Semantics or not..Dharmakaya, Eternalism and the Self of Advaita

A forum for those wishing to discuss Buddhist history and teachings in the Western academic manner, referencing appropriate sources.
Bakmoon
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:31 am

Re: Semantics or not..Dharmakaya, Eternalism and the Self of Advaita

Post by Bakmoon » Sun Jul 02, 2017 4:13 am

smcj wrote:If I'm not mistaken that was Mikyo Dorje's view I referenced above stated in a different way. But then he concluded that it meant sentient beings neither possessed or were part of the Buddha Nature. I just can't grok that.
Mikyo Dorje's view is really hard to pin down because he says different things in different contexts and he doesn't explain things at length. I remember reading a quote of him saying that, but I took it to mean that he was saying that it isn't so much that sentient beings posses Buddha nature, but rather that Buddha nature possesses sentient beings because it is all pervasive.

Could you find the source in When the Clouds part about the Dharmakaya versus the Form Bodies? I've been rereading that book and I'd like to bookmark everything on Mikyo Dorje and I think I've missed that part.

User avatar
smcj
Posts: 5480
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Semantics or not..Dharmakaya, Eternalism and the Self of Advaita

Post by smcj » Sun Jul 02, 2017 6:05 am

Bakmoon wrote: Could you find the source in When the Clouds part about the Dharmakaya versus the Form Bodies? I've been rereading that book and I'd like to bookmark everything on Mikyo Dorje and I think I've missed that part.
The copy I have of "When Clouds Part" here I didn't highlight, so I can't find the kayas quote readily. But Brunnholzl has Mikyo Dorje related material on pgs 206-211, pg 323, and pgs 803-831. The 803-831 is the translation of a Mikyo Dorje text with pg 323 as an introduction to that translation.

Sorry I can't find it. It's there, somewhere...

BTW on pg. 211Brunnholzl writes of Karmapa VIII Mikyo Dorje:
...the Karmapa here champions the most immediate approach to mind's nature, which entails discarding any conventional kind of Buddhist practice, including the Vajrayana.
Sounds a lot like ChNN's approach to me.
I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against Lama abuse.
*****
Once in a while you can get shown the light
In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
Robert Hunter

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 15175
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Semantics or not..Dharmakaya, Eternalism and the Self of Advaita

Post by Grigoris » Sun Jul 02, 2017 9:19 am

smcj wrote:Sounds a lot like ChNN's approach to me.
Ganges Mahamudra. People were doing it way before ChNN arrived on the scene. Not to dis ChNN, he has definitely rekindled something rather important.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
Stefos
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 1:51 am

Re: Semantics or not..Dharmakaya, Eternalism and the Self of Advaita

Post by Stefos » Wed Jul 05, 2017 1:52 am

Adamantine wrote:Stefos, these are common misunderstandings. You're not alone.
Just as in the English language, the same word may have multiple definitions that are quite different, depending on context: so in the long elaborate history of Buddhadharma with it's mutual influences on other Indian systems you'll find many of the same words with varying definitions. As Malcolm points out, even within strict Buddhist contexts the same word may have a variable definition. This is why it's very important to study closely with a qualified Guru and seek clarification about any confusion rather than just relying on textual study alone. It'd be good to be open to many of the good replies you've had here and entertain the idea that you are conflating things based on misunderstanding words and context. Once you do read the MMK you'll probably understand better. Jay Garfield has a good translation with footnotes that relate some of the ideas to more familiar Western philosophical systems for helpful contrast.
Hi Adamantine and Thank You sir/ma'am for your kind words and straightforward answer which
encapsulated my question and it's various cul de sacs.

At your behest, I will pick up the MMK and read it.

The reason why I mentioned Dzogchen here is that in Tibet, Dzogchen, Mahamudra and Madhyamika are the highest levels of teaching, per se.
In Madhyamika, Sri Nagarjuna is there and holds an important position.
Furthermore, Sunya is part of the Dharma/Dhamma.

My intentions here are ALWAYS to understand and give back after some mental chewing and then review what has been discussed.

Regarding the close study under a qualified guru,
I call myself the Lone Dzogchenpa because where I live, I have no other people who have time to coordinate to actually be in the state of contemplation together with.
I have taken formal refuge vows in the Drikung Kagyu lineage, as that has Mahamudra and H.E. Garchen Rinpoche is a major Dzogchen lineage holder along with the Drikung lineage having the 6 yogas of Naro/Naropa.

The problem is getting to where my Lama is.........I'm a disabled vet who has gastritis and respiratory problems my friend.
In the humidity, I don't fare well and given that my feet and ankles now swell for an unknown reason to me, things might get even more complicated.

There we have it all now.

