Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 9:49 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 4:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 3:42 pm
Posts: 49
To my limited understanding of things, Buddhism in all of its three forms explicitly rejects the notion of a First Cause, however so conceived whether this comes in the form of a Platonic/Aristotlean Demiurge or from those religious traditions which trace their origins back to Abraham.

Its rejected in the Digha Nikaya, its rejected by Mahayana masters such as Asanga, Dharmakirti, Shantideva, etc.

So when I first stumbled on the concept of the Adi-Buddha, at least presented by non-Buddhists, I couldn't help but scratch my head in wonder.

The Adi-Buddha (be it Samntabhadra, Mahavairocana, etc) in these explications seems to be presented in manner less of a Creator and more as some sort of Ground of All Being (the Brahamnical conception of Brahman perhaps?)

But at least to what I understand of Anatman, Dependent Origination, Shunyata, Karma, and Rebirth - that's impossible (that or I have severely misunderstood some basic tenants of Buddhism).



Could anyone throw me an intellectual life preserver? Or a monograph? :smile:

Ultimately, I guess my question for this particular post is: Just what is the Adi-Buddha? And how might I bridge the concepts I've learned thus far in Yogacara/Madhyamika toward a proper understanding of it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 8:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 8:04 am
Posts: 821
From my learning, Adi Buddha is the name of the being who became the first Buddha of this current aeon. Adi means first.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 8:27 pm 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Posts: 3037
Location: Olympia WA
It has yet to be explained to me how, or if Adi-Buddha is different from Brahma. It does seem to be a similar concept, at least in some Buddhism.

I think though, if you read Nagarjuna for instance, it's hard to square with these more eternalist -leaning concepts.

It helps me to realize that in the end, all philosophy in Buddhism is provisional.

_________________
"We're chained to the world and we all gotta pull" -Tom Waits


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 8:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 3:42 pm
Posts: 49
Quote:
From my learning, Adi Buddha is the name of the being who became the first Buddha of this current aeon. Adi means first.


Hmm. I was under the impression that the Adi-Buddha was never subjected to our afflicted state.

Johnny Dangerous wrote:
It has yet to be explained to me how, or if Adi-Buddha is different from Brahma. It does seem to be a similar concept, at least in some Buddhism.

I think though, if you read Nagarjuna for instance, it's hard to square with these more eternalist -leaning concepts.

It helps me to realize that in the end, all philosophy in Buddhism is provisional.


When I first heard of the concept, I thought it might have originated out of the Tathagarbha wing of Mahayana. Which would make sense to me at least, as the Tathagarbha sutras had a strong eternalist bent to begin with.

But then I see start to pop up in Shingon, Tendai, and the Tibetan schools and it leaves me quite confused. In a sense of "did I miss something?"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:30 pm 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Posts: 3037
Location: Olympia WA
http://itisnotreal.com/uploads/7/2/9/3/ ... tiness.pdf

Reading this actually helped contextualize alot of stuff for me (thanks to my DW pal who made me privy to it).

It opened some new questions as well, but it is a pretty good place to start to begin reconciling the seeming inconsistencies I think..the final chapter on Shentong confused me a bit, prompting me to post on here..but it is definitely relevant to your question - especially since you are interested in Vajrayana anyway.

_________________
"We're chained to the world and we all gotta pull" -Tom Waits


Last edited by Johnny Dangerous on Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:26 pm
Posts: 108
Location: Midwest US
The Adi-buddha, from my understanding, is a type of representation of the dharmakaya, and/or the tathagatagarbha. Adi-buddha is like the primordial Buddha-nature from which all things eminate, in an almost Neoplatonic sense. Samantabhadra, or Mahavairocana, whichever one is presented, just seemed like a type of manifestation of the adi-buddha concept, or a way to give a name to something that has no name. The idea does seem to present some problems, though, as it seems, at times anyway, an attempt to add a type of creator being to Buddhism, when the Buddha denied such a being. Or as others have pointed out, a way to add Brahman to Buddhism. As far as how the various schools who accept the concept view it, I couldn't say. Zen doesn't really accept the concept.

