How are Padmasambhava and Shakyamuni interrelated?

[mmm]

I have heard one good teacher saying: The late Minling Trichen Rinpoche said "Who is Padmasambhava? All phenomena are Padmasambhava. Everything is Padmasambhava."

[gregkavarnos]

I am going to throw a technical spanner in the works and state that since Buddha Shakyamuni passed into Mahaparinirvana he enters a state where there are no remainders thus there is no basis for him to reincarnate/incarnate/emanate. Mahaparinirvana is the great unbinding with no return.
From here
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .vaji.html

And when the Blessed One had passed away, simultaneously with his Parinibbana, Sakka, king of the gods, spoke this stanza:

Transient are all compounded things,
Subject to arise and vanish;
Having come into existence they pass away;
Good is the peace when they forever cease.

For me Guru Rinpoche and Shakyamuni Buddha are simply both Buddhas, that is their relation.

[Blue Garuda]

Perhaps Padmasambhava is seen as representational of the 3 Jewels, in the same way that Je Tsongkhapa is regarded within the Gelugpa and as expressed in the Migstema Prayer as the embodiment of Chenrezig etc. and in the Guru Yoga as having an omniscient mind.

In that sense the root guru is indeed all to the disciple. I have one version of the Migtsema prayer which describes JT as Buddha Shakyamuni, Vajradhara, Chenrezig, Manjushri and Vajrapani. I interpret that as verses in praise of one who embodies the positive attributes of these figures.

Maybe those who recite praises to Padmasambhava could comment on whether he is seen as the embodiment of the virtues of Shakyamuni, or as Shakyamuni himself.

[Josef]

Maybe those who recite praises to Padmasambhava could comment on whether he is seen as the embodiment of the virtues of Shakyamuni, or as Shakyamuni himself.

Yes, Guru Rinpoche as well embodies all of the qualities of the three jewels and the three roots.
I too, see my root lamas as Guru Rinpoche in person.

[Pema Rigdzin]

It is a very common Nyingma notion that Shakyamuni is said to have announced in a sutra that he would reappear in this world at lake Dhanakosha on a lotus, have the name Padmakara, and spread the inner tantras in this world. I can't remember the exact name of the sutra, but it's a Mahayana sutra that I believe contains "nirvana" in its title.

[Pema Rigdzin]

I am going to throw a technical spanner in the works and state that since Buddha Shakyamuni passed into Mahaparinirvana he enters a state where there are no remainders thus there is no basis for him to reincarnate/incarnate/emanate. Mahaparinirvana is the great unbinding with no return.
From here
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .vaji.html

And when the Blessed One had passed away, simultaneously with his Parinibbana, Sakka, king of the gods, spoke this stanza:

Transient are all compounded things,
Subject to arise and vanish;
Having come into existence they pass away;
Good is the peace when they forever cease.

For me Guru Rinpoche and Shakyamuni Buddha are simply both Buddhas, that is their relation.

Greg, the above is a Shravakayana explanation of buddhahood, and as such it does not include the three kaya presentation of Mantra, where the basis for appearing in rupakaya form is the completion of the accumulation of merit. Or, according to Dzogchen, the basis would be the unobstructed nature of the energy of compassion aspect of rigpa. Either way, Mantra asserts that buddhas appear ceaselessly for as long as their are beings needing to be tamed.

[Pema Rigdzin]

Here's an old thread in which I talk about a quote which seems to imply that Guru Rinpoche and Buddha Shakyamuni were both emanations of the Nirmanakaya Buddha.

http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhis ... 0Kayas.htm
That webpage said the following: "NIRMANAKAYA: All Buddhas are emanations of one Buddha...The Supreme emanation takes birth in the world as a unique person. Buddha Shakyamuni and Guru Padmasambhava are examples of this kind. They have special forms of body, speech and mind."
viewtopic.php?f=40&t=310&p=2209

Although it sounds strange to me that they say "the Nirmanakya Buddha" as if it's some universal, god-like essence, which is not a Buddhist idea, instead of using the term to refer to the distinct physical bodies of Shakyamuni and Guru Rinpoche.

Luke, this is a transcript of a talk the Khenpo Rinpoches gave years ago and I think Rinpoches were just presenting things in a provisional, easily digestible way for a particular audience at a particular time. Years ago, as I had been mistakenly reifying the dharmakaya in my mind as some "thing" that all buddhas could share, I sat with the Khenpo Rinpoches and asked them if all buddhas "had the same Dharmakaya." They said very clearly that this is not the case, that each buddha had its own dharmakaya. I now know that this was also a provisional explanation, only really meant for me for that particular time as a skillful means on their part because it steered me away from my reification and kinda left me not knowing what to think about dharmakaya, because I had so thought I'd figured out what a bunch of sutras and shastras were saying and then all the sudden it became obvious that I didn't understand, so then I didn't quite know what to think or what to ask next because I knew very well that there could be no actual line of demarcation between one buddha's dharmakaya and another's. I was thrown for a loop. It's kind of hard to explain what I mean by all this, and to illustrate the brilliance with which the Khenpo Rinpoches have guided me over the years, but basically the way things unfolded, they left my mind like a bird without a perch (a solid, definite concept) to land on, in a position of realizing I just had to suspend my conclusion about this topic and leave room for right view to gradually develop as I continued to study, receive teachings, and meditate. Now I understand that the ideas of one or many are wholly inapplicable to the dharmakaya.

