Our Taiwanese friend 顏宏安 (Yán Hóng’ān) friend wrote:

I wanted to share something interesting with both of you. I've found that recently, I'll occasionally have a sudden realization in my dreams that emptiness and dependent arising are not contradictory. At other times, I'll perceive within a dream that the dreamscape itself lacks inherent existence. After having these kinds of dreams, I tend to wake up quite quickly.

Upon waking, I'll sit up in bed and start to reflect on what it was that I just understood in the dream. The interesting part is that it's not as if I'm meeting some great master who teaches me things. Rather, my dreams are helping me deepen my understanding of emptiness in a unique way, it's almost as if I'm practicing in my dreams.

Thank you both, again, for always helping me on my spiritual path. Don't worry that I'll become attached to these dream experiences and neglect my practice. I am deeply aware that I am still a beginner, and so I will practice even more diligently.

I was previously contemplating what kinds of questions about emptiness a practitioner could ponder to further dismantle the grasping at inherent existence. This led me to write an article titled, "Ten Questions on Emptiness." Several of the questions in it were ones John Tan had already mentioned.

PDF: https://app.box.com/s/fee9sw223qpwlr72yhpnafbu4fahx9k0

John Tan said:

"So fast got dreams of clarity. Not bad. 👍

Ask him what is the difference between lack of boundaries and oneness?"

He replied: 

I believe the crucial point is this: the reason things can each perform their different functions is not because they are all independently existent, but precisely because they are not independently existent. Conditions and results are inseparable, yet a condition remains a condition, and a result remains a result. It is precisely because conditions and results are both different and inseparable that they are able to manifest.

When I sit on a train looking at the scenery outside the window, I notice that the scenery is constantly changing. At this moment, my mind habitually assumes that behind this seamless experience, there exist space or substratum. The mind thinks: "If all these phenomena exist independently, how could such a seamless experience be possible?I know, behind these phenomena, there must be some kind of underlying substratum (Brahman), and these phenomena are fundamentally illusory; they are all just different expressions of  Brahman."

This seems to dismantle the view that "things exist independently," but in reality, we have only shifted the object of clinging from the things to *Brahman*. What we now cling to is an entity called "Brahman." In this view, the distinctions between phenomena are illusory; the only thing that is real is Brahman.

What the mind fails to understand is this: things do not need to be independently existent to retain their differences and uniqueness. On the contrary, it is precisely because the computer, the mobile phone, the fan, and the chair are not inherently existent that they can perform their respective functions and possess their distinct qualities. The reason there is a seamless experience is because there are no essences whatsoever.

The lack of boundaries does not mean there are no differences between things. Water, fire, a blanket, a computer—these things are indeed different, and their functions are certainly distinct. The lack of boundaries simply means that no phenomenon can be separated from other phenomena. If a phenomenon could be separated from others, it could not have characteristics or properties; the phenomenon would lose its uniqueness, and it could not even appear.

I suspect John Tan may have noticed my frequent use of "Interdependence" / "Interdependent" in that article. It's true that these words could potentially deepen a practitioner's clinging to substance; this is indeed a problem. I now have a better understanding of why John Tan chose the word 'relationality'.

I also worry that some might reify Indra's Net as being inherently existent. In that case, Indra's Net would become another *Brahman*. Even if some people can understand that all dharmas are in fact interdependent, they might still treat all dharmas as entities existing upon Indra's Net. Therefore, we must emphasize that no condition or result exists independently—not in the past, present, or future, and not at any point in space. This is because, from the very beginning, these phenomena were never separate. This non-separation is not because they all share a common ground or essence, but because they are utterly without essence. Indra's Net, too, is empty, lacking inherent existence.

The final conclusion is this: Phenomena, while being unique and functional, are also inseparable. If the differences between phenomena were entirely illusory, we could not establish a valid conventional truth. If there were no distinctions between phenomena, or if phenomena were merely Brahman, then phenomena could not manifest. When we understand that phenomena are entirely without self-nature (svabhāva), we realize that what we call "things" are nothing other than relationality itself. To prevent 'relationality' from being reified as something inherently existent, it must be emphasized that relationality itself is also devoid of self-nature (niḥsvabhāva). 

English Original: Self-Enquiry: “Are you Space or What is Aware of Space?” — Bassui, Two Koans, and Practice Notes

**背景：**一位朋友（“Mr M”）询问如何进行自我探究（self-enquiry）。下面是他的问题（略作文字整理）、我的回复（整理过）、拔队得胜（Bassui Tokushō）禅师致中村公——安艺国太守的书信全文（未作任何改动）、约翰·陈（John Tan）的两则有力公案，以及延伸阅读链接。

Mr M 写道：
我一直以两种方式进行探究：（1）主动式——在做事时（例如洗碗）保持当下，默默问“我是谁？”，然后安住于其中；（2）静坐式——端坐来探问“我是谁？”，并安住于其中。通常我发现自己安住在头脑里似乎在一切背后的某种“空间”里，同时对身体保持觉知，并尝试对“觉知本身”保持觉知，而这整体上只是感觉像“虚无”。
在回复你之前，我今天还没来得及读你发来的内容。我之所以发问，是因为像 Rupert 这样的老师会说要尽可能多地停住在“存在”（Being）中，直到它变成持续不间断；而 ATR 建议每天至少打坐一小时，并说那些不坐的人通常都是空谈家（意译）。不过，除了那篇文章，我找不到你更具体的建议。

Soh 回复：
“我是谁”不是一种言语活动，而是要在一切思想与言语之前，发现“你是什么”。
阅读：《自我探究、非此非彼与排除法》
另见：《自我探究提示（探究“我是谁”）》
你不是“空间”。空间同样是被感知之所缘。“非此非彼（neti neti）”。是什么在觉知它？如果你“安住于空间”，就继续追问——你究竟是什么？（“非此非彼”在汉译奥义书与不二论语境中常译作此语，用以逐一否定一切对象化之执取，以免误认所缘为自我。Wikipedia）
**修行建议：**让探究成为你的专修。尽量在整日中都做，同时也要安排高质量的正坐时间（身体端正，如跏趺/莲坐）来专注探究。

请阅读：
拔队得胜禅师致中村公——安艺国太守（全文，未改动）
你问我如何依经中这句“心无定所，应当流出”来修禅。证悟没有什么特别的“方法”。只要你直接照见自性，不为外缘所转，心花必然开放。所以经上才说：“心无定所，应当流出。”诸佛祖师直说的成千上万句话，都归结为这一句。心是真如之性，超越一切形相；真如即道，道即佛，佛即心。心不在内、不在外、不在中间；既非有，亦非无，亦非亦有亦无，亦非非有非无；既非佛、亦非心、亦非物质（色）。所以称之为无住之心。正是此心，以眼见色、以耳闻声。请直接寻觅这位主人！（“无住之心”与《金刚经》的“应无所住而生其心”同旨。Quanxue）

昔日一位禅师【临济】言：“此身四大（地水火风）所成，不能闻解此法。脾、胃、肝、胆，不能闻解此法。虚空亦不能解。则是谁能闻解？”务须直下体认。若你的心粘著于任何形式或感受，或为逻辑推理与概念思维所牵，则与真实悟入相去如天与地。

如何一刀两断生死之苦？一思如何前进，便堕思辨；若却步，又与至道相违。既不能进，亦不能退，便是“行尸走肉”。即使处于此困境，只要你令一切念虑顿歇，硬坐参究，终必自悟，了然“心无定所，应当流出”之意。届时，你将顿解一切禅问答之旨趣，亦得会无量经论之微妙玄义。

居士何问马祖：“什么能超越宇宙万有？”马祖答：“你一口饮尽西江之水，我便告诉你。”何居士当下大悟。看这里，这是什么意思？它是阐明“心无定所，应当流出”吗？还是直指正在读此语的这个人？若尚未会，就回头追问：“此刻是谁在闻？”就当下这一念自己明白！生死事大、无常迅速。光阴难再，务须珍惜。

自心本来是佛。悟此者名为佛；未悟者，称为凡夫。行住坐卧，且问“我自之心为何？”直观念起之源头。此刻是谁在知、在思、在动、在作、在出、在还？要得知，须切切专注于此一问。纵使今生未悟，亦必因今日之功而于来世开明。

坐禅时，不作善恶之想。莫试图止念，只一味问：“我自之心为何？”即使你的追问日益深切，仍不得答案；终至穷路处，思虑全歇。此时观内了不可得一物可名为“我”或“心”。但是谁了知这一切？更深地探入，乃至连“知无之心”亦复消融；不复觉有“问”，唯有空寂。连空之知也不现时，了知心外无法、法外无心。此时你方知：不以耳闻，真能闻；不以眼见，真能见。过去、现在、未来诸佛，皆在当前。然勿执著此等境会，只须亲自体验而已！

看这里，你自之心为何？人人之本性不下于佛。然众生多疑，不向自心中求佛与真理，而向外驰求，故不得悟，被善恶业力所牵，流转生死。**一切业系之源，是迷妄——即从无明而起之思想、感受与分别。**去除此等，便得解脱。譬如扇去覆炭之灰，火焰自现；一旦你了悟自性，此等迷妄自会消散。

坐禅之际，对来去诸念不憎不爱。回光返照，直观其源，则所依之迷情与分别自会融化。然而，此尚非自证。即令心境澄明如空，内外不立，十方朗然；若执此为证，乃将幻景当作真实。此际更要痛切搜寻“能闻之心”。色身四大，本来如幻无实；然离此身别无其心。十方虚空不能见闻，而你心中却确有能闻而能分别声者——

此体何物？

当此一问彻底点燃你时，善恶、有无、空有之分别，恰如暗夜熄灯，悉皆顿灭。虽不再有自觉之“我”，仍能闻、仍知其在。你若极力欲穷究“能闻之主体”，终归无门而入绝境。**忽然间大悟现前，恍如死里回生，拍手大笑。**至此方知：心即是佛。

若人再问：“佛心为何相？”我当答曰：“树里鱼嬉，深海鸟飞。”此语何解？汝若未会，且回光自照问：“此刻谁是能见能闻之主？”

光阴难再，务须珍惜！

——载自《禅的三支柱》（The Three Pillars of Zen）

另见：《当下你的本心是什么？》

“约翰·陈（John Tan）寄给一位朋友的两则有力公案——适合参究：
在没有任何念头时，直说：当下你的本心是什么？
在不使用任何文字与语言的情况下，你此刻如何体验‘我’？

（在禅宗里，还有这样的说法：“不思善、不思恶，正当其时，哪个是你本来面目？”——六祖慧能；“父母未生前本来面目为何？”等公案。Zhihuwenyanguji.com
一则类似的公案曾引发我在 2010 年 2 月的初悟。）

有人答：“无心。”
那位朋友也曾对 John Tan 说了相近的话，结果被“当头棒喝”。

John Tan：在没有任何念头时，直说：当下你的本心是什么？
朋友：空。空洞。

John Tan：给你当头一记……哈哈。

John Tan：不使用任何文字与语言的情况下，你此刻如何体验“我”？
朋友：……关于个性、习气、观点之类……
John Tan：既无念，哪里来习气、观点与个性？你到哪里，都如何会错过它？日日夜夜、无时无处，不就有“你”在吗！你怎能把“你”与“你自己”隔开？

John Tan 另言：
“摩诃止观、直指（大手印、直指/大圆满、禅）——任何宗派，怎么可能把你从你自己那里剥离？那么，你是谁？”

自我探究之所以被称为“直捷之道”，正因：
“不要联想，不要推断，不要思虑。印证‘你’自己，根本不需要这些。无论来自老师、书本、摩诃止观、大圆满、禅，乃至佛陀，凡从外得者皆是知识；从你自性深处涌现者，才是你自己的智慧。
无须去找任何答案。归根结底，那是你的本体与本性。要从推理、归纳与攀缘的心，一跃而入最直接与最当下的印证，则须令心完全止息，回到任何造作生起之前的所在。若这只‘当下之眼’不开，一切都只是知识；而开启这只直观之眼，正是那条无路之路的开端。好了，闲话休提，言语已多。莫摇摆，径直行。一路吉祥！”

“R 先生，我对你已经非常直截了当——不过是一个极其简单的问题：此刻你的心是什么？别无他事。世上再没有比这更直截的路了。
我已告诉你要放下所有念头、所有教法，甚至大圆满、大手印、禅——只问：此刻你的心是什么？这不是已经一语中的、毫不浪费吗？我也说过，凡从外得者皆是知识，把那些都放下；智慧只从你自己内里直出。可你还是把我让你放下的文本、对话、禅宗、大手印、大圆满、中观统统搬来。
你问我还有什么建议？还是一样：不要逐境逐知。你读得、知得已经够多了，回归简单吧。你的任务不是‘知道更多’，而是把这一切剔除，回到直接之味的简单。否则，你还得再耗费几年、几十年，最后还是回到最简单、最根本、最直接的地方。
由这份简单与直截处，你再处处印证，在一切当下与诸般境缘中，让你的本性自显其广与深。
所以，除非你把一切都放下、回到清净、纯粹、根本的简单，修行就没有真正进展。直到你体会到‘简单’的珍宝，并从这里重新出发，每往前一步，都是退步。”
——John Tan，2020

Soh 回复（修行要点）：
非此非彼（neti neti）。若所安住的是“虚无”，那仍然只是经验/观念。在发现真我之前，必须将一切意识对象一概否定为“这不是我、这不是真我”——非此非彼；否则就会不断把更微细的现象误认成自我，从而以所缘遮蔽了纯粹的存在与觉性（Being-Consciousness）。唯有拒绝这些认同，真我方得显现。（“非此非彼”为奥义书与不二论之通行译法。Wikipedia）
证悟并非“虚无”。当真我被证得时，是一种对存在之确定无疑。
让探究成为你的专修。整日实践，同时安排正坐。端直坐姿（如莲坐）有助于防困倦。
无论现起何境（光相、能量、怖畏、真空感）——皆属意识对象。但请持续发问：“是什么在觉知？”是什么光明照见一切？**我是谁/我是什么？**不停探究。
**短视频：**YouTube 短片

延伸阅读
—— 拔队得胜禅师的书信收于 Philip Kapleau《禅的三支柱》（The Three Pillars of Zen）“书信”部分，含〈致安艺国太守中村公〉等。
—— “心无定所”与《金刚经》“应无所住而生其心”同旨，皆指非住之心。Quanxue
—— 拔队得胜（Bassui Tokushō），日本临济宗禅师。Wikipedia

Context: A friend (“Mr M”) asked about how to practice self-enquiry. Below are his questions (lightly edited), my replies (tidied), the full text of Bassui’s letter (unaltered), two potent koans from John Tan, and links for further reading.

