我寫這封信是想澄清一個我認為可能對大圓滿（Dzogchen）（以及大手印，Mahāmudrā）有所誤解的地方。您提到大圓滿「尚未超越梵我意識」，保留了「本覺思想」的痕跡，並且其某些觀點類似於「創造者」。

多年來，我也曾認為大圓滿的見地傾向於不二吠檀多（Advaita in view），即使是一些當代流行上師的著作，也未能給我留下清晰的印象，讓我覺得大圓滿對無我（Anatman）、緣起（Dependent Origination）和空性（Emptiness）的見地是了義的。直到後來——接觸到阿闍梨馬爾科姆·史密斯（Acarya Malcolm Smith）的教導、翻譯和詳細解釋——我才明白大圓滿的原始文獻/密續（sources/tantras）是如何明確地簡別常見（eternalism）、任何創造者或實體基質（substratum）的論點，並且非常清晰地表達了無我和空性的洞見。我進而體會到，所有的佛教宗派（也許除了他空見，Shentong）的創始者都已證悟了這些相同的洞見（無我、緣起、空性），這一點在各傳承的原始文本中都有清晰的表達，但這並不意味著這些傳承中的大多數現代上師都正確地證悟了它們。

事實上，我們發現當今這些傳承中的許多（甚至大多數）上師，不僅是大圓滿和大手印，甚至在禪宗，乃至上座部佛教中，都宣揚著此類實體論（substantialist views）的觀點和靈性覺醒。儘管菩提達摩、惠能、道元和許多其他禪宗祖師的見地非常清晰，但過去和現在的許多禪宗老師似乎都持有實體論的觀點。同樣地，在上座部佛教中，儘管其經典對「無我」的闡述非常清楚，但有許多泰國森林派的大師執著於一個永恆的「知者」意識（Poo Roo, that which knows），這使他們與不二吠檀多（Advaita Vedanta）無異。因此，修行者和上師們往往未能深入體證佛法或徹見正見，儘管這並非傳承本身的問題。

關於大圓滿如何符合無我與空性，我在此處收集了相關筆記和討論以供參考：https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2025/10/blog-post_60.html

根據我的學習和實踐——尤其是在接觸到阿闍梨馬爾科姆·史密斯（Ācārya Malcolm Smith）的著作和其他原始資料後——（我理解到）大圓滿明確地否定了一個實體性的、創造者的、或類似梵（Brahman）的基礎。

以下是幾點附帶來源的說明，或有助益：

1) 大圓滿並非實體論；它否定一個單一、普世的基質（substratum）

• 在大圓滿中，「基」（gzhi）並不是一個所有眾生所共有的形而上實體。它的一貫描述中，並不意味著一個單一的世界基質（如「梵」）。馬爾科姆澄清說，雖然「基」在「體性」（nature）上是劃一的，但每個眾生的「基」對該眾生而言是獨特的，這就阻斷了導向一元論（monistic ground）的推論。 (awakeningtoreality.com)

引文：

Malcolm: “「基」（basis）不是一個背景。一切都與基密不可分。但這『一切』僅指你自己的五蘊（skandhas）、界（dhātus）和處（āyatanas）。在你的心之外沒有基，正如在你的心之外沒有佛果一樣。

［引用 gad rgyangs：意識永遠是一種現象。］基也是如此。它們都是『法』（dharmas）。

或者如《大鵬展翅》（Great Garuda）在反駁中觀時所說：

『現象與非現象本自任運融合且不可分離， 故無需再解釋一個「究竟現象」。』

一篇12世紀關於此文的評論（但非針對此段）中提到：

『奇妙的菩提心（一切的同一性，它成為追求那無法在自性明（vidyā）之外被看見或了悟的意義之基礎）完全是心的智慧，此心區別於九識且無自性。』

歸根結底，大圓滿真的只是另一種關於心和個人的佛教（冥想的）現象學，僅此而已。

gad rgyangs 寫道： 那為什麼還要談論『基』呢？只談五蘊、界、處，不就好了嗎。

馬爾科姆 寫道： 因為這些（蘊界處）被視為是煩惱（afflictive）的，而大圓滿試圖描述的是個人處於其本初無煩惱的狀態。真的就是這麼簡單。所謂的『總基』（general basis）是從個人的『別基』（particulars）中推演出來的『共相』（universals）。這就是為什麼它常被誤認為是一個超個人（transpersonal）的實體。但是大圓滿，尤其是密訣部（man ngag sde），是深深植根於佛教因明（Buddhist Logic）的，你應該知道，根據定義，『共相』在佛教中被認為是抽象的、非實存的（non-existents），大圓滿也不例外。

gad rgyangs 寫道： 『基』是不是一個實體，這點毫無疑問，這不是重點。明（Rigpa）的意義正如《耶謝桑塔爾》（yeshe sangthal）中所說：在『廣闊的空性維度』（隱喻）的『背景』（隱喻）中/裡，體驗到的當下臨在（instant presence）。

馬爾科姆 寫道： 這是你自己的明（rigpa），不是一個超個人的明，它是你自己心的功能。而那個心是空的。

gad rgyangs 寫道： 當一切顯相（appearances）都息滅時，你還剩下什麼？

馬爾科姆 寫道： 它們從未息滅....

gad rgyangs 寫道： 在《耶謝桑塔爾》中，你將所有顯相消融於『廣闊的空性維度』，『當下臨在』便由此升起。這是宇宙性的（cosmological）也是個人性的（personal），因為這兩個尺度是不二的。 明（rigpa）是本體論（ontological）上的，而非認識論（epistemic）上的：它無關乎二元對立（dualism）視覺之前的某種意識狀態，它關乎一切可能顯相的『基』/深淵（abgrund），包括我們處於任何狀態或可能處於任何狀態的意識。

馬爾科姆 寫道： 抱歉，我不同意你，我認為你正掉入印度教『梵』（brahman）的陷阱。

Sherlock 寫道： 『超個人』和『個人』之間的區別，難道不也是一種二元對立嗎？

馬爾科姆 寫道： 這個區別至關重要。如果不做此區分，大圓滿聽起來就像吠檀多（Vedanta）。

馬爾科姆 寫道： ［引用 gad rgyangs：在《耶謝桑塔爾》中，你將所有顯相消融於『廣闊的空性維度』，『當下臨在』便由此升起。這是宇宙性的（cosmological）也是個人性的（personal），因為這兩個尺度是不二的。］

