Pema Rigdzin wrote:White Lotus,
You're right, it is simple: according to Mahayana doctrine, suchness is unborn, does not abide, and does not cease, and it is free of any and all elaboration.
One has to get rid of the delusion, then the wisdom of suchness will be uncovered in all actuallity.
i cannot claim to be any kind of expert on the theory of suchness. i just know it in my daily life. i agree with what you are saying. it is perfect, but i would say that it has the appearance of being defiled/impermanent. but in reality suchness is always with us as our dharmakaya. it is our very body, and not only what we perceive. the dharmakaya is the body of all things. as a totality it can be called 'one'. there is no separation. there is no difference. it is also the embodiment of truth, since things are truly what they are. this does not detract from the fact that they are empty.
some may be feeling that my comments are not 'orthodox'. if that is so... please point out where i am not orthodox. i have no wish to slander the truth. if i seem to oversimplify that is simply because i believe in the simplicity of the path. it is just knowing your own nature. what could be more simple. people over complicate.
White Lotus wrote::namaste: Noble Pema, what you are saying is largely what i agree with in analysis, but why not just make a cup of tea. analysis of what suchness is, or of what a cup of tea is, misses the experience of suchness, which is just what it is. just so. so.
we overcomplicate the experience, why not just be with the experience in its simplicity. dont try to get anything out of it, just see it and taste it as it is with no expectations.
this is it! making a cup of tea is enlightenement. eating cornflakes for breakfast is enlightenment. theres nothing in it. it is just what it is.
yes, oneness is not always a helpful description, but it is nontheless a way of seeing reality as 'the' thing we see, taste, touch, smell etc.
on a final note, your analytical/theological understanding of the way things are is to me quite profound. but still it is caught in the paralysis of analysis. i try to keep things basic, but often find myself too getting caught up in analysis sometimes and miss the beauty and simplicity of what is. the dharmakaya, is there to be experienced. it is as you say beyond all analytical descriptions, but not direct descriptions of experience. poetry can capture our experience better than analysis in my own opinion.
best wishes, White Lotus. x
a river in full flow,
may be aware of what it contains,
but it is still a river.
i am Tom, you are Pema.
you know yourself perfectly.
so what is this 'own nature' to know?
(what isnt it?!)
ps. i will be with my folks over Easter, so may lapse in my responses to posts.
"but the beauty of the finger is no different than the moon," in which case I'd say you're missing the point. The finger is thinking about dharmakaya, the latter is the wisdom of the dharmakaya.
There is still a "selfing" process going on. I'm still identifying, but rather than as a whole person I'm identifying the drop and the sea. But it's still a form of self-identification. One of the goals is to break through these patterns of self-identification, and there is no essence or One.
White Lotus wrote::namaste:"but the beauty of the finger is no different than the moon," in which case I'd say you're missing the point. The finger is thinking about dharmakaya, the latter is the wisdom of the dharmakaya.
i like the beauty of that finger... a master once said, why focus on the moon when you can see all that heavenly glory! it may be missing the point, but i think actually theres something very profound in that little finger! but yes, suchness is to be experienced not talked about too much. but its fine to say... cup of tea!, cup of tea! now and again.
suchness is emptiness... all things are emptiness, but suchness as it is seen, heard, and tasted, is right before your eyes. things just as they are (without conceptualizing about what that means). keep it simple. you can elaborate if you want but it wont get you nowhere! (as we say in London).
White Lotus wrote:this is why in the process of becoming a buddha, one may pass through the state of being Brahman Atman/Samata... a drop of water dissolved in the ocean of the universal consciousness. but this brahman still has vestiges of a self, though it is no longer atomistic, but diffused. any vestige of a self needs to vanish.
White Lotus wrote:if i talk of Suchness as being 'one' that is because 'the' thing (Dharmakaya)we see, hear, touch and taste is fundamentally a unity or sameness...
Again, there is thinking about dharmakaya and there is dharmakaya. From the POV of one's own experience in samsara, the fact that deluded thinking is not other than dharmakaya is really irrelevant. That is view language, not path language.
And again, no meditation on absolute truth, free of all conceptual elaboration, no buddhahood.
Sorry, but Brahman, atman, and universal consciousness are each refuted by every strain of Buddhist thought. No disrespect to our Hindu brothers and sisters of various traditions, but we simply disagree with them on this and logically refute it.
You're just reifying dharmakaya again... and without two, there cannot be one.
The struggling apprehended analytical views or just like it is: unapprehended.
Creation teaness or artlessness in what just is.
Experiences, cup of tea are all play of what is never formed. It is just okay.
Dharmakaya: unborn, unformed. No label (solidifies habitual tendencies) will explain or prove.
Intellectual disturbed state of mind or simple cutting through minds' creations.
Once there was a documentary in very high speed filmed about the growth of a jungle (plants, animals). There appeared no any possibility to grasp to a thing as the impermanence of the changing dynamic stream was just like dreamlike energy. In that play of interdependent relationship, no apprehended thought could freeze.
All phenomena are an expression of wisdom, all colors of attachment and aversion are my own delusions.
White Lotus wrote::namaste: bless you Pema.Again, there is thinking about dharmakaya and there is dharmakaya. From the POV of one's own experience in samsara, the fact that deluded thinking is not other than dharmakaya is really irrelevant. That is view language, not path language.
then dont think... just experience.
White Lotus wrote:You're just reifying dharmakaya again... and without two, there cannot be one.
what do you mean by 'reifying' dharmakaya?
yes, without two there cannot be one, since there is no two, it is logical to say that there is no one. this however is on a fundamental level. on the level of experience, i would still prefer a cup of tea to a poo.
Users browsing this forum: Kim O'Hara and 13 guests