The Role of the Bodhicittavivaraṇa in the Mahāmudrā Tradition of ...

Mathes: The Role of the Bodhicittavivaraṇa
In his commentary on An Analysis of the Jewel Family, 38 ’Gos lo tsā ba gzhon
nu dpal introduces two different types of emptiness on the basis of Sgam po pa’s
distinction between a path of inferences and one of direct perceptions. The
emptiness of ordinary Madhyamaka is approached by the method of non-affirming
negation and assigned to the Second Wheel of the Doctrine. In the Third Wheel
of the Doctrine, the emptiness of an own-being (that is, the emptiness of the Second
Wheel of the Doctrine) is first established in an outer husk, namely the adventitious
stains. Then the emptiness which is also the Buddha-nature (corresponding to the
sphere of reality in the Praise of Dharmadhātu or ultimate enlightened attitude in
the Commentary on Enlightened Attitude) is ascertained in a direct valid cognition,
not, that is, as a non-affirming negation of an own-being. In ’Gos lo tsā ba gzhon
nu dpal’s opinion, this second type of emptiness (which is also the Buddha-nature)
does not depend on other phenomena in its natural flow, and in this it is like the
element of space evolving within its own sphere. In other words, Candrakīrti’s
emptiness of an own-being does not apply to it, “because it does not arise from
contact with other things” – the criterion for an own-being in Candrakīrti’s Clear
Words (Prasannapadā) on the Fundamental Stanzas of the Centrist [School]
XV.2ab:
That which is not created is an own-being – for example, the hotness of fire or
the own-being of such things as the “rubiness” of genuine rubies and so on. This
is called their own-being because it has not arisen from contact with other things. 39
In fact, Candrakīrti does not accept the “hotness of fire” as an own-being either,
but this is not the point here. In the Third Wheel of the Doctrine “the hotness of
fire” belongs to the category of adventitious stains and is thus a legitimate object
of the Madhyamaka reasoning of the Second Wheel of the Doctrine, but it serves
as an example of what is truly uncreated, an emptiness whose direct experience
enables the positive description of it as ultimate enlightened attitude in the
Commentary on Enlightened Attitude or Buddha-nature in An Analysis of the Jewel
Family – all this well beyond the Madhyamaka critique of the Second Wheel of
the Doctrine. In support of this, ’Gos lo tsā ba gzhon nu dpal quotes the Commentary
on Enlightened Attitude 57:
I claim that the nature (prakṛti) 40 of all phenomena is emptiness, in the same way
as sweetness is the nature of sugar and hotness that of fire. 41
this dhātu or sphere of reality is also wisdom; in other words, stanzas 21 and 22 also apply to the
ultimate enlightened attitude in the Commentary on Enlightened Attitude.
38 Mathes, Direct Path, 184-85.
39 Louis de La Vallée Poussin, ed., Prasannapadā (1903-1913; repr., Delhi: Bibliotheca Buddhica,
1992), 260, lines 6-8: yas tv akṛtakaḥ sa svabhāvas tad yathā agner auṣṇyaṃ jātānāṃ padmarāgādīnāṃ
padmarāgādisvabhāvaś ca / sa hi teṣāṃ padārthāntarasaṃparkājanitatvāt svabhāva ity ucyate //.
40 The fact that nature is used instead of own-being is of no moment, since Candrakīrti equates both
terms in his Prasannapadā, 264, lines 11ff.
41 See Lindtner, Nagarjuniana, 202-3, who identified the Sanskrit of this stanza in Maitrīpa’s The
Five Aspects: guḍe madhuratā cāgner uṣṇatvaṃ prakṛtir yathā / śūnyatā sarvadharmāṇāṃ tathā prakṛtir
iṣyate //.
12