Zen Master Hong Wen Liang:
English Translation (Chinese Original at the bottom):
A teaching by Zen Master Hong Wen Liang.
Explanation of the Record of Chan Master Hongzhi: “Therefore
it is said, the myriad dharmas are the radiance of mind; all conditions are
clarified only by their nature.” If you can distinguish that this is a visual
appearance, that is a sound, and that this is thought in the intangible domain
of mind, all of this is due to that “nature,” which enables you to discern
clearly—merely clarification by nature, not some real entity. Thus, in such a
moment, naturally you need not speak of not being entangled by conditions—how
could you be entangled by conditions? Who would ensnare you? What could be
ensnared? The whole of it is the total field of the dharma-realm already
complete as it is—this is the meaning. This is the “truly great person of
wisdom.” This alone is genuine great wisdom—“perfect and equal awakening”; this
is the Buddha’s seeing and knowing.
Your six sense faculties are originally just like this; the
utmost Way manifests there. This is called “thus can self-know.” It is simple:
you are originally like this. As long as you do not stain it, as long as you do
not add in the delusive thought “this is mine,” you will then know your own
genuine functioning. That movement is not some “you” who uses; that
movement—moving—is best just called “moving.” “Thus self-illumined” does not
mean some self deliberately knowing itself; it is because it is your own
affair. Your teacher, your lama, even the Buddha cannot know exactly how your
own ears and eyes, your six faculties, move. It is you who move—not the Buddha
who moves. It is not someone else’s power that knows; even when you say “I know
how I am thinking,” it is that very thinking of yours moving there. Therefore
it is “self-illumined.” Only you are most clear about your own true situation.
So long as you do not raise delusive thoughts, do not add “these are my ears
moving, my eyes moving,” then—if your madness flares up, if you split your
mind—you create subject and object; once there is subject and object, emotions
are stirred and become emotional dusts. Originally the six sense-objects have
no fault. How could the six dusts have any sin? Is this clear to everyone here?
Walking, standing, sitting, lying—daily life—doing business,
being a doctor, a lawyer, a president, a warlord, a hooligan, a great
villain—all is “borrowing the road to set the feet.” If your eyes, ears, nose,
tongue, body, and mind were not functioning there, why would I speak of “pure
and wondrous luminosity”? In everyday life, of course, when you fight with
someone that too is “borrowing the road to set the feet,” and when you do many
charitable deeds as well. Are you not using your six faculties? If you want to
strike someone, without your eyes to see the target, how could you strike?
“Spirit’s pivot, wondrously responsive”—the six faculties move. Because you
have realized that the six faculties themselves are pure and wondrously
luminous, it is not that there is a “me” needed in order to move. Move like
this—self-forgotten, without the least bad intention of “that is mine,” cleanly
shed. To move like this is “the spirit’s pivot, wondrously responsive.” As long
as delusive thoughts are not added in, still you must move—how could you not
move? “Whatever is encountered is true”—whatever you do is just right.
“Not even a hair’s breadth, not even a speck of dust, is
something from outside.” Clap! A sound like this, or drinking water—the mind
and circumstances are one. Your whole dharma-body is moving there—is this an
external thing? We have always taken it to be something external; therefore you
fundamentally do not know the pure, wondrous luminosity. Not knowing the
wondrous luminosity, you do not know the pure field either. That field is
originally pure and wondrously luminous. When you look at me, when you listen
to me, it is your pure, wondrous luminosity moving there. It is not that “I go
drink a cup of tea,” or “I go look at you—you are over there, I go look.” Not
like this. If you experience this deeply, you will be wholly and truly
“self-illumined,” “self-clarified,” “wisdom.” Thus, when you realize this, you
will “not have even a hair or a speck” that is external. Now when you hear the
sound of a car outside, it is not that outside there is a sound-dust; your
dharma-body moves right here. Your pure, wondrous luminous field does not move;
whatever horns they honk has nothing to do with you. You certainly have
this—your pure, wondrous luminous field—so that sound is precisely that field
moving thus. Therefore it is said that not even the least bit or the least mote
is something from outside; it is the transformations revealed in your own
inch-square of mind. Once this is clarified, you make no division into you, me,
and others; thus it is not that you yourself are living, nor that there is some
self of yours that dies. It is the whole dharma-realm. Your birth is the
dharma-realm’s birth, the appearance of birth; when dying, it is the power of
the dharma-realm—as when autumn arrives, it takes on the aspect of autumn. It
is not that summer dies and becomes autumn—no! In accord with conditions, it
appears accordingly. All of it is your own manifestation; it is not “some
external thing.” There is no problem here. If you only infer by speculation,
you can only think it out this far. But when you constantly are “moment by
moment unconfused,” it is not that you force yourself to be unconfused; your
six faculties are originally moving in an unconfused state. What clouds it is
that we suddenly raise a strange thought, erecting the frame “hey, I am
listening,” and the constant light is dimmed. But it is not truly dimmed; it is
just that a very self-referential cloud covers it. It has not moved away; it is
“pure by nature from the beginning.” The hardest thing to realize personally is
precisely that not a hair or a speck is “from outside.”
“Wondrously transcending the path of words”—by language,
writing, thought, you may write and think for half a day, and none of it is it.
It itself has this capacity; it itself wondrously surpasses. When we hear the
sound of a frog, “ah—right, right,” yet in truth the real sound of the frog we
have no way to reach: “the path of language is cut off; the domain of the
mind’s activity ceases.” However you think it, it is not itself; however you
say it, it is not itself. “Ah, so hot!”—is that “so hot” the heat itself? Then
bring forth that heat—can you present it? “Wondrously transcending the path of
words”—because through language and writing, through trained thought, we can
express by language and script, yes? But language, writing, and discursive mind
are false, illusory signs; they are not the real heat itself. The real is
hot—or, how do you say it in Hakka? “ne”? You say “ne,” I say heat is
“Ah-shui.” In the end is “Ah-shui” right or is “ne” right? The genuine heat
itself does not care whether you call it “ne,” “Ah-shui,” or “hot”—it does not
care. Because when we say “ne,” or “hot,” or “Ah-shui,” none of that is it.
They are illusory and false. The real is only that very “Ah-shui” itself—by
what thought, language, or writing could you truly reproduce it? There is no
way. This is what is called the real. We cannot touch it, cannot grasp it,
cannot conceive it. This is “wondrously transcending the path of words.” Who
wondrously transcends the path of words? Clap!—this very “wondrously
transcending the path of words.”
If you are constantly in this correct, original way—“the
constant light right before you, moment by moment unconfused”—then of course
you know that mountains, forests, grasses, and trees are all manifesting this
affair. What you see and what you hear are your own dharma-body appearing in
accord with conditions; thus, before your eyes there is radiance and
earth-shaking movement. “The four great elements and the six faculties, inner
and outer, are illusory”—the six faculties are not any real things. What are
they in themselves? Unknown. Therefore the four great elements and the six
faculties are thoroughly empty and quiescent; inner and outer are illusory.
Illusory yet empty and quiescent—things without any self-nature gathering
together—inner and outer are like this. Then how is it that they appear so
distinctly before you? How is this? What indeed is it? Here you must apply your
heart to investigate—thus he, upon seeing the morning star, had such an event.
Dharma-nature is without form and without appearance—how
could you recognize some dharma-nature as “yours” and “mine”? One cannot even
speak of “the same,” for to say “the same” requires appearances to compare;
“not the same” also requires appearances to compare. Since it is “non-abiding,”
that is, it has no appearance—you cannot locate it; if there is an appearance
you can locate it, “ah, there.” Location. “Non-abiding” means formless and
without appearance: neither great nor small, neither sound nor smell—nothing at
all—beyond the range of your cognition. Therefore non-abiding is signless;
signless is non-abiding. Non-abiding is emptiness. Emptiness is limitless
capacity: whatever conditions are present, it becomes those conditions. What is
the fundamental essence? Search yourself to death and even the Buddha would not
know—because it belongs to the unknown. In educating people, we always teach
people to know; thus modern education fails in this way. Genuine education
should include “something not known.” Only when you know there is something not
known is it true knowing.
Yet after hearing so much, in practice—when you stand up you
say, “Huh, what was just said?” It sounded right while hearing it, but upon
standing you cannot bring any strength to bear. Why? What you heard and thought
were all matters within imagination, things at the level of conceptual
understanding; without that event of “seeing the morning star,” all of it is
but water and moon.
What is the best method of practice? So much doctrine and
explanation—do not leave even a bit of it in your head. If you force yourself
to remember, that is just remembering—it has no effect. The best method is:
whatever you are doing, whatever you think, hear, feel—whenever any habit
arises, whether an angry thought or greedy thought—immediately know whether
there is an “I” moving there. Practice just this, and it is enough for your
cultivation. You will certainly discover that the false “I” is moving there.
Not only in bad things—also in good things; and even in what is neither good
nor evil, still that “I” is moving. I cross my legs without noticing—and there
is that “yo…” the “I” accomplishing so-and-so; that “I” is certainly there.
This is because you have not thoroughly realized; that event of “seeing the
morning star” has not occurred. Outside of this—outside what Buddhism, outside
Chan—Buddhism’s generations of transmission certify nothing other than this;
the rest are merely done at the level of scholarship and thought. When does
this come? Just as I have said before: “A night’s rain of falling blossoms; the
whole city is fragrant with flowing water.” “On Sumeru’s peak there is a
rootless tree; without touching the spring wind, flowers bloom of themselves.”
A tree without roots—why would its flowers open of themselves without spring?
What is this? It is beyond thinking—at the moment you awaken. Upon seeing
something—at such a moment—“ah!” Just that “ah”—“a night’s rain of falling
blossoms”—there, it has come; whether you want fragrance or not, the “whole
city is fragrant with flowing water.” Whether you want fragrance or not, you
still get fragrance. If you strain to want fragrance, to want awakening—you
will not get it. It is just like this. You cannot make it night; now it is
night. What is “night”? Is there some “night” that comes from somewhere? It is
the relation between earth and sun—I like to use a modern explanation people
can grasp—when the relation changes, that is night. From where would some “night”
fall down? Thus all the myriad phenomena of life and death are like this. But
if you do not have your own fundamental nature, without the responsive
function, then there would be no night—forever useless, nothing to do with you.
—— Extracted from “Explanation of the Record of Chan Master
Hongzhi,” taught by Teacher Hong in Singapore and Malaysia.
Your field must certainly radiate light and shake the
ground. How to radiate and shake the ground? In accord with conditions. Yet you
do not dwell on conditions. Is this something produced by thinking? Something
you arrive at by cultivating? Something gained by study? None of these. It is
“of itself thus” from the outset. This “of itself thus” is not the
“naturalness” of your views and understanding—that is something you think. When
you personally realize this natural thing, it is not through thought. It is
originally just like this—that is the thought of essence. “That is very hot”—if
you have not touched heat, it is merely so said.
Mountains and rivers, the sound of frogs—none of these are
separate; there is no division between me and what I see, between me and what I
hear—only then is it “reflecting without a dualistic stance toward conditions,
knowing without touching things.” Is this not “knowing without touching
things”? This precisely is it. You say this is inanimate—why then does it have
knowing? It is only that you do not understand the knowing that knows without
touching things, and thus you persist in thinking that such knowing is
impossible.
You stubbornly assume that cognition must be a mental
operation that goes out to cognize, and you take that as knowing; therefore you
do not understand its meaning, nor the Buddha’s “both together pacified and
extinguished.” “Both together pacified and extinguished” does not mean there is
no sound, no appearance, no pain, no itch—not like that. Pain is very painful;
comfort is very comfortable. But is there an experiencer and a thing
experienced? The subject and object you suppose are not there. Yet it does not
belong to the exchange of the subject and object you hypothesize—this is “both
together pacified and extinguished.” The illumining and the one who
illumines—both together are quenched. Do you understand? Because this
“illumining” and “illumined” are notions you have set up, a concept arises
called “there is an illuminer and an illumined,” “there is a hearer and that
which can be heard.” Such “illuminer and illumined” are conceptual.
“To settle the matter” means to settle one’s own matter of
birth and death. How to settle it? You must know what you yourself are. Why is
“knowing what you are” called “apprehending Mind”? We would not take hair,
nose, feet, and hands to be ourselves, right? Because we all know they will
grow old, die, rot, be burned or buried and become water, become earth—return
to earth. We all know these things are given to us for temporary use. Yet we
still invariably suppose there is a soul—we call it mind. Is this soul really
there or not? If it exists, where is it hidden? It has no appearance. Without
an appearance, how do you know there is a soul? You cannot see it or touch
it—yet you say it exists. Ordinary people think like this. So those who study
the Buddha-dharma continually call this their soul, their mind—therefore there
can be rebirth. Otherwise, what is it that is reborn? Does the body come back?
