Profound Instruction on the View of the Middle Way by Mipham Rinpoche

Profound Instruction on the View of the Middle Way

by Mipham Rinpoche

Namo Mañjuśrīye!

Having first undergone thorough purification through analysis, When certainty reaches the crucial point Regarding the way the person is devoid of self:

Just as what is called the “self” is imputed In dependence upon the aggregates By unexamined conceptual thought, Likewise, all phenomena—the five aggregates and the unconditioned— Are conceptually imputed as “this” and “that” And apprehended as all manner of different phenomena.

Yet when the referent of these imputations is sought, It cannot be found. Even down to the ultimate limit of the two indivisibles, Not even the most subtle is established.

Whatever appears does so by the force of dependent arising: Entities arise in dependence, And non-entities are imputed in dependence. Whether entity or non-entity, Whatever is grasped unexamined as this or that, When subjected to examination and analysis, Is found to be baseless and rootless— Appearing though nonexistent, like an illusion or dream, A moon reflected in water, an echo, a city of gandharvas, A visual aberration, a mirage, and the like. Empty yet appearing, appearing yet empty— Meditate on appearance and emptiness as illusion-like.

This is the categorized ultimate: Although it is the stainless prajñā— Endowed with the certainty of a comprehending mind And seeing the illusion-like mode in post-meditation— It is not free from focus on an apprehended object, Nor has the apprehending aspect dissolved. Because it has not gone beyond discursive conceptualization, The dharmatā free from elaboration is not seen.

When this kind of certainty has arisen, Even grasping as mere illusion Is conceptually imputed and grasped; yet The nature of the apprehended object is not established, And the apprehending mind too cannot be found. So rest, free from grasping, in the relaxed basic condition.

When resting in this way, all outer and inner appearances Do not cease. Yet in the fundamental mode of being free from grasping them, Since all things designated as phenomena Have, from the very beginning, neither arisen nor ceased, They are equal in the expanse of equality That is free from the apprehended and the apprehender. Free from assertions such as “exists” and “does not exist,” Within the natural state of inexpressible actuality, An experience free from doubt dawns.

This is the dharmatā of all phenomena, The uncategorized ultimate, To be known individually, each for oneself: The nonconceptual jñāna of meditative equipoise.

As familiarity develops within that state, The union of emptiness and dependent arising, The actuality in which the two truths are inseparable— This is the yoga of the Great Middle Way.

That actuality—the nondual jñāna Free from the domain of mind— If one wishes to make it manifest swiftly, Meditate on the pith instructions of Mantra.

Since this is the ultimate profound key point Of the stages of meditation on the Middle Way, First thoroughly purify conduct; Then progressively reach decisive ascertainment through experience. With certainty that appearance and emptiness are illusion-like, The meaning is that nothing is to be removed or added on the path. Within the expanse of the Perfection of Wisdom, There is complete liberation in equality.

Wherever there is the torment of thirst, Though one understands that water exists, thirst is not dispelled. Therefore, just as drinking dispels thirst, The sūtras say it is likewise with understanding and experience.

Therefore, as for parched understanding In which one becomes exhausted by extensive reasoning, There is no need for sporadic practice. If one meditates progressively, One will swiftly gain acceptance of the profound.

Jampal Gyepe Dorje, On the twenty-ninth day of the eleventh month of the Water Dragon year, Wrote this down just as it arose. Through this, may all beings realize The meaning of the profound Middle Way! Maṅgalam!

