Message sent to someone, partly based on what John Tan wrote (see Chinese translation below):
Yes. The natural state is free from all elaboration and
therefore does not involve dualities. However, merely being free of the perceiver-perceived/subject–object
duality does not equal the “natural state.”
In the course of practice, we must clearly distinguish
between “experience” and insight/“prajñā wisdom.”
When someone experiences the exhaustion of both mind and
phenomena, perceiver and perceived, this is only an “experience,” similar to 坐忘/“sitting and forgetting.” It is a
state or stage that has entry and exit.
Wisdom, on the other hand, is a capacity that penetrates
confusion regarding perceived and perceived/subject and object, cause-effect,
coming and going, and discerns the true nature of all that appears. It is not
an experience, a stage, or a state to be “achieved.”
Therefore, we should not mistake a nondual state for the
“natural state.” The emphasis should be on the “wisdom” that uproots ignorance.
What is unique about Buddhism is its teaching on dependent
origination (缘起) and
emptiness. Buddhism skillfully employs these, through the Middle Way, to help
us see through all dualities and the grasping at inherency and intrinsic
identity, thus awakening the mind.
In other words, Buddhism wants us to deeply inquire into and
directly realize “dependencies” and “emptiness.”
An example of using dependencies to negate without falling
to extremes would be mind and matter. If “mind” depends on “matter,” and
“matter” depends on “mind,” then if there were no matter, how could “mind”
still be “mind”? And vice versa—what does this imply?
Does it mean that mind is matter, hence everything is
matter, or everything is mind?
Or does it mean there is some “stuff that is mind” and some
“stuff that is matter,” interacting with each other?
If neither of these is so, then what are dependent
origination and emptiness actually pointing to?
“Gathas on the Transmission of Teachings of the Seven
Buddhas - Verse of Visvabhu Buddha
Borrowing the four great elements as the body;
The mind, originally unborn, arise in dependence on cognitive phenomena.
Without these phenomena, there would be no mind.
Both sin and merits are like illusions that arise and vanish.”
Even after subject and object vanish, one can still fall into either subjective
idealism or materialism/physicalism, but neither is ultimate. For example, the
nondualism (Advaita Vedanta) of Hinduism advocates a kind of “subjective
idealism,” asserting that all subject–object distinctions dissolve into one true
essence of awareness, that the entire universe is Brahman. In the West, there
is a (non-Buddhist) new movement called “Richard’s Actual Freedom teaching,”
which—after the dissolution of subject and object—leans toward materialism (the
view that matter alone is real). These differ from that wisdom of dependent
origination and emptiness which neither aligns with any extreme nor remains
bound by any view of inherent nature—whether of person and thing, subject and
object, or any phenomenon.
For substantialists, they must seek some fundamental
essence behind the diverse phenomena—something that unifies all things under a
single substance, be it called qi, energy, matter, field, consciousness, or an
ultimate principle of awareness.
But for non-substantialists, they are not interested
in reducing or resolving all clear appearances to energy, field, qi, matter, consciousness,
or an awareness essence, nor do they fret over “If matter and awareness differ
in essence, how do they interact?”—a puzzle faced by substantialists.
From the non-substantialist perspective, different
phenomena do not need to share the same essence to interact. It suffices that
they are empty of any intrinsic nature—coreless and essenceless. Precisely
because all are empty of essence, the characteristics that appear are merely a
“formation” (a manifestation of dependent origination).
Hence, the diversity of phenomena remains just as it is;
they are not resolved or reduced to a single, unified fundamental essence, nor do they need
to possess true existence. For example, a bell need not be “consciousness”/“awareness,”
nor does mind need to be “matter.”
Because there is no essence, the characteristics experienced
must a formation, a dependent arising. When essence is negated, bell, stick,
air vibrations, eye drum, consciousness seamlessly relate for sound to
originate as empty of essence means dependent arising.
For non-substantialists, the only “basis” is the appearance
itself. They stop plainly with what is presently seen as “self-luminous” and an
“empty happening,” without further positing or theorizing an ultimate ground or
foundation. In other words, it is only the luminous-empty appearance.
