Posts
If you identify any areas for improvement in the translation or have suggestions, please visit the contact page to share your feedback: Contact Us
Here's the translation of the selected text with appropriate Buddhist terms where necessary:
Collection of Buddhist Works by Master Yinshun Volume Two of the "Wonderful Cloud Collection": "Lectures on the Treasure Accumulation Sutra" [Back to Table of Contents] [Read Next Page] [Read Previous Page]
Section 2: Discerning Profound Meanings Section 1: Revealing the Meaning of Emptiness **Sub
Sub-section 1: Dharma Emptiness "Furthermore, Kasyapa! A true observer does not render all dharmas empty merely because of emptiness; it is the nature of dharmas to be inherently empty. Nor does one render dharmas signless because of signlessness; dharmas are inherently signless. Nor does one render dharmas desireless because of desirelessness; dharmas are inherently desireless. Nor does one render dharmas without arising, without birth, without taking, without nature, because of their lack of arising, birth, taking, or nature; dharmas are inherently without arising, birth, taking, or nature. Such an observer is called a true observer."
This section, although having already explained the Middle Way and emptiness, emphasizes that the concept of emptiness is profoundly deep and requires further discernment and clarification to avoid misunderstandings by practitioners. This is divided into three parts, beginning with the explanation of the meaning of emptiness. ‘Revealing’ here means using language and text to make the meaning of emptiness clearer, discussing both dharma emptiness and self emptiness.
Here, it is appropriate to briefly discuss the different types of emptiness as taught by the Buddha. All forms of emptiness are methods of practice, but they can be broadly categorized into three types: 1. "Analytical Emptiness": Attaining emptiness through analytical meditation, known in the scriptures as scattered emptiness and in Tiantai Buddhism as analytical emptiness. For instance, when analyzing the nature of material form, breaking it down progressively until it cannot be further divided, one reaches "adjacent empty particles," touching the edge of emptiness. Advancing further, the aspect of emptiness becomes apparent. However, this is an indirect observation, not a direct one, as even when divided into billions of parts, there is still existence, still form. 2. "Meditative Emptiness": As in the practice of yogis, who meditate on the mind's freedom, where meditating on blue brings forth the aspect of blue, and meditating on emptiness brings forth the aspect of emptiness. This is because the mind transforms according to its focus, revealing its emptiness. Yet, this is not complete, for by using the method of observing emptiness to observe emptiness, the observing mind itself cannot be emptied. In fact, they do not admit that the mind too is empty. These two methods, though indeed taught by the Buddha and capable of alleviating many afflictions and delusions, are not ultimate. The ultimate is the third type, "Inherent Nature Emptiness": It is not that things are empty only after being broken down, nor are they empty just because the mind conceives them as such; emptiness is the inherent nature of all dharmas. As stated in the Agama Sutras: "All formations are empty: constantly empty... self and what belongs to self are empty; it is their nature." Thus, when the Buddha speaks of the emptiness of dharmas, it is not about annihilating anything through observation, but rather understanding the true nature of all dharmas through observation. This is like the ancient story of "seeing a snake in the shadow of a bowstring" - believing one has swallowed a snake, thus suffering from anxiety and illness. Now, by realizing that there was never a snake to begin with, the anxiety and illness are cured. Therefore, observing emptiness is about removing false perceptions and attaining the inherently empty nature of all dharmas, which is the ultimate meaning of emptiness in Mahayana Buddhism. Otherwise, sentient beings, bound by emotional views, fail to fully comprehend true emptiness and eventually revert back to clinging to "existence."
Emptiness here refers to the inherent emptiness, the ultimate emptiness beyond all speculative discussions, thus embodying the Middle Way when expressed as "emptiness." However, for the sake of adapting to different capacities, it is also described as signlessness, desirelessness (ancient translations as non-action), collectively known as the three gates to liberation. It also involves teachings on non-arising, non-birth (non-ceasing), non-taking, non-nature, guiding all sentient beings towards the same ultimate reality. According to the ultimate understanding in Mahayana, "emptiness, signlessness, and desirelessness are interdependent with true reality." Emptiness is free from views, signlessness is free from distinctions, and desirelessness is free from grasping and desires. However, they can also be explained from a more relative perspective: based on "all dharmas lack self," it is called emptiness; based on "Nirvana is quiet and peaceful," it is called signlessness; based on "all formations are impermanent," it is called desirelessness. These can be further interpreted in terms of depth and shallowness: emptying everything yet manifesting the aspect of emptiness (though ultimately emptiness is also unattainable), thus leading to the teaching of signlessness. Even when reaching a state where phenomena are signless, the mind may still cling, thus leading to the teaching of desirelessness. But these are all expedient means; the three gates to liberation are essentially equal and uniform. The arising referred to here is immediate arising, birth is coming into being, both closely related to arising; but arising could be mistaken, while birth is due to causes and conditions. In this translation, "non-self" is also included under non-arising. Referring to other translations, this seems to be an added text, and hence has been removed. Non-taking refers to not grasping anything. Non-nature means having no inherent nature. As explained in general characteristics, from signlessness to non-nature, all are alternative names for emptiness.
Now, let's interpret the text based on the scripture. The Buddha said: "Kasyapa! True observation" - the correct view of the Middle Way is as follows: "not by the power of the 'emptiness' samadhi, making 'all dharmas' have the nature of 'emptiness,' but 'dharma nature is inherently empty.'" The inherent nature is empty; observing it is merely realizing its original state. This is the inherent emptiness, self-emptiness, not other-emptiness; this is the true and correct view of the Middle Way. From this, it is clear that the view of emptiness, true observation, and the view of the Middle Way are the same. Similarly, "not by the power of the 'signlessness' samadhi, so that 'dharmas are signless, but dharmas are inherently signless.'" Also, "not by the power of the 'desirelessness' observation, so that 'dharmas are desireless, but dharmas are inherently desireless.'" In this way, the Buddha's teachings of 'non-arising, non-birth, non-taking, non-nature' are inherently so. Being able to 'observe' the inherent emptiness in this way is called 'true observation,' and not the view of analytical emptiness, meditative emptiness, or other forms of external emptiness.
Sub-section 2: Self Emptiness "Furthermore, Kasyapa! It is not because there is no person that it is called empty, but emptiness is inherently empty. Emptiness in the past, emptiness in the future, and emptiness in the present. One should rely on emptiness, not on persons."
Self emptiness refers to the emptiness of self. The meaning of self emptiness, as stated above, is the same as that of dharma emptiness. The Buddha further said: "Kasyapa! It is not because there is no self that it is called empty, but emptiness is inherently empty." This means that it is not by eliminating the self through the view of non-self that something is called empty, but rather the nature of self is inherently unattainable. To illustrate the inherent unattainability of this self (or "I"), the Buddha continued: "Emptiness in the past, emptiness in the future, and emptiness in the present." The term 'boundary' refers to the edge; the past boundary refers to the past extending into the distant past. The future boundary refers to the future extending into the distant future. The present, in between the past and the future, is called the present boundary. The self (or "I") is the subject of transmigration from past lives to the present, and from the present life to future lives. If the self or "I" were truly existent, it would certainly be found within these three boundaries. But upon true observation, the self of the past is unattainable, the self of the present is unattainable, and the self of the future is also unattainable. Since the self is unattainable in all three periods, it is evident that the nature of emptiness is inherently non-self.
Many Sravakas and some Mahayana practitioners mistakenly believe that self emptiness and dharma emptiness are different, thus, although they understand self emptiness, they may not recognize or even deny dharma emptiness. However, some Sravakas and Madhyamaka practitioners in Mahayana Buddhism do not agree with this misunderstanding. Self emptiness and dharma emptiness differ only in the objects of correct observation, but the observed nature of emptiness is the same. As with the fire of straw and the fire of coal, when talking about the straw and coal, the strength of the fire may differ; but in terms of the heating nature of fire, how can there be any difference? Accordingly, Sravakas often speak of non-self, and Mahayana often speaks of emptiness. These are slight differences in the terms used, but there is no
difference in the nature of emptiness itself. According to this correct view, if a Sravaka attains the realization of self emptiness, they may not need to further contemplate dharma emptiness, but they will certainly not hold onto the view that dharmas are inherently existent. Because, if they were to truly observe, the way they understand non-self would be the same as their understanding of dharma emptiness. Conversely, if they cling to the inherent existence of dharmas and do not believe in dharma emptiness, then they have not truly understood non-self. Such a person is only an arrogant individual who believes they have achieved enlightenment. Therefore, the Prajnaparamita Sutras clearly state that stream-enterers (Srotapanna) and Arhats will definitely believe in and understand dharma emptiness. The Diamond Sutra even more clearly states: "If one grasps at the characteristics of dharmas, they are attached to the self, to persons, to beings, to longevity. If one grasps at the non-characteristics of dharmas, they are similarly attached." This sutra explains dharma emptiness based on the inherent emptiness of nature, and similarly explains self emptiness. This shows that the correct view of Madhyamaka practitioners fully understands the true meaning of Mahayana proper observation.
