11/02/2006

Accouplements

Toute expérience nait de l'interaction du sujet et de l'objet.

Voici un tableau qui mentionne quelques une des manières d'envisager cette interaction entre deux pôles distincts, mais inséparables. Il y a quelques mots sanskrits (pas toujours traduits vers la fin), de même que quelques parallèles avec le Dzogchen. L'intérêt de ce petit jeu est, me semble t-il, qu'il permet d'appréhender de quoi parle la Reconnaissance, au-delà des mots et des symboles changeants :

 

Shiva

Possesseur

Prakâsha

Être

"cela"

Apparence

Manifestation

Expérience "donnée"

Monde connu

Soi

Objet connu/saisi/désiré

Signifié

Chose

Formes

Evènement

Manifestation pure

Manifestation impure

Nirvâna

Samsâra

 

Divinité d'élection

Voyelle

Bindu

 

Samantabhadra

Espace

Vacuité

 

Processus de manifestation,

"versant objet" :

 

Rûpa/Artha-stha - "formes"

      -

Kalâ- Para - 1

      -

Tattva- Sûkshma - 2

      -

Bhuvana- Sthûla - 3

Shakti

Puissance, pouvoir

Vimarsha

Pensée

"je"

Conscience

Représentation

Interprétation, jugement

Connaissance

Reconnaissance

Sujetconnaissant/saisissant/désirant

Signifiant

Mot

Noms

Réaction

Science pure

Science impure

Connaissance complète

Connaissance incomplète

 

Mantra

Consonne

Nâda

 

Samantabhadrî

Conscience éveillée (rigpa)

Sagesse primordiale (yéshé)

 

Processus de prise de conscience,

"versant sujet" :

 

Pada/Nâma-stha - "noms"

    -

Varna- Pashyantî - 1

    -

Pada- Madhyamâ - 2

     -

Mantra-Vaikharî - 3

 

 

14:01 Écrit par David Dubois dans Reconnaissance | Lien permanent | Commentaires (10) | Tags : pratyabhijna, shiva, shakti |  Facebook |

Commentaires

Apport Voici un point de vue sur les différences entre tantras hindouistes et bouddhistes (en deux parties) :

Vajrayana And Hindu Tantricism

Differences In Base, Path And Fruit ( I )

Ācārya Dharma Vajra (Sridhar SJB Rana)

Published: Sunday Dispatch (July 12, 1992)




The last article (published in the Sunday Dispatch, May 31) was about the very definition of the word ‘Tantra’ in the two systems and how they are drastically different. In the Hindu Tantra, Tantra means systematization of liberation by expansion whereas in the Buddhist Tantra, it means continuum or integration. By continuum was meant Base Tantra, Path Tantra and Fruit Tantra.


We shall attempt to see how the two systems are very different from each other in their base, path and fruit.

The base of Hindu Tantra practice is of Non-dualism (advaitism) in one form or the other. The Kashmir Shaiva Tantra calls itself very clearly Shaivadvaita and the Shakta tantra calls itself Shaktadvaita. Needless to say, Hindu Tantra is not all unanimous in vouching for Advaitavada. So there are forms of Hindu tantra which border on the Visistadvaita (special non-dualistic) of Ramanuja and Dvaitavada (dualistic) of Madavacharya. But for lack of space we shall not deal with Visistadvaita and Dvaitavada schools of Hindu Tantra as no effort is required to show that such forms of Hindu Tantra are totally different from Buddhist Tantra. The base (Bhumi) of the Hindu Tantra can be summed up in the words ‘Shiva Shaktyatmakam Visvam’ i.e., Shiva and Shakti are the essence of the universe. In other words Shiva Shakti is/are the base, the ground of the base. The Universe is the lila (play) of the two. The universe is based or grounded in Shiva Shakti, comes out of Shiva - Shakti as its lila (play) and remains grounded in Shiva-Shakti in the end. Anyone who knows the Advaita Vedanta can see that if Shiva-Shakti are replaced by Braman - Maya, this view is not very different from the Advaita Vedanta of Sankaracharya. Of course, since there are many forms of Hindu Tantra, like Shakta Tantra, Shaiva Tantra and even within Shaiva Tantra there is Chumma Sampradaya, Pratyabhigya Sampradaya, Kuala Sampradaya, the Trika Sampradaya and within the Shakta Tantra there are the Dachinachara and the Vamachara and the Siddhantachara and Kualachara, there are slight variations to the Base as given above. But basically and broadly speaking they would all agree to ‘Shiva-Shaktyatmakam Viswam’. So it becomes necessary to understand what Shiva and Shakti means.

Shiva is the static aspect of the Universe and Shakti is the dynamic in the microcosmic sense. In the microcosmic sense Shiva is the basic awareness aspect of Mind (as per Shiva Sutra) which in being only aware and not able to do anything else but be a witness (Sakchi of the Upanishadas) is static. Shakti are the moving thought, emotions etc. of the Mind which is ever in movement (Spandana of the Spandana Karika).

The base of man is the interplay (lila) of these two (Kama Kala Vilasa i.e., Erotic play of Kama-Shiva and Kala-Shakti).

Likewise, the base of the cosmos is the same Shiva-Shakti evoked in a macrocosmic scale. In the words of the Pratyabhiga Sastra the base of the ultimate reality is Prakash - Vimarsamaya. Prakash is the eternal light without which nothing can appear and it is Shiva. Vimarsa is the Shakti, the Swabhava (characteristic) of Shiva. It is so to speak, the mirror in which Shiva realizes his own grandeur, power, beauty. Vimarsa is the Kartitva Shakti of Shiva. The ultimate reality is cit or Parasamvit, the non-relational consciousness which is Kama Kala, Shiva Shakti, Prakash-Vimarsa.

Whether the emphasis is given to Shiva or Shakti depends on whether one is seeing the ultimate reality from the eyes of the Shiava Tantra or Shakta Tantra. So this is the ultimate reality ( the Paramartha Satta) of the Hindu Tantra which substitutes only in the name the Vedantic Braman and is two rather than only one (Brahma) as in the Vedanta. However, like the Braman, these two Shiva and Shakti are actually one. Therefore they truly exist; otherwise they could not be the Paramartha Satta, the ultimate reality.

The Buddhist Base is totally different. The Base (ground) of the Buddhist Tantra can be described in various ways. The Sutra Mahamudra and the Mahasandhi traditions define the Ground as ‘Primordially Pure’ which is just a technical way of saying ‘Primordially Empty’ which again in Theravada language would boil down to Anatma (no-soul). Of course ‘Primordially Pure’ goes deeper than just Anatma, but again this is another subject. In the Sakya tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, it is said Sal tong zung juk rgyu yee chen key dang or in Sanskrit ‘ Prabhaswar sunyata yuganadha cha sahaja hetu ‘ which means ‘Clarity, emptiness and their two in one are the spontaneously born Cause-Base’. Another term used is ‘Groundless Awareness’, which means Empty Awareness. What all the above words (and many others) mean is that the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate reality/existent (Paramartha Satta) that one can grasp or hold on to as something. It is exactly this non-graspability because there is nothing to grasp because everything is ultimately empty of real existence or that there is no Atman (truly existing self) whether in the personal (Pudgal Nairatmya) or in the phenomenal (Dharma Nairatmya) world – that is the ground of Buddhist Tantra.

So Hindu Tantra has a Paramartha Satta by the name of Parasamvit, which is the union of Shiva and Shakti as its base, which is to be actualized, as its Phala (fruit). But Buddhist Tantra has Anatma or emptiness of real existence of all Dharma and Pudgal. Including the mind which is technically in Tantric terminology called groundless or unity of Emptiness and Clarity, Emptiness and Appearance, emptiness and Bliss or Primodially Pure as its base to be actualized as its fruit. In other words, Buddhist Tantra is based on the non-existence of any Paramartha Satta and is geared towards the realization/actualization of this existential fact, whereas Hindu Tantra is based on Paramartha Satta and its actualization.

