修行者的来信与体悟 (The Inquiry Context)

一位修行者最近联系了我，分享了他阅读《如实（Thusness）开悟的七个阶段》中文版后的感悟。他表示自己的经历与文章所述并不相同，认为自己从小在记忆里的认知就已经是文章所描述的第五阶段，而在读完《金刚经》后，更是自认步入了第七阶段。

他描述自己的体悟为“一切法非我，背后有本体的真我”，并强调这个“本体的真我”不是思维上的实体。他声称自己已经突破了能所的对立，达到了“没有我能证、我所证，已经入一了”的境界，甚至认为如果生起一丝“有能有所”的念头，便等同于下降到了阿罗汉的境界（即存在“我有苦为我所灭、我能灭苦”的对立）。同时，他也坦诚了目前修行中最难破除的困境：潜意识中极其微细的“第七意识我执”，稍不留神就会生起，需要不断在生活里历练和拔除。

然而，通过他的描述，我发现他严重误判了自己的阶段。我向他指出，他所执着的“一切法非我，背后有本体的真我”，实际上只是第一阶段“我是”（I AM）的证悟，根本不是第五阶段的无我。他将“无我相/无小我”（egolessness/impersonality）的体验与佛教究竟的“法印之无我”（Anatta）混为一谈。因为他依然保留着将“觉”当作背后不变主体的二元见地，我给出了以下详尽的回复。该回复旨在厘清“忘我”状态（在此引用了我过去与另一位修行者 Mr N 的对话作为例子）与“法印无我”的本质区别，指出他目前将觉知与念头分开的解离（dissociative）状态，并引导他突破对“永恒观者”的误解，迈向真正的无我法印。

我的回复 (The Response)

我认为你把证悟“法印之无我”（Anatta）与“无我相/无小我”（egolessness/impersonality）混淆了。即使在如实（Thusness）第一阶段“我是”（I AM）的证悟中，也存在着“无我相”和“无小我”的体验与修持。但这并非证悟了无我的法印。

就如几年前我曾告诉某位佛法老师：“当我在‘本我’时，我也说过观无观者，那是‘无小我’在观，但还有‘大我/宇宙本体’的觉体在观，后来才体会这也不是究竟。所以我想 Mr N 把‘观无观者’看成了‘无小我在观，但还有大我/宇宙本体的觉体在观’。

真正的无我，觉就像风和吹动，‘知’和‘所知’也只是别名，只有一切动态的展现即是了知，而并无知者（dynamic process rolls and knows without knower）。

Mr N 好像还不清楚“法印无我”和“无我相”（egoless/impersonality）的不同。

我几个星期前有发给他：

“从哪里修？从生活中去修。”
我觉得动中，静中都要修。你有常打坐的习惯，那是很好也很重要的。
“那段时间，真的是为了学生，忙到忘了自己。”

这很好，在行为中忘了自己，只剩下行动，没有“我”在行动。但是还有一点，我很多年前也写过一段关于“忘我”和“法印无我”的不同。法印之无我是本来如此的真理，证悟了，没有出入：

“……没有所见、所听、所感、所触、所认知、所闻之外所能成立的‘觉知’，‘觉’就是这一切光明的呈现。”

无我并非仅是一种解放个人小我的体验（Anatta is not merely a freeing of personality sort of experience）；反而，人们会洞察到主体、行者、思考者、观察者等完全不存在，除了时时刻刻的显现之外，都无法找到（rather, there is an insight into the complete lack of a self/agent, a doer, a thinker, a watcher, etc, cannot be found apart from the moment to moment flow of manifestation）。非二元性被彻底看见始终/本来如此：在非二元境界中，一切毫不费力，并且人们意识到，在看见中总是只有风景（除了颜色之外没有观者或观看本身）；在听见中，总是只有声音（从来没有听者，甚至除了声音之外没有听觉本身）。

这里的一个非常重要的点是，无我/无自性是法印，这是实相一直以来的本性——并非仅仅作为一种摆脱个性、自我或“小我”的状态，或是一个需要达到的阶段/境界。这意味着，它并非取决于修行者的成就或境界去“体验”无我，而是去“证悟”本来无我。最重要的是认清它作为诸法法印/本性的事实。

为了进一步说明这个法印的重要性，我想借用一段来自《巴希雅经》（Bahiya Sutta）的引言：

“在看见中，只有所见，没有看见者”，“在听见中，只有所听，没有听见者”……

如果修行者觉得他已经超越了从“我听见声音”的体验，到了“成为声音”的阶段，或者认为“只有单纯的声音”，那么这种体验就又被扭曲了。因为实际上，在听到的时候，只有声音，从来没有听者。没有什么被获取，因为它（法印之无我）始终如此，本来如此。从此，没有出入，不是一种有出有入的“忘我”境界。这就是无我的法印，可以在所有时刻实现和体验；不仅仅是一个简单的概念。

丽珠老师去年也和我说过：“谢谢分享，本来就是如此，故说观无观者，修无修者，觉无所觉，无修自成，本来具足，自自然然。不需要去修。”

本性本来如此，体悟无我，没有出入，所以从这个角度我们能说，无修。但是体悟了无我，也不代表不用修了，而是修行与佛性、与每一时刻的呈现融为了一体。当下的一呼，一吸，一切的一切都是佛性光明的展现。就如道元禅师所说，修行不无，但修与证一如。虽然无出入，动静一如，不代表静坐就不重要了，还是要坐。可是坐时没有想要修改或达到某种境界，而是当下就是圆满的佛性本身在那里显现，不是我在打坐，没有我在打坐，而是打坐在打坐，整个宇宙在打坐。行住坐卧都如此。

这样是时时刻刻都要与本性相应，不是从不完美的境地达到完美的境地，而是一切在呈现的，当下本来就空明，当下都是完美，光明清晰。本来自然状态，不需要造作，连保持一个“在背后存在的觉不被影响”都还是造作，还是 karma。最终也要看破那“将觉当成背后主体”的虚幻假相。“觉”本来就不是在后面看着一切的主体，而是每个清晰的呈现——色、声、香、味、触、法，包括每一个念头就是你的光明本身，没有背后的你。这本来无我才是解脱的关键。

那些只是理论上的知道、有些人持虚无主义（nihilistic）错误见解也问过我：“哦，你这么说，那么贪嗔痴不也是佛性吗？如果念头也是佛性，那么本来就没有污垢，为什么还需要净化心？既然一切本来就是佛性，为什么还要修行？” 念头是佛性没错，但他们不知道真正落实/印证本性的那时，执着习染会不假造作地脱落。所以净化心是重要的，没有一尊佛，甚至一位阿罗汉，是还有任何贪嗔痴的。没有任何人能在依然沉浸于烦恼情绪的情况下成佛。所以你说的要断习气，这是没错的。

只是净化心的方法有很多种，有些有它的作用但还不究竟。比如你也知道“搬石压草”，压抑（suppress）念头的方法只是暂时性的。修定修得再深，就算进入非想非非想定，出定了烦恼又会回来，因为不能超越根本无明，这不究竟。或者，如果保持一个觉在背后观察念头但保持不被影响，虽然这样也是方法，但这仍然是费力的（effortful）且二元对立的（dualistic）。这样还不能真正解脱，因为还未破我见和法相，但这也是修行必须经过的过程（因为除了根器非常高的人，几乎没有人是一开始就能超越能所/主体的二元的）。

虽然一开始保持觉照都还处在能所（能观/所观）二元的状态，即使体悟了“觉体”后，觉好像还是背后那面不被影子影响的镜子，还是有二元；但有了正见，或善知识的引导，也会最终（有时很快，甚至不到一年也可能）超越这二元。若没有正见，很容易停留在“镜子照影子”的二元状态中，无法超越，不能体会“背后没有镜子”，或“影子本身即镜，影子外无镜可言”。如果只停留在这“镜子和影子”的二元，修行将处在一种 dissociative（解离的）过程，就是把“觉”与“念头”当成是两样东西，把觉和念头分开来，保持觉不被念头影响（虽然也不排斥念头而只是“看着”，但是觉与念头保持一种距离，安住在背后当作主体的觉而不动）。

