Devotion, a Lamp That Illuminates the Ground: Non-Referential Devotional Affect in Great Completeness
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting topic, but this paper is in need revision.
Perhaps something went wrong when the text was entered into the template, but no footnote text appears, even when a reference to a work is made or a quotation from a text is given. The first footnote number in the text appears on line 769 and the next (and last) appears in line 781. Neither are superscript numbers.
Titles of works referenced in the text are inconsistently italicized, and Tibetan words are not italicized. Capitalization of key terms, e.g., “Dzogchen,” is inconsistent.
There are many typos and awkward turns of phrase throughout the paper. Pre-submission editing should have caught these.
The Religions template says, “The introduction should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important. It should define the purpose of the work and its significance. The current state of the research field should be reviewed carefully and key publications cited.” The introductory section of this paper does not do any of this. It introduces Tantra, Dzogchen, the Nyingma tradition, the Nyingma master Longchenpa, etc., and rehearses most of the material to follow. There is a great deal of repetition across the sections. The opening with the story about lay Buddhists seeking the advice and blessings of a tulku is a nice personal touch, but this is a very different thing than guru yoga in general and Dzogchen-based meditative/ritual practice in particular.
The “Devotion” section introduces the Tibetan compound word “mös-gus,” but then each of the two parts of the compound are given their own sections. These should be subsections. Line 303-4 refers to “this chapter,” which presumably refers to a dissertation or monograph chapter, but that should have been caught in editing and revising.
In the Guru Yoga section, on line 412-13 it is stated that “Even though guru yoga stands alone as a practice throughout Tibetan Buddhism, so far no earlier sources are found of a similar practice throughout India or elsewhere.” This is followed by a supporting quote from Mayer, but it appears that the quote is referring to guru yoga directed to Padmasambhava, though I can not confirm that as there is no citation. In any case, in the following paragraph, the first sentence asserts, “Guru devotion, guru lineage, and power of the guru (guru’s empowerment) does pre-date Tibetan-created guru yoga practices.” This is in contradiction with the previous paragraph, and the passage from the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad given as evidence only proves that devotion to the guru in general is crucial. The ritual/meditative practice of Vajrayāna Buddhist guru yoga is much more specific than this.
The remaining sections have problems as well, both in terms of clarity and form. An example of the latter is that Husserl and Spinoza are referenced (without footnotes), but neither are in the list of references. Furthermore, the use of the thought of these two philosophers is not well-developed.
The References section’s alphabetization is inconsistent.
Author Response
This is an interesting topic, but this paper is in need revision.
Perhaps something went wrong when the text was entered into the template, but no footnote text appears, even when a reference to a work is made or a quotation from a text is given. The first footnote number in the text appears on line 769 and the next (and last) appears in line 781. Neither are superscript numbers.
#I fixed all formatting issues. I apologize. I did not see the template when I submitted a document.
Titles of works referenced in the text are inconsistently italicized, and Tibetan words are not italicized. Capitalization of key terms, e.g., “Dzogchen,” is inconsistent.
Fixed.
There are many typos and awkward turns of phrase throughout the paper. Pre-submission editing should have caught these.
Fixed
The Religions template says, “The introduction should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important. It should define the purpose of the work and its significance. The current state of the research field should be reviewed carefully and key publications cited.” The introductory section of this paper does not do any of this. It introduces Tantra, Dzogchen, the Nyingma tradition, the Nyingma master Longchenpa, etc., and rehearses most of the material to follow. There is a great deal of repetition across the sections. The opening with the story about lay Buddhists seeking the advice and blessings of a tulku is a nice personal touch, but this is a very different thing than guru yoga in general and Dzogchen-based meditative/ritual practice in particular.
Added Introduction with appropriate context and removed the personal account.
The “Devotion” section introduces the Tibetan compound word “mös-gus,” but then each of the two parts of the compound are given their own sections. These should be subsections. Line 303-4 refers to “this chapter,” which presumably refers to a dissertation or monograph chapter, but that should have been caught in editing and revising.
Removed.
In the Guru Yoga section, on line 412-13 it is stated that “Even though guru yoga stands alone as a practice throughout Tibetan Buddhism, so far no earlier sources are found of a similar practice throughout India or elsewhere.” This is followed by a supporting quote from Mayer, but it appears that the quote is referring to guru yoga directed to Padmasambhava, though I can not confirm that as there is no citation. In any case, in the following paragraph, the first sentence asserts, “Guru devotion, guru lineage, and power of the guru (guru’s empowerment) does pre-date Tibetan-created guru yoga practices.” This is in contradiction with the previous paragraph, and the passage from the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad given as evidence only proves that devotion to the guru in general is crucial. The ritual/meditative practice of Vajrayāna Buddhist guru yoga is much more specific than this.