Mr M wrote:

I’ve been doing inquiry in two ways: (1) active — staying present during activities (e.g., doing the dishes), silently asking “Who am I?” and then resting in that; and (2) seated — sitting to inquire “Who am I?” and resting in that. I usually find I’m resting in a kind of space in my head behind everything, being aware of the body and also trying to be aware of being aware, which simply feels like nothingness.
I haven’t had time to read what you sent today before replying here. I asked because teachers like Rupert say to remain in Being as much as possible until it’s continuous, and ATR recommends at least an hour of sitting per day, saying people who don’t sit are usually full of it (paraphrasing). However, I couldn’t find your specific recommendation beyond that article.

Soh replied:

• “Who am I” is not a verbal activity. It’s to discover what you are before all thoughts and words.
• Read: Self Enquiry, Neti Neti and the Process of Elimination
• Also: Tips on Self-Enquiry (Investigate “Who Am I”)
• You are not space. Space too, is an object of perception. Neti neti (not this, not that). What is aware of it? If you’re “resting in space,” inquire further — what are you, precisely?
• Practice recommendation: Make inquiry your dedicated practice. Do it as much as possible throughout the day, and also set aside quality sitting time (upright posture, e.g., lotus) for focused inquiry.

Please read: 

BASSUI’S LETTER TO LORD NAKAMURA — GOVERNOR OF AKI PROVINCE (full text, unchanged)

You ask me how to practice Zen with reference to this phrase from a sutra: "Mind, having no fixed abode, should flow forth." There is no express method for attaining enlightenment. If you but look into your Self-nature directly, not allowing yourself to be deflected, the Mind flower will come into bloom. Hence the sutra says: "Mind, having no fixed abode, should flow forth." Thousands of words spoken directly by Buddhas and Patriarchs add up to this one phrase. Mind is the True-nature of things, transcending all forms. The True-nature is the Way. The Way is Buddha. Buddha is Mind. Mind is not within or without or in between. It is not being or nothingness or non-being or non-nothingness or Buddha or mind or matter. So it is called the abodeless Mind. This Mind sees colors with the eyes, hears sounds with the ears. Look for this master directly!

A Zen master [Rinzai] of old says: "One's body, composed of the four primal elements can't hear or understand this preaching. The spleen or stomach or liver or gall bladder can't hear or understand this preaching. Empty-space can't understand it. Then what does hear and understand?" Strive to perceive directly. If your mind remains attached to any form or feeling whatsoever, or is affected by logical reasoning or conceptual thinking, you are as far from true realization as heaven is from earth.

How can you cut off at a stroke the sufferings of birth-and-death? As soon as you consider how to advance, you get lost in reasoning; but if you quit you are adverse to the highest path. To be able neither to advance nor to quit is to be a "breathing corpse." If in spite of this dilemma you empty your mind of all thoughts and push on with your zazen, you are bound to enlighten yourself and apprehend the phrase "Mind, having no fixed abode, should flow forth." Instantly you will grasp the sense of all Zen dialogue a well the profound and subtle meaning of the countless sutras.

The layman Ho asked Baso: "What is it that transcends everything in the universe?" Baso answered: ' I will tell you after you have drunk up the waters of the West River in one gulp.' Ho instantly became deeply enlightened. See here, what does this mean? Does it explain the phrase "Mind, having no fixed abode, should flow forth," or does it point to the very one reading this? If you still don't comprehend, go back to questioning, "What is hearing now?" Find out this very moment! The problem of birth-and-death is momentous, and the world moves fast. Make the most of time, for it waits for no one.

Your own Mind is intrinsically Buddha. Buddhas are those who have realized this. Those who haven't are the so-called ordinary sentiant beings. Sleeping and working, standing and sitting, ask yourself "What is my own Mind?" looking into the source from which your thoughts arise. What is this subject that right now perceives, thinks, moves, works, goes forth, or returns? To know it you must intensely absorb yourself in the question. But even though you do not realize it in this life, beyond a doubt you will in the next because of your present efforts.

In your zazen think in terms of neither good nor evil. Don't try to stop thoughts from arising, only ask yourself; 'What is my own Mind?" Now, even when your questioning goes deeper and deeper you will get no answer until finally you will reach a cul-de-sac, your thinking totally checked. You won't find anything within that can be called "I" or "Mind." But who is it that understands all this? Continue to probe more deeply yet and the mind that perceives there is nothing will vanish; you will no longer be aware of questioning but only of emptiness. When awareness of even emptiness disappears, you will realise there is no Buddha outside Mind and no Mind outside Buddha. Now for the first time you will discover that when you do not hear with your ears you are truly hearing, and when you do not see with your eyes you are really seeing Buddhas of the past, present, and future. But don't cling to any of this, just experience it for yourself!

See here, what is your own Mind? Everyone's Original-nature is not less than Buddha. But since men doubt this and search for Buddha and Truth outside their Mind, they fail to attain enlightenment, being helplessly driven within cycles of birth-and-death, entangled in karma both good and bad. The source of all karma bondage is delusion i.e. the thoughts, feelings, and perceptions (stemming from ignorance). Rid yourself of them and you are emancipated. Just as ash covering a charcoal fire is dispersed when the fire is fanned, so these delusions vanish once you realize your Self-nature.

During zazen neither loathe nor be charmed by any of your thoughts. With your mind turned inward, look steadily into their source and the delusive feelings and perceptions in which they are rooted will evaporate. This is not yet Self realization, however, even though your mind becomes bright and empty like the sky, you have awareness of neither inner nor outer, and all the ten quarters seem clear and luminous. To take this for realization is to mistake a mirage for reality. Now even more intensely search this mind of yours which hears. Your physical body, composed of the four basic elements, is like a phantom, without reality, yet apart from this body there is no mind. The empty-space of ten quarters can neither see nor hear; still, something within you does hear and distinguish sounds,

Who or what is it?

When this question totally ignites you, distinctions of good and evil, awareness of being or emptiness, vanish like a light extinguished on a dark night. Though you are no longer consciously aware of yourself, still you can hear and know you exist. Try as you will to discover the subject hearing, your efforts will fail and you will find yourself at an impasse. All at once your mind will burst into great enlightenment and you will feel as though you have risen from the dead, laughing loudly and clapping your hands in delight. Now for the first time you will know that Mind itself is Buddha.

Were someone to ask, "What does one's Buddha-mind look like?' I would answer: "In the tree fish play, in the deep sea bird are flying." What does this mean? If you don't understand it, look into your own Mind and ask yourself: "What is he, this master who sees and hears?"

Make the most of time: it waits for no one!

- The Three Pillars of Zen

Also: What is your very Mind right now?

"John Tan sent two potent koans to a friend -- good for contemplation.

1. Without thoughts, tell me what is your very mind right now?

2. Without using any words or language, how do you experience ‘I’ right now?

(In the Zen tradition, we also have, "When you're not thinking of anything good and anything bad, at that moment, what is your original face?" (Sixth Patriarch Hui-Neng), "What is the original face before your parents were born?"

A similar koan led to my initial sudden awakening in February 2010.)

Someone replied, “No mind"

That friend of ours told John Tan something similar and got 'smacked'.

John Tan: Without any thought, tell me what is your very mind now?

Friend: Void. Hollow.

John Tan: Smack your head... lol.

John Tan: Without using any words or language, how do you experience 'I' right now'?

Friend: ....something about personality, habits, opinions...

John Tan: If there is no thoughts, how can there be habits, opinions and personality? Everywhere you go, how can you miss it? Day in and day out, wherever and whenever there is, there 'you' are! How can 'you' distant yourself from 'yourself'?"