真正证悟本性的无我、无能作与所作（agent-action）和能所（subject and object）的二元（dualism），就不是这样了。念头就是佛性，哪能分觉和念头？念头就是光明藏本身，就是你的光明。所以佛经才说，五阴、六入、十二处、十八界，本如来藏，妙真如性。有了这种证悟，修行时不必也不可能分‘觉’和’念头‘，不能把它们分开来，甚至也不是把念头转换成空明：因为性相本一如，不是你把它变成一如，变成空明，而是本来就是一如，本来就是空明。一切念头、情绪的本性本来就是空明，不是念头的背后是空明，是念头本身就是空明。所以转凡入圣的方法就是去认识这一念的本性。就像太阳升起时黑暗无法维持，所有的烦恼情绪都无法在认识到心性的情况下持续存在。一切不假造作自然化解，不留痕迹。

可是刚才他的讲解中可以看出他还是对法印无我不了解，还是误认为法印无我是指无我相，无小我，egoless，impersonal 等等。他还是不能透彻地突破主体，或把觉当成主体、主客、能所等等。我发现，当一个修行人说“无我”时，99%都是在讲 egoless/impersonality（没有小我的我相等等），或者是一种非二元的体验，如从一心到无心的巅峰体验（peak experience）。这种“无我”在外道也有教导，但很少是在讲佛陀那种证悟法印无我的 realisation。

我觉得对法印之无我的正见非常重要、再来要了解、证悟缘起性空。如果不了解无我，只是注重保持觉照，很多时候修行者会体悟到那灵觉方面，并当作是根本佛性，其实那只是佛性的一方面而已，还没证悟空性（无自性）。很多人就会停留在本我的阶段，成为 eternal witness（永恒的观者），就像 Mr N 现在也是。在这阶段，也能渐渐体会到“无我相，无小我，egoless，impersonal”，但还不是我所谓“证悟法印无我”。我发现，99%的人当他们认为已经开悟了（这99%是指那些“有所悟”的人；当然，多数修行者连“本我”都还没证悟到），其实大多数都是指“本我”，还有少数的在讲“一心”，而更少、非常少的人真正会体悟、证悟法印之无我、缘起性空。所以多数那些讲开悟的，其实还是停留在外道知见，还没证悟佛陀的正见。因为这是解脱的关键，不可缺乏的，所以我觉得应该要强调，不然的话，修到某一阶段就会停留在本我、一心，这是难以避免的。

虽然保持觉照是修行非常重要的，但要有正见的引导，所以应该要强调正见（无我、缘起性空），就像我在以上和 Mr N 说：“虽然一开始保持觉照都还处在能所（能观/所观）二元的状态，即使体悟了‘觉体’后，觉好像还是背后的镜子不被影子影响，还是有二元，但有了正见，或善知识的引导，也会最终（有时很快，甚至不到一年也可能）超越这二元。若没有正见，很容易停留在‘镜子照影子’保持二元的状态，无法超越，不能体会‘背后没有镜子’，或，‘影子本身即镜，影子外无镜可言’。如果只停留在这‘镜子和影子’的二元，修行将处在一种 dissociative 的过程，就是把‘觉’与‘念头’当成是两样东西，把觉和念头分开来，保持觉不被念头影响（虽然也不排斥念头而只是‘看着’，但是觉与念头保持一种距离，安住在背后当作主体的觉而不动）”。

如果体悟“觉体”，但有善知识、正见的引导，应该不久就能突破主客、能所，证悟本来无我。如果没有正见，就像那些外道修者虽然很多年纪轻轻就有悟境（像 Ramana Maharshi 16岁就证悟本我），这一辈子活到老都很可能不能突破“本我”、“一心”。在我的 case，我本身悟到本我，六、七个月后进入无能所、一心，再来，两个月后参《巴希雅经》证悟无我，所以从本我到无我只是8个月，这是因为已经接触了正见、善知识的引导。其实我有一位认识多年的善知识，John Tan，他本身17岁证悟本我，但是可能停留在这个阶段13+年，因为虽然遇到很多佛教和外道的老师，都没有一个真正证悟无我、缘起性空的善知识（这些佛教和外道的老师最多、多数也只是证悟到本我）来指导他，直到有一天他在参佛教的一句话：

“有思想，没有思想者
有声音，没有听者
苦存在，没有苦患者
有行为，没有行者”

他突然恍然大悟。其实指出本来无我、法印无我不一定是一件很难的事。就像 John Tan 是从这一小段 stanza，就证悟到，我本身也是才观《巴希雅经》的一小段而证悟本来无我：“佛说：在所见中，只有所见。在所闻中，只有所闻。在所感中，只有所感。在所知中，只有所知。如此会看到，的确无物在此；婆醯迦，该如此修习。婆醯迦，你应该依此：在所见中，只有所见。在所闻中，只有所闻。在所感中，只有所感。在所知中，只有所知。如此你会看到，的确无物在这里；如此，的确无物。什么都没有时，您将看到，你不在此处，不在彼处，也不在两者之间。此即苦的止息。”

---

有关的文章：

https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2025/06/blog-post_21.html

发起动词，无需名词

Soh

Original English Article: No nouns are necessary to initiate verbs

繁體中文版 (Traditional Chinese Version)

请参阅：论无我、空性、摩诃（大）、平常与自然圆成

发起动词，无需名词

更新：在这次对话一年后，Fishskull3 突破了“一心”的见地，证悟了无我！详见《并无单一统合的觉知，唯有显相之光明》。

Fishskull3:

万物并非由觉知所造，它根本就是觉知本身。在你的直接体验中，并没有一个在内者向外看着什么。你当下认为是“所见”之物，正是“见者”或觉知的持续活动。

Soh/xabir:

我喜欢你的回答。另外，我想补充一点，觉知无非是那持续不断的活动。并非是觉知作为一个不变的实体，变现为万物。“觉知”就像“天气”这个词，仅仅是一个名言，指代着下雨、浸湿、日晒、风吹、雷击等等这些持续进行的动态活动。“觉知”除了刹那刹那的显现之外，并无任何固有的存在。即便在那一刹那它只是一种无相“存在”的纯粹感觉，那也只是另一种“前景”式的无二显现，而非一个不变的背景。

正如除了闪光之外并无闪电（闪电即是闪光——闪电只是闪光的别名，而非闪光背后的动作者），除了吹动之外并无风，除了流动之外并无水，发起动词，并不需要名词或动作者。除了颜色，从未有过动作者、见者，乃至“看见”；除了声音，从未有过动作者、闻者，乃至“听闻”。万物只是在没有知者的情况下明澈地放光，声音在听，景色在看。无我。

以下摘录自我们这个时代第二位最著名的佛教大师（仅次于达赖喇嘛）、一行禅师的文字：

摘自 https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2008/10/sun-of-awareness-and-river-of.html Thusness/PasserBy 从书中摘选的他所喜欢的另外一些引文——

当我们说“我知道风在吹”时，我们并不认为是有个东西在吹动另一个东西。“风”与“吹”是相随的。如果没有吹，就没有风。知也是如此。心是知者；知者是心。我们在谈论与风相关的“知”。“知”是知某物。知与风不可分离。风与知是一体的。我们可以说“风”，这就足够了。风的存在，意味着“知”的存在，也意味着“吹”这个行动的存在。”……最普遍的动词是“是”：我是，你是，山是，河是。“是”这个动词，并不能表达宇宙的动态生命状态。要表达那个状态，我们必须说“成为”。这两个动词也可以用作名词：“存有”，“生成”。但存有什么？生成什么？“生成”意味着“不停地演化”，它和动词“是”一样普遍。我们不可能将一个现象的“存有”与其“生成”分离开来表述，好像它们是各自独立的。就风而言，吹既是其存有，也是其生成……在任何现象中，无论是心理的、生理的还是物理的，都存在着动态的运动，即生命。我们可以说，这种运动、这种生命，是宇宙性的显现，是“知”这个行为最普遍为人所识的形式。我们绝不能将“知”看作是某种来自外部的东西，它为宇宙注入了生命。它就是宇宙自身的生命。舞与舞者，是一体的。

Thusness/PasserBy 的评论：“……作为动词，作为行动，便无概念可言，唯有体验。不二之无我，即是将主体/客体体验为动词、体验为行动。无心，唯有心行……源头即是生灭流变的现象……以及如何从缘起的角度来理解不二的显现。” .............

