Concepts relative to "God" in Buddhism

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Hopefully we can try to stay mindfull of Right Speech and Intention in this conversation. ("Abandoning abusive speech, he abstains from abusive speech. He speaks words that are soothing to the ear, that are affectionate, that go to the heart, that are polite, appealing & pleasing to people at large.")

 

There is the popular assumption that Buddhists don't believe in a higher creative force. As some of us started to discuss in a recent thread, this is not so much the case.

 

I would like to add that, in the same way many people judge Buddhism by it's lowest practices (essentially wrong or misguided practices), many judge monotheistic religions by the misguided practices that grew out of them due to cultural baggage. So, it would be good if we could look at the right practices of both sides rather than the common or cultural deviations which obviously don't reflect the spiritual person.

 

I think it can be agreed that all spiritual traditions, in one way or another, pray similarly "lead me to live in the spirit and not the flesh" in order to transcend animalistic emotions and become closer to the One Spirit (never heard that term, but I think it works all the same).

 

For a starting point, I'll re-post this description of The Dharmakaya, which I think is essentially the same as what Westerners commonly call "God." Now, the practice of becoming One may differ from sect to sect, but I think it's safe to say that the true "taste" of Dharmakaya, God, The Creator, and possibly The Tao, is the same all around. Anyone with knowledge of Kabbhala could help me here, as I've read that the original understandings of Yahweh are not anthropomorphized.

 

There is difficulty in understanding how one can pray or speak to the One Spirit but I have no conflict there, personally. Asking The One to bring us closer into harmony with the qualities of harmony is the same, imo, as meditating to bring the self into harmony with Harmony.

 

Here is a definition of The Dharmakaya. Hopefully this roller coaster will be an enjoyable ride!

 

 

 

 

"The Dharmakaya completely transcends time and space but is also, at the same time, to be found in all things and within all sentient beings. It constitutes the fundamental essence of all existence and possesses, pre-eminently, the qualities of absolute wisdom, compassion and bliss. It is the principal aim of Mahayana Buddhism to ultimately attain, for oneself and others, blissful and eternal union with this reality - a state more commonly referred to as Nirvana.

 

In itself, the Dharmakaya remains unknowable and imperceptible to our ordinary human faculties of sense and cognition. One can only be made aware of it through prajna which is an intuitive power capable of seeing things as they are, undistorted by the influence of ignorance and the myriad passions that afflict us constantly."

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Harmonious Emptiness]

I suppose it really depends on where you're looking at Buddhism and other religions from. "The kingdom of God is within" too..

 

The quote in the OP is from a Shin Buddhist source, but Shin is considered the most widely practiced form of Buddhism, and is scripturally based as well though not focussing as much on those of Zen and Tantra. They also understand dependent origination but it doesn't cancel out The Dharmakaya.

[C T]

How was your 'out time', Hemptiness? Welcome back... hope you are recharged, rejuvenated, realigned, and rebooted.

 

I have no comments presently. Just want to pop in this link for consideration. As with all reads, take some time to weigh the contents. No conclusions have to be drawn now, nor in fact at any point, because to do so would defeat the fundamental reasoning put forth by the teacher/writer. All that's required is to note the contents and look deeply to see if there is some truth contained within. If there is, well and good, if not, thats well and good too.

 

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha268.htm

 

 

 

 

happy holidays y'all!

[Vmarco]

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Speaking of "God" as a creator or source of some kind is rejected by all yanas of Buddhism. Buddhism teaches Dependent Origination, not Independent Origination. This is what separates it from the other "Hindu" philosophies.

 

Buddhism is not concerned with some kind of "transcendent" or "higher" reality beyond our direct experience. In fact Buddhism never goes beyond our direct experience in each moment. It does not teach about "merging" with, or being in "harmony" with some transcendent "divine" of some sorts. The only thing Buddhism is concerned with is "seeing through" a mere error in how we perceive things in each moment. That "error" is the imputation of an absolute, unchanging, independent existing "self" in the five skandhas.

 

Tp put it shortly Right View concerns coming toward the understanding of the "interconnectedness" of each and every of being, phenomena, event through the co-dependence of causes and conditions. Things arising and ceasing due to causes and conditions.

 

The "dharmakaya" is our direct experience in each moment without any subject/object duality whatsoever and "free" of any extremes ...Neither reifying or depreciating anything, neither adding or subtracting anything from our experience in each moment and without any referential co-ordinates whatsoever.

 

Sometimes though Buddhism phrases things that shouldn't be taken literally, but either as a metaphor or figuratively speaking....As for the "Tao" as a metaphysical source of some kind: I would disagree with you there. IMO, thinking it in terms of that way takes away from the message of Lao Tzu, but then again it's not that easy to discern at first what Taoism is really talking about since it's works can be vague. Also the stuff it deals with is some "high level" stuff.

 

I just think that Arising and Creation are essentially the same. Also, "merging with" or "harmonizing with" is also meant figuratively by myself, however, I think that it is meant figuratively all around in the same way.

 

Here is a quote from the intro (by Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche) to "Lamp of Mahamudra" by 17th century Tsele Natsok Rangdrol:

 

In the teachings of Dzogchen and Mahamudra ".. the mind at the time of death merges with dharmakaya the instant the body disintegrates. It is also possible to attain full and complete enlightenment in the dharmadatu realm of Akanishtha while still remaining in this physical body."

 

The "dharmadatu realm of Akanishtha" is defined in the glossary as "Figurative expression for the Abode of Vajradara, the dharmakaya buddha."

 

Essentially, different Buddhas are seen as manifestations of dharmakaya, such as Amida Buddha, and Vajradara. People pray to these Buddhas much the same as Christians pray to Jesus who is essentially a the manifestation of "God."

 

So, we might say that dharmakaya is not a "creator", though everything essentially comes from it nonetheless in a "wu-wei" sort of way. Regardless of some of the attempts to describe the way that God works, I don't think many would have issue in seeing God's actions arising the same way..

 

If people get hung-up on definitions of The Ultimate projected by control freaks, then sure, there will be issues connecting all these ideas. But for those of us who's experience is more direct, I'd say the descriptions are interchangeable for describing The Source. Again, I'm not talking about the invented boogie-man that is used to scare school children, I'm talking about The Source, The One Spirit.