Fixed sentence
The remaining sections have problems as well, both in terms of clarity and form. An example of the latter is that Husserl and Spinoza are referenced (without footnotes), but neither are in the list of references. Furthermore, the use of the thought of these two philosophers is not well-developed.
Removed.
The References section’s alphabetization is inconsistent.
Fixed alphabetical order.
Reviewer 2 Report
Some remarks.
devotion (mos gus) as an "affect", and its "re-interpretation".
Although a re-interpretation of devotion (mos gus) is asserted, the author presents the classical definitions of _mos_ (typically translated as "devotion") and _gus_ (typically, "respect"), but does not specify what the original (or non-re-interpreted) meaning of the term _mos gus_ is and if there was one, its original context that would serve as contrast to demonstrate the novelty in the Dzogchen/Nyingthig tradition. It is unclear how the combination of terms constitutes an "affective state" (i.e. an emotional state) in the source literature, so it is possible that the author needs to rethink their characterization of _mos gus_, or at least provide additional justification for such a characterization, particularly when, for example, _mos pa_ is defined as "holding on to an object."
"tantra is incorporated into Dzogchen practices"
Dzogchen *is* tantra, so it is unclear what is meant by this statement. If the author is positing a distinction between tantra and Dzogchen, they should be explicit about it and justify it.
"Tantra relies upon a student-teacher relationship where a practitioner cultivates devotion for a specific teacher. A practitioner is encouraged to spend many years examining a potential teacher, looking for good and bad qualities. A practitioner then commits to follow that teacher and perceive him or her as a Buddha if this teacher possesses good qualities as stated in Words of My Perfect Teacher."
This is a relatively late text, while the specifics being discussed trace back to Indian sources, such as Asvaghosa's Fifty Verses on the Guru (gurupañcaśika).
"Longchenpa (klong chen rab ‘byams, 1308 – 1364) wrote two commentaries on two already existent cache of literature called the Vima Nyingthig and the Khandro Nyingthig."
Those collections post-date Longchenpa (klong chen pa, 1308 – 1364). Rather, the commentaries were produced by Jigme Lingpa (‘jigs med gling pa, 1738 – 1798) as "revealed treasure texts" (gter ma), which he attributed to Longchenpa, so the author needs to be a little more careful in terms of their description of the various texts and blanket acceptance of authorship claims by the tradition, or at least how they present them.
"This close examination and commitment to a teacher is oftentimes misunderstood as being a relationship between a teacher who is perceived as being better or more realized than the student. Particular acts such as bowing before a teacher or keeping one’s head down when a teacher enters the room are seen as signs of deference or even submissive. Contemporary Western Buddhist communities have not helped clarify the meaning of devotion in the Buddhist context because many abuse scandal cases continue to bubble to the surface. These incidents leave the public to wonder if student-teacher relationships and guru devotion are necessary."
Although the abstract for the article asserts that the focus of the paper is devotion (mos gus) as re-interpreted in the works of Jigme Lingpa (1730-1785), this is a seemingly sociological observation about western attitudes in contrast with Tibetan attitudes to these and related concepts which do not seem germane to the argument of the article.
"Tantric practices mirror this popularity of devotion. Guru yoga (bla ma’i rnal ‘byor) is a practice where a practitioner focuses on her teacher being a deity and then merges her mind with that deity/teacher. These two stages of relating to a teacher and then dissolving coordinate with the two stages of tantric practice: creation (skyed rim) and completion (rdzogs rim)."
That is not an entirely accurate description of creation stage (skyed rim) and completion stage (rdzogs rim) practices, the latter typically referring to subtle bodily energy manipulation, while identification of the deity in front or merged with oneself traditionally falls into the first stage (creation stage) only. The author appears to be confusing (or conflating) "guru yoga" (bla ma’i rnal ‘byor) with "deity yoga" (lha’i rnal ‘byor) -- the former being the devotional attitude of a disciple to their teacher, and the latter being the process of visualization a meditation performed in tantra. There *are* deity yogas that focus on the guru in the form of the deity -- as would seem to be the case with the visualizations described in the paper -- but the two practices are not the same.
"Tantric pedagogy is not only used within tantra but as means or stepping-stones in other Buddhist lineages such as Dzogchen."
Again, the author seems to be distinguishing between tantra and Dzogchen unjustifiably (or, at least, without justification), while it is unclear what is meant by "tantric pedagogy".
"tantra practices allow a practitioner to transition between two types of engaging in her experience from an ordinary mind that senses a dualistic split between subject and object towards an experience that dissolves those conceptions."
