I find the distinction between the Sambhogikakaya and the Nairmanikakaya, very interesting and would like to discuss it further here and now. Amongst the most intriguing aspect of the distinction is that there aren’t any qualms (doctrinally) towards affirming that no real distinction exists, for both are seen to represent “manifestations of Buddhahood to share its knowledge and liberation with beings.” So, more rightly, the distinction is real only in as much as the perception of the rupakaya is differentiated based on the capacity to understand of the perceiver. Those who find joy in wisdom and the journey there to find joy in the exposition of wisdom and the journey there to; and those who, due to the obscurations of greed and fear, struggle to maintain a sense of familiar continuity struggle with exposition of wisdom and the journey there to, for onto it projections of confrontation are placed in defense of firmly held beliefs.

                The Nairmanikakaya, being often translated as ‘body of manifestation’ or ‘body of transformation’ doesn’t by its etymology suggest a mode of perception, for: “it can appear as whatever is most salvifically  beneficial in a particular case.” This leaves perception to the karmic derived capacity of the observer. It may appear rather paradoxical for one dedicated to relieving suffering to act such that suffering ensues, but for one adjusted to darkness even a spark can strike so eyes never used. The Nairmanikakaya tho, in this context, too leaves open the possibility of non-emotional acceptance that may not fulfill the formal conception of the Sambhogikakaya.

                The Sambhogikakaya, being often translated as ‘body of communal enjoyment’ does implicitly imply a mode of perception. It also suggests a connection to the first stage of Bodhisattvahood, known in the west as ‘the stage of joy,’ where one not only accepts but embraces self-realization, wisdom, and the journey there to. Makransky brings up that “Here we see Sambhogikakaya defined as that which ‘brings enjoyment of dharma to the circles of assembly,’ not that which only enjoys dharma for itself” which implies that Buddha ‘enjoys’ dharma. This is supported by the fact that, as a foundation to the Bodhisattva’s ascent, joy in the dharma would likely be deeply rooted in Buddha’s Nature.

                This second safari through the Animal Soul has me thinking ‘Finally I Buy X-ray Glasses,’ which will hopefully add to the understanding of the “moment’s text,” for: time passes subtly through this poem and the length (for Hicok) is a dance with brevity. The start seems reasonable enough given the title; with a thirteen year old peering into the potential of a “supercharged glance.” And hints at (maybe) a Catholic^? (or some other guilt based faith organization’s) upbringing, for the speaker’s sight ends with the “scowling mask of God” who apparently finds it necessary to vengefully chastise the youth for fancy. The delivery is right on, with “this” pause at the end of the first line, as if even then “seeing through” into at least language, the realm of imagination, where (nearly) anything is possible and one need not actually wear glasses from “the Johnson Smith Company” to “pierce to atoms” or to “pierce to [the thought] of atoms.” Truly, if one were to be wearing the “x-ray specs” would one need to question “when it would stop”?

                But whom, or more rightly, who’s when “was a literalist?” The early romp has the speaker “invad[ing] walls and blouses and” such, suggesting a more outward focus. But the thirteen year old speaker may have been the one (already) seeking “secrets[‘] sol[utions]… inside” with the world outside as a mirror, imagining what it would be like to see through the mirror, into the medicine cabinet (&beyond^?). It’s hard to say, for the next sentence frames what feels like a significant time period passage (if not geologically, in the course of the human experience, and most definitely in the course of the Drosophila experience) and the ‘Finally’ of the title suggests so, and the transition between tenses nearly paints it in safety orange with “that was before” but there’s no real indication as to how far distant the poem’s now is from “13.” It may not matter tho, maybe x-ray glasses are like Stephen King’s Wizard Glass from The Dark Tower series that fuzzifies some pieces of the puzzle while (sometimes unpleasantly) magnifying others.

                The conclusion begs the question: if the literalist “was before” is the speaker then (now^?) treading the sometimes dusty (sometimes muddy) road of figurative language; with the box and the specs and the mystery’s description of “Zeus-power… check[s]” and balances? Whether they nucleated the “laugh [that] became kisses” or not, it seems that Bob did ‘Finally… buy [some] X-ray Glasses’, ‘cause they’re on the cover of the book. 

Acrostic Animal Anthology