dumb question

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: dumb question

Postby Heruka » Wed May 04, 2011 3:43 am

gregkavarnos wrote:So what people are saying here is that, even, ignorant beings possess the three kayas they are just unaware of it?
:namaste:



yes the same as christian thought that you are born impure, and only through a gate keeper priest caste, can you be made pure.
Heruka
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:34 am

Re: dumb question

Postby Heruka » Wed May 04, 2011 3:49 am

heart wrote:Nirmanakaya and Samboghakaya don't arise from ignorance, they arise from compassion.
/magnus


yes.

but no seperation into compartments, it is holistic without conditions, parts and wholes. how can you say this is a good part of empty space, seperate from a bad part of empty space unless you construct a frame, a container to hold it?
Heruka
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:34 am

Re: dumb question

Postby dakini_boi » Wed May 04, 2011 4:44 am

maestro wrote:
So enlightenment is not permanent? Dharmata sounds a lot like Nirguna Brahman in this case.



No, enlightenment is permanent. And yet form still arises. But a buddha perceives form as self-liberated (not separate from emptiness), while a sentient being perceives form as self-existing (separate from emptiness). Dharmata is the absolute nature of reality. This is beyond the extremes of existing/not existing, so it cannot exclude form nor emptiness. It is different from Nirguna Brahman, which by definition excludes form.
dakini_boi
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:02 am

Re: dumb question

Postby heart » Wed May 04, 2011 11:30 am

maestro wrote:
So enlightenment is not permanent? Dharmata sounds a lot like Nirguna Brahman in this case.


Dharmakaya is permanent but beyond time.

/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: 3121
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: dumb question

Postby heart » Wed May 04, 2011 11:42 am

Heruka wrote:
heart wrote:Nirmanakaya and Samboghakaya don't arise from ignorance, they arise from compassion.
/magnus


yes.

but no seperation into compartments, it is holistic without conditions, parts and wholes. how can you say this is a good part of empty space, seperate from a bad part of empty space unless you construct a frame, a container to hold it?


It isn't exactly something else, it is just a framework to explain the natural activity of enlightenment.

/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: 3121
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: dumb question

Postby Aemilius » Wed May 04, 2011 12:13 pm

In Root Verses of the Middleway, ( Mula Madhyamaka Karika 25. Investigation of Nirvana), Nagarjuna says that Nirvana is not permanent, etc... If it were permanent it would be a thing, which not acceptable.
http://www.stephenbatchelor.org/verses2.htm#Investigation%20of%20Nirvana
svaha
User avatar
Aemilius
 
Posts: 1538
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: dumb question

Postby heart » Wed May 04, 2011 2:31 pm

Aemilius wrote:In Root Verses of the Middleway, ( Mula Madhyamaka Karika 25. Investigation of Nirvana), Nagarjuna says that Nirvana is not permanent, etc... If it were permanent it would be a thing, which not acceptable.
http://www.stephenbatchelor.org/verses2.htm#Investigation%20of%20Nirvana


It is true, only from the point of samsara does nirvana appear as permanent since it isn't possible to revert from it. In it's own nature it is beyond permanent and impermanent since it is completely beyond time.

/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: 3121
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: dumb question

Postby Nighthawk » Thu May 05, 2011 12:30 am

dakini_boi wrote:
maestro wrote:
So enlightenment is not permanent? Dharmata sounds a lot like Nirguna Brahman in this case.



No, enlightenment is permanent. And yet form still arises. But a buddha perceives form as self-liberated (not separate from emptiness), while a sentient being perceives form as self-existing (separate from emptiness). Dharmata is the absolute nature of reality. This is beyond the extremes of existing/not existing, so it cannot exclude form nor emptiness. It is different from Nirguna Brahman, which by definition excludes form.


What do you mean by "forms" still arising if all sentient beings are already enlightened?
Nighthawk
 
Posts: 786
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 8:04 am

Re: dumb question

Postby dakini_boi » Thu May 05, 2011 1:21 am

What I mean is that what characterizes enlightened awareness is not lack of forms arising, but a perceptive ability that doesn't dualize that which is form from that which is emptiness. Logic breaks down, and words are very inadequate for this. May all beings have direct experiential understanding of this immediately!! :)
dakini_boi
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:02 am

Re: dumb question

Postby Aemilius » Thu May 05, 2011 1:15 pm

heart wrote:
Aemilius wrote:In Root Verses of the Middleway, ( Mula Madhyamaka Karika 25. Investigation of Nirvana), Nagarjuna says that Nirvana is not permanent, etc... If it were permanent it would be a thing, which not acceptable.
http://www.stephenbatchelor.org/verses2.htm#Investigation%20of%20Nirvana


It is true, only from the point of samsara does nirvana appear as permanent since it isn't possible to revert from it. In it's own nature it is beyond permanent and impermanent since it is completely beyond time.

