Two Words One Meaning kLong chen Rab bya

Introduction

When we look into distinctions between sutra and mantra, the different perspectives of Ancient (Nyingma (rNying ma and Modern/ Sarma (gsar ma) – and more specifically the lineage of Longchenpa (klong chen rab ‘byams, 1308 – 1364) and Tsongkhapa (tsong kha pa blo bzang grags pa, 1357 – 1419), are of considerable

interest. Scholars such as David Germano and Robert Mayer highlight these differences, which are at the center of my concerns in this paper. Rather than emphasizing that Longchenpa and Tsongkhapa are in disagreement on the relationship between sūtra and mantra, even within recognizing that some disagreement is there, I want to focus on how on significant similarities in the understandings of both these masters.

Pedagogically, we understand that the natural progression from sūtra and tantra for Longchenpa and Tsongkhapa work similarly in that both recognize that tantra is superior to sūtra. Additionally, we understand that we can compare Dzogchen (rdzogs chen) with Highest Yoga Tantra, Dalai Lama states that, “When its

[[[Highest Yoga]] Tantra’s] mode of cultivation and that of the Great Perfection in the Old Translation School of Nying-ma are seen to be parallel, the comparison is being made at the right level.” One specific place to turn is Tripiṭakamāla’s verse in the Lamp for the Three Modes. This paper will look at Longchenpa and Tsongkhapa’s interpretation of Tripiṭakamāla’s verse and then demonstrate the ways in which, despite differences that others have noted, these two commentators

are similar in their understanding between sūtra and mantra. My focus is primarily on how Longchenpa and Tsongkhapa understand whether or not, and in what specific ways, the pāramitā vehicle is obscured (rmongs) in a manner that the Tantric vehicle is not and through this, I explain that even though they differ on this point there is a larger commonality between the two commentators. I further argue that this commonality is important to understand to reckon with the

distinctive, yet ultimately complementary, ways in which they both agree that mantra is superior to sutra. Most succinctly, this superiority for both of them lies in how a subject engages in ultimate reality without using ordinary mind, which is the goal of both Dzogchen (rdzogs chen) and Highest Yoga Tantra, whereas sūtra cannot. Wonderful. What you had before was good but this has sparkle.

In “Architecture and Absence in the Secret Tantric History of the Great Perfection (rdzogs chen), Germano makes the following observation about the two schools of which Longchenpa and Tsongkhapa are leading exemplars:

The Nyingma (rNying ma: “ancients”) sect of Tibetan Buddhism claims to stem in lineal succession from religious groups active during the dynastic period of Tibetan history (600-842 CE), which they maintain endured in non-monastic lay groups though the dark period (842 – 978) ensuing upon the collapse of

centralized political authority in Tibet. As this latter period gives way to the classical period (978 – 1419) of Tibetan civilization sparked by economic revival and limited political centralization, competing religious traditions emerge under the rubric of the Sarma (gSar ma; “modernists”).

The difference between the two schools emphasized here is temporal and political. Tripiṭakamāla highlights the spiritual, or epistemological, differences between the pāramitāyāna (mtshan nyid, phar phyin gyi theg pa) and the secret

mantrayāna (gsang sngags, sngags kyi theg pa) in his Lamp of the Three Modes Although these spiritual approaches [[[sutra]] & tantra] are identical in purpose, the distinctive method of mantra is notably superior, for it involves no delusion, offers many skillful means, entails no hardship and is suited to those of keen acumen.

Both Longchenpa and Tsongkhapa reference this verse and present it as evidence for their explanations of the differences between the pāramitā and mantra vehicles. Interestingly, their presentations are significantly different. Longchenpa stresses that the mantra vehicle is superior (‘phags) on account of its

engaging ground, path, and result (gzhi lam ‘bras) and uses Tripiṭakamāla’s reasons to explain why. Tsongkhapa presents the verse above and then argues that Tripiṭakamāla’s distinctions between the two vehicles are erroneous.

Each commentator’s presentation strongly argues his case. so it seems that Longchenpa and Tsongkhapa understand the two vehicles’ relationship very differently. Yet, upon close reading, I ask, do Longchenpa and Tsongkhapa actually understand Tripiṭakamāla’s verse differently? It looks like it especially

because Tsongkhapa says Tripiṭikamāla is wrong, while Longchenpa agrees with him. Nonetheless, I propose that they do not disagree on Tripiṭakamāla’s verse but explain it in terms that best fit their schools, political influence and to stress a particular point about sūtra and tantra.

First, I reflect on Longchenpa and Tsongkhapa’s explanations of Tripiṭakamāla’s verse and then consider how each author understands realization in the pāramitā and mantra vehicles. In this context, I offer an explanation my central point, looking at how they are in agreement in suggesting that the mantra vehicle is superior to the pāramita one. In different ways, I point out, both find that tantra because it orients, and finds the subject to be infused with ultimate reality in a way that the pāramitā vehicle cannot.

