Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 7:27 am
Johnny Dangerous wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 7:30 am
And again, you stated that there was a claim that samsara arises from the Dharmakaya somehow, I don't see that here either, not that I expect to.
Kongtrul's "Light Rays of the Stainless Vajra Moon" tr. Brunnhölzl. (p.847 of "When the Clouds Part"):
Kongtrul wrote:These appearances of the three existences (the container that is the outer world and the [inner] content [of sentient beings], just as a face's being transferred [as a reflection] into a mirror, appear as the magical display of inner nadis, vayus, and tilakas, and these three abide as the aspects of "the other"--the circle of the supreme mandala with its support and supported. All of these are true reality's--the sugar heart's--own light and own radiance, the dharmakaya itself appearing as all aspects, and utterly changeless wisdom.
(formatting mine)
If you’re not into this type of approach that’s fine. Tsongkhapa would say it is a bunch of horse apples. Plenty of highly realized masters completely reject that kind of idea. But plenty of highly realized masters embrace it too. So it’s a personal and karmic choice.
Yes, , it's essentially the view of Dzogchen, according to some teachers, not news to me. It is not the same as saying Samsara arises from the Dharmakaya though, mainly because to say that you 1) affirm a First Cause and 2) by definition you become a Theist thinker, who believes in the
inherent reality of cause and effect, and thinks some prime mover created the phenomenal universe. In other words, you fall into the extremes. Hell, just believing there is actually such a thing as creation or destruction excludes you from the view you are professing to hold, it is
utterly beyond notions of cause and effect. Read Myriad Worlds, it covers this in detail, is by the guy you are quoting and says nothing like ‘samsara arises from the Dharmakaya’.
There are whole volumes written on this subject, and I feel like you are being so sloppy as to essentially be wrong by equating with "samsara arises from the Dharmakaya" with this statement. By definition, what Kongtrul is talking about is not samsara... or nirvana, but is beyond both, there is no conception of either one in that view, it forsakes both. So you cannot make a statement like that and be correct, in my opinion.
The Dzogchen view is not just a philosophy or tenet system, and treating in like it means what you say it means here is like trying to explain particle physics using a second grade science class vocabulary. That's not personal, I'm just saying that the
idea that what you posted means "Samsara arises from the Dharmakaya" could only be a mistake made by taking the view you presented and then somehow
essentializing it and dumbing it down until it is something entirely different.