Therefore, in the non-substantialist worldview, we only need
empty, self-luminous displays and nominal conventions to designate diverse
phenomena in order to explain their functions. These conventional designations
are precisely the building blocks of what non-substantialists call the
conventional world.
Moreover, from the non-substantialist perspective, “interconnection”
or “interaction” is understood in terms of “relationalities,” without positing
any kind of medium or carrier through which signals must travel.
For example, if in a certain world everything were uniformly
blue, then “blue” itself would not appear. Only when another color appears does
blue “magically” manifest—and it is not an independently existing entity, but
something that arises purely through contrasting relationship.
Likewise, if everything moved at the same speed in the same
direction, “motion” would not appear. Only when there is a difference in speed
does “motion” become evident.
In such a situation, there is no hidden “carrier” conveying
that difference—it is purely a relational effect.
When inherent-ness or “thingness” is absent, the role of
nominal conventions becomes the building blocks of what we call the “world.”
Thus, Buddhism is not just an “Awareness teaching” that
exclusively emphasizes direct authentication of one’s radiance clarity, even
though that is indeed one aspect of the awakening process.
Zen Master Mazu Daoyi said:
“The myriad forms of the entire universe are the seal of the
single Dharma. Whatever forms are seen are but the perception of mind. But mind
is not independently existent. It is co-dependent with form.”
In Bodhidharma’s Treatise on the Awakening of the
Mind (悟性论),
it says:
“Seeing with insight, form is not simply form, because form
depends on mind. And, mind is not simply mind, because mind depends on form.
Mind and form create and negate each other. … Mind and the world
are opposites, appearances arise where they meet. When your mind does not stir
inside, the world does not arise outside. When the world and the mind are both
transparent, this is the true insight.’”
(Also see link: Some Zen Masters’ Quotations on Anatman)
I also like this passage from Master Xuyun:
“In truth, ‘spirit’ is matter, matter is mind, and mind is
also spirit; yet spirit is not truly spirit, matter is not truly matter, and
mind is not truly mind. The Buddha pointed out that in the Three Realms (the
universe), not a single phenomenon is truly established; all arise from the
delusions of the true mind, giving rise to myriad phenomena. ‘True mind’ itself
is nothing more than a provisional name posited in contrast to those delusory
phenomena.
…
Hence we see that matter is mind, existence is nonexistence,
form is emptiness, delusion is truth, affliction is bodhi, and sentient beings
are all buddhas.
When one thought is confused, mind becomes matter,
nothingness becomes something, emptiness becomes form, truth becomes delusion,
bodhi becomes affliction, and buddhas become sentient beings—just as water
surging becomes waves. But when a single thought awakens, matter is not
separate from mind, something is not separate from nothing, form is not
separate from emptiness, delusion is not separate from truth, affliction is not
separate from bodhi, and sentient beings are not separate from buddhas—like the
waves calming back into the still water. Moreover, because of confusion, we
posit matter, existence, form, delusion, affliction, and sentient beings as
pairs in mutual opposition. Accordingly, we establish the provisional names of
mind, nothingness, emptiness, truth, bodhi, and buddhas.
If there were no confusion to begin with, the provisional
terms for matter, form, delusion, existence, affliction, and sentient beings
would have no basis, and likewise mind, nothingness, emptiness, truth, bodhi,
and buddhas. So all talk of ‘mind only’ or ‘matter only,’ or whether there is
or is not a god—all of that is simply the discriminating thoughts of the
conceptual mind.
Some say: ‘If that’s so, then Buddhism is a ‘mind-only’/idealist
philosophy too!’ While Buddhism does speak of “mind only,” it differs greatly
from philosophical idealism. Philosophical idealism clings to the existence of
mind and denies matter—a stance the Buddha described as taking the grasping
mind as one’s nature and mistaking the illusory thoughts of birth and death for
reality. Materialism, by contrast, clings to the existence of matter and denies
mind—which the Buddha called an upside-down approach, mistaking matter as
oneself, moving in cycles of birth and death, and thus perpetuating one’s own
confusion. Theism divides matter and spirit into two completely separate
worlds—which the Buddha called confusing the One Mind with the physical body,
mistaking a single wave for the entire ocean. Each of these views is
partial—like someone who sees the shadow of a cow and takes it for the real
cow; or someone looking through a tube, glimpsing only the cow’s horn and
thinking the horn is the entire cow, or seeing only the head and thinking that
is the whole cow. There is nothing “wrong” per se, except that the entire real
cow is not seen. Buddhism traces back to the source and clearly points out the
actual white ox, and anyone who follows its pointing will see the entire real
ox. Hence, if we wish to remedy the biases of idealism and materialism, we must
rely on Buddhism.”