Interpreting Tripiṭakamāla Longchenpa

In the fifth chapter, “The Fruition-Based Secret Mantra Approach,” of his The Precious Treasury of Philosophical Systems, Longchenpa makes a sharp distinction between pāramitā and mantra vehicles by agreeing with Tripiṭakamāla’s verse. Overall, Longchenpa finds the mantra vehicle to be superior to the pāramitā

vehicle for three key reasons 1) there is no delusion, 2) there are many skillful means and 3) there is no hardship. Longchenpa evaluates these reasons and offers examples of how the mantra vehicle is superior. In explaining this, Longchenpa references Tripiṭakamāla’s verse in The Inconceivable Rali (dPal ‘khor lo sdom pa gsang ba bsam gyis mi khyab pa’i rgyud kyi rgyal po) that states that the mantra

approach is superior because of mantra’s fifteen aspects. These different aspects of why mantra is superior to pāramitā vehicle are divided into three categories: ground, path, and result. Below, I offer how Longchenpa discusses the superiority of mantra to pāramitā through his descriptions of the ground, path, and result.

The ground for the pāramitā is mental constructions of the ultimate truth, which engage reasoning and logic to realize the ultimate truth. In this approach, something that is not ultimate truth, relative truth, is being used to understand ultimate truth.

The pāramitā vehicle is deluded (rmongs), according to Longchenpa, because of the way it ascertains the ground, path and result of Buddhahood, whereas, the mantra vehicle is not deluded because the ground for mantra is timeless awareness or ultimate truth, itself. The profundity of the dialectical approach

consists of nothing more than the following: The ground aspect is a mental construct concerning ultimate truth, which is investigated through logic and evaluated through deductive reasoning. [130a] The path aspect is a process of striving to settle the mind in that context – that is, simply a process of calm abiding and profound insight. The fruition aspect is conceived of as something that tends to be attained after many eons. As for the extent of this approach,

it consists of nothing more than coming to a definitive conclusion about the relative level of truth – including the mind-body aggregates, fields of experience, components of perception and so forth, which are dependent on one’s fundamental being – and using this understanding solely to make ethical decisions about what to accept and what to reject.

Specifically, the first step for the pāramitā vehicle as Longchenpa understands it, is to establish the nature of phenomena, which is empty of an essence. This process engages the conceptual mind with signs and reasons, and especially inferential valid cognition, which is considered a conceptual, ordinary mind. Signs, reasons, and inferential cognition are relative truths because they arise in dependence upon each other.

An inferential valid cognition incorporates/consists of signs and reasons that reference the object to be realized, such as an inferential valid cognition contemplating the syllogism, “the person is empty of a self because the self does not inherently exist.” This syllogism is not the “actual” object that the

inferential valid cognition is attempting to realize but refers to the referent object (zhen yul), the emptiness of self. A practitioner on the pāramitā approach uses inference to familiarize herself with the nature of phenomena, emptiness of phenomena.

For example, in Longchenpa’s Grug mtha’ dzod, he explains that “the Prasangikas use syllogisms to cut through conceptual elaboration…although they directly refute anything on which the mind fixates, they do not establish anything whatsoever in its stead. In this way, they invalidate any incorrect opinion that an

opponent might put forth.” Longchenpa explains that this process is inferior because the practitioner is not engaging with the ultimate truth itself –timeless awareness---but rather with a relative truth, ordinary mind.

Whereas the definition vehicle’s ground is a mental construction of ultimate truth, - the mantra approach’s ground is ultimate truth itself - primordial wisdom is recognized as the ground of every practice and therefore does not incorporate the rely or focus on relative truth. The ground of the mantra vehicle is not a mental construct but the process of the body, speech, and mind focusing on crucial points of the body, speech, subtle channels, energies, and essences. (in that case, might as well mention Longchenpa’s point about the body in your paragraph above, no?) Through this, the practitioner recognizes ultimate truth – dharmakaya, non-conceptual, timeless awareness.

In this way, mantra does not rely on anything other than wisdom, the ultimate truth of timeless awareness ultimate truth to access ultimate truth. He explains this in his Precious Treasury….Chos dbying dzod:

Forging the path with ordinary mind entails using antidotes to refine away concepts, so that these incidental concepts seem to vanish without a trace, whereas in experiencing awareness (rig pa, dzogchen sense) one is unfettered by concepts… These two situations are similar in that ordinary recollection and thinking

vanish into a state in which there is no fixation. But those who follow the former approach do not cut through the very root of the problem… In the latter approach, one cuts through that root, so there is nowhere and no way for them to arise.

