Could you translate 'suchness' as "being perceptible to the senses"? I'm asking because I *think* things can be perceptible without consciousness, and that visibility is in some sense indivisible, so is perceived the same even when the visible thing is broken up. Because that's how I'm thinking about the rebirth doctrine, for now.

Is suchness, tathata, as a concept always something in addition to phenomena? If not, when we talk about the suchness of phenomena we could mean what they are like, the qualitative experience of a taste e.g.. But if, conceptually, they are different, then no experience of taste amounts to its "true state" -- the meaning of suchness. I'm asking because I've seen it said that tathata *means* qualia. And, while I never agreed, I wasn't sure what's wrong with that. I suspect, today, that it's wrong because they are in fact opposites -- opposites that need to be harmonized

In this thread I asked about active and passive suffering. But I'm not quite sure what I mean. It may help to know what suchenss is? I know it translates to "as it is"... so is that impermanence? Or something more subtle ? Thanks!