dumb question

Forum for discussion of Tibetan Buddhism. Questions specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
dakini_boi
Posts: 683
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:02 am

dumb question

Post by dakini_boi »

What would happen if/when ALL beings completely realize full enlightenment (i.e. Dzogchen/Mahamudra)?

From a Mahayana perspective, Rupakaya forms exist only for the purpose of helping others attain liberation. . . in the case that all beings are liberated, will all Rupakaya forms cease? If so, wouldn't Dharmakaya cease as well? How would this result be different from the Hinayana notion of Nirvana?

I'm interested in how this question might be answered from a Mahayana, Vajrayana, and Dzogchen perspectives.

I'm also interested in exposing the type of ignorant samsaric mind that might come up with such a question! :namaste: Thank you.
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: dumb question

Post by Grigoris »

Sentient beings are infinite in number, if you subtract all (infinite) from infinity what do you get?
:namaste:
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
User avatar
adinatha
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: dumb question

Post by adinatha »

dakini_boi wrote:What would happen if/when ALL beings completely realize full enlightenment (i.e. Dzogchen/Mahamudra)?
No fear. No hope. The pure land of timeless awareness.
CAW!
plwk
Posts: 2932
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:41 am

Re: dumb question

Post by plwk »

...if you subtract all (infinite) from infinity what do you get?
A Greg? :lol:
ngodrup
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:58 pm

Re: dumb question

Post by ngodrup »

Longchenpa seems to state that all phenomena arise from Dharmadhatu.
It seems that this will continue to occur indefinitely.
Sogyal Rinpoche sometimes jokes about "fundamental innate ignorance"
the idea that mind confuses itself.
dakini_boi
Posts: 683
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:02 am

Re: dumb question

Post by dakini_boi »

ngodrup wrote:Longchenpa seems to state that all phenomena arise from Dharmadhatu.
It seems that this will continue to occur indefinitely.
Sogyal Rinpoche sometimes jokes about "fundamental innate ignorance"
the idea that mind confuses itself.

Yes, Ngodrup - this idea of "fundamental innate ignorance" is sort of what i'm getting at. Joke or not, there is wisdom in that, and a powerful observation about mind.

If we are to understand that after complete enlightenment, forms continue to arise - and mind has the characteristic over time to confuse itself - what distinguishes this from samsara? On the other hand, if all beings reach enlightenment and rupakaya ceases, what distinguishes this from nirvana?

Once complete buddhahood is attained, is it permanent?
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: dumb question

Post by Grigoris »

dakini_boi wrote:Yes, Ngodrup - this idea of "fundamental innate ignorance" is sort of what i'm getting at. Joke or not, there is wisdom in that, and a powerful observation about mind...
Once complete buddhahood is attained, is it permanent?
Buddhahood is permanent, ignorance, attachment and aversion are destroyed without a remainder, thus they cannot (do not) re-arise. That means that fundamental innate ignorance is a joke. Ignorance is a temporary obscuration of our Buddha Nature, if it wasn't then sentient beings could NEVER achieve enlightenment.
If we are to understand that after complete enlightenment, forms continue to arise - and mind has the characteristic over time to confuse itself - what distinguishes this from samsara?
A source for this occurence please and please explain what you mean by "...after complete enlightenment, forms continue to arise..." Continue to arise for whom or for what?
On the other hand, if all beings reach enlightenment and rupakaya ceases, what distinguishes this from nirvana?
Nothing. If all sentient beings reached enlightenment, then all would achieve the state of nirvana (unbinding) and they would all cease manifesting form due to ignorance (though, of course, they could choose to manifest with a form, this is the common Mahayana belief about Shakyamuni Buddha).
:namaste:
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
dakini_boi
Posts: 683
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:02 am

Re: dumb question

Post by dakini_boi »

gregkavarnos wrote:
dakini_boi wrote:
If we are to understand that after complete enlightenment, forms continue to arise - and mind has the characteristic over time to confuse itself - what distinguishes this from samsara?
A source for this occurence please and please explain what you mean by "...after complete enlightenment, forms continue to arise..." Continue to arise for whom or for what?

Well see above what Ngodrup said. . . I thought the idea in the higher yanas was that since form and emptiness are inseparable, forms will arise and dissolve infinitely as an expression of dharmata. If all forms were to cease, that would be Nirvana - but we're told that enlightenment is beyond samsara and nirvana.

So I guess my question is - if all beings attain enlightenment, then the rupakaya will cease to exist, because its only purpose is to benefit sentient beings, which would no longer exist. . . but if forms continue to arise spontaneously out of dharmata (because the nature of emptiness is to give rise to form), then if these are not rupakaya forms, they are deluded forms. So then the cycle starts again, and enlightenment isn't permanent.

I know I'm probably over-thinking. It hurts and bothers my brain. I'm willing to stop, but does anyone get my logic, or can poke holes in it??
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: dumb question

Post by Grigoris »

dakini_boi wrote:Well see above what Ngodrup said. . . I thought the idea in the higher yanas was that since form and emptiness are inseparable, forms will arise and dissolve infinitely as an expression of dharmata. If all forms were to cease, that would be Nirvana - but we're told that enlightenment is beyond samsara and nirvana.

So I guess my question is - if all beings attain enlightenment, then the rupakaya will cease to exist, because its only purpose is to benefit sentient beings, which would no longer exist. . . but if forms continue to arise spontaneously out of dharmata (because the nature of emptiness is to give rise to form), then if these are not rupakaya forms, they are deluded forms. So then the cycle starts again, and enlightenment isn't permanent.

I know I'm probably over-thinking. It hurts and bothers my brain. I'm willing to stop, but does anyone get my logic, or can poke holes in it??
Okay, I think I now understand the nature if your problem: you are confusing nirmanakaya with rupakaya. Enlightened beings manifest Nirmanakaya forms not rupakaya forms (which arise based on ignorance). Enlightenment IS permanent.
:namaste:
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
dakini_boi
Posts: 683
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:02 am

Re: dumb question

Post by dakini_boi »

By "rupakaya," I meant sambhogakaya + nirmanakaya. See http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Rupakaya" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

do you understand what I'm asking? This gets so confusing, I should probably focus my time and energy on something simple like guru devotion!
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: dumb question

Post by Grigoris »

Well there you go. that's the first time I have seen rupakaya defined in that way.

Well I'm off to appease my protector, I am sure they'll help me get through this one! :smile:
:namaste:
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
User avatar
adinatha
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: dumb question

Post by adinatha »

dude seriously? rupakaya means form body; the two form bodies are sambo and nirmana
CAW!
User avatar
kirtu
Former staff member
Posts: 6997
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: dumb question

Post by kirtu »

gregkavarnos wrote:Sentient beings are infinite in number, if you subtract all (infinite) from infinity what do you get?
:namaste:
Some infinities are larger than others (expressed correctly there are infinite sets that are larger [they have a larger number of elements] than other infinite sets)*.

So the answer could be infinity.

Kirt

*However when I asked HHST about this he said words to the effect when I say infinity I really mean everything, real infinity.
“Where do atomic bombs come from?”
Zen Master Seung Sahn said, “That’s simple. Atomic bombs come from the mind that likes this and doesn’t like that.”

"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche
ngodrup
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:58 pm

Re: dumb question

Post by ngodrup »

The question is kinda moot in my thinking
because, beings are infinite. So it's like
asking when does infinite time end?

There's another way out of this. My Root
Lama says people ask him all the time,
"How does it make sense for one person
to aspire to liberate all beings?" I say,
"Where are these being except in your
Mind? Liberate your mind and there are
no sentient beings, only Buddhas."
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: dumb question

Post by Grigoris »

kirtu wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:Sentient beings are infinite in number, if you subtract all (infinite) from infinity what do you get?
:namaste:
Some infinities are larger than others (expressed correctly there are infinite sets that are larger [they have a larger number of elements] than other infinite sets)*.
So the answer could be infinity.
Kirt
*However when I asked HHST about this he said words to the effect when I say infinity I really mean everything, real infinity.
Dear Kirt, I am well aware of this, see this point here http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.ph ... 679#p37679" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
dude seriously? rupakaya means form body; the two form bodies are sambo and nirmana
According to some interpretations, according to others:
Later Mahayana Buddhists were concerned with the transcendent aspect of the Dharma. So therefore if the Dharma is transcendental, totally beyond space and time, then so is the Dharmakaya. One response to this was the development of the Tathagatagarbha Doctrine, wherein the Tathagatagarbha or Buddha Nature is on occasion equated with the Dharmakaya. Another was the introduction of the Sambhogakaya which conceptually fits between the Nirmanakaya (which is what the Rupakaya came to be called according to the Buddhist Canon) and the Dharmakaya.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trikaya" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This leads me to ask the question: if the physical form of the Buddha on our plane of existence is the Nirmanakaya then what is our physical form called? I mean Rupakaya literally means "form body", so what is our body then?
:namaste:
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
User avatar
heart
Posts: 6288
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: dumb question

Post by heart »

Your wikipedia article is wrong Greg. The idea of the rupakaya comes from the Theravada teachings and in the Mahayana teachings it was elaborated to mean both the Samboghakaya and the Nirmanakaya.

http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Rupakaya" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Our body-mind is the five aggregates, one which is rupa (meaning form, in this case your body).

/magnus
"We are all here to help each other go through this thing, whatever it is."
~Kurt Vonnegut

"The principal practice is Guruyoga. But we need to understand that any secondary practice combined with Guruyoga becomes a principal practice." ChNNR (Teachings on Thun and Ganapuja)
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: dumb question

Post by Grigoris »

heart wrote:Your wikipedia article is wrong Greg. The idea of the rupakaya comes from the Theravada teachings and in the Mahayana teachings it was elaborated to mean both the Samboghakaya and the Nirmanakaya.

http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Rupakaya" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Our body-mind is the five aggregates, one which is rupa (meaning form, in this case your body).

/magnus
Dear Magnus,
I must admit that my understanding of the rupakaya came from Theravadra teachings where it is the label for the rupa aspect of the five aggregates. This though does not make the Wiki article wrong. Both articles are basically saying the same thing (ie that the Trikaya, in general, is a Mahayana teaching).
:namaste:
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
User avatar
heart
Posts: 6288
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: dumb question

Post by heart »

gregkavarnos wrote:
heart wrote:Your wikipedia article is wrong Greg. The idea of the rupakaya comes from the Theravada teachings and in the Mahayana teachings it was elaborated to mean both the Samboghakaya and the Nirmanakaya.

http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Rupakaya" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Our body-mind is the five aggregates, one which is rupa (meaning form, in this case your body).

/magnus
Dear Magnus,
I must admit that my understanding of the rupakaya came from Theravadra teachings where it is the label for the rupa aspect of the five aggregates. This though does not make the Wiki article wrong. Both articles are basically saying the same thing (ie that the Trikaya, in general, is a Mahayana teaching).
:namaste:
Dear Greg,

The rupakaya in the Theravada teaching is the body of the Buddha, he is said to have Dharmakaya and Rupakaya. In Mahayana the Rupakaya is split in to the Samboghakaya and Nirmanakaya but still collectively referred to as the Rupakaya.
Our own bodies, since we are not enlightened, are called a rupa (without any kaya attached to it).

/magnus
"We are all here to help each other go through this thing, whatever it is."
~Kurt Vonnegut

"The principal practice is Guruyoga. But we need to understand that any secondary practice combined with Guruyoga becomes a principal practice." ChNNR (Teachings on Thun and Ganapuja)
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: dumb question

Post by Grigoris »

Actually it is just the material body. See here:
kaya [kaaya]: Body. Usually refers to the physical body (rupa-kaya; see rupa), but sometimes refers to the mental body (nama-kaya; see nama).
and here
rupa [ruupa]: Body; physical phenomenon; sense datum. The basic meaning of this word is "appearance" or "form." It is used, however, in a number of different contexts, taking on different shades of meaning in each. In lists of the objects of the senses, it is given as the object of the sense of sight. As one of the khandha, it refers to physical phenomena or sensations (visible appearance or form being the defining characteristics of what is physical). This is also the meaning it carries when opposed to nama, or mental phenomena.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and here
In contrast to the paññavimutta arahats, those arahats who are ubhatobhagavimutta enjoy a twofold liberation. Through their mastery over the formless attainments they are liberated from the material body (rupakaya), capable of dwelling in this very life in the meditations corresponding to the immaterial planes of existence; through their attainment of arahatship they are liberated from the mental body (namakaya), presently free from all defilements and sure of final emancipation from future becoming. Paññavimutta arahats only possess the second of these two liberations.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el351.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and here (excerpt from a speech by Acariya Maha Boowa)
Samadhi is firm stability of the heart and it became steadily more firm and stable. Then I knew both the name and the nature of Samadhi and I knew it with my own heart. When I examined the elements (Dhatus) and Khandhas I saw that the body (rupa-kaya) is made up of the four Dhatus both internally and externally and all of them are within the scope of the Ti-Lakkhana — Aniccam, Dukkham and Anatta.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai ... ondon.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
:namaste:
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
User avatar
heart
Posts: 6288
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: dumb question

Post by heart »

That might be true, I don't know so much about the Theravada system. So Dharmakaya in Theravada is just ordinary mind?
Anyway, in Mahayana this isn't true.

/magnus
"We are all here to help each other go through this thing, whatever it is."
~Kurt Vonnegut

"The principal practice is Guruyoga. But we need to understand that any secondary practice combined with Guruyoga becomes a principal practice." ChNNR (Teachings on Thun and Ganapuja)
Post Reply

Return to “Tibetan Buddhism”