The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya

Postby Malcolm » Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:03 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:sounds good, but im not sure how this is really different from Vishnu dreaming the universe or other creation myths. this "basis" seems like a possesor of substance svabhava.


No, since it is originally pure.

if you say no, its empty, then that means its dependently originated, in which case, the question becomes, what kind of "basis" is it that would be dependent on causes and conditions, and what would these causes and conditions be in this case?


No, since it is naturally formed [lhun grub] i.e. it is not made by anyone [sus ma byas, (the actual definition of lhun grub)] but it is also not conditioned by afflictions.

However, since it is naturally formed, it can appear as dependently originated phenomena, for example, the five lights being reified as the five elements, etc.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
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: 11731
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya

Postby gad rgyangs » Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:59 pm

Namdrol wrote:
No, since it is naturally formed [lhun grub] i.e. it is not made by anyone [sus ma byas, (the actual definition of lhun grub)]


this is the actual definition of svabhava.
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya

Postby asunthatneversets » Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:21 pm

Pero wrote:Because it is only present in those that have a mind - sentient beings.


But then again isn't the perspective that there is a body endowed with a mind just a projection of delusion? Because supposed phenomenal "objects" apart from said "subject" would really just be a play of ones own nature, mistakenly taken to be separate "sentientless" material due to imputation derived from avidya? This is what tulku urgyen was saying in those quotes I posted earlier in this thread; that the supreme 'seeing' is not seeing 'things'. But apperceiving that 'what-is-experienced' is inseparable from the selfless perceiving we mistaken as the "I". And that the "mind" which perceives is only "emptiness" which means "empty cognizance" (according to tulku urgyen) and "clarity" which is the luminous quality of mind.

So it is a empty cognizance which can reveal phenomena to be "pure" and "impure". Again according to tulku urgyen: "impure phenomena is what is experienced in this world. Pure phenomena is when there is no duslistic grasping.  It is becoming accustomed to the inseparable, unobstructed, undeluded dharmakaya, in which phenomena appearing have no self-nature." And this goes for phenomena usually mistaken to be "subjective" such as mind, feelings, thoughts and "owned" phenomena such as a body. In pure vision there is no internal-external dichotomy. So perceiving the existence of "sentient beings" apart from "non-sentient phenomena" is a product of impure vision. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but this is how I've understood it to be.. And it makes sense this way in practice experientially as well. 
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya

Postby Pero » Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:47 pm

For you things may be inseparable or whatever but that does not mean that everything you see possesses dharmakaya. The conclusion of this idea could be that a rock could get enlightened too for example.
Although many individuals in this age appear to be merely indulging their worldly desires, one does not have the capacity to judge them, so it is best to train in pure vision.
- Shabkar
Pero
 
Posts: 1841
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:54 pm

Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya

Postby asunthatneversets » Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:16 pm

Pero wrote:For you things may be inseparable or whatever but that does not mean that everything you see possesses dharmakaya. The conclusion of this idea could be that a rock could get enlightened too for example.


I see what you're saying... But if one abides in their true nature then there would be no "seeing" in the ultimate sense, it would be more of a zero-dimensional empty cognizance appearing as a "rock". The notion that there is a 'rock' is again due to dualistic imputation (conceptual overlay)... So dharmakaya is it's fullness would be a continuum of nonduality which would be inherently void of a self perceiving a rock. It would be like mind experiencing itself.. But the mind isn't a substantial "entity" it's just empty-cognizance. Really hard to convey using conventional language.

But I see what you mean that what I'm describing sounds like if one "thing" is enlightened then 'everything' would be... But the enlightenment is really the falling away of anything which could be said to have attained such a realization and also the negation of 'that-which-hasn't'. All that remains is the fully perfected natural state in it's spontaneous fullness. The imputation of one who would be realized and one who isn't would fall away. So in a sense a rock would be enlightened but it's more along the lines that there's a clear apperceivement that there never was a substantiated 'rock' or self which separately knows the rock to begin with.

But again I'm not saying my interpretation is the truth and albeit my attempt to describe what I'm trying to say may come out wrong, so I'm fully open to critique or discussion.

It's just a matter of coming from an impure dualistic perspective or pure nondual percption... Conventional and inherent realities... Because your nature is capable of projecting both.. It's a multi-dimensional 'suchness' depending on ones knowledge... So you're correct in one sense and what I'm saying seems to be correct in another. But I'm open to being incorrect even though my view seems to fit (in my eyes).
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:21 pm

Pero wrote:For you things may be inseparable or whatever but that does not mean that everything you see possesses dharmakaya.

How can anything possess dharmakaya?
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya

Postby Pero » Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:23 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Pero wrote:For you things may be inseparable or whatever but that does not mean that everything you see possesses dharmakaya.

How can anything possess dharmakaya?

