16. Mahāyoga and Atiyoga Interpretations of the Guhyagarbha

In Tibet the commentarial literature associated with the Guhyagarbhatantra broadly falls into two categories—texts which interpret the Guhyagarbhatantra in the context of the “distant lineage of transmitted precepts”, according to which this tantra is representative of Mahāyoga, and texts which interpret it in terms of the resultant vehicle, Atiyoga, the Great Perfection.

As Mi-pham rNam-rgyal says in his spyi-don 'od-gsal snying-po:^[1]

The exegetical methods which apply to the meaning of this tantra comprise two great traditional paths of conveyance, namely the exegetical method which is extensive and common, and the expository method which Is profound and uncommon. The former refers to the wondrous tradition of the transmitted precepts of the glorious Zur family who were kings among all the holders of gnostic mantras, and is explained in accordance with Mahāyoga’s own textual tradition. The second refers to the unsurpassed tradition of the two lions of speech—Rong-zom Paṇḍita Chos-kyi bZang-po and kLong-chen Rab-'byams-pa. Because this tantra is classified as the Ati or highest division of Mahāyoga, it is essentially identical to the Mahā classification of Atiyoga, among the three divisions of the Great Perfection. For in the secret Great Perfection there are three categories of teaching, namely that which reveals the maṇḍala in which creation and perfection are indivisible and mind and pristine cognition are manifest In themselves, that which reveals mind-as-such to be the natural expression of primordial buddha-hood without regard for creation or perfection, and that which reveals pristine cognition in its essence, manifesting in and of itself as the nature of buddha-hood. Among them, this exposition accords with the first.

And he continues:

While these two exegetical methods are of a single savour in that their intentions are directed towards the conclusive essential meaning, in the context of this work, the exegesis accords with the latter tradition, possessing the essentials of profound esoteric instruction.

These two exegetical traditions do not therefore uphold contradictory dogmas but they indicate a subtle difference of emphasis. In the words of Lo-chen Dharmaśrī:^[2]

Mahāyoga realises all things to be the miraculous events of mind-as-such in which appearance and emptiness are indivisible, Anuyoga realises all things to be the expressive power of mind-as-such, in which the expanse and pristine cognition are Indivisible; and Atiyoga realises all things to be manifest in and of themselves as mind-as-such, the naturally present pristine cognition which is without creation or cessation from the beginning.

And Zur-chung-pa Shes-rab Grags:^[3]

Mahāyoga appears as the miracle of awareness. Anuyoga appears as the expressive power of intrinsic awareness. Atiyoga is awareness, manifest in and of itself.

While the standard techniques of Mahāyoga, stressing the nature of the ground and the gradual visualisation of the creation stage, are of course present, this text equally demonstrates the integration of creation and perfection stages and the selfmanifesting nature of mind and pristine cognition, which are features of Atiyoga. Indeed, the tantra-text comprises both creation and perfection stages, and the seeds of Great Perfection, indicating that there is no fundamental contradiction between these exegetical approaches.^[4]

The first method is exemplified by those treatises derived from the “distant lineage”, namely the Indian commentaries by Līlāvajra, 'grel-pa spar-khab / Mahārājatantraśrīguhyagarbhanāmaṭīkā (P. 4718), and Buddhaguhya, rnam-dbye 'grel, and the extant Tibetan commentaries by gYung-ston rDo-rje dPal (1284-1365), dpal gsang-ba'i snying-po'i rgyud-don gsal-byed me-long (NMKMG. Vol. 28), rTa-nag sGrol-ma-ba bSam-grub rDo-rje, khog-dbub (NMKMG. Vol. 28), Nam-mkha'i Rin-chen (c. 1653), gsang-ba'i snying-po de-kho-na-nyid nges-pa'i rgyud-kyi 'grel-bshad rgyud-don gsal-bar byed-pa'i sgron-ma yid-bzhin-gyi nor-bu (NMKMG. Vols. 29-30), sMan-lung-pa Mi-bskyod rDo-rje, gsang-snying 'grel-pa-dang spyi-don (NMKMG. Vol. 31). Lo-chen Dharmaśrī (1654-1718), dpal gsang-ba'i snying-po de-kho-na-nyid nges-pa'i rgyud-kyi rgyal-po sgyu-'phrul dra-ba syi-don-gyi sgo-nas gtan-la 'babs-par 'byed-pa'i legs-bshad gsang-bdag zhal-lung (NMKMG. Vols. 33-34), and gsang-bdag dgongs-rgyan (NMKMG. Vol. 32), Padma 'Gyur-med rGya-mtsho, spyi-don mthong-bas don-rtogs (NMKMG. Vol. 35), Kah-thog 'Gyur-a med Tshe-dbang mChog-grub (c. 1764), gsangs-sngags nang-gi lam-rim rgya-cher 'grel-pa sangs-rgyas gnyis-pa'i dgongs-rgyan (NMKMG. Vol. 35), rDo-grub III 'Jigs-med bsTan-pa'i Nyi-ma (1865-1926), dpal gsang-ba'i snying-po'i rgyud-kyi spyi-don nyung-ngu'i ngag-gis rnam-par 'byed-pa rin-chen mdzod-kyi lde-mig (NMKMG. Vol. 35), and 'Gyur-med Phan-bde'i 'Od-zer (c. 1924), zab-don sgo-brgya 'byed-pa'i lde'u-mig (NMKMG. Vol. 36).