『大遷轉身（great transference body）升起的方式是： 當一切顯相逐漸窮盡時， 当一個人專注於其覺知，觀照那散佈於 自己五指光明壇城上的顯相時， 宇宙的環境與眾生 從那顯相中返回，被感知為如水中之月。 自己的身體只是一個映像， 自顯為智慧的幻身； 遂得金剛身。 此人見到自己的身體內外透明。 他人的不淨之眼無法看到此人身體透明， 只能看到如其舊時之身...』

— 噶·當巴德協（Shabkar），《百三摩地門之鑰》（Key to One Hundred Doors of Samadhi）

即使證得了大遷轉身，外在的顯相也不會消失。消失的是內在的覺受（visions），那才是被窮盡的，而不是外在的宇宙及其行星、恆星、星系、山脈、海洋、懸崖、房屋、人群和有情眾生。

M

gad rgyangs 寫道： 我談論的是對『無』與『有』之間關係的感知。至於該用什麼術語來談論它，這是次要的，儘管這在歷史上不無趣味。

馬爾科姆 寫道： 明（Rigpa）只是『知』（knowing），是心的『知之特質』（noetic quality）。僅此而已。

馬爾科CM 寫道： 遍知（Omniscience）是解脫了煩惱的心之內涵。即使是佛的相續（continuum）也有一個相對的依據（ground），即，一串清明（clarity）的剎那（moments）是無始的。 『從自生起』在佛法中是公理上被否定的。 明相續中的每一剎那，與前一剎那既非相同，亦非相異。因此，任何一個特定剎那的明之『因』，既不能被解釋為它『自己』，也不能被解釋為『他者』。這是佛法在相對層面上最終唯一能承認的因果版本。這是佛陀洞見的邏輯必然結果：『此有故彼有，此生故彼生。』”

…

Malcolm:  “在 Trika（濕婆教派）中，宇宙的基礎是濕婆（Shiva），祂是真實存在的，因此一切源於濕婆的也都是真實存在的。這一點 Lakshmanijoo 在他對不二吠檀多的批判中說得很清楚。 當我說沒有普世的『基』時，我的意思是，大圓滿中所教導的『基』，並非一個本體上（ontologically）真實的、單一的、凌駕一切的（overarching）『基』。這個『基』［gzhi, sthana］是個人本自無造作（unfabricated）的心，它本自清淨，亦即『空』。大圓滿中的『普基』（kun gzhi, ālaya，阿賴耶）指的是心（mind）的那個積聚習氣（traces）的面向。”

Malcolm: “並沒有一個『普世的基』（universal basis）。然而，有一個『類別的基』（generic basis），它具有三個特性：體性（essence）、自性（nature）和大悲（compassion）。就像所有的『水』這個實例（instances）在類別上都具有『澄清、透明、濕潤』的特性一樣，每一個眾生的『基』都具有**『體性、自性、大悲』**這三者。用最簡單的話來說，所有眾生都擁有一個『體性』為『空』與『明』的意識。若從還原到最根本要點的角度來檢視，『基』就只是個人無造作的心，不多也不少。 所謂的『普基』（all-basis，阿賴耶）當然是指無明（imputing ignorance）。”

Malcolm:  “而這個所謂的『神』，也就是『基』[gzhi]，只是一個不存在的『僅僅顯相』（mere appearance），也就是說，我們的『本初潛能』（primordial potentiality）也同樣沒有真實的存在性，這一點在無數的大圓滿密續中一再被強調。

『若於空性有可能，則於一切有可能。 若於空性無可能，則於一切無可能。』

-- 龍樹（Nāgārjuna）。”

Malcolm:  “這與大圓滿的見地完全不符。大圓滿的見地是，根本沒有任何的『基』或『基礎』（basis or foundation）。此外，『二諦』（doctrine of the two truths）的教義在大圓滿中也是缺席的。再者，大圓滿的見地是，一切，包括佛果，都完全等同於一個幻相（illusion），因此是平等的（uniform）。”

Malcolm: “首先，是誰告訴你明（rig pa）不屬於五蘊（five aggregates）？明（Rig pa）是了知你自身的狀態。在其不淨的形式中，自身的狀態顯現為五蘊；在其清淨的形式中，它顯現為五佛部（five buddha families）。 龍樹（Nāgārjuna）通過使用八種譬喻（eight examples）解決了這個問題。沒有實質的傳遞（transmission），但有相續的連續性（serial continuity），就像從一盞火點燃另一盞火，在文件上蓋印章等等。見他關於緣起的偈頌：

『一切遷徙之眾生，皆是因與果。 然此處實無眾生； 僅有空性之諸法，全然產生自 僅是空性之諸法， 諸法無我亦無我所， ［猶如］言說、燈、鏡、印、 透鏡、種子、酸味與回音。 縱然諸蘊相續連結， 智者了知無物遷轉。 此外，彼人若於極微細之實有 強加『斷滅』（annihilation）見， 彼非智者， 亦將不見『緣起』義。』”

Malcolm: “相對（relative）的並不『依賴』於究竟（ultimate）的，因為它們只是對同一個體（entity）的不同認知，一個是虛假的，另一個是如實的（veridical）。 在由五蘊組成的有情眾生中，並不存在一個被稱為『佛性』的獨立實體。如果有人斷言如此，這個立場將與外道（nonbuddhists）的『我』（atman）無異。”

Malcolm: “沒有『體驗者』，因為沒有『主宰者』（agent）。僅僅只有『體驗』，而所有的體驗都是空的。”

“『除了已見和未見之外，沒有當下的『見』。』”

“重點是，如果沒有永恆的『主宰者』（agent）或『所緣境』（object），『常見』（eternalism）就毫無意義。”

“沒有『主宰者』（agent）。只有『行動』（actions）。”

他的開悟弟子凱爾·迪克森（Kyle Dixon）之前也寫道：“在你提到的系統中，大圓滿，『基』（ground）是藏文術語 gzhi 的一個翻譯選項。Gzhi 實際上並不是現象的『基礎』（ground），或諸如此類的東西。Gzhi 更像是道（path）與果（result）的『依據』（basis），我們看到 gzhi 被定位在『基（gzhi）、道（lam）、果（bras bu）』這三重框架中。 Gzhi 只是你心的體性（sems nyid），它被定義為『明空不二』（stong gsal dbyer med）。 用『Ground』（基礎）來翻譯 gzhi 其實相當容易引起誤導，並導致一些重大的混淆。Gzhi 真的只是指涉關於個人自心需要被認識的某個東西。 大圓滿的教法並不認為有一個『實相的基礎』（ground of reality），gzhi 也只是教學法上的（pedagogical）。《聲應成續》（sgra thal gyur tantra），作為大圓滿的關鍵解釋性文本，它說道： 『既無基亦無根，故安住於空性。』”

...