I'm listening if you have a better way of expressing it. :smile:
Although many individuals in this age appear to be merely indulging their worldly desires, one does not have the capacity to judge them, so it is best to train in pure vision.
- Shabkar
Pero
 
Posts: 1841
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:54 pm

Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya

Postby Pero » Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:36 pm

asunthatneversets wrote:But I see what you mean that what I'm describing sounds like if one "thing" is enlightened then 'everything' would be... But the enlightenment is really the falling away of anything which could be said to have attained such a realization and also the negation of 'that-which-hasn't'. All that remains is the fully perfected natural state in it's spontaneous fullness. The imputation of one who would be realized and one who isn't would fall away.

For you, if you got realized, such imputations would fall away. But not for the rest of back home in samsara. Your realization is your own and not anybody elses.

So in a sense a rock would be enlightened but it's more along the lines that there's a clear apperceivement that there never was a substantiated 'rock' or self which separately knows the rock to begin with.

This is from your point of view. But the rock itself is just a rock, a thing without a mind, it cannot get enlightened since it does not have the darkness of ignorance in the first place.
Although many individuals in this age appear to be merely indulging their worldly desires, one does not have the capacity to judge them, so it is best to train in pure vision.
- Shabkar
Pero
 
Posts: 1841
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:54 pm

Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya

Postby kalden yungdrung » Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:41 pm

Pero wrote:
For you things may be inseparable or whatever but that does not mean that everything you see possesses dharmakaya.



.

Tashi delek,

How are you?

For everything you can be aware off can be loaded with Dharmakaya

I guess depends upon the experience in awareness of Nature or the practitioner. I am sure that some can experience objects as pure since beginningless times. but for how long ?


Besides that i guess that we can speak here of Sugatgarbha and Tathagatagarbha. First mentioned would be inherent in sentient beings as the potential to get Enlightened, also known under different names like Bodhicitta and Sugatagarbha. Tatagathagarbha would be all encompassing and maybe here equal to Dharmakaya aspect of emptiness which encompassess also stones.....

But i was forgotten to mention that Dharmakaya aspect is mostly used in Dzogchen not as that emptiness aspect (above mentioned) ans also as is known in Sutra and Tantra. I suppose that Dharmakaya is even not known in Sutra.

Different Paths maybe?

Mutsog Marro
KY
THOUGH A MAN BE LEARNED
IF HE DOES NOT APPLY HIS KNOWLEDGE
HE RESEMBLES THE BLIND MAN
WHO WITH A LAMP IN THE HAND CANNOT SEE THE ROAD
User avatar
kalden yungdrung
 
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:40 pm

Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya

Postby asunthatneversets » Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:22 pm

Pero wrote:For you, if you got realized, such imputations would fall away. But not for the rest of back home in samsara. Your realization is your own and not anybody elses.


Its more akin to an analogy of the ocean and it's waves. For the sake of the discussion say the waves could bare sentience. Each wave would only see itself as a wave and remain ignorant of the ocean it's inseparable from. At some point a wave would realize it's part of the entire ocean and was never separate to begin with. But the other waves still under the impression of their sole existence would say "cool man but that's just your realization it doesn't belong to me" it's fundamentally a failure to let go of conditioned views which have become so engrained they seem 100% rational in contrast to this other perspective which is also true... In fact "more true" but is seen as utterly counterintuitive.

This is from your point of view. But the rock itself is just a rock, a thing without a mind, it cannot get enlightened since it does not have the darkness of ignorance in the first place.


There seems to be someone else proposing a different point of view. But it's only due to attachment to a current perception that an 'alternate perception' is projected. The rock is not just a rock. If it was... The body would be just as 'lifeless'. The act of perceiving and that which is perceived are not two separate things. And the perceiver is only the ability for 'that' which is the union of 'perceiving-perceived' to be. There is no perceiver. Observer-observing-observed are one which isn't even a 'one' because it is empty cognizance ever-present in the immediacy of that which is called 'now'. Unborn and timeless nondual perfection.
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya

Postby Acchantika » Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:49 pm

Pero wrote:For you, if you got realized, such imputations would fall away. But not for the rest of back home in samsara. Your realization is your own and not anybody elses.


    As we have pointed out elsewhere, it is true that the Dharmakaya, the dimension of reality, is universal, like infinite space itself. It is one in the sense of transcending all dualities. It is omnipresent and all-pervading and all sentient beings, the enlightened and the unenlightened, equally participate in this single Dharmakaya. But Dharmakaya refers not to mind (sems), but to the Nature of Mind (sems-nyid) and this is a crucial distinction in Dzogchen. Furthermore, the Dharmakaya, which is understood in Dzogchen as the state of Shunyata and the basis of everything (kun-gzhi), is not a mind, let alone the One Mind or the Universal Mind, even though it is the context for the activities of thought. For this reason, the Dharmakaya is compared to the clear open sky, whereas thoughts are compared to the clouds that come to fill the sky. Moreover, there is also the Rupakaya or Form Body, the dimension of form, which is equally the manifestation of Buddhahood and this Rupakaya is always individual in its nature. Therefore, the enlightenment of a Buddha has both a universal aspect, the Dharmakaya, and a particular and individual aspect, the Rupakaya.

~ John Myrdhin Reynolds, bold added
...
Acchantika
 
Posts: 292
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:04 am

Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya

Postby asunthatneversets » Thu Jan 12, 2012 12:13 am

Acchantika wrote:
Pero wrote:For you, if you got realized, such imputations would fall away. But not for the rest of back home in samsara. Your realization is your own and not anybody elses.


    As we have pointed out elsewhere, it is true that the Dharmakaya, the dimension of reality, is universal, like infinite space itself. It is one in the sense of transcending all dualities. It is omnipresent and all-pervading and all sentient beings, the enlightened and the unenlightened, equally participate in this single Dharmakaya. But Dharmakaya refers not to mind (sems), but to the Nature of Mind (sems-nyid) and this is a crucial distinction in Dzogchen. Furthermore, the Dharmakaya, which is understood in Dzogchen as the state of Shunyata and the basis of everything (kun-gzhi), is not a mind, let alone the One Mind or the Universal Mind, even though it is the context for the activities of thought. For this reason, the Dharmakaya is compared to the clear open sky, whereas thoughts are compared to the clouds that come to fill the sky. Moreover, there is also the Rupakaya or Form Body, the dimension of form, which is equally the manifestation of Buddhahood and this Rupakaya is always individual in its nature. Therefore, the enlightenment of a Buddha has both a universal aspect, the Dharmakaya, and a particular and individual aspect, the Rupakaya.

~ John Myrdhin Reynolds, bold added


Nice description, vajranatha is a beast!
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya

Postby Sherab » Thu Jan 12, 2012 12:39 am

Pema Rigdzin wrote:
Sherab wrote:
Pema Rigdzin wrote:Relatively, in terms of mistaken apprehension, there is individuality - in that dualistic, conceptual context there is reification of self and other and solidification of the concepts "individual" and "all one," supported by the necessary reference points.

In the context of primordial wisdom, the conceptual reference points which "individuality" and "oneness" depend on for their meaning are absent.

So in primordial wisdom, we are just an indistinguishable lump? Are you advocating some form of monism?


Of course not, on both counts. I was speaking of complete freedom from conceptual elaboration - no lump, no lack of a lump, nor both or neither. With freedom from conceptual elaboration, what support is their for either monism or dualism, entitities or the concept "lack of entities"?

I think there is a slight difference in our take. For me, while the ultimate is beyond the "individuality" and "oneness" of the relative, it does not preclude it. Similarly, while the ultimate is beyond "multiplicity", it does not preclude it. My reason for saying this is that the ultimate pervades the relative.
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya

Postby Sherab » Thu Jan 12, 2012 12:58 am

gad rgyangs wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
No, since it is naturally formed [lhun grub] i.e. it is not made by anyone [sus ma byas, (the actual definition of lhun grub)]


this is the actual definition of svabhava.

Here's my 2 cents:
The svabhava as understood/seen from the relative is different than the "svabhava" as experienced from the ultimate. In other words, the ontology as seen from the relative is different from the ontology experienced in enlightenment. This goes back to my earlier statement that there is no reference in the relative that can be used to describe the ultimate. This is also the basis for my stating that ".. the experience of enlightenment has to be an experience of the ontological if that experience is to have any soteriological value."
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:47 am

gad rgyangs wrote: if what makes a sentient being a sentient being is "its" non-recognition of its own state, then this implies that the sentient being exists first, and then fails to recognize its state, which results in it being a sentient being, which is a circular regress. otherwise, how would the non-recognition ever take place at all?


Sherab wrote:If you hold the position that no one can give you enlightenment/attainments and that enlightenment/attainments is/are to be realized/"attained" by each "person", then there has to be some form of "individuality", don't you think?.


I think two mistakes are being made here.
"non-recognition" doesn't "take place". it doesn't "happen". The term refers to something which is not happening.
So, it's sort of like saying "feel how much the wind isn't blowing!".
You are trying to assign a positive attribute to a negative.
And this leads to what may be the second mistake. "enlightenment" (whatever that is supposed to mean)
isn't a thing which is attained (even though we use that term).
Clear luminosity is what remains when the obscurations which block that realization are removed.
It's like clarifying butter for a butter lamp.

Pero wrote:
PadmaVonSamba wrote:How can anything possess dharmakaya?