It is obvious that the very ground or base (Bhumi) on which these two systems of Tantra are based are diametrically opposed.

One on the realisation by a Wisdom Consciousness of the non-findability of any sort of Paramartha Satta (Ultimate Reality) anywhere and the other on the actualization or realization of some Paramartha Satta (an ultimate reality that truly exists). Needless to say this is the basic difference between Buddhism and Hinduism as a whole.

C'est bon pour le débat, tout ça !!!

Écrit par : mind | 11/02/2006

Et la suite Vajrayana And Hindu Tantricism

Differences In Base, Path And Fruit ( II )

Ācārya Dharma Vajra (Sridhar SJB Rana)

Published: Sunday Dispatch (July 19, 1992)


Many people are confused about the fact that both Vajrayana and Hindu Tantricism use Mantra and deities in their practices as a proof that their practices are basically the same. Needless to say, it is based only on surface understanding of both Hindu Tantricism and Buddhist Vajrayana.

First of all, the very base i.e., the foundation on which a Hindu Tantric practices, is to realise the Ultimate Real / Existent (Paramartha Satta). Whereas the foundations of the Buddhist Tantra is to realise that there is no Paramartha Satta. Anybody can see that to realise these two diametrically opposed bases would require an almost equally diametrically opposed path.

So just because both happen to use mantras and deities, it is naive to state that these practices are the same or even similar. To Buddhism, all practices (meditation, mantra-visualization), no matter what name you give it, are done to actualize some ‘thing’, be that some material gain or some subtle form like the Braman/Atma of Vedanta or the Shiva-Shakti of Shaiva and Shakta Tantra. They are only the extended versions of materialism. All of them are geared towards the achievement of one thing or the other, be it gross or subtle.

The strategy to free oneself from this sorrowful world by creating/fabricating (Parikalpit) on Absolute, Really Existing, Eternal, Unchanging is merely a subtle version of the strategy of escaping from the problems and boredom of life by escaping with the help of achieving money or other such things. All of these are escapist strategies and are labeled materialistic solutions. By the same logic, the search for the Eternal Unchanging Atman / Shiva Shakti and escaping to them from the sorrows of life is called spiritual materialism (Adhyatmic Bhautikavada) in Buddhism.

The only true freedom must be a facing of the actual situation of the world as it is (Tathata) without creating escapist dreams or fabricating dream realities unlike the world and which therefore is unchanging, really existing and so on.

The whole of the Buddhist path is geared towards teaching or making the individual re-learn how to face the actual reality (Yathabhuta) and not see the world according to a conditioned vision, whether they are ordinary human conditioning or conditionings learned through religions, for example- an Eternal Atman of the Upanishadas. Whereas according to Buddhism, the whole Hindu Tantricism is geared towards the realisation of exactly such a fabricated (albeit refined) dream like the Atman.

Here, it is important to notice that it is possible that Hindu Tantricism, which is based entirely on the search of an Ultimate Reality separate from this Samsara itself as Nirvana, can have the same practices as Buddhism. Hindu Tantric practices are based on the belief that the ten Mahavidyas (Ten great wisdom deities) really exist and by continuous Japa of their Mantra, one will slowly get their grace through which one will slowly identify oneself with them and become the Mahavidyas themselves and be liberated. The progress of the practice is from Dasoham (I am slave) where the practitioner believes in the deity as his/her Master or Lord. With continuous Japa of the deity (as the saying goes, ‘ japad siddhi, japad siddhi, japad siddhi nasamasaya ’ meaning, siddhi is attained through Japa .... no doubt ) one slowly merges into the deity (like Kali, Tara or Tripurasundari ) and becomes one with the deity. At this stage, it is called Soham ( That I am i.e., I am Shiva/Kali etc.)

Then with more Japa or more accurately, more Japa of the Mantras got in series called Karma Dikcha, he/she becomes completely dissolved into Kali/Tripurasundari so that no ‘I’ is left anymore and only the deity is left. At this stage it is called Naham (no me), and this is the Acme of Hindu Tantra where the personality has completely dissolved into one of the ten (dasa Mahavidya) and what is left over is the ultimate reality called by whatever name - Kali, Dhumavati so on.

