Showing posts with label Anatta. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anatta. Show all posts
Soh

關于無我(No-Self)、空性、摩訶(Maha)與平常,以及自然圓滿

歡迎加入我們在 Facebook 上的討論組 -   https://www.facebook.com/groups/AwakeningToReality/
(更新:Facebook 群組現已關閉,但是您仍然可以加入以訪問舊的討論。那是一個信息的寶庫。)

另見:
"I AM" 之后的兩種非二元觀照
+A 與 -A 的空性

(最后更新:2009年3月14日)
文章作者:Thusness/PasserBy

知為何,最近關于無我的話題不斷在論壇上浮現。也許是“緣”(條件)已生起。-:) 我就隨筆寫下一些關于我“無我”體驗的思緒。一次隨意的分享,沒有任何權威性。

下面的兩首偈頌在引導我直接體驗無我的過程中起到了關鍵作用。盡管它們似乎傳達了關于無我的相同內容,但對這兩首偈頌進行禪修,卻能產生兩種截然不同的體驗性洞見——其一關乎空性層面,其二則關乎非二元的光明層面。從這些體驗中生起的洞見極具啟發性,因為它們與我們對覺知是什么的通常理解大相徑庭。

有思,無思者
有聞,無聞者
有見,無見者

于思,僅有念
于聞,僅有聲
于見,僅有形色。

在繼續深入之前,必須清楚地認識到,絕無可能通過推論、邏輯演繹或歸納來正確理解這些偈頌。并非說這些偈頌有何神秘或超驗之處,而僅僅是頭腦喋喋不休的方式是一種“錯誤的途徑”。正確的方法是透過“內觀”(vipassana),或任何更直接、專注的純然觀察模式,從而如其本然地看待事物。順帶一提,當非二元的洞見成熟時,這種了知模式會變得自然,在此之前,它可能會相當“費力”。

關于第一首偈頌

從對第一首偈頌的初步瞥見中,最明顯的兩種體驗是無造作者,以及對沒有主宰者(agent)的直接洞見。這兩種體驗是我那7個洞見階段中第5階段的關鍵。

1. 缺乏連結與協調諸體驗的造作者。
沒有了那個連結的“我”,諸現象(念頭、聲音、感受等等)便如泡影般顯現,自由、自發、無邊無際地浮動與展現。隨著造作者的缺席,一種深邃的自由感與通透感也隨之而來。聽起來或許矛盾,但在體驗上確是如此。當我們把“自性見”(inherent view)抓得太緊時,便無法擁有正確的理解。令人驚奇的是,“自性見”竟如此阻礙我們將自由視作無造作者、相互依存與互聯、光明以及非二元的臨在。

2. 對沒有主宰者的直接洞見。
在這種情況下,有一種直接的認出,即“沒有主宰者”。只是一個念頭接著另一個念頭。因此,始終是念在觀照念,而非一個觀者在觀照念。然而,此番了悟的要旨偏向于一種自發的解脫體驗,以及對諸法空性本質的模糊一瞥——也就是說,無常的現象如泡影般短暫虛幻,無有實質或堅固性。在這個階段,我們不應誤以為已徹底體驗了諸法與覺知的“空”性,盡管我們很容易產生這種認為自己已經做到的誘惑。-:)

根據個體的不同根器,可能并不明顯的是,它“始終是念在觀照念,而非一個觀者在觀照念”,或是“那個觀者即是那個念頭”。因為這是關鍵的洞見,是解脫道上不容有錯的一步,所以我不得不帶著些許不敬的語氣說,

對于那些如此教導的大師,
“任念頭生起又落下,
視背景之鏡為圓滿而不留痕跡。”
恕我直言,他們只是“喋喋不休”了一些好聽但迷惑人的廢話。

而是,

應見到念頭背后空無一人。
先是一念,再是一念。
隨洞見深化,日后將揭示,
始終僅此一念!
無生,光明而空性!

而這正是無我的全部目的。徹底看穿這個背景在實際上并不存在。存在的只有心流、行動或業力。沒有造作者,也沒有任何被造作的事物,只有造作本身;沒有禪修者,也沒有禪修,只有禪修的動作。從放下的角度來看,“一個觀者在觀照念”會制造一種錯覺,仿佛一個觀者在允許念頭生起又落下,而自身卻不受影響。這是一種幻相;是偽裝成‘放下’的‘抓取’。當我們認識到從一開始就沒有背景時,實相將呈現為一整個放下。隨著修習,‘意圖’會隨著洞見的成熟而減弱,‘造作’將被逐漸體驗為純粹的自發發生,仿佛整個宇宙都在運作。借由“緣起”的一些指引,我們可以進一步看透,此種發生純然是萬物與萬物相互作用、應運而生的表達。事實上,如果我們不將“宇宙”實體化,它就只是那樣——一種無論何時何地都恰如其分的緣起表現。

理解了這一點,修習便只是向當下的一切敞開。
因為這純然的顯現,無論何時何地皆恰如其分。
雖無處可稱為家,卻處處是家。

當體驗在大安逸的修習中成熟時,
體驗即是摩訶(Maha)!偉大、奇妙而極樂。
在觀看、進食和品嘗等平常的活動中,
若以詩意表達,便如整個宇宙在禪修。

凡所言所表,實則皆為不同風味,
皆為此萬物緣起之萬物,
化為此刻生動之閃耀。

屆時便會明了,無常的現象早已在以完美的方式發生;該展開的展開,該顯現的顯現,該止息時便止息。這種無常的發生毫無問題,唯一的問題在于,因心智的抽象能力而多出一個“額外的鏡子”,一種實體化。鏡子并非完美;完美的是那“發生”本身。鏡子看似完美,僅是對二元見和自性見而言。

我們根深蒂固的自性見與二元見,已非常微細且不自覺地將“光明層面”人格化為觀者,并將“空性層面”當作無常現象而丟棄了。因此,修習的關鍵挑戰,便是清楚地見到光明與空性為一體不分,它們從未,也絕不可能被分開。

關于第二首偈頌

對于第二首偈頌,焦點在于無常現象的生動與純凈。念頭、聲音及一切無常之物,與覺知是不可區分的。沒有體驗者與體驗的分裂,只有一個無縫、自發的體驗生起,作為思者/念頭、聞者/聲音、感者/感受等。在聆聽中,聆聽者與聲音是不可區分的一體。對于任何熟悉“我是”(I AM)體驗的人來說,那種純粹的存在感,那種讓人感覺如此真實的強大臨在體驗,是難以忘懷的。當背景消失時,所有前景現象都會將自身顯露為臨在。這就像是自然而然地貫穿于‘內觀’狀態,或者簡單地說,純然的覺知。從電腦的風扇聲,到行駛的捷運列車的震動,再到腳觸地面的感覺,所有這些體驗都晶瑩剔透,絲毫不亞于“我是”之感。那份臨在依然全然臨在,無有任何否定。-:)

能知與所知的分裂,僅是臆測。
故而,有某人放棄與有某物被放棄,皆是幻相。
當自我變得愈發通透,
諸法亦隨之愈發光明。
在徹底的通透中,一切發生皆純凈而生動清晰。
處處了然,生機盎然!

屆時將會顯而易見,只有根深蒂固的二元知見,才障蔽了我們對此體驗性事實的洞見。在實際體驗中,只有諸法晶瑩剔透地顯現。隨著此體驗的成熟,身心消融于純粹的非二元光明之中,而一切現象,在體驗上都被理解為此非二元光明臨在的顯化——這是引向“一切唯心”(All is Mind)了悟的關鍵洞見。

此后,切勿過度沉醉或夸大其詞;而應進一步參究。這種非二元的光明,是否展現出任何獨立、不變和永恒的自性特征?修行者在很長一段時間內,仍可能不知不覺地卡在將非二元臨在實體化之中。這便是留下了‘一面鏡子’的印記,正如我所描述的開悟七階段中的第4階段。雖然體驗是非二元的,但空性的洞見仍然不存在。盡管二元對立的束縛已充分松解,但‘自性見’依然很強。

當‘主體’消失時,體驗變成了非二元,但我們忘記了‘客體’。當客體被進一步空掉時,我們見到了法身(Dharmakaya)。
務必清楚地看到,對于最初被參透的‘主體’而言,它僅僅是一個統合了五蘊的標簽,但對于下一個需要被否定的層面,正是我們正在空掉的那個臨在——它不是一個標簽,而是那本質上為非二元的臨在本身。

對于非二元洞見已成熟的真誠佛教修行者而言,他們可能會自問,若非二元的臨在即是最終,佛陀何需如此強調緣起?這種體驗仍然是非常吠檀多式的,更像是‘梵’(Brahman),而不是‘空性’(Sunyata)。這種‘非二元臨在的堅固性’必須借由緣起和空性來打破。了解到這一點,修行者便能進而理解非二元臨在的空(緣起)性本質。這是根據第一首偈頌對無我體驗的進一步精煉。

至于那些修習“我是之感”(I AMness)的人,在獲得非二元洞見之后,他們通常會安住于非二元的臨在之中。他們在‘砍柴挑水’和‘春來草自青’中尋得樂趣。無需過多強調;這種體驗確實看似最終。希望‘緣’(條件)能為這些修行者生起,讓他們看清這阻礙了徹底看見的微妙印記。

關于空性

如果我們觀察念頭,并追問念頭從何而生,如何生起,‘念頭’又是什么樣子。‘念頭’將顯露其本性為空——生動地臨在,卻完全無處可覓。非常重要的是,不要去推論、思考或概念化,而是用我們的整個存在去感受這種‘不可得’(ungraspability)與‘無處尋’(unlocatability)。它似乎棲息于‘某處’,卻絕無可能定位它。它只是一個“那里”的印象,但從未真正“在”那里。同樣地,“此地性”與“當下性”也僅僅是由感受、因緣和合而形成的印象,并無任何“那里”的固有存在;它和‘自我感’一樣,同等性空。

這種不可得和無處尋的空性本質,并非僅為‘念頭’所特有。所有的體驗或感覺皆是如此——生動地臨在,卻無實質、不可得、自發且無處尋。

若我們觀察一朵如此生動、清晰、就在眼前的紅花,那“紅色”似乎只“屬于”這朵花,實際上并非如此。紅色的視覺并非在所有動物物種中都會生起(狗無法感知顏色),“紅色”也不是心智的固有屬性。若以“量子視力”去探視其原子結構,在任何地方同樣也找不到“紅色”的屬性,只有幾乎完全的空間/虛空,沒有可感知的形狀與形態。任何顯現皆是緣起的,因此空無任何固有存在或固定的屬性、形狀、形態或“紅色”——僅是光明而空,僅是無有自性/客觀存在的顯現。

同樣,當站在燃燒的火坑前,關于‘火’的整個現象、燃燒的熱量、整個‘熱’的感覺,它們如此生動地臨在,看似如此真實,但若加以審視,它們也并非固有地“在那里”——僅是當因緣具足時依緣而顯。令人驚奇的是,二元見與自性見竟將無縫的體驗囚禁在一個由誰、在哪里、在何時構成的概念框架之中。

所有的體驗都是空的。它們如空華,如池塘水面上的畫。絕無可能指著一個體驗的剎那說,這是‘內’而那是‘外’。一切‘內’皆如‘外’;對于覺知而言,存在的只有無縫的體驗。重要的不是鏡子或池塘,而是池塘表面顏料閃爍的那種如幻的現象過程;如幻非幻,如夢非夢。這便是一切體驗的基底。

然而這種‘不可得與無處尋’的本質并不是全部;還有這種摩訶(Maha),這種沒有邊界的偉大的‘相互關聯’感。當有人敲鐘時,那個人、那根棍、那口鐘、空氣的振動、耳朵,然后是聲音的奇妙顯現——‘咚……回響……’,這一切都是唯一且無縫的顯現,純然的體驗。當呼吸時,就只是這整個完整的呼吸;這就是所有的因緣聚合在一起,生起了關于呼吸的整個感覺,仿佛整個宇宙都在進行這番呼吸。這種摩訶體驗的意義不在言語中;在我看來,如果沒有這種體驗,就不會有對‘相互關聯’的真實體驗,非二元的臨在便是不完整的。

對我們空性本質的體驗,與非二元合一的體驗截然不同。例如,“距離”在非二元合一中,是通過看穿能與所分裂的虛幻層面來克服,從而最終形成一個單一的非二元臨在。它將一切視為僅僅是‘這個’,但體驗空性則是通過其空、不可得和無處尋的本質來打破邊界。

當我們深入看透這種本質時,不再需要一個‘何處之地’、‘何時之時’或一個‘何人之我’。當聽到聲音時,聲音既不在‘這里面’,也不在‘那外面’,它在哪里就在哪里,然后消失!隨著顯現是緣起因此為空的智慧生起,所有的中心和參照點皆隨之消融。此體驗創造出一種“無論何時何地皆恰如其分”的感覺。一種處處是家,雖無處可稱為家的感覺。在體驗到臨在的空性本質時,一位真誠的修行者會清楚地了知,非二元的臨在確實留下了一絲微細的印記;見到其本質為空,那使體驗堅固化的最后一道印記便消融了。感覺清涼,因為臨在變得更加臨在且毫不費力。我們于是從“生動的非二元臨在”進入“雖生動且非二元地臨在,卻非實有,乃空!”

關于摩訶(Maha)與平常

摩訶的體驗聽起來可能像是在追求某種特定的體驗,并似乎與禪宗所推崇的‘開悟的平常’相矛盾。此言不實,事實上,沒有這種體驗,非二元便是不完整的。這一節并非論述要達成摩訶這個階段,而是要看到空性(Sunyata)在本質上即是摩訶的。在摩訶中,人感覺不到自我,人‘感覺’宇宙;人不感覺‘梵’,而是感覺‘相互關聯’;人不會因‘依賴與互聯’而感到‘無助’,反而感到偉大無邊、自發且不可思議。現在讓我們回到‘平常’。

平常心向來是道家的專長。在禪宗里,我們也從那些開悟模型如洞山五位十牛圖中看到其重要性。但平常只能被理解為,非二元和真如的摩訶世界并不存在于其之外。沒有一個彼岸的境界需要到達,也從來不存在一個與我們的日常生活世界相分離的狀態;反之,它是要將這種非二元和摩訶體驗的本初、原始、無染的體驗帶入最世俗的活動中。若在最世俗、最平常的活動中找不到此體驗,那么修行者便尚未成熟他們的理解與修習。

在此之前,摩訶的體驗在自然狀態下總是罕見的,被視為一種來去匆匆的短暫傾向。誘發這種體驗通常需要在短時間內專注地重復做某項任務,例如,

如果我們一呼一吸,一呼一吸……直到只剩下這整個呼吸的感覺,只是呼吸作為所有因緣匯入此刻的顯現。

如果我們專注于踏步的感覺,那堅實的感覺,只是那堅實的感覺,直到當腳觸地時,只剩下這整個‘堅實’的感覺,只是這‘堅實’作為所有因緣匯入此刻的顯現。

如果我們專注于聽聞有人敲鐘,那根棍、那口鐘、空氣的振動、耳朵全部聚合在一起,生起此聲音的感覺,我們便會有摩訶體驗。
...

然而,自從將緣起的教法融入非二元的臨在之后,多年來它變得更加‘可及’,但這從未被理解為一種基底狀態。見到緣起和空性與非二元臨在的體驗之間,似乎存在一種可預測的關系。

一周前,摩訶的清晰體驗降臨,并變得相當毫不費力,同時,有一種直接的了悟,即它也是一種自然狀態。在空性中,摩訶是自然的,并且必須被完全納入體驗一切生起之物的道路之中。盡管如此,將摩訶作為一種基底狀態需要非二元體驗的成熟;我們無法以一顆分裂的心,去完全地感受到,作為此刻生動顯現,萬物互聯互通、自發而成。

宇宙即是此生起之念。
宇宙即是此生起之聲。
僅此壯麗之生起!
即是道。
頂禮一切生起。

關于自然圓滿(Spontaneous Perfection)

最后,當這兩種體驗相互滲透時,真正需要的,僅僅是開放且毫無保留地體驗一切生起。這聽起來可能簡單,但切勿低估這條簡單的道路;即使是累劫的修行,也無法觸及其深奧之萬一。

事實上,在所有的小節——“關于第一首偈頌”、“關于第二首偈頌”、“關于空性”中,都已在某種程度上強調了自然之道。關于自然之道,我必須說,自然臨在(spontaneous presence)以及開放、無保留、無畏地體驗一切生起,并非任何傳統或宗教的‘專屬道路’——無論是禪宗、大手印、大圓滿、不二論、道教還是佛教。事實上,自然之道是道的‘道路’,但道教不能因其歷史較長就壟斷此‘道路’。我的經驗是,任何真誠的修行者,在成熟了非二元的體驗之后,最終都會自動且自然地達到這一點。這就像血液里流淌的一樣,除了自然之道,別無他途。

話雖如此,自然與自發之道常被誤解。它不應被理解為無需做任何事或修習是不必要的。反之,它是一位修行者最深的洞見,即在對無我、空性與緣起方面,經過一輪又一輪精煉其洞見之后,他突然了悟到,無我是一方法印,而非二元的光明與空性向來是一切體驗的‘基’(ground)。修習于是從‘專注’模式轉向‘不費力’模式,而這需要非二元與空性的洞見完全滲透我們的整個存在,就像“自性見與二元見”曾經入侵意識一樣。

無論如何,必須注意,勿將我們空而光明的本質制造成一個形而上的實體。我將以我在另一篇博客文章《光明的空性》(Luminous Emptiness)中寫的評論作結,因為它很好地總結了我所寫的內容。

“無造作”的程度,
即是我們對當下一切,能多無保留、多無畏地敞開的程度。
因凡生起者皆是心,恒被見、被聞、被嘗與體驗。
那未被見、未被聞、未被體驗的,
是我們對心為何物的概念性想法。

每當我們把那“燦爛、那純凈”客體化為一個無形的實體時,
它便成了一個所執之物,障蔽了我們看見覺知的“形態”、紋理和質地。
客體化的傾向是微妙的,
我們放下了‘自我感’,卻不知不覺地抓取了‘此時感’與‘此地感’。
凡生起者,僅是緣起,無需誰、何處與何時。

一切體驗平等,光明而空無自性。
雖空,卻未曾絲毫否定其生動之光明。

解脫,即是如其本然地體驗心。
自行解脫,是徹底洞悉此解脫向來如是、本已如是;
自然臨在,自然圓滿!

附言:
我們不應將空性的洞見視為比非二元光明的洞見“更高”。它們只是因不同條件而顯現的不同洞見。對某些修行者而言,關于我們空性本質的洞見,先于非二元光明而來。

若需對空性有更詳細的概念性理解,請閱讀 Greg Goode 博士的文章《非二元的空性》。


【Soh 注】2020 年的更新:

以下是一些與本文相關的引用。

“對我來說,無我的偈頌仍然是最好的觸發點……哈哈。它讓我們清楚地看到無我是自然的狀態。一直如此,并且毫不費力地如此。它揭示了‘無明是如何’蒙蔽雙眼,并對我們稱之為‘事物和現象’的分離性與實質性產生誤解的。

并且了悟到,知見自上而下地都在指向這個無我的真理,說明心智是如何混淆并將世俗的存有誤認為真實存在的。緣起和空性是平衡和中和所有心造世俗性的渡筏,如此心便能安息于自然地放松與平衡,看見所有的生起都是自然圓滿的。”
- John Tan, 2019

“‘無我’是一方法印而不是一個階段的洞見必須生起,以進一步進入‘毫不費力’的模式。也就是說,無我是所有體驗的基底,并且一直如此,沒有‘我’。于見,始終僅有見;于聞,始終僅有聲;于思,始終僅有念。無需費力,且從未有過一個‘我’。”
- John Tan, 2009

“你需要如以下鏈接中所述正確地對無我進行參究: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2021/07/anatta-is-dharma-seal-or-truth-that-is.html 以及 https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2022/08/bahiya-sutta-must-be-understood-from.html (將無我看作法印,而不僅僅是一種無心的狀態)”
- Soh, 2020

“若未徹底突破無我的第一和第二首偈頌,在 AtR 的定義中就不會有對真正無我的徹底或清晰的證悟。雖然在 2010 年 10 月初步突破時,第二首對我來說更清晰,但在接下來的幾個月里,第一首偈頌也很快變得更清晰,并進一步消融了各種根基,包括一個對‘此地/當下’非常微妙的執著,以及任何微妙的殘留的對心的參照(盡管那已大部分消融,但后來看到并消融了一種非常微細未見的傾向)。”
- Soh, 2020

關于能知與所知的討論

TD Unmanifest

我在我的修習中發現,空掉主體比空掉客體“更容易”。因此用 AtR 的話來說,也就是修第一首偈頌比修第二首偈頌容易。

空掉五蘊和界(dhatus)對于深化無我證悟的洞見非常有幫助。致力于根除殘留在“我、我所”之中的業力傾向。

然而,我很好奇有哪些修習能夠對客體進行同樣的參透,這與第二首偈頌、臨在、緣起,和一法究盡的空性有關。

Soh Wei Yu

兩首無我偈都是關于無我,而非五蘊的空性。

TD Unmanifest

啊,我誤解了這段關于第二首偈頌的內容,以為它專注于五蘊和客體:

“當‘主體’消失時,體驗變成了非二元,但我們忘記了‘客體’。當客體被進一步空掉時,我們見到了法身(Dharmakaya)。務必清楚地看到,對于最初被參透的‘主體’情況而言,它僅僅是一個統合了五蘊的標簽,但對于下一個需要被否定的層面,正是我們正在空掉的那個臨在——它不是一個標簽,而是那本質上為非二元的臨在本身。”

這在深化無我方面進展得非常好,但我是在能知與所知的角度進行參究的。所以小我/大我(self/Self)繼續無處可尋,且總是已經如此。覺知的客體看似“真實”,而自我顯然不是,只是五蘊等等。

Soh Wei Yu

那是在提醒要將無我的洞見應用于一切現象。

這兩首偈頌針對的是小我/大我(self/Self)的幻相。但之后它必須被應用于一切現象,以證得法我空和人我空。就像‘無風,僅有吹’的洞見一樣( https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/08/the-wind-is-blowing.html )必須應用到所有的現象,包括運動等等。

在 2011 年:

“我是在告訴你,第一和第二首偈頌必須齊頭并進,即使在開始時才能對無我有真正的洞見。你必須在無我中有這兩個方面的洞見。那么什么是無我?這意味著當你參透無主宰者時,你實際上是在發展你的直接洞見。那不是將任何額外的東西實體化。那是對真如的直接洞見。因此,當你看到‘大我’(Self)時,除了五蘊別無他物。當你看到‘天氣’時,只有變化著的云、雨……當你看到‘身體’時,你看到不斷變化的感受。當你聽到聲音時,你看到緣起(DO),然后你會看到人我空和法我空(2 fold emptiness)如何僅僅是同一個洞見,以及為什么那會導致一合相(yi4 he2 xiang4; one totality/composite of appearance)。如果沒有洞見卻執著于言詞,那么你就錯失了精髓。也就是說,獲得關于這兩首偈頌的洞見不僅僅是為了思考‘自我’(Self)”
- John Tan, 2011

對話 — 2020 年 7 月 27 日

John Tan:對我來說,能-作-所(主體-行為-客體)范式僅僅是一個用來幫助表達和理解世界的結構。我不那樣看。我視其為顯現-條件的一法究盡,而不是顯現和條件。

Soh Wei Yu:你指的是 TD Unmanifest 嗎?

