The Buddha teaches release from life?

[Netti-Netti]

This:

"Intrinsically not conjoined" to me means "separate from."

was in reference to this:

There is of course no separation between these two truths.

If we are talking about the same thing, we are talking about transcendent versus immanent reality. This interesting because it seems rather different from the old Buddhist cosmology, where there was no place for a transcendental reality outside time and space. Btw, it appears that the notion of transcendent dharmakaya was not developed until the 9th century. What's the date for the Mula Sutta cited in posts #22 and #24?

The other interesting thing about the Tathagatagarbha Sutra is that ontology and salvation doctrine seem to be closely related.

 

[Snoopy]

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/tao-te-ching-part-1-a-422-2.html#post170746

The Tao that can be tao'ed is not the true Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name. (the deathless?)

Aye, good enough.

s.

 

[Snoopy]

I'm not trying to describe reality - just trying to sort out some basic Buddhist ideas.

I take Buddhism to be essentially a concern with reality. With thousands of suttas and sutras composed by various authors at various times, in various traditions and schools, in various locations, often contradicting and disagreeing furiously (and poorly translated), it may take us some time to "sort out some basic Buddhist ideas."

If there is no value in talking, maybe we should all quit the forum.

Don't! That's what I keep thinking!

Anyway, from the Tathagatagarbha Sutra:

It is like a store of treasure
Inside the house of an impoverished man.
The owner is not aware of it,
Nor can the treasure speak.
For a very long time it is buried in darkness,
As there is no one who can tell of its presence.
When you have treasure but do not know of it,
This causes poverty and suffering.
When the buddha eye observes sentient beings,
It sees that, although they transmigrate
Through the five realms of reincarnation,
There is a great treasure in their bodies
That is eternal and unchanging.
​

Tathagatagarbha Buddhism (3)

By virtue of being eternal and unchanging, the Buddha essence would have to be separate from transient and changing phenomenal world of forms.

This discussion is also of interest in ight iof whqt we were saing about dharmakaya:

The Buddha links the tathagatagarbha to the spotless immaculacy of the "dharmakaya" (the ultimate true nature of the Buddha) and "dharmadhatu" (the all-pervading realm of dharma) and states: "First, the tathagatagarbha is intrinsically conjoined with pure qualities from time without beginning; secondly, the tathagatagarbha is intrinsically not conjoined with impure qualities from time without beginning; and thirdly, the tathagatagarbha is unchanging sameness throughout the future ... it is veridical and not delusive, a pure reality that is without separation and exclusion from jnana [knowingness, awareness], an inconceivable 'dharma' [entity] that is the dharmadhatu".
​

Anunatva-Apurnatva-Nirdesa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"Intrinsically not conjoined" to me means "separate from."

You're right, this monontheism is a real problem for you isn't it

Will I end up being persuaded that Buddhism is monotheistic?

s.

 

[Snoopy]

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/tao-te-ching-part-1-a-422-2.html#post170746

The Tao that can be tao'ed is not the true Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name. (the deathless?)

“There is only an ineffable undivided, undiscriminated something that Buddhism calls reality. Nagarjuna calls this state in which there are no named objects in the world, sunyata, the empty state.”

- from Chapter 18 of Between Heaven and Earth: From Nagarjuna to Dogen – A Translation and Interpretation of the Mulamadhyamakakarika By Michael Eido Luetchford.​

s.

 

[Netti-Netti]

The Tao that can be tao'ed is not the true Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

“There is only an ineffable undivided, undiscriminated something that Buddhism calls reality. Nagarjuna calls this state in which there are no named objects in the world, sunyata, the empty state.”

I always thought of the lao tsu comment on the "Unnamable" as reflecting on the limits of language.

 

[seattlegal]

This:

was in reference to this:



If we are talking about the same thing, we are talking about transcendent versus immanent reality. This interesting because it seems rather different from the old Buddhist cosmology, where there was no place for a transcendental reality outside time and space. Btw, it appears that the notion of transcendent dharmakaya was not developed until the 9th century. What's the date for the Mula Sutta cited in posts #22 and #24?

The other interesting thing about the Tathagatagarbha Sutra is that ontology and salvation doctrine seem to be closely related.

“There is only an ineffable undivided, undiscriminated something that Buddhism calls reality. Nagarjuna calls this state in which there are no named objects in the world, sunyata, the empty state.”