It is said in the Mahanirvana Tantra ‘Karma dikcha yuttor devi, kramat sambhur bhavet’ (As the person becomes endowed with Krama Dikcha - serial mantra initiation, gradually he becomes Shiva.

The actual modus operandi is that the disciple first receives the initiation of one of the Mahavidya from a Guru. He learns the Mantra and Dhyana (visualization). He then does Japa Dhyana of the deity i.e., he visualizes the deity in front of him and repeats the Nyasa and Mantra. Nyasa is placing the deities in different parts of the body and varies with different Kramas. So one imagines various deities (who are part of the Krama of the ‘Main Deity’ in different joints of the body with ones’ fingers and repeat the Mantra. Exactly how it is done differs with the various Kramas. The rest depends on doing more and more Japa (as said above) and completely getting oneself absorbed into the visualized deity until their unity and finally only the deity is left.

In Buddhist language, this is more and more Samatha (absorption) until identification and loss of self occurs.

It has to be mentioned that all forms of Hindu Tantra are not unanimous in their basic concepts unlike all forms of Buddhist Tantra (who are all unanimous in their basic concepts).

1. Some forms of Hindu tantra ( Kashmir Shaivism) believe that Shiva is in one’s own mind, but the majority believe that deities exist independently and the personality which is unreal dissolves into the Real Deity. All forms of Buddhist Tantra believe the essence of all deities is one’s own mind.

2. Visualization and Mantras in Hindu Tantra are limited to the ten Manavidyas as the highest forms of deities, but in Buddhist Tantras these are relegated to the positions of only protectors of the Dharma (Dharamapalas) who can only clear obscurations in a practitioner’s practice but not really give Enlightenment.

Besides these Dharamapalas like Mahakala or Mahakali, Buddhist Tantras also have visualizations and Mantras of Gurus, Bodhisattvas like Manjushree, Avalokitesvara, Vajrapani and Ista Devas. These, it is made clear especially the Ista Devas (called Yidam in Tibetan ) are your own Mind and not something separate. And it is only the proper use i.e. Samatha - Vipassyana of Mind Deities (the word Yidam in Tibetan means Mind Bond) that can liberate. Simply repeating Mantras and visualizing is not only said not to liberate automatically, but can also lead to more subtle forms of Spiritual Materialism according to Buddhist Tantra.

Certains recadrages sont utiles et permettent une meilleur compréhension des systèmes. Du moins pour moi ça le fait.

Écrit par : mind | 11/02/2006

En gros, oui. Mais l'important est dans les détails !

M. Rana écrit :
"It is obvious that the very ground or base (Bhumi) on which these two systems of Tantra are based are diametrically opposed. One on the realisation by a Wisdom Consciousness of the non-findability of any sort of Paramartha Satta (Ultimate Reality) anywhere and the other on the actualization or realization of some Paramartha Satta (an ultimate reality that truly exists). Needless to say this is the basic difference between Buddhism and Hinduism as a whole".

L'auteur affirme que les systèmes Hindous et Bouddhistes sont diamétralement opposés. Mais dire cela n'a aucun sens, vu qu'il n'y a pas "une philosophie hindoue". L'idée même d'hindouisme n'existe pas en Inde avant le XIIème siècle ! Quant aux tantras shivaïtes, ils ne s'opposent à rien, vu qu'ils ne défendent pas un point de vue commun systématique. Certes, ils s'opposent, entre eux et avec les tantras bouddhistes. Mais c'est surtout une question de rituels, de mantras et d'identité sectaire ! Point ou peu de philosophie là-dedans.

Un rappel, aussi. Ce texte a été écrit dans un contexte polémique, celui de la forte concurrence entre deux castes de prêtres népalais : les karmâchâryas (Hindous) d'un côté; les vajrâcâryas (bouddhistes) de l'autre. Attendu qu'en plus de cela les Bouddhistes tantriques se sentent menacés pas la concurrence tibétaine et Théravâda (qui connait actuellement un grand succès au Népal !), ceci explique, en partie, cela.

Quoi qu'il en soit, la vérité/réalité ultime (paramârthasatya) est "introuvable" seulement selon le point de vue bouddhiste mâdhyamaka. Les tantras bouddhistes, eux, sont plutôt inspirés par la philosophie idéaliste yogâcâra. La nature de l'esprit y est définie comme "sans support" (nirâlamba, nirâshraya), sans dualité (advaya), etc. Certains tantras shivaïstes ne disent pas autre chose! Et cela n'est pas étonnant. Car le shivaïsme, étant une religion fortement ancrée dans des pratiques rituelles, n'avait rien à craindre en adoptant, parmis d'autres, les points de vue bouddhistes. Abhinavagupta a écouté des maîtres bouddhistes.

En fait, le Shivaïsme peut intégrer toutes les théories, tout simplement parce qu'il n'y aucune théorie en propre, mais seulement des mythes et des rituels. Par conséquent, on peut trouver dans les textes shivaïtes toutes sortes d'idées d'autres religions plus ou moin bien intégrés.

En revanche, en ce qui concerne la Reconnaissance et le Dzogchen, je persiste et signe : il y a bien de profondes affinités.
Si l'on me rétorque que le Dzogchen suit le point de vue mâdhyamaka prâsangika, qui n'a rien à voir avec la Reconnaissance et sa "conscience de soi", alors que l'on me dise d'abord quelle interprétation de la vue prâsangika est la bonne ! Au Tibet, cela fait 1000 ans qu'on se dispute là-dessus, sans être tombé d'accord ! Et sur la question de la "conscience de soi" (svasamvedana, rang gi rigpa), c'est la même chose.

Mon approche consiste à faire dialoguer Reconnaissance et Dzogchen, ainsi que les tantras de toutes les écoles, afin d'enrichir mon point de vue. Chaque "patte" a ses forces et ses faiblesses (voir la colonne de gauche).

Écrit par : anargala | 11/02/2006

Pareil ! M. Rana di:

"The search for the Eternal Unchanging Atman / Shiva Shakti and escaping to them from the sorrows of life is called spiritual materialism (Adhyatmic Bhautikavada) in Buddhism. "
Et alors ? "... est appellé matérialisme spirituel", prétend-il. Ah bon, où ça ? Dans quel texte ? Il me semble plutôt que cette expression a été inventée par Chögyam Trungpa. Ici l'auteur la traduit en hindi-népali-sanskrit pour lui donner un air d'autorité, voilà tout. Le matérialisme spirituel en question s'étale dans des dizaines de tantras, sâdhanâ, hagiographies, tant du côté shivaïte que bouddhiste. Il suffit d'oserver les cérémonies des vajrâcâryas : y a des billets partout ! De même, on oubliera pas le personnage du "lama avide" dans les festivals tibétains. D'ailleurs, l'une des figures historique ayant inspiré ce personnage drôlatique est Drokmi Lotsawa, le grand traducteur du XIème siècle. Grand accompli peut-être, mais surtout Grand radin, aux dires des lamas tibétains eux-mêmes !

Écrit par : anargala | 11/02/2006

Débats, ébats et ... pugilats M. Rana dit :
"Visualization and Mantras in Hindu Tantra are limited to the ten Manavidyas as the highest forms of deities, but in Buddhist Tantras these are relegated to the positions of only protectors of the Dharma (Dharamapalas) who can only clear obscurations in a practitioner’s practice but not really give Enlightenment. "

Alors là, c'est de la pure polémique, pas futé en plus. En effet, cet argument ne tient que si l'on croit que seules des divinités bouddhistes sont au-delà du samsâra, ce qui est justement la thèse à prouver !