一行禅师：

当我们说‘天在下雨’时，我们的意思是‘下雨’这件事正在发生。你不需要一个高高在上的谁来执行下雨这件事。并非是有一个‘雨’，又有一个导致雨降落的‘谁’。事实上，当你说‘雨在降落’时，这非常有趣，因为如果它不降落，它就不是雨了。在我们的说话方式中，我们习惯于要有一个主语和一个动词。所以当我们说‘it rains’（它下雨）时，我们需要‘it’（它）这个词。‘它’就是主语，是那个使下雨成为可能的‘谁’。但是，深入地去看，我们不需要一个‘下雨者’，我们只需要雨。下雨和雨是同一回事。鸟的形成和鸟是同一回事——其中没有‘自我’，没有主宰者。有一种心行叫作“寻”（vitarka），即“初念”。

当我们在英语中使用动词‘to think’（思考）时，我们需要一个动词的主语：我思，你思，他思。但实际上，一个念头的产生并不需要一个主语。没有思维者的思维——这完全是可能的。思考，是思考某物。感知，是感知某物。能感知者与所感知的对象是一体的。

当笛卡尔说‘我思，故我在’时，他的意思是，如果我思考，那就必然有一个‘我’存在，思考才得以可能。当他做出‘我思’这个宣告时，他相信他能够证明那个‘我’是存在的。我们有相信一个‘自我’的强烈习气。但是，通过非常深入地观察，我们可以看到，一个念头并不需要一个思维者才能存在。思维的背后没有思维者——只有思维；这就足够了。现在，如果笛卡尔先生在这里，我们或许会问他：‘笛卡尔先生，您说，您思，故您在。但您是什么呢？您就是您的思维。思维——这就够了。思维的显现，不需要一个在其背后的自我。’

没有思维者的思维。没有感受者的感受。没有我们的‘自我’，我们的愤怒是什么？这就是我们禅修的对象。所有五十一种心行都在发生和显现，其背后并没有一个‘自我’在安排这个出现、那个出现。我们的意识习惯于将自身建立在‘自我’这个观念上，建立在末那识上。

但我们可以通过禅修，来更清楚地觉察我们的藏识，所有那些当前未在我们心中显现的心行的种子，都储存在那里。当我们禅修时，我们练习深入地观看，以便为我们看待事物的方式带来光明和清晰。当证得无我的知见时，我们的错觉就被移除了。这就是我们所说的转化。在佛教传统中，转化是可以通过深度理解而实现的。一旦无我的知见生起，末那，那个‘我是’的幻觉，便会瓦解，我们就会发现自己于当下这一刻，享受着自由与快乐。

This video from the channel "Qingcha Shuo" (青茶說) explains author Michael Pollan's new book, A World Appears. The book explores the most difficult puzzle in science and philosophy: "What is Consciousness?" Rather than giving a standard answer, the author dismantles the question by personally exploring neuroscience, botany, the AI field, and even meditating in a cave.

Here is a summary of the video's key points:

The 25-Year Bet Between Science and Philosophy

Top neuroscientist Christof Koch made a bet with philosopher David Chalmers that he could find the "neural correlates of consciousness" in the brain within 25 years. Koch ultimately admitted defeat. After an Ayahuasca experience, he abandoned the materialism he had held onto all his life, realizing that perhaps the brain doesn't produce consciousness, but rather consciousness is the fundamental basis of the universe (Idealism).

Plants Are Actually Smarter Than We Think

Experiments in plant neurobiology show that even without a central brain, plants can navigate mazes to find nutrients, just like animals. Plants also sleep, can be anesthetized, have memories, and can even use "echolocation" via faint sound waves to find their way. This challenges our bias: the idea that "consciousness is impossible without a brain" has never actually been proven.

Can AI Truly Have Consciousness?

Regarding the popular topic of AI awakening, neuroscientists and engineers point out that consciousness stems from the "inner balance (homeostasis)" a living organism needs to survive. Because biological beings are fragile, feel pain, and face death, they develop "feelings." Although AI can perfectly "simulate" emotions, it lacks the most crucial elements—"death and fragility"—so it cannot possess genuine consciousness.

The "Self" is an Illusion, and "Memories" are Fabricated

Neuroscience research suggests that what we consider the "self" is actually just a "controlled hallucination" constructed by the brain to reduce the uncertainty of survival. Furthermore, our "memories" aren't like saving files on a hard drive; they are more like an improv actor. The brain constantly splices and rewrites memories based on what your present self needs. Realizing this is liberating: since neither the self nor memories are eternally fixed, we don't need to be hijacked by our attachments to them.

Adult vs. Child Modes of Consciousness

Psychologists divide consciousness into two modes:

• Spotlight Consciousness (Adults): Driven by dopamine, highly focused on achieving goals and acquiring resources, with a strong, rigid sense of self.
• Lantern Consciousness (Children): Driven by serotonin, curious about the world, exploring openly in 360 degrees, without a rigid ego.

Modern society overvalues the "Spotlight (exploitation) mode," but we actually need to reclaim the childhood "Lantern (exploration) mode" by allowing ourselves to space out or daydream.

Cave Meditation and Ego Dissolution

Finally, the author went on a retreat in a deep mountain cave without water or electricity. He discovered that in the pure simplicity of chopping wood, sweeping, and making tea, when the brain stops obsessing over past memories and future expectations, the "self" dissolves. He realized that consciousness never needed to be treated as a puzzle to be dissected on an operating table; it is hidden in the simplest everyday moments: "The moment you open your eyes, the world appears."

仅是我的个人看法。若你认为《楞严经》并不宣说一种实体化的见地，欢迎反驳我。我洗耳恭听。

---

2018年:

Soh Wei Yu：其实我怀疑《楞严经》（有专家说它是中国人的创作，而且我认为它在藏文大藏经里也找不到）讲的真的只是 I AM 和一心而已。这也是为什么很多中国法师，包括我刚去拜访、后来来到新加坡的那位，都卡在这里……他就是用《楞严经》把 I AM 解释成主（host）。不过我还需要再多读一点。《楞严经》说：“譬如行客，投寄旅亭，或宿或食，宿食事毕，俶装前途，不遑安住；若实主人，自无攸往。……汝观阿难头自动摇，见无所动；又汝观我手自开合，见无舒卷。” 【白话：就像过路客人寄宿旅店，住一晚、吃一顿，事情办完就要继续上路，不能久留；真正的主人却不会离开自己的住处。你看阿难的头自己在动，但能见并没有动；再看我的手自己开合，而这个见并没有张开或收拢。】 现在连 Jax 在内，那些法师一直在讲的整个“主与客尘”框架，都是从《楞严经》的教法来的……它只是再次确认了他们那种实体化的见解。《楞严经》又说：“大王！汝面虽皱，而此见精性未曾皱。皱者为变，不皱非变。变者受灭，彼不变者，元无生灭，云何于中受汝生死？” 【白话：大王，你的脸虽然皱了，但你这个能见的精明之性并没有皱。会变化的终会坏灭；那不变的，本来就不在生灭里，怎么会跟着你的生死一起受影响？】 又说：“若离前尘有分别性，即真汝心；若分别性离尘无体，斯则前尘分别影事。” 【白话：如果离开当前外境，你还另外有一个能分别的自性，那才可说是真心；可如果这个分别心一离开外境就没有自体，那它不过只是对外境生起的分别影像。】 又说：“若见是物，则汝亦可见吾之见；吾不见时，何不见吾不见之处？” 【白话：如果这个“见”也是一个可被看见的东西，那你也应该能看见我的“见”；可是在我不看的时候，你为什么看不到我那个“不见”的地方呢？】

Soh Wei Yu：《楞严经》里又多次以“守真常”“旋闻返闻”的路数来立论，例如：“若弃生灭，守于真常，常光现前，尘根识心应时销落。” 【白话：若舍离生灭无常，守住所谓真常，常住之光就会现前，六尘、六根与识心都会同时销融脱落。】 又说：“声无既无灭，声有亦非生；生灭二圆离，是则常真实。” 【白话：没有声音时，听闻并不是就灭了；有声音时，它也不是因此才生起。若离开“有声、无声”这两边，就把它说成常住真实。】 观音圆通章又云：“何不自闻闻？闻非自然生，因声有名字；旋闻与声脱，能脱欲谁名？一根既返源，六根成解脱；见闻如幻翳，三界若空华；闻复翳根除，尘销觉圆净；净极光通达，寂照含虚空，却来观世间，犹如梦中事；摩登伽在梦，谁能留汝形？” 【白话：为什么不回过头来听这个“能闻”本身呢？“闻”并不是自己凭空生出来的，只是因为声音才被安立了名字；一旦回转闻性、脱离声音，那么那个所谓“能脱离束缚的主体”又还能叫什么呢？只要一根回到源头，六根都能得解脱。见与闻都像眼病所见的幻影，三界也像空中的花；闻性一回转，根上的翳障就除了，尘境也销了，觉性圆满而清净；清净到极处，光明通达，寂然照彻虚空；再回来看世间，就像梦中之事，连摩登伽也不过如梦中人，谁还能真正留住你呢？】

Soh Wei Yu：整个《楞严经》的焦点，其实就是要实现所谓的真正自我，回归到源头，并把一切对象都收摄为那个源头的幻化显现。依我看，这跟不二论的吠檀多或奥义书没什么不同。大多数中国大乘停留在 I AM 和一心，也就不奇怪了。《楞严经》里也有很典型的返本归元式说法，如：“一根既返源，六根成解脱。” 【白话：只要一根回到源头，六根都能得解脱。】 又说：“一切众生，从无始来，迷己为物，失于本心，为物所转；若能转物，则同如来，身心圆明，不动道场，于一毛端遍能含受十方国土。” 【白话：一切众生从无始以来，都是把自己迷失成外在之物，忘了本心，反而被万物牵着走；若能反过来转物而不被物转，就与如来无别，身心圆满光明，安住不动的道场，乃至在一根毫毛端上也能含摄十方国土。】

Soh Wei Yu：一切运动的对象都被收摄进觉知那不动的空间里——《楞严经》又说：“见明之时，见非是明；见暗之时，见非是暗；见空之时，见非是空；见塞之时，见非是塞。” 【白话：见到光明时，这个“见”并不是光明本身；见到黑暗时，它也不是黑暗本身；见到虚空时，它不是虚空；见到阻塞之物时，它也不是阻塞之物。】 又说：“不知色身外洎山河虚空大地，咸是妙明真心中物。” 【白话：你不知道，连你的色身之外，那些山河大地、虚空世界，全都只是妙明真心中的东西。】 这种描述跟一心没有任何不同；经中还说：“一切浮尘诸幻化相，当处出生，随处灭尽，幻妄称相，其性真为妙觉明体。” 【白话：一切如浮尘般的幻化现象，都是当处生起、随处灭尽；这些虚妄之相只是暂时被称作“相”，而其真实体性其实就是妙觉明心。】 我把整部《楞严经》都翻了一遍。现在我相当确信，它讲的不过就是 I AM 和一心而已。

---

2019 年 6 月 7 日

John Tan：道元的知见很无我，也很非二元。

Soh Wei Yu：是啊……而且他也像我一样怀疑《楞严经》。

John Tan：《楞严经》本身并不是错。问题在于对“主”（Soh 注：host）的过度强调，而不是把主客关系理解成空的世俗安立。道元的表达也容易落到经验性的表达（更偏向无我、无心），但为什么那种知见不成立，那个“为什么”并不清楚。换句话说，他是在表达经验就是如此，所以他拒绝了主客二元——在那种表达里，连一发丝的差别都不允许。但那个“为什么”并不清楚。然而，一旦我们理解诸实体之间的世俗关系及其空性，这就会清楚。在《楞严经》里，如果我没记错的话，这些关系其实有被探讨、有被勾勒出来，但不知怎么地，主被过度强调了，这才是唯一的问题。《楞严经》是不是就是那部佛陀七处征心的经？

Soh Wei Yu：你是说依缘假名安立吗？我觉得它是一种肯定式否定，像他空那样。不是无我，也不是中观。嗯，不过 Greg Goode 说，就连在他的 I Am 阶段，他所证到的也是无局部性，而不是空性。意思就是——我觉得——那是一个不在任何地方、却又实有的心。我觉得《楞严经》就是这样。这跟无心或无我并不一样。它是在肯定一个永恒、不变、不落于此也不落于彼的心，而且还是非二元的。《楞严经》说：“见明之时，见非是明；见暗之时，见非是暗；见空之时，见非是空；见塞之时，见非是塞。” 【白话：见到光明时，这个“见”并不是光明本身；见到黑暗时，它也不是黑暗本身；见到虚空时，它不是虚空；见到阻塞之物时，它也不是阻塞之物。】 这跟不二论几乎无法区分。绕了一大圈分析，最后只是为了肯定觉知而已。依我看，自我探问更直接。

Soh Wei Yu：《楞严经》又说：“是故当知，灯能显色，如是见者，是眼非灯；眼能显色，如是见性，是心非眼。” 【白话：所以应当知道，灯只能显出颜色；真正能见的，是眼，不是灯。眼虽然能显色，但真正的见性其实是心，不是眼。】 又说：“离一切诸和合缘及不和合法，则复灭除诸生死因，圆满菩提，不生灭性，清净本心，本觉常住。” 【白话：若能远离一切和合与不和合的因缘，就能灭除生死的根本原因，圆满菩提，证得那不生不灭的清净本心，也就是本觉常住。】 不过，说五蕴就是佛性的那部分是好的，但我觉得也可能被理解成某种一心论，我不确定。我刚看到《楞严经》一段是在讨论光与见是不是不同……如果见不同于光，那就必须有边界……不过我觉得那更像是在讲非二元，以及看见五蕴只是被错误安立而已。

John Tan：这不一样。意思是说，世俗谛，以及名言安立对阿赖耶识所起的力量，并没有被理解。把自我看成实有但无局部性的东西，是另一回事。

Soh Wei Yu：[图片略] [图片略] [图片略]

John Tan：是的，他们把“主”强调过头了。意思就是把闻性说成是常住的，而不是空的。

Soh Wei Yu：我明白了……

John Tan：为什么明明是依缘而起，甚至也这样解释了，还是会被误解成实性 [real nature]，而不是空性 [empty nature]？顺带一提，道元对你很好，因为道元的表达与实践讲的是全然投入——有时（being-time）。

---

更新，2019 年 2 月

Lopon Malcolm 写道，汉文《楞严经》是一部“Chinese Pseudographia（中国伪作）”，而且“这十种仙道境界在印度佛教宇宙论里根本不存在”。

我和 Thusness 有过一段对话：

2019 年 2 月 15 日

Soh Wei Yu：Malcolm 刚刚说《楞严经》是中国的伪经（pseudipigrapha，即伪托之作、署名作者并非真实作者的作品）。正如我所想。因为它听起来很像不二论。

John Tan：也不完全是这样。有多少经是真正佛陀亲口说的？

Soh Wei Yu：它说“见”是永恒的，觉知不会老，只有身体会老。

John Tan：我知道，它确实非常强调主与客。但我说的是伪经这个问题。

Soh Wei Yu：它是中国人的创作，因为它提到了道教的仙人。它试图整合中国思想。我觉得它是在中国发展出来的，而且藏文大藏经里没有这样一部经。

John Tan：事实上，大多数大乘经典都有这种味道。只是呈现方式不同而已。所以问题不在于是不是伪经（Soh 注：apocryphal sutra），而在于其中的智慧 （Soh 注：这个问题也在《瑜伽行派 vs 中观：大乘经典的作者问题》以及《了义经与不了义经》中讨论过）。

Soh Wei Yu：如果一部经不是伪经，那它应该有梵文对应本和藏文对应本，但《楞严经》并不是这样。我明白了。其实大多数大乘经典都缺少对明晰这一面的提及，只是纯讲空性……我想是这样。

John Tan：楞严经（Soh 注：他后来澄清，自己指的是《楞伽经》——Lankavatara Sutra，说它有提到明晰，但他也“不确定”[那部经是否真的这样说]）。空性是心与诸法之性。

---

Soh 更新，25/11/2020：

慧律法师对《楞严经》（以及其他所有经典）的讲解都非常清楚、非常好，因为他的洞见很深。不管原文是否落入诸边，慧律法师的解释都避开了诸边（常见／断见／有／无等等）。

参见：真心与无为法

---

Soh 更新，20/06/2021：

刚看到 Malcolm 在 2020 年的这个帖子：

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

有人声称，这部文本的梵文写本据说还存在于中国某处。

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

所谓“五十五位”的观念，是中国佛教对《华严经》中十地菩萨关于力、回向等章节的一种误读；后来又被嵌入几部由中国人撰写、却伪装成佛经的文本里。

“概念化是大无明，
令众生堕入轮回之海。”
——《大幻网经》

---

更新，2021：

不过，公平地说，我也觉得《楞严经》里有一些章节是在反驳梵我见的：

佛陀论意识错误见解的两部经（开示）

顺带一提，另有一部叫《首楞严三昧经》的经典，是印度来源的，Malcolm 认为那部才是真的。我相信应该就是这部：http://lirs.ru/lib/sutra/Pratyutpanna_and_Surangama_Samadhi_Sutras,1998,BDK25.pdf

---

更新，2019 年 6 月 9 日：

我找到一些段落，说明道元在《楞严经》这件事上的看法跟我相同：

---

更新，29/6/2019：

又找到一段来自禅师 Shohaku Okumura 的极好文字。

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

如净说过，《楞严经》的真伪自古就受质疑，因此早期的祖师们从来不读这部经。总之，道元对《楞严经》和《圆觉经》的真实性与质量都抱有怀疑。这两部经，就是我前面提到、构成宗密与玄沙使用“一颗明珠”这一譬喻基础的经典。

道元把这个问题提给了他的老师。这是一个非常严肃的问题。道元认为，这两部经中的教法与六师外道相似。也就是说，这些经典在鼓吹类似先尼迦学说那样的非佛教教义，而道元在《辨道话》中也提到了这一点。在这里，所谓“非佛教”，意思就是违背佛陀所说的 anātman（无常住自我）。那种把摩尼珠（即“一颗明珠”）视为恒常不变，而表层色相却在变化的譬喻，在道元看来，无非就是 ātman 而已。这正是道元提出问题的关键。他在问：这两部经中所包含的理论，究竟能不能算是真正的佛教教法？

这是一场发生在道元二十五岁时的对话。在中国，这两部经的真伪似乎并未受到质疑。然而在日本，早在 8 世纪，就有一些法相宗（日本唯识宗）僧人怀疑《楞严经》究竟是不是出自印度的真经。道元和他的老师如净也有同样的疑问。到了现代，几乎所有日本佛教学者都认为《楞严经》和《圆觉经》是中国人写的。

《普林斯顿佛教辞典》对《楞严经》的真伪这样说：

尽管智昇认为《楞严经》是一部真正的印度经典，但由于人们并不知道这部文本有任何梵文写本存在，再加上关于它如何传入中国的叙述彼此矛盾，几个世纪以来学者们一直对这部经典的真实性提出质疑。经内也有显示其中国来源的证据，例如文中出现了阴阳宇宙论、五行学说等中国本土哲学观念，以及其所使用的文言汉语本身所具有的文学之美，等等。基于这些及其他原因，《楞严经》如今一般被视为一部中国伪经。2

不过，中国法师们并不同意。旧金山有一座中国寺院叫金山寺，在北加州 Ukiah 还有一个大型道场叫万佛圣城。那座寺院的创办人宣化上人就反对这些现代学者：

“有《楞严经》在，就有正法在；《楞严经》若灭，正法也会消失。若《楞严经》不是真经，我愿堕入拔舌地狱，受无间苦。” 3 在《楞严经》导论后面的一个部分里，Ron Epstein 和 David Rounds 则主张它写于印度。4

所以这件事是有争议的。由于我不是佛教学者，我没法判断哪一方是对的。总之，我们现在是在学习道元的《正法眼藏》，所以我们需要听听道元在这一点上是怎么说的。我们需要明白，道元质疑的不只是《楞严经》究竟写于印度还是中国，也质疑这部经的核心教法本身是否属于非佛教理论。

道元在《永平广录》中的批评

道元不仅年轻时如此认为，到了晚年也一再重申自己对这两部经的看法。这可以见于《永平广录》中的第 383 则法语；《永平广录》收录了道元五百多则正式法语。由于那是一篇较长的法语，主题是道元不同意三教一致（儒、道、佛）这一理论，所以我这里只引其中短短几句：

因此，我们不应看孔子或老子的言辞句子，也不应看 《楞严经》 或 《圆觉经》。（当代许多人把《楞严经》和《圆觉经》看成禅宗所依止的经典之一。但道元老师一直不喜欢它们。） 我们应当专门学习从七世尊佛以来直到今日，诸佛祖活动中流出的言句。若我们不关心佛祖的行履，反而徒然在名利的恶道上用功，这怎么能叫学道？在世尊如来、祖师大迦叶、印度二十八祖、中国六代祖师、青原以及南岳[怀让]之中，哪一位祖师曾用过 《楞严经》 或 《圆觉经》，并将其视为正法眼藏、涅槃妙心呢？5

括号里斜体的句子，是编纂《永平广录》第五卷的道元弟子义演所加的注。很明显，即使过了年轻时期，道元依然不喜欢这两部经。

道元批评的不只是这两部经，也批评了圭峰宗密在《永平广录》第 447 则法语中的核心要点：

我记得，道元在《永平广录》里举过圭峰宗密的话：“知之一字，众妙之门。”

又举黄龙死心的话：“知之一字，众恶之门。” 《永平广录》原文作：“上堂，记得，圭峰宗密道：‘知之一字，众妙之门。’黄龙死心禅师道：‘知之一字，众恶之门。’二员先德一时说话，后学口诵至今不绝。” 道元接着评论：宗密所谓“知之一字，众妙之门”，仍未出离外道之坑；至于黄龙［死心］所说“知之一字，众恶之门”，所谓“知”，当然也既非恶，也非善。

今天，我，永平，想检点这两位的话。大众，你们愿意把这一点看清楚吗？

停顿后，道元说道：若大海知道自己已满，百川都会逆流而上。6

很明显，道元知道圭峰宗密关于“一颗明珠”写了些什么。宗密说，一切善都来自这个“知”（chi），或者说来自那种灵知；而灵知无非就是这一颗明珠。道元也引用了另一位禅师黄龙死心的话。两人说法完全相反，而道元则对这两种相反说法加以评论。道元说，宗密的话还没有从“外道之坑”里出来。这个“外道之坑”，意思就是落入了非佛教理论的陷阱。道元是在说，宗密的话属于非佛教教法。这则第 447 则法语，大概是道元五十岁左右、临终前数年所说的。也就是说，道元直到晚年依然认为，圭峰宗密基于这两部经而建立的教义并不是佛教。

停顿之后他又说：“若大海知道自己已满，百川都会逆流而上。” 海永远不会满，所以水才能不断从山中流入大海。然而，如果海真的满了，水就得往山上流。这种事永远不可能发生。从道元这些话里，在我看来很清楚：道元并不同意圭峰宗密用“一颗明珠”这个譬喻所表达的东西。

道元在《正法眼藏·转法轮》中对《楞严经》的评论

在 1244 年写成的 《正法眼藏·转法轮》 中，道元讨论了几位禅师对 《楞严经》 中一句话的评论，如下：

现在所引的这句话——“若人显真归元，十方虚空悉皆销殒”【白话：若有人显发真心、回归本元，那么十方虚空都会一并销融消失。】——出自 《楞严经》。同一句话，已经被数位佛门祖师讨论过。因此，这句话确实是佛祖的骨髓，也是佛祖的眼目。我这么说的用意在于：有人坚持十卷本《楞严经》是伪经，也有人坚持它不是伪经。两种说法从很久以前一直争论到今天。有旧译，也有新译；受到怀疑的，是神龙年间所出的译本［而不是那些旧译与新译］。然而，Goso [Ho]en 祖师、Bussho [Ho]tai 祖师，以及我的先师天童这位常住佛，都已经引用过这句话。因此，这句话早已被转入佛祖的法轮之中；它就是佛祖转法轮。7

神龙元年（705 CE）所出的译本，就是十卷本《楞严经》。更早的那部，则名为《首楞严三昧经》，由鸠摩罗什所译；那与《楞严经》并不是同一部经。《楞严经》则是一部中国伪经。在这里，道元怀疑《楞严经》的真实性；但他也说，一旦经中的某一句被祖师引用来表达佛法，那么这句话就可以被视为在转法轮。

《辨道话》第十问中的类似批评

在 《辨道话》 和 《正法眼藏》 《即心是佛》 中，道元都批评了“心性常住而诸相生灭”这种理论。道元认为，这种教法来自宗密依据《楞严经》与 《圆觉经》 所写出的那套思想。我觉得，要清楚理解道元在这两部著作中的论点，就必须知道他为何不欣赏这两部经。《辨道话》第十问谈的就是这个问题。先是道元提出问题，然后再写出对这个问题的回答。

[第十问] 有人说不要怕生死，因为有一种很快可以出离生死的方法。这就是说只要知道心性常住就对了。此身有生有灭，可是心性却不灭。假如知道不生不灭的心性在我们的身中，就是我们本性，而身体是一个假相，死此生彼不定，心却常住在过去现在未来而不变，如能这样了解便永远解脱生死。此生死时，即入性海，入性海自然就有诸佛如来的妙德，现在虽然已经明白这个道理，因为被前世的妄业所成的身体还在，所以还不能和诸圣一样。如果还不知道此理，那就永远会在生死海中头出头没。因此之故，只要你赶快明了心性的常住，何必闲坐空过一生，等待空花结果？这样的说法，是诸佛诸祖正传的法吗？

这里的“生死”，指的是在轮回中的流转。按照这种教法，我们不需要为轮回中的苦忧悲，也不需要修行。这里的“心性”是 shinsho（心性）；shin 是“心”，sho 是“性”。这是圭峰宗密使用过的一个表达。我们应该看见心性的恒常。虽然现象层面的身心是无常的，这个心性却是常住的。只要看见心性的恒常，就是一种顿时脱苦的方法。如果这是真的，那从轮回中解脱出来就太容易了。我们根本不必修行。这个理论说：我们以这个身体而活，就像河流一样。河流还没抵达大海之前，我们是一个个独立的人，经历各种不同的事，对某些东西执著、对某些东西厌恶，并因此受苦。但一旦我们回归大海，我们就从身体中解脱了。身体是迷惑的来源，而这个心性却始终清净。当这心性回归本性之海时，我们就从轮回之苦中解脱出来，成为如佛一般。那么，我们又何必经历坐禅这种困难的修行呢？

按照这个理论，我们根本不需要修行。我们只需要知道心性是常住而无染的；即便我们完全不修行，只要一死，就会成佛。这真是个有意思的教法。只要我们还活着，我们就不行，我们的修行也不起作用。我们唯一要做的，就是等着死去。然后我们就成佛了。看起来很容易。然而，这意味着：只要我们活着，我们就是迷妄的，我们就必须受苦。我并不觉得这是一种轻松的生活方式。

《辨道话》：对第十问的回答

道元自行设立这个问题，并给出如下回答：

你刚才所说的那种想法，根本不是佛法，而是仙尼外道之见。

这个外道之见是说，我们身体里有个灵知，这个知，遇缘就能分别善恶是非、痛痒苦乐。而此灵性当此生灭时，离此生彼，看来似乎此灭彼生，所以认为常住不灭，这是外道之见。他们以为这是佛法，简直是把瓦砾当金宝，这种痴迷真可羞，无以为喻。大唐国的慧忠国师深诫这个说法，计著心常相灭的邪见，以为是诸佛的妙法，起生死的本因，而以为能离生死，非愚为何？可叹可伶！要知道这是外道的邪见，不可听！事到如今不得已，为了伶悯这些人，救救此邪见，我再来申说一番。9

佛法本来说明身心一如、性相不二，印度中国都知道这个道理，哪能违背？何况若要说常住，万法都是常住，不分身与心；要说寂灭，诸法都是寂灭，还要分心与相吗？说身灭心常，不是违背正理吗？不只这样，应该要了解生死就是涅槃，不可以在生死之外说涅槃。再说，以为心离开身体而常住，以这样的了解，妄计为解脱生死的佛智，要知道这个了解知觉之心，还不是在生灭中而不常住吗？这个见解便不攻自破。仔细体会身心一如是佛法的要旨，怎么说此身生灭时，唯独此心离身而不生灭！假如有时一如，有时非一如的话，佛所说的自然都是虚妄不可信。又认为生死必须要厌离，难免就犯了谤佛之罪，可不慎哉？要知道佛法有心性大总相法门，包括一大法界，不分性相，不说生灭，菩提涅槃也都是心性。一切诸法万象森罗都是一心，这些诸法皆平等一心，毫无差别，这是佛家所说的心性。可以在一法上分身心，分生死涅槃吗？既然我们都是佛的学生，不要去听狂人胡言乱语、这些外道之见。

先尼迦，是《大般涅槃经》中出现的一位外道师。道元在《辨道话》中所说的，和他在《永平广录》中说的是同一个意思：那种坚持“心性常住”的理论，与外道教法无异。

这个“灵知”是 reichi（霊知）的翻译，而这正是圭峰宗密在比较唐代禅宗四家时，用来描述“一颗明珠”的那个词。当这种灵知遇到某个对象时，就会生起某种分别。这个灵性本身，在我们死时会脱离身体，就像房子烧掉后，屋主走出去，再换一间新房子一样。道元在 《正法眼藏·即心是佛》 中几乎一字不改地重复了同样的讨论。在那里，他引用了南阳慧忠（675–775）与一位南方僧人的长篇对话；那位僧人批评南方禅法，说它与先尼迦的理论相同。“即心是佛”这个表达，则出自南阳慧忠法兄南岳怀让（Nangaku Ejo, 677-744）的弟子马祖。道元并不同意圭峰宗密在其著作中所表达的教法。若我们按照宗密文本中所出现的同一套譬喻用法，来理解玄沙所说“尽十方世界是一颗明珠”，那么道元大概也不会同意。那么，道元究竟如何理解玄沙这句话？玄沙所说的，与道元对玄沙这句话的诠释之间，有没有差别？这正是研究《正法眼藏·一颗明珠》的关键。我前面所讨论的内容，其实只是为开始阅读道元对于“一颗明珠”这个譬喻的洞见所作的准备而已。

道元真的是一个很难跟随修行的人。从某个角度看，他就是这么固执、这么挑剔。许多禅宗文献都赞同这两部经与宗密的那套理论。道元是一位非常罕见、非常独特的禅师。要做他的学生，并不容易。

《证道歌》，永嘉玄觉的一首诗

我前面指出了唐代禅宗中运用“一颗明珠”这一譬喻的若干例子。我认为，道元并不同意这些表达背后的理论。他必须对这颗明珠究竟是什么，提出自己的诠释。显然，这颗明珠是佛性的譬喻，日语里叫 bussho。我们需要弄清楚，道元所理解的佛性究竟是什么。

在开始读正文之前，我还想再介绍一个同类思想的例子，它出自唐代禅宗文学中一篇非常著名的作品。这是一首极有名、也极其重要的诗，由永嘉玄觉（Yoka Genkaku, 665-713）所写。此人是六祖慧能（Eno, 638-713）的另一位弟子，但他只在慧能那里住了一夜。就在拜访六祖的那一天，他便开悟，然后离去。他是南阳慧忠与南岳怀让的法兄。他原本是一位天台宗僧人，是大学者，也是一位非常高明的诗人。他写了一首长诗，名为 《证道歌》（Shodoka，证道之歌）。

我找到了一篇铃木大拙的英译本。不过，《证道歌》原文这里其实就是：

摩尼珠，人不识，如来藏里亲收得。

六般神用空不空，一颗圆光色非色。10

一般来说，人们并看不见这颗明珠。它是深藏于我们之内的某样东西。这里说“六般神用……”，所谓“六般神用”，就是六根遇到六境时所起的功能。这指的就是我们每天在做的事，也就是主客之间发生的事情，例如看、听、觉受、了知。我们日常所做的这一切，都是由这颗隐藏的明珠——佛性——来完成的。这颗明珠，正是看、听等作用的主体。

铃木大拙把“六般神用空不空”译成“……是幻而又非幻”。我不确定这是不是最贴切的译法。玄觉原文这里用的是“空不空”，也就是“空”与“非空”。按作者这里的理解，这意味着：条件性的黑色是空的，但明珠本身却不是空，而是像宗密所说的那样，是实体。

下一句原文就是“一颗圆光色非色”。尽管铃木大拙把它译成“one perfect sun”，我认为这里并不是在说“圆满的太阳”，而仍然是在说这颗摩尼珠；“色非色”就是“色而非色”。若按这里的意思来译，我会把这一句译作：这一［明珠］的一颗圆光，既是色，也非色。

当然，ku 和 shiki 都出自《心经》“色即是空，空即是色”。这里讲的就是这个意思。“非空”意味着色，“非色”意味着空，因此空与色彼此互摄。这就是《心经》所说的：色无异于空，空无异于色。主客之间的功能，是由这颗隐藏的明珠来完成的。而这些功能同时又既是空（条件性的黑色），又非空（明珠）；明珠的光也既是色，又非色。这就是这首诗里所写的内容。所以，在这里我们可以看到，空性的教法与如来藏（佛性）理论被某种方式结合在一起。无论是这首诗的作者，还是《楞严经》与《圆觉经》中的理论，都把这两者结合了起来。从某种意义上说，这是一种把空性理论、唯识以及如来藏揉合在一起的综合或混合体。

道元对“明珠”的理解

这首诗至今仍被视为禅宗经典，没有人认为它是异端教义。它被视为正统的禅宗教法。大概道元是少数不喜欢这一思想的禅师之一。我们六根与六境之间的互动，是我们每天都在做的事情；然而这首诗却说，有某种东西隐藏在其后，而这个被称作 tathagata-garbha（佛性）的隐藏之物，就是执行这些日常作用的主体。在这里，现实被分成两个层面：一个是现象，另一个——在西方哲学里大概会被称作“本体”层面。在这种说法里，佛性是本体，而主客之间发生的事情则是现象，而这些现象性事情又只是本体的功能。这就是这一思想的基本结构。我想，这正是道元不喜欢的地方；因为从他的坐禅实践来看，这一理论是二元的。这里有现象与本体的二元，有佛性与我们的日常活动之间的二元，或有“一颗明珠”与它那条件性的黑色之间的二元。我想，这正是道元所看到的根本问题；因此他认为，这一理论并不符合佛教教法。

那么，在道元这里，这颗明珠究竟是什么呢？我想，道元教法中的明珠，就像一滴被月光照亮的水滴。在“本体—现象”这种理论结构里，现象彼此之间并没有关系。但正如道元在《现成公案》中所说：“自己をはこびて万法を修証するを迷とす、万法すすみて自己を修証するはさとりなり。” 【可译为：把自己带到万法那里去而修证，是迷；让万法前来而修证自己，是悟。】

在《正法眼藏·即心是佛》中，道元引用了南阳慧忠与一位南方僧人的对话；那位南方僧人批评南方禅法，说那套理论与外道先尼迦相同。接着，这位南方僧人问慧忠：“那么，古佛心是什么？” 慧忠答道：“墙壁瓦砾。” 道元在《正法眼藏·古佛心》中也引用了这句话，并在《即心是佛》结尾说道：“正伝しきたれる心といふは、一心一切法、一切法一心なり。” 【可译为：所谓正传下来的心，就是一心即一切法，一切法即一心。】 在这里，并不存在本体（明珠）与现象（黑色）之间的二元。我想，慧忠与道元所指出的，是帝网之中诸现象彼此互联的关系。

事情并不是说，佛性像一颗钻石一样藏在自我内部，而找到这颗钻石就叫开悟。道元不喜欢这种想法。若是这样，我们的修行就成了去自己内部寻找某样东西；一旦找到这颗内在的钻石，我们就能证得所谓的觉悟或开悟。那么，这就和我们与他人的关系毫无关联了。但在道元这里，修证是一种对生活方式的转化。而这种生活方式的转化，只能发生在自我与万法的关系之中。

在同一篇《现成公案》中，道元说，自我就像一滴水；它极其微小，也无常。月光则是万法之光。自我是万法互联网络中的一部分。这样的存在方式，就是明珠。明珠不是一个常住的本体。我们与一切万法，都是生起、住留片刻、然后消失；没有任何东西是恒常的。然而，这一小滴水却被一切法所照亮。万物无数，而且彼此相联。没有这种联结，这一小滴水连一刹那都不可能存在。这颗明珠就像帝网中的一个结点，而每一个结点都是一颗明珠。这颗明珠或这一滴水，被一切所照亮，同时也照亮一切。在这种情形下，这个自我是月光的一部分。这就像五根手指与一只手。一只手只不过是五根手指的集合；一只手并不是五根手指的本体。修证、迷与悟，只存在于自我与其他一切众生的关系之中。把“一颗明珠”理解为本体，和把它理解为缘起整体中的一个部分，这两种框架是不同的。我想，这正是道元想要向我们展示的重点。

当道元诠释玄沙所说“尽十方世界是一颗明珠”时，他是在谈自我与万法之间的关系，而这种关系是发生在缘起网络结构中的。

一切都映现在一物之中；而且因为这是一个网，所以我们一碰其中一个结点，就会触及整个网络。自我与万法之间并没有分离。这确实是一种无缝的一体实相。可是，从我们的知见来看，主与客似乎又是分离的。若我们不理解这一点，也不据此来理解“一颗明珠”这个标题，我们就无法真正理解道元在说什么，以及他为什么必须这样说。道元对这句话的诠释，可能与玄沙表达这句话时原本要说的意思不同——至少，这是我依据宗密对四家禅的比较，在上一期中所作的解释。

---

2025 年更新：

Nafis 分享：

2025

Nafis：日本。日本禅僧道元认为，这部经并不是一部真正的印度文本。[8] 但他也仍然援引这部经，并对《楞严经》中的偈句“若人发真归元，十方虚空悉皆销殒”【白话：若有人发起真心、回归本元，那么十方虚空都会一并销融消失。】作如下评论：这首偈子已被历代诸佛与祖师所引用。直到今天，这首偈子依然真的是佛祖的骨髓，也是佛祖的眼目。至于我为什么这样说，是因为：有人说十卷本《楞严经》是伪经，也有人说它是真经；这两种看法从久远以前一直持续到今天……即便这部经真是伪经，若［祖师］继续以它来转法轮，那么它就是佛祖的真经，也是与佛祖亲密相连的法轮。

Soh：是的，我同意。慧律法师也讲过很多《楞严经》，但他不会把它讲成不二论。

Nafis：还有一部较新的《楞严经》注释书是在 2022 年出版的，质量看起来似乎比宣化上人的更好，不过我还没机会细读。序言是 Norman Fischer 写的；他已经是 post-anatta：https://www.amazon.com/That-Not-Your-Mind-Reflections/dp/1645470792/ Barry Magid 和 Joan Halifax 也都为它背书。我刚查了一下他的履历，看起来他接受法嗣传承的老师，和 Shinshu Roberts 的老师是同一位。

A practitioner recently reached out to detail their current practice state and raise profound questions and personal summaries regarding core Dharma concepts mentioned on the blog.

First, they shared their understanding of the difference between "experience" and "realization," noting that experiences come and go, are unstable, and require effort, whereas realization is natural, effortless, and a deep knowing of how things already are. Next, they systematically summarized Thusness's Seven Stages of Enlightenment. They posited that Stage 1 is the stable, indubitable realization of "I AM"; Stage 2 is the experience of "No-Mind" where the object merges into the subject; Stage 3 is realizing the subject "I" obstructs the experience of No-Mind; Stage 4 is the mirror-like "One Mind" where the subject "I" dissolves but experience tends to be subsumed into oneness; Stage 5 is the mirror with no reflections, the realization of "No-Self" (Anatta) breaking dualism; and Stage 6 is seeing emptiness (Non-arising and Total Exertion). Based on this, they asked: Is Stage 5 the traditional "extinction of subject and object" [能所双亡]? Because according to the original descriptions, although one is completely without a self at that stage, there still seems to be a view of inherent existence regarding objects. As for "Mind" in Zen, they viewed "True Mind/Self Mind" as awareness, "deluded mind" as obscured awareness accompanied by dense thoughts and habitual outward seeking, and "No-Mind" as equivalent to anatta and seeing emptiness.

Synthesizing these understandings, the practitioner proposed that for ordinary people and practitioners of different levels, any pure "experience" itself is equal and identical; what truly differentiates experiences is the mind's "view". When the deluded mind arises and seeks outward, subject and object mutually arise and reinforce each other, abstracting originally discontinuous experiences into causal relationships, thus creating time and space. They mentioned that by seeing through dense deluded thoughts, one arrives at the true mind/awareness, making it easier to experience "no-self".

Regarding their actual practice, they confessed they currently seem stuck at Stage 3. Their Stage 1 experience was suddenly realizing "awareness" as a constant background, while "thoughts" became passing clouds, requiring no suppression. Subsequently, they found themselves easily entering "flow" states, enjoying spacing out, and occasionally experiencing "no-self" within that flow, only for the deluded mind to quickly obscure it into a fond memory. Because their "self-view" is still very strong, they noticed a pronounced tendency to try and rest in the background of "awareness," viewing everything else as the foreground. They wondered if this state counts as "One Mind" or is still "I AM." They also mentioned feeling quite lost if they didn't try to cling to this background—prior to proper guidance, they didn't know whether to focus, relax, or "merge" during contemplation—until they encountered the Two Stanzas of Anatta and the Bahiya Sutta. They deeply realized that the very thing causing experiences to come and go is this "I". Meanwhile, they experienced confusion regarding the manner of awareness: they found they could focus and switch objects, or maintain a holistic awareness, but they could not be both focused and holistic at the exact same time, suspecting this limitation was also due to their "view". They lamented that breaking the attachments of "I as subject" (Stage 4) and "subject/object merging into One Mind" (Stage 5) are innate human habits that are indeed hard to break.

In combining Dharma investigation with actual experience, they used medicine as a metaphor for the limitations of teachings: greed, anger, and ignorance are the disease, and the teachings are the medicine. Emphasizing "I AM" or "One Mind" serves as medicine to overcome the ordinary person's habit of "outward seeking"; teaching "Emptiness" cures "I AM/One Mind" (but teaching emptiness to someone still seeking outwardly leads to nihilism); teaching the Middle Way and "True Emptiness, Wondrous Being" cures the ordinary person's attachment to existence and the Hinayana attachment to emptiness. They raised a deep confusion: Why did the Buddha teach "dependent origination" and the interconnectedness of all things (wondrous being)? They assumed this should be a direct realization of the arising and ceasing of phenomena after realizing emptiness. But in their actual experience (e.g., when contemplating Dogen's "fire is fire, ash is ash"), although they could cognitively sever the causal link between the two and experience them as completely independent, unrelated fragments, they were stuck there, unable to comprehend "Total Exertion" [一法究尽]. They asked: Why is it that after stripping away habitual views, they can only experience this isolation and disjointness? Is this lack of interdependence due to a cognitive barrier, or a lack of depth in awareness? They also shared their investigation into physical "pain": when merging with "pain", they found absolutely nothing there; "pain" was an independent concept that appeared subsequently.

Furthermore, they contrasted the "non-arising and non-ceasing" of the Eight Negations with the Buddha's teachings on dependent origination. They believed the Buddha's arising/ceasing points to emptiness and interconnectedness ("creating something out of nothing"), whereas the arising/ceasing in the Eight Negations refers to a temporal, step-by-step process that violates true emptiness. Thus, they asked: Why does Stage 6 specifically emphasize "Non-arising"? Next, they quoted the Treatise on No-Mind stating "no-mind is not like wood or stone". Because they personally held the view that "wood and stone also possess awareness", they were puzzled by the text's deliberate distinction, asking if this was merely to dispel conventional fears of becoming an insentient, lifeless object upon attaining "no-mind".

Finally, they shared their "trading market" metaphor for emptiness. The market's foundation is the aggregation of causes and conditions (greed, anger, ignorance), existing as discontinuous probability points in time and space. The perceived continuity of the market is entirely the function of the "mind" comparing unrelated points and drawing charts (K-lines/moving averages). If people leave or the medium (screens) disappears, the market ceases to exist. Extending this to the material world, they noted that when asleep, we cannot confirm the world's existence; we merely habitually believe it persists. It is the human mind plus the sensory system that draws up this specific market and presents the so-called material world. Through this, they argued they had thoroughly abandoned materialism, recognizing "emptiness" and the possibility that everything is mind-made