—From Master Xuyun’s Dharma teaching to Chiang Kai-shek: Master Xuyun Discusses Idealism
Elder Yuan Yin also said:
“7th line: ‘Asked: from where does the mind arise? It arises
due to conditions.’
‘The mind originally has no arising; it arises because of
external conditions!’ This is said to be a maxim of Buddha Vishvabhu (毗舍浮佛). Our mind—i.e., thought—does not
exist on its own. It arises when encountering an external object, which then
produces an internal image that we cling to, generating all kinds of delusion.
This mind is called the ‘assembled mind,’ arising from the conjunction of mind
and objects; it is nothing but the reflection of the six sense objects,
entirely illusory without any real substance.
The saying in the sutras that ‘All is created by mind alone’
and that ‘The three realms are only mind; the myriad dharmas are only
consciousness’—the word ‘mind’ here refers to this illusory reflective mind
that arises due to external conditions. Thus, it is also part of the external
world, also an object; it is not separate from matter. We must not mistake it
as a subjective mind that governs the world, regarding it as some kind of “true
god” to be treasured. In our practice, we must neither cling to the myriad
external phenomena nor to these illusory reflections. We should eradicate both
body–mind (internally) and the world (externally). Only then will the
wondrously clear true mind come forth. On the other hand, if we mistake this
illusory mind for a substantial, subjective entity, we obscure the true nature.
Therefore, when we say ‘All is created by mind alone,’ we treat that ‘mind’ as
an objective target for elimination; it is absolutely not presented as the
master-controller of the myriad things. We hope all students of Buddhism
understand this clearly and not misunderstand.
8th line: ‘Objects are not truly existent—both mind and
objects are mere illusions!’
The sutra says: ‘Mind is not mind in itself; it is mind due
to objects. Objects are not objects in themselves; they are objects due to
mind.’ This sums up the interdependent, mutually-establishing relationship
between mind and objects. Since mind arises because of objects, objects
likewise cannot exist independently of mind. The notion of “objects” arises
through causes and conditions and has no independent essence. Think of how an
image reflected in a mirror, despite myriad differences in shape, cannot appear
without the mirror’s reflective light. Likewise, objects cannot be established
without mind. Even if there are marvelous sights, without a mind to perceive
and appreciate them, they might as well not exist. Since objects are not
objects in themselves, how can they declare themselves “wondrous scenery”? Mind
and objects arise in mutual dependence; absent one, the other cannot stand.
Therefore, both object and mind are not ultimately real but empty illusions.
Some people might argue: ‘All the things in this Saha World
are the karmic results of defiled beings and thus illusory; you might say
they’re illusions. But consider the Western Pure Land, which was manifested by
countless eons of Amitābha Buddha’s dedicated practice, perfecting merits to
create a pure realm for saving sentient beings. Shouldn’t that be truly
existent, and not just an illusion?’
This is indeed a topic worthy of careful discussion. Many
people now practice Pure Land, and if they do not understand the real meaning
of the Pure Land or what it actually is, it’s difficult to get real traction in
their practice—let alone attain the profound samādhi of Buddha-remembrance and
achieve upper-grade rebirth.
On the phenomenal level, the Saha World is the evil fruit of
five impurities (karmic results of beings), whereas the Pure Land is a pure
world manifested by Amitābha’s completed vows and accumulated merits; hence the
Saha realm is defiled and ugly while the Pure Land is sublime and
splendid—markedly different. Yet since a “realm” arises from the mind, there is
no realm apart from mind, nor mind apart from the realm; mind is the
realm, the realm is mind. Thus the sutra says: ‘If you wish to purify
your land, first purify your mind.’ ‘When the mind is pure, the Buddha-land is
pure.’ This is to teach us what the Pure Land really is, so that we know how to
practice effectively rather than chasing an external form and going astray.
Since there is no land apart from mind, and no mind apart
from land—mind and land cannot be separated. The one, true Dharma-realm (the
true mind) is neither increased by saints nor decreased by ordinary beings.
Thus, the Pure Land, though pure, and the Saha World, though defiled, are
equally manifestations of the same true mind—like reflections in a mirror.
Though some reflections are calm and others turbulent, they are all, in the
end, like the moon in water—ungraspable. One should not claim that the Pure Land,
being a purer reflection, is therefore truly obtainable…
… Therefore, we need only recognize that all forms, sounds,
and other sense objects are reflections of one’s own true mind—like images in a
mirror. We do not cling to them. At the same time, true mind is unobtainable
apart from these phenomena of sense objects; just as a mirror’s reflection is
the mirror’s light itself, so mirror-light is not apart from its reflection. In
this way, we do not abandon anything. By constantly practicing such
observation, the mind becomes empty and unburdened, functioning freely without
seeking or grasping—this is the natural Buddha! No need to wait for some ideal
time or condition. I advise everyone, while you are young and vigorous, seize
the moment and practice diligently. Do not let time slip by, or you will only
lament in vain when youth has passed! Treasure this!”
-----
Chinese:
是的。自然状态远离一切戏论,因此并无二元对立。然而,仅仅是摆脱能所二元的状态,并不等同于「自然状态」。
在修行中,我们必须清楚地区分「经验」与「般若智慧」。
当有人经历到心与现象都消融、能所双亡,这只是一种「经验」,类似「坐忘」。它是一种可以进入也可以退出的状态或阶段。
智慧则是一种能力,能够洞穿能所、因果、来去的迷惑,了知所显现的一切之本质。它并不是一种经验、一个阶段或某种可以「达成」的状态。
因此,我们不应将不二的状态误认为「自然状态」,而应着重于能够根除无明的「智慧」。
佛教的独特之处在于缘起与空性。佛教非常巧妙地运用缘起和空性,通过中道来帮助我们洞穿各种二元对立和自性执,从而令心识觉醒。
也就是说,佛教希望我们深入探究并亲见「互依」/缘起与「空性」。
举个例子,心与物质之间的相互依赖可以帮助我们破除执见而不落入极端。如果「心」依赖「物质」,而「物质」也依赖「心」,那么如果没有物质,「心」还能是「心」吗?反之亦然,这意味着什么?
这是否意味着心就是物质,因此一切都是物质,或一切都是心?
或者说,有某种「心的部分」和「物质的部分」在相互作用?
如果也不是这样,那么缘起与空性究竟在指向什么呢?
佛经云:“心不自心,因物故心;物不故物,因心故物”。“心本无生因境有”
能所消亡后,还可能陷入唯心主义或唯物主义,但这些都不是究竟。就像印度教的不二论(Advaita Vedanta)所主张的一切能所消融于一真觉体的“主观唯心主义”,宇宙皆是梵,或者西方有一种(非佛教)新的教派叫做“Richard‘s Actual Freedom teaching”,能所消融后却偏向了唯物……这与那种既不归于任何一极、却能解脱一切自性见、人与物、主与客、一切法等等的缘起、空性智慧截然不同。
对于实质论者(substantialist),他们必须为多样的现象寻求某种根本的本质,以期将其万物从这一本体统一起来,不管这种本质被称作气、能量、物质、场或意识、或究竟觉体。
但对于非实质论者(non-substantialist)而言,他们并不关心要将所有明晰显现都归结为能量、场、气、物质、意识、觉体等某种终极实体;也不会纠结于“若物质与觉本质不同,它们如何相互作用”的难题——这是实质论者面临的问题。
在非实质论的视角下,各种现象之间并不需要拥有相同的本质才能互动,只要它们空无自性(无核心本质)即可。正因一切皆无自性(essenceless)、无核心(coreless),本身所呈现出的特征就只是一个“缘起(formation)”。
因此,所有多样的现象依旧如其所是,并不会被化约到某种统一的根本本质,或者说它们并不需要具有真实存在。比如,钟并不需要是「觉体」,心也不需要是「物质」。
由于无有本质,所体验到的特征就必然是一种「形成」或「缘起的显现」。当“本质”被否定时,钟、棒、空气振动、耳膜、觉知才会无碍地彼此关联,从而使声音得以生起——因为空无本质意味着它们是相互相依、缘起而生的。
对非实质论者而言,一切的“基础”就是显现本身。他们仅仅停留在当下所见的「自明(self-luminous)」与「空性地发生(empty happening)」——并不再去推断或假设一个本体或根基。换言之,只是明空的显现而已。
因此,在非实质论的世界观里,只需要空性的、自明的显现,以及以“名言共许”来指称多样的现象,用于说明各种功能即可。这些名言约定正是非实质论者所说的世俗世界之构造基石。
此外,所谓的“互联”或“互动”,在非实质论的角度看来,是以“关系性(relationalities)”来理解的,并不需要假设某种媒介或载体来传递信号。
举例来说,如果在一个世界里,一切都统一呈现为蓝色,那么“蓝色”本身并不会显现。只有当出现另一种颜色时,蓝色才会“魔术般”地显现出来——但它并不是独立存在的实体,而是纯粹由于对比关系而呈现。
同理,如果一切都以同样的速度、同样的方向运动,那么“运动”也不会被显现。唯有速度出现差异时,“运动”才会变得明显。
在这里,并不存在什么隐藏的“载体”来传递这种差异——它本质上完全是一个“关系性”的效应。
在没有固有性/自性(inherentness)或物性(thingness)的情况下,名义约定所扮演的角色便成为构成我们所谓“世界”的基石。
因此,佛教并非那种仅强调直接验证个体光明清晰(“觉知”)的“觉知教学”(“Awareness teaching”),尽管这确实是觉醒过程的一部分。
马祖道一禅师: “森罗万象,一法之所印;凡所见色,皆是见心;心不自心,因色故有。“
达摩祖师在《悟性论》中说:“色不自色,由心故色;心不自心,由色故心。是知心色两相,俱有生灭。有者有于无,无者无于有,是名真见。夫真见者,无所不见,亦无所见,见满十方,未曾有见。何以故?无所见故,见无见故,见非见故。凡夫所见,皆名妄想。若寂灭无见,始名真见。心境相对,见生于中。若内不起心,则外不生境,境心俱净,乃名为真见。作此解时,乃名正见。”
我也喜欢虚云法师的一段话:
“实则神即是物,物即是心,心亦是神;然神亦非神,物亦非物,心亦非心。佛明三界(宇宙)本无一法(事物)建立,皆是真心起妄,生万种法;“真心”亦不过因有妄物对待而立之假名。究其实,所谓真心亦非是。譬如大海,心是水,万法(万事万物)是波浪,平静者称为水,汹涌者称波浪,波浪平静时仍是水,水汹涌时又成波浪。又因有汹涌之波浪,故称不汹涌者为平静之水;假使根本不有汹涌之相,波浪之假名固不能立,平静之假名亦何由生立?亦不过吾人随意立之假名,相信鱼类或称水为空气。故知物即是心,有即是无,色即是空,妄即是真,烦恼即菩提,众生即诸佛。
一念迷惑时,心成物,无成有,空成色,真成妄,菩提成烦恼,诸佛成众生;如水汹涌时即波浪。若一念觉悟时,物不异心,有不异无,色不异空,妄不异真,烦恼不异菩提,众生不异诸佛;如波浪不汹涌时,仍是平静之水。又因迷惑而起物有、色、妄、烦恼、众生等对待,故立心、无、空、真、菩提、诸佛等假名。
若根本不有迷,则物、色、妄、有、烦恼、众生等假名,固不能立,即心、无、空、真、菩提、诸佛等假名,亦何有立?所谓唯心、唯物,有神无神,皆是识心分别计度耳。
或云:“若是,佛学亦唯心论耳!”佛学虽说唯心,然与哲学上之唯心论悬殊。哲学上之唯心论,于心执有,于物执无,释迦所谓以攀缘心为自性,执生死妄想认为真实者。唯物论者,于物执有,于心执无,释迦所谓颠倒行事,误物为己,轮回是中,自取流转者。唯神论者,划分物质实体与灵魂实体为截然不同之两个世界,释迦所谓惑一心于色身之内,认一沤体目为全潮者。各执偏见,或因近视,认牛之影像为牛;或以管窥牛,见牛角者则认牛角为牛,见牛头者,则认牛头为牛,本无不是,弊在不见真牛全体。佛教则溯本究源,将真实白牛清楚指出,若因指观牛,未有不见真牛全体者。故欲救唯心唯物论之偏闭,舍佛教莫属。” - 虚云法师给蒋介石开示的佛法:https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2024/12/master-xuyun-discusses-idealism.html
元音老人也说过:
” 第七句:‘问心何来?因境而起。’
‘心本无生因境有!’这是毗舍浮佛的名言?我人之心—即思想本来没有因对境而生起影像,执著不舍,才生起妄想,这就是心。这个心是根—心、尘—境集合而生起的,所以叫作‘集起为心’,它是六尘落谢的影子,纯属虚幻,无有实体。佛经中所说的‘一切唯心造’和‘三界唯心,万法唯识’的‘心’字就是指这个由客观外境反映而生起的虚幻影像心,所以它也是外境,也是客体,而且也不离物质,不可把它看作主观的心!当作主宰世界的真神而宝贝它。我们做功夫,既要不著森罗万象的外境!更要把这幻影妄心销尽。所谓内而身心,外而世界一起销殒,妙明真心,方才现前。反是,把这虚幻心当作主观实体!真性就被掩没不见了。因之!我们所说‘一切唯心造’的‘心’字!是把它视作被消灭的客观对象来处理的!并非说它是万物的主宰者,这要请广大学佛者搞清楚,不要误会才好!
第八句:‘境亦不有!同属幻影!’
经云:‘心不自心,因境故心;境不自境,因心故境。’这就把心与境,境与心的相因相成的关系说得一清二楚。心既因境而有,境亦不能离心独立,因境系因缘生!无有自体。比如镜影!虽有万别千差之相,如无镜光,影不能现;境亦如是,无心境无成,即或有美景佳境,无心领受鉴赏,有亦同无。以境不自境,不自谓为美妙胜境也。心与境既相对而生,离一即无,则境与心,皆非真实,同属虚幻之影明矣。或许有人要说,娑婆世界所有景物,皆我人共业所招的业果,假而非真,谓为幻影,可以说得;至于西方极乐世界,乃阿弥陀佛多生历劫精勤修行,为广大众生造福,积累功德,缘熟果满所感之真境,似不可谓为幻影。
关于这一点,确应好好讨论一下。因为现在修净土的人很多,如不把净土真相搞清楚,不明白净土究竟是怎么一回事,修行起来不易得力,更谈不到深证念佛三昧,上品往生了。
首先就相来说,娑婆是业障众生造业所招的五浊恶果,而极乐是弥陀愿满德圆所感的清净世界,故一是秽浊丑恶,一是美妙庄严,大有区别。但土从心生,离心无土,离土无心;心即土,土即心。故经云:‘欲净其土,先净其心!’‘随其心净,即佛土净!’是教我人识得净土为何物,好下手用功证取,以免徒取外相,流入歧途。
既然土外无心,心外无土,心土不相分离,而一真法界—真心—又在圣不增,在凡不减,则极乐净土系从净妙真心中流出,而娑婆秽土离清净佛性亦何可得?以是,极乐虽净,娑婆虽秽,同是真心中显现之影像,犹如镜光中显现之影,虽有形式之殊,净秽之别,但皆如水中之月,了不可得,绝不可因极乐为净月影而妄谓可得也。
。。。。
。。。所以只须识得一切色、声等尘境,俱是当人真心所现影像,如镜光所现镜影,不去取著;同时真心离尘境亦不可得,如镜影即是镜光,镜光不离镜影,故即亦无所舍。时时如此观照历练,心空意闲,任运自在,无求无得,即天真佛!还要等什么佳境良辰到来哩,奉劝大众,乘此年轻有为时,抓紧时机,努力奋斗,切莫唐丧光阴,坐失良机,待白了少年头,空悲切!珍重!“ - http://www.wmxf.net/nr/7/74727.html