My opinion only. Feel free to refute me if you believe Shurangama Sutra does not preach a substantialist view. I'm all ears.

---

2018:

Soh Wei Yu: Actually I suspect Shurangama Sutra (which experts say is a Chinese invention, and I don't think its found in Tibetan canon) is really only I AM and One Mind. Which is why many Chinese masters including the one I just visited that came to Singapore got stuck.. he was using Shurangama Sutra to explain I AM as the host. But I need to read more. Shurangama Sutra, "All beings need to understand that whatever moves is like the dust and, like a visitor, does not remain. Just now you saw that it was Ananda's head that moved, while his visual awareness did not move. It was my hand that opened and closed, while his awareness did not open or close." The whole host and dust that all those masters are talking about including Jax comes from Shurangama Sutra teachings.. it just reaffirms their substantialist views. Shurangama Sutra, "Your Majesty, your face is wrinkled, but the essential nature of your visual awareness itself has not wrinkled. What wrinkles is subject to change. What does not wrinkle does not change. What changes will perish. But what does not change neither comes into being nor perishes. Then how could it be affected by your being born and dying? So you have no need to be concerned with what such people as Maskari Gosaliputra say: that when this body dies, you cease to exist." "Clearly then, the mind that experiences these conditioned phenomena is not what is fundamentally you. But what is not these conditioned phenomena must be what is fundamentally you. If it is not you, what else could it be?" "And since you cannot see my awareness when you and I are looking at different things, clearly my visual awareness cannot be an object. Therefore, how could your own visual awareness not be what is fundamentally you?"

Soh Wei Yu: "Since beings have allowed their attention to be drawn to the sights and sounds and have allowed themselves to be carried along in their streams of thought, as it has been since time without beginning, they have not yet awakened and do not yet understand the purity, the wondrousness, and the permanence of their own essential nature. Instead of attending to what is everlasting, they attend to what comes into being and perishes, and as a result, in life after life, they are mired in impurity and are bound to the cycle of birth and rebirth. But if they turn away from what comes into being and perishes and hold fast to what is true and everlasting, then the light of the everlasting will appear, and as a result the faculties, their objects, and the sense-consciousness will fade away and disappear." "We're capable of hearing sounds and silence both; They may be present to the ear or not. Though people say that when no sound is present, Our hearing must be absent too, in fact Our hearing does not lapse. It does not cease With silence; neither is it born of sound. Our hearing, then, is genuine and true. It is the everlasting one." "People say that hearing comes about because of sounds, Not on its own. If that's what you call 'hearing,' though, Then when you turn your hearing round and set it free from sounds, What name are you to give to that which is set free? Return just one of the perceiving faculties Back to its source, and all six faculties will then be free. For what we hear is mere illusion, like the objects of our vision - like what is seen by one whose eyes are covered by a film. The Threefold Realm is like those flowers in an empty sky, But turn the hearing inward, and the faculties are cured. Their objects vanish, and awareness is completely pure. In perfect purity, the brilliance of awareness shines Unhindered and in still illumination of all space, In contemplating worldly things as the events of dreams. The young Matanga woman was a figure in a dream. Just who was really there with power to entice you?"

Soh Wei Yu: The whole focus on Shurangama is really to realize True Self, revert back to the Source, and subsume all objects to be merely illusory displays of the Source. IMO no different from Advaita Vedanta or Upanishads. It's no surprise the majority of Chinese Mahayana is stuck at I AM and one mind. "All that you need to do is not allow your attention to be diverted by the twelve conditioned attributes of sound and silence, contact and separation, flavor and the absence of flavor, openness and blockage, coming into being and perishing, and light and darkness. Next, extricate one faculty by detaching it from its objects, and redirect that faculty inward so that it can return to what is original and true. Then it will radiate the light of the original understanding. This brilliant light will shine forth and extricate the other five faculties until they are completely free. If your six faculties are freed from the objects that they perceive so that the light of your understanding is not diverted into one or another of the faculties, then the light of your understanding will manifest through all the faculties so that all six of them will function interchangeably."

Soh Wei Yu: All moving objects are subsumed into the unmoving space of awareness - "Given that the fundamental natures of visual awareness, awareness of sounds, and cognitive awareness are all-pervasive and do not change, you should know that the real natures of what we may consider to be the six primary elements - our visual awareness; infinite, motionless space; and earth, water, fire, and wind, which are in motion - are completely interfused with one another. In their fundamental natures, all are within the Matrix of the Thus-Come One, neither coming into being nor ceasing to be." The description is no different from one mind: "All you good people! I have often said that all phenomena with physical form, all phenomena of mind, the conditions under which they arise, as well as the phenomena that interact with the mind and all other conditioned phenomena, are mere manifestations of true mind. Your bodies and your minds appear within the wondrous light of the true essence of that wondrous mind." "What you do not know is that the true, wondrous, luminously understanding mind contains the body and everything outside the body - mountains, rivers, sky, the entire world. You are like someone who fails to see a boundless ocean a hundred thousand miles across and is aware only of a single floating bubble." I flipped through the whole Shurangama Sutra. Quite convinced now it is only about I AM and one mind.

---

7 JUNE 2019

John Tan: Dogen view is very anatta and non-dual.

Soh Wei Yu: Yeah.. and He doubts Surangama like me.

John Tan: Surangama is not wrong. It is the over emphasis of 主 (Soh: host). Instead of understanding the relationship of host and guest as empty conventions. Dogen's expressions also prone to expressions of experience (more towards anatta no mind) but the clarity of "why" such view isn't valid isn't there. In other words, he is expressing experience is such as such and therefore he rejected object and subject duality...not even a hairline difference is allowed in that expression. But the "why" isn't clear. However once we understand the conventional relationships among entities and their empty nature, it becomes clear. In Surangama if I am not wrong, such relationships are explored, outlined but somehow the host is being over emphasized, that is the only issue. Is Surangama the 7 asking by Buddha where is mind?

Soh Wei Yu: You mean dependent designation? I think it is an affirmative negation. Like shentong. Not anatta or Madhyamika. Hmm but Greg Goode said even at his I Am phase he realized non locality, rather than emptiness. Means I think inherently existing mind that is not located anywhere. I think Shurangama is like that. This is not the same as no mind or anatta. It affirms an eternal unchanging mind that is not this and not that. And nondual. "Therefore, Ananda, you should know that when you see light, the seeing is not the light. When you see darkness, the seeing is not the darkness. When you see emptiness, the seeing is not the emptiness. When you see solid objects, the seeing is not the solid objects." Indistinguishable from advaita. Going through all the analysis in the end just to affirm awareness. Self inquiry is more direct IMO.

Soh Wei Yu: "Therefore, you should know that in fact the colors come from the lamp, and the diseased seeing brings about the reflection. Both the circular reflection and the faulty seeing are the result of the cataract. But that which sees the diseased film is not sick. Thus you should not say that it is the lamp or the seeing or that it is neither the lamp nor the seeing." "If you can leave far behind all conditions which mix and unite and those which do not mix and unite, then you can also extinguish and cast out the causes of birth and death, and obtain perfect Bodhi, the nature which is neither produced nor extinguished. It is the pure clear basic mind, the everlasting fundamental enlightenment." But the part about the five skandhas are Buddha nature is good but I think can be one mind sort of understanding, I don't know. I just saw an excerpt in Shurangama Sutra about whether light and seeing is different.. if seeing is different from light then there has to be a boundary.. but I think is more on nondual and seeing how all the skandhas are falsely imputed only.

John Tan: This is different. Means conventional reality and the power of conventions to alaya consciousness is not understood. Seeing self as truly existing but non-local is different.

Soh Wei Yu: [image omitted] [image omitted] [image omitted]

John Tan: Yes they over emphasized on the host. Means 闻性 the hearing nature is permanent. Instead of empty.

Soh Wei Yu: I see..

John Tan: Why when you look at what originates in dependence and even it is explained as such, it can be misunderstood as 实性 [real nature] instead of 空性 [empty nature]？ By the way Dogen is good for you because Dogen's expressions and practice are to be about full engagement -- being time.

---

Update, February 2019

Lopon Malcolm wrote that the Chinese Shurangama Sutra is a "Chinese Pseudographia", "and these ten Xian realms do not exist in Indian Buddhist cosmology at all."

Had a conversation with Thusness:

15 FEBRUARY 2019

Soh Wei Yu: Malcolm just said Shurangama is a Chinese 伪经 (pseudipigrapha, falsely attributed works, texts whose claimed author is not the true author). As I thought. Because it sounds very advaita.

John Tan: Not exactly. How many is from Buddha's own mouth?

Soh Wei Yu: It says seeing is eternal, awareness doesn’t age but body ages.

John Tan: I know it emphasizes a lot on host and guest. I mean the issue of 伪经.

Soh Wei Yu: It is an invention of Chinese because it mentions Taoist immortals. It tries to integrate Chinese thought. I think it’s developed in China and there is no such sutra in tibetan Canon.

John Tan: In fact most Mahayana sutras have this flavor. It is just how it presents. So it is not an issue of Wei jin (Soh: apocryphal sutra). It is the wisdom in it (Soh: this issue is also discussed in Yogacara vs Madhyamaka, Authorship of Mahayana Sutras and Sūtra of Definitive Meaning vs Sūtra of Provisional Meaning).

Soh Wei Yu: If a sutra is not Wei Jing it should have a Sanskrit counterpart and a tibetan counterpart which is not the case for Shurangama. I see. Actually most Mahayana sutras lack mention of clarity aspect. Just purely emptiness.. I think.

John Tan: Nen yen jing (Soh: he later clarifies he was referring to Leng Jia Jing - Lankavatara Sutra, as mentioning clarity but he is 'not sure' [whether the sutra talks about it]). Emptiness is the nature of mind and phenomena.

---

Update by Soh, 25/11/2020:

The commentaries by Ven. Hui Lu 慧律法师 on Shurangama Sutra (and all other sutras) are very clear and good, due to his deep insights. Regardless of whether the original texts fall into the extremes, Ven. Hui Lu's explanations steer clear of the extremes (eternalism/nihilism/existence/non-existence/etc).

See: True Mind and Unconditioned Dharma

---

Update by Soh, 20/06/2021:

Just saw this post by Malcolm in 2020:

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=33106

There is a claim that a Sanskrit manuscript of this text exists somewhere in China.

Li Xuezhu (李学竹) (2010). “Zhōng guó zàng xué — Zhōng guó fàn wén bèi yè gài kuàng” 中国藏学-中国梵文贝叶概况 [China Tibetan Studies — The State of Sanskrit Language Palm Leaf Manuscripts in China]. Baidu 文库. Vol. 1 №90 (in Chinese). pp. 55–56. Retrieved 2017–12–06. ‘河南南阳菩提寺原藏有1函梵文贝叶经，共226叶，其中残缺6叶，函上写有“印度古梵文”字样，据介绍，内容为 《楞严经》，很可能是唐代梵文经的孤本，字体为圆形，系印度南方文字一种，被国家定为一级文物，现存彭雪枫纪念馆。’(tr to English: Henan Nanyang Bodhi Temple originally had one Sanskrit language manuscript sutra, consisting in total 226 leaves, of which 6 were missing… according to the introduction, it contains the Śūraṅgama Sūtra and is most probably the only extant Sanskrit manuscript dating from the Tang Dynasty. The letters are roundish and belongs to a type used in South India and has been recognized by the country as a Category 1 cultural artifact. It is now located in the Peng Xuefeng Memorial Museum.

https://medium.com/tranquillitys-secret/the-endurance-of-lies-the-perfidy-of-slander-the-treason-of-translation-7c3f77086c3d

The notion of 55 stages is a Chinese Buddhist misreading of the chapters on the powers, dedications of merit, and so of the bodhisattvas on the ten stages in in Avatamska Sutra, embedded in a couple of Chinese authored texts posing as sutras.

"Conceptuality is great ignorance,
causing one to fall into the ocean of samsāra."
—Māyājālamahātantra

---

Update, 2021:

Also, to be fair, I think there are chapters in Shurangama Sutra that refutes Brahman view:

Two Sutras (Discourses by Buddha) on the Mistaken Views of Consciousness

Also on a sidenote, there is another sutra called Surangama Samadhi Sutra that is of Indian origin, which Malcolm considers to be authentic. I believe it is this one http://lirs.ru/lib/sutra/Pratyutpanna_and_Surangama_Samadhi_Sutras,1998,BDK25.pdf

---

Update 9th June 2019:

Found some passages where it's explained how Dogen shares the same view as me regarding Shurangama Sutra:

Okumura, Shohaku. The Mountains and Waters Sutra: A Practitioner's Guide to Dogen's "Sansuikyo" (p. 117). Wisdom Publications. Kindle Edition.

