09-26-2010, 12:00 AM
"The three Kayas and their teachings are rejected by Zen."
What is the reasoning that causes Zen schools to reject the kayas? Is it due to the perception of emptiness as the ultimate realization (achievement)?
And actually, this does seem apparent, I'm just wanting a further discussion on it. If I understand you correctly, Zen stops at Nirmanakaya expression, and does not acknowledge (is aware) of even doing this because of the perception that arriving at emptiness is "arriving" period. If there is accessing of the other 2 kayas it would not be recognized and could not be effectively utilized then. Maybe an analogy would be helpful: If you landed on another planet and you did not know what was edible and not edible, due to unfamiliarity, you could die of hunger or poisoning. So being familiar is key, its all here (the food is here) but if not recognized its not of use after all. Zen stops at emptiness and does not familiarize with the primordial state, even if such a state is occasionally accessed by the practitioner. In Dzogchen, entering the continuous awareness of the primordial state is the goal of all practice. Even in normal daily activities so it becomes a permanent alignment.
I'm wanting a discussion on this so I can understand the differences you presented between the schools better. Ultimately to become familiar with all, like Nagarjuna did.
The line between directly realizing emptiness and primordial state can easily be blurred.
What is the reasoning that causes Zen schools to reject the kayas? Is it due to the perception of emptiness as the ultimate realization (achievement)?
And actually, this does seem apparent, I'm just wanting a further discussion on it. If I understand you correctly, Zen stops at Nirmanakaya expression, and does not acknowledge (is aware) of even doing this because of the perception that arriving at emptiness is "arriving" period. If there is accessing of the other 2 kayas it would not be recognized and could not be effectively utilized then. Maybe an analogy would be helpful: If you landed on another planet and you did not know what was edible and not edible, due to unfamiliarity, you could die of hunger or poisoning. So being familiar is key, its all here (the food is here) but if not recognized its not of use after all. Zen stops at emptiness and does not familiarize with the primordial state, even if such a state is occasionally accessed by the practitioner. In Dzogchen, entering the continuous awareness of the primordial state is the goal of all practice. Even in normal daily activities so it becomes a permanent alignment.
I'm wanting a discussion on this so I can understand the differences you presented between the schools better. Ultimately to become familiar with all, like Nagarjuna did.
The line between directly realizing emptiness and primordial state can easily be blurred.