Subscriber Access Required
This teaching is reserved for active UnbornMind.com subscribers.
To continue reading, please subscribe using the link below:
Already a subscriber?
Log in here.
If you have completed your PayPal subscription but were not automatically redirected,
please create your account here:
Do you interpret the independent state referred to as synonymous with unconditioned/uncompounded in this translation?
In the independent state of Thusness there is no conditioned/unconditioned;compounded/uncompounded, thus independent from all attributes.
Then it cannot be independent either. Even lacking attributes is an attribute when given such a classification. So, that isn’t quite what I was asking. My question is about the term independent. Thusness is non dual (“not two”); how then can it be independent in the sense of divided/ separate? So therefore I asked if this meant uncompounded. I don’t understand suchness as a “state” either, broadly speaking. So I am asking about the translation and what may have been meant in the original scripture, since the term in this instance seems incomplete.
“Even lacking attributes is an attribute when given such a classification.”
You incessantly (from past instances, as well) apply a qualifier for THAT which cannot be qualified. Independent–free, devoid, empty of all qualifiers.
Good grief, Vajragoni. I am doing nothing of the kind. I was actually questioning the very application of a qualifier, i.e. “independent”, and sought a clarification of what was meant since the text could be interpreted a number of ways. I’m not interested in meaningless semantical arguments, just curious as to how the translation stands up to the original.