Posts
A Reader’s Question (Paraphrased)
A reader writes to share an article titled “Emergence of
Wisdom: Incomplete Symmetry” by Lin Wenxin, asking for my perspective on
its claims. The article argues that time, space, and causality are illusions,
citing concepts from modern physics such as the "Observer Effect" and
"Wave Function Collapse."
The core argument of the shared text is that the universe
has no inherent causality but is instead "instantaneously generated"
from nothing at the moment of observation. It claims that because particles
have no state before observation, there is no "before" or
"after," and thus no continuity. From this premise, the author
concludes that karma and retribution do not exist; instead, life
operates purely on "choice" and "parameters" (like AI
settings or soul scripts). The text suggests that we are "free creators"
in every moment, unbound by the past, and that suffering arises solely from the
"illusion of causality."
The reader found the article interesting and asked for my
views on how this aligns with the Dharma.
Soh's Reply:
H 先生
(Mr. H) 大德您好：
感謝您的郵件分享。很高興看到您對這些深刻的話題感興趣，並分享了林文欣的文章。
但我必須直言不諱：您分享的這篇文章，無論是從現代物理學還是**佛法中觀（Madhyamaka）**的角度來看，都存在明顯的誤區。它混淆了「勝義諦」（空性）與「世俗諦」（因果），從而導致了一種可能落入虛無主義（Nihilism）的觀點。
在詳細評論之前，強烈建議您先閱讀 Awakening to Reality (ATR) 部落格上的幾篇基礎文章（如果連結無法打開，建議搜尋標題閱讀）。這些文章闡明了如何超越該文中的特定誤區：
- Thusness's
Seven Stages of Awakening (Thusness 的覺受七階段)
- Mistaken
Reality of Amness (我是感的錯誤真實性)
- On
Anatta, Emptiness, and Spontaneous Presence (關於無我、空性與自然智)
- Different
Degrees of No-Self (不同程度的無我)
以下是針對該文的詳細雙重批判：
雙重批判：科學與哲學
——回應林文欣的「量子神秘主義」
要正確地評判這篇文章，我們需要從兩方面入手：物理學（因為它誤解了科學）和中觀（Madhyamaka）（因為它誤解了佛法）。即便是接受某種量子力學的詮釋，也不能以此為據，就在形而上學層面跳躍到「業力是虛假的」或「意識創造實相」這樣的結論。
第一部分：科學事實核查
——為何該文屬於「通俗科普中的誤讀」
該文聲稱「現代物理學」證明了時間、空間和因果關係都是意識創造的幻覺。正統物理學並沒有這樣的結論。
1. 「觀察者」 ≠ 「意識」
該文聲稱：「直到你觀察……它才被生成……這就是觀察者效應。」
糾正： 在量子力學中，「觀察者」或「測量」並不需要一個有意識的人類頭腦。它指的是導致**退相干（decoherence）**的物理相互作用（如測量儀器或環境）；退相干解釋了為什麼結果看起來是經典物理的，但它本身並不等於完整解決了「測量問題」。至於「意識導致塌縮」的理論，只是一個邊緣的解釋，而非既定的科學事實。
2. 量子力學是遵循法則的
該文聲稱：「宇宙沒有因果。」
糾正： 這種說法言過其實。量子系統的演化（通過薛丁格方程式）是決定論（deterministic）的。雖然測量的結果是概率性的，但它們嚴格遵循波恩定則（Born Rule）。這不是「隨機」或「魔法」，而是一種遵循嚴格定律的概率性因果。
3. 量子糾纏 ≠ 「空間是幻覺」
該文聲稱：「空間不是實體……量子糾纏已經證明了[這一點]。」
糾正： 量子糾纏確實產生非局域的相關性，但**無通訊/無訊號定理（No-Communication/No-Signaling Theorem）**證明了它不能被用來以超光速傳遞訊息——因此它並不支持作者所謂「空間是幻覺」的說法。
4. 相對論 ≠ 「時間只是故事」
該文聲稱：「時間不是流動的……是大腦發明的。」
糾正： 相對論表明時間是依賴於參考系的（例如時間膨脹、同時性的相對性），但它並沒有說時間是「幻覺」。諸如「塊狀宇宙」（Block
Universe）或「永恆論」這類說法，屬於對物理學的哲學詮釋，而非相對論本身證明的科學事實。
這一點的嚴重性：
作者利用量子力學的神秘感，混入了一種形而上學的信仰（一個創造實相的「靈魂」或「意識」）。這不是嚴謹的科學推論。
第二部分：中觀（Madhyamaka）的批判
——基於龍樹菩薩、月稱菩薩，以及阿闍黎馬爾科姆·史密斯（Acarya Malcolm Smith）、John Tan (Thusness) 和 Soh 的論述。
即使我們接受作者的前提作為一種隱喻，其結論也落入了兩個極端：斷見/虛無主義（Nihilism，否定世俗諦）和常見/實有論（Substantialism，將「意識」或「整體性」實有化）。
1. 根本錯誤：否定世俗諦（落入斷見）
該文主張：
「既然現象是生成的，那就不存在『因
→ 果』……時間、空間、因果——全部都是幻覺。」
中觀的反駁：
該文用「空性」來破壞「世俗諦」。它假設因為因果在勝義上（ultimately）不是實有的，那麼它就必須是完全不存在的。
阿闍黎馬爾科姆·史密斯（Namdrol）反駁了這種觀點，解釋了龍樹的《中論》（MMK）實際上是在捍衛緣起：
"MMK refutes any kind of production other than
dependent origination. It is through dependent origination that emptiness is
correctly discerned. Without the view of dependent origination, emptiness
cannot be correctly perceived, let alone realized. The MMK rejects production
from self, other, both, and causeless production, but not dependent
origination. The MMK also praises the teaching of dependent origination as the
pacifier of proliferation in the mangalam. The last chapter of MMK is on
dependent origination. The MMK nowhere rejects dependent origination, it is in
fact a defense of the proper way to understand it. The only way to the ultimate
truth (emptiness) is through the relative truth (dependent origination), so if
one’s understanding of relative truth is flawed, as is the case with all
traditions outside of Buddhadharma, and even many within it, there is no
possibility that ultimate truth can be understood and realized."
（中譯：「《中論》駁斥了除緣起之外的任何生起方式。正是通過緣起，空性才被正確地辨識。沒有緣起的見地，空性無法被正確認知，更不用說證悟。《中論》拒絕了自生、他生、共生和無因生，但沒有拒絕緣起。《中論》也讚歎緣起教法為吉祥的『能滅戲論者』。《中論》的最後一品[26]*
便是關於緣起。《中論》從未拒絕緣起，事實上它是在捍衛理解緣起的正確方式。通往勝義諦（空性）的唯一途徑是通過世俗諦（緣起），因此，如果一個人對世俗諦的理解有缺陷——正如所有佛法以外的傳統，乃至許多佛法內部的傳統那樣——就不可能理解和證悟勝義諦。」）
（註：在標準版本中，緣起是第26品的主題；第27品討論邪見。）
John Tan (Thusness) 進一步澄清了將世俗諦視為「純粹幻覺」（如兔角）的危險：
"Many misunderstand that oh ultimately it is empty and
DO [Dependent Origination] is conventional therefore conceptual so ultimately
empty non-existence.
We must understand what is meant by empty ultimately but
conventionally valid. Nominal constructs are of two types, those that are valid
and those that are invalid like 'rabbit horns'. Even mere appearances free from
all elaborations and conceptualities, they inadvertently manifest therefore the
term 'appearances'. They do not manifest randomly or haphazardly, they are
valid mode of arising and that is dependent arising. When it is 'valid' means
it is the acceptable way of explanation and not 'rabbit horn' which is
non-existence."