- from Chapter 18 of Between Heaven and Earth: From Nagarjuna to Dogen – A Translation and Interpretation of the Mulamadhyamakakarika By Michael Eido Luetchford.​

s.

I always thought of the lao tsu comment on the "Unnamable" as reflecting on the limits of language.

I find it quite interesting how Taoist scholars say that Buddhism and Taoism are talking about the same thing.

{Oh boy! Can we bring in in the Taiji Tu and Taiji Tushuo by Zhou Dunyi into the discussion for consideration?}

 

[Netti-Netti]

I find it quite interesting how Taoist scholars say that Buddhism and Taoism are talking about the same thing.

I think they are all talking about The One, as described by Plotinus. The Buddhist approach is argument by implication, denying the central truth and forcing people to sort it out (a clever adaptation of dialectical tactic). The Taoists basically tell you to stop babbling and let the Eternal Truth speak for itself.

Btw, I got a fortune cookie that reads: "Soon you will no longer be confused by everything you read at interfaith.com"

 

[seattlegal]

Btw, I got a fortune cookie that reads: "Soon you will no longer be confused by everything you read at interfaith.com"

It must be referring to some other place, 'cause this is interfaith.org.

 

[Netti-Netti]

... this monontheism is a real problem for you isn't it

Heh, for a moment there I thought this might be the place to work "the problem" out .... given that this is an Interfaith kind of .org and all.

 

[Francis king]

it is what it is... we can make it more fanciful, and use bigger or smaller words, but the word are what they are... the words are what they are to describe what is, and what isn't...

a metaphorical emptiness? maybe, but, come on... Buddha wasn't influenced by the greeks... he wasn't influenced by Jesus... he was influenced by Hinduism...

Take the hinduism (and the gods) out of buddhism, and what have you got?

Whatever it is, it isn't religion...

If "it" isn't a religion, then why pray, perform ceremonies, bury the dead? If there is no God in buddhism, why does everyone light insence before the statues?

If the trikaya isn't about spiritual progression, then what is a samboghakaya? Is it all just a load of rubbish?

 

[Netti-Netti]

Take the hinduism (and the gods) out of buddhism, and what have you got?
Whatever it is, it isn't religion...

It is a way to create religion and a way to become more religious.

If "it" isn't a religion, then why pray, perform ceremonies, bury the dead? If there is no God in buddhism, why does everyone light insence before the statues?

Yes, what are they doing?....

 

[Snoopy]

Heh, for a moment there I thought this might be the place to work "the problem" out .... given that this is an Interfaith kind of .org and all.

It is!

I have every confidence in you

s.

 

[Snoopy]

Yes, what are they doing?....

Well Conan the chihuahua just wants to please his master.

You'd never catch a cat showing itself up like that!

s.

 

[seattlegal]

Well Conan the chihuahua just wants to please his master.

You'd never catch a cat showing itself up like that!

s.

Cats prefer zazen.

 

[Dharmaatmaa]

he was influenced by Hinduism...

Well, well, well... It reminds me that old mystery - who was born earliea: an egg or a chicken? If we take a faint look at Buddhism, we'll see it's different from Hinduism very much. Even if we take Southern and Northen Buddhist Chirches as well. Even the latter - having got a thousands of Gods and sirits - isn't Hinduismlike at all! He started a new doctrine.

Whatever it is, it isn't religion...

Agreed, Francis. But why do people need a religion, a mind-freezing monstre, if they've got so great philosophy?!

If "it" isn't a religion, then why pray, perform ceremonies, bury the dead? If there is no God in buddhism, why does everyone light insence before the statues?

As I know, Buddha didn't say to worship this way to anybody. But ordinary people couldn't understand those difficult doctrines, so there appear priests and cult. There appeared people who comprehend it, and those whose mind cannot catch it. Cult was born (for "dunces").

If the trikaya isn't about spiritual progression, then what is a samboghakaya? Is it all just a load of rubbish?

