| |
Welcome... |
|
 |
| |
Dharmakaya by Suzuki |
|
Author |
Message |
 |
mystic light
Administrator
Posts: 6815
Registered: May 2006 |
|
 Posted March 15th, 2008 16:10 IP   
Dharmakaya from D. T. Suzuki (Not sure where its from) and thought you would like it.
“The Dharmakaya may be compared in one sense to the God of Christianity and in another sense to the Brahman or Paramatman of Vedantism. It is different, however, from the former in that it does not stand transcendentally above the universe, which, according to the Christian view, was created by God, but which is, according to Mahayanism, a manifestation of the Dharmakaya himself. It is also different from Brahman in that it is not absolutely impersonal, nor is it a mere being. The Dharmakaya, on the contrary, is capable of willing and reflecting, or, to use Buddhist phraseology, it is Karuna (love) and Bodhi (intelligence), and not the mere state of being.
This pantheistic and at the same time entheistic Dharmakaya is working in every sentient being, for sentient beings are nothing but a self-manifestation of the Dharmakaya. Individuals are not isolated existences, as imagined by most people. If isolated, they are nothing, they are so many soap-bubbles which vanish one after another in the vacuity of space. All particular existences acquire their meaning only when they are thought of in their oneness in the Dharmakaya. The veil of Maya, i.e., subjective ignorance may temporally throw an obstacle to our perceiving the universal light of Dharmakaya, in which we are all one. But when our Bodhi or intellect, which is by the way a reflection of the Dharmakaya in the human mind, is so fully enlightened, we no more build the artificial barrier of egoism before our spiritual eye; the distinction between the meum and the teum is obliterated, no dualism throws the nets of entanglement over us; I recognize myself in you and you recognize yourself in me; tat tvam asi. Or, ‘What is here, that is there; what is there, that is here: Who sees duality here, from death to death goes he” (Kathopanishad 4:10).
This state of enlightenment may be called the spiritual expansion of the ego, or, negatively, the ideal annihilation of the ego. A never-drying stream of sympathy and love which is the life of religion will now spontaneously flow out of the fountainhead of Dharmakaya.” ~D. T. Suzuk
|
  
 |
http://schmuckzauberei.blogspot.com/ |
|
 |
|
riv:::
Global Moderator
Posts: 689
Registered: Nov 2006 |
|
Posted March 16th, 2008 02:29 IP
Beautiful..! For some reason many Buddhists resist this kind of understanding. If you mention Unity over at E-sangha some call it a delusion...
Who knows?
:P
Nature may be compared to a vast ocean.
Thousands and millions of changes are taking place in it.
Crocodiles and fish are essentially of the same substance
as the water in which they live.
People are crowded together
with the myriad other things
in the Great Changingness,
and their nature is one with that
of all other natural things.
Knowing that I am of the same nature
as all other natural things,
I know that there is really no separate self,
no separate personality,
no absolute death
and no absolute life.
-Tsen Tang-Hsu
(8th century A.D.)
Mind set free in the Dharma-realm,
I sit at the moon-filled window
Watching the mountains with my ears,
Hearing the stream with open eyes.
Each molecule preaches perfect law,
Each moment chants true sutra:
The most fleeting thought is timeless,
A single hair's enough to stir the sea.
- Shutaku
(14th century)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mystic light
Administrator
Posts: 6815
Registered: May 2006 |
|
Posted March 16th, 2008 08:15 IP
People resist what they feel threatened by.
Usually people with independant thinking are less afraid....
|
|
|
http://schmuckzauberei.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
|
mystic light
Administrator
Posts: 6815
Registered: May 2006 |
|
Posted March 16th, 2008 08:18 IP
Do you have more by Suzuki?
|
|
|
http://schmuckzauberei.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
|
Light Hope
Junior Member
Posts: 78
Registered: Oct 2007 |
|
Posted March 22nd, 2008 04:22 IP
This is where I found it. It still doesn't list the original source though. However its an interesting collection of quotes there. Don't know much about the rest of the site. Found it by accident when I was looking into the meaning of the Dharmakaya.
http://www.sridharma.org/html/mahay...na_godhead.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Light Hope
Junior Member
Posts: 78
Registered: Oct 2007 |
|
Posted March 22nd, 2008 09:45 IP
Quote:
riv::: wrote:
Beautiful..! For some reason many Buddhists resist this kind of understanding. If you mention Unity over at E-sangha some call it a delusion... |
(Sorry this turned out to be a lot longer then I originally wanted it to be. One idea led to another and it turned into this.)
I'm honestly begining to think it really all comes down to a personal interpretation and the official orthodox interpretation of what Buddha really meant isn't any better. After all there are many of those. The Catholic church is supposed to be the orthodox representation of what Jesus meant to get across and well not to make a stir or anything but I don't think so.
For example I been reading some of the explinations of Xabir a guy from E-Sangha. Hes a nice guy. I only mention his name to help those who may of also read his stuff know what I'm talking about. He often speaks of his friends stages in enlightement and how they feel Buddhism is more advanced then Advaita Vedanta. Not in a negative way. Whats nice about him is he doesn't put it down, he just states what the difference is.
One thing that I find interesting that Xabir speaks of is the "static" view of Hindu enlightement. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it but I noticed that one of the key things that he says are wrong is that the Great self(aside from the sense of I Am) is somehow static or unchanging. Xabir compared it to a giant fish bowl that all things pop in and out of. Like as if it were an invisible glass sheet that was everywhere in the universe and never moves and enlightenment is really about realizing we are really the glass sheet and once we do that we don't get jerked around in uncomfortable realistic lives of suffering anymore. I can honestly say I never perceived Brahman/God or enlightenment as anything like that. Although I believe it is really imcomprehensible or least impossible to talk about it, I may picture it(if I have to) as a flowing moving invisible ocean or a shining field of light thats everywhere where individual ripples or currents are streaming about in their own series of lives and experiences but are all essentially a part of the same field and also can never truly die no matter what happens.
However I don't agree with a lot of his ideas and I wish to talk about this a little. One thing he says that I don't agree with is that there is nothing spiritual or anything like a spirit in enlightenment. But I figured it goes back to the whole no unchanging self idea like a ghost that leaps out of our bodies that holds our character intact and can't be changed. I've heard that one before and know how a mind stream is supposed to work, and thats honestly what I thought a spirit was kind of like all my life anyway so no big deal.
But later on I realized what it was he meant and basically that theres no Universal Mind. Not the typical no God or no Brama speech or anything like that, but that we aren't really interconnected and theres nothing that unites our spirits/minds. Nothing that interconnects all us living things between the universe. The only interconnectedness is the cause and effect of everything, I suppose just in the physical world.
If all we are is a seperate from everything else traveling mind stream isn't that awfully selfish? Even though this mind stream is always changing and flowing and theres no perament abiding self, its still the eternal continuation of the same life and it appears it has nothing but the self to rely on. Infact its nothing but a self apart from everything else. He even said that this is what the term True Self in Buddhism really means. The complete adventures of the individual flowing mutating mind stream.
Even enlightenment kind of seems fatalistic. Whats worse is he says that this is the orthodox Buddhist view of a lot of masters. To be blunt. This view makes me feel bad. It makes me feel sad too. It just doesn't seem right and kind of makes me feel unsure about myself.
Somehow though I doubt that all schools really feel that way. I think rather theres quite a variance. Different schools do seem to go into different directions.
Thervada, Mahayana and the Vajrayana. In Mahayana you have Zen, Pure Land, Tendai, Nichiren, Nirvana Sutra, and many other schools all kind of claiming they know the real gist of what Buddha meant. Some of them being rather pushy about it. Some even utilizing good old fashion Hell threats.
The Vajrayana(Tibetan Buddhism) claims that through the tantras they have the "complete teachings of the Buddha". Admitably some of the Mahayana Sutras basically are tantras so whos to say the tantras aren't as good? The thing that really makes me take their claim semi seriously is because many of them are said to of obtained the body of light or rainbow body. I don't know if you know about this but its something pretty interesting. Basically enlightened Vajrayana monks before their death are said to vanish completely before they die leaving only their hair and nails behind sometimes not even that. Kind of like spontaneous combustion.They become sambhogakayas basically Buddha in his spirit form thats at one with the Dharmakaya. Now this may sound like a crazy story but they frequently report a lot of cases of these happening in Tibet and well over several hundred I believe. I don't really think they are all lies.
But heres the thing even if it turns out to be true that the Vajrayana teachings are indeed the highest form of Buddhism and that it all comes down to one day obtaining the body of light or rainbow body while alive before our deaths there are 5 different schools(Gelug, Sakya, Kagyu. Nyingma and Jonang) each with their own philosophies and unique methods and ways for understanding how emptiness and ultimate reality work. (Theres also Bon but thats really the original native religion of Tibet that has mixed a lot with Buddhism since they met.) The point is, monks from each of these 5 traditions are said to of burned of their physical bodies, obtained the body of light and truly became enlightened.
Now the Jonang school isn't normally included in the list and were once considered heretical by the Gelug school and thought to be extinct for awhile until recently when monasteries were found still active. Jonang has whats called a Shentong view. Basically Shentong teaches that our minds are supposed to be "empty" of everything that isn't good or bad and that our minds really are indeed in truth that indescribable all good, holy "stuff" that we are all a part of. Although its still not supposed to be described with ideas or concepts. I think its really more like saying "don't worry somethings there". This view can more easily mix with the general ideas of Hinduism, Taoism and probably even Kabbalah, mystical Christianity and Sufism. (They would probably say things like the 4 noble truths, the 8 fold path, the 5 precepts and some understanding of emptiness would still be required to be considered Ok but thats to be expected.)
Let me show you what the Jonang master, Dolpopa has to say about the Ultimate Buddhic Reality.
"the pervasive Lord", "the Supreme Guardian of the world", "Buddha-Self", "the beginningless Self", "the Self of Thusness", "the Self of primordial purity", "the Source of all", "the Single Self", "the Diamond Self", "the Solid Self", "the Holy, Immovable Self", "the Supreme Self", "the Supreme Self of all creatures".
"The Expression of Manjushri's Ultimate Names" (Mountain Doctrine: Tibet's Fundamental Treatise on Other-Emptiness and the Buddha-Matrix, Snow Lion, NY, 2006, tr. by Jeffrey Hopkins, pp.279-294)
Its basically a common trait of a lot of the Mahayana Sutras of whats known as the "Third Wheel Turning teachings" where things start sounding a lot like Hinduism again. They are supposed to repsent the real idea behind things once you learned about emptiness. I personally think it means learning to be empty of all concepts and conceptual thought and attachements and just letting go and completely trusting in the Tao so to speak. What this really means though is uncertain and it seems to me the big thing is about being careful to remember that emptiness is still important and being careful about how far you may go with these teachings before making a mistake and really being more like the Hindus (or as I think, like the ancient brahman priests) Buddhists like Dr.Tony Page(From the Nirvana Sutra site who some have found to be very "disturbing" or "scary" but I personally found his site and its content and his comments to be very positive, inspiring and even comforting.) and the Jonang school think the third wheel teachings mean exactly what they say. I strongly suspect a lot of schools in Japan and maybe China feel this way too or lean strongly to this way. Question is what does Buddha Nature really mean? Others from some of the more orthodox interpretations think the tathagatagarbha sutras about Buddha Nature really just refers to an endless chain of cause and effect and you should just focus on the emptiness of everything and somehow that makes you enlightened. I don't know. Honestly it doesn't sound right to me. Its sounds a little too close to atheism or nihilism for my liking. Just with rebirth/reincarnation and sometimes not even that! (Although thankfully thats definately not considered orthodox.)
Don't really know. Like I first said I think its a matter of personal interpretation. For myself when it comes to love and compassion for all sentient beings I'm all for Buddhism but when it comes to spirituality and supernatural matters I feel more at home with Hinduism and Taoism. I don't see how believing the same Brahman energy that flows in and through all sentient beings throughout the universe could be wrong. It helps me to understand that we are all interconnected, we are all equal, not truly different and that we are sentient beings that should be loved and cared for. I don't even see why its wrong to suppose it is a big mind that we are all expressions of. I also believe it has a loving sentience/intelligence thats incapable of having anything but love towards its creatures so I guess I'm really out of the ball park. Oh well. All I can do is what works for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
riv:::
Global Moderator
Posts: 689
Registered: Nov 2006 |
|
Posted March 22nd, 2008 10:27 IP
Wonderful "review of the literature" my friend. I've come to many similar conclusions. When I was in grad school we studied about the history of science, and how research is done. One of the first things we learned that startled me is that there are very few unquestioned "facts" in science. Most of science is composed of theories, hypotheses, constructs, mathematical formulas and terminology which is said to best approximate "reality" or truth, but is only descriptive. Language is not the territory. I was shocked, my Profs sounded like Zen patriarchs talking about how words are just fingers pointing at the moon. That's why something like "intelligence" can be defined in a hundred ways, and you will find large numbers of psychologists questioning the validity of IQ tests or SATs as correlating perfectly with anything besides test taking ability...
ANYWAY, in light of that, I take all explanations of our "true self nature" as being similar, as theories, spiritual theories. And I tend to find my alarm bells going off whenever any group says that their ideas describe metaphysics perfectly, and no one elses comes close. If scientists have so much trouble describing the seen, how can we feel certain that one particular religion is able to describe perfectly the unseen?
I like Buddhism, a lot, but am skeptical about groups that say they have access to the one true vision of everything. This is, in effect, the mystics view. To see the Universe as a mystery, and yet to have a sense of faith that each of us is a part of that, mystery. Call it Dharmakaya, God, Tao, Allah, Brahman, Love, Emptiness, etc... This is our true identity, the ALL expressing itself as the many. No thing, yet everything. Incredibly mysterious, impossible to pin down with words, and yet something that we can experience and be thankful for, in this lifetime.
We may not become "fully" awakened, just yet. But I do believe this Unity can be experienced, and when it is, its like the journey ends, or at least a part of the journey ends... cause what really causes us such great distress, imo, is all the social, psychological and cultural baggage of this limited sense of self that we tend to identify with. Just realizing, trusting, that you are not the limited person you thought you were, the self image that society says is you, this can be very very freeing...
Nice essay on the topic, by Adyshanti...
Quote:
Realizing Your True Nature
excerpt:
Awakening to the truth is a deep realization of what you are as an experience. What is it that is feeling? What is it that is thinking or sensing? This is not about coming up with the right name for it, so don’t name it for a moment. It’s about just noticing, just experiencing. Feel it. Sense it. Welcome it. Spiritual awakening is realizing what occupies the space called “me.” When you listen innocently, you’ll see that there really is something more here than a me.
Your me is always experiencing this moment in relation to some other moment. Is this moment as good as it was two weeks ago? Will it be the same today as it was yesterday? The me worries about what it knows and whether or not it is good enough to get enlightened. Your me might call itself Hindu, Christian, Buddhist, Advaitan, atheist, agnostic, believer, or nonbeliever, but no matter what your me is identified with, when you become very open and relaxed, you can suddenly be aware that something else is occupying your body-mind. Something else is looking out from your eyes, listening from your ears, and feeling your feelings. That something has no qualities. Realizing your true nature is realizing what is present without qualities. We can call it the emptiness of consciousness, the Self, or the No-Self. To directly experience this emptiness—the aliveness of it—is spiritual awakening. It is to realize yourself as beautiful nothingness, or more accurately, no-thing-ness. If we say it’s just “nothing,” we miss the point.
When your image of the me takes a break, you’ll find all you are doing at that moment is just being open. You feel quite relieved that you are not trying to get to another moment or a better experience. You feel yourself just being in a very relaxed, easy sense of peace. You haven’t gained anything at all—you’re not smarter, you don’t necessarily know more than anyone else, and you haven’t suddenly become holy. If you are resting as your own true nature, then you feel that there is really nowhere else to go. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Light Hope
Junior Member
Posts: 78
Registered: Oct 2007 |
|
Posted March 23rd, 2008 10:21 IP
I also think IQ and SAT tests don't really measure much but test taking ablility.
I think then my view is the mystics view. I like Buddhism a lot too. But I also like Hinduism, Taoism, many forms of native paganism and even friendly Christianity. Just as I don't agree with the exclusive nature of orthodox forms of Christianity and Islam, I don't agree with Buddhisms claims of really knowing how mysticism works and how all else outside their system of thought throughout the entire world no matter how close are deluded and couldn't possibly really understand. From a young age I always felt there was a connection behind all the religions of the world dispite differences. Although I have an open mind about a lot of things and believe or accept as possible all kinds of the more interesting and supernatural things out there the one thing I seem to have a natural inbuilt resistance to is the expression of exclusiveness in a religion of any kind.
But more importantly I really do believe in the unity and at the same time I don't really mentally grasp at the concept of a unity either at the same time if that makes sense. While I do believe our souls have their own experiences just as I have mine here and a goose has his flying in the clouds, on the ultimate level I feel we really are fellow interconnected expressions of the ALL. I really like the way you put it. As the mystery. The ALL expressing itself as the many. I've heard it before but I like it better now.
I also think a lot of distress comes from those same factors. Its not too far fetched to assume this is what Buddha had in mind given the caste system and the sense of superiority and entitlement the brahman priests had about themselves. In fact I think what goes on now is even worse then back then in India and more people seem to really be suffering psychologically pretty hard. I see it in a lot of people. With so many different things that can go wrong with the body at any moment, people should not also extend their sorrow over what is in truth non existent problems. I personally kind of view myself as spiritual energy occupying a shell. Although I do believe its important to take care of the shell health wise and that this is good for the spirit to mantain it. But I did not identify myself with this body. Its a suite to navigate the Earth just as an astronaught uses one to navigate the moon. I see my true form as the everything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
xsurf
Member
Posts: 2
Registered: Oct 2008 |
|
Posted October 19th, 2008 07:12 IP
Understand Dependent Origination completely, and you will understand that although reality is non-dual, still each is an individual stream. And though each stream of consciousness is unique, they are interdependent like the net of Indra. Even though interdependent, it is not 'I am you and you are me'. This understanding is different from the Hindu Brahman.
As Je Tsong Khapa said, things that originate in dependence do not cease, do not arise, do not come, do not go, are not annihilated, are not permanent, are not the same, are not different.
Quote:
More on Net of Indra:
The metaphor of Indra's Jeweled Net is attributed to an ancient Buddhist named Tu-Shun (557-640 B.C.E.) who asks us to envision a vast net that:
* at each juncture there lies a jewel;
* each jewel reflects all the other jewels in this cosmic matrix.
* Every jewel represents an individual life form, atom, cell or unit of consciousness.
* Each jewel, in turn, is intrinsically and intimately connected to all the others;
* thus, a change in one gem is reflected in all the others.
This last aspect of the jeweled net is explored in a question/answer dialog of teacher and student in the Avatamsaka Sutra. In answer to the question: "how can all these jewels be considered one jewel?" it is replied: "If you don't believe that one jewel...is all the jewels...just put a dot on the jewel [in question]. When one jewel is dotted, there are dots on all the jewels...Since there are dots on all the jewels...We know that all the jewels are one jewel" ...".
The moral of Indra's net is that the compassionate and the constructive interventions a person makes or does can produce a ripple effect of beneficial action that will reverberate throughout the universe or until it plays out. By the same token you cannot damage one strand of the web without damaging the others or setting off a cascade effect of destruction.
Source: http://www.geocities.com/the_wander...akening101.html
...One of the images used to illustrate the nature of reality as understood in Mahayana is The Jewel Net of Indra. According to this image, all reality is to be understood on analogy with Indra's Net. This net consists entirely of jewels. Each jewel reflects all of the other jewels, and the existence of each jewel is wholly dependent on its reflection in all of the other jewels. As such, all parts of reality are interdependent with each other, but even the most basic parts of existence have no independent existence themselves. As such, to the degree that reality takes form and appears to us, it is because the whole arises in an interdependent matrix of parts to whole and of subject to object. But in the end, there is nothing (literally no-thing) there to grasp....
Source: Sunyata ('Emptiness')
|
As written in another forum, " ...According to him (Master Tu Shun), every node is a universe itself. So there are countless universes and each is interlinked. It is not in the form of a subjective and objective world. Now if we say you drop something, it is being reflected in all, and that is what Master Tu Shun is saying. "I do not know how you feel" is subjective and objective division. According to Master Tu Shun, there is no difference. It is a reflection in you and in all, no difference at all. "I feel" and "you feel" are all nodes reflecting. There are nodes, but knowing is true."
The next thing is, true self. The problem with true self is if it is treated as a metaphysical essence with a permanent inherent existence, then it is no longer in accord with dependent origination and emptiness, and becomes eternalism. But I like Dharmajim's explanation of the true self teachings:
Quote:
Good Friends:
I have been exploring Vasubandhu's 20 Verses and particularly Verse 10 which is the one under discussion, at times, in this thread. I posted the Anacker translation which some took issue with on the grounds that the Anacker translation was suspect. However, I have found another, more recent, translation which, for the most part, agrees with Anacker. It is by George Cronk, published in 1998. It is as follows:
"And why did the Buddha present his teaching this way? Why did he present it in an exoteric form rather than simply revealing outright its esoteric meaining? The answer is as follows: 'In this way, the disciples are gradually initiated into an understanding of the insubstantiality of self and of the insubstantiality of objects, that is, self and objects as constructed in ordinary experience.' [Verse 10]
"The six levels of perception are only representations (appearances) of consciousness that arise out of the unconscious (the alaya-vijnana). Once a disciple, through his study of the Dharma [the teaching of the Buddha], realizes that there is, in fact, no seer, no hearer, no smeller, no taster, no toucher, and no thinker, he will enter into an understanding of the insubstantiality of self. And when he learns that the objects of perception are also representations (appearances) of consciousness-only, and that there are, in fact, no experienced entities that have the characteristics of external objectivity, then the disciple will enter into an understanding of the insbustantiality of [experienced] objects.
"However, as the last phrase of Verse 10 indicates, we must distinguish between reality [self and objects] as constructed by ordinary consciousness (especially the imagination) and reality as it is in itself, in its 'suchness' (tathata). Beyond the ordinary (constructed) self [ego] and its subject-object duality, there is an ineffable (anabhilapya) transcendent Self (in which the duality of subject and object does not arise), which is known by the Buddha and other enlightened ones. It is the constructed self and its constructed objects that are insubstantial, merely transformations and representations of consciousness . . ."
I post this not to add fuel to the fire, but to offer it for consideration. At least two translators, translating from the Sanskrit, render this Verse of Vasubandhu's in such a way as to distinguish between a constructed self and a True, Ineffable Self. Are they correct?
It depends on how one comprehends constructed and true self. I don't see anything in this verse which would argue for accepting a metaphysical substance. It seems to me to be in agreement with such Sutras as the Nirvana, Golden Light, and Lotus Sutras in the sense that the Golden Light and Lotus argue for the eternal life of the Tathagata, while, in addition, the Nirvana Sutra argues for the presence of a True Self. That is to say, I think that Vasubandhu could consistently argue against the existence of a constructed pudgala and for the existence of an unconstructed ineffable Self, which is the domain of Buddhas.
Best wishes,
Dharmajim |
Lastly it's not that there is nothing like 'spirit'. Our nature is total vitality, total intelligence, total luminous clarity. But we must understand its empty nature and inseparability from causes and conditions, otherwise it becomes misconstrued as a metaphysical essence (Brahman and the like). And this Spirit is not a soul in the body, as Thusness wrote,
Quote:
Stage 6. The nature of Presence is Empty
Not only is there no ‘who’ in pristine awareness, there is no ‘where’ and ‘when’.
Pristine Awareness cannot be contained within a 6-foot body -- neither within nor without. The ‘bond’ makes it so.
All is Presence! But “TONGSss…” is radically different from “the blue sky”….When conditions are, there is. There is no need for a 'who', ‘when’ or ‘where’, only causes and conditions are necessary. This is its nature.
When there is this, that is.
With the arising of this, that arises.
When this is not, neither is that.
With the cessation of this, that ceases.
-- the principle of conditionality
The self-luminous awareness from beginning-less time has never been separated and cannot be separated from its conditions. They are not two -- This is, That is. Along with the conditions, Luminosity shines without a center and arises without a place. No where to be found. This is the emptiness nature of Presence. |
Xabir
(Edited by xsurf)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mystic light
Administrator
Posts: 6815
Registered: May 2006 |
|
Posted October 20th, 2008 11:49 IP
Welcome Xabir, and thank you for an interesting post!
Quote:
Understand Dependent Origination completely, and you will understand that although reality is non-dual, still each is an individual stream. And though each stream of consciousness is unique, they are interdependent like the net of Indra. Even though interdependent, it is not 'I am you and you are me'. |
That makes sense...
Quote:
This last aspect of the jeweled net is explored in a question/answer dialog of teacher and student in the Avatamsaka Sutra. In answer to the question: "how can all these jewels be considered one jewel?" it is replied: "If you don't believe that one jewel...is all the jewels...just put a dot on the jewel [in question]. When one jewel is dotted, there are dots on all the jewels...Since there are dots on all the jewels...We know that all the jewels are one jewel" ...".
The moral of Indra's net is that the compassionate and the constructive interventions a person makes or does can produce a ripple effect of beneficial action that will reverberate throughout the universe or until it plays out. By the same token you cannot damage one strand of the web without damaging the others or setting off a cascade effect of destruction. |
Very well explained. However, I wonder here:
"Since there are dots on all the jewels...We know that all the jewels are one jewel" ..."."
(I mean, when you see 10 jewels you KNOW it's not 1 jewel...)
But if you say: They are the same and yet not the same, then I'm with you. 
? ?
|
|
|
http://schmuckzauberei.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
|
xsurf
Member
Posts: 2
Registered: Oct 2008 |
|
Posted October 20th, 2008 14:34 IP
Quote:
mystic light wrote:
Welcome Xabir, and thank you for an interesting post!
That makes sense...
Very well explained. However, I wonder here:
"Since there are dots on all the jewels...We know that all the jewels are one jewel" ..."."
(I mean, when you see 10 jewels you KNOW it's not 1 jewel...)
But if you say: They are the same and yet not the same, then I'm with you.
? ?
|
It's one of the teachings of Avatamsaka. I think what it is implying is that all jewels are reflected in one jewel, they are truly interdependent. It's not saying that all is one... it is not one, not two. They are not the same but not different.
Now the celestial jewel net of Kanishka, or Indra, Emperor of Gods, is called the net of Indra. This imperial net is made all of jewels: because the jewels are clear, they reflect each other’s images, appearing in each other’s reflections upon reflections, ad infinitum, all appearing at once in one jewel, and in each one it is so�ultimately there is no going or coming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mystic light
Administrator
Posts: 6815
Registered: May 2006 |
|
Posted October 20th, 2008 15:45 IP
Yep. Very cool quotes!
|
|
|
http://schmuckzauberei.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
|
|
Lotus Buddhism Forum :: :: Zen :: Dharmakaya by Suzuki |
|
|
|
|
