Welcome to Awakening to Reality

The question posed by Mr. A—"How does your view treat reality outside of one's mind? Do you believe that everything is mind, or is there reality distinct from it that interacts with the mind?"—cuts to the heart of one of the most enduring dilemmas in philosophy and contemplative inquiry. It presents a binary choice that has defined much of Western and Eastern thought: are you an idealist, who posits that reality is fundamentally mental, or a realist, who holds that a physical world exists independently of our perception of it?"

As John Tan commented, "Dependent arising is precisely to address these extreme views via emptiness."

John Tan also said in 2015: "External objects are only valid conventionally, not ultimately. What cannot be separated was mistaken as separated due to conventions, and then when we attempt to trace back using our existing paradigm, we logically deduce it must be either oneness in substance or as interactions between entities. However, one that has tasted anatta in real time sees that neither is true. It cannot be expressed either as one substance or as an interaction between separate entities. One further refines one's view through MMK (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā) and realizes the impossibility of manifestation in such views. The mind can then willingly release itself and rest in empty, non-arising appearances.

If we refuse to clearly see the two truths, the mind will never find its place; it cannot rest, as it is unable to release the paradigm that defines it. To be thoughtless and non-conceptual are not the right antidotes to free the mind from extremes, and experience that is empty, non-dual, and non-arisen will be distorted. This is just my opinion."

The perspective offered here, rooted in the Madhyamaka ("Middle Way") school of Mahāyāna Buddhism founded by the philosopher Nāgārjuna, is that this very dichotomy is a conceptual trap. The "answer" is not to choose a side but to deconstruct the premises upon which the question is built. The view is not that "everything is mind," nor is it that a solid, mind-independent reality exists "out there." By using the analytical tools of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), emptiness (śūnyatā), and non-arising (anutpāda), we can arrive at a more subtle, dynamic, and experientially verifiable understanding.

1. The Central Thesis: Appearances Are Not Mind, Nor Other-Than-Mind

A clear and concise entry point into this view is captured perfectly in the article from Awakening to Reality you provided. It states:

“…there is no mind apart from appearance and no appearance apart from mind.”

This statement is the cornerstone of the entire framework. It dissolves the perceived duality between an internal "subject" (mind) and an external "object" (appearance/reality), thereby avoiding both idealism and naïve realism from the outset. Let's unpack this in detail:

• No appearance apart from mind: When we try to locate an appearance or an object—a tree, a sound, a feeling—entirely separate from the consciousness that cognizes it, we fail. An "unperceived object" is a pure abstraction. The very qualities that define an object (its color, shape, texture) are known only through the faculties of perception and cognition. Its "object-ness" is conferred upon it by a subject.
• No mind apart from appearance: Conversely, when we turn our attention inward to find the "mind" or "consciousness" that is doing the perceiving, we cannot locate it as a standalone entity. What is mind without something to be mindful of? It has no color, no shape, no location. We only ever find the mind in action, seamlessly fused with the content of its experience—the seeing of sights, the hearing of sounds, the thinking of thoughts.

What we actually encounter in any given moment is a single, indivisible event of "experiencing" which we conceptually and retroactively split into a "perceiver" and a "perceived." The Madhyamaka view asserts that this split is a fabrication of thought, not a reflection of fundamental reality.

2. The Engine of Analysis: Dependent Origination (Pratītyasamutpāda)

How does Madhyamaka justify this radical claim? The primary analytical tool is the principle of Dependent Origination, which states that no phenomenon exists autonomously. Everything arises in dependence upon other factors. The classic Buddhist formula is: "When this is, that is. From the arising of this, that arises."

Nāgārjuna applies this principle relentlessly to the act of perception itself. He famously analyzes the triad of the Sense Organ, the Sense Object, and the Sense Consciousness. This interdependent relationship is made explicit in his Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK), or "Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way."

First, in MMK 26:4, he establishes the dependency of consciousness:

Sanskrit: cakṣuḥ pratītya rūpaṃ ca ... vijñānaṃ saṃpravartate (MMK 26.4)

Siderits-Katsura translate: “Dependent on the eye and on form, and on attention, consciousness arises.” (GRETIL, 2010)

Second, in Chapter 3, Nāgārjuna generalizes this to the entire "seer-seeing-seen" complex. The lynchpin verse is MMK 3:6:

Sanskrit: draṣṭā nāsty atiraskṛtya tiraskṛtya ca darśanam | draṣṭavyaṃ darśanaṃ caiva draṣṭary asati te kutaḥ || (MMK 3.6)

Garfield translates: “If there is no seer apart from seeing, nor seeing apart from the seer, how could there be the seen (object) or the act of seeing when the seer is absent?” (Garfield, 1995)

These three elements are like three sticks propping one another up in a tripod. If you remove any one stick, the other two immediately fall. None of them is the independent "foundation"; their stability is their mutual, simultaneous dependence. It is crucial to note that Nāgārjuna is applying his analytical method to the Buddha's own teachings on the twelve links of dependent origination, found in foundational Pāli suttas like the Madhupiṇḍika Sutta ("The Honeyball Sutta," MN 18) and the Chachakka Sutta ("The Six Sets of Six," MN 148).

A modern analogy maps perfectly to this triad:

The "photo" as an event of consciousness only occurs when all three are functioning together. A dead battery ⚡ (no sensor), a lens cap 🏴 (no scene), or a processor crash 💥 (no signal generation) means the photo-event never appears. The image is not a thing that exists in the sensor, in the scene, or in the processor. It is nothing over and above that momentary, interdependent synergy.

3. The Result of Analysis: Emptiness (Śūnyatā) and Dependent Designation

This radical interdependence leads directly to the core Madhyamaka doctrine of emptiness (śūnyatā). This is arguably the most misunderstood concept in all of Buddhism. Emptiness does not mean non-existence or nihilism. It means the absence of svabhāva—intrinsic, independent, self-sufficient existence.

Because every part of the triad (organ, object, consciousness) depends on the others for its very existence and definition, no single part possesses its own inherent nature. It is "empty" of being a standalone thing. This logical progression is key: Dependent Origination reveals a lack of intrinsic existence, and this lack is what is termed emptiness.

This is where Nāgārjuna's most famous verse, MMK 24:18, becomes the lynchpin of the entire philosophy, tying all the concepts together:

"Whatever is dependently arisen, we declare that to be emptiness;

Being dependently designated, that itself is the Middle Way." (MMK 24:18)

The second line, "Being dependently designated" (prajn~aptirupādāya), means that our words—"eye," "form," "consciousness," "mind," "world"—are convenient labels or conventions we apply to this web of interdependent processes. The label is useful for communication (this is its conventional truth), but it doesn't point to a static, self-enclosed entity.

Crucially, this does not invalidate conventional reality. The Madhyamaka view is not a denial of the world but a denial of a specific, imaginary way of being (i.e., inherent existence). By seeing that phenomena are empty of a solid, independent core, we are not left with nothing. Rather, conventional functioning is seen more clearly for what it is: a dynamic, relational, and vibrant play of appearances. As some teachers put it, seeing emptiness doesn't destroy the world; it destroys the illusion of a solid, graspable world, allowing for a more fluid and less fraught engagement with it (Barre Center for Buddhist Studies).

4. The Ultimate Implication: Non-Arising (Anutpāda)

This leads to the most profound and subtle implication of the Madhyamaka view: non-arising (anutpāda). If a phenomenon lacks an independent essence (svabhāva) and can never be found to exist on its own, then from an ultimate perspective, it never truly "arose" as a self-contained entity in the first place.

This does not deny the vivid, functional reality of our experience. The denial is of a specific mode of existence. Things appear, function, and have effects—this is their conventional truth (saṃvṛti−satya). But their ultimate truth (paramārtha−satya) is their emptiness of inherent existence, their "non-arisen" nature.

The rainbow is the perfect analogy:

• Conventional Truth: A rainbow vividly appears in the sky. We can see it, point to it, and describe its colors. It is functionally present.
• Ultimate Truth: If we try to find the "rainbow-entity," we fail. We only see a specific, temporary conjunction of conditions: sunlight, water droplets, a particular angle of an observer, and the radiance of our own mind. There is no solid "thing" there. The rainbow is a vivid appearance that is simultaneously empty of being a self-existing object. It is "non-arisen."

In the same way, the world of experience—including mind and matter—is like a magical display: vividly apparent yet ultimately unfindable as a collection of solid, independent things. This is powerfully stated in MMK 25:22-24, which concludes with the "pacification of all proliferation" (prapan~ca−upaśama), where the conceptual fabrication that projects inherent existence onto this fluid display ceases.

5. Transcending the Extremes: A Practical Summary

With this framework in place, we can now directly address the initial dichotomy of idealism and realism and see how the Middle Way avoids both. The entire argument refutes these two extreme views.

Even more subtle philosophical positions, like the Yogācāra school's concept of a "storehouse consciousness" (ālaya−vijn~āna), are subjected to the same analysis by Madhyamaka thinkers. From a strict Madhyamaka standpoint, even if one posits such a foundational consciousness, that foundation itself must be analyzed. Upon analysis, it too would be found to be dependent on conditions for its arising and therefore empty of being an ultimate, self-sufficient ground.

Summary of Key Verses for Reference

• MMK 3:6: Establishes the mutual collapse of the seer/seeing/seen triad.
• MMK 26:4: Shows that consciousness is dependent on sense organ, object, and attention.
• MMK 24:18: Equates dependent origination with emptiness and dependent designation, defining the Middle Way.
• MMK 25:22-24: Points to the ultimate truth of non-arising and the pacification of conceptual proliferation.
• MN 18 & MN 148: Key suttas from the early Pāli canon that describe the triad of perception, forming the doctrinal basis for Nāgārjuna's analysis.

Conclusion: A Self-Luminous, Ungraspable Display

To return to Mr. A's question: the view presented here does not posit that everything is mind, nor that there is a reality distinct from it. It points to the immediate, lived fact that "mind" and "reality" are inseparable concepts that co-arise and co-define one another in every single moment of experience.

The practical and experiential import of this understanding is profound. When the deep-seated habit of solidifying a "self" or "mind" on the inside and a "world" or "matter" on the outside begins to relax, experience reveals itself for what it is: a fluid, seamless, self-luminous display. There is no gap between knower and known to be bridged. There is nothing to grasp onto as "real" and nothing to push away as "non-existent".

What is conventionally called an external world continues to manifest (appear) but as an illusory display of radiant appearances and conventionalities, no longer reified.

Nagarjuna: 

Verse 59.

Starting with ignorance and ending with aging

All processes that arise from

The twelve links of dependent origination

We accept them to be like a dream and an illusion.

Verse 60.

This wheel with twelve links

Rolls along the road of cyclic existence

Outside this, there cannot be sentient beings

Experiencing the fruits of their deeds.

Verse 61.

Just as in dependence upon a mirror

A full image of one's face appears

The face did not move onto the mirror

Yet without it, there is no image [of the face].

Verse 62.

Likewise, aggregates recompose in a new existence

Yet the wise always understand

That no one is born in another existence

Nor does someone transfer to such existence.

Verse 63.

In brief, from empty phenomena

Empty phenomena arise

Agent, karma, fruits, and their enjoyer –

The conqueror taught these to be [only] conventional.

Verse 64.

Just as the sound of a drum as well as a shoot

Are produced from a collection [of factors]

We accept the external world of dependent origination

To be like a dream and an illusion.

Verse 65.

That phenomena are born from causes

Can never be inconsistent [with facts]

Since the cause is empty of cause

We understand it to be empty of origination.

Verse 66.

The non-origination of all phenomena

Is clearly taught to be emptiness

In brief, the five aggregates are denoted

By [the expression] “all phenomena.”

Verse 67.

When the [ultimate] truth is explained as it is

The conventional is not obstructed

Independent of the conventional

No [ultimate] truth can be found.

Verse 68.

The conventional is taught to be emptiness

The emptiness itself is the conventional

One does not occur without the other

Just as [being] produced and impermanent.

John Tan wrote in 2020:

John Tan: That is, he [Mr. J] doesn't know how beautiful Prasangika nominalism is... ...focus on total exertion and dependent designations; it gels so perfectly and beautifully, and it has an entire view, world, or universe of its own. It integrates all without dispelling or affirming both the internal and external world (Middle Way) and thoroughly bases its entire world as names only. That is extremely beautiful, especially when you can integrate anatta, total exertion, and emptiness together. I only began to appreciate it recently when I contemplated Tsongkhapa's semantic nominalism seriously. I appreciate the two truths more and more, especially the conventional world, when seen together with the experiential insight of total exertion.

Soh Wei Yu: I see. Where can I read about Tsongkhapa's semantic nominalism?

John Tan: Actually, you can't just read about it. You must integrate it with the insight of total exertion and emptiness without resorting to non-conceptuality—just the linguistic beauty with all the constructs. Your current experiences and insights are sufficient to integrate them. The +A and -A are perfectly blended. All tastes of anatta, emptiness, and total exertion remain and gel so beautifully. The internal world and external world are bridged by being names only. No wonder Tsongkhapa doesn't need to reject the external world and doesn't need a reflexive awareness.

To sit with one final, summarizing thought for contemplation:

Seeing is just the fleeting, interdependent meeting of eye, form, and knowing—perfectly vivid, perfectly ungraspable.

References

• Garfield, J. L. (1995). The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. Oxford University Press. (Cited via Internet Archive).
• Göttingen Register of Electronic Texts in Indian Languages (GRETIL). (2010). Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, based on the edition by J.W. de Jong. Retrieved from gretil.sub.uni-goettingen.de.
• SuttaCentral. (n.d.). MN 18: Madhupiṇḍika Sutta and MN 148: Chachakka Sutta. Retrieved from suttacentral.net.
• Various authors and sources cited parenthetically, including Study Buddhism, Barre Center for Buddhist Studies, and Awakening to Reality.

Update: