White Lotus wrote:Noble Pema,
dharmakaya/suchness/'this'. its real if you think it is, unreal if you think it is, neither real nor unreal if you think it is, both of these if you think it is, all of these if you think it is, or finally, none of these if you think it is. what the mind seeks it finds. this is relativity.
some people find comfort in seeing the buddha dharma body as absolute reality. some people see the dharmakaya as illusory. it makes no difference to me. take a position if you want to. today being a sunday, i am beyond all positions.
as for liking and disliking. i wonder if old Seng Chan would prefer a cup of tea to a piece of dirt! though in one mind, ultimately all is the same with no difference.
why try to be mindful of suchness, when you already are, quite naturally. how can you not taste a cup of tea? you are a master of tathata already, but you tell yourself. i am nothing, i dont know tathata. this is not true. you are an expert at tasting suchness.
best wishes, White Lotus. x
truly empty. at all times.
none received, none given.
totally true. the dharmakaya...
Well, my friend, I'm afraid that enjoying many wonderful cups of tea, breathing in and exhaling out just naturally, and stopping to smell the flowers has been enjoyable for me, but it has not been liberating. Of course, the Buddha and his lineage heirs never said it would be, so I can't fault them. What they said would liberate was generating merit and cultivating the wisdom that knows the emptiness of the self and the emptiness of phenomena. So that's what I'm working on.
But tell me something: There are many tea, flower, and breathing enthusiasts in the world and yet they continue to experience an "I" and a notion of "other" and they continue to have attachment, aversion, or indifference toward these "other" phenomena (and even toward the "I," actually), so they suffer and continue to be reborn over and over again in samsara. You talk about accepting things just as they are and enjoying them or not enjoying them, and that that is "suchness" and is supposedly liberating. But others do this, yet it isn't liberating for them. How is it that it works differently for you? In other words, why is that liberating for you but not for them?
Let me tell you what the Middle Way school of Mahayana says about suchness: that which is suchness has no birth, no time of enduring, and no cessation, and it is free of any elaboration. This means it is beyond the extremes of existence, nonexistence, both (existence and nonexistence simultaneously), and neither (existence nor nonexistence simultaneously) and free of any ideas about it (because ideas or notions are innately and inescapably fabrications and not suchness itself).
As soon as you apprehend an object and label it as something - tea, for example - you have left the realm of suchness because you’ve got ideas. In labeling it, whether you realize it or not, you’re ascribing a sense of existence to it. Then you're further reinforcing its truly existent status in your mind when you make a judgment of good, bad, or indifferent about it, a judgment that is based solely on your own karma, not some objective reality. So what you are apprehending is in fact the dependently arisen object and your karmic judgments about it, not the object’s suchness (aka the fact that it is dependently arisen and was never truly born to begin with, does not truly endure, and does not truly cease).
So basically, what you’re doing is substantializing suchness as if it were a truly existent substrata to self and other, which in direct conflict with what the Buddha taught in the sutras and what his lineage heirs taught in the shastras.
Finally, let me state that I understand and have complete faith (based on both reasoning and meditation) in the explanations about how phenomena are perfect just as they are. However, I also understand that that is view
language, not path language. There is a big difference. There is how things actually are - the view - which is how we'd experience reality were it not for our obscurations and negative karma, and there is reality as we currently experience it and have some work to do - i.e., "the path." In terms of "the view," there's no difference and no path to tread, but from the POV of "the path" - or where we are experientially - there's quite a gap. And it can't be bridged immediately just by labeling phenomena and our experience of them as "suchness." I mean, suchness is just a nice sounding word.