Talk:Dharmadhatu

Trimondi
The Trimondi's are not a real scholarly source. They are ideologues with a completely nutty view of history and Buddhism. I'm going to replace the reference to their "work" in a day of two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.56.253.173 (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please put the deleted text here in case someone disputes it. This could be a NPOV issue.  I don't know too much about them, but they do appear to be highly critical of Tibetan Buddhism, and we don't disallow critics simply on that point.  From what I can tell, they appear to be widely cited and quoted in critical studies.  But, since their view is a critical view, this probably needs to be explained and given a different placement in the article.  It may not even be needed here, but you need to proceed carefully.  We don't eliminate critics merely because we disagree with what they say.  Viriditas (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll do so. They're not widely cited in scholarly sources, just on the internet. In fact, I may be the only scholar of Tibetan Buddhism who has ever cited them (though only to criticize their work). It's not an issue I have with the particular contents of the quote, but with the source. There are plenty of good scholars with better explanations of this topic than these two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.56.253.173 (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Clean-up
I've removed undue and incomprehensible sections, to make this article better readable (or readable at all). Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   14:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Dharmadhatu. 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:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://webzoom.freewebs.com/nirvana-sutra/convenient/Mahaparinirvana_Sutra_Yamamoto_Page_2007.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Dharmadhatu. 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/web/20100323000712/http://www.chibs.edu.tw/publication/chbj/13/chbj1338.htm to http://www.chibs.edu.tw/publication/chbj/13/chbj1338.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

emptiness and the dharmadatu
To say that emptiness is an analagous term for dharmadhatu is potentially misleading to someone first trying to tease out the meaning of these terms. Emptiness is an attribute of something. Dharmadhatu is something. An attribute is not the thing and the thing is not the attribute. I am 6' 2" in height. Most people describe me as tall, but i am not tallness and tallness is not me.

Believing that phenomena have inherent existence or that the self has inherent existence will completely obscure the dharmadhatu. Realizing that self and phenomema are empty of inherent existence will reveal the dharmadhatu. But emptiness and dharmadhatu are not analagous, although clearly they are closely related. If all things existed inherently there would be no dharmadhatu. But since there is a dharmadhatu all things are empty of inherent existence.

Is the dharmadhatu empty of inherent existence? I think the only school of thought that would agree is the Madhyamika Prasangika school. But not even they would say the dharmadhatu is equivalent or analagous to emptiness. They would say the the dharmadhatu depends on the infinite awareness of the Buddhas, therefore it is empty of inherent existence.

But, obviously, I could be wrong... Wicoulte (talk) 02:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)