Lopon Malcolm： “在‘基’（藏文：གཞི gzhi）之中，存在一些中性的覺知（shes pa lung ma bstan），它們并沒有認出自身。（大圓滿文本實際上并未嚴格區分這個中性覺知究竟是一個還是多個。） 這種‘未認出自身’就是‘俱生無明’（先天無明）。 由于前一劫宇宙中累積的業行與煩惱習氣痕跡，“基”被攪動，五純凈光（Five Pure Lights）顯現出來。 當某個中性覺知認出那些光就是它自己的顯現時，那就是‘普賢王如來’（Samantabhadra）：也就是‘無須修任何善行就即時解脫’。 其他中性覺知并未認出那些光是自己的顯現，于是就把‘他者’安立在這些光上。 這種把‘自我/他者’安立出來的動作，就是‘安立無明’。 這種無明開啟了有情與輪回（即使在此之前并沒有造下不善）。 然而，一切都是如幻的，因為‘基’從未顯現為除‘五光’之外的任何別物。”

Kyle Dixon： “我當然傾向大圓滿體系，因為我一開始就在這個體系里；雖然我也涉獵其他傳統，但我的主要興趣一直仍在這里。 不過，我確實很欣賞大圓滿對于‘無明（avidyā）’的分層說明，因為它分成數個層次，正好解釋我正在討論的差異。

這當中有兩到三個層面（或方面）的無明，它們更像是我們對現象之本性的誤解所呈現的不同面貌。 重點在于：區分所謂‘俱生無明’（innate / connate ignorance）與所謂‘安立無明’（imputing ignorance）。

‘安立無明’就是對各種實體、經驗維度等進行安立與命名；而一個人的自我認同，正是由這種活動所造成的。

‘俱生無明’則是沒能如實現量地了知現象的本性——也就是對‘事物本然如是’的直接不認出。 這點很重要，因為你可以不存在‘安立無明’，卻仍舊留存‘俱生無明’。

這種區分甚至不會在“止”（śamatha，奢摩他）那樣的“止息安立”的境界里被看得很清楚。 但它可以在一些情境中非常清楚地顯露出來，比如當你從睡眠中醒來——也許是在一個陌生的地方、在度假途中，等等——甚至只是從一個很深的睡眠里醒來。可能會有那么幾秒鐘，你還不知道自己在哪里；然后，突然一切都回來了：你在哪、你今天打算做什么、你需要去哪里，等等。

在那些最初幾秒鐘里，你仍然是清醒的、在感知顯現；你仍然在直觀地體驗到“這個房間在外面”，“那些物體在那里”，仿佛它們和你是分離的。 那正是因為這種“未能如實認出現象之本性”的根本錯誤，是一種非常深的習氣，它制造出一個人造的“內 / 外”分裂——即使在當下并沒有活躍的“安立無明（概念安立）”。”

请参阅：《大圓滿的見與基》——大圓滿導師阿闍梨馬爾康·史密斯 https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2025/10/blog-post_60.html

2) 「本覺」（Original enlightenment / hongaku）並非大圓滿的見地

• 馬爾科姆對「本覺」（hongaku）的立場一直很明確：「絕對是錯誤的見地，即使在大圓滿中也是。」他補充說，「固有覺醒」（inherent awakening）作為一種字面上的、實體性的本質（essence）的想法，是「顯而易見的荒謬」。這些是他的原話，都有公開記錄。 (https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2022/07/original-enlightenment-and-is.html )
• 在馬爾科姆翻譯的大圓滿文本中，在他的書《即身成佛》（Buddhahood in This Life）裡，駁斥了許多關於大圓滿的錯誤見地，包括所有將『基』視為實有（substantially existent）或永恆（eternal）的錯誤觀點。其中一個被駁斥的瑕疵見地，便是認為『基』是自然圓滿的（naturally perfected）。

3) 「普作王」（Kunjed Gyalpo / Kūlayarāja）並非「創造者-神」的教義

• 大約14年前，我寫信給阿闍梨馬爾科姆·史密斯（Acarya Malcolm Smith），問他：“Namdrol 你好， 你提到了印度教的吠檀多... 我想到一個問題。 我半小時前才在另一個論壇上讀到某人的貼文：（ http://collectionofthoughts.com/bbpress/topic/1499/page/7... ）。 他/她（'star'）聲稱，根據大圓滿的觀點，一切都是『意識』，因此一切都是『真實』的。 你對此有何評論？ 此外，他/她還引用了《至高之源》（The Supreme Source）作為參考... 我個人對這本書也有一些疑問：書中某些部分將『意識』描述為一個『全能的創造者』（all-creating agent），這對我來說聽起來就像『神』。請問『緣起』（Dependent Origination）在這裡如何適用？”

馬爾科姆 寫道： “這個人把 Trika（濕婆教派）的不二見地與大圓滿搞混了。 「普作王」（all-creating king）的『心』，正如南開諾布仁波切（Norbu Rinpoche）所闡明的，是那個『沒有認出自己』的心，因此進入了輪迴，創造了它自己的輪迴體驗。 根據大圓滿的見地，所有『有為法』（conditioned phenomena）都是『無明』的產物，因此，並非一切都是『真實』的。那『無明』的基礎（basis）是『基』（basis），而『基』本身也未被建立為『真實』。 在大圓滿中，一切都是『不真實』的，從頭到底（from top to bottom）。大圓滿中的『基』，被描述為『空，且不以任何方式被建立（empty not established in any way at all）』。如果『基』不是真實的，那麼從『基』生起的任何事物也都不是真實的。 在大圓滿中，『緣起』始於對『基』的狀態的『無認識』（non-recognition），當此發生時，個體便進入了對『我』與『他』的執著，然後『緣起鍊』就開始了。”

