buddhist hinduism?

[Enochian]

Namdrol,

Would you admit that everything is "connected"?

That even us regular sentient beings are somehow "connected" to the Buddhas?

I thought I read somewhere that the Buddhas know every thought in the universe, implying some profound connection between Buddhas and regular sentient beings.

[Malcolm]

Namdrol,

Would you admit that everything is "connected"?

Everything is a condition for everything but itself.

Since the Buddhas have realized the nature of reality which pervades everything, theoretically, there are no limits to what a Buddha can know. If something can be known by a consciousness, it can be known by a Buddha .

The subject of the omniscience of a Buddha is quite complicated.

N

[platypus]

Dharmakaya and adi-buddha seem quite like Hindu concepts to me.

Would you please explain your meaning a bit? There are a few ways to interpret this, and I don't want to get you wrong.

I see the dharmakaya explained as where all buddhas emanate from like a ground of being, where all things arise from and it is true nature, the same with Buddha nature. It is the essential reality of all things. The difference between an awakened being and a non awakened being is they do not realise it yet. This reminded me of advaita vedanta where all beings are essentially brahman. The only difference between jiva and those who have attained moksha is that they haven't realised it yet. And are fooled by Maya. The other thing is on some level they are real but ultimately they are no different from brahman. Their atman is one with brahman. Even if you say Dharmakaya is essentially non conceptual and empty. So is brahman, in advaita brahman emanates avatara, but is non conceptual. And if all dharmas arise ultimately from Dharmakaya, this is essentially the same as jiva and Maya arising out of brahman.
I am awaiting schooling if I am wrong.

[Malcolm]

I see the dharmakaya explained as where all buddhas emanate from like a ground of being...

Buddhism does not propose a truly existent ground of being.

[Enochian]

I see the dharmakaya explained as where all buddhas emanate from like a ground of being...

Buddhism does not propose a truly existent ground of being.

What about a dependently originated ground of being?

[Malcolm]

I see the dharmakaya explained as where all buddhas emanate from like a ground of being...

Buddhism does not propose a truly existent ground of being.

What about a dependently originated ground of being?

That is a contradiction in terms -- from what causes and conditions would such a ground of being originate?

Buddhist logic on this is airtight. There is nothing in the universe that is not dependently originated. Whatever is dependently originated is free from the extremes of existence and non-existence. Since there are no beings in a dependently originated universe, there also no ground of being. What is the use of a ground of being if there are no beings for which it is purported to be a ground?

N

[platypus]

I see the dharmakaya explained as where all buddhas emanate from like a ground of being...

Buddhism does not propose a truly existent ground of being.

So all dharmas do not arise from dharmakaya?

[platypus]

That is a contradiction in terms -- from what causes and conditions would such a ground of being originate?

Buddhist logic on this is airtight. There is nothing in the universe that is not dependently originated. Whatever is dependently originated is free from the extremes of existence and non-existence. Since there are no beings in a dependently originated universe, there also no ground of being. What is the use of a ground of being if there are no beings for which it is purported to be a ground?

N

that's what advaita says too, that jiva are ultimately one with brahman and simply maya.

[mudra]

That is a contradiction in terms -- from what causes and conditions would such a ground of being originate?

Buddhist logic on this is airtight. There is nothing in the universe that is not dependently originated. Whatever is dependently originated is free from the extremes of existence and non-existence. Since there are no beings in a dependently originated universe, there also no ground of being. What is the use of a ground of being if there are no beings for which it is purported to be a ground?

N

that's what advaita says too, that jiva are ultimately one with brahman and simply maya.

Hi platypus -
Mostly it is Hindus (whatever that term really means given the multifarious aspects of various Brahmanic, Vaishnavite, Shivaite, Vedic, advaita etc views that encompasses) who are obsessed with trying to figure out how "Buddhism and Hinduism are fundamentally the same, the play of Maya is the same in Buddhism as in Hinduism/advaita" etc.