Finally, the Buddha said: "One should rely on emptiness, not on persons." These two sentences might seem abrupt, but they are extremely important! Here, 'emptiness' refers to the nature of emptiness (such as emptiness aspect, Tathata, etc.). The correct observation taught by the Buddha should be based on this nature of emptiness for cultivation and realization, not based on persons. Originally, the Brahmanism in India believed that to achieve liberation, one must possess the wisdom of the true self. Only by understanding the true self could one attain liberation. The unique teaching of Shakyamuni Buddha was to completely deny this metaphysical theory of the true self. He consistently taught: "Because it is impermanent, it is suffering; because it is suffering, it is non-self; because it is non-self, there is no possession of self, and thus one attains Nirvana." In other words, only by thoroughly dispelling the notion of a permanent, true self can one attain liberation. Therefore, during the actual realization of the Buddha's disciples, it is always said: "Knowing the Dharma, entering the Dharma, only seeing the Dharma, not seeing the self." The Dharma is the true Dharma (the wonderful Dharma, that is, the nature of the Dharma, Nirvana), and in the state of realization, one only perceives the true Dharma, without any self to be seen or attained. Ordinary Buddhists, not knowing how the self of non-Buddhist teachings is defined, mistakenly believe that their cultivation and realization are different from those of non-Buddhist teachings; in fact, the difference between the practice and realization of Buddhists and non-Buddhists (non-Buddhists also have religious practices and experiences and believe they have achieved enlightenment) lies in very subtle explanations. For instance, when they say: experiencing the true, constant, pure, blissful, unarising, undying, non-dual, indescribable nature. These statements are difficult to distinguish between non-Buddhist and Buddhist teachings. However, such experiences by non-Buddhists are definitely interpreted as the true self (or as God). They personify their religious experiences as the subject of life, absolutely subjective; or they deify it as the true ruler of the universe – Jehovah, Brahma, etc. However, the experience of Buddhist disciples is different from that of non-Buddhists, being "only seeing the Dharma, not seeing the person." Therefore, in secular explanations, even though wisdom is not dual with all dharmas, it is only referred to as the nature of all dharmas, unarising, undying, without attributing any volitional characteristics, and certainly not as the true self, nor conceptualized as a creator god. This sutra, in explaining that the nature of self is inherently empty, specifically states: "One should rely on emptiness, not on persons," which is extremely critical! However, since sentient beings have been deluded by the view of self from time immemorial, there are also Buddhist disciples who still cling to the realization of the true self, mistakenly believing they have attained the ultimate!
Sub-section 2: Dispelling Emotional Calculations Sub-section 1: Taking the Complete to Achieve the True Aspect "If one relies on emptiness upon attaining it, it is a regression in the Buddha's teachings. Therefore, Kasyapa! It is better to have the view of self as big as Mount Sumeru than to have arrogance arising from the view of emptiness. Why? Because all
views are liberated through emptiness. If the view of emptiness arises, it cannot be removed."
In the cultivation and study of the correct view of the Middle Way, if one is not skillful, one may either cling to emptiness or become attached to existence, both of which deviate from the Middle Way. Therefore, the Buddha uses an analogy to explain the renunciation of emotional attachments, beginning with taking the complete to achieve the true aspect.
The complete true aspect refers to dharma emptiness (such as Tathata, the nature of the Dharma, etc.). Traditionally, there are two schools of thought: "Dual emptiness is truth" and "What dual emptiness reveals." The Buddha sometimes refers to it as emptiness, sometimes as the nature of emptiness, the aspect of emptiness, etc. Therefore, in establishing verbal expressions, this is acceptable. Emptiness is useful in removing emotional attachments, but if one solely regards emptiness as negation, that is incorrect, because emptiness also implies what is revealed by negation. However, what emptiness reveals is absolutely beyond conceptual speculation, transcending relative establishment; what could it be called? Although it is permissible to "borrow terms to express the ungraspable, calling it existence" for the sake of worldly convention, isn't it more in line with the ultimate truth to "borrow terms to express the ungraspable, calling it emptiness"? Therefore, the explanations of "Dual emptiness is truth" and what "Dual emptiness reveals" can be explained according to the Sandhinirmocana Sutra: for those with five qualifications, the Buddha directly teaches the emptiness of inherent nature, unarisen, undying, encouraging contemplation and practice to enter into self-realization; emptiness is in accordance with the ultimate truth. But for those without the five qualifications, to prevent fear of emptiness and clinging to emptiness, the Buddha temporarily speaks of the nature revealed by emptiness in worldly terms.
Regardless of whether it's "Dual emptiness is truth" or the nature revealed by emptiness, if one clings to the complete true emptiness (or the nature of emptiness), the fault is very serious! Therefore, continuing from the previous discussion of the inherent emptiness of dharmas and self, the Buddha said: "If one relies on emptiness upon attaining it, it is a regression in the Buddha's teachings." To attain emptiness is to have something of emptiness that can be attained. To rely on emptiness is to cling to emptiness (this is different from the previous text "only rely on emptiness"). This means: when a practitioner is in the state of non-discrimination, the characteristics of birth and death cease, and the aspect of emptiness appears. If one considers this as attaining the complete true aspect, that is a mistake! Moreover, some who practice non-discriminative meditation directly abandon all thoughts, and the aspect of emptiness appears. At that moment, the state is like the clear void, bright and pure; feeling the clarity and serenity, one clings to it. For the Buddha's teachings, this not only hinders further cultivation but also leads to loss and regression. Because such contemplation (or meditation) states, if clung to for a long time, gradually diminish the spirit of diligence, leading to a stagnant life. Some, not distinguishing good from evil, even believe they are equal to the Buddha and demons!
The fault of clinging to the aspect of emptiness is too great, so the Buddha instructs Kasyapa: "It is better" to generate "the view of self, accumulating" it "as big as Mount Sumeru," than to have "arrogance arising from the view of emptiness." Not having attained or realized, but believing one has, is called conceit. Clinging to the aspect of emptiness is the view of emptiness, and mistaking the view of emptiness for having attained the complete true aspect is a great error! Such a comparison of gains and losses is not an exaggeration. Because with the view of self, although one cannot achieve liberation, it does not hinder the extensive cultivation of good deeds for humans and deities. But clinging to emptiness leads to the refusal to do good deeds and ultimately to loss and regression. No matter how great the view of self is, it can still be guided and dissolved by emptiness, leading to the self-realization of emptiness. However, the view of emptiness cannot be removed in this way, because "all views are liberated through emptiness," which means that all views are abandoned through the contemplation of emptiness. If one mistakenly embraces the Buddha's teachings and reverses them, generating "the view of emptiness, then it cannot be removed." Already clinging to emptiness, it is impossible to use emptiness to guide and dissolve it. Nor can the view of emptiness be removed by clinging to existence, for existence only further strengthens
emotional attachments. Therefore, Nagarjuna, in the Madhyamaka treatises, states based on this principle: "The Tathagata teaches the Dharma of emptiness to liberate from all views. If one again perceives emptiness, then the Buddhas do not guide them." This is likened in the commentaries to the analogy of water extinguishing fire; if fire arises in water, there is no way to extinguish it.
Both Madhyamaka and Yogacara scholars do not accept the view of emptiness as something to be grasped or attained. When the saints of the two vehicles (Hinayana and Mahayana) realize emptiness, it is the uncontaminated prajna (wisdom) that directly perceives the non-discriminative nature of the Dharma, and it is not something that can be grasped. Therefore, those who think there is emptiness to be attained and cling to emptiness are arrogant individuals lacking skillful means in their practice of contemplation or meditation.
"The Buddha then gave another analogy, 'Kasyapa! Like a physician who administers medicine to agitate the illness, if the medicine remains inside and is not expelled, what do you think? Would such a patient be cured?' 'No, World-Honored One! If the medicine does not leave the body, the illness will only worsen.' 'Similarly, Kasyapa! All views are extinguished by emptiness. If the view of emptiness arises, then it cannot be removed.'"
The Buddha further clarifies the fault of clinging to emptiness with an analogy: 'Kasyapa! It’s like a physician who gives medicine to a patient. Due to the potency of the medicine, the illness is agitated; influenced by the medicine, the illness should gradually improve. Suppose the medicine taken continuously remains within and is not expelled. Kasyapa, do you think the patient’s illness would completely heal?' 'Heal' here means to be cured. Kasyapa replies to the Buddha: No, it wouldn’t. 'If the medicine is not expelled,' the illness 'would not only not heal but would instead increase.' This is akin to 'the old illness not cured, and the medicine itself becoming the illness.' Then the Buddha relates the analogy to the teaching: 'Just so, Kasyapa! All views are extinguished only by emptiness,' just as all diseases are cured only by taking medicine. 'If the view of emptiness arises, then it cannot be removed,' just as if the medicine remains inside the body without being expelled, causing side effects, and worsening the disease, there is no cure.
"Sub-section 2: Fear of Relying on Other-Emptiness" 'Like a person who fears the void, sadly beating their chest and saying: I abandon the void. What do you think? Can the void be abandoned?' 'No, World-Honored One!' 'Similarly, Kasyapa! If one fears the emptiness of dharmas, I say this person is delirious and has lost their mind. Why? Because they always act in emptiness and fear it.'"
The Buddha continues to address the issue of fearing the emptiness that arises dependently, which is the product of causes and conditions (as emphasized in Yogacara, which takes consciousness as the basis, teaching that dependent arising is the product of mind and mental factors). "All phenomena born of causes and conditions, I declare, are ultimately empty," as stated in the Huashou Sutra, expressing the essence of the Prajnaparamita and other Mahayana sutras. Here, it should be differentiated: 1. If one says that dependently arisen phenomena are empty and completely denies dependently arisen phenomena, considering them like tortoise hair or rabbit horns, this is the deluded attachment of the nihilists, who hold the doctrine of emptiness as a mere label. 2. If one says that the nature of dependently arisen phenomena is empty, but the characteristics of dependently arisen phenomena are not empty, this is the view of those who believe in nominal existence but not emptiness. The first view is an extreme, and the second is insufficient. The ultimate meaning of emptiness is that dependently arisen phenomena are merely nominal, and thus ultimately empty; but the ultimate emptiness does not obstruct dependently arisen phenomena, which are like illusions; this is the Middle Way where emptiness and existence do not hinder each other. However, from the perspective of those who hold the view of real existence (including some in Mahayana who are close to the view of non-emptiness), hearing about the ultimate emptiness is like being stabbed in the heart, unbearable. According to these realists, "the nominal must rely on the real"; how could they say that everything is merely nominal, ultimately empty! If everything is only nominal, then everything is empty; then nothing exists (they consider emptiness as non-existence),
and how could there be any nominal designations! If one cannot say that everything is only nominal, then what is designated nominally, lacking inherent nature, can be called empty, but the inherent existence which is self-established cannot be called empty. Therefore, they fear and resist the ultimate emptiness. Or they try to modify the teaching of ultimate emptiness: saying that all dharmas are empty is not the final truth; in reality, some are empty and some are not. In the midst of ultimate emptiness, they feel they have no ground to stand on, unable to establish the doctrines of life, death, Nirvana, and all dharmas. Therefore, they seek something non-empty beyond emptiness to establish the doctrines of life, death, and Nirvana, and to cultivate the path towards Buddhahood. Sentient beings have always been deluded by inherent views and have always clung to existence and hated emptiness. The Buddha, for those (who lack the five qualifications), sometimes had to skillfully use provisional teachings, hiding emptiness and speaking of existence, to guide them!
For practitioners who fear the ultimately empty nature of dependently arisen dharmas and seek something non-empty outside of emptiness, the Buddha, from the standpoint of ultimate truth, rebukes them with an analogy: 'Like a person who fears the void,' crying loudly, 'beating their chest, saying: "I will abandon the void" and go to a place without void.' The Buddha asks Kasyapa: What do you think? 'Is the void something that can be abandoned?' Kasyapa replies: 'It is not possible.' The void is pervasive everywhere; it is the characteristic of material existence; wherever there is material, there is the void. How can one leave the void and go to a place without the void! The Buddha then relates this to the teaching: 'Similarly, Kasyapa!' Those who hear that all dharmas are ultimately empty and fear the dharma of emptiness, wanting to establish all dharmas in something non-empty, aren't they like that foolish person trying to escape the void? 'I say that person'—who cannot accept the ultimate emptiness of all dharmas and wants to establish non-emptiness—is 'delirious and has lost their mind!' They are deluded by inherent views from time immemorial and lack proper knowledge and views. Why do I say this? All dharmas are ultimately empty; this is the inherent nature of all dharmas. Since time immemorial, sentient beings, whether generating delusions, creating karma, experiencing the results, aspiring, or practicing—everything has always been ultimately empty. Always 'acting in emptiness,' illusorily arising and ceasing without self-awareness, they 'fear emptiness' and seek non-empty dharmas. Isn't this delusion and loss of mind?
"Sub-section 3: Clinging to Universal Calculations and Grasping Existence" 'Like a painter who paints a fierce yaksha demon, becomes frightened upon seeing it, faints and falls to the ground. All ordinary beings are likewise; they create forms, sounds, smells, tastes, and touches, wander in birth and death, suffer various afflictions, and remain unaware.'
To illustrate the universal miscalculations and delusions of sentient beings, the Buddha introduces the analogy of painting a demon. 'Like a painter who paints a fierce yaksha demon.' Yakshas are powerful and fast demons with terrifying appearances. Although self-created, one should not be afraid of them. But sentient beings are ignorant! Due to the lifelike painting, it looks as real as if it were alive. Seeing it, one cannot help but be moved. The more one looks, the more one fears, to the point of being scared into unconsciousness, 'fainting and falling to the ground.' How pitiful! 'All ordinary beings are likewise' pitiful! They generate delusions and karma, leading to the creation of their current body and mind, as well as various external environments. These are all 'self-created' forms, sounds, smells, tastes, and touches. The phenomena they encounter due to karma are inherently empty and quiet by nature. However, due to past delusional habits, upon arising, they appear to have inherent characteristics (which is why some scholars say they are self-established), presenting deluded, speculative appearances. Whether internally as body and senses or externally as environmental conditions, they seem truly existent; in the perception of sentient beings, they are naturally and intuitively considered real and non-empty. Therefore, further delusions arise, clinging to them as real, deepening the delusion and continuing to create karma and experience results. Alas! Birth and death are inherently empty, yet sentient beings 'wander in birth and death,' unable to escape. Forms and sounds are inherently empty, yet sentient beings are bound by environmental characteristics, and thus in this and future lives, they continuously 'suffer various afflictions.' In the illusory and ultimately empty nature of existence, they endlessly suffer and transmigrate, 'unaware' of their inherent emptiness, unable to liberate themselves through emptiness. Aren't they like the painter who painted the demon?
"Sub-section 3: Skillful Wisdom and Cutting Off" Sub-section 1: Wisdom 'Similar to an illusionist who creates an illusory person and then eats it. Monks on the path likewise have a view of the Dharma, all are empty and quiet without solidity, and this view itself is also empty.'
After expounding on revealing emptiness and dispelling emotional calculations, the Buddha proceeds to discuss the topic of skillful wisdom and cutting off delusions. Because dispelling attachments and revealing emptiness cannot be achieved without wisdom. With wisdom, one can certainly cut off delusions and karma. However, sentient beings, with their shallow wisdom and limited merits, are also prone to misunderstand wisdom and cutting off, easily falling into inverted attachments and harming the profound meaning of the Buddha's teachings. Therefore, clear discernment is necessary.
First, let's discuss wisdom. Direct wisdom that truly perceives reality arises from contemplation, which is born from contemplating the prajna (wisdom) of the Dharma. Ordinary people who do not understand the meaning of emptiness have two major misconceptions about this issue. First, some believe that the observed phenomena are empty, but the observing mind is not empty. They argue: observing all dharmas as empty means that all dharmas are empty, but surely the observing mind cannot be empty! If the contemplative wisdom itself is empty, then there would be no contemplative wisdom, and thus no possibility of contemplation. Thus, they establish the theory of an existent mind and empty phenomena. This is similar to the Western philosopher Descartes, who initially doubted everything but eventually concluded that the doubting self is unquestionably existent. From the realization of "I think, therefore I am," he established his philosophy. Such an understanding is entirely worldly thinking and does not align with the Buddha's profound teachings of liberation. To refute this misconception of an empty phenomena and non-empty mind, the Buddha uses an analogy: 'Like an illusionist who creates an illusory person, animals, etc. Although all these are illusory and inherently empty, they harm and eat each other.' The illusionist harming and eating illusions, both being unattainable. 'Monks on the path are likewise.' Monks are like the illusionist; the observed phenomena and the observing mind they generate are like the illusory people and animals. Both the observed and the observer, everything is like an illusion, inherently empty, so it is said: 'Whatever view of the Dharma, all' are inherently 'empty,' 'quiet,' without 'solidity'; the 'view itself is also empty.' Although everything is like an illusion and inherently empty, the observed and the observer, everything is established. Therefore, with the view of emptiness that is itself empty, one contemplates the phenomena that are empty; both phenomena and view are empty and quiet. How could one mistakenly hold that the phenomena are empty but the observing mind is not empty! The main root of such a misconception still lies in the belief that emptiness means non-existence; how could there be contemplation if there is non-existence! Misunderstanding the meaning of emptiness, misconceptions arise.
Sub-section 2: Wisdom Leading to the Cessation of Contemplation 'Kasyapa! Like two pieces of wood rubbing together to produce fire, which then consumes the wood. Similarly, Kasyapa! True observation leads to the birth of sacred wisdom, and once this wisdom arises, it consumes the true observation.'
Second, some believe that uncontaminated holy wisdom—the direct realization of prajna—is a wisdom of suchness, a wisdom without discrimination, and therefore the discriminatory contemplation, which is by nature illusory, cannot give rise to holy wisdom. Not only can it not give rise, but it is also an obstacle! Because this is adding delusion to delusion, increasing discrimination within discrimination, like washing water with water, extinguishing fire with fire, forever impossible to achieve freedom from delusion and discrimination. Therefore, they advocate directly experiencing the true mind, being without thoughts and distractions as a method. This completely destroys the boundless skillful means of the Tathagata! The Buddha speaks of contemplation beyond cessation, wisdom beyond concentration, and the wisdom of cultivation (contemplation) arising from hearing and thinking, leading to true realization. How can one say that discriminatory contemplation is useless? Here, the Buddha uses an analogy to dispel these misconceptions. The Buddha calls 'Kasyapa' and says: 'Like two pieces of wood rubbing together,' do not think that adding one piece of wood to another increases the wood. If used as a method, the rubbing of two pieces of
wood together for a long time generates warmth and eventually fire. Once the fire arises, it 'consumes the wood,' burning it away. Similarly, 'due to true observation'—the contemplation of all dharmas as empty—'sacred wisdom arises.' Once this holy wisdom arises, not only do the phenomena cease to manifest, but even the true observation that led to their perception is consumed. This reaches the state where phenomena are empty and the mind is quiet, manifesting the wisdom without discrimination.
What is this true observation? It is the contemplative wisdom. Although in essence it is conditioned and illusory, how can it be called true? It should be understood that there are two types of contemplative wisdom: 1. Conventional wisdom: like contemplating impermanence, impurity, etc., or the purity and splendor of Buddha-lands, which all use "distinctive images" as objects. 2. Ultimate contemplation, or true observation. This contemplates all dharmas as lacking inherent nature, as unarisen, undying, etc. Though this is still discriminatory, it contemplates all discrimination as inherently unattainable, using "non-distinctive images" as objects. Such discriminatory contemplation is in accordance with the ultimate truth; it discriminates yet can overcome discrimination. In the scriptures, there are analogies such as "using sound to stop sound" (like saying "let's all be quiet") and "using a wedge to remove a wedge" to demonstrate the superior function of non-discriminatory contemplation. When uncontaminated holy wisdom is generated, such discriminatory contemplation, which is by nature discriminatory, ceases to arise. Using discriminatory contemplation to cease discriminatory attachment is a great skillful means, a wonderful expedient! Such true observation has the marvelous function of observation without clinging. At the time of entering into the true nature, it is indispensable to have such true observation—the contemplation of the Middle Way.
Sub-section 2: Cutting Off Sub-section 1: Breaking the Lack of Wisdom 'Like a lamp that lights up, all darkness vanishes on its own, with no place from where it came or to where it goes. It does not come from the east nor go to the south, west, north, the four intermediate directions, or up and down. It does not come from there, nor does it go there. And the lamp’s light does not think: I can extinguish darkness. Because by the nature of the lamp’s light, there is no darkness; both light and darkness are empty, with no action or grasping. Thus, Kasyapa! When true wisdom arises, ignorance vanishes. Wisdom and ignorance are both empty, with no action or grasping.'
Wisdom can observe the emptiness of the nature of dharmas and realize the true nature, and it can also cut off delusions and karma. Delusion, another name for affliction, is generally characterized by ignorance. What is ignorance? In general, it is the lack of knowledge of the Middle Way of dependent origination and emptiness. Specifically, it is not knowing suffering, its origin, cessation, and the path; not knowing the nature, characteristics, essence, function, cause, and effect, etc. Therefore, ignorance is also called lack of wisdom; and prajna, which can destroy ignorance, can also be referred to as clarity. The emergence of wisdom and the cessation of ignorance are inevitable, but if one clings to the actual existence, believing in the real existence of prajna that can arise and real ignorance that can be destroyed, then that itself becomes ignorance and affliction. Thus, the Buddha uses another analogy to demonstrate: 'Like a lamp that lights up,' when the lamp is truly lit, 'all darkness vanishes on its own.' Where does the light come from? Where does the darkness go? If light and darkness are considered to have inherent existence, then light should have a definite place of origin, but light 'comes from nowhere.' Darkness should have a definite destination, but it 'goes nowhere.' Generally, if one thinks of light and darkness as material, then material should occupy space. If it has spatial characteristics, shouldn't light come from one of the ten directions, and darkness go to one of the ten directions? The Buddha succinctly says: Light 'does not come from the east'; darkness 'does not go to the south, west, north, the four intermediate directions, or up and down.' This shows that the light 'does not come from there,' and darkness 'does not go there.' Isn't the emergence of light and the disappearance of darkness like this, without coming and going? Not only is there no place of coming and going, but the light also does not have the actual function of extinguishing darkness. Therefore, it is said: 'The light does not think: I can extinguish darkness.' The light not having this thought indicates that it does not have the
actual function of extinguishing darkness. If it were believed to have such a substantial function, then how does the light extinguish darkness? Does it touch the darkness to extinguish it, or does it extinguish it without touching it? If light and darkness do not intersect, light stays in the light, and darkness stays in the darkness, then how can light extinguish darkness? If light extinguishes darkness without intersecting it, then the light in one room should extinguish darkness everywhere! If it is said that light and darkness intersect, then isn't there light within darkness and darkness within light? Since light supposedly extinguishes darkness, darkness should also obstruct light! This shows that light and darkness are like illusions, as extensively explained in the Madhyamaka treatises. Therefore, it is not that the light truly extinguishes darkness, but simply 'because of the lamp’s light nature, there is no darkness.' 'Both light and darkness are empty,' like illusions. There is no inherent action of extinguishing darkness, thus 'no action.' There is not the slightest inherent existence to grasp, thus 'no grasping.'
Wisdom is like the light of a lamp, and ignorance is like darkness. Based on the above discussion of light and darkness, the significance of prajna extinguishing ignorance can also be understood. The Buddha then tells 'Kasyapa': 'Thus, when true wisdom arises, ignorance vanishes.' This is not about arising or ceasing, coming or going, and prajna does not have the inherent function of destroying delusions. It is simply 'wisdom and ignorance, both empty, with no action or grasping,' the natural state of wisdom arising and ignorance ceasing.
Sub-section 2: Extinguishing Karmic Bonds 'Kasyapa! Like a thousand-year-old dark room, never having seen light, when a lamp is lit, what do you think? Does the darkness have the thought, "I have long resided here and do not wish to leave?"' 'No, World-Honored One! When the lamp is lit, darkness has no power and does not wish to leave; it will inevitably be eradicated.' 'Similarly, Kasyapa! Karmic bonds formed over hundreds of thousands of millions of eons, with a single true observation, are all extinguished. The light of the lamp is sacred wisdom; the darkness is karmic bonds.'
Karmic bonds can be explained in two ways: 1. 'Bond' refers to afflictions, such as the three bonds, the five bonds, etc., which bind people to samsara, preventing liberation. 'Karma' refers to the actions of body, speech, and mind; through manifest karma, non-manifest karma arises, serving as the cause and condition for various sufferings and joys. The previous discussion of ignorance refers to the general aspect of afflictions; here, karmic bonds refer to various afflictions and karma. 2. Karmic bonds are the karma that binds to the three realms: the desire realm, the form realm, and the signless realm. Thus, the previous text refers to afflictions, and this text refers to karma.
Wisdom arises and karmic bonds are extinguished, similar to the emergence of wisdom and the disappearance of ignorance. Therefore, the Tathagata again uses the analogy of a lamp dispelling darkness, differing only in that the previous discussion was in spatial terms (the ten directions), and this one is in terms of time. The Buddha says: 'Kasyapa! Like a thousand-year-old' dark 'room' that has 'never seen light,' the darkness has almost become the master of the room. 'When a lamp is lit,' the light is about to come. What do you think? Does the darkness of the room have the thought, 'I have long resided here, this is my home, and I do not wish to leave?' Kasyapa replies: 'No, World-Honored One! When the lamp is lit, darkness has no power to stay and does not wish to leave. As soon as the light comes, the darkness naturally disappears, 'inevitably being eradicated.' The Buddha says: 'Similarly, Kasyapa!' Likewise, the 'karmic bonds formed over hundreds of thousands of millions of eons' of continuous habituation, although so longstanding, 'with a single true observation,' are all 'extinguished,' just like darkness. Hence, it is concluded that the 'lamp light' mentioned above is 'sacred wisdom,' and the 'darkness' is all 'karmic bonds.'
[Back to Table of Contents] [Read Next Page] [Read Previous Page]
The provided text has been fully translated and interpreted up to this point. If you have more text that needs translation or if you have any other questions or topics you'd like to explore, feel free to let me know!