The alternation between mental states of dualistic perception (such as subject-object) and states of dissolution of not just conception, but appearance to a sense consciousness as well, are practices found in both sutra and tantra, and not a "unique feature of Dzogchen" in any manner.
The sources for the article are all quite late (as well as contemporary popular presentations from within the tradition), seem to be accepted at face value, and generally lack historically grounding in the larger Tibetan/Buddhist/tantric traditions. For example,
"The Nyingma tradition divides tantra into six classes ... 1) kriyāyoga (bya rgyud), 2) upayoga (spyod rgyud), 3) yogatantra (rnal ‘byor rgyud), 4) mahāyoga (rnal ‘byor chen po), 5) anuyoga (rjes su rnal ‘byor), and 6) atiyoga (shin tu rnal ‘byor) ... each one of them incorporate the same two stages of practice called creation stage (Skt. utpatti, Tib. bskyed rim) and completion stage (Skt. niṣpanna, Tib. rdzogs rim)."
That is not actually true. Kriya-, upa-, and yoga-tantras do not have creation and completion stage practices. They may have "two stages" but they are not comparable to creation and completion practices in the "higher" tantras.
Similarly:
"Completion stage is the non-conceptual stage that follows creation stage."
Completion stage practices are not "non-conceptual" and typically involve "conceptual" activities such as visualization, mantra recitation, etc. The author appears to be conflating "conceptual thought" (rtog pa) with "[conceptual] elaborations" (spros pa).
Recommendations for the author:
1) revisit and familiarize themselves with the classical presentations of Buddhist tantra, so as to more accurately distinguish any unique features of Jigme Lingpa's system
2) reassess and reframe the historical dimension of the tradition, rather than presenting the narrative of the tradition as historical fact (e.g. the "authorship" of Longchenpa with regard to "revealed" treasure texts (gter ma)).
3) provide additional citations to the primary source literature (not popular English presentations) justifying the interpretation of terms in a new or contextually distinctive manner, while avoiding analogies to western theories of emotion.
Also, I would recommend additional copy-editing, since there are some grammatically incomplete sentences (or possible notes from the author to themselves accidentally retained) such as:
"Discuss that ye shes is a special awareness throughout Madhyamaka philosophy and how it differs from other types of awareness - conceptual and mistaken." (p. 14, lines 663-664)
Author Response
Response
devotion (mos gus) as an "affect", and its "re-interpretation".
Although a re-interpretation of devotion (mos gus) is asserted, the author presents the classical definitions of _mos_ (typically translated as "devotion") and _gus_ (typically, "respect"), but does not specify what the original (or non-re-interpreted) meaning of the term _mos gus_ is and if there was one, its original context that would serve as contrast to demonstrate the novelty in the Dzogchen/Nyingthig tradition. It is unclear how the combination of terms constitutes an "affective state" (i.e. an emotional state) in the source literature, so it is possible that the author needs to rethink their characterization of _mos gus_, or at least provide additional justification for such a characterization, particularly when, for example, _mos pa_ is defined as "holding on to an object."
I added context and definition of affect in my introduction. I also provided more description on how devotion is used in guru yoga.
"tantra is incorporated into Dzogchen practices"
Dzogchen *is* tantra, so it is unclear what is meant by this statement. If the author is positing a distinction between tantra and Dzogchen, they should be explicit about it and justify it.
I contextualized what I mean by tantra and explain how Dzogchen uses Mahāyoga as a practice. Likewise, I give more historical information about Dzogchen at large.
"Tantra relies upon a student-teacher relationship where a practitioner cultivates devotion for a specific teacher. A practitioner is encouraged to spend many years examining a potential teacher, looking for good and bad qualities. A practitioner then commits to follow that teacher and perceive him or her as a Buddha if this teacher possesses good qualities as stated in Words of My Perfect Teacher."
This is a relatively late text, while the specifics being discussed trace back to Indian sources, such as Asvaghosa's Fifty Verses on the Guru (gurupañcaśika).
I explain why I use late texts for this paper.
"Longchenpa (klong chen rab ‘byams, 1308 – 1364) wrote two commentaries on two already existent cache of literature called the Vima Nyingthig and the Khandro Nyingthig."
Those collections post-date Longchenpa (klong chen pa, 1308 – 1364). Rather, the commentaries were produced by Jigme Lingpa (‘jigs med gling pa, 1738 – 1798) as "revealed treasure texts" (gter ma), which he attributed to Longchenpa, so the author needs to be a little more careful in terms of their description of the various texts and blanket acceptance of authorship claims by the tradition, or at least how they present them.
RE-worked this section.
