Talk:Dharmakāya

message: Even from mahayana perspective, it is absurd that dhamrakaya is redirected to trikaya. trikaya is merely an aspect of dharmakaya.  FWBOarticle
:I'm not sure I understand what you mean here, FWBOarticle. Do you mean it in the sense that all phenomena are aspects of Dharmakaya? One can easily argue that the Dharmakaya is one of the Trikaya - and I guess one could even argue that the word Dharmakaya is an aspect of Nirmanakaya, and also Nirmanakaya, Dharmakaya and Trikaya are aspects of Samboghakaya - but what does that tell us? (20040302)
::Opps, I totally got translation of chinese wrong. Sorry, this is totally my mistake. I'm in the process of organising the wiki link of the main Buddhism article so I got carried away. I make it upto it by making some cotribution to trikaya article. Vapour
There is a bit of excuse to it. I was reading Japanese article about Buddhakaya. In that article, it is stated that Dharmakaya is first appear as expression of Buddhakaya.  And it was talking about different theory of kaya in mahayana.  Apparently there are three type of kaya theory in mahayana, that is two-body theory, three body theory (tri kaya) and four body theory.  Because i only read two body theory part Buddhakaya=Dharmakaya, i got mixed up.  I also know that there is a theravada organisation which is called Dharmakaya foundation so i find out what is the common ground of Buddhakaya in mahayana and teravada. I think Buddhakaya is probably the best main article of this duo/tri/quo kaya thingy. I'll get back to you when I did my research. I will revert this article to trikaya.  still, if Japanese wikipedia is correct, dhamakaya came first before there are anything like trikaya so the previous state where dharmakaya is redirected to trikaya probably isn't right, imo.  Vapour
:Hi Vapour. In some of the indo-tibetan traditions, it is NOT correct that the Dharmakaya comes first. Indeed, this was a question I once asked the great scholar and yogi, Denma Lochö Rinpoche, back in 1995 or so. He stated that at the point of attaining Buddhahood, all kayas (2,3,4,5 according to interpretation) arise simultaneously. He had a series of convincing arguments for why this is the case, which unfortunately slip my mind. If I can recall them, I shall let you know. (20040302 18:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trikaya Dharmakaya 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: sattvadhātur iti śāriputra tathāgatagarbhasyaitad adhivacanam | 
tathāgatagarbha iti śāriputra dharmakāyasyaitad adhivacanam | 
itīdaṃ caturthaṃ vajrapadam anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivartānusāreṇānugantavyam |
 
The mass of living beings is, O Śāriputra, nothing but a synonym of the Matrix of the Tathāgata. The Matrix of the Tathāgata is, O Śāriputra, nothing but a synonym of the Absolute Body”. Thus is the forth ‘vajrapada’ and is to be understood according to the Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśa-parivarta.
Ratnagotravibhāga
NB: "Absolute Body" = dharmakāya
Aum A Hung Phet Svaha
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 09:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratnagotravibhāga 

message: wouldn't 'wisdom-body' be a more meaningful translation than "'truth-body' or 'reality-body'" which makes Dharmakaya sound more like a lesson or the stuff you learned at school, the knowledge-body, which is more like Dharma, whereas Dharmakaya is more like wisdom and compassion, emptiness, absolute, and so on. esp. this information is referenced later in the article but isn't it somewhat ... like i mean if the First thing you read is truth body then i think you'd be confused from there on.--makeswell 22:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  truth-body? 

message: The article lacks citations at various places, and at many places it appears that someone has expressed his own views or interpretations. There is no exact definition of dharmakaya given in the article, which can find reference in the scriptures themselves. In case some scholar's views are expressed, the source must be mentioned along with the fact that it is an interpretation of so-and-so.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.248.130.148 (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Lacking Sufficient Citations

message: Someone has recently created an introductory paragraph in the Theravada section which, apart from being badly written, seems totally irrelevant: there is no reference in it to the Dharmakaya at all. I suggest that this paragraph be deleted. Best wishes. From Suddha (talk) 10:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Suddha. The section could use some more sources also. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Theravada Section

message: In the first sentence at Emptiness -section, there are as many as five wikilinks. At the second sentence, there are three more links in a one sentence.
As I was looking through the linked articles, I couldn't help noticing that they weren't really related to the actual topic, Dharmakaya. Instead of linking to those articles, I think it'd be more reasonable to paraphrase the terms in someway if still considered relevant for the article. At the moment, there are opening rather lengthy articles that don't really seem to have a crossing-point with the Dharmakaya -article. The same repeats in Sky Blue -section.
I boldly removed the excess links: iconic, aniconic, petrosomatoglyph, footprint, upāya, Digāmbara, Samantabhadra, Mahābhūta, Ākāśa, analogy, metaphor, conduit, ineffable, acintya, terma Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Emptiness and Sky Blue -sections

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Dharmakāya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090125213943/http://kaladarshan.arts.ohio-state.edu:80/exhib/sama/Essays/CS92.061MahaOfr.html to http://kaladarshan.arts.ohio-state.edu/exhib/sama/Essays/CS92.061MahaOfr.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Dharmakāya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160105221926/http://www.kagyu.org/buddhism/cul/cul02.html to http://www.kagyu.org/buddhism/cul/cul02.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Dharmakāya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150224040319/http://www.nitartha.org/dictionary_search04.html to http://www.nitartha.org/dictionary_search04.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111226044721/http://abhidharma.ru/A/Vedalla/Content/0003.pdf to http://abhidharma.ru/A/Vedalla/Content/0003.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Removal of dharmakaya edit
If you read the explanation of my edit in the Dharmakaya article it explains that the removed section misrepresented what the source actually said. One can't just insert one's own opinions and add a misleading citation to give it the appearance of validity. In addition the writer seems uninformed about the difference between the Hindu creator called Brahma and the impersonal Absolute which is called by the similar name of Brahman. Finally, he says the Dalai Lama talks about sunyata when, in fact, he never mentions it. Please help me to restore it to accuracy. 
IndologyScholar2 (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a closer look! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of dharmakaya edit 

message: Initially the page talks about the "inconceivable aspect" of the Buddha - then very quickly descends with the reggie ray quote about "what is" and then in the Tibetan section spelling reality with a capital R 
Perhaps it would be respectful to both buddhism and pseudo-hinduism to maintain a distinction between the ungraspable aspect taught in the dzogchen teachings and the view of the lower yanas in the same way that it is distinguished on the svabhava page?
reginald ray is really not a great source for quotations - maybe try longchenpa or jigme lingpa?
213.105.109.207 (talk) 06:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about the use of Reginald Ray as a source. Skyerise (talk) 06:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistencies between the view of svabhava and nihsvabhava