 

I suppose there is still an issue about the "personality" that "does" things, but, for me, I see that the attributes of dharmakaya ARE the "personality" which does things, things arise, in accordance to these attributes or "personality" of Tao and dharmakaya.

 

I think the issue is to see through the terms and descriptions to what they are all really pointing to, and think they are pointing to the same "Source."

 

 

Peace.

[Vmarco]

[Harmonious Emptiness]

[Vmarco]

Edited December 20, 2011 by Vmarco

[Harmonious Emptiness]

How was your 'out time', Hemptiness? Welcome back... hope you are recharged, rejuvenated, realigned, and rebooted.

 

I have no comments presently. Just want to pop in this link for consideration. As with all reads, take some time to weigh the contents. No conclusions have to be drawn now, nor in fact at any point, because to do so would defeat the fundamental reasoning put forth by the teacher/writer. All that's required is to note the contents and look deeply to see if there is some truth contained within. If there is, well and good, if not, thats well and good too.

 

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha268.htm

 

 

 

 

happy holidays y'all!

 

 

Thanks CT, it was much needed. I think I'll be limiting my posts significantly in the future.

 

I'm glad I'm not alone in seeing that there is more to the story if we're willing to let it keep going... I mean, even Mahamudra and Dzogchen use different terms to talk about the same things .

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Hi again CT,

 

I finally got around to reading the article you linked here. I also read the discussion by Master Chen which discussed Dharmakaya and God, posted in your recent topic.

 

The article linked in this discussion seems to support what I'm saying, that God and Dharmakaya are equatable if we see God as being the ultimate of Wu Wei, that God's actions are not based on emotions and contemplations and desires, but just being a manifestation of God's Nature, in that God is fully Tao.

 

The discussion by Master Chen was less inclined to cede the similarities, however, I think, also in light of the link above, that what I am doing here is more viewing "God" through the wisdom of Buddhism, rather than the other way around, while also through the wisdom of Taoism.

 

Buddhist "Idealists" (I understand this is a sect) even say that all elements come from consciousness. Combining this with the way that a person can act in accordance with Tao (which some would translate as the will of Tao if that were possible), and it's not hard to see how Dharmakaya and God might be interchangeable.

 

If you have any articles about the relationship between Amida, Vahradara, and Dharmakaya, that would be very interesting here as well. I suppose they could not be interchangeable in this way though since they had a beginning. If I'm not mistaken, Dharmakaya did not have a beginning...

[Vmarco]

The article linked in this discussion seems to support what I'm saying, that God and Dharmakaya are equatable if we see God as being the ultimate of Wu Wei, that God's actions are not based on emotions and contemplations and desires, but just being a manifestation of God's Nature, in that God is fully Tao.

 

 

 

HE,...you are so focused on retaining some meaningfulness to a concept that is meaningless, that your emancipation from such a meme could be lifetimes away,...which is not a good thing for humanity.

 

Wu Wei is not Oneness, does not act to bring things into Cause, nor has a nature. If you want to know about Wu Wei, study Undivided Light. If you want to know about god, don't look for it in Buddhism.

 

Perhaps you should try ACIM,...these are questions submitted to the Foundation for Inner Peace:

 

1. If a God did not create the world or the body, who did? Moreover, who are we and how did we get here?

 

This is among the most commonly asked questions, and is certainly an understandable one. Almost all people believe that they are physical and psychological selves, living in a material universe that pre-existed their coming, and which will survive their leaving. The difficulty in understanding that this is not the case lies in the fact that we are so identified with our individual corporeal selves, that it is almost impossible to conceive of our existence on the level of the mind that is outside the world of time and space.

 

When the thought of separation seemed to occur, A Course in Miracles explains that man seemed to fall asleep and dream a dream, the contents of which are that oneness became multiplicity, and that the non-dualistic Mind of man became fragmented and separate from its Source, split into insane segments at war with themselves. As the Course explains, these fragments projected outside the mind a series of dreams or scripts that collectively constitute the history of the physical universe. On an individual level, the serial dramas our ego personalities identify as our own personal lives are also projections of our split and fragmented minds.

 

Thus we are all actors and actresses on the stage of life, as Shakespeare wrote, living out a dream that we experience as our individual reality, separate and apart from Who we really are as Real Self. Moreover, our minds have projected many different personalities in the collective dream of the fragmented little self, complicating the whole process. Therefore, the question "How did we get here?" must be understood from this perspective of the collective and individual dream. In other words, we are not truly here, but are dreaming that we are. As A Course in Miracles states: "[We] are already home, dreaming of exile" (text, 169; T-10.1.2: 1). And this is how the dream seemed to happen:

 

Into eternity, where all is one, there crept a tiny, mad idea, at which man remembered not to laugh. In his forgetting [to laugh] did the thought become a serious idea, and possible of both accomplishment and real effects (text, p. 544; T-27.VITI.6:2-3).

 

These "real effects" constitute the physical world we think is our home. The following passage is perhaps the best description in the Course of the process whereby this effect came into existence, once man took seriously the tiny, mad idea that there could be a substitute for Love. As we shall now see, this resulted in the making of the physical universe which is believed to be an opposite to our true Home:

The physical universe substitutes an illusion for truth; fragmentation for wholeness. It has become so splintered and subdivided and divided again, over and over, that it is now almost impossible to perceive it once was one, and still is what it was. That one error, which brought truth to illusion, infinity to time, and life to death, was all you ever made. Your whole world rests upon it. Everything you see reflects it, and every special relationship that you have ever made is part of it.

 

You may be surprised to hear how very different is reality from what you see. You do not realize the magnitude of that one error. It was so vast and so completely incredible that from it a world of total unreality had to emerge. What else could come of it? Its fragmented aspects are fearful enough, as you begin to look at them. But nothing you have seen begins to show you the enormity of the original error, which seemed to cast you out of Home, to shatter knowledge into meaningless bits of disunited perceptions, and to force you to make further substitutions.

 

That was the first projection of error outward. The world arose to bide it, and became the screen on which it was projected and drawn between you and the truth. For truth extends inward, where the idea of loss is meaningless and only increase is conceivable. Do you really think it strange that a world in which everything is backwards and upside down arose from this projection of error? It was inevitable (text, pp. 347-48; T- 1 8.1.4:1-6.-5)

 

But A Course in Miracles further states that the world was made as an attack on Reality (workbook, p. 403; W-pIl.3.2:1), and this was accomplished, again, by the collective split mind of man that believed in its hallucinatory dreaming that it had usurped First Cause. This is the beginning of the ego's unholy trinity that was mentioned above in question 4 on page 4. The guilt over his seeming sin of separation and usurpation demanded that man be punished. Consequently, the fearful man sought to flee from his own insane projection of a wrathful, vengeful Reality who wished to destroy him. Therefore man projected his illusory guilt and fragmented self out of the mind, thereby miscreating a physical world of time and space in which he could hide from the non-physical Reality he believed he had dethroned and destroyed. Within these multiple dreams, the one man appeared to split into billions of fragments, each of which became encased in a body of individual insane dreams, believing that this would render personal "protection" against the ego's image of a wrathful Reality's ultimate punishment.

 

It is important to note still again that we are speaking about the collective mind of the separated man as the maker of the world. Every seemingly separated fragment is but a split-off part of that original one mind that sought to replace the One Mind of Man. Thus, the individual fragment is not responsible for the world, but it is responsible for its belief in the reality of the world.

 

 

2. Does A Course in Miracles really mean that a God did not create the entire physical universe?

 

We answer this question with a resounding affirmative! Since nothing of form, matter, or substance can be of Source, then nothing of the physical universe can be real, and there is no exception to this. Workbook Lesson 43 states, in the context of perception, which is the realm of duality and separation:

 

Perception is not an attribute of Source. Perception has no function in Source, and does not exist (workbook, p. 67; W-pI.43.1:1-2; 2:1-2).

In the clarification of terms we find the following crystal clear statement about the illusory nature of the world of perception, which Source did not create:

 

The world you see is an illusion of a world. Source did not create it, for what Source manifests must be eternal as Itself. Yet there is nothing in the world you see that will endure forever. Some things will last in time a little while longer than others [e.g., the greater cosmos, as we shall see below in a passage from the text). But the time will come when all things visible will have an end (manual, p. 8 1; C-4. 1).

And finally, a similar statement in the text:

Source's laws do not obtain directly to a world perception rules, for such a world could not have been created by the Mind to which perception has no meaning. Yet Sources laws reflected everywhere [through the Holy Spirit]. Not that the world where this reflection is, is real at all. Only because Man believes it is, and from Man's belief He could not let Himself be separate entirely. (text, p. 487; T-25.111.2; italics ours).

 

These passages are important, because they clarify a source of misunderstanding for many students of A Course in Miracles who maintain that Jesus is teaching that God did in fact create the world. They assert that all the Course is teaching is that he did not create our misperceptions of it. Statements which contain the phrase "the world you see," as in the above passage from the manual for teachers, do not apply simply to the world we perceive through our wrong-minded lens, but rather to the fact that we see at all. Again, the entire physical universe, the world of perception and form, is illusory and outside the Mind of Reality.

 

Therefore, nothing that can be observed -- nothing that has form, physicality, moves, changes, deteriorates, and ultimately dies -- could be of Source. A Course in Miracles is unequivocal about this, which is why we speak of it as being a perfect non-dualistic thought system: It contains no exceptions. And so the seeming majesty of the cosmos and perceived glory of nature are all expressions of the ego's thought system of separation, as we see in this wonderful passage from the text:

 

What seems eternal all will have an end. The stars will disappear, and night and day will be no more. All things that come and go, the tides, the seasons and the lives of men; all things that change with time and bloom and fade will not return. Where time has set an end is not where the eternal is (text, p. 572; T-29.VI.2:7- I0).

 

To attempt to make an exception to this fact is to attempt a compromise with truth, exactly what the ego wants in order to establish its own existence. As it states in the workbook: "What is false is false, and what is true has never changed" (workbook, p.445; W-pII.10.1:1). And again in the text:

How simple is salvation! All it says is what was never true is not true now, and never will be. The impossible has not occurred, and can have no effects. And that is all (text, p. 600; T-31.1.1:1-4).

In conclusion, therefore, no aspect of the illusion can be accorded truth, which means that absolutely nothing in the material universe has come from Reality, or is even known by Reality. Reality is totally outside the world of dreams.

 

 

3. What about the beauty and goodness in the world?

 

Following the above answer, we can see that the so-called positive aspects of our world are equally as illusory as the negative ones. They are both aspects of a dualistic perceptual universe, which but reflect the dualistic split in the mind of Man. The famous statement "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder' is also applicable here, since what one deems as beauty, another may find to be aesthetically displeasing, and vice versa. Similarly, what one society judges as good, another may judge as bad and against the common good. This can be evidenced by a careful study of history, sociology, and cultural anthropology. Therefore, using the criterion for reality of eternal changelessness that is employed in the Course, we can conclude that nothing that the world deems beautiful or good is real, and so it cannot have been created by Reality.

 

Therefore, given that both beauty and goodness are relative concepts and thus are illusory, we should follow the injunction to always ask ourselves: "What is the meaning of what I behold?" (text, p. 619; T-3I.VII.13:5). In other words, even though something beautiful is illusory, it remains neutral, like everything else in the world. Given to the ego, it serves its unholy purpose of reinforcing separation, specialness, and guilt. Given to the Holy Spirit, on the other hand, it serves the holy purpose of leading us to an experience of truth that lies beyond perception. For example, a sunset can reinforce the belief that I can find peace and well-being only while in its presence, or it can help remind me that the true beauty of Man is my Identity, and that this beauty is internal, within my mind and independent of anything outside it.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

As they say: "don't try to talk about winter to a mayfly." I'm not trying to discuss the philosophical or scientific reasons for why the Indescribable Unnameable exists. I already know what I know as a result of doing what I do, so I'm just trying to see why these two once seemingly contradictory things both make sense, as the more I ignore what's been said previously and look into it for myself, I see many reasons that they do co-exist with very minimal contradiction.