John Tan:是的。如果你視客體與主體分離,或者視現象與心分離,無論你如何解構,都只是一種知識。你不會有對任何東西的直接品嘗。當然,沒有辦法知曉所有涉及的條件。僅僅是說明顯現不是憑空而生的。當你經歷解構能知與所知(能與所)的過程時,也有一種空廓感……那種體驗就像身心脫落。當你說,車是空的,但你正坐在里面……你到底想表達什么?這和‘無風,僅有吹’是一樣的……或者閃電在閃……或者春去夏來……意思是把同樣的洞見應用于萬事萬物。不僅僅是自我……甚至包含運動。所以當你的心始終在看透種種概念構建時,發生了什么?告訴我當你說車是空的但你卻坐在上面時。你看透了那一層構念,然后怎樣?當你看透正呼嘯的風時……如何?當你看透夏季或天氣時?會怎樣?或者我說閃電在閃,當你真正看透那道閃電時……

Soh Wei Yu:只剩下純粹的顯現……沒有任何實體化。

John Tan:別去思考,直接體驗……這會把你逼進非概念狀態。就像 PCE 的體驗一樣……事實上當你開始時非常充滿正念且警覺……你開始真切地感到那股吹動……對吧……當我說沒有閃電在閃時……你注視那閃爍。對嗎?你是否真的加以修持或留心體察,而不僅僅隨口說一句……當你說沒有夏天時,你分明正體驗著炙熱、潮濕……等等。意思是:雖然你看穿了概念構建,但你不能只是思考。當我說沒有車時,我觸摸這輛車……它的質地……顏色……皮革,輪胎……如果你持續、無間斷地保持這種方式……發生了什么?你在談論對客體和現象的解構,而我要告訴你——若真正看穿它們,會發生什么……如果你只是思考,你是無法明白的……

Soh Wei Yu:一切都只是生機勃勃的自發臨在,但沒有主體或客體。就像我看到的不是堅實的物體,而只是閃耀、充滿生機的色彩作為生動而空的臨在。還有聲音、感覺等等。

John Tan:是的。那就取決于體驗那些感覺或顯現本身的深度了。

TD Unmanifest
這非常有幫助,謝謝你。我剛散步回來,用了這些指引去感受所指為何。我過去太專注于對客體的解構了,而忽略了感受/看見那直接的生機活力。多謝 Soh,也請代我向 John Tan 致謝。

Kyle Dixon 論空性

"自性(svabhāva)好比一個擁有諸特征的核心實體。就像電線桿擁有高大、圓柱形、木質、棕色等等的特征。感知自性就是將電線桿感知為一個實體,一個擁有這些特征的東西。

證悟空性是體驗性地認識到,并不存在一個擁有這些特征的實體,存在的只有特征本身;而一旦核心實體不復存在,這些特征也就不再成其為特征了。那里沒有實體,沒有一個處于某個距離或位置上的客體。

空性確實意味著自性的不存在,但它不是四句破(catuskoti tetralemma)中作為第二種立場所提到的那種真實的不存在。它是一種自始至終、從未有過一個實體的了悟。

它是“不存在”嗎?算是吧,因為找不到一個實存的實體,而且這個實體一直是一個謬誤。但是,一個從一開始就未曾生起的東西,怎么會實際上缺乏存在性呢?這就是遠離二邊的中道是如何建立的。"
- Kyle Dixon, 2022

Kyle Dixon 寫道:

"中道實際上是離于‘存在’與‘不存在’這兩種錯覺。執著于事物存在(無論它們是有為法還是無為法)是常見(eternalism),執著于事物不存在(無論是有為法還是無為法)是斷見(nihilism)。斷滅論(Annihilationism)則是相信某個存在的東西轉成了不存在。

避免這些不同極端的方法就是空性,它意味著 (i) 缺乏固有存在,(ii) 遠離二邊,(iii) 無生,(iv) 緣起。所有這些定義都是同義的。

緣起是正確的世俗諦見解,它引導人們證得勝義諦的見解;也就是空性。許多人誤將空性理解為一種否定的見解,但它實際上是避免了存在、不存在、亦有亦無、非有非無等極端的正確中道知見。

總而言之,這個話題實在沒有辦法像向5歲小孩解釋那樣解釋清楚,你只能提問。一旦理解了它很簡單,但真正理解緣起的人非常非常少。

以下是我很久以前為了討論而寫的一些關于緣起的內容:

獨立生起的一般定義,即認為事物被賦予了自身的自體/本質 [svabhāva] 或自我 [ātman] 的觀點。為了使某物能夠獨立生起,它必須是無條件的、獨立的且無原因的,但這在佛教看來被認為是不可能的。對于空性來說,正確的世俗見解是緣起,因此我們看到,為了擁有客體、人、地點、事物等等,它們必須具備原因和條件。這意味著它們不能離開這些因緣而存在。如果條件被移除,客體就不會留存。

過去的成就者們曾說,既然一物僅因因而生,因緣而住,因緣缺而滅,此物又怎能說存在呢?一個客體要能固有地存在,它必須是完全獨立地存在,獨立于因緣,獨立于其屬性、特征及組成部分。然而,我們無法找到一個獨立于這些因素的固有客體,這一事實的含義是,我們同樣亦無法在那些因素之內找到一個固有的客體。客體‘本身’是不可得的。我們找到的只是一個被安立的部分之集合,這些部分實際上并未創造出任何離于它們自身的東西,即便如此,這些部分也同樣是任意的安立,因為如果沒有固有存在的客體,也就不可能有固有的部分、特征或屬性。因此,客體僅僅是一個有用的世俗安立,其有效性由其功效來衡量,然而,在這個世俗頭銜之外,并沒有一個潛在的固有客體可被找到。

緣起指向的是一種隱含的相互依存;即一個所謂的有條件‘事物’,僅是通過對其他有條件事物的錯覺而由隱含中生起,因此每個‘事物’同時是彼此及其他一切的因與果。緣起并非一個我們有真實成立的法依賴于其他真實存在的法的情況,例如,我們有由真實存在的部件構成的客體,而這些部件又由更小的部件如原子等構成。這當然是看待緣起的一種方式,但這會被認為是一種非常粗糙的、實在論/本質論的見解。一種微細地助長諸法具有自體感或本質感的觀點。所以,緣起所指出的是,離于(或之內于)我們賦予所謂客體的各種世俗特征,是找不到一個固有客體的。另一方面,在與賦予所謂客體的各種特征相關聯的關系中(或之內于此關系),也找不到固有的客體。因為每一方只有在與另一方對比時才有效,而一旦發現一方缺乏固有性,另一方的有效性也將受到損害。我們的體驗僅僅是由無根據的推斷構成的相互依存的世俗概念構建。

通過這種方式,客體‘本身’,作為一個本質性的核心‘事物’,是不可得的。我們找到的只是一個被安立的部分之集合,這些部分實際上并未創造出任何離于它們自身的東西,即便如此,這些部分也同樣是任意的安立,因為如果沒有固有存在的客體,也就不可能有固有的部分、特征或屬性。

因此,舉個例子,如果一張桌子真正固有地存在,這意味著它獨立存在,那么我們就應該能夠獨立于它的各種特征而找到那張桌子。桌子應該能夠獨立于被觀察而存在,獨立于它的顏色或質地,獨立于它的部件和零件,獨立于它的世俗名稱,獨立于它的周圍環境等等。相反,如果觀察——或者比方說覺知——真正存在,我們同樣應該能夠獨立于對桌子、周圍環境等事物的感知之外找到它。并不存在一個桌子實際上‘是’或擁有的本質性的、‘核心的’性質,這同樣適用于覺知和任何其他事物。

對于受無明折磨的有情眾生來說,概念化的假立和世俗語言被錯誤地認為是指向真實的人、地點、事物等。當無明被破除時,人們可以自由地使用世俗語言,然而它不會產生困惑,因為智慧直接看清了無明的本來面目。在佛教中,世俗諦被允許作為用于交流的工具來實施,所以我們允許成為張三或李四,樹、石頭、汽車被允許作為名稱。世俗諦僅僅是一個有用的工具,它不指向其自身以外的任何事物。世俗諦是相對的……詞語、概念、想法、人、地點、事物等,并與勝義諦,即空性,形成對比。

所有屬于‘有為法’類別的顯現現象——意味著它們符合四個極端(存在、不存在、亦有亦無、非有非無)中的一個或多個——都是緣起的。我們知道這是事實,因為不存在不依賴于因緣而生起的現象。

"凡是緣起法,
我說即是空。
亦為是假名,
亦是中道義。
未曾有一法,
不從因緣生。
是故一切法,
無不是空者。"
—— 龍樹菩薩"

Soh 在回復某人的問題時引用道:

“根據中道知見,宗喀巴大師引用了龍樹菩薩的《六十正理論》和月稱菩薩的《六十正理論釋》。

龍樹菩薩:
緣起所生皆無生;
此乃證得真如的無上智者(佛陀)所宣說。

月稱菩薩:
(實在論對手說):如果(如你所說)凡是緣起生起的事物甚至未曾誕生,那么為什么(中觀師)說它無生?但如果你(中觀師)有理由說(這事物)不生,那么你就不應該說它“緣起”。因此,因為相互矛盾,(你所說的話)是無效的。)

(中觀師帶著悲憫的感嘆回復:)
唉!因為你們無耳無心,你們向我們提出了嚴峻的挑戰!當我們說任何緣起的事物,如鏡像一般,并非因自有本性而生起——這個時候哪里有爭論(我們)的可能!” - 摘自《平靜自心與辨別真實:佛教禪修與中道知見》

只有聲音

Geovani Geo 寫道
我們聽到了聲音。直接且深植于內的習氣立刻說:“聆聽”。但這其中有一個謬誤。只有聲音。究極而言,沒有聆聽者也沒有聆聽的行為。所有其他感官也是一樣。一個中心化的、或擴張的、或零維度的固有的感知者或覺知者,是一種幻相。

Thusness/John Tan
非常好。
這意味著兩首偈頌都已經清晰了。
在聆聽中,沒有聆聽者。
聆聽時,只有聲音。沒有聆聽。

標簽:無我, Geovani Geo

John Tan 在 2022 年寫道:

“ .....

思想的重量 -- 第1部分

參究時,不要只讓我們的參究停留在心理推理的練習上。例如:

所顯現的既非“內在”也非“外在”。因為“內在性”的概念是依賴于“外在性”概念的,沒有其中任何一個,都不可能產生既非內也非外的感覺。因此,這兩個概念都僅僅是世俗的,它們是緣起的。

不要讓我們的參究僅僅停留在這種水平上。如果我們這樣做,充其量這種自由只會停留在心智層面上——僅僅是一種明晰、純粹且干凈的狀態。它與練習純然的注意力沒有什么不同,盡管可能會產生關于概念是如何讓心智變得繁雜的洞見。

而是更進一步,直接與我們的感覺、思想、氣味、顏色、味道、聲音聯系起來,并問:

“思想既不在我們的頭腦內也不在頭腦外是什么意思?”

看透這一點將更具穿透力。它將作為一種實時鮮活的生活體驗,帶來深深的如幻感與神秘的敬畏感。

.....

思想的重量 -- 第2部分

思想有多重?
它們的根在哪里?

在靈性圈子里,經常會聽到像“‘我’只是一個思想”或“思想是空的、像虛空一樣,沒有重量或根”這樣的說法。

雖然應該指出“思想”無根和類空間的性質,但絕不能被誤導去認為,他們看透了“任何東西”,更別說連根拔起了根深蒂固的關于“我/我的”、“身/心”、“空間/時間”等概念性觀念。

所以重點還必須放在硬幣的另一面。“思想”像黑洞一樣驚人地沉重(如針孔般大小,卻有恒星般的重量);它們所攜帶的概念“根系”滲透我們的整個身心并無處不在。

思想的“根”無處可尋,這也意味著它們可以在任何地方、在所有地方被找到,分布在三世十方——在現代語境中,跨越多重宇宙的不同時間線。換句話說,“此生故彼生”。

.....

在無我中,我們看穿自我是一種心理構念,一個人踏上了解構之旅,將自己從所有心理構念中解放出來,從自我到所有現象以及它們之間的關系。

然而,當我們看到緣起時,沒有任何東西被消除。
概念化保留,部分保留,因果保留,自我保留,他人保留……一切都保留,只是關于“本質”的錯誤知見被舍棄了。

現在不再認為它們是本質上存在的,而是明白它們是緣起的,而凡是緣起的事物都遠離四對極端(即龍樹菩薩的八不)。

若不理解緣起和空性,免于一切戲論的自然圓滿就會被歪曲。”

另見: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2013/04/daniel-post-on-anattaemptiness.html (注意:其中表達了空性的兩個層面。你能說出它們是什么嗎?)

