Symbols of Unity and Transformation

When we speak of the way as a process of unification, and if we want to understand what this existentiality means, we have to remind ourselves of the fact that unification presupposes the existence of diversity, of plurality, and that it is the existence of plurality that does not contradict unity. Plurality,

correctly understood, never means (and never can mean) isolatedness. Whatever is, is diverse, but not isolated in the sense of being unrelated to whatever else there is. Each individual has its specific position or quality in relation to all other individuals in a continuous actuality of this relationship. Unity is constituted in the plurality of subjects as the world, which is not a duality of subject and object, but is this plurality of subjects (individuals). Unity

also is not totality in the sense that the world is made up of isolated individuals or that it is divided up into isolated (unrelated) individuals. Unity is neither outside nor above nor beyond plurality; it is not a 'one' from which the 'many' can be speculatively derived. Experienced unity is termed Mahämudrä which is then said to comprise the ground, the path, and the goal. With the Mahämudrã idea we come to the very core of

Tantrism, and without grasping this central problem all talk about Tantrism remains meaningless. We have to start with what is certain, that is, Being(-as-such) is and Being is Awareness. Awareness is both knowledge and evaluation. In knowing (something) I not only notice something but also express an opinion

about it, and in so evaluating it, my knowledge or rather my opinion determines my life. However, opinion is not knowledge in the strict sense of the word ; it deals with what seemingly is and it always is ego-centred. Opinion is subjective in a derogatory sense; its 'knowledge' is a make-belief knowledge. Contrariwise, insight does not deal with what seemingly is (for me), but with what really is, with Beingas-such; it is not added to Being but already contained

in it in the sense that Being is being-aware, regardless of what the content of this awareness may be. Awareness thus is the functioning of Being. In being aware I am always aware of something, which means that to be is to have object. But since there can be no other being than Being-as-such without invalidating what is certain, namely, that Being is, and since in being-aware I am aware of an object as being, it follows that if the object is to be, it must be so as having object, too; but in view of the fact that there can be only Being-as-such, the object must have the primary subject as object. Moreover, while the subject-object relationship is unequivocal, and while the subject in its functioning (being aware) expresses various opinions about the object, multiplicity is

found in the object. If on the basis of these considerations we let A stand for Being-as-such as subject, and B for the object it has, and BC, Bd and so on for thc multiplicity of the object in the functioning of the subject, and if we let Al stand for the object which because of its being must be subject having B, and BCI Bdl and so on as its object which is existentially the primary subject A, we get the following formula of Being and/or Awareness: (BC, Bd,

Without ever leaving the object behind (which is existentially impossible) the subject can 'express an opinion' or 'gain insight , and it can do so in utter freedom. Freedom is the enactment of being aware, the free functioning of Being-as-such as an available possibility. Realization of the possibilities of Being-

as-such is the path' which is not something apart from Being, but Being in transformation. Transformation is activity. It happens through Being, the subject is not changed but always changcs in the act of expressing an opinion or gaining insight. In other words, to be is always to become. Being is not something behind Becoming, it is becoming. In becoming, the subject enters a new state, 'reaches a goal',

but this new state is always its state. This does not contradict the statement that there is 'no transmigration and change' ('pho'gyur med-pa). Being does not step out of itself into something which it is not, nor does it change into something which it is not.

Therefore Mahãmudrã has no beginning and no end ; 'beginning' and 'end' belong to speculation, not to Being. "There is neither beginning, middle, nor end, 'Tis neither a Samsãraless Nirvana.

In this supreme bliss unsurpassed There is no self or other," says Saraha.

We have seen that the 'goal' is not to be understood as an end-state •149 consequently Mahãmudrä also is not an end-state, once there and for ever, but as its etymology indicates, it 'seals' and the outcome is Samayamudrä:

"In front and in the rear and in the ten directions

Whatever one sees is It,

By this day, a master, I have destroyed error:

Now I need not ask anyone." gNyis-med Avadhütipa explains this verse in terms of symbols of Buddhahood which is Being as Awareness, never an absorption in a lifeless fiction. Buddhahood is in the world in the sense that the world represents Buddhahood and in its existence constitutes it. Thus gNyis-med Avadhütipa says •150.

"Since there is appearance of multiplicity throuõh the (activity of our) present 'memory', there is Vairocana in front; since on the other side 'non-memory' pervades appearance, there is Amitäbha in the rear; since out of their indivisibility, like (from) the Wish-Fulfilling Gem, there arises a multiplicity (of values), there is Ratnasambhava ; since this multiplicity of values assists the sentient beings, there is Amoghasiddhi; since (all this) has not moved from its

being, there is Aksobhya. The understanding that Samsãra and Nirvana as well as the fact that they have no cause' derive from a single 'cause' is kindliness. To make understood what has not yet been understood is appropriate action or compassion. To have understood and not to be separated (from Being) is joy; the fact that this transcends the subjective mind is equanimity. Since all this is not relativistically subjective, this is Vajrasattva. This is the ten (directions). Wherever one looks one does not move away

from Being. Hence Saraha's words: In front and in the rear and in the ten directions."

The symbolism used here is, one might say, on a cosmic scale.

Vairocana, literally translated, means the 'Illuminator', and its Tibetan translation, literally rendered, means 'making appear in observable qualities'; and the association with 'memory' which is a symbol term for our ordinary mental activities, like apprehending, remembering, inspecting, judging, noticing, indicates the vividness of the experience of observing the azure of waters, the luxuriance of the fields and forests, the radiance of the mountains with their

snow-caps, the gracefulness of the movement and the loveliness of body of the living beings. But although all this is observable, there is in it a hidden charm, intangibly secret and yet ever-present, all pervasive. If we want to say something about it we must speak in negative terms, because all positive terms exclude and reduce. Thus, the ever-present openness of Being is 'non-memory' and as an inner glow Amitãbha, an infinite light. Wherever we see something there

is this indivisibility of observable qualities and their open dimension which is felt as a value, a treasure both to be cherished and to be used to enrich ourselves and the world. This, then, is Ratnasambhava, a mine of jewels. This richness of sensibility makes for fullness of life, meaningfulness of action in the light of Being, and therefore is Amoghasiddhi, 'unfailingly successful'. Such an existential awareness is an unshakable insight, fittingly symbolized by

Al£0bhya, 'the immovable and undisturbable'. But when we perceive, fascinated by the charm and beauty of what there is, when our perception of the intrinsic qualities of what there is grows ever more profound, we can be all-loving and be allkindliness. The reaction to the world is not one of blame or condemnation but of assisting. This is compassion. Its action is based on the recognition of the other's Being and value, and being based on knowledge it is not a cheap

sentimentalism with which it is confused by ignorance. Another value of the understanding of Being is joyfulness. Joy is the natural expression of the feeling of unity, and while kindliness and compassion are more outwardly directed, joy and equanimity are inwardly directed. Equanimity is the acceptance of what there is as it is in its Being. It is said to 'transcend subjective mind' because our subjectivism just cannot accept things as they are, they always must be for

some purpose or other. Subjectivism prevents us from 'enjoying' and from 'caring'. Joy is not the same as 'having a good time' and equanimity is not indifference which, summed up in the motto 'I couldn't care less', illustrates the contempt for Being which, as the above analysis shows, is never a static and soporific state. Conceptual language can never do justice to the living experience : at its best it can point. It can point to the unity of Being by saying

that Being is one, but has many facets—Vajrasattva. gNyis-med-Advadhütipa gives still another interpretation which, as it were, brings the matter 'closer home'. He relates Vairocana and the other symbols to the traditional five constituents that make up a living individual and to five 'spiritual' phenomena. Here, Vairocana and so on are symbols of unity. The following

diagram will assist in assessing the problems involved: corporeality Vairocana ethics feeling Ratnasambhava concentration concept-formation Amitãbha appreciation motivated action Amoghasiddhi freedom perceptual judgments Ak§0bhya vision in freedom and pristine awareness The five items in the column to the left are also the five kinds of original awareness (ye-shes) that constitute the aspects of Buddhahood-awareness. The first

