In answer
to your question, there is a context for which the fruition-sugatagarbha,
and the dharmatā-kāya are of the same nature. However, as the causal-sugatagarbha
is not the dharmakāya, the dharmakāya itself is the perfection of
the two accumulations, it is what brings about the final purification of the
two obscurations, and it is free from the obscurations of the five aggregates,
the twelve sense sources, and the eighteen elements. Consisting of enlightened
activity, along with the five wisdoms and the three kāyas—which are the
transmutation of the eight consciousnesses—these are the features that are
referred to as “the dharmakāya.”
Thus, the
fruition is sugatahood, which possesses both the ultimate aspect of the svābhāvikakāya and the conventional aspect of the rūpakāya. Regarding that, the first topic—the cause
of the svābhāvikakāya—does not abide as the essence of the afflictions
of the natural and primordial purity of the minds of all sentient beings. As
for its name, it is called the sugatagarbha in the context of the
tantras of the naturally present affinity, in the treatises of mantra it is
given names such as “original buddhahood” and “Hevajra
of the ground.”
As for the second topic—the cause of the rūpakāya—the
existence of the eleven virtues of love, faith, and so forth being dependent
upon the minds of all sentient beings are the habitual tendencies of studying
which are aroused based on other conditions, namely the appearance of the
buddha in the world.
The awakening of virtuous habitual
tendencies is the affinity of flourishing. As this, too, is the sugatagarbha
in the context of the tantras, there are some terms employed therein
such as the distinctions of the six sense sources and the creation of the
habitual tendencies of studying.
Well then, as for the empty nature of mind,
when it arises as the various interdependent occurrences of delusion—the
fetters of the two obscurations—there is saṃsāra; when the empty nature
of mind arises as the various interdependent occurrences of accumulation and
purification—the non-deluded liberation from the two obscurations—there is
non-abiding nirvāṇa.
Well then, as nirvāṇa is true and saṃsāra
is untrue, delusive, and false it therefore means that saṃsāra does not
infiltrate objective reality. Since nirvāṇa is undeceiving and
non-deluded it is presented as the ultimate truth. Likewise, this presentation
of the falsity of saṃsāra and the truth of the ultimate is also not in
the context of the uncategorized ultimate. However, it is within the context of
asserting the ultimate meaning of what is categorized. As for the context of
presenting it as the conventional truth in the tradition of ‘Glorious Moon’
[Candrakīrti], it is not possible for both to be the final sense, and so it is
presented provisionally as the truth of the ultimate itself and within that
context it is the subject being characterized, which is exclusively the truth
of nirvāṇa.
Though this is how it is stated, even this
so-called final nirvāṇa is not the genuine absolute. Since that does not
transcend compounded phenomena, what is final is not when any single truth is discovered. The non-duality of bliss and emptiness taught in the
final mantra treatise(s) and Mahāmudrā as well is what is meant by the
inseparable, the union of bliss and emptiness as a single flavor, as the
emptiness of the enlightened mind of the ultimate sense that is free from
elaboration and the bliss of the enlightened mind of the conventional sense,
which is the wisdom mind of love without reference that includes
the noble minds of the Mantrayāna. This was answered for Yung Chadrel.
------------------------------------------------
Original Tibetan Text Source: Bde gshegs snying po dang chos sku'i dris lan (http://tbrc.org/link?RID=O3LS12537|O3LS125373LS13570$W8039)
No comments:
Post a Comment