Question

Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Question

Post by Malcolm »

Pema Rigdzin wrote: Sun Dec 30, 2018 7:23 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:54 pm ...or a natural nirmanakāya buddhafield.
I'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?
They are sambhogakāya fields, in fact.
Pema Rigdzin
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Question

Post by Pema Rigdzin »

Malcolm wrote: Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:25 pm
They are sambhogakāya fields, in fact.
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
jet.urgyen
Posts: 2753
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:29 am

Re: Question

Post by jet.urgyen »

Malcolm wrote: Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:30 pm
javier.espinoza.t wrote: Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:22 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:55 pm

The basis is not rediscovered. It is called "the basis" because it is something that one has not realized.
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"?
Most 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.
Yes, but what about the least tulkus, the realized teachers and emanations? They don't "rediscover" the basis?
true dharma is inexpressible.

The bodhisattva nourishes from bodhicitta, through whatever method the Buddha has given him. Oh joy.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Question

Post by Malcolm »

Pema Rigdzin wrote: Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:46 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:25 pm
They are sambhogakāya fields, in fact.
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?
If you happen to be born in one, one will attain buddhahood in five hundred human years.

They are called nirmanakāya because there are nirmanakāyas there.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Question

Post by Malcolm »

javier.espinoza.t wrote: Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:55 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:30 pm
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"?
Most 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.
Yes, but what about the least tulkus, the realized teachers and emanations? They don't "rediscover" the basis?
Your question isn't clear.
Marc
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 4:40 am

Re: Question

Post by Marc »

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" ?
jet.urgyen
Posts: 2753
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:29 am

Re: Question

Post by jet.urgyen »

Malcolm wrote: Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:02 pm
javier.espinoza.t wrote: Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:55 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:30 pm

Most 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.
Yes, but what about the least tulkus, the realized teachers and emanations? They don't "rediscover" the basis?
Your question isn't clear.
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" ?
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.
amanitamusc
Posts: 2124
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:32 am

Re: Question

Post by amanitamusc »

javier.espinoza.t wrote: Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:59 am
Malcolm wrote: Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:02 pm
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?
Your question isn't clear.
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" ?
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.
Here it is simply.It is not discovered until it is.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Question

Post by Malcolm »

javier.espinoza.t wrote: Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:59 am
Malcolm wrote: Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:02 pm
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?
Your question isn't clear.
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" ?
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.
What you are really asking about is how Arya bodhisattvas on the impure stages recover their aryan knowledge in each lifetime.
jet.urgyen
Posts: 2753
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:29 am

Re: Question

Post by jet.urgyen »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:37 am
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.
What you are really asking about is how Arya bodhisattvas on the impure stages recover their aryan knowledge in each lifetime.
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.
true dharma is inexpressible.

The bodhisattva nourishes from bodhicitta, through whatever method the Buddha has given him. Oh joy.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Question

Post by Malcolm »

javier.espinoza.t wrote: Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:18 pm
Malcolm wrote: Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:37 am
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.
What you are really asking about is how Arya bodhisattvas on the impure stages recover their aryan knowledge in each lifetime.
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.
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.

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.
User avatar
heart
Posts: 6288
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Question

Post by heart »

javier.espinoza.t wrote: Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:18 pm
Malcolm wrote: Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:37 am
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.
What you are really asking about is how Arya bodhisattvas on the impure stages recover their aryan knowledge in each lifetime.
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.
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.

/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)
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Question

Post by Malcolm »

heart wrote: Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:42 pm 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.
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.
User avatar
heart
Posts: 6288
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Question

Post by heart »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:55 pm
heart wrote: Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:42 pm 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.
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.
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)
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Question

Post by Malcolm »

heart wrote: Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:54 pm
Malcolm wrote: Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:55 pm
heart wrote: Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:42 pm 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.
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.
Could be, I really don't know. But even Shakyamuni had to practice, right?

/magnus
No. Śākyamuni Buddha did not have to practice.
User avatar
ThreeVows
Posts: 942
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:54 pm

Re: Question

Post by ThreeVows »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Dec 31, 2018 5:18 pm
No. Śākyamuni Buddha did not have to practice.
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
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Question

Post by Malcolm »

Seeker12 wrote: Mon Dec 31, 2018 5:46 pm
Malcolm wrote: Mon Dec 31, 2018 5:18 pm
No. Śākyamuni Buddha did not have to practice.
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?
The Buddha attained full Buddhahood countless eons ago.
User avatar
ThreeVows
Posts: 942
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:54 pm

Re: Question

Post by ThreeVows »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Dec 31, 2018 6:26 pm
The Buddha attained full Buddhahood countless eons ago.
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
User avatar
schubertian
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 6:10 am

Re: Question

Post by schubertian »

Malcolm wrote: Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:54 pm
javier.espinoza.t wrote: Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:36 pm
Josef wrote: Sun Dec 30, 2018 7:45 am

The third statement of Garab Dorje. Full integration. Total realization.
To realize means to become aware of, and even if one cant force realizing nature it is not a self occurring thing either, is it?
In Dzogchen texts there are three stages generally described: recognition, realization, and liberation.

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.
So - this would be;
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?
User avatar
heart
Posts: 6288
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Question

Post by heart »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Dec 31, 2018 5:18 pm
heart wrote: Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:54 pm
Malcolm wrote: Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:55 pm

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.
Could be, I really don't know. But even Shakyamuni had to practice, right?

/magnus
No. Śākyamuni Buddha did not have to practice.
Yeah maybe, but he did. :smile:

/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)
Post Reply

Return to “Dzogchen”