The second is exemplified by Sūryaprabhāsiṃha, dpal gsang-ba'i snying-po rgya-cher 'grel-pa (p. 4719), Padmasambhava, man-ngag lta-phreng (P. 4726) and rnam-bshad chen-mo, Rong-zom-pa (c. 1100), rgyud-rgyal gsang-ba'i snying-po'i 'grel-pa dkon-mchog 'grel (NMKMG. Vol. 25). kLong-chen-pa's mun-sel skor-gsum (NMKMG. Vols. 26-27). 'Ju Mi-pham rNam-rgyal (1846-1912). spyi-don 'od-gsal snying-po (NMKMG. Vol. 27). and gZhan-phan Chos-kyi sNang-ba (mKhan-po gZhan-dga', 1871-1927), sgyu-'phrul drya-ba'i rgyud-kyi mchan-'grel nyi-zla'i snying-po.^[5]

In the course of the textual annotations. the reader’s attention will be drawn to specific points which differentiate these two approaches, the first tending towards reductionism and classification with emphasis on the structural basis of Mahāyoga. the second elaborating the essential, often covert meanings.

This edition and translation of the Guhyagarbhatattvaviniścayamahātantra largely follows the interpretation of kLong-chen Rab-'byams-pa (1308-1363) in his celebrated interlinear commentary, phyogs-bcu mun-sel, which accompanies our text. The variant readings of the extant manuscript and xylograph editions raise further difficulties, which have often been resolved by consulting the vajrapādas established by Lo-chen Dharmaśrī in his definitive gsang-bdag dgongs-rgyan. The approach adopted is clearly a traditional one of philological, literary and historical emphasis in contrast to the phenomenological interpretations pioneered by H.V. Guenther. Nonetheless the legacy of the latter has left its imprint in the rendition of certain key terns—pristine cognition (ye-shes) and discriminative awareness (shes-rab) among others.^[6]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

'Ju Mi-pham rNam-reyal, spyi-don 'od-gsal anying-po. pp. 11-12.

[2]:

Lo-chen Dharmaśrī, gsang-bdag zhal-lung. p. 68.

[3]:

Lo-chen Dharmaśrī, gsang-bdag zhal-lung. pp. 69-69.

[4]:

Within the section on the maṇḍala of peaceful deities. Ch. 13 concerns the perfection stage and the Great Perfection.

[5]:

Lo-chen Dharmaśrī, gsang-bdag zhal-lung. pp. 83 ff.. is a major source for this discussion on the two exegetical traditions. On the mKhan-po gZhan-dga' commentary, see above p. 106, note 174.

[6]:

Whenever English technical terms are not explained or accompanied by their Tibetan equivalents, the reader should refer to the glossaries of technical terms and enumerations in NSTB, along with the definitions provided in NSTB, Book 1. As far as the two terms mentioned here are concerned, the expression "wisdom" does seem inadequate. According to bod-rgya tshig-mdzod chen-mo, the term ye-shes is variously described as pristine or primordially abiding cognition (ye-nas gnas-pa'i shes-pa) or the awareness of coalescent emptiness and radiance abiding naturally in the minds of all beings (sems-can thams-cad-kyi rgyud-la rang-bzhin-gyis gnas-pa'i stong-gsal-gyi rig-pa). As Indicated by the definitions of the five kinds of pristine cognition in NSTB, Book 1. Pt. 2, pp. 60a-63a, it is the perception of the buddhas rather than an accumulation of factual wisdom or knowledge. The term shes-rab is described as the discriminative awareness of the essence, distinctions, particular & general characteristics. and advantages & disadvantages of any object of reference within one's own perceptual range, at the conclusion of which doubts are resolved (rang-yul-gyi brtag-bya'i dngos-po-la dmigs-nas de'i ngo-bo-dang khyad-par-dang rang-spyi'i mtshan-nyid-dang blang-dor legs-par 'bhyed-pa'i shes-pa rab-kyi mthar-son-pa the-tshom zlog-pa'i byed-pa las-can-no). Discriminative awareness is said to be produced through study, thought or contemplation. See Sgam-po-pa, The Jewel Ornament of Liberation, pp. 202ff.