item, corporeality (ripa), refers to our body as lived and as 'perceived'. As can easily be ascertained, we perceive our body not so much as a three-dimensional physical object, but as a Gestalt, a pattern of form and colour. It is by means of this pattern that there are other sensuously perceivable and practico-instrumental patterns in the world. In this sense our body is an 'illuminator' (Vairocana) and through it as an orientational point the spatio-

temporal surrounding world is organized around it, and in this sense also the body is a means of perception and awareness (ye-shes). Another point to be remembered is that 'body' in Tantric thought is 'embodiment'. As such it is active and tendential. When we look at man in this way, we focus not so much on what he is but on how he acts. Inasmuch as the body is awareness in the above sense and inasmuch as sound insight (knowledge, not opinion) and appropriate

action (ethics) reinforce each other, ethics is an 'illuminator' as well. The more I misunderstand myself as a mere thing, the more degraded action becomes, for being valueless myself everything else is equally valueless, and if I am but dust, how else can I convince myself of it but by reducing everything (and above all, everybody else) to dust? But to the extent that I take a healthier and more positive view of myself and of what there is in relation to myself, my

actions become ennobled. Thus there is a correlative and unity between my bodily existence and my ethical actions. Feeling, too, is a kind of awareness and has its own peculiar mode of disclosure of how it is going with me. Not only has every action its feeling tone, every cognition has its mood. Usually we deny feelings any cognitive significance and tend to dismiss them as purely subjective, ego-centred. It is true, most of our

perception and experience is filtered through our system of categories, schematizations, classifications and generalizations, and in comparing, approving, condemning, relating, we usually have 'strong feelings' about our ideas. In other words, feeling is highly differentiated with reference to the external reference in a perceptual or cognitive situation. Such feelings, of course, are unstable and transitory. On the other hand, in aesthetic experience where the

object is perceived as if it were all there is in the world, and where it loses its thing-character, feeling also is free from the narrowness of specific practical connection; it becomes less and less differentiated and more and more approximates pure feeling or 'bliss supreme'. To perceive something intrinsically, as if it were all that is, is concentration, an attention to something in its being and value. This is felt as an enrichment (Ratnasambhava),

and it also explains the rich contribution of Buddhist Tantrism to the fine arts. Its paintings and sculptures possess a totality of expressed feeling and have an intrinsic perceptual appeal. Ordinary perception is largely determined by or mixed with concepts. These are basically principles of interpretations which we apply to what we perceive by

our senses. Concepts are 'put into' the experience, not derived from it. For instance, the concept 'physical object' is defined by a set of postulates or propositions, and a 'physical object' just is something that answers to this set. Whatever doubts we may harbour about concepts when we reflect on them, we act and go on acting as if we believed in them unquestionably. Concepts, such as 'physical object', throw light (Amitãbha) on our 'physical world'. However, we

also perceive qualities such as a timbre, a texture, a brilliant flash of colours around us for their intrinsic character. Such tiny instances of aesthetic experience not only add variety to our routine existence, they also throw light (Amitãbha) on our world. Appreciation is simply perception given major scope, depth, and value. A person who can appreciate does not see what others are unable to see, but he sees more of what all of us ordinarily see.

Inasmuch as concepts are principles of interpretation, they exert their influence on our actions. In this respect all our actions are motivated and reinforced by the 'strong feelings' we have about our ideas. If I 'think' that everything and everyone is my 'enemy' I will infallibly (Amoghasiddhi) set out to destroy what endangers my ego, but since this may be too egocentric and hence not socially acceptable, I 'think' of generalities, as for instance, genocide for the

sake of national security, and I can be quite sanctimonious about it because there is no better way to show my contempt for the flesh, and no better licence to enforce this creed than to quote, possibly out of context, the words 'I came not to bring peace but the sword'. On the other hand, if I think of the other in his Being and value, I am more likely to appreciate, to be kind and compassionate to him or her, because I know how it feels to be. Whatever action, positive

or negative, I perform is the exercise of (existential) freedom (Amoghasiddhi). Our conscious world is made up of judgments of perception which assume the character of unassailability and unshakableness (Ak§0bhya); and while we interpret by means of our concepts, we also have a vision of reality in its freedom from the narrowness of practical concerns, and in pristine awareness. This is an existential unshakableness (Ak§0bhya), free from the limitations that

judgments impose on us, and so intrinsically aware. These symbols of unity are hierarchically organized and held together by another symbol of unity. This may seem to be purely speculative, but actually it is a linguistic accident. We cannot express the complexity of Being without splitting it up into a number of partial symbols. Advayavajra explains :151

"The five psycho-physical constituents are five Tathägatas. Have the first four been 'sealed' by Ak¥)bhya in order to make it clear that there is only original awareness? By this sealing is shown that in the absence of external objects there can be no subject and that therefore perception as pure sensation in an absolute sense, devoid of any external and internal reference, exists. This is like the clear sky at noon in autumn and is accepted as the basic awareness by

the (Yogäcära-philosophers) who claim absence of observable qualities. As has been stated: Devoid of any fictional content, without delusive appearance or form, It is pure sensation in an ultimate sense, later it becomes distracted by observable qualities.

It also has been stated that the two Rüpakãyas are subsequent, hence: Inaccessible to propositions, without observable qualities is the Dharmakäya of the Great Sage, The two Rüpakãyas derive from it like an apparition.

If this is established by the Al£obhya-seal, why is Al€obhya sealed by Vajrasattva? If it only means once again to establish the fact that there are no fictional contents, this is redundant because it has already been done so by the previous seal. However, in the same way that by the Al€obhya-seal it has been established that awareness is basic and everything else subsequent, so by the Vajrasattvaseal it is established that Being (Vajra) is basic and perception

subsequent. In the Vajraýekhara it has been said : It is firm, round, cannot be changed, be pierced, be split, Cannot be burnt, is indestructible and (as) openness it is called Vajra."

The statement that awareness is basic and everything else subsequent, or that Being is basic and awareness subsequent, does not contradict the initial fact that Being is awareness and vice versa. The difference, if any, lies in the approach to the ontological problem involved. The metaphysician is more likely to explain Being, while the speculative philosopher is likely to concentrate on the working of Mind.

This difference of approach is again noticeable in the terms Samãyämudrã and Phalamudrã. The latter, used by Näropa, focuses on unity as a crowning achievement, while the term Samãyãmudrã implies the commitment to Being through the symbols of unity. Näropa reflects more the speculative side of Tantric thought, while gNyis-med Avadhütipa and others, using the term Samãyämudrã, emphasize the existential nature of unity and the obligations that derive from it.

Still the existential importance is not missing in Näropa's words :152 "Phalamudrã is the bliss of Mahãmudrã. Its characteristic is an original awareness in (a state of) ultimate and immutable bliss. All the time it carries with it pleasure, because the previous state (the Mahämudrä experience) has been made stable. Hence it is called mudrã (seal, encounter, indelible impression). Its

greatness consists in greatness of riddance and greatness of possession. Greatness of riddance is the realization of the lucency of intrinsic Being (svãbhãvikakãya) which is characterized by the riddance of all tendencies and all veils. Greatness of possession is the realization of unitive Being (yuganaddha), the pure nature of all Buddhas."

Unitive Being is Dharmakäya, as Näropa points out:153 "That which is by nature the non-duality of the Two Truths is called Unitive Being. Therefore unitive Being is Dharmakãya." And Advayavajra states :154

"It has never come into existence because it is not something. And it never ceases because it is present under specific conditions. Therefore existence and non-existence are not (separate) existents,

They are a unity. The oneness of openness (of Being) and compassion Is unanalyzable in terms of one's fictions. There is unity by nature

Of Openness and Manifestedness.' He takes up this idea in his discussion of the symbol Vaj rasattva : 155

"By Vajra openness is meant, by Sattva original awareness: Their identity is Vajrasattva. The difference between openness (of Being) and Compassion is like that between the lamp and its light; The openness of openness (of Being) and Compassion is like that of the lamp and its light.