Thank you for your assistance and EVERYONE ELSE ALSO for theirs.

Sarva Mangalam to you and everyone,
Stefos

Can you see the real me? (The Who)
:anjali:

User avatar
Stefos
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 1:51 am

Re: Semantics or not..Dharmakaya, Eternalism and the Self of Advaita

Post by Stefos » Wed Jul 05, 2017 1:56 am

BTW on pg. 211Brunnholzl writes of Karmapa VIII Mikyo Dorje:
...the Karmapa here champions the most immediate approach to mind's nature, which entails discarding any conventional kind of Buddhist practice, including the Vajrayana.
Sounds a lot like ChNN's approach to me.[/quote]

I must say that getting to the point FAST is where it's at.

J. Krishnamurti mentioned that you can't use time as a lever to change insofar as psychological change is concerned.
He did say time was needed to cook, clean, learn a skill, Become a Great Capitalist..............LOL, etc.
but NOT when it comes to psychological change.

He did say to people if they perceived what he was talking about and they said "yes" but it appears that he
gave room for people to "deepen" in the state of Choiceless Awareness or Naked Awareness as Dzogchen and Mahamudra and the Theras
say "Bare Attention."

Stefos

User avatar
Stefos
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 1:51 am

Re: Semantics or not..Dharmakaya, Eternalism and the Self of Advaita

Post by Stefos » Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:46 am

As I continue this thread and as everyone remembers I am discussing not stamping with the Immutable Signet ring of Truth:

We have Nibbana and that is qualified as:
"The Unborn, Undying, Unbecoming, not tainted by defilements, etc." and also and most important:
"It is here that conditioned consciousness ceases to exist." Of course, "consciousness" has been translated and therefore
it probably means awareness as consciousness is considered a Skandha bundle.

The above paragraph is from the Pali Nikayas................Author David Loy pointed out the "conditioned consciousness" part btw.

When we take a look at the Dharmakaya, we see that it was always there.
It is not Born, nor Dying, nor Becoming, nor tainted by defilements, etc."
To my mind, there is no difference between the Dharmakaya and Nibbana/Nirvana and in the context given above, it's "Eternal."

So, when, again in my current understanding, I see the Dharmakaya I see no difference between it and Nibbana/Nirvana and the Self
as taught by Ramana Maharshi insofar as using the word "Eternal" is concerned.

Some might object and say "The Self is God" and I would say, No the Self is Neuter, not A God.
More poignantly Ramana Maharshi stated that the "individual jiva, world, and Ishvara are unreal." Ishvara being a deity.
In his view, they were never real.

Again I suspect semantics but no substantial difference, WHEN ONE IS IN THAT STATE.

Sarva Mangalam :anjali:

Stefos.......................................TLD

User avatar
Wayfarer
Posts: 3520
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Semantics or not..Dharmakaya, Eternalism and the Self of Advaita

Post by Wayfarer » Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:16 am

As a Westerner who learned about all these traditions in spiritual bookstores, my perspective was that Advaita and Buddhism have a lot in common, but very different styles. I got both Teachings of Ramana Maharishi, and Zen Mind Beginner's Mind way back; they were the two main 'spiritual books', along with Krishnamurti. I liked all three, but I preferred Suzuki's, because of pragmatism of Zen, the emphasis on 'nothing special' but also on dedicated practice, and 'sitting for the sake of sitting', and the overall philosophy. I felt with Ramana's book, that it required moving to an ashram and becoming a renunciate yogi, which I was never going to do. Krishnamurti I learned a lot from, but I couldn't see how you could actualise his teaching by reading his books.

The perspective of those 'inside the traditions' is different, of course, because they have spent millenia debating each other and spelling out where they're different from each other, which they plainly are. I think that is why it is such a sensitive topic; it's a demarcation issue.
In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities; in the expert's mind there are few ~ Suzuki-roshi

User avatar
Stefos
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 1:51 am

Re: Semantics or not..Dharmakaya, Eternalism and the Self of Advaita

Post by Stefos » Sun Jul 16, 2017 2:28 am

Wayfarer wrote:As a Westerner who learned about all these traditions in spiritual bookstores, my perspective was that Advaita and Buddhism have a lot in common, but very different styles. I got both Teachings of Ramana Maharishi, and Zen Mind Beginner's Mind way back; they were the two main 'spiritual books', along with Krishnamurti. I liked all three, but I preferred Suzuki's, because of pragmatism of Zen, the emphasis on 'nothing special' but also on dedicated practice, and 'sitting for the sake of sitting', and the overall philosophy. I felt with Ramana's book, that it required moving to an ashram and becoming a renunciate yogi, which I was never going to do. Krishnamurti I learned a lot from, but I couldn't see how you could actualise his teaching by reading his books.