More by John Tan:

"Mahamudra, Dzogchen, Zen, whatever tradition, how are they able to deny you from yourself? So who are You?"

Self-Enquiry is called a direct path for a reason:

“Don’t relate, don’t infer, don’t think. Authenticating ‘You’ yourself requires nothing of that. Not from teachers, books, Mahamudra, Dzogchen, Zen or even Buddha, whatever comes from outside is knowledge. What that comes from the innermost depth of your own beingness, is the wisdom of you yourself.

There is no need to look for any answers. Ultimately, it is your own essence and nature. To leap from the inferencing, deducting and relating mind into the most direct and immediate authentication, the mind must cease completely and right back into the place before any formation of artificialities. If this ‘eye’ of immediacy isn’t open, everything is merely knowledge and opening this eye of direct perception is the beginning of the path that is pathless. Ok enough of chats and there have been too much words. Don’t sway and walk on. Happy journey!’

Mr. R, I have been very direct to you and it is just a simple question of what is your mind right now and nothing else. There is no other path more straightforward than that.

I have told you to put aside, all thoughts, all teachings, even Dzogchen, Mahamudra, Zen and just [asked] ‘what is your mind right now?’. Isn’t that telling you straight to the point, not wasting time and words? I have also told you whatever comes from external is knowledge, put all those aside. Wisdom comes from within yourself directly. But you have cut and pasted me all the texts, conversations, Zen, Mahamudra, Dzogchen, Madhyamaka that I have told you to put aside.

You asked me what is my advice. Still the same. Don’t go after experiences and knowledge, you have read and known enough, so return back to simplicity. Your duty is not to know more, but to eliminate all these and [get] back to the simplicity of the direct taste. Otherwise you will have to waste a few more years or decades to return back to what that is most simple, basic and direct.

And from this simplicity and directness, you then allow your nature to reveal the breadth and depth through constantly authenticating it in all moments and all states through engagement in different conditions.

So unless you drop everything and [get] back into a clean, pure, basic simplicity, there is no real progress in practice. Until you understand the treasure of simplicity and start back from there, every step forward is a retrogress.“

– John Tan, 2020"

Soh replied (practice pointers):

• Neti neti. If it’s “nothingness,” that’s still an experience/idea. Before finding your Self, you have to reject all objects of consciousness as not what you are, not your true Self — neti-neti. Otherwise you keep mistaking ever-subtler phenomena for your identity and veil the Self, which is pure Beingness and Consciousness. Only by refusing these identifications can the Self stand revealed.
• Realization is not “nothing.” When the Self is realized, it’s a certainty of Being.
• Make inquiry your dedicated practice. Do it throughout the day, and also set aside proper sitting. Upright posture (e.g., lotus) helps prevent sleepiness.
• Whatever appears (lights, energy, fear, vacuums) — totally fine as objects of consciousness, but keep asking: “What is conscious or aware?” What is that Source of that light of consciousness that illuminates everything? Who or What am I? Keep inquiring.

Short video: YouTube Short

Further reading

• Bassui’s letters are collected in Philip Kapleau’s The Three Pillars of Zen (see the “Letters” section, incl. “To Lord Nakamura…”).
• The phrase “mind having no fixed abode” echoes the Diamond Sūtra’s teaching on the non-abiding mind.
• Brief bio of Bassui Tokushō (Rinzai Zen master).

中文版：

白话优化版: 不可得的圆满：鼓声、虹光与海市蜃楼如何开启《心经》

不可得的圆满：鼓声、虹光与海市蜃楼如何开启《心经》

I wrote this for my mother, who asked for an explanation of the Heart Sutra. After reading the Chinese translation in my article, John Tan said, 'This translation is quite good, although it could be expanded.' Version 0.2

The Unfindable Fullness: How a Drum, a Rainbow, and a Mirage Unlock the Heart Sūtra

The Heart Sūtra presents a profound challenge to our everyday perception. Its central declaration, “form is emptiness; emptiness is form,” and its sweeping negations—“no eye, no ear… no mind… no attainment”—can easily be mistaken for a nihilistic denial of the world. Yet, this radical teaching is not about annihilation but about de-reification: a precise dismantling of our tendency to project solid, independent existence onto a fluid, interdependent world. To truly grasp this, we need not leap into abstract philosophy but can begin with tangible, elegant analogies found within the Buddhist tradition itself. The sound of a drum, the appearance of a rainbow, and the eight classic examples of illusion reveal that emptiness, or śūnyatā, is not a void but the very unfindability and lack of an independent core that allows phenomena to manifest vividly and function flawlessly.

The Drum: Emptiness as the Unfindability of Essence

The analogy of the drum, detailed in The Questions of an Old Lady sūtra (Mahallikā­paripṛcchā, Toh 171), provides the foundational logic. When a drum is struck, a sound arises. Our immediate instinct is to locate this "sound." Is it in the wood frame? The stretched hide? The stick? The hand that strikes it? The sūtra systematically deconstructs this search, concluding that “The sound does not dwell in the wood… hide… stick… [or] the person’s hand.” The sound is utterly unfindable in any of its constituent parts, nor does it exist as a separate, free-floating entity apart from them. This investigation is a search for the sound's essence or core—a self-sufficient "sound-thing" that can be pinned down. The failure to find such a core reveals its emptiness.

Because no self-contained "sound-thing" can be located, what we conventionally call its "existence" is revealed to be nothing more than a dependent designation—a label we apply to this functional confluence of conditions. This points to the crucial Middle Way, which is free from the extremes of existence and non-existence. The sound is not an inherently existing entity (eternalism), nor is it a complete nothingness (nihilism), since it clearly functions. Its functioning is purely conventional, designated upon dependencies. Remove any one condition—the hide, the effort, the air to carry the vibration—and the sound vanishes. The sūtra is explicit: “Because of these conditions, it is termed sound… That which is termed sound is also empty. It has no coming. It has no going… all phenomena are inherently stopped.” (Mahallikā­paripṛcchā, Toh 171, 84000). It doesn't travel from a sound-realm to our ear. This is the essence of what the Heart Sūtra compresses into the terms “unborn, unceasing.” The drum’s sound is empty of a findable, static core, and precisely because of this unfindability, it can arise and function unmistakably when conditions gather.

(Parallel note: the same sūtra generalizes the point to birth/death and to the aggregates and sense-consciousnesses—stating they have “no producer,” do not come or go from anywhere, and are designated on conditions. This anticipates the Heart Sūtra’s triad negations.)

The Drum Analogy and Nāgārjuna’s Eight Negations (Applied Point-by-Point)

Nāgārjuna’s homage verse (MMK 1.1) encapsulates the Middle Way with eight “neither/nots”: neither cessation nor origination; neither annihilation nor permanence; neither coming nor going; neither difference nor identity—followed by “the pacification of conceptual proliferations (prapañcopaśama).” The drum thought-experiment from The Questions of an Old Lady (Toh 171) makes each negation concrete. When a drum is struck, “sound” is nowhere in the wood, hide, stick, or hand; it is designated in dependence on those conditions—“Because of these conditions, it is termed sound… It has no coming, it has no going.”

Below, each negation is shown to be a direct consequence of that unfindability plus dependent designation (cf. MMK 24:18: “Whatever is dependently arisen, that we declare to be emptiness; that is a dependent designation; just that is the Middle Way”).

1) Neither Arising (Unborn)

If “sound” were a self-existent thing, it would either exist before the strike (and thus not need to arise) or be wholly nonexistent (and could not be made to arise). But the text demonstrates the sound cannot be found in any basis (wood/hide/stick/hand) or apart from them. So what we call “arising” is just our designation when requisite conditions converge—no self-standing “sound-entity” is produced. This is why, in Madhyamaka, thorough dependence is precisely what makes “production” empty.

2) Nor Cessation (Unceasing)

If nothing self-existent was ever born, nothing self-existent can cease. When vibrations die down, conditions that supported the designation “sound” dissolve; function ends, but no core “thing” perishes. This is “unceasing” in the same sense as “unborn”—the event was only ever a coreless, dependently designated appearance.

3) Nor Annihilation

“Annihilation” would mean a truly existent essence has been destroyed. But the sūtra makes plain that the so-called sound is empty of any findable essence—there is nothing there to annihilate. This avoids nihilism while still acknowledging that conventionally the hearing stops.

4) Nor Permanence

Equally, permanence is excluded. The sound’s very possibility depends on momentary conditions (tension, impact, air, hearing). Take away any one and there is no sounding. What relies on shifting supports cannot be an unchanging permanence.

5) Nor Coming

The text states explicitly: the sound does not dwell in wood, hide, stick, or hand—and it does not “come” from anywhere else either. “Because of these conditions, it is termed sound.” There is no entity traveling from a hidden locus into audibility. “Coming” is a projection imposed on a dependently designated event.

6) Nor Going

Likewise, when the sound fades, it does not “go” anywhere—no retreat into the wood, no departure to another realm. With conditions absent, the basis for that designation is gone. No “thing” departs. The verse’s “not going” is already spelled out in the drum passage.

7) Nor Difference (Without Distinction)

If sound were different from its conditions, it should be conceivable without them. But the analysis shows you cannot have “sound” apart from hide/wood/impact/air/hearing. Because the sound is inseparable from its enabling network, positing it as something over-and-above those supports is incoherent. Thus, not different.

8) Nor Identity (Without Identity)

If sound were simply identical to any condition (e.g., the hide), then the hide would just be sounding—even when unstruck. Or if “sound” were identical to the sum of conditions as a static whole, then the mere presence of drum, stick, and air—even without impact—would entail sounding. Neither follows. So “sound” is not identical with any part or static sum. Thus, not identical.

“Pacification of Conceptual Proliferation” (prapañcopaśama)

Having blocked the eight pairs of extremes through this single example, the homage concludes with prapañcopaśama—ending the mental habit that reifies events into self-standing entities with fixed metaphysical statuses (born/ceased, coming/going, same/different). The drum shows why those statuses never apply ultimately: the sound is only ever a dependent designation (upādāya-prajñapti) on a nexus of conditions (MMK 24:18). Seeing this, conceptual fabrications fall silent.

The Rainbow: Vivid Display and Luminous Knowing

The rainbow offers a brilliant visual parallel, illustrating the principle of vivid display that is nowhere stored. A rainbow appears as a dazzlingly precise and vibrant arc of colour, yet it has no substance or location. It requires a specific convergence of conditions: sunlight, water droplets suspended in the air, and an observer positioned at the correct angle (~42°); move slightly and ‘the rainbow’ is gone—there was never a ‘thing’ hiding anywhere to begin with. It never came from anywhere, isn't hidden in the droplets or the sun, and doesn't retreat to a secret place when it disappears. (On the ~42° geometry of primary rainbows, see NOAA SciJinks.)

While a scientific account lists these physical dependencies, it often overlooks the most crucial condition from an experiential standpoint: the radiance of our own mind. Without the knowing, sentient capacity of consciousness, the physical conditions could align perfectly, but there would be no experience of a rainbow. Thus, the radiant mind, or pristine consciousness, must be included as an indispensable condition for the dependent origination of the phenomenon as a known event.

This introduces a crucial complement to emptiness: luminosity (Pāli pabhassara, Skt. prabhāsvara). This quality does not refer to literal light, like that from a lamp, but to the pristine knowing quality of consciousness—the vivid, clear presence that is the very knowing of any experience (cf. AN 1.49–52: “Luminous, monks, is the mind…”). There is no knowingness apart from the vivid appearances themselves; the knowing is the appearing. Crucially, this pristine consciousness is not a separate, underlying substance or a "True Self." Just like the rainbow, this luminous knowing is itself empty of intrinsic existence. It is not a subjective cognition illuminating an objective appearance; rather, phenomena are realized to be the nondual, self-luminous display—and this very luminosity, too, is empty of own-nature. This is the inseparability of clarity and emptiness, recognizing that a separate subject and object never arose in the first place. The world of form is not a dull, empty void; it is a radiant, clear, and vivid display of our pristine consciousness, and our experiencing of it is this very luminosity.

The Eight Illusions: The Union of Appearance and Emptiness

To deepen this understanding, the Mahāyāna tradition employs the eight examples of illusion. (Traditional enumerations of these eight similes vary slightly across texts and lineages; see also the Foam Sutta, SN 22.95, for closely related imagery of insubstantiality.) These similes are not meant to suggest the world is "fake" but to train the mind to see that all phenomena are illusory. The distinction is crucial. To call something "fake" implies a binary opposition to something "real"—a counterfeit bill versus a genuine one, a hallucination versus a verifiable object. This view still operates within a framework that assumes a baseline of inherent, solid reality. To say phenomena are illusory, however, is far more subtle. An illusion, like a mirage, is not nothing; it appears vividly and functions conventionally (it can cause thirst and hope). But when its nature is investigated, it is found to be completely dependent on causes and conditions, empty of any findable, independent essence of its own. Thus, "illusory" affirms the conventional appearance while revealing its ultimate, empty, and non-arisen nature.

The Pañca­viṃśati­sāhasrikā­prajñā­pāramitā expresses this view directly, showing how bodhisattvas teach this very principle:

“On the other hand, bodhisattva great beings who practice the perfection of wisdom teach the Dharma to beings, [F.215.b] while abiding in the twofold emptiness‍—that is to say the emptiness of the unlimited and the emptiness of that which has neither beginning nor end‍—[and they say], ‘These three realms are empty. In them there are no physical forms, feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, consciousness, sense fields, or sensory elements. They are a dream, they are an echo, they are an optical aberration, they are a magical display, they are a mirage, and they are a phantom. In them there are no aggregates, sense fields, or sensory elements. In them there is no dream or viewer of dreams. There is no echo or hearer of echoes. There is no optical aberration or viewer of optical aberrations. There is no magical display or creator of magical displays. There is no mirage or viewer of mirages. There is no phantom or viewer of phantoms. All these phenomena are nonentities and of the essential nature of nonentity, but you perceive aggregates when there are no aggregates! You perceive sense fields when there are no sense fields! You perceive sensory elements when there are no sensory elements! Since all these phenomena arise erroneously from dependent origination, and have been grasped through the maturation of past actions, why else would you perceive the nonentity of all phenomena as entities?’”

Each example reveals how the luminous appearance of phenomena—their inseparable clarity and display—is inseparable from its unfindable, insubstantial nature. Furthermore, they point to the “emptiness of emptiness”—the profound realization that there is no hidden truth or void behind these appearances. The emptiness of emptiness just means that when you realize an entity is empty, then there is no longer an entity to be empty. This is a non-reductive insight; there is no emptiness as a nature left over in the end. Penetrating their emptiness leads one back to the surface of the everyday, revealing that all things have "one nature, that is, no nature."