_________________
"If you want to travel the Way of Buddhas and Zen masters, then expect nothing, seek nothing, and grasp nothing." -Dogen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:02 am
Posts: 683
The Adi Buddha simply refers to the fact that Buddha nature has never and can never be affected by samsaric stains. It's just another way of saying that enlightenment is non-fabricated. Because you can never manufacture your enlightenment, your enlightenment has always been present. "Adi Buddha" is a term to refer to Buddha in this context.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Posts: 1934
Location: Sydney AU
LionelChen wrote:
To my limited understanding of things, Buddhism in all of its three forms explicitly rejects the notion of a First Cause, however so conceived whether this comes in the form of a Platonic/Aristotlean Demiurge or from those religious traditions which trace their origins back to Abraham.


I am a long-time student of comparative religions, self-directed 'Western Buddhist' but with strong Christian/Platonist leanings, so am very interested in these questions.

First - the 'first cause' ideas of Greek philosophy were never, in the first place, given in terms of the 'Creator-God' of the Hebrew scriptures. Plato and his successors are still categorised as pagan (albeit 'virtuous pagans') in the Catholic religion, but many ideas from the Platonic tradition were assimilated into Christianity over the early centuries of the Christian era. But in so doing, their meanings were changed in ways that might not have been countenanced by their originators.

Plotinus, 'the last great sage of antiquity', became a major influence in Christian theology, mainly via St Augustine but also by the elusive figure now known to scholars as the 'pseudo=Dionysius' (who in had been falsely identified as a direct disciple of the Apostle Paul, but who, it became clear, actually lived centures later.) The neo-platonist teachings of Plotinus, which were part of these schools, became part of Christian theology.

In W Y Evans-Wentz edition of The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation, there are many quotes from Plotinus, mainly in the footnotes, which illustrate parallels between Plotinus and Mahayana Buddhism.

Such ideas are elaborated in more detail in The Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies, by Thomas McEvilly, published in around 2002. It is not a mainstream work and I don't think it is widely recognized in academic Buddhist studies, but many of the essays in that book comparing aspects of Platonist and Mahayana philosophy are highly insightful (i.e. Chapter 23 Plotinus and Vijñānavāda Buddhism, 24 Neoplatonism and Tantra).

I have also always rather liked Soyen Shaku's lecture on The God Concept of Buddhism.

As for 'God' or 'the first cause', there is an approach that says that 'God' is not 'an existing thing' or 'one type of being amongst many', no matter how nobly conceived. The apophatic approach of the Platonic Christianity is to approach God through negation, which is very similar to the neti, neti approach of the Vedanta and the negative dialectics of the Madhyamika. This gives rise to the counte-intuitive doctrine of God wherein God does not exist, being completely beyond existence. Paul Tillich explored similar ideas:

Quote:
The religious element of consciousness, Tillich concluded, consisted in the immediate and “unconditioned” meeting of our thinking mind with Being. This meeting with Being is the absolute limit of thinking. Being can only be apprehended through a mystical experience, in other words through intuition.


Such ideas were also explored by the Kyoto School philosophers, notably Masao Abe, who studied Heidegger and other Western philosophers in depth.

I had better stop at that point, although could keep going indefinitely. But if there's anything of particular interest, I am happy to discuss it further.

_________________
Learn to do good, refrain from evil, purify the mind ~ this is the teaching of the Buddhas


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 3:42 pm
Posts: 49
Erp, not sure if the website hiccupped but..

Thank you all for your responses, and esp. you Johnny for the pdf. I'm a lover of books, so if you think anything might help please feel free to suggest it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:14 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Posts: 5771
Two sources that may be of interest:

*The Mahavairocana tantra, trans. Stephen Hodge, covers much of the ground you are interested in.

from another perspective...

*The Kunjed Gyalpo (translated as The Supreme Source by Clemente)

To my poor mind, it makes more sense to talk about the way the category of AdiBuddha is articulated in particular texts or traditions, than to generalize. I cited these two because you could construct a kind of Venn diagram of AdiBuddha characteristics from them. How do these descriptions differ, or not?