We invariably assume “my mind is precisely my mind,” and so it can be good or
bad, go to hell or to the heavens—always “my mind” changing up and down. Is
there not, then? The Buddha-dharma speaks of rebirth—everyone takes it like
this—of wholesome and unwholesome karma. And where do wholesome and unwholesome
karma adhere? They adhere to what you take as “mine,” not something
else—absolutely “mine.”
What is it like? Unknown. The Buddha tells us it is
formless, colorless, without appearance, untouchable, unseen. Yet the Buddha
speaks of rebirth—so it exists, how could it not? But look—the mistake lies
here. What the Buddha truly said is that even your “soul” does not exist—not
even your “soul.” And as for the functioning of our mind—do we not take that as
“mind”? A rainbow in the sky—does it not both exist and not exist? The moon’s
reflection on water—is it present? It is present—you cannot say it isn't. But
when you take your “soul” as truly existing, you are taking the moon’s
reflection on water as real—you try again and again to scoop it up. Only after
repeatedly trying to scoop it up do you know you cannot. Therefore
practice—study, reading scriptures, sitting in meditation, bowing to the
Buddha, doing good—these are not useless. You must pass through this
(body-and-mind shed) or else you will never give up the fixation.
Repeatedly try to scoop—where do you try? In daily life, at
the gates of the six faculties. Carefully observe it; carefully make offerings
to it. To “make offerings to the person of no-mind” is like this. This practice
is difficult—difficult to the extreme—because we immediately forget.
At the very moment, it is already past; you are within
conditions but not on conditions. A wooden horse neighs in the wind; a clay ox
emerges from the sea—everywhere is just so. This is the person of no-mind. Leap
out of your thought and conjecture.
Without even stirring a thought, he points to this
dharma-seat, representing that original position. Speaking in terms of essence
and function, he uses “the portent has not yet arisen” to indicate it. Before
it has begun to function, before its functioning is revealed, one must “borrow
function to clarify position”—borrow the sounds, feelings, appearances,
thoughts, tactile sensations, fragrances, and so on which issue forth from
it—borrow the various functions that appear, the kinds of virtues, merits, and
uses that are displayed. “Ah! So there is the one”—from that position, that is,
from the fundamental essence, we “borrow function to clarify position.” That is
one side. The other is: “as soon as an influence shows, one must also borrow
position to clarify function.” When there is an influence, there is already a
shadow, a sound, a thought moving, an emotion moving, qi moving. When qi moves
there is influence; there is some appearance—whatever it may be, a thought or
qi—so long as there is something perceptible. “As soon as an influence shows,”
when there is just a hint of a message, “one must also borrow position to
clarify function”—this sound, this appearance, this thought, this feeling, this
qi—how did it come? You must borrow the fundamental essence to explain
it—“borrow position to clarify function.” Both are needed: one is “borrowing
position to clarify function,” the other is “borrowing function to clarify
position.”
Whether from color, sound, fragrance, taste, touch, and
dharmas—“Ah!”—you suddenly penetrate to the source; or from the source you
suddenly understand the function—the six sense-objects as well—altogether are
marvelous function. None of this can be done by thinking, right? Hence we call
it “one-thought accord.” In that very instant, without analysis, without any
emotional veneration—none of that—one-thought accord. How is that moment
described? “The junctures of before and after are cut off.” The before and the
after are cut. What does it mean? It means there is no time. We assume there is
time past in front and time after behind, and thus we feel time is flowing.
When the junctures before and after are cut, time stops. But it is not that
there is some “time” that can stop—how could time stop? The junctures of before
and after are cut—time is cut. Time is what we imagine. Within our ideation
there is a flow we call “time”; our mind strings it together.
Inference—comparison—is the mind’s measure. It is a function
of mind. What of the appearance itself? It is not something produced by mind.
How would eyes present anything if there were no thing? Without something
there, the eyes cannot present. The operation of eyes and things is
together—this is the movement of the dharma-realm. It is not that your mind
sees things coming and going, up and down—not like that. It is the functioning
of the eyes’ own dharma-nature, the truly natural inherent power moving together
with the outer circumstance—“mind and circumstance are one”—moving as it moves,
moving as it truly moves. In moving, do not add comparison. Comparison is the
mind’s analysis. To compare “this with the previous two,” you can then speak of
this movement, of coming and going. But at the very moment the appearance
itself manifests—at that moment—how could there be comparing with before and
after? To compare with before, you must remember the prior appearance.
To remember is the mind moving. Without memory, how would
you know movement? But the eyes—and the ears—when there is something, it
appears; when there is not, it vanishes. Without this “comparison,” without
that comparing faculty. Comparison means setting two things side by side. But
the earlier has already passed—once a sound has passed, it is past. When you
hear a later sound, by comparing you then say “this one sounds better, the
former did not.” For the earlier you rely on imagination—on the power of mind.
Delusive thought—what we call the discriminating power of mind—is added in so
you can compare: pleasant or not, loud or soft. In that very instant, what
“large or small” is there? None. This is my slight clarification of “borrowing
function to clarify position” and “borrowing position to clarify function”—not
using the head to contrive; it is originally like this. We simply had not
noticed.
They say, “Bring me the daytime.” Impossible! “When the wind
blows, the grass bends; when water arrives, the channel is formed.” When the
earth and sun revolve to align with the equator, daytime naturally appears—I
cannot hand it to you. When conditions mature, it is naturally thus. Chan
Master Hongzhi’s reply—“the wind bends the grass; water arrives and the channel
forms”—is not evasion; it truly is like this. If your conditions have not come
together, then they have not; yet you hope to know the Chan meaning transmitted
by the Buddhas generation to generation—there is nothing I myself could say.
Because of habit, the thought arises—and immediately “I see,
I hear.” Whatever thought arises, it is that “I” presiding. The “I’s” opinion
inevitably enters in. At the “first-thought juncture,” your “wondrous” cannot
arise. “Wondrously surpassing the first-thought juncture”—that “wondrous” does
not emerge. You understand in theory that the “I” is wrong—that it is an
imagined “I.” You understand this. But in reality, in every lift of the hand
and step of the foot, there is that “I” investigating and watching—that one
taking the lead. The “wondrous” does not arise—this is the very point.
Therefore “one must further turn the body along another path” right here. When
“essence” can reveal “function,” do not let the dualistic “I do something, I
see something”—this thought—be added. The ears, fundamentally without this
thought, are hearing; the eyes, without the thought “I see,” are seeing. They
themselves are originally just like this. But our fault is that we continually
have the extra thought “I am seeing, I am hearing” spring up beforehand.
Therefore, at the “first-thought juncture,” if you can
illumine that faint sign and its function—once illumined, it is originally like
that; essence and function move thus—do not cut in line with that added
thought.
Original Chinese:
I wanted to share something interesting with both of you. I've found that recently, I'll occasionally have a sudden realization in my dreams that emptiness and dependent arising are not contradictory. At other times, I'll perceive within a dream that the dreamscape itself lacks inherent existence. After having these kinds of dreams, I tend to wake up quite quickly.
Upon waking, I'll sit up in bed and start to reflect on what it was that I just understood in the dream. The interesting part is that it's not as if I'm meeting some great master who teaches me things. Rather, my dreams are helping me deepen my understanding of emptiness in a unique way. It's almost as if I'm practicing in my dreams.
Thank you both, again, for always helping me on my spiritual path. Don't worry that I'll become attached to these dream experiences and neglect my practice. I am deeply aware that I am still a beginner, and so I will practice even more diligently.
I was previously contemplating what kinds of questions about emptiness a practitioner could ponder to further dismantle the grasping at inherent existence. This led me to write an article titled, “Ten Questions on Emptiness.” Several of the questions in it were ones John Tan had already mentioned.
PDF:
“So fast got dreams of clarity. Not bad. 👍
Ask him what is the difference between lack of boundaries and oneness?”
I believe the crucial point is this: the reason things can each perform their different functions is not because they are all independently existent, but precisely because they are not independently existent. Conditions and results are inseparable, yet a condition remains a condition, and a result remains a result. It is precisely because conditions and results are both different and inseparable that they are able to manifest.