/magnus


This brings up an extremely strange and heterodox issue, namely is nirvana really non-revertible?

Can we address this issue without going into the field of secret, very secret and the utmost secret practices & secret dharmas ?

There are some indirect views concerning it in the normal Mahayana buddhist literature. This could be a basis of approaching it. It goes against a very basic buddhist fundamentum, which is the reason why one doesn't really want to take it up for discussion. But maybe it is necessary ?

One way of seeing it is in terms of dhyana & prajna: Let's say you attain enlightenment, i.e. stream entry or the first bodhisattva bhumi, or other stages of seeing into the reality. Time goes by and gradually everything changes, if it now happens that you become ordinary again, then we can conclude that your enlightenment was in fact only a state of dhyana or a state of samadhi.

According to the sutras and the abhidharma dhyana and samadhi can easily last for a few thousand years or more. You spend this time in a mummified body on earth or alternatively you die on earth and continue your samadhi or dhyana in a heavenly world.

In Zen and general Mahayana literature there are references to that a bodhisattva enters samsara again and attains enlightenment again, for the sake of others.

If the incarnate tulkus or other nirmanakayas are enlightened, why do they need to practice dharma again? -to attain enlightenemet again ? Have they lost it in the Bardo, or even before the bardo state ?

Then there is the view according to which all religions are based on Enlightenment. Thus we have thousands and millions of people involved in the project of making each and every enlightened person an ordinary person again. After this the theistic systems will attribute the qualities of the enlightened person to their "Supreme Being". It exists and it works.

It would be silly to atribute this only to the theistic religions, buddhists also do it. Enlightenment it is regularly attained by the "wrong persons", i.e. by some people who are not accepted by the authoritarian systems that we have in buddhism. Thus the same kind of systems are applied and practiced, through which these people are utterly destroyed. Their enlightened qualities are transferred to a figure that is put there for this purpose, in various buddhist institutions.
svaha
User avatar
Aemilius
 
Posts: 1538
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: dumb question

Postby kirtu » Thu May 05, 2011 2:02 pm

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


We would all have been experiencing a Pure Land environment for a long, long time already and so all gross suffering would have long since ceased. So for me that is what we need to shoot for.

So perhaps we will just disolve rupakaya forms with only the Dharmakaya left. Last person to leave the Pure Lands - please turn off the lights!

Kirt
Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche
User avatar
kirtu
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4570
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: dumb question

Postby heart » Thu May 05, 2011 3:19 pm

Aemilius wrote:
heart wrote:It is true, only from the point of samsara does nirvana appear as permanent since it isn't possible to revert from it. In it's own nature it is beyond permanent and impermanent since it is completely beyond time.

/magnus


This brings up an extremely strange and heterodox issue, namely is nirvana really non-revertible?



Well it depends on what you mean with enlightenment no? Following general Mahayana Buddhism it is very clear, you can't revert. I remember Trungpa answer a question if Bodhisattvas, who are not fully enlightened, could revert and he said that it was possible but that it didn't happen because, if I recall correctly, Bodhisattvas had renounced full enlightenment and so it was impossible for them to not attain 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: 3121
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: dumb question

Postby Pemachöying » Thu May 05, 2011 4:11 pm

Hi concerning the 3 kayas according to the teaching i heard.
There is one way in wich beings progress from Nirmankaya to Sambhogakaya to Dharmakaya
and the other way in wich from above Dharmakaya manifests to Sambhogakaya to Nirmanakya and in
the first example the 3 kayas have not manifested complete and in the second example they have.
Concerning the question about if samsara can be empty it cannot beacuse collectively it dosent
have one begining but its continusely manifesting new beings if there was one collectiv begining of samsara it would be possible to be an end to samsara. Thats the reason why individualy there is an begining and end but collectivly not.Concerning the 3 kayas its mentioned that you can not fall back
beacuse the qualities are uncompounded as mentioned in Uttaratantra Shastra.

Regards

Allon
Pemachöying
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: dumb question

Postby dakini_boi » Thu May 05, 2011 5:49 pm

kirtu wrote:
So perhaps we will just disolve rupakaya forms with only the Dharmakaya left. Last person to leave the Pure Lands - please turn off the lights!

