Explanation of John Tan’s Comments

The Core Theme: Substantialism vs. Non-Substantialism 

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

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

Key Distinctions Breakdown

1. Seamlessness vs. Holism (The Apophatic Approach)

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

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

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

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

2. Interconnectedness: Dependence vs. Connectors

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

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

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

3. Madhyamaka & Non-Implicative Negation

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

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

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

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

4. Beyond "One or Many"

John explicitly targets the trap of "Oneness."

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

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

The Scientific/Physics Analogy

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

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

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

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

Practical Application (Meditative Experience)

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

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

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

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

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

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