For myself, I find much more in common than otherwise.

happy reading...

_________________
Need help getting on retreat? Want to support others in practice? Pay the Dana for Dharma forum a visit...

viewtopic.php?f=114&t=13727


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 6:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 3:42 pm
Posts: 49
Jikan wrote:
Two sources that may be of interest:

*The Mahavairocana tantra, trans. Stephen Hodge, covers much of the ground you are interested in.

from another perspective...

*The Kunjed Gyalpo (translated as The Supreme Source by Clemente)

To my poor mind, it makes more sense to talk about the way the category of AdiBuddha is articulated in particular texts or traditions, than to generalize. I cited these two because you could construct a kind of Venn diagram of AdiBuddha characteristics from them. How do these descriptions differ, or not?

For myself, I find much more in common than otherwise.

happy reading...


Thank you as always Jikan. Your approach seems alot more clear-cut than my scattershot question.

I'd very much like to hear your views on the matter, after i've digested the works in question. I have been putting of reading Hodge's book , and I am rather curious as to how the Tibetans approach the matter. If i recall corretly, Kunjed Gyalpo is associated with the Dzogchen tradition?

It will make for interesting reading either way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 3:56 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Posts: 5771
Yes, that's right: the Kunjed Gyalpo is a Dzogchen text of the Semde series.

It would be great if you could repost to this thread your ideas and responses to your reading as you learn more. I look forward to a more detailed discussion on this topic as well.

_________________
Need help getting on retreat? Want to support others in practice? Pay the Dana for Dharma forum a visit...

viewtopic.php?f=114&t=13727


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 5:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 3:42 pm
Posts: 49
Jikan wrote:
Yes, that's right: the Kunjed Gyalpo is a Dzogchen text of the Semde series.

It would be great if you could repost to this thread your ideas and responses to your reading as you learn more. I look forward to a more detailed discussion on this topic as well.


More than happy to - but as always I find myself bound by those two great impediments to learning.

Time and access!

I will probably start with the Mahavairocana - its more familiar territory to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 6:02 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Posts: 2445
Location: Washington DC
First in First Cause refers to time. So then first cause must be relative to last cause. Without a last cause there cannot be a first cause. So time is a mind-construct, and we usually thinks it to be linear or directional when it is merely and expression of change.

_________________
NAMO AMITABHA
NAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)
NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)

Linjii
―Listen! Those of you who devote yourselves to the Dharma
must not be afraid of losing your bodies and your lives―


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 6:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:48 am
Posts: 287
Location: NYC
In (one translation, possibly not the best one, of) the Kunjed Gyalpo, Samantabhadra says:
Quote:
"I am the existential ground (gnas chen) of all Buddhas" and "... the root of all things is nothing else but one Self ... I am the place in which all existing things abide."

Quote:
"Oh all you sentient beings of this threefold world [i.e. the entire universe, both visible and invisible]! Because I, the All-Creating Sovereign, have created you, you are My children and equal to Me. Because you are not second to Me, I am present in you ... Oh all you sentient beings of this threefold world, if I were not, you would be non-existent. ... Because all things do not exist outside of Me, I firmly declare that I am all - the All-Creating One."


But we are reminded (by Keith Dowman):

Quote:
If this matrix of intrinsic awareness sounds like God to some people, then they are definitely on the right track. But the nondual state of rigpa is personified as Samantabhadra... It would be a mistake, however, to approach "Samantabhadra" as anything but a label for something that is quite beyond language and symbolism.


Of course, I think many Advaitins would say the same about Brahman. To me, any distinction seems to be polemical, but others may draw different conclusions :)

_________________
This undistracted state of ordinary mind
Is the meditation.
One will understand it in due course.

--Gampopa


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 8:56 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Posts: 5771
Relevant discussion on Mahavairocana as presented in the Brahma Net Sutra:

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=1033

_________________
Need help getting on retreat? Want to support others in practice? Pay the Dana for Dharma forum a visit...

viewtopic.php?f=114&t=13727


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: coyote and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group