Tathagatagarbha and Eternity

[Malcolm]

I am just saying that your presentation is not consistent with Tathāgatagarbha sutra theory. It does not have to be.

The two aspects which Victors manifest
are like a moon in water.

-Uttaratantra

Supports my presentation of Tathagatagarbha Sutras

You are missing the point -- the rūpakāya is clearly presented in UT as a result of efforts and aspiration. It is really not possible to cherry pick citations to refute this. Well you can try but you wont't be successful.

[Malcolm]

Like him, in a way which is effortless
and from this dharmakaya, which is without birth or death,
buddhas engage in activity, such as manifestation,
for as long as conditioned existence continues [forever].

-Uttaratantra

As long as there are sentient beings, buddhas will reflect in their minds. This does not mean a buddha is caused. The manifest appearance is interdependent, like a moon in water. Like Indra's reflection in all lower realms. But a Buddha does not have skandhas so cannot be caused.

Why not try presenting some citations about the rūpakāya?

Where did you get the idea that a nirmanakāya buddha does not have skandhas?

Anyway, I forgot to mention, I don't find the hermeneutics of the three turnings very convincing on any level, either doctrinally, since the third turning sutras often contradict each other, or historically.

I prefer the hermeneutics of Guhyasamaja i.e. "The single vajra word was heard differently by those of differing capacities."

N

[gregkavarnos]

I prefer the hermeneutics of Guhyasamaja i.e. "The single vajra word was heard differently by those of differing capacities."

I ilke that one. Unfortunately one can then start value judgements on the higher and lower of the differing capacities. Well, that's samsara for you!

[Malcolm]

I prefer the hermeneutics of Guhyasamaja i.e. "The single vajra word was heard differently by those of differing capacities."

I ilke that one. Unfortunately one can then start value judgements on the higher and lower of the differing capacities. Well, that's samsara for you!

It just means that people hear the dharma they want to hear, and they block out the dharma they do not want to hear or cannot hear.

For me it means that the three turnings of the wheel are not effective hermeneutical criteria. Anyway, Maitreyanath points out in the Mahayanasutraalamkara that the three turnings all occur at the same time. They are not spread out over the teaching career of the Buddha as a kind of sequence of teachings.

[adinatha]

I am just saying that your presentation is not consistent with Tathāgatagarbha sutra theory. It does not have to be.

The two aspects which Victors manifest
are like a moon in water.

-Uttaratantra

Supports my presentation of Tathagatagarbha Sutras

You are missing the point -- the rūpakāya is clearly presented in UT as a result of efforts and aspiration. It is really not possible to cherry pick citations to refute this. Well you can try but you wont't be successful.

Right. Caused from a deluded standpoint.

[adinatha]

Where did you get the idea that a nirmanakāya buddha does not have skandhas?

Vaguely remembering Mahaparinirvana Sutra? Anywhere says it does? Skandhas are deluded appearances.

[adinatha]

Anyway, I forgot to mention, I don't find the hermeneutics of the three turnings very convincing on any level, either doctrinally, since the third turning sutras often contradict each other, or historically.

Lord Jigten Sumgon's presentation is clear.

[ground]

This thread's topic ... there you go again.

Kind regards

[adinatha]

In the example from the Tathagatagharba Sutra of the fully formed buddha inside the decaying lotus, the decaying lotus doesn't cause the Buddha. Wind blowing clouds doesn't cause a sun. The aspiration and effort doesn't create a Buddha. That's what these examples from the third turning mean. The thinking, "well, they cause them to appear to me," is a misunderstanding of causality. One thing following another is not one thing causing another. This is not me reading something into these Sutras that isn't there. It is the case of not misunderstanding the examples and not being a literalist. Longchenpa's explanations of spontaneous presence of appearances and possibilities is completely explained in the third turning sutras with examples like the Indra's reflection in all realms, and the like. We are talking about our true and complete condition in every moment.

