སྙིང་པོའི་ཆོས་མཛོད།: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|content= | |content= | ||
ངོ་ཤོག་འདིར་བོད་སྐད་དུ་ཡོད་པའི་གཞི་ཁམས་བདེ་གཤེགས་སྙིང་པོའི་སྐོར་གྱི་ མདོ་བརྒྱུད། བསྟན་བཅོས། གསུང་ཆོས་དང་རྒྱབ་ཆོས་བཅས་ཀྱི་གླེགས་བམ། དཔེ་ཆ། གློག་བརྙན། སྒྲ་བཟུང་སོགས་བཞུགས། དབྱིན་སྐད་དང་ ཕར་ན་སིའི་སྐད་དུ་ཡོད་པ་རྣམས་གཟིགས་འདོད་ན་འདིར་གཟིགས་རོགས། | ངོ་ཤོག་འདིར་བོད་སྐད་དུ་ཡོད་པའི་གཞི་ཁམས་བདེ་གཤེགས་སྙིང་པོའི་སྐོར་གྱི་ མདོ་བརྒྱུད།<br> | ||
བསྟན་བཅོས། གསུང་ཆོས་དང་རྒྱབ་ཆོས་བཅས་ཀྱི་གླེགས་བམ། དཔེ་ཆ། གློག་བརྙན།<br> | |||
སྒྲ་བཟུང་སོགས་བཞུགས། དབྱིན་སྐད་དང་ ཕར་ན་སིའི་སྐད་དུ་ཡོད་པ་རྣམས་གཟིགས་འདོད་ན་འདིར་གཟིགས་རོགས། | |||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 21:33, 26 August 2020
བསྟན་བཅོས། གསུང་ཆོས་དང་རྒྱབ་ཆོས་བཅས་ཀྱི་གླེགས་བམ། དཔེ་ཆ། གློག་བརྙན།
བསྟན་པ་ / ཆོས་
As the laughter died down, the Gyalwang Karmapa delivered a profound and reasoned teaching on Buddha-nature and the nature of mind. "All sentient beings are endowed with the potential for complete Buddhahood," he began.
They are inherently Buddhas, and inherently that Buddha-nature is completely free of any stains -- it is stainless, and perfect. Yet, at the level of relative or immediate experience, our experience is not this way. Our experience is that this perfectly pure Buddha-nature is veiled by our confused outlook.
Shifting the teaching to a deeper level, the Gyalwang Karmapa then described the dharmakaya, or the Buddha's enlightened mind. "Lord Gampopa said that the nature of thoughts is dharmakaya," he explained.
Thoughts and dharmakaya are inseparable. We have this dualistic approach of seeing dharmakaya as pure and thoughts as impure, but we need to understand the inseparability of thoughts and dharmakaya.
The Gyalwang Karmapa spoke directly in English as he continued:
Every moment that we have thought, every moment that thought arises, we have the opportunity to recognize the nature of thought as emptiness or dharmakaya, whatever you want to call it. Thought and the emptiness of its nature are inseparable. We can't make them separate; there's no separation. Because thought itself is emptiness that means actually in everyday life we have lots of opportunity to recognize and realize the nature of thought, or nature of emptiness, or dharmakaya. But we just follow the appearances, the illusions -- we don't look deeper.
The Gyalwang Karmapa then responded to several more questions from the audience, teaching briefly on the progressive views of emptiness within Tibetan Buddhism which culminate in the final Madhyamaka view. The final questioner echoed the thoughts of many gathered when she asked the Gyalwang Karmapa how his students could help and support him. "I feel energized and inspired by all the love and the support that I receive from all of you. That really is sufficient. I don't need anything more than your love and support," he replied, to resounding applause.
Continuing an annual tradition, the teaching took place at the request of the Root Institute for Wisdom Culture. The Gyalwang Karmapa taught to an overflowing gompa, with hundreds of students spilling out into the surrounding balconies and gardens. In addition to mostly international students, the audience also included local Indian children from the Root Institute's school.མདོ་
The Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra is one of the main scriptural sources for buddha-nature in China and Tibet. Set around the time of Buddha's passing or Mahāparinirvāṇa, the sūtra contains teachings on buddha-nature equating it with the dharmakāya—that is, the complete enlightenment of a buddha. It also asserts that all sentient beings possess this nature as the buddhadhātu, or buddha-element, which thus acts as a cause, seed, or potential for all beings to attain enlightenment. Furthermore, the sūtra includes some salient features related to this concept, such as the single vehicle and the notion that the dharmakāya is endowed with the four pāramitās of permanence, bliss, purity, and a self.
འགྲེལ་
- Mahāyānottaratantraśāstravyākhyā
The first, made up entirely of the so-called root verses, corresponds to the Sanskrit title Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra, though it is usually referenced in this tradition by the Tibetan equivalent of the latter subtitle, Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos, which is commonly rendered into English as the Treatise on the Ultimate Continuum of the Great Vehicle and is abbreviated as RGV. However, the full title, Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos dkon mchog gi rigs rnam par dbye ba, does appear at the end of each chapter of the canonical Tibetan recensions. Nevertheless, this version is likely a Tibetan redaction, in that thus far there is no evidence of a Sanskrit version written entirely in verse that excludes the commentarial sections that explain them.
The second, which combines the verses with their accompanying prose commentary, corresponds to the *Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā as it has become known in academic circles where it is referenced with the abbreviation RGVV. However, in Tibetan the subtitle is merely appended with the equivalent of vyākhyā, i.e. Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos rnam par bshad pa, and thus a translation of the Tibetan title of the complete text would be something akin to the Explanatory Commentary on the Treatise on the Ultimate Continuum of the Great Vehicle. However, the extant Sanskrit recension of the Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra directly corresponds to the Tibetan version known as the *Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā, in that it contains both the root verses and the prose commentary. Though, again, lacking a Sanskrit work entitled the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā, we can surmise that its corresponding Tibetan title was likely manufactured in order to delineate it from the streamlined verse redaction, while the Sanskrit title *Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā was in turn a product of modern scholars. On the surface it would seem that this title is a combination of the Chinese title back translated into Sanskrit as the Ratnagotraśāstra and the one found in the Tibetan editions, which state the Sanskrit title as the Mahāyānottaratantraśāstravyākhya. Nevertheless, in terms of content, the Sanskrit RGV corresponds to the Tibetan RGVV, in that the Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra is the same text as Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma'i bstan bcos rnam par bshad pa.
Also, see the Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra and for a recent essay on the text: On the Ratnagotravibhāga by Alexander Gardner.- Buddha Gene as Non-implicative Negation and Other Notes on Buddha-Nature
- Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra