User:B9 hummingbird hovering/Beacon of Certainty by Mipham/Topic1

The wisdom of the two modes of naming and having two titles
Many Dharma textual works have many names. When they are rendered in other languages like what has happened in English these many names form a veil of obscuration. To rent and view through this obscuration a deep understanding of the names and their etymology, nomenclature and orthography is mandatory. I had a profound realization that there is a value in having many different names within the tradition for one text, the value is that we do not become set on one fixed orientation and way of identifying a text. The different names inform each other and teach different people in different ways.

Topic One is given two titles that seed its narrative:
 * the first is addressed by the 'Mendicant' to the 'Sage'  as rendered into English by Pettit (1999: p.195): "According to which of the two negations do you explain the view?"; and
 * the second is identified in the table of contents of the Vărăṇasi edition of the Beacon published by the Institute for Higher Tibetan Studies which glosses it thus as redered by Pettit (1999: p.141) "Question 1:The basis as the coalescence of appearance and emptiness." (dri lan dang po gzhi snang stong zung 'jug)

The two negations are 'absolute negation' (med dgag) of the Geldanpas (the school of Tsongkhapa) and the 'implicative negation' (ma yin dgag) of an undefined 'other' school. Two truths by any other name? Pettit, I search in vain to source definitive definitions of his terminology and his interpretation of Mipham. They are there but they are embedded. Definitions are slippery and never adequate but necessary. I hold that like children it is always sound to give definitions room to move and space to play. Definitions and children are both living documents or should that be rewritten, living testaments. They define and redefine as they systemically involve and evolve. The Absolute Negation is within the semantic field of the 'inconceivable' (acintya) which when rendered into the Tibetan was the name given to the first major esoteric Buddhadharma institution documented in the Himalaya, Samye. That was just an aside tendered with salience. Another venture at an incisive note: the conventional pramana is 'inference' (anumana); the absolute pramana is 'direct-awareness' (pratyaksha). This is encoded in lexical contraction a powerful quality in the exegesis of the Tibetan Buddhadharma tradition. Beauford make explicit.

Pramana
Dudjom ''et. al.'' (1991: p.117 Enumerations) advise of 'Three Kinds of Valid Cognition' (tshad ma gsum):
 * 'direct perception' (mngon sum tshad ma; pratyakṣapramăṇa)
 * 'implicit inference' (dngos stobs rje dpag gi tshad ma; anumănapramăṇa)
 * 'scriptural authority' (lung/shin tu lkog gyur gyi tshad ma; ăgamapramăṇa)

In Buddhadharma as a whole direct perception and inference are acceded whereas scriptural authority is provisional and may be disregarded if it posits a challenge to the other two.

Inference and the syllogism in Buddhadharma is somewhat esoteric and impenetrable for most people but it is important to understand the distinction Mipham is making in certain section of Topic 1.

Anumana and the Buddhist syllogism
Having a working knowledge of the Buddhist syllogism is required to understand the finesse of aspects of Mipham's argument in Topic 1 otherwise the aspirant is likely to become confounded by the import.


 * 'subject' (dharmin; chos can)
 * 'probandum' (sădhya; sgrub bya)
 * 'reason' (hetu; gtan tshig)

Two Negations
The 'two negations' mentioned in one of the two titles for Topic 1 are 'absolute negation' (med dgag; prasājyapratiṣedha) of the Geldanpas which is a different orthographic rendering in English for the school of Tsongkhapa which comes from the Ganden Monastery established by him and where his body was entombed for many centuries prior to its desecration by the Chinese; and the 'implicative negation' (ma yin dgag; paryudāsapratiṣedha) of an undefined 'other' school. We may for expedience implicate the Jonangpa as the undefined 'other' school that sports a model of the 'implicative negation'. The Jonangpa with their Shentong teaching arising from the praxis of Kalachakra are the premier example. Shentong is generally paired in contradistinction with Rangtong. Rangtong is essentially negation with negative implication (our absolute negation) whereas Shentong is negation with positive implication which can be, for example, the Self of the Nirvana Sutra or the Sugatagarbha doctrine just to identify two.