Openness is not different from what there is, and what there IS is never without openness. The fact that the one is not without the other is like the going together of the artificial and the genuine. In the light of absoluteness there is no end of relativity,

Apart from relativity there is no absoluteness." With these words Advayavajra clearly outlines the metaphysical position of Buddhist Tantrism. Whatever we encounter is relative to something else, mountains are relative to valleys, days to nights. This fact we call 'relativity'. But relativity is itself not relative to something, and this we call 'absoluteness'.

The absoluteness of Being is the relativity of what •there is. But what we discuss in cold intellectual terms, Advayavajra can present in a deeply moving image : 156 ' 'The world of appearance is a loving husband, but only relatively.

If he were not, his loving wife, the openness (of Being) would be dead. If the lovely, loving openness, in beauty unsurpassed,

Were at any time alone, her loving husband would be fettered. They once hesitatingly approached the Guru Who through their mutual amorousness made them experience spontaneous love.'

While the rapture of the attainment of unity, the release from both inner and outer conflicts, may make us oblivious to the fact that we are beings embodied in a world of our interpretations, the Samãyãmudrã commits us to our Being which is never some mysterious entity above or beyond the ordinary world in which we live, but is this same world changed to the extent that we ourselves have changed, by having moved from the periphery to the centre. To live in the world, by

body, speech and mind, but committed to Being, is the theme of Saraha's verses according to gNyis-med Avadhütipa's commentary. Saraha says:

1 Where the senses pass away And where the essence fails, Friends, that is (your) spontaneous bodily existence. Ask the Guru clearly.

2 N•ÅT here the subjective disposition is suspended and where motility fades out, There all potentialities are present. The ignorant imagine it as a border-line, But for those who know it by having exhausted the ocean of ignorance—

3 This is bliss supreme, unmatched. Saraha has shown it and has gone." The first verse refers to one's spontaneous bodily existence which gNyis-med Avadhütipa elucidates in various ways. The first thing to note is that 'body' is a dynamic pattern, 'creative' as embodiment, and not primarily the various organs. Serving as an analogy by shifting our attention from categorical postulates to an intrinsic perception, it facilitates our understanding of two aspects involved in intrinsic perception. gNyis-med Avadhütipa's words are..157

"One's indirect spontaneous bodily existence is the two creative polarities, in which the sensory organs do not exist. One's concrete spontaneous bodily existence can be viewed in two ways, indirectly and concretely. The indirect one is tendential and non-tendential. The tendential one means that when we perceive it as a percept, a Gestalt, then it has neither flesh nor blood nor sense organs. The non-tendential one means that it has no sense organs because it is not even seen as a Gestalt. This real body, which is present throughout time in its self-sameness as it is not subject to the three aspects of time, is pointed out by the true Guru in tradition. Hence Saraha says: When the senses pass away. Since here no essence associated with a self and its ascriptions is

found, Saraha continues: And when the essence fails. "Those who do not understand that the intentionality of Buddhahood throughout time is not something that can be subjectivated, befriend evil, because subjectivism cannot find deliverance from Samsãra. Those who understand that spontaneity as the ultimately real is not subjectivism, are helpful friends, hence

Saraha's words: Friend, that is your spontaneous bodily existence. "Simultaneously with the instruction by the vision of the face of the true Guru in tradition, and without asking for indirect spontaneity, since spontaneity depends on the true Guru, Saraha concludes: Ask the Guru clearly."

The distinction between 'the true Guru in tradition' and 'the concrete Guru' is of singular importance. The true Guru is Being-as-such which speaks to us through symbols as concrete contents of our mind. These concrete symbols are the symbols of unity which, as Vairocana and others, impress on us the need to preserve our integrity at all times and under all circumstances. Figuratively we, too, say: 'to come face to face with . . . and in such moments we are called

upon to act in the light of Being, rather than in the darkness of our intervening concepts. In such moments also we do not even perceive our bodily existence in terms of a Gestalt, and least of all in terms of a three-dimensional physical object answering a set of postulates. Speech is geared to our concepts and is unable to express the ineffable which, far from being of a speculative nature for which there is no specific criterion

of verification, can be immediately experienced. It will help when we distinguish between talk and communication. Talk——"a barren superfluity of words' '—Is detracting from the problem of being, while, in communication, Being may communicate itself to us and through us to others. gNyis-med Avadhütipa says :158 "Speech consists of vowels and consonants and depends on the subjective disposition and motor-activity. It searches with words for the real, but the real is

inexpressible. To illustrate this by means of indirect spontaneity, when in between the polarizing streams of creativity the motility of the subjective disposition is not operative, appearance (depending on this activity) disappears, but openness does not rise. Similarly, in real communication the motility of subjective disposition, mind, perception, judgments of perception—is not active. Hence Saraha says: When the subjective disposition is arrested and when

motility fades out. "Since this point becomes the foundation for existentiality, the positive qualities of Buddhahood, Saraha continues: There all potentialities are present. "As what can this be known? That which is the ineffable in between the polarities of individual creativity, sun and moon, is known as the border-line between

'memory' and 'non-memory', the real creativity. Saraha says (of this concretization): The ignorant imagine it as a border-line. But by knowing what is not perception and perceived content, as profound and ineffable, the ocean of ignorance has been exhausted." Our body as an 'expression' of psychic life, tending to communicate itself through verbal patterns which help to turn the 'body' into concepts, points to the

mind which is in the images of the mind and the tendencies of experience. In this way it is already a 'formulated', 'conditioned' mind rather than the awareness of Being and the Being of awareness. So gNyis-med Avadhütipa declares :159 "Our present mind is altered by conditions and tendencies of experience and therefore is known only indirectly. The real mind remains unaltered and is without

(altering) concepts. Its conceptlessness has never been sullied by the mire of accidental 'memory' and 'non-memory', but as Saraha explains: This is bliss supreme, unmatched. ' 'IN here the yogis, who understand this, go to, is pointed out in the instruction which says: 'Where (the concept)body evaporates there is Nirrnär:nkäya,

where talk evaporates there is Sambhogakãya, and where subjectivism evaporates there is Dharmakãya.' Hence Saraha's words: Saraha has shown it and has gone.' It is a recurrent theme that conceptualization leads us away from the immediacy and uniqueness of Being, because having a concept of something we attribute to Being the characteristics of which we have the concept. This is to limit Being, for to say that Being possesses characteristic A is to say that it lacks the

characteristic not-A, but then to say that it is limitless is to do so not a whit less. Even to say that it is existing is still to say something about it, even if existence is not an attribute, because we use a concept to refer to it, and concepts tend to obliterate uniqueness. However, every direct and immediate experience is unique and spontaneous, and this is most obvious in a love experience, an aesthetic experience, and in the burst of insight. While

conceptualization occurs in the wake of selfish cognition, in which the world is organized into what gratifies or frustrates our selfish needs and where everything is a means to other means which, in turn, are means to other means ad infinitum, spontaneity is part of a total situation and the individual's total response to a particular situation at a particular moment. This is its originality and freshness; only egocentricity is repetitive, stale, and neurotic. it

may not be possible to describe accurately how it feels to have a peak-experience or 'to be', the rich imagery used by those who have had the experience may help to lead people to, and finally to evoke within them, those experiences which have been considered to be the most worth while of all experiences by those who have had them. Saraha exclaims:

"Indeed, this is self-validating awareness. Do not become alienated from it ! Things and no-things fetter Buddhahood;

Without making a difference between world and selfsameness, Let the genuine subject stay alone, o yogi!

Know this to be like water poured into water.' gNyis-med Avadhütipa explains this verse as follows :160 "As to the real, there is no alienation. If this is not understood there is alienation due to the alienating activity of 'memory'. When it is understood,

'memory' becomes purified and there is no doubt as to what does not turn into an object of subjective mind. Hence Saraha says: Do not become alienated from it! "The intentionality of Buddhahood throughout time is fettered by the concept 'thing', so also it is by the concept 'no-thing' or 'nothingness'. Therefore

Saraha says : Things and no-things fetter Buddhahood. As long as there is subject and object, there is the world (of subjective interpretation). The statement 'there is neither subject nor object' is a conceptualization and hence 'memory' and the world (of subjective interpretation). The nonconceptualizable reality

of what there is, is (their) selfsameness. 'Self-sameness, self-sameness' is a mere concept, hence Saraha exclaims: Without making a difference between world and self-sameness.

