Is This Thinking Askew I Ask You?
So, in the vain act of expressing the inexpressible, I found myself writing this:
All dharmas are dependent upon their nature. All dharmas are really just their nature. Without their nature... no dharmas. Without the dharmas, there is still the nature. It is from this Buddha-nature, that all conditioned dharmas arise. If there was no bouncing-nature, a ball would never bounce; if there was no color-nature, the ball would be colorless even to eyes equipped to see colors; if there was no spinning-nature, the ball would not turn; if there was no resting nature, the ball would never sit still; if there was no spherical-nature, well... the ball wouldn't even appear to be a ball.
Do you think this is accurate, or am I just BSing? Co-dependence does influence most things, but through an experience I was able to taste something interesting; that the nature of something does not depend upon the thing itself, whereas the thing does depend on its nature. Flowing with the terms in the example, if I took a rubber ball and threw it in a fire, it would no longer be what we call a ball, but the nature itself that allowed the ball to be still exists independent of the ball, we just are no longer able to experience through something.
And really, what we call and perceive as the ball was never a static object to begin with. It was always doing, even if it was doing nothing. We perceive things as nouns, but really everything is verbs. Anyway, that's a whole different subject that this line of thought flowed into.
I figured I'd bring this to the Sangha, since guidance is always appreciated, and if there's one thing I know, it's that I don't know anything haha.
Tags for this Thread