Originally Posted by
Jwroberts27
Kokuu, thanks very much for the comment and the poem!
I see your point, and I feel that you are correct, but I also feel that this is only part of the equation. Indeed, I understand the view that the donkey is analogous to us, and the well, analogous to the dharmakaya. But I also feel that we are only making this distinction because we identify more with a fellow mammal, than with a man-made structure. I think this is one example of conceptual separation that needs to be shed. I agree that the donkey is engaging its 80% upon the well's 20% (upon realizing our interconnectedness). But the well too, is the 80% engaging the 20% of the donkey. I think that when we see this, we realize we are not just a Being looking outward upon the universe (80%), but we are also the universe (20%). In this sense, the well is only 80% in so far as it is regarded as separate from the donkey. We could also say that the well is analogous to a human who sees themselves as an autonomous entity that can reflect upon and retain what the universe has to offer (80%), while the donkey represents an entity with reactionary responses to its environment (20%). I think to suggest one over the other is to fall into a conceptual trap (as I may be doing right now!)
That is, in this anecdotal context, the well and the donkey complete each other 100%, so to speak, because they just are, in relation to each other, as well as manifestations of the same truth. At that moment in time, under the moonlight, well, donkey, water, moon, and everything else constitute the dharmakayan circuit.
The way I see it, the well and the donkey are not at all different: both are manifestations of actions in the world (i.e., procreation or brick-building), both consist of the elements (i.e., chemical) that are already present in the universe; both have taken on a particular form; and both are impermanent as forms.
I also think we tend to see "seeing" as something solely reserved for eyesight and cognitive comprehension. I think this is a continuation of our human-centered tendencies. Perhaps it is better (in my view) to see "seeing" as a relation between objects (human or nonhuman). In the same way that the donkey "sees" the well, so does the well see the donkey, as does a boulder "see" a well, when an earthquake dislodges it from a mountain and it comes crashing into the weathered brick structure. Birth and death are a matter of impermanent relations (events of seeing), whether they are done with an intention (80%) or not (100%).
Thanks again, Kokuu. I appreciate the discussion!
Gassho
John
SatToday