"Here Dōgen says that this understanding is criticized by the Great Sage — actually, he said “scolded” — because it involves separation between mind and object. The Śūraṅgama Sūtra says, “From time without beginning, all beings have mistakenly identified themselves with what they are aware of. Controlled by their experience of perceived objects, they lose track of their fundamental minds. In this state they perceive visual awareness as large or small. But when they’re in control of their experience of perceived objects, they are the same as the Thus-Come Ones. Their bodies and minds, unmoving and replete with perfect understanding, become a place for awakening. Then all the lands in the ten directions are contained within the tip of a fine hair.”66 “Controlled by their experience of perceived objects” is more literally translated as “being turned by things”; “they’re in control of their experience of perceived objects” is “they turn things.” Here self (mind) and objects (things) seem separate; sometimes the mind is turned by objects and sometimes it turns them. So this sūtra says that people can actually see things as they are. Dōgen did not like the separation between mind and objects or between turning and being turned. As I said above, our view is created in the relationship between ehō and shōhō — we can’t have a view that is not subjective. Although the Śūraṅgama Sūtra was valued in Chinese Zen tradition, Dōgen did not appreciate the sūtra.

In Hōkyōki, Dōgen asked Rujing: “Lay people read the Śūraṅgama Sūtra and the Complete Enlightenment Sūtra and say that these are the ancestral teachings transmitted from India. When I opened up these sūtras and observed their structure and style, I felt they were not as skillful as other Mahayana sūtras. This seemed strange to me. More than this, the teachings of these sūtras seemed to me to be far less than what we find in Mahayana sūtras. They seemed quite similar to the teachings of the six outsider teachers [who lived during the Buddha’s time]. How do we determine whether or not these texts are authentic?” Rujing said, “The authenticity of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra has been doubted by some people since ancient times. Some suspect that this sūtra was written by people of a later period, as the early ancestors were definitely not aware of it. But ignorant people in recent times read it and love it. The Complete Enlightenment Sūtra is also like this. Its style is similar to the Śūraṅgama Sūtra.”67

In Dharma Hall discourse 383 of Eihei Kōroku, Dōgen said, Therefore we should not look at the words and phrases of Confucius or Laozi, and should not look at the Śūraṅgama or Complete Enlightenment scriptures. [Many contemporary people consider the Śūraṅgama and Complete Enlightenment Sūtras as among those that the Zen tradition relies on. But the teacher Dōgen always disliked them.] We should exclusively study the expressions coming from the activities of buddhas and ancestors from the time of the seven world-honored buddhas68 to the present. If we are not concerned with the activities of the Buddha ancestors, and vainly make our efforts in the evil path of fame and profit, how could this be study of the way? Among the World-Honored Tathāgata, the ancestral teacher Mahākāśyapa, the twenty-eight ancestors in India, the six generations [of ancestors] in China, Qingyuan, and Nanyue [Huairang], which of these ancestral teachers ever used the Śūraṅgama or Complete Enlightenment Sūtra and considered them as the true Dharma eye treasury, wondrous mind of nirvāṇa?69

The two sentences between brackets are a note by the compiler of the volume. From these quotes, it is clear that Dōgen was consistent in criticizing the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, from the time he was in China studying with Rujing until two years before his death when he gave this lecture from Eihei Kōroku. “[E]xplaining the mind and explaining the nature” is not affirmed by the buddhas and ancestors; “seeing the mind and seeing the nature” is the business of non-Buddhists. “Explaining the mind nature” and “seeing the nature” are essential points in the Śūraṅgama Sūtra. In “explaining the mind and explaining the nature,” mind is shin (心) and nature is shō (性).70 The nature of mind is sometimes called true self, original face, true face, or even buddha nature. Some people have thought that mind-nature (shinshō, 心性) is within ourselves, hidden in this body and mind, and that discovering such mind-nature is seeing true nature or enlightenment. But Dōgen said that such an idea is not affirmed by buddhas and ancestors. The expressions “seeing the mind” (kenshin, 見心) and “seeing the nature” (kenshō, 見性) actually mean the same thing. Dōgen Zenji didn’t like the term kenshō: it implies that our self (our body and mind, the five aggregates) is separate from nature and that our (nonphysical) eyes can see it. In reality the nature cannot be seen; it cannot be the object of the subject, because the nature is ourselves. We cannot see ourselves; our eyes cannot see our eyes. There’s no way we can see the nature; that is Dōgen’s point. This word kenshō is important in Rinzai Zen and is the source of the long discussion between Sōtō and Rinzai. In Rinzai practice kenshō, “seeing the nature,” is identical with satori. But for Dōgen, satori is exactly this mountain self. The walking of the mountain is great realization, or satori. Satori is not something we can see as an object, and it’s not something we can attain.71 This actually does not disagree with genuine Rinzai teaching, only with superficial ideas of Rinzai teaching. I’ll talk about this later when Dōgen discusses incomprehensible enlightenment in the section about Yunmen Wenyan."

~ Okumura, Shohaku. The Mountains and Waters Sutra: A Practitioner's Guide to Dogen's "Sansuikyo" (p. 120). Wisdom Publications. Kindle Edition.

---

Update 29/6/2019:

Found another excellent passage by Zen Master Shohaku Okumura.

https://global.sotozen-net.or.jp/eng/dharma/pdf/36e.pdf

Rujing said that authenticity of The Shurangama Sutra has been questioned from ancient times, therefore ancestral masters in the early times never read this sutra. Anyway, Dogen has a doubt about the authenticity and quality of The Surangama Sutra and The Complete Enlightenment Sutra. Those are sutras I have introduced as the foundation of Zhongmi's and Xuansha’s usage of “one bright jewel”.

Dogen gives the question to his teacher. This is a very serious question. Dogen thinks that the teachings in these sutras are similar with the six outsider teachers. This means the sutras advocate non-Buddhist teachings such as Senika’s theory, which Dogen introduces in Bendowa. In this case, to be non-Buddhist means to go against the Buddha’s teaching of anatman (no permanent self). The teaching of the metaphor of the mani jewel (one bright jewel) which is permanent and never changes, even though the surface color is changing is, according to Dogen, nothing other than atman. That is the problem in Dogen’s question. He is asking whether the theory included in these two sutras can be considered to be authentic Buddhist teaching or not.

This is a conversation that happened when Dogen was twenty-five years old. In China, it seems that the authenticity of these two sutras has not been questioned. However in Japan, in the 8th century, some Hosso School (Japanese Yogacara School) monks doubted whether The Surangama Sutra is an authentic sutra from India or not. Dogen and his teacher Rujing had the same question. In modern times, almost all Japanese Buddhist scholars think that The Surangama Sutra and The Complete Enlightenment Sutra were written in China.

The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism says the following about the authenticity of The Surangama Sutra:

Although Zhisheng assumed the Surangama sutra was a genuine Indian scripture, the fact that no Sanskrit manuscript of the text is known to exist, as well as the inconsistencies in the stories about its transmission to China, have led scholars for centuries to question the scripture’s authenticity. There is also internal evidence of the scripture’s Chinese provenance, such as the presence of such indigenous Chinese philosophical concepts as yin-yan cosmology and the five elements (wuxing) theory, the stylistic beauty of the literary Chinese in which the text is written, etc. For these and other reasons, the Surangama sutra is now generally recognized to be a Chinese apocryphal composition. 2

However, Chinese masters don’t agree. There is a Chinese temple in San Francisco named Golden Mountain Temple, and it has a big community called the City of Ten Thousand Buddhas in Ukiah, Northern California. The founder of that temple, Ven. Master Hsuan Hua, opposed those modern scholars:

“Where the Surangama Sutra exists, then the Proper Dharma exists. If the Surangama Sutra ceases to exist, then the Proper Dharma will also vanish. If the Surangama Sutra is inauthentic, then I vow to fall into the Hell of Pulling Tongues to undergo uninterrupted suffering.” 3 In a subsequent section of the introduction to the Surangama Sutra, Ron Epstein and David Rounds argue that it was written in India.4

So there is a controversy. Since I am not a Buddhist scholar, I cannot discuss which is right. Anyway, we are studying Dogen’s Shobogenzo, we need to hear what Dogen has to say on this point. We need to understand that Dogen questions not only about whether the Surangama Sutra was written in India or China but also whether the core teaching in the sutra is non-Buddhist theory.

Dogen’s criticism in Eihei Koroku

Not only when he was young, but also in his later years, he repeats the same opinion regarding the two sutras in his Dharma discourse number 383 in Eihei Koroku (Dogen’s Extensive Record), the collection that includes more than five hundred formal discourses by Dogen. Because this is a long discourse on Dogen’s disagreement with the theory of the identity of the three teachings (Confucianism, Daoism and Buddhism), I will only quote one paragraph of just a few sentences:

Therefore we should not look at the words and phrases of Confucius or Lao Tsu, and should not look at the Surangama or Complete Enlightenment Scriptures. (Many contemporary people consider the Surangama and Complete Enlightenment Sutras as among those that the Zen tradition relies on. But the teacher Dogen always disliked them.) We should exclusively study the expressions coming from the activities of buddhas and ancestors from the time of the seven world-honored Buddhas to the present. If we are not concerned with the activities of the buddha ancestors, and vainly make our efforts in the evil path of fame and profit, how could this be study of the Way? Among the World-Honored Tathagata, the ancestral teacher Mahakashyapa, the twenty-eight ancestors in India, the six generations [of ancestors] in China, Qingyuan, and Nanyue [Huirang], which of these ancestral teachers ever used the Surangama or Complete Enlightenment Sutra and considered them as the true Dharma eye treasury, wondrous mind of nirvana? 5

The italic sentences in the parenthesis are a note made by Gien, a disciple of Dogen who compiled volume 5 of Eihei Koruku. It is clear that he continued to dislike these two sutras even when he was past his youth.

Dogen criticizes not only the two sutras but Guifeng Zongmi’s essential points in Dharma discourse number 447 of Eiheikoroku:

I can remember Guifeng Zongmi said, “The quality of knowing is the gateway of all excellence.”

Zen master Huanrong Shixin [wuxin] said, “The quality of knowing is the gateway of all evil.” Later students have recited what these two previous worthies said, without stopping up to today. Because of this, ignorant people have wanted to discuss which is correct, and for hundreds of years have either used or discarded one or the other thing. Nevertheless, Zongmi’s saying that knowing is the gateway of all excellence has not yet emerged from the pit of those outside the way. What is called knowledge is certainly neither excellent nor course. As for Huanlong [Shixin]’s saying that knowing is a gateway of all evil, what is called knowledge is certainly neither evil nor good.

Today, I, Eihei would like to examine those two people's sayings. Great Assembly would you like to clearly understand the point of this?

After a pause Dogen said: If the great ocean knew it was full, the hundreds of rivers would all flow upstream.6

It is clear that Dogen knows what Guifeng Zongmi wrote about the one bright jewel. Zongmi said that everything good came from this knowing (chi) or the spiritual intelligence that is nothing other than the one bright jewel. Dogen also quotes another Zen master, Huanrong Shixin. They said completely opposite things and Dogen made a comment about these two opposite sayings. Dogen says Zongmi’s saying has not yet emerged from the pit of those outside the way. This “pit of those outside the way” means the trap of non-Buddhist theory. Dogen is saying that Zongmi’s saying is non-Buddhist teaching. This dharma discourse 447 was probably given when Dogen was around 50 years old, a few years before his death. Dogen still thinks Guifeng Zongmi’s teaching based on the two sutras was not Buddhist.

After a pause he said, “If the great ocean knew it was full, the hundreds of rivers would all flow upstream.” The ocean will never fill up, so water can flow from the mountains to the ocean continuously. However, if the ocean becomes full, water needs to flow towards the mountains. Such a thing can never happen. From these sayings of Dogen, it is clear to me that Dogen does not agree with what Guifeng Zongmi had written using the analogy of “one bright jewel”.

Dogen’s Comment on The Surangama Sutra in Shobogenzo Tenhorin (Turning the Dharma Wheel).

In Shoboenzo Tenhorin (Turning the Dharma Wheel) written in 1244, Dogen discusses several Zen masters’ comments on an expression from the Surangama Sutra as follows:

The expression quoted now, that “when a person exhibits the truth and returns to the origin, space in the ten directions totally disappears” is an expression in the Surangama Sutra. This same phrase has been discussed by several Buddhist patriarchs. Consequently, this phrase is truly the bones and marrow of Buddhist patriarchs, and the eyes of Buddhist patriarchs. My intention in saying so is as follows: Some insist that the ten-fascicle version of the Surangama Sutra is a forged sutra while others insist that it is not a forged sutra. The two arguments have persisted from the distant past until today. There is the older translation and there is the new translation; the version that is doubted is [not these but] a translation produced during the Shinryu era. However, Master Goso [Ho]en, Master Bussho [Ho]tai, and my late Master Tendo, the eternal Buddha, have each quoted the above phrase already. So, this phrase has already been turned in the Dharma wheel of Buddhist patriarchs; it is the Buddhist Patriarch’s Dharma wheel turning.7

The translation produced in the first year of the Shinryu era (Shenlong in 705 CE) is the ten fascicle version of the Surangama Sutra. The older ones are entitled Surangama-samadhi sutra, translated by Kumarajiva; this is a different sutra from the Surangama Sutra, which is a Chinese apocryphal scripture. Here Dogen doubts the authenticity of the Surangama Sutra, but he says that once a sentence from the sutra is quoted and used by ancestors to express the Dharma, the statement can be thought of as turning the Dharma wheel.