Also, its easy for us to understand "nirmanakaya" from our unenlightened POV as the appearance of an enlightened being, or even as an object emanated by an enlightened being, here in samsara among us to benefit us. And we distinguish that enlightened emanation from the rest of the world around it. But at a certain level in the teachings, one begins to see that from the POV of enlightenment itself, ALL gross form is the nirmanakaya aspect of buddhahood...

[username]

There is a specific source of a being that manifests to finish the task of each of the thousand & one Buddhas of this fortunate world system's eon, after they come down from Tushita & turn the wheel & parinirvana. In Shakyamuni's cycle he is known by the name Padmasambhava.

He said he is responsible for billions of other world systems too. When Yeshe Tsogyal asked how large is that number, he opened his chest and showed the numerous star systems to her. She fainted. Amitabha's super-domain, in which we live, is much vaster and he is the source of Padmasambhava's emanation. In that particular vast domain, all illusions of samsara & nirvana are in fact Amitabha and so for us Padmasambhava too.

No one comes to the rescue faster than Padmasambhava. If we don't see him is due to our obscurations & lack of merit. But he comes when invoked. We can simply use his practices or 7 line prayer or his essential mantra or even simpler single seed syllables of Ah or Hung or even Nama to invoke him. Above in front of us or on our crown chakra or if having empowerments as self-generation or in our heart center in the middle of our chest. Deciding on a rough image in our mind though the main thing is intention not detailed visualization. Once a day for a few seconds, then not worrying about image anymore and simple relaxtion of thoughts & body in his presence that encompasses everything. Then repeating the short enjoyable sessions more often daily.

[conebeckham]

but basically the way things unfolded, they left my mind like a bird without a perch (a solid, definite concept) to land on, in a position of realizing I just had to suspend my conclusion about this topic and leave room for right view to gradually develop as I continued to study, receive teachings, and meditate. Now I understand that the ideas of one or many are wholly inapplicable to the dharmakaya.]

This is brilliant, thanks for it!

[gnegirl]

He said he is responsible for billions of other world systems too. When Yeshe Tsogyal asked how large is that number, he opened his chest and showed the numerous star systems to her. She fainted. Amitabha's super-domain, in which we live, is much vaster and he is the source of Padmasambhava's emanation. In that particular vast domain, all illusions of samsara & nirvana are in fact Amitabha and so for us Padmasambhava too.

The nerd that i am immediately had a fractally infinite image come to mind when i first heard this story. I tried to explain to my vajra sibs who are not in to math... whom i think concluded that i was somewhere near nerdvana at that point hehehehe.

[Pema Rigdzin]

He said he is responsible for billions of other world systems too. When Yeshe Tsogyal asked how large is that number, he opened his chest and showed the numerous star systems to her. She fainted. Amitabha's super-domain, in which we live, is much vaster and he is the source of Padmasambhava's emanation. In that particular vast domain, all illusions of samsara & nirvana are in fact Amitabha and so for us Padmasambhava too.

The nerd that i am immediately had a fractally infinite image come to mind when i first heard this story. I tried to explain to my vajra sibs who are not in to math... whom i think concluded that i was somewhere near nerdvana at that point hehehehe.

Hahahaha

[Pema Rigdzin]

but basically the way things unfolded, they left my mind like a bird without a perch (a solid, definite concept) to land on, in a position of realizing I just had to suspend my conclusion about this topic and leave room for right view to gradually develop as I continued to study, receive teachings, and meditate. Now I understand that the ideas of one or many are wholly inapplicable to the dharmakaya.]

This is brilliant, thanks for it!

Glad you found something in one of my diatribes interesting heh.

[gregkavarnos]

Greg, the above is a Shravakayana explanation of buddhahood, and as such it does not include the three kaya presentation of Mantra, where the basis for appearing in rupakaya form is the completion of the accumulation of merit. Or, according to Dzogchen, the basis would be the unobstructed nature of the energy of compassion aspect of rigpa. Either way, Mantra asserts that buddhas appear ceaselessly for as long as their are beings needing to be tamed.

Whatever floats your (beautifully decorated) boat dude!

I'm happy and praising the Buddhas, you're happy and praising the Buddhas and now I have a categorisation of my view as well! What a bargain!

[Pema Rigdzin]

Greg, the above is a Shravakayana explanation of buddhahood, and as such it does not include the three kaya presentation of Mantra, where the basis for appearing in rupakaya form is the completion of the accumulation of merit. Or, according to Dzogchen, the basis would be the unobstructed nature of the energy of compassion aspect of rigpa. Either way, Mantra asserts that buddhas appear ceaselessly for as long as their are beings needing to be tamed.

Whatever floats your (beautifully decorated) boat dude!

I'm happy and praising the Buddhas, you're happy and praising the Buddhas and now I have a categorisation of my view as well! What a bargain!

Yes, an outcome to rejoice in. Especially since both our views will lead to liberation one way or another, according to the Buddha. Are you a Mahayanist/Vajrayanist?