Establishing Appearances as Divine [rN~in-ma book of 11th century Chr.E.]

pp. 24-25 2.1 yana-s

p. 24 Sa-skya, bKa>-brgyud, dGe-lugs

p. 25 rN~in-ma

Bya-ba (Kriya) "Action"

Bya-ba (Kriya)

sPyod-pa (Carya) "Conduct"

gN~is-ka (Ubhaya)

rNal->byor (Yoga) "Union"

rNal->byor (Yoga)

rNal->byor bLa-med (/Yoga-nir-uttara/, instead of /An-uttara Yoga/ p. 139, n. 60)

rNal->byor Chen-po (Maha-yoga)

rJes-su rNal->byor (Anu Yoga)

bS`in-tu rNal->byor (Ati Yoga)

distinctions between yana-s

p.

distinction

141, n. 66

(Treasury of Knowledge 1:735) distinction between Carya & Ubhaya : Ubhaya is superior to Carya.

142, n. 74

(Collected Works of Ron-zom 1:337) "In Yoga ... there is the dualism of oneself and the deity. Mahayoga is free of that."

p. 146, n. 104 (Differentiation of Views and Tenets 83) the appearance aspect, according to the several yana-s

yana

appearance aspect

Maha

luminosity [of the mind (p. 34)]

Anu

Samanta-bhadra

Ati

"spontaneously accomplished man.d.ala."

superiority of Mantra-yana (because theistic) over Madhyamaka (because non-theistic)

p. 31

(Pretious Wish-Fulfilling Treasury) "underscore the Sutrayanas ... lack of understanding of the outer and inner phenomena as pure divinities, etc."

p. 32

(Treasury of Philosophical Tenets) "the dialectical view ... does not realize ... the primordial nature abiding as divinities and mantras."

p. 39

(Memorandum on Views) Mantrayana "regards even the characteristics of illusion of complete divine purity".

sudden enlightenment

p.

enlightenment

33

(Differentiation of Views and Tenets 86) "difference between the views of Sutra and Mantra ... in terms of

a gradual process of gaining access to unity ... and an instantaneous perfection".

56

"Candrakirti ... established the general validity of the suddenist approach." [As concerning the C^>an/Zen doctrine of Mo Ho Yen, however, Mi-pham (in his Speech of Delight 104) distinguished "his exposition ... from the view of Mo Ho Yen" (p. 150, n. 153). {The distinction is based on the difference between the sudden advent of ordinary (nirman.a-kaya) buddhahood for C^>an/Zen, and sudden advent of esoteric (sambhoga- or dharma-kaya) buddhahood for rN~in-ma.}

varieties of Madhyamaka

p.

Madhyamaka

41

(Collected Works of Ron-zom 2:18) Madhyamaka is "divided into Sautrantika-Madhyamaka and Yogacara-Madhyamaka."

 

(Collected Works of Ron-zom 2:20) "further divides Madhyamaka into Sarvadharmapratis.t.hanavadins (rab tu mi gnas pa) and Mayopamadvayavadins (sgyu ma rigs grub pa)." [A-dvaya-vajra (11th century Chr.E.) used the same division for Madhyamaka (p. 148, n. 120).]

148, n. 121

Sapan. ... divides the Sarvadharmapratis.t.hanavadins further into Prasangika and Svatantrika". [this "Svatantrika / Prasangika distinction ... dates ... from the twelfth century." (p. 41)]

p. 48 inferiority of Madhyamaka

in the Black Snake Discourse (Collected Works of Ron-zom 2:66-68), Ron-zom claimed that a reflection was aequivalent to what it was a reflection of that the reflection of a black snake (evidently the animal-guise of some deity, perhaps a naga) was aequivalent to the black snake itself. {This is apparently based on the notion that a picture of the deity is aequivalent to a deity; a sort of argument typically used by icon-makers while hawking their wares, or by temple-custodians harbouring idols and requaesting donations from pilgrims to the temple. The Madhyamika-s who styled the "reflection" (icon or idol) as a mere "illusion" were evidently not worshippers or icons nor of idols.}

"the Madhyamikas do not accept ultimate existence (don dam par yod pa), yet they do believe in relative existence (kun rdzob tu yod pa) and imputed existence (btags su yod pa)." {That is, they deny the actual existence of deities, though they admit that the existence of pictures of deities and of (false) allegations that deities exist.}

metaphors concerning "intrinsic nature"

p. 72 metaphor (Collected Works of Ron-zom 1:488)

{comparative}

"intrinsic nature being stained ... would be ... a sun crystal ["used to produce fire by concentrating the suns rays" {-- viz., a lens}]".

{lens is symbolized by lentil; red lentil is 2nd-to-last in sequence ending in Rudrajaya (Ajita Mahatantra 8:23ab-26 GTA, p. 93) : praeceding Rudrajaya is Rudra (Mayamata 7:45-54 -- KU), on whose throat is a stain HC 102:4:1)}

"[intrinsic nature] being annulled would be ... the deer [known as] "that which cleanses itself in fire" ...["i.e., when it is not burned although bathing in fire"]."

{cf. {[Dakota] Fire Deer viewed the Aurora Borealis (BS).} {[Cherokee] Fire Deer is "by torchlight" (BG).} {[Pit River Ac^umawi] deerbone-seekers were scorched by fire (SThD, p. 137), where bone would = annullment}

GTA = N. R. Bhatt; Jean Filliozat; Pierre-Sylvain Filliozat (trs.) : The Great Tantra of Ajita, Vol. One. Motilal Banarsidass Publ., Delhi, 2005.

KU = http://www.geocities.com/tlscbose/NazcaPart-4.htm

HC = http://books.google.com/books?id=LB1qhsw10IwC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=Rudra+throat+stain&source=bl&ots=zlk

BS = http://www.ucan-online.org/legend.asp?legend=5758&category=5 & http://www.aktalakota.org/index.cfm?cat=1&artid=36

BG = http://www.newrivernotes.com/nc/bg22.htm

SThD = Herbert W. Luthin (ed.) : Surviving through These Days. U of CA Pr, 2002. http://www.escholarship.org/editions/view?docId=kt1r29q2ct&chunk.id=ch08&toc.depth=1&toc.id=ch08&brand=ucpress

Heidi I. Ko:ppl (translatrix) : Establishing Appearances as Divine. Snow Lion Publ, Ithaca (NY), 2008. [Heidi Ko:ppl is wife of Thomas Doctor (p. 8)]