Question

Whether you're exploring Buddhism for the first time or you're already on the path, feel free to ask questions of any kind here.

Re: Question

Postby theanarchist » Mon Feb 24, 2014 8:57 pm

Johnny Dangerous wrote:[

What is ones relationship to the sambogakaya prior to enlightenment then..i.e. for the purpose of the conversation, I guess what i'm asking is are Yidam etc. "the real thing" prior to this, or just our imagination on our side?



They are the real thing, but you are not able to perceive them that way.
theanarchist
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 7:26 pm

Re: Question

Postby Malcolm » Mon Feb 24, 2014 9:10 pm

Johnny Dangerous wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Johnny Dangerous wrote:The expert faker becomes an actual expert, but he just actualizes the Buddha Nature right...I mean, the Sambogakaya is not a thing substantially seperate from oneself right?


It is both a part of oneself and not.

Each sentient beings has dharmakāya as their buddhanature from the start. When that is realized, then one can manifest the sambhogakāya and the nirmanakāya.



What is ones relationship to the sambogakaya prior to enlightenment then..i.e. for the purpose of the conversation, I guess what i'm asking is are Yidam etc. "the real thing" prior to this, or just our imagination on our side?


Prior to attaining the 8th bhumi, the only way you can relate to the Sambhogakāya is through a practice lineage.

The yidams are sambhogakāya manifestations to mahāsiddhis, who then develop the method connected with that manifestation and set that method down in a tantra.
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: 12568
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Question

Postby Adamantine » Wed Jun 25, 2014 5:07 am

I just found this reply in my drafts folder, thought I should share it now. . . sorry I didn't post it in a timely way. . .

Jigme Tsultrim wrote: If perfecting a visualization of a being which represents a higher attribute, such as compassion, and then believing that the being merges with oneself, and this produces the desired result of perfecting the compassionate nature of the practitioner, then the ultimate nature of that being , whether a wisdom deity or a creation of one's practice, is empty.


The ultimate nature of that being should always be discerned as empty, whether a wisdom deity or one's own visualization. However, our own self should not be considered any less empty. The practice should lessen our own self-grasping, but in so doing it shouldn't develop in us a new attachment to form. That is why we always dissolve the deity into emptiness and meditate on that at the end of the session.

In that sense this could be seen as a kind of self hypnosis.
It's not self-hypnosis, it does correspond to a relatively "real" wisdom being, and the mantra along with the visualization harmonizes our energetic field with that of the wisdom being, so we can receive the blessings and help them radiate to other suffering beings in need. And again, by identifying with the Wisdom being we also loosen our grasping to our own habitual identity.
Such a view in no way diminishes the value of the practice.

It misconstrues it, which will diminish it's effectiveness, the correct view is part of the deal.

So does the nature or lack thereof of one's self require input from an outside source to improve, or is perfection the responsibility of the practitioner?
While we are still bound by the dualistic fixation of outer and inner, self and other, and so on, we will need a mirror to help us discern our true nature. The qualified Guru acts as the mirror up until we can discern it without their assistance. That's a Dzogchen perspective anyway.
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha
User avatar
Adamantine
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2936
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am
Location: Space is the Place

Re: Question

Postby smcj » Wed Jun 25, 2014 5:15 am

Jigme Tsultrim wrote:I would like individuals to think about dogmatism and theism in their own practice and beliefs.

I have. I'm ok with it. Just because there is a christian equivalent that we all had a disastrous experience with doesn't mean that those things are intrinsically objectionable. I know lots of guys (and gals) that had terrible first marriages and then found happiness in their second. If they had a phobia about marriage they'd never have found happiness. I think we need to get over our phobias and hangups about Christianity in order to have a healthy Dharma practice.
Jigme Tsultrim wrote:
smcj wrote: The visualization process initially utilizes your imagination. That's the samaya-sattva, which is just your imagination. Then the jnana-sattva, the wisdom deity, merges with your imagined one. So you definitely start with just your imagination.

Ok, look, I've had these teachings so this is not news that such a belief exists. OK?

OK.
I am asserting that there could be no distinction between the "wisdom deity" and the result one's perfected and polished ability to visualize.

Sounds like you don't like the idea of the wisdom deity.
If perfecting a visualization of a being which represents a higher attribute, such as compassion, and then believing that the being merges with oneself, and this produces the desired result of perfecting the compassionate nature of the practitioner...

Well if it works it works. You can't argue with success. The question is; will it work with that approach?
...then the ultimate nature of that being , whether a wisdom deity or a creation of one's practice, is empty.

All manifest phenomena are self-empty. You are self-empty. That doesn't mean you don't exist at all.
In that sense this could be seen as a kind of self hypnosis. Such a view in no way diminishes the value of the practice.

You might want to run all this by your lama.
So does the nature or lack thereof of one's self require input from an outside source to improve, or is perfection the responsibility of the practitioner?

It is always the responsibility of the practitioner, regardless of the nature of the deity. The real question is: Is it possible to get a bit of help with the project? If you don't want the help, then you might as well practice the Shravakayana or non-tantric Mahayana. Those definitely are "you're on your own" paths (except Pure Land, etc.).
A human being has his limits. And thus, in every conceivable way, with every possible means, he tries to make the teaching enter into his own limits. ChNN
smcj
 
Posts: 2158
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Question

Postby duckfiasco » Wed Jun 25, 2014 7:07 am

I would say I regularly experience Amida Buddha, without some advanced attainment in visualization or self-hypnosis techniques.
To me, "Other" Power is such from the perspective of what I ordinarily call "myself" thus showing the emptiness of these things, as with other deity practices.
So I'm not sure what to make of antagonism towards theism in Buddhism.
It's also hard to talk about these things when every word in a sentence like "deities don't exist" is ambiguous.
Namu Amida Butsu
User avatar
duckfiasco
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:11 am
Location: Oregon

Re: Question

Postby LastLegend » Wed Jun 25, 2014 7:51 am

Jigme Tsultrim wrote:
Ok, look, I've had these teachings so this is not news that such a belief exists. OK? I am asserting that there could be no distinction between the "wisdom deity" and the result one's perfected and polished ability to visualize. If perfecting a visualization of a being which represents a higher attribute, such as compassion, and then believing that the being merges with oneself, and this produces the desired result of perfecting the compassionate nature of the practitioner, then the ultimate nature of that being , whether a wisdom deity or a creation of one's practice, is empty. In that sense this could be seen as a kind of self hypnosis. Such a view in no way diminishes the value of the practice.
So does the nature or lack thereof of one's self require input from an outside source to improve, or is perfection the responsibility of the practitioner?


If you can keep a non-attached mind, that is a practice.

I don't know about dieties (gods). I know there are Bodhisattvas and Buddhas who made various vows throughout their career, for example, by reciting their names, you get their blessings. By reciting a Buddha, you are reciting your own Buddha. If you have the courage and conviction to invoke your own Buddha, more power to you.
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―
User avatar
LastLegend
 
Posts: 2367
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Question

Postby Jigme Tsultrim » Wed Jun 25, 2014 9:22 am

"If you can keep a non-attached mind, that is a practice. " Indeed.
User avatar
Jigme Tsultrim
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:41 am
Location: N.E. Thailand

Re: Question

Postby hop.pala » Wed Jun 25, 2014 1:10 pm

If one way is the case we are attuning ourselves to the existence of a being that existed apart from our perception of it. In the other case, it is a useful projection created by our intent.


If i dont know something i search it by the Theosophie,and now it is clear now.The allegation of Theosophie that it is on the mental level .
That is the non-corporal world is perceivable by the upper part of the mental level.Mental body is the human-hop.pala,and Jigme Tsulrim-so it is yet not the direct perception.
It is not suprising,the hindus say the same(it is below Atman).
The buddhism ?The noncorporal world in the Jhanas,therefore (deva) the same all.
hop.pala
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 3:48 am

Previous

Return to Exploring Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kirtu and 21 guests

>