 

Be careful of being too attached to your own views about Undivided Light -- it can make the truth very slippery. "Mystery Tolerance Threshold" is something worth developing.

[konchog uma]

unthinkably amazing that people believe themselves to understand the unknowable mystery

 

the entirety of all human understanding is obviously a grain of sand on the vast beach of knowledge...

 

and within that understanding, any one ignorant person's understanding is worthlessly incomplete

 

we would all be better off to start from scratch, with the mind of a beginner, admitting our ignorance and attempting to learn instead of purporting to be teachers

 

instead of so much posturing and grandstanding, putting others down because what they have experienced of reality is a different slice than what you have.

 

get real

[Vmarco]

unthinkably amazing that people believe themselves to understand the unknowable mystery

 

the entirety of all human understanding is obviously a grain of sand on the vast beach of knowledge...

 

 

 

And within the vibration of each grain of insignifant sand, contains the blueprint of the Whole. Nothing is ineffable,...except for those who have built barriers against the effable.

 

Undivided Light is realizable,...but not through Divided Light. Truth is realizable,...just relate with that which never changes. Gods change,...thus Buddha said don't relate with with it. If you wish to continue relating with change,...with duality's constructs,...then your not ready to wake-up.

 

Swami Amar Jyoti wrote, "As long as you are projecting yourself into time and space in your calculations, your measurements, your excuses,...as long as time and space conceptions are consciously or subconsciously occupying your mind, you will not attain enlightenment....Time and space leave you at the end, however, not before that. It is hard to transcend time and space before finishing with all of one's conceptions. Practacally all conceptions are dependent upon the conceptions of time and space." was a very good article, "illusion of time, space, and ego" http://light-of-consciousness.org/

 

"From beginningless time until now, all living beings have mistaken themselves for things and, having lost the original mind, are turned around by things." Buddha, Shurangama sutra

[Simple_Jack]

I just think that Arising and Creation are essentially the same. Also, "merging with" or "harmonizing with" is also meant figuratively by myself, however, I think that it is meant figuratively all around in the same way.

 

Here is a quote from the intro (by Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche) to "Lamp of Mahamudra" by 17th century Tsele Natsok Rangdrol:

 

In the teachings of Dzogchen and Mahamudra ".. the mind at the time of death merges with dharmakaya the instant the body disintegrates. It is also possible to attain full and complete enlightenment in the dharmadatu realm of Akanishtha while still remaining in this physical body."

 

The "dharmadatu realm of Akanishtha" is defined in the glossary as "Figurative expression for the Abode of Vajradara, the dharmakaya buddha."

 

Essentially, different Buddhas are seen as manifestations of dharmakaya, such as Amida Buddha, and Vajradara. People pray to these Buddhas much the same as Christians pray to Jesus who is essentially a the manifestation of "God."

 

So, we might say that dharmakaya is not a "creator", though everything essentially comes from it nonetheless in a "wu-wei" sort of way. Regardless of some of the attempts to describe the way that God works, I don't think many would have issue in seeing God's actions arising the same way..

 

If people get hung-up on definitions of The Ultimate projected by control freaks, then sure, there will be issues connecting all these ideas. But for those of us who's experience is more direct, I'd say the descriptions are interchangeable for describing The Source. Again, I'm not talking about the invented boogie-man that is used to scare school children, I'm talking about The Source, The One Spirit.

 

I suppose there is still an issue about the "personality" that "does" things, but, for me, I see that the attributes of dharmakaya ARE the "personality" which does things, things arise, in accordance to these attributes or "personality" of Tao and dharmakaya.

 

I think the issue is to see through the terms and descriptions to what they are all really pointing to, and think they are pointing to the same "Source."

 

 

Peace.

 

From this website, My link:

In a spirit of ecumenism or harmony, many people like to believe that the Dharmakaya is the same or equivalent to God.

 

"However, the Dharmakaya is not to be understood as a Divine Being, or an Absolutely Existent Permanent Entity.

 

The problem we are facing, as students in the Kagyu lineage, it seems, is the seeming contradiction between the teachings of the second and third turnings of the Dharmachakra. Briefly put, the second turning emphasizes the emptiness of self and phenomena, the absolute nonexistence of any permanent, unchanging essence. This is the Madhayamaka view. Yet, the third turning, as exemplified by the Uttaratantra Shastra, espouses a permanent, unchanging Buddha Nature, inherent in all sentient beings, which is both the cause for their eventual enlightenment, and the fruit of said enlightenment.

 

It must be understood that these teachings, though apparently contradictory, are actually not. The Dharmakaya, or Truth Body of the Buddha, is empty. It is beyond conceptual elaboration, and cannot be posited as a Thing, a Being, or anything else. It is really beyond existence and non-existence. Yet it is posited as "having qualities," and of being of the nature of "clear light."

It must be understood that these two points of view are not mutually

exclusive."

 

Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso (Buddha Nature. Snow Lion Pub., 2000) states,

 

"The terms "dharmadhatu," "suchness," and "absolute truth" are synonymous in that both "dharmadhatu" and "suchness" denote emptiness and the absolute truth is the way everything exists, which is also emptiness.

 

In the context dealt with here, which is to say in the (Shentong) view, this emptiness is to be understood mainly in the sense of ultimate emptiness or the ultimate expanse. This is the nature of mind or the way the mind truly exists, being the inseparable union of spaciousness and awareness or of emptiness and clear light.

 

According to the Madhyamaka, however, that nature of mind is to be understood solely from the point of view that all phenomena do not truly exist. In this view it is nothing but empty in the sense of not being accessible to any conceptualization.

 

It is very important to gain a proper understanding of these two different

views. What is mainly taught in the system to which the Uttaratantra Shastra belongs is the aspect of awareness (Tib. rig pa) or clear light (Tib. od gsal), whereas in the system of the Madhyamaka the aspect of emptiness in the sense of freedom from conceptual elaboration is exclusively taught.

 

If one understands well what is meant by the inseparable union of emptiness and clear light, one comes very close to the path of the Vajrayana (305.)"

