrectly believe that primordial wisdom is permanent, inherently existent, independent of any other factors, and does not rely on causes and conditions. They then make statements such as, “If you unravel this secret, you will be liberated.” Dodrup Jigme Tenpai Nyima (1865–1926) and his disciple Tsultrim Zangpo (1884–c.1957), who were great Dzogchen scholars and practitioners, said that the mere presence of this primordial wisdom within us alone cannot liberate us. Why not? At the time of death, all other minds have dissolved, and only the primordial mind remains. Even though it has manifested in all the infinite number of deaths we have experienced in saṃsāra, that has not helped us attain buddhahood. These two sages say that in order to attain buddhahood, it is necessary to utilize the primordial wisdom to realize emptiness; only that will liberate us. This is consistent with Tsongkhapa’s view.
Some commentaries on Dzogchen and Mahāmudrā say: This wisdom that abides in the afflictions is the true wisdom, and on this basis every sentient being is already a buddha. Although we have been buddhas from beginningless time, we have to be awakened again. The wisdom that we have now is the omniscient mind of a buddha, and the three bodies of a buddha exist innately in each sentient being. Sentient beings have a basis of essential purity that is not merely emptiness but is endowed with three aspects. Its entity is the dharmakāya — the mode of abiding of pristine wisdom; its nature is the enjoyment body — the appearance aspect of that mind; and compassion is the emanation bodies — its radiance or expression. In short, they say that all three buddha bodies are present, fully formed in our ordinary state, but since they are obscured we are not aware of their presence.
Such statements taken literally are fraught with problems. While some people are partial and unfair in their criticism and refute misconceptions in only some traditions, Changkya Rolpai Dorje (1717–86) was unbiased and pointed out incorrect interpretations in all four Tibetan traditions, including his own Geluk tradition. In his Song of the Experience of the View, he says, “I say this not out of disrespect to these masters, but perhaps they have had less exposure to rigorous philosophical investigation of the great treatises and were unable to use certain terminology appropriately.” That is, the difficulty in their assertions lies in a broad use of terminology that is not grounded in the authority of the great treatises. Of course, Changkya’s comments do not apply to Dzogchen and Mahāmudrā masters such as Dodrup Jigme Tenpai Nyima and his teacher Awa Pangchu, who have done serious philosophical study and examination of the great treatises and who ground their understanding of Dzogchen in them. Their interpretations and writings are excellent.
All four Tibetan traditions teach practices that search for the mind — where it came from, where it goes, what its shape and color are, and so forth. Speaking of this shared practice, Changkya said that after searching in this manner, we find that the mind is not tangible, lacks color and shape, and does not come from one place or go to another. Discovering this, meditators experience a sensation of voidness. However, this voidness is not the emptiness of inherent existence that is the ultimate reality of the mind; it is the mere absence of the mind being a tangible object. Although someone may think this voidness is ultimate reality and meditate in that state for a long time, this is not meditation on the ultimate nature of the mind.
There are two ways to medi
tate on the mind. The first is as above, examining whether the mind has color, shape, location, tangibility, and so forth. This leads to the sense that the conventional nature of the mind lacks these qualities. The second is meditation on the ultimate nature of the mind, in which we examine the mind’s ultimate mode of existence and discover its emptiness of inherent existence. People who confuse these two ways of meditating on the mind and think that the mind’s absence of tangibility, color, and so forth is the mind’s ultimate nature may criticize masters such as Dignāga and Dharmakīrti for their precise expositions on debate, logic, and reasoning, saying these only increase preconceptions. Gungtang Konchog Tenpai Dronme (1762–1823), another master who was impartial in his critical analysis of Tibetan Buddhist traditions, said he found this amazing.
Some people believe there is no need for reasoning or investigation on the path, that simply by having faith and receiving the blessing of a guru primordial wisdom will arise. In this light, I have been very happy to see the establishment of more shedras — academic institutes — that teach the classical philosophical texts from India and Tibet.
Some Westerners similarly do not value Dharma study and investigation, perhaps because Buddhadharma is relatively new in the West. Without a comprehensive understanding of the Buddhadharma, people tend to seek the easiest and shortest path to awakening, a path that does not require giving up their attachments. Such an attitude exists among Tibetans as well. Tsongkhapa said that many people think that the Buddha’s qualities are wonderful, but when a spiritual mentor explains through reasoning and scriptural citations how to attain them, they become discouraged and say, “Who can actually achieve such realizations?”