Awakening to Reality

(Chinese version here: 只管打坐：與洪文亮老師三日禪（第九十屆）——個人記錄與誠摯推薦)

Place: Taichung — “Right Dharma Eye Treasury Shikantaza Zendo”
Dates: October 2025 (three-day retreat, with a public evening talk the night before)
Guidance: Teacher Hong Wen-Liang (Sōtō Zen)

I have recently attended a retreat with Zen Master Hong Wen-Liang in Taiwan, Taichung. There are eight 45-minute sitting periods per day along with a dharma talk by Master Hong on each of the three days and the day before the retreat. Noble silence is observed. There was however, karaoke, dinner and wine after the retreat (this part is optional but I think everyone or almost everyone attended the dinner – including a Buddhist nun, although due to Vinaya rules, she of course left before the Karaoke started). Vegetarian and non-vegetarian meals are provided on all days (very delicious food). The strongest impression from these three days is how plain yet penetrating Teacher Hong’s expression is. He never courts the audience with elaborate argument, yet he points straight to the essentials of anatman (no-self) — dependent origination — total exertion. If you understand Chinese, I strongly recommend seizing the chance to attend in the future and verify this for yourself.

A Brief Portrait of Teacher Hong (as I gathered it)

• Born 1933 in Yunlin, Taiwan; graduated from National Taiwan University College of Medicine; served as a surgeon and forensic pathologist.
• After long study and practice, he entered the Sōtō lineage in Japan. He emphasizes shikantaza (“just sitting”) and opens the Way through Genjōkōan / total exertion: no thing to grasp; the Complete Activity (全機) exerts and involves the totality of all conditions in any given activity.
• Now over 90, slender and walking with a cane, yet his mind is keen and sharp, and his speech clear and precise.
• There are twice-monthly public talks; retreats are arranged according to conditions (to inquire about the next retreat, please contact the organizer here:
  👉 Right Dharma Eye Treasury Shikantaza Zendo (Facebook): https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100064895641674 )

What I Heard and Noted On Site

1) The decisive seal is no-self, not “an eternal witness” or a reified One Mind

Teacher Hong repeatedly pointed out: taking “I am a pure witness / One Mind / the Absolute” as the final realization is still subtle self-grasping.

In his talks, Dr. Hong often contrasts scientific objectivity (subject studying object) with the investigation of Eastern spirituality and religions into what is prior to the split of subject–object. He adds that however, the Buddha rejected the non-dual oneness of the Upanishads. He warns against mistaking the Upanishadic Brahman or a One-Mind “Absolute” for Buddhist realization. (I believe he has read the AtR blog and thus raised this topic in his teachings. That nondual oneness can still be a subtle clinging.) The Buddhist insight is anatman, emptiness and dependent origination, not reducing everything to one real substance. It is the realization and actualization of anatman and total exertion. Zenki: Complete Activity 全機 is one of the terms used to express that the very vivid manifestation of any given phenomenon, be it a plum, a flower, a tree, birth or death, itself is the manifestation of the totality of all conditions in all ten directions and all times, free from the false separation of a seer apart from the seen, a hearer apart from sound or a knower apart from the known. Birth, death, and all activities are themselves the complete activity of the three times (past, present, future) and ten directions – hence it is said that the entire world of the ten directions is the true human body（尽十方世界真实人体）。 What matters is the living insight that nothing has self-nature (anatta/emptiness) and total exertion, and the ongoing actualization of this in conduct—moment by moment. Buddha-nature is not a static substratum but impermanence impermancing impermanence, dynamic and alive.

“Realization isn’t something that ‘happened once’ and then you’re forever realized. In any moment where conduct accords with truth, there is awakening; otherwise, delusion.” — notes from his talk (my paraphrase from retreat impressions)

For a taste of his voice and approach, you can browse compiled talks and translations. https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/search/label/Zen%20Master%20Hong%20Wen%20Liang%20%28%E6%B4%AA%E6%96%87%E4%BA%AE%E7%A6%85%E5%B8%88%29

He expressed in his own words that the Buddhist awakening is the insubstantialist nondual realization of anatman and dependent origination, there is no real duality of subject and object, knower apart from known, yet it does not reduce everything to one real substance.

2) Total exertion: birth is thoroughly birth; death is thoroughly death

Using Dōgen’s language, he taught: “Birth does not turn into death,” just as summer does not turn into winter. This neither denies continuity nor asserts permanence. It points out that each dharma is empty of own-being and functions in seamless participation with all dharmas as a complete activity right now. This very present Dharma is the exertion of all dharmas past, present, and future. Each dharma abides in its dharma position, before and after are cut off and disjointed. Precisely because there is no self-nature in all phenomena and selves, we speak of “no-birth”—which is not a denial of causality.

To elaborate: In Teacher Hong Wen-Liang’s explanation of the “birth and death” passage from Genjōkōan, birth does not turn into death and death does not turn into birth because each is the Presencing of the moment’s total exertion—like summer and winter that never transform into each other. “Birth is no-birth” does not mean annihilation or some Taoist-style immortality; it points to the fact that all phenomena are without self-nature, so there is no fixed "phenomena" or “someone” that is born, persists, and then dies. Precisely for that reason, he insisted this insight does not cancel karma: it rejects a migrating entity, not karmic continuity. Cause and effect remain unobscured (不昧因果): deeds plant seeds and ripen later, including across lifetimes, which is why ethics, vows, and good actions matter. He also contrasted “no-birth/no-death” with a Hinayāna reading of cessation: Mahāyāna speaks of no cessation, because the very arising and ceasing are empty and only the present all-inclusive manifestation is complete—yet within that completeness, dependent origination still functions and rebirth is affirmed, so misunderstanding Dōgen here as denying future lives is simply wrong. (My own note: many modern Soto teachers deny rebirth and karma, thus falling into the wrong view of uccheda-dṛṣṭi, 'the doctrine of Annihilationism' – something refuted clearly by both Buddha and Dōgen https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2023/03/did-dogen-teach-literal-rebirth-and.html . Zen Master Hong did a good critique of such wrong views. John Tan too was emphatic that we should not reject rebirth: see https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2025/09/meeting-notes-with-john-tan-and-yin.html

Nagaraja rightly said: “The problem is that Zen is widely misunderstood in the West. Because of the historical process of Zen's transmission to the West, this transmission has several problems and flaws. Among them is the impression that Zen is a more rational/materialistic/logical Buddhism that rejects fundamental Buddhist principles. In reality, we have everything Mahayana Buddhism has: karma, rebirth, deities, Bodhisattvas, mantras, mudras, devotion, ritual, blessings, merits and so on. This creates dissonance and estrangement between practitioners in temples and historical traditional communities in East Asia and practitioners in western Zen centers.”)

3) Not obscuring cause and effect

He was emphatic: “No-self ≠ no causality, no responsibility.” Because things are dependently arisen and empty, karma is even clearer. Cultivate virtue and wisdom; keep precepts and do good. This is because when conditions ripen, results appear, even into the future lifetimes.