 

So, although the views can be called different, it appears that a union, or synthesis, of aspects of these views is to be desired.

 

Khenpo Tsultrim Rinpoche also comments on the difference between the Hindu notion of eternal atman and the Mahayana idea of Buddha Nature:

 

"There is a great difference between "true self" as taught

in the Hindu traditions and as taught in the Mahayana system. In the first sense the term "true self" denotes a self that is eternal, unique, and independent. "True self" as taught in the Uttaratantra Shastra is equivalent to the state of peace in terms of complete freedom from any conceptual elaboration ... . The Mahayana system does not hold to the view of an eternal, unique, and independent self (343-4)."

 

If another tradition explains the Absolute in terms similar to Rinpoche's explanation of mind, which is after all the Dharmakaya in its absolute nature, then I join hands and prostrate to such a tradition.

 

... meanwhile, I rejoice in those who practice any path which leads away from suffering and towards peace and compassion, to whatever extent."

Edited February 10, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

From this thread on dharmawheel http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=5344 --
A post from Namdrol who is a Loppon with realization of emptiness

"This is a species of Buddhist doceticism.

Dharmakāya, in brief, has several different versions. The basis version is that Dharmakāya is the complete realization of emptiness and the omniscience that springs from that realization.

Sambhogakāya is, in this basic version, rarified form body which exists outside samsara and is responsible primarily for communicating dharma to advanced bodhisattvas.

Nirmanakāya manifest to ordinary beings.

These terms get used differently in Vajrayāna systems where the three kāyas are understood as different aspects of the nature of the mind, clarity, emptiness and the inseparability of the two.

N

From this thread from dharmawheel http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=3985&start=20...Coincendentally someone on that forum tried to equate concepts such as dharmakaya as equivalent to "God" as creator...There was also a mention of Shin Buddhism by someone in that thread and they were basically saying the same thing as what you are trying to posit:

" Keshin wrote:
I don't find the view of God and Buddhism, or even True Self ("soul") to be against Buddhism.

It may be worth reading the Kunjed Gyalpo (aka Kulayarāja Tantra). That's like, a goldmine. Here's two excerpts:

" ... everything is Me, the All-Creating Sovereign, mind of perfect purity ... I am the cause of all things. I am the stem of all things. I am the ground of all things. I am the root of all things ... There is no other Buddha besides Me, the All-Creating One."

"I am the core of all that exists. I am the seed of all that exists. I am the foundation of all that exists. I am the root of existence. I am 'the core', because I contain all phenomena. I am 'the seed', because I give birth to everything. I am 'the cause', because all comes forth from me. I am 'the trunk', because the ramificationsof every event sprout from me. I am 'the foundation', because all abides in me. I am called 'the root', because I am everything."



This is not a sort of Buddhist theism.

Bodhicitta aka Kun byed rgyal po gives rise to everything when it is not recognized for what it actually is i.e. the nature of one's mind. Very similar statements are found in Mahāmudra literature."

Astus wrote: "I had actually read your post about it before I posted that quote. The Buddhist point is that there can't be any ultimate being/substratum. It is a common mistake to take alayavijnana/tathagatagarbha/dharmadhatu as something behind/beyond the world as the origin of everything. Also, if "God" (with a capital) is not a creator and/or a ruler the word itself has practically no meaning."

"Let's clarify here then. The five skandhas are all there is and you can't have a self/soul/X beyond them. The difference between samsara and nirvana in Buddhism relies on whether one is attached to the skandhas or not. Thus any entity, thing or being outside (or inside, for that matter) the skandhas is practically impossible. Thus there is no self/soul in Buddhism, neither an absolute God."

Kenshin wrote: It may also help people to know I can't not see what I use the "God" for. I take a closer affiliation with the Jonang and Pure Landers than I do other groups, especially ones who focus on absolute non-self-ness.

Namdrols response: Jonangpas are not theists.Their argument is quite different. They are arguing that qualities of buddhas are naturally present in sentient beings, albeit covered up. That emptiness is not just a blank void, but is endowed with qualities.

A series of posts by Kenshin and Namdrol's reply to them:
Keshin wrote:

but I do believe in a transcendent all-pervading unity...



This is not the message of the Kun byed rgyal po. A transcendent all-pervading unity is Advaita Vedanta or Kashmir Shaivism.

and I don't believe in a "soul" that is separate from this Unity.



Advaita or Kashmir Shaivism again.


I'm also one of those people who seems to be pre-programmed by his mind to believing in something that could be called as "God". I'm a panentheist and see everything as what I consider as God, but that God to transcend everything too, and that our "souls" are a part of that being.



Advaita or Kashmir Shaivism again.



I'm comfortable using the term 'God' when referring to the Adibuddha/Dharmakaya Unmanifest/Amitābha (*from the "Eternal Buddha" perspective), and I'm comfort able using the term 'True Self' or 'Soul', when referring to the Buddha-nature/Mindstream & Base Consciousness together. I use "God", because that's an immediately accessible term for me - but I use it in a panentheistic (God is in all and beyond all) and transpersonal (does not intervene and make prophets and stuff, but is not an unfeeling, personality-less, non-sapient entity).



You are not using these terms as intended.

Regarding Soul: Effectively, it's our "True Selves", free some skandhic-ness: one with the Dharmakāya, our Buddha-nature, and pretty much the Buddha-nature/Mindstream & Base Consciousness together. Possibly even a Self of Nirvāṇic permanency beyond the skandhic mundane world, but I'm not sure at the moment.



There is no basis. Dharmakāya is not something which exists. It is something, according to Dzogchen, that completely lacks any basis or foundation. Dharmakāya is a complete and total emptiness. It is not however a void emptiness, like space i.e. mere absence. Dharmakāya is original purity.

Soul = Buddha-nature from a Tathāgathagarbha Sūtra and Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra interpretation. Not an "I" or ego-self.



The Lanka-avatara sutra was written to correct the misunderstanding that some gained from the ten tathāgatagarbha sutras that tathātagarbha was equivalent to a soul.

