dumb question

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

dumb question

Postby dakini_boi » Wed Apr 27, 2011 3:33 pm

What would happen if/when ALL beings completely realize full enlightenment (i.e. Dzogchen/Mahamudra)?

From a Mahayana perspective, Rupakaya forms exist only for the purpose of helping others attain liberation. . . in the case that all beings are liberated, will all Rupakaya forms cease? If so, wouldn't Dharmakaya cease as well? How would this result be different from the Hinayana notion of Nirvana?

I'm interested in how this question might be answered from a Mahayana, Vajrayana, and Dzogchen perspectives.

I'm also interested in exposing the type of ignorant samsaric mind that might come up with such a question! :namaste: Thank you.
dakini_boi
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:02 am

Re: dumb question

Postby Sherab Dorje » Wed Apr 27, 2011 3:42 pm

Sentient beings are infinite in number, if you subtract all (infinite) from infinity what do you get?
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: dumb question

Postby adinatha » Wed Apr 27, 2011 3:45 pm

dakini_boi wrote:What would happen if/when ALL beings completely realize full enlightenment (i.e. Dzogchen/Mahamudra)?


No fear. No hope. The pure land of timeless awareness.
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: dumb question

Postby plwk » Wed Apr 27, 2011 3:46 pm

...if you subtract all (infinite) from infinity what do you get?

A Greg? :lol:
plwk
 
Posts: 2770
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:41 am

Re: dumb question

Postby ngodrup » Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:45 pm

Longchenpa seems to state that all phenomena arise from Dharmadhatu.
It seems that this will continue to occur indefinitely.
Sogyal Rinpoche sometimes jokes about "fundamental innate ignorance"
the idea that mind confuses itself.
ngodrup
 
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:58 pm

Re: dumb question

Postby dakini_boi » Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:10 pm

ngodrup wrote:Longchenpa seems to state that all phenomena arise from Dharmadhatu.
It seems that this will continue to occur indefinitely.
Sogyal Rinpoche sometimes jokes about "fundamental innate ignorance"
the idea that mind confuses itself.



Yes, Ngodrup - this idea of "fundamental innate ignorance" is sort of what i'm getting at. Joke or not, there is wisdom in that, and a powerful observation about mind.

If we are to understand that after complete enlightenment, forms continue to arise - and mind has the characteristic over time to confuse itself - what distinguishes this from samsara? On the other hand, if all beings reach enlightenment and rupakaya ceases, what distinguishes this from nirvana?

Once complete buddhahood is attained, is it permanent?
dakini_boi
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:02 am

Re: dumb question

Postby Sherab Dorje » Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:25 pm

dakini_boi wrote:Yes, Ngodrup - this idea of "fundamental innate ignorance" is sort of what i'm getting at. Joke or not, there is wisdom in that, and a powerful observation about mind...
Once complete buddhahood is attained, is it permanent?
Buddhahood is permanent, ignorance, attachment and aversion are destroyed without a remainder, thus they cannot (do not) re-arise. That means that fundamental innate ignorance is a joke. Ignorance is a temporary obscuration of our Buddha Nature, if it wasn't then sentient beings could NEVER achieve enlightenment.

If we are to understand that after complete enlightenment, forms continue to arise - and mind has the characteristic over time to confuse itself - what distinguishes this from samsara?
A source for this occurence please and please explain what you mean by "...after complete enlightenment, forms continue to arise..." Continue to arise for whom or for what?

On the other hand, if all beings reach enlightenment and rupakaya ceases, what distinguishes this from nirvana?
Nothing. If all sentient beings reached enlightenment, then all would achieve the state of nirvana (unbinding) and they would all cease manifesting form due to ignorance (though, of course, they could choose to manifest with a form, this is the common Mahayana belief about Shakyamuni Buddha).
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: dumb question

Postby dakini_boi » Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:41 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
dakini_boi wrote:
If we are to understand that after complete enlightenment, forms continue to arise - and mind has the characteristic over time to confuse itself - what distinguishes this from samsara?
A source for this occurence please and please explain what you mean by "...after complete enlightenment, forms continue to arise..." Continue to arise for whom or for what?



Well see above what Ngodrup said. . . I thought the idea in the higher yanas was that since form and emptiness are inseparable, forms will arise and dissolve infinitely as an expression of dharmata. If all forms were to cease, that would be Nirvana - but we're told that enlightenment is beyond samsara and nirvana.

So I guess my question is - if all beings attain enlightenment, then the rupakaya will cease to exist, because its only purpose is to benefit sentient beings, which would no longer exist. . . but if forms continue to arise spontaneously out of dharmata (because the nature of emptiness is to give rise to form), then if these are not rupakaya forms, they are deluded forms. So then the cycle starts again, and enlightenment isn't permanent.

I know I'm probably over-thinking. It hurts and bothers my brain. I'm willing to stop, but does anyone get my logic, or can poke holes in it??
dakini_boi
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:02 am

Re: dumb question

Postby Sherab Dorje » Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:20 pm

dakini_boi wrote:Well see above what Ngodrup said. . . I thought the idea in the higher yanas was that since form and emptiness are inseparable, forms will arise and dissolve infinitely as an expression of dharmata. If all forms were to cease, that would be Nirvana - but we're told that enlightenment is beyond samsara and nirvana.

So I guess my question is - if all beings attain enlightenment, then the rupakaya will cease to exist, because its only purpose is to benefit sentient beings, which would no longer exist. . . but if forms continue to arise spontaneously out of dharmata (because the nature of emptiness is to give rise to form), then if these are not rupakaya forms, they are deluded forms. So then the cycle starts again, and enlightenment isn't permanent.

I know I'm probably over-thinking. It hurts and bothers my brain. I'm willing to stop, but does anyone get my logic, or can poke holes in it??
Okay, I think I now understand the nature if your problem: you are confusing nirmanakaya with rupakaya. Enlightened beings manifest Nirmanakaya forms not rupakaya forms (which arise based on ignorance). Enlightenment IS permanent.
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: dumb question

Postby dakini_boi » Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:23 pm

By "rupakaya," I meant sambhogakaya + nirmanakaya. See http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Rupakaya

do you understand what I'm asking? This gets so confusing, I should probably focus my time and energy on something simple like guru devotion!
dakini_boi
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:02 am

Re: dumb question

Postby Sherab Dorje » Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:29 pm

Well there you go. that's the first time I have seen rupakaya defined in that way.

Well I'm off to appease my protector, I am sure they'll help me get through this one! :smile:
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: dumb question

Postby adinatha » Sat Apr 30, 2011 12:32 am

dude seriously? rupakaya means form body; the two form bodies are sambo and nirmana
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: dumb question

Postby kirtu » Sat Apr 30, 2011 2:19 am

gregkavarnos wrote:Sentient beings are infinite in number, if you subtract all (infinite) from infinity what do you get?
:namaste:


Some infinities are larger than others (expressed correctly there are infinite sets that are larger [they have a larger number of elements] than other infinite sets)*.

So the answer could be infinity.

Kirt

*However when I asked HHST about this he said words to the effect when I say infinity I really mean everything, real infinity.
Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche
User avatar
kirtu
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4580
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: dumb question

Postby ngodrup » Sat Apr 30, 2011 2:26 am

The question is kinda moot in my thinking
because, beings are infinite. So it's like
asking when does infinite time end?

There's another way out of this. My Root
Lama says people ask him all the time,
"How does it make sense for one person
to aspire to liberate all beings?" I say,
"Where are these being except in your
Mind? Liberate your mind and there are
no sentient beings, only Buddhas."
ngodrup
 
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:58 pm

Re: dumb question

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:34 am

kirtu wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:Sentient beings are infinite in number, if you subtract all (infinite) from infinity what do you get?
:namaste:

Some infinities are larger than others (expressed correctly there are infinite sets that are larger [they have a larger number of elements] than other infinite sets)*.
So the answer could be infinity.
Kirt
*However when I asked HHST about this he said words to the effect when I say infinity I really mean everything, real infinity.
Dear Kirt, I am well aware of this, see this point here viewtopic.php?f=66&t=3958&p=37679#p37679
dude seriously? rupakaya means form body; the two form bodies are sambo and nirmana
According to some interpretations, according to others:
Later Mahayana Buddhists were concerned with the transcendent aspect of the Dharma. So therefore if the Dharma is transcendental, totally beyond space and time, then so is the Dharmakaya. One response to this was the development of the Tathagatagarbha Doctrine, wherein the Tathagatagarbha or Buddha Nature is on occasion equated with the Dharmakaya. Another was the introduction of the Sambhogakaya which conceptually fits between the Nirmanakaya (which is what the Rupakaya came to be called according to the Buddhist Canon) and the Dharmakaya.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trikaya