1. A Mirage: In the desert, the vivid presence of shimmering water arises with powerful, functional clarity, dependently originating from conditions of superheated air, light, and a perceiving mind. This potent display is inseparable from its complete insubstantiality. When examined carefully, as the Buddha taught in the Pheṇapiṇḍūpamasutta (SN 22.95), the mirage appears completely vacuous, hollow, and insubstantial. For what core could there be in a mirage? The knowing of 'water' and the emptiness of water are not two; the vividness is the groundlessness. This reveals the emptiness of emptiness: there is no deeper truth of 'nothingness' hiding behind the mirage. The shimmering, deceptive surface is the entire groundless display of the event. Penetrating its emptiness simply returns us to the vivid, ungraspable appearance itself.

2. The Moon's Reflection in Water: The reflection is a perfect, radiant knowingness—clear, bright, and detailed. Its appearance is entirely dependent on a confluence of conditions: the celestial body we designate as "the moon," the reflective surface of the water, and the specific angle of the observer. After the initial realization of radiant knowingness, it is inevitable that one reifies it—first as a timeless, eternal witness or 'I AM', and hence deeper insight is needed. Even after the illusion of a separate knower is seen through, this radiant knowingness as a vivid display can still be mistaken for a truly existing, external world. It is only the subsequent, penetrating insight into the dependent origination and empty nature of all phenomena that reveals this very radiance to be, by its nature, completely illusory and empty of any findable core. The clarity of the reflection and its emptiness are inseparable. This logic applies all the way up: the "real moon" is also a dependently originated phenomenon. Thus, the reflection is an illusion of an illusion. Its ultimate nature is therefore 'no nature.' Realizing its emptiness doesn't reveal a void; it reveals the vivid, shimmering reflection as the complete, groundless presencing of that moment.

3. A Dream: The dream world is a totally immersive field of vivid presence—sights, sounds, and intense emotions feel completely real, arising in dependence on the sleeping mind and karmic traces. This immersive vividness is inseparable from its complete lack of a locatable essence. When examined upon waking, the entire dream world is found to be hollow and insubstantial, for what core could there be in a dream? The presencing of the dream is its fundamental groundlessness. There is no ontological depth lurking beneath the dream's deceptive surface; the vivid, transient dream-world is the whole story, seen without the illusion of a solid ground beneath it.

4. A Magical Illusion: A magician's display conjures the potent display of a horse, so convincing it captivates the audience. This convincing presence dependently arises from the magician's skill, props, and the audience's perception, and is, by its very nature, unfindable. When examined carefully, the display is revealed to be vacuous and hollow, without any real substance. For what core could there be in a magic trick? The inseparable union of this vividness and its emptiness is what makes it illusory. Penetrating the illusion doesn't lead to a hidden truth, but back to the conventional world of the magician, the props, and the audience—the luminous and conventional surface of things.

5. An Echo: An echo manifests as a clear, distinct presence of sound, arising in dependence on an initial sound, a reflective surface, and a medium like air. This audible clarity is inseparable from its complete lack of an independent source. When examined closely, it is found to be hollow and insubstantial, for what core could there be in an echo? The knowing of the sound is its essenceless nature. The clear sound and its emptiness are not two. Realizing this, one finds that the echo's ultimate nature is simply its own audible, transient, and groundless appearing.

6. A City of Gandharvas: This atmospheric illusion appears as a grand, complex, and radiant knowingness, dependently arisen from clouds, light, and atmospheric conditions. This magnificent appearance is inseparable from its utter insubstantiality. When examined, it is seen to be completely vacuous and insubstantial, for what core could there be in a city in the clouds? Its vividness is its groundlessness. There is nothing beneath this deceptive surface; its vivid, illusory appearance is the whole of the event.

7. A Phantom: An apparition can appear with terrifying, vivid presence, its appearance dependent on certain mental or causal conditions. This powerful appearance is inseparable from its complete lack of any findable core. When examined, it is revealed to be hollow and insubstantial, for what core could there be in a phantom? The terror it may induce is not inherent to the phantom but arises from failing to recognize its empty, illusory nature. When its emptiness is seen, the vivid presence remains, but the fear, which depends on reification, dissolves. The knowing of the apparition and its groundlessness are a single, inseparable event.

8. A Reflection in a Mirror: The image in a mirror is a perfectly clear, precise, and radiant knowingness, dependently originated from your face, the mirror's surface, and light. When we investigate this vivid presence, we find that no inherent essence can be located, either in the appearance itself or in its clarity. When examined, the reflection is found to be completely vacuous and hollow, for what core could there be in a reflection? This inseparable union of a vivid, knowing appearance and an unfindable essence is what makes it illusory. To be ultimately empty is, ultimately, to lack emptiness. The reflection's nature is simply its own clear, dependent, and vivid appearing on the surface of the mirror.

Each of these examples hammers home the central point: all phenomena are illusory. Their luminous presence is not separate from their unfindable nature—the inseparable union of clarity and emptiness. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. They are not two separate qualities but a single, indivisible display. They dependently arise as a vivid, spontaneous presence; this appearance, when cognized conceptually, is a dependent designation, and this very appearing, this vivid knowingness, is its groundless, essenceless nature.

Deconstructing the Perceptual Triad: “No Eye… No Form… No Consciousness”

With this foundation, we can approach the Heart Sūtra's most challenging passage. The Heart Sūtra (Toh 21) compresses this into a few strokes: “Form is emptiness; emptiness is form… in emptiness there is no eye, no ear… no mind; no ignorance and no end of ignorance… no attainment.” (84000). This sweeping negation is a concise and systematic deconstruction of the entire perceptual process, resolving the false dichotomy between mind and matter. (For a practice-driven unpacking, see the ATR posts "Mind, Matter, and the Middle Way" and "A Practitioner's Reflection on the Kōmyōzō Zanmai".)

The Sūtra's shorthand dismantles the entire perceptual triad by negating the inherent existence of each of its components:

1. “No Sense Faculty” (no eye). What makes a lump of tissue an eye? Only its relational function in a seeing-event. Take away either a visible form or the corresponding consciousness and it’s not functioning as an eye. So “eye” is dependently originated, and because it is so, it’s empty of any findable essence and is merely a dependent designation—a valid label based on conditions and functions, nothing intrinsic. (See SN 35.93 on contact as the meeting of the three.)

2. “No Sense Object” (no form). What is a "form"? As a visible form, it’s defined relationally—as what stands in the right relation to a visual faculty and a visual consciousness. Its object-of-sight-ness is not an intrinsic property, but designated dependently within the triad. Thus, as a perceived form, it’s empty and merely designated in dependence on the other two.

3. “No Sense Consciousness” (no eye-consciousness). Consciousness is always consciousness-of; it never arises “in a vacuum.” The Buddha states repeatedly that consciousness arises in dependence and “apart from a requisite condition there is no origination of consciousness” (MN 38). Hence it too lacks any independent core and is empty and dependently designated (we call it “eye-consciousness” precisely when eye and form converge).