Jean-Luc Achard 寫道： “《至高之源》（Supreme Source）不是一個大圓滿的概念。我不知道（好吧，我懷疑）他們為什麼選擇這個標題（對我來說太新時代了），但原文是「普作」（kun-byed，字面意思是「一切所作」），指的是『心』。所以『心』創造一切，這就是它的意思，它不是指某個地方的某個宇宙源頭，儘管英文標題聽起來可能如此。什麼可以被『圓滿』（perfected）？嗯，一個人『迷妄的心』（deluded mind）可以被圓滿，但肯定不是『自然狀態』（natural state）。沒有人說自然狀態需要被圓滿，它是人最終的『體』（essence），但我們的凡俗存有（ordinary being）並不是我們的『體』，它是迷妄的，充滿了無明，而這才是需要被『圓滿』的。”

请参阅：《大圓滿的見與基》——大圓滿導師阿闍梨馬爾康·史密斯 https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2025/10/blog-post_60.html

4) 明（Rigpa）/ 明（vidyā）並非永恆的見證者；連「明」（vidyā）本身亦會「窮盡」

• 阿闍梨馬爾科姆·史密斯曾描述，在大圓滿修行的成熟階段，「明」（vidya）/「明」（rigpa）（即「知」/「智」）會被「窮盡」（exhausted），屆時「明」（vidya）與「界」（dhatu，類似於「知」與「經驗場域」）會完全崩塌，呈 1:1 的同步（他當時用兩個圓圈合在一起的手勢來表示），而在那個「明之窮盡」的點之前，「明」與「界」之間存在著某種「相位不合」（out of phase）的問題。
• 他的學生凱爾（Kyle）確實告訴我，這與我所謂的「無我」（anatta）證悟是相同的。

此外，馬爾科姆提到，許多人誤以為「明」（Vidya）/「明」（Rigpa）是某種永恆不變、永遠持續下去的東西，但它後來也會與所有其他現象一起「窮盡」［儘管這並非「斷滅」（annihilation），因為顯相/淨觀（pure vision）仍會顯現］。 (awakeningtoreality.com)

请参阅：  https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2022/02/a-letter-to-almaas-on-dzogchen-and.html

5) 凱爾·迪克森（Kyle Dixon）論「自明」（self-luminous）與「自知」（self-knowing）：沒有隱藏的主體，也非與客體世界的合一

• 凱爾·迪克森——馬爾科姆告訴我他是第一位完全理解他教法的學生——解釋說：“「自明」和「自知」是用來傳達「不存在一個主觀參照點來調節顯相的展現」的概念。並非存在一個主觀的認知或「知者」在「照亮」客觀的顯相，而是了悟到：我們認知的純粹運作（sheer exertion），一直以來都僅僅是顯相本身的純粹運作。或者更確切地說，認知（cognition）和顯相（appearance）作為它們自身，並非有效（valid）。因為兩者都僅僅是被造作（fabricated）的特質，所以在尋找時，兩者都無法被驗證（validated）或找到。這並非主體和客體的「合一」（union），而是認識到主體和客體一開始就從未生起過［不二（advaya）］。”
• “認知是空的。這就是認識「心的體性」［sems nyid］的含義。心的「明」（clarity）［認知］被認識為「空」，這有時被解析為「明空不二」，或「不二的明與空」。” (awakeningtoreality.com)

6) 大手印（Mahāmudrā）同樣是非實體論的，並且對空性的見地非常清晰

• 大手印的教導（例如：第三世堪楚仁波切，Khamtrul Rinpoche III）指出了無我、空性和緣起的洞見。

“當下此刻，觀察者——覺知——是否與被觀察者——寂靜與運動——是分離的，還是說它其實正是那寂靜與運動本身？ 以自己的覺知之眼去探究，你會明白：正在探究本身的那個，就是寂靜與運動本身，毫無二別。 一旦這樣發生，你將體驗到清明的空性，呈現為天然光明的自知覺知。 最終，無論我們稱之為本性與光輝、不應取的與對治、觀察者與所觀、正念與念頭、寂靜與運動，等等，你都應當知道：每一對名詞兩邊并沒有差別；在得到上師的加持后，要如實確證它們本來就是不分離的。 最終，抵達無觀察者亦無所觀的廣大開敞界域，即是真義的現證，也是全部抉擇與分析的究竟圓滿。 這被稱為“超越概念之見”，它離一切概念分別而自由，亦被稱為“金剛心之見”。 “果位的毗缽舍那（觀照慧）就是對于‘觀察者與所觀不二’這一最終定解的正確現證。”

• “將諸法與空性不可分地禪修，被稱為“具足最勝相之空性”。由于不了解空性與緣起如何以不二而安住，你便認定空性是某種從未存在過的虛無，完全不受功德或過失所影響。于是你輕視善惡業因果，或者只是一味沉溺于“一切本自清凈、本初解脫”等說法之中。懷持這樣的空性，就無法通達緣起層面的世俗位。 在這一點上，所謂“大手印”（mahamudra）是指：自性本來無生，由于它既非有也非無，既非永恒也非全無，既非真實也非虛妄，亦非任何此類相狀，所以它根本沒有任何可安立的實有。然而，它那不間斷的光明流現，呈現為一切種類的緣起之世俗層面，因此這被稱為“空性具足緣起之核心，緣起具足空性之體性”。因此，空性并未偏離到“所知萬法的本性”之上。 正如《中論·根本中道頌》所說： 任何并非依緣而生之法， 皆是毫無真實存在的法。 因此，凡是不空之法， 也都是毫無真實存在的法。 又如《菩提心論疏》所說： 說明世俗即是空性， 而唯有空性正是世俗界。”

更多摘錄請見 https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2025/10/blog-post_52.html

Q: Don't you think Padmasambhava's realization is superior to the Buddha's because it leads to an immortal, indestructible Self? I disagree with the anattā view. After all, for the absence of subject and object to be seen, there must be a formless, limitless Subject—which is YOU—to observe it. Otherwise, who is reporting that experience?