"This close examination and commitment to a teacher is oftentimes misunderstood as being a relationship between a teacher who is perceived as being better or more realized than the student. Particular acts such as bowing before a teacher or keeping one’s head down when a teacher enters the room are seen as signs of deference or even submissive. Contemporary Western Buddhist communities have not helped clarify the meaning of devotion in the Buddhist context because many abuse scandal cases continue to bubble to the surface. These incidents leave the public to wonder if student-teacher relationships and guru devotion are necessary."
Although the abstract for the article asserts that the focus of the paper is devotion (mos gus) as re-interpreted in the works of Jigme Lingpa (1730-1785), this is a seemingly sociological observation about western attitudes in contrast with Tibetan attitudes to these and related concepts which do not seem germane to the argument of the article.
Removed this section as it does not fit the study of this paper.
"Tantric practices mirror this popularity of devotion. Guru yoga (bla ma’i rnal ‘byor) is a practice where a practitioner focuses on her teacher being a deity and then merges her mind with that deity/teacher. These two stages of relating to a teacher and then dissolving coordinate with the two stages of tantric practice: creation (skyed rim) and completion (rdzogs rim)."
That is not an entirely accurate description of creation stage (skyed rim) and completion stage (rdzogs rim) practices, the latter typically referring to subtle bodily energy manipulation, while identification of the deity in front or merged with oneself traditionally falls into the first stage (creation stage) only. The author appears to be confusing (or conflating) "guru yoga" (bla ma’i rnal ‘byor) with "deity yoga" (lha’i rnal ‘byor) -- the former being the devotional attitude of a disciple to their teacher, and the latter being the process of visualization a meditation performed in tantra. There *are* deity yogas that focus on the guru in the form of the deity -- as would seem to be the case with the visualizations described in the paper -- but the two practices are not the same.
Provided quote on how for Dzogchen to support this.
"Tantric pedagogy is not only used within tantra but as means or stepping-stones in other Buddhist lineages such as Dzogchen."
Again, the author seems to be distinguishing between tantra and Dzogchen unjustifiably (or, at least, without justification), while it is unclear what is meant by "tantric pedagogy".
REmoved
"tantra practices allow a practitioner to transition between two types of engaging in her experience from an ordinary mind that senses a dualistic split between subject and object towards an experience that dissolves those conceptions."
The alternation between mental states of dualistic perception (such as subject-object) and states of dissolution of not just conception, but appearance to a sense consciousness as well, are practices found in both sutra and tantra, and not a "unique feature of Dzogchen" in any manner.
The sources for the article are all quite late (as well as contemporary popular presentations from within the tradition), seem to be accepted at face value, and generally lack historically grounding in the larger Tibetan/Buddhist/tantric traditions. For example,
"The Nyingma tradition divides tantra into six classes ... 1) kriyāyoga (bya rgyud), 2) upayoga (spyod rgyud), 3) yogatantra (rnal ‘byor rgyud), 4) mahāyoga (rnal ‘byor chen po), 5) anuyoga (rjes su rnal ‘byor), and 6) atiyoga (shin tu rnal ‘byor) ... each one of them incorporate the same two stages of practice called creation stage (Skt. utpatti, Tib. bskyed rim) and completion stage (Skt. niṣpanna, Tib. rdzogs rim)."
That is not actually true. Kriya-, upa-, and yoga-tantras do not have creation and completion stage practices. They may have "two stages" but they are not comparable to creation and completion practices in the "higher" tantras.
Provide quote that this understanding is a Dzogchen presentation.
Similarly:
"Completion stage is the non-conceptual stage that follows creation stage."
Completion stage practices are not "non-conceptual" and typically involve "conceptual" activities such as visualization, mantra recitation, etc. The author appears to be conflating "conceptual thought" (rtog pa) with "[conceptual] elaborations" (spros pa).
Set in context.
Recommendations for the author:
1) revisit and familiarize themselves with the classical presentations of Buddhist tantra, so as to more accurately distinguish any unique features of Jigme Lingpa's system
2) reassess and reframe the historical dimension of the tradition, rather than presenting the narrative of the tradition as historical fact (e.g. the "authorship" of Longchenpa with regard to "revealed" treasure texts (gter ma)).
3) provide additional citations to the primary source literature (not popular English presentations) justifying the interpretation of terms in a new or contextually distinctive manner, while avoiding analogies to western theories of emotion.
Also, I would recommend additional copy-editing, since there are some grammatically incomplete sentences (or possible notes from the author to themselves accidentally retained) such as:
"Discuss that ye shes is a special awareness throughout Madhyamaka philosophy and how it differs from other types of awareness - conceptual and mistaken." (p. 14, lines 663-664)
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
With the revisions suggested acknowledge and made. The paper is now ready for publication.
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive comments.
