Not my own pondering, and not done ponder it, but I think it is a lovely text. Its Dudjom Lingpas visions, and written down in the book âBuddhahood Without Meditationâ. Thought I share it.
Teachings of VajrapÄáši
On one occasion when I encountered the glorious VajrapÄáši in a pure vision of clear light, I asked him, âO Jina, great Vajradhara, is so-called buddhahood something I awaken to within myself, or do I need to go elsewhere to become enlightened?â
He replied, âBehold! [319] Fortunate son of the family, if you think that so-called buddhas are people who live in a vast realm, noble individuals of fine and flawless countenance, peaceful and cooling, clear and free of blemishes, handsome and attractive, consider: Who are their parents? If they were born from mothers, they would fall to the extreme of birth. If they dwell somewhere, they would fall to the extreme of having a permanent location. If they were to cease to exist, they would fall to the nihilistic extreme of disappearing. In short, nothing that has a self-sustaining, truly existent nature of arising, ceasing, and remaining has a mode of existence free of the two extremes. These appearances that seem to arise and cease are nothing more than imputations.
âMoreover, if you reify that which is authentically enlightened, you will bind yourself. If there is a real difference between the ultimate natures of saášsÄra and nirvÄáša, then references to the equal mode of existence of mundane existence and the peace [of nirvÄáša] are nothing more than empty words. Many people, clinging to nirvÄáša as substantially existent, fall into the trap of hope and fear.
There are many accounts of the enjoyments in the pure realms, but if you think of their vast qualities and reify them, that still constitutes grasping at the identities of phenomena. [320] However you name
them, in reality, viewing the tathÄgatas as being eternal and truly existent is nothing more than viewing them as identities of persons. âIf you think a buddha has eyes, he would also have visual consciousness. As soon as visual consciousness is established, the emergence of visual appearances is inevitable. They are known as the objects apprehended by the eyes. Once such objects are established, subtle conceptual states of mind that closely hold to forms inevitably arise. These are the mental states of visual apprehension. The dualistic conceptualization of the apprehender and the
apprehended is called mind, and anyone who has a mind is known as a sentient being.
âLikewise, if you think a buddha has ears, he must have auditory consciousness as well as sounds. If you think he has a nose, he must have olfactory consciousness as well as smells. If you think he has a tongue, he must have gustatory consciousness as well as tastes. If you think he has a body, he must
have tactile consciousness as well as tactile sensations. And all these would be their apprehended objects. The assemblies of concepts closely holding these objects are the mental states that apprehend them. As before, whoever has a mind is called a sentient being.
âRegarding so-called buddhas, if it were possible for there to be buddhas who did not transcend dualistic grasping, [321] their qualities could also be transferred to sentient beings, just like the qualities of one human being can be transferred to another. If you think buddhas teach Dharma to others, then the teachers would appear as selves, the Dharma would appear as the teaching, and those who are taught would appear as sentient beings; and if buddhas were apprehended as such, they would not have even a sesame seedâs worth of qualities superior to those of sentient beings. So they would all be sentient beings.
âIf you think a buddha has a pleasant environment, a beautiful form, fine companions, great enjoyments and pleasures, and no anger or attachment, and that these are the exceptional qualities of a buddha, then a buddha would be no better than a god of the form realm. So such a buddha would not be anything more than a sentient being either.
âIn terms of the definitive meaning, your own ground, Samantabhadra, is called the sugatas of the three times. Ultimately, a buddha has never come into the world or taught Dharma. Many of the tantras, oral transmissions, and pith instructions clearly explain how the self-appearing teacher manifests to disciples themselves. Observe and realize this point.
âFurthermore, it is incorrect to think that there are other kinds of realms of saášsÄra that are established as existent, and that many sentient beings migrate from one of those places to another and successively experience joys and sorrows. If the appearance of your previous body [322] being discarded were true, whence would you obtain your body in the intermediate period? If sentient beings these days can die merely from wounds, from burns on their arms and legs, or from cold wind on a single winterâs day, then when a body is formed that experiences the heat and cold of hell realms, why doesnât it die even though it has been boiled and burned for a long time?
âLikewise, if death can occur nowadays due to starvation for only a few months or even days, why donât sentient beings in the preta realms perish due to being starved for eons? âTherefore, all sentient beings in the six states of existence, as well as those in the intermediate period, manifest merely like appearances in a dream; but apart from that, they are empty and are not established as real. They are
deluded due to obsessively grasping at the true existence of things that have no objective existence.
âIf you determine the nature of delusive appearances in that way and realize them as not truly existent, as empty, and as having no objective existence, you have dredged saášsÄra from its depths. If you decisively understand that buddhas do not exist apart from your own ground and you acquire confidence within yourself, you will actually attain what is called the natural liberation of a multitude of buddhas.
âO Lord of Space, Omnipresent Vajra, determine that all the phenomena of saášsÄra and nirvÄáša are nonexistent and empty, and realize their nature of nonexistence.â
Saying this, he disappeared. [323]