Kirt


But this is where logic was breaking down for me. . . my understanding is that there can be no dharmakaya without rupakaya. . . i.e. the kayas are inseparable.
dakini_boi
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:02 am

Re: dumb question

Postby kirtu » Thu May 05, 2011 6:10 pm

dakini_boi wrote:
kirtu wrote:
So perhaps we will just disolve rupakaya forms with only the Dharmakaya left. Last person to leave the Pure Lands - please turn off the lights!

Kirt


But this is where logic was breaking down for me. . . my understanding is that there can be no dharmakaya without rupakaya. . . i.e. the kayas are inseparable.


The kayas are inseparable - the rupakaya emanates in order to teach, there is no other reason. If everyone attained perfect and complete enlightenment then the rupakayas would no longer have a reason for existing since there would be no more unenlightened beings. So the rupakayas should disolve.

The kayas are inseparable but the the rupakayas manifest as needed to tame beings. So I would argue that there can be a Dharmakaya without rupakaya in the case that every mind is really perfectly enlightened.

Kirt
Last edited by kirtu on Thu May 05, 2011 7:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche
User avatar
kirtu
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4570
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: dumb question

Postby Malcolm » Thu May 05, 2011 7:18 pm

kirtu wrote:
dakini_boi wrote:
kirtu wrote:
So perhaps we will just disolve rupakaya forms with only the Dharmakaya left. Last person to leave the Pure Lands - please turn off the lights!

Kirt


But this is where logic was breaking down for me. . . my understanding is that there can be no dharmakaya without rupakaya. . . i.e. the kayas are inseparable.


The kayas are inseparable - the rupakaya emanates in order to teach, there is no other reason. If everyone attained perfect and completely enlightenment then the rupakayas would no longer have a reason for existing since there would be no more unenlightened beings. So the rupakayas should disolve.

The kayas are inseparable but the the rupakayas manifest as needed to tame beings. So I would argue that there can be a Dharmakaya without rupakaya in the case that every mind is really perfectly enlightened.

Kirt


Dzogchen resolves this perfectly -- at the time of the basis, all kāyas are the dharmakāya; at the time of the path, all kāyas are the sambhogakāya; at the time of the result, all kāyas are the rūpakāya.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12322
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: dumb question

Postby adinatha » Thu May 05, 2011 8:03 pm

At the time of no time which is all the time all kayas are inseparable.
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: dumb question

Postby Madeliaette » Sat May 07, 2011 5:13 pm

:oops: sorry - posted in the wrong thread! ignore please! (I must not listen to MP3s of the Dhammapada at the same time as posting - )
User avatar
Madeliaette
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: Currently in Sussex, England. Formerly in Wollongong, Australia.

Re: dumb question

Postby Aemilius » Wed May 11, 2011 1:18 pm

heart wrote:
Aemilius wrote:
heart wrote:It is true, only from the point of samsara does nirvana appear as permanent since it isn't possible to revert from it. In it's own nature it is beyond permanent and impermanent since it is completely beyond time.

/magnus


This brings up an extremely strange and heterodox issue, namely is nirvana really non-revertible?



Well it depends on what you mean with enlightenment no? Following general Mahayana Buddhism it is very clear, you can't revert. I remember Trungpa answer a question if Bodhisattvas, who are not fully enlightened, could revert and he said that it was possible but that it didn't happen because, if I recall correctly, Bodhisattvas had renounced full enlightenment and so it was impossible for them to not attain it.

/magnus



I think that what you remember is in the Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism. No reason to take it further, I suppose. Still, there are passages in the sutras that say for example that Manjushri attained full enlightenment kalpas ago, his name as a very ancient buddha is given in Shuramgamasamdhi sutra, but he nevertheless continues to live in the wheel of becoming. Maybe he got bored with his eternal Nirvana?
svaha
User avatar
Aemilius
 
Posts: 1538
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: dumb question

Postby heart » Wed May 11, 2011 1:56 pm

Aemilius wrote: I think that what you remember is in the Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism. No reason to take it further, I suppose. Still, there are passages in the sutras that say for example that Manjushri attained full enlightenment kalpas ago, his name as a very ancient buddha is given in Shuramgamasamdhi sutra, but he nevertheless continues to live in the wheel of becoming. Maybe he got bored with his eternal Nirvana?


Manjusri could be seen as Bodhisattva or a Buddha, both manifest the activity of great compassion towards sentient beings but that doesn't mean they are dwelling in ignorance in Samsara.

/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: 3121
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Previous

Return to Tibetan Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Greg, Yahoo [Bot] and 15 guests

>