John Tan 也寫道:“當你談論無主宰者和無實體的知見時,你必須清楚它在非實體主義視角的邏輯含義,而不是用實體主義的透鏡。

缺乏這種合理的邏輯基礎支持而過度強調體驗,是一種主要的障礙,尤其是在現代世界。你將無法在自我敞開的道路上走得很遠。

這意味著你不能僅僅把空性或無固有存在當成公理一樣接受,而是必須清楚地看到,如果所顯現的事物是如此這般的,那么它是站不住腳的。

審視你所有的體驗和邏輯,直到你不是通過信仰,而是通過無懈可擊的邏輯去理解,并用實際體驗來驗證它。

然后心就可以自我釋放了。”

若在閱讀本文后想要進一步探索空性,我強烈建議閱讀并參究此鏈接中的所有內容,并閱讀其中鏈接的所有其他文章: 后無我建議匯編 (Compilation of Post Anatta Advise)


【Soh 注】2024 年更新:避免能量失衡

https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2024/02/avoiding-energy-imbalances.html

Soh:
給所有人的重要信息。

無我的兩首偈頌與此有關: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2021/06/pellucid-no-self-non-doership.html

[晚上 8:40, 6/9/2021] John Tan:1. 大圓滿里有一個詞叫“自然臨在”(spontaneous presence)。我不知道它在大圓滿中的確切含義,但這個短語與那兩首偈頌的兩種體驗密切相關:
1. 無造作者 = 自發的
2. 純粹顯現作為臨在
你會看到我在 https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2021/04/why-awakening-is-so-worth-it.html 中寫了這兩個層面。

如果沒有像這篇文中 https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html 所說的認識到無我的第二首偈頌,在 AtR 中就不被認為是真正的無我(anatman)證悟。相關鏈接: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2021/06/pellucid-no-self-non-doership.html , https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/07/i-was-having-conversation-with-someone.html , https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2019/02/the-transient-universe-has-heart.html , https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2023/05/nice-advice-and-expression-of-anatta-in.html

我也曾評論說,99%的時候,那些說自己證得了無我的人,僅僅體驗到了無造作者的層面,而不是真正的非二元的無我證悟。另見: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2020/04/different-degress-of-no-self-non.html

根據我與成千上萬個體討論的經驗,我觀察到,聲稱認識到非二元——即內外沒有區別,或者沒有自我——并不一定意味著真正證悟了無我或獲得了真實的非二元體驗或洞見。通常,有一個可能是,此人只是采用了特定的行話或模仿他人,產生自己也達到了類似理解水平的錯覺。然而實際上,他們的體驗可能只包含一種非個人化和無造作者的感覺,而不是真正的非二元體驗或洞見。

我(Soh)曾經問 John Tan 他是否認為某位老師已經證悟了無我,對此 John 回答說:“沒有對其光明的驗證,沒有認出顯現即是自身的光明,也沒有關于世俗構建是如何(Soh 補充:被看透并被釋放的)的清晰指向。那是什么讓你得出那個結論的?”

此外,在評論某位老師的文章時,John Tan 寫道,

“當我們說‘心即是大地’時,第一步是理解和品嘗在更進一步之前心是什么。

如果教法不教導和品嘗什么是心,那它就只是華麗的辭藻和浮夸的言辭。

接下來我們必須指出什么是‘大地’?這個‘大地’在哪里?是泥土、地面、花朵、空氣或建筑還是世俗的世界?

然后談談他們一直在說的一法究盡是什么?

然后是心與一法究盡的整合,那就是 +A。”

然而這并不意味著無我的第二首偈頌比第一首偈頌更重要。事實上,在喚醒了無我的第二首偈頌,即作為超越了能-作-所(主體-行為-客體)范式的所有顯現的清澈光明之后,深入探究第一首偈頌至關重要。正如 John Tan 所說,一個人不應總是強調臨在[后無我],而應強調那光明的本質。同樣,當我們向人們談論無我時,不僅要談論那光明的臨在,還要談論無造作者。

一切自然生起,沒有造作者或主宰者,就像呼吸和心跳一樣自然。徹底穿透這點,做到完全地自發、毫不費力和釋放。自然的光明是完全毫不費力的,根本不需要付出絲毫努力。讓深入對無我和空性的洞見帶你進入自行解脫和自然圓滿,并消解努力的病態以及對光明的微細過度專注或執著。正如 John Tan 之前也說過的,重要的是不要過度強調光明(以免引起能量失衡的不適感),而且它必須用非造作者的第一首偈頌來補充。他補充說,在非二元之后,個人的修習必須是放松和開放的、無實質的、自由的——自然而開放、輕盈、放松、毫不費力,然后對毫不費力進行參究。開放和放松應該在修習中建立起一種動能。此外,正如 John Tan 所說,我們必須理解無造作者和一法究盡之間的關系——允許各種情況的整體徹底展現其自身。從硬幣的一面看,它是光明的完全“毫不費力”,從另一面看,它是對所有條件的徹底展現。

Satsang Nathan 的視頻很好地表達了無我中無造作者的層面。請參閱: Satsang Nathan Videos

John Tan 之前也警告過,“你需要非常深地切入空性或無主宰者,以防止未來的問題。這意味著你必須真正克服自我感;否則,你人生的后期會出現問題。你必須修習直到作為主體覺知的自我感被充分解構,至少解構到一種沒有主宰者的狀態。否則,你無法取得進一步進展。如果你不這樣做,你以后可能會面臨比[某個經歷了可怕能量失衡的人]所經歷的還要糟糕的問題。還記得我告訴過你的關于 Actual Freedom 社區的 Richard 嗎?

“專注于無造作者和空性,直到你的整個身心發展出一種自動釋放的強大動能。這需要你顛覆關于‘本質’的知見,這樣你的身心才能釋放它們的條件反射。如果你專注于體驗而沒有空性如何使人解脫的堅實而穩定的清晰作為支持,臨在的強度可能會變得如此強烈,以至于你后來將無法應對。”

需要強調的是:在修習中建立上述的動能至關重要。用 John Tan 的話來說,“你必須進行定期的修習,避免那些自命不凡的智慧,直到建立起一定的動能。只有這樣,你才能有希望克服與 x 的問題相關的挑戰。我的建議是真誠的;你還沒有親身經歷過這些問題,但當你經歷時,你就會明白掌握這門藝術的重要性。

如果你一直堅持禪修,無論是在開放身心還是在日常生活中,最終都會發展出一種動能。即使挑戰出現,如果你能設法保持冷靜并允許這種動能引導你,你會發現自己能夠克服它們。

這類似于放下的藝術,盡管很難有效地表達清楚。我們的自然傾向偏向執著,不管我們如何試圖說服自己并非如此。這就是為什么持續不斷的修習是至關重要的。

你可能整天討論免于一切戲論的概念、自然狀態、聲音,你甚至可能獲得一些洞見。然而,當你因為各種原因面臨這些問題時,你所有的執著都會浮現出來。

對死亡、健康和個人異常現象的恐懼將會出現。你的頭腦會掙扎著去釋放這些執著。”

John Tan 也曾告訴 X:“你有好運……只要放松并明白無實質性也意味著毫不費力,不要專注,不要集中注意力。在獲得了關于顯現是自身光明的無我洞見之后,僅僅需精煉知見和理解。”

John 也曾寫信給我們的朋友 X,“可以克服。由于過度專注,在‘我是’階段之后,我曾經經歷過非常強烈的能量失衡導致的能量紊亂。

目前,我認為最好先通過分心、轉移注意力等方式讓身心平靜下來……身心在非常微妙的層面上是非常敏感的;隱藏的恐懼會直接動搖你的整個平衡。

藥物確實有幫助,我認為你應該用藥。

我們必須非常小心。有一種心智的放松能帶來更多的警覺,也有一種放松能通過克服煩惱(如恐懼)讓心智平靜下來。

當我們處于后一種狀態時,我們就能安歇并在平衡中回應各種情況。”

John 以前也寫信給我說,“先關注‘毫不費力’。然后以后,當你釋放時,你可以放下你的思想,讓該發生的事情作為發生而發生……但你以后可能會覺得無法集中注意力,沒關系……慢慢地、溫柔地回想起那些顯現都是一個人的自身光明,然后光明的本質是超越努力的……先去習慣它。

凡是所顯現的,其本質皆自行解脫。”

如果這方面的洞見和修習不成熟,光明顯得變得強大,且人在潛意識里微細地過度專注于光明,就有可能遭遇痛苦的能量失衡,導致能量卡在眉心輪、嚴重的緊張、頭痛、失眠(字面上是整夜完全無法入睡,整夜處于超級清醒狀態,有些人錯將其視為成就)、像恐慌發作一樣的能量波(我說是“像”,因為與其說是心理上的恐懼,不如說更是身體上的恐懼,那是一種在全身游走的非常緊張和“神經質”的身體感覺),甚至比這更糟糕的癥狀。我在 2019 年曾經歷過 7 天這樣不愉快的經歷,正如 https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2019/03/the-magical-fairytale-like-wonderland.html 中所詳述的。這就導致了所謂的“禪病”,醫生是無法治愈的,而在最初的 AtR 指南中,我已經專門拿出一整章來探討這個話題。我很幸運能夠通過改變修習方式而沒有再次觸發此類事件,但看到過其他人經歷類似的事情。所以,我由衷地希望人們在修習上不要走錯方向。請多保重并好好修行。

也許如果你對大圓滿感興趣,可以從大圓滿導師 Acarya Malcolm Smith 那里接受傳承和教法(他也同樣強調了無我中無造作者和光明顯現的毫不費力這一關鍵方面,以及對無我的兩首偈頌的整合——這沒有出現在他的公開著作中,而是在我參加過的針對訂閱者的在線教學中),并獲取《大圓滿無上之源》(The Supreme Source)這本書,書中清晰闡述了對全體臨在的自然圓滿和自行生起的本質的徹底毫不費力。但是請不要自學(DIY)大圓滿,因為那將極具誤導性,而是在那個傳統中尋找優秀的老師(例如 Acarya Malcolm)。你可以觀看這個 YouTube 視頻(強烈推薦)來了解 Sim Pern Chong 在 AtR 群組中推薦的 Acarya Malcolm 的大圓滿教法: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2023/09/talk-on-buddhahood-in-this-life.html 。此外,Malcolm 的一些文章可以在這里找到 https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2014/02/clarifications-on-dharmakaya-and-basis_16.html 。想要實修《大圓滿無上之源》這本書,必須得到一位合格大圓滿導師的灌頂、直指和指導,當然絕不能將其誤認為是無需修行的懶散,或是新不二論(neo-Advaita)的虛無主義。案例分析: https://dharmaconnectiongroup.blogspot.com/2015/08/ground-path-fruition_13.html

這是一個由 John Tan 分享的很好的視頻:

心智、注意力、能量、焦點,是一體的。

當你練習時,特別是覺知修行者,如果以一種集中的方式練習,將會導致能量失衡,能量會卡在眉心輪。對于覺知修行者來說,這是非常普遍的。不是眉心輪就是有時心輪的堵塞。

然而,無我本身的洞見是非常安全的,事實上,在完全實現無我時,不可能存在能量失衡。能量失衡全都與微細的我執造作有關。這就是為什么無我的這兩首偈頌的完全成熟和實現(不偏向第二首)能夠解決能量失衡的原因。

所以你的練習應該把心安住在丹田。能量應該流動而不應卡在頭上。關注身體有助于克服能量失衡。

參見寶瓶氣(Vase Breathing):
摘自 https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2020/09/frank-yang-video-full-enlightenment.html

[上午 11:46, 9/5/2020] John Tan:我喜歡他的描述,相當不錯,但可能會導致能量失衡。最好是練習呼吸練習,并學習將能量調節至平靜……

寶瓶氣 (Vase Breathing)

【Soh 注】的評論:
通過呼吸練習調節能量的一個好方法是練習寶瓶氣。這里有一段摘自措尼仁波切(Tsoknyi Rinpoche)的《敞開心扉》(Open Mind, Open Heart):

“寶瓶氣
幫助這位女士和無數其他人應對情緒的其中一個方法,是一項能幫助我們將‘氣(lung)’拉回其中心,或‘家’的修習。為此,我們使用一種特殊的呼吸技巧作為工具,因為呼吸是肺部氣脈微細風能的物理對應。

這項技巧被稱為寶瓶氣,它涉及比許多瑜伽和其他類型課程中常教的那種深度的橫膈膜呼吸還要深的呼吸。

這個技巧本身其實相當簡單。首先,緩慢且完全地呼氣,盡可能讓腹部肌肉貼近脊柱。當你緩慢吸氣時,想象你正將呼吸吸入到肚臍下方大約四指寬、剛好在恥骨上方的區域。這個區域的形狀有點像個瓶子,這就是該技巧被稱為寶瓶氣的原因。當然,你并不是真的把呼吸吸到那個區域,但通過把注意力集中在那里,你會發現自己吸氣時比平時更深一點,并且會體驗到那個瓶子區域有更多的擴張感。

當你繼續吸氣并將注意力向下引時,你的‘氣’(lung)會逐漸開始向下移動并開始在那里安住。保持呼吸停留在瓶子區域幾秒鐘——不要等到呼氣的沖動變得急迫——然后再慢慢地呼出來。

只是像這樣緩慢地呼吸三四次,徹底呼氣,然后吸氣到瓶子區域。在第三次或第四次吸氣后,在呼氣結束時,試著在瓶子區域保留一點點——也許是百分之十——的呼吸,極其輕柔地專注于讓一小部分‘氣’保持在其原處。

現在試試看。

徹底呼氣,然后向寶瓶區域緩慢、輕柔地呼吸三四次,在最后一次呼氣時,在寶瓶區域保留一點點呼吸。這樣保持大約十分鐘。

感覺如何?

也許有點不舒服。有些人說這樣引導呼吸很困難。另一些人則說,這樣做讓他們獲得了一種從未有過的平靜感和居中感。

寶瓶氣,如果每天練習十分鐘甚至二十分鐘,就能成為一種直接的方法,以發展我們對自身感受的覺知,并學會在從事日常活動時如何與它們共處。當我們的‘氣’在其家園中居中時,我們的身體、感受和思想就會逐漸找到一種健康的平衡。馬和騎手以一種非常放松、自然的方式協同工作,誰也不試圖奪取控制權或把對方逼瘋。在這個過程中,我們發現,與恐懼、痛苦、焦慮、憤怒、不安等相關的微細身體模式逐漸松開,心智和感受之間就有了一點空間。

最終的目標是在一整天中,在所有的活動中——走路、說話、吃飯、喝酒、開車時,都能夠讓那一小部分呼吸保持在寶瓶區域內。對某些人來說,這種能力在短時間的練習后就會自動產生。對另一些人來說,可能需要多一點時間。

我必須承認,即使在練習多年之后,我仍然發現自己有時會失去與大本營的聯系,尤其是在遇到那些快節奏的人時。我自己也有些急躁,遇到其他急躁的人會起到一種微細的身體刺激作用。我會陷入他們那種不安和錯位的能量中,因此變得有些不安、緊張,有時甚至焦慮。因此,我就會進行一次我稱之為提醒式的呼吸:徹底呼氣,向下呼吸到寶瓶區域,然后再呼氣,留一點呼吸在‘氣’的家中。”

John Tan 也說道,

“能量失衡與我們通常所說的‘物理’非常相關。靈性中的能量在現代世俗用法中就是‘物理’的各個方面,僅僅是行話上的差異。所以去鍛煉,并學習開放和毫不費力的藝術,開放我們的身體,保持務實和真誠。

寶瓶氣等練習都很好,但需要紀律、堅持和毅力,而不是一些三分鐘熱度。如果以勤奮、不抱有尋求神奇或童話的心態去精進練習,它一定會有益處的。”

對話 — 2020 年 6 月 29 日

John Tan:Z先生很注重體驗,暫時沒必要在空性、現象之無生的問題上搞得太理論化。

而是要讓他把能量和光明轉移到他的身體上……整個身體……雖然背景消失了,你可能會認為所有的六根都處于平等的光明中,但這在實時狀態中遠非真相,并導致了所有的能量失衡。

放松進入自然狀態,并感受遍布整個身體的能量光明。不要通過思考的方式。觸摸任何東西,觸摸腳趾,腿,去感受它們。那你的心……哈哈……你能明白嗎?

山即是心,草即是心,一切即是心。那是通過視覺和心理,去感受身體,腳趾和手指,觸摸它們。它們就是心。所以你在實時狀態下能明白這點嗎?

至于睡眠不用太擔心,它會發生的,多去感受,少用念頭,讓整個身體成為一種觸覺感,不是通過思考,而是去感受并觸摸它。所以,不要以為當‘一切唯心’與‘無我’的洞見生起時,就意味著你已經徹底契入了‘一切唯心’。如果你不能擁抱并感覺一切皆是心,你如何消除那個被稱為心的公分母,并進入無心,這才是無我的自然狀態。

標簽:無我, 能量 |

關于嚴重能量失衡的注意事項

涉及抑郁、焦慮和創傷的嚴重能量失衡,應該尋求精神科醫生和心理學家的專家幫助,并可能以藥物作為支持。現代醫學可以是康復中至關重要的一部分,絕不應該被低估。如果您表現出可能與這些相關的癥狀,應該由專業人士進行檢查。

就 Soh 在 2019 年持續了 7 天的能量失衡而言,它與心理問題無關,因為除了身體上的緊張感之外,沒有抑郁、悲傷情緒或心理焦慮,也不涉及創傷。而是因為光明的極端強烈——一種貫穿白天并持續到睡眠的強度,以及一種難以化解的過度專注和緊張的能量模式。話雖如此,如果你不確定,最好還是去檢查一下。此外,你也可以看看 Judith Blackstone 的書,書中深入探討了創傷的釋放,并將其與非二元修習聯系起來(盡管它不完全基于無我修習,但仍值得一讀)。參見: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2024/06/good-book-on-healing-trauma-and-nondual.html

John Tan 也說道:“由工作、身體外貌或缺乏家庭支持等引起的抑郁癥,與比方說那些關于‘我是’的問題之間存在很大差異。所有那些與外貌、工作壓力或學習等相關的焦慮,如果相應的問題得到解決,就會逐漸消散。但是有一些像‘我是’這樣的問題,也就是你的第一個直接念頭,如此親密、如此直接,這些是不容易‘擺脫’的。”

“當身體還沒有準備好時,有些(能量失衡)可能與某些能量脈輪的打開有關。”

對話 — 2024 年 6 月 6 日

John Tan 說:"是的,不要讓世俗的成就阻礙了一個人的修習,是的,無我僅僅是開始。一旦我們將顯現認出為自身的光明,我們就必須窮盡心與現象。雖然我不是大圓滿或大手印的修行者,但我能理解并直覺到,完全實現無我的自然狀態,也是非常類似于虹光身那樣的結果的。"

Soh Wei Yu 說:"我明白了……"

John Tan 說:"事實上,在一定程度上窮盡了心智的實體化造作之后,我們就不那么執著于世俗了,并且非常被吸引去將我們的整個身心窮盡于光明的明亮中。我不知道別人怎樣,但這發生在了我身上。這發生在你身上了嗎?"

Soh Wei Yu 說:"是的,我想是的。"

John Tan 說:"在這個階段,毫不費力、無為和不抗拒是非常關鍵的,因為只要心去反應或去專注,能量就會增強,而且常常會導致能量失衡。"


John Tan 在 2009 年寫給一位論壇網友:

“一開始,幾乎不可能不感到二元對立。一個觀察者在觀察被觀察之物,這是我們的日常經驗,它似乎是一個經驗性的事實。因此,我們不應該急于求成,而只需簡單地認出其‘原因’。導致我們以這種方式看待事物的原因被稱為‘無明’。試著去理解‘無明’,不要將其視為不知道,而是將其視為一種知道的形式。把它看作是一種非常深刻的‘二元認知’,而我們卻將其當成了真理。然后,我們將通過兩個步驟來克服這個錯誤的知見:第一,強烈而堅定地建立正確的知見(正知見),以取代我們現有的‘二元見與自性見’;第二,在純然的覺知(bare attention)中修習觀照,以減少這些知見的束縛。在身體覺受中修習純然的覺知,直到在身體覺受中生起一種非常強烈、清晰的如鏡般的感覺。然后,伴隨著正確的知見,非二元將會破曉。如果沒有正確的知見,它很可能只會變成一面反映現象體驗的鏡子。

修習可能需要數十年的時間,并且在這段旅程中常常會令人感到相當沮喪和充滿挑戰。但要有信仰,要有耐心,并保持信心;所有的努力最終都將被證明是值得的。
我用來輔助自己修習的一個簡單總結:

當只有純粹的存在感時;
當覺知如鏡般顯現時;
當感覺變得純凈、清晰且明亮時;
這就是光明(Luminosity)。

當一切生起之物顯得互不相連時;
當顯現無中心地涌現時;
當現象似乎自行運作,無有主宰者時;
這就是無造作者(No Doer-ship)。

當主體與客體(能與所)的劃分被看穿為幻相時;
當清楚了知念頭背后空無一人時;
當只有風景、聲音、念頭等等時;
這就是無我(Anatta)。

當現象顯現得如水晶般晶瑩剔透時;
當僅僅是無縫的一體體驗時;
當一切皆被視為臨在時;
這就是非二元的臨在(Non-dual Presence)。

當我們完全感受到現象的不可得與無處尋時;
當所有體驗皆被視為不可抓取時;
當所有內/外、那里/這里、現在/然后的心智邊界消融時;
這就是空性(Emptiness)。

當萬物的相互關聯被全然感受到時;
當生起顯得偉大、毫不費力且奇妙時;
當臨在感覺如宇宙般浩瀚時;
這就是摩訶(Maha)。

當生起不被囚禁在是誰、何處與何時之中時;
當所有現象都顯得自發且毫不費力時;
當一切在任何地方、任何時候都顯得恰如其分時;
這就是自然圓滿(Spontaneous Perfection)。

將這些視為一切體驗的基底;
始終如此,已然如此;
這就是智慧(Wisdom)。

在任何生起的事物中體驗這個基底;
這就是修習(Practice)。

旅途愉快。”

John Tan 在 2017 年寫道:

“在幾百年(或幾千年)的發展過程中,關于這個和那個的經典卷帙浩繁……重要的是精髓……意思是,如果你深入空性教法與緣起,只要(關注)精髓……把它當成公案一樣對待……沒有哪一個禪宗公案能像中觀(Madhyamaka)那樣讓我們穿透得如此之深。也沒有哪個公案能像道元(Dōgen)的‘一法究盡’(total exertion)那樣,以如此神奇的方式傳達出這種被‘連接’的宏大體驗……

對我來說,只有這 4 個直指就足夠了:直指覺知,直指無我,直指一法究盡,以及直指空性。剩下的就是通過機緣(encounter)和專注的修習來深化你的洞見與了悟。”

Soh

 

Link to Download: https://files.awakeningtoreality.com/THE%20HIGH-FIDELITY%20TRANSMISSION%20OF%20BODHIDHARMA.pdf

Last Updated: 
5 February 2026 

(Note: If you have opened this file recently, your browser may show an older version. Please press Ctrl+F5 (Windows) or Cmd+Shift+R (Mac) to force a refresh.)


Link to Download: https://files.awakeningtoreality.com/THE%20HIGH-FIDELITY%20TRANSMISSION%20OF%20BODHIDHARMA.pdf

Last Updated: 5 February 2026 


(Note: If you have opened this file recently, your browser may show an older version. Please press Ctrl+F5 (Windows) or Cmd+Shift+R (Mac) to force a refresh.)
Soh

Nafis: I have always had conflict with Pali Canon purists and Suttavadins. They always tried to downplay Anatta and other non-dual realizations despite not having realized them directly. Mr X and Mr. Y, when I spoke to him privately... He didn't downplay Anatta, but downplayed total exertion... ...I don't know how people can be so overconfident and presumptuous despite not having insight. Imagine telling the co-founder of ATR what the ATR stages is supposed to represent..

Soh: Yeah, they just don't get it. John Tan already said this in 2008/2007 [about hardly any modern Theravadins properly realising anatman as a nondual insight]: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2025/01/tejanandas-early-writings-and-john-tans.html

(Sharing 2008 Log)

Thusness: For now, just know about Anatta. You see, even for one to know that Anatta is non-dual and as manifestation, it is already rare. For so many Theravada practitioners misunderstood it.

(Sharing 2007 Log)

Thusness: How many explain no-self in terms of mirror-like, non-duality? So far, many I have seen explained it baselessly and nonsensically. Only Dharma Dan [Daniel M. Ingram] explained correctly. And Longchen [Sim Pern Chong] experienced correctly even without me telling him. I only said "no-self"; now is the time to refine the understanding and experience. Hopefully he knows what I meant, then the job is done.

AEN: I see. Bob posted this in that forum last year.

Thusness: He is progressing very fast.

(End of Logs)

Soh: Even to describe Anatta as a form of non-dual insight is super rare in Theravada. How many explain it misleadingly like Thanissaro or some other nonsense explanations.

Nafis: If Mr P explores the Pali Canon seriously, the only commentary worth reading is Nanananda and Geoff, although the latter isn't an official teacher.

Soh: Luckily Mr P likes Geoff [https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2012/09/great-resource-of-buddha-teachings.html].

Nafis: Ajahn Brahm has Anatta, but doesn't provide detailed commentaries on the Pali Canon.

Soh: But I don't understand why he can't see the importance of the Anatta insight if he takes Geoff's writing seriously.

Nafis: The rest are hopeless.

Soh: I think Geoff is quite clear and realized Anatta. Unfortunately, he did not write about his realization, like Malcolm—at least not publicly [Soh's comments: I have personally attended talks by Acarya Malcolm Smith and heard him give a very clear description of his personal experiential insights into anatman and emptiness to his students, but this is not found in his written books or publicly available YouTube videos.].

Nafis: Yeah, he points to it, but doesn't mention it explicitly.

Soh: Yup. I don't think he [Geoff] can write so well if he didn't have insights.

Nafis: In many of those cases, they even end up being similar to Ajahn Amaro. Borderline Anatta. I remember someone posted Ajahn Amaro before in the group, Yin Ling said it was very amazing, and afterwards we had to send her further excerpts.

Soh: Ajahn Amaro is clearly Stage 4. Just like John Tan broke through the Anatta stanzas but still held the sort of "One Mind" view. But unlike John Tan, who overcame that phase in, I think, one or two years, Ajahn Amaro just got stuck there since. Probably held his master Ajahn Chah's views too deeply. Yeah, the Bahiya Sutta one is very good. But if you read the rest of his book, he still can't overcome the mirror and reflections—unlike John Tan.


Soh

 A nice video shared by John Tan.


[24/1/26, 8:58:11 AM] John Tan: I really like this YouTube.  Very clear explanation and same understanding even from a contemplative approach.  Very Buddhist imo.

[24/1/26, 9:03:08 AM] John Tan: Then he talk about Buddhism anatta near the end.  He should he go deeply into dependent arising and emptiness.

[24/1/26, 4:55:53 PM] John Tan: Yin ling, also learn the apophatic logic (negative logic) way of understanding, analysing and experiencing in taste.  Now the video can be understood from using a substantialist framework to understand a non-substantialist world.
[24/1/26, 4:58:38 PM] John Tan: For example, understanding the sense of seamlessness from lack of boundary rather than holism.

The sense of interconnectedness from lack of essence therefore originates dependently rather than connectors joining nodes. ‎

[24/1/26, 5:03:38 PM] John Tan: To understand how madhyamaka negation logic, non implicative negation can work and in fact more coherently explains the entire world of appearances can vividly presents and functions, appears solid, objective and subjective conventionally yet remain ultimately empty.

[24/1/26, 5:05:20 PM] John Tan: That is precisely what has to be overcome and allow the mind to get it.
[24/1/26, 5:05:37 PM] John Tan: Holism is wholeness

[24/1/26, 5:06:37 PM] John Tan: Means a framework build on wholeness.  But Emptiness/dependent arising is beyond whole and parts, neither one nor many.
[24/1/26, 5:07:19 PM] John Tan: Means although there is dependence in origination, u cannot say it is whole or are they separate parts.


[24/1/26, 5:12:45 PM] John Tan: You see, housing vivid appearances (characteristics) into objects as essence, doesn't explain anything or let us know anything at all.  It merely swept a lot of things under the carpet and confuse the mind to think and analyse inherently as if that is reality.
[24/1/26, 5:14:04 PM] John Tan: Like how the video explains, there is no object.
[24/1/26, 5:14:49 PM] John Tan: There is also no field and definite energy even not as a force but as mathematics of various quantities within a system

[24/1/26, 5:15:40 PM] John Tan: This tells us the importance of "conventions" just like mathematics
[24/1/26, 5:15:47 PM] John Tan: Instead of things

[24/1/26, 5:17:06 PM] John Tan: So when we slowly get use to it and understand, looking into our meditative experiences and luminous clarity, the body and mind somehow rewired itself to understand the formation of appearances differently.
[24/1/26, 5:17:37 PM] Yin Ling: This sounds promising


----

Gemini Comments:


Explanation of John Tan’s Comments

The Core Theme: Substantialism vs. Non-Substantialism 

John is using the context of a video—likely regarding quantum physics or field theory—to illustrate the difference between a Substantialist view (how we intuitively see the world) and a Non-Substantialist view (the Madhyamaka/Emptiness view).

He is critiquing the tendency to use a "substantialist framework" (thinking in terms of "things," "wholes," or "essences") to understand scientific concepts that effectively point to the absence of inherent nature.

Key Distinctions Breakdown

1. Seamlessness vs. Holism (The Apophatic Approach)

John emphasizes "apophatic logic" (negative logic). This is the method of understanding reality by removing or negating delusions rather than affirming a new "ultimate thing."

  • Holism (Substantialist/Affirmative): This view says, "Everything is One." It treats the universe as a giant container or a singular, giant object. This is "Wholeness." It implies an underlying essence that binds distinct parts together.

  • Seamlessness (Non-Substantialist/Negative): This view says, "There are no boundaries." Seamlessness isn't a "thing" called "The Whole"; it is simply the absence of separation.

    • John's Point: If you view reality as "Holism," you are still holding onto a subtle object (the "Whole"). If you view it as "lack of boundary," you are realizing Emptiness.

2. Interconnectedness: Dependence vs. Connectors

  • Substantialist View: You imagine distinct objects (nodes) A and B, connected by a line (relationship). This presumes A and B have independent existence before they connect.

  • Dependent Arising View: There are no "nodes" to begin with. Dependence does not mean "things exist because they rely on each other"; it means because they are dependent, they do not inherently exist.

    • John's Point: "The sense of interconnectedness [comes] from lack of essence." Interconnectedness is not about connectors joining pre-existing items; it is the realization that since no independent essence can be found, phenomena are merely dependently designated.

3. Madhyamaka & Non-Implicative Negation

John mentions "Non-implicative negation" (prasajya-pratisedha).

  • Implicative Negation: "This is not a chair" (implies it might be a table). It negates one thing to affirm another.

  • Non-Implicative Negation: "There is no inherent self." This negates the self without implying that something else (like a Cosmic Self, a Void, or a Substance) exists in its place.

    • John's Point: This logic allows appearances to be vivid and function (conventional reality) while being ultimately empty. We do not need a "substance" behind the scenes for reality to function; the lack of substance is why it functions.

4. Beyond "One or Many"

John explicitly targets the trap of "Oneness."

"Emptiness/dependent arising is beyond whole and parts, neither one nor many."

If you say reality is "One" (Holism), you fall into Eternalism (asserting an ultimate existing substance). If you say it is "Many" (separate atoms/particles), you fall into Substantialism. Madhyamaka argues that because phenomena originate dependently, they cannot be singular (as they depend on parts/causes) nor plural (as distinct parts would require independent existence).

The Scientific/Physics Analogy

John draws a parallel between modern physics (as seemingly discussed in the video) and Emptiness.

  • The Analogy: Physics reveals there are no solid "particles" (objects) at the fundamental level, only fields, functions, or mathematics.

  • The Mistake: We try to "house" these findings into our old way of thinking. We reify "energy" or "fields" into a new kind of stuff or substance.

  • The Correction: "Objects" are just conventions—mental designations we place on abstract relationships. Just as "Monday" is a convention (not a physical object), a "chair" or "electron" is a nominal designation for a set of conditions, devoid of an existing essence.

Practical Application (Meditative Experience)

In the final messages, John connects this view to practice:

"looking into our meditative experiences and luminous clarity, the body and mind somehow rewired itself to understand the formation of appearances differently."

He suggests that when we stop projecting "essence" or "solidity" onto experience:

  1. Luminosity/Clarity is no longer seen as a "Self" or "Source."

  2. Appearances are seen as magical, vivid displays that have no "backer," "owner," or inherent existence.

  3. The mind stops looking for a "thing" behind the movement and simply recognizes the function itself—vividly appearing yet thoroughly empty of "existing existents."

Soh
For the full translation of all Bodhidharma texts, see The High-Fidelity Transmission of Bodhidharma: A New Translation

Translator (Soh)'s Commentary: The Treatise on No-Mind (Wúxīn Lùn)

Textual Note

The Treatise on No-Mind (Wúxīn Lùn; 無心論) is preserved among the Dunhuang manuscripts (e.g., Stein no. 5619) and is included in the Taishō Canon (Vol. 85, No. 2831). While traditionally attributed to Bodhidharma, modern scholarship treats the authorship as uncertain, suggesting it may be a product of the early Chan period (approx. 8th century). It represents a critical synthesis of Madhyamaka dialectics and early Chan "True Mind" terminology.

The Trap of the Knower (Negating the Subject)

The central theme of this text is the radical negation of the reified subject. A common trap for practitioners—and a frequent point of confusion in Western interpretations of Chan—is to mistake the negation of thoughts for the affirmation of a "Universal Knower" or "Witness Consciousness" (similar to the Atman of Advaita).

In that view, one peels away thoughts to arrive at a "True Self" that stands apart as the silent witness. However, this text explicitly rejects that duality. When the disciple asks, "Who knows there is no mind?" the text does not reply, "The True Self knows." It replies, "It is still No-mind that is able to know."

This implies the total collapse of the "Knower" as an entity. The text states:

"To enable your awakening to the Truth: Even if there is seeing, seeing all day long is essentially non-seeing; seeing is also No-mind. Hearing all day long is essentially non-hearing; hearing is also No-mind. Sensing all day long is essentially non-sensing; sensing is also No-mind. Cognizing all day long is essentially non-cognizing; cognizing is also No-mind. Functioning all day long, functioning is essentially non-functioning; functioning is also No-mind. Thus it is said: seeing, hearing, sensing, and cognizing are entirely No-mind."

This passage points to the realization that there is no "See-er" standing behind the seeing, nor even a reified field of "seeing" established apart from the seen. This insight corresponds directly to the Two Stanzas of Anatta often discussed in Awakening to Reality:

Stanza 1:  There is thinking, no thinker. There is hearing, no hearer. There is seeing, no seer.
Stanza 2: In thinking, just thoughts. In hearing, just sounds. In seeing, just forms, shapes and colors.  

Bodhidharma's assertion that "seeing is essentially non-seeing" (見由為無見) parallels the insight that we should not conceptualize or reify "seeing" as a substance or field for the display of experience. Instead, there is only the spontaneous presence of the display itself. This is perfectly illustrated in the following exchange between Geovani Geo and John Tan:

Geovani Geo: "We hear a sound. The immediate deeply inbuilt conditioning says, 'hearing'. But there is a fallacy there. There is only sound. Ultimately, no hearer and no hearing. The same with all other senses. A centralized, or expanded, or zero-dimensional inherent perceiver or aware-er is an illusion."

John Tan: "Very good. Means both stanza is clear. In hearing, no hearer. In hearing, only sound. No hearing."

Thus, the "No-mind" of Bodhidharma is not a blank void, but the seamless function free of the duality of "knower" and "known", and when the fixation on an apprehender and apprehended collapses in light of Prajñā (wisdom), it leaves only the vivid, self-luminous and empty self-display or spontaneous and self-knowing manifestation of just the sound or just the sight—function itself, devoid of a subjective agent, seer, hearer, etc.

Interdependence and the Rejection of Nihilism

The realization of No-Mind is not a descent into nothingness. "No-Mind" (Wúxīn) and "Unobtainable" do not imply a void of non-existence, but rather the lack of inherent existence.

This is most clearly expressed in the Disciple's moment of Great Awakening:

"He began to know that outside of mind there are no things, and outside of things there is no mind; in all behavior and action, he attained mastery."

Therefore, "No-Mind" is not a state to be created. No Mind is what is always already true. It has no existence of its own. No mind apart from phenomena, no phenomena apart from mind. Whether one is deluded or enlightened, the self is unfindable. The difference lies only in the realization. As the text states, "It is only because sentient beings delusively grasp at having a mind... If one awakens to No-mind, then there are no afflictions, birth-and-death, or Nirvana whatsoever."

Crucially, simply negating the self-construct without a direct taste of consciousness as appearance remains a merely conceptual understanding of Anatta. There is no genuine realization of No-Mind ("outside of things there is no mind") or Anatman (No-Self) without realizing that the radiance of Mind is all appearances ("outside of mind there are no things"). Although 'Mind' or 'Awareness' is negated, it is not to say there is nothing. Negating the Mind/Awareness/Presence (Absolute) is not to let Mind/Awareness remain at the abstract level.


When such transpersonal Mind/Awareness that exists only in la la land (as some formless transpersonal or universal background, source or substratum) is negated, the vivid radiance of presence are fully tasted in the transient appearances; zero gap and zero distance between presence and moment to moment of ordinary experiences and we realize separation has always only been conventional. Then mundane activities -- hearing, sitting, standing, seeing and sensing, become pristine and vibrant, natural and free.

Genuine realization is simultaneous: it penetrates the reification of the subject while authenticating Presence as the display itself, without a background. In other words, it realizes the total absence of an agent, while actualizing the Mind of Clear Light as the mountains, rivers, and the myriad things.

Both John Tan and I like this text by Bodhidharma. John Tan, who mentioned this text on numerous occasions, said in 2022, 'The emptiness is not easy to point out, only the clarity aspect. And I told you the anatta in ATR [Awakening to Reality] is unique in the sense that it points to presence... ...It is like 无心论 [the Doctrine of No-Mind by Bodhidharma].

The Inseparability of Awareness and Conditions

This highlights the insight of dependent origination: Mind has no independent existence separate from phenomena. It is not a "container" or a "mirror" that passively holds or reflects the world. Mind is the phenomena—seeing, hearing, sensing—yet it is empty of any fixed nature. Not only is it empty of an independent existence, one starts to see and feel this moment of arising as the exertion of all conditions.

As Bodhidharma states in the Bloodstream Sermon:

"With the condition of eyes, forms are seen; with the condition of ears, sounds are heard... every movement or state is all one's Mind."

We must be very precise here. Bodhidharma is not saying that there is a "Self" using the eyes to see. He is saying that "Seeing" arises through the convergence of conditions.

1. The Bell (Auditory Manifestation)

Consider the experience of hearing a bell.

  • The Dualistic View: You feel that there is an "I" or an observer located inside the head, and a "Bell" (Object) located outside. The "I" acts as a mirror reflecting the sound.
  • The View of Dependent Origination: There is no "I" listening. There is only the convergence of conditions—the bronze of the bell, the hardness of the striker, the vibration of the air, and the sensitivity of the ear drum.
  • The Realization: When these conditions meet, a burst of luminosity arises: Sound. That Sound is the Awareness. The bell, the stick, and the air are not "external objects"; they are the conditions for Mind to manifest as Sound. One must touch and feel the inseparability of Mind/Manifestation/Conditions: all conditions totally exerting as sound. As John Tan said, "One must lose all mind and body by feeling with entire mind and body this essence which is Mind (心). Yet Mind too is unobtainable/unfindable (不可得).. The purpose is not to deny Mind but rather not to place any limitations or duality so that Mind can fully manifest. Therefore without understanding 缘 (conditions),is to limit 心 (Mind). Without understanding 缘 (conditions),is to place limitation in its manifestations."

2. The Rainbow (Visual Manifestation)

To understand how this display is both "vividly apparent" yet "totally empty," my teacher John Tan offers the analogy of the Rainbow:

"Listening to someone tutoring about 'rainbow',

The teaching of science came to my mind.

The raindrops, the sunshine;

The light that enters and exits the droplets;

The reflection, refraction and light dispersion;

All these formed the rainbow.

But they missed the most important factor,

The radiance of our own mind."

Science can explain the physical conditions (raindrops, light, refraction), but it often misses the primary condition: The Mind itself.

However, do not mistake this "Radiance" for a spotlight coming from the subject. The "Radiance" is not separate from the colors. The Red, Orange, and Green are the Radiance.

As Juliette Paul elucidates:

"Rainbows need to have eyes in correct position, water droplets, light, radiant mind... Move slightly and rainbow is gone. Never came from anywhere, stayed anywhere, or went anywhere. The rainbow was insubstantial, but vividly displayed. All phenomena are like this."

This is the essence of Bodhidharma’s teaching. The world you see is like that rainbow. It is insubstantial (empty of inherent existence) because if you remove one condition (the light, the rain, or the mind), it vanishes. Yet, right now, it is vividly displayed. Mind is not a blank screen behind the rainbow; Mind is the vivid, ungraspable display of the rainbow itself.

3. Thoughts (Mental Manifestation)

This applies equally to thoughts. We often view thoughts as "my" creation, but Zen Master Hong Wen Liang points out that thoughts are merely "natural physiological phenomena" arising through conditions, just like the weather.

"Even if you don't want it to come, it comes... Who knows how it is dependently arisen? ... Only after it has arrived do you know. Therefore, this is dependent origination; dependent origination fundamentally means there is no 'you'." — Hong Wen Liang

When we realize this, we stop trying to control the mind from the standpoint of an "I." We realize that every thought, every sound, and every visual color is the Dharma-nature manifesting perfectly and spontaneously according to conditions. It is as if the entire universe is giving its very best for this single moment of "Hearing" or "Seeing" to arise. This is the dynamic, living Mind of Bodhidharma—not a static void, but the total exertion of the cosmos.

Function without Agency (The Heavenly Drum)

The text uses the metaphors of the Heavenly Drum and the Wish-fulfilling Gem to explain how action occurs without an actor. These objects perform functions (emitting sound, manifesting treasures) without agency, dictation or control by an internal agent. This is the ideal of anābhoga (effortless action): functioning perfectly without a "ghost in the machine."


Translation: The Treatise on No-Mind

(Taishō 85, No. 2831)

Now, the Supreme Principle is wordless; it is necessary to borrow words to reveal the Principle. The Great Way is signless; to guide the unrefined, form is displayed. Now, let us tentatively establish two persons to discuss the treatise on No-mind together.

Disciple: "Is there a mind or is there no mind?"

Teacher: "No-mind."

Disciple: "Since you say there is no mind, who can perform seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing? Who knows there is no mind?"

Teacher: "It is still No-mind that performs seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing. It is still No-mind that is able to know No-mind."

Disciple: "Since it is No-mind, it should define the absence of seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing. How can there be seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing?"

Teacher: "Though I am without mind, I am able to see, able to hear, able to sense, and able to know."

Disciple: "Since you are able to see, hear, sense, and know, that is precisely having a mind. How can you call it 'No-mind'?"

Teacher: "Simply that seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing is precisely No-mind. Where else, apart from seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing, is there a separate No-mind? I now fear you do not understand, so I will explain it for you, to enable your awakening to the Truth:

Seeing all day long is essentially non-seeing; seeing is also No-mind.

Hearing all day long is essentially non-hearing; hearing is also No-mind.

Sensing all day long is essentially non-sensing; sensing is also No-mind.

Cognizing all day long is essentially non-cognizing; cognizing is also No-mind.

Functioning all day long, functioning is essentially non-functioning; functioning is also No-mind. 

Thus it is said: seeing, hearing, sensing, and cognizing are entirely No-mind."

Disciple: "How can one know that it is No-mind?"

Teacher: "You need only investigate carefully: what appearance does the mind make? Is that mind obtainable? Is it mind or is it not mind? Is it located inside, located outside, or located in between? If one investigates in these three locations, searching for the mind, it is completely unobtainable; even searching in all places, it is unobtainable. You should know this is precisely No-mind."

Disciple: "Since the teacher says that in all places there is always No-mind, it should define the absence of transgression and merit. Why do sentient beings undergo samsara in the six realms continuously without interruption?"

Teacher: "Sentient beings are confused and deluded; right within No-mind, they delusively give rise to a mind. They create various kinds of karma and delusively grasp at it as existing; this is sufficient to cause them to cycle through the six realms, with birth and death uninterrupted.

It is like a person in the dark seeing a tree stump as a ghost, or seeing a rope as a snake, and then giving rise to terror. The delusive grasping of sentient beings is also just like this. In no-mind, they falsely grasp at ‘having mind,’ produce manifold karmic actions, and truly there is none who does not transmigrate through the six paths. Such sentient beings, if they meet a great spiritual friend who teaches them to sit in meditation and awaken to No-mind, then all karmic obscurations are entirely extinguished, and birth and death are immediately severed. It is like in the darkness: as soon as the sunlight shines, the darkness is entirely gone. If one awakens to No-mind, the extinguishment of all transgressions is also just like this."

Disciple: "This disciple is dull-witted and my mind is still not clear. Examining all places, should the function of the six sense faculties be responsive?"

Teacher: "[Regarding] speech and various activities, afflictions and Bodhi, birth-and-death and Nirvana—is it definitely No-mind or not?[2] It is definitely No-mind. It is only because sentient beings delusively grasp at having a mind that there are all afflictions, birth-and-death, Bodhi, and Nirvana. If one awakens to No-mind, then there are no afflictions, birth-and-death, or Nirvana whatsoever.

Therefore, for those with a mind, the Tathāgata speaks of having birth and death; Bodhi is named in opposition to afflictions, and Nirvana is named in opposition to birth and death. These are all methods of counteraction. If there is no mind to be obtained, then afflictions and Bodhi are also unobtainable, and even birth-and-death and Nirvana are also unobtainable."

Disciple: "Since Bodhi and Nirvana are unobtainable, the past Buddhas all attained Bodhi; is this saying acceptable?"

Teacher: "It is merely attained through the words of worldly truth; in ultimate truth, there is really nothing obtainable. Therefore, the Vimalakīrti Sūtra says: 'Bodhi cannot be attained by the body, nor can it be attained by the mind.' Furthermore, the Diamond Sūtra says: 'There is not the slightest dharma obtainable.' The Buddhas and Tathāgatas simply attained through the unobtainable. You should know: if there is mind, then everything exists; if there is No-mind, everything is absent [of self-nature]."

Disciple: "Since the teacher says that in all places, it is entirely No-mind, wood and stone also have no mind; surely this is not the same as wood and stone?"

Teacher: "Though I abide in No-mind, this mind is not like wood or stone. Why is this? It is like the Heavenly Drum; although it is without a mind, it naturally produces various marvelous Dharmas to teach and transform sentient beings. Also, like the Wish-fulfilling Gem (Cintāmaṇi); although it is without a mind, it is naturally able to produce various transformational displays.

My No-mind is also just like this. Although completely without mind, it is perfectly able to awaken to and understand the true characteristics of all dharmas, is endowed with true prajñā [wisdom], possesses the mastery of the Three Bodies, and its responsive application is unhindered. Therefore, the Ratnakūṭa Sūtra says: 'To manifest activity with no mind and no intention.' How could this be the same as wood and stone? Now, 'No-mind' is precisely the True Mind, and the True Mind is precisely No-mind."

Disciple: "Now, within this mind, how does one engage in practice?"

Teacher: "Simply awaken to and understand in all matters that No-mind is precisely practice; there is no other separate practice. Therefore, know that No-mind is everything. Quiescent extinction is precisely No-mind."

The disciple thereupon suddenly experienced a Great Awakening. He began to know that outside of mind there are no things, and outside of things there is no mind; in all behavior and action, he attained mastery. He cut through the nets of doubt, and there were no further hindrances. He immediately rose to pay homage and inscribed [the meaning of] No-mind. Thus he made a verse, saying:

The Spirit of Mind tends toward quiescence,
Without color, without form.
Looking at it, one does not see;
Listening to it, there is no sound.
Seemingly dark, yet not dark;
Like brightness, yet not bright.
Discarding it, it is not extinguished;
Taking it up, it is unborn.
In its greatness, it encompasses the Dharma-realm;
In its smallness, it enters a hair-tip without stopping.
Afflictions mix with it but do not muddy it;
Nirvana clarifies it but it does not become clear.
True Thusness fundamentally has no discrimination,
Yet is able to distinguish between the sentient and insentient.
Withdrawing it, nothing is established;
Dispersing it, it pervades all possessing spirit.
The Marvelous Spirit is not fathomed by knowledge;
Looking directly, it is cut off from practice.
When extinguished, one does not see its destruction;
When arising, one does not see its formation.
The Great Way, quiescent, is named 'Signless';
The ten thousand images, profound and obscure, are named 'Nameless'.
To operate with mastery like this
Is always the essence of No-mind.

The teacher further announced: "Among all prajñās, the prajñā of No-mind is the highest. Therefore, the Vimalakīrti Sūtra says: 'With no mind, no intention, and no sensation or mental fabrication, one completely subdues the external paths.' Also, the Dharma Drum Sūtra says: 'If one knows that no mind is obtainable, then dharmas are unobtainable, transgression and merit are also unobtainable, birth-and-death and Nirvana are also unobtainable, and even everything is entirely unobtainable. Unobtainable is also unobtainable.'"

Thus he made a verse, saying:

In former days when confused, taken to be 'having a mind';
At that time, after awakening, entirely 'No-mind'.
Though No-mind, able to illuminate and function;
Illumination and function are constantly quiescent, precisely Thusness.

Further saying:

No-mind, no illumination, and also no function;
No illumination and no function is precisely the Unconditioned.
This is the True Dharma-realm of the Tathāgata,
Not the same as Bodhisattvas or Pratyekabuddhas.
The statement 'No-mind' implies the absence of a mind with delusory appearances.

Disciple: "What is named 'Supreme' (Taishang)?"

Teacher: "'Tai' means great; 'Shang' means high. Because it exhausts the marvelous Principle of the highest height, it is called 'Supreme' (Taishang). Furthermore, 'Tai' signifies a position of pervasive peace.

Although the heavens of the Three Realms possess the longevity of the Yan-kang aeon[3], their fortune ends, and thus they eventually cycle through the Six Realms; this is not sufficient to be considered 'Tai'.

Although the Bodhisattvas of the Ten Abodes have exited birth and death, the marvelous Principle is not yet ultimate; this is also not considered 'Tai'.

In the mind-practice of the Ten Abodes, regarding existence as delusory, one enters non-existence; further, one negates that non-existence, so that [the duality of] existence [and non-existence] is explicitly dispatched. However, if one does not forget the Middle Way, this is also not considered 'Tai'.

If one further forgets the Middle Way, and the three locations [inside, outside, and in between] are all exhausted, the position is entirely Marvelous Awakening. Although the Bodhisattva dispatches the three locations, if he cannot be without that 'Marvelousness', it is also not considered 'Tai'.

If one further forgets that 'Marvelousness', then the Buddha Way reaches the ultimate, and there is nothing remaining. With no remaining thought, there is no thinking or anxiety; both the delusory mind and wisdom eternally rest; awakening and illumination are both exhausted; it is quiescent and Unconditioned. This is named 'Tai'.

'Tai' has the meaning of the ultimate Principle; 'Shang' means unequalled. Therefore, it is called 'Supreme'. It is precisely another name for the Buddha Tathāgata."

End of the Treatise on No-Mind by the Great Master Bodhidharma.


[2] A gap exists in the Chinese text here in some recensions; translated from context.

[3] Yan-kang (延康): A term from Daoist cosmology indicating the final kalpa/aeon.


Comparative Notes: High-Fidelity vs. Earlier Translations (Urs App, 1995)

While Urs App’s 1995 translation is a pioneering scholarly work that made this text accessible, this High-Fidelity translation diverges in key areas to correct subtle reifications of the self and to restore precise Madhyamaka terminology over Taoist-flavored renderings.

The Subjectless Function vs. The Inserted "I"

  • Source: 见终日见 (Jiàn zhōngrì jiàn - literally: "See all day see")

  • Urs App: "[I] see throughout the day... [I] hear all day long..."

  • This Translation: "Even if there is seeing, seeing all day long is essentially non-seeing; seeing is also No-mind."

  • Rationale: The original Chinese in this passage is grammatically subjectless, emphasizing the function rather than the agent. Inserting "[I]" (even in brackets) subtly reinforces the "Trap of the Knower"—the idea that there is a static "Self" performing the seeing. The High-Fidelity translation preserves the self-less, spontaneous nature of the function: seeing happens, but no "seer" is found.

Unobtainable vs. Grasped

  • Source: 不可得 (Bù kě dé)

  • Urs App: "Grasped" or "Attained" (e.g., "nothing at all can be grasped")

  • This Translation: "Unobtainable."

  • Rationale: Bù kě dé is the standard Chinese translation for the Sanskrit Anupalabdha (unfindability/unobtainability). This is a precise ontological statement: phenomena do not have an inherent essence that can be located. Translating it as "Grasped" shifts the meaning to a psychological act (the subject failing to hold something), whereas "Unobtainable" correctly points to the emptiness of the object itself.

The Unconditioned vs. Wuwei

  • Source: 无为 (Wúwéi)

  • Urs App: "Wuwei" (left untranslated/pinyin).

  • This Translation: "The Unconditioned."

  • Rationale: While Wuwei is a Taoist term for "non-action," in this specific Buddhist context (describing the "True Dharma-realm of the Tathāgata"), it corresponds to the Sanskrit Asaṃskṛta—the Unconditioned (that which is not created, compounded, or subject to birth and death). Leaving it as "Wuwei" keeps the reader in a Taoist framework; translating it as "Unconditioned" correctly places the text within the Buddhist soteriological framework of Nirvana.

Spirit of Mind vs. Mind

  • Source: 心神 (Xīn Shén)

  • Urs App: "Mind."

  • This Translation: "Spirit of Mind."

  • Rationale: The text explicitly uses Shén (Spirit/Divinity/Marvelous) in the verse ("The Spirit of Mind tends toward quiescence"). Urs App collapses this into simply "Mind." The High-Fidelity translation retains "Spirit" to capture the text's nuance regarding the luminous, marvelous, and unfathomable nature of this awareness, distinguishing it from the deluded conceptual mind.

Recursive Negation vs. Negation of Practice

  • Source: 不可得亦不可得 (Bù kě dé yì bù kě dé)

  • Urs App: "Not-grasping included!"

  • This Translation: "Unobtainable is also unobtainable."

  • Rationale: App’s translation ("Not-grasping included") sounds like an instruction on how to practice (i.e., "don't even grasp at not-grasping"). The High-Fidelity translation captures the Madhyamaka logical collapse: even the concept of "emptiness" or "unobtainability" is itself empty and cannot be established as a foothold.




Chinese Original

菩提达摩大师无心论

夫至理无言,要假言而显理。大道无相,为接粗而见形。今且假立二人,共谈无心之论矣。

弟子问和尚曰:“有心无心?”

答曰:“无心。”

问曰:“既云无心,谁能见闻觉知,谁知无心?”

答曰:“还是无心既见闻觉知,还是无心能知无心。”

问曰:“既若无心,即合无有见闻觉知,云何得有见闻觉知?”

答曰:“我虽无心,能见能闻能觉能知。”

问曰:“既能见闻觉知,即是有心,那得称无?”

答曰:“只是见闻觉知,即是无心。何处更离见闻觉知别有无心。我今恐汝不解,一一为汝解说。令汝得悟真理,假如见终日见由为无见,见亦无心;闻终日闻由为无闻,闻亦无心;觉终日觉由为无觉,觉亦无心;知终日知由为无知,知亦无心;终日造作,作亦无作,作亦无心。故云见闻觉知总是无心。”

问曰:“若为能得知是无心?”

答曰:“汝但仔细推求看,心作何相貌?其心复可得,是心不是心。为复在内、为复在外、为复在中间?如是三处推求,觅心了不可得,乃至于一切处求觅亦不可得。当知即是无心。”

问曰:“和尚既云,一切处总是无心,即合无有罪福,何故众生轮回六趣生死不断?”

答曰:“众生迷妄,于无心中而妄生心,造种种业,妄执为有,足可致使轮回六趣,生死不断。譬有人,于暗中见杌为鬼,见绳为蛇,便生恐怖。众生妄执,亦复如是。于无心中,妄执有心,造种种业,而实无不轮回六趣。如是众生,若遇大善知识,教令坐禅,觉悟无心,一切业障,尽皆销灭,生死即断。譬如暗中,日光一照,而暗皆尽。若悟无心,一切罪灭亦复如是。”

问曰:“弟子愚昧,心犹未了,审一切处,六根所用者应?”

答曰:“语种种施为烦恼菩提,生死涅槃,定无心否?答曰:定是无心。只为众生妄执有心,即有一切烦恼生死、菩提涅槃。若觉无心,即无一切烦恼生死涅槃。是故,如来为有心者说有生死,菩提对烦恼得名,涅槃者对生死得名,此皆对治之法。若无心可得,即烦恼菩提亦不可得,乃至生死涅槃亦不可得。”

问曰:“菩提涅槃既不可得,过去诸佛皆得菩提,此谓可乎?”

答曰:“但以世谛文字之言得,于真谛实无可得。故《维摩经》云:‘菩提者,不可以身得,不可以心得。’此外《金刚经》云:‘无有少法可得。’诸佛如来,但以不可得而得。当知有心即一切有,无心一切无。”

问曰:“和尚既云,于一切处尽皆无心,木石亦无心,岂不同于木石乎?”

答曰:“而我无心,心不同木石。何以故?譬如天鼓,虽复无心,自然出种种妙法教化众生。又如如意珠,虽复无心,自然能作种种变现。而我无心,亦复如是。虽复无心,善能觉了诸法实相,具真般若,三身自在,应用无妨。故《宝积经》云:‘以无心意而现行’,岂同木石乎?夫无心者,即真心也;真心者,即无心也。”

问曰:“今于心中,作若为修行?”

答曰:“但于一切事上觉了,无心即是修行,更不别有修行。故知无心即一切,寂灭即无心也。”

弟子于是忽然大悟,始知心外无物,物外无心,举止动用,皆得自在,断诸疑网,更无挂碍。即起作礼,而铭无心,乃为颂曰:

“心神向寂,无色无形。睹之不见,听之无声。似暗非暗,如明不明。舍之不灭,取之无生。大即廓周法界,小即毛竭不停。烦恼混之不浊,涅槃澄之不清。真如本无分别,能辩有情无情。收之一切不立,散之普遍含灵。妙神非知所测,正觅绝于修行。灭则不见其坏,生则不见其成。大道寂号无相,万像窈号无名。如斯运用自在,总是无心之精。”

和尚又告曰:“诸般若中,以无心般若而为最上,故《维摩经》云:‘以无心意无受行,而悉拙伏外道。’又《法鼓经》:‘若知无心可得,法即不可得,罪福亦不可得,生死涅槃亦不可得,乃至一切尽不可得,不可得亦不可得。’”

乃为颂曰:“昔日迷时为有心,尔时悟罢了无心。虽复无心能照用,照用常寂即如如。”

重曰:“无心无照亦无用,无照无用即无为。此是如来真法界,不同菩萨为辟支。言无心者,即无妄相心也。”

又问:“何名为太上?”

答曰:“太者大也,上者高也。穷高之妙理,故云太上也。又太者,通泰位也。三界之天虽有延康之寿,福尽是故终轮回六趣,未足为太。十住菩萨虽出离生死,而妙理未极,亦未为太。十住修心,妄有入无,又无其无有双遣,不忘中道,亦未为太。又忘中道,三处都尽,位皆妙觉。菩萨虽遣三处,不能无其所妙,亦未为太。又忘其妙,则佛道至极,则无所存。无存思则无思虑,兼妄心智永息,觉照俱尽,寂然无为,此名为太也。太是理极之义,上是无等色,故云太上,即之佛如来之别名也。”

《菩提达摩大师无心论》卷终