They are sambhogakāya fields, in fact.Pema Rigdzin wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 7:23 pmI've heard this term in teachings, and in books, but I've never sought an explanation of precisely what this means. It specifically says "natural" nirmanakaya buddhafield, which would seem to distinguish them from some other kind of nirmanakaya buddhafield. Could you please you expand upon this, Malcolm?
Question
Re: Question
-
- Posts: 1292
- Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
- Location: Southern Oregon
Re: Question
Haha now I'm even more in the dark. If they're actually sambhogakaya fields, why are they termed natural nirmanakaya fields? Can you say a little more about them, such as their features and the advantages of rebirth there that are particular to them?
Pema Rigdzin/Brian Pittman
-
- Posts: 2753
- Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:29 am
Re: Question
Yes, but what about the least tulkus, the realized teachers and emanations? They don't "rediscover" the basis?Malcolm wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:30 pmMost tulkus are not nirmanakāyas. "Tulku" is a Tibetan custom, it is not essential. Most tulkus are not even realized, they are just ordinary people like you and I.javier.espinoza.t wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:22 pmBut Malcolm, how is that for example a realized teacher is named tulku then? How can one show or teach the basis without realize it? And being realized, how is that birth is taken without get it "covered"?
true dharma is inexpressible.
The bodhisattva nourishes from bodhicitta, through whatever method the Buddha has given him. Oh joy.
The bodhisattva nourishes from bodhicitta, through whatever method the Buddha has given him. Oh joy.
Re: Question
If you happen to be born in one, one will attain buddhahood in five hundred human years.Pema Rigdzin wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:46 pmHaha now I'm even more in the dark. If they're actually sambhogakaya fields, why are they termed natural nirmanakaya fields? Can you say a little more about them, such as their features and the advantages of rebirth there that are particular to them?
They are called nirmanakāya because there are nirmanakāyas there.
Re: Question
Your question isn't clear.javier.espinoza.t wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:55 pmYes, but what about the least tulkus, the realized teachers and emanations? They don't "rediscover" the basis?Malcolm wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:30 pmMost tulkus are not nirmanakāyas. "Tulku" is a Tibetan custom, it is not essential. Most tulkus are not even realized, they are just ordinary people like you and I.javier.espinoza.t wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:22 pm
But Malcolm, how is that for example a realized teacher is named tulku then? How can one show or teach the basis without realize it? And being realized, how is that birth is taken without get it "covered"?
Re: Question
Could there be a confusion between "recognizing" and what Javier calls "rediscovering" ?
@Javier:
The basis being precisely what was not known before, by definition, it cannot be re-discovered... However, once the basis has been recognized there are of course, for most of us, distractions, and we must then remember again and again...
May be that is what you meant by "rediscovering" ?
@Javier:
The basis being precisely what was not known before, by definition, it cannot be re-discovered... However, once the basis has been recognized there are of course, for most of us, distractions, and we must then remember again and again...
May be that is what you meant by "rediscovering" ?
-
- Posts: 2753
- Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:29 am
Re: Question
Malcolm wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:02 pmYour question isn't clear.javier.espinoza.t wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:55 pmYes, but what about the least tulkus, the realized teachers and emanations? They don't "rediscover" the basis?
to put it plain: it is inverosimil that basis may exist without any manifestation, and since basis is apparently inherent, one must have started to deliberately ignore it at some point.Marc wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 10:07 pm Could there be a confusion between "recognizing" and what Javier calls "rediscovering" ?
@Javier:
The basis being precisely what was not known before, by definition, it cannot be re-discovered... However, once the basis has been recognized there are of course, for most of us, distractions, and we must then remember again and again...
May be that is what you meant by "rediscovering" ?
so, is it that when, for example, is a realized being takes birth do "cover", ignore, the basis and turn a normal sentient being and eventually rediscover ?
tha might be just another one of my stupid questions, but i remember that Shakyamunni did attained perfect knowledge far before -more or less- 3.000 years ago (so it is stated in the Lotus Sutra). And also, will GP's emanations take birth as enlighted or they have had, or will, pay attention like everyone else until "rediscovers" the base?. I could go on several arguments in this way.
it is true that birth of realized ones is not conditioned by Karma, but it is certain that they become conditioned by it until they realize the base again...
And then, in case we don't "rediscover" -and do discover- the basis ¿wouldn't that exclude pure vision from our real nature since a beginningless time?
that's it, more or less clear.
true dharma is inexpressible.