Similar criticism in Bendowa, Question Ten

In Bendowa and Shobogenzo Sokushinzebutsu (The Mind itself is Buddha), Dogen criticized the theory that the mind-nature is permanent and forms are arising and perishing. This teaching is what Dogen thought came from the same ideas Zongmi wrote based on the Surangama Sutra and the Complete Enlightenment Sutra. I think that to clearly understand Dogen’s points in these two writings, it is important to know why Dogen does not appreciate these two sutras. Question ten in Bendowa is about the problem. First Dogen formulated the question, then he wrote the reply to the question.

[Question 10] Someone has said, “Do not grieve over life and death. There is an instantaneous means for separating from life and death. It is to understand the principle that mind-nature is permanent. This means that even though the body that is born will inevitably be carried into death, still this mind-nature never perishes. If you really understand that the mind-nature existing in our body is not subject to birth and death, then since it is the original nature, although the body is only a temporary form haphazardly born here and dying, the mind is permanent and unchangeable in the past, present and future. To know this is called release from life and death. Those who know this principle will forever extinguish their rounds of life and death and when their bodies perish they enter into the ocean of original nature. When they stream into this ocean, they are truly endowed with the same wondrous virtues as the Buddha-Tathagatas. Now, even though you know this, because your body was produced by the delusory karma of previous lives, you are not the same as the sages. Those who do not yet know this must forever transmigrate within the realm of life and death. Consequently, you need comprehend only the permanence of mind-nature. What can you expect from vainly spending your whole life doing quiet sitting? “Is such an opinion truly in accord with the way of buddhas and ancestors?”

Life and death in this case refers to transmigration within samsara. In this teaching, we don’t need to grieve over suffering in samsara, and we don’t need to practice. This mind nature is shinsho (心性), shin is “mind;” sho is “nature.” This is one of the expressions Guifeng Zongmi used. We should see the permanence of mind-nature. Even though phenomenal body and mind are impermanent, this mind-nature is permanent. Just to see the permanence of mind-nature is an instantaneous method to become free from suffering. If this is true, it’s pretty easy to be released from samsara. We don’t need to practice. This theory says that our life with this body is like a river. Until the river reaches the ocean, we are living as individual persons and experiencing different things and we attach to certain things and we hate certain things and we suffer. But once we return to the ocean, we become free from the body. The body is the source of delusions, but this mind nature is always pure. When this mind-nature returns to the ocean of original nature, we are free from the suffering of samsara and become like buddhas. Why do we have to go through a difficult practice such as zazen?

According to this theory, we don’t need to practice. We just need to know that mind nature is permanent and undefiled, and even if we don’t practice at all, when we die we become buddhas. This is an interesting teaching. As long as we are living, we’re no good, and our practice doesn’t work. What we have to do is wait until we die. Then we become buddhas. It seems easy. However, this means that as long as we are alive we are deluded and we have to suffer. I don’t think this is an easy way of life.

Bendowa: reply to Question Ten

Dogen makes up this question and replies by himself as follows:

The idea you have just mentioned is not Buddha-dharma at all, but the fallacious view of Senika.

This fallacy says that there is a spiritual intelligence in one’s body which discriminates love and hatred or right and wrong as soon as it encounters phenomena, and has the capacity to distinguish all such things as pain and itching or suffering and pleasure. Furthermore, when this body perishes, the spirit nature escapes and is born elsewhere. Therefore although it seems to expire here, since [the spiritual nature] is born somewhere, it is said to be permanent, never perishing. Such is this fallacious doctrine. However to learn this theory and suppose it is buddha-dharma is more stupid than grasping a tile or a pebble and thinking it is a golden treasure. Nothing can compare to the shamefulness of this idiocy. National teacher Echu of Tang China strictly admonished [against this mistake]. So now isn’t it ridiculous to consider that the erroneous view of mind as permanent and material form as impermanent is the same as the wondrous dharma of the buddhas, and to think that you become free from life and death when actually you are arousing the fundamental cause of life and death? This indeed is most pitiful. Just realize that this is a mistaken view. You should give no ear to it.9

Senika is one of the non-Buddhist teachers that appears in the Mahayana Parinirvana Sutra. What Dogen says here in Bendowa is the same as what he says in Eihei Koroku; this theory that insists that mind-nature is permanent is the same as the non-Buddhist teaching.

This spiritual intelligence is a translation of reichi (霊知) and that is exactly the same word that Guifeng Zongmi used to describe “one bright jewel” in his writing when he compared the four lineages of Zen in the Tang Dynasty. When this spiritual intelligence encounters a certain object, it creates some discrimination. This spiritual nature escapes from our body when we die as the owner of a house goes out when the house is burned and gets a new house. Dogen repeats exactly the same discussion in Shobogenzo Sokushin-zebutsu (The Mind Itself is Buddha). There he quotes a long conversation between Nanyan Huizhong (Nanyo Echu, 13675-775) regarding the same theory of Senika. The expression “mind itself is Buddha” is by Mazu (Baso), a disciple of Nanyan’s Dharma brother Nanyue Huairang (Nangaku Ejo, 677-744). Dogen does not agree with the teaching of Guifeng Zongmi written in his text. If we interpret Xuansha’s saying, “The entire ten-direction world is one bright8jewel,” according to the same usage of the analogy that appeared in Zongmi’s writing, then probably Dogen didn’t agree with it. What is Dogen’s understanding of Xuansa’s statement? Is there any difference between what Xuansha said and Dogen’s interpretation of Xuansha’s saying? This is the point of studying Shobogenzo Ikkamyoju (One Bright Jewel). What I have been discussing is a kind of preparation before starting to read Dogen’s insight about this analogy of “one bright jewel”.

Dogen is really a difficult person with whom to practice. In a sense, he’s so stubborn and picky. Many Zen texts agree with this theory in these sutras and Zongmi’s. Dogen is a very unusual and unique Zen master. To be his student is a difficult thing.

Shodoka, a poem by Yongjia Xuanjue

I pointed to the examples of usage of this analogy of “one bright jewel” in Zen Buddhism in the Tang Dynasty. I think Dogen didn’t agree the theory behind the expressions. He needed to make his own interpretation of what this bright jewel is. Obviously this bright jewel is a metaphor of Buddha nature, bussho in Japanese. We need to understand what Dogen’s understanding of Buddha nature is.

Before I start to read the text, I’d like to introduce one more example of the same kind of idea in one of the famous pieces of Zen literature written in the Tang Dynasty. This is a very well known and important poem written by Yongjia Xuanjue (Yoka Genkaku, 665-713). This person was another disciple of the Sixth Ancestor Huineng (Eno, 638-713), and yet he stayed with Huineng only one night. On the day he visited the Sixth Ancestor, he attained enlightenment and he left. He is a Dharma brother of Nanyan Huizhong and Nanyue Huairang. He used to be a Tendai monk, a great scholar and also a very skillful poet. He wrote a long poem entitled Shodoka (Song of Enlightenment of the Way).

I found a translation by D. T Suzuki. In this poem Yongjia Xuanjue wrote about this metaphor of mani jewel as follows:

The whereabouts of the precious mani-jewel is not known to people generally, Which lies deeply buried in the recesses of the Tathagata-garbha;

The six-fold function miraculously performed by it is an illusion and yet not an illusion,

The rays of light emanating from one perfect sun belong to the realm of form and yet not to it.10

As it is generally said, people don’t see this bright jewel. It is something hidden deeply within us. In this translation it says “the sixfold function miraculously performed by it…” Six-fold function refers to the function of the six sense organs when they encounter the six14 objects of sense organs. This refers to what we do every day, the things happening between subject and object such as seeing, hearing, sensing and knowing. All these things we do are done by this hidden bright jewel, Buddha Nature. This bright jewel is the subject of seeing, hearing, etc.

D.T. Suzuki translates, “…is an illusion and yet not an illusion.” I’m not sure if this is the right translation or not. The original word Xuanjue used is ku (􀀄) and fuku (􀀇􀀄). Ku is “emptiness” and fuku is “not emptiness.” This means that the conditioned color of blackness is empty but the bright jewel itself is not empty but substance as Zongmi said.

The next line, “The rays of light emanating from one perfect sun belong to the realm of form and yet not to it,” is like this in Chinese:􀀂􀀈􀀃􀀅􀀆􀀇􀀆􀀁􀀂􀀈 is the same word as ikkain ikka-myoju, which means “one piece”. Even though D.T. Suzuki translated it as “perfect sun,” I think this “one-piece” refers to the mani jewel. 􀀆􀀇􀀆(shiki fu-shiki) is form and not form. I would translate this line : The perfect light of the one [bright jewel] is both form and not-form.

Of course ku and shiki came from the Heart Sutra, “shiki soku ze ku, ku soku ze shiki”. That is what this means. “Not ku” means shiki and “not shiki” means ku, so ku and shiki interpenetrate each other. That is what is said in the Heart Sutra. Form is nothing other than emptiness and emptiness is nothing other than form. The function between subject and object are performed by this hidden bright jewel. And these are at the same time emptiness (conditioned color) and not emptiness (bright jewel) and the light of the bright jewel is both form and yet not-form. That is what is written in this poem. So here we can see a kind of a combination between the teaching of emptiness and the theory of tathagata-garbha (buddha nature). The author of this poem or the theory in the Surangama Sutra and the Perfect Enlightenment Sutra combined these two. In a sense, this theory is an integration or mixture of theory of emptiness, Yogacara’s consciousness only, and tathagata-garbha.

Dogen’s Understanding of the Bright Jewel

This poem is still considered as a classic of Zen Buddhism and no one thinks that this is a heretical teaching. This is considered an authentic Zen teaching. Probably Dogen is a rare Zen master who didn’t like this idea. The interactions of our six sense organs and the six objects of the sense organs are something we carry out day-to-day. Yet this poem says that there is something which is hidden and that that hidden thing called tathagata-garbha (buddha nature) is the subject that performs these day-to-day things. Here are two layers of reality; one is phenomena and another is probably, in Western philosophical world, called noumenon. Buddha Nature in this case is noumenon and things happening between subject and object are phenomena, and these phenomenal things are a function of the noumenon. That is the basic structure of this idea. I think this is what Dogen didn’t like, probably because viewing it from his practice of zazen, this theory is dualistic. There is the duality of phenomena and noumenon, or Buddha nature15and our day-to-day activities or one bright jewel and its conditioned black color. That is, I think, the basic problem for Dogen; thus he thinks this theory is not in accord with Buddhist teaching.

Then, in the case of Dogen, what is this bright jewel? I think, the bright jewel in Dogen’s teaching is like a drop of water that is illuminated by moonlight. In the case of the structure of the theory of noumenon and phenomena, there’s no relation between phenomenal things. But as Dogen defines delusion and realization in his Genjokoan, delusion and realization are only within the relationship between self and myriad dharmas. In Genjokoan, Dogen used the word jiko(􀀂􀀁) and banpo(􀀄􀀃), and he said that conveying the self toward myriad things and carry out practice-enlightenment is delusion, and all myriad things coming toward the self and carrying out practice-enlightenment through the self is realization.

In Shobogenzo Sokushinzebutsu (The Mind is itself Buddha), Dogen quotes Nanyan Huizong’s conversation with a monk from the south who criticizes the Zen teaching in the south, saying that the theory is the same as Senika’s, the non-Buddhist. Then the monk from the south asked Huizong, “Then what is the ancient Buddha mind?” Huizong replied, “Fences, walls, tiles and pebbles.” Dogen quotes this saying in Shobogenzo Kobutsushin (The Ancient Buddha Mind) and says at the end of Sokushinzebutsu, “The mind that has been authentically transmitted is one-mind is all things and all things are one-mind.” Here there is no duality between noumenon (the bright jewel) and phenomenal things (black color). I think Huizong and Dogen mention the interconnectedness of phenomenal things within the network of Indra’s Net.

It’s not a matter of there being Buddha nature that is like a diamond inside the self and to find this diamond is realization. Dogen doesn’t like this idea. If this is the case, our practice is to find something inside ourselves, and we would be able to attain so-called realization or enlightenment when we’ve found this inner diamond. Then it would have nothing to do with our relationship with others. But in the case of Dogen, practice-enlightenment is to transform the way of our life. Transformation of our life can be only within the relationship between self and myriad things.

In the same writing (Genjokoan), he says that the self is like a drop of water; it’s a tiny thing, and it is impermanent. The moonlight is the light of myriad dharmas. The self is a part of the network of interconnectedness of myriad things. This way of existing is the bright jewel. The bright jewel is not a permanent noumenon. We and all myriad things are born, stay for a while, and disappear; nothing is permanent. And yet this tiny drop of water is illuminated by all dharmas. There are numerous things and they are all interconnected with each other. Without this connection, this tiny drop of water cannot exist even for one moment. This bright jewel is like a knot of Indra’s net and each knot is a bright jewel. This bright jewel or drop of water is illuminated by everything, and this bright jewel or drop of water also illuminates everything. In this case,16this self is a part of the moonlight. This is like five fingers and one hand. One hand is simply a collection of five fingers. One hand is not a noumenon of five fingers. Practice-enlightenment or delusion and realization exist only within this relationship between self and all other beings. There is the difference of framework between the one bright jewel as noumenon and as a part of interdependent origination. I think this is the point Dogen wants to show us.

When Dogen interprets Xuansha’s saying, “This entire ten-direction world is one bright jewel,” he is talking about the relationship between self and myriad things within the structure of the network of interdependent origination.

Everything is reflected in one thing and, because this is a net, when we touch the one knot we touch the entire net. There is no separation between self and myriad things. It’s really one seamless reality. And yet within our views it seems subject and object are separate. Unless we understand this point and interpret the title “One Bright Jewel,” we don’t really understand what Dogen is talking about and why he had to say it in this way. Dogen’s interpretation might be different from what Xuansha expressed with this expression as I interpreted in the last issue based on Zongmi’s comparison of the four lineages.

---

Update 2025:

Nafis shared:

2025

Nafis: Japan. The Japanese Zen Buddhist Dōgen held that the sutra was not an authentic Indian text.[8] But he also drew on the text, commenting on the Śūraṅgama verse "when someone gives rise to Truth by returning to the Source, the whole of space in all ten quarters falls away and vanishes" as follows: This verse has been cited by various Buddhas and Ancestors alike. Up to this very day, this verse is truly the Bones and Marrow of the Buddhas and Ancestors. It is the very Eye of the Buddhas and Ancestors. As to my intention in saying so, there are those who say that the ten-fascicle Shurangama Scripture is a spurious scripture, whereas others say that it is a genuine Scripture: both views have persisted from long in the past down to our very day [...] Even were the Scripture a spurious one, if [Ancestors] continue to offer its turning, then it is a genuine Scripture of the Buddhas and Ancestors, as well as the Dharma Wheel intimately associated with Them.

Soh: Yes i agree. Ven hui lu gave many lectures on shurangama sutra also. But he does not turn it into advaita.

Nafis: There's a newer commentary on the Shurangama sutra that was published in 2022, the quality seemed better than Hsuan Hua but I haven't had the opportunity to go through it. The foreword is by Norman Fischer who is post-anatta: https://www.amazon.com/That-Not-Your-Mind-Reflections/dp/1645470792/ Also endorsed by Barry Magid and Joan Halifax. I checked his biography just now, it seems that he received dharma transmission from the same teacher as Shinshu Roberts.

Based on post by Acarya Malcolm in Dharmawheel, reposted in Zangthal forum.

This is an edited version of Malcolm’s posts from 2011 on that topic.

Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Recognizing rigpa means one is a practitioner. Realizing emptiness means one is an awakened person (ārya).

The recognition of rigpa is not equal to entering the path of seeing on the first bhūmi. The path of seeing is reached the moment one’s understanding of emptiness ceases to be an intellectual construct and becomes a valid direct perception.[1] To put it another way, when a person ceases to reify phenomena in terms of the four extremes, that is the direct perception of emptiness. Until that point, one’s ‘emptiness’ remains an intellectual sequence of negations, accurate perhaps, but conceptual nevertheless. Realizing emptiness here in Dzogchen has the same meaning as realizing emptiness in any other Mahāyāna school.

The recognition of rigpa is a recognition of clarity. It is simply, the knowledge (rig pa) about one’s state as a working basis for practice. That recognition of rigpa (knowledge of the basis) does not require realization of emptiness as a prerequisite and can’t. If it did, no one who was not an ārya on the bhūmis could practice Dzogchen. So a proper understanding is required, but not the realization of emptiness. So this recognition, not being the same as the realization of emptiness of the path of seeing, is an example-wisdom only.

The realization of emptiness is also not a requirement for the basic requirement of trekchö, i.e. stable placement in a momentary unfabricated consciousness (ma bcos pa shes pa skad gcig ma). Only a proper understanding of emptiness is required.

That understanding of emptiness, while necessary, is not at all the same thing as realizing emptiness. The experience of emptiness is experiencing a consciousness (shes pa) free of concepts, often referred to as recognizing the gap between two thoughts. If you follow the teaching of Chögyal Namkhai Norbu, terming this experience ‘Dharmakāya’ is a mistake. It is just an impermanent experience.

In terms of thögal and the four visions, one will not reach the third vision for as long as one continues to reify phenomena. This is the principal reason emphasis is placed on the basis of trekchö rather than the path of thögal in modern Dzogchen practice. If you are a first bhūmi bodhisattva and so on, then the four visions in Dzogchen will be very, very rapid. However, since there is no guarantee that one will realize emptiness merely through practicing trekchö, for this reason, practices such as tummo, etc. are also recommended.

[1] See the abhisamayālamkara for more details.

---

Soh Wei Yu
Rigpa kechigma is the initial unripened vidya or rigpa.
https://www.reddit.com/user/krodha/
krodha = kyle dixon

Kyle Dixon (krodha)
"If the nature of mind is realized"
There is a spectrum of aspects that can be recognized and realized, from vidyā [rig pa] to the nature of mind [sems nyid], the two are not technically synonymous, and so on. Then, within that we must differentiate ngo shes, to recognize; and rtogs pa, to realize, and then liberation [grol ba]. Recognition of sems nyid is not the realization of sems nyid, just as the initial vidyā in the form of a mental factor as rig pa skad cig ma, what Norbu Rinpoche called “instant presence” is not qualitatively the same as the definitive expression of vidyā that knows the essence [snying po] of mind. Therefore this topic really is not so cut and dry.

"That's why people translate the first vision the way they do.. "manifest intrinsic reality" -- (from Dzogchen by His Holiness the Dalai Lama) on the first vision. "the direct experience of dharmata" -- (from A Guide to the Practice of Ngöndro) The direct experience of dharmata doesn't exclude emptiness."

Yes, well, this topic is also quite interesting. The use of chos nyid in the first vision as chos nyid mngon gsum “the direct perception of dharmatā” is actually a different use of dharmatā than sūtrayāna. Here, when we see chos nyid it indicates rig pa mngon sum du gtan la phebs (རིག་པ་མངོན་སུམ་དུ་གཏན་ལ་ཕེབས), "confirming vidyā in a direct perception." Therefore in the case of the first vision, we are not referring to dharmatā as emptiness, but rather dharmatā is a term being used to indicate the appearances of rig pa that are ascertained in a direct perception [pratyaksa].

The total realization of emptiness does not then occur until the third vision, which is called “the full measure of vidyā” because at that time, upon realizing emptiness and non-arising, our knowledge [vidyā] of phenomena is complete, and has reached its “full measure.”

Kyle Dixon (krodha)
Who is your teacher? You should ask for clarification on this matter... Yes, as did my root teacher, Chögyal Namkhai Norbu. The issue is that vidyā is subject to affliction, whereas the nature of mind, the basis, is not. If we say the basis and vidyā are one and the same, then we are saying vidyā is always perfected and there would be no reason for the Dzogchen path at all, which as Longchenpa states is the process of purifying vāyu and vidyā.

It is a subtle but important distinction. Generally vidyā would belong to the lhun grub aspect of the basis, the nature [rang bzhin], but the basis is the trio of essence, nature and compassion... This is Khenpo Namdrol’s definition, perhaps reach out to him, Sangye Khandro or Lama Chönam for clarification. This is ABSOLUTELY the correct “conclusion” because they just aided my own teacher in the publication of the Dzogchen tantra, the Yige Medpa which is the definitive explanatory tantra on the first vision. Also the latter section on the direct perception of dharmatā is quite cut and dry, and if you aren’t clear on this point then you will encounter problems in your practice, so again please seek clarification from your teacher.

The realization of emptiness takes place at the third vision.

zhonnu
The way emptiness is understood in sutra is different from what constitutes emptiness in thogal. As far as i am aware when people talk about the first bhumi like the OP does they talk about the understanding that sutra practitioners have. No questions were asked about thogal.

Kyle Dixon (krodha)
Emptiness as a principle and realization, is identical in either case. They are both referring to the same emptiness [śūnyatā]. There is no difference in sūtra, tantra or Dzogchen on this point, only a difference in methodology.

Dzogchen aligns with the Svātantrika view... They are the same. This is why the Dzogchen view in terms of kadag trekchö is often compared to Nāgārjuna’s prasanga Madhyamaka. For example, Khenchen Rigdzin Dorje [Chatral Rinpoche's heart disciple] states:

The Madhyamika consider the Prasangik as the perfect Rangtong view. The Dzogchen trekcho view as Kadag (primordially pure view) and the Prasangik view is the same. The emptiness is the same, there is no difference... It is important to understand that the words primordially pure [kadag] is the Dzogchen terminology for the Prasangic Emptiness. [The ancient Nyingmapa Masters like Long Chenpa, Jigme Lingpa, Mipham, were] Prasangikas [Thalgyurpas]... the Prasangika Madhyamika sunyata [tongpanyid] and the Dzogchen sunyata are exactly the same. There is no difference. One hundred percent [the] same.

---

Further Clarifications on Rigpa vs Emptiness

Soh Wei Yu
More Kyle postings:

"We had some confusion over the words recognition and realization but I'm not talking about a full realization of emptiness in the first vision. I'm talking about initial recognition and then familiarizing with empty cognizance. I made plenty of citations by now."

Kyle Dixon (krodha)
You still are not understanding what chos nyid means in chos nyid mgon sum it has nothing to do with emptiness. But I’ve explained this and you aren’t interested in listening, and that is okay for you, but your lack of clarity on this topic is concerning for others you may teach.

Initial recognition of emptiness, unless the practitioner is very ripe, occurs at the third vision and then the third and fourth visions are the spectrum of integration with emptiness, hence the process of exhausting phenomena. Up until that time “emptiness” is rhetorical, indicating the clear and spacious nature of our knowing clarity [gsal rig]. Your Tulku Urgyen citations are not talking about the first vision. They are discussing the ma bcos pa'i shes pa skad cig ma or “moment of unfabricated consciousness” that is pointed out, which is the initial form of rig pa we use for practice, and specifically the practice of trekchö.

Soh Wei Yu
"We don’t have any misunderstanding. Again this is rhetoric versus reality, up until the third vision, “emptiness” is obscured and therefore at the time of direct introduction it is merely rhetorical. The nature of mind, as non-dual clarity and emptiness is not truly known until the third vision, again per Longchenpa, per Khenpo Ngachung, etc., not something I have made up. What do we generally recognize in direct introduction? We recognize clarity [gsal ba], and the aspect of vidyā that is concomitant with that clarity. Vidyā is then what carries our practice, but vidyā is not the citta dharmatā, the nature of mind. This is why the first two visions are likened to śamatha, and the last two are likened to vipaśyanā."

"I’ve never met anyone who gained any insight into emptiness at direct introduction. Plenty who recognized rigpa kechigma though. I don’t presume to know better than luminaries like Longchenpa and Khenpo Ngachung who state emptiness isn’t actually known until third vision and so on. You may presume otherwise and in that case we can agree to disagree." - Kyle Dixon

Soh wrote to Mr. J: as John Tan also said before, and also reiterated by many (including Malcolm, Dalai Lama, etc) who went through similar phases... there is distinct phase - realizing Awareness [although Malcolm does not use this term in the same way] or the unfabricated clarity aspect of rigpa, and realizing emptiness are distinct realizations. Even longchenpa and other dzogchen masters would point out that realizing emptiness only happens in thodgal practice at the third vision.

John Tan's reply on something Malcolm wrote in 2020:

“This is like what I tell you and essentially emphasizing 明心非见性. 先明心, 后见性. (Soh: Apprehending Mind is not seeing [its] Nature. First apprehend Mind, later realise [its] Nature).

First is directly authenticating mind/consciousness 明心 (Soh: Apprehending Mind). There is the direct path like zen sudden enlightenment of one's original mind or mahamudra or dzogchen direct introduction of rigpa or even self enquiry of advaita -- the direct, immediate, perception of "consciousness" without intermediaries. They are the same.

However that is not realization of emptiness. Realization of emptiness is 见性 (Soh: Seeing Nature). Imo there is direct path to 明心 (Soh: Apprehending Mind) but I have not seen any direct path to 见性 (Soh: Seeing Nature) yet. If you go through the depth and nuances of our mental constructs, you will understand how deep and subtle the blind spots are.

Therefore emptiness or 空性 (Soh: Empty Nature) is the main difference between buddhism and other religions. Although anatta is the direct experiential taste of emptiness, there is still a difference between buddhist's anatta and selflessness of other religions -- whether it is anatta by experiential taste of the dissolution of self alone or the experiential taste is triggered by wisdom of emptiness.

The former focused on selflessness and whole path of practice is all about doing away with self whereas the latter is about living in the wisdom of emptiness and applying that insight and wisdom of emptiness to all phenomena.

As for emptiness there is the fine line of seeing through inherentness of Tsongkhapa and there is the emptiness free from extremes by Gorampa. Both are equally profound so do not talk nonsense and engaged in profane speech as in terms of result, ultimately they are the same (imo).”

Dalai Lama - "Nature - there are many different levels. Conventional level, one nature. There are also, you see, different levels. Then, ultimate level, ultimate reality... so simply realise the Clarity of the Mind, that is the conventional level. That is common with Hindus, like that. So we have to know these different levels...." - Dalai Lama on Anatta and Emptiness of Buddha Nature in New Book

Or as kyle dixon reiterated malcolm with regards to trekchod:

Kyle Dixon
Yes, the actual state of trekchö is the nonconceptual equipoise of a yogic direct perception of emptiness. Emptiness cannot be known by unawakened people, but clarity can be known. The nominal trekchö we practice until we realize emptiness works with the clarity aspect [gsal cha]. The nominal “little” trekchö is also called “the yoga of the view.”

Malcolm
“The question is framed incorrectly. Treckhöd is best described in general terms as a practice in which insight into emptiness and śamatha are combined. But below the path of seeing, this insight is conceptual, based on the example wisdom of the direct introduction. However, the emptiness meditated upon in trekchöd is also inferential until one mounts the path of seeing. There really is no difference between perfection of wisdom, mahāmudra, Chan/Zen, etc., and tregchöd. I have heard it said that Tulku Orgyen asserted that trekchöd exists in all yānas, perhaps EPK would be kind enough to confirm this. What separates from trekchöd from these other systems of the method of introduction. Trekchöd, like any secret mantra practice, is based on empowerment/introduction.”

“Actually, what one is resting is empty clarity. However, below the path of seeing, the emptiness of that clarity is a conceptual inference. However, when meditating, we just rest in the clarity aspect without engaging in concepts like 'this is empty.' We know already that it is empty since we confirmed this analytically during rushan of the mind or the semzin of gradual and sudden emptiness.”

---

Reddit Discussions: What is the experience of Rigpa?

abandoned-crystal
Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche explains very succinctly what is the state if rigpa: “Whatever arises in the mind, the awareness of that, the presence of that state of whatever arises is itself rigpa. This is not a concept, but it's a direct experience, that kind of presence or awareness. It's beyond any concept. One continues to remain beyond concept and one continuously finds oneself in this knowingness, or presence. This is the essence of all that we speak of in the Upadesha teachings”

krodha (Kyle Dixon)
That is the initial form of rigpa yes, not the “definitive” type though. The definitive form is synonymous with prajñā [tib. shes rab]. To unpack further:

Norbu Rinpoche, who is my own root teacher, in the quote above is discussing rig pa in the context of gnas gyu rig gsum or the trio of knowing, stillness of thought and movement of thought. Rigpa in that context is defined as gnas gyu shes pa or the “knowing of stillness and movement.” In his own writing Norbu Rinpoche is quite clear that this initial form of rigpa is simply the clarity or cognizance of one’s own mind, thus it is termed “rig pa” because it is a species of shes pa or knowing.

This species of rigpa is an acceptable form of rigpa that one can recognize and use as a foundation for one's practice, however it is not yet the awakened form of rigpa which is accompanied by ye shes [skt. jñana]. This preliminary expression of rigpa, as the mere clarity of mind is a coarse expression of rigpa appearing as the consciousness [vijñāna] skandha, called by Vimalamitra; ”The vidyā that apprehends characteristics.” Vimalamitra defines this rigpa as ”the vidyā [rig pa] that imputes phenomena as universals and as mere personal names, which is one’s mere non-conceptual self-knowing awareness defiled by many cognitions.” Chögyal Namkhai Norbu calls this modality of rigpa: ”rigpa mistaken as illusory mind”, and also refers to it by the name Vimalamitra gave it, which is again: ”the vidyā that apprehends characteristics.”

Jean-Luc Achard defines this species of rigpa as “unripened” or “immature” rigpa [tib. ma smin pa'i rig pa]. Tsoknyi Rinpoche is quite clear that we should not conflate this preliminary form of rigpa for the definitive and awakened expression of rigpa:

This early stage of knowing or noticing whether there is stillness [of mind] or thought occurrence is also called rigpa. However, it is not the same meaning of rigpa as the Dzogchen sense of self-existing [self-originated] awareness [rang byung rig pa].

His father, Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche said the same:

In the case of stillness [lack of thought], occurrence [thought] and noticing [the knowing], the word rigpa is used for noticing. Self-existing [self-originated] awareness is also called rigpa. The word is the same but the meaning is different. The difference between these two practices is as vast as the distance between sky and earth.

---

---

Is there a difference between resting in space vs the nature of mind?

krodha
"In some systems and schools of meditation, emptiness is seen as something that is "done": you actively focus on the empty space between thoughts and try to rest there for as long as possible. I was wondering if, in Dzogchen, there is a difference between the described above and 'resting in the nature of the mind', or if the latter is a different thing."

Yes there is a difference. The former, cultivating the space between thoughts is called stillness or nepa in Tibetan, gnas pa in the Wylie transliteration. Cultivating stillness is good practice, it is śamatha meditation, but in Dzogchen we must also integrate movement, and there are methods to accomplish that.

The knower of stillness and movement of thought is called the characteristic of mind, it is sometimes nominally referred to as the nature of mind, but it is just an “example gnosis” which is used in practice so that the aspirant can realize true gnosis.

True insight into the nature of mind however occurs in awakening to actual gnosis, the non-arisen luminosity of mind, and is the same as realizing there is no self, or no external objects as well, but it has to do with realizing emptiness [śūnyatā]. That insight is an actual cognitive shift where the inner subjective background collapses and/or external objects are realized to be false.

krodha
Not my teachings. I am not a teacher. But what the tantras and luminaries of the past along with what contemporary teachers have said.

"He says when we have recognition, it’s not an actual recognition but a 'artificial' nature of mind the Guru introduces us to."
Initial recognition is of vidyā, but it is just an unripened modality of vidyā. Then later when emptiness is realized the dharmatā or nature of mind is truly known. When teachers say you are resting in the nature of mind prior to realizing emptiness, they just mean nominally.

"Seems clear— if you do this simple practice, you will recognize the natural state, and then one can familiarize with that by returning to it in the face of conditioned consciousness."
Right, you employ that view and it will lead to jñāna.

"So how can we reconcile u/krodha’s statement... 'Only āryas can actually rest in the natural state' From countless instructions, scriptures, and teachers who instruct to rest in the natural state?"
Even Mipham in your citation says awakening “will naturally arise” as a result of engaging in the view he initially describes. That is how it works... You just apparently aren’t that knowledgeable about the nuances involved in these teachings. The actual meaning of really differentiating some of these modalities in the way they are expressed. I’m sorry the information I share challenges your ideas.

"And when we repeat the ancient instructions of resting in the natural state, so easy and fruitful, we are accused of claiming to be a Buddha."
I said you personally, conflate the ālaya with dharmakāya, gsal ba with zang thal etc. I stand by that assessment.

"So the premise set forth here is that anyone who says they’re resting in the natural state are claiming to be Buddhas— it really seems to be problematic considering so many dzogchen instructions tell to rest in the natural state and familiarize with it after recognition."
Again there is the nominal “natural state” we employ in beginners dhyāna that is used to access samādhi, etc., and then there is the genuine natural state. Which as I wrote before: “Natural state” is gnas lugs which actually means “reality.” The reality of what? Of mind and phenomena. It means seeing the way things really are [gshis kyi gnas lugs], phenomena as they really are [chos kyi dbyings] because you have realized emptiness [stong pa nyid].

This means the natural state you continually refer to is just a nominal natural state, referred to as such as a pleasantry. Incidentally, the confusion you are having about these distinctions is the very reason why snying thig Dzogchen began to institute the twin base model. The (i) ālaya or kun gzhi which is the mind and then (ii) the gzhi which also incidentally is defined as “the reality [gnas lugs] to be realized [rtogs pa].” The initial recognition [ngo shes] of what is pointed out by the teacher is not yet “realization” [rtogs pa]. That recognition must be matured through practice, and then realization [rtogs pa] of the “reality” [gnas lugs: the real meaning of “natural state”] and eventually liberation [sgrol ba] will occur.

My statements on all this are just to help ensure that no one is mistaking the ālaya for dharmakāya, the actual natural state, because like Jigme Lingpa said, doing so will mean you are like a blind man wandering in the desert.

[deleted user]
Ok this might be the core of our disagreement. Can you show some sources that talk about “nature of mind” in all these teachings is just a provisional or just a name for some..thing, as you seem to be saying? Because Mipham seems clear in saying the “real” natural state is what’s recognized and strengthened with familiarization... Can you show me a source that says the nature of mind pointed out by a guru is “nominal”?

krodha
Khenpo Ngachung’s thögal tri is a main text that discusses this, I will try to get a citation. The teacher only points out unripened vidyā, unless you are very ripe for realization. If you are “ripe” from accomplishment in previous lives then you may become realized just through direct introduction. Most of us just recognize vidyā and then ripen our vidyā until we realize emptiness.

[deleted user]
Ok we’ve been through this before— and you never cited a definitive, explicit teaching to back what you’re saying. Secondly, if what you’re saying is really truth, it would be repeated across many masters and teachings— like the instruction of resting in the natural state.

krodha
In the actual natural state objects no longer appear to be external. Objects don’t appear at all, just non-arisen appearance which is experientially ascertained to be the display of your own vidyā. Sems and sems byung are both arrested and the luminosity of your nature, zangtal, becomes the prevailing modality of consciousness.

That state is massively different in expression when compared to our relative condition.

It just seems to me that you are asserting that our relative condition, with functioning mind [sems] and mental factors [sems byung] which perceive objects is the natural state, but it is not the natural state, it is avidyā.

Thus, when a beginners trekchö practice is referred to as being in the “natural state” it is just a nominal natural state, not the actual awakened natural state.

---

Update, 2023: Adding some quotes:

Kyle Dixon
Yes “I AM” as it is understood in AtR is the first step in Dzogchen practice, and then insight is refined from there.

Kyle Dixon
Chris Pedersen if you have any of ChNN’s Longsal texts, there are a couple instances where he makes it quite explicit that “instant presence” is synonymous with what we would understand I AM to be in this AtR model. Instant presence is like an unripened form of rig pa in that way, used as a support for all practices, but not yet refined through insight.

Soh Wei Yu
Chris Pedersen
I wasn't having ChNN particularly in mind, but really, all Dzogchen teachers I've seen and come across lead students to I AM. (not necessarily as a final stage)

But yes, ChNN is included. It isn't even controversial. Kyle Dixon would agree with me, in fact, he told me himself that Malcolm Smith points to I AM as initial rigpa and is the said instant presence.

There's an important aspect to the guru yoga taught by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu which brings out the aspect of I AMness or Pure Presence.
I wrote previously, quoting a text from ChNN:

"...We sound another A and from that moment we are no longer working with visualization, thinking, or judging, but are only being in that presence. In particular, we notice who is doing this visualization, who is being in this white A at the center of the gakhyil. We are not looking at something in a dualistic way; we are being in that state, and that is instant presence and our real condition."

-- this is a self-enquiry instruction pointing to the same realization, exactly the same, even if you do not want to call it by those name.
ChNN pointing out the I AM (note that I am not suggesting that I AM is the limit of his insight):

5/12/2012 6:29 AM: Soh Wei Yu: "If you are in the state of instant presence, and compare this sensation with the experience of emptiness, or clarity, or in a different way you compare one with another, you discover that presence is unique, that it always remains the same. But before we are able to be in the state of presence, experiences are all different. So that is the meaning of tsed la pheb:
5/12/2012 6:30 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Maturing: you discover really that the state of instant presence or rigpa is unique. In our lives everything is an experience, and there are not only three experiences."
5/12/2012 8:54 AM: John: What does he meant by not only three experiences
5/12/2012 9:43 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Emptiness (in the gap between thoughts that is emptiness but there is nonetheless someone noticing that, a presence, sounds like I AM), clarity (like movement, manifestation) and sensation (sensation of pleasure incl sexual contact)
5/12/2012 9:45 AM: Soh Wei Yu: He said
5/12/2012 9:47 AM: Soh Wei Yu: "...when we are dissolving everything into emptiness, in that moment we are discovering instant presence because we are not only lost in emptiness, there is also someone noticing that, there is a presence. So this is called instant presence. And you can also have this instant presence with the experience of clarity and with the experience of sensation, even with a strong sensation like sexual contact. Of course, at this moment you can feel a very strong sensation of pleasure and maybe you are generally distracted by it, but
5/12/2012 9:48 AM: Soh Wei Yu: If you are a good practitioner you also notice the instant presence. That is, you are not only enjoying the strong sensation but at the same time
5/12/2012 9:48 AM: Soh Wei Yu: you are in instant presence.
5/12/2012 9:48 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Then followed by the ""If you are in the state of instant presence, and compare this sensation with the experience of emptiness... Etc

ChNN also said before,

"Ranxin minis means one does not simply remain in the condition of the experience, but uses the experience as a method to find oneself in the state of contemplation. In these experiences there is a presence. It is not as if one has fainted or lost consciousness. There is somebody who remains in it. There is no difference whatsoever whether this presence is found in the experience of the person who is smiling or in the experience of the person who is frightened, even though the experiences are completely different. Minis does not mean that two things are united, or that we think that they are the same. If we just say that the nature of those things is not real, thus they are the same, then it will remain as a mental construction. But if one goes through the diverse experiences and hence finds that the true state of presence has no difference, then the real state of nacog is one, and the presence is called rigba (rig.pa.) If we say different experiences are not equal, this is what we mean.

"Whether it is calm, movement, or any one of hundreds of experiences, the important thing is to know the difference between experience and presence. When we know what is meant by rigba, we ought to know how to integrate with all these aspects in our presence."

"So, ugly or beautiful, positive or negative conditions, heavens or hells or transmigration do not in any way affect the underlying nature of the consciousness that is the state of the mirror itself." "that which is noticing thoughts and that which is noticing no thoughts, that which notices both conditions is Rigpa"

Soh Wei Yu
And I can refer to you that Malcolm Smith post pointing to the distinction between initial rigpa as I AMness and subsequent emptiness realisation, if you guys are in the Zangthal forum.

As for some excerpts from other Dzogchen teachers besides ChNN pointing to I AMness:

Tenzin Wangyal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNK7g5xZu7w

Sogyal Rinpoche: “Sometimes when I meditate, I don't use any particular method. I just allow my mind to rest, and find, especially when I am inspired, that I can bring my mind home and relax very quickly. I sit quietly and rest in the nature of mind; I don't question or doubt whether I am in the "cor-rect" state or not. There is no effort, only rich understanding, wakefulness, and unshakable certainty. When I am in the nature of mind, the ordinary mind is no longer there. There is no need to sustain or confirm a sense of being: I simply am. A fundamental trust is present. There is nothing in par-ticular to do… …If meditation is simply to continue the flow of Rigpa after the introduction, how do we know when it is Rigpa and when it is not? I asked Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche this ques-tion, and he replied with his characteristic simplicity: "If you are in an unaltered state, it is Rigpa." If we are not contriving or manipulating the mind in any way, but simply resting in an unaltered state of pure and pristine awareness, then that is Rigpa. If there is any contriving on our part or any kind of manipulating or grasping, it is not. Rigpa is a state in which there is no longer any doubt; there is not really a mind to doubt: You see directly. If you are in this state, a complete, natural certainty and confidence surge up with the Rigpa itself, and that is how you know.”

Lopon Tenzin Namdak: "To clarify the Dzogchen view: "We are just what we are, the Natural State which is like a mirror. It is clear and empty, and yet it reflects everything, all possible existences and all possible lifetimes. But it never changes and it does not depend on anything else."

etc etc.. too many to list but you get the hang of it.

Soh Wei Yu
Also, the direct introduction of Dzogchen also can lead to I AM realization. For example, Tinh Panh realised the I AM during Malcolm Smith's direct introduction. He kinda thanked me for introducing him to Malcolm as I was kind of an influence for leading him to Malcolm Smith. Those who don't get it yet can do self-introduction practices like rushan and semzins.

Kyle Dixon also said,
https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2020/09/the-degrees-of-rigpa.html

"I’ve never met anyone who gained any insight into emptiness at direct introduction. Plenty who recognized rigpa kechigma though. I don’t presume to know better than luminaries like Longchenpa and Khenpo Ngachung who state emptiness isn’t actually known until third vision and so on. You may presume otherwise and in that case we can agree to disagree."
- Kyle Dixon

---

Someone asked:
Hello everyone!🤗
I'm having difficulties understanding an apparently simple thing that being Rigpa as a corresponding definition to AtR stages. It pretty much feels like the "I am" stage I'm in but I wanted to ask because I have the feeling I'm missing something.
I've read the post "Clarification on the Term "Rigpa" written on AtR...but still a little unsure and confused.
Thank you 🙏🏻

Soh replied:
"It pretty much feels like the 'I am' stage"
You can't say that because there are modalities. Kyle Dixon listed 5 types of rigpas for example.

Krodha/Kyle Dixon shared before:
It would only be a recognition [ngo shes] regarding preliminary insight into the triune division of knowing, stillness and movement [gnas gyu rig gsum]. This would be vidyā qua mental factor as instant presence [skad cig ma yi rig pa] in the context of being the "observer of stillness and movement" [gnas gyu shes pa], described above as the “unchanging background” against which the “shifting experience(s)” of stillness [gnas pa] and movement [gyu ba] occur.

This means the above is discussing unripened vidyā [ma smin pa'i rig pa]. This modality of vidyā must be ripened by prajñā of realization, as Longchenpa states in the Tshig don mdzod:

"de yang gzhi nas ’phags pa’i rig pa sa bon lta bu grol ’khrul gang byed ma nges pas ma smin pa’i rig pa zhes bya ste/ /sangs rgyas su smin par byed pa ni rtogs pa’i shes rab kyis byas te

Furthermore, since the vidyā [rig pa] that arises from the basis is like a seed, uncertain to produce either liberation or delusion, it is called “unripened vidyā”: that which will mature it into full buddhahood is the prajñā of realization."

Regardless of not yet being “realization” [rtogs pa], the above described recognition is indeed the view that we implement as a foundation for practice, but that view is the ground floor so to speak, it must be cultivated, and must mature and ripen. [...]

Khenpo Jikphun’s commentary on that section reads:

"You have the basis [gzhi] of the natural state. That state has a knowledge [rig pa] which, owing to the dynamism of the state (which is not static), flashes out of the basis. The mode [tshul] in which it arises or flashes [‘phags pa] out of the basis is uncertain [ma nges pa] since the nature of this mode will vary according to realization (and non-realization). Therefore this state of vidyā [rig pa] is styled as “unripened” [ma smin pa] because it has not yet been “brought to maturity” through the prajñā or sublime knowledge that realises its very nature. In case one does not recognize the nature of the epiphany (sounds, rays and lights) of the basis, one enters the mode [tshul] of ignorance [ma rig pa] and one errs into delusion [‘khrul pa]. If one recognizes the nature of this epiphany (sounds, rays and lights as being our own natural manifestations [rang snang]), then one enters the mode of vidyā [rig pa] and that of liberation [grol ba]. This is why uncertainty [ma nges pa] is associated with the notion of unripened vidyā [ma smin pa'i rig pa]. When that vidyā is clearly experienced for what it is, then there is no uncertainty anymore."

If we have merely recognized the background knowing capacity of the mind we have recognized clarity [gsal ba]. We are not yet “realized” however in the sense that we haven’t realized the nature of phenomena, or the definitive nature of mind which is not realized until third vision per Khenpo Ngachung et al.

I define a “realized” person as someone who has a knowledge of the nature of mind and phenomena. The definitive “realized” expression of vidyā is actually a jñāna that experientially sees the way things really are for oneself, hence pratyātma vid in the context of so so rang gyi rig pa'i ye shes [pratyatmyavedanajñāna] as you’re familiar with... a personality intuited jñāna.

There is no gnosis [jñāna] yet present in unripened vidyā. It is innate to vidyā but not yet expressed as an active modality of cognition because rtsal has not been recognized as self-display [rang snang]. Rather it is externalized and concretized as objective phenomena, persons, places, things, the five elements. As long as there is still a bifurcation of internal and external dbyings, the individual is not yet technically “realized.”

If you want to call recognition of instant presence “realization” I suppose you can, but the trifecta of recognition [ngo shes], realization [rtogs pa] and liberation [grol ba] is instituted for a reason.

...

An unchanging background against which shifting experiences occur is the initial view. It is not a matured view. There is no unchanging background or shifting experience in truly realized equipoise.

...

That is the initial form of rigpa yes, not the “definitive” type though. The definitive form is synonymous with prajñā [tib. shes rab].

To unpack further:
Norbu Rinpoche, who is my own root teacher, in the quote above is discussing rig pa in the context of gnas gyu rig gsum or the trio of knowing, stillness of thought and movement of thought. Rigpa in that context is defined as gnas gyu shes pa or the “knowing of stillness and movement.” In his own writing Norbu Rinpoche is quite clear that this initial form of rigpa is simply the clarity or cognizance of one’s own mind, thus it is termed “rig pa” because it is a species of shes pa or knowing.

This species of rigpa is an acceptable form of rigpa that one can recognize and use as a foundation for one's practice, however it is not yet the awakened form of rigpa which is accompanied by ye shes [skt. jñana]. This preliminary expression of rigpa, as the mere clarity of mind is a coarse expression of rigpa appearing as the consciousness [vijñāna] skandha, called by Vimalamitra; ”The vidyā that apprehends characteristics.” Vimalamitra defines this rigpa as ”the vidyā [rig pa] that imputes phenomena as universals and as mere personal names, which is one’s mere non-conceptual self-knowing awareness defiled by many cognitions.” Chögyal Namkhai Norbu calls this modality of rigpa: ”rigpa mistaken as illusory mind”, and also refers to it by the name Vimalamitra gave it, which is again: ”the vidyā that apprehends characteristics.”

Jean-Luc Achard defines this species of rigpa as “unripened” or “immature” rigpa [tib. ma smin pa'i rig pa].

Tsoknyi Rinpoche is quite clear that we should not conflate this preliminary form of rigpa for the definitive and awakened expression of rigpa:

This early stage of knowing or noticing whether there is stillness [of mind] or thought occurrence is also called rigpa. However, it is not the same meaning of rigpa as the Dzogchen sense of self-existing [self-originated] awareness [rang byung rig pa].

His father, Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche said the same:

In the case of stillness [lack of thought], occurrence [thought] and noticing [the knowing], the word rigpa is used for noticing. Self-existing [self-originated] awareness is also called rigpa. The word is the same but the meaning is different. The difference between these two practices is as vast as the distance between sky and earth.

---

Cao Khánh
If im not mistaken then in Dzogchen, a practitioner is guided through realizing rigpa - Knowing at different visions. The first visions would be similar to the I Am - which i think is similar to "Pure Awareness" and then the later visions continue on with refinement to see that Pure Awareness as also empty / dependently originated.

Soh Wei Yu
If you are talking about thodgal visions, there are specific visions (as in seen visually) involved so it is more complicated than that. You will have to learn and study under a Dzogchen master to understand if you are interested.

Cao Khánh
i was just regurgitating what you shared about Malcolm’s teaching

Soh Wei Yu
Yes. Recognition of clarity is involved in the visions, but the four visions unfold with specific visual visions involved and are exhausted.
The path of thodgal is different from mere trekcho, for example

Soh Wei Yu
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%B6gal

Cao Khánh
thank you 🙏

---

Acarya Malcolm Smith:
According to Khenpo Ngachung, the paths and stages don't really map to Dzogchen, but you can explain things that way:
Visions 1 & 2, below the path of seeing.
Vision 3; path of seeing and path of cultivation (bhumis 1-7)
vision 4; end of path of cultivation and path of no more learning (stages 8 to 16).

---

Update, 2025:

Nafis shared with me a nice quote from Kyle Dixon/Krodha that is relevant to this article:

“Krodha/Kyle Dixon:

According to Malcolm, who spends most of his time translating atiyoga, different modalities of rigpa will be discussed even from line to line in the tantras. It is difficult to say if there is one primary type that is being discussed "most of the time." But this is again, why a teacher is important, as you well know.

For example, ordinary sentient beings function through the vidyā that apprehends characteristics and the vidyā that apprehends or appropriates the basis, these would, to my knowledge, align with "knowing (vidyā) as a factor of consciousness" mentioned in the second list.

Rigpa for unrealized practitioners on a day to day basis is just the knowing capacity enveloped in the vijñāna skandha, just dualistic consciousness. That is essentially where we start.

There is another context where after direct introduction, depending on the type of direct introduction, we can work with the vidyā of insight from the first list, and that type of rigpa is associated with appearances, it would also be associated with "the knowledge of the essence (snying po) that permeates all that is free from ignorance, unobscured by the obscurations of ignorance" mentioned in the second list, however only because the appearances are non-karmic in nature.