Of cause, it isn't! I remember a story of a Russian girl who always said "That's rubbish!!!", when couldn't understand something. It was much easier than sit and think. Just say "Plunk, plunk, plunk!.. It's a rubbish!"
It's difficult to explain trikaya in written speach, for to make psychical realities understandable, it's necessary to use mataphors and allegories. You see, there's nothing in our ordinary life that can give us concrete seeing of those we've never dealt with. It's as impossible to imagine sambhogakaya (sic!) as to imagine a four-dimentional object. But I could describe common lines:
1) Trikaya includes three psychical entities;
2) They are nirmanakaya, sambhogakaya, and dharmakaya;
3) They all have got different "density"; dharmakaya is arupa (formless, bodiless), i.e. it has no form, even borders from outter space. It is everywhere.
4) They all have own consciousness. Dharmakaya knows everything.

I'm not going to make you think it's difficult and fanciful. But personally I can't explain that in this pages, using English, without intonations and metaphors. And yes, trikaya is "about spiritual progression", but they exist the same time, together.
Maybe someone other can explain it properly.

 

[Nick_A]

Well, well, well... It reminds me that old mystery - who was born earliea: an egg or a chicken? If we take a faint look at Buddhism, we'll see it's different from Hinduism very much. Even if we take Southern and Northen Buddhist Chirches as well. Even the latter - having got a thousands of Gods and sirits - isn't Hinduismlike at all! He started a new doctrine.



Agreed, Francis. But why do people need a religion, a mind-freezing monstre, if they've got so great philosophy?!



As I know, Buddha didn't say to worship this way to anybody. But ordinary people couldn't understand those difficult doctrines, so there appear priests and cult. There appeared people who comprehend it, and those whose mind cannot catch it. Cult was born (for "dunces").



Of cause, it isn't! I remember a story of a Russian girl who always said "That's rubbish!!!", when couldn't understand something. It was much easier than sit and think. Just say "Plunk, plunk, plunk!.. It's a rubbish!"
It's difficult to explain trikaya in written speach, for to make psychical realities understandable, it's necessary to use mataphors and allegories. You see, there's nothing in our ordinary life that can give us concrete seeing of those we've never dealt with. It's as impossible to imagine sambhogakaya (sic!) as to imagine a four-dimentional object. But I could describe common lines:
1) Trikaya includes three psychical entities;
2) They are nirmanakaya, sambhogakaya, and dharmakaya;
3) They all have got different "density"; dharmakaya is arupa (formless, bodiless), i.e. it has no form, even borders from outter space. It is everywhere.
4) They all have own consciousness. Dharmakaya knows everything.

I'm not going to make you think it's difficult and fanciful. But personally I can't explain that in this pages, using English, without intonations and metaphors. And yes, trikaya is "about spiritual progression", but they exist the same time, together.
Maybe someone other can explain it properly.

Hi Dharmaatmaa

I've been fortunate to become aware of "levels of reality" through my study of cosmology within which a cosmos itself is a level of reality. I remember reading that as a teaching initiating from a conscious source enters into a culture, the first thing it loses during its normal devolution is the awareness of levels of reality. It is interpreted on only one level.

The Trikaya is an expression of simultaneously existing levels of reality and I know I could never begin to appreciate its depth and significance without first beginning to understand this vertical cosmological structure of our universe. Yet it will be scorned just as the Trinity will be scorned.

"The poison of skepticism becomes, like alcoholism, tuberculosis, and some other diseases, much more virulent in a hitherto virgin soil." Simone Weil

This is your Russian girl. Skepticism is a negative emotional attitude as opposed to doubt which is intellectual and impartial. Doubt is the source of questions and true contemplation seeks to further reveal our essential questions. Skepticism in this day and age is considered sophisticated and educated but especially the young impressed by this prestige, are unaware of what they lose through this egoistic satisfaction.

 

[Any]

I've been fortunate to become aware of "levels of reality" through my study of cosmology within which a cosmos itself is a level of reality.

Can you suggest some readings?

 

[Nick_A]

Can you suggest some readings?

Hi Any

Try reading the first chapter to Jacob Needleman's "A Sense of the Cosmos." If that appeals to you, I could mention a deeper book. But this book is a fine intro and those not sensitive to these ideas lose interest quickly.

Welcome to rawpaint.com

Look for "Jacob Needleman's Chapter One: The Universe

 

[Dharmaatmaa]

"levels of reality"... Very much deep phrase! I agree in general with what you'd said. But what is "a level of reality"? For example, how dharmakaya can be in a level, and not be in another?! It lives in all levels. All these levels are just our mind limitations. They don't exist in present. Don't you find?

 

[Nick_A]

"levels of reality"... Very much deep phrase! I agree in general with what you'd said. But what is "a level of reality"? For example, how dharmakaya can be in a level, and not be in another?! It lives in all levels. All these levels are just our mind limitations. They don't exist in present. Don't you find?

Hi Dharmaatmaa

Russia eh. That reminds me I must send Christmas greetings to my cousin's family in Moscow.

I cannot explain levels of reality in a post since it requires a different vertical direction of metation most are not used to. But levels of reality are degrees of wholeness where one exists within the other like the Russian dolls. They exist as relationships between cosmoses as well as within one cosmos. You've heard the old expression that "he can't see the forest for the trees." This is an depiction of two levels of reality within a cosmos. The forest has its needs and laws by which it functions as do individual trees. Sometimes they appear to conflict. The tree must die for the sake of renewing the life of the forest. The PC police will not like that one.

The universe is also constructed on such levels but as a vertical reality or the quality of the moment.. Time for a higher level of reality for example is experienced much differently than for us on earth.

Time in Buddhist cosmology is measured in kalpas. Originally, a kalpa was considered to be 4,320,000 years. Buddhist scholars expanded it with a metaphor: rub a one-mile cube of rock once every hundred years with a piece of silk, until the rock is worn away -- and a kalpa still hasn’t passed! During a kalpa, the world comes into being, exists, is destroyed, and a period of emptiness ensues. Then it all starts again.

This is the attempt to comprehend time associated with a higher cosmos from the perspective of our lower cosmos.

The dharmakya exists at the level of reality directly under the Absolute which for us can only appear as dissolution of materiality.

The nirmana-kaya is the level of man and said to be "in the image." of this higher level of reality.

The Sambhogakaya is the vertical level of conscious reality that man can evolve towards and what help from above is forever indicating to man which is rejected in favor of the lures of the Beast.

Levels of reality reveal many things which otherwise seem absurd. the virgin birth in Christianity is just the conscious descent from one level of reality into a lower and adopting the body normal for our earth. Yet without any comprehension of this vertical direction of levels of reality where qualities of consciousness exist within others, it seems absurd. Prof. Needleman in the llinked first chapter writes:

We must explore this thought further, for it can help us to see why the idea of a conscious universe appears to modern man as naive, as either a daydream or a nightmare. Science, as we know it, searches the universe for order and pattern. To pursue this search carefully, objectively, the scientist struggles to be free of his feelings, his inclinations to believe. He may follow hunches--what he calls "intuitions"--but in the final analysis he wishes for proofs that will compel the intellect, and only the intellect. The entire organization of modern science, the community of experimenters and researchers, the teaching of science in the schools, the training of specialists, is based on this ideal of proof that compels the mind. Looked at in this way, we may conclude that the practice of modern science is based on a demand for human fragmentation, the division between thought and feeling. Searching for an outer unity, the scientist demands of himself an inner disunity. Perhaps "demands" is not the right word. We should simply say that in his practice the scientist endorses the division and inner fragmentation from which all of us suffer in our daily lives.
We now see why a conscious universe makes no sense to modern science. In the ancient teachings, higher mind or consciousness is never identified with thought associations, no matter how ingenious they may be. If these teachings speak of levels of reality higher than human thought, they are referring, among other things, to an order of intelligence that is inclusive of thought. Consciousness is another word for this power of active relationship or inclusion. Can the power to include ever be understood through a process of internal division and exclusion? Fascinated by the activity of thinking, and drawn to it to the extent of psychological lopsidedness, is it any wonder that we modern scientific men almost never directly experience in ourselves that quality of force which used to be called the Active Intellect, and which in the medieval cosmic scheme was symbolized by a great circle that included the entire created universe?

Naturally then the more culture drifts into fragmentation and the influence of its "experts,"the less will be the chances of awakening to this vertical psychological direction we can open to that awakens us not only to the nature of the great universe but ourselves as a microcosmos that functions under the same laws as our great universe but only smaller in scale. The discovery of our "place" within this vertical scale of "being" reveals human purpose.
As you can see, it is impossible to describe these things unless a person sincerely wishes to be open to them. People like Jacob Needleman do a tremendous service by writing such books and leaving the trail if needed where the serious seeker can find a lot of info that leads IMO to what they are looking for.