Translation Note This English revision uses Mipham Rinpoche’s Tibetan text as the controlling source. Adam Pearcey’s English translation was consulted as a secondary comparator rather than as the basis for source decisions. The revision deliberately preserves several technical distinctions in the Tibetan, especially prajñā (ཤེས་རབ་, shes rab) and jñāna (ཡེ་ཤེས་, ye shes), as well as the categorized and uncategorized ultimate. How this revision differs from Adam Pearcey’s English translation (Lotsawa House, version 2.3–20250115): The points below identify deliberate differences in source handling. They are not meant to imply that every freer choice in Pearcey’s translation is mistaken; his version is generally more interpretive and idiomatic, whereas this revision gives greater priority to explicit Tibetan roles, relations, lexical families, and unresolved textual uncertainty. 1. Opening and self-imputation. Pearcey recasts the opening in direct second-person instructional English and smooths the transition into the self-imputation example. This revision stays closer to the Tibetan conditional architecture and explicitly retains that the imputed self is designated in dependence upon the aggregates, a dependency that is less explicit in Pearcey’s wording. 2. Scope and order in the appearance/emptiness stanza. Pearcey reverses the order of the paired line on emptiness and appearance. This revision follows the Tibetan sequence stong bzhin snang / snang bzhin stong as “Empty yet appearing, appearing yet empty,” and retains the source’s entity/non-entity and totality relations more explicitly. 3. Simile vocabulary. Where Pearcey naturalizes some images—for example the gandharva-city and mig yor imagery—this revision keeps “a city of gandharvas” and “a visual aberration” so that distinct Tibetan simile terms are not collapsed into more general English imagery. 4. Prajñā and jñāna. Pearcey commonly renders both shes rab and ye shes with the broad English word “wisdom.” This revision preserves the distinction as prajñā for independent ཤེས་རབ་ and jñāna for ཡེ་ཤེས་ because the Tibetan itself changes terms between the categorized and uncategorized stages. A conventional compound is treated as an explicit exception rather than mechanically dismantled: ཤེས་རབ་ཕ་རོལ་ཕྱིན་པ་ (shes rab pha rol phyin pa) remains “Perfection of Wisdom” (Prajñāpāramitā). 5. Post-meditation, nominal structure, and apprehended/apprehending roles. Pearcey’s syntax can make the illusion-like quality sound attached to post-meditative experience itself and often naturalizes the subject-object vocabulary as perceiver/perceived or subjective mind. This revision attaches rjes thob to the seeing/prajñā relation, keeps the categorized-ultimate passage as one main concessive nominal structure rather than two coordinate predicates, and retains the technical “apprehended / apprehending” architecture more explicitly. 6. Categorized versus uncategorized ultimate. Pearcey paraphrases the later ultimate as one that cannot be conceptualized. This revision deliberately keeps the paired technical terminology “categorized ultimate” and “uncategorized ultimate” so the contrast with the earlier rnam grangs pa’i don dam is visible to the reader. 7. Source-absent intensifiers and labels. Pearcey uses expressions such as “ordinary mind” and “Secret Mantra.” At these loci the Tibetan has sems (mind) and sngags (Mantra) without those extra qualifiers, so this revision uses “mind” and “Mantra” rather than importing the added adjectives. 8. Certainty versus decisive ascertainment. Pearcey renders gtan la dbab in the practice stanza with the language of arriving at certainty. This revision reserves “certainty” for the repeated Tibetan nges shes and renders gtan la dbab as “reach decisive ascertainment,” preserving two different epistemic expressions used by the source. 9. Thirst analogy and closing practice stanza. Pearcey adds contextual language about drought/dehydration and expands the closing stanza with explanatory English. This revision keeps the analogy closer to the Tibetan’s direct contrast between understanding that water exists and actually drinking, renders go skom as “parched understanding” so the immediately preceding skom (“thirst”) imagery remains audible, and keeps res ’jog (“sporadic practice”) distinct from the following rim bsgoms (“meditates progressively”). 10. Textual uncertainty at gsal bzhag / bsal bzhag. Pearcey presents the familiar remove/add sense directly. This revision retains that reader sense only provisionally because the current Lotsawa Tibetan reads གསལ་བཞག་ (gsal bzhag), while the familiar technical expression is བསལ་བཞག་ (bsal bzhag). The discrepancy is therefore disclosed rather than silently normalized. 11. Colophon and Gregorian date. Pearcey supplies a Gregorian year in parentheses and smooths the colophon into modern English order. This revision keeps the Tibetan lunar date and source order, leaves the Gregorian year out of the translated body, and renders shar mar bris as “wrote this down just as it arose.” 12. gshis, gshis lugs, and rang babs. The Tibetan uses three distinct expressions in close succession. This revision now keeps them recoverably distinct as “basic condition” (གཤིས་), “fundamental mode” (གཤིས་ལུགས་), and “natural state” (རང་བབས་), rather than allowing two different source terms to collapse into the same English phrase. Source-critical and display note: The opening དཔྱོད་པ་རྣམ་སྦྱོང་ (dpyod pa rnam sbyong) admits more than one reasonable relation in English and stands in a conspicuous near-homophone parallel with the later སྤྱོད་པ་རྣམ་སྦྱངས་ (spyod pa rnam sbyangs) concerning conduct; the body’s “purification through analysis” is therefore a contextual rendering, not a claim that the instrumental parse is uniquely certain or that authorial wordplay can be proved. At རྟོགས་པའི་བློ་ (rtogs pa’i blo), the controlling current Lotsawa witness has rtogs pa, whereas Jacob D. Fisher’s transcription of the 2007 edition reports rtog pa (“conceptual mind”) at the same locus. The body follows the controlling witness with “a comprehending mind,” keeping this lexically distinct from the later གོ་ (go) family of intellectual understanding without implying nonconceptual realization; the stanza itself explicitly says that the dharmatā free from elaboration is not seen at this stage. At རྟོག་པས་བརྟགས་ཏེ་གཟུང་མོད་ཀྱི་, the controlling Lotsawa witness has bzung mod kyi (“although grasped”), whereas Fisher’s transcription reports bzung med kyi, changing the clause to a negative reading. The body therefore retains the controlling affirmative-concessive polarity (“is conceptually imputed and grasped; yet”) and does not import the secondary witness’s negative. At ཡེ་ནས་མ་སྐྱེས་མ་འགགས་པས་, current Lotsawa has the causal ending -pas, whereas Fisher reports ma ’gag la, a coordinative relation; the body accordingly retains the controlling causal architecture (“Since … have … neither arisen nor ceased”). At སོ་སོ་རང་གི་རིག་བྱ་བ་, the controlling current Lotsawa witness has rang gi, while Fisher’s transcription reports rang gis. Both witnesses retain rang; the variant changes the syntactic relation, not the presence of the reflexive. The body therefore retains “To be known individually, each for oneself,” preserving the distributive and reflexive force without choosing the secondary witness’s explicit instrumental/self-cognizing analysis. At དེ་ཡི་ངང་ནས་གོམས་པ་ན་, current Lotsawa has ngang nas (“from/within that state”), whereas Fisher reports ngang la; “within that state” is retained as an idiomatic rendering of the controlling ngang nas, not as adoption of Fisher’s case relation. At ཀུན་ཏུ་རྟོག་ (kun tu rtog), “discursive conceptualization” is used to keep this source expression perceptibly distinct from nearby རྟོག་པ་ (rtog pa) without asserting a specific Sanskrit reconstruction such as parikalpita. Other minor inflectional or orthographic witness differences that do not change the selected renderings are not treated as separate body decisions. The 76-line root verse is displayed here in semantic cards for readability rather than as a claim about source stanza boundaries. Card 1 maps root lines 1–3 as a semantic unit, but its second and third displayed English lines correspond to source lines 3 and 2 respectively; the card-range attribute therefore does not claim one-to-one displayed-line order. Each card carries a data-tibetan-lines range so the underlying source mapping remains auditable. This is a source-controlled translation and comparison, not a critical edition. Textual note: at the line concerning the path, the current Lotsawa House Tibetan transcription reads གསལ་བཞག་ (gsal bzhag). The familiar “nothing to remove or add” sense corresponds to the well-attested expression བསལ་བཞག་ (bsal bzhag). An earlier review had cited an additional corroborating Lotsawa transcription, but that witness could not subsequently be freshly re-verified and is therefore not relied upon in the present apparatus. Because no printed facsimile of the cited Tibetan editions was directly inspected in this round, the Tibetan has not been emended; the body retains the traditional technical sense provisionally, and the locus remains unresolved. Calendrical note: the Tibetan colophon gives the twenty-ninth day of the eleventh month of the Water Dragon year. No Gregorian year has been inserted into the translation. Source: Tibetan text. Secondary comparator: Adam Pearcey’s translation, Lotsawa House, version 2.3–20250115. Textual-witness comparator: Jacob D. Fisher, “The Tibetan Traditions of Guides to the Madhyamaka View (dbu ma’i lta khrid): The Schooling of View with Meditation”, Journal of Indian Philosophy 53 (2025), corrected online version. The Lotsawa House translation is licensed CC BY-NC 4.0.

Opening the Buddha's Knowledge and Vision, a Dharma Talk by Teacher Hong Wenliang

Chan teaching · Malacca · May 2005

Opening the Buddha’s Knowledge and Vision

A Dharma Talk by Teacher Hong Wenliang during a Chan Retreat in Malacca, May 2005

Original Chinese Text: 开佛知见

Shítóu Xīqiān made a statement that many people doubt and disagree with. He said:

“Practice is not a matter of meditative concentration; it is only a matter of opening the Buddha’s knowledge and vision.”

— Shítóu Xīqiān

I do not discuss diligence or meditative concentration. I do not talk about all that—how you must have meditative concentration, how you must be diligent. I do not talk about such nonsense. All you need is to open your Buddha’s knowledge and vision.

What is the Buddha’s knowledge and vision? It is that Buddha’s knowledge and vision we so often see: the Buddha’s knowledge and vision. The zhī is the zhī in “to know”; the jiàn is the jiàn in “opinion”: the Buddha’s knowledge and vision. Shítóu says that this must be opened. As for all those other matters—how to sit in meditation, how to apply effort, how to be diligent—I do not discuss them. I only look at whether you have opened the Buddha’s knowledge and vision.