Specifically, in the Beacon Mipham pipoints Shentong. Both the absolute negation and the implicative negation are elaborations of primordial purity according to Mipham. Where elaborations are ornamentations of the mind or conceptualizations. Primordial purity is 'inconceivable' (acintya) to the mind[stream] but evident to the Mind[stream]; where lowercase is obscured and that which is capitalized otherwise.

I find a useful visual metaphor for an absolute negative to be a representation of a 'blank slate' (tabula rasa) with an overwritten superimposition of negating cross identifying that the blank slate, iconic of an absence with an infinite potential, is negated, and the superscribed cross being the absolute to the negation, reinforcing that the representation of that which cannot be represented is bunk; and for the implicative negative to be a silhouette. The silhouette establishes an analogue of the negative in the absence of visual depth and the general lack of colour and the analogue of the positive or implicative aspect by the implication of features in relief from the neutral background, often white. The Shadow, as well in its full Jungian context is a useful intertextuality for the silhouette and our implicative negation and poignant given how a dogmatic reification of the implicative negative is seen in the personification of the Jungian Shadow in an example of objective demonization of a given subjects fears, anxieties and insecurities. Or even an arguably favourable construction of their 'tutelary' (yidam) from their hopes, dreams and aspirations. An interesting and culturally and metaphysically apt motif is the emergence of the Tulpa genre in the literary and visual arts.

"'The division of negatives, or negations, into affirming and non-affirming, or implicative and non-implicative, is traced to Mimāṃsā injunctions to refrain from activities that either imply another activity in its place or not. For example, a mountainless plain is an affirming negative that explicitly suggests or indicates a positive phenomenon (a plain) in place of its object of negation (mountains). Another type of affirming negative is one that by context suggests a positive phenomenon in place of its object of negation; for instance, being told that Shākyamuni was either a brahmin or kṣatriya (member of the royal or warrior class) and was not a brahmin suggests, by context, that he was of the royal caste. A positive phenomenon — being a kṣatriya — is suggested in place of the object of negation — being a brahmin — in this context.'"

The absolute negation is treated by Mipham in depth in his commentary to the Madhyamakavatara, the title of this commentary has been set into English by Duckworth (2008: p.232) as: Immaculate Crystal Rosary. The Immaculate Crystal Rosary with its protracted refutation and qualification of the absolute negative of Tsongkhapa is subsumed in the English work of the Padmakara Translation Group (2002). Which I have not yet had the favourable fortune of studying.

I appreciate that the first topic of the Beacon is a critique of Tsongkhapa and conveys the Two Truths and their associated pramana: conventional pramana and ultimate pramana. Moreover, conventional and ultimate pramanas are complimentary but mutually exclusive. Which is conveyed by Pettit and would have been conveyed by the teachers and commentaries with which he consorted. It may also explicitly stated in Mipham's text but I haven't got to it yet. But we know that the two pramana, the conventional and the ultimate will interpenetrate and coalesce. There are to be four joys in that. It also needs to be stated here that pramana by its nature requires validity. What is unstated but very important to this issue of these two types of negations is the mindstream that is the conduit of their engagement. If a mindstream which is a continuum or series perceives something with the sense bases and their powers, whatever is perceived is likewise a continuum. The cookie-cutter of consciousness vivisects all perceptions into series or continuums. If this is not understood then relative truth cognized is not valid. This is the upaya of Pratityasamutpada brought to ground. Whatever is a continuum is by definition 'neither one nor many'. All series are dependent and produced and therefore, not Ultimate. The Ultimate to be Absolute must be unitary and all-encompassing and unvivisected, unborn by both dualistic mindstream and form perceived by that same dualistic mindstream. A Mindstream though may be nondual. This is the 'noble' (arya) Ultimate pramana that perceives the Dharmata of whatever is 'directly experienced' (pratyaksha) and with which there is a unity of the perceiver, perceived and act of perceiving as enshrined and encoded in the sacred semiology of the Gankyil.

Relative or Conventional Truth
Shantarakshita in his synthesis of Yogacara-Svatantrika-Madhyamaka, distinguished two ways of understanding the relative truth, one that perceives the relative or conventional as consciousness or mind-only, and one that perceives the relative as 'habitual tendencies' (vasana). These views are mutually informing and resolvable and are not to be viewed as mutually exclusive. This view of the relative truth is further elaborated variously within the Nyingma school and particularly so in that of the Nyingma Dzogchen. Relative Truth is generally glossed or qualified by synonyms of 'appearance', (relative) 'perception' and 'apprehension' for example. Relative Truth or Conventional Truth is apprehended by, or mediated through, the Eight Consciousnesses (as is Absolute Truth or Reality which may also just be directly perceived solely with the Eighth Consciousness, pure awareness). The Eighth Consciousness, the 'Base' (gzhi) Consciousness is the continuum that continues through our dream-of-living. We are 'awakened' (bodhi) in the dream when the vāsanā are exhausted. The vasana are the Base, this is contentious but only when understood that the mindstream is constituted by vasana and the Mindstream is constituted by adhisthana and in truth there is no division between vasana and the blessings or 'the-empowering-flow-from-the-sacred'. The English rendering of 'the-empowering-flow-from-the-sacred' follows Namkha'i (1999, 2001) who renders it from 'byin labs', the Tibetan for 'adhishthana' (Sanskrit). In practice the mindstream becomes the Mindstream as we gather the 'two accumulations' (tshags gnyis) of 'merit' (punja) and 'wisdom' (jnana).

Some Dzogchen traditions and texts hold that the 'Base' (gzhi) and the 'All-Ground' (kun gzhi) are distinct, in others they are identified. The view of distinction is entertained by those who have little understanding of the historical, doctrinal, lineal, textual and sadhana relationships of Yogacara and Dzogchen. Or, it is a provisional teaching not to confuse. But they are just different ways of perceiving the sacred continuum-of-the-Ground[-of-being]. Where and how the vasana are 'perfumated' by the accumulated skillful and unskillful actions of body, voice, mind is treated differently in the tradition. However it is envisioned, the Seventh Consciousness has a stake in the tainting or 'perfumation' of the vasana which are housed in the All-Ground.

As an aside, the 'Eight Consciousnesses' (aṣṭavijñānakāya; rnam shes tshogs brgyad) of Yogacara are a development of the Abhidharma. The Abhidharma in the Himalaya was transmitted through the lens of Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakośa and its auto-commentary Abhidharmakośa-Bhāṣya both of which were translated into the Tibetan in the 8th century by Kawa Paltsek and the Indian pandita Jinamitra.

One way of perceiving the Relative Truth following Shantarakshita is of the mindstream constituted by the vasana which is deceptively experienced as external to the subject but is a projected interiority, a projection of the outflows into the conventional experience of the World determining our body, voice and mind, qualities and activities and therefore our Worldview and experience be it either valid or invalid permutations of the Conventional and Absolute. The Eight Consciousnesses and their body, voice, mind, qualities and activities are the Mindstream. There are many different finesses on these associations within the tradition but this provides a good working entry.

Ultimate or Absolute Truth
Discussed elsewhere. Ultimate or Absolute Truth in the English translations of the Buddhadharma from the Tibetan is increasingly being rendered Reality. For a sound introduction to the two divisions of the Absolute Truth whether: refer Bhavaviveka (endearingingly known as Bhavya) in particular and Svatantrika Madhyamaka in general. The Padmakara Translation Group (2005: p.386) provide a salient thumbnail overview where 'consequences' and 'consequential arguments' is an English rendering of 'Prasaṅga/Prasaṅgika': Bhavya holds that the consequential arguments of Buddhapalita are not on the same footing as those of Nagarjuna. In both cases, the consequences imply negations that could theoretically be formulated as positive (syllogistic) arguments. The difference between them is that, given what is known to be Nagarjuna's intention (the negation of all four positions of the tetralemma), his negations are to be understood as nonimplicative. But such a concession is not to be granted to the commentator [Buddhapalita in particular and all commentators of nonimplicative negations in general], whose task is to render explicit to the fullest extent the obscurities of the commented text. If the commentator uses consequences (unaccompanied by any positive and clarificatory statement), the resulting negations cannot automatically be regarded as nonimplicative. On the contrary, they are implicative and therefore undesirable in the Madhyamaka context...It is worth noting that it is in Bhavya that the important distinction between implicative and nonimplicative negations first appears.
 * 1) a conceptual construction mediated by the mind[stream], or
 * 2) a direct experience of the enlightened-Mind[stream]

'Nonimplicative negation' (Sanskrit: niṣedha) may also be rendered as 'existential negation'. 'Implicative negative' (Sanskrit: paryudāsa) may also be rendered 'predicative negation'.

Though implicative negations are for the most part undesirable in Madhyamaka, if a practitioner has direct experience of the Absolute and they render it into writing, a person who reads their document is encountering an implicative negation as it is a positive orientation of Madhyamaka's desirable negation. If an implicative negation becomes normalized in a 'practice community' (sangha) then it becomes a reification and collapses the spacious openness of Shunyata into dogmatism. At best such a reification may be envisioned as 'skillful means' (upaya) and becomes a rallying point of faith and induces certainty.

Base
The key to understanding the Two Truths in the Dzogchen view of both the Nyingmapa and the Bonpo evocations is the Base. 'Base' is a common English rendering of the Tibetan 'gzhi' which is a seminal technical term in Dzogchen Traditions of both Nyingmapa and Bonpo. The Dzogchen charioteers of the Nyingma borrowed the term 'gzhi' from Tibetan translations of Yogacara works in the Sanskrit and other languages where it was employed by Vasubandhu in his codification of the continuum of the Eight Consciousnessness which were a development of the Abhidharma. Indeed, Tibetan Abhidharma is through the lense of Tibetan renderings of Vasubhandhu from the Sanskrit, Chinese and other languages. Whether or not it was already evident in Dzogchen Bonpo philosophy prior to the entrance of the Buddhadharma into the Himalaya is yet to be determined.

The example I have provided of the 'outflows' (anushaya) of the 'Base' as perfumated vasana, comes into its fruition when we understand the Base in its Sanskrit analogue of 'ashraya' which may be rendered into English as 'shelter'. We take 'shelter' in the Base. This is primary. Those who have followed my weblog may be aware that the Essence (ngo bo), Nature (rang zhin) and Function (thugs rje) of the Base are the Three Greatness of The Awakening of Mahayana Faith which Wonhyo treats famously in his commentary which I have as yet been unable to secure in English.

This following is conjecture albeit it informed, but there is a view held by some scholars that some Dzogchen terma were translations of Chinese works and weren't given credit. Unscrupulous yes, but cultural conventions were different. The Chinese works may also have been codifications of ancient heart-advice of the Bonpo lineages. Discourse of the many scripts of Zhangzhung into English is just opening. The jury is out: actually, it hasn't even convened. Look with an open-heart without sectarianism or penchant for the Buddhadharma or any other name of a tradition. See the Great Knowledge beyond names. A friend told me that the term for 'Dzogchen' in the Japanese may be re-rendered back into English as 'Great Knowledge'.

