Is the Dharmakaya the source?

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Is the Dharmakaya the source?

Postby duffster1 » Sun Sep 29, 2013 10:29 pm

Hi

Is the Dharmakaya what is called in spirituality the source? or am i way off?

:namaste:
duffster1
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 6:53 pm

Re: Is the Dharmakaya the source?

Postby smcj » Mon Sep 30, 2013 1:16 am

duffster1 wrote:Hi

Is the Dharmakaya what is called in spirituality the source? or am i way off?

:namaste:

That depends on which school you're asking. There's no consensus, except that most historians would say that Sakyamuni did not teach it in the Pali Suttas.
A human being has his limits. And thus, in every conceivable way, with every possible means, he tries to make the teaching enter into his own limits. ChNN
smcj
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Is the Dharmakaya the source?

Postby smcj » Mon Sep 30, 2013 3:49 am

Oops. I didn't notice that you posted this in the Dzogchen forum. That should warrant a more specific answer. But since there are many more people here focused on Dzogchen than I am, I'll let them answer.

Bump.
A human being has his limits. And thus, in every conceivable way, with every possible means, he tries to make the teaching enter into his own limits. ChNN
smcj
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Is the Dharmakaya the source?

Postby asunthatneversets » Mon Sep 30, 2013 4:45 am

Dharmakāya is emptiness, definitely not a source. The five lights are originally pure, which means they're primordially unborn and free from extremes.

Duffster, regarding your question; 'spirituality' is a fairly broad term and could represent various systems, religions and traditions, all having different ideas of a source. In Vedanta for example, the source of phenomena is called Brahman. Dzogchen however doesn't posit a 'source' of phenomena per se... It's said that the way we usually perceive phenomena is incorrect, and that is the reason we suffer. So the system of dzogchen is predicated on recognizing the true condition (or nature) of phenomena. The dharmakāya signifies the empty nature of phenomena, which means that in truth phenomena are non-arisen and do not accord with any of the four possible extremes, which are: existence, non-existence, both and neither. When we realize that phenomena are truly unborn and non-arisen then that is called dharmakāya. That realization liberates us from our ignorant misconceptions that phenomena can exist, not exist, etc. which means we are free from the causes and conditions which sustain delusion and suffering.
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1303
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Is the Dharmakaya the source?

Postby oldbob » Mon Sep 30, 2013 8:08 am

asunthatneversets wrote:Dharmakāya is emptiness, definitely not a source. The five lights are originally pure, which means they're primordially unborn and free from extremes.

Duffster, regarding your question; 'spirituality' is a fairly broad term and could represent various systems, religions and traditions, all having different ideas of a source. In Vedanta for example, the source of phenomena is called Brahman. Dzogchen however doesn't posit a 'source' of phenomena per se... It's said that the way we usually perceive phenomena is incorrect, and that is the reason we suffer. So the system of dzogchen is predicated on recognizing the true condition (or nature) of phenomena. The dharmakāya signifies the empty nature of phenomena, which means that in truth phenomena are non-arisen and do not accord with any of the four possible extremes, which are: existence, non-existence, both and neither. When we realize that phenomena are truly unborn and non-arisen then that is called dharmakāya. That realization liberates us from our ignorant misconceptions that phenomena can exist, not exist, etc. which means we are free from the causes and conditions which sustain delusion and suffering.


:twothumbsup: :good: :twothumbsup:

Homage to the Dzogchen Masters!

"In reply to Vajrasattva's question as to the nature of the dimension of reality (dharmakaya) and the light of wisdom, the Teacher states that the dimension of reality is the lack of concreteness of the universe, and the inconceivable light of wisdom is not different from that and is as vast as that. This light is beyond comparison with the luster of the buddhas or of the sun and moon: it is the infinite radiance of the wisdom of one's self."

From the The Marvelous Primordial State, P63.

Got it? :smile:

Not to worry. The bottom line is that whatever your understanding is, this present understanding is also empty of any concrete self nature (dharmakaya) and this understanding (whatever it is), as it manifests in the continuum of your awareness, is the infinite radiance of the wisdom of one's self.

Relaxing into this radiant wisdom of whatever manifests, the question, (and all questions) of whether the dharmakaya is the source, is resolved (beyond words or concepts) in itself: your own radiant wisdom. Beyond this there is no answer to the question and any answer (whatever manifests) is ok, informed by that radiance.

Now you've got it! :smile:

In the case that there still is any question, take the direct introduction, pointing out instruction, from a qualified Dzogchen Master and perhaps this experience will clarify the meaning.