4) Body–mind and posture: shikantaza is not piling up techniques, but whole-body participation

Although he does not elaborate this on the sessions I attended, his other videos place great weight on daily sitting and correct posture. Sitting is not a purely mental activity; it is body and mind as one—settling, letting fabrication drop, so that the habit of “subject vs. object” loosens in upright sitting and the Presencing of total functioning/total exertion is self-evident. His pointers are concrete: sit upright, care for breath and bones, and let the all-inclusive functioning (total exertion) naturally manifest itself. Shikantaza, in his words, is letting the myriad Dharmas reveal that there is no you (anatman): https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2023/12/shinkantaza-just-sitting-letting-all.html

Through meditation, he isn’t teaching “how to manufacture a special state,” but how to lay down contrivance and the clinging to a false self, so that your Buddha-nature, the truth of anatman (no-self), emptiness and total exertion appears by itself.

A Few Passages from the Handout and Lectures

• Opening Verse (Kaijing-gāthā)
  “The unsurpassed, deep, subtle, wondrous Dharma,
  Is hard to encounter in a hundred thousand eons.
  Now that I see, hear, receive, and uphold it,
  I vow to understand the Tathāgata’s true meaning.”
  With this resolve, the entire retreat is devoted to “understanding the true meaning,” not chasing a state to possess.
• From Dōgen’s Genjōkōan (as printed in the booklet)
  “To study the Buddha-Way is to study the self.
  To study the self is to forget the self.
  To forget the self is to be verified by the myriad dharmas.
  When verified by the myriad dharmas, one’s body-mind and the body-mind of others drop away.”
• On “knower/known” and both extremes (verses cited in the handout)
  “The agent (subject) ceases into the environment, the environment sinks into the subject. 
  The environment is environment because of the subject;
  the subject is subject because of the environment.
  The two arise from the one—
  do not even hold to the one.”

Comments:
“Subject” and “object” inter-are: To grasp either as ultimately real is delusion. However, understanding this is not enough: true experiential realization goes further and collapses and dissolves subject into object, and object too vanishes into subject until no trace of subject-object duality remains. Yet, do not even abide in a substantialist nondual "one substance", for that too is another subtler delusion.

• On thoughts and fixation (handout §9 highlights)
  “No-thought within thought, and not dwelling in thought…
  If thought dwells, it is called bondage.
  Regarding all dharmas, when thought does not dwell, there is no bondage.”

Comments:
It’s not a rigid “no thought at all,” but non-dwelling. Thoughts arise and are known; we neither throw them out nor are dragged by them.

• Hui-Neng and Self-Nature

As Teacher Hong explained, the Sixth Patriarch Hui-Neng—“an illiterate woodcutter” in the received accounts—initially used the phrase 「自性生萬法」 (“self-nature gives rise to the ten thousand dharmas”). He did so, Teacher Hong said, while already intending the sense of total exertion (全機／現成公案；亦稱「摩訶生命」): each event is the total, all-inclusive functioning with nothing left over. Later, seeing that 「自性」 (“self-nature”) is often a term used to refer as a substantial essence like Brahman, he dropped the character 「自」 (self) and retained 「性」(nature) only as a pointer to this all-inclusive functioning of total exertion (全機)—not a thing behind phenomena, but the immediate, selfless manifestation of the totality of all conditions. In this reading, 「自性生萬法」 was never meant to posit a metaphysical Self; it was a skillful designation aiming at total exertion here and now. Thus, when Teacher Hong cites Hui-Neng, he clarifies that the point is no fixed self-nature to grasp, only the present, entire activity—birth as entirely birth, sound as entirely sound—so that talk of “nature” does not congeal into an entity apart from the ten thousand dharmas.

• A caution about “all dharmas contained in one nature” (handout §9e)
  The text warns that phrases like “all dharmas are contained in ‘nature’; all dharmas are that nature” are easily misread as reifying a big “Nature” that everything collapses into. This Maha-Life is the boundless life beyond notions of big and small, and this is called “nature”. Teacher Hong however cautioned: do not turn “emptiness” or “nature” into a "thing" reified and grasped. What is present is dependent origination without own-being, not building a bigger “One.”

• 10. In human society, to completely realize a state with no quarrels and no conflicts—a peace like that—those “good men and good women” who only fantasize about pleasant things are in fact at greater risk. Because in this world there are many people who specialize in forming groups to deceive and take advantage of these “good men and good women.”

  “Things are not that simply good.” So long as we live as members of society, we must first become aware and prepare ourselves: no matter what, we cannot avoid mutual quarrels and mutual friction. And yet, even so, we should, while disputing and rubbing against one another, continually bow and look up toward what is higher [i.e. Truth]; and even in bowing, we still cannot help but have some amount of dispute and friction—this is precisely the condition within which we cannot avoid living.

  However, this attitude of “on the one hand bowing, and on the other hand inevitably disputing and rubbing against one another,” or the mindset that within dispute and friction one still “cherishes the wish to look up toward what is higher and more fundamental  [i.e. Truth],” is after all somewhat different from the way of living that “relies solely on the struggle for survival.”

Words from John Tan

• John Tan (2022):
  “‘Listening with the whole body’ is total exertion. This requires no prior training—it is an intuitive gnosis… a heart-to-heart communication rather than logical analysis. Once the prājṇa-eye opens, do not cage it in arbitrary systems of thought… This is why I advise you to read Hong Wen-Liang.”
  (Full context in the ATR post https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2022/02/anatta-total-exertion-a-natural-state.html )
• John Tan (2020) — corrected phrasing:
  “The most important breakthrough post-nondual: do not subsume (everything into a universal awareness or One Mind). [The direction] is dependent origination and emptiness; or, in Dōgen’s terms, total exertion and emptiness—like Hong Wen-Liang.”
• He also said elsewhere about Master Hong:
  “There are too many insightful pointers—worth rereading again and again. It is rare to find a teacher with such intimacy with one’s empty clarity.”

Why I Wholeheartedly Recommend Attending

1. View and embodiment together: He presents no-self and dependent origination thoroughly yet down-to-earth—straight into conduct.
2. The clean power of shikantaza: Within upright posture, silence, and punctuality, the subject–object habit loosens on its own; total exertion is not a slogan.
3. Seize the conditions: Teacher is advanced in age, yet his Dharma speech is vigorous and his thinking rigorous. If Chinese is your language, now is the time.

Want to Follow Up?

• Teacher generally gives public talks twice a month; retreat dates are announced according to conditions.
• If you’re interested in joining or inquiring about the next session, please message the organizer here:
  👉 Right Dharma Eye Treasury Shikantaza Zendo (Facebook):
  https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100064895641674

May this be a condition for more friends to draw near to a good teacher, and to personally verify no-self and the total functioning that is already present.

Update: Received a message, for those interested: "明年禪修提早至 2026/1/1～1/4"

地點：臺中——「正法眼藏只管打坐禪堂」
時間：2025年10月（為期三天，前一晚有公開開示）
指導：洪文亮老師（曹洞宗）

我最近在臺灣臺中隨洪文亮禪師參加了一次禪修。每日設八支坐香（每支45分鐘），三日皆有洪老師的法談，且在禪修開始前一晚亦有一場法談。全程遵守止語。不過，禪修結束後有可選的聚餐、卡拉OK與小酌（我想幾乎所有人都參加了晚宴——其中包含一位比丘尼，但她依〈律〉之規定，當然在卡拉OK開始前先行離席）。全程提供素食與葷食（料理十分美味）。三天給我最深的印象，是老師說法樸素而銳利；他不以繁言說理取悅聽者，卻直指要害：無我（anatman）——緣起——全機（total exertion）。若你懂中文，我強烈建議把握機會，將來親自參與並自我印證。

關於洪老師（據我整理）
1933年生於雲林，畢業於國立臺灣大學醫學院，曾任外科醫師與法醫。
長期修學後入日本曹洞宗法脈，強調只管打坐（Shikantaza），並以〈現成公案〉／全機啟導：無可執取；所謂「全機（Complete Activity）」是指在任何一件事上，由一切因緣條件無縫參與而成就的一用。
現年九十餘歲，形體清瘦、拄杖而行，然思路銳利、言談清晰精確。
一般每月兩次公開說法；禪修依因緣安排（欲詢問下次禪修，請聯絡主辦單位：
👉 正法眼藏只管打坐禪堂（Facebook）：https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100064895641674）

現場所聞所記
1）決定印在無我，而非「永恆見證者」或實體化的一心
洪老師屢次指出：把「我是純粹見證／一心／絕對」當成究竟，仍是微細我執。

在他的開示中，常將科學的客觀取向（主體研究客體）與東方宗教對「主客分裂之前」的探問作對照；並補充說，佛陀否定《奧義書》所說的「非二元的一者」。他告誡不可將「梵」或「一心的絕對」誤作佛教的覺悟。佛教的洞見是無我、空性與緣起，而非把萬有約化為單一實體。覺悟在於無我與全機的一用與實踐。Zenki（全機）表示：任何現前之法，無論梅、花、樹，抑或生與死，皆是一切條件在十方與三世（過去、現在、未來）中無縫參與而成就的一用，不再虛妄分別為見者異於所見、聞者異於聲、知者異於所知。生、死與一切行持，本身就是十方三世的全機發用——故云：「盡十方世界真實人體」。要緊的是體證萬法無自性與全機，並在行住坐臥中念念實踐。佛性不是靜止不變的基質，而是無常正無常、動中之動，生生不息。

「覺悟不是某次『發生過』而後永遠算數；任何一刻行與真理相應，即是悟；不相應，即是迷。」——課堂筆記（依我禪修體會轉述）

欲更了解老師的聲音與風格，可參考相關講談與翻譯彙編。

他明白指出：佛教覺悟是反本體論的非二之無我與緣起；主客、能所、知與所知不成真實二，卻也不把一切約化為單一實體。

2）全機：生即徹底之生；死即徹底之死
依道元之語，他教示：「生不轉為死」，正如夏不轉為冬。此既非否定延續，亦非主張常住；而是指出：一一法無自性，於當下一切法無縫參與為一件圓成的一用。此現前之法，即是過去、現在、未來一切法的展現與參與。**一法安住一法位，前後截斷不相續。**正因諸法與「我」皆無自性，故可說「無生」——這不是否定因果。

更進一步，依洪文亮老師對〈現成公案〉「生死」段的解說：生不轉成死，死不轉成生，因為每一當下皆是全機之一用——如同夏與冬不互變。「生是無生」並非斷滅，亦非道家式不死，而是說諸法無自性，沒有一個固定的「某物」或「某人」出生、持續、再死亡。也因此，他強調此洞見並不取消業果：所否定的是「遷移的實體」，而不是業報的延續。不昧因果：善惡行為植種待熟，乃至異熟於後世，因此戒德、願行與善業至為關鍵。他亦對比「無生無滅」與某些「止滅取向」的見解：大乘說「無滅」，因為生滅本空，當下全體之現成是一切法的圓成——然而在此圓成中，緣起仍運作、輪迴與後世皆成立；將道元誤讀為否定後世，是錯誤的。（按：近代有些曹洞宗論者否定業果與後世，此近於斷見；佛陀與道元皆明確破斥此見。洪老師對此有清楚釐清。亦可參見 John Tan 對不應否定後世的強調。

那伽羅闍說得很對：「問題在於，禪宗在西方被廣泛誤解。由於禪宗在歷史上傳入西方的過程，這個傳承本身就帶有一些問題和缺陷。其中之一，就是讓人以為禪宗是一種更理性／唯物／講邏輯的佛教，並且否定佛教的根本原則。實際上，我們擁有大乘佛教的一切：業、輪迴、諸天、菩薩、真言、手印、祈敬、儀式、加持、功德，等等。這就造成了東亞寺院與歷史上的傳統修行共同體，和西方禪中心修行者之間的落差與隔閡。」)

3）不昧因果
他鄭重指出：「無我 ≠ 無因果、無責任。」正因萬法緣起而空，業果更為分明。修福修慧、持戒行善；因緣成熟，果必現前，乃至未來世。

4）身心與姿勢：只管打坐不是疊加技巧，而是全身心的參與
雖然我所參加的場次中，他未多談技術細節，但其他影片與開示一再強調每日端坐與端正姿勢。坐禪不是純粹的心理活動，而是身心一如——安住、放下造作，使主客慣性於端坐中自解自落；全機的一用自明自現。指導十分具體：端身正坐，照顧呼吸與身骨，讓無餘的一用（全機）自然顯發。依他所言，只管打坐就是讓萬法自顯「無你」（無我）。
他所教的並非「製造某種特別境界」，而是卸下造作與假我之執，使佛性、無我、空性與全機自然顯發。

講義與課堂的若干摘錄
〈開經偈〉

「無上甚深微妙法，
百千萬劫難遭遇；
我今見聞得受持，
願解如來真實義。」

以此發心，整個禪修都以「願解真實義」為宗旨，而非追逐某種可擁有的境界。

〈現成公案〉（講義所載）

「學佛道者，學自己也；
學自己者，忘自己也；
忘自己者，為萬法所證也；
為萬法所證者，即今自己之身心及他己之身心脫落也。」

關於「能所」與兩邊（講義所引偈）

「能隨境滅，境逐能沉。
境由能境，能由境能。
二由一有，一亦莫守。
一心不生，萬法無咎。」

按：「主體」與「客體」相即相入；執取其一為究竟實有，皆為顛倒。然而，僅此理解尚不足：真實的親證更進一步，使主體崩解並融入客體，客體亦復歸於主體而泯沒，直至主客二分毫無痕跡。然亦勿住於實體論式的非二「一元實體」，此亦是更為微細的妄執。

關於念與住（講義§9要點）

「無念於念而不住念……
念若住，名繫縛；
於一切法上，念若不住，即無繫縛。」

按：不是僵化的「一念不生」，而是不住。念起能知，不須擯斥，亦不隨轉。

慧能與「自性」
如洪老師所解，第六祖慧能（相傳目不識丁的樵夫）起初言「自性生萬法」。老師說，他其實已意在全機／現成公案（亦稱「摩訶生命」）：一切事相都是無餘的一用。後來見「自性」一語常被當作類似「梵」之實體本質，遂去「自」留「性」，以「性」指向全機之無我顯發——不在萬法背後另立一物，而是諸緣具足時的即刻呈現。依此會通，「自性生萬法」並非建立形上自體，而是善巧假名，意在此時此地的全機一用。因此，老師引慧能之語，是提醒我們：不要執一個固定「自性」，而是只此現前的一用——生全是生、聲全是聲——免得將「性」又凝為離萬法之外的實體。

關於「萬法含於一性」之警惕（講義§9e）
文中警示：「萬法皆含於『性』，萬法即是此性」之類說法，極易被誤解為把一切歸攏到一個被實體化的「大『性』」或「大自然體」。所謂「摩訶生命」，是超越大小對待的無邊生命流行，這纔名為「性」。洪老師並告誡：不要把「空」或「性」變成可執取而被實體化的「東西」。現前者是緣起無自性，而非去打造一個更大的「一」。

