1

The Two Truths in Rangjung Dorjes Aspiration Prayer of Mahamudra

Rangjung Dorjes Aspiration Prayer of Mahamudra in verse 6
Phonetics
Tak che ta dral den nyi shi yi don
Dro kur ta dral tsok nyi lam chok gi
Si shi ta dral don nyi dre tob pay
Gol juk me pay cho dang tre pa shok
My translation
May I always meet and never stray from the unerring Dharma:
The two-fold reality, the Ground, free from false positions regarding the infinite and the finite,
The perfect path of the two accumulations, free from positions of false assertions and false denials.
The attainment of the two benefits, free from false positions regarding samsara and nirvana.

Sherab Dorjes translation p.46
The meaning of ground is the two truths, beyond the polarity of existence and nonexistence.
Through the supreme path of two accumulations, beyond the extremes of embellishment and
discredit,
The fruition of the two purposes, beyond the limits of conditioned existence and serenity, is
attained.
May I encounter the dharma that neither errs nor misleads.

There are various issues being addressed in this very succinct verse. In Situs commentary he outlines
some of them. (see General Comments below). The reader needs to know that from the very
beginning and in all Buddhist traditions there is a need to justify your position as not falling into the
two false positions (or conclusions) of eternalism (that we can continue our present existence into
eternity) and nihilism (that we end at death). Both schools of thought existed at the time of the
Buddha and exist within our own society today i.e. eternal life in heaven or simply we go out like a
light.

2

Sherab translated tak che as existence and non-existence. This is not a literal translation tak is
permanence and che is cut-off. What is not infinite is finite it cuts off or comes to an end.
So how does two truths come into this?
Situ explains in his commentary that it refers to the ultimate truth (Paramarthasatya) of the
Dharmata, the true nature of Reality and the apparent (samvrti) truth. He describes apparent truth
as the various manifestations (nangwa) that shine forth unobstructedly from the ultimate truth free
from the finite position (che pay ta dang dral wa) and which are inseparable from it.
He explains that the base means that which is not false being free from the two false positions (ta
nyi). This is how to recognise the two truths both at once (zung juk could possibly be translated as
interpenetrating but I am not sure that this necessarily carries the sense of zung meaning a pair).
Situs explanation makes it clear that he understands the two truths referred to by Rangjung Dorje in
this verse to be the true nature of Mind and what appears in it. He refers to what appears in it
unobstructedly and inseparably from the ultimate nature as samvrtisatya apparent truth (often
misleadingly translated as relative truth in other works).
In Buddha Within you can find a discussion of this use of samvrtisatya where Dolpopa objects to its
use in this context even though there is a point to using it. The objection is that what manifests from
and is inseparable from the Ground of Emptiness is not samvrtisatya because it is not a problem. It
doesnt cause samsara and is not involved in samsara. It is not false in any way. This is the
Mahamudra realisation. What is false is when those manifestations are taken to be what they are
not such as thinking that ones present life can continue forever in heaven. The life one is clinging
to is not real, doesnt last, is not eternal. This is a false idea, a false appearance. It is the cause of
samsara. The path is about letting go of the false and realising the true letting go of samvrti and
realising the true nature of Reality.
Why would anyone therefore want to call manifestations shining forth unobstructedly, inseparably
from the ground of emptiness samvrtisatya? You could say that however deludedly those
manifestations appear they never depart from the true nature of mind they are included too.
That is a very deep and shocking realisation that has to be handled with great care!
If one is not careful it starts to sound as if our deluded world is as real as the ultimate nature of
reality itself. In fact since most of us do not realise the ultimate nature of reality, the deluded world
is the only world we have. It is easy to mistake the teaching that this deluded world is no different
to ultimate reality to mean this is all there is and ever will be so learn to accept it and that is all there
is to it. Everything is impermanent and conditioned. There is no such thing as the Unconditioned, the
true nature of Reality and so on. Many people calling themselves Buddhist think this and this is not
just a recent phenomenon here in the West. It has been a major source of controversy within the
Buddhist tradition right from the time the first Abhidharma texts began to appear.
In order to arrive at a genuine appreciation of the depths of the Dharma each person has to
recognise and dwell on this difficult point of Dharma. If you try to move too fast you end up
grabbing onto some kind of false position in regard to the Dharma. You are in danger of grasping a
concept such as Emptiness or Clarity as real or onto the manifest world as not real. These are false

3

positions in the sense that they are grasping at concepts, getting attached to them as ideas, thus
neglecting to recognise and realise that what manifests from emptiness is not other than emptiness
and so on. The fault is grasping at a concept. If one grasps at emptiness then it somehow seems to
deny the reality of what shines forth from it the world of the senses. The point is that emptiness is
not a denial and not an assertion. It is outside all false positions (ta). This is often expressed as ta
dral freedom from positions. It is a bit confusing that the true position that we need to take up is
also referred to as the supreme ta.
Translators tend to translate ta as extreme. Ta means an end or a limit so it is easy to see where
they are coming from. The problem is that in English extreme doesnt really carry the full range of
meaning of ta. I think position carries most of it although conclusion carries the sense of an end
(ta) a bit better so I hesitate as to whether to use conclusion instead of position. Ones final position
as one view on reality is referred to as a ta so it is almost synonymous with view and like view, in
Buddhism, it is used both for what one needs to avoid.freedom from views and also as the
highest goal..the correct or ultimate view. When ta or view are being used pejoratively it
refers to a grasped at position or view.
Having said this, in the Madhyamaka commentarial tradition the two ta (tak pi ta and che pi tat)
have often been equated with existence and non-existence. The first is the view that dharmas exist
and the second the view that they dont exist especially in regard to the self/nature of the person
and the self/nature of dharmas. The other possible two tas are either they both exist and dont
exist or they neither exist or not exist. See Buddha Within 71-77 and the discussion of the catuskoti.
Situpa seems to understand Rangjung Dorjes main point to be about avoiding views concerning the
existence or non- existence of dharmas. Nonetheless, I am sure the standard concern about the
need to avoid false positions was also strongly in his mind, since this is such a central concern in all
Buddhist teachings. The concern is how to talk about ultimate reality without seeming to let people
off the hook in terms of belief in karma and rebirth.
Basically verse 6 is talking about base, path and fruit which Rangjung Dorje develops in the next
verse linking the meaning of base, path and fruit more specifically to the base, path and fruit of
Mahamudra.
I have translated den nyi (lit two truths) as two-fold reality rather than two truths because it refers
to the base or ground which is singular it is what has to be pointed out as a base for the path and
realised as the fruit.
In the Mahayana commentarial tradition the base is often referred to as the two truths. I find there
is something a bit awkward about this. Nonetheless, it serves various purposes. The verse gives a
layout of the base, path and fruit that would satisfy all Mahayanists whether talking to a beginner or
an advanced practitioner or to whatever school they belonged to. There is a two-fold base, two-fold
path and two-fold fruit.
This lay-out satisfies those who do not recognise that clarity and emptiness are inseparable so that it
seems that on the one side, the base for practice (that which one needs to focus on) is emptiness
and on the other, it also has to be the manifest world in which karma cause and effect operate.

4

Since the base is two-fold, so is the path. On the one hand, it is cultivating ones understanding of
emptiness (accumulation of jnana) and on the other, accumulating positive karmic actions
(accumulation of punya). In other words, one is not making a false assertion about the infinite which
is emptiness. A false assertion would be that it exists. A false denial would be that because it exists
the manifest world doesnt exist it isnt anything). A false assertion about the finite (conditioned
dharmas) would be that they exist or last forever. A false denial about the finite would be that
impermanent, conditioned dharmas karmic action and result didnt exist at all.
Emptiness is not finite. It does not end. Conditioned dharmas are not infinite there is no eternal life
for the conditioned version of our self that we cling to. Since emptiness is our true nature we are
not by nature finite and we do not end at death. Queen Shrimala gives this explanation for tak che
and this is quoted in the RGVV.
By this interpretation the two truths that Rangjung Dorje is referring to in this verse is the two-fold
reality, the base or ground that is the one true nature of chitta and all that appears in it and is
inseparable from it.
The path is the two accumulations free from ta or asserting that things are real when they are not
(dro)and the ta of denying reality to what is real (kur) drokur is often translated as criticism
because criticism is to attribute faults to people that they dont have and deny good qualities that
they have. It is not criticism to simply state a fault as a fault. Hence Sherabs translation as
embellishment or discredit.
The fruit is then two-fold. On the one hand it is the formless Dharmakaya and on the other it is the
power to manifest in the world in order to benefit others. This is the fruit that is free from the
position of attachment to existence/samsara and to peace/nirvana and so can accomplish the good
of self and others.