（中譯：「許多人誤解了，認為『噢，終極上是空的，緣起是世俗的，所以也是概念性的，因此終極上是空無所有的』。我們必須理解何謂『終極為空，但世俗有效』。假名安立（Nominal
constructs）有兩種，一種是有效的，一種是無效的（如『兔角』）。即使是遠離一切戲論和概念的『單純顯現』（mere
appearances），它們也不經意地顯現，因此稱為『顯現』。它們不是隨機或雜亂無章地顯現，它們是『有效的生起模式』，即緣起。當說是『有效』時，意味著它是可接受的解釋方式，而不是像『兔角』那樣的『不存在』。」）
結論：
中觀認為因果在世俗上是有效的。否定這種「有效的生起模式」就是切斷了通往證悟的道路。
2. 「生成」與「無生」的陷阱
該文主張：
「宇宙不是發生的，是被生成的……所有現象都是……瞬間生成。」
中觀的反駁：
「生成」（Generation）暗示了一個起點——某物從無中生有（無因生）。在中觀中，事物不是「生成」的；它們是依緣而起（arise
in dependence），意味著它們從未真正帶著本質而「出生」。
參考龍樹與月稱的論述：
龍樹菩薩：
龍樹菩薩在《六十如理論》（Yuktisastika）第19偈中說：「若法因緣生，即說無有生。」（What arises in dependence is not born.）這也呼應了《中論》24. 的核心思想：「諸法因緣生，我說即是空。」
月稱菩薩：
"(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
（中譯：「（實有論者問）：如果如你所說，凡是依緣而起的事物甚至沒有出生，那為什麼中觀師說它沒有出生？如果你有理由說這事物不生，那你就不應該說它『依緣而起』。因此，由於相互矛盾，你所說的是無效的。
（中觀師帶著慈悲感嘆回答）：唉！因為你沒有耳朵也沒有心，你對我們提出了一個嚴厲的挑戰！當我們說任何依緣而起的事物，如鏡像一般，並非因自性而生（does
not arise by reason of self-existence）——在那時哪裡還有爭辯的可能性呢！」）—— 摘自《Calming the Mind and Discerning the
Real》
John Tan 解釋對「生起」的正確理解：
"Do you get what I meant?
What it means is there is still a 'right' or 'acceptable' or
'valid' way to express it conventionally. Take freedom from all elaborations
for example, it doesn't mean 'blankness' or 'anything goes'. There is right
understanding of 'freedom from all elaborations' that is why Mipham has to
qualify that it is not 'blankness', it does not reject 'mere appearance', it
must be understood from the perspective of 'coalescence'...and so on and so
forth. Similarly, there is right understanding of 'arising' conventionally and
that is DO [dependent origination]. So when we clearly see how essence = true existence = independence
of causes and conditions are untenable for anything to arise, we see dependent
arising."
（中譯：「你明白我的意思嗎？這意味著在世俗上仍然有一種『正確』、『可接受』或『有效』的表達方式。以『遠離一切戲論』為例，它並不意味著『空白』或『怎麼都行』。對於『遠離一切戲論』有正確的理解，這就是為什麼米滂仁波切（Mipham）必須強調它不是『空白』，它不否定『單純顯現』，必須從『雙運/融合』的角度來理解……等等。同樣地，對於世俗上的『生起』也有正確的理解，那就是緣起（DO）。所以，當我們清楚地看到本質=真實存在=獨立於因緣條件對於任何事物的生起都是站不住腳的時候，我們就看到了緣起。」）
3. 「自由創造者」的批判（常見/實有論）
該文主張：
「你永遠不是被因果綁住的；你永遠是生成的自由創造者……是你在決定世界。」
中觀的反駁：
這否定了外在世界，卻實有化了「你」（觀察者）。它通過稱其為「自由創造者」，偷偷地把「我」（Atman/Self）帶了回來。
阿闍黎馬爾科姆·史密斯徹底瓦解了「知者」是一個單一實體的觀念：
"The argument that a knower is a self has already been
advanced and dismantled in Buddhist texts. If a knower can have many
cognitions, it already has many parts and cannot be a unitary or an integral
entity. We are therefore not operating here at a position prior to recognizing
discrete entities, the very fact that our minds (citta) are variegated (citra)
proves the mind is not an integral entity, proves it is made of parts, and
since those cognitions happen sequentially, this proves the mind is also impermanent,
momentary, and dependent. So, it is impossible for a conventional knower to be
a self."