Putting it together. The triad—faculty, object, consciousness—is a single, momentary, dependently arisen event (contact is “the meeting/convergence of these three,” SN 35.93). Because none of the three can be established on its own, the Heart Sūtra can say “no eye … no form … no eye-consciousness” in emptiness—it’s denying intrinsic nature, not everyday function. (A related early image is the “two sheaves of reeds” leaning against each other to illustrate mutual dependence—SN 12.67.) And Nāgārjuna clinches the logic:

“Whatever is dependently arisen—that we declare to be emptiness; that, being a dependent designation, is itself the Middle Way.” (MMK 24.18)

(Terminology note: It is crucial to distinguish this correct view of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda) from a reified "dependent existence" (parabhāva), a view Nāgārjuna refutes. "Dependent existence" mistakenly assumes that things truly exist by borrowing their essence from other conditions, which is just a subtle guise for inherent existence (svabhāva). For Nāgārjuna, dependence is not a real mode of existence; rather, because things are dependent, they are empty of any inherent nature and are thus merely conventional, or dependent, designations (upādāya-prajñapti). Our talk about them is valid convention, without reification.)

Yin Ling shared two years ago: “Buddha says, If this arise, that arise. If this cease, that cease. . I add- because of dependency, hence there is no this, nor that, to be pinpointed inherently. It’s empty. . John tan says, If bell, air , ear , consciousness , stick are needed to produce a sound, Where is the sound? Where? We cannot pinpoint it. . If you press on the table, The earth element is hard, Where is the hardness? Where? This arise, that arise, Lift up ur hand, This cease, that cease, Where is the hardness? In your hand? In the table? . He also says, If A always depend on B, and B always depend on A, We will not be able to pin down A or B. A and B is not two, nor one. It’s empty, It’s dependent origination! 😁 All the “self” and “thing” we feel are imputations, They are not there. Release them. Release till none . My short Singapore reflection Emptiness eating emptiness, All my own empty clarity 😊”

From Mental Releasing to the Heart of Radiance

The foregoing analysis of the drum, the perceptual triad, and the eight illusions provides the indispensable logical framework for understanding emptiness. It demonstrates how our conventional concepts—"self," "agent," "seer-seeing-seen," "mind," "body," and "phenomena"—are dependent designations, abstracted from the luminous flow of experience and lacking any inherent essence. This is a critical and liberating insight. However, if this understanding remains at the level of deconstructing concepts, it is what can be called a "mental level releasing" only. One might understand that reified mental and nominal constructs are empty, but this is freeing only at the mental level.

To illustrate this, we can examine the different phases of understanding emptiness through the classic analogy of the chariot. One might first understand emptiness in a manner like 'weather,' where 'weather' is merely an imputation upon a collection of phenomena like rain falling or the sun shining. This can be understood in terms of the emptiness of the imputed label, leaving the collection—the aggregates, the very manifest and vivid experience—"un-emptied." This is an incomplete view. A deeper understanding comes from applying the chariot analogy to all phenomena. As John Tan once remarked, "Don't keep thinking of aggregates as also empty. If you understand the chariot is empty, what is not empty?" The problem, however, is that the aggregates themselves do appear real unless one has had the direct realization that "name-only" or "empty" is, in fact, the vivid, appearing presence itself.

The crucial shift is from a conceptual understanding to a direct, experiential one. If we conceptualize a label like "chariot" and then think, "that labelled chariot is empty of essence," this remains an inferential analysis. The direct realization occurs when one sees that the empty "chariot" is the vivid, appearing presence. Emptiness is this very presence. The label or chariot that is empty is the vivid, appearing presence itself—as unfindable and shimmering as a mirage. It is not a mere mental label. Like any object you see—a handphone, a table, a car—that vivid presencing is the 'chariot'; it is a vivid, unfindable, appearing presence. That being so, there is no handphone, no pain, no suffering, and all the other negations in the Heart Sūtra. At this level of direct insight, it is the very unfindability, ungraspability, and referencelessness of empty luminosity—an appearing “absence.” "No weather" does not mean weather doesn't exist, but that the very vivid, empty appearing or presencing we call "rain falling" is nothing there, an appearing absence like a rainbow or a hologram. Emptiness is none other than form.

The deeper and more fundamental actualization, therefore, is to directly authenticate this "freedom" at the level of the phenomena themselves—at the level of vivid, appearing presence, or radiance. Without the direct recognition of emptiness at this foundational level, the understanding of Nāgārjuna's Eight Negations cannot touch the "heart of radiance." The crucial obstruction to this direct authentication is the subtle, often unexamined assumption that "the mirror is not the reflection"—the belief that there is a real, underlying ground or substrate (the mirror) that is separate from the transient appearances that play across it (the reflections). Although one may experience the mental release of constructs at this level, everything may be subsumed into an overarching, substantialist and unchanging nondual awareness. We will still be attached to a changeless purity resisting change if understanding remains at the mental level, and the empty nature of radiance remains unpenetrated.

To go deeper, in addition to understanding that reified constructs are empty, we must contemplate further and ask ourselves: how can these conventions be reified in the first place, and then deconstructed later? The answer is that they are abstracted from the raw, radiant display of experience. Therefore, the inquiry must turn to the nature of radiance itself. This deeper inquiry might take the form of a koan-like contemplation: "How can this radiance, this vivid presence, change so effortlessly, so miraculously and seamlessly with differing conditions, if it has a solid core?" If this ever-changing display had a true, inherent nature, it would resist such fluid transformation. This leads to a profound shift in understanding: the very "changingness" of radiance is the direct authentication of no ultimate production and no ultimate cessation. The seamless flux of appearances is the living proof that no solid "thing" is ever truly born or truly dies.

Ultimately, this profound insight into the illusory and non-arisen nature of all phenomena transcends even the foundational Buddhist teaching of impermanence. The emphasis on impermanence serves as a vital and skillful means—a "raft"—to guide the mind away from grasping at permanence and toward the realization of no-self and emptiness. However, once phenomena are directly seen as illusory, the very conceptual framework of "permanent" versus "impermanent" is also released. As the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra advises, the ultimate practice involves not engaging with the notions that phenomena are permanent or impermanent, a self or not a self, empty or not empty. When practice becomes natural and spontaneous, one releases the raft of these Dharma seals and abides in the mind's ungraspable nature. This leads to a more subtle Mahāyāna understanding of "permanence" itself—not as an unchanging, real entity, but as that which, being unborn, is free from the causes of origination and cessation.

However, it is crucial to understand that this "transience" or "changingness" of Dōgen’s “Impermanence is Buddha-Nature” is not a mere philosophical concept of impermanence/permanence to be intellectually understood or transcended. Rather, in the spirit of Zen masters like Dōgen, it is a direct pointing. It is an instruction to authenticate the Buddha-Nature directly in and as the very transient phenomena themselves—the mountains, the trees, the sunshine, the fleeting sound of footsteps—not in some transcendent, changeless awareness separate from the world. Even after the realization of “Impermanence is Buddha-Nature,” which is the realization of anātman, one must realize how dependent origination and the eight negations are directly pointing to the nature of radiance.

This insight allows the Eight Negations to be realized not as a philosophical conclusion, but as the direct taste of experience:

• No Arising & No Cessation: Where does the redness of a rose come from? Where does the sound of a bell go? The momentary and seamlessly dependent flash of radiant presence was never a real entity that was "born," so it cannot be an entity that "ceases."

• No Permanence & No Annihilation: The transient nature of every sight and sound is self-evident proof of no permanence. Because no "thing" was ever truly born, its passing is not the annihilation of an entity.

• No Coming & No Going: The radiant presence does not come from anywhere or go anywhere. It is a momentary, unlocatable, condition-dependent display.

• No Identity & No Difference: The redness is not different from the seeing of it, nor is it identical to the "rose-object." The dependently originated, non-dual and seamless nature of experience dissolves these conceptual fabrications.

When the view penetrates to this level, the understanding of emptiness is no longer a dry, mental negation. It is the direct recognition that the luminous, vivid, and ever-changing display of the world is its emptiness. This is the crucial breakthrough in view that contrasts a merely conceptual framework with the direct taste of the nature of radiance.

The Practical Path to Insight: From Luminous Mind to Emptiness

While the Heart Sūtra presents the ultimate view of emptiness, the experiential path to that view is crucial. In this commentary, I delineate a path that unfolds in phases, based on my interpretation of texts from the Zen tradition like the Kōmyōzō Zanmai (Treasury of Light).

Phase 1: The Foundational Realization of Luminous Presence ("I AM"). The essential first step is to realize the "luminous Mind" itself—the ever-present pure Presence and capacity of Knowingness that is the baseline fact of all experience. This provides the stable ground from which to explore the profound truth of non-duality and emptiness, even though Presence is still falsely reified as an eternal Witness at this stage.

An Intermediate Phase: Substantialist Nonduality ("One Mind"). Following the "I AM" realization, a practitioner often enters a profound non-dual state where all phenomena are seen as the display of a single, unified Mind. This is a powerful insight, but it can become a subtle trap as one continues to reify "Mind" as a truly existing, ultimate substance that is nondual with everything, or modulates as everything. This is a substantialist view and must be penetrated by the deeper wisdom of anātman, which reveals that this luminous knowing is itself dependently arisen and empty.

Phase 2: The Deepening Insight into Anātman and Emptiness. Once this luminous ground is realized, the path then turns the light of inquiry back upon itself.

• Emptiness of Self (pudgala-nairātmya): The practitioner investigates this luminous Mind and discovers it is empty of any inherent, independent self-nature (svabhāva). This is the direct, non-conceptual realization of agentlessness, often expressed in stanzas:
  There is thinking, no thinker There is hearing, no hearer There is seeing, no seer
  And furthermore:
  In thinking, just thoughts In hearing, just sounds In seeing, just forms, shapes and colors.

• Emptiness of Phenomena (dharma-nairātmya): The insight then deepens to perceive the empty, dream-like nature of all appearances.

This progression is vital. By first realizing the luminous, vivid nature of Mind and appearance, the subsequent insight into their emptiness does not lead to nihilism. Instead, one realizes that phenomena are like a rainbow: vividly apparent, yet utterly empty.

Scaling the Principle: From Drums to Buddhas

This principle scales universally. The Ornament of the Light of Awareness (Toh 100) uses the example of a cloud, stating, “the cloud is non-arisen and non-ceasing; free from coming and going.” Strikingly, it then applies this very same logic to the Tathāgata, whose appearance is for the benefit of beings yet is ultimately as non-arisen and unceasing as the cloud. (84000 translation; see the rain-cloud analogy.) This logic culminates in Nāgārjuna's famous verse: “Whatever is dependently arisen, we declare that to be emptiness; It is a dependent designation; Just that is the middle path” (MMK 24:18).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Heart Sūtra’s wisdom is unlocked when we see that emptiness is not an absence but a dynamic potential. Because the drum’s sound is unfindable in any single part or apart from its conditions, its very emptiness is what allows it to manifest unfailingly as a luminous, dependently-designated display. Everything in our experience—from the sound of a drum to the luminous appearing of a mirage—functions on this same principle. However, to fully realize this requires penetrating the true meaning of dependent origination. A common, superficial understanding sees dependent arising merely as an explanation for how a seemingly solid, existing whole is constructed from its parts and conditions. This view, while a step away from naive realism, still subtly grasps at an inherent essence, a 'whole' that truly exists, reflecting the mind's deep-seated propensity to solidify experience.

The profound and correct understanding, as articulated by masters like Tsongkhapa, is that the radical dependence of a phenomenon on its parts and conditions reveals its complete lack of any findable core. Because no essence can be found, from an ultimate perspective, there is no true arising. What remains is a coreless, luminous appearance, like a hologram—vividly present yet utterly ungraspable. This is the true meaning of 'non-arising,' which is synonymous with dependent origination and emptiness. This unified insight is precisely what Tsongkhapa pointed to as the completion of the view. This point is powerfully underscored by John Tan's reflection on Tsongkhapa's insight: "This is perhaps the most important point for me post anatta insight. so profound and deep.🙏 You must see not only from freedom from elaborations but dependent arising." Tsongkhapa explained that as long as the understanding of appearance (the regulated world of dependent origination) and the understanding of emptiness (the absence of all standpoints) remain separate, the Sage's intent has not been realized. The analysis is complete only when, in a single moment, the perception of undeceiving dependent origination dismantles all grasping at inherent existence.

Furthermore, this unified view is the true Middle Way. As Tsongkhapa wrote, appearance, correctly seen, dispels the extreme of existence, while emptiness dispels the extreme of nonexistence. One understands how emptiness itself functions as cause and effect, and is thus freed from all extreme views.

By first grounding ourselves in the direct realization of luminous presence, we provide an experiential foundation for the profound view of emptiness. This initial authentication of presence ensures that the subsequent deconstruction of reality does not lead to a nihilistic misunderstanding. When emptiness is approached from this ground of vivid, knowing presence, it is not mistaken for a mere conceptual negation or a sterile void. Instead, we can then safely and profoundly realize the truth to which the Sūtra points: that all phenomena, including the mind itself, are unborn and unceasing. This is not an erasure of the world, but the revelation of its true, magical nature: a vivid, functional, and radiant display, utterly free of any solid, findable core.

References (primary & supporting)

• The Questions of an Old Lady Sūtra (Mahallikā­paripṛcchā). Toh 171. 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha. (Drum-sound passage: “Because of these conditions, it is termed sound… no coming, no going… all phenomena are inherently stopped.”)

• The Perfection of Wisdom, The Heart Sūtra. Toh 21. 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha. (“Form is emptiness… in emptiness: no eye… no mind… no attainment.”)

• The Ornament of the Light of Awareness That Enters the Domain of the Tathāgatas. Toh 100. 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha. (Cloud/Tathāgata non-arising, “free from coming and going.”)

• Nāgārjuna. Mūlamadhyamakakāri-kā (MMK) 24:18. (Dependent arising = emptiness = dependent designation ∗upaˉdaˉya−prajn~apti∗.)

• Saṃyutta Nikāya (SN) 35.93. Contact defined as the meeting/convergence of faculty, object, and consciousness.

• SN 12.67. “Two sheaves of reeds” simile for mutual dependence.

• Majjima Nikāya (MN) 38. “Apart from a requisite condition, there is no origination of consciousness.” (Refutation of a transmigrating, selfsame consciousness.)

• Aṅguttara Nikāya (AN) 1.49–52. “Luminous is the mind” passages; luminosity as baseline capacity, not an uncaused essence.

• SN 22.95 (Pheṇapiṇḍūpamasutta / Foam Sutta). Aggregates likened to foam, bubble, mirage, plantain trunk, and a magic trick—insubstantiality imagery.

References (secondary & explanatory)

• “Mind, Matter, and the Middle Way.” Awakening to Reality.

• “A Practitioner’s Reflection on the Kōmyōzō Zanmai.” Awakening to Reality.

• NOAA SciJinks. “How Is a Rainbow Formed?” (Observer-angle ~42° of primary rainbow.)

• Rigpa Shedra Wiki. “Eight Similes of Illusion.” (Overview of enumerations.)

(Terminology: śūnyatā; Pāli pabhassara / Skt. prabhāsvara for “luminosity”; upādāya-prajñapti = dependent designation.)