Nirmanakaya & Dharmakaya

[Guest guest]

Lama Anagarika Govinda, _Foundations of Tibetan Mysticism_', Part Five: 'OM

MANI PADME HUM': The Path of the Great Mantra

 

3

THE NIRMANAKAYA AS THE HIGHEST

FORM OF REALIZATION

 

The body of an ordinary human being is maya and also the body of an

Enlightened One is maya. But that does not mean that the body of an

ordinary man can be called a Nirmanakaya. The difference is, that the body

of an Enlightened One is his conscious creation, that of an unenlightened

one, the creation of his subconscious drives and desires. Both are maya but

the one is conscious, the other unconscious. The one is the master of maya,

the other its slave. The difference consists in the knowledge (prajna).

The same holds good for the Dharmakaya. It is all-embracing, and

therefore omnipresent, whether we are conscious of it or not. But only when

we raise the Dharmakaya from its subconscious, potential state into that of

full consciousness, by opening our spiritual eye to its light, as revealed

by the radiance of the Sambhogakaya - then only can its nature become an

active force in us and free us from our death-bringing isolation.

This, however, is synonymous with the transformation of the

mind-and-body combination, i.e., of our whole personality, into the

Nirmanakaya. Only in the Nirmanakaya can we realize the Dharmakaya

effectively, by converting it into an ever-present conscious force, into an

incandescent, all-consuming focus of experience, in which all elements of

our personality are purified and integrated. This is the transfiguration of

body and mind, which has been achieved only by the greatest of saints. The

Nirmanakaya, therefore, is the highest form of realization, the only one in

fact, that can open the eyes even of the spiritually blind worldling. It is

the highest fruit of perfection, for the sakes of which the Buddhas have

exerted themselves in innumerable previous existences over vast periods of

time (even kalpas, or whole 'world-cycles', according to Buddhist

tradition). The Buddha's significant remark in the MahaParinibbana-Sutta

(Digha-Nikaya), that he could continue his bodily existence until the end

of this kalpa, if he wished, can only be understood in context with the

Nirmanakaya.

Seen from the outside, i.e., from the point of view of conceptual

thought, the Sambhogakaya and the Nirmanakaya are manifestations of the

Dharmakaya and are contained in the latter, which in this sense presents

itself as the higher or more universal principle.

Seen from within, i.e., from the point of view of experience, the

Sambhogakaya and the Dharmakaya are contained in the Nirmanakaya (as this

may be seen from the iconographical descriptions of certain Nirmanakaya

forms, like that of the thousand-armed Avalokitesvara, which we shall

discuss in one of the later chapters). Only in the Nirmanakaya can the

other two 'bodies' be experienced and realized.

The first point of view is that of the philosophy of the Mahayana, the

second that of the practice of the Yogacara, and especially that of the

Vajrayana. The latter, therefore, places the Nirmanakaya into the centre of

interest, be it in the form of Vajrasattva or that of Avalokitesvara.

The Nirmanakaya in its aspect of actual experience (and not merely

looked upon as an external form of appearance) in which all three bodies

co-exist and are experienced simultaneously, is therefore also called

'Vajrakaya' or the 'fourth body',1 or - as we may say with a certain

justification: 'the body of the fourth dimension'. This 'dimension',

however, should not be understood in a mathemetical but in a psychological

sense, namely, as the fourth dimension of consciousness on the Buddhist

path of realization: integrating the dimension of individual corporeal

experience with the experience of the infinity of the Dharmakaya and the

spiritual creativeness and rapture of the Sambhogakaya.

 

[1 Therefore: 'With the maturing of the Four Bodies and the Five Wisdoms,

may the Vajra of the Heart be realized in this very life.' (See page 209.)]

 

The experience of this fourth dimension as the integration of the

universal, the spiritual and the individual, has been convincingly

described in the Gandavyuha (belonging to the Avatamsaka Sutras, Tib.:

phal-po-che), in the simile of the tower of the Bodhisattva Maitreya, which

is visited by the pious pilgrim Sudhana. This description confirms our

definition, that each higher dimension contains the characteristics of all

preceding dimensions and combines them in a higher unity, i.e., in a new

kind or direction of movement.

Maitreya's tower is the symbol of the Dharmadhatu, the realm of Dharma

in its universal aspect, in which all things are contained and in which at

the same time there is perfect order and harmony. This is described in the

following words: 'The objects are arrayed in such a way that their mutual

separateness no more exists, as they are all fused, but each object thereby

never losing its individuality, for the image of the Maitreya-devotee

([sudhana], i.e., the individuality of the sadhaka experiencing this state

of dhyana) is reflected in each one of the objects, and this not only in

specific quarters but everywhere all over the tower, so that there is a

thorough-going mutual inter-reflection of images.'

The poetically beautiful and profound description concludes with the

words: 'Sudhana, the young pilgrim, felt as if both his body and mind

completely melted away; he saw that all thoughts departed away from his

consciousness; in his mind there were no impediments, and all intoxications

vanished.'1

 

[1 D. T. Suzuki: _Essays in Zen Buddhism_, vol. III, p. 138 f.]

 

The perfect mutual penetration of forms, things, beings, actions,

events, etc., and the presence of the experiencing individual in them all -

in other words, the simultaneous existence of differentiation and unity, of

rupa and sunyata, form and emptiness, is the great discovery of Nagarjuna

in his philosophy of the Middle Way (Madhyamika), which expresses the

nature of reality as being beyond 'being' and 'non-being'.

This way is based on a new orientation of thought freed from the

rigidity of the concept of substance and of a static universe, in which

things and beings were thought of as arising and passing away more or less

independently of each other, so that concepts like 'identity' and

'non-identity' could form the basis of thought. But where everything is in

a state of flux, such concepts cannot be adequate, and therefore the

relationship of rupa and sunyata, of form and emptiness, cannot be

conceived as a state of mutually exclusive opposites, but only as two

aspects of the same reality, which co-exist and are in continual

co-operation.

If this were not the case, one would be compelled to ask, how from a

perfect, homogeneous, undifferentiated state of emptiness, form,

differentiation and movement could arise. But we are not concerned here

with an 'earlier' or 'later', a 'higher' or a 'lower' reality, but with two

aspects of the same reality. Form and space condition each other, and

therefore it cannot be maintained that formlessness is a higher and form a

lower state of reality. This is so only when we conceive form in a static

sense, as something that has become, that is strictly limited and existing

in itself, and not as an expression of a creative process, of a

beginningless and endless motion.

But if we consider the nature of all form and of all that is formed,

without confusing it with 'thingness' or materiality, then we shall be able

to see the inseparability of rupa and sunyata. Only from the experience of

form can we arrive at the experience of formlessness; and without the

experience of 'emptiness' or space the concept of form loses its dynamic,

living significance.

The universe and the very faculty of consciousness extend between the

ever-present poles of emptiness and form, of space and movement, because

living form can only be defined as movement, not as something statically

existing (otherwise we are dealing with mere abstractions, and not with

reality). Only those who can experience the formless (or that which lies

beyond form) in the formed, and who likewise can fathom the form in the

formless - in other words, only those who experience the simultaneousness

of emptiness and form - can become conscious of the highest reality.

In this knowledge lies the supreme value of the Prajna-paramita-Sutra,

the quintessence of which is expressed in the famous words of the Hrdaya

(the 'heart' of the Sutra, which every student is supposed to memorize, and

which we too cannot repeat often enough): 'Form is emptiness, and emptiness

is not different from form, nor is form different from emptiness - in fact:

emptiness is form. - Since all things possess the nature of emptiness, they

have neither beginning nor end - are neither perfect nor imperfect (i.e.,

neither self-sufficient nor yet entirely without individual significance in

themselves).'

The Dharmakaya is therefore not only the experience of

undifferentiated emptiness, but the co-existence of all forms in and on

account of that quality which is present in all forms and which, in absence

of a better word, is indicated by expressions like sunyata, emptiness,

non-substantiality, consciousness-space, dimension, infinity of

possibilities of movement, infinity of mutual relationships of all forms,

mutability and dynamism of all forms, etc.

By emphasizing the negative side of the Dharmakaya, already in the

earlier Mahayana the question had arisen, how the visible forms of

appearance or experience are related to the essential emptiness of the

Dharmakaya. The Mahayana-Sraddhotpada-Sastra formulates and answers this

problem in the following way: 'If the Buddha's Dharmakaya is free from any

perceptions or conceptions of form, how can they manifest themselves as

sights and forms? The reply is, that the Dharmakaya is the very essence of

all sights and forms, therefore can manifest itself in sights and forms.

Both the mind and the sights that it perceives are in one and the same

unity since beginningless time, because the essential nature of sights and

forms is nothing but Mind-only. As the essence of sights possesses no

physical form, it is the same as the Dharmakaya, formless and yet pervading

all parts of the universes.'1

 

[1 Translated by Bhikshu Wai-tao and Dwight Goddard in _A Buddhist Bible_,

p, 385.]

 

 

4

THE DHARMAKAYA AND THE MYSTERY

OF THE BODY

>From the aforesaid it will have become clear that the Dharmakaya is not

only an abstract principle, but a living reality, which manifests itself in

different forms on different planes of experience. The word 'kaya','body',

is here used in a metaphorical sense, namely, in that of a realm of

conscious reality and spiritual activity, forming an organic whole,

comparable to the physical body.

The personality of a spiritually undeveloped human being is confined to

its material form of appearance, its physical body. The personality of a

spiritually advanced man comprises not only the material part of his form

of appearance, but also his mental, psychic and spiritual functions: his

'consciousness-body', which reaches far beyond the limits of his physical

body.

In a man, who lives in his ideals or in thoughts, which go beyond the

realm of individual interests and experiences, this 'consciousness-body'

extends into the realm of universally valid truths, into the realm of the

beautiful, of creative power, of aesthetic enjoyment and intuitive insight.

To the enlightened man, however, whose consciousness embraces the

universe, to him the universe becomes his 'body', while his physical body

becomes a manifestation of the Universal Mind, his inner vision an

expression of the highest reality, and his speech an expression of eternal

truth and mantric power.

Here the mystery of Body, Speech and Mind finds its ultimate

consummation and reveals itself in its true nature: as the three planes of

action, on which all spiritual events take piace.

The Mystery of the Body is here not that of materiality, of physical

embodiment, but the mystery of the boundlessness, the all embracing

wholeness, of the 'universal body'.

The Mystery of Speech is more than that of mere words or concepts, it

is the principle of all mental representation and communication, be it in

form of audible, visible or thinkable symbols, in which highest knowledge

is represented and imparted. It is the mystery of creative sound, of

mantric speech, of sacred vision, from which flows the Dharma-revelation of

a saint, an Enlightened One, a Buddha.

The Mystery of the Mind, however, is more than what can be conceived

and grasped by way of thoughts and ideas: it is the principle of

spiritualization, the realization of the spirit in the realm of matter, of

the infinite in the finite, of the universal in the individual;

it is the transformation of the mortal body into the precious vessel of the

Nirmanakaya, into a visible manifestation of the Dharmakaya.

Hereby the duality, the discrepancy between mind and body, mundane

form and supramundane formlessness, is annihilated. Then the body of the

Enlightened One becomes luminous in appearance, convincing and inspiring by

its mere presence, while every word and every gesture, and even his

silence, communicate the overwhelming reality of the Dharma. It is not the

audible word through which people are converted and transformed in their

innermost being, but through that which goes beyond words and flows

directly from the presence of the saint: the inaudible mantric sound that

emanates from his heart.1 Therefore the perfect saint is called 'Muni', the

'Silent One'. His spiritual radiation, which manifests itself as 'inner

sound' and 'inner vision', penetrates the infinity of the universe.

 

[1 Ramana Maharshi, the saint of Tiruvannamalai, who passed away only a few

years ago, convinced those who came near him by his silent presence, not

through words. Those of his sayings, which have been preserved by his

pupils, do not rise above the traditional formulations of pious Hindus and

would as such not explain the enormous effect of his personality. The same

can be said of Sri Ramakrishna.]

 

In this connexion we may again remember the words of the

Mahayana-Sraddhotpada-Sastra: 'The particular sights which Mind-Essence

manifests are in their essential nature devoid of any limitations or points

of definition. If conditions are suitable appearances may be manifested in

any part of the universes, being solely dependent upon the mind for their

appearing. Thus there are vast Bodhisattvas, vast Sambhogakayas, vast

embellishments, all of which are different from one another and yet are

devoid of any spheres of limitation or points of definition, for Tathagatas

are able to manifest themselves in bodily forms anywhere and at the same

moment that other Tathagatas are able to manifest themselves without any

conflict or hindrance. This marvellous interpenetration is inconceivable by

any conciousness dependent upon sense-mind, but is a commonplace of the

inconceivable, spontaneous activities of Mind-Essence.'2

 

[2 _A Buddhist Bible_, p. 385.]

 

In Tibetan representations of Buddhas in a state of deep meditation

or in the act of proclaiming the Dharma, the aura, which surrounds the body

of the Buddha, consists of innumerable Dhyani-Buddhas. This means that the

active force of highest enlightenment (and, in a lesser degree, each

process of deep absorption and creative inner vision) is not only a

subjective process, but a powerful spiritual radiation or projection in

which the realization of the Dharmakaya in the individual human

consciousness breaks through the limits of individuality and - penetrating

the universe in all directions - causes in all responsive centres of

consciousness similar vibrations and creative forces.

These are the powerful vibrations of a super-individual experience of

reality, sounding through the 'mask' of human individuality and therefore

modified by the properties or form-symbols of the 'personality' ('persona',

in ancient Greek mystery-plays, was the mask of the actor which represented

his character and through which his voice sounded [sonare,'to sound']).

'Personality' in this original sense1 is more than 'individuality',

because herewith no illusory indivisibility and uniqueness of a separate

being is postulated, but only the idea that our momentary form of

appearance is like a temporarily assumed mask, through which the voice of a

higher reality sounds.

 

[1 The distinction between individuality and personality has been pointed

out already by Rene Guenon, and D. T. Suzuki seems to take a similar stand,

if he sees in the Dharmakaya the elements of personality.]

 

From this point of view D. T. Suzuki's remark (strange as it may

appear at first sight), that the concept of 'Dharmakaya' implies the notion

of 'personality', may be more easily understandable.2 'The highest

reality', he says, 'is not a mere abstraction, it is very much alive with

sense and awareness and intelligence, and, above all, with love purged of

human infirmities and defilements.'

 

[2 D. T. Suzuki: _The Essence of Buddhism_ (The Buddhist Society, London,

1947), p. 41.]

 

In other words, it is a living force, which manifests itself in the

individual and assumes the form of 'personality'. But it goes beyond the

individual consciousness, as its origin is in the universal realm of the

spirit, the Dharma-sphere. It assumes the character of 'personality' by

being realized in the human mind. If it were merely an abstract idea, it

would have no influence on life, and if it were an unconscious life-force,

it would have no spiritual value, i.e., no forming influence on the mind.

This is why Suzuki emphasizes that even the Dayani-Buddhas, as for

instance Amitabha, have all the characteristics of personality, in the

sense of a living, self-sustaining, conscious force, and that they are not

merely 'personifications' of an abstract concept. The human qualities of

Amitabha are not arbitrarily added attributes, but the transformation of a

universal reality in the form of human experience. Only in this way can

this reality retain its vital value and effectiveness on the human plane.

Just as high-tension electricity has to be transformed into

low-tension current for normal use (without losing thereby its nature), so

universal values have to be transformed into human values, if they are to

affect human life.

This principle is applicable to all Dhyani-Buddhas and similar forms

of religious or yogic experiences. They are primordial forms (or

'archetypes', as Jung would say) of the human mind. Therefore they are

necessary for the process of realization and an effective protection

against a premature abstraction, intellectualization, or mental

anticipation of spiritual aims and values. (Herein lies the danger of a

superficial intellectual acceptance or imitation of tantric or zennistic

paradoxes, as found in the sayings of Siddhas and Zen Masters - the

validity of which lies not at the beginning, but only at the end of the

spiritual path, where we are capable of dispensing with all tradition,

religious forms and logical definitions.)

An abstract idea is in no way 'higher' than its humanized,

personified ('personalized') or visualized form-symbol - the formless state

not necessarily more valuable or true than the form-possessing. It all

depends on whether we are able to see through the form and realize the

relativity of both form and formless experience. Both have their dangers:

the one, that we may take the form as ultimate, the other, that we lose

ourselves in generalizations and forget the connexions with the other side

of reality, namely, form. In fact, as long as we live exclusively on any

one of the three planes of reality, we cannot escape this danger. Hence the

necessity of their integration, their becoming simultaneously conscious in

the Vajrakaya.