（中譯：「認為知者是『自我』的論點在佛教文本中早已被提出並拆解。如果一個知者可以有多個認知，它就已經有很多部分，不可能是單一或整體的實體。我們在此並非處於識別離散實體之前的立場，我們的心（citta）是多樣化（citra/雜色）的事實證明了心不是一個完整的實體，證明了它是由部分組成的，而且由於這些認知是按順序發生的，這證明了心也是無常的、剎那的和依賴因緣的。所以，世俗的知者不可能是『自我』。」）
結論：
並沒有一個站在因果之外的「自由創造者」。「知者」與其觀察到的世界一樣，都是剎那生滅、依賴因緣的。
4. 「整體性」
vs 「無參與者的參與」
該文主張：
「A 與 B 不是兩件事……空間……是意識用來定位現象的座標系……意識是介面。」
中觀的反駁：456
該文落入了一元論（Monism）或整體性（Wholeness）的觀點。它試圖通過將 A 和 B 歸入一個單一的、統一的「意識」來消除二元對立。這是一種本質見——將意識視為一個巨大的容器。789
John Tan (Thusness) 特別批判了這種「整體性」觀點，並將其與真正的「全提」（Emptiness）區分開來：
"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). ... Participation
without a participant; dynamism without a whole."
"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... Subsuming into all-embracing
consciousness is a wholeness and oneness experience also [but it is still an
entity concept]."
（中譯：「必須清楚辨別『整體性』（wholeness）與『共同參與的能力』之間的區別。一個是基於空性本質，因此在緣起中自由參與。因其無結構，故能同化所有結構。另一個則帶有固定和確定結構的意味（仍然是自性見）。……沒有參與者的參與；沒有整體的動態。」「雖然『整體性』也可以說超越時空，但它是一個實體概念。但『全提』（total
exertion）是作為一種活動完全發揮。萬法都成為那個活動……歸入包羅萬象的意識也是一種整體和合一的體驗 [但它仍然是一個實體概念]。」）
結論：
該文設想了一個「整體」（意識）生成了
A 和 B。正確的見地是無參與者的參與。沒有一個「意識」充當座標系；只有看或聽的動態、空性事件。
5. 否定業果（報應）的危險
該文主張：
「人生運行在選擇，不在報應……你不是未來由過去造成的結果。」
中觀的反駁：192021
通過否定「報應」（業/Karma），作者否定了世界的世俗功能性。222324
阿闍黎馬爾科姆·史密斯解釋為何我們在世俗上必須接受「離散的相續」：
"Things appear to be discrete, so we label them
“discrete.” If things appear to be nondiscrete, we are not able to label them
as discrete. For example, from a distance a mountain does not appear to be
composed of discrete parts, so we label that appearance “mountain.” When we get
closer, we see there are many parts, and what was formally labeled a mountain
gets redefined into slopes, peaks, ravines, and so on. ... It’s the same with
mental continuum’s, even the notion of mental continuum will not bear ultimate
analysis, but since the cause and result of karma, etc., appear to be discrete,
mind streams are, conventionally speaking, discrete, because there is an
observable function.."
（中譯：「事物顯現為離散的，所以我們標記它們為『離散的』。如果事物顯現為非離散的，我們就無法標記它們為離散的。例如，從遠處看，一座山似乎不是由離散的部分組成的，所以我們將那顯現標記為『山』。當我們走近時，我們看到有許多部分，原本被標記為山的東西被重新定義為斜坡、山峰、溝壑等等。……心相續（mental continuum）也是如此，即使是心相續的概念也經不起勝義的分析，但既然業的因和果等在顯現上是離散的，那麼心相續在世俗上也是離散的，因為有可觀察的功能。」）
總結
這篇文章恰恰體現了龍樹菩薩在《中論》24.
/ 24.（依版本/譯本而定）中所警告的：「不能正觀空，鈍根則自害；如不善咒術，不善捉毒蛇。」
作者抓住了空性這條毒蛇（無時間、無空間），卻抓錯了頭（無責任、無業果、自我是創造者、意識的整體性）。
阿闍黎馬爾科姆·史密斯總結了該文觀點的失敗之處：
"The only way to the ultimate truth (emptiness) is
through the relative truth (dependent origination), so if one’s understanding
of relative truth is flawed... there is no possibility that ultimate truth can
be understood and realized."
（中譯：「通往勝義谛（空性）的唯一途徑是通過世俗谛（緣起），因此，如果一個人對世俗谛的理解有缺陷……就不可能理解和證悟勝義谛。」）
希望這些分析能幫助您釐清這些重要的觀點！
祝吉祥，
Soh
English Version
Dear Mr. H:
Thank you for your email and for sharing the article by Lin
Wenxin. It is wonderful that you are engaging with such deep topics.
However, I must be direct with you: the article you shared,
whether viewed from the perspective of Modern Physics or the Buddhist
Middle Way (Madhyamaka), contains significant errors. It confuses
"Ultimate Truth" (Emptiness) with "Conventional Truth"
(Cause and Effect), leading to a view that risks falling into Nihilism.
Before I provide the detailed critique, I strongly suggest
reading the following foundational articles on the Awakening to Reality
(ATR) blog (search for these titles if the links do not work). These
articles clarify how to move beyond the specific misunderstandings found in
that text:
- Thusness's
Seven Stages of Awakening
- Mistaken
Reality of Amness
- On
Anatta, Emptiness, and Spontaneous Presence
- Different
Degrees of No-Self
Below is a comprehensive analysis of why the text requires
correction.
A Dual Critique: Scientific & Philosophical
Addressing the "Quantum Mysticism" of Lin
Wenxin
To properly critique this text, we must look at it from two
sides: Physics (because it misinterprets science) and Madhyamaka
(because it misinterprets the Dharma). Even if one adopts a particular
interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, it does not license the metaphysical leap
to "karma is false" or "consciousness creates reality."
Part 1: The Scientific Reality Check
Why this text represents "Misinterpretations in
Popular Science"
The text claims "Modern Physics" proves time,
space, and causality are hallucinations created by consciousness. Standard
physics does not support these claims.
1. "Observer" ≠ "Consciousness"
The text claims: "Until you observe... it is
generated... This is the Observer Effect."
Correction: In quantum mechanics, an "observer"
does not require a conscious human mind. It refers to any physical interaction
(such as a measurement instrument or the environment) that leads to
decoherence. Decoherence explains why outcomes appear classical, but it does
not by itself fully settle the "measurement problem" (i.e., why one
specific outcome occurs). As for the theory that "consciousness causes
collapse," this is merely a fringe interpretation, not a settled scientific
fact.
2. Quantum Mechanics is Law-Governed
The text claims: "The universe has no causality."
Correction: This is overstated. The unitary evolution of a
quantum system (via the Schrödinger equation) is deterministic given the
quantum state. While measurement outcomes are probabilistic, they are strictly
governed by the Born Rule. This is not "randomness" or
"magic," but a form of probabilistic causality that follows strict
laws.
3. Entanglement ≠ "Space is an Illusion"
The text claims: "Space is not a physical entity...
Quantum entanglement has proven [this]."
Correction: While entanglement produces nonlocal
correlations, the No-Communication/No-Signaling Theorem proves that it cannot
be used to transmit information faster than light—therefore, it does not
support the author's claim that "space is an illusion" in the sense
that locality is irrelevant to causality.
4. Relativity ≠ "Time is a Story"
The text claims: "Time is not flowing... invented by
the brain."
Correction: Relativity shows time is frame-dependent (e.g.,
time dilation, relativity of simultaneity), but it does not say time is a
"hallucination." Claims that time is an illusion or that the
"Block Universe" is the only truth are philosophical interpretations
(e.g., Eternalism/B-theory), not what relativity itself proves.
The gravity of this point:
The author uses the mystery of quantum mechanics to inject a
metaphysical belief (a "Soul" or "Consciousness" that
creates reality). This is not rigorous scientific reasoning.
Part 2: The Madhyamaka Critique
Based on Nagarjuna, Candrakirti, and the commentaries of
Acarya Malcolm Smith, John Tan (Thusness), and Soh.
Even if we accept the author's premise as a metaphor, the
conclusions fall into two extremes: Nihilism (denying conventional
truth) and Substantialism (reifying "Consciousness" or
"Wholeness").
1. The Fundamental Error: Denying Relative Truth
(Nihilism)
The Text’s Claim:
"Since phenomena are generated, 'Cause → Effect' does
not exist... Time, Space, Causality—All are illusions."
The Madhyamaka Rebuttal:
The text uses Emptiness to destroy Conventional Truth. It
assumes that because causality is not ultimately real, it must be totally
non-existent.
Acarya Malcolm Smith (Namdrol) refutes this view,
explaining that Nagarjuna's MMK actually defends Dependent Origination:
"MMK refutes any kind of production other than
dependent origination. It is through dependent origination that emptiness is
correctly discerned. Without the view of dependent origination, emptiness
cannot be correctly perceived, let alone realized. The MMK rejects production
from self, other, both, and causeless production, but not dependent
origination. The MMK also praises the teaching of dependent origination as the
pacifier of proliferation in the mangalam. The last chapter of MMK is on
dependent origination. The MMK nowhere rejects dependent origination, it is in
fact a defense of the proper way to understand it. The only way to the ultimate
truth (emptiness) is through the relative truth (dependent origination), so if
one’s understanding of relative truth is flawed, as is the case with all
traditions outside of Buddhadharma, and even many within it, there is no
possibility that ultimate truth can be understood and realized."
(Note: In standard editions, Dependent Origination is the
topic of Chapter 26; Chapter 27 addresses Views.)
John Tan (Thusness) further clarifies the danger of
treating Conventional Truth as "mere hallucination" (like rabbit
horns):
"Many misunderstand that oh ultimately it is empty and
DO [Dependent Origination] is conventional, therefore conceptual, so ultimately
empty non-existent.
We must understand what is meant by empty ultimately but
conventionally valid. Nominal constructs are of two types, those that are valid
and those that are invalid like 'rabbit horns'. Even mere appearances free from
all elaborations and conceptualities, they inadvertently manifest therefore the
term 'appearances'. They do not manifest randomly or haphazardly, they are
valid mode of arising and that is dependent arising. When it is 'valid' means
it is the acceptable way of explanation and not 'rabbit horn' which is
non-existence."
Conclusion:
Madhyamaka holds that causality is conventionally valid. To
deny this "valid mode of arising" is to cut off the path to
enlightenment.
2. The Trap of "Generation" vs.
"Non-Arising"
The Text’s Claim:
"The universe is not happening; it is being
generated... All phenomena are ... instantaneous generation."
The Madhyamaka Rebuttal:
"Generation" implies a start point—something
coming out of nothing (Causeless Production). In Madhyamaka, things do not
"generate"; they arise in dependence, meaning they are never truly
"born" with an essence.
Referencing Nagarjuna and Candrakirti:
Nagarjuna:
In the Yuktisastika (Verse 19), Nagarjuna states: "What
arises in dependence is not born." (若法因緣生，即說無有生。) This echoes the famous MMK 24.:
"Whatever arises dependently is explained as empty."
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)!"
(as quoted in Calming the Mind and Discerning the Real)
John Tan explains the correct understanding of
"Arising":
"Do you get what I meant?
