Bob Schwartz

Tag: tathata

Everyone and everything matters


so much depends
upon

a red wheel
barrow

glazed with rain
water

beside the white chickens

William Carlos Williams, The Red Wheelbarrow


To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour

William Blake, Auguries of Innocence


It is a cliché. Someone intoxicated by marijuana or other psychedelics is fixated on the tiniest item, maybe followed by “oh, wow!” or laughter. Cliched because it can be true. Maybe you’ve had personal experience.

Getting high is far from the only path there. Buddhism describes and recommends perceiving tathata, thusness, suchness, things as they are, or in the words of Suzuki Rosh, things as it is.

The follow-up beat is that no matter how much you perceive the thusness of any particular thing, you can know that everyone and everything is thus. Everyone and everything is deeply itself and also the same, interdependent and equally important. Everyone and everything matters.

Williams’ red wheelbarrow and Blake’s grain of sand are things. And everything.

Thusness

Soul Nebula

Thusness, suchness, tathata in Sanskrit, the ultimate and unconditioned nature of things.
Things as they are. Things as it is.

It is thought of as a Buddhist concept, or an Eastern concept. But it is basic to every faith and wisdom tradition, once you peel away many layers of sometimes self-righteous or overly fussy codification and interpretation. The Christian gospels, unconditioned by unnecessary accretions, are just one example. It would appear that Jesus could speak for himself, plainly articulating thusness as well as any other realized teacher.

Talking about thusness is challenging for some of the wisest people ever. Which puts me at a humble and stupid disadvantage. But fools, like me, rush in.

Is thusness seemingly separate from you?

Yes.

Are you within it?

Yes.

Is it within you?

Yes.

What does it contain?

Among other things, it contains all the attributes we usually consider good and admirable: love, compassion, justice, healing, and on and on.

Does thusness define those attributes?

No. People define those attributes, sometimes in long and complex detail. These definitions seem to help people act on these attributes. This act is loving, this act is not. This act is just, this act is not. It is a practical matter.

Is there a problem with defining the attributes?

No, except that people, often people of good will, confuse the definitions with the attributes themselves. That is, by doing this defined thing, they believe they are acting lovingly or justly. They may be wrong.

Is this a problem?

No, unless people forget to look back to the source of those attributes in thusness. If they identify their particular definition with the essence of the attribute, saying that compassion or justice means exactly what I say it means, they are grounded in themselves.

Is there a solution?

Every faith and wisdom tradition offers the same solution, though the terms may be different. The solution is eliminating the seeming separation from thusness, which leads to realizing that thusness is in you and you are in it. That way, when you hear or consider the attributes of love, justice, and so on, you don’t stop at someone else’s definition or at your own. You look deeper, to an ultimate source, that at once makes the attribute less certain and more complicated, and yet more real and simpler.