10．在這人類社會裡，要完全實現沒有爭執、沒有衝突的和平；那種只會妄想美好事物的「善男善女」，反而更危險。因為這世上「專門成群結隊騙取、榨取這些善男善女」的人，實在多得很。「事情並不是那麼單純美好」。

只要我們身為社會人而活，就必須「先自覺並做好覺悟，無論如何都免不了要彼此爭執、彼此摩擦」。然而，即使如此，我們仍應當「在爭執、摩擦的同時，時時高之處頂禮仰望」——在頂禮之中，依然不得不多少爭執、摩擦；這正是我們不得不活在其中的境地。

但是，這種「一面頂禮，一面又不得不爭執、摩擦」的態度，或者在爭執摩擦之中仍「懷著想要仰望更高、更根本之處的心情」，和那種只以「靠一味生存競爭」活下去的方式，畢竟還是有些不同的。

John Tan 的話
John Tan（2022）：

「『舉身聽』就是全機。這不需要先有訓練——它是直覺的靈知……是心傳心，而非邏輯分析。一旦般若眼開了，別讓它被任意思想系統籠罩……所以我建議你讀洪文亮。」

（完整脈絡可見 ATR 網站相應文章。）
John Tan（2020）——修正表述：

「最重要的是：非二之後，不要把一切歸入[普遍覺知或一心]；方向在緣起與空；以道元之語，則是全機與空——如洪文亮。」

另語：

「提示極多，值得反覆閱讀。難得有老師能如此親密於自己之空明。」

我為何誠心推薦
見地與落實並重：他對無我與緣起的闡述徹底而貼地，直入行持。
只管打坐的清爽力量：在端身、止語、守時中，能所習氣自解；全機不是口號。
把握因緣：老師年事已高，然法語鏗鏘、思維嚴整。若中文是你的語言，正是時候。

欲續聞請洽
老師一般每月兩次公開說法；禪修依緣通知。
欲報名或詢問下期，請訊息主辦單位：
👉 正法眼藏只管打坐禪堂（Facebook）：
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100064895641674

願此因緣，令更多人親近善知識，並親證無我與已然現前的全機一用。

Zen Master Hong Wen Liang:

While translating Total Exertion, I realised ChatGPT likes to turn it into 'wholeness'. I gathered the following quotations to correct ChatGPT.

John Tan said years ago: 

"Though wholeness can also be said to be beyond space and time, it is an entity concept. But total exertion is totally exerted as an activity. All becomes that activity. When you write, everything is contributing in the activity of writing. Subsuming into all-embracing consciousness is a wholeness and oneness experience also."

"In total exertion, we should not only understand from the standpoint of wholeness but as one functioning, one action. When you breathe, the tree, the air, the lung, the heart, the mind, ears, eyes, toes, and the body are one functioning of breathing. There's no eye, no toes, no body, as all transcend their conventionalities into the single function. Do you understand the difference? When you say this breath is also the breath you breathed ten thousand years ago, you have totally exerted the infinite past into a single action of breathing. What does this mean? You would not call this wholeness, right? When you show me this passage of total exertion, Daowu or Dōgen are also participating in the communication of total exertion to you. If you can feel it, the past is as present and the ancient masters are as alive. If you can feel it not as beautiful words but as living experience, the whole lineage of ancient masters is transmitted without reserve, instantly."

"Freedom from all elaborations cannot be said to be "wholeness"; it is just "purity," free from all elaborations. Purity transcends both notions of parts and whole. Conventionally, parts and whole arise dependently."

"One must be able to discern clearly the difference between "wholeness" and "capacity to participate in togetherness." One is due to empty nature and therefore participates freely in dependence. Free of structures, it therefore assimilates all structures. The other has the scent of a fixed and definite structure (still an essence view). Empty in nature, consciousness never stands apart; there is no moment outside relation. Where conditions arise, it is precisely that event—sound in hearing, color in seeing, thought in thinking; where none, nothing is found to point to. Participation without a participant; dynamism without a whole."

English Original: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2015/12/self-liberation-by-khamtrul-rinpoche-iii.html

另请参阅《大手印的皇印：第一卷：共起现成证悟指南：John Tan/Thusness 的评论。

我刚刚在翻阅一本新近翻译出来的大手印著作，我非常喜欢目前读到的一些段落。 看起来是一本很好的书，但我只来得及随手翻了几页。

强烈推荐阅读。 John Tan 认为它非常好。

这本书是《大手印的皇印：第一卷：共起现成证悟指南：1》，作者是第三世堪楚仁波切（Khamtrul Rinpoche III），译者是 Gerardo Abboud。

下面是一段关于“自解脱”的摘录：

当下此刻，观察者——觉知——是否与被观察者——寂静与运动——是分离的，还是说它其实正是那寂静与运动本身？ 以自己的觉知之眼去探究，你会明白：正在探究本身的那个，就是寂静与运动本身，毫无二别。 一旦这样发生，你将体验到清明的空性，呈现为天然光明的自知觉知。 最终，无论我们称之为本性与光辉、不应取的与对治、观察者与所观、正念与念头、寂静与运动，等等，你都应当知道：每一对名词两边并没有差别；在得到上师的加持后，要如实确证它们本来就是不分离的。 最终，抵达无观察者亦无所观的广大开敞界域，即是真义的现证，也是全部抉择与分析的究竟圆满。 这被称为“超越概念之见”，它离一切概念分别而自由，亦被称为“金刚心之见”。

“果位的毗钵舍那（观照慧）就是对于‘观察者与所观不二’这一最终定解的正确现证。”

(John Tan 就上述内容发表评论：

[9:14 PM, 6/20/2020] John Tan: 这并不只是单纯的经验而已。
[9:15 PM, 6/20/2020] John Tan: 它是透过这些名言假立与分析，看穿这些约定俗成之物，并现见这些约定本身的空性……

[7:52 PM, 6/20/2020] John Tan: 直到禅修者或“主体/行者”这个主宰者永远消失为止。
[7:53 PM, 6/20/2020] John Tan: 很少有人能把“全机”（total exertion）以及 DO【缘起】融入无我（anatta）当作正见（除了道元以外），这其实挺令人感到惋惜。
[7:54 PM, 6/20/2020] John Tan: 不过有些西藏上师写的文章真的非常好。

[7:58 PM, 6/20/2020] Soh Wei Yu: 哪些文章？

[8:02 PM, 6/20/2020] John Tan: 我刚刚在翻我们博客时，发现你贴过一篇关于“安住于六种感官”的文章。 忘了是哪一位噶玛巴了。
[8:03 PM, 6/20/2020] Soh Wei Yu: 哦……就是这篇 https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2015/12/self-liberation-by-khamtrul-rinpoche-iii.html
[8:05 PM, 6/20/2020] John Tan: 你真的很会找 🤣🤣🤣
[8:05 PM, 6/20/2020] John Tan: 下次我直接问你就好了……
[8:05 PM, 6/20/2020] John Tan: 哈哈)

……同样地，凡是在触觉根门所现的任何事物，比如柔软或粗糙的布料，这种被触到的触受本身就是你自心。 避免陷入执取或排斥。 无论柔软还是粗糙，都不要试图到柔软或粗糙之外另找“心”在何处，而是就安住在那柔软或粗糙本身之中，自在放松而不分散。 如果升起愉快或不愉快的感受，要认出它，并以正念安住。

同样，凡是在意识根门中升起的一切念头——无论对或错、好或坏、细腻或粗猛——也都是你自心。 避免喜欢“正确的”念头、厌弃“错误的”念头。 无论升起什么念头——好的、坏的或中性的；细微的、具体的或粗重的——都要以觉知认出它的本然面目，并让它自然持续。 如果出现任何攀附，比如围绕“对与错”去想这想那，这本身就是一个执著的念头。 因此要认出那个执取的念头，并就安住在它上面，轻松放下。 总之，即使当下并不是“好坏念头”的问题，而是“寂静与运动”的情形，也要避免作抉择。 不要以阻挡或追逐去染污它。 如果心是寂静的，就在那寂静的本然面目上放松。 如果它散开、驰散了，就在那散开的本然面目上松开。 无论寂静，或任何东西正在生起，就在那上面放松。 紧贴当下所现之物自身，让它的连续性自然保持，不要另外执取什么好或什么坏。

事实上，无论六种感官领域中现起任何“好或坏”的体验——眼根所见之色相、耳根所闻之声、鼻根所嗅之香、舌根所尝之味、身根所触之触、意根所生之念——都不要评断好坏，也不要沉溺于好恶。 无论出现什么、升起什么，先认出它，然后在那个状态中放松安住，最后让它自己解脱。

对我们而言，由于自无始以来的强大串习，我们一生都在生死轮回之中，因此贪爱与嗔恨的念头不可能不生起；这些念头毫无疑问会出现！ 你必须立志不再堕入迷失，要认出这些念头，并在它们当下直接放下。 就安住在了知这些贪著与排斥之念真相的状态中。

噶藏巴尊者（Lord Gotsangpa）说：

“总体而言，一切林林总总的显现，都是自心本身。 由于现象与空性从未以两个分离的实体而安住，所以根本没有必要把觉照拘束在内里。”

另外他说：

“当眼根境界中现起某个色相，这个所现的色相本身就是自心；所现之色相与空性并非二个。 轻轻地、毫无执取地就安住在色相上时，主客体自然得以解脱。 对声、香、味、触，以及意根中所现的种种心理活动，同样如此：只要安住在其当下的现起本身，它就自解脱。 也就是说，不是去打坐在‘觉照本身’上，而是毫无执取地直接安住在六种感官外境之上，使六根的现起本身即是禅修，增上功德由此而生。”

悉达·俄金巴（Siddha Orgyenpa）说：

“凡是能被看见的外在世界之静态或动态诸法，包括任何无情之物——比如大地、石头、山峦、岩石、房屋、地产——乃至三界中高低不同的有情众生——诸如天众、阿修罗，以及三恶趣的一切众生——无论所见为何，没有任何一法哪怕有一丝一毫，是真正在外面独立存在的实体。 它们都是自心之光辉所显现的本然光明。

在实际修持时，应当这样行持。 当大地、石头、山峦或岩石等无情之物显现时，不要在那个无情之物上陷入‘能见者—所见物’的固执分裂。 无论它怎样显现，都要松松地就安住在它上面。 不要以对美好经验的希求，或对不良经验的恐惧，去染污它。 无论现起什么，都要把核心修法直接用在它本身上。 不被任何其他念头打断，就在那个状态里宽松而安住。 以这种方式安住时，你不需要阻断显现、不需要去成就空性、也不必到别处寻找对治。 无情之物与觉知明确无二地相融一体，这就被称为“以现象为道”、“将万法与心合为一体”，以及“见到无二本质”。 如此行持，你就已经掌握了修行的关键要点。 若你不知道如何就在现象上如此宽松安住，反而是透过大量思虑、不断用观念去修正情境，那么这些现象就不会在你面前自然现起为禅修本身。

同样地，当你看见六道任一类众生——无论高或低、善或恶、快乐或痛苦——无论是谁，都如同对无情之物那样修持。 认出眼前所现之人（或众生），并在几乎无造作、仅仅不散乱的非修非作状态中，就宽松地安住在他/它上面。 如此，万法与心无别。 不要用“过失或功德”的角度去看待当下的显现。 避免人为造作或修改。 不要以排斥或成就的意图去染污它。 完全如其所是地，把它们当下现起的样貌当成修行本身。”

安住的方法不应只局限在我们刚才举过的那些情况。 将六根的现起用作修道之径，应当在任何时候都当作主要修持。 否则，尽管你在正式坐禅时也许还能保持某种安住，但之后一旦遭遇外在可爱境界——色、声、香、味、触——你就会完全失去决心，以凡夫方式去享受感官乐趣，而陷入迷惑。 如果你开始转动贪爱与嗔恨、或希望与恐惧的轮子，我们刚才所说的训练在关键时刻就不会现前。 那么你就是忽略了最重大的目标，关键点与根本意趣都会不见。 因此，不仅在主要的禅修安住时，尤其在一切时刻，你都应当学习让一切所现的感官经验，原原本本地被用作修行本身。

以六根的现起当作修道之径，具有许多层次的意义。 最初的效用是：你将停止被六根牵着走，从而任由它们肆意；此后，外境现象将不再对你的禅修造成负面影响，而是会逐渐转为庄严的饰相；最终，法与心不再有二分，你已安住于法身遍一切处的广大法界（界域）。

……

据说，彻底斩断关于“法与心不可分”这一点上的一切误解，真正将心与诸法无希求无畏惧地合而为一，正是在“一味”之较高阶段时所成办的。

……

第四，就“究竟功德是否已经出生”而言：由于身、心与诸法融为一体，并且以无二而现为多样，你便通达诸大元素，能够示现神变。通过殊胜的神通知与胜义智慧，你对外在与内在的诸法获得主宰，因此清净诸地的殊胜功德现起。在一刹那的觉知之中，生死与涅槃中所有善妙之事得以成办，一切不圆满与过失被舍离；并且因为你具有生起殊胜功德的能力，你便善于调御念头。你在往昔生世中所积集、原本要在无量劫之后于阿鼻地狱中受用的业力，那些沉睡的业，自行如一场扰乱不宁的梦般涌现出来，于是它们自然自净。同时，那些本应在无量劫之后才成熟的善业，也会在当下这一刻直接显现。你就掌握业。你证悟过去、现在、未来三时无别，在一瞬中见到它们不可分；无量劫被收摄成一瞬，一瞬又舒展成无量劫。你就掌握时间。由于身、心与诸法被统合，虚空与手掌平等无别；十亿世界系容入几粒微尘；一者化为多，多者成为一；你现为六道中任一类有情的特定形相，以与他们相应的语言宣说正法，乃至种种如是。你就掌握诸法。当喉部的脉道开启时，法藏涌流不息，言语之主得以现前；你在撰写论典时的自信无有阻碍，对于佛陀经教的意义毫无混乱。毫无障碍地了知一切所应知之法，你便掌握本初智慧。若是已得成办这些以及其他神变之力，那么“一味”的功德已然升起。但若虽对“一味”多少有所证得，而令此等功德觉醒的道之因缘微弱，因此尚未现起成就之征兆，那么这些功德就尚未出生。

第五，就“世俗层面是否已经通达”而言：种种现象在一味的证悟体性中不可分离，这种证悟对多种因果获得完全的掌握。一刹那的缘起，鲜明地显现为因果之轮，好似在日轮正中铺上一匹锦缎。在一刹那的觉知体验中，生死轮回与涅槃被辨明为二：你采纳善行、遮止恶行，并训练自己以增上对障染的净除。在空性的究竟实相之中，空性的诸法现起；如虚空般的因果被现证。由于与串习的连结已被切断，业的因果不会在第二个刹那中持续。因为你明白，生死、涅槃与修道一切诸法的生起、因由、安住、依处与坏灭，全都是依缘而起的情况，所以，只要身、语、意一有动静——甚至仅仅是一块石头或一根木棍在滚动——你便会了知哪些过失与功德是应当舍弃，哪些是应当采纳。外在的诸现象，乃至飞鸟与老鼠，都会向你显露正法。由此，你了知诸法具备你自心的本然特征，你对缘起与因果的认知臻于圆满，而世俗层面已被通达。“一味”被洞见为心的区别性特征；基于现象的种种误解被心所清除。世俗位的觉知便是般若，因此，导致对因果迷惑的无明被遣除，了知一切存在之法的智慧相应当生起。然而，若在多样的因果之中，没有升起“空性的一味”，那么世俗层面就尚未被通达。

……

偏向于“本性”的空性

无始以来对所知本性的偏离

将诸法与空性不可分地禅修，被称为“具足最胜相之空性”。由于不了解空性与缘起如何以不二而安住，你便认定空性是某种从未存在过的虚无，完全不受功德或过失所影响。于是你轻视善恶业因果，或者只是一味沉溺于“一切本自清净、本初解脱”等说法之中。怀持这样的空性，就无法通达缘起层面的世俗位。 在这一点上，所谓“大手印”（mahamudra）是指：自性本来无生，由于它既非有也非无，既非永恒也非全无，既非真实也非虚妄，亦非任何此类相状，所以它根本没有任何可安立的实有。然而，它那不间断的光明流现，呈现为一切种类的缘起之世俗层面，因此这被称为“空性具足缘起之核心，缘起具足空性之体性”。因此，空性并未偏离到“所知万法的本性”之上。 正如《中论·根本中道颂》所说： 任何并非依缘而生之法， 皆是毫无真实存在的法。 因此，凡是不空之法， 也都是毫无真实存在的法。 又如《菩提心论疏》所说： 说明世俗即是空性， 而唯有空性正是世俗界。

https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/1oc0zx7/is_nirvana_truly_the_ending_of_rebirth_or_the/

11h ago

R41NBOWRUMP3R

Is Nirvana truly the ending of rebirth or the understanding that rebirth was not happening to begin with?

Question

Been desperately trying to get some conceptual grasp on samsara and rebirth for a while now.

I’ve seen folks try to scientificate it by relating it to atoms in your body becoming a tree later on

I’ve seen it related back to karma as in rebirth is the collective consequences with made you and which you added to continuing on

I’ve seen it described in countless other ways

What all these descriptions seem to lack, in my eyes, is a compatibility with being ended

If it’s just an ‘energy continuing on in absence of a body’ then how does insight END that? My body won’t just disappear once I realize my Buddha nature

So is salvation actually just insight into anatta? Thus, if I truly understand anatta, I will subsequently understand my misconceptions about rebirth previously, recognize that rebirth isn’t compatible with no self, and at that point escape it? Realizing it was never there to begin with?

I’m willing to just continue the practice with an expectation that I might one day understand, I just wanted to vocalize my problem that every explanation I have seen for samsara and rebirth has been wholly incompatible with the concept of escaping said process. Curious what others think about that.

Edit: thank you all for your replies and discussions, I appreciate it all and it’s helped me formulate my next steps in research and practice. I hope I never came off argumentative, it was just my method to try to understand. Thanks again.

Upvote

21

Downvote

49

Go to comments

u/xabir avatar

xabir

•

10h ago

An intellectual understanding of no-self or anatman is far from the experiential realization of it. But even the experiential realization only marks the beginning of the path to liberation from samsara. It is the attainment of stream entry, in which Buddha gave the assurance that one will attain liberation from samsara within seven more lifetimes (or this very life if one is diligent in practice).

On what stream entry entails, see: https://www.reddit.com/r/streamentry/comments/igored/insight_buddhism_a_reconsideration_of_the_meaning/

No-self is completely compatible with rebirth.

Rizenfenix wrote:

“Continuing consciousness after death is, in most religions, a matter of revealed truth. In Buddhism, the evidence comes from the contemplative experience of people who are certainly not ordinary but who are sufficiently numerous that what they say about it is worth taking seriously into account. Indeed, such testimonies begin with those of the Buddha himself.

Nevertheless, it’s important to understand that what’s called reincarnation in Buddhism has nothing to do with the transmigration of some ‘entity’ or other. It’s not a process of metempsychosis because there is no ‘soul’. As long as one thinks in terms of entities rather than function and continuity, it’s impossible to understand the Buddhist concept of rebirth. As it’s said, ‘There is no thread passing through the beads of the necklace of rebirths.’ Over successive rebirths, what is maintained is not the identity of a ‘person’, but the conditioning of a stream of consciousness.

Additionally, Buddhism speaks of successive states of existence; in other words, everything isn’t limited to just one lifetime. We’ve experienced other states of existence before our birth in this lifetime, and we’ll experience others after death. This, of course, leads to a fundamental question: is there a nonmaterial consciousness distinct from the body? It would be virtually impossible to talk about reincarnation without first examining the relationship between body and mind. Moreover, since Buddhism denies the existence of any self that could be seen as a separate entity capable of transmigrating from one existence to another by passing from one body to another, one might well wonder what it could be that links those successive states of existence together.

One could possibly understand it better by considering it as a continuum, a stream of consciousness that continues to flow without there being any fixed or autonomous entity running through it… Rather it could be likened to a river without a boat, or to a lamp flame that lights a second lamp, which in-turn lights a third lamp, and so on and so forth; the flame at the end of the process is neither the same flame as at the outset, nor a completely different one…”

Upvote

8

Downvote

Reply

Award

Share

302

u/R41NBOWRUMP3R avatar

R41NBOWRUMP3R

OP

•

10h ago

This gets to the heart of my question though. You’ve provided a great concept of what not self really is getting at, or a possibility thereof. However it doesn’t seem compatible with liberation?

If the continuing essence is a stream of consciousness, what then is the escape FROM? Where is that stream wandering off to in order to be eternally free of suffering? A judeo Christian heaven? Orrrrrr

Upvote

2

Downvote

Reply

Award

Share

u/xabir avatar

xabir

•

10h ago

Anatman rejects an “essence”, there is no entity but just a stream of consciousness.

Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith said before, “Malcolm wrote: Omniscience is the content of a mind freed of afflictions. Even the continuum of a Buddha has a relative ground, i.e. a the rosary or string of moments of clarity is beginingless.

Origination from self is axiomatically negated in Buddhadharma,

Each moment in the continuum of a knowing clarity is neither the same as nor different than the previous moment. Hence the cause of a given instant of a knowing clarity cannot be construed to be itself nor can it be construed to be other than itself. This is the only version of causation which, in the final analysis, Buddhadharma can admit to on a relative level. It is the logical consequence of the Buddha's insight, "When this exists, that exists, with the arising of that, this arose." “

Even this stream of consciousness never ceases after liberation or Buddhahood, but it is transformed or purified (of delusion and afflictions) into its pure modality of jnana/wisdom.

This is also what Nirvana is - not a place or destination like some sort of heaven, but the end of afflictions.

Wrote this in Reddit years ago regarding anatman (no self) and nirvana:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/2xuq7b/is_nirvana_basically_nonexistence/cp3k7c2/

“Nirvana is simply the cessation of craving, aggression, and delusion. Delusion includes the construct of self, that I exist, that I am the perceiver or controller of experiences and actions. Nirvana is not annihilation because what ends is simply a process of delusional I-making and mine-making and other related mental afflictions, it is not the annihilation of some actual self (which never existed).

Nirvana is when, in seeing the seen, it's realized and experienced that there is simply that scenery, and no seer. No you in terms of that. In hearing sound, there's simply (always already) only sound, no hearer. In thinking... only thought, no thinker. When this is realized, not merely intellectualized, and directly experienced as being so, and all sense of self are being released, then that is Nirvana. This is peace, bliss, freedom from suffering. It is not boring: in fact, boredom only exist when there is a sense of self, and a sense of dissatisfaction with what is present, therefore a craving for something to be 'better than what is'. There is a subject and object here: 'I' want 'something better out there'. But when anatta is realized and actualized, there is no sense of self, there is no subject and object, no dichotomy of perceiver and perceived, and everything is just lucid and luminous and blissful and perfect as it is. Nirvana is also the cessation of craving.

(For more information check out Bahiya Sutta)

Also Buddha teaches that we have past lives and future lifetimes, but if you attain Nirvana, you are no longer stuck in this cycle of samsaric rebirth and suffering.

Mahayana Buddhists then say the Buddhas continue to emanate out of compassion to guide suffering beings out of samsara.

....

Also, for a much longer, detailed, accurate explanation with multiple scriptural citations on Anatman (no self) and Nirvana, please read this well written writing by Geoff: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2012/09/great-resource-of-buddha-teachings.html “

Likewise there is a good post by Krodha recently: In chapter 2, sections 69 through 80, The Suvarṇaprabhāsottamasūtra says: Noble ones, the bodhisattva mahāsattvas know through these ten qualities that the Tathāgata Arhat Samyaksaṃbuddha correctly and truly teaches that there is a great passing into nirvāṇa. What are these ten? First, nirvāṇa means that the tathāgatas have completely eliminated the obscuration of the kleśas and the obscuration of knowledge. Second, nirvāṇa means that the tathāgatas know that there is no self in the individual and no self in phenomena. Third, nirvāṇa means that there is a transformation of the body and of qualities. Fourth, nirvāṇa means that there is a spontaneous guidance of beings. Fifth, nirvāṇa means that there is sameness in the dharmakāya because there is no differentiation of characteristics through the truth becoming manifest. Sixth, nirvāṇa means that there is no duality between the nature of samsāra and nirvāṇa. Seventh, nirvāṇa means that purity is manifested through the realization of the essence of phenomena. Eighth, nirvāṇa means that there has been the skillful accomplishment of all phenomena being devoid of birth and devoid of destruction. Ninth, nirvāṇa means that there is the attainment of the gnosis (jñāna) of the equality of the true nature, the dharmadhātu, and the ultimate conclusion. Tenth, nirvāṇa means that there is the knowledge that there is no difference between the nature of all phenomena and the nature of nirvāṇa. https://84000.co/translation/toh556

Also, Krodha previously clarified:

"Nirvana is just a total purification of the mindstream, not a place that is entered or departed from." "Does the mind-stream continue after Parinirvana? "Yes, it is unceasing. Nirvana etc., is only the total purification of the mindstream."

Upvote

1

Downvote

Reply

Award

Share

107

u/R41NBOWRUMP3R avatar

R41NBOWRUMP3R

OP

•

10h ago

I really appreciate the thorough answer and citations.

Is it then a misnomer that nirvana is escape from samsara? If their natures are no different?

Upvote

1

Downvote

Reply

Award

Share

u/xabir avatar

xabir

•

10h ago

It is an escape from samsara in the sense that there is an end to karmic births and deaths in samsara. Yet, this escape, or nirvana, turns out to be samsara (the world of phenomena) rightly perceived with wisdom. This is why samsara and nirvana is nondual, etc. The nature of all phenomena is of the same nature as nirvana because all phenomena that dependently originates are fundamentally without birth and cessation, are non-arising and non-originated (anutpada) due to lack of an essence or self-nature — i.e. empty.

Upvote

3

Downvote

Reply

Award

Share

70

u/R41NBOWRUMP3R avatar

R41NBOWRUMP3R

OP

•

9h ago

But how can something both have a birth and death but also be without birth and cessation?

This is the root of my question in OP. Is nirvana just realizing that birth and death aren’t real? Or is it an actual cessation of a rebirth process?

I’m not sure how you escape something by realizing it doesn’t exist. Surely that means you were never trapped to begin with? If it’s just the cessation of illusion, or the right perception that you were girdled by a falsehood then why do we insist of saying rebirth actually exists? Shouldn’t the masters have just said “it might seem to you that you exist in a cycle of rebirth, but this is an illusion, and you’ll understand that if you practice” etc etc

Upvote

1

Downvote

Reply

Award

Share

u/R41NBOWRUMP3R avatar

R41NBOWRUMP3R

OP

•

9h ago

You’ve verbalized a thought I had a bit earlier before writing the OP. Like, the best possible remedy for my skepticism at embracing the questionable and seemingly illogical aspects of Buddhism is that I can’t seem to get a straight answer about any of it out of anybody haha.

Upvote

2

Downvote

Reply

Award

Share

u/xabir avatar

xabir

•

8h ago

First thing one must understand is that emptiness does not deny conventional validity and functionalities. It is not the naive and nihilistic assertion that “everything is just nothingness, non-existent”, etc.

Rather: It is precisely because all things lack an essence or svabhava, svabhava being an essence (of a self or phenomena) that exists independent of the various causes and conditions contributing to the arising of a given phenomena, that the soteriological value of the Buddhadharma is made possible, and an end to samsara is possible. If there were svabhava or essence in self and phenomena, everything would exist independent of causes and conditions, would be static and immutable, and hence suffering cannot be ended, the path would be impossible, and so on.

The Sixty Stanzas states: “That which originates due to a cause… disappears when the conditions are absent—how can it be understood to ‘exist’ (in itself)?”

From the Madhyamaka standpoint, “not born” (anutpāda) negates inherent birth—birth from its own side—without denying the dependent, conventional arising of aggregates. Nāgārjuna’s Chapter 24 is explicit: to deny dependent arising is to undercut emptiness itself, which would “contradict all worldly conventions” and make action/karma, etc impossible; if things had svabhāva, “the whole world would be unarising, unceasing, and static.” In short: conventional arising depends on the ultimate absence of svabhāva.

This is why he can also say, in the very same chapter, that for whom emptiness is clear, everything (on the path and in the world) becomes clear/possible—and for whom it isn’t, nothing does (MMK 24:14). What looks paradoxical dissolves once “unborn” is read as “not inherently, but dependently arisen.”

Hence: It is precisely because of emptiness that all things are made possible, being a dependent origination and dependent designation, and the conventional validity of the four noble truths, the process that starts samsara and the liberation from samsara and cyclic rebirth is made possible. This is discussed in Chapter 24 of the Mulamadhyamikakarika by Arya Nagarjuna, chapter on the Four Noble Truths.

You basically asked: “How do you escape something by realizing it doesn’t exist?”

Continued below

Upvote

2

Downvote

Reply

Award

Share

34

u/xabir avatar

xabir

•

8h ago

The answer is: we are not negating valid functionalities; we are negating inherent existence. Seeing that “self”, “phenomena”, “birth” are an empty and dependently originating and dependently designated process that never truly originated as truly existent entities undercuts the ignorance and grasping that fuels its re-production—this is precisely how cessation of ignorance brings cessation of the rest. This is already the Buddha’s middle teaching and Nāgārjuna’s point in equating dependent arising ≡ emptiness ≡ the middle way ≡ dependent designation.

Emptiness should not be misunderstood as nothingness or non-existence (which pertains to the wrong view of the nihilists) but must be understood in terms of dependent origination.

“Pursuant to the middle view, Tson-kha-pa cites Nagarjuna's Yuk-tisastika and Candrakirti's Yuktisastika-vrtti. Nagarjuna: What arises in dependence is not born; That is proclaimed by the supreme knower of reality 😊 Buddha). Candrakirti: (The realist opponent says): If (as you say) whatever thing arises in dependence is not even born, then why does (the Madhyamika) say it is not born? But if you (Madhyamika) have a reason for saying (this thing) is not born, then you should not say it "arises in dependence." Therefore, because of mutual inconsistency, (what you have said) is not valid.) (The Madhyamika replies with compassionate interjection:) Alas! Because you are without ears or heart you have thrown a challenge that is severe on us! When we say that anything arising in dependence, in the manner of a reflected image, does not arise by reason of self-existence - at that time where is the possibility of disputing (us)!” - excerpt from Calming the Mind and Discerning the Real: Buddhist Meditation and the Middle View

Buddha described nirvāṇa as the cessation of the causal chain: with the cessation of ignorance there is cessation of formations … up to the cessation of birth, and thus aging-and-death (the standard reverse order of dependent origination). That is a conventionally real cessation—but it is the cessation of empty conditions, not the extinguishing of a self-thing. The Kaccānagotta Sutta guards the view: avoiding the extremes “everything exists” and “nothing exists,” the Tathāgata teaches the middle via dependent arising. It is because all phenomena are empty and appear in the manner of reflections through dependent origination — functional and appearing vividly yet illusory and having no core or essence anywhere like a mirage, arisen due to dependencies, that once these conditions are removed, they vanish. To give another analogy: If the reflection of moon in water had an essence of its own, that it truly originated and established its own independent existence inside the body of water, then its appearance could not be made to vanish by removing the conditions.

Madhyamaka thus preserves both sides: conventionally, rebirth and cessation talk track the functioning of causes and results; ultimately, “whatever is dependently arisen, that is emptiness… therefore a non-empty thing does not exist” (MMK 24:18–19). Hence the master formula: saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are non-different in emptiness, even while they are experientially distinct as bondage vs. release.

Contrary to the assertion that only things possessing an intrinsic nature (svabhāva) could function, the Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka reverses this. It is precisely because phenomena are empty of inherent existence that they can arise, change, and interact. As scholar Jay L. Garfield summarizes: "Nāgārjuna’s point is not that empty things are inefficacious, but that only because they are empty can they function; were they to possess intrinsic nature they would be inert.”

This is why emptiness in Buddhism does not negate the conventional validity and functionalities of karma and the twelve links of dependent origination. They are empty and illusory like reflections and water-moons, but not empty in the sense of conventionally non-existent such as rabbits with horns.

Jamgön Mipham, in his commentary on Candrakīrti's Madhyamakāvatāra, explicates this contrast with reference to karmic causality:

“Although virtuous and non-virtuous deeds are alike in lacking inherent existence, an unripened action will still ripen... Just as a patient with an ocular disease may see black lines [that appear and seem to function visually for that patient] that nevertheless disappear once the malady is cured, so too karmic seeds operate once and then cease. A rabbit’s horn, by contrast, never appears at all.” (Adapted from Introduction to the Middle Way, pp. 122-123)

Mipham further elaborates in his auto-commentary:

“All illusory objects—rabbit horns, black lines, water-moons—are equal in lacking inherent nature. Yet an ocular patient sees black lines, and these appearances condition a matching consciousness; they are functional [conventionally, for that perceiver]. A rabbit horn never appears, hence is non-functional. Likewise, virtue and non-virtue are equally unreal [i.e., empty of inherent existence], yet one yields happiness and the other suffering."

This illustrates that conventional phenomena, though empty like a water-moon, are not nothing; they appear and have specific functional capacities within the dependent web of reality. The illusion of inherent existence (svabhāva), however, is like a rabbit's horn—purely imaginary, not found even conventionally, and has no functional capacity. Nāgārjuna’s MMK 15 insists that if something were inherently existent, it would be as impossible to arise or cease as a rabbit’s horn; hence svabhāva is denied both ultimately and conventionally.

On the other hand, Indian exegesis links the water-moon to arthakriyaˉ (“pragmatic efficacy”): what appears empty can still perform a function, like a conceptual designation allowing trade in “fiat” currency. Because its appearance depends on multiple conditions (water, light, viewpoint), the image is vivid yet collapses under analysis—just as persons depend on the skandhas and labeling.

On the other hand, if phenomena possessed a fixed, independent, intrinsic nature, they would be immutable and causally inert. Nāgārjuna makes this point powerfully:

Continued below

Upvote

2

Downvote

Reply

Award

Share

36

u/xabir avatar

xabir

•

8h ago

Vigrahavyāvartanī (Vv) — the “where emptiness applies…” chain

My literal rendering of the Sanskrit chain (vv. ~70–71):

Where emptiness is operative, dependent origination is operative. Where dependent origination is operative, the Four Noble Truths are operative. … where those [truths and their practices] are operative, the ten wholesome dharmas are operative … the Three Jewels are operative … and worldly conventions hold good.

Published translation for the same passage (Bhattacharya):

“All things prevail for him for whom emptiness prevails … where the Four Noble Truths are in force, fruits, the spiritual community, and the Buddha are in force too … where the Three (Jewels) are in force, the conventions of the world are in force.” Internet Archive

(Source has the Sanskrit and Bhattacharya’s English together; the quoted lines condense the list he gives just beneath the verse.)

MMK 24 (Examination of the Four Noble Truths) — core verses

Objection/response setup (24:1–2):

“(Opponent:) If all of this is empty, neither arising nor ceasing, then for you it follows that the Four Noble Truths do not exist. If the Four Noble Truths do not exist, then knowledge, abandonment, meditation and manifestation will be completely impossible.”

Emptiness ↔ convention/efficacy (24:6–8):

“If dependent arising is denied, emptiness itself is rejected. This would contradict all the worldly conventions. If emptiness is rejected, no action will be appropriate. There would be action which did not begin, and there would be an agent without action. If there is svabhāva, the whole world will be unarising, unceasing, and static. The entire phenomenal world would be immutable.”

Identity of dependent arising and emptiness (24:18–19):

“Whatever is dependently co-arisen, that is explained to be emptiness. That, being a dependent designation, is itself the middle way. Something that is not dependently arisen—such a thing does not exist. Therefore a non-empty thing does not exist.”

Candrakīrti, Madhyamakāvatāra — conventions and the two truths

Conventional truth and “fabricated entities” (VI.28 in this translation excerpt):

“The true (satya) for a concealer [i.e., conventional truth] is that fabricated entities are merely conventional; ultimately they are not established.” Shantideva Center -

“Buddha did not quarrel with the world” — keeping everyday discourse intact (VI.82):

“The Perfect Buddha did not quarrel with the world; in the everyday world, aggregates, and so on, are accepted to exist.”

Upvote

2

Downvote

Reply

Award

Share

24