In Greg's Emptiness group in Facebook, Elaine Catton
posted:
Taking the following quote from the Dalai Lama, regarding the Clear
Light, how is Clear Light understood in the emptiness
teachings?
""Dodurupchen says that all phenomena are quite definitely such
that they arise as rigpa energy or rigpa display. From the point of
view of the new schools of tantra (sarma), everything that appears
arises as the display of great bliss, and the display of emptiness.
In the terminology of Dzogchen whatever manifests arises as the
display of rigpa, and that is certain. So the agent responsible for
all of this as well as the space and ground for it all, is the
single state of Clear Light. Everything, in fact , is the display
or array of Clear Light. Such experiences of Clear Light will
arise, and when they do, you are left without any fear of falling
into samsara: you are left without any hope of attaining nirvana:
you are left without any hope or fear whatsoever. All experiences
and all feelings, be they good or bad, karma, its results, birth
and death and change: all of this manifests as the magical display
of Clear Light."
Dzogchen by the Dalai Lama pp 196 and 197
I replied with my limited knowledge on this subject:
Posted this before:
The Dalai Lama has this to say:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2009/07/happiness-karma-and-mind.html
"...We have become so habituated to consciousness of the form and
color of gross objects that, when we make concentrated
introspection into the nature of mind, it is, as I have said, found
to be a vast, limitless void free from any gross obscurity or other
hindrances. Nevertheless, this does not mean that we have discerned
the subtle, true nature of the mind. What has been explained above
concerns the state of mind in relation to the concrete experience
and clear cognizance by the mind which are its function, but it
describes only the relative nature of mind."
"...However, as we have observed, its true nature has many aspects,
including consciousness of concrete experience and cognizance of
objects. Now let us make a further examination in order to grasp
the meaning of the subtle essence of such a mind. Mind came into
existence because of its own cause. To deny that the origination of
mind is dependent on a cause, or to say that it is a designation
given as a means of recognizing the nature of mind aggregates, is
not correct. With our superficial observance, mind, which has
concrete experience and clear cognizance as its nature, appears to
be a powerful, independent, subjective, completely ruling entity.
However, deeper analysis will reveal that this mind, possessing as
it does the function of experience and cognizance, is not a
self-created entity but Is dependent on other factors for its
existence. Hence it depends on something other than itself. This
non-independent quality of the mind substance is its true nature
which in turn is the ultimate reality of the self. "
It may be further questioned on the Dalai Lama's position: this
subtle, relative nature of mind, which is not merely gross sensory
objects and thoughts but which even seem like a void and
illuminating source, how can that be said to be non-independent? It
seems to be non-arising and non-dependent.
What the Dalai Lama calls the 'subtle clear light' is indeed
non-arising like anything and everything due to its empty nature,
but in emptiness teachings we do not treat it as having some
special or ultimate status of being a 'powerful, independent,
subjective, completely ruling entity'.
It is never lost but is seen as a stream... as the Dalai Lama
considers that this clear light mind is "permanent not in the sense
of not disintegrating moment by moment but in the sense that its
continuum is no interrupted…"
(http://www.dreamyoga.com/tibetan-dream-yoga/the-dalai-lama-on-the-clear-light)
In other words this mind of Clear Light, which is pure Knowingness
and luminosity as described there, is not unchanging as a static
substratum but as an uninterrupted flow like a mighty river.
Luminosity will never be lost, so it is like a vajra (diamond), but
not in the sense of a substantiated entity. It is not a background
source behind manifestation but we see that the source is in fact
manifestation itself - it is the flow of knowing without knower, in
all manifestation and differentiation we experience the same taste
of luminosity and emptiness.
Elsewhere such as
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/14234/fundamental-innate-mind-of-clear-light
- the Dalai Lama furthermore clarifies the non-independent, causal
nature of clear light.
Geoff (jnana/nana) from Dharmawheel sums up this view:
"...For example, Sajjana's Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa equates
tathāgatagarbha with luminous mind, and then explains that although
this luminous nature is not-conditioned (unlike ordinary states of
mind that are contingent upon the four conditions), the luminous
nature arises due to the previous moment of that same luminous
mind. Shakya Chogden has a similar understanding, stating that
although the tathāgatagarbha is often said to be permanent, etc.,
"that is also done in terms of its continuum. Otherwise, [it
should] be [understood as] impermanent, precisely because of having
an immediately preceding condition [deriving] from [its previous]
moment."