N
Namdrol: "However, a careful analysis of Vajray›na Buddhist cosmogony, specifically as presented in the Atiyoga tradition of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, which presents itself as the culmination of all Buddhist teachings, reveals a theory of a transcendent ground of being and a process of creation that bear remarkable similarities with views presentedinVed›ntaandNeoplatonicWesternChristiantheoriesofcreation."

This is complete nonsense on Wallace's part.

There is no such a thing as a transcendent ground of being in Dzogchen. The cosmology of Dzogchen is almost exactly like that of Abhidharma with slight differences.

He has obviously never read Garab Dorje's commentary on the Sras gcig bu rgyud in the Vima snyin thig.

Edited February 10, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

More posts from dharmawheel...This is from this thread titled "Buddhist Hinduism?" http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=4056:

From the OP: "I'd like to ask for some thoughts regarding the idea of Buddha-nature in some Buddhist schools, and whether there is any meaningful difference Buddha-nature and Hinduism's atman."

 

Astus: "The difference in brief. Those who believe there is an actor behind action think there is a self/soul. Those who realise that the mind is empty, without a self, understand that it is buddha-nature."

 

Namdrol: "Paradoxically, in Tathāgatagarbha literature, that mind that lacks identity and is empty is being called "self". It is standard Buddhist subversion of Hindu norms, once again. The Tantras do it with Samkhya."

 

Coldmountain: "What, then, is Buddha-nature? Is it an unconditioned substance? Does it exist independently of change and plurality?"

 

Namdrol: "Nope, not an unconditioned _substance_."

 

coldmountain wrote:

To what does the term refer to, then? I'm not clear how a belief in an unconditioned, immutable anything fits with the teaching of conditioned-arising.

 

Namdrols response: That depends on who you ask. In Tibetan Buddhism, according to the Sakya school, tathāgatagarbha is the union of the clarity and emptiness of one's mind. According to the Gelugpa school, it is the potential for sentient beings to awaken since they lack inherent existence; according to the Jonang school, it refers to the innate qualities of the mind which expresses itself in terms of omniscience, etc, when adventitious obscurations are removed. In Nyingma, tathāgatagarbha also generally refers to union of the clarity and emptiness of one's mind.

There is only one Indian commentary on this issue -- the Uttaratantra and its commentary by Asanga.

 

In Chinese Buddhism it is interpreted more literally, in texts such as Awakening of Faith in Mahāyāna, and in some currents of Sino-Japanese Buddhism it is indistinguishable from Advaita. The Chinese had no experience with Hindus, really, and did not guard as well as the Tibetans against eternalism creeping into their Buddhism.

 

Astus: The saying that "it gives rise to phenomena" means that everything is conceived by the mind and the mind is empty. It is the same as dependent origination where ignorance gives rise to formations, etc. When ignorance is eliminated, the nature of mind is realised, ignorance is transformed into wisdom - it is explained in detail in Yogacara with 4 wisdoms, in Vajrayana with 5 wisdoms. In Zen it is summed up as if you're aware you are a buddha, if deluded you are a common being. This is not the case that there is an absolute substance behind everything but it's like as it's explained in the early texts as the difference between skandhas with and without attachment.

 

Series of posts where Huseng refutes the notions of eternalism in "The Awakening of Faith...Jikan wrote: I think the kinds of trends Namdrol is referring to as eternalism in Sino-Japanese Buddhism can be seen in the Tendai doctrine of hongaku shiso, where Tathagathagarbha is understood not as a potential for awakening as in the Indic tradition, but as always-already Buddha (hongaku shiso is translated as "inherent enlightenment").

 

http://www.jstor.org/pss/30233979

 

(it's a dated article but it explains the hongaku concept well)

 

This concept turns up especially in the rhetorical flourishes of Kamakura Buddhism (eg Nichiren and Dogen).

 

 

 

Said concept of fundamental enlightenment (Jpn. hongaku; Chn. benjue 本覺) appears first the treatise Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith 大乘起信論. It is not strictly a Tendai concept and is actually common to Huayan and some lines of thought in Chan / Zen.

 

Namdrol: "therefore all things from the beginning transcend all forms of verbalization, description, and conceptualization and are, in the final analysis, undifferentiated, free from alteration, and indestructible. They are only of the One Mind; hence the name Suchness."

 

As translated, very similar to Advaita.

 

"But the essence of Suchness itself cannot be put an end to, for all things in their Absolute aspect are real; nor is there anything which needs to be pointed out as real, for all things are equally in the state of Suchness. It should be understood that all things are incapable of being verbally explained or thought of; hence the name Suchness."

 

As translated, this is a form of realism very similar to Kashmiri Shaivism.

 

Huseng: I'm looking at the Chinese and that last sentence has an additional part.

 

《大乘起信論》卷1：「唯是一心故名真如，以一切言說假名無實，但隨妄念不可得故。」(CBETA, T32, no. 1666, p. 576, a12-14)

 

"They are only just one mind ergo the name suchness because all language and provisional appellations have no reality only accompanying delusional thoughts which are unattainable."

 

The "they" at the beginning is referring to "all dharmas" (一切法). "Transcend" is also not a good translation for li 離 which just means "apart from".

 

This is really just a Cittamatra position. Such remarks are made in the context of epistemology and not ontology. Mind here is equated to suchness. Is that really eternalist?

 

 

"But the essence of Suchness itself cannot be put an end to, for all things in their Absolute aspect are real; nor is there anything which needs to be pointed out as real, for all things are equally in the state of Suchness. It should be understood that all things are incapable of being verbally explained or thought of; hence the name Suchness."

 

As translated, this is a form of realism very similar to Kashmiri Shaivism.

 

 

 

《大乘起信論》卷1：「此真如體無有可遣，以一切法悉皆真故；亦無可立，以一切法皆同如故。當知一切法不可說、不可念故，名為真如。」(CBETA, T32, no. 1666, p. 576, a14-18)

[3]極＝相【金】。

 

Unfortunately you are relying on a bad translation.

 

This line ...

 

for all things in their Absolute aspect are real

 

 

 

...is an interpretation rather than a translation.

 

If you look at the Chinese and literally translate it word for word it sounds like this:

 

以一切法悉皆真故

[instrumental particle] all dharmas entirely all true/real thus

 

I don't see where the translator got "Absolute aspect" from. This section of the text is talking about how conventional phenomena and the principle behind them complement each other.

