A Cloud in the Sky

   Garma C.C. Chang makes a distinction between "Mind as Suchness" (Li) and "Mind as Changing" (shih), where he suggests that the former is related to the mind as emptiness, while the latter relates to forms. He remarks, "both the view of existence and the view of non-existence become completely merged in a perfectly harmonious manner; thus, although [from a certain standpoint] either one may be hidden or revealed, there is no obstruction whatsoever between the two." (p.137) As I was reading this paragraph, I started to think about the analogy of the cloud in the sky. When one is in a cloud, really immersed in it, it seems as though the sky is in the background. It's sometimes as though one is literally living inside a certain mood which surrounds a person. Sky seems hidden, even though the cloud is always abiding in the sky. On the other hand, if one is able to glimpse the totality of all the clouds in the sky, there is a sense that none of the clouds 'blocks' the sky at all. It is rather the case that one has simply forgotten the context of the cloud: where it exists, how it comes to be, and how it changes over time. Has anyone ever seen a cloud in one spot for a long period of time? In fact, the cloud does not block the view of the sky, because the changing nature of the sky is always penetrating the cloud. There is simply no permanent cloud whatsoever, and nor will there ever be as such. It's only when I get really attached and worked up about that cloud that I will confuse it as some permanent essence or reality.
     I can extend a similar analogy to all sorts of weather conditions such as the sun. A cloudless day can be so enjoyable that we even tend to look at the cloudless sky and say: "This is the real sky!" But in fact, the real sky is always there all the time, even when something seems to be obstructing it. Because I am attached to the look of clarity that the sun creates, I tend to think that lack of clarity is an obstruction. But do clouds really block the sky? How can they when the cloud is actually revealed through the background of sky itself? So being in a cloudy state does not actually move away from the view of the sky, since sky pervades its nature.
    Chang remarks, in the same paragraph as above, "When the idea of duality dies out, there is no obstruction between the Void and the existing. Why? Because the true and the illusory mutually reflect, penetrate and embrace each other." (ibid) How does this apply to the example of the cloud? If you ever sit quietly with a particular cloud and gaze up at it with undistracted eyes, you will likely notice that the cloud is shifting in physical space. A plane may pass it by, and one's image of the cloud can have all kinds of associations attached to it. I see an elephant, or I am reminded of some other shape. Does this 'original image' of the cloud remain the same? The view is continually changing. I can see this if  my mind is intent on pure seeing, not sullied by other distractions. But even if I am distracted, is this not also confirming that the cloud is not permanent? If the cloud were a permanent fixed image, there wouldn't even be an opportunity to be distracted. I would be like an immovable blot on a screen which prevents other images from intruding. Yet, there isn't any image that stays this way in mind. So in this way, the cloud's image is permeated with the view of Void (emptiness, and totality).
    But there is another aspect to this, and that is the cloud is not something we need to bypass to see empty sky. There is no separation of these two things. Chang remarks, "Since the Void and existing are completely merged, they become on-dual; therefore no obstruction whatsoever exists between them. Since they both annul each other, they are both free from the two extremes." (ibid) Suppose I am in a negative mood, such as a depression or feeling of emptiness. Does this mean that dwelling on that feeling will eventually take me to a view of emptiness? I don't think so, because dwelling is already a form of attachment: taking the mood to be 'me' and feeling 'trapped' in that mood. There needs to be a practice here: asking "who is having this feeling?" is a good way to point to the view of the sky. When I ask this question in a sincere way, a space opens for me to question whether there is really a feeling that has an inherent awareness. Does sadness have awareness? Does depression have awareness? Or are they just phenomena that arises in awareness? Even if the feeling were to last a lifetime, do we become the feeling? Or are we only travellers in the realm of that feeling?
    If I am in the Hell realm, am I taking Hell with me? Do I ingest it until it 'becomes me'? If this were the case, there would be no awareness, since there would only be a sensation (such as a pain). How could there be a cloud without a sky, you could then ask? Reflecting on this analogy might sometimes help to question the assumption of self that is in that emotion. There is this assumption that the emotion is so powerful that it has to be 'me'. But the nature of cloud is also the nature of sky. It's something that is always shifting and changing, and it has a background.

Chang, Garma C.C. (1977), The Buddhist Teaching of Totality: The Philosophy of Hwa Yen Buddhism  Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University.