Good to hear that someone is.Sönam wrote:it does ...heart wrote:Might interest someone,
/magnus
Sönam
/magnus
Good to hear that someone is.Sönam wrote:it does ...heart wrote:Might interest someone,
/magnus
Sönam
I think the above is a regular pattern shown in most Dharma teachings. In the Nikayas' teaching, it is stated that sentinel beings are trapped within the endless cycle of life and death or samara until they abandon Vedas or other religious doctrines and adapted the Dharma, then reached Arahathood or stream entry where their liberation will be confirmed. However, in the Mahayana, it was stated that Arahat is a incomplete or partial liberation and Arahats are not fully withdrawn from their knowledge defilement yet, therefore they must enter the Mahayana path of Bodhisattvas and reach the ten Bhumis. Then in the tantras, oh well, it was once again stated that Buddhas of the tenth Bhumi can't reach the full Buddhahood and that their Vajra like meditative state is insufficient to bring them further, therefore a tantric empowerments are needed and even the Shakayumi reached the 13 Bhumi after one such empowerment.Namdrol wrote:Mariusz wrote:How it is possible?Namdrol wrote: Most people think that Buddhahood is irrersible; Dzogchen on the other hand asserts that the buddhahood of the lower yanas is reverts into the basis, and only Dzogchen results in complete and irreversible buddhahood.
N
Is it somehow related to “Youthful Vase Body” (Wyl. Gzhon-Nu Bum-sku) which can be "broken" even after the buddhahood, when from it will arise the Appearances of the Basis (Wyl. Gzhi-sNang) and they will be not spontaneously accomplished (Wyl. Lhun-Grub) because of Unenlightenment (Wyl. Ma-Rig-pa) again?
It is because buddhahood of lower yānas is incomplete and does not reach the stage of ka dag chen po, great original purity. The simplest way to explain it is that after the this universe dissolves and the next one arises, those beings who have not achieved the stage of ka dag chen po start all over.
There are three explanations possible, given that Dzogchen tantras and traditions definitely state that Samantabhadra was intiallly subject to either one or two ignorances (ma rig pa, avidyā):Kai wrote: First of all, I believe that its highly speculative but I suspect the reversible effect if occurs, only lasts for a split second or less. In the book "Dzogchen practice", it was stated that the Adi-Buddha, Samantabhadra/Samantabhadri, experienced two of the three innate unelightenments at the start of universe and was able to overcome the delusions by the arising of His wisdom to recognize the eight appearances from the basis. Hence He retains his Buddhahood and become the Adi Buddha. And this might be the same event that happens to all Buddhas eventually if the Dzogchen tantras are to be believed.
Namdrol wrote:There are three explanations possible, given that Dzogchen tantras and traditions definitely state that Samantabhadra was intiallly subject to either one or two ignorances (ma rig pa, avidyā):Kai wrote: First of all, I believe that its highly speculative but I suspect the reversible effect if occurs, only lasts for a split second or less. In the book "Dzogchen practice", it was stated that the Adi-Buddha, Samantabhadra/Samantabhadri, experienced two of the three innate unelightenments at the start of universe and was able to overcome the delusions by the arising of His wisdom to recognize the eight appearances from the basis. Hence He retains his Buddhahood and become the Adi Buddha. And this might be the same event that happens to all Buddhas eventually if the Dzogchen tantras are to be believed.
1) The Dzogchen assertion that all sentient beings attain "full awakening (sangs rgyas)" at the end of a given mahākalpa requires interpetation and must not be taken literally.
2) Buddhahood is, up to a point, in fact reversible.
3) Buddhas and sentient beings newly form at the beginning of a mahākalapa.
All three possibilities present problems in terms of traditional Indian Mahāyāna Buddhology.
This controversy first came to my attention when my Sakya khenpo mentioned it in passing in the early '90's.
When HHST teaches on the bhumis and Buddhahood we invariably says that there are different classifications in sutra and tantra and more or less says that the systems differ in explication of detail and then goes on to teach the essential points (and my mind always goes blank when he's teaching the essential stuff ). However during the teaching following a specific deity empowerment he said that we should not forget that the deity in question is a fully emlightened Buddha on the 13th bhumi (most of the audience in attendance only knew of the 10 bhumi system).Kai wrote: In the ongoing development, many Tibetan masters have been trying to get Vajrayana closer to traditional Mahayana by emphasizing that the tenth to Twelfth Bhumis in the tantras are actually equivalent to the Tenth Bhumi as stated in the Sutras. While the tantric thirteenth equates that to the sutric Eleventh, the only minor difference between the two is a formal tantra empowerment.
However, this doctrine in the Dzogchen tantras is single handlely destroying all their efforts,.....
Its interesting to note that HHST had not spoken about the 16fh Bhumi or the reversible Buddhahood since I think He does have exposures to Dzogchen teachings.kirtu wrote:When HHST teaches on the bhumis and Buddhahood we invariably says that there are different classifications in sutra and tantra and more or less says that the systems differ in explication of detail and then goes on to teach the essential points (and my mind always goes blank when he's teaching the essential stuff ). However during the teaching following a specific deity empowerment he said that we should not forget that the deity in question is a fully emlightened Buddha on the 13th bhumi (most of the audience in attendance only knew of the 10 bhumi system).Kai wrote: In the ongoing development, many Tibetan masters have been trying to get Vajrayana closer to traditional Mahayana by emphasizing that the tenth to Twelfth Bhumis in the tantras are actually equivalent to the Tenth Bhumi as stated in the Sutras. While the tantric thirteenth equates that to the sutric Eleventh, the only minor difference between the two is a formal tantra empowerment.