Truly accessing "the knowledge of the essence (snying po) that permeates all that is free from ignorance, unobscured by the obscurations of ignorance" as a prevailing expression of how consciousness operates in the sense of being cognizance expressed as jñāna, does not really happen until the practitioner awakens and reaches the path of seeing. But, we can also access pure vision below the path of seeing in atiyoga, so these points are subtle and should be understood carefully.” - https://www.reddit.com/r/Dzogchen/comments/1ii2kx7/comment/mb6ls07/

---

---

Excerpt from Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tögal

In Dzogchen, tögal (Tibetan: ཐོད་རྒལ་, Wylie: thod rgal) literally means "crossing the peak."[1] It is sometimes translated as 'leapover,' 'direct crossing,' or 'direct transcendence.'[2][3][4] Tögal is also called "the practice of vision,"[5] or "the practice of the Clear Light" (od-gsal).[5]

Definition

Vimalamitra's Great Commentary, defines tögal as "the practice of the direct perception of pristine consciousness" which is for "the diligent who gradually attain buddhahood through meditation."[1] Chökyi Nyima Rinpoche glosses the term as "to proceed directly to the goal without having to go through intermediate steps."[6] Jigme Lingpa follows Longchenpa in seeing the visionary practice of tögal as the highest level of meditation practice.[4] Tögal is also called "the practice of vision",[5] or "the practice of the Clear Light (od-gsal)".[5]

See also: Luminous mind

Practice

Tögal is practiced in a completely dark setting or through sky gazing.[7] The practices engage the subtle body of psychic channels, winds and drops (rtsa rlung thig le).[8] These practices aim at generating a spontaneous flow of luminous, rainbow-colored images (such as thigles or circles of rainbow light) that gradually expand in extent and complexity.[9] The meditator uses these to recognize his mind's nature. According to Hatchell, these visionary yogic techniques:

[...] are based on the idea that pure awareness is locked away in the body’s core, localized at the heart. A set of luminous energy channels then run from the heart to the eyes, acting as pathways through which awareness can travel and exit the body. Based on special yogic techniques, awareness can be induced to emerge from the eyes and light up into visionary appearances. This provides an opportunity for recognition: for the yogi to realize that the visionary appearances “out there” are none other than presencings of an internal awareness, and thus to undo the basic error of ignorance.[10]

Four visions

The practice of tögal entails progressing through the "Four Visions" (snang ba bzhi), which are:[11][12][13]

• "The Absolute Nature Becoming Manifest" or "The Vision of Awareness' Immediacy" - This refers to initial visions of lights in the visual field, such as circles called thigle, and "linked chains of spots".
• "The Experience of Increasing Appearances" or "The Vision of the Intensification of Experience" - According to Hatchell, in this stage "visionary experience becomes more intense. The number, shape, and size of the appearances increase, and they begin to assemble together in simple configurations."[14]
• "Awareness Reaching its Greatest Magnitude" or "The Vision of Awareness' Optimization" - Hatchell writes that "at this stage, the abstract lights begin to organize themselves, ultimately taking shape as a mandala of 100 peaceful and wrathful deities."[14]
• "The Exhaustion of Phenomena in Dharmata" or "The Vision of Exhaustion within Reality" - In this final vision, appearances dissolve back into the expanse and fade away.

See also

• Rigpa
• Trekchö
• Trul khor

Trekchö

In Dzogchen, trekchö (khregs chod) means "(spontaneous) cutting of tension" or "cutting through solidity."[1][2] The practice of trekchö reflects the earliest developments of Dzogchen, with its admonition against practice.[3][a] In this practice one first identifies, and then sustains recognition of, one's own innately pure, empty awareness.[5][6] The main trekchö instructions in the Lamrim Yeshe Nyingpo state "This instant freshness, unspoiled by the thoughts of the three times; You directly see in actuality by letting be in naturalness."[7]

Definition

According to Malcolm Smith, trekchö can also be interpreted as meaning "an undone bundle", "like a hay bale with the twine." In Vimalamitra's Great Commentary, trekchö is defined as "the system of buddhahood through immediate liberation as a directly perceived realization that is not connected to appearances," and states that this is "the superior intimate instruction for the lazy who attain buddhahood instantly without meditation practice."[8]

Practice

Students receive pointing-out instruction (sems khrid, ngos sprod) in which a teacher introduces the student to the nature of his or her mind.[3] According to Tsoknyi Rinpoche, these instructions are received after the preliminary practices, though there's also a tradition to give them before the preliminary practices.[9] Tsoknyi Rinpoche states, "As for my own personal experience, when I underwent the ngondro training, I had already received some Dzogchen instructions. The awakened state of rigpa had been pointed out, and I had a lukewarm certainty about what it was. But the ngondro helped me progress.[9]

Jigme Lingpa divides the trekchö practice into ordinary and extraordinary instructions.[10] The ordinary section comprises the rejection of the "all is mind – mind is empty" approach, which is a conceptual establishment of emptiness.[10] Jigme Lingpa's extraordinary instructions give the instructions on the breakthrough proper, which consist of the setting out of the view (lta ba), the doubts and errors that may occur in practice, and some general instructions thematized as "the four ways of being at leisure" (cog bzhag), which are "a set of brief instructions on the spheres of view (lta ba), meditation (sgom pa), activity (spyod pa), and result ('bras bu)" according to van Schaik."[11]

The Seminal Heart tradition in general considers that pointing out instructions should be kept secret until the moment the lama reveals it to the student. In the Yeshe Lama, Jigme Lingpa gives the following passage as an introduction to the nature of mind:

Kye! Do not contrive or elaborate the awareness of this very moment. Allow it to be just as it is. This is not established as existing, not existing, or having a direction. It does not discern between emptiness and appearances and does not have the characteristics of nihilism and eternalism. Within this state where nothing exists, it is unnecessary to exert effort through view or meditation. The great primordial liberation is not like being released from bondage. It is natural radiance uncontrived by the intellect, wisdom unsullied by concepts. The nature of phenomena, not tainted by the view and meditation, is evenness without placement and post-evenness without premeditation. It is clarity without characteristics and vastness not lost to uniformity. Although all sentient beings have never been separate from their own indwelling wisdom even for an instant, by failing to recognize this, it becomes like a natural flow of water solidifying into ice. With the inner grasping mind as the root cause and outer objective clinging as the contributing circumstance, beings wander in samsara indefinitely. Now, with the guru's oral instructions, at the moment of encountering awareness-without any mental constructions-rest in the way things truly are, without wavering from or meditating on anything. This fully reveals the core wisdom intent of the primordial Buddha Kuntuzangpo.[12]

Regarding the "four cog bzhags", in the Yeshe Lama, these four ways of "freely resting" or "easily letting be" are described by Jigme Lingpa as follows:

(a) Placement in the mountainlike view: After realizing the true nature-free of thoughts-as it is, remain in the naturally clear, great awareness that is not subject to mental efforts, grasping, or the usage of intentional meditation antidotes [against concepts].

(b) Oceanlike meditation: Sit in the lotus posture. Look at space in a state of openness. Avoid grasping at the perceptions of the six consciousnesses. Clear your cognition like the ocean free of waves.

(c) Skill in activities: Abruptly relax your three doors of body, speech, and mind. Break free of the cocoon of view and meditation. Just maintain your clear, naked wisdom naturally.

(d) Unconditional result: Let the five mental objects remain naturally as they are. Then natural clarity arises vividly within you.[13]

The "setting out of the view" tries to point the reader toward a direct recognition of rigpa, insisting upon the immanence of rigpa, and dismissive of meditation and effort).[11] Insight leads to nyamshag, "being present in the state of clarity and emptiness".[14] To practice trekchö meditation, Jigme Lingpa states one sits cross legged with eyes open.[11]

His instructions on trekchö begin by stating that one must "settle in the present moment of gnosis [rigpa], without spreading out or gathering in." Rigpa is defined as that knowledge where "the extremes of existence and nonexistence are unaccomplished."[11]

See also

• Rigpa
• Sky gazing
• Tögal
• Trul khor

Wrote in 2018：

"If someone talks about an experience he/she had and then lost it, that's not (the true, deep) awakening... As many teachers put it, it's the great samadhi without entry and exit.

John Tan: There is no entry and exit. Especially for no-self. Why is there no entry and exit?

Me (Soh): Anatta (no-self) is always so, not a stage to attain. So it's about realisation and shift of perception.

John Tan: Yes 👍

As John also used to say to someone else, "Insight that 'anatta' is a seal and not a stage must arise to further progress into the 'effortless' mode. That is, anatta is the ground of all experiences and has always been so, no I. In seeing, always only seen, in hearing always only sound and in thinking, always only thoughts. No effort required and never was there an 'I'.""

Also：

Differentiate Wisdom from Art

Replying to someone in Rinzai Zen discussion group, John Tan wrote recently:

“I think we have to differentiate wisdom from an art or a state of mind.

In Master Sheng Yen’s death poem,

Busy with nothing till old. (无事忙中老)
In emptiness, there is weeping and laughing. (空里有哭笑)
Originally there never was any 'I'. (本来没有我)
Thus life and death can be cast aside. (生死皆可抛)

This "Originally there never was any 'I'" is wisdom and the dharma seal of anatta. It is neither an art like an artist in zone where self is dissolved into the flow of action nor is it a state to be achieved in the case of the taoist "坐忘" (sit and forget) -- a state of no-mind.

For example in cooking, there is no self that cooks, only the activity of cooking. The hands moves, the utensils act, the water boils, the potatoes peel and the universe sings together in the act of cooking. Whether one appears clumsy or smooth in act of cooking doesn't matter and when the dishes r out, they may still taste horrible; still there never was any "I" in any moment of the activity. There is no entry or exit point in the wisdom of anatta.”

- John Tan

---

Soh wrote in 2007 based on what John Tan wrote:

First I do not see Anatta as merely a freeing from personality sort of experience as you mentioned; I see it as that a self/agent, a doer, a thinker, a watcher, etc, cannot be found apart from the moment to moment flow of manifestation or as its commonly expressed as ‘the observer is the observed’; there is no self apart from arising and passing. A very important point here is that Anatta/No-Self is a Dharma Seal, it is the nature of Reality all the time -- and not merely as a state free from personality, ego or the ‘small self’ or a stage to attain. This means that it does not depend on the level of achievement of a practitioner to experience anatta but Reality has always been Anatta and what is important here is the intuitive insight into it as the nature, characteristic, of phenomenon (dharma seal).

To put further emphasis on the importance of this point, I would like to borrow from the Bahiya Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.irel.html) that ‘in the seeing, there is just the seen, no seer’, ‘in the hearing, there is just the heard, no hearer’ as an illustration. When a person says that I have gone beyond the experiences from ‘I hear sound’ to a stage of ‘becoming sound’, he is mistaken. When it is taken to be a stage, it is illusory. For in actual case, there is and always is only sound when hearing; never was there a hearer to begin with. Nothing attained for it is always so. This is the seal of no-self. Therefore to a non dualist, the practice is in understanding the illusionary views of the sense of self and the split. Before the awakening of prajna wisdom, there will always be an unknowing attempt to maintain a purest state of 'presence'. This purest presence is the 'how' of a dualistic mind -- its dualistic attempt to provide a solution due to its lack of clarity of the spontaneous nature of the unconditioned. It is critical to note here that both the doubts/confusions/searches and the solutions that are created for these doubts/confusions/searches actually derive from the same cause -- our karmic propensities of ever seeing things dualistically.

John Tan adds: "This is the seal of no-self and can be realized and experienced in all moments; not just a mere concept."