When I sit on a train looking at the scenery outside the window, I notice that the scenery is constantly changing. At this moment, my mind habitually assumes that behind this seamless experience, there exist space or substratum. The mind thinks: “If all these phenomena exist independently, how could such a seamless experience be possible? I know, behind these phenomena, there must be some kind of underlying substratum (Brahman), and these phenomena are fundamentally illusory; they are all just different expressions of Brahman.”
This seems to dismantle the view that “things exist independently,” but in reality, we have only shifted the object of clinging from the things to Brahman. What we now cling to is an entity called “Brahman.” In this view, the distinctions between phenomena are illusory; the only thing that is real is Brahman.
What the mind fails to understand is this: things do not need to be independently existent to retain their differences and uniqueness. On the contrary, it is precisely because the computer, the mobile phone, the fan, and the chair are not inherently existent that they can perform their respective functions and possess their distinct qualities. The reason there is a seamless experience is because there are no essences whatsoever.
The lack of boundaries does not mean there are no differences between things. Water, fire, a blanket, a computer—these things are indeed different, and their functions are certainly distinct. The lack of boundaries simply means that no phenomenon can be separated from other phenomena. If a phenomenon could be separated from others, it could not have characteristics or properties; the phenomenon would lose its uniqueness, and it could not even appear.
I suspect John Tan may have noticed my frequent use of “Interdependence” / “Interdependent” in that article. It's true that these words could potentially deepen a practitioner's clinging to substance; this is indeed a problem. I now have a better understanding of why John Tan chose the word ‘relationality’.
I also worry that some might reify Indra's Net as being inherently existent. In that case, Indra's Net would become another Brahman. Even if some people can understand that all dharmas are in fact interdependent, they might still treat all dharmas as entities existing upon Indra's Net. Therefore, we must emphasize that no condition or result exists independently—not in the past, present, or future, and not at any point in space. This is because, from the very beginning, these phenomena were never separate. This non-separation is not because they all share a common ground or essence, but because they are utterly without essence. Indra's Net, too, is empty, lacking inherent existence.
The final conclusion is this: Phenomena, while being unique and functional, are also inseparable. If the differences between phenomena were entirely illusory, we could not establish a valid conventional truth. If there were no distinctions between phenomena, or if phenomena were merely Brahman, then phenomena could not manifest. When we understand that phenomena are entirely without self-nature (svabhāva), we realize that what we call “things” are nothing other than relationality itself. To prevent ‘relationality’ from being reified as something inherently existent, it must be emphasized that relationality itself is also devoid of self-nature (niḥsvabhāva).
...
I have to thank John Tan. The question he raised helped me deepen my understanding of emptiness.
A phenomenon that is truly independently existent would necessarily be empty, undefinable; it could not be the kind of phenomenon we normally experience. Conversely, a phenomenon that is not independently existent is actually this vivid appearance that we normally see. We tend to assume that a thing’s uniqueness stems from its independence. Yet in reality, if something were truly isolated from all else, we would have no means of perceiving or conceptualizing it at all. This fundamentally undermines our attachment to “independent existence.”
The crucial point is that the kind of independently existent phenomenon the mind grasps at is, in reality, empty, undefinable—this implies that we cannot build a bridge between two independently existent things; there can be no relationship between two independently existent things. We can only build a bridge between two non-independently existent things, and this, in effect, means there is no bridge, because two things that are not independently existent have never been separate from the very beginning.
It is not I who breathe, but all things that breathe.
It is not I who sing, but all things that sing.
It is not I who eat, but the universe that eats.
As I walk, the whole universe walks.
Far from plunging my world into darkness, Emptiness has only set my heart's lighthouse aflame. Emptiness has allowed me to see a beautiful world of seamless intimacy. It is not I who writes these words, but the entire universe.”
Conversely, a phenomenon that is not independently existent is actually this vivid appearance that we normally see. We tend to assume that a thing’s uniqueness stems from its independence. Yet in reality, if something were truly isolated from all else, we would have no means of perceiving or conceptualizing it at all. This fundamentally undermines our attachment to "independent existence"
===> 👍
The crucial point is that the kind of independently existent phenomenon the mind grasps at is, in reality, empty, undefinable—This implies that we cannot build a bridge between two independently existent things; there can be no relationship between two independently existent things;
===> Very good 👍
We can only build a bridge between two non-independently existent things,
===> Not "two non-independently existent things"
But from here one must understand "conventionally designated as separated or non-separated"
and this, in effect, means there is no bridge, because two things that are not independently existent have never been separate from the very beginning.
===> 👍 Good but must go further from "never separated" to also "never non-separated", neither nor both. Then genuine taste of supreme purity free from all elaborations and spontaneity can arise.
It is important to know the right view of dependent phenomena are free from the 8 extremes of production and cessation, coming and going, permanence and impermanence, one and many.
When in elaborations with full embracement of dependent arising we will feel this immensity of total exertion yet we feel effortless and free ==>
It is not I who breathe, but all things that breathe.
It is not I who sing, but all things that sing.
It is not I who eat, but the universe that eats.
As I walk, the whole universe walks.
Far from plunging my world into darkness, Emptiness has only set my heart's lighthouse aflame. Emptiness has allowed me to see a beautiful world of seamless intimacy. It is not I who writes these words, but the entire universe.
He must be able to discern clearly the difference between “wholeness” and “capacity to participate in togetherness”. One is due to empty nature therefore freely participates in dependence. Free of structures therefore assimilate all structures. The other has the scent of a fixed and definite structure (still essence view).
Empty in nature, consciousness never stands apart; there is no moment outside relation. Where conditions arise, it is precisely that event—sound in hearing, color in seeing, thought in thinking; where none, nothing is found to point to. Participation without a participant; dynamism without a whole.
I sent him a comment:
Regarding your PDF:
“When we consider how these interdependent phenomena appear, it's easy to mistakenly think one thing exists prior to another, allowing the latter to depend on the former. But I've already stated that "no inherently existent cause or effect can exist," so nothing exists prior to anything else. Similarly, concepts don't exist prior to things. When we deeply understand this, we know that the moment anything appears, it's already defined by Indra's Net. These things arise simultaneously, without sequence. Therefore, even in reasoning, we know causes are interdependent with other things from the beginning. The conclusion: cause and effect are mutually dependent and arise simultaneously, not "inherently existent causes producing effects without inherent existence." Also, if someone imagines "cause and effect arising simultaneously" from the perspective of "cause and effect as inherently existent entities," they'll only imagine multiple conditions and results, as independently existing things, appearing together at a certain moment. To avoid this misunderstanding, one must think from the perspective of "both cause and effect lacking inherent existence.”
— my comments (not John’s):
No inherent cause and effect is correct but Nāgārjuna also refutes inherent simultaneity, identity or difference.
For example, in
[13] The father is not the son and the son is not the father. These two are mutually not non-existent and the two of them cannot arise simultaneously. It is likewise with the twelve dependent limbs.
In [13] Nāgārjuna packs two key points into the father–son example and then says “likewise” for the twelve links:
Relational designation (no intrinsic nature).
“Father” is only a father in dependence on a child; “son” is only a son in dependence on a parent. Neither status exists by itself. Many translations gloss “mutually not non-existent” as “neither exists except in correlation with the other.”
Komito’s commentary makes the same point explicitly: no one is ever called “father” before there is a child—the terms are mutually entailing designations.
Mutual dependence ≠ simultaneity.
Even though “father” and “son” are mutually dependent as designations, they do not arise simultaneously (first there must be a birth, then “father/son” obtain). Nāgārjuna uses this to prevent a slide from dependence to identity or to a “all-at-once” causation picture.
“Likewise with the twelve dependent limbs.”
Take the twelve nidānas (ignorance → formations → consciousness … → birth → aging-death):
None of the links has self-standing power; each is only what it is in dependence on others (just like “father/son”).
Their dependence does not mean they are one simultaneous, intrinsically fused event. Nāgārjuna rejects both a strict “one-moment” and a reified “many-moments” account as ultimately true (earlier vv. [8]–[12]), while still allowing conventional sequencing for pedagogical purposes.
More broadly, in Madhyamaka analysis, cause and effect are neither identical nor wholly other; ultimately one cannot fix them as strictly simultaneous or strictly successive with intrinsic natures—hence “emptiness” of svabhāva.
Bottom line: Verse 13 uses a homely pair to show how things can be mutually dependent yet non-simultaneous, undermining both identity and independence. Applied to the twelve links, it means the nidānas work conventionally as a chain of dependent conditions, but none exists or operates from its own side.