Longchenpa further explains that only wisdom accesses the ultimate and therefore, the pāramitā vehicle never experiences ultimate truth, meaning that one never attains Buddhahood through the pāramitā vehicle or using ordinary mind.

There is an epistemological difference between the two vehicles for Longchenpa. As we have seen, he explains that the pāramitā vehicle only engages in ordinary mind, a relative truth that never perceives the ultimate. However, he describes that the mantra approach only uses ultimate truth to access itself by stating

that one uses wisdom to realize the ultimate. Here, we understand that Longchenpa works to orient the practitioner to access the ultimate truth right from the beginning of the path. We understand this through his presentation of madhyamaka in his Grub mtha’ dzod, when he defines ultimate truth to be timeless awareness, which is basic space. Already, Longchenpa gears an ordinary mind towards understanding that the ultimate is accessed by the ultimate.

Tsongkhapa

Tsongkhapa interprets Tripiṭakamāla’s verse very differently than Longchenpa. In Tantra in Tibet: The Great Exposition of Secret Mantra Vol.1, Tsongkhapa presents an argument to establish that Tripiṭakamāla’s reasons for mantra’s superiority is mistaken. Tsongkhapa agrees that mantra, specifically Highest Yoga Tantra, is superior but for different reasons. First, the author presents Tripiṭakamāla’s verse and then explains the position of the pāramitā vehicle and how this path purifies any obscuration so that one attains Buddhahood.

The perfection vehicle explains that one who has attained the ground of complete light has abandoned the two obstructions along with their predisposing latencies and has attained all Buddha attributes such as the powers, fearlessnesses and unshared qualities. If there were something superior to the Buddhahood explained in the Perfection vehicle, one would have to assert that although the two obstructions were removed along with their predisposing latencies, there would still be defects to remove.

Tsongkhapa states that one important difference between the two vehicles is the speed in which it takes to reach Buddhahood, but the two vehicles attain the same fruition.

From the pāramitā perspective, it is important that sūtra framework demonstrates that those practicing on its path actually achieve Buddhahood. Yet, commentary from the 14th Dalai Lama in Tantra in Tibet discusses how the two vehicles accomplish two distinct things – the pāramitā vehicle accomplishes the wisdom body and mantra accomplishes both wisdom and form body of the Buddha.

To achieve a Truth Body one needs to cultivate a path similar in aspect to a Truth Body, and both the Perfection and mantra vehicles have a path of wisdom in which one cultivates a similitude of a Buddha’s Truth Body: the cognition of emptiness in space-like meditative equipoise.

In order to achieve a Form Body, one needs to cultivate a path that is similar in aspect to a Buddha’s Form Body. Only Mantra has the special method for achieving this feat by cultivating paths that are similar in aspect to a Buddha’s Form Body.

Here, we understand that there is some contradiction between what Tsongkhapa argues against Tripiṭakamāla points regarding mantra’s superiority. In summary, Tsongkhapa presents the pāramitā’s argument that its vehicle attains Buddhahood as fully as mantra even though the Gelug tradition also supports that there is not a difference between the two vehicles’ fruition. In sum, Tsongkhapa supports that both vehicles accomplish Buddhahood yet leaves room for the necessity of mantra.

Proving this further, we see that the Dalai Lama explains that the two vehicles have the same view, which is the objective clear light, emptiness or the principal object. The ground of complete light is the union of wisdom directly cognizing emptiness in the union of calm abiding and special insight. This, however, is not the mind of clear light that is taught in Highest Yoga Tantra, meaning that there is something missing for the pāramitā vehicle. Tsongkhapa

discusses in Tantra in Tibet that the objective clear light is the same in pāramitā and mantra. I hypothesize that this lack of subjective clear light is in principle analogous to Longchenpa’s claim that the pāramitā vehicle only engages the ordinary mind, which by definition, can never access timeless wisdom. Also, the objective clear light does not include the subjective clear light, which is taught and experienced only in mantra. Furthermore, according to TKP,

this emptiness is the same for both vehicles and the common ground for all practices. This is how Tsongkhapa makes the case that the vehicles have the same view. He explains that, “trainees of Sūtra and Mantra wish for highest enlightenment for the sake of others and take cognizance of the same fruit, a Buddhahood that is an extinguishment of all faults and an endowment with all auspicious qualities.” The trainings in the pāramitā vehicle act as the basis for all mantra.

Longchenpa and Tsongkhapa disagree on Tripiṭakamāla’s points on the superiority of mantra to the pāramitā vehicle. In summary, Longchenpa states that the pāramitā vehicle is obstructed with respect to the ground because it uses thought or mental constructs, which can never realize ultimate truth. Tsongkhapa, however, states that inferential cognition that uses mental constructs leads to experiencing ultimate truth or the objective clear light, which is emptiness.