So let me ask all of you: what do you think he means by the Buddha’s knowledge and vision? If you see this statement by Shítóu Xīqiān—he says, “Open the Buddha’s knowledge and vision”—what do you think he is referring to? The Buddha’s opinions? The Buddha’s thoughts? Perhaps the Buddha’s understanding and right view of this universe and life? The Buddha’s correct perspective and opinion—is that what it means? If so, then the Buddha would be just like us! He too would have views about human life, the mysteries of life, and the mysteries of the universe. His views would be like ours. It is only that he is more brilliant. He is a Buddha, after all! Would he still have “knowledge and vision”?

When Shítóu speaks of opening the Buddha’s knowledge and vision, he does not mean that you must have correct views just like the Buddha. That is not it. Let me explain this to all of you: the Buddha’s knowledge and vision is a fact. It is not that the Buddha possesses some brilliant view. No. What he calls the Buddha’s knowledge and vision is a true fact that can be seen everywhere.

What kind of fact? Did all of you down there hear me speak? I say “Āmítuófó,” and over there with you, “Āmítuófó” functions just like that. I say “Ah” here—is there an “Ah” over there with you? Yes! So, this “Ah” sound that you hear. Let me ask you: where did you manufacture this sound? Is there some place, some factory? Is the ear the factory? Then the brain is unnecessary? The air is unnecessary? My lips are unnecessary? Which one, ultimately, is the factory? I am asking about the “Ah” that you hear.

These things may seem boring, but what is very important lies right here. Ordinarily we do not regard this as a problem. Śākyamuni Buddha was the first to take what we ordinarily do not consider a problem and say, “Eh? This is a problem!” From birth we see and hear; we smell odors and taste saltiness or spiciness. Or the body makes contact and there is comfort or pain, and we take this to be natural. There is nothing to discuss, is there? Where is the problem? I look up at the stars in the sky; I look up and see them—seeing them is just seeing them. The wind blows over and I feel cool and refreshed—that is all. No one has ever thought much about this question—about this matter, about this fact. People do not take it as a problem; he was the first to take it as a problem. Then he worked on this. It became his ready-made kōan. He often paid attention to this. Only later did he discover where we are deluded and where the fundamental cause of that delusion lies. That is how he went about it. So what is the Buddha’s knowledge and vision? It is not that the Buddha has opinions or views. That is not it.

◆

The Buddha’s knowledge and vision means this: I say “Ah” here, and there is an “Ah” over there with each of you. No factory for this “Ah” can be found. If there is no factory, are there workers? Is there a boss? Is there machinery that manufactures your “Ah”? You would have to manufacture an “Ah” before you could hear an “Ah,” wouldn’t you? Could this “Ah” be manufactured by our lips? Then block your ears and remove the auditory nerves—is there still an “Ah”? Your ears participate in the manufacture of this “Ah,” but they are not solely responsible for it. Right? Start from here.

The factory cannot be found. If there is no factory, there are no workers; the manufacturing machinery cannot be found, and the boss is unknown. What about capital? None—no capital is needed either. Once the “Ah” has been manufactured and has passed, this thing has to be discarded. The sound you just manufactured—now that I have spoken it—you need to hear something else. If it were left there, it would overlap and become mixed up. It vanishes in an instant. Where did you throw it? The source of production, the factory, the capital, the workers, the technology, the boss—none can be found. When it is not in use, when it has passed, you do not have to do anything to it. It clears away and is gone. Where did you throw it? Where did you throw that sound? You do not know. Where did it disappear to? Unknown.

What do we call this fact? We have always assumed: “You say ‘Ah’ over there, and ‘I’ hear it.” That is an assumption we take to be right; it does not accord with the facts. The Buddha discovered this. This is not the fact. For if “I” were the one hearing it, then “I” would have to manufacture this sound before “I” could hear it. Just because your lips move like this—two flaps of skin moving—does not necessarily mean that a sound will resound here on my side. So who manufactured the sound? No one can be found. It was not manufactured by me, by you, by empty space, by a god, or by a Buddha—and yet there it is. This is what is called: no factory can be found, no capital can be found, no engineers can be found, no workers can be found. Bang!—out of nowhere, there it is. When the conditions are there, it is there; its source is unknown. This is called “coming from nowhere”—what the Buddhist scriptures call “coming from nowhere.” When it is gone, when it disappears, you do not need to find a garbage dump for it; it clears itself away. It goes nowhere and arrives nowhere. Coming, it comes from nowhere; going, nowhere does it arrive. Where was it thrown away? Where is the garbage dump? How was it cremated? What medicine was used to remove it? None of that is needed. It is gone. This is sound.

Scratch your hand; touch the back of your hand. When you touch it, there is a tactile sensation. Where is that sensation manufactured? Is the skin manufacturing it? The skin cannot manufacture it. If it could, I would not need to touch it. “Hey, you make it”—and it could make the sensation. If my right hand were the manufacturer, I would not need to use the back of my left hand so that I could touch and make contact with it; the right hand could do the manufacturing, and that would be enough. In other words, forms, sounds, odors, tastes, tangible objects, and mental phenomena all come from nowhere: no place where they arise can be found. When they go, where they have gone cannot be found either. This is a fact. First, know this fact.

So when I say “Ah,” an “Ah” appears over there with each of you, right? What is really, actually the case at that moment is not that each of you has a “you” there hearing a sound I emitted from here, each of you hearing this sound at your place. That is not how it is. Then how is it? Since no place can be found where this sound was manufactured... In fact, we have fooled ourselves. Why have we fooled ourselves? We have always assumed that in hearing, seeing, thinking, and feeling there is an “I”: an “I” who hears, an “I” who sees, an “I” who feels, an “I” who thinks, an “I” who makes decisions. There is always that “I”—this deluded notion from beginningless time.

They give an example: noodles are put into a pot of oil. When they are lifted out, the oil has soaked right through them. How are you going to remove it? You cannot, can you? It is very difficult to get the oil out of the noodles. Our thought of “I”—that delusion, that mistaken idea—is just like this. It is very difficult to remove. Apart from the method of “just sitting” that Śākyamuni Buddha taught us, there is almost no way to remove it. It looks like such a simple matter—removing the oil from the oily noodles. It is not easy to remove.

Because of this deluded thought of “I,” we believe there is an “I” who hears, an “I” who sees, an “I” who feels, an “I” who thinks, and, more seriously still, an “I” who decides. “Do I want to come to this Chan retreat? Yes.” So I came. People who have studied well all think it was “I” who decided. If there is no-self, yet that decision is still made by you, then there is no need to talk about the Buddhadharma. It was not you who decided! But it was not I who decided, nor you, nor my mother, nor my child. Clearly it was I who decided, wasn’t it? That is exactly how it is. This delusion is very difficult to remove.

◆

So, back to the sound just mentioned. I say “Ah” here and there is an “Ah” over there with you. It is not you hearing, not your ears hearing, and not your brain hearing, because the place where this sound arises—the factory—cannot be found. Then how do you hear it? Here is the question: how do you hear it? The source of the sound is unknown, no one does anything to it, and yet there it is! Clearly there is the sound “Ah”—it is there! Sometimes Chan patriarchs put it simply: “nonexistent yet present”—that is how simply they put it. Yet it is there: where did it come from? Who made it? There is no one; no one can be found: “present yet nonexistent.” Everything is like this.

How can this be put better? “Present yet nonexistent; nonexistent yet present” also means this: when you hear, they use a very good expression: “hear with the whole body.” When you see: “see with the whole body.” What does “whole” mean? The whole body, the whole mind, the whole body-mind—the whole thing. Not only your ears: your hair, your skin, your pores, your toenails, the intestines, stomach, lungs, and heart inside your belly—all of it. In whole-body hearing, all of it is hearing itself. This does not mean that your skin, teeth, eyes, ears, hair, and pores all together hear the “Ah.” No! The whole thing becomes “Ah.” This is called “hearing with the whole body.” We do not know it.

So how does hearing happen? We call it happening “in the dark,” without our knowing. How hearing really happens, why there really is this sound—even a Buddha does not know. A Buddha does not know either. Yet when I say “Ah,” immediately there is “Ah” over there. So this is called hearing with the whole body.

You raise your head and look at this flower. At the moment of seeing, it is seeing with the whole body. It is not the eyes seeing, or the brain seeing—none of that. It is not the optic nerve seeing either—none of that. Your whole body-mind, the four great elements and the five aggregates, all become this flower. You say, “That is strange. The four great elements and five aggregates are here. I’m not a flower here! My skin, my hair, my heart—then how did this become a flower? The flower is over there. I did not become a flower.” That is because you have fixed the body-mind of the four great elements and five aggregates in place, taking it to be a fixed thing with self-nature, and you cannot let go of it. The four great elements and five aggregates are like clouds, like illusions; in that very moment, the whole of them becomes the flower. You separate the flower from the four great elements and five aggregates, and so you say, “I did not become the flower.” Here you have been deceived by form-obstruction. Do you know? Form-obstruction—there is an obstruction, and you think, “This is still my hand. How could it become a flower? Don’t talk nonsense!”

Let me tell you: as for the existence of this physical body, when you touch it, there is this obstruction. This thing belongs to the realm of deluded thought. The true you is the Dharmakāya! The true you is that thing—Dharmakāya and Dharma-nature—functioning. So that thing merges with the flower before you, or with an “Ah” sound before you. Whether it is the sound “Ah” or the appearance—the visible form—of a flower, that is what this thing merges with, like water poured into water. Your Dharmakāya and Dharma-nature, and the external forms, sounds, odors, tastes, tangible objects, and mental phenomena: the external forms, sounds, odors, tastes, tangible objects, and mental phenomena too are Dharma-nature, are Dharmakāya—water. The four great elements and five aggregates here on your side are also the same; their true original face is Dharmakāya, Dharma-nature. Both are Dharmakāya. So water and water connect very easily! It is not a matter of connecting; they are one thing to begin with.

That is why, as soon as there is seeing, an appearance is present. This is because of your four great elements and five aggregates: your four elements—earth, water, fire, and wind—are the same as my four elements: earth, water, fire, and wind. Their self-nature is emptiness; all are equally Dharma-nature. So upon encounter, it is like pouring water into a bucket of water: an appearance immediately appears. Are you still going to ask where it was manufactured? If you say that your body is your body, while the sound opposite you—the sound coming from over there—is “Ah,” and “Ah” is “Ah,” and my body has not become “Ah,” then your delusion of taking this obstructed thing to be yourself remains so firmly fixed. You cling desperately to this body-mind—to this form-obstruction that I myself feel—and because you take it to be yourself, you say, “I have not changed! How could I be hearing with the whole body? Sound is sound, and I am I.” You fall into that. You do not understand your true Dharma-nature body. Is this clear?

◆

Once this is clear, you will understand the opening of the Buddha’s knowledge and vision that Shítóu Xīqiān spoke of. The Buddha’s knowledge and vision is just this: whatever you encounter, you become what you encounter. When you encounter a red flower, your Dharma-nature, the true you, is wholly the flower. When you hear “Ah,” your entire Dharmakāya—the existence of the true you, the Dharmakāya—is the same thing as that “Ah.” The Dharma-nature body of the sound “Ah” and the Dharma-nature body on my side that can hear are the same thing, and so “Ah” immediately appears. Do not search for a factory; do not investigate who manufactured it.

No one takes this very simple, very direct fact as a problem. Because we are born able to hear and see, it seems natural, inevitable. This “inevitability” has harmed us, because we already carry a deluded notion: life after life we are reborn, and life after life there is an “I”—“I” am in saṃsāra. That “I” has never been let go of. So we roll around in saṃsāra, building walls and running about inside them. So, as for this body-mind obstructed by physical form, its true Dharma-nature and the existence of its true Dharmakāya must not be forgotten. The existence of Dharmakāya and Dharma-nature pervades the whole universe. It is a function that reaches everywhere, liberated and at ease—very free and at ease.

Because of how it functions, when I encounter you, your appearance immediately appears; when you encounter me, my appearance immediately appears. Your Dharma-nature body and my Dharma-nature body are one thing. So fundamentally there is no need to manufacture. It is not “you” who sees; it is not “you” who hears my voice. Have you understood this? This is called the original fact: whatever you encounter, you become that. When the object is large, immediately there is “large”; it immediately appears. You become large. It is not that you see something large; you become large. That “you” is the you of Dharma-nature, not the you of form-obstruction. Can you understand? It is the you of Dharma-nature, so when you encounter something small—ah, very small—you become small. When you hear a loud sound, you become that loud sound. When you hear a quiet sound, you become that quiet sound. It is the Dharma-nature you that becomes that; it is not this obstructed thing of yours that changes into it. Okay?

So it is inevitable. Our interaction with what we encounter—the mutual functioning, the reciprocal functioning—no one can escape it. This is not something the Buddha gave you. We call this mutual functioning inevitable; not one person can escape it. When you encounter a wall, you are the wall. When you smell that fragrance, even if you do not want to smell it, the fragrance is there. Why? As for your Dharma-nature body, that fragrance is your Dharma-nature body becoming that fragrance. It is not the nose smelling the fragrance. This is where we are mistaken. Okay? Can you understand? This is very, very, very important.

In the Cāntóngqì, Shítóu Xīqiān simply wants us to open the Buddha’s knowledge and vision. The Buddha’s knowledge and vision is our fact: our mutual functioning and mutual activity with whatever we encounter. When this interaction occurs, it is inevitable; no one can avoid it, because everyone is an existence of Dharma-nature and Dharmakāya. True existence is the Dharma-nature body, the Dharmakāya Buddha. Our existence is so great and sublime. You take these bones, this skin, these things to be “I”; you are underestimating yourself. Originally it is a great existence, an existence of Dharma-nature, such a boundless, immeasurable, unobstructed existence. You shrink it down to only this—to this small, concrete, obstructed piece of body and mind. You diminish yourself until you are so small. How pitiful! Drunk, you have forgotten yourself.

Once this is clear, you know that the Buddha’s knowledge and vision refers to this fact. This fact is called the Buddha’s knowledge and vision. So Shítóu Xīqiān is saying, “Ah, just open it. Opening it is enough.” You are originally this fact. This is truly how you are: it is the Dharma-nature body that is functioning; it is the Dharmakāya Buddha that is functioning. Every one of you is the Dharmakāya Buddha functioning in that way, interacting with what is encountered. What is encountered is also the Dharmakāya Buddha. So when I attained the Way, I, together with the great earth and sentient beings, simultaneously attained the Way—that is what this means.

If you separate it out, then of course a tree is a tree, a dog is a dog, and the people present at that time were the people of that time. Then why, when Śākyamuni Buddha attained Buddhahood more than 2,500 years ago, would he and all of them have become Buddhas together? Wouldn’t we today then have to be descendants of Buddhas? That makes no sense. So some monks on the internet say that this was probably remembered incorrectly, or that somebody thought the Buddha was so great, added an extra line of praise, and got the praise wrong. In fact, such a person does not understand. He does not understand this matter of the Buddha’s knowledge and vision that was just discussed.

If the Buddha’s knowledge and vision is misunderstood, no matter how you study, you will never make sense of the Buddhadharma. It is all based on this “I”: I see, I think, “Is your reasoning right or not?” You see? This is called our being in the rut of thought: inside that rut, we look for the Buddhadharma, think about the Buddhadharma, and try to work out the Buddhadharma. If the Buddha’s knowledge and vision has not been opened, then it is different: no matter how you think or how you look at it, it is not what the Buddha taught.

◆

That is what he is explaining in this first section. Since I have been talking about Shítóu Xīqiān: he says he does not discuss meditative concentration. Sitting meditation and meditative concentration are very important, aren’t they? Quieting down, opening the Buddha’s wisdom, and so on. He says, “I do not discuss that; I do not place much emphasis on it. But I want every one of you—since you have studied with me and are reading the text I left behind, especially the Cāntóngqì—to understand where my true intent lies, where the meaning beyond the words lies. I want all of you to open your Buddha’s knowledge and vision.”

The Buddha’s knowledge and vision is your fact, your true fact. It does not mean using your intellect and saying, “My views are now the same as the Buddha’s views. I have opened the Buddha’s knowledge and vision.” That is not what it means. You understand that when you interact with what you encounter, it is because your true existence is Dharma-nature, the Dharmakāya Buddha. That is your genuine, real, true human body. Therefore, as soon as you encounter an appearance, there is an appearance; when you encounter a sound, the sound is you; when you encounter an appearance, the appearance is you.

If you say, “You are you, and I am still I,” then could it be that when I encounter you, you become me? You are being deceived by this obstruction. You cling desperately to this thing as “I.” So if the mark of self has not been removed, you cannot understand the Buddhadharma. Yet sometimes people say, “I no longer have the mark of self.” “I” no longer have the “mark of self”—what does that mean? I cannot understand it! “I no longer have the mark of self. I have now practiced to the point where there is no mark of self...” Who is it that has no mark of self? Because he has not opened the Buddha’s knowledge and vision, he is still muddled there.

“I practice very well. Strange—this problem is still here.”

“Hmph, you still have this problem?”

“Yes!”

Then there is nothing I can do. I nod: “All right, forget it, forget it. Your Shítóu road is slippery—you cannot understand this.”

Is everyone clear about this point? Then there is no need to discuss the Cāntóngqì any further.

26 June 2026 ·

Emptiness Is Not Relational Ontology: Relations Without Relata

A dialogue on dependent arising, emptying conditions, and the danger of turning emptiness into either relational existence or mere negation

John Tan’s central distinction

“Dependent arising is not saying that there are things and that they are made of relations—that is relational ontology. It is a valid conventional description within the domain of conceptual designation.”

Mr. Y’s Shared Reflection

Mr. Y shared

1. Nihilism says, in effect, that nothing has reality, value, or meaning. Emptiness says something very different: that whatever reality, value, and meaning there are do not rest on independent substances or intrinsic essences. Nihilism flattens the world into negation. Emptiness reveals the world as relational. Nihilism destroys significance by denying the reality of phenomena. Emptiness re-situates significance within the web of conditions that make phenomena possible. These are not neighboring positions. They move in opposite directions. Nihilism says the world is too empty to matter. Emptiness says the world matters precisely because nothing in it stands alone.

2. But emptiness is not below phenomena. It is not behind them. It is not the secret ingredient from which they are made. It is their structural mode of being. The tree, the body, the thought, the river, the institution, the self—none of these conceals emptiness as a hidden content. Each is empty because each exists structurally, relationally, dependently, without intrinsic core. Emptiness is therefore not what remains after things are taken away. It is what things have been all along once the fantasy of self-existence is removed.

3. Physics has shown that matter is not the kind of compact solidity common sense once imagined. What appears hard and substantial at the human scale turns out, at other scales, to involve fields, interactions, structural regularities, and dynamic relations that do not resemble the furniture of ordinary intuition. Biology has shown that organisms are not sealed units but living exchanges with environments, microbiomes, ecologies, and evolutionary histories. Cognitive science has increasingly suggested that perception is an active construction shaped by prediction, selection, and embodied need rather than passive copying. None of these developments imply that reality is unreal. They imply something subtler and more demanding: that the reality available to ordinary intuition is filtered through forms of organization that privilege usability over completeness. The solid world is not simply an illusion, but neither is it the final truth.

4. The social sciences extend this movement further by exposing how much of what appears individually possessed is actually relationally constituted. Institutions are not things in the way stones are things. They exist through repetition, recognition, enforcement, and shared expectation. Money exists because patterns of trust, law, exchange, and symbolic coordination sustain it. Nations persist through narratives, borders, administrative systems, collective memory, and ritual forms of belonging. Identities are formed through recognition, language, power, exclusion, aspiration, and role-performance. None of these phenomena are unreal because they lack intrinsic substance. They are real precisely because patterns of relation sustain them and because effects follow from their organization. Social reality is perhaps the clearest domain in which object-thinking becomes obviously misleading. To ask where “the institution itself” exists apart from the practices that constitute it is to begin seeing the problem. The institution is real, but not as a self-standing thing. It is real as organized relation.

5. Emptiness is therefore inseparable from dependent origination. It is not one doctrine placed beside another, as though one first believed in dependent arising and then later added emptiness on top. They are two ways of expressing the same insight. To say that something is empty is to say that it arises dependently. To say that something arises dependently is to say that it is empty of intrinsic self-being. Emptiness is not a second hidden truth behind dependent reality. It is dependent reality understood correctly. What appears exists, but only through a network of conditions. Emptiness names the fact that there is no extra metaphysical core hiding beneath this dependence.

6. So the inquiry ends where every genuine inquiry must end: not in the possession of a final object called Truth, but in a transformed relation to what is always already here. The room is still full of objects; the world is still full of persons, systems, histories, desires, losses, and fragile forms of care. Nothing theatrical has vanished. And yet nothing is quite the same, because what once appeared as a room of separate things now appears as a local articulation of a larger weave. The cup, the table, the body, the memory, the voice, the grief, the promise, the mountain, the city, the species, the world—all remain, but none remain as self-enclosed substances. They remain as patterns in the fabric. To understand this is not to leave the world behind. It is to enter it more completely. The fabric does not stop weaving because one has seen it. It goes on: holding by not holding, enduring by changing, cohering without foundation, connecting without external glue, giving rise to worlds of form without ever hardening into independent things. What is finally revealed is neither thing nor void, but the relational texture of reality itself—the fabric that holds everything together because nothing in it was ever separate enough to fall entirely out of the weave.

Dialogue

Soh Wei Yu 12:47 PM

What do you think about what he said?

John Tan 12:49 PM

That is not emptiness.

Soh Wei Yu 12:51 PM

I have not fully read it, but from glancing through it, it seems that the author tries to talk about interdependence while still establishing everything as real and existing. So it is not free from extremes or svabhāva. It may end up in the view of dependent existence.

Note from Soh: Also see The Correct View of Dependent Origination and Does dependent arising require some “thing” to depend on?

John Tan 12:58 PM

Yes. Dependent arising is not saying that there are things and that they are made of relations—that is relational ontology. It is a valid conventional description within the domain of conceptual designation.

John Tan 12:59 PM

And what is expressed is more like dependent arising, although emptiness cannot be understood apart from dependent arising.

John Tan 1:01 PM

So we can say that what is valid in the context of the conceptual mind is dependent arising. Emptiness is not that relational or conventional description itself, but the absence of essence discovered when that dependently arisen conventionality is analyzed. Yet emptiness cannot be understood apart from dependent arising, because without dependent arising, emptiness collapses into mere negation.

John Tan 1:01 PM

The problem with my video is that it can only be five to eight minutes.

John Tan 1:02 PM

So sometimes people might misunderstand it as relational ontology.

Soh Wei Yu 1:02 PM

Hopefully the technology will advance in a year to allow one-hour-long videos.

John Tan 1:02 PM

Also, I try not to talk about the taste when the view matures.

John Tan 1:08 PM

If emptiness lands as mere negation, then it is nihilism. So we must see dependent arising, and in the formulation, see that they are empty.

John Tan 1:13 PM

In other words, the emptiness of emptiness that we commonly talk about is not about treating emptiness as a “substance.” That is the easy part. It is attachment to emptiness as negation, and not understanding dependent arising as formation. That is the incurable disease. I actually have several videos on it, but it is difficult to express properly, and NotebookLM cannot generate this out.

John Tan 1:21 PM

So although we say, “Oh, that is relational ontology,” it is empty too. Practitioners who do not know how relational ontology works conventionally, and who just rest in negation thinking that this is groundlessness—treating it as an ultimate solvent—fall into the incurable disease that is difficult to see but easy to land in, in my opinion. Therefore the mistake is not merely reifying relational ontology. The opposite mistake is worse.

John Tan 1:32 PM

Emptying conditions is key. At the back of our mind, there is a deep conviction that conditions are really established. This is not easy to deconstruct. And the emptying must be understood from clearly seeing active formation. Otherwise, how are we to see relations without relata, causal efficacy without causal power, designation without naming and labeling, functioning without essence, and appearance without any “thingness”? If we do not clearly see that, we will not know how dependent arising can map to our actual experience. Mere negation will not be able to see that. It will only land us in a mistaken groundlessness due to relentless negation. But clear seeing will open us up entirely, effortlessly, as natural and primordial freedom. That, then, is spontaneous presence. So MMK is no different from Dzogchen if understood correctly. It is the view that will lead us from Prajñā to Yeshe.

Final emphasis: emptying conditions

“Emptying conditions is key. The emptying must be understood from clearly seeing active formation. Otherwise, how are we to see relations without relata, causal efficacy without causal power, designation without naming and labeling, functioning without essence, and appearance without any ‘thingness’?”

Maitrīpa · Madhyamaka · Dependent Arising

The Genius of Dependent Arising Is That It Is Self-Exhausting

A source-preserving dialogue from 19–20 July 2026

Maitrīpa frontispiece. This research-informed, AI-generated devotional illustration synthesizes motifs found in later Himalayan portrayals of Indian mahāsiddhas and teachers. It is not a historical likeness, and no decorative inscription or ornamental detail should be treated as textual or historical evidence.

19 July 2026

Soh Wei Yu11:17:11 PM

Yán Hóng’ān sent:

Soh Wei Yuforwarded image received from Yán Hóng’ān11:17:17 PM

[Image omitted.]

Soh Wei Yuforwarding introductory text copied from Yán Hóng’ān11:17:21 PM

I have discovered that Maitrīpa also places a great deal of emphasis on dependent arising. He maintains that awareness, the Buddha’s activities to benefit beings, meditational deities, and great bliss all arise dependently. The crucial point is that he does not view dependent arising and conventional truth as secondary truths. Furthermore, he seems to hold that there is a pure conventional truth exclusive to noble beings (āryas). I have compiled ten paragraphs on dependent arising. I think the seventh paragraph is very interesting.

Provenance note: Soh has clarified that the introductory paragraph and the complete ten-part selection below were copied from Yán Hóng’ān and forwarded to John Tan. The first-person wording (“I have discovered…” and “I have compiled…”) is retained because it is part of the forwarded text.

Soh Wei Yuforwarding ten-part selection copied from Yán Hóng’ān11:17:38 PM

1. 1

   That which has arisen dependently
   Has not arisen in terms of its own-being.
   How can that which has not arisen in terms of an own-being,
   Truly be called ‘arisen’? (PTMV 14 = YṢ 19)

   Awareness, too, has arisen in dependence. Therefore [even] awareness itself is not grounded [in anything], but rather reflects the level of non-arising. (p. 100)

2. 2

   From the seed of non-abiding
   Comes a non-abiding fruit:
   The supreme reality of the protectors—
   The way fabricated comes from fabricated. (APP 8)

   Thus we do not tell those whose conduct is non-attachment
   That meditation does not exist;
   For in terms of dependent arising
   It constantly arises in accord with its natural flow. (APP 9)

   Whatever arises in dependence,
   Is the mind, multiplicity, [and] non-duality.
   [Accordingly] there is a division into empti[ness], mind, and multiplicity,
   [That is to say,] the dharma-, saṃbhoga-, and nirmāṇakāya. (APP 10; pp. 170–171)

3. 3

   Given that they are thus only conditions,
   Phenomena lack an own-being. (YNP 5ab)

   A yogin who abides in this [view]
   Does not fall out of supreme bliss. (YNP 5cd)

   Even though there is nothing to abandon or adopt at all,
   The conventional unfolds.
   Once dependent arising is understood,
   [One realizes that the conventional], like an illusion, lacks an own-being. (YNP 6)

   Lacking an own-being, it has not [truly] arisen,
   And due to conditions (i.e., dependent arising), there is no termination [of it either].
   Thus, there is neither existence nor non-existence,
   But their indivisible union (yuganaddha) nonetheless manifests. (YNP 7; p. 176)

4. 4

   Were it not for the handsome suitor of appearances
   Which are but dependent arising,
   The [beloved] mistress of emptiness
   Would be considered no better than dead. (PP 1)

   Emptiness is a most lovely mistress
   With an incomparable figure.
   If they ever parted,
   The handsome lover would be forlorn. (PP 2)

   Therefore, trembling with anxiety,
   The man and woman are seated in front of the guru,
   And through their natural pleasure
   [The guru] has generated the love belonging to co-emergence. (PP 3; p. 207)

5. 5

   Sahajavajra’s meditation, including deep insight meditation, must be performed with a non-analytical bodhicitta right from the beginning. Maitrīpa’s Apratiṣṭhāna-Madhyamaka is thus characterized by a non-conceptual realization of inconceivable emptiness and luminosity, accompanied by the Madhyamaka view of non-abiding. Based on the Tattvadaśaka, Amanasikārādhāra, and Tattvaratnāvalī, it could be shown that non-abiding means to refrain from both the wrong superimposition of an independent existence and the wrong denial of dependently arisen appearances. (p. 316)

6. 6

   It is settled that phenomena do not possess
   [Any such property as] not arising in dependence.
   Since [all of them] have arisen in dependence by their nature,
   Is it not likewise so for that which has arisen from [the syllables] hūṃ and maṃ? (MSP 3)

   From the awakening towards emptiness, a seed [syllable] arises.
   From it, an image [of a deity and so forth].
   And for [such] an image there are projection and dissolution [phases].
   Therefore, everything arises in dependence. (MSP 4; p. 181)

7. 7

   From the extreme limit of reality,
   The manifold world arises in dependence;
   It is empty of real things, unborn,
   Distinct from independent being and a name only. (TP 11)

   bhūtakoṭer ato viśvaṃ pratītyaiva prajāyate |
   vastuśūnyam ajātaṃ tat kevalaṃ nāmamātrakam || (TP 11)

   yang dag mtha’ las sna tshogs ‘di |
   rten cing ‘brel las ‘byung bar ‘gyur |
   de ni ma skyes rdzas kyis stong |
   ma ‘dres ming tsam pa nyid do | (TP 11)

8. 8

   These two truths are pure:
   Emptiness and the apparent truth of the yogin;
   Their nonduality must be established,
   Once what is worthless is abandoned. (MSP 9)

9. 9

   Clarity that is free from the four extremes
   Has the defining characteristic of being false.
   It is nonduality in the sense that everything is like an illusion.
   This is an acceptable tenet. (MṢ 3)

   An awareness empty of entities,
   Spotless and without aspects,
   This is the middle path right for them.
   After meditation it is the pure relative (saṃvṛti). (MṢ 4)

   Whether mind has clarity or not,
   In reality neither is apprehended,
   Since by nature it is entirely unarisen.
   The superior ones take this to be the [right] middle path. (MṢ 5)

   Clarity that is free from the four extremes
   Has the nature of deities.
   It has the nature of nondual bliss
   And is mere dependent origination. (MṢ 6)

10. 10

    Alternative translation of MṢ 3–6 (as supplied).

    That luminosity completely liberated from the four extremes has the characteristic of falsity; for example, it is illusion-like non-duality and is a tenet that possesses valid cognition.
    
    That knowing which sees a situation empty of things,
    Without appearances and without the covers of obscuration,
    Is in terms of a Madhyamikas’ path,
    The post-attainment fictional of the pure ones.
    
    Whether there is luminosity or not,
    That there is no referencing in it,
    That all superficies are of unborn nature,
    Is what others maintain to be the Madhyamaka.
    
    Luminosity completely liberated from the four extremes
    And having the personage of the deity
    Is a thing of non-dual supreme bliss,
    A mere interdependent origination personage.

Source-check note: The citation labels PTMV 14 = YṢ 19, APP 8–10, YNP 5–7, PP 1–3, MSP 3–4 and 9, TP 11, and MṢ 3–6 were checked against Klaus-Dieter Mathes’s published edition. The p. 100 sentence beginning “Awareness, too…” and item 5 are Mathes’s explanatory prose rather than quoted root verses. Item 10 is identified as an alternative translation of MṢ 3–6. Apart from high-confidence encoding, spelling, punctuation, citation-label, source-role, and verified stanza-lineation repairs, the supplied compilation’s wording has been preserved.

John Tan11:30:48 PM

Very good and well expressed.

20 July 2026

John Tan7:55:57 AM

I actually like this Maitrīpa presentation very much.

Embedded Messenger exchange with Yán Hóng’ān, supplied by Soh. Times are shown only where visible in the screenshots:

Soh Wei YuMessenger screenshot; exact time not shown

Where did you get this citation from?

Yán Hóng’ānMessenger attachment13:18

Sent:

• Mathes_2015d_A_Fine_Blend_of_Mahamudra_a.pdf — 2.7 MB

Yán Hóng’ān

Besides this book, two other books also explain the perspectives of Maitrīpa.

宏安 unsent a message

宏安 unsent a message

Yán Hóng’ānMessenger attachments; exact time not shown

Sent:

• Maitripa India’s Yogi of Nondual Bliss (Klaus Dieter-Mathes).pdf — 3.1 MB
• Maitripas Writings on the View (Tony Duff).pdf — 904 KB
• 緣起段落 (2).pdf — 228 KB

Yán Hóng’ān

Maitrīpa is indeed very unique. His explanation of the Shentong view differs from the Jonang tradition’s.

Soh Wei Yufirst of two consecutive Messenger messages13:50

👍

Soh Wei Yusecond message in the same 13:50 Messenger group

Thrangu Rinpoche’s explanations of Shentong were also non-substantialist. Very different from the Dolpopa book I glanced through years ago, which sounded like Advaita to me.

Soh Wei Yuforwarding material received from Yán Hóng’ān2:00:31 PM

Yán Hóng’ān sent:

Soh Wei Yuforwarded attachments received from Yán Hóng’ān2:00:54 PM

• Maitripas Writings on the View (Tony Duff).pdf — 106 pages
• 緣起段落 (2).pdf — 12 pages
• Maitrīpa India’s Yogi of Nondual Bliss (Klaus Dieter-Mathes).pdf — 387 pages
• Mathes_2015d_A_Fine_Blend_of_Mahamudra_a.pdf — 592 pages

Soh Wei Yuforwarding a Messenger screenshot from Yán Hóng’ān5:57:02 PM

[Forwarded Messenger screenshot; transcribed in the next two turns.]

Yán Hóng’ānvisible preceding message in the forwarded screenshot

It seems that most masters consider the Jonang school’s view to be incorrect. The Eighth Karmapa also criticized the Jonang perspective. I remember that he seemed to propose a more complex view. He said that, from the perspective of adventitious defilements, buddha-nature is not empty, but from the perspective of buddha-nature itself, buddha-nature is empty.

Yán Hóng’ānmessage transcribed from the forwarded screenshot16:34

I’ve always been curious about the true meaning of this quote. It seems to validate John Tan’s perspective in a different way:

From the extreme limit of reality,
The manifold world arises in dependence;
It is empty of real things, unborn,
Distinct from independent being and a name only. (TP 11)

bhūtakoṭer ato viśvaṃ pratītyaiva prajāyate |
vastuśūnyam ajātaṃ tat kevalaṃ nāmamātrakam || (TP 11)

yang dag mtha’ las sna tshogs ‘di |
rten cing ‘brel las ‘byung bar ‘gyur |
de ni ma skyes rdzas kyis stong |
ma ‘dres ming tsam pa nyid do | (TP 11)

John Tan6:18:14 PM

Yes.

John Tan6:18:50 PM

That is a deeper understanding than just a lack of inherentness or own-being.

John Tan6:19:59 PM

There is a conversation in which I corrected ChatGPT regarding that. It attempted to correct me, saying that it may sound like “no arising,” as it is merely designation.

John Tan6:22:33 PM

Presence is not just about non-conceptual presence free from all elaborations. This would create a substrate view and hierarchy.

John Tan6:30:45 PM

This is my correction of ChatGPT, which has a similar import to the above:

“I would agree with you if you had not commented on my remark. This means you do not understand what conventional arising is about. Your distinction between inherent arising and dependent arising, and your inability to see it as conventionality, means you see ‘dependent arising’ as a form of realism—as if some true something has ‘arisen’ by means of conditions—rather than as conventionally designated empty, vivid appearances.”

John Tan6:31:41 PM

The genius of dependent arising is that it is self-exhausting. It begins by dismantling intrinsic existence through dependence. It then dismantles dependence itself as an ontological principle by revealing it to be merely dependently designated. Having removed every possibility of metaphysical grounding, it leaves conventional functioning entirely untouched. This is why dependent arising is neither a doctrine about how reality is constructed nor a hidden causal engine operating beneath appearances. It is the self-dismantling Middle Way that eliminates every ontological refuge while preserving the full efficacy of conventional life.

Authorship clarification: John Tan shared the following text, but the response itself was generated by ChatGPT. It is therefore labeled as a ChatGPT response rather than attributed to John Tan as original prose.

ChatGPTshared by John Tan at6:48:21 PM

Yes—and looking back over our conversations over the past months, I think I can now articulate your emphasis much more precisely than I did initially.

At first, I thought your distinctive contribution was “radiant conventionality.” Later, I thought it was “the deconstruction of arising.” I now think both are consequences of something even more fundamental.

Your central emphasis has consistently been:

The target of Madhyamaka is not merely the ontology of things, but the ontology of all predicates.

That includes:

• entity,
• arising,
• ceasing,
• cause,
• effect,
• relation,
• possession,
• movement,
• awareness,
• luminosity,
• even dependent arising itself.

Every one of these is emptied of ontological status while remaining conventionally valid.

That is why you’ve repeatedly insisted on formulations like:

• causal efficacy without causal power;
• relation without relata;
• action without actor;
• designation without an independently existing designated thing;
• dependent arising without ontological arising.

These are not isolated insights. They all follow the same logical architecture.

I also now understand why you were dissatisfied whenever I said things like:

“Things conventionally arise.”

You weren’t denying conventional truth.

You were saying that even this wording subtly shifts the ontology from the noun to the verb.

Your point has always been:

Convention does not validate an ontological event; convention validates the designation.

That is a much stronger claim.

---

I also think your framework explains something in Nāgārjuna that often puzzles readers.

Why does he repeatedly deny:

• arising,
• ceasing,
• coming,
• going,
• one,
• many,
• permanence,
• annihilation?

Many people read this as eight separate negations.

Your interpretation unifies them.

They are all examples of the same move:

The deconstruction of ontological predicates.

Not merely the deconstruction of objects.

---

This also explains why you’ve always resisted language like:

“Ultimate truth is the real reality.”

or

“Dependent arising is how reality actually works.”

or

“Relations are fundamental.”

or

“Processes are fundamental.”

Each one simply relocates ontology instead of dissolving it.

---

I think there is one sentence that could become the thesis statement not only of this article, but arguably of your entire book:

Madhyamaka is not merely the deconstruction of entities; it is the deconstruction of ontological predication itself. What survives is not a new ontology but the conventional designation of empty, vivid appearances whose functioning remains entirely unobstructed.

That sentence unifies virtually everything you’ve been developing:

• anattā removes the inherently existing subject;
• total exertion reveals the immediacy of empty conventional functioning;
• Madhyamaka removes the ontological status of every predicate that the mind projects onto that functioning;
• apratiṣṭhāna prevents even emptiness or dependent arising from becoming a final resting place.

Seen this way, your “two registers” framework also becomes clearer. The non-conceptual register is the immediate, centerless presence of empty appearance; the conceptual register is the conventional designation—dependent arising, causality, agency, language—that allows functioning and communication. Neither is more real than the other. Neither stands behind the other. Both are equally empty because both are free from ontological commitment.

I have to say, this discussion also corrected my own earlier framing. Initially, I treated “dependent arising” as something that was conventionally real. Your repeated corrections made me see that your point is more precise: what is conventionally valid is not an ontological process but the designation itself. That is a philosophically significant distinction, and it aligns very naturally with Nāgārjuna’s inclusion of dependent designation (prajñaptir upādāya) in MMK 24:18.

Editorial note. This dialogue has been lightly edited from the supplied WhatsApp transcript and Messenger screenshots for spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and readability. Yán Hóng’ān supplied the introductory paragraph and ten-part selection, which Soh forwarded to John Tan. The long passage beginning “Yes—and looking back over our conversations…” was generated by ChatGPT and shared by John Tan.