"...Again, Tibetan commentators such as Go Lotsawa maintain that
space is also momentary. Relying on the Dharmadharmatāvibhāgavṛtti,
he states:
It is not the case that space that exists only as enclosed space
does not partake of the nature of momentariness along a continuum.
If you take time into account here, space at the beginning of an
eon (kalpa) is not the [same] space at the time of [its]
destruction. In terms of location, the substance that exists as the
enclosed space of a golden receptacle is not that which exists as
the enclosed space of an earthen receptacle.
He then applies this analysis of space to the buddha element:
Likewise, a moment in the continuation of a continuum having the
quality of the [buddha] element's awareness of sentient beings is
not a moment in the wisdom of a buddha. Notwithstanding, in the
same way as the existence of the enclosed space of a golden and
earthen receptacle is not different in terms of type (rigs), the
nonconceptuality of a buddha and the nonconceptuality of sentient
beings are of a very similar type." .
In the above quotations, Dalai Lama made it clear that the
"concrete cognizance" of mind (clear light/luminosity) is still the
relative/conventional nature of mind, while the ultimate nature of
mind is its emptiness. Awareness itself is conventional and empty!
'Awareness' is like the word 'chariot' or 'self', not a singular,
independent and irreducible ("It's all just One Awareness") kind of
substance or reality that can be pinned down somewhere apart from
the various streams of dependently arisen consciousness (or
revealing its actual state as the five wisdoms, when in knowledge)
empty of any core or self/Self.
Similar statements can be found elsewhere such as
http://www.byomakusuma.org/Teachings/InterviewWithKhenchenRigdzinDorjeOnTheNyingmapaView.aspx
"Khenpo: According to the Nyingmpa, the luminosity can be
experienced as pure or impure but the ultimate truth is emptiness.
We have two types of conventional truth, one is pure and one is
impure. The conventional truth of the ordinary man is impure, while
the conventional truth of the Buddhas is permanently pure.
Ratnashree: So, salwa/luminosity/prabhashwar is still conventional.
It is pure or impure but still conventional?
Khenpo: Yes
Ratnashree: Only emptiness is the ultimate truth?
Khenpo: Yes
Ratnashree: We have 1) self emptiness view, that is Rangtong/Swa
Sunya view/Tawa/ Dristi and 2) other emptiness view Shentong/Para
Sunya view/Tawa/ Drishti, etc. What is the official Nyingmpa view
(Tawa/Dristi)? What is the view of Longchenpa, Mipham, Jigme Lingpa
etc.?
Khenpo: According to the Nyingmapa, we are not Rangtong, we are not
Shentong. If you believe only Rangtong, it becomes nihilistic
(ucchedvad). If you believe only Shentong, it becomes eternalist
(saswatvad). We believe in Sung Zhug/Yuganadh or Abheda (the
indivisibility of or unity of clarity and emptiness/ Prabhaswar
Sunyata Yuganadha). According to the second turning of the wheel,
all the appearance itself is emptiness .That is
Rangtong/Swasunyavadin. According to the third turning of the
wheel, we can say that there is some pure vision which the Buddha
can see. That is called Shentong/Parasunyavadin. But these two are
united. Pure vision and emptiness are united primordially. And that
is the Sung Zhug view, Abhedavadin or Yuganaddhavadin,
‘Indivisible-ist’ so to say. Therefore, we are not Shentong and not
Rangtong.
(NB: Actually when it comes to actual meditation the Sakya
meditation view is also what the Khenpo here calls Sung Zhug.
Rangtong in the Sakya system actually means that the emptiness of
the Prasangika is not abandoned in the ultimate truth and in Sung
Zhug this emptiness (niswabhavata) or empty of real self existence
is not abandoned. And regarding luminosity/clarity (prabhashwar)
being the conventional truth, regardless of whether it is pure or
impure, it is also the view of the Mahasiddha Virupa, which makes
it the official Sakya view;(
prabhaswar/luminosity/clarity/awareness by itself is the
conventional truth)
........
(end of excerpt)
But with regards to the original teachings of Nagarjuna or
Madhyamika studies in general, I think not much is spoken about
clear light/luminosity, unless you consider treatises (which is
attributed to but not likely to be actually written by, Nagarjuna)
like In Praise of the Dharmadhatu to be the actual writings of
Nagarjuna, which I think is great regardless of who wrote it.
Clear Light however is spoken in all four traditions of Tibetan
Buddhism and if you are talking about Tibetan Buddhism as a whole
and not just Madhyamika teachings, then you will find abundant
teachings about the inseparability of luminosity and emptiness.