The perspective of those 'inside the traditions' is different, of course, because they have spent millenia debating each other and spelling out where they're different from each other, which they plainly are. I think that is why it is such a sensitive topic; it's a demarcation issue.
Yes sir....It IS a sensitive topic BUT I will continue to discuss it privately until I understand the particulars and I will acknowledge the similarities too.
Real love means "I want to understand you because I care for you whether you agree with me or not." :)

If you examine Ramana Maharshi's book "Talks" you'll see that he says 4 ways of manonasa exist, 3 of which are the same as Mahamudra & Dzogchen actually..........That's the fact.....It's the same thing insofar as manonasa is concerned.
Ex. He said when you have a thought, examine where the thought comes from...........Sound familiar???? I think so.
Beyond that, since both Mahamudra/Dzogchen & Vichara say the end result is cessation of the mind, not the essence of mind, and the ego is dead,
Who asks the hairsplitting questions? Right?
WHO?

Krishnamurti taught Choiceless Awareness.....One can "learn" it from a book actually and the various foundations exist along with
study groups too...........Krishnamurti emphasized that if "I" will myself to change, it's a form of the ego seeking to kill itself, which won't work.
You have to just watch he said, ALL the nuances of the mind until the Self, which is false, is seen as false and "pursue" it until "No sense of the Self" exists, Krishnamurti's words.

Stefos............................TLD

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 3:21 am
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Semantics or not..Dharmakaya, Eternalism and the Self of Advaita

Post by aflatun » Sun Jul 16, 2017 2:36 am

Stefos wrote: Beyond that, since both Mahamudra/Dzogchen & Vichara say the end result is cessation of the mind
Did Ramana teach that? Woah. Could you direct me to a quote or reference?
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16

User avatar
Stefos
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 1:51 am

Re: Semantics or not..Dharmakaya, Eternalism and the Self of Advaita

Post by Stefos » Mon Jul 17, 2017 12:50 am

aflatun wrote:
Stefos wrote: Beyond that, since both Mahamudra/Dzogchen & Vichara say the end result is cessation of the mind
Did Ramana teach that? Woah. Could you direct me to a quote or reference?
First, as to avoid confusion, I meant "say the end result is cessation of the mind" as a step in the path...not the Summum Bonum of sadhana.

Second, No sir..........Ramana did NOT say what you just quoted me say up above here.

He DID say in "Talks," page 163-164, AND I QUOTE"
"1.By examining the mind itself. When the mind is examined, its activities cease automatically. This is the method of Jnana. The pure mind is the Self
2. Looking for the source of the mind is another method. The source may be said to be God or Self or consciousness.
3. Concentrating upon one thought makes all the other thoughts disappear. Finally that thought also disappears; and
4. Hatha Yoga"

Each one of the first 3 "methods" of course need extrapolation.

I stated that the first 3 are indeed methods used in Dzogchen/Mahamudra for manomasa or extinction of mind.
Although it's not called "manonasa" in Dzogchen/Mahamudra, it is examining the mind and finding the mind to be non-existent.
These "methods" were not 1 shot deals either....One and Done. It was something to always do until the final cessation of mind.

Thanks,
Stefos.....................TLD

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 3:21 am
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Semantics or not..Dharmakaya, Eternalism and the Self of Advaita

Post by aflatun » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:35 pm

Stefos wrote:
aflatun wrote:
Stefos wrote: Beyond that, since both Mahamudra/Dzogchen & Vichara say the end result is cessation of the mind
Did Ramana teach that? Woah. Could you direct me to a quote or reference?
First, as to avoid confusion, I meant "say the end result is cessation of the mind" as a step in the path...not the Summum Bonum of sadhana.

Second, No sir..........Ramana did NOT say what you just quoted me say up above here.

He DID say in "Talks," page 163-164, AND I QUOTE"
"1.By examining the mind itself. When the mind is examined, its activities cease automatically. This is the method of Jnana. The pure mind is the Self
2. Looking for the source of the mind is another method. The source may be said to be God or Self or consciousness.
3. Concentrating upon one thought makes all the other thoughts disappear. Finally that thought also disappears; and
4. Hatha Yoga"

Each one of the first 3 "methods" of course need extrapolation.

I stated that the first 3 are indeed methods used in Dzogchen/Mahamudra for manomasa or extinction of mind.
Although it's not called "manonasa" in Dzogchen/Mahamudra, it is examining the mind and finding the mind to be non-existent.
These "methods" were not 1 shot deals either....One and Done. It was something to always do until the final cessation of mind.

Thanks,
Stefos.....................TLD
Thank you for the clarification and reference, much appreciated ! :thumbsup:
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests