Verse of Buddha Names, Trikaya, Dhyana Buddhas and other related doubts

[Tai Do]

I love the Verse of Buddha Names (Butsumyô) that are in our Treeleaf Chantbook for Rohatsu Retreat. I even started to recite it daily with the Verse of the Three refuges:

Homage to the pure Dharmakaya Vairochana Buddha, boundless
To the complete Sambhogakaya Lochana Buddha, symbol of perfection
To the manifest Nirmanakaya Shakyamuni Buddha, a man of this earth
To Maitreya Buddha, hope for the future
To all Buddhas past, present, and future in the ten directions
To the Mahayana Saddharma Pundarika Lotus Sutra
To Manjusri Bodhisattva, great wisdom
To Samantabhadra Bodhisattva, great activity
To Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva, great compassion
To the myriad honored ones, Bodhisattvas, Mahasattvas
To the Perfection of Wisdom, Maha Prajnaparamita.

But it also raised me some doubts about the Mahayana concepts it presents and the Soto Zen take on them.
Doing some inicial Wikipedia research, I found that Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya are known as the Trikaya and refer to three bodies of Buddha. i also found this quotation attributed to Ikkyu:

Formless, Buddha is called the Dharma-body. [Dharma-kaya]. With form, Buddha is called the Bliss body [Sambhoga-kaya). The Phenomenal Buddha, who comes into the Eight Realms of life for the benefit of living beings, is called the mortal body [Nirmana-kaya]. These are the three Bodies of Buddha [Tri-kaya]. When it is understood in this way, one can see that there can be no Pure Land and no Buddha except in these three bodies. Thus we hear of "The Pure Land simply in the heart" and "My own heart is Amida." Too, the idea that Buddha resides in no other place than the body refers to this Dharmakaya body. Thus in the Kongō-kyō it says, "Buddha is Being-without-locality and is born in our very hearts." The six patriarchs and the six teachers by understanding this message awakened to great truth.

https://www.reddit.com/r/zen/comment...d_bare_part_1/

The Wikipedia referred to the Dharmakaya as Vairochana for the Shingon school and Amida for the Pure Land schools. And a comment on this Reddit thread said that the Dharmakya was Amida + Vairochana...

It somewhat confused me more . So, my doubts are:
1. What is the Mahayana doctrine of the Trikaya? What is the Dharmakaya (is it the same as Emptiness and/or buddha-nature)? What is the Sambhogakaya (is it a transcendental Buddha, like a divine being or something else)? What is the Nirmanakaya (the real, historical Buddha)?
2. What is the specific Zen and Soto Zen take on the Trikaya? Does Master Dogen or Master Keizan said anything about it?
3. What is the relation of the Trikaya with the Dhyana Buddhas of Shingon?
4. How can we understand this all in the context of our practice and how does the Verse of Buddha Names should be interpreted as part of our Oryoki practice (or simple daily recitation practice)?
5. Who is Lochana Buddha? I couldn't find it anywhere!

Sorry for the long post!
Gassho,
Mateus
Satlah

[Kokuu]

Hi Mateus

I will answer as best as I can.

1. What is the Mahayana doctrine of the Trikaya? What is the Dharmakaya (is it the same as Emptiness and/or buddha-nature)? What is the Sambhogakaya (is it a transcendental Buddha, like a divine being or something else)? What is the Nirmanakaya (the real, historical Buddha)?

Yes, dharmakaya is emptiness/buddha nature, or the true self of all things, which is the complete wholeness of all that is. Nirmanakaya is our earthly form, of which the historical Buddha is an example. Sambhogakaya is the divine spiritual form of a buddha such as those we see in many paintings.

2. What is the specific Zen and Soto Zen take on the Trikaya? Does Master Dogen or Master Keizan said anything about it?

I can't recall anything either has said although someone else such as Jundo might. There may be something in Dogen actually.

3. What is the relation of the Trikaya with the Dhyana Buddhas of Shingon?

I think that in Shingon Buddhism, and other vajarayana traditions, the visualisations are of buddhas in their sambhogakaya form.

4. How can we understand this all in the context of our practice and how does the Verse of Buddha Names should be interpreted as part of our Oryoki practice (or simple daily recitation practice)?

I would say simple that we are talking about all buddhas everywhere, and to our buddha nature (dharmakaya), divine nature as bodhisattvas (sambhogakaya) and earthly nature (nirmanakaya) through which we act in this life.

5. Who is Lochana Buddha? I couldn't find it anywhere!

Lochana a female buddha, said to have similar nature to Vairochana: http://tibetanbuddhistencyclopedia.c...Buddha_lochana


I would file the three kayas under 'information it is interesting to know but not of crucial importance to our practice' as far as Zen goes.

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday-

[Tai Do]

Thank you very much, Kokuu .
Gassho,
Mateus
Satlah

[Jundo]

Hi Mateus,

Let me try to respond as best I can, and comment on what Kokuu added:

1. What is the Mahayana doctrine of the Trikaya? What is the Dharmakaya (is it the same as Emptiness and/or buddha-nature)? What is the Sambhogakaya (is it a transcendental Buddha, like a divine being or something else)? What is the Nirmanakaya (the real, historical Buddha)?

Originally, in the evolution of the concept of "Buddha," there was just Buddha the human being in India, a man, flesh and blood who lived a human life (sometimes noted in English as little "b" buddha). That is Shakyamuni Buddha, also known as Gautama Buddha. A wise and gifted guy (about whom idealized stories began to appear very quickly, likely even during his life), but just "a guy."

Then, the concept developed that All of Reality, Emptiness, the Wholeness, Boundless which is the Thusness (which the earthly Buddha realized in Nirvana/Enlightenment) is the real ultimate "Buddha" (with a Big "B") that liberates us. This is the universal or "cosmic" Buddha, Dharmakaya (the essence body) transcending yet at the heart of all divisions, of which all the separate phenomena of this world ... me and you, this and that, the cat, everything ... are emanations of the Wholeness (including that Buddha guy in India, thus he became the "Nirmanakaya," which means "emanation body" ... but you, me, the cat, the table, everything are each emanation bodies of the unbroken Dharmakaya Wholeness too). This "Wholeness" is generally also felt to be our (your my and the cat's) ultimate "Buddha Nature" which we had best realize.

Sometime in the development of Buddhism, centuries later than the conception of the above two, very idealized images of "perfect" Buddhas arose ... hyper-human in quality, human in appearance yet beyond all human imperfections, scrubbed clean of all flesh and blood faults, often with super-human powers and abilities ... somehow between the Dharmakaya and Nirmanakaya. The process by which they arose is one example of hagiography (the process in religion of turning stories/legends of religious heroes gradually into perfect saints). Amida is often considered as one, as is the hyper-idealized "Shakyamuni" (not the historical one) who resided/resides in the fantastic "hyper-India" of the Mahayana Sutras, and countless other such Buddhas. These are the "Sambhogakaya" (enjoyment body) Buddhas, because they perfectly enjoy their idealized state of realization and perfection. Like the guy in historical India, this is also another facet of the Dharmakaya, which is the "ultimate level." All these Buddhas are other faces of each other ... and you and me too.

Frankly, I have no trouble with the human man in India, and I have no trouble with the "unbroken Reality" that is free of separate self-existence as represented by the "universal" nature Buddha ... but I think that the idealized "enjoyment bodies" are just symbolic, kinda silly, idealized creations of human religious imagination meant to SYMBOLIZE the perfected extremes of what we hope to get out of this practice. They are otherwise malarky and fantasy, extreme romantic creations of the human religious imagination, personifying the idealized qualities of goodness, peace, bliss, wisdom, compassion, power that is the summit of our practice. I am happy to take them as symbols of the Wisdom and Teachings, rather than very literally (but see my comment on Dogen and Keizan, below).

Vairochana is an image of the Dharmakaya "cosmic" Buddha portrayed as a body, sitting cross legged and looking like a human being, which developed because people had trouble with purely abstract notions of a "beyond things and bodies" Dharmakaya. In other words, it is much like that other religion where many folks could not handle some formless notion of an abstract, transcendent "God," so made him a "king with a beard on a throne." Vairochana was needed as an image to give a physical body to a notion beyond physical bodies. Vairochana is just a name and image for what is beyond all name and image. It is kind of silly that they had to give a name and form for this which stands for "no name no form." Even the name and concept "Dharmakaya" is an injustice for what is free of all name and concept. A famous Vairochana is the Giant Buddha in Nara, Japan:

I disagree with Kokuu on the specific use here of Lochana for "Sambhogakaya Lochana." Yes, in the complicated Tibetan/Shingon/Esoteric map of Buddhas, there is a specific female Buddha name Lochana/Locana who is consort to another Buddha, Akṣobhya (or sometimes consort to Vairocana). However, as Okumura Roshi notes in Living by Vow, in Zen, Locana is cherished as the form of Vairocana Buddha who pronounced the Brahma Net Sutra, source of the Bodhisattva Precepts, as the "enjoyment" form of Vairocana. Notice that "Locana" is a short form of "VaiROCANA" without the "Vai." Vairocana means something like "Illuminator" and "Locana" something like "luminating." Tanahashi Sensei, in his "Zen Chants" book, also says that "Locana" is regarded as just another name/form of Vairocana.

Maitreya is the Future Buddha who will come sometime in the future. I believe that Maitreya is regarded as the next earthly Nirmanakaya. I take Maitreya as just a symbol of hope for the future.

If Amida is taken by some school as the "Dharmakaya," then Amida is also the one and the same formless body without body or name ... so "Amida" is also a symbol and convenience to "picture" what cannot be pictured. The name and image of "Amida" is then as silly as the name and statues of "Vairochana."

2. What is the specific Zen and Soto Zen take on the Trikaya? Does Master Dogen or Master Keizan said anything about it?

One might say that it is the main thing that they "riffed" on in their writings (such as Dogen's Shobogenzo), where all this "cast of characters" pops up again and again in their writings. Now, whether they took things "literally" or "figuratively" is not easy to say (likewise when they would riff on the very idealized images of the great Bodhisattvas like Kannon). They just did not think in such terms. So, let me say that (1) the TEACHINGS and WISDOM of Zen and Buddhism are as real as real can be, (2) the idealized Buddhas and Bodhisattvas stand for, embody and symbolize such real-as-real Teachings and Wisdom, thus (3) to that extent, Dogen and Keizan (and me too) believe that these Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are real embodiments of the Teachings and Wisdom. To that extent, all are as real as real can be because the Truths they express are as real as real can be. Amida too, in that sense. Did Dogen and Keizan think that they were even realer "real entities" than that? Probably, in some sense, I am sure that they did.

Beyond that, Zen Masters leap through ALL words, symbols, concepts of "Buddhas" and "ordinary people" to find the TRUE "Dharmakaya" beyond all that mess of words and ideas, even beyond "Dharmakaya." They leap through the "Trikaya" and the cat and the kitchen sink.

3. What is the relation of the Trikaya with the Dhyana Buddhas of Shingon?

It is not a central concern to most Zen folks. We tend to avoid "how many angels on the head of a pin" questions like that.

4. How can we understand this all in the context of our practice and how does the Verse of Buddha Names should be interpreted as part of our Oryoki practice (or simple daily recitation practice)?

If they are helpful to you to recall these names as an embodiment of the Teachings and Wisdom, do so. In the meal chant, they are just a symbol of our gratitude for the Teachings and Wisdom.

Then, drop their names and all names and sit Zazen!

(sorry to run long)

Gassho, J

stlah

[aprapti]

i am sure, Jundo's reply is much, much better than Kokuu's..
but i prefer the three lines of Kokuu

aprapti

sat

[Jundo]

i am sure, Jundo's reply is much, much better than Kokuu's..
but i prefer the three lines of Kokuu

aprapti

sat

Well, I'm a Zen fellow who believes that it is best to discuss actual history, and to respect some of our traditions while admitting that they may but myths and legends, although symbols of something real to treasure in heart.

It is my failing, I suppose.

Gassho, J

stlah

[Bion]

Hi Mateus,

Let me try to respond as best I can, and comment on what Kokuu added:

1. What is the Mahayana doctrine of the Trikaya? What is the Dharmakaya (is it the same as Emptiness and/or buddha-nature)? What is the Sambhogakaya (is it a transcendental Buddha, like a divine being or something else)? What is the Nirmanakaya (the real, historical Buddha)?

Originally, in the evolution of the concept of "Buddha," there was just Buddha the human being in India, a man, flesh and blood who lived a human life (sometimes noted in English as little "b" buddha). That is Shakyamuni Buddha, also known as Gautama Buddha. A wise and gifted guy (about whom idealized stories began to appear very quickly, likely even during his life), but just "a guy."

Then, the concept developed that All of Reality, Emptiness, the Wholeness, Boundless which is the Thusness (which the earthly Buddha realized in Nirvana/Enlightenment) is the real ultimate "Buddha" (with a Big "B") that liberates us. This is the universal or "cosmic" Buddha, Dharmakaya (the essence body) transcending yet at the heart of all divisions, of which all the separate phenomena of this world ... me and you, this and that, the cat, everything ... are emanations of the Wholeness (including that Buddha guy in India, thus he became the "Nirmanakaya," which means "emanation body" ... but you, me, the cat, the table, everything are each emanation bodies of the unbroken Dharmakaya Wholeness too). This "Wholeness" is generally also felt to be our (your my and the cat's) ultimate "Buddha Nature" which we had best realize.

Sometime in the development of Buddhism, centuries later than the conception of the above two, very idealized images of "perfect" Buddhas arose ... hyper-human in quality, human in appearance yet beyond all human imperfections, scrubbed clean of all flesh and blood faults, often with super-human powers and abilities ... somehow between the Dharmakaya and Nirmanakaya. The process by which they arose is one example of hagiography (the process in religion of turning stories/legends of religious heroes gradually into perfect saints). Amida is often considered as one, as is the hyper-idealized "Shakyamuni" (not the historical one) who resided/resides in the fantastic "hyper-India" of the Mahayana Sutras, and countless other such Buddhas. These are the "Sambhogakaya" (enjoyment body) Buddhas, because they perfectly enjoy their idealized state of realization and perfection. Like the guy in historical India, this is also another facet of the Dharmakaya, which is the "ultimate level." All these Buddhas are other faces of each other ... and you and me too.

Frankly, I have no trouble with the human man in India, and I have no trouble with the "unbroken Reality" that is free of separate self-existence as represented by the "universal" nature Buddha ... but I think that the idealized "enjoyment bodies" are just symbolic, kinda silly, idealized creations of human religious imagination meant to SYMBOLIZE the perfected extremes of what we hope to get out of this practice. They are otherwise malarky and fantasy, extreme romantic creations of the human religious imagination, personifying the idealized qualities of goodness, peace, bliss, wisdom, compassion, power that is the summit of our practice. I am happy to take them as symbols of the Wisdom and Teachings, rather than very literally (but see my comment on Dogen and Keizan, below).

Vairochana is an image of the Dharmakaya "cosmic" Buddha portrayed as a body, sitting cross legged and looking like a human being, which developed because people had trouble with purely abstract notions of a "beyond things and bodies" Dharmakaya. In other words, it is much like that other religion where many folks could not handle some formless notion of an abstract, transcendent "God," so made him a "king with a beard on a throne." Vairochana was needed as an image to give a physical body to a notion beyond physical bodies. Vairochana is just a name and image for what is beyond all name and image. It is kind of silly that they had to give a name and form for this which stands for "no name no form." Even the name and concept "Dharmakaya" is an injustice for what is free of all name and concept. A famous Vairochana is the Giant Buddha in Nara, Japan:

I disagree with Kokuu on the specific use here of Lochana for "Sambhogakaya Lochana." Yes, in the complicated Tibetan/Shingon/Esoteric map of Buddhas, there is a specific female Buddha name Lochana/Locana who is consort to another Buddha, Akṣobhya (or sometimes consort to Vairocana). However, as Okumura Roshi notes in Living by Vow, in Zen, Locana is cherished as the form of Vairocana Buddha who pronounced the Brahma Net Sutra, source of the Bodhisattva Precepts, as the "enjoyment" form of Vairocana. Notice that "Locana" is a short form of "VaiROCANA" without the "Vai." Vairocana means something like "Illuminator" and "Locana" something like "luminating." Tanahashi Sensei, in his "Zen Chants" book, also says that "Locana" is regarded as just another name/form of Vairocana.

Maitreya is the Future Buddha who will come sometime in the future. I believe that Maitreya is regarded as the next earthly Nirmanakaya. I take Maitreya as just a symbol of hope for the future.

If Amida is taken by some school as the "Dharmakaya," then Amida is also the one and the same formless body without body or name ... so "Amida" is also a symbol and convenience to "picture" what cannot be pictured. The name and image of "Amida" is then as silly as the name and statues of "Vairochana."

2. What is the specific Zen and Soto Zen take on the Trikaya? Does Master Dogen or Master Keizan said anything about it?

One might say that it is the main thing that they "riffed" on in their writings (such as Dogen's Shobogenzo), where all this "cast of characters" pops up again and again in their writings. Now, whether they took things "literally" or "figuratively" is not easy to say (likewise when they would riff on the very idealized images of the great Bodhisattvas like Kannon). They just did not think in such terms. So, let me say that (1) the TEACHINGS and WISDOM of Zen and Buddhism are as real as real can be, (2) the idealized Buddhas and Bodhisattvas stand for, embody and symbolize such real-as-real Teachings and Wisdom, thus (3) to that extent, Dogen and Keizan (and me too) believe that these Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are real embodiments of the Teachings and Wisdom. To that extent, all are as real as real can be because the Truths they express are as real as real can be. Amida too, in that sense. Did Dogen and Keizan think that they were more "real entities" than that? Probably, in some sense, I am sure that they did.

Beyond that, Zen Masters leap through ALL words, symbols, concepts of "Buddhas" and "ordinary people" to find the TRUE "Dharmakaya" beyond all that mess of words and ideas, even beyond "Dharmakaya." They leap through the "Trikaya" and the cat and the kitchen sink.

3. What is the relation of the Trikaya with the Dhyana Buddhas of Shingon?

It is not a central concern to most Zen folks. We tend to avoid "how many angels on the head of a pin" questions like that.

4. How can we understand this all in the context of our practice and how does the Verse of Buddha Names should be interpreted as part of our Oryoki practice (or simple daily recitation practice)?

If they are helpful to you to recall these names as an embodiment of the Teachings and Wisdom, do so. In the meal chant, they are just a symbol of our gratitude for the Teachings and Wisdom.

Then, drop their names and all names and sit Zazen!

(sorry to run long)

Gassho, J

stlah

Fantastic!! Thank you

Sat today lah

[Jundo]

Just out of curiosity, I had a look at what D.T. Suzuki had to say about the mention of "Lochana Buddha" in the meal chant. In "Training of the Zen Buddhist Monk" (p. 145) he also says, "Notice the distinction made between Vairochana Buddha and Lochana Buddha [in the meal chant], while practically they are the same."

As well, I checked with a wonderful book, "The Origins of Buddhist Monastic Codes in China," by Yifa (a Chinese monk and scholar) on the oldest manual we have of Chan monastic procedures, the 12th century Chanyuan qinggui. It is the source for Dogen's rules, and our meal chant. Yifa recounts this about the meal chant in the Chanyuan qinggui:

Regarding mealtime rituals, Chanyuan qinggui indicates that before taking their meals, monks would chant the ten epithets of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas, a custom preserved in Chinese monasteries to the present day. The content of the chant is as follows: “The Pure Dharma Body Vairocana Buddha, the Perfect Reward Body Vairocana, the Sâkyamuni Buddha with His Myriad Transformation Bodies, the Venerable Buddha Maitreya Who Will Descend and Be Reborn in This World in the Future, All the Buddhas in Ten Directions and Three Ages, the Great Holy Mañjusùrî Bodhisattva, the Great Practice Samantabhadra Bodhisattva, the Great Compassion Avalokiteùvara Bodhisattva, and All the Great Bodhisattvas. Great Prajñâpâramitâ!” [Perfection of Wisdom] [Historian] Ui Hakuju asserts that this chant originated with Daoan and his regulations [in the 5th century].
https://terebess.hu/zen/Chanyuan-qinggui.pdf

Notice there that the name is just Vairocana twice, once as the Dharmakaya and once as the Sambhogakaya. So, again, Locana seems just to be a reference to the "Enjoyment Body" form of Vairocana.

Gassho, J

stlah

[Tai Do]

Thank you, Jundo .
I’m really interested in Buddhist and Mahayana history and mythology. I tend to be like you and take the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas and mythos and symbols rather than real entities. But I still like to know about it, specially when mentioned in our chants.
Gassho,
Mateus
Satlah

[Jundo]

Thank you, Jundo .
I’m really interested in Buddhist and Mahayana history and mythology. I tend to be like you and take the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas and mythos and symbols rather than real entities. But I still like to know about it, specially when mentioned in our chants.
Gassho,
Mateus
Satlah

They are all symbols and personifications of good stuff, Mateus ... like peace, wholeness, wisdom and compassion ... and that is all as real as real can be.

Otherwise, I would not be here, wasting my time and everybody else's.

Gassho, J

stlah

[Tai Do]

They are all symbols and personifications of good stuff, Mateus ... like peace, wholeness, wisdom and compassion ... and that is all as real as real can be.

Otherwise, I would not be here, wasting my time and everybody else's.

Gassho, J

stlah

Mateus
Satlah

[aprapti]

Well, I'm a Zen fellow who believes that it is best to discuss actual history, and to respect some of our traditions while admitting that they may but myths and legends, although symbols of something real to treasure in heart.

i fully agree with that, Jundo!

aprapti

sat