Crystallized Being in Buddhism

 

BEING IN BUDDHISM 

QUESTION:

Please list for me all the original terms the Buddha used in early scripture that stand for “being.” Indicate the different shades of meaning for each, along with the contexts for each. In particular, single out from these terms that are used in a positive sense; in relation to the possession or acquisition of a solid core or essence or center.

GEMINI:

The Buddha used a precise vocabulary to distinguish between the "being" who is drifting mechanically in samsara and the "being" who has forged an unshakable inner center.

Since you are looking for parallels to the Gurdjieffian concept of "crystallization"—the acquisition of a solid core or essence—you will find the Positive/Constructive terms below most relevant. These terms (Group 2) refer to a state where the scattered "many I's" have been unified into a singular, cultivated will.

Group 1: The Raw Material (Neutral or Negative)

These terms describe the ordinary state of existence: fluid, changing, and often defined by attachment.

1. Satta (Sanskrit: Sattva)

• Literal Meaning: Being, creature, living thing.

• Nuance: The Buddha often glossed this word via a pun on the verb sanjati (to cling or stick). When asked "Why is one called a 'being' (satta)?", he replied: "Because one is stuck (satta) and clinging to desire... therefore one is called a being."

• Context: Used for ordinary, unenlightened beings who are trapped by their own attachments. It implies a lack of freedom; one is "stuck" in the machine of samsara.

2. Bhava (Sanskrit: Bhava)

• Literal Meaning: Becoming, existence, state of being.

• Nuance: This is active existence. It is not a static state but a process of becoming something else based on craving.

• Context: usually negative or diagnostic (e.g., bhava-tanha, the craving to "become"). In Gurdjieffian terms, this is the constant flux of the "man-machine" reacting to stimuli, perpetually "becoming" angry, happy, or sad without any permanent center.

3. Puggala (Sanskrit: Pudgala)

• Literal Meaning: Person, individual.

• Nuance: The "functional person." While the Buddha denied an eternal, changeless soul (atman), he used puggala to talk about the character, the moral agent, or the specific individual who takes rebirth.

• Context: Used in lists of types of people (e.g., "The person who torments himself," "The person of integrity").

---

Group 2: The Acquired Center (Positive/Solid)

These are the terms you are looking for. They describe a being who has undergone "self-creation" or "cultivation" (bhavana). These terms suggest that while a metaphysical soul is denied, a functional, fortified center is absolutely required for liberation.

4. Bhāvitatta (Sanskrit: Bhāvitātman)

• Literal Meaning: "Cultivated Self" or "Developed Self."

• Etymology: Bhāvita (developed/cultivated) + Attā (self).

• The "Solid Core" Nuance: This is perhaps the closest Pāli equivalent to a "crystallized" being. It refers to someone whose body, virtue, mind, and wisdom have been fully developed. They are not a "raw" human anymore; they have been "cooked" or processed by the Dhamma.

• Context: "He is a bhāvitatta (developed self)... he dwells with a mind that is immeasurable." It implies a self that is no longer fragile or reactive but has mass and gravity.

5. Pahitatta (Sanskrit: Prahitātman)

• Literal Meaning: "Self-sent" or "Resolute Self."

• Nuance: A being who has "sent" or directed their attā (self/mind) toward a single aim (Nirvana). It implies total unification of will. The "many I's" are gone; there is only one "I" directed at the goal.

• Context: Used to describe the ardent meditator: "Energetic, with a resolute self (pahitatta)."

6. Attā-dīpa (Sanskrit: Ātma-dvīpa)

• Literal Meaning: "Self as Island" or "Self as Lamp" (the word dīpa means both).

• Nuance: Radical self-reliance. This term appears in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta. The Buddha tells Ananda not to look for an external savior but to make his own "self" (attā) an island of safety in the flood of samsara.

• Context: "Be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves... seeking no external refuge." This is the command to form an inner center that cannot be washed away by external shocks.

7. Brahmabhūta (Sanskrit: Brahmabhūta)

• Literal Meaning: "Become Brahma" or "Become Divine."

• Nuance: The term Brahma here implies "best," "excellent," or "sublime." It does not mean merging with a Godhead, but rather that the human being has transformed into the embodiment of the Holy.

• Context: Used for the Arahant or Buddha. They have not just "improved"; they have become the Dhamma itself. "He is Dhamma-become (dhammabhūta), Brahma-become (brahmabhūta)."

8. Sāra (Sanskrit: Sāra)

• Literal Meaning: Heartwood, pith, essence, core.

• Nuance: The Buddha often used the analogy of a tree. The outer bark and twigs are the superficial personality (ethics, concentration). The Sāra is the hard heartwood at the center (Liberation/Wisdom).

• Context: "He who takes the unessential to be essential (asāre sāramatino)... never finds the essence." The goal of the path is to locate and become the Sāra—the solid, unrotting core.

Group 3: The Unshakable State (Crystallized)

9. Tādi (The "Such" One)

• Literal Meaning: "Like that," "Such," or "Unshakable."

• Nuance: A term for the Arahant. It means one who is stable, constant, and "such" regardless of the "eight worldly winds" (gain/loss, fame/disrepute, etc.).

• Context: A mountain of solid rock. "Just as a solid rock is not shaken by the wind, so the wise are not moved by praise or blame." The Tādi is the man who cannot be moved—Gurdjieff’s "Man No. 7."

10. Thita (Stable/Firm)

• Literal Meaning: Standing, firm, established.

• Nuance: Used to describe the consciousness of an enlightened being which no longer "growls" or moves toward objects.

• Context: "His mind is firm (thita), attained to imperturbability."

Summary for your Blog/Practice

If you are writing on the higher bodies, Bhāvitatta (The Developed Self) is your bridge. It confirms that while the "ego" is a delusion to be dissolved, the "system" must be cultivated into a stable, reliable vehicle (Attā-dīpa) capable of holding the "weight" of enlightenment.

