Yogacara + Tathagatagharba = Shentong

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

I'm reading "When Clouds Part" by Brunnholzl and he has clarified something that was a bit confusing to me. He basically says that the Tibetan Shentong is a combination of Yogacara, specifically the 3 natures and 8 consciousnesses, plus an interpretation of the Tathagatagarbha doctrine. I had been confused about that and sort of thought that Yogacara and Tathagatagharba were the same. It also explains why a major text like Uttaratantra lacks the three natures schema yet is a mainstay of the Shentong view. Basically it was retroactively co-opted by the Shentongpas, although there were precursors in India.

*****

Brunnholzl makes another point that makes things convenient for a Kagyu Shentongpa like me, which is that…

Virtually all Kagyu masters hold the tathagata heart teaching on buddha nature to be of definitive meaning and deny that the tathagata heart is just sheer emptiness or a non implicative negation.

(p.69)
Up until now I had known that specific prominent Karma Kagyu lamas were Shentongpas, but I couldn't connect the dots and make the generalization like Brunnholzl does. However that being said, I think his statement should probably be limited to Karma Kagyupas.

(N.B. this is in the Kagyu sub-forum)

[Malcolm]

I'm reading "When Clouds Part" by Brunnholzl and he has clarified something that was a bit confusing to me. He basically says that the Tibetan Shentong is a combination of Yogacara, specifically the 3 natures and 8 consciousnesses, plus an interpretation of the Tathagatagarbha doctrine. I had been confused about that and sort of thought that Yogacara and Tathagatagharba were the same.

You should trust what I tell you. I have made this point to you repeatedly over the years.

It also explains why a major text like Uttaratantra lacks the three natures schema yet is a mainstay of the Shentong view. Basically it was retroactively co-opted by the Shentongpas, although there were precursors in India.

It also explains why, for example, Longchenpa is not a gzhan stong pa. He considers tathāgatagarbha definitive, but places the teaching of the three natures within Yogacara and never uses them to explicate the meaning of the tathāgatagarba, since they are not necessary. There is no discussion of these in the Uttaratantra, per se. The Yogacara masters were not that interested in tathagatagarbha, quite frankly.

Brunnholzl makes another point that makes things convenient for a Kagyu Shentongpa like me, which is that…

Virtually all Kagyu masters hold the tathagata heart teaching on buddha nature to be of definitive meaning and deny that the tathagata heart is just sheer emptiness or a non implicative negation.

(p.69)
.

The only people who maintain this point of view are the Gelugpas, no one else.

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

It also explains why, for example, Longchenpa is not a gzhan stong pa.

Right.

He [Longchenpa] considers tathāgatagarbha definitive…

That's nice to know. Since the Yogacara and Tathagatagarbha were combined that explains where the confusion comes from.

In any event, further discussion of Longchenpa in the Nyingma or Dzogchen forums should be able to accept the Tathagatagarbha as definitive, minus the synthesis with Yogacara.

...but places the teaching of the three natures within Yogacara and never uses them to explicate the meaning of the tathāgatagarba, since they are not necessary. There is no discussion of these in the Uttaratantra, per se.

Yes, that would be anachronistic since the Uttaratantra predates the synthesis.

The Yogacara masters where not that interested in tathagatagarbha, quite frankly.

Brunnholzl has a chapter devoted to that subject, but basically that's right. While acknowledging Indian precursors it seems he credits the synthesis to Tibetans. And given the way discussions ran in Tibet that means that the Tibetan Shentongpas retroactively interpreted the Uttaratantra in a Shentong perspective even though it lacked any mention of the 3 Natures.

EDIT: Errors about Tibetan history erased.

[Palzang Jangchub]

Are there any lucid, easy reads on the differences between Rangtong and Shentong? I honestly haven't paid much attention to this philosophical debate overall, but have become more interested in it after reading in History of the Karmapas: The Odyssey of the Tibetan Masters with the Black Crown that the Gyalwang Karmapas have almost exclusively held the Shentong view. Texts available for free online and/or PDFs that can be sent via PM/email would be especially helpful.

In hindsight, I think all of the great masters of the past whom I've had deep respect for, and likely most---if not all---of the lamas I've received wang/lung/tri from have been Shentongpas. Do we even know for a fact if Gyalwa Rinpoche (HH Dalai Lama) is a Rangtongpa due to his Geluk training?

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

Are there any lucid, easy reads on the differences between Rangtong and Shentong?

Khenpo Tsultrim's "Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness" is only 80 pages total. The last 25 are on Prasangika and Shentong. There is a bid of oddness in that Khenpo uses "Yogacara" to equate with Shentong instead of "Mind Only". He uses "Cittamatra" for "Mind Only". Besides that it is a great summary of the different views from Hinayana (his term) to Shentong.

Do we even know for a fact if Gyalwa Rinpoche (HH Dalai Lama) is a Rangtongpa due to his Geluk training?

In his YouTube videos on Madhyamaka, Guy Newland quotes HHDL as as saying "There's good Shentong and bad Shentong" without elaborating. So in keeping with his ecumenical position HHDL is not "exclusively Rongtong", although I have no idea where he draws the line.

[Malcolm]

In any event, further discussion of Longchenpa in the Nyingma or Dzogchen forums should be able to accept the Tathagatagarbha as definitive, minus the synthesis with Yogacara.

Everybody, Sakya, Kagyu, Nyingma and Jonang, accept tathagatagarbha as definitive. How it is understood in these schools may differ considerably.

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

Everybody, Sakya, Kagyu, Nyingma and Jonang, accept tathagatagarbha as definitive. How it is understood in these schools may differ considerably.

Brunnholzl has a short synopsis of that too. He quotes Sakya Chogden. (p.79)

I. Asserting that all sentient beings possess buddha nature:
..A. Asserting buddha nature from the point of view of a non implicative negation, which means that it thus is not specified by buddha qualities such as the powers. (Ngog and his followers)
..B. Asserting buddha nature from the point of view of and implicative negation, which means that it thus is specified by the buddha qualities. (Dolpopa and his followers)
..C. Asserting buddha nature as being sheer natural purity. (Gelugpa)
..D. Asserting buddha nature as the compound of natural purity and buddha qualities being inseparable.
….1. Asserting those qualities to be the qualities of the fruition dharmakaya of realization. (many Kagyupas such as Pamo Trupa)
….2. Asserting those qualities to be the qualities of the natural dharmakaya (Bodong Chogle Namgyal, 1376-1451)

II. Asserting that sentient beings do not possess buddha nature. (Sakya Pandita, Buton, and others)

Brunnholal continues…

In sum, though there are numerous specific differences between the views of all these Tibetan masters, they can be said to fall into two camps--those who assert the tathagata heart as sheer emptiness (be it as the dharmadhatu, the nature of phenomena, or a non implicative negation) and those who regard it as the union of mind's emptiness and luminosity (which includes the buddha qualities). The former typically consider the teaching on buddha nature os being of expedient meaning, while the latter usually regard it as being of definitive meaning.

So it's easy to see how discussing this can lead to apples and orange discussions.

[Malcolm]

Brunnholzl has a short synopsis of that too. He quotes Sakya Chogden. (p.79)


II. Asserting that sentient beings do not possess buddha nature. (Sakya Pandita, Buton, and others)

Sakya Chogden is wrong w/regards to Sapan.

In sum, though there are numerous specific differences between the views of all these Tibetan masters, they can be said to fall into two camps--those who assert the tathagata heart as sheer emptiness (be it as the dharmadhatu, the nature of phenomena, or a non implicative negation) and those who regard it as the union of mind's emptiness and luminosity (which includes the buddha qualities).

Sapan actually adheres to the latter position, i.e. that tathagatagarbha is the union of union of mind's emptiness and clarity. This is the general Sakyapa position.

[Tsongkhapafan]

The only people who maintain this point of view are the Gelugpas, no one else.

It's not true that Gelupas maintain that Buddhanature is sheer emptiness. I think Brunnholzl is incorrect: 'sheer natural purity' is a bit vague and also inaccurate. Gelugpas maintain that Buddhanature is the very subtle mind of clear light and its mounted wind; this is according to Highest Yoga Tantra.

[Bakmoon]

The only people who maintain this point of view are the Gelugpas, no one else.

It's not true that Gelupas maintain that Buddhanature is sheer emptiness. I think Brunnholzl is incorrect: 'sheer natural purity' is a bit vague and also inaccurate. Gelugpas maintain that Buddhanature is the very subtle mind of clear light and its mounted wind; this is according to Highest Yoga Tantra.

Is that held in general or only in a Tantric context? I thought (and of course I could very easily be wrong) that when Gelugpas present Buddhanature according to the Sutric method, it is explained to be emptiness. I wonder how it is explained in Gyaltsap Je's commentary on the Uttaratantra.

[Malcolm]

The only people who maintain this point of view are the Gelugpas, no one else.

It's not true that Gelupas maintain that Buddhanature is sheer emptiness. I think Brunnholzl is incorrect: 'sheer natural purity' is a bit vague and also inaccurate. Gelugpas maintain that Buddhanature is the very subtle mind of clear light and its mounted wind; this is according to Highest Yoga Tantra.

Right, but in sūtrayāna, they maintain that it is the merely the absence of inherent existence of things, a natural purity, for example, the way Gyaltsab Je describes it in his commentary in the Uttaratantra.

There are also problems with Vajrayāna definition given by the Gelugpas, since this subtle mind is conditioned, whereas tathāgatagarbha is clearly unconditioned.

[Bakmoon]

There are also problems with Vajrayāna definition given by the Gelugpas, since this subtle mind is conditioned, whereas tathāgatagarbha is clearly unconditioned.

Do other schools instead present Buddha nature as being the nature of clarity of the mind as opposed to the subtle mind itself?

[Tsongkhapafan]

Right, but in sūtrayāna, they maintain that it is the merely the absence of inherent existence of things, a natural purity, for example, the way Gyaltsab Je describes it in his commentary in the Uttaratantra.

There are also problems with Vajrayāna definition given by the Gelugpas, since this subtle mind is conditioned, whereas tathāgatagarbha is clearly unconditioned.

In Sutrayana, Buddha nature is compassion. Emptiness, lack of inherent existence, cannot be Buddha nature because it's not a mind.

Buddha nature, according to you, is unconditioned but this is impossible. It's impossible because permanent things cannot produce effects and cannot change so if Buddhanature were unconditioned it would be impossible to go from being a sentient being to a Buddha and it would be impossible for a Buddha to benefit any living being, which would negate the whole point of attaining enlightenment. The very subtle mind is conditioned and this is the point - once purified of obstructions it transforms into the Wisdom Truth Body of a Buddha and is thereby able to benefit each and every living being without exception. An unconditioned Buddhanature is inert and pointless.

[Malcolm]

Right, but in sūtrayāna, they maintain that it is the merely the absence of inherent existence of things, a natural purity, for example, the way Gyaltsab Je describes it in his commentary in the Uttaratantra.

There are also problems with Vajrayāna definition given by the Gelugpas, since this subtle mind is conditioned, whereas tathāgatagarbha is clearly unconditioned.

No, in Sutrayana, Buddha nature is compassion. Emptiness, lack of inherent existence, cannot be Buddha nature because it's not a mind.

Buddha nature, according to you,

according to the Buddha.

...is unconditioned but this is impossible.

Not the first time you have been at odds with the Buddha's actual teaching.

It's impossible because permanent things cannot produce effects so if Buddhanature were unconditioned it would be impossible to go from being a sentient being to a Buddha and it would be impossible for a Buddha to benefit any living being, which would negate the whole point of attaining enlightenment.

You have no idea how incoherent this argument, and the mass of ignorance upon which it is founded. But I am watching TV tonight, so I will have to correct you tomorrow.

The very subtle mind is conditioned and this is the point - once purified of obstructions it transforms into the Wisdom Truth Body of a Buddha and is thereby able to benefit each and every living being without exception. An unconditioned Buddhanature is inert and pointless.

A conditioned dharmakāya is extremely unacceptable in Mahāyāna. It also directly contradicts all of the Buddha's teachings, more tomorrow.

[Tsongkhapafan]

It's impossible because permanent things cannot produce effects so if Buddhanature were unconditioned it would be impossible to go from being a sentient being to a Buddha and it would be impossible for a Buddha to benefit any living being, which would negate the whole point of attaining enlightenment.

You have no idea how incoherent this argument, and the mass of ignorance upon which it is founded. But I am watching TV tonight, so I will have to correct you tomorrow.

If you're not interested in sharing what you understand because you have something 'more important' to do (like watching TV ), don't bother.

The very subtle mind is conditioned and this is the point - once purified of obstructions it transforms into the Wisdom Truth Body of a Buddha and is thereby able to benefit each and every living being without exception. An unconditioned Buddhanature is inert and pointless.

A conditioned dharmakāya is extremely unacceptable in Mahāyāna. It also directly contradicts all of the Buddha's teachings, more tomorrow.

Nope. It's according to the Second Turning of the Wheel of Dharma and Buddha's Tantric teachings which are definitive.

[Malcolm]

A conditioned dharmakāya is extremely unacceptable in Mahāyāna. It also directly contradicts all of the Buddha's teachings, more tomorrow.

Nope. It's according to the Second Turning of the Wheel of Dharma and Buddha's Tantric teachings which are definitive.

Citation please?

[Malcolm]

For example, The Ārya-dharmasaṃgīti-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states:

• The real is the dharmakāya of the Tathāgata; the unconditioned is the parinirvana...

The Avatamska Sūtra states:

• The dharmakāya is the kāya that never comes nor goes, it is the indestructible kāya because it is unconditioned.

Abhakaragupta states in his Moonrays commentary on Perfection of Wisdom in 18,000 lines:

• The dharmakāya is the unconditioned ultimate of the bhagavans.

Or Jñānacandra's commentary on Nāgārjuna's Praise to the Three Kāyas states:

• The dharmakāya is exclusively permanent by nature, and because of that, it is therefore unconditioned.

Advayavajra writes in his Five Natures:

• The unconditioned mind is dharmakāya,
  permanence is the characteristics of the sambhogakāya,
  diversity itself is the nirmanakāya,
  the original state is the nature of everything.

[Tsongkhapafan]

For example, The Ārya-dharmasaṃgīti-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states:

• The real is the dharmakāya of the Tathāgata; the unconditioned is the parinirvana...

The Avatamska Sūtra states:

• The dharmakāya is the kāya that never comes nor goes, it is the indestructible kāya because it is unconditioned.

Abhakaragupta states in his Moonrays commentary on Perfection of Wisdom in 18,000 lines:

• The dharmakāya is the unconditioned ultimate of the bhagavans.

Or Jñānacandra's commentary on Nāgārjuna's Praise to the Three Kāyas states:

• The dharmakāya is exclusively permanent by nature, and because of that, it is therefore unconditioned.

Advayavajra writes in his Five Natures:

• The unconditioned mind is dharmakāya,
  permanence is the characteristics of the sambhogakāya,
  diversity itself is the nirmanakāya,
  the original state is the nature of everything.

It's easy to quote scripture but what does it actually mean? It's like saying "it says in the Bible, so it's true..." This is surely a bit fundamentalistic?

There are two parts to the Dharmakaya - the Wisdom Truth Body and the Nature Body, which correspond to the functioning omniscient mind of Buddha and the emptiness of that mind respectively. The Nature Body is unconditioned because it's an ultimate truth and the ultimate true cessation. The definition of a true cessation is the emptiness of a mind that has abandoned any fault in dependence upon a truth path, so the emptiness of the mind that has abandoned the very subtle obstructions to omniscience is the Nature Body, the principal basis of imputation for Buddha, so it is this which is unconditioned, but that's only part of the story. How can you explain something that is unconditioned and that functions to bring benefit to all living beings? Emptiness is not a mind and so a true cessation cannot function to bring benefit to all living beings. It is the Wisdom Truth Body which is a functioning thing and that functions to radiate blessings and emanate as Teachers and other things that sentient beings needs for their temporary and ultimate happiness. This Wisdom Truth Body, which is the unobstructed clear light mind of a Buddha, is one nature with the Nature Body, one nature in ultimate truth (because the two truths are the same nature). The Nature Body can't benefit anyone, it's the Wisdom Truth Body that does, so although from one point of view the Dharmakaya is unconditioned because the Nature Body is the principal basis of imputation for Buddha, that's not the whole story.

Can you please explain to me how an unconditioned Dharmakaya functions to benefit sentient beings? What you assert is illogical and impossible.

[Bakmoon]

It's easy to quote scripture but what does it actually mean? It's like saying "it says in the Bible, so it's true..." This is surely a bit fundamentalistic?

If these citations don't mean what they say, then what do they mean, and why do they do so in such an extremely oblique manner?

Can you please explain to me how an unconditioned Dharmakaya functions to benefit sentient beings? What you assert is illogical and impossible.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that the Dharmakaya itself doesn't function to help sentient beings, and that is why Buddhas have Sambhogakayas and Nirmanakayas.

[Matt J]

So what's the difference between Dharmakaya and Tathagatgarha? It sounds like under the non-Gelug explanation, they are the same.

In sum, though there are numerous specific differences between the views of all these Tibetan masters, they can be said to fall into two camps--those who assert the tathagata heart as sheer emptiness (be it as the dharmadhatu, the nature of phenomena, or a non implicative negation) and those who regard it as the union of mind's emptiness and luminosity (which includes the buddha qualities). The former typically consider the teaching on buddha nature os being of expedient meaning, while the latter usually regard it as being of definitive meaning.

So it's easy to see how discussing this can lead to apples and orange discussions.