I'm listening if you have a better way of expressing it. :smile:


Dharmakaya isn't possessed.
If anything, you could say that dharmakaya possesses...everything.
It is simply the unobstructed truth, meaning a total summation of everything and the nature of everything,
but it doesn't possess anything either.
When it is said that an individual possesses dharmakaya
it would be better to say that
there is nowhere outside of the ultimate truth about everything
where any individual mind exists.
The Dharmakaya does not change merely because beings have changing thoughts.
the fact of constant change is included in the ultimate truth about things.
When the habitual karmic patterns and attachments that perpetuate a samsaric existence
are no longer being generated, what remains?
It's as if the batteries powering a noisy radio finally died out
and what remains is the sound of nothing happening.
If you live in a city,
go outside at 4:00am Christmas morning and listen.
No cars, no trains, no planes.
Just peace and quiet. It is so nice. A joyful experience of clarity.
.
.
.

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya

Postby Sherab » Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:17 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:Clear luminosity is what remains when the obscurations which block that realization are removed.

Consider person A and person B.

When the obscurations which block that realization are removed for both person A and person B, is there

(A) a clear luminosity of person A and a clear luminosity of person B? Or,
(B) is there just clear luminosity without distinction in clear luminosity of person A from clear luminosity of person B?
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya

Postby Kai » Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:32 am

Pero wrote:For you things may be inseparable or whatever but that does not mean that everything you see possesses dharmakaya. The conclusion of this idea could be that a rock could get enlightened too for example.


Ooooohhhh, you will be surprised. I had been hearing from Zen people that trees, grass and stones can get enlightened. Whether this POV is purely a Zen koan or they actually believe in it, is still a mystery........at least to me.
Kai
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:47 pm

Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya

Postby asunthatneversets » Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:05 am

kalden yungdrung wrote:

.


But i was forgotten to mention that Dharmakaya aspect is mostly used in Dzogchen not as that emptiness aspect (above mentioned) ans also as is known in Sutra and Tantra. I suppose that Dharmakaya is even not known in Sutra.

Different Paths maybe?

Mutsog Marro
KY


How is it mostly used in dzogchen aside from the emptiness aspect?

And it does seem that it was mentioned in sutra... Although I can't say whether or not it's really used in the same context... Got this from wikipedia:

In the Pali Canon The Buddha tells Vasettha that the Tathagata (the Buddha) is Dhamma-kaya, the "Truth-body" or the "Embodiment of Truth", as well as Dharmabhuta, "Truth-become", that is, "One who has become Truth" (Digha Nikaya). On another occasion, the Buddha told Vakkali: "He who sees the Dhamma (Truth) sees the Tathagata, he who sees the Tathagata sees the Dhamma (Samyutta Nikaya). That is to say, the Buddha is equal to Truth, and all Buddhas are one and the same, being no different from one another in the Dharma-kaya, because Truth is one."
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya

Postby Kilaya » Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:10 am

Kai wrote:
Pero wrote:For you things may be inseparable or whatever but that does not mean that everything you see possesses dharmakaya. The conclusion of this idea could be that a rock could get enlightened too for example.


Ooooohhhh, you will be surprised. I had been hearing from Zen people that trees, grass and stones can get enlightened. Whether this POV is purely a Zen koan or they actually believe in it, is still a mystery........at least to me.


I had been around Zen people for a long time, and the only similar teaching I heard was: "Everything is already enlightened, including trees, etc." This is a symbolic way to say that everything is good as it is, the root of confusion lies in our mind. But when it comes to "attaining" enlightenment, it requires a mind, which pebbles and trees lack of.
User avatar
Kilaya
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:00 am
Location: Budapest, Hungary

Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Thu Jan 12, 2012 2:29 pm

Sherab wrote:
PadmaVonSamba wrote:Clear luminosity is what remains when the obscurations which block that realization are removed.

Consider person A and person B.

When the obscurations which block that realization are removed for both person A and person B, is there

(A) a clear luminosity of person A and a clear luminosity of person B? Or,
(B) is there just clear luminosity without distinction in clear luminosity of person A from clear luminosity of person B?


I am not sure of your question, and am going to assume that you are asking whether
(A) A & b each have their own personal experience of dharmakaya
or
(B) when they both experience dharmakaya, the distinction between persons A & B no longer exists.
Let me know if that is what you are asking. That is what I am going to respond to.

There are two Halloween pumpkins, with faces carved into them.
As it turns out, they are having this very discussion, the same one that we are having,
because they see the discussion from the point of view of their reality.

Meanwhile, the Sun, the earth and the Rain are also having a discussion.
They are talking about how much fun it is to get together and manifest as pumpkins
and see the faces that people carve.
From their point of view the pumpkins have no individual reality to begin with.

(I'll add more to this...)
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Dzogchen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: davyji, Fa Dao, Karma_Yeshe and 13 guests

>