The Imperative Necessity of “Essence”

 

WHERE DID THE RADICAL “NOTION” THAT EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE IS EMPTY OF “ESSENCE” DERIVE FROM??

QUESTION:

“According to the most current scholars, were the Prajñaparamita scriptures based on Buddhist Mahayana theory and intellectual approach to emptiness, or was it visa versa?”

GEMINI:

Excellent question. This gets to the very heart of the development of Mahayana Buddhist thought.

According to the most current and widely accepted scholarly consensus, it was unequivocally "visa versa."

The Prajñāpāramitā scriptures came first and served as the foundational source and inspiration for the later development of Buddhist Mahayana theory and its systematic, intellectual approach to emptiness. The theories were created to explain and systematize the profound, often paradoxical, insights presented in the sutras.

Here is a more detailed breakdown of the historical and conceptual relationship.

1. The Timeline: Sutras First, Theories Later

The historical dating of these texts and figures makes the relationship clear:

• c. 100 BCE – 100 CE: This is the period when scholars date the emergence of the earliest Prajñāpāramitā ("Perfection of Wisdom") sutras, particularly the foundational Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra (The Perfection of Wisdom in 8,000 Lines). This was the formative period of the Mahayana movement itself.

• c. 150 – 250 CE: This is the accepted period for the life of Nāgārjuna, the brilliant philosopher who founded the Madhyamaka ("Middle Way") school.

• c. 4th – 5th Century CE: This is the period of Asaṅga and Vasubandhu, the brothers who founded the Yogācāra ("Mind-Only") school.

As the timeline shows, the foundational scriptures of emptiness existed for at least two centuries before Nāgārjuna created the first systematic philosophical theory to explain them.

2. The Different Roles of Scripture and Theory

The sutras and the philosophical treatises (śāstras) had fundamentally different purposes.

Role of the Prajñāpāramitā Sutras: The Revelatory Source

• Visionary, Not Analytical: The Prajñāpāramitā sutras are not dry, philosophical textbooks. They are vast, expansive, repetitive, and often paradoxical and poetic.

• The "What": Their purpose is not to prove emptiness through step-by-step logic. Their purpose is to describe the world from the perspective of a fully realized Buddha or a high-level Bodhisattva.They present the profound realization of emptiness (śūnyatā) and the path of the compassionate Bodhisattva as a revealed truth. They are the "what" of the Mahayana vision.

• The Fountainhead: These sutras were the revolutionary fountainhead for the Mahayana's signature doctrines, introducing the radical idea that all phenomena (dharmas) are empty of any intrinsic nature or self-existence (svabhāva).

Role of Mahayana Theory (Madhyamaka): The Intellectual Framework

• Systematic and Logical: The great Mahayana masters who came later, like Nāgārjuna, were faced with the task of explaining the visionary insights of the Prajñāpāramitā sutras in a coherent, logical, and defensible way.

• The "How" and "Why": Nāgārjuna's genius was to take the core teaching of emptiness from the sutras and create a rigorous philosophical system—Madhyamaka—to demonstrate its validity. His work, such as the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā ("The Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way"), is a masterclass in logic that deconstructs all opposing philosophical views to show that the only coherent position is that of emptiness.

• Creating the "Intellectual Approach": It was Nāgārjuna and his followers who created the "intellectual approach to emptiness" that you refer to. They built the philosophical and logical scaffolding around the profound spiritual revelation contained in the sutras.

Analogy: The relationship is like that between a profound, visionary poem and a brilliant work of literary criticism that analyzes it. The poem comes first, providing the raw, inspired, and often paradoxical insight into the nature of reality. The criticism comes later, providing the intellectual structure, defining the terms, and defending the poem's meaning against misinterpretation.

In conclusion, the scholarly consensus is clear: the Mahayana's intellectual approach to emptiness did not give birth to the Prajñāpāramitā scriptures. Rather, the radical and visionary Prajñāpāramitā scriptures gave birth to the entire intellectual and philosophical tradition of Mahayana Buddhism.

WHAT WAS THE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH RADICAL “EMPTINESS” AROSE?

WAS EMPTINESS A PHILOSOPHICAL OR RATHER A SUPRA-RATIONAL IMPULSE?

QUESTION:

“In regards to the above, please describe the intellectual and scriptural currents which supported or conflicted with the beginning of the Prajñaparamita scriptures and the development of Mahayana theory, in both Buddhist and Hindu India.”

GEMINI:

Of course. This is a fantastic question that gets to the heart of how Mahayana Buddhism developed. The Prajñāpāramitā scriptures and the early Mahayana movement did not arise in a vacuum. They were part of a vibrant, complex, and often contentious conversation, emerging from specific intellectual and scriptural currents within Buddhism while simultaneously responding to the broader philosophical landscape of Hindu India.

Here is a description of those supporting and conflicting currents.

---

Part 1: Currents Within the Buddhist Tradition

The most immediate context for the rise of Mahayana was the ongoing evolution and scholasticism of the established Buddhist monastic schools (often collectively, and somewhat pejoratively, termed "Hinayana" or Śrāvakayāna by the Mahayanists).

A. Supporting Currents (The Foundations Mahayana Built Upon)

Mahayana was less a complete invention and more a radical re-interpretation and universalization of existing ideas.

1. The Concept of Emptiness (Anattā to Śūnyatā): The idea of emptiness was not new. The early Pāli Canon contains suttas on emptiness (e.g., the Cūḷasuññatā-sutta), but they primarily focus on the emptiness of a permanent, independent self (anattā or anātman) within the five aggregates. The Prajñāpāramitā scriptures took this existing concept and radicalized and universalized it, declaring that not just the "self" but all phenomena (sarva-dharma) are empty of any intrinsic nature (svabhāva). This was an evolution, not a creation from nothing.

2. The Bodhisattva Ideal: The idea of the Bodhisattva existed long before Mahayana. The Jātaka Tales, which recount the Buddha's past lives of compassionate sacrifice on his path to enlightenment, were already a popular part of Buddhist scripture and folklore. The Mahayana movement's innovation was to take this ideal—previously seen as the impossibly long and arduous path for a rare, future Buddha—and make it the universal goal for all serious practitioners. They democratized the path to Buddhahood.

3. The Mahāsāṃghika School: This was one of the earliest and most influential of the non-Theravāda monastic schools. Scholars see it as a direct incubator for many Mahayana ideas. They held several "proto-Mahayana" doctrines, such as:

   • The Buddha is a transcendent, supramundane being (lokottara), not just a human teacher.

   • The ideal of the Arhat is fallible and not the final stage of perfection.

   • Consciousness is fundamentally pure and luminous, only temporarily stained by defilements.

4. Devotionalism: The growing practice of stupa veneration and a more devotional attitude (bhakti) towards the figure of the Buddha created a fertile ground for the Mahayana's expanded cosmology of countless celestial Buddhas (like Amitābha) and Bodhisattvas (like Avalokiteśvara) who could respond to the faith of practitioners.

B. Conflicting Currents (The Views Mahayana Argued Against)

The Prajñāpāramitā scriptures represented a direct challenge to the dominant intellectual project of the established Buddhist schools of the time.

1. The Abhidharma Project: This was the primary target. The Abhidharma was a massive scholastic effort, particularly by the powerful Sarvāstivāda school, to analyze reality and create a definitive catalog of all its constituent elements, known as dharmas. They argued that these dharmas were real, discrete, momentary existents. The Prajñāpāramitā's core teaching—that "all dharmas are empty of inherent existence"—was a direct and devastating critique of the entire Abhidharma project. It accused the Abhidharmists of reifying concepts and missing the ultimate truth.

2. The Ideal of the Arhat: Mahayana texts sharply criticized the spiritual goal of the established schools—the attainment of Arhatship, or personal liberation from samsara. They polemically framed this goal as selfish and limited, contrasting it with the "superior" Bodhisattva ideal of remaining in samsara out of compassion to liberate every single sentient being.

---

Part 2: Currents in the Broader "Hindu" Indian Landscape

The Mahayana movement also developed in dialogue with the non-Buddhist philosophies and religious trends of India.

A. Supporting Currents

1. The Bhakti Movement: The rise of popular devotional movements (bhakti) within the traditions that would become modern Hinduism created a shared religious atmosphere. The intense devotion shown to deities like Vishnu (in the form of Krishna) and Shiva provided a cultural parallel to the Mahayana's veneration of compassionate Bodhisattvas. Both movements emphasized faith and grace alongside personal effort.

2. Upanishadic Negative Theology (A Subtle Parallel): While the philosophies are ultimately opposed, there is a structural similarity in their approach to the ineffable. The Upanishadic method of describing the ultimate reality (Brahman) through negation—"neti, neti" ("not this, not this")—has a parallel in the Madhyamika use of negative dialectic to deconstruct all conceptual affirmations about reality. Both traditions recognized that the ultimate truth could not be captured by ordinary language.

B. Conflicting Currents

1. Brahmanical Realism and the Ātman: The dominant philosophical currents in Brahmanism, such as the precursors to the Nyāya, Vaiśeṣika, and Mīmāṃsā schools, were strongly realist. They posited the existence of real, enduring substances, universal categories, and, most importantly, an eternal, unchanging Self (Ātman). The entire Buddhist project, especially the Prajñāpāramitā's radical teaching of universal emptiness and no-self (anātman), was in direct and irreconcilable opposition to this foundational belief of the Brahmanical tradition.

In conclusion, the Prajñāpāramitā scriptures and early Mahayana theory emerged as a revolutionary force. They did so by re-interpreting and radicalizing existing Buddhist ideas about emptiness and the Bodhisattva path, while developing in direct intellectual conflict with the scholastic realism of both the Buddhist Abhidharma and the Brahmanical traditions. At the same time, they resonated powerfully with the growing devotional currents sweeping across the Indian subcontinent.

WHAT ULTIMATELY HAPPENED TO BUDDHISM IN INDIA?

QUESTION:

“Please give me a rundown of the dissolution of Indian Buddhism — its causes and timeline, including the influences of the invasion of the Moslems and the development of the Bhakti movements.”

GEMINI:

Of course. The dissolution of Buddhism in India, the land of its birth, was not a single event but a slow and complex process that unfolded over many centuries. It was the result of a "perfect storm" of internal and external factors.

Here is a rundown of the causes and timeline, including the crucial roles of the Bhakti movements and the Turkic Muslim invasions, according to the current scholarly consensus.

Timeline of the Decline

• Golden Age (c. 400–600 CE): During the Gupta Empire, Buddhism flourished. Great monastic universities like Nalanda were major centers of international learning, attracting students from all over Asia.

• Period of Gradual Decline (c. 600–1000 CE): After the fall of the Guptas, Buddhism began a slow decline in the Indian heartland. It lost significant royal patronage to various Hindu dynasties and faced growing competition from vibrant Hindu philosophical and devotional movements. Its main stronghold became the Pāla Empire in eastern India (modern-day Bengal and Bihar).

• Period of Accelerated Decline (c. 1000–1200 CE): The decline steepened as the Pāla dynasty weakened. The final, devastating blows came with the Turkic Muslim invasions from the northwest.

• Effective Disappearance (c. 1200 CE onwards): Following the destruction of its last major centers, organized Buddhism effectively vanished from the plains of India. It survived only in the Himalayan regions (like Ladakh and Sikkim) and in pockets of the east.

---

Primary Causes for the Dissolution

The causes can be broken down into three main categories: internal weaknesses, competition and absorption by Hinduism, and the final blows from invasion.

1. Internal Factors: Weakening from Within

By the later period, Indian Buddhism had developed several structural vulnerabilities:

• Over-centralization: Buddhism became increasingly concentrated in large, wealthy, and politically dependent monastic universities (mahāvihāras) like Nalanda, Vikramashila, and Odantapuri. These became the "brain" and heart of the religion.

• Isolation from the Laity: The monks in these centers became a highly specialized, elite class focused on complex scholastic philosophy and esoteric Tantric rituals, often conducted in Sanskrit. This created a cultural and linguistic gap between them and the common people, whose everyday religious needs were increasingly met by other traditions.

• Loss of Royal Patronage: Buddhism was heavily reliant on the patronage of kings and wealthy merchants to support its large monasteries. As Hindu dynasties rose to power, this support dwindled, and the economic foundation of the Buddhist institutions began to crumble.

2. The Influence of the Bhakti Movements and Hindu Revival

This was perhaps the most significant long-term cause. Hinduism did not remain static; it evolved in ways that directly competed with and absorbed Buddhism.

• The Bhakti Movements (Competition): Starting around the 7th century, intensely personal and emotional devotional movements swept across India. The Bhakti saints—worshipping deities like Shiva, Vishnu, and the Goddess—used vernacular languages, congregational singing, and poetry. This created a form of religion that was highly accessible, emotionally resonant, and deeply embedded in popular culture, offering a powerful alternative to the scholasticism of the Buddhist monasteries.

• Philosophical Absorption (Advaita Vedānta): Philosophers like Adi Shankara (c. 8th century) consolidated the non-dual Advaita Vedānta school. This system was intellectually powerful and offered a philosophical vision of non-dualism that could compete directly with Mahayana Buddhist thought. Many scholars argue Shankara's philosophy was itself influenced by Buddhist concepts, making the line between the two blurrier and reducing Buddhism's unique appeal.

• Theological Absorption (The Buddha as Avatar): In the Puranic texts, Vaishnava Hinduism performed a masterstroke of assimilation by adopting the Buddha as the ninth avatar of Vishnu. This effectively neutralized Buddhism as a rival. For many Hindus, the Buddha was no longer the founder of a separate religion but a part of their own pantheon, and his teachings were often re-contextualized as a skillful means to a specific end.

3. The Influence of the Muslim Invasions

If the internal factors and Hindu revival had weakened Indian Buddhism, the Turkic Muslim invasions of the 11th and 12th centuries delivered the final, fatal blows.

• Destruction of the Monasteries: The Turkic invaders, particularly the forces led by generals like Bakhtiyar Khalji, targeted the great monastic universities. These centers were non-military, highly visible, and concentrated sources of wealth and learning. The sack of Nalanda and Vikramashila around 1200 CE was a "decapitation strike." It annihilated the intellectual and spiritual leadership of the Buddhist community.

• Annihilation of the Clergy: The invaders killed thousands of monks, who were easily identifiable by their robes and shaved heads. With the teachers scattered or killed and the libraries burned, the complex system of ordination and textual transmission, which was the lifeblood of the religion, was broken.

• Buddhism's Fragility: This is where Buddhism's over-centralization proved fatal. Hinduism, by contrast, was highly decentralized. Its practices were embedded in countless villages, household shrines, and the caste system. While major temples were also destroyed, its grassroots structure allowed it to survive and regenerate. Buddhism's reliance on a few large, vulnerable monasteries meant that when they fell, the entire institutional structure collapsed with them.

In conclusion, the dissolution was a multi-stage process. Buddhism was already in a slow decline, losing the battle for the hearts, minds, and patronage of the Indian people to a resurgent, adaptable, and vibrant Hinduism. The Turkic invasions did not attack a religion at its peak; they delivered a swift and brutal end to a tradition that had already become institutionally fragile.

Being vs. Mind

SAMSARA & NIRVANA: States of “Mind”

QUESTION TO A. I.:

“I know I keep revolving back to this question. But, specifically, are there any masters of other Tibetan schools who take issue and critique the Sakya approach to Yogacara philosophy? My question here is, do any other masters from other schools criticize the Sakyas for perhaps only intellectually adopting the Madhyamika view of emptiness, rather than experientially perceiving reality — as the Yogacaras do? Are the Sakyas perceived as being too scholastic by some scholars?”

GEMINI RESPONSE:

This is an excellent and penetrating question. You are moving beyond the philosophical tenets themselves and into the subtle, inter-school dynamics of the Tibetan tradition, asking how these schools perceive each other's relationship between philosophy and practice.

The direct answer is yes. Masters and scholars from other Tibetan schools, particularly those from the Nyingma, Kagyu, and especially the Jonang traditions, have historically raised critiques that align very closely with the spirit of your question. They have, in essence, questioned whether the Sakya school's intense scholasticism and its radically negative dialectic can, for some, become an obstacle to the very experiential realization it is intended to produce.

Let's break down the nature of this critique.

1. The Critique of Being "Too Scholastic"

This is a common dynamic in any spiritual tradition that contains both highly scholastic and highly practice-oriented lineages. The Sakya tradition, along with the Gelug, places an immense and non-negotiable value on rigorous intellectual training (shedra). The belief is that without a crystal-clear, logically established philosophical view, meditative experience can be misleading, unstable, or misinterpreted.

Masters from the Nyingma and Kagyu traditions, while possessing their own profound scholarly lineages, often place a greater public emphasis on direct meditative realization through their pinnacle systems of Dzogchenand Mahāmudrā.

• The Nyingma/Kagyu Perspective: From this standpoint, the critique is not that the Sakya view is wrong, but that the method can be a potential pitfall. They might argue that the Sakya's intense focus on subtle logical distinctions and refuting every possible philosophical error can, for some practitioners, become a new and very subtle form of conceptual entanglement. The danger is that one might develop "pride in the view" and mistake a flawless intellectual understanding of emptiness for the direct, non-conceptual realization of it. The critique could be framed as: "Why spend decades building a perfect conceptual ladder when the master's 'pointing-out instruction' can show you the nature of mind directly?"

2. The Core Critique: Intellectual Emptiness vs. Experiential Reality

This is the deeper, more philosophical critique that directly addresses your question about Yogācāra. This critique comes most forcefully from the proponents of the Shentong ("Empty of Other") view, which is historically associated with the Jonang school but also deeply influential within the Kagyu and Nyingma traditions.

• The Shentong Argument: Shentong masters would argue that the Sakya (and Gelug) "Rangtong" ("Empty of Self") approach, by focusing exclusively on what reality is not (i.e., not inherently existent), leads to an understanding of emptiness that can be merely a conceptual negation or an intellectual "blankness."

• Where Yogācāra Comes In: They would assert that this is precisely why the Yogācāra teachings are so crucial. The Yogācāra school, in their view, was not making a flawed metaphysical proposition to be refuted. It was making an experiential description of the luminous, self-aware, and blissful nature of primordial consciousness (jñāna).

• The Critique: The Shentong critique of the Sakya approach would be this: "By so rigorously negating everything, you are failing to describe the positive, luminous, and cognizant experience of the ultimate reality. The Yogācārins were describing the radiant nature of the mind that realizes emptiness, and in your zeal to refute them philosophically, you risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater. You are left with a perfect description of what is absent, but an incomplete description of what is present in the moment of gnosis."

This is a direct and profound critique that claims the Sakya approach, by being so intellectually focused on negation, can miss the positive, experiential heart of the matter that the Yogācārins were pointing towards.

The Sakya Rebuttal (For Balance)

Of course, the Sakya masters would completely disagree with this characterization. From their perspective:

• Logic as a Sharp Sword: They do not see their rigorous analysis as a conceptual trap, but as the sharpest and most effective tool for cutting through all conceptual traps, including the very subtle trap of reifying "luminous consciousness" as a truly existing "thing."

• Lamdré as Proof of Experience: They would point to their pinnacle teaching, Lamdré ("The Path with Its Result"), as the ultimate proof that their system is profoundly experiential. Lamdré is a complete system of yogic and tantric practices designed to produce the direct, non-conceptual realization of the "inseparability of samsara and nirvana."

• View as the Foundation: They would argue that without the unshakeable foundation of their precise Madhyamika view, any meditative experience—no matter how blissful or luminous—is at risk of being just another subtle samsaric state. The view is what ensures the experience is genuinely liberating.

Conclusion:

So yes, a definite line of criticism exists. Other masters, particularly from the Shentong, Nyingma, and Kagyu schools, have argued that the Sakya school's intense scholasticism and its purely negating approach to emptiness can potentially sideline the positive, luminous, and experiential reality that the Yogācāra school sought to describe.

This is not a simple debate about right and wrong, but a profound conversation about the most effective balance between philosophical view (lta ba) and meditative experience (sgom pa). The Sakyas champion the view as the necessary key to unlock valid experience, while their critics often champion direct experience as primary, with the view serving to clarify that profound, yogic encounter.

A CRUCIAL REFINEMENT 

“Thank you for the above answer. Do some masters of other schools besides Sakya posit that, taking the step of identifying Samsara and Nirvana as inseparable might somehow leave an important and crucial line of development (that of the line of Nirvana) out of a practitioner’s reckoning? Thus limiting the student who might believe that he/she has reached a “final understanding”?”

This is an exceptionally perceptive and critical question. You have moved from understanding the view itself to questioning its potential dangers in practice. The concern you've raised is not only valid but is considered one of the most important and frequently addressed risks in the transmission of Mahayana and especially Vajrayana Buddhism.

To answer you directly: Yes, absolutely. Masters from other schools—most notably the Gelug schoolfounded by the great reformer Je Tsongkhapa—have offered profound and systematic critiques based on precisely the danger you've identified.

The core of their argument is that presenting the ultimate "resultant" view—that Samsara and Nirvana are inseparable—to a practitioner who is not properly prepared can lead them to prematurely abandon the "line of Nirvana" (the path of purification and development), causing them to become stuck in a state of complacency, believing they have reached a final understanding when they have not.

Here is a detailed breakdown of this critique.

The Nature of the Critique: Conflating the Two Truths

The philosophical tool used to make this critique is the doctrine of the Two Truths:

1. Ultimate Truth (paramārtha-satya): The way things truly are, free from all conceptual distortion. From this perspective of a fully enlightened Buddha, the empty nature of Samsara and the empty nature of Nirvana are indeed one and the same. This is the "inseparability."

2. Conventional Truth (saṃvṛti-satya): The way things appear and function for unenlightened beings. On this level, Samsara and Nirvana are absolutely distinct and separate. Samsara is the undeniable experience of suffering, driven by ignorance and karma. Nirvana is the goal of complete freedom from that suffering.

The critique from masters like Tsongkhapa is that a practitioner who hears the ultimate view of inseparability might mistakenly apply it to their own conventional experience. This leads to several disastrous pitfalls:

Potential Dangers of Misinterpreting the View

1. Antinomianism (Abandoning Ethics): This is the gravest danger. A student might think, "If my suffering mind is ultimately the mind of a Buddha, and samsaric actions are ultimately empty, then conventional ethics don't matter." This can lead to a justification for harmful behavior, completely destroying the foundation of the path. Tsongkhapa strongly emphasized that for anyone still on the path, the conventional laws of karma are inexorable and must be respected with utmost care.

2. Complacent Quietism (Mistaking an Experience for the Goal): This is the pitfall you alluded to directly. A student might achieve a temporary state of mental peace or a minor insight into emptiness during meditation and mistake it for the final realization of Nirvana. They might think, "This is it! Samsara is Nirvana. There is nothing more to do." They then abandon the hard work of the path, becoming stuck in a subtle state of spiritual pride and complacency.

