My opinion here will most probably have no value whatsoever as I am in no manner shape nor form literate on the language nor conceptual terms described.
But I have a opiniion on this thing called compassion which if not directly relevent may be interesting or amuseing to some.
It seems there may be conflicting ways of looking at this thing. I have heard (but perhaps this rumor is untrue), that some adherants of the zen schoolings believe compassion to be a natural state, and I have heard that many in the Tibetan schools to consider compassion to be a added onto state.
I fall to the first side, compassion seems implicit in awareness, the function or quality of being aware. Awareness ultimately considered must be elicited by circumstance but when it persents it presents always with compassionate aspect. I contend our awareness is not a simple awareness but a cognicizing awareness which attempts to understand things or objects as they are. This quality or act(to understand) is in fact compassion, a compassionate act.... always.
Some it seems contend with emptinesses consideration, then it is that, which shows we are as others.... Since we must necessarily work to our best benefit, always; we must when emptiness shows all to be of one even flavor, be likewise compassionate to all others. And consider all in a sense to be as our mothers. The direct lack of distinction or even flavor produced by emptinesses consideration in fact cause us to be compassionate thusly to other sentient beings.
There being no distinction.
Both seem true, but I opine the first is the finally considered truth. We do not ultimately have to work or as consequence add onto our aware function compassion by the adjacent or core understanding of emptiness. Emptiness is true in every aspect but when awareness presents in circumstance it presents always in compassionate form. Even flavor is true always certainly, but even flavors consideration is not that which always elicits the circumstance of compassion. It produces due to the circumstance of cognition. Always when cognition is present(our awareness) it is there.
Same result....always compassionate in either case, so perhaps not so important. Very important to me personally but that perhaps is not important. For me I find personally this removes a final boundary of sorts.
But I don't even know for the most part, what are the defineing characteristics of about two thirds of he words used in this discussion. Not to state they are not important, but that I do not find them important to my particular circumstance and thusly do not know nor study them. And I am not necessarily a Buddhist so perhaps i am looking at this thing from the outside in.
So I thusly qualify my response..feel free to disregard it in its entireity. In this fashion of education...it is a totally uneducated response.
The logical inferal would be, and this would require a leap of sorts....the second contention of compassions occurance is dependent in relationship to self...even though absent of self, compassion is then driectly related to self. Compasson presents as result of consideration of self to others(considered to be same) Then in a no sense state such as the formless realm compassion would present, as no form implies sameness. This would seemingly not be the case.
In the former cosideration compassion would always present in some fashion or form as awarness presents. When the circumstance produces to elicit a aware response a aware response being cognicizing is always invariably initially at least without delusion a compassionate response as well. If the second were true (though I am not debateing which is true it probably matters not)....it seems in a no self state such as the formless realm a being, being of even flavor, would have compassion. That seems not true.
Some would contend a formless realm being still retains sense of self abeit in a very very diluted form with no cognitive aspect. I would contend a no cognitive circumstance as sentient being could not occur. No form would imply,to my view, no established sense of self with very very little cognition but still having no compassion. No circumstance for its elicitation. So even flavor of a sort but without recognition of compassionate aspect. Some cognition which produces form abeit with minimal cognition thusly not to produce any substance.
So two ways of looking at a formless realm I would suppose. One implies sense of self as principal for action of compassion one implies cogniton as principal for action. ONe implies self as aspect of formless realm and cognition removed and one implies cognition remmaining but virtual sense of self removed.
Compassions origination or circumstance of production would present in one case when one sense of self recognized that its sense of self is equal to other senses of self. IN the other situation no sense of self need be present. If then Enlightenment is considered to be without self concept, a Buddha would have no basis of comparison and thusly be in a formless state not a enlightend state as no compassion or compassionate circumstance would present. The compasssion would form as consequence of self consideration as equal. No self consideration no compassion as result. A buddhas would be noncompassionate.
Again not to debate it..perhaps it may be amuseing to some who read it.... it is just as I read it.
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.