There are shared cultural and contextual backgrounds to the two 'religions' but in terms of basic 'view' they are radically different. One with Brahman? I don't think so: it might be a well established "Hindu" view but it is not a Buddhist view at all.

Dharmakaya and "Adi Buddha" are not Brahman or Atman (or even Superman for that matter).

[Malcolm]

That is a contradiction in terms -- from what causes and conditions would such a ground of being originate?

Buddhist logic on this is airtight. There is nothing in the universe that is not dependently originated. Whatever is dependently originated is free from the extremes of existence and non-existence. Since there are no beings in a dependently originated universe, there also no ground of being. What is the use of a ground of being if there are no beings for which it is purported to be a ground?

N

that's what advaita says too, that jiva are ultimately one with brahman and simply maya.

There is no jiva, from a Buddhist POV. Nor is there Brahmin.

N

[Malcolm]

I see the dharmakaya explained as where all buddhas emanate from like a ground of being...

Buddhism does not propose a truly existent ground of being.

So all dharmas do not arise from dharmakaya?

No, they do not.

[Enochian]

This is my understanding of Mādhyamaka is two sentences:

Everything exists as thoughtforms merely designated upon causes and conditions. This applies to yourself, the Buddhas, the causes and conditions themselves, and even the principle of causality itself.

[Enochian]

That is a contradiction in terms -- from what causes and conditions would such a ground of being originate?

Buddhist logic on this is airtight. There is nothing in the universe that is not dependently originated. Whatever is dependently originated is free from the extremes of existence and non-existence. Since there are no beings in a dependently originated universe, there also no ground of being. What is the use of a ground of being if there are no beings for which it is purported to be a ground?

N

Thats what I thought. You through me off when you said before that there is no "truly existent ground of being" implying there may be another type of ground of being.

[xabir]

I see the dharmakaya explained as where all buddhas emanate from like a ground of being,

Dharmakaya means emptiness, not a ground of being. See this http://www.jenchen.org.sg/vol9no3a.htm

[Enochian]

So what does this passage from the 2004 academic book, The Essential Vedanta, sound like to everyone?

I added the boldness for emphasis.

"Sarvajnatman.....argued for "reflexionism" in understanding the relations that obtain between the individual self (jiva), the world, and Brahman, and favored the view that ignorance resides in Brahman. Sarvajnatman was a very able thinker. He drew a sharp distinction between adhisthana (the ground of appearances; the true Brahman) and adhara (the object to which false appearances refer; Brahman as modified by ignorance).

[gregkavarnos]

Sounds like dualism to me. Actually tri-alism. We know that there is no individual self that stands in opposition to an objective phenomenal world which all dwells within an all-encompassing cosmic consciousness so why even bother bringing it up?

[PadmaVonSamba]

"...and favored the view that ignorance resides in Brahman..."

Ignorance is not a thing that resides anywhere.
Ignorance is a condition of not knowing, and this not knowing is expressed in actions that result in suffering.

It can be seen as a "hole" in one's understanding, the way a hole can be seen in a donut,
but the hole doesn't 'reside' there. It's simply an area where there is no donut.

The term, I think, is an expression of what is not there (wisdom)
So, it's like saying "what's there is what is not there".

[Enochian]

I guess no one got my point.

The distinguishing between adhisthana and adhara sounds like distinguishing rigpa and sems.

And there was also the bit about "reflexionism".

By the way, I am not a Monist or Hindu in any way. I just feel compelled to argue from from all viewpoints.

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

This is my understanding of Mādhyamaka is two sentences:

Everything exists as thoughtforms ...

You lost me at "exists" and "thoughtforms".

[Enochian]

This is my understanding of Mādhyamaka is two sentences:

Everything exists as thoughtforms ...

You lost me at "exists" and "thoughtforms".

Read Emptiness by Gesh Tashi Tsering.

I am an obsessed follower of Mādhyamaka philosophy, so I am pretty sure what I have written is correct.