are nirmanakayas, "philosophical zombies"?

[klqv]

thanks

[DarwidHalim]

Yes, nirmanakaya is a physical zombie.

But, that physical zombie can lead you to realize the true nature of reality and its undeniable expression.

The harmony of non-arising and its expression is amazing!

That physical zombie is just a name. But that name is really useful.

[klqv]

hi,

for anyone who finds the title unclear i mean this concept http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

[kirtu]

thanks

No, not physical or philosophical.

Lacking sentience? Lacking conscious experience? You have to have both in order to liberate yourself to say nothing of leading others to liberation. We are the zombies in question (also just not philosophical zombies): we are completely under the sway of the five poisons and conceptuality.

Here are some zombies from the early days of film : a treat from Bela Lugosi and Clarence Muse.

Kirt

[klqv]

hi,

but we're not nirmanakayas? they are meant to be illusory manifestations of the buddha's awareness, himself having achieved that not on earth but in the akanistha heaven.

[kirtu]

hi,

but we're not nirmanakayas? they are meant to be illusory manifestations of the buddha's awareness, himself having achieved that not on earth but in the akanistha heaven.

We could become nirmanakayas also. However nirmanakayas come in different forms some of which aren't sentient (anything needed for sentient beings like a bridge for example, or a Buddha statute or a sutra). But sentient nimanakayas are really sentient beings that are physical manifestations of a Buddha. They are illusory in the Madhaymika sense that all phenomena is illusory but not in the sense that it is a complete fiction of the type you are asking about.

And we are still real zombies, completely entranced with the five poisons. However that is ultimately illusory and ultimately we can realize Buddha's awareness for real. So our zombiness is actually illusory but functional.

Kirt

[klqv]

We could become nirmanakayas also. However nirmanakayas come in different forms some of which aren't sentient (anything needed for sentient beings like a bridge for example, or a Buddha statute or a sutra). But sentient nimanakaya

do you have a source for that?


thanks for the reply - it was clear.

[kirtu]

We could become nirmanakayas also. However nirmanakayas come in different forms some of which aren't sentient (anything needed for sentient beings like a bridge for example, or a Buddha statute or a sutra). But sentient nimanakaya

do you have a source for that?

Well if we become fully enlightened then we become Nirmanakayas.

The part about non-sentient nirmanakayas is found in Vajrayana teaching and in Mahayana as well. A source is the Red Book (History of Nyingma) by HH Dudjom Rinpoche. However I cannot cite a page number because I had to give that book away. I'll see if I can find outher citations.

Kirt

[klqv]

We could become nirmanakayas also. However nirmanakayas come in different forms some of which aren't sentient (anything needed for sentient beings like a bridge for example, or a Buddha statute or a sutra). But sentient nimanakaya

do you have a source for that?

Well if we become fully enlightened then we become Nirmanakayas

where would our sambhogakaya be then? i thought the idea was that the bliss body is what is enlightened, while the manifestation is like its puppet in this world.

[kirtu]

Well if we become fully enlightened then we become Nirmanakayas

where would our sambhogakaya be then? i thought the idea was that the bliss body is what is enlightened, while the manifestation is like its puppet in this world.

I've never asked and I don't know. If I attain full enlightenment in the next second (<poof>) does a Sambogakaya spontaneously manifest in Akanistha or another realm? That would appear to be the case. However, the nirmanakaya is not a puppet in the world (although I don't doubt that it could be in some doctrines). I doubt whether any of the sources I currently have address this question directly but I'll keep an eye out.

Kirt

[DarwidHalim]

If we see nirmanakaya, we will also see sambogakaya and dharmakaya.
If we see sambogakaya, we will also see nirmanakaya and dhammakaya.
If we see dhammakaya, we will also see nirmanakaya and sambhogakaya.

If we see nirmanakaya, but we don't automatically see sambogakaya and dharmakaya, something is wrong with the nirmanakaya understanding.
If we see sambogakaya, but we don't automatically see nirmanakaya and dhammakaya, something is wrong with the sambogakaya understanding.
If we see dhammakaya, but we don't automatically see nirmanakaya and sambogakaya, something is wrong with the dharmakaya understanding.

[teknix]

My opinion is that anyone who has correlated emptiness to absolute nothingness, is as the term describes.

If you say there is only nothing, then I say nothing does not exists. Such is the middle way.(imo)

[Malcolm]

However, the nirmanakaya is not a puppet in the world...

That is exactly how Gorampa describes it, in point of fact.

[kirtu]

However, the nirmanakaya is not a puppet in the world...

That is exactly how Gorampa describes it, in point of fact.

What does he base that upon?

Kirt

[Malcolm]

However, the nirmanakaya is not a puppet in the world...

That is exactly how Gorampa describes it, in point of fact.

What does he base that upon?

Kirt

He points out that if the nirmankāya and Sambhogakāya were the same continuum, then when the Buddha stepped on an acacia thorne, Vairocana in Akanistha would have been harmed. He therefore, states that the relationship between Sambhogakāyas and Nirmankāyas are like that of illusionists and illusions. However, what he was referring to was puppet shows, since that is actually the kind of illusion being discussed in that example i.e. taking clods of earth, sticks and so on, and causing the illusions of people, elephants and so on to appear on a screen.

N

[kirtu]

He points out that if the nirmankāya and Sambhogakāya were the same continuum, then when the Buddha stepped on an acacia thorne, Vairocana in Akanistha would have been harmed. He therefore, states that the relationship between Sambhogakāyas and Nirmankāyas are like that of illusionists and illusions. However, what he was referring to was puppet shows, since that is actually the kind of illusion being discussed in that example i.e. taking clods of earth, sticks and so on, and causing the illusions of people, elephants and so on to appear on a screen.

Where does Gorampa discuss this?

Gorampa's argument is not really logical (that must score max points for some kind of combination of irony and arrogance on my part) and is constrained to a particular interpretation or sets of interpretations. Your paragraph explanation can be debated but ..... well, I lack the background to debate this seriously.

If considered seriously a nirmanakaya as a *puppet* is problematic on many levels (for one thing this can be seen as denying liberation at the level of Buddhahood). As an emanation and thus a kind of illusion (but not a puppet) this is not problematic.

Even the case of Shakyamuni is problematic with this puppet interpretation while attaining full enlightenment in the remote past and then enacting (or playacting) the twelve deeds isn't.

Kirt

[klqv]

Well if we become fully enlightened then we become Nirmanakayas

where would our sambhogakaya be then? i thought the idea was that the bliss body is what is enlightened, while the manifestation is like its puppet in this world.

I've never asked and I don't know. If I attain full enlightenment in the next second (<poof>) does a Sambogakaya spontaneously manifest in Akanistha or another realm? That would appear to be the case. However, the nirmanakaya is not a puppet in the world (although I don't doubt that it could be in some doctrines). I doubt whether any of the sources I currently have address this question directly but I'll keep an eye out.

Kirt

hi,

the reason i suggested this, is because i read that accodring to the standard interpretation, awareness is located only in the bliss body, so that its body is no less pure than the dharmakaya.

[Malcolm]

Where does Gorampa discuss this?

His commentary on Sapan's three vows.

[Malcolm]

He points out that if the nirmankāya and Sambhogakāya were the same continuum, then when the Buddha stepped on an acacia thorne, Vairocana in Akanistha would have been harmed. He therefore, states that the relationship between Sambhogakāyas and Nirmankāyas are like that of illusionists and illusions. However, what he was referring to was puppet shows, since that is actually the kind of illusion being discussed in that example i.e. taking clods of earth, sticks and so on, and causing the illusions of people, elephants and so on to appear on a screen.

Where does Gorampa discuss this?

Gorampa's argument is not really logical (that must score max points for some kind of combination of irony and arrogance on my part) and is constrained to a particular interpretation or sets of interpretations. Your paragraph explanation can be debated but ..... well, I lack the background to debate this seriously.

If considered seriously a nirmanakaya as a *puppet* is problematic on many levels (for one thing this can be seen as denying liberation at the level of Buddhahood). As an emanation and thus a kind of illusion (but not a puppet) this is not problematic.

Even the case of Shakyamuni is problematic with this puppet interpretation while attaining full enlightenment in the remote past and then enacting (or playacting) the twelve deeds isn't.

Kirt

It is based on the idea, stated in the Lanka and elsewhere, that actual Buddhahood occurs in Akaniṣţha Gandavyuha, and that nirmankāyas only seem to acheive buddhahood here. In other words, they are merely projections of the Sambogakāya, they are sort of philosophical zombies.

N

[kirtu]

He points out that if the nirmankāya and Sambhogakāya were the same continuum, then when the Buddha stepped on an acacia thorne, Vairocana in Akanistha would have been harmed. He therefore, states that the relationship between Sambhogakāyas and Nirmankāyas are like that of illusionists and illusions. However, what he was referring to was puppet shows, since that is actually the kind of illusion being discussed in that example i.e. taking clods of earth, sticks and so on, and causing the illusions of people, elephants and so on to appear on a screen.

Where does Gorampa discuss this?

Gorampa's argument is not really logical (that must score max points for some kind of combination of irony and arrogance on my part) and is constrained to a particular interpretation or sets of interpretations. Your paragraph explanation can be debated but ..... well, I lack the background to debate this seriously.

If considered seriously a nirmanakaya as a *puppet* is problematic on many levels (for one thing this can be seen as denying liberation at the level of Buddhahood). As an emanation and thus a kind of illusion (but not a puppet) this is not problematic.

Even the case of Shakyamuni is problematic with this puppet interpretation while attaining full enlightenment in the remote past and then enacting (or playacting) the twelve deeds isn't.

It is based on the idea, stated in the Lanka and elsewhere, that actual Buddhahood occurs in Akaniṣţha Gandavyuha, and that nirmankāyas only seem to acheive buddhahood here. In other words, they are merely projections of the Sambogakāya, they are sort of philosophical zombies.

See this is highly problematic. It's one thing to assert that this is the case for Buddha nirmanakayas : actual Buddhahood occurs in Akanistha (fine) and then an emanation play acts (either for real or in effect). However this restricts mere sentient beings from attaining full enlightenment at least in this lifetime. That can be resolved by asserting that sentient beings actually don't attain enlightenment in this lifetime - it really happens after death in Akanistha, etc.

Projections of the Sambogakaya do not have to be philosophical zombies. This would mean something quite radical if it were not the case: Karmapa X, Dalai Lama Y, Sakya Trizen Z and many others would then themselves not only be emanations but really a kind of phantasm. This to me violates the meaning of emanation.

Kirt