:heart:
oldbob
 
Posts: 517
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 8:19 am

Re: Is the Dharmakaya the source?

Postby asunthatneversets » Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:11 am

Jigme Lingpa defines dharmakāya as: "The wisdom that is aware that the manifesting objects - form, feelings, perceptions, and so on - are empty of self."
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1303
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Is the Dharmakaya the source?

Postby Sönam » Mon Sep 30, 2013 10:57 am

oldbob wrote:"In reply to Vajrasattva's question as to the nature of the dimension of reality (dharmakaya) and the light of wisdom, the Teacher states that the dimension of reality is the lack of concreteness of the universe, and the inconceivable light of wisdom is not different from that and is as vast as that. This light is beyond comparison with the luster of the buddhas or of the sun and moon: it is the infinite radiance of the wisdom of one's self."


Great quote ... thank you

Sönam
By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.
By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.
- Longchen Rabjam -
User avatar
Sönam
 
Posts: 1958
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France

Re: Is the Dharmakaya the source?

Postby Son of Buddha » Mon Sep 30, 2013 11:49 am

smcj wrote:
duffster1 wrote:Hi

Is the Dharmakaya what is called in spirituality the source? or am i way off?

:namaste:

That depends on which school you're asking. There's no consensus, except that most historians would say that Sakyamuni did not teach it in the Pali Suttas.


?
Dhammakaya can be found in many suttas in the pali canon.
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 850
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Is the Dharmakaya the source?

Postby muni » Mon Sep 30, 2013 4:12 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:?
Dhammakaya can be found in many suttas in the pali canon.


I guess so, Buddha didn't talk from texts. :smile: Means not they are not (temporary) usefull.
muni
 
Posts: 2873
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Is the Dharmakaya the source?

Postby duffster1 » Mon Sep 30, 2013 7:59 pm

asunthatneversets wrote:Dharmakāya is emptiness, definitely not a source. The five lights are originally pure, which means they're primordially unborn and free from extremes.

Duffster, regarding your question; 'spirituality' is a fairly broad term and could represent various systems, religions and traditions, all having different ideas of a source. In Vedanta for example, the source of phenomena is called Brahman. Dzogchen however doesn't posit a 'source' of phenomena per se... It's said that the way we usually perceive phenomena is incorrect, and that is the reason we suffer. So the system of dzogchen is predicated on recognizing the true condition (or nature) of phenomena. The dharmakāya signifies the empty nature of phenomena, which means that in truth phenomena are non-arisen and do not accord with any of the four possible extremes, which are: existence, non-existence, both and neither. When we realize that phenomena are truly unborn and non-arisen then that is called dharmakāya. That realization liberates us from our ignorant misconceptions that phenomena can exist, not exist, etc. which means we are free from the causes and conditions which sustain delusion and suffering.


u said 'when we realize that phenomena are truly unborn' so could the dharmakaya be called the unmanifested?
duffster1
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 6:53 pm

Re: Is the Dharmakaya the source?

Postby asunthatneversets » Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:06 pm

duffster1 wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote:Dharmakāya is emptiness, definitely not a source. The five lights are originally pure, which means they're primordially unborn and free from extremes.

Duffster, regarding your question; 'spirituality' is a fairly broad term and could represent various systems, religions and traditions, all having different ideas of a source. In Vedanta for example, the source of phenomena is called Brahman. Dzogchen however doesn't posit a 'source' of phenomena per se... It's said that the way we usually perceive phenomena is incorrect, and that is the reason we suffer. So the system of dzogchen is predicated on recognizing the true condition (or nature) of phenomena. The dharmakāya signifies the empty nature of phenomena, which means that in truth phenomena are non-arisen and do not accord with any of the four possible extremes, which are: existence, non-existence, both and neither. When we realize that phenomena are truly unborn and non-arisen then that is called dharmakāya. That realization liberates us from our ignorant misconceptions that phenomena can exist, not exist, etc. which means we are free from the causes and conditions which sustain delusion and suffering.


u said 'when we realize that phenomena are truly unborn' so could the dharmakaya be called the unmanifested?


In the conventional context of referring to allegedly 'manifested' phenomena it (dharmakāya) could be called 'the unmanifest', but truthfully it's a false dichotomy because dharmakāya implies the realization that there's never truly been manifestation to begin with.