General Comments

In general there are four main concerns that Buddhist teachers have had in mind over the millennia
of Buddhist history.
1. The need to impress on people that on the one hand, their present life will not continue
after death as some kind of eternal heavenly existence and on the other hand that their life
doesnt come to an abrupt end at death so no need to worry about it. The first is known as
the position of asserting a false infinite and the second as asserting a false finite. The
question then remains open as to what is the true infinite and the true finite. The non-
conditioned is the true infinite and the conditioned is as finite as a dream or an illusion.
2. In the first sermon of the Buddha and in the Metta sutta as well as numerous other
occasions the Buddha emphasises that reality lies beyond all views. It is a deep realisation
not easily come by. It is not a philosophical position or something that can be proved
intellectual through logic and reason. In the Madhyamaka commentarial tradition the main

5

focus is on attachment to views or grasping at intellectual ideas instead of letting go of all
prapancha and glimpsing what lies beyond them. Any kind of assertion that things exist is
attacked and then any kind of assertion that they dont exist is attacked and then that things
are both and that they are neither. These are all positions we may try to maintain instead of
admitting that we cannot actually understand what anything is or could possibly be. It is not
until we are honest and accurate enough in our investigations to be able to admit this, that
we can start orientating ourselves towards the openness we long for. In Mahamudra this is
connected to the view of appearance emptiness inseparable. The tak pi ta is often
associated with not recognising emptiness and the che pi ta is often associated with trying to
reject appearances.
3. In the Abhidharma texts an attempt is made by the Buddhist tradition to enumerate all
dharmas and then to systematically examine them in order to understand the nature of
reality. This led to many schools of thought but all were based on the assumption that
where there is a moment of awareness or consciousness there is a momentary object of
consciousness. Reality must be made up of the smallest indivisible moments of
consciousness matched by smallest indivisible particles of sense objects (including objects of
the mind itself). Every Buddhist teacher inherits this Abhidharma model both from the
tradition as well as from their own common sense way of thinking which is bound up with
fundamental assumptions about time and space. The tak pi ta is often associated with
taking the Abhidharma moments and atoms as ultimately real and the che pi ta is often
associated with denying their reality and therefore denying that karma and its results are
real at all. This is thought to undermine the whole basis for leading a moral life and is
therefore traditionally abhorred by all traditional Buddhist teachers. It therefore surprises
them that Westerners have found their own motivation for leading a moral life that does not
depend on belief in karma cause and effect. It also does not offer any liberation from
samsara or any path to it. It is an interesting situation. It is not unlike the views held by
many people at the time of the Buddha and he often addressed people with these views
very skilfully and sensitively.
4. Later Buddhist traditions are very concerned about how to teach the highest more or less
antinomian views (views that deny the obligatoriness of moral law) on emptiness while at
the same time emphasising the importance of karmic action, cause and effect. A device
that they came up with is to refer to convential truths or teachings as distinct from ultimate
truths or teachings. Both are important and each depend on each other for their
effectiveness. This is sometimes referred to the two truths that it is important to maintain
at all times otherwise the Dharma can stray into error. It can stray into the error of taking
the conventional truths to be ultimately true and so prevent liberation. For example it can
stray into taking convential truths as being the only truths which can lead to rebirth in long
life god realms and so on. It can stray into the error of denying that conventional truths
matter at all and so lead to negative actions and hell.

Verse 6 concerns itself with all possible wrong assertions and denials which lead into all
manner of mistaken ways of practising Dharma or not practising it at all.