- John Tan

Read the English version here (閱讀英文版)

輪迴、驗證，以及那些無法抹去的證據

這一切通常始於一個最不具哲學意味的地方：不是在寺廟，不是在經堂，也不是在學者的辦公室，而是在孩子的臥室裏。一個蹣跚學步的孩子尖叫著醒來，說他的飛機著火了。一個小女孩路過一個她從未去過的小鎮，卻堅持說她的家就在附近，而且那裏的茶更好喝。另一個孩子指著老照片裏一張被遺忘的面孔，以令人不安的篤定口吻說：“那就是我。”對於大多數現代人來說，輪迴屬於宗教或民間傳說的範疇。然而，在半個多世紀的時間裏，研究人員收集並調查了大量案例。在這些案例中，年幼的兒童自發地描述了另一段人生，包括名字、地點、人際關係、恐懼以及死亡場景，而這些描述有時似乎與某個已故之人高度吻合。2022年的一項範圍綜述發現了78項關於前世記憶主張的科學研究，其中大部分聚焦於兒童。

對這些案例的現代科學研究，離不開弗吉尼亞大學的伊恩·史蒂文森（Ian Stevenson）。後來對他工作成果的綜述描述了一個跨越不同文化且驚人穩定的模式：孩子們通常在兩三歲左右開始講述，在六七歲時停止，他們描述的是近代且平凡的生活，而非宏大的神話故事，並且在許多案例中，他們特別關注前世那個人的死亡過程。弗吉尼亞大學的一篇綜述指出，前世之人死亡與兒童出生之間的中位間隔時間僅爲16個月，大約70%被報告的前世死亡皆是非自然原因，且全球範圍內已有超過2500個案例接受了調查。這些並非易受暗示的成年人所做的催眠回溯；它們是兒童早期、自發的報告，通常發生在學齡前，而且往往在對該案例有任何“解答”出現之前就已經發生。

當然，嚴肅的批評並非不存在。批評者常質疑，這類案例可能受到文化預設、家庭暗示、翻譯誤差、回憶污染，以及調查者確認偏誤的影響。這樣的質疑並非沒有道理，因此最有說服力的案例，通常不是那些只靠多年後口述流傳的故事，而是那些在辨認出“前世人格”之前，就已記錄下兒童陳述、並且能在事後覈驗相當多細節的案例。也正因如此，像詹姆斯·雷寧格、香蒂·戴維、斯瓦恩拉塔·米什拉等案例，才會在文獻中反覆被討論。

看看美國人詹姆斯·雷寧格（James Leininger）的案例。在三歲之前，他反覆做關於飛機墜毀的噩夢。他說這架飛機被日本人擊中，起火墜毀，他是從一艘名叫“納托馬”（Natoma）的船上起飛的，當時還有一個叫傑克·拉爾森（Jack Larsen）的人和他在一起。後來，他指著書裏的一張硫磺島圖片，說那就是他的飛機被擊落的地方。吉姆·塔克（Jim Tucker）發表的案例報告指出，其中的一些陳述在確認已故飛行員身份之前就已經被記錄下來。搜尋工作最終指向了美國海軍“納托馬灣號”（USS Natoma Bay）護航航空母艦、一個真實的傑克·拉爾森，以及詹姆斯·M·休斯頓（James M. Huston Jr.），一位來自該艦且在硫磺島戰役中陣亡的飛行員。這種吻合並不完美，也不具神話色彩；它是凌亂的、片段式的，但也正因如此，它才更具說服力。它看起來就像是真實的記憶，而非刻意的宣傳。

另一個名叫瑞安·哈蒙斯（Ryan Hammons）的美國孩子，在四歲時開始談論好萊塢、一棟大房子、一個游泳池，以及三個他記不起名字的兒子。他因爲記不起他們的名字而感到痛苦。後來，在翻閱一本關於好萊塢的書時，他指著一張舊劇照中的一個人說：“那個人就是我。”這個人最終被確認爲馬蒂·馬丁（Marty Martyn）。塔克並沒有簡單地把這個結果告訴他的家人就宣佈結案；根據弗吉尼亞大學的記錄，他用照片對瑞安進行了測試，瑞安準確認出了馬丁的妻子。馬丁的女兒後來證實了瑞安的幾十項陳述，包括他在百老匯跳舞、後來擔任經紀人、羅克斯伯裏大道（Roxbury Drive）的住址，以及他確實有三個兒子的事實。正是這種密集的吻合點，使得這些最強有力的案例極難被簡單地當作隨機的童年幻想或虛假記憶來打發。

早期印度案例以其絕對的深度依然令人震驚。香蒂·戴維（Shanti Devi）1926年出生於德里，她開始講述自己在馬圖拉（Mathura）的另一段人生，身份是一名名叫盧格迪·喬貝（Lugdi Chaubey）的已婚婦女。她的陳述接受了調查，並在通過這些陳述確認了盧格迪的家人之後，香蒂能夠帶領人們找到她以前的房子，認出盧格迪的親屬，並展示出對盧格迪生活中私密細節的瞭解。這個案例引起了聖雄甘地的注意，並得到了廣泛的調查。斯瓦恩拉塔·米什拉（Swarnlata Mishra）同樣在孩提時代就開始講述前世，她在路過卡特尼（Katni）時要求被帶到“我的家”去。她的早期陳述在她記憶被證實之前就被記錄了下來，後來她認出了前世家庭的人，甚至用一種她顯然從未學過的語言表演了歌舞。無論你更傾向於哪種解釋，像這樣的案例顯然都不是普通的奇聞軼事。

接下來是物理證據，這一系列的證據往往會讓哪怕是持有同情態度的讀者感到不安，因爲它們聽起來太過戲劇性，以至於讓人覺得不真實。在1993年的一篇論文中，史蒂文森報告說，在895名據說記得前世的兒童中，有309人擁有歸因於前世的胎記或先天缺陷。他和他的同事調查了210個這樣的案例。在獲得了如屍檢報告等醫療文件的49個案例中，據說有43個案例證實了死者身上的致命傷口與兒童身上的胎記或缺陷之間存在對應關係。我們不必立刻由此躍進到確信無疑，但我們必須承認，這遠超簡單的營火故事。

後續的文獻也不支持那種認爲這些兒童僅僅是存在心理疾病的草率否定。一項2014年的心理學研究對15名報告有前世記憶的美國兒童進行了分析，發現他們擁有高於平均水平的智力，總體正常的行爲清單得分，大多數參與者的解離（dissociative）得分很低，且沒有證據表明他們的報告源於精神病理學。一項2024年針對在孩童時期曾報告過此類記憶的美國成年人進行的後續研究發現，他們似乎過著正常且富有成效的生活，擁有較高的學歷，並且幾乎沒有負面的長期影響。一篇2024年來自巴西的案例報告描述了一個孩子，他做出了13項與一位已故舅公生活相符的陳述，其中9項得到證實，4項無法確定；這名兒童還表現出8種與該死者相匹配的不尋常行爲，並且擁有一種罕見的顱骨缺陷，被認爲與致命傷口相吻合。這在數學意義上並不能證明轉世。但這確實表明，這一現象仍然活躍，仍在被調查中，且遠遠未被輕易解釋掉。

講到這裏，我們需要注意到，實證文獻僅僅是證據的一個分支。亞洲的禪修傳統長期以來一直宣稱，在甚深禪定中可以回憶起前世。在早期的佛教經典中，佛陀證悟的記載明確包括了對許多前世的回憶（宿命智），認爲這是在甚深禪定中獲得的智慧之一，隨之而來的便是目睹衆生隨其業力死此生彼的景象（死生智）。更廣泛地說，在佛教出現之前，關於輪迴的信仰在印度宗教傳統中就已經很普遍了，因此佛教的這一主張並非憑空出現。

這股實修的洪流一直延續到了現代。禪修博客 覺悟真實 (Awakening to Reality) 探討道，神通（siddhis）並非對世界秩序的“超自然”破壞，而是緣起條件下可能顯現的現象。同一篇文章還記錄了一位現代修行者的經歷，其中描述了 Sim Pern Chong 以異常生動的細節重溫前世，包括當下的關係與前世業力紐帶之間的聯繫；在文章的後半部分，這種回憶被明確地與催眠前世回溯區分開來，而是被描述爲通過三摩地（定）與禪那產生的，是一種“全身體憶”（whole-body remembering）。無論人們將此類敘述視爲證據、證言還是禪修現象學，它們都表明，這種主張並沒有從活生生的修行實踐中消失。

這也是爲什麼 John Tan 在 2015 年的一次聊天記錄中所說的話顯得如此相關。以下引文根據原聊天記錄做了輕度英文標準化處理，但未改變原意：

“去讀讀薩姆·帕尼亞（Sam Parnia）博士的作品吧。”

“他非常優秀，就像伊恩·史蒂文森一樣——他是一名每天都在與死亡、心臟驟停以及被宣佈臨牀死亡的病人打交道的醫生，也是他所在領域受人尊敬的專家。”

“伊恩·史蒂文森的書是科學研究，而不是浮誇意義上的‘科學’。他是一名科學家，但他明白，除非通過驗證，否則科學無法證明這樣的事情。”

“除了通過驗證，一個人該如何去證明前世的存在呢？”

“懷疑永遠存在，因爲懷疑論者總是在懷疑。”

“只有三種方法：信任一位受人尊敬的專家、把它當作宗教信仰來接受，或者通過修行去親自體驗。”

“我的方法既不是盲信，也不是單純的懷疑，而是去實修，並聽取受人尊敬的專家的意見。”

這比它初聽起來更具理智的嚴謹性。核心觀點在於方法論：如果你正在處理關於死亡、意識和記憶的主張，那麼你應該仔細審查那些認真記錄案例的人，以及那些直接從事復甦醫學工作的人的研究成果，而不僅僅是聽取文化懷疑論者或狂熱愛好者的意見。

在這一點上，John Tan 對於該把目光投向何處並沒有說錯。薩姆·帕尼亞目前是紐約大學朗格尼醫學中心（NYU Langone）重癥監護和復甦研究的主任，他將自己的工作描述爲專注於心臟驟停、復甦後綜合徵，以及與心臟驟停和生命終點相關的心理和認知體驗。荷蘭心臟病專家皮姆·範·隆梅爾（Pim van Lommel）在《柳葉刀》（Lancet）雜誌上發表了一項前瞻性研究，對荷蘭10家醫院的344名成功復甦的心臟驟停患者進行了調查。彼得·芬威克（Peter Fenwick）是英國的神經精神病學家和神經生理學家，他對大腦功能、心識與大腦的關係以及瀕死和生命末期體驗有著長期的研究興趣。這些都不能單獨證明轉世。但它們確實表明，嚴肅且受過醫學訓練的研究人員認爲這裏有足夠的實質內容值得調查，並且他們是在醫院裏，而不是在奇幻文學中進行這項工作。

阿姜布拉姆在 2001 年 10 月 19 日題爲《Buddhism and Science》的演講中，以一個帶有修辭色彩的物理學類比來強調：面對反常證據時，科學不應因爲它挑戰主流世界觀，就將其輕易束之高閣。

阿姜布拉姆說：

“如果有一個被證實醫學死亡的人，在被搶救回來後能立刻向醫生描述在死亡期間所發生的一切言行，難道這不具有很強的說服力嗎？當我從事基本粒子物理學研究時，有一種理論需要證實一種被稱爲‘W’粒子的存在。在日內瓦的迴旋加速器那裏，歐洲核子研究中心（CERN）資助了一項龐大的研究計劃，用一個巨大的粒子加速器讓原子相互碰撞，試圖找到其中一個‘W’粒子。他們在這個項目上花費了數億英鎊。他們找到了一個，僅僅找到了一個‘W’粒子。我不認爲從那以後他們還找到過第二個。但只要找到了一個‘W’粒子，參與那個項目的研究人員就獲得了諾貝爾物理學獎。他們僅僅通過找到這一個‘W’粒子就證實了這個理論。這是優秀的科學。只要一個就足以證明理論。

當涉及到我們不想相信的事情時，他們就把這僅僅一次的經歷，一次清晰、符合事實且不可否認的經歷，稱爲‘異常現象’（anomaly）。‘異常現象’在科學界是一個專門用來指代那些令人不安的證據的詞彙，我們可以把這些證據塞進檔案櫃的最深處，再也不去碰它，因爲它們威脅到了我們的世界觀。它破壞了我們想要相信的東西。它對我們的教條構成了威脅。然而，科學方法中極其重要的一部分在於：爲了尊重證據和事實，必須放棄原有的理論。關鍵在於，證明心智獨立於大腦的證據是存在的。但一旦我們承認了這些證據，並遵循科學方法，那麼許多我們珍視的理論，也就是那些所謂的‘神聖不可侵犯的信條（sacred cows）’，就不得不被拋棄。

...

如果你想尋找轉世的科學證據，去看看伊恩·史蒂文森教授的作品。他在弗吉尼亞大學以堅實的科學爲基礎，花了一輩子的時間研究轉世。[4] 施樂複印術的發明者切斯特·卡爾森（Chester Carlson，在他的妻子鼓勵下），提供資金在大學設立了一個捐贈教席，讓史蒂文森教授能夠全職致力於此類研究。如果不是因爲人們從心底裏不願意相信轉世，伊恩·史蒂文森博士現在已經是一位世界聞名的科學家了。他甚至在牛津大學當過幾年的客座研究員，所以你可以看出這並不是一個古怪的教授；他擁有作爲一個受人尊敬的西方學者所應具備的所有資歷。

史蒂文森博士的檔案裏有3000多個案例。一個有趣的例子是一個非常清晰的男人的案例，他記得前世的許多細節，而他根本沒有任何途徑從其他來源獲得這些信息。那個人在轉世前幾個星期才剛剛去世！這就引出了一個問題：胎兒在子宮裏的那幾個月，它是誰？就佛教而言，是母親用她自己的心識之流（stream of consciousness）維持著胎兒的生命。但當另一股心識之流進入時，胎兒就成了新的人。這是一個心識之流在胎兒幾乎完全發育時才進入母親子宮的案例。這種情況是可能發生的。佛教在兩千五百年前就已經闡明了這一點。如果心識之流沒有入胎，生下來的就是個死嬰。有大量的證據支持這一點。”