Et quand il dit que Shiva, par exemple, devient "gardien" des tantras bouddhistes, c'est dans le meilleur des cas. En général, Shiva et les dieux hindous sont visualisés ou représenté piétinés par les Bouddhas, aprés que ceux-ci leur ai volé leur apparence et pris leur épouse. Bigre, pas étonnant que les Shivaïtes aient dénoncé les Bouddhistes tantriques comme étant des plagiateurs sans scrupules !

Écrit par : anargala | 11/02/2006

Précision, avant de retourner à mes Duplos etc, etc, etc.

En tout cas, merci Mind d'avoir porté à notre connaissance ce bel exemple de sectarisme, typiquement tantrique.

Les Hindous, de leur côté, ne sont pas en reste. Surtout de nos jours, avec le nationalisme hindou ("hindutva") inspiré par l'Eglise et le fascisme mussolinien. Voir par exemple ce blog :

http://bharaty.skynetblogs.be

Bref, c'est toujours la même histoire:
Les Hindous font semblant de prendre les Bouddhistes pour de vulgaires nihilistes.
Et les Bouddhistes font semblant de prendre les Hindous pour de vulgaires éternalistes.

Écrit par : anargala | 11/02/2006

quelques remarques : quelques remarques :

votre aphorisme : "Toute expérience naît de l'interaction du sujet et de l'objet" :
Quand il y a sujet ou objet ce n'est pas l'ultime. A la disparition du sujet et de l'objet il reste la réalité shivaïte ....... (ou autre : Dieu, etc.)
Ces termes sujet et objet ne sont pas pertinents dans les traditions trika, kula, krama du shivaïsme de la grande époque.
Je fais cette remarque uniquement comme rappel et ce n'est pas une attaque ou critique.

vous faites remarquer que :
L'auteur affirme que les systèmes Hindous et Bouddhistes sont diamétralement opposés. Mais dire cela n'a aucun sens, vu qu'il n'y a pas "une philosophie hindoue"

Il y a une des dizaines voire des centaines de philosophies hindoues et il a bien existé (existe encore) une concurrence féroce entre bouddhistes et hindouistes. Il faut bien exister!

Vous dîtes :
"En fait, le Shivaïsme peut intégrer toutes les théories, tout simplement parce qu'il n'y aucune théorie en propre, mais seulement des mythes et des rituels."

C'est complètement faux, ou vous ne connaissez pas cette tradition ou vous le faites exprès. Mais vous avez aussi raison car dans l'absence de nature propre personne n'a de théorie.

Vous dîtes : Abhinavagupta a écouté des maîtres bouddhistes. laissant supposé qu'il copie sur eux, bien plus forts.........
En fait Abhinavagupta critique très souvent les bouddhistes dans ses oeuvres.......

Et oui cette rivalité continue même au 21° siècle, ma croyance, ma religion est la meilleure et comme j'en doute je dévalorise celles adverses.
oscillation constante.

Question : quel traité/tantra "lanca" la reconnaissance .......

Bon j'arrete ici.
Bien le site, mais ne ravivons pas les guerres de religion et au fait connaissez vous le souffisme, tradition proche du shivaïsme et du bouddhisme tantrique et du Dzogchen/mahamoudra ?

Écrit par : personne | 11/02/2006

Ca sent le changement Anargala nous prépare un transit en bonne et due forme, peut-être doublé d'un anti-chenilles, parole de fantassin !

Au fait "vous savez qui" a de nouveau bondi vers une adresse digne de la meilleur pyrotechnie !

Écrit par : mind | 11/02/2006

Nouveau blog Evidement il va sur le serveur porno de ghibellini.
http://62.193.224.12
Dire qu'il y a des mec qui payent pour voir des filles musclées aux hormones leur foutre une raclée, c'est bizarre, c'est laquelle des catcheuses à poil la Florence dont tous le monde parle ??

Écrit par : voyeur | 12/02/2006

soufisme "Bien le site, mais ne ravivons pas les guerres de religion et au fait connaissez vous le souffisme"

quel soufisme ? tidjane au sénégal ou chishti en inde, dans ce domaine aussi les écoles ne manquent pas !

metta
Thierry

Écrit par : thierry | 12/02/2006

Les commentaires sont fermés.