The Buddha teaches release from life?

[Netti-Netti]

This:

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

"Intrinsically not conjoined" to me means "separate from."

was in reference to this:

Originally Posted by Snoopy

There is of course no separation between these two truths.

If we are talking about the same thing, we are talking about transcendent versus immanent reality. This interesting because it seems rather different from the old Buddhist cosmology, where there was no place for a transcendental reality outside time and space. Btw, it appears that the notion of transcendent dharmakaya was not developed until the 9th century. What's the date for the Mula Sutta cited in posts #22 and #24?

The other interesting thing about the Tathagatagarbha Sutra is that ontology and salvation doctrine seem to be closely related.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Tao te Ching - part 1 chapter 1

The Tao that can be tao'ed is not the true Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name. (the deathless?)

Aye, good enough.

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

I'm not trying to describe reality - just trying to sort out some basic Buddhist ideas.

I take Buddhism to be essentially a concern with reality. With thousands of suttas and sutras composed by various authors at various times, in various traditions and schools, in various locations, often contradicting and disagreeing furiously (and poorly translated), it may take us some time to "sort out some basic Buddhist ideas."

If there is no value in talking, maybe we should all quit the forum.

Don't! That's what I keep thinking!

Anyway, from the Tathagatagarbha Sutra:

It is like a store of treasure
Inside the house of an impoverished man.
The owner is not aware of it,
Nor can the treasure speak.
For a very long time it is buried in darkness,
As there is no one who can tell of its presence.
When you have treasure but do not know of it,
This causes poverty and suffering.
When the buddha eye observes sentient beings,
It sees that, although they transmigrate
Through the five realms of reincarnation,
There is a great treasure in their bodies
That is eternal and unchanging.

Tathagatagarbha Buddhism (3)

By virtue of being eternal and unchanging, the Buddha essence would have to be separate from transient and changing phenomenal world of forms.

This discussion is also of interest in ight iof whqt we were saing about dharmakaya:

The Buddha links the tathagatagarbha to the spotless immaculacy of the "dharmakaya" (the ultimate true nature of the Buddha) and "dharmadhatu" (the all-pervading realm of dharma) and states: "First, the tathagatagarbha is intrinsically conjoined with pure qualities from time without beginning; secondly, the tathagatagarbha is intrinsically not conjoined with impure qualities from time without beginning; and thirdly, the tathagatagarbha is unchanging sameness throughout the future ... it is veridical and not delusive, a pure reality that is without separation and exclusion from jnana [knowingness, awareness], an inconceivable 'dharma' [entity] that is the dharmadhatu".

Anunatva-Apurnatva-Nirdesa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"Intrinsically not conjoined" to me means "separate from."

You're right, this monontheism is a real problem for you isn't it

Will I end up being persuaded that Buddhism is monotheistic?

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Tao te Ching - part 1 chapter 1

The Tao that can be tao'ed is not the true Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name. (the deathless?)

“There is only an ineffable undivided, undiscriminated something that Buddhism calls reality. Nagarjuna calls this state in which there are no named objects in the world, sunyata, the empty state.”

- from Chapter 18 of Between Heaven and Earth: From Nagarjuna to Dogen – A Translation and Interpretation of the Mulamadhyamakakarika By Michael Eido Luetchford.

s.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

The Tao that can be tao'ed is not the true Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

“There is only an ineffable undivided, undiscriminated something that Buddhism calls reality. Nagarjuna calls this state in which there are no named objects in the world, sunyata, the empty state.”

I always thought of the lao tsu comment on the "Unnamable" as reflecting on the limits of language.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

This:

was in reference to this:



If we are talking about the same thing, we are talking about transcendent versus immanent reality. This interesting because it seems rather different from the old Buddhist cosmology, where there was no place for a transcendental reality outside time and space. Btw, it appears that the notion of transcendent dharmakaya was not developed until the 9th century. What's the date for the Mula Sutta cited in posts #22 and #24?

The other interesting thing about the Tathagatagarbha Sutra is that ontology and salvation doctrine seem to be closely related.

Originally Posted by Snoopy

“There is only an ineffable undivided, undiscriminated something that Buddhism calls reality. Nagarjuna calls this state in which there are no named objects in the world, sunyata, the empty state.”

- from Chapter 18 of Between Heaven and Earth: From Nagarjuna to Dogen – A Translation and Interpretation of the Mulamadhyamakakarika By Michael Eido Luetchford.

s.

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

I always thought of the lao tsu comment on the "Unnamable" as reflecting on the limits of language.

I find it quite interesting how Taoist scholars say that Buddhism and Taoism are talking about the same thing.

{Oh boy! Can we bring in in the Taiji Tu and Taiji Tushuo by Zhou Dunyi into the discussion for consideration?}

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

I find it quite interesting how Taoist scholars say that Buddhism and Taoism are talking about the same thing.

I think they are all talking about The One, as described by Plotinus. The Buddhist approach is argument by implication, denying the central truth and forcing people to sort it out (a clever adaptation of dialectical tactic). The Taoists basically tell you to stop babbling and let the Eternal Truth speak for itself.

Btw, I got a fortune cookie that reads: "Soon you will no longer be confused by everything you read at interfaith.com"

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Btw, I got a fortune cookie that reads: "Soon you will no longer be confused by everything you read at interfaith.com"

It must be referring to some other place, 'cause this is interfaith.org.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

... this monontheism is a real problem for you isn't it

Heh, for a moment there I thought this might be the place to work "the problem" out .... given that this is an Interfaith kind of .org and all.

[Francis king]

it is what it is... we can make it more fanciful, and use bigger or smaller words, but the word are what they are... the words are what they are to describe what is, and what isn't...

a metaphorical emptiness? maybe, but, come on... Buddha wasn't influenced by the greeks... he wasn't influenced by Jesus... he was influenced by Hinduism...

Take the hinduism (and the gods) out of buddhism, and what have you got?

Whatever it is, it isn't religion...

If "it" isn't a religion, then why pray, perform ceremonies, bury the dead? If there is no God in buddhism, why does everyone light insence before the statues?

If the trikaya isn't about spiritual progression, then what is a samboghakaya? Is it all just a load of rubbish?

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Francis king

Take the hinduism (and the gods) out of buddhism, and what have you got?
Whatever it is, it isn't religion...

It is a way to create religion and a way to become more religious.

If "it" isn't a religion, then why pray, perform ceremonies, bury the dead? If there is no God in buddhism, why does everyone light insence before the statues?

Yes, what are they doing?....

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Heh, for a moment there I thought this might be the place to work "the problem" out .... given that this is an Interfaith kind of .org and all.

It is!

I have every confidence in you

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Yes, what are they doing?....

Well Conan the chihuahua just wants to please his master.

You'd never catch a cat showing itself up like that!

s.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Well Conan the chihuahua just wants to please his master.

You'd never catch a cat showing itself up like that!

s.

Cats prefer zazen.

[Dharmaatmaa]

Originally Posted by Francis king

he was influenced by Hinduism...

Well, well, well... It reminds me that old mystery - who was born earliea: an egg or a chicken? If we take a faint look at Buddhism, we'll see it's different from Hinduism very much. Even if we take Southern and Northen Buddhist Chirches as well. Even the latter - having got a thousands of Gods and sirits - isn't Hinduismlike at all! He started a new doctrine.

Originally Posted by Francis king

Whatever it is, it isn't religion...

Agreed, Francis. But why do people need a religion, a mind-freezing monstre, if they've got so great philosophy?!

Originally Posted by Francis king

If "it" isn't a religion, then why pray, perform ceremonies, bury the dead? If there is no God in buddhism, why does everyone light insence before the statues?

As I know, Buddha didn't say to worship this way to anybody. But ordinary people couldn't understand those difficult doctrines, so there appear priests and cult. There appeared people who comprehend it, and those whose mind cannot catch it. Cult was born (for "dunces").

Originally Posted by Francis king

If the trikaya isn't about spiritual progression, then what is a samboghakaya? Is it all just a load of rubbish?

Of cause, it isn't! I remember a story of a Russian girl who always said "That's rubbish!!!", when couldn't understand something. It was much easier than sit and think. Just say "Plunk, plunk, plunk!.. It's a rubbish!"
It's difficult to explain trikaya in written speach, for to make psychical realities understandable, it's necessary to use mataphors and allegories. You see, there's nothing in our ordinary life that can give us concrete seeing of those we've never dealt with. It's as impossible to imagine sambhogakaya (sic!) as to imagine a four-dimentional object. But I could describe common lines:
1) Trikaya includes three psychical entities;
2) They are nirmanakaya, sambhogakaya, and dharmakaya;
3) They all have got different "density"; dharmakaya is arupa (formless, bodiless), i.e. it has no form, even borders from outter space. It is everywhere.
4) They all have own consciousness. Dharmakaya knows everything.

I'm not going to make you think it's difficult and fanciful. But personally I can't explain that in this pages, using English, without intonations and metaphors. And yes, trikaya is "about spiritual progression", but they exist the same time, together.
Maybe someone other can explain it properly.