r450 discussion 5

I find the distinction between the Sambhogikakaya and the Nairmanikakaya very interesting and would like to discuss it further here and now. Amongst the most intriguing aspect of the distinction is that there aren’t any qualms (doctrinally) towards affirming that no real distinction exists, for both are seen to represent “manifestations of Buddhahood to share its knowledge and liberation with beings.” So, more rightly, the distinction is real only in as much as the perception of the rupakaya is differentiated based on the capacity to understand of the perceiver. Those who find joy in wisdom and the journey there to find joy in the exposition of wisdom and the journey there to; and those who, due to the obscurations of greed and fear, struggle to maintain a sense of familiar continuity struggle with exposition of wisdom and the journey there to, for onto it projections of confrontation are placed in defense of firmly held beliefs.

                The Nairmanikakaya, being often translated as ‘body of manifestation’ or ‘body of transformation’ doesn’t by its etymology suggest a mode of perception, for: “it can appear as whatever is most salvifically  beneficial in a particular case.” This leaves perception to the karmic derived capacity of the observer. It may appear rather paradoxical for one dedicated to relieving suffering to act such that suffering ensues, but for one adjusted to darkness even a spark can strike so eyes never used. The Nairmanikakaya tho, in this context, too leaves open the possibility of non-emotional acceptance that may not fulfill the formal conception of the Sambhogikakaya.

                The Sambhogikakaya, being often translated as ‘body of communal enjoyment’ does implicitly imply a mode of perception. It also suggests a connection to the first stage of Bodhisattvahood, known in the west as ‘the stage of joy,’ where one not only accepts but embraces self-realization, wisdom, and the journey there to. Makransky brings up that “Here we see Sambhogikakaya defined as that which ‘brings enjoyment of dharma to the circles of assembly,’ not that which only enjoys dharma for itself” which implies that Buddha ‘enjoys’ dharma. This is supported by the fact that, as a foundation to the Bodhisattva’s ascent, joy in the dharma would likely be deeply rooted in Buddha’s Nature.