[Malcolm]

In the example from the Tathagatagharba Sutra of the fully formed buddha inside the decaying lotus, the decaying lotus doesn't cause the Buddha. Wind blowing clouds doesn't cause a sun. The aspiration and effort doesn't create a Buddha. That's what these examples from the third turning mean. The thinking, "well, they cause them to appear to me," is a misunderstanding of causality. One thing following another is not one thing causing another. This is not me reading something into these Sutras that isn't there. It is the case of not misunderstanding the examples and not being a literalist. Longchenpa's explanations of spontaneous presence of appearances and possibilities is completely explained in the third turning sutras with examples like the Indra's reflection in all realms, and the like. We are talking about our true and complete condition in every moment.

if you take these examples literally, you will go down a wrong path.

[adinatha]

In the example from the Tathagatagharba Sutra of the fully formed buddha inside the decaying lotus, the decaying lotus doesn't cause the Buddha. Wind blowing clouds doesn't cause a sun. The aspiration and effort doesn't create a Buddha. That's what these examples from the third turning mean. The thinking, "well, they cause them to appear to me," is a misunderstanding of causality. One thing following another is not one thing causing another. This is not me reading something into these Sutras that isn't there. It is the case of not misunderstanding the examples and not being a literalist. Longchenpa's explanations of spontaneous presence of appearances and possibilities is completely explained in the third turning sutras with examples like the Indra's reflection in all realms, and the like. We are talking about our true and complete condition in every moment.

if you take these examples literally, you will go down a wrong path.

These examples are to be understood in the context of the path. And on the vajrayana path, they are made very clear.

[Malcolm]

In the example from the Tathagatagharba Sutra of the fully formed buddha inside the decaying lotus, the decaying lotus doesn't cause the Buddha. Wind blowing clouds doesn't cause a sun. The aspiration and effort doesn't create a Buddha. That's what these examples from the third turning mean. The thinking, "well, they cause them to appear to me," is a misunderstanding of causality. One thing following another is not one thing causing another. This is not me reading something into these Sutras that isn't there. It is the case of not misunderstanding the examples and not being a literalist. Longchenpa's explanations of spontaneous presence of appearances and possibilities is completely explained in the third turning sutras with examples like the Indra's reflection in all realms, and the like. We are talking about our true and complete condition in every moment.

if you take these examples literally, you will go down a wrong path.

These examples are to be understood in the context of the path. And on the vajrayana path, they are made very clear.

Even in terms of Vajrayāna, if you take these examples literally, you will go down a wrong path. The examples have an intentional meaning. They are not meant to taken at face value.

[adinatha]

if you take these examples literally, you will go down a wrong path.

These examples are to be understood in the context of the path. And on the vajrayana path, they are made very clear.

Even in terms of Vajrayāna, if you take these examples literally, you will go down a wrong path. The examples have an intentional meaning. They are not meant to taken at face value.

Not so, otherwise you get distortion.

[Malcolm]

Not so, otherwise you get distortion.

This is not the case -- when you take something intentional at face value, then you create distortions.

[adinatha]

Not so, otherwise you get distortion.

This is not the case -- when you take something intentional at face value, then you create distortions.

You keep using this word "intentional," what do you mean by this?

I'm saying these examples are necessary to understanding the Ati and Mahamudra meaning of dharmakaya as the totality of "appearances and possibilities." The totality of all appearances and possibilities has two purposes, the picture of total completion subsuming the three times, and the inner practice of nonattachment and effortlessness. These two go together, and the examples open up these meanings on many many levels. These examples are extremely profound and should be contemplated often.

[Malcolm]

Not so, otherwise you get distortion.

This is not the case -- when you take something intentional at face value, then you create distortions.

You keep using this word "intentional," what do you mean by this?

I'm saying these examples are necessary to understanding the Ati and Mahamudra meaning of dharmakaya as the totality of "appearances and possibilities." The totality of all appearances and possibilities has two purposes, the picture of total completion subsuming the three times, and the inner practice of nonattachment and effortlessness. These two go together, and the examples open up these meanings on many many levels. These examples are extremely profound and should be contemplated often.

Intentional means "says one thing, means another". It is different than provisional and not definitive.

If you are asserting that the husk or decaying lotus is an appearance, for example, and the Buddha inside it is a possibility, then you are asserting that the examples may not be taken literally, and that they merely point to a possibility for a sentient being to awaken despite his/her appearance of suffering.

Kagyus tend to very enthusiastic about Uttaratantra since for them it is a very important text. Your mileage will vary in the other three schools.

[adinatha]

This is not the case -- when you take something intentional at face value, then you create distortions.

You keep using this word "intentional," what do you mean by this?

I'm saying these examples are necessary to understanding the Ati and Mahamudra meaning of dharmakaya as the totality of "appearances and possibilities." The totality of all appearances and possibilities has two purposes, the picture of total completion subsuming the three times, and the inner practice of nonattachment and effortlessness. These two go together, and the examples open up these meanings on many many levels. These examples are extremely profound and should be contemplated often.

Intentional means "says one thing, means another". It is different than provisional and not definitive.

If you are asserting that the husk or decaying lotus is an appearance, for example, and the Buddha inside it is a possibility, then you are asserting that the examples may not be taken literally, and that they merely point to a possibility for a sentient being to awaken despite his/her appearance of suffering.

Kagyus tend to very enthusiastic about Uttaratantra since for them it is a very important text. Your mileage will vary in the other three schools.

I'm asserting the decaying lotus constitutes a mistake of fact, and the Buddha inside is the fact. The lotus represents impermanence, an illusoriness. The Buddha inside represents our true condition of the inseparable three kayas.

[Malcolm]

I'm asserting the decaying lotus constitutes a mistake of fact, and the Buddha inside is the fact. The lotus represents impermanence, an illusoriness. The Buddha inside represents our true condition of the inseparable three kayas.

Then you must give an account for some reason why we are not all omniscient already. If our true condition is the resultant three kāyas, it makes no sense that we are deluded and buddhas at one and the same time. There are a number of unfavorable consequences that will ensue.

Unless of course you mean something else by "three kāyas".

N

[adinatha]

I'm asserting the decaying lotus constitutes a mistake of fact, and the Buddha inside is the fact. The lotus represents impermanence, an illusoriness. The Buddha inside represents our true condition of the inseparable three kayas.

Then you must give an account for some reason why we are not all omniscient already. If our true condition is the resultant three kāyas, it makes no sense that we are deluded and buddhas at one and the same time. There are a number of unfavorable consequences that will ensue.

Unless of course you mean something else by "three kāyas".

N

That's the six million dollar question. In other words, there is no such account. The reason we do not utilize this talent is because we are mistaking the illusion for fact. It is only a misdiscrimination. A mistaken distinction does not exist. So it can't cease or be purified. This is crucial. We can say, "I no longer make this distinction, so I purified this thought," but that is just saying something without referring to anything. So it's not meaningless. We do understand a horn on a hare, but it is referenceless. Then a nonreferencing mind is the Buddha in the decaying lotus, the true meaningfulness.

[Malcolm]

That's the six million dollar question. In other words, there is no such account. The reason we do not utilize this talent is because we are mistaking the illusion for fact. It is only a misdiscrimination. A mistaken distinction does not exist. So it can't cease or be purified. This is crucial. We can say, "I no longer make this distinction, so I purified this thought," but that is just saying something without referring to anything. So it's not meaningless. We do understand a horn on a hare, but it is referenceless. Then a nonreferencing mind is the Buddha in the decaying lotus, the true meaningfulness.

You still have not resolved the issue. How can Buddhas mistake illusions for facts?

Either you are not a Buddha because you made a mistake, or Buddhas make mistakes.