Soh's reply:

Padmasambhava’s realization is the same as Buddha’s. Padmasambhava teaches: “ESTABLISHING THE INNER PERCEIVER AS WELL AS THE INDIVIDUAL SELF TO BE DEVOID OF A SELF-NATURE The Lamrim Yeshe Nyingpo root text says: The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or a self-entity. It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates Nor as identical with these five aggregates. If the first were true, there would exist some other substance. This is not the case, so were the second to be true, That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent. Therefore, based on the five aggregates, The self is a mere imputation by the power of ego-clinging.

Although the outer observed objects possess no true existence, doesn’t the inner observer, the mind, truly exist? No, it doesn’t. The mind has no existence apart from imputing such an existence upon the perpetuating aggregates and holding the belief in an ego, with the thought “I am!” Since the two kinds of self-entity are not separate from that, neither can their existence be established when examined by correct discriminating knowledge. When there is a belief in an “I” or a “self” it follows that its existence cannot be ultimately established, because it neither differs from nor is identical with the five aggregates. If, as in the first case, you could prove that there is a separately existing self, there would have to be a sixth aggregate of a substance different from the other five. Since such a knowable object is impossible, it would be like the name of the son of a barren woman. If the self were identical [with the five aggregates], then it would have to be of identical substance and, since the five aggregates have substantial existence while the belief in an “I” has imputed existence, their substances would be contradictory, like the concrete and inconcrete.

Again, to describe this in an easily understandable way: since the self cannot be observed as being some entity that is separate from the gathering of the five aggregates and also cannot be seen as being identical with them, the existence of the self cannot be established. In the first instance, [it is impossible for] the self to have any existence separate from the aggregates, because an additional sixth aggregate would then have to exist, because ego-clinging applies to nothing other than the aggregates. Moreover, as no concrete thing exists separate from the characteristics of the aggregates and, as an inconcrete thing cannot perform a function, the self cannot be established as existing separate from them.

Though the self does not exist separately in that way, can’t its existence be established, as in the second case, as identical with the aggregates? No, it cannot, because their characteristics are incompatible. In other words, all the aggregates are conditioned and therefore proven to be impermanent. This is contrary to the self, which is held to be permanent, as in the case of assuming that one knows now what one saw earlier. Furthermore, the aggregates are composed of categories with many divisions, such as forms, sensations, and so forth, while the self is believed to be singular, as in thinking “I am!” And finally, the aggregates verifiably depend on arising and perishing, while the self is obviously experienced to be independent, as in the thought “I am!” The Prajnamula describes this: If the self were the aggregates, Then it would arise and perish. But, if the self is different from the aggregates, It would have none of the aggregates’ characteristics.

You may now wonder, “Though the self does not exist, its continuity is permanent and can be proven to exist.” That is also not the case. The Two Truths says: The so-called continuity or instant Is false, just like a chain, an army, and so forth. While in reality possessing not even the slightest existence, the self, the individual, and so forth, are merely imputations made by the power of ego-clinging and are simply based upon the gathering of the five perpetuating aggregates.

Entering the Middle Way teaches: The self does therefore not exist as something other than the aggregates, Because it is not held as anything besides the aggregates.279 And again, in the same text: When uttering such words as “the aggregates are the self,” It refers to the gathering of the aggregates and not to their identity. The word “chariot,” for instance, is merely a label given to the gathering of parts, such as the wheels and the main beam of the chariot, while you find no basis for the characteristics of the chariot that is not the parts but the owner of the parts. In the same way, you cannot prove the basis for the so-called self besides the mere belief that the ego is the gathering of the aggregates. This is described in a sutra: Just as the name “chariot” is given to the gathering of all the parts, Similarly, the name “sentient being” is superficially used for the aggregates. Padmasambhava - The Light of Wisdom VOLUME I - Rangjung Yeshe Publications “ - https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2022/04/establishing-inner-perceiver-as-well-as.html

In another teaching, he says, partial excerpt: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/self-liberation-through-seeing-with.html

“Then, as for the instruction for exhausting the six extremes and overthrowing them: Even though there exist a great many different views that do not agree among themselves, This "mind" which is your own intrinsic awareness is in fact self-originated primal awareness. And with regard to this, the observer and the process of observing are not two different things. When you look and observe, seeking the one who is looking and observing, since you search for this observer and do not find him, At that time your view is exhausted and overthrown. Thus, even though it is the end of your view, this is the beginning with respect to yourself. The view and the one who is viewing are not found to exist anywhere. Without it¡¯s falling excessively into emptiness and non-existence even at the beginning, At this very moment your own present awareness becomes lucidly clear. Just this is the view (or the way of seeing) of the Great Perfection. Therefore understanding and not understanding are not two different things.”

Since Padmasambhava teaches Dzogchen, I should also mention that I happen to learn Dzogchen from Acarya Malcolm Smith. His teachings, realizations, and the Dzogchen texts he teaches all align and are congruent with Anatman and Emptiness (Shunyata). https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2014/02/clarifications-on-dharmakaya-and-basis_16.htm

So is his student who posts in reddit as Krodha, who clearly realised anatman and emptiness. He also made me an admin of the dzogchen subreddit but I am not very active there.

Q: But the anattā teaching negates complete immortality, which masters like Padmasambhava, Mahavatar Babaji, and Shiva achieved. There is an "I"—not an aggregated I, but the "I" of the Divine, the Divine I. The Dharma path is impossible without Divinity; the cause and effect of Karma is impossible without an overseeing supreme power. Buddha follows Dharma, hence he is not beyond the Hindu Sanātana Dharma or the Eternal Law, which is powered by the Eternal Permanent Supreme Being. Even Buddha was prompted to teach by Brahmā, who is the god of the hindu trinity. So Buddha's teaching, though not negating or proposing a God, exists within the Sanātana Dharma. "No-self" simply means the phenomenal ego isn't the true Self; my Self is the Supreme Being itself looking through this form.

Soh's reply:

Appreciate your sincere reflections. What you wrote is a strong expression of Advaita Vedānta (Divine “I”, Supreme Being, permanence/immortality, karma requiring an overseeing power). But that’s not the Buddhist view. A few clarifications from a Buddhist standpoint:

1. Buddhism does not affirm an immortal, unchanging Self (ātman). In Buddhadharma, even a Buddha’s continuum is beginningless and unceasing, yet momentary and empty of self—there is no permanent substratum or “Divine I.” Buddhas manifest ceaselessly to benefit beings, but this does not imply an unchanging, eternal Self. See:
• “Why Overcome Cyclic Rebirths?” (mindstream of Buddhas is unceasing without implying a Self): https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2025/11/why-overcome-cyclic-rebirths.html
• “Facing Mortality, No-Self & Pure Land” (how unceasing activity and no-self cohere): https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2025/09/facing-mortality-no-self-pure-land.html
2. Causality and karma in Buddhism do not require a supreme overseer. Dependent arising is sufficient; nothing needs to “stand behind” causes and effects as a controller. Karma functions as conditional processes within dependently arisen streams, not by decree of a supreme being. A couple of relevant quotes:
• “Buddhism is nothing but replacing the 'Self' in Hinduism with Condition Arising. Keep the clarity, the presence, the luminosity and eliminate the ultimate 'Self', the controller, the supreme. Still you must taste, sense, eat, hear and see Pure Awareness in every authentication. And every authentication is Bliss.” — John Tan (2004)
• “Understand immense intelligence not as if someone is there to act and direct, rather as total exertion of the universe to make this moment possible; then all appearances are miraculous and marvelous.” — John Tan (2012)
• https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2022/10/buddha-nature-vs-brahman.html
3. On Buddhahood, omniscience, and “universal awareness.” Buddhism denies a universal, undifferentiated ultimate awareness as a Self. Omniscience is the content of a mind freed from afflictions, not a proof of an eternal Self:
• Malcolm wrote: Omniscience is the content of a mind freed of afflictions. Even the continuum of a Buddha has a relative ground, i.e. a the rosary or string of moments of clarity is beginingless. Origination from self is axiomatically negated in Buddhadharma, Each moment in the continuum of a knowing clarity is neither the same as nor different than the previous moment. Hence the cause of a given instant of a knowing clarity cannot be construed to be itself nor can it be construed to be other than itself. This is the only version of causation which, in the final analysis, Buddhadharma can admit to on a relative level. It is the logical consequence of the Buddha's insight, "When this exists, that exists, with the arising of that, this arose."
• PadmaVonSamba wrote: I am not referring to cognition, rather, the causes of that cognition.
• Malcolm wrote: Cognitions arise based on previous cognitions. That's all. If you suggest anything other than this, you wind up in Hindu La la land. There is no such thing as a universal undifferentiated ultimate awareness in Buddhadharma.
• https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2014/02/clarifications-on-dharmakaya-and-basis_16.html
4. “Buddha follows Dharma” ≠ Buddha under Sanātana Dharma In early Buddhist texts, devas (including Brahmā) honor the Buddha, but they’re not cosmic lawmakers above him. The classic creation claim appears when a brahmā mistakes himself for the supreme creator: after a cosmic re-evolution, the first being to reappear in the Brahmā realm thinks, “I am Brahmā … the Maker and Creator … Father of all that are and are to be,” and assumes others were made by him simply because they appeared after his wish. The Buddha lists this as a wrong view born of ignorance about prior cycles and causes.

When the Buddha personally meets Brahmā Baka (MN 49), Baka proclaims his realm to be permanent and unsurpassed. The Buddha refutes him point-by-point as rooted in delusion—asserting impermanence and dependent conditions even for Brahmā’s attainments. There is no eternal, undifferentiated divine mind standing behind causality.

A second episode underscores the hierarchy: in DN 11 (Kevatta Sutta), a monk goes to Brahmā to ask a profound question; Brahmā postures briefly, then admits he doesn’t know and directs the monk back to the Buddha. This is a literary way of saying that even the “highest god” seeks the Buddha’s insight; he does not legislate Dharma.

So when Brahmā Sahampati appears after the awakening and requests the Buddha to teach (SN 6.1), he is not commissioning the Dhamma; he’s venerating it and urging its proclamation. Causality and karma stand on dependent arising, not on a supreme overseer’s decree.

Buddha also rejected the authority of the Vedas. Buddha’s insights go far beyond the realization of a true Self. He basically went through that during his training under two Samkhya teachers, were confirmed by his teachers to have completed his training and attained to ultimate realization, but Buddha left them unsatisfied and attained a much deeper realization on his own under the bodhi tree.

In Cula-sihanada Sutta (MN 11) -- The Shorter Discourse on the Lion's Roar {M i 63} [Ñanamoli Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi, trans.] - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.011.ntbb.html , the Buddha declares that only through practicing in accord with the Dhamma can Awakening be realized. His teaching is distinguished from those of other religions and philosophies through its unique rejection of all doctrines of self. [BB] … Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith said, "What you are suggesting is already found in Samkhya system. I.e. the twenty four tattvas are not the self aka purusha. Since this system was well known to the Buddha, if that's all his insight was, then his insight is pretty trivial. But Buddha's teachings were novel. Why where they novel? They were novel in the fifth century BCE because of his teaching of dependent origination and emptiness. The refutation of an ultimate self is just collateral damage."

Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith explains why Dzogchen view and basis is different from that of Advaita Vedanta in this compilation of his writings in this page: http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2014/02/clarifications-on-dharmakaya-and-basis_16.html ... Zen teacher Alex Weith said well in his well written writings that I compiled here https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2011/10/a-zen-exploration-of-bahiya-sutta.html : "What I realized also is that authoritative self-realized students of direct students of both Ramana Maharishi and Nisargadatta Maharaj called me a 'Jnani', inviting me to give satsangs and write books, while I had not yet understood the simplest core principles of Buddhism. I realized also that the vast majority of Buddhist teachers, East and West, never went beyond the same initial insights (that Adhyashanti calls "an abiding awakening"), confusing the Atma with the ego, assuming that transcending the ego or self-center (ahamkara in Sanskrit) was identical to what the Buddha had called Anatta (Non-Atma).

It would seem therefore that the Buddha had realized the Self at a certain stage of his acetic years (it is not that difficult after all) and was not yet satisfied. As paradoxical as it may seem, his "divide and conquer strategy" aimed at a systematic deconstruction of the Self (Atma, Atta), reduced to -and divided into- what he then called the five aggregates of clinging and the six sense-spheres, does lead to further and deeper insights into the nature of reality. As far as I can tell, this makes me a Buddhist, not because I find Buddhism cool and trendy, but because I am unable to find other teachings and traditions that provide a complete set of tools and strategies aimed at unlocking these ultimate mysteries, even if mystics from various traditions did stumble on the same stages and insights often unknowingly.

…. This also means that the first step is to disembed from impermanent phenomena until the only thing that feels real is this all pervading uncreated all pervading awareness that feels like the source and substance of phenomena. Holding on to it after this realization can hower become a subtle form of grasping diguised as letting go. The second step is therefore to realize that this brightness, awakeness or luminosity is there very nature of phenomena and then only does the duality between the True Self and the appearences arising and passing within the Self dissolve, revealing the suchness of what is.

The next step that I found very practical is to push the process of deconstruction a step further, realizing that all that is experienced is one of the six consciousness. In other words, there is neither a super Awareness beyond phenomena, not solid material objects, but only six streams of sensory experiences. The seen, the heard, the sensed, the tasted, the smelled and the cognized (including thoughts, emotions, and subtle thougths like absorbtion states, jhanas). At this point it is not difficult to see how relevent the Bahiya Sutta can become.

... Just for the sake of clarification, I would like to make it clear that I never said that "these luminous self-perceiving phenomena which are craving-free and nondual are the Ultimate", if there could still be any ambiguity about that. On the contrary, I said that what I used to take for an eternal, empty, uncreated, nondual, primordial awareness, source and substance of all things, turned out to be nothing more than the luminous nature of phenomena, themselves empty and ungraspable, somehow crystallized in a very subtle witnessing position. The whole topic of this thread is the deconstruction of this Primordial Awareness, One Mind, Cognizing Emptiness, Self, Atman, Luminous Mind, Tathagatgabha, or whatever we may call it, As shocking as it may seem, the Buddha was very clear to say that this pure impersonal objectless nondual awareness (that Vedantists called Atma in Sanskrit, Atta in Pali) is still the aggregate of consciousness and that consciousness, as pure and luminous as it can be, does not stand beyond the aggregates. "Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'" (Anatta-lakkhana Sutta). …."

Another dharma teacher who underwent similar journey from Vedanta realization (confirmed to be deep and profound by his Vedanta teachers and asked to teach) before going into Buddhist realization is Archaya Mahayogi Shridhar Rana Rinpoche, you can read about his bio and articles here: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/search/label/Acharya%20Mahayogi%20Shridhar%20Rana%20Rinpoche

5. How Buddhism reads “no-self.” “No-self” isn’t just “my lower ego isn’t the real Self while a higher Divine I is.” Rather, all phenomena—including subjectivity and awareness—are empty of self-nature. What continues is a stream (santāna) of dependently arisen, luminous knowing, free from a core essence. That is exactly why Buddhas can be unceasingly responsive without being a permanent Self.

In short: your view maps well to Advaita Vedānta. The Buddhist view keeps luminosity, clarity, compassion, and unceasing activity, but without positing a permanent Self or supreme overseer. Dependent arising is enough.

Q: My path was the opposite; I went through Buddhist studies first and found them insufficient, moving on to the deeper teachings of Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism. Buddha is just a man who died; you're elevating him incorrectly. He arose within the Sanātana Dharma, taught by Shiva. The Great Perfection of Padmasambhava is complete physical immortality, which Buddha didn't reach—he died. Buddha even predicted Padmasambhava, saying, "There will be a teacher greater than myself." You haven't addressed Padmasambhava's immortality, which proves the immortal Self. The highest teaching is that everything is the will of Shiva; even liberation is granted by Him, not just by practice. Dependent origination is a limited, incomplete view compared to this.

Soh's reply:

I’ve read and benefited from many Hindu books and texts in the past. They were helpful pointers through the I AM phase of realization, but beyond that I needed different contemplations. I have personally gone through the 7 Thusness Stages of Enlightenment, and I consider Thusness (John Tan) my main teacher and mentor, https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html , even though I also learn Dzogchen from Acarya Malcolm Smith. I understand the Ātman–Brahman view—and also where Buddhism diverges from it. I understand the viewpoint of Hinduism, although I do not agree with the "it's all planned" or granted by Shiva, etc, nor do I agree with "the dependent origination is a limited view".

Last year in Australia (I am from Singapore but I went there to attend his teaching and retreat), Ācārya Malcolm Smith spoke with the two of us—another lady and me—about how the Hindu Ātman–Brahman view differs from Buddhism. He noted that, in many Hindu formulations, the cosmos unfolds as the will or līlā (play) of Brahman; salvation is ultimately a matter of divine grace. In Buddhism, by contrast, there is no creator God directing outcomes. The burden of care falls on practitioners themselves: we cultivate bodhicitta and take responsibility for relieving the suffering of sentient beings.

1. “Buddha is just a man who died.” This is not the Mahāyāna presentation. In Lotus Sūtra ch. 16 (“The Life Span of the Thus Come One”), Śākyamuni reveals that his lifespan is immeasurably long and that his passing is an upāya (skillful display) to rouse beings: “Therefore the Thus Come One, though in truth he does not enter extinction, speaks of passing into extinction.”
   