The bodhisattva nourishes from bodhicitta, through whatever method the Buddha has given him. Oh joy.
The bodhisattva nourishes from bodhicitta, through whatever method the Buddha has given him. Oh joy.
-
- Posts: 2124
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:32 am
Re: Question
Here it is simply.It is not discovered until it is.javier.espinoza.t wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:59 amMalcolm wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:02 pmYour question isn't clear.javier.espinoza.t wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:55 pm
Yes, but what about the least tulkus, the realized teachers and emanations? They don't "rediscover" the basis?to put it plain: it is inverosimil that basis may exist without any manifestation, and since basis is apparently inherent, one must have started to deliberately ignore it at some point.Marc wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 10:07 pm Could there be a confusion between "recognizing" and what Javier calls "rediscovering" ?
@Javier:
The basis being precisely what was not known before, by definition, it cannot be re-discovered... However, once the basis has been recognized there are of course, for most of us, distractions, and we must then remember again and again...
May be that is what you meant by "rediscovering" ?
so, is it that when, for example, is a realized being takes birth do "cover", ignore, the basis and turn a normal sentient being and eventually rediscover ?
tha might be just another one of my stupid questions, but i remember that Shakyamunni did attained perfect knowledge far before -more or less- 3.000 years ago (so it is stated in the Lotus Sutra). And also, will GP's emanations take birth as enlighted or they have had, or will, pay attention like everyone else until "rediscovers" the base?. I could go on several arguments in this way.
it is true that birth of realized ones is not conditioned by Karma, but it is certain that they become conditioned by it until they realize the base again...
And then, in case we don't "rediscover" -and do discover- the basis ¿wouldn't that exclude pure vision from our real nature since a beginningless time?
that's it, more or less clear.
Re: Question
What you are really asking about is how Arya bodhisattvas on the impure stages recover their aryan knowledge in each lifetime.javier.espinoza.t wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:59 amMalcolm wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:02 pmYour question isn't clear.javier.espinoza.t wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:55 pm
Yes, but what about the least tulkus, the realized teachers and emanations? They don't "rediscover" the basis?to put it plain: it is inverosimil that basis may exist without any manifestation, and since basis is apparently inherent, one must have started to deliberately ignore it at some point.Marc wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 10:07 pm Could there be a confusion between "recognizing" and what Javier calls "rediscovering" ?
@Javier:
The basis being precisely what was not known before, by definition, it cannot be re-discovered... However, once the basis has been recognized there are of course, for most of us, distractions, and we must then remember again and again...
May be that is what you meant by "rediscovering" ?
so, is it that when, for example, is a realized being takes birth do "cover", ignore, the basis and turn a normal sentient being and eventually rediscover ?
tha might be just another one of my stupid questions, but i remember that Shakyamunni did attained perfect knowledge far before -more or less- 3.000 years ago (so it is stated in the Lotus Sutra). And also, will GP's emanations take birth as enlighted or they have had, or will, pay attention like everyone else until "rediscovers" the base?. I could go on several arguments in this way.
it is true that birth of realized ones is not conditioned by Karma, but it is certain that they become conditioned by it until they realize the base again...
And then, in case we don't "rediscover" -and do discover- the basis ¿wouldn't that exclude pure vision from our real nature since a beginningless time?
that's it, more or less clear.
-
- Posts: 2753
- Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:29 am
Re: Question
if an emanation of GP is so, then i'm asking that. I'm not wondering if higher -than the bhumis- realizations allows voluntary rebirth, but if a "cover" of nature occurs for it to happen, and if we all already under such "cover" then prior to that we must have had knowledge of uncovered basis meaning that we all are, in the real sense, perfect Buddhas and not only have an impure appeareance, but also that means that at some point we was in the primordial knowledge and then somehow after a voluntary rebirth we got stuck-conditioned.Malcolm wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:37 amWhat you are really asking about is how Arya bodhisattvas on the impure stages recover their aryan knowledge in each lifetime.javier.espinoza.t wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:59 am to put it plain: it is inverosimil that basis may exist without any manifestation, and since basis is apparently inherent, one must have started to deliberately ignore it at some point.
so, is it that when, for example, is a realized being takes birth do "cover", ignore, the basis and turn a normal sentient being and eventually rediscover ?
tha might be just another one of my stupid questions, but i remember that Shakyamunni did attained perfect knowledge far before -more or less- 3.000 years ago (so it is stated in the Lotus Sutra). And also, will GP's emanations take birth as enlighted or they have had, or will, pay attention like everyone else until "rediscovers" the base?. I could go on several arguments in this way.
it is true that birth of realized ones is not conditioned by Karma, but it is certain that they become conditioned by it until they realize the base again...
And then, in case we don't "rediscover" -and do discover- the basis ¿wouldn't that exclude pure vision from our real nature since a beginningless time?
that's it, more or less clear.
true dharma is inexpressible.
The bodhisattva nourishes from bodhicitta, through whatever method the Buddha has given him. Oh joy.
The bodhisattva nourishes from bodhicitta, through whatever method the Buddha has given him. Oh joy.
Re: Question
Bodhisattvas on the impure stages have very strong traces for meeting the Dharma.When they take rebirth, the force of past realization causes them to enter the path and continue up to and beyond the realization they had before.javier.espinoza.t wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:18 pmif an emanation of GP is so, then i'm asking that. I'm not wondering if higher -than the bhumis- realizations allows voluntary rebirth, but if a "cover" of nature occurs for it to happen, and if we all already under such "cover" then prior to that we must have had knowledge of uncovered basis meaning that we all are, in the real sense, perfect Buddhas and not only have an impure appeareance, but also that means that at some point we was in the primordial knowledge and then somehow after a voluntary rebirth we got stuck-conditioned.Malcolm wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:37 amWhat you are really asking about is how Arya bodhisattvas on the impure stages recover their aryan knowledge in each lifetime.javier.espinoza.t wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:59 am to put it plain: it is inverosimil that basis may exist without any manifestation, and since basis is apparently inherent, one must have started to deliberately ignore it at some point.
so, is it that when, for example, is a realized being takes birth do "cover", ignore, the basis and turn a normal sentient being and eventually rediscover ?
tha might be just another one of my stupid questions, but i remember that Shakyamunni did attained perfect knowledge far before -more or less- 3.000 years ago (so it is stated in the Lotus Sutra). And also, will GP's emanations take birth as enlighted or they have had, or will, pay attention like everyone else until "rediscovers" the base?. I could go on several arguments in this way.
it is true that birth of realized ones is not conditioned by Karma, but it is certain that they become conditioned by it until they realize the base again...
And then, in case we don't "rediscover" -and do discover- the basis ¿wouldn't that exclude pure vision from our real nature since a beginningless time?
that's it, more or less clear.
Emanations do not forget or need to re-realize anything, and this is also true of eight stage bodhisattvas and beyond. According to one account, a buddha is conscious when they die, in the womb, and during birth; a bodhisattva on the stages is conscious when they die, in the womb, but become unconscious at birth, while sentient beings are unconscious when the die, are in the womb, and at birth.
Re: Question
I have heard it like this. Before samsara we abided in the ground of primordial purity but we neither recognised it nor didn't recognise it. When the ground display of spontaneous presence occurred then we didn't recognise it as it was and strayed in to samsara. So sentient beings never recognised the primordial pure ground. Tulkus, I been told, have recognised the primordial pure ground but get slightly obscured by taking a body voluntarily and so have to again study and practice.javier.espinoza.t wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:18 pmif an emanation of GP is so, then i'm asking that. I'm not wondering if higher -than the bhumis- realizations allows voluntary rebirth, but if a "cover" of nature occurs for it to happen, and if we all already under such "cover" then prior to that we must have had knowledge of uncovered basis meaning that we all are, in the real sense, perfect Buddhas and not only have an impure appeareance, but also that means that at some point we was in the primordial knowledge and then somehow after a voluntary rebirth we got stuck-conditioned.Malcolm wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:37 amWhat you are really asking about is how Arya bodhisattvas on the impure stages recover their aryan knowledge in each lifetime.javier.espinoza.t wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:59 am to put it plain: it is inverosimil that basis may exist without any manifestation, and since basis is apparently inherent, one must have started to deliberately ignore it at some point.
so, is it that when, for example, is a realized being takes birth do "cover", ignore, the basis and turn a normal sentient being and eventually rediscover ?
tha might be just another one of my stupid questions, but i remember that Shakyamunni did attained perfect knowledge far before -more or less- 3.000 years ago (so it is stated in the Lotus Sutra). And also, will GP's emanations take birth as enlighted or they have had, or will, pay attention like everyone else until "rediscovers" the base?. I could go on several arguments in this way.
it is true that birth of realized ones is not conditioned by Karma, but it is certain that they become conditioned by it until they realize the base again...
And then, in case we don't "rediscover" -and do discover- the basis ¿wouldn't that exclude pure vision from our real nature since a beginningless time?
that's it, more or less clear.
/magnus
"We are all here to help each other go through this thing, whatever it is."
~Kurt Vonnegut
"The principal practice is Guruyoga. But we need to understand that any secondary practice combined with Guruyoga becomes a principal practice." ChNNR (Teachings on Thun and Ganapuja)
~Kurt Vonnegut
"The principal practice is Guruyoga. But we need to understand that any secondary practice combined with Guruyoga becomes a principal practice." ChNNR (Teachings on Thun and Ganapuja)
Re: Question
This is not a real tulku. Real tulkus emanate from the dharmakāya and are omniscient.
This is referring to "blessed" tulkus, who at best are bodhisattvas on the stages.
Re: Question
Could be, I really don't know. But even Shakyamuni had to practice, right?
/magnus
"We are all here to help each other go through this thing, whatever it is."
~Kurt Vonnegut
"The principal practice is Guruyoga. But we need to understand that any secondary practice combined with Guruyoga becomes a principal practice." ChNNR (Teachings on Thun and Ganapuja)
~Kurt Vonnegut
"The principal practice is Guruyoga. But we need to understand that any secondary practice combined with Guruyoga becomes a principal practice." ChNNR (Teachings on Thun and Ganapuja)
Re: Question
No. Śākyamuni Buddha did not have to practice.heart wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:54 pmCould be, I really don't know. But even Shakyamuni had to practice, right?
/magnus
Re: Question
When you say this, is it from the perspective that Gautama was a 10th Bhumi Bodhisattva prior to his manifestation of unsurpassed awakening or that he was a perfect emanation beyond the Bhumis?
“Whoever wants to find the wisdom beyond intellect without praying to his guru is like someone waiting for the sun to shine in a cave facing the north. He will never realize appearances and his mind to be one.”
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche
Re: Question
Re: Question
Is that the case for all supreme Nirmanakayas such as Shakyamuni?
If so, where does the Mahayana path of the Bhumis culminating in the realization of Buddhahood fit in? Is Maitreya a fully awakened Buddha who is simply manifesting a show of Tushita, birth, etc?
Are there any beings who are not simple emanations of Buddhas but are instead 10th Bhumi Bodhisattvas? Do they then manifest the appearance of a supreme Nirmanakaya in the same manner, but somehow they are different than a pure emanation such as Gautama?
“Whoever wants to find the wisdom beyond intellect without praying to his guru is like someone waiting for the sun to shine in a cave facing the north. He will never realize appearances and his mind to be one.”
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche
- schubertian
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 6:10 am
Re: Question
So - this would be;Malcolm wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:54 pmIn Dzogchen texts there are three stages generally described: recognition, realization, and liberation.javier.espinoza.t wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:36 pmTo realize means to become aware of, and even if one cant force realizing nature it is not a self occurring thing either, is it?
Some people think the third statement means full integration, but it does not. It means that the practitioner can continue in the confidence of liberation because they have previously decided one thing. Continuing in the confidence of liberation means that one has true knowledge of one's primordial state and therefore, with this knowledge, one's liberation is no longer in issue in terms of inevitability, it is only an issue of whether it occurs in this life, the time of death, the bardo, or a natural nirmanakāya buddhafield.
To recognise in a single instant
To "decide upon one thing"
To continue straight away in confidence (of liberation)
and - that 'one thing' would be - what? - to decide to follow the Dzogchen path? To decide to listen to one's Guru? To 'decide' that the single instant of recognition was sufficient? To decide to practice that same Vidya/Recognition as the path?
Re: Question
Yeah maybe, but he did.
/magnus
"We are all here to help each other go through this thing, whatever it is."
~Kurt Vonnegut
"The principal practice is Guruyoga. But we need to understand that any secondary practice combined with Guruyoga becomes a principal practice." ChNNR (Teachings on Thun and Ganapuja)
~Kurt Vonnegut
"The principal practice is Guruyoga. But we need to understand that any secondary practice combined with Guruyoga becomes a principal practice." ChNNR (Teachings on Thun and Ganapuja)