For dharmakāya to be the unmanifested it would require something 'manifest' to contrast that 'unmanifest' designation, but since manifestation is a misnomer, unmanifestation is an equally invalid notion (in the ultimate sense). We of course loosely refer to dharmakāya as 'unborn', 'non-arisen' etc. but these terms are referencing emptiness, so they're actually implying a freedom from extremes. A lack of extremes means that (ultimately) manifest and unmanifest are both equally inapplicable because whatever it is we could refer to as manifest or unmanifest is essentially nothing more than a false thought.

As long as 'unmanifested' is understood in that context then it's a suitable title. But if we interpret unmanifested as implying non-existence, or an absence (as a negative) which is contrasted and defined by an existing or affirmed (positive) designation, then we've fallen into extremes and have deviated from the meaning of dharmakāya.

Dharmakāya is free from (i) existence, (ii) non-existence, (iii) both existence and non-existence, and (iv) neither existence or non-existence. So that is to say; non-existence is an impossibility because existence hasn't been suggested to begin with, and vice versa. That freedom from extremes is the accurate view of non-manifestation. Like recognizing a snake in a dark room to actually be a rope, that realization implies that the snake is primordially unborn and non-arisen. The snake was a misunderstanding from the beginning, so it's recognized that there is no snake to exist, not exist, both or neither. We can tentatively say the snake doesn't exist, but such an assertion would need to be understood correctly otherwise it can easily become nihilism. I've even seen Longchenpa refer to emptiness as the 'true face of non-existence', because it realizes the unreality of X, but doesn't negate the mere appearance of X. Why non-existence? Because we wouldn't say that a mirage is truly 'real' or substantiated, but at the same time a mirage isn't utterly non-existent either. Dharmakāya implies the the same type of recognition, that things are apparent yet unreal. Illusory and ungraspable like a mirage.
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1303
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Is the Dharmakaya the source?

Postby oldbob » Wed Oct 02, 2013 7:06 am

Yup and

try not to distract and step on a rope, when seen at dusk, while contemplating the DK, when walking in India or the DK can bite you and be the source of great pain. :smile:
oldbob
 
Posts: 517
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 8:19 am

Re: Is the Dharmakaya the source?

Postby smcj » Wed Oct 02, 2013 8:12 am

Son of Buddha wrote:
smcj wrote:
duffster1 wrote:Hi

Is the Dharmakaya what is called in spirituality the source? or am i way off?

:namaste:

That depends on which school you're asking. There's no consensus, except that most historians would say that Sakyamuni did not teach it in the Pali Suttas.

?
Dhammakaya can be found in many suttas in the pali canon.

Is Dharmakaya described as 'the source', or anything that is even remotely similar to that? If so it would be dangerously close to Advaita Vedanta, which is a big no-no for the early schools.
A human being has his limits. And thus, in every conceivable way, with every possible means, he tries to make the teaching enter into his own limits. ChNN
smcj
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Is the Dharmakaya the source?

Postby xabir » Sun Oct 06, 2013 1:00 am

Reading this thread I was reminded of something I wrote before:

In the Bahiya Sutta, the Buddha said, "Where water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing: There the stars don't shine, the sun isn't visible. There the moon doesn't appear. There darkness is not found. And when a sage, a brahman through sagacity, has realized [this] for himself, then from form & formless, from bliss & pain, he is freed."

Some people mistaken that to imply the 'afterlife state' of an arahant as being devoid of anything whatsoever.

Venerable Nanananda explains however, that what it actually means is this: the luminosity of wisdom, in 'non-manifestative consciousness' which is 'lustrous on all sides' far outshines the sun (and the sun's lustre already outshines the moon and the stars, that's why we don't see the moon or stars in a sunny afternoon).

He also made clear that the cessation of the six sense bases/name and form doesn't mean that we don't see anything, but that we "see its voidness" as "an insight", we realized "void is the world", that which "worldlings grasp as real and truly existing gets penetrated through wisdom and becomes nonmanifest".

I'm reminded of my friend Simpo who once wrote an article long ago in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2 ... -like.html - "in the deeper range of non duality, brightness becomes stronger. This brightness is the result of mind's deconstruction which allows for intense penetration into consciousness. The Brightness can be so intense that it is truly stunning."

Anyway, very good explanation of Bahiya Sutta by Ven Nanananda in http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/nibbana15.htm and http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/nibbana16.htm

I must say, my understanding of certain more difficult points of the Pali Suttas have been 'revised' by reading this venerable's works which I think is great. Not very easy reading but enlightening.
xabir
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:14 pm


Return to Dzogchen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

>