This leads me to ask the question: if the physical form of the Buddha on our plane of existence is the Nirmanakaya then what is our physical form called? I mean Rupakaya literally means "form body", so what is our body then?
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: dumb question

Postby heart » Sat Apr 30, 2011 8:28 am

Your wikipedia article is wrong Greg. The idea of the rupakaya comes from the Theravada teachings and in the Mahayana teachings it was elaborated to mean both the Samboghakaya and the Nirmanakaya.

http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Rupakaya

Our body-mind is the five aggregates, one which is rupa (meaning form, in this case your body).

/magnus
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 3136
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: dumb question

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sat Apr 30, 2011 8:42 am

heart wrote:Your wikipedia article is wrong Greg. The idea of the rupakaya comes from the Theravada teachings and in the Mahayana teachings it was elaborated to mean both the Samboghakaya and the Nirmanakaya.

http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Rupakaya

Our body-mind is the five aggregates, one which is rupa (meaning form, in this case your body).

/magnus
Dear Magnus,
I must admit that my understanding of the rupakaya came from Theravadra teachings where it is the label for the rupa aspect of the five aggregates. This though does not make the Wiki article wrong. Both articles are basically saying the same thing (ie that the Trikaya, in general, is a Mahayana teaching).
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: dumb question

Postby heart » Sat Apr 30, 2011 9:01 am

gregkavarnos wrote:
heart wrote:Your wikipedia article is wrong Greg. The idea of the rupakaya comes from the Theravada teachings and in the Mahayana teachings it was elaborated to mean both the Samboghakaya and the Nirmanakaya.

http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Rupakaya

Our body-mind is the five aggregates, one which is rupa (meaning form, in this case your body).

/magnus
Dear Magnus,
I must admit that my understanding of the rupakaya came from Theravadra teachings where it is the label for the rupa aspect of the five aggregates. This though does not make the Wiki article wrong. Both articles are basically saying the same thing (ie that the Trikaya, in general, is a Mahayana teaching).
:namaste:


Dear Greg,

The rupakaya in the Theravada teaching is the body of the Buddha, he is said to have Dharmakaya and Rupakaya. In Mahayana the Rupakaya is split in to the Samboghakaya and Nirmanakaya but still collectively referred to as the Rupakaya.
Our own bodies, since we are not enlightened, are called a rupa (without any kaya attached to it).

/magnus
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 3136
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: dumb question

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:01 am

Actually it is just the material body. See here:
kaya [kaaya]: Body. Usually refers to the physical body (rupa-kaya; see rupa), but sometimes refers to the mental body (nama-kaya; see nama).

and here
rupa [ruupa]: Body; physical phenomenon; sense datum. The basic meaning of this word is "appearance" or "form." It is used, however, in a number of different contexts, taking on different shades of meaning in each. In lists of the objects of the senses, it is given as the object of the sense of sight. As one of the khandha, it refers to physical phenomena or sensations (visible appearance or form being the defining characteristics of what is physical). This is also the meaning it carries when opposed to nama, or mental phenomena.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html
and here
In contrast to the paññavimutta arahats, those arahats who are ubhatobhagavimutta enjoy a twofold liberation. Through their mastery over the formless attainments they are liberated from the material body (rupakaya), capable of dwelling in this very life in the meditations corresponding to the immaterial planes of existence; through their attainment of arahatship they are liberated from the mental body (namakaya), presently free from all defilements and sure of final emancipation from future becoming. Paññavimutta arahats only possess the second of these two liberations.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el351.html
and here (excerpt from a speech by Acariya Maha Boowa)
Samadhi is firm stability of the heart and it became steadily more firm and stable. Then I knew both the name and the nature of Samadhi and I knew it with my own heart. When I examined the elements (Dhatus) and Khandhas I saw that the body (rupa-kaya) is made up of the four Dhatus both internally and externally and all of them are within the scope of the Ti-Lakkhana — Aniccam, Dukkham and Anatta.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai ... ondon.html
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: dumb question

Postby heart » Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:17 am

That might be true, I don't know so much about the Theravada system. So Dharmakaya in Theravada is just ordinary mind?
Anyway, in Mahayana this isn't true.

/magnus
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 3136
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Next

Return to Tibetan Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Tanaduk, vajraheart and 33 guests

>