The Nyingma Interpretation of Chandrakirti’s Passage on Emptiness

Other languages

The Ceasing of Conceptual Fabrication: Nyingma Explanation

Tsenshap Serkong Rinpoche II: So, now in the commentary, it looks like of the two conceptual fabrications, the first conceptual fabrication is the grasping for truly established existence [as is usually explained in sutra]; it’s not directly said [like Gelugpa asserts] that conceptualization is incorrect consideration. For the second conceptual fabrication, we don’t directly have it as the objects that are grasped at as having truly established existence [as Gelugpa also asserts]. It doesn’t say, “the truly established existence of a jug.” It directly says, “jug.”

So now, let’s read starting from this line in Chandrakirti’s commentary:

Like that, karmic impulses and disturbing emotions, as many as there are, originate from conceptualization.

“What are those conceptualizations?” he says. [According to Nyingma] they are the assorted conceptual fabrication of objects; they are conceptualizations that are the conceptual fabrication of the existence of objects.

So Chandrakirti says:

and those conceptualizations are, in fact, assorted conceptual fabrications habituated to from beginningless samsara.

Now, he brings in everything: “a cognizing mind (shes-pa) and an object cognized (shes-bya).” So, this is everything.

In the Nyingma tradition, they don’t use “cognizing mind.” I mean they say, “cognizing mind,” but cognizing mind is not used in relation to higher beings. It is for sentient beings. The term “rigpa” (rig-pa; pure awareness) is used in sutra for the arya pathway minds (lam).

They arise from what has the individual defining characteristic mark of a cognizing mind and an object cognized, something spoken and something that speaks, something that does (something) and something done, function and what functions, jug, pillar, cloth, crown, chariot, form, feeling, woman, man, gain, loss, happiness, sadness, fame, disgrace, censure, praise, and so on.

“What has the individual defining characteristic mark” (mtshan-nyid-can) ­– that refers to grasping for truly established existence. Conceptualization arises from that.

Dr. Berzin: So, here, does “something having an individual defining characteristic mark” mean grasping for existence established by something’s individual defining characteristic mark (mtshan-nyid-gyis grub-pa)?

Yes, yes. They arise from being established as in grasping for truly established existence (bden-par ’dzin-pa’i grub-pa de-las skye-pa). It could be like that.

To understand this, again we need to look at Chandrakirti’s commentary in the light of the earlier commentaries.

Nagarjuna says:

Conceptual fabrication is ceased by voidness, because they are ceased by the apprehension of what has the individual defining characteristic mark of the identitylessness of phenomena (chos bdag-med-pa-nyid, Skt. dharma-nairātmya). That indicates that the aggregates enter into the sphere of nirvana without residue.

Buddhapalita writes:

Conceptual fabrication is ceased by means of voidness – in other words, these conceptual fabrications of gain and loss and so on of mundane people are ceased by voidness. One ceases to apprehend (them) in the voidness of the self-establishing nature of phenomena – in other words, they are ceased from apprehending voidness.  

Note that Buddhapalita says, “the voidness of the self-establishing nature of phenomena” (dngos-po’i ngo-bo-nyid stong-pa, Skt. bhāva-svabhāva-śūnyatā).

Bhavaviveka has:

If you ask by what can that conceptual fabrication be ceased, conceptual fabrication can be ceased by voidness. In saying that, the words left out are “by the apprehension (of voidness).” 

Bhavaviveka doesn’t specify the voidness of what.

The original Sanskrit of Chandrakirti’s line reads:

In reality, in the sight of the voidness of the self-establishing natures of all (phenomena), this and that conceptual fabrication of mundane people is ceased in voidness.

The Tibetan translation reads:

Further, these conceptual fabrications of mundane people, without exception, are ceased by means of voidness – in other words, in the voidness of all phenomena by means of the view.

The original Sanskrit of Chandrakirti’s passage has “the voidness of the self-establishing natures of all (phenomena)” (Skt. sarva-svabhāva-śūnyatā), while the Tibetan translation has “the voidness of all phenomena,” which would translate the Sanskrit “sarva-bhāva-śūnyatā.” The “sva” of “svabhāva” somehow got dropped, perhaps because of a corrupted manuscript used for making the Tibetan translation. The original Sanskrit seems more reliable since it resembles Buddhapalita’s “the voidness of the self-establishing nature of phenomena” (dngos-po’i ngo-bo-nyid stong-pa, reconstructed Skt. bhāva-svabhāva-śūnyatā).

Because of this discrepancy between the Sanskrit and Tibetan versions of Chandrakirti’s text, Nyingma interprets the Tibetan as meaning that “these conceptual fabrications” (namely, conventional, commonsense objects) cease “in the voidness of all phenomena” (namely, in the voidness of a jug and so on, not in the voidness of the self-establishing nature of a jug and so on).

Gelugpa, however, interprets the line in accord with the original Sanskrit as meaning the conceptual fabrications of the self-established existence of conventional objects cease in the voidness of the self-establishing nature of all phenomena.

The Nyingma interpretation accords with the literal understanding of the text of The Heart Sutra when it says, “Form is void” and “In voidness, no form, no feeling, no distinguishing, no other affecting variables, no kind of consciousness.” In accord with the Gelugpa understanding of Chandrakirti’s passage, Gelugpa understands The Heart Sutra as meaning “self-established form is emptiness” and “in voidness, there is no self-established form, no self-established feeling, no self-established distinguishing, no self-established other affecting variables, no self-established kinds of consciousness.”    

The Nyingma position is not that of Svatantrika. According to Svatantrika, the superficial truth of conventional objects is their self-established existence as findable conventional objects. Their deepest truth is their voidness of true, unimputed existence.

Nyingma does not accept self-established existence at all, not even as the superficial truth of conventional objects. Nevertheless, Nyingma does accept that to the minds of mundane, ordinary people there appear to be conventional objects. Because of their unawareness, their ignorance, however, they do not know that this is a false appearance, and they take it to be true. In deepest truth, there are no such things as conventional objects. Nyingma accepts that there are objects conventionally like this so as to help prevent mundane, ordinary people from repudiating karmic cause and effect.

Gelugpa asserts that the superficial truth of conventional objects is their appearance to the minds of mundane, ordinary people as having self-established existence. Because of their unawareness, their ignorance, however, they do not know that this is a false appearance, and they take it to be true. In deepest truth, there is no such thing as self-established existence. Karmic cause and effect, then, does not function on the basis of self-established conventional objects. It functions on the basis of mere superficialities, or mere conventionalities.

According to Gelugpa Svatantrika, the inseparability of the two truths is established on the side of phenomena. Their conventional self-established existence and their voidness of true, unimputed existence are inseparable and findable on the side of objects.

Gelugpa Prasangika refutes that the two truths are established inseparably and findable on the side of phenomena, since phenomena all lack existence established from their own sides. It also refutes that the two truths are set from the point of view of the mind that cognizes them – a mind when obscured by either both the emotional and cognitive obscurations or just by the cognitive ones and a mind free of obscurations. It is not the case that the mind in both states is cognizing the same findable object.  

According to Gelugpa Prasangika, the inseparability of the two truths means they have the same essential nature but are different conceptually isolated items (ngo-bo gcig ldog-pa tha-dad). They have the same essential natures as voidness, but in terms of different conceptually isolated items – one is the voidness of superficial truth and the other is the voidness of deepest truth. To cognize that, you need to be omniscient and cognize all conventional phenomena so as to be able to focus simultaneously on the voidness of them all. But what one is focusing on is just voidness – the voidness of all phenomena and the voidness of voidness.

Nyingma Prasangika also asserts that the inseparability of the two truths means they have the same essential nature but are different conceptually isolated items.

  • In terms of superficial truth when explained in the context of the mind of ignorance, the impure appearance that constitutes conventional objects and its denumerable voidness of self-established existence are inseparable and have the same essential nature but are different conceptually isolated items. Although they are inseparable, they cannot be cognized simultaneously, only consecutively. 
  • In terms of deepest truth when explained in the context of rigpa (pure awareness), pure appearance and non-denumerable voidness are inseparable, with both being beyond conception, incommunicable, unimaginable, and inexpressible. They have the same essential nature but are different conceptually isolated items. A Buddha cognizes both simultaneously with omniscience, but for aryas before attaining Buddhahood, pure appearance is not prominent in their total absorption on voidness.

Here in Nyingma, the inseparability of the two truths from the points of view of superficial truth and deepest truth is set from the point of view of the minds that cognizes them – the mind that is under the influence of the obscurations and rigpa that is free of the obscurations. However, the mind in each state is cognizing something different – conventional objects and denumerable voidness versus pure appearances beyond all conventional objects and non-denumerable voidness. It is not that they are cognizing the same self-established things.

Reflexive awareness (rang-rig) in the context of the Sautrantika and Chittamatra tenet systems is a way of being aware that accompanies all cognitions and takes as its object only the consciousness and mental factors in the cognition that it accompanies. Individualizing reflexive deep awareness, on the other hand, is an awareness of its own void nature.

As part of Dharmakaya, both Nyingma and Gelugpa assert that a Buddha has individualizing reflexive deep awareness. Nyingma interprets this as the deep awareness of not just its own void nature, but as the deep awareness of the inseparable two truths, since voidness is inseparable from appearance. Individualizing reflexive deep awareness of the inseparable two truths, then, has two aspects:

  • Rigpa, pure awareness – the deep awareness of the inseparable two truths in terms of deepest truth – namely, pure appearance and non-denumerable voidness, with both being beyond conception, incommunicable, unimaginable, and inexpressible.
  • Individualizing reflexive deep awareness, when distinguished from rigpa – the deep awareness of the inseparable two truths in terms of superficial truth – namely, impure appearance (equivalent to conventional objects) and denumerable voidness, both of which are conceptual fabrications.

The individualizing reflexive deep awareness taken in terms of superficial truth includes the 21 categories of untainted deep awareness, such as the deep awareness of the past and future lives of all limited beings. It is on the basis of this deep awareness that a Buddha communicates with limited beings, which requires speaking in terms of conventional objects. A Buddha doesn’t need to have these categories of untainted deep awareness for themselves. They are only for the sake of limited beings.

Communicating with limited beings in terms of conventional objects is what a bodhisattva does before reaching enlightenment. Thus, from the perspective of the rigpa of a Buddha, such communication is like what one does in kindergarten.

Top