However, this doctrine in the Dzogchen tantras is single handlely destroying all their efforts,.....
So "single handedly destroying all their efforts" seems a mite strong.
Kirt
That is definitely not a POV that a Sakyapa or a Nyingmapa would be liable to accept.Kai wrote:In the ongoing development, many Tibetan masters have been trying to get Vajrayana closer to traditional Mahayana by emphasizing that the tenth to Twelfth Bhumis in the tantras are actually equivalent to the Tenth Bhumi as stated in the Sutras. While the tantric thirteenth equates that to the sutric Eleventh, the only minor difference between the two is a formal tantra empowerment.
I figure that as much since I heard POV mainly from my Gelug and Kagyu teachers. In Drikung, even arhats are said to be equate to that of a sixth Bhumi Bodhisattva. I don't think any other schools will agree with that.Namdrol wrote:That is definitely not a POV that a Sakyapa or a Nyingmapa would be liable to accept.Kai wrote:In the ongoing development, many Tibetan masters have been trying to get Vajrayana closer to traditional Mahayana by emphasizing that the tenth to Twelfth Bhumis in the tantras are actually equivalent to the Tenth Bhumi as stated in the Sutras. While the tantric thirteenth equates that to the sutric Eleventh, the only minor difference between the two is a formal tantra empowerment.
May be it's both ... who is the being that would be the object of a metaphore?xabir wrote:You guys seem to take Samantabhadra as a literal real account of what happened, but didn't ChNNR says it should be taken metaphorically?
That is a sems sde prensentation. The presentation in Man ngag sde is very specific.xabir wrote:You guys seem to take Samantabhadra as a literal real account of what happened, but didn't ChNNR says it should be taken metaphorically?
No that's standard across schools although I don't remember for sure if an Arhat was equated exactly with a 6th bhumi bodhisattva in terms of wisdom (it's the in terms of wisdom where the equating is done on this). So when Arhats are awakened from their samadhi and they take rebirth they are reborn as sixth bhumi bodhisattvas.Kai wrote:I figure that as much since I heard POV mainly from my Gelug and Kagyu teachers. In Drikung, even arhats are said to be equate to that of a sixth Bhumi Bodhisattva. I don't think any other schools will agree with that.Namdrol wrote:That is definitely not a POV that a Sakyapa or a Nyingmapa would be liable to accept.Kai wrote:In the ongoing development, many Tibetan masters have been trying to get Vajrayana closer to traditional Mahayana by emphasizing that the tenth to Twelfth Bhumis in the tantras are actually equivalent to the Tenth Bhumi as stated in the Sutras. While the tantric thirteenth equates that to the sutric Eleventh, the only minor difference between the two is a formal tantra empowerment.
kirtu wrote: No that's standard across schools although I don't remember for sure if an Arhat was equated exactly with a 6th bhumi bodhisattva in terms of wisdom (it's the in terms of wisdom where the equating is done on this). So when Arhats are awakened from their samadhi and they take rebirth they are reborn as sixth bhumi bodhisattvas.
Kirt
Really? I know Khenpo Kalsang has mentioned it. So this is accepted by Nyingma, Gelug and Kagyu alone?Namdrol wrote:kirtu wrote: No that's standard across schools although I don't remember for sure if an Arhat was equated exactly with a 6th bhumi bodhisattva in terms of wisdom (it's the in terms of wisdom where the equating is done on this). So when Arhats are awakened from their samadhi and they take rebirth they are reborn as sixth bhumi bodhisattvas.
Kirt
Hi Kirt:
No, this is not accepted in Sakya, it is rejected by Gorampa. 1) Arhats do not realize emptiness free from extremes 2) They do not have the necessary merit stores.
Really. Please the difference between Hināyāna and Mahāyāna in Gorampa's "Distinguishing views".kirtu wrote:Really? I know Khenpo Kalsang has mentioned it. So this is accepted by Nyingma, Gelug and Kagyu alone?Namdrol wrote:kirtu wrote: No that's standard across schools although I don't remember for sure if an Arhat was equated exactly with a 6th bhumi bodhisattva in terms of wisdom (it's the in terms of wisdom where the equating is done on this). So when Arhats are awakened from their samadhi and they take rebirth they are reborn as sixth bhumi bodhisattvas.
Kirt
Hi Kirt:
No, this is not accepted in Sakya, it is rejected by Gorampa. 1) Arhats do not realize emptiness free from extremes 2) They do not have the necessary merit stores.
Kirt
I had "Freedom from Extremes" but had to give it away for the move. Ok - thanks!Namdrol wrote: Really. Please the difference between Hināyāna and Mahāyāna in Gorampa's "Distinguishing views".
kirtu wrote:I had "Freedom from Extremes" but had to give it away for the move. Ok - thanks!Namdrol wrote: Really. Please the difference between Hināyāna and Mahāyāna in Gorampa's "Distinguishing views".
Kirt
Are you sure? That would imply their bodhicitta arises spontaneously at the time of birth.kirtu wrote: So when Arhats are awakened from their samadhi and they take rebirth they are reborn as sixth bhumi bodhisattvas.