 

Namdrol: As I said, "as translated" --

 

 

"all dharmas entirely all true/real thus"

 

This is definitely off. Not Buddhist.

 

Huseng: "all dharmas entirely all true/real thus"

 

That last character reading as "true/real" (zhen 真) might be an abbreviation for zhenru 真如 which is suchness. Given that the sentence pattern here is made up of four-character segments this is probably the case. In Literary Chinese they have a habit of maintaining four-character segments and will abbreviate binomials to make them fit into the sequence. It leads to a lot of confusion as one might imagine.

 

So it would probably be best read as:

 

"all dharmas entirely all suchness thus"

 

Looking at the Chinese a bit closer I'm sure that the zhen 真 here is an abbreviation for zhenru 真如 because in the following sentence you get the other half of the binomial appearing (ru 如).

 

This section of the text is saying that all dharmas are suchness, therefore they need not be rejected or affirmed (pointed to). They conventionally exist and their conventional existence need not be rejected or affirmed when the principle is understood.

 

Do you see anything wrong with saying that all dharmas are entirely suchness?

 

Namdrol: It may be the case that a certain eternalism creeps in at the hands of translators like Suzuki, nevertheless many people read these translations without knowing original language and take them at face value.

 

Bad translations die hard too.

 

Xabir: "Similarly, that tathaagatagarbha taught in the suutras spoken by the Bhagavan, since the completely pure luminous clear nature is completely pure from the beginning, possessing the thirty two marks, the Bhagavan said it exists inside of the bodies of sentient beings.

 

When the Bhagavan described that– like an extremely valuable jewel thoroughly wrapped in a soiled cloth, is thoroughly wrapped by cloth of the aggregates, aayatanas and elements, becoming impure by the conceptuality of the thorough conceptuality suppressed by the passion, anger and ignorance – as permanent, stable and eternal, how is the Bhagavan’s teaching this as the tathaagatagarbha is not similar with as the assertion of self of the non-Buddhists?

 

Bhagavan, the non-Buddhists make assertion a Self as “A permanent creator, without qualities, pervasive and imperishable”.

 

The Bhagavan replied:

 

“Mahaamati, my teaching of tathaagatagarbha is not equivalent with the assertion of the Self of the non-Buddhists.

 

Mahaamati, the Tathaagata, Arhat, Samyak Sambuddhas, having demonstrated the meaning of the words "emptiness, reality limit, nirvana, non-arisen, signless", etc. as tathaagatagarbha for the purpose of the immature complete forsaking the perishable abodes, demonstrate the expertiential range of the non-appearing abode of complete non-conceptuality by demonstrating the door of tathaagatagarbha.

 

Mahaamati, a self should not be perceived as real by Bodhisattva Mahaasattvas enlightened in the future or presently.

 

Mahaamati, for example, a potter, makes one mass of atoms of clay into various kinds containers from his hands, craft, a stick, thread and effort.

 

Mahaamati, similarly, although Tathaagatas avoid the nature of conceptual selflessness in dharmas, they also appropriately demonstrate tathaagatagarbha or demonstrate emptiness by various kinds [of demonstrations] possessing prajñaa and skillful means; like a potter, they demonstrate with various enumerations of words and letters. As such, because of that,

 

Mahaamati, the demonstration of Tathaagatagarbha is not similar with the Self demonstrated by the non-Buddhists.

 

Mahaamati, the Tathaagatas as such, in order to guide those grasping to assertions of the Self of the Non-Buddhists, will demonstrate tathaagatagarbha with the demonstration of tathaagatagarbha. How else will the sentient beings who have fallen into a conceptual view of a True Self, possess the thought to abide in the three liberations and quickly attain the complete manifestation of Buddha in unsurpassed perfect, complete enlightenment?"

 

~ Lankavatara Sutra

 

..............

 

(33) Further, in his practice of samadhi, such a good person's mind is firm, unmoving, and proper and can no longer be disturbed by demons. He can thoroughly investigate the origin of all categories of beings and contemplate the source of the subtle, fleeting, and constant fluctuation. But if he begins to speculate about self and others, he could fall into error with theories of partial impermanence and partial permanence based on four distorted views.

 

First, as this person contemplates the wonderfully bright mind pervading the ten directions, he concludes that this state of profound stillness is the ultimate spiritual self. Then he speculates, "My spiritual self, which is settled, bright, and unmoving, pervades the ten directions. All living beings are within my mind, and there they are born and die by themselves. Therefore, my mind is permanent, while those who undergo birth and death there are truly impermanent."

 

......

 

Because of these speculations of impermanence and permanence, he will fall into externalism and become confused about the Bodhi nature. This is the third externalist teaching, in which one postulates partial permanence.

 

~ Shurangama Sutra

 

Namdrol wrote:

Many people these days in Zen understand terms like "One Mind" exactly in the same sense as Advaita. Which is why we see cross-over teachers like Adyashanti and so on.

 

How is this different than what you said about all Buddhas sharing the same one mind?

 

Also, since according to Mādhyamaka philosophy, there is actually NO difference between a Buddha and a sentient being, wouldn't EVERYONE share the same one mind?

 

Namdrol: As for your first question: all Buddhas share the same realization. In this sense they "share" the same mind. The wisdom of a Buddha is free from being one or many. Since the dharmakāya is free from all extremes, it does not make sense to assert that Buddhas have differentiated mind streams. Their omniscience is identical because, to put it into relative terms, their minds and the object of their realization, emptiness free from extremes, have merged since Buddhas are in a constant state of equipoise on reality.

 

In terms of Madhyamaka, Buddhas and sentient beings are the same in so far as neither are ultimately established. Conventionally speaking, however, sentient beings have not abandoned everything to be abandoned and realized everything to be realized, but Buddhas have. That constitutes the difference between buddhas and sentient beings.

Edited December 28, 2011 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

More from "Buddhist Hinduism." Here is an individual who was trying to propose the same thing about Dharmakaya as a "ground of being" http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=4056&start=60:

 

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

 

Namdrol: Buddhism does not propose a truly existent ground of being.

 

platypus: What about a dependently originated ground of being?

 

Namdrol: 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?

 

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

 

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

 

Platypus: So all dharmas do not arise from dharmakaya?

 

Namdrol: No, they do not.

booker wrote:

How about Kunzhi as understood in Dzoghen? It is said to be the ground of being - all being sentient and insentient, and is not dependently originated. Isn't it?

 

Namdrol: The term "ground of being" does not exist in any Buddhist text, nor any Dzogchen text. It is a western gloss, one that is inaccurate.

 

There is a term "kun gzhi" this is understood differently in different Dzogchen cycles and by different Dzogchen masters. So there isn't a one size fits all definition.

 

In those texts that speak of the so called kun gzhi -- the kun gzhi is complete free from all extremes. Whatever arises from it therefore, also must be free from all extremes. "Being and non-being" are just cognitive errors.

 

From another thread talking a bit about the kayas http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=6258:

 

ronnewmexico: in a conventional sense........... looking at awakening as a uncovering process not a becoming other or added onto process. One is always this way just not knowing of it...when knowing produces nurmanakaya. Nirmanakaya however being always pesent in things of the real, in some manner shape or form. A process, a procedure of action. Circumsantially produces the presentation but always present as process in the way of things.

 

Dechen Norbu: Be careful not to think as Dharmakaya, Samboghakaya and Nirmanakaya as separate. It's not as if one day the Darmakaya decided to send us a Nirmanakaya, like "God sent his son Jesus to teach us". Do you get what I'm saying? I think Ron is hinting that in his usual style (quite hard for me to understand ).

 

This is from this link My link:

 

Buddha told Subhūti, "Not only is the Tathāgata’s bodily form a false form produced by the aggregation of causes and conditions, which does not have real substance, so is any kind of thing in the universe, in this world as well as beyond this world. All living and non-living things, shapes and colours are merely formed by aggregations of causes and conditions. They are impermanent and will change as causes and conditions disperse. They are as illusory as the flower in the mirror or the moon in the water!

 

"If looking at appearances of objects, sentient beings are able to lucidly awaken to its aggregation of causes and conditions, and understand impermanence, their arising and ceasing; and if at that very instant, distinguishing does not arise, then without discrimination, they can enter into deep stillness. In stillness, pure wisdom reveals itself. With supreme wisdom, they realise that all worldly form is created by causes and conditions. Its nature is empty; it is not reality. In this way, they will directly perceive the Tathāgata’s Dharma-kāya."

Edited December 28, 2011 by Simple_Jack

[Vmarco]

[C T]

Not all Buddhist scholars would agree to the high regard given to Namdrol.

(Anyway, this is besides the point. The thought came to me when i read somewhere above of the acknowledgement of his 'deep' realization... everything he proposes can be equally understood and assimilated by anyone with a degree of intelligence and logicality).

 

Referencing the matter regarding the ground of being, it all depends on one's degree of ability in maintaining 'View'. The more stable 'View' is, the less dependent one becomes on clinging to a 'ground'. Whether the ground exists or not should not even be debated because it would be impossible to arrive at a definitive answer. The Buddha would probably keep silent if He were to be asked to speak on this. One thing He did say (in the very short Sabbam Sutta) about 'The All', which is very simple to understand, is that eye and forms, ear and sounds, nose and smells, tongue and tastes, body and feelings, mind and dhammas is that which makes up 'the All'. There is not anything outside of this 'All'. All that we can know are the objects of the senses, hence the limits or boundaries of experience are set accordingly due to formation of the skandhas as the apparatuses of experience.

 

Outside of these skandhas, can any experiences be validated at all? Or, to speak to the topic, we can ask and reflect if God can have a presence within our consciousness, is this presence experienceable without the apparatuses, and whether or not such presence can be adequately understood thru the intellect. No answer is really important here, since this could well be a lifetime's process of discovery, and whomsoever would attempt to assert or negate with any finality would be subjecting himself or herself to a contracted process, and perhaps even ridicule, which is the exact opposite of what a spiritual journey ought to do for one.

 

 

 

 

 

Wiki explains Buddhist 'View' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_(Buddhism)

[Vmarco]

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Lots of useful information on this topic here now, so I'm glad to see the conversation flowing in a grounded ( ) manner (npi). Thanks for the efforts (not that they were made solely for my own benefit...).

 

I'll say again, too, that my view here is more in seeing The One Spirit through a lens of Buddhism, rather than the other way around. I still get the feeling that the Satori experience, something known through prajna rather than intellect, is the same for Buddhist and, say, Sufi mystics. Even though the intellectual levels are different, I still feel that the experience is all the same.

 

Perhaps the difference being that Buddhists continue on and on until they see that 10 million kalpas later there is the ever-present Emptiness. Nonetheless, as Roshi Taisen Deshimaru said (to paraphrase) "when completely let go of your ego, the universe and everything in it becomes your ego."

 

Keep in mind (... mind mind mind) Deshimaru received the Soto mind to mind transmission.

 

Here is another quote from Deshimaru:

 

 

My link

 

"The Modern Fukanzazengi

by Taisen Deshimaru Roshi

 

If we practice zazen, the true ego penetrates into every part of the cosmos and the individual ego can relate to cosmic truth. It can follow the cosmic order, unconsciously, naturally, automatically, without any effort of the personal will.

 

Then everything becomes a source of pleasure and accords with our will. And though we follow, there is never any obstacle. Things go forward as they should, happily.

 

Fear, anxiety, worry and doubt disappear.

 

From the bottom of our minds, great confidence arises, the conviction and the faith that we are part of God or Buddha.

 

Then, our deep unthinking thought draws near to God or Buddha, grows deeper and ever deeper. The shadow of the pine is dark according as the moon is bright.

 

Reverence for God or Buddha is born and we become modest, humble. The mind becomes gentle, compassionate, honest. We learn humility. The vocation begins to work in us without any act of will.

 

Life, then, can become full of value and dignity.

 

The vocation that is born is the highest. It moves us to harmonize, unconsciously, naturally, automatically, with all existences.

 

We can begin to create greater and greater respect for the symphony of the world and more and more infinite beauty."

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack