click tracking
Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tom

Lankavatara Sutra - Study

Recommended Posts

My interest suddenly spiked and I read few chapters last night.  Very interesting.  Look forward to the discussions.

Something I wondered, whether the universal mind that is described in this mind is the same as dharmakaya or perhaps what is described as Shiva in KS.

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, S1va said:

My interest suddenly spiked and I read few chapters last night.  Very interesting.  Look forward to the discussions.

Something I wondered, whether the universal mind that is described in this mind is the same as dharmakaya or perhaps what is described as Shiva in KS.

Any thoughts?

Yes, universal mind would be similar to the concept of Shiva.  The difference would be that in buddhism there would be emptiness that the universal mind sort of emerges from.  In KS, Shiva is not some container like the dharmakaya as there is nothing but Shiva.  In Taoism, it would be like you are saying that the One = Dao, rather than emerges from the Dao.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jeff said:

Yes, universal mind would be similar to the concept of Shiva.  The difference would be that in buddhism there would be emptiness that the universal mind sort of emerges from.  In KS, Shiva is not some container like the dharmakaya as there is nothing but Shiva.  In Taoism, it would be like you are saying that the One = Dao, rather than emerges from the Dao.

 

Thanks.  I don't understand what is meant by dharmakaya really well.  I will look into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, S1va said:

Thanks.  I don't understand what is meant by dharmakaya really well.  I will look into it.

Dharmakaya would sort of be like the shell (or bubble) of Shiva, if there was something for Shiva to emerge from.  The Sambhogkaya would be kind of like Shakti “inside of” Shiva. Have fun with your research. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

False-imagination teaches that such things as light and shade, long and short, black and white are different and are to be discriminated; but they are not independent of each other; they are only different aspects of the same thing, they are terms of relation and not of reality. Conditions of existence are not of a mutually exclusive character; in essence things are not two but one. Even Nirvana and Samsára’s world of life and death are aspects of the same thing, for there is no Nirvana except where is Samsára, and no Samsára except where is Nirvana. All duality is falsely imagined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2018 at 8:17 AM, Tom said:

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

 

 

It is interesting to note the way Nirvana is described.  There is no nirvana except where is samara and vice versa.  Sounds like everything is subject to dependent origination.  I just wonder if nirvana is valid only in relation to samsara, how is it indicative of the void or state of emptiness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 1:52 PM, S1va said:

It is interesting to note the way Nirvana is described.  There is no nirvana except where is samara and vice versa.  Sounds like everything is subject to dependent origination.  I just wonder if nirvana is valid only in relation to samsara, how is it indicative of the void or state of emptiness?

To me it is saying it is not in some place or some where. It is much the same thing as what Jesus say's here.

3. Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

This to me is one of the most important lines in the sutra.

"False-imagination teaches that such things as light and shade, long and short, black and white are different and are to be discriminated; but they are not independent of each other; they are only different aspects of the same thing, they are terms of relation and not of reality. "

You can apply that to different types of energy, Shakti and Shiva or Nirvana and samara.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Continuing on.

Any thoughts on Chapter 3 starting with the following.

Then Mahamati asked the Blessed One, saying: Tell us, Blessed One, how all things can be empty, un-born, and have no self-nature, so that we may awakened and quickly realize highest enlightenment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am starting to understand this sutra much better and feel certain things stated in the sutra about mind and emptiness clearly in the last month. 

Would really love for this discussion to continue, and for everyone to participate!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find this very interesting.

 

By emptiness of self-nature is meant that all things in their self-nature are un-born; therefore, it is said that things are empty as to self-nature. By emptiness of ‘no work’ is meant that the aggregate of elements that makes up personality and its external world is Nirvana itself and from the beginning there is no activity in them; therefore, one speaks of the emptiness of ‘no work’. By emptiness of work is meant that the aggregates being devoid of an ego and its belongings, go on functioning automatically as there is mutual conjunction of causes and conditions; thus one speaks of the emptiness of work. By emptiness of all things in the same sense that they are unpredictable is meant that, as the very nature of false-imagination is inexpressible, so all things are unpredictable, and, therefore, are empty in that sense. By emptiness in its highest sense of the emptiness of Ultimate Reality is meant that the in the attainment of inner self-realization of Noble Wisdom there is no trace of habit-energy generated by erroneous conceptions; thus one speaks of the highest emptiness of Ultimate Reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Conditions of existence are not of a mutually exclusive character; in essence things are not two but one. Even Nirvana and Samsára’s world of life and death are aspects of the same thing, for there is no Nirvana except where is Samsára, and no Samsára except where is Nirvana. All duality is falsely imagined."

 

This made me wonder, does Dao or Emptiness have any meaning in the absence of One (or universal mind)?. Dao is Dao to who, if there is no universal mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, S1va said:

"Conditions of existence are not of a mutually exclusive character; in essence things are not two but one. Even Nirvana and Samsára’s world of life and death are aspects of the same thing, for there is no Nirvana except where is Samsára, and no Samsára except where is Nirvana. All duality is falsely imagined."

 

This made me wonder, does Dao or Emptiness have any meaning in the absence of One (or universal mind)?. Dao is Dao to who, if there is no universal mind?

One way to think of it is as a realization.

Light or emptiness of self is a realization of being, going beyond the concept of a local self to a realized being is a deeper realization. Realizing the emptiness of the One is an even deeper realization of being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Tom said:

One way to think of it is as a realization.

Light or emptiness of self is a realization of being, going beyond the concept of a local self to a realized being is a deeper realization. Realizing the emptiness of the One is an even deeper realization of being.

Agree about the deeper realization, my question was about who realizes that deeper thing?  That must be the Universal mind or at least in relation or dependent to the universal mind as that quote from Sutra points out.  Nirvana can make sense only with respect to, or in relation to samsara.  So, does that mean Dao or Emptiness has no meaning or significance of itself?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, S1va said:

Agree about the deeper realization, my question was about who realizes that deeper thing?  That must be the Universal mind or at least in relation or dependent to the universal mind as that quote from Sutra points out.  Nirvana can make sense only with respect to, or in relation to samsara.  So, does that mean Dao or Emptiness has no meaning or significance of itself?  

Where did you get the "So, does that mean Dao or Emptiness has no meaning or significance of itself? " from?

To me the above quote is saying they are the same thing.

Much like this. 3. Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Tom said:

Where did you get the "So, does that mean Dao or Emptiness has no meaning or significance of itself? " from?

To me the above quote is saying they are the same thing.

Much like this. 3. Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.

 

 

The quote from Lankavatara Sutra says Nirvana is only in relation to Samsara.  No Samsara, then no Nirvana.  Along the same lines, I came up with the question, emptiness as just void with potential (before the One or manifest reality), cannot be meaningful for anyone.  For it to be meaningful, something needs to be there to experienced.

Who realizes the Dao or Emptiness?  It can't be the Dao realizing the Dao, then it sounds like Brahman.  One, universal mind or shiva can self reflect, but Dao can't.  If it is the universal mind that realizes the Dao, then Dao has meaning only with respect to the universal mind, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 9:01 AM, S1va said:

 

The quote from Lankavatara Sutra says Nirvana is only in relation to Samsara.  No Samsara, then no Nirvana.  Along the same lines, I came up with the question, emptiness as just void with potential (before the One or manifest reality), cannot be meaningful for anyone.  For it to be meaningful, something needs to be there to experienced.

Who realizes the Dao or Emptiness?  It can't be the Dao realizing the Dao, then it sounds like Brahman.  One, universal mind or shiva can self reflect, but Dao can't.  If it is the universal mind that realizes the Dao, then Dao has meaning only with respect to the universal mind, right?

The relation is to show there is no duality, there isn't black and white, male and female, it is all one thing. As you know there isn't prana, kundalini, universal consciousness. It is all the same thing, just depends on ones depth as to how each is perceived.

From my understanding and I could be wrong. You have the One, that is where many stop but the One is a limitation as well. A Buddha is one that realizes the emptiness of Universal Reality.

Each Buddha is unique based on there own unique matrix of obstructions. There is always a bubble of consciousness that realizes.

Going light is a realization of the Dao, emptiness of self is a realization of the Dao. Again it is all stages and the depth of such realizations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Tom said:

The relation is to show there is no duality, there isn't black and white, male and female, it is all one thing. As you know there isn't prana, kundalini, universal consciousness. It is all the same thing, just depends on ones depth as to how each is perceived.

From my understanding and I could be wrong. You have the One, that is where many stop but the One is a limitation as well. A Buddha is one that realizes the emptiness of Universal Reality.

Each Buddha is unique based on there own unique matrix of obstructions. There is always a bubble of consciousness that realizes.

Going light is a realization of the Dao, emptiness of self is a realization of the Dao. Again it is all stages and the depth of such realizations.

I agree with everything you said, but still have that one question.  I don't think you answered my question.  When we say Buddha realizes Emptiness, who is the Buddha? Is he the One that came from Dao, or one of the 10,000 that expanded into everything and still expanding?  No matter which one in the question above, still it is part of the One that came out of Dao.  So, the realization is to Buddha.  Does the realization have any significance in the absence of a Buddha, One or even Samsara? Emptiness with just potential without the One and universe seem just not possible from that statement in Sutra. They both exist dependent to each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×