A tree (much more fun than a Pot or a Pole) to a human is apprehended by the Six Sense Bases and their Powers and intermediated by the Seventh Consciousness to the Eighth. A tree to an ant is intermediated through their sentient-being-specific modes of perception. Is the tree perceived by the human and the tree perceived b the ant the same tree? This is unable to be determined. It is one of those fruitless questions that if asked the Buddha would have directed the aspirant to meditate. This example of the conventionality of the tree is also another way of envisioning 'emptiness' (that is empty of or an absence of self-nature or inherent-existence; nuhsvabhavata) of 'phenomena' (dharmas). The Abhidharma and the logico-epistemic traditions would have that the continuum by its nature is a flux and every moment of perception is unique. The one Mindstream never sees the one tree. We may model this by a traditional example of perception which is a series a continuum somewhat akin to beads on a mala. The beads are moments of the continuum that are made sensible by the reconstruction and decoding in our mind which organizes and filters information in a meaningful way, albeit untrue to Reality. All Conventional Truth is a simulacrum irrespective of whether it is valid or not. The tradition also uses another example that is excellent. That of a mindstream that perceives in a state of health and the same continuum of the the mindstream in a state of disease with jaundice. A white khata is perceived by the jaundiced mindstream as yellow. Neither the white nor the yellow colour are Reality, both are conventions of our sentient-being-specific modes of perception and decoding and reconstruction of them in our minds. Actually, it is more appropriate to the tradition to model the mindstream as a flowing out into the world. I don't know how that can be stated more appropriately in English yet at this time. But it is the 'out-flows' (anushaya) of Early Buddhism which were acculturated and recast from the sibling tradition of the Jain Dharma or the Sikh Dharma it was one of the two or even both.

The cookie-cutter consciousness is my gloss of all the consciousness bar the Eighth. We always perceive Absolute Truth we just don't recognize it as such[ness]. The Eighth Consciousness is immutable and all-penetrating and ever-present. The Eighth Consciousness is the Sun that always shines and the Seventh Consciousness are the clouds of adventitious obscuration that both arise as a result of our unskillful activities of body, voice and mind as well as inconceivably since before beginningless time. The Seventh Consciousness is effectively obscuration so it is the quality, refinement or the purity of this consciousness that determines whether valid Conventional or Relative Truth is cognized through the Six Senses and/or whether valid Absolute Truth or Reality is cognized by 'Rang rig pa' (Svasamvedana) through the modality of Direct Awareness (Pratyaksha).

There are many ways even in the Nyingmapa and Bonpo lineages of grappling the relationship of the Two Truths. It is important not to be seduced by orthodox theory but to realise the meaning beyond the words through practice, directly. For the Nyingma, the Two Truths tend to always coalesce and interpenetrate and in that way are one even though they are distinct. What determines Conventional Truth or Reality is the quality of the Mindstream.

Dudjom ''et. al''. (1991: p.105 Ennumerations) relate 'Two Aspects of Relative Appearance' (kun rdzob gnyis):
 * the correct relative appearance (yang dag pa'i kun rdzob; tathyāsaṃvṛti); and
 * the incorrect relative appearance (log pa'i kun rdzob; mithyāsaṃvṛti)

Examples
Unfortunately, we don't have the fantastic sky-flowers and the ephemeral cloud-castles of the sylph-like Gandharvas nor the fluffy-bunnies-with-antlars known to some as Jackalopes (and to others as the more sultry, ever-rapacious horny-hares) but the ever-popular traditional drudge of...pillars and vases ...the debating crowd goes wild! Yes, if you were wondering ,that was base humour dressed with the jaded smock of facetiousness. Thankfully, 'pillars' and 'vases' are not 'poles' and 'pots', though 'columns' and 'urns' would have been fresh. The other famous pervasive example through the Dharmic Traditions is the snake rope trick which is an example of valid and invalid cognition of Conventional Truth. All these examples are important in the literature and will be discussed as if they are understood then the point is identified.

In regards to the pillars and vases it should be born-in-mind that these examples are in their Dharmata-plenitude that is unborn-by-mind, the Lingam and the Bumpa which are analogues of the Phurba and Singing Bowl; Vajra and the Ghanta, Method (Upaya) and Wisdom (Prajna). All of these symbolic attributes are traditional personifications of enlightened qualities of Mind (note usage of capital). It should also be emphasized that Mind in Buddhadharma as it is oft-used is a reification of an essence. This rarely goes questioned, qualified or apologized! We tend to challenge those on principal in the Buddhadharma. But so many Dharma-writers spout Mind like their lexicon is rusted and seized. As such they are born by Mind[stream] atemporal. There is a play on the term 'born' in its split denotation of 'genesis' and 'birthing' as related though contradistinct with 'ported' and 'upheld'. The usage employed the latter as the former would compromise its primordiality. This entire semantic field of 'born' is evident in the human pregnancy as evident in our glorious womenfolk. 'Wisdom' as an English gloss for 'prajna' is ill-defined and I render it 'sapience'. The specificity of 'sapience' holds more quality and more bite in its semantic value than the more general milk-tooth term 'wisdom'.

Much ado about 'existence'
In Buddhadharma discourse we have all this talk of 'existence' which is just misdirection. In my practical experience the general Western understanding of the term 'existence' and the 'existence' of the technical term of Buddhadharma cover very little of the same semantic field. This qualitative difference is rarely reinforced to the Western audience. What is the value of this lexical choice except to confuse and marginalize people entering into the Buddhadharma? It is somewhat like the blunt rendering of 'Shunyata' as 'Emptiness' that is the mainstay of the stock literature. Every definition should reinforce that a literal meaning of 'shunya' is 'zero' and 'shunyata' is 'zero-ness'. The semantic field of 'shunyata' in the indigenous Sanskrit and 'zero-ness' to a non-technical virgin entrant to the Dharma I proffer would if not as blunt as our stock 'Emptiness' define a natural field of semantic congruence with the field of the indigenous Sanskrit. (I didn't nail that but I am going to put it on the backburner and it will come.)

Hookem holds (1991: p.30) "...there is a subtle shift or play occurring in the Sutras and commentaries between treating emptiness simply as a truthful statement about apparent phenomena and treating it as the nature of Reality itself."

To define a general working inclusive definition of Shunyata: 'An uncollapsed Openness that is permeated by Plentitude' is apposite. That is pure conjecture but it would be worthwhile doing linguistic fieldwork solidifying my unfounded premise founded on sapience. Nothing 'exists' in the general Buddhadharma definition that is dependent or conditioned. Why our dear lamas ever talk of such technical language to Westerners that is non-intuitive and which is precious-rarely defined is a mystery to this black-bird. Importantly, the quality of the mindstream determines the quality of the pramana. The quality of the sadhaka determines the sadhana not the initiated yana. Though the blessings of the initiate do leaven the mindstream letting the luminous-adamant of the Mindstream shine through. Given that it is appropriate that we flow to the next heading.

The interpenetration of Shentong & Rangtong
Pettit's rendering of Mipham's first topic in the Beacon challenges the view of Shentong. In other documents Mipham speaks for as well as against 'Shentong' which demonstrates his versatility and non-attachment. I tender that modeled on the Two Truths, an orthodox Nyingma view would be to see the 'interpenetration' and 'coalescence' (zung 'jug) of Shentong and Rangtong and be attached and predisposed to neither unless praxis made it so. That said, we need to appreciate that Shentong is not a homogeneity. There are a number of different envisionings of Shentong. I tender that all deep contemplatives, meditators and denizens of trance-modality are arguably a kind of Shentongpa.

Pratyaksha
Dudjom ''et. al.'' (1991: p.115 Enumerations) advise of 'Three Kinds of Direct Perception' (mngon sum gsum): Note that Dudjom ibid. identifies that the three are augmented by a fourth identified within canonical sources which is intellectual direct perception (blo'i mngon sum; manaḥ pratyakṣa).
 * the direct sensory perception (dbang po'i mngon sum; indriyapratyakṣa);
 * the direct perception of intrinsic awareness (rang rig mngon sum; svasaṃvedanapratyakṣa); and
 * the direct perception (of emptiness) by the yogin (rnal 'byor mngon sum; yogipratyakṣa).

A Wikipedia article on this is sorely needed: