Tathagatagarbha and Eternity

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

Tathagatagarbha and Eternity

Postby adinatha » Tue May 03, 2011 7:38 pm

The tathagatagharba is eternal.
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: God in Buddhism

Postby Dechen Norbu » Tue May 03, 2011 7:40 pm

No, it's beyond time.
User avatar
Dechen Norbu
 
Posts: 2798
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:50 pm

Re: God in Buddhism

Postby adinatha » Tue May 03, 2011 8:02 pm

No. It's eternal, not impermanent, permanent.
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: God in Buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Tue May 03, 2011 8:37 pm

adinatha wrote:The tathagatagharba is eternal.



Maitreyanatha clarifies that the buddhadhātu is called "permanent" because it is beyond all extremes of permanence and impermanence.

He makes the same observation about "self": it is called a self because it is beyond extreme of identity and absence of identity.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10165
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: God in Buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Tue May 03, 2011 8:40 pm

adinatha wrote:No. It's eternal, not impermanent, permanent.


Buddhadhātu, tathāgatagarbha, is not a substantial thing. It is, for example, described as the dharmakāya encased in obscurations in the Śrīmālādevi sūtra.

It is styled "permanent" for the reasons I gave above which you can easily find in the Uttaratantra.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10165
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: God in Buddhism

Postby adinatha » Tue May 03, 2011 8:41 pm

Namdrol wrote:
adinatha wrote:The tathagatagharba is eternal.



Maitreyanatha clarifies that the buddhadhātu is called "permanent" because it is beyond all extremes of permanence and impermanence.

He makes the same observation about "self": it is called a self because it is beyond extreme of identity and absence of identity.


Second turning's meaning. Third turning's is definitive.
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: God in Buddhism

Postby adinatha » Tue May 03, 2011 8:44 pm

Namdrol wrote:
adinatha wrote:No. It's eternal, not impermanent, permanent.


Buddhadhātu, tathāgatagarbha, is not a substantial thing. It is, for example, described as the dharmakāya encased in obscurations in the Śrīmālādevi sūtra.

It is styled "permanent" for the reasons I gave above which you can easily find in the Uttaratantra.


Buddhadhatu is endowed with qualities.
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: God in Buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Tue May 03, 2011 8:53 pm

adinatha wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
adinatha wrote:The tathagatagharba is eternal.



Maitreyanatha clarifies that the buddhadhātu is called "permanent" because it is beyond all extremes of permanence and impermanence.

He makes the same observation about "self": it is called a self because it is beyond extreme of identity and absence of identity.


Second turning's meaning. Third turning's is definitive.


Ahem -- this is what he says in Uttaratantra, the only commentary on the tathāgatagarbha sutras we have. This is the third turning POV. Read Uttaratantra. For example, he says that kāyas of the buddhas are permanent because their causes are endless based on the two accumulations.

He explains that the dharmakāya is permanent since the non-duality of samsara and nirvana has been realized.

None of these statements of purity, bliss, self and permanence can be taken literally. Otherwise, one will be no different than a tīrthika.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10165
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: God in Buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Tue May 03, 2011 8:58 pm

adinatha wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
adinatha wrote:No. It's eternal, not impermanent, permanent.


Buddhadhātu, tathāgatagarbha, is not a substantial thing. It is, for example, described as the dharmakāya encased in obscurations in the Śrīmālādevi sūtra.

It is styled "permanent" for the reasons I gave above which you can easily find in the Uttaratantra.


Buddhadhatu is endowed with qualities.


Yes.

The dharmakāya possesses the qualities of liberation; the rūpakaya possess the qualities of maturation such as the major and minor marks.

All of this is clearly explained in Uttaratantra.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10165
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: God in Buddhism

Postby adinatha » Tue May 03, 2011 9:21 pm

Namdrol wrote:None of these statements ... can be taken literally.


This is the abiding condition.
Last edited by adinatha on Tue May 03, 2011 9:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: God in Buddhism

Postby adinatha » Tue May 03, 2011 9:23 pm

Namdrol wrote:Yes.

The dharmakāya possesses the qualities of liberation; the rūpakaya possess the qualities of maturation such as the major and minor marks.

All of this is clearly explained in Uttaratantra.


Inseparability.
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: God in Buddhism

Postby adinatha » Tue May 03, 2011 9:27 pm

Buddhahood is endowed with two-fold value.
It is uncreated, spontaneous and
not to be realized through external causes.
It possesses knowledge, compassionate love and ability.

-Uttaratantra
Last edited by adinatha on Tue May 03, 2011 9:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: God in Buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Tue May 03, 2011 9:27 pm

adinatha wrote:If kayas were caused they'd be impermanent.



In your opinion, the rūpakāya has no cause?

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10165
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: God in Buddhism

Postby adinatha » Tue May 03, 2011 9:31 pm

Namdrol wrote:
adinatha wrote:If kayas were caused they'd be impermanent.



In your opinion, the rūpakāya has no cause?

N


Spontaneous appearance.

Cause and effect appear dualistically in the mode of deluded perception.

aka Bingo
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: God in Buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Tue May 03, 2011 9:40 pm

adinatha wrote:
Namdrol wrote:None of these statements ... can be taken literally.


This is the abiding condition.



They still cannot be taken literally.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10165
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: God in Buddhism

Postby adinatha » Tue May 03, 2011 9:41 pm

I bow down to the sun of dharma,
which is neither existence nor non-existence,
nor a combination of existence and non-existence,
nor something other than existence and non-existence:
the unexaminable, beyond all verbal definition,
self-cognisant, peace,
stainless, brilliant with the light jnana,
which completely destroys craving for,
aversion to or dullness toward mental objects.

-Uttaratantra


Key-word: self-cognisant
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: God in Buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Tue May 03, 2011 9:42 pm

adinatha wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
adinatha wrote:If kayas were caused they'd be impermanent.



In your opinion, the rūpakāya has no cause?

N


Spontaneous appearance.

Cause and effect appear dualistically in the mode of deluded perception.

aka Bingo


This is the case, but now you have left the teaching of the Tathagatagarbha sutras behind. That is not how they present the arising of the rūpakāya.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10165
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: God in Buddhism

Postby adinatha » Tue May 03, 2011 9:42 pm

Namdrol wrote:
adinatha wrote:
Namdrol wrote:None of these statements ... can be taken literally.


This is the abiding condition.



They still cannot be taken literally.


Pick a word, any word, in the dharma, its interpretation, and what you say will always be true, self nullifying everything.
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: God in Buddhism

Postby adinatha » Tue May 03, 2011 9:44 pm

Namdrol wrote:This is the case, but now you have left the teaching of the Tathagatagarbha sutras behind. That is not how they present the arising of the rūpakāya.

N


The case is the case, reinterpret on down.
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: God in Buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Tue May 03, 2011 9:56 pm

adinatha wrote:
I bow down to the sun of dharma,
which is neither existence nor non-existence,
nor a combination of existence and non-existence,
nor something other than existence and non-existence:
the unexaminable, beyond all verbal definition,
self-cognisant, peace,
stainless, brilliant with the light jnana,
which completely destroys craving for,
aversion to or dullness toward mental objects.

-Uttaratantra


Key-word: self-cognisant



Sorry, this is not really translated correctly. The Sanskrit for this is "pratyātmavedyaḥ", this means "personally intuited", not self-cognizant. This is a common mistake made by translators when they do not realize that སོ་སོ་རང་གིས་རིག་པ (so so rang gi rig pa) is not a translation of svāsaṃvedana (self-reflexive or self-cognising). The two terms are very different in meaning. You could say "self-cognized" i.e. meaning something you personally understood.

The commentary on this passage by Kontrul bears this out.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10165
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Next

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dan74, Norwegian, rory, theanarchist, Thrasymachus and 27 guests

>