   Buddhas (Shakyamuni Buddha, Padmasambhava, and so on) do have incalculable lifespans, in the Buddhabalādhānaprātihāryavikurvāṇanirdeśa, Mañjuśrī says: "Moreover, gods, the tathāgatas do not enter parinirvāṇa, because there is no parinirvāṇa of the tathāgatas, nor are their lives ever exhausted. The tathāgatas remain for immeasurable millions of eons, for utterly inexpressible eons. But through their skillful means they display their parinirvāṇa to beings, as well as the disappearance of the noble Dharma. Just as the Tathāgata sees the various beings of an impure nature who are to be converted by means of parinirvāṇa or by relics, who have no faith in the Tathāgata, and who are irreverent toward the master, so in each such case the Tathāgata displays his parinirvāṇa. But in fact, the Tathāgata neither comes nor goes. When the roots of virtue of beings have fully matured, [F.149.a] and they long to look upon the Tathāgata, are worthy of veneration, long to listen to the Dharma, and their longing is like the full moon, at that time, the Tathāgata appears in the world for the benefit and happiness of many beings such as gods and humans, and for the sake of manifesting and propagating the Three Jewels to them.33 But in fact, the Tathāgata is not born, nor does he age or die."

None of this implies an unchanging Self. It describes an unceasing (but momentary) continuum of awakened knowing functioning for beings—consistent with dependent arising, not a permanent soul.

2. “Buddha arose within Sanātana Dharma / needs a Supreme Being to ‘power’ karma.” Early discourses explicitly reject the “Supreme Creator” thesis as a mistake born of ignorance. In DN 1 (Brahmajāla Sutta), the Buddha explains how a lonely brahmā, reborn first after a cosmic contraction, imagines himself the Maker and Lord because others appear later—so both he and they wrongly infer “creation.” It’s classic eternalism the Buddha dismantles.

In MN 49 (Brahma-nimantanika Sutta), the Buddha directly refutes Brahmā Baka’s claim that his realm is permanent/ultimate—the Buddha calls it delusion, showing even Brahmā’s attainments are conditioned. So in Buddhism, causality/karma does not require a divine overseer; dependent arising is enough.

3. “Buddha predicted a teacher greater than himself (Padmasambhava).” That exact line—“There will be a teacher greater than myself”—is not found in early Indian Buddhist canons. Statements that the Buddha foretold Guru Rinpoche come from later Tibetan sources (treasure/terma cycles and hagiographies). Scholarship on the treasure tradition shows how retrospective prophecies function to authorize new revelations and lineages; see Janet Gyatso’s classic study on terma legitimation. Nyingma and devotional materials do claim numerous prophecies, but these are sectarian claims, not passages you will find in the Pāli Nikāyas or securely dated Indian sūtras. (Examples of claims: Padmasambhava.org; other popular summaries repeat them, but they don’t cite a primary canonical verse.)

From a Buddhist standpoint, and especially in Dzogchen, there is no “higher” enlightenment to surpass a Buddha. Nyingma sources themselves present Padmasambhava as a Buddha (often an emanation of Amitābha/ Avalokiteśvara), i.e., equal in realization, not “greater than Śākyamuni.”

4. “Padmasambhava’s physical immortality proves an immortal Self.” Nyingma hagiographies say Guru Rinpoche did not merely “die” but departed to the Copper-Colored Mountain (Zangdok Palri) and continues benefitting beings—this is commonly presented as a pure-land/visionary presence of the Guru, not a proof of an eternal ātman. By contrast, what Buddhism consistently denies—across Nikāya, Mahāyāna, and Dzogchen—is a universal, undifferentiated Self behind phenomena. The Lotus Sūtra’s eternal Buddha and Toh 186’s “no real parinirvāṇa” are upāya teachings about the Buddha’s ongoing liberative activity, not endorsements of an absolute Self. They fit dependent arising: the awakened continuum is beginningless and unceasing without a self-substratum.

Bottom line: Advaita and Kashmir Śaivism affirm a Supreme Self/Being, cosmic will, and grace. Buddhism—while fully affirming luminosity, compassion, and the Buddha’s unceasing activity—does not posit a permanent Self or supreme overseer.

In the Buddhist view, the mindstream of a Buddha (Śākyamuni, Padmasambhava, etc.) is beginningless and unceasing in compassionate activity, yet empty of any unchanging core. That’s why ceaseless responsiveness does not entail an eternal Self. As for Padmasambhava and Śākyamuni: from a Buddhist perspective their realization is equal—Buddhahood—though their displays (upāya) differ according to beings’ needs. Claims that the Buddha said someone “greater than myself” would come are devotional and late; they are not found in the early strata of scripture.

p.s. Interestingly... Regarding the somewhat subversive narrative 'Buddhism is just part of Hindu Sanatana Dharma', Buddhism employs a similar, though distinct, narrative.

As Acarya Malcolm Smith wrote before:

“Indeed, Samantabhadra claims that all vehicles are his vehicles, he then sets out which of those vehicles view keep one trapped in samsara (60), and he then presents the nine vehicles which lead one out of it.

though my vehicles are inconceivable,

they are included in two categories:

samsara and nirvana.

Further, samsara includes: [53/b]

the false view and the eternalist view.

The false vehicle

is held to be 360 beliefs in a self.

The nine vehicles of course, are the vehicles of nirvana.”"

“Ok, first of all. If you were never a Christian, or a Hindu, or never took teachings from such a master, for example, Hatha Yoga, Ayurveda, etc., then there is no need. But if you have taken teachings from such people, then you can carry this into your Ati Guru Yoga.

When we do refuge in the DC -- we generally do not do an elaborate refuge tree visualization, we do the One Jewel Unifies All system, so the principle is still the same.

It is not about including Jesus, Mohammed and so on in some imaginary refuge tree; it is about honoring the sources of all of our spritual knowledge, so the idea is completely different. It is about honoring all of our teachers, no matter what Dharma tradition they come from in the nine yānas. All Yānas belong to Samantabhadra, including the so called samsaric ones. This is the principle that is in play here. The Rigpa Rangshar states:

Though my yānas are inconceivable, when summarized,

they are included in two, samsara and nirvana

This means that all Dharma systems, "Buddhist" and "Non-Buddhist" are vehicles of Samantabhadra. If you have a connection with any of them, you unify them through the principle of Guru Yoga and go beyond limitations.

M”

Acarya Malcolm Smith also wrote elsewhere explaining 'Samantabhadra': "Gautama is an emanation of Samantabbadra."

"Now then, Samantabhadra, of whom Śākyamuni is an emanation, was also an ordinary person, who received teachings, became a buddha as a result, and manifested in this eon as the adibuddha, aka first buddha."