If you’d like, I can map each link to the father–son pattern (what it depends on, what it is not identical to, and why it can’t be simultaneous with the rest).
He replied: Thank you very much for pointing out this issue. Indeed, as you said, cause and effect do not "truly" appear simultaneously. It is just as John Tan said last time, "It is important to know the right view of dependent phenomena are free from the 8 extremes of production and cessation, coming and going, permanence and impermanence, one and many."
I know I used a clumsy way to explain the core concept of "Total Exertion." My original intention was to prevent readers from treating cause and effect as independently existing entities. I wanted to guide readers to directly apprehend how everything arises not from substance, but through pure relationality. Still, the method I use is not good enough. This is my problem.
"Simultaneous arising" is not a discourse about "time," but a discourse about a "way of functioning." No condition is excluded from this present moment, and the so-called effect does not exist independently of these conditions. This is not a temporal 'simultaneity' but a non-dual functioning, an indivisible dynamic.
Even though I mentioned in that article, "Also, if someone imagines 'cause and effect arising simultaneously' from the perspective of 'cause and effect as inherently existent entities,' they'll only imagine multiple conditions and results, as independently existing things, appearing together at a certain moment," this does not count as truly pointing out that simultaneity is also untenable. This is a major issue.
If you two feel that a certain paragraph in that article isn't written well enough, you can also go ahead and revise the part that isn't good enough yourselves. I have complete trust in you, so don't worry that I will disagree with the changes.
When we let go of our attachment to substance, we will personally see the luminous side of emptiness. We will see this ever-present, vivid manifestation that is without substance, without self, and without a center. When we once again cling to substance, we will mistakenly believe that this vivid manifestation exists in the mind, in the external world, in time, in space, in the eyes, in a unifying ground. The mind fabricates a non-existent container out of thin air, attempting to confine this vivid manifestation within it. But in reality, there is neither a container nor anything inside it; both are empty. This means this vivid manifestation has always been free from the four extremes and eight fabrications. The belief in the existence of substance is the foundation upon which the four extremes and eight fabrications can be established.
The mind might even mistake "vivid manifestation" for a kind of vivid, centerless, luminous, fundamental awareness. Therefore, it must be emphasized that there is no luminous, centerless awareness (as a ground); there is no fundamental awareness that can be grasped by the mind; and there is no awareness that is "free from all extremes."
When we recognize that all dharmas are without self-nature (), we simultaneously recognize that conventional truth () and the principle of dependent arising (pratıˉtyasamutpaˉda) are both valid. In a world where all is empty, only dependent arising can guarantee that conventional truth can still function effectively. Depending on light, the eyes, and consciousness, I can see my body. Think about it: if any of these three—light, eyes, or consciousness—possessed inherent existence (svabhaˉva), how then could I possibly see the body? It is fundamentally impossible for us to see a thing that possesses inherent or independent existence; what we can see are only dependently arisen phenomena, which are always without self-nature.
By realizing again and again that emptiness (sˊuˉnyataˉ) and dependent origination (pratıˉtyasamutpaˉda) are not in conflict, the mind gradually becomes accustomed to this truth. The mind will perceive true emptiness and wondrous existence as inseparable. To realize wondrous existence is equivalent to realizing emptiness, and to realize emptiness is equivalent to realizing wondrous existence. To realize one is to realize both.
This true emptiness is not a substantial void from which all phenomena manifest, but is rather the emptiness of self-nature (). Emptiness of self-nature means that no obstruction exists, allowing all phenomena to manifest naturally as wondrous existence.
The practitioner abides neither in the extreme of conceptual fabrication (prapan~ca) nor in the extreme of being free from it. By recognizing that both these poles are empty, the practitioner simultaneously realizes that all dharmas are primordially pure and stainless.
...
Later, he sent:
I've been reflecting deeply on the guidance you both offered recently. It prompted me to further clarify my own view on 'substance' and 'emptiness.' I've written down this process and wanted to share it with you both.
I must add my profound gratitude; it was you who guided me to the very heart of this truth.
I've sent the article as a PDF, as I thought the format would be easier for you both to read.
Welcome to Awakening to Reality Hello! Welcome to the Awakening to Reality site. Must-Read Articles “Thu...
Posts