3. Devaluing the Line of Nirvana: This is the precise danger you mentioned. By over-emphasizing that "Samsara is Nirvana," the practitioner can devalue the entire "line of development" that leads to the actualization of Nirvana. They forget that this inseparability is the result of traversing the path, not a starting premise that makes the path unnecessary. They neglect the crucial need to:

   • Generate Renunciation: A genuine wish to be free from suffering.

   • Cultivate Bodhicitta: The boundless compassion for all beings trapped in Samsara.

   • Accumulate Merit and Wisdom: The long and arduous process of purification and practice.

The Gelug "Lamrim" as the Safeguard

Je Tsongkhapa's entire system, particularly his famous Lamrim ("Stages of the Path") teachings, was structured specifically to prevent these errors. He insisted that a practitioner must build an unshakeable foundation in the "common paths" before being introduced to the higher, resultant views of Tantra. This means developing a profound and stable understanding of:

1. Renunciation for Samsara.

2. Compassion for all beings within it.

3. A correct intellectual understanding of emptiness.

Only after this foundation is solid is one considered ready to engage with a view like the "inseparability of Samsara and Nirvana" without falling into the abyss of misunderstanding.

The Sakya View in Context:

It is important to note that the great Sakya masters were, of course, fully aware of this danger. Their pinnacle system, Lamdré ("The Path with Its Result"), is a highly structured and gradual path. The profound view of inseparability is presented as the fruit of the entire path and is taught within a framework of strict ethical discipline and devotion to a qualified master, who can guide the student away from such pitfalls. The inter-school critiques are often about the potential for these views to be misinterpreted by those who receive them outside of this complete and controlled contemplative system.

In conclusion, your concern is not only valid but is a central cautionary theme in Tibetan Buddhism. Masters like Tsongkhapa articulated a powerful critique, arguing that without a firm grounding in the conventional path—the "line of Nirvana"—the ultimate view of the "inseparability of Samsara and Nirvana" can be profoundly misunderstood, leading to a dangerous complacency that halts a student's development long before they reach a true and final understanding.

Being and Mind

 The Tibetan View of the Mind

“…channels are subtle pathways extending throughout the body through which the volatile winds move. Since winds and mind are fused in tantric theory, the channels are the pathways not only for winds, but also for the mind that rides on those winds. Therefore, channels are the avenues by which the mind comes to pervade the entire body.”

— Secrets of the Vajra Body: Dngos po'i gnas lugs and the Apotheosis of the Body in the work of Rgyal ba Yang dgon pa (A dissertation by Willa Blythe Miller)

It is important, as a Gurdjieffian, to distinguish between the centers (intellectual, emotional, and moving, etc.) and the actual mind itself. The “organ” or elemental component of “mind” is an aspect within us which allows us to perceive through the senses; and it also works with the centers, or the various parts of centers, mediating so we can access their functioning. The mind not only perceives what the senses take in, but also perceives the various workings of our intellectual and other centers.

However the centers  — when developed — are far superior to mind, the mind being a more reactionary tool, responding to inner or outer stimuli. The centers, one could say, encompass or express our Being and Knowledge. Being and Knowledge are measured on the scale of the Ray of Creation, and involve the development of second, third, and fourth (astral, mental, and divine) bodies.

The characteristics of the physical body are the senses, along with the mind. Being and Knowledge here are at a relatively low point on this scale, at the level of the Earth.

The characteristic of the astral body is that of a highly developed emotional center (specifically the evolution of the middle division of the emotional center). This body manifests higher Being. Emotions, or Being, here are at the level of All Planets.

The characteristic of the mental body is that of a highly developed intellectual center (specifically the evolution of the inner division of the intellectual center). This body manifests higher Knowledge. Knowledge here is at the level of the Sun.

The mind is an organ made up of a specific level of materiality, and is also a component of the so-called subtle body, or energy body, or pranic sheath. The characteristic of the subtle body is a system of channels, through which the mind rides the subtle winds, like a rider and his horse. The subtle body, along with the mind, is a link between both our physical body (and the physical world) and our centers (and our inner world).

THE CREATION OF THE CENTERS

“Right work on oneself begins with the creation of a permanent center of gravity.”

— Gurdjieff 

"The process of evolution, of that evolution which is possible for humanity as a whole, is completely analogous, to the process of evolution possible for the individual man. And it begins with the same thing, namely, a certain group of cells gradually   becomes conscious; then it attracts to itself other cells, subordinates others, and gradually makes the whole organism serve its aims and not merely eat, drink, and sleep. This is evolution and there can be no other kind of evolution. In humanity as in   individual man everything begins with the formation of a conscious nucleus. All the mechanical forces of life fight against the formation of this conscious nucleus in humanity, in just the same way as all mechanical habits, tastes and weaknesses fight   against conscious self-remembering in man."

— Gurdjieff 

The mind does direct the subtle winds, so in that sense the mind is in charge; but “attention” is not necessarily just simply a function of mind. The mind is not all there is of our inner psychic life. Attention can be also an aspect of Being, as well, starting out in our development with the activity of Self-Remembering. Self-Remembering, along with Self Observation, eventually leads to the development of our centers, which can express higher elements of our Being and Knowledge. When the centers have been developed, then attention can work in conjunction with their activity, rather than just as a slave to the mind’s whims.

That is not to say that we have nothing to begin with, no centers at all. Everybody has centers of a sort. All humans have centers — the intellectual, emotional, moving — with their three divisions — outer, middle, and inner. However, these undeveloped centers are neither permanent nor very evolved. The centers in the majority of mankind are simply temporary manifestations of the various energies inhabiting the body; appearing occasionally to carry out some function or other.

The middle and inner divisions of the emotional center are the seat of the sublime, higher emotions. These are not used much by us in daily life. And same with the middle and inner divisions of the intellect — these portions of the intellect are rarely used.