What it means is there is still a 'right' or 'acceptable' or
'valid' way to express it conventionally. Take freedom from all elaborations
for example, it doesn't mean 'blankness' or 'anything goes'. There is right
understanding of 'freedom from all elaborations' that is why Mipham has to
qualify that it is not 'blankness', it does not reject 'mere appearance', it
must be understood from the perspective of 'coalescence'...and so on and so
forth. Similarly, there is right understanding of 'arising' conventionally and
that is DO [dependent origination].
So when we clearly see how essence = true existence =
independence of causes and conditions are untenable for anything to arise, we
see dependent arising."
3. The Critique of "The Free Creator"
(Substantialism)
The Text’s Claim:
"You are never bound by causality; you are forever a
free creator of generation... You are determining the world."
The Madhyamaka Rebuttal:
This denies the external world but reifies the
"You" (the Observer). It smuggles a Self (Atman) back in by calling
it a "Free Creator."
Acarya Malcolm Smith completely dismantles the notion
that the "Knower" is a single entity:
"The argument that a knower is a self has already been
advanced and dismantled in Buddhist texts. If a knower can have many
cognitions, it already has many parts and cannot be a unitary or an integral
entity. We are therefore not operating here at a position prior to recognizing
discrete entities, the very fact that our minds (citta) are variegated (citra)
proves the mind is not an integral entity, proves it is made of parts, and
since those cognitions happen sequentially, this proves the mind is also impermanent,
momentary, and dependent. So, it is impossible for a conventional knower to be
a self."
Conclusion:
There is no "Free Creator" standing outside of
causality. The "Knower" is just as momentary and dependent as the
world it observes.
4. "Wholeness" vs. "Participation Without
a Participant"
The Text’s Claim:
"A and B are not two things... Space is... a coordinate
system consciousness uses... Consciousness is the interface."
The Madhyamaka Rebuttal:4748
The text falls into Monism or Wholeness. It attempts to
eliminate duality by subsuming A and B into a single, unified
"Consciousness." This is an Essence View—treating Consciousness as a
giant container.
John Tan (Thusness) specifically critiques this view of
"Wholeness," distinguishing it from true "Total Exertion"
(Emptiness):
"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). ... Participation
without a participant; dynamism without a whole."
"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... Subsuming into all-embracing
consciousness is a wholeness and oneness experience also [but it is still an
entity concept]."
Conclusion:
The text envisions a "Whole" (Consciousness) that
generates A and B. The correct view is Participation without a participant.
There is no "Consciousness" acting as a coordinate system; there is
just the dynamic, empty event of seeing or hearing.
5. The Danger of Rejecting Karma
The Text’s Claim:
"Life operates on choice, not retribution... You are
not a result caused by the past."
The Madhyamaka Rebuttal:575859
By denying "retribution" (Karma), the author
denies the conventional functionality of the world.
Acarya Malcolm Smith explains why we must accept
"Discrete Continuums" conventionally:
"Things appear to be discrete, so we label them
“discrete.” If things appear to be nondiscrete, we are not able to label them
as discrete. For example, from a distance a mountain does not appear to be
composed of discrete parts, so we label that appearance “mountain.” When we get
closer, we see there are many parts, and what was formally labeled a mountain
gets redefined into slopes, peaks, ravines, and so on. ... It’s the same with
mental continuum’s, even the notion of mental continuum will not bear ultimate
analysis, but since the cause and result of karma, etc., appear to be discrete,
mind streams are, conventionally speaking, discrete, because there is an
observable function.."
Summary
This article perfectly embodies what Nagarjuna warns against
in MMK 24. / 24. (depending on the edition): "Emptiness wrongly
grasped destroys the dull-witted, like a snake wrongly seized."
The author seizes the snake of Emptiness (No Time, No Space)
by the wrong end (No Responsibility, No Karma, Self is Creator, Wholeness of
Consciousness).
Acarya Malcolm Smith sums up the failure of the text's
view:
"The only way to the ultimate truth (emptiness) is
through the relative truth (dependent origination), so if one’s understanding
of relative truth is flawed... there is no possibility that ultimate truth can
be understood and realized."
I hope this analysis helps you clarify these important
points!
Best regards,
Soh