As to the path, Longchenpa explains that the pāramitā vehicle only uses meditative equipoise, which is the union of calm abiding and special insight, and this process requires effort and does not transcend ordinary mind, hence does not give rise to primordial wisdom. By contrast the mantra approach incorporates an effortless practice where the mind focuses on the key points of the body to eventually come to an understanding of an experiential state that is non-conceptual

timeless awareness or the ground of being. Tsongkhapa explains that the path for the pāramitā achieves the same result as the mantra path, even though when scrutinized further it appears that tantra is eventually necessary. Lastly, Longchenpa explains that the two vehicles ascertain different definitive horizons:

the pāramitā vehicle reaches conclusions, which are used to “make ethical decisions about what to accept and what to reject” but the mantra vehicle comes to a “definitive understanding of the essence of dharmakaya.” Tsongkhapa argues that both vehicles remove the two obstructions and therefore, both ascertain the same fruit.

A Matter of Perspective

Tsongkhapa also tells his disciples that, “after training on the paths that are common to sūtra and mantra, one must enter the mantra path.” His view may seem surprising because he does not assert superiority to the mantra view when he comments on Tripiṭakamāla’s verse. However in his Great Treatise, he does state that the mantra path is “very much more precious than any other practice and it quickly brings the two collections to completion.”

More interestingly, Tsongkhapa explains that there is something to be eliminated on the mantra path, which is not completed on the sūtra path. He states that, “the unique object to be eliminated on the tantric path is the conception of ordinariness which regards the aggregates, constituents, and sensory sources as common.” This seems to suggest that there is something more to be accomplished in the mantra path and may contradict what he argues with Tripiṭakamāla in that there is nothing more to be eradicated than the two obscurations.

From a pedagogical perspective, we understand Longchenpa and Tsongkhapa to be supporting the same idea that the pāramitā path is part of a basis for practicing mantra. Longchenpa approaches the differentiations by claiming superiority to the latter paths, while Tsongkhapa stresses the importance of both paths. Conclusion

I propose that Longchenpa and Tsongkhapa are in agreement with their views of the pāramitā and mantra vehicle insofar as they agree that the pāramitā vehicle is not sufficient to achieve Buddhahood. This point is also supported by the biographies of these two authors in that both practiced tantra. Longchenpa practiced The Great Perfection (rdzogs chen) and Tsongkhapa practiced Highest Yoga Tantra, yet we are able to see that there are some structural similarities in the way they are organizing understanding of the paths. The Dalai Lama describes how these two paths are similar:

Then, if the place of union of this highest of all tantric systems in Nying-ma and the view of the New Translation Schools cannot be in terms of the sūtra explanation of the Middle Way School, what is comparable with the view of the Great Perfection? In Highest Yoga Tantras such as the Guhyasamāja Tantra as

practiced in the New Translation Schools, there is a mode of cultivating the view of the Middle Way School with a special mind, the innate wisdom of great bliss. When its mode of cultivation and that of the Great Perfection in the Old Translation School of Nying-ma are seen to be parallel, the comparison is being made at the right level.

Tsongkhapa reflects how Highest Yoga Tantra cultivates this special mind, especially through deity yoga. The Madhyamaka view remains central, which is developed through the teachings of the Middle Way School. The quote above demonstrates that, for him, the subjective clear light – innate wisdom cannot be

developed without the teachings of the Middle Way School. Likewise, Longchenap points out that actual experience of primordial wisdom is impossible without tantra. Therefore, Tsongkhapa stresses the importance of recognizing that there is no difference between the pāramitā and mantra vehicles with regards to the

view, and thus with regard to Tripiṭakamāla’s verse, because without the pāramitā vehicle, the subjective clear light – wisdom could not be cultivated. And yet, Tsongkhapa disagrees with Tripiṭakamāla in that the pāramitā vehicle is not deluded because it removes the two obstructions.

Longchenpa seems to be focused how wisdom is accessed through practice of mantra. Firstly, he negates that wisdom is any type of mind that perceives or engages in inferential valid cognition. Then he defines this mind to abide naturally in the ground of being – an utterly lucid heart essence, a point, which is common to both vehicles. Mantra allows for the practitioner to directly experience this ground of being because it does not rely on perceiving relative truth.

I therefore understand Longchenpa and Tsongkhapa to agree on how mantra taps into the epistemological state of the subject in a way that the pāramitā vehicle cannot. For Longchenpa, mantra allows the subject’s wisdom (rig pa in rdzogs chen) to perceive ultimate truth. Tsongkhapa agrees in that he describes how mantra cultivates the subjective clear light, which the pāramitā vehicle does not. In this way, mantra emphasizes a gnostic engagement.