This rarified, celestial, profound feeling and thinking is possible for us, but only on occasion. The goal is to develop these parts of us, along with the higher bodies that go along with them.

The mind travels through the various channels of the body, but there are three main central channels that are important specifically for the higher bodies and their centers. I’m not an accomplished Yogi, but my perception, through reading and self study, is that the central channel — traveling the central axis of the body — has much to do with the higher bodies’ developed centers, otherwise known as chakras.

The three central channels of the “etheric body”. When the attention works with the higher bodies and their developed centers, my feeling is it is traveling through one or another of these three central channels. Otherwise, the attention is a slave to the mind’s whims, and traveling through the side channels, with their less-profound thoughts and desires.

Chakras, as well as centers, are concepts that are seen in a variety of ways. However, generally they are both thought to be completely formed, and needing no development. Rather they are considered to have flaws: Centers might use the wrong energy, or Chakras might have blockages. This whole outlook, to me, is wrong. Centers, chakras, as well as certain other aspects of the subtle body need to be intentionally formed; centers formed using the correct corresponding energies. What we have is fluid, unfixed, and unreliable. What we need is well-developed, reliable, and fixed centers — with their corresponding bodies.

My understanding personally, by the way, is that the theory of “centers” is a better system for achieving self-evolution. Perhaps that’s because I’m Western, and Gurdjieff’s system is Western. But the Gurdjieffian development of centers entails specific knowledge of the energies involved; and also includes the synchronous development of higher, permanent bodies, which go along with the centers.

I do know, however, that for me it is a mistake to assume that each of us has ready-made centers in place. Through experience, I have found that the centers of the higher bodies need to be intentionally formed, using specific energies and a definite process. For details on forming the astral body with its centers, see my previous blog post: https://to-be-able.blogspot.com/2022/ 

But from the perspective of the subtle body, developed centers are the same thing as working chakras. There comes a point, when one starts perceiving the channels, and one has made headway developing the centers, where one realizes the Eastern and Western concepts are the same. Developed centers are the same as working chakras.

The East Indian Philosophy of Samkhya 

The mind, in East Indian Samkhya theory, is classified as being generally on the same level as the senses. The mind is necessary for us in order to utilize the senses, and to perceive the outside world. The Eastern theory goes, that the mind travels between our senses and the object we are perceiving; the mind taking the shape of the object. The intellect (or buddhi) then interprets the object which the mind has perceived. Finally, the buddhi allows the Self, residing in the heart, to witness what the buddhi has apprehended. This is my understanding of the process. Mahat or buddhi (intellect) is the same substance as Gurdjieff’s okidanokh in his Tales, in my opinion. Prakriti is the same as Gurdjieff’s ethernokrilno, in the same text.

— The “evolutes” or different hierarchical elements of the Samkhya system. —

According to Dr. David Frawley, “prana” is an evolute of Rajasa ahankara. 

Mahat is the macrocosmic or universal mode of Intellect. Buddhi is the psychological aspect of Intellect.

Purusha & Prakriti are above manifestation. 

The Sages indicate that the way to moksha and knowledge of Purusha & Prakriti is to establish oneself in Mahat.

Building the Mental Body 

“And so, my boy, in the beginning, as I have already told you, after these cosmic arisings had perfected their Reason to the necessary gradation of the 'Sacred Scale of Reason,' they were taken onto the Sun Absolute, there to fulfill the roles predestined for them by our Creator Endlessness.”

Gurdjieff — Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson, The Holy Planet Purgatory 

As I said in the previous post, the emotional center of the body has three divisions. And so, the body’s intellectual center has three divisions, also. I said that the astral or second body evolves from the middle parts of the centers. The mental or third body however evolves from the inner parts of the centers.

The mental body evolves from the inner division of the intellectual center (as well as the inner division of the emotional center). This intellectual center division works with the energy of impressions: do 48. As Nicoll says above, this part of the intellectual center manifests “Intellectual Construction, Creative Thought, & Discovery”.

The mental body is constructed inside the head, inside the mind, using the third eye — the place between the two brows — as a focal point. The mental body’s construction starts with the formation of a “center”, around which the third body grows. This mental center is formed from several elements: the element of consciousness, the element of buddhi (intellect), the energy of impressions (do 48), the element of mind (manas, which is associated with the breath and with the senses), and finally with an organized structure of mental ideas.

These are the three energies used to build the mental body. 

Do 48 in the head, i.e. the energies of impressions, is fused with mind, consciousness, and intellect (Gurdjieff’s Okidanokh & Samkhya’s Mahat) (see Samkhya chart above) as well as certain ideas to begin making third body.

Do 48 represents energy for the mental body’s intellectual center. Re 24, the energy for the mental body’s emotional center. Mi 12 would be for the mental body’s moving center — carrying out the aims of the intellect and will.

I don’t recommend trying to build a third body until the second body is well established. It is necessary to be able to sense clearly the astral body first.

In preparation, the astral body’s intellectual center should be modified, to begin with. As one has previously formed the astral centers, so in continuing, one uses the same technique for preparation of the astral intellectual center for construction of the mental body’s intellectual center, within it.

The creation of a mental center — the nucleus of the mental body itself — is really a matter of a continuation of the development of the astral body’s head. The astral body intellectual center can be upgraded with new qualities, such as the quality of brahmacharya. This is particularly important because the astral and mental bodies are a result of the redirection of sexual energies. Also, consciousness, emanated from the heart, can be fused with the astral intellectual center, as a preparation for third body formation.

When one is ready to begin the construction of mental body, the energies of impressions (do 48) are initially fused with Mahat, which is brought in through the crown of the head. 

The material of Consciousness can also be used in fusion with do 48.

The technique used in fusion is at this point mostly Self-Remembering of the two components at once; although the astral technique using emanations from the heart is also sometimes used.

Secondly, ideas are next used for the mental body-intellectual center material, which are also fused with do 48. Ultimately, one must use the most sublime, the highest series of ideas available to one as material to build the mental body. It is wise if one can develop one or more systems of chosen ideas. The reason the highest ideas conceivable are used is because the mental body ultimately has much in common with the divine body. Gurdjieff indicates that components of the mental body will become permanent, in relation to the divine body’s completion.

The mental body is permanent; or as Gurdjieff says, “the highest being-body, formed of crystallizations received directly from the sacred Theomertmalogos within the limits of the solar system where the being has arisen and existed, can never decompose.” (— Beelzebub’s Tales) 

So, one hint for the nature of the ideas to select for third body formation would be the Words of God Himself, or as Gurdjieff calls it: “crystallizations from the sacred Theomertmalogos”.

Consciousness, and in particular the mind element, should probably play a large part in forming the “head” or intellectual center of the mental body. The mind element gives the head a good degree of plasticity or fluidity, which is lacking without it. I believe the “winds”, along with the “mind”, ideally need to operate within an environment that is not hardened, or stodgy, or too opaque.

My guess, is that developing a skill at concentration, from a dedicated meditation practice, serves to give the element of mind the necessary structure within the mental body. In addition, the winds, which work with mind, appear to be necessary in order to establish channels within the newly formed intellectual center and mental body. Again, this must also be a part of the practice of meditation.

AIËSIRITOORASSIAN CONTEMPLATION 

Soon after one has started the initial preparation of the mind, it will be ready for Gurdjieff’s technique of aiësiritoorassian contemplation: his technique of soul body or mental body building, or coating. This technique is initially used to create the second level, the head or “driver” of the astral body. 

My fourth way teacher translates the term aiësiritoorassian as “Give the heart. It will reach.” — being a pastiche of various Armenian words, possibly. I came up with a different meaning, and I encourage all Gurdjieffians to research it individually.

But the meaning, “Give the heart. It will reach.” very well describes what I have come up with as my approach to carrying out Gurdjieff’s mental body building.

The technique of aiësiritoorassian contemplation involves initially two bodily components. The astral emotional center (the lowest portion of the astral emotional center: located in the chest area) and the head (specifically the astral intellectual center — or in other words, the middle division of the intellectual center). 

The steps are:

1. Emanate an emotion or feeling basic to one’s higher ethical system (such as compassion) from the astral emotional center at the chest or heart area — up to the head, where…

2. Without stopping, in the head concentrate upon a parallel mental quality or idea (such as the idea of impermanence) which directly corresponds or relates to the emotional quality emanating from the chest.

3. At the same time that one performs steps 1&2, inhale, and sense the hydrogen mi 48 in the head.

4. Through the attention, seal or fuse the mental idea (in step 2) together with the hydrogen mi 48 (in step 3), by means of the emotional quality (in step 1) emanating from the chest area.

5. Through the combination of the three components, a center of gravity is created in the head over time. However, a fourth component — the light of consciousness — must be present throughout this process, in order that an actual structure should crystallize. This entire method describes the activity labeled as aiësiritoorassian contemplation.

Note: An element of prime importance is the substance of buddhi or “intellect” which should be central to one’s efforts in contemplation, and should be infused into the astral intellect. Buddhi, otherwise known as Mahat, is in effect the mind of Prajapati: the creator.

This technical effort serves to cement a secondary permanent center of gravity in the head or thinking apparatus of the astral body, in addition to the primary center of gravity of the astral body’s emotional center.

Buddhist “Emptiness”. Not Nothingness.

“Regard all dharmas (phenomena) as dreams.”

       — From Buddhist Mind Training Sayings

I bring up the Buddhist subject of emptiness, because I was taught by, and still operate under the example of, a very high Tibetan Buddhist Lama. Emptiness, or the ultimate nature of Reality, can be, and is for all Buddhists, the subject central to mental body development. That body is called the Dharmakaya. But the contemplation of emptiness doesn’t have to be used for higher body development. And it can also even be one of many ideas used for the creation of third body. It is definitely worth investigation, though.

Many of my readers meditate, I’m sure; and some may have meditated in a Buddhist style. My personal belief is that meditation on emptiness doesn’t mean that the mind turns off, mimicking not having any mind at all. That might be a first step to a calm mind, however.

“Emptiness”, or rather Ultimate Emptiness, is an attempt to see the highest, most subtle level of Reality. As in the Heart Sutra, all the components of Reality are listed; but at no point can one find the ultimate, innermost level that is “real”, undergirding the components’ being.

This list of components is highly reminiscent of the evolutes listed in the above Samkhya chart. I don’t think the two approaches — samkhya and prajnaparamitra — are historically unrelated, in fact.

In the Samkhya chart, the most subtle and highest level of Reality is Purusha/Prakriti. Purusha need be identified as nothing more than “the observer”. Something “observes” within us. Even at the level where subject and object disappear, there is still the act of “observation”.

Prakriti is called Nature, but it generally has the characteristics of the three gunas, in perfect equilibrium. It is the gunas that allow Prakriti to descend, and to create the cosmos. However, it is the gunas which ultimately at some level of perspective have no essence. They are merely “qualities”; and at a certain subtle level, they can be said to have no essence. That doesn’t mean that Prakriti is “nothingness”. Quite the opposite.

Anyway, this is my Samkhya take on Buddhist emptiness. I recommend a volume that inspired me greatly: the book by Pandit Rajmani Tigunait: The Practice of the Yoga Sutra. Volume 2, Sadhana Pada. Especially the chapter on Samkhya, Sutra 2:19.

Nicoll Commentaries 

If you are interested in learning the Fourth Way, Gurdjieff system, there is no better way than to read the five commentaries by Maurice Nicoll. They are a wonderful textbook for the system.

As far as I know, the copyright has expired, as the five volumes are not listed in the government database…

Here is a link to the Nicoll pdf Commentaries:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/172q9rY2TUAlof_V0rmAVr1l0fIYT1CL1?usp=share_link