"Genuine, quiet spontaneity cannot be conceptualized. Conceptualization is 'memory' because it is subjectively relating mind. When this 'memory' has disappeared like mist, Saraha's words apply: Let the genuine subject stay alone, o yogi!

"But if one hankers after this non-memory, it is like a drop of oil floating on water, because there are still propositions entertained. But when all attributes have subsided in the absolutely real, then, as Saraha says: Know this to be like water poured into water."

The image of water being poured into water does not mean that the subject is absorbed in something greater than itself. Apart from conceptualizing a peak experience, it denies the very fact of knowledge. All that this image intends is the unitive character

of the experience: "In the same way as water poured into water cannot be separated, so appearance and openness are to be known as indivisible", says Karma Phrin-las-pa.161 With this interpretation he restates the metaphysical and ontological nature of Tantrism. There is no world other than the world of appearance, but it is not 'nothing but appearance', the view of the various, intrinsically negative, transcendentalisms.  The Goal is to Be

RDINARILY, it seems, we are beset with an urge for bifurcation, and the first emergence of a possible sense of I-ness is marked by hostility, resentment, acrimony. Subsequently, everything is set in a strange love-hate ambiguity, deriving from the initial hostility. The integral personality is severed into a

mind and a body, difficult to reunite. Beyond the individual, the whole universe is divided into appearance and reality. Our reactions to the world around us are no less divided; we speak of Samsära and NirväQa, of relative truth and absolute truth, and when these ideas become dominant, our attitudes become ever

more rigid, and finally the two poles become incompatible. The ensuing conflict becomes unbearable and we try to find a way out, but since the bifurcation contains a hidden evaluation so that mind is more valuable than the body, Nirvana superior to Samsãra, to say nothing of the alleged contrast between reality

and appearance, we unwittingly side with what seems to be more valuable and, by attending to the more valued pole, through what is commonly called 'meditation', we merely perpetuate the bifurcation and the conflict. Saraha is quite outspoken when he says :

"By the swindle of meditation freedom is not found"; and gNyis-med Avadhütipa elaborates this dictum by stating :162 "Some people say that freedom is found when one holds steady the proper understanding of the noetic (moment) that comes in the wake of a deeper insight, after one has composed oneself. Not knowing

that (Being) is for ever in a state of composure, they do not find liberation by this imaginary composure.' The last sentence of this quotation emphasizes the importance of looking for the integral personality, and of tearing away what prevents us from being. The

goal of Tantrism is to be, and the way to it may be called a process of self-actualization. However, it is extremely important not to be mistaken about the term 'self', which in a subjectivistic context is the excuse for any oddity that might pop into one's head. The self is never an idiosyncrasy, it is not even

an entity, but a convention to point to the subject character of man as man, but not of man as this or that particular individual with these or those particular traits. If the goal is to be, and if we let 'self' stand for the way it feels to be, there is a hidden premise in this: the determining self (which

makes us feel to be a self) must be a possible self. It must represent a set of authentic potentialities of the individual and must be a self whose realization lies within the realm of genuine possibility. This fact has constantly been forgotten in the course of the history of philosophy, and the solution of the

problem of man's Being has been attempted by either belittling or aggrandizing man. The former attempt is the well-known Kantian assumption of the twofold nature of man, a godlike noumenal self of man and his merely human self. The godlike self is an image that man forms of himself as an 'idealized person' which

is then identified with man's 'real self' and so becomes the perspective from which he views himself and discovers that his everyday life self, his phenomenal self, falls remarkably short of the imaginary and postulated qualities of the supposedly real self. The latter attempt begins with the deification of one

isolated individual, which reduces all other individuals to inferior beings, and finds its climax in the deification of the theoretical ego as the Supreme Being, which, of course, excludes the possibility that any human being can really be. If the self is a superhuman self, like Kant's transcendental ego, or

Hegel's world spirit, or the Hinduist Ätman, man cannot become such an impossibility. Such a postulated self, whatever name it may be given and however much man may try to identify himself with it in his imagination, is a pseudo-self, a self impossible of realization. The arrogance inherent in every form of deification merely serves to perpetuate

the dualization of man and initiates a destructive conflict that spreads within and without. The impossible attempt to identify oneself with an impossibility only leads to self-deception, which immerses man deeper and deeper in his own fictions, so aptly illustrated in the texts by the simile of the silk-worm in its cocoon.163

Tantrism does not ask man to turn himself into an impossibility, but to realize his potentialities. The Ahapramãna-samyaknãma-dãkini-upadefa declares .•164 "As the seed, so the tree— As the tree, so the fruit . Looking at the whole world in this way— This then is relativity.'

This aphorism not only underlines the fact that the goal is a possible goal, it also recognizes the fact that all that is is relative and so not only re-emphasizes possibility but also avoids the speculative slip into the absolutization of some particular existent. Padma dkar-po's commentary on the above

aphorism is extremely significant and, together with the passages he quotes in support of his interpretation and the commentaries on these passages by gNyis-med Avadhütipa and Karma Phrin-las-pa, reveals the depth of Tantric thought. Padma dkar-po's words are .•165 "In the same way as the existential presence of mind, in its indivisibility of profundity and radiancy, is the seed, so the tree of mind as the unity of Samsãra and Nirvãr)a grows as the path, and according to (the nature of) this tree there ripens its fruit Mahämudrä, which is Dharmakãya, the unity of the Two Truths166 that by themselves are not a duality. In the Dohãs it is said:

The perfect tree of unitary mind Has grown all over the three worlds.

Its flower, compassion, bears the fruit 'being-for-others'. Its name is 'most excellent for-otherness'. and: The perfect tree—the open dimension of Being, is in full bloom,

And its blossoms are the many forms of compassion. Its later fruit comes quite spontaneously, And the bliss is not some other mind.

Although at the outset, Mind-as-such, due to its (function as either intrinsic awareness or unknowing) appears divided into Samsãra and Nirvana, it should be attended to on the path in such a way as having never parted from its unitary presence, In so doing the fruit is realized as being one:

One seed grows two stems, But the fruit is identical with the seed. He who is aware of indivisibility Is freed from Samsära and Nirvana.

Similarly, Nägãrjuna says in his Dharmadhãtustotra: From all seeds Fruits similar to their cause grow. Which intelligent person can claim A fruit without a seed?

The 'field' (Tathägatagarbha) as the seed Is the bearer of all qualities. In the Guhyasamãjatantra167 we read: Ah, the continuity of Samsära; ah, sublime Nirvãr.la. And in the Hevajra: Samsära purified, with no infatuation left, Becomes Nirvana. And Vajrahçdaya declared :

From the seed of pure compassion Planted in the field of man Grows the Wish-Fulfilling Tree Of the open dimension of Being. There is no doubt that Through the intention of all beings

From this Wish-Fulfilling Tree The fruit of pure spirituality will grow."

In speaking of the profundity and radiancy of mind, Padma dkar-po at once draws our attention away from the shallowness of conceptual thought and the dullness of its systematizations and directs it to the source from which both insight (knowledge) and opinion (unknowing) may develop, their development being the way in which we deal with ourselves as representing a certain problem situation. Significantly, he speaks of the unity of Samsära and Nirvällla, which are terms

for judgments of perception rather than concrete entities. Samsära is a problem situation which prompts us to find a solution, but the solution we find is just another problem situation, and to replace Samsãra by Nirvana is rankest escapism, as frustrating as Samsãra's rat-race. This realization finds its expression in the statement that Nirvana is just as much a quagmire as is Samsãra. The conclusion to be drawn is that problems are not solved, but dissolve, and the dissolution of one problem entails that of another. Saraha indicates this in the words:

"Just as in utter darkness (all darkness is dispelled) When the moonstone spreads its light, In a single moment of unsurpassable bliss supreme

All the evils of judgments are vanquished." gNyis-med-Avadhütipa elaborates these words as follows :168 "The obscurations formed by emotions and by the intellectual fog are like utter darkness; instruction given by the genuine teacher who is like the moonstone vanquishing all darkness, makes understood what has not been understood, hence 'Just as in utter darkness In the same way as the moonstone need not carry the darkness from one place to another, so also the

emotions and the intellectual fog need not be rejected. Hence 'spreads its light'. Simultaneously with pointing out the unusual bliss supreme, which is not sullied by the dirt of Samsãra and by the dirt of Nirvana, the intentionality of Buddhahood is seen, hence 'In a single moment ' Conceptualizing is the evil of judging, non-conceptualization is the happiness of concentration. Since by knowing the fictions of 'memory' to be mind-exhausting, and by enjoying 'non-memory', the conceptualizing mind is conquered, (Saraha says): 'All the evils

The fact that problems are not solved but dissolve or, to state it otherwise, that man outgrows them by developing insight rather than by developing fictions, is discussed again in connection with meditation which, more often than not, fixes the mind on some object in relationship to the meditating subject, and then merely strengthens the subjectivism that has been felt to be so frust

rating : "Get rid of the fetter that consists in the division Between what is to be meditated upon and who meditates.

One has always been free! Do not be fooled by the I and the other," says Saraha, and Karma Phrin-las-pa remarks .•169

"It may be argued that if I am free, the other may still be someone to be freed. The answer is that when I become free, the self-appearance (of self) has passed and there is nothing left of an other-appearance. Therefore there is no being that as someone else has to be freed. To give an example, we may dream that we suffer together with many others, but when we wake up we have become free from our suffering in the dream and there is no other being that has to be freed from his suffering in the dream."

The ' I' and the 'other' are concepts and belong to the conceptualizing activity of the mind, which by its conceptualization denies freedom as an existential value. It 'imagines' freedom and abrogates this imaginary freedom to the equally imaginary self or ego, not realizing that 'ego' or 'I' is but an index word indicating the speaker, not some entity within or above the person who pronounces this word. Only in this fictional world of the ego can the question of the other occur, and such subjectivism is fraught with danger. The individual may be genuinely concerned with gaining freedom, but he may be equally obsessed by the idea of freedom in a mis-directed way. He will then try to impose this idea on others, and his fanaticism to 'liberate' the rest of mankind knows no bounds. What he calls liberation is total enslavement.

The dream is a particularly apt illustration of the fallaciousness of both the ego-sense and the subjectivism that goes with it. 'To wake up' is the literal translation of the root budh from which the word Buddha, 'he who has woken up' is derived. When we wake up, what has happened to our dream-ego? Precisely the same that has happened to the other-images: they have dissolved. This dissolution is the recognition of the latent possibility having become the overt

actuality, termed Mahãmudrä in view of its impressiveness, or Dharmakãya in view of its existential reality and value, or the unity of the Two Truths, by which is meant that while Awareness is the basic existential fact, it is never anything else but the images through which it manifests itself. Again, it is significant that one speaks of two truths. Unless one absolutizes and thereby falsifies truth, truth does not and can never lie exclusively on one side or the other, not somewhere betwixt and between, but only in a wider perspective that incorporates and unites both.

In support of his thesis Padma dkar-po quotes two verses by Saraha. These contain the essence, not only of Buddhism in general but also of Buddhist Tantrism in particular; its two key-terms are 'compassion' and 'open dimension of Being' which, as we have seen, is a term reflecting back from the 'content' of the perception to the perception itself. According to Karma Phrin-laspa these two verses reveal their specific meaning when taken together with the one preceding them in Saraha's work:

"All (the beings) are the continuously present Buddha;

Since mind is intrinsically pure,

It, indeed, is the stainless, sublime citadel."

This verse re-emphasizes the basic fact of Awareness and Being as coterminous, and gNyis-med Avadhütipa in his commentary elaborates this fact. He says :170

"The sentient beings of the three worlds without exception are not separate from the intentionality (meaningfulness) of Buddhahood, hence 'All (the beings). . . . ' Although different names are given to it such as 'sentient being' when mind is impure, and 'Buddha' when mind has become pure in itself, Mind-as-such has nothing to do with origination and so on. Since mind is radiant in itself, Saraha says : 'Since mind ' However, the very attribute 'mind' is a defilement (i.e., we have a concept and confuse the concept with the reality for which the concept stands). Therefore, (Mind-as-such) is free from such notions as mind or no-mind, and need not be freed from them, as Saraha indicates : 'It, indeed

Here, the ontological fact of Mind-as-such is clearly brought out by contrasting it with the postulated mind of subjective speculation. Karma Phrin-las-pa's explanation goes even deeper. He brings out both the metaphysical and mystical character of Buddhism. Mysticism is a definite kind of experience which is both a way of knowledge and a state of consciousness; it has nothing to do with mystification or an other-worldliness that carries with it a nebulous outlook on the

world we live in; metaphysics is the attempt to tell us how to get the things of this world into perspective; it is not the ability to reveal truths about a world which lies beyond the reach of the senses of ordinary mortals and hence nowhere. But while the metaphysician attempts to give a general description of his perspective, the mystic speaks of an individual occurrence. Thus the metaphysician speaks of Dharmadhãtu 'the dimension of Being', the mystic of

Dharmakãya, 'the existential experience of Being'. Both understand by 'Being' an absoluteness that is not relativated to the relativity of all that is. Absoluteness has not 'come into existence' and therefore also cannot 'go out of existence'; figuratively speaking, it 'continues', it is not subject to time, but encompasses time as a possible interpretation. So, Karma Phrin-las-pa says :171

"All sentient beings possess the nature of Buddhahood, continuously present since its beginningless beginning. What is this nature of Buddhahood? It is the existential fact and presence of mind; since it is intrinsically pure, (it is) the beginningless time-encompassing dimension of Being (Dharmadhätu) unbroken, impartial, radiant in itself, as the pristine existential experience of Being (Dharmakäya). Is this the natural potentiality (of man)? Yes. Since beginningless

time the actuality of mind has been present in purity, and when it is pure without the slightest trace of dualizing concepts which are but incidental blemishes, it is said to be the arrival at the citadel of sublime enlightenment of double purity." It is in the light of Being that Saraha's subsequent verses must be interpreted, especially since all commentators agree that in them Dharmakäya and

Sambhogakäya are referred to in their practical application, because here they are a matter of lived experience, which involves man's behaviour towards and in the world surrounding him. But nowhere has the search for values relevant to man's existence been so much falsified as in the norms, ideals, duties, that have been set up without a

grounding in the realities of life. Utilitarianism, emotivism, compromises with urgencies, subjectivistic evaluations, demands of 'society' or 'morality', commands of a transcendental deity, all indicate their intellectualistic irrelevance. What are we to make of being told, on the one hand, 'Thou shalt not kill' but, on the other hand, when someone takes this admonition seriously and refuses to be turned into a common killer, he is put into jail?

The ethical principle in Tantrism is termed 'compassion' and is based on the recognition of the fact that everything that is, has by virtue of its being, its value. There is nothing in the world that is not valuable. The ethical principle involves both valuejudgment and application of the judgment. The value-judgment has to take into account two factors: (a) the value of what there is by virtue of its being, and (b) the value of each particular instant of what

there is and related to other particular instants of what there is. While all that is is 'eternally good' because of the fact that it is, it is 'temporally good' as representing a certain condition or state of Being. 'Eternally good' is the all-embracing open dimension of Being, 'temporally good' are the transitory manifestations of and in it. From this it follows that evil arises when we treat the transitory manifestations as something other than what they

actually are, when we elevate them into an eternal principle. To exemplify: determinate pleasures exist only under certain circumstances, but never under all circumstances. The assumption that they hold under all circumstances defeats its own purpose by causing us to become irritated when the specific pleasures are not present, which adds to the unpleasantness we experience at the moment. Similarly, sexual passion is good as long as it is recognized as a transitory

phenomenon, but if it is treated as the sole end of human existence it fails to yield its goodness. Instead, it increases frustration. With the compulsive collector of physical contacts it is likewise with a drunkard: he cannot stop, does not want to stop, cannot think of anything else, and can never have enough. Another point to note in connection with value-judgment is that there cannot be a negative judgment in the sense that something is being deprived of its value.

Value-negation can only be understood as the necyation of this or that particular value as inappropriate to this or that particular object. Appearance is good in its playfulness and the fascination that goes with its images, but it is evil in the sense that it fails to give the satisfaction that is expected of it and which, because we fail to recognize appearance as what it is, it cannot give.

The ethical principle demands the recognition of what there is as the bearer of a value that constitutes its existence; when this recognition is absent it becomes opinionatedness and the. morality rooted in it is mere superstition, which it attempts to conceal by authoritarianism. However„ it is not enough to recognize the value; it is important for the individual, in order that he may enjoy a meaningful life, to apply this value-judgment in his dealing with

whatever he encounters. This implies that the individual has to act responsibly and meaningfully, not purposively in subjectivistic misjudgment. This acting responsibly is indicated by the term 'for-otherness' which is said to be the maturation of 'compassion'. We must distinguish compassion as responsible action—the word karunã is derived from the root kr 'to act'— from sentimentality with its mercantilism and utter lack of understanding of the human situation. In

sentimentality, which poses as 'being-for-others', the other has no value at all except that he is a means to self-gratification. The words of this mercantile self-gratification may have changed, but there is no change in behaviour. Once it was "And when thou dost alms let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doth. That thy alms be in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee". Today it is :" Your charitable donation is tax-deductible." How little

the other counts is borne out by the fact that these 'philanthropic' despisers of mankind rarely speak of individuals, but mostly of achieving a target. Compassion, by contrast, recognizes

To the being of the other, it does not deprive him of his value (it does not throw him into the gutter first, so to speak, so that later in pulling him out I can self-gratifyingly say: Look how much I have done for you), but it starts from his values and helps him to develop himself. To act compassionately is not to be overwhelmed by an emotion, but is always to act feelingly and knowingly. Compassionate action is, in Saraha's words, the flowering of the existential

awareness of Being (Dharmakãya) which bears the fruit of 'being-for-others'. This means that out of this awareness we cannot but act compassionately. In its existential context this flowering is technically known as Sambhogakãya, 'empathetic being'. In simplest terms of cognition, empathy is the perception of an object in terms of its movement or its tendency to move, whether actual or supposed. The object is not merely noted cognitively but it is 'felt' to be. A tree,

for instance, is not merely seen as a member of its class, but it is 'felt' swaying in the wind. The object is thereby experienced in a new light. It becomes the guide, while the self submits to its lead so that a more intimate and lively appreciation of the object is achieved. This involves imagination and feeling which are brought to prominence by empathy. Through empathetic perception the subject is able to attain in his own being the fullest possible apprehension of

the object's intrinsic value and being. Through this ability to see more and more aspects of the many-sidedness of a person or even a thing, the perceiver and the perceived become more like each other as they both move toward unity, which has a special flavour of perfection, aliveness, finality and bliss. Karma Phrin-las-pa172 indicates this movement toward unity and bliss in commenting on Saraha's second verse in Padma dkar-po's explanation of the passage from the

Rhapramãna-samyak-nãma-dãkinî-upadefa : "At the stage of the path, by experiencing the unity of the tree of understanding all that is as (partaking in) the open dimension of Being, and its full-blown flower of absolute compassion, there comes the awakening to an existential value-being awareness (Dharmakãya) that is not tied either to worldliness or to quiescence; and (this awareness) exhibits the two Rüpakãyas as as many patterns as are appropriate to those who have to

be guided, by virtue of one's being having been cultivated by many forms of compassion. These three existential value-patterns (Dharmakãya and the two Rüpakãyas) have been present in their spontaneity all the time, their later fruit is the Sväbhãvikakãya or Mahãsukhakãya.173 That which in its self-manifestation appears as Buddha-existence is not an appearance other than that of mind, and it is also not an appearance of a mind that is different from one's Being.

Similarly gNyis-med Avadhütipa says

"Since this comes effortlessly, it is spontaneous. First there is 'memory' as the cause and then 'non-memory' as the effect. Then 'non-memory' becomes the cause and 'unorigination' is the effect. Then 'un-originatedness' is the cause and 'what transcends the intellect' is the effect."

Empathetic perception presupposes the presence of existential values which can be 'felt' as belonging intimately to oneself. This presence is Being-as-such in terms of metaphysics and Mind-as-such in terms of our being aware of Being-as-such, while in its felt existentiality it is Dharmakãya, beyond the intellect in the sense that it makes the intellect and its operations possible but is not caught in its fictions, which come into existence and also fade out of it. In the

same way as Being-as-such cannot be reduced to some kind of being (nor hypostatized or deified into some other kind of being), so also Mind-as-such is irreducible, and the judgments we make are the ways through which it manifests itself to us and in this self-manifestation gives us a chance to 'let things be'. In commenting on Saraha's verses stating that one seed bears an identical fruit in spite of growing two stems, gNyis-med Avadhütipa says : 175

"Although out of that which is beyond the intellect and does not come into existence, 'memory' and 'non-memory arise, Mind-as-such remains unoriginated. Out of it Samsära and Nirvät)a appear as a duality, or as Saraha states: 'One seed grows two stems.' The Dharmakãya, which is beyond the intellect, is not a different fruit, hence Saraha continues: 'But the fruit is identical with the seed.'

To Moreover, while (Mind-as-such) is the cause of Samsära and also the cause of Nirvãr.la, Saraha uses the expression: 'He who is aware of indivisibility'. A low-level yogi is concerned with freedom from the one-sidedness of Samsära, a medium-level yogi with freedom from mere NirvãQa, but the high-level yogi's

understanding consists in the fact that he neither rejects nor accepts (i.e., identifies himself with) the fictions that stem from a mind immersed in Samsãra; that he neither rejects nor accepts a state of quiescence, which is a mind that has passed into Nirvana. Since Samsãra is not an entity in itself, he is not afraid of it, and since Nirvana is not found as an entity in itself, either, he does not hope for it. This is the way of the yogis, and so Saraha concludes :

'Is freed from Samsãra and Nirvana.' Hope and fear are here said to inhibit, if not to destroy, the capacity to perceive and to act. Both hope and fear assume that Samsära and Nirvãt)a are real

objects located in some place; they blur the understanding that Samsära and Nirvãrlla are interpretations, ways of trying to make sense of, and to come to terms with, the world in which man lives and of which he is a part. But interpretations in terms of Samsära and Nirvat)a fail because of the hidden assumption

that they are objects to be feared or to be hoped for. To understand that fear of Samsära and hope for Nirvana are both unfounded is not to explain Samsära and Nirvät)a away, but is to reveal the dimension that underlies these two limiting judgments. This dimension is likened to 'celestial space', the term ãkãfa (nam-

mkha') indicating both 'sky' and 'space'. The point to note here is that space must not be understood as being 'some thing'. It has no qualities as such and any attribute used in connection with it is only meant to emphasize its quality-less-ness. Space extends 'as far as thisworld' which is all that is. Space must also not be understood as 'empty space'. On the one hand, space would have been qualified as 'something empty', and, on the other hand, when there is something

there is no space. Space is just a term for the fact that the world is 'extended' in its plurality, each individual being distant from other individual beings, but all of them 'filling' the world as space. Space cannot be separated or abstracted from Being-assuch, and the individual beings are not in space, which would make space sorncthing beyond or outside them and even outside Being. As an experience of a 'creative openness' encompassing and, as it were, bringing

this world into existence, space is a most suitable simile for the 'goal' experience in its vividness, for the feeling of really being and for the value of being, while as 'sky' it indicates the luminousness and openness as well as the creativeness of the experience, just as clouds arise and disappear in it. It is for these reasons that the word 'sky' or 'space' is used to refer to the goal-experience, of which Saraha says:

"A 1 The longer one looks at the sky clear from its beginning, The more one ceases to see it as something. NAThen just-so-ness (is present, all else) ceases.

2 The fool is deceived by his error about the natural mind, And all the beings refute each other, but

Are unable to point out the real because of their arrogance. 3 The whole world is infatuated with meditation 4 But nobody can point out the genuine. B The root of mind cannot be shown.

Because of the three kinds of togetherness 1ST herever it rises, wherever it sinks, and it stays, it is not known clearly. For him who understands this rootlessness

It suffices to receive the Guru's instruction. C 'The actuality of Samsära is the reality of Mind'— Know this to be the words of Saraha to the deluded. Although the genuine cannot be expressed in words

It can be seen by the eye of the teacher's instruction. When good and evil alike have been eaten,

Not the slightest flaw remains."

While gNyis-med Avadhütipa considers these verses as descriptive of the goal, Karma Phrin-las-pa understands them as referring to the removal of the wrong notions during the travers-

THE TO ing of the Path. Both authors agree in rejecting any concretization of the experience. gNyis-med Avadhütipa says .•176 "The fact that the goal which is beyond hope and fear cannot be shown (concretely) is illustrated by the simile of 'sky-space'. Space is not affected by any

such propositional statements as existence or non-existence. 'Space' is a word in use. Since it is not a 'something' it does not generalize (distinct) feelings as is the case when forms are seen and when thereby a distinct feeling-judgment occurs. Since space is not affected by origination or cessation, Saraha says: 'The sky clear from its beginning'. Mind-as-such, when looked at, with no conditions (distorting its serenity), is known as 'non-memory'; when looked at again as 'unoriginatedness' and when looked at once again as 'unattainable by the intellect'. Hence Saraha says: 'The longer one looks, the more one ceases to see it

as something' By understanding this as the goal or Dharmakãya, the knowing and the knowable cease (as a duality), as Saraha says: 'When just-so-ness (is present, all else) ceases'. But when one does not understand this just-so-ness which is together with all that is as not concretizable, and thinks that concretization is the goal, Dharmakãya, Saraha points out: 'The fool is deceived by his error about the natural mind.' If the sentient beings of the three worlds think and ponder that they have to get rid of their emotional obscurations, Saraha says: 'And all the beings refute each other.' First overcome by

emotions and then overcome by intellectualism, they are like a recaptured escapee from prison. Their arrogance does not realize that just-so-ness submerges in what is beyond the intellect. Hence Saraha's words: 'Are unable to point out the real because of their arrogance.' "Since all beings in the triple world do not understand that meditation is to let be, Saraha says: 'The whole world is infatuated with meditation.' The yogi's understanding (fusing with) the absolutely real, pure in itself and free from all propositions about is, cannot be pointed out by similes or the thing itself.

Since an intellectual fiction cannot understand it, Saraha says: 'But nobody can point out the genuine.' The root of all that is, is mind, but mind is not found as something in itself. Since its root cannot be shown, Saraha states: 'The root of mind cannot be shown'. "That which appears as stemming from mind, comes from 'non-memory', stays in 'non-memory', and subsides in 'non-memory'. This togetherness with appearance is experienceable in 'non-memory'. Mind, as long as it is not distorted by conditions, is 'non-memory' and this is (its) openness, which rises from

'unorigination', stays there and subsides in it. This togetherness with openness is experienceable in 'unorigination'. Mind-as-such, as long as memory and non-memory do not rise, is beyond origination and cessation, and since it is beyond the realm of the intellect, the absolutely real rises from, stays in, and subsides in what is the essence of the three aspects of time. When one understands the togetherness with unorigination as being unimaginable, Saraha's words are: 'Because of the three kinds of togetherness'. "When one understands mind, then appearance, openness, and unorigination cease the moment they appear, as Saraha indicates: 'NÅÏherever it rises, wherever it sinks'.

"And since one does not find the absolutely real by searching for it, Saraha says: 'NNherever it stays, it is not known clearly'. Since there is no root for (the fiction) of 'sentient beings', there is also no root for the awareness of 'Buddha'. This rootlessness is the root of enlightenment. Since it is not objectifiable, Saraha declares: 'For him who understands this rootlessness'. ' 'I'llhen one understands the nature of enlightenment, simultaneously with the instruction in togetherness by the Guru, there is neither 'memory' nor 'oblivion'. Hence Saraha states: 'It suffices to receive the Guru's instruction'. "If one says that it suffices to call Samsära Sarnsära, one should bear in mind that there is Samsãra when one does not know the actuality of mind. In the same way as pleasures

TO and sorrows in a dream are nothinçy else but mental events and (in the same way as) the waking awareness, the dreaming of a dream and the dream awareness are not different (from each other) in their unoriginatedness, so also the mental processes (summarized by) 'memory' and mind (as) non-memory' and Mind-as-such (as) unoriginatedness are not different (from each other). Since Samsãra and Nirvana are the enticing performances of Mind-as-such unborn, Saraha declares: 'The actuality of Samsära is the reality of Mind'.

"Since people dismiss the knowledge of the actuality of mind by various means, Saraha continues: 'Know this to be the words of Saraha to the deluded'. "The yogic understanding is genuineness. This justso-ness is unattainable by intellectual means and cannot be expressed in words. 'Memory' comes from what can be expressed in words, but this unitary awareness cannot be expressed in words, and hence 'memory' does not arise. As Saraha says: 'Although the genuine cannot be expressed in words.' The absolutely real can be seen by the pure eye of original awareness, opened by the true Guru; as Saraha states: 'It can be seen by the eye of the teacher's instruction'.

"ÄNhen it is understood in this way, the knowing and the knowable are both consumed, what can one still say of positive and negative aspects? Saraha declares: 'VVhen good and evil alike have been eaten'.

"If someone were to ask whether good is helpful and evil detrimental, the answer would have to be that nothing of this sort obtains. As Saraha sums up: 'Not the slightest flaw remains'. ' gNyis-med Avadhütipa's slightly technical commentary elucidates many points that are important for what is involved in Tantrism

as a means to change our view of ourselves as well as of the world around us and, with this change of view, also to alter our attitudes. First of all, he explains the transition from categorical perception to aesthetic or intrinsic perception. Usually, THE when we perceive something, certain mnemic traces left by past experiences are excited and these, in turn, arouse certain emotions and bodily adjustments and feelings. These 'mnemic consequences', to use a term by

C. D. Broad not only co-exist with the apprehension of what is perceived, but enter into a specific kind of relationship to it, giving the perceptual situation its specific external reference. But when no traces are excited, the external reference not only will be very vague, it may even be non-existent. Ordinary perception, which relates what we perceive to our needs, fears, and interests, is fatiguing and frustrating because we abstract and thereby fail to perceive

other aspects of the perceived object. In this sense, ordinary perception is falsification and a habitual perpetration of falsities. On the other hand, to perceive intrinsically is to be much more alert, to be much more astute and penetrating. Rather than detracting from action it makes action much more appropriate to the situation. Only when the mind is 'fixed' on some aspect, commonly referred to as meditation or pure contemplation, action becomes inhibited

and all feeling retrogressive. In such contemplation, all spontaneity and naturalness is lost. Intrinsic perception is both active and passive; it is passive in letting things be, in not forcing itself upon them, and it is active in being itself more alert. It is a broadening of the perceptual field, as vast as the sky or space which is the whole world.

The mind is never anywhere else but in its functioning which is its self-manifestation as mental events (sems-las byung-ba). These events are directly interrelated in a characteristic way and stand in a common asymmetrical relation to something, in the sense that each of these events is a constituent in the fact that they are all related to each other in this characteristic way. This fact, standing in a common asymmetrical relation to all the mental events, is

termed mind (sems) which is not an existent centre but only a subsistent centre. But even to talk of a subsistent centre is to concretize the free functioning of what, even at the risk of conceptualization, can only be referred to as Mind-as-such (sems-nyid). Analytically speaking, appearance is always together with openness, and openness is always together with unoriginatedTO ness which, in turn, is always together with what cannot be grasped intellectually. This is the

'rootlessness' of both the Buddha-awareness and of the categorical perception of ordinary beings, because if something is rooted in something it has been concretized and reduced to some construct of the mind. The statement that Samsãra and Nirvär)a are performances of Mindas-such means that the mind is composed of its objects interrelated in certain particular ways (Samsära, Nirvana). The Samsäric or Nirvãl)ic mind is simply the fact that a certain set of objects

(Samsära, Nirvät)a) are related to each other in a certain way at a certain moment. Hence the famous statement: 'In a moment a sentient (Samsãric) being, in a moment a Buddha.' And a certain mental event ('memory') is simply the fact that a certain object (Samsãra) stands in certain relation to certain other interrelated objects (Nirvana) at a certain moment. The important consequence of this conception is that Buddhahood is not something outside this world or

outside the reach of the mind, and, since the mind 'embodies' itself, Buddhahood can be realized 'in this body'. As ordinary beings we see ourselves and the world from a self-centred and selfish point of view and judge whatever we encounter as good or evil to the extent that it promotes or obstructs our selfish interests. As Buddhas we see the world whole and unified, and reality is seen more clearly. The source of our growth or our stagnation lies within us, and to

be in a state of Being is neither ruled by laws of outer-reality (Samsära) nor by inner-psychic laws (Nirvär)a); it means rather to be in both simultaneously. Since Buddhahood is in this world and in this body, it is life-validating, it makes life worth while, and to the extent that we are able to see the world whole and as a unity there is nothing that we have to be afraid of, because fear is related to the ego, and there also is nothing to hope for, because all hopes have

been fulfilled. Karma Phrin-las-pa, who interprets Saraha's verses as implying the removal of misconceptions on the path, sub-divides them as indicated. The first part (A) is meant to get rid of the urge to cling to the experience of radiancy and openness which in (1) is described in general terms, while in (2) it is pointed out that

persons, in their arrogance they display by holding to dogmatic formulations, are unable to understand the existential presence of Being, and in (3) it is shown that meditation, as practised by a 'deluded' person who fixes his mind on something and therefore is unable to perceive anything else and merely

impoverishes himself, is equally incapable to grasp Being, and in (4) a summary is given. The second part (B) deals with the rejection of adherence to a specific procedure, and the third part (C) indicates the use of symbols pointing to Being-as-such. He also adduces interpretations by other scholars. The fact that different interpretations are possible shows the stimulating force of Saraha's thought, and also emphasizes the fact that Tantrism is not a system with ready-made answers. Karma Phrin-las-pa's words are :178

(A 1) ' 'MIhen there is the urge to cling to the specific experience of radiancy and openness, this experience itself must be (experienced) as follows: When one looks with the eye of original awareness at Mind-as-such, pure from the beginning, genuine and spontaneous, like the sky, (its) understanding grows ever more firm while appearance grows ever more weak. When by looking repeatedly (in this way) (the understanding) has become absolutely firm, the seeing which

believes in the concrete existence (of what is perceived) ceases by itself. If someone asks whether such radiancy and openness (clear) as the sky ever ceases, the answer is that when the understanding is firm without there being a concentration or post-concentration state, all delusive appearances ceases. In this context Lama Bal-po says: 'When "memory" looks at "unoriginatedness", the vision of what is beyond the intellect ceases,' and Par-phuba says: 'The sky pure in itself from its beginning is nothing to be seen, but by looking at it, seeing it (as something) ceases.' Both (Lamas) refer merely to openness. Rang-byung rdo-

rje declares: 'MIhen one looks at the concept with the concept that "mind-as-such is pure from its beginning", one may come to know its fictional character, but since there is still the belief in its fictional character, this, too, has to be got rid of. To illustrate this point: if one To looks at the sky, all other seeing may cease, but the belief in (what is perceived) has not yet ceased.' Rang-byung rdo-rje combines his interpretation with (Saraha's subsequent line) 'The fool is deceived by his error about the natural mind' due to the fact that (in attending merely to mind) compassion stops. He

thus speaks from theviewpoint of radiancy. However, both interpretations are not mutually contradictory. The basic text (by Saraha) presents their unity. (A 2) "The natural mind is genuine (subject-)mind (yid). The fools in their ignorance deceive themselves by not knowing (what) meditation is and by pondering over an artificially set-up content, and thus create an obstacle to an understanding of the existential presence of Being-as-such. Because of this all the individuals that pursue a certain path disapprove of each other and in their arrogance about their own philosophical tenets or practices look down on others

(saying): 'This is not to be practised', 'This is plain nonsense'. Since just-so-ness cannot be shown thereby, this (arrogance) has to be discarded. (A 3) relying on the helpfulness of the true Guru, (the followers of) a wordly meditation only concentrate on nothingness or quiescence, and they all become deluded by the spiritual darkness (of such) meditation and do not see the real and clear pristine awareness. (A4) "Therefore, nobody who merely listens, ponders, and conceptualizes can realize the existential presence of Being, genuine in itself.

(B) "The root of mind or the primordial just-so-ness cannot be shown (as something). How is this (to be understood)? Through the three kinds of togetherness, i.e., the body (is) the togetherness of appearance and openness, speech (is) the togetherness of sound and openness; and mind (is) the togetherness of intrinsic perception and openness. Or, (another explanation is that) appearance and openness are together, openness and unoriginatedness are together, unoriginatedness and what is beyond the intellect are together. Because of this, one does not find the root of these three kinds of togetherness by

looking for the root from where they have grown, just as one does not find the root of the togetherness of fire and heat, water and moistness. Since one cannot concretize (this togetherness) nor recognize determinate characteristics (of it) even if one investigates the origin, end, and presence (of this togetherness),

all that is must be understood as being 'rootless' and 'groundless'. He who thinks of and understands just-soness as having no root, will destroy all imputations from within when he relies on the instruction by the Guru who makes him understand that the rootlessness of conceptual thought is Mind-as-such; and when he has no more doubts, he should let it suffice. If there is the urge to cling to a specific method, try to experience openness as having no root.

(C) "All that is subsumed under Samsãra and NirväQa, i.e., what appears on the part of deviation is 'concrete' Samsära, and what appears on the part of pristine awareness as 'not-quite-so concrete' NirväQa, is the reality of Mind with no propositions about it. Know that Saraha has repeatedly told this to the deluded people. The genuine presence of Being-as-such cannot be shown or captured in words, but it can be seen by the eye of pristine awareness experienceable

individually through the symbols and instruction by a teacher. Since there is no place and no chance to implant traces (of a limiting experience) in this vision of Being-as-such when what belongs to Samsãra and to NirväQa has been eaten alike as having the same flavour, there is not the slightest chance that the evil (of a limiting experience) will mature."

In contrasting Lama Bal-po and Par-phu-ba with Rang-byung rdo-rje, Karma Phrin-las-pa points to what may be called a danger in effecting a change of perspective. Although intrinsic perception is felt to be more worth while than categorical perception, the intention of intrinsic perception is not that we

should be lost in the vision of the openness of Being, but rather that we TO should act, which is to radiate life. But the one aspect is not posSible without the other. If we try to 'fix' the openness of Being, reducing it to a conceptual content of the ego-centred mind, the light, quite literally, 'goes out' and we are engulfed in a selfdeceptive darkness, which we haughtily judge as the last word to be said about anything.

We are with our body, our speech, and our mind, simply as that; it is by attempting to explain Being as deriving from something else, by looking for a foundation or a root, that we lose our Being and by ascribing some kind of being to ourselves become doubtful of ourselves.

While gNyis-med Avadhütipa gives an ethical interpretation of Saraha's last lines, Karma Phrin-las-pa interprets them metaphysically and existentially, Samsära and Nirvana are alike in being performances of Mind-as-such and, therefore, alike enjoyable in their being put on as a performance. Then, in acting out his own

part simultaneously on both levels, the Samsãric and the NirvãQic, the individual deepens his existential awareness, but does not concretize it and so plant the seed of further limiting, traumatic experiences which only perpetuate his dividedness against himself. The person who can accept both levels has the capacity not only to enjoy life but also the ability to respond to life's challenges positively, because he has regained the spontaneity of his creative potential.