The sympathy toward the Gelugpa order of Tibetan Buddhism shown by the Theosophical teachers in their writings has long been well-known among students of Theosophy. The fact that Gelugpas deny that anything in the universe has any svabh\u0101va has in the last few decades become well-known in the world outside of Tibet. If the term svabh\u0101va and its idea in fact play a central role in the Book of Dzyan, we have a conflict of ideas that will be of considerable interest to students of Theosophy to follow out. We may look at a few selected items pertaining to the idea of svabh\u0101va and how it was perceived over the centuries, drawn from the many sources that have now become available.<\/p>\n
The Gelugpa understanding that Tsongkhapa\u2019s denial of svabh\u0101va applies to absolutely everything is nicely summed up by Thupten Jinpa, longtime translator for the Dalai Lama: \u201cFirst and foremost, he [Tsongkhapa] wants to make it clear that the M\u0101dhyamika\u2019s rejection of svabh\u0101va<\/em> ontology must be unqualified and absolute. . . . The negation of svabh\u0101va<\/em>, i.e., intrinsic being, must be absolute and universal . . . .\u201d (Attached: \u201cDelineating Reason’s Scope for Negation<\/span><\/a><\/span>: Tsongkhapa\u2019s Contribution to Madhyamaka\u2019s Dialectical Method,\u201d p. 297.) The last sentence goes on to say, \u201cyet it should not destroy the reality of the everyday world of experience.\u201d When the Mah\u0101y\u0101na schools denied the svabh\u0101va of the dharmas as taught in the so-called H\u012bnay\u0101na schools, this denied the reality of the dharmas, which make up the world. Tsongkhapa wanted to preserve the conventional existence of the world. To do this, he taught that one must distinguish the svabh\u0101va, understood as the ultimate existence of something, from that thing\u2019s conventional existence. So when its ultimate existence is denied, its conventional existence is not denied. Things exist, but they do not inherently exist. He taught that clinging to any idea of ultimate existence prevents one from achieving enlightenment. Thus, there is only conventional existence, but nothing ultimately existing behind it. Conventional existence is the only reality. Nothing in the universe has \u201cinherent existence.\u201d<\/p>\n Today we hear much from Tibetan lamas about everything\u2019s lack of \u201cinherent existence,\u201d which translates Tibetan ngo bo nyid or rang bzhin, which translates Sanskrit svabh\u0101va. This meaning of svabh\u0101va was singled out and made standard in philosophical discourse in Tibet by Tsongkhapa. The more basic meaning of svabh\u0101va as \u201cinherent nature\u201d was eclipsed by it. In this way, the word svabh\u0101va (in its Tibetan translations) became a charged term in philosophical discourse in Tibet. Noted scholar of Madhyamaka Buddhism David Seyfort Ruegg, in his appreciation of Tsongkhapa\u2019s contributions, describes this narrowing down of the meaning of svabh\u0101va to the idea of \u201cinherent existence,\u201d or as he translates it, \u201cself-nature\/self-existence\u201d: \u201cSometimes, moreover, Tso\u1e45 kha pa has narrowed down the meaning of a word, making, e.g., ra\u1e45 b\u017ain\/\u1e45o bo \u00f1id<\/em> (Skt. svabh\u0101va<\/em>) regularly and systematically denote \u2018self-nature\/self-existence\u2019, and bracketing out other, less technical, usages of this word even though attested in N\u0101g\u0101rjuna\u2019s text (e.g. Madhyamakak\u0101rik\u0101s<\/em> xv.1-2) and, occasionally, in his own literal comments.\u201d (Attached: \u201cThe Indian and the Indic in Tibetan Cultural History<\/span><\/a><\/span>, and Tso\u1e45 kha pa\u2019s Achievement as a Scholar and Thinker: An Essay on the Concepts of Buddhism in Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism,\u201d p. 338.)<\/p>\n This means that for writers who preceded Tsongkhapa, including the Jonangpa teacher Dolpopa, svabh\u0101va did have all the implications that it acquired as \u201cinherent existence,\u201d and it did not have the emotional charge in philosophical discourse that it later acquired. In Dolpopa\u2019s major work, the extensive Mountain Doctrine<\/em>, it is rarely used (only in about nine places, as opposed to, for example, hundreds of occurrences of \u201cemptiness\u201d), and it is used casually (none of these put it forth pointedly, and four of these are in quotations of other texts). The translator, Jeffrey Hopkins, recognized this difference in meaning and implication, and here switched from what had been his usual translation, \u201cinherent existence,\u201d to \u201cinherent nature.\u201d It was up to later Jonangpa writers, when the thought climate in Tibet had changed, to argue for it philosophically.<\/p>\n This is equally true for Indian Buddhist writers, who of course all preceded Tsongkhapa. We have already seen that Haribhadra, who Tsongkhapa regarded as the foremost commentator on the Perfection of Wisdom texts, spoke of the svabh\u0101va of the dharma-dh\u0101tu (however he may have understood this). The Madhyamaka writer who Tsongkhapa relied on above all, Candrak\u012brti, was willing to say in his Madhyamak\u0101vat\u0101ra-bh\u0101\u1e63ya<\/em>, as accurately translated by William L. Ames: “Ultimate reality (don dam pa, param<\/em>\u0101rtha<\/em>) <\/em>for the Buddhas is svabh<\/em>\u0101va <\/em>itself. That, moreover, because it is nondeceptive is the truth of ultimate reality. It must be known by each of them for himself (so so rang gis rig par bya ba, praty<\/em>\u0101tmavedya<\/em>).<\/em>” (Attached: \u201cThe Notion of Svabh\u0101va in the Thought of Candrak\u012brti<\/span><\/a><\/span>,\u201d p. 162. The quotation is from Candrak\u012brti\u2019s own commentary on his Madhyamak\u0101vat\u0101ra<\/em>, chapter 6, verse 28. The Tibetan edition that William Ames refers to has for this: sangs rgyas rnams kyi don dam pa ni rang bzhin nyid yin zhing | de yang bslu ba med pa nyid kyis don dam pa\u2019i bden pa yin la | de ni de rnams kyi so so[r] rang gis rig par bya ba yin no.)<\/p>\n While Candrak\u012brti differed radically from his Buddhist Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da compatriots, in that he totally denied any svabh\u0101va in any existent thing (bh\u0101va), his last sentence just quoted apparently agreed with them: \u201cIt must be known by each of them for himself (praty<\/em>\u0101tmavedya<\/em>).\u201d In ultimate reality, svabh\u0101va can only be personally known (praty\u0101tmavedya) by the buddhas. Vasubandhu\u2019s Abhidharmako\u015ba-bh\u0101\u1e63ya<\/em>, here representing the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da position, says about nirv\u0101\u1e47a, as accurately translated by K. Dhammajoti: \u201cIts self-nature [svabh\u0101va] can only be personally realized [praty\u0101tmavedya] by the \u0101rya<\/em>.\u201d (Attached: \u201cThe Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da Conception of Nirv\u0101\u1e47a<\/span><\/a><\/span>,\u201d p. 348. The quotation is from Vasubandhu\u2019s own commentary on his Abhidharmako\u015ba<\/em>, chapter 2, verse 55. The Sanskrit from P. Pradhan\u2019s 1975 edition, p. 92, lines 2-3, is: \u0101ryair eva tat-svabh\u0101va\u1e25 praty\u0101tma-vedya\u1e25.)<\/p>\n Candrak\u012brti returns to this idea in his explanation of svabh\u0101va in his Prasannapad\u0101<\/em> commentary on N\u0101g\u0101rjuna\u2019s M\u016bla-madhyamaka-k\u0101rik\u0101<\/em>, chapter 15, verse 2. There he again says that svabh\u0101va is ultimately only in the range of the \u0101ryas (translated by William Ames, ibid., p. 169): \u201cThis is what has been said: The whole class of entities is apprehended through the power of the ophthalmia of misknowledge. With whatever nature [that class] becomes an object — by means of non-seeing — for the \u0101ryas, <\/em>[who are] free from the ophthalmia of misknowledge, just that intrinsic nature is determined to be the svabh<\/em>\u0101va <\/em>of these [entities].\u201d<\/p>\n In the whole of the Sanskrit Buddhist writings known to me, quite the clearest and fullest explanation of this svabh\u0101va that is accessible only to the \u0101ryas (the buddhas and bodhisattvas) is found in the Bodhisattva-bh\u016bmi<\/em>. This text is part of the massive Yog\u0101c\u0101ra-bh\u016bmi<\/em>, attributed by Chinese tradition to Maitreya, and attributed by Tibetan tradition to Asa\u1e45ga. There, in its \u201cReality\u201d (tattv\u0101rtha) chapter, the inexpressible (nirabhil\u0101pya) inherent nature (svabh\u0101va) of all dharmas is described. Several pages from this chapter were translated into German by Erich Frauwallner and published in his 1956 book, Die Philosophie des Buddhismus<\/em>. This book was translated into English and published in 2010 as The Philosophy of Buddhism<\/em>. These pages from the Bodhisattvabh\u016bmi on inexpressible svabh\u0101va<\/span><\/a><\/span> in English translation are attached. The sphere or object of the knowledge or wisdom of the buddhas and bodhisattvas is there translated as \u201cthe inexpressible nature [svabh\u0101va] of all factors [dharmas].\u201d<\/p>\n We may note that the Bodhisattva-bh\u016bmi<\/em> speaks of the inexpressible svabh\u0101va of all dharmas, not of the dharma-dh\u0101tu, or of nirv\u0101\u1e47a. As we know, the Mah\u0101y\u0101na schools, both Madhyamaka and Yog\u0101c\u0101ra, denied that the dharmas have svabh\u0101va, as was taught in the so-called H\u012bnay\u0101na schools, such as the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da. It may be this inexpressible svabh\u0101va of the dharmas that the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da school was originally referring to, and they did so by teaching that the svabh\u0101va of the dharmas always exists. We may prefer to accept that the dharmas are the svabh\u0101va of the dharma-dh\u0101tu, as the Mah\u0101y\u0101na writer Haribhadra said. Then insofar as a dharma, an attribute or property, is not different from what it is an attribute or property of, what can be said about one can be said about the other. That is, we can just as well speak of the inexpressible svabh\u0101va of the dharmas as of the dharma-dh\u0101tu. By the time of the Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101da writings we have, this school taught that the many dharmas each had an individual svabh\u0101va of its own, and this N\u0101g\u0101rjuna felt obliged to deny. Yet the original understanding of svabh\u0101va by the earliest Sarv\u0101stiv\u0101dins may not have differed from the inexpressible svabh\u0101va taught by Maitreya\/Asa\u1e45ga, or even from the svabh\u0101va that can only be personally known (praty\u0101tmavedya) by the \u0101ryas accepted by N\u0101g\u0101rjuna according to Candrak\u012brti.<\/p>\n The fact is that, despite all the affirmations of all the M\u0101dhyamika Buddhists on earth that we do, we do not know for sure what N\u0101g\u0101rjuna meant in his M\u016bla-madhyamaka-k\u0101rik\u0101<\/em>. This is because his own commentary thereon is inexplicably lost. Similarly, we do not know for sure what Maitreya meant in his Abhisamay\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra<\/em>, because the commentary thereon by Asa\u1e45ga (who he taught it to), is inexplicably lost. The Theosophical Mahatmas claim to have all such lost texts. The idea of svabh\u0101va found in the stanzas we have from the Book of Dzyan may not conflict with the idea of svabh\u0101va found in these texts. We can only hope that, as our habitual tendencies toward sectarian biases slowly subside, these texts will again be made available.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The sympathy toward the Gelugpa order of Tibetan Buddhism shown by the Theosophical teachers in their writings has long been well-known among students of Theosophy. The fact that Gelugpas deny that anything in the universe has any svabh\u0101va has in the last few decades become well-known in the world outside of Tibet. If the term […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-218","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-svabhavat"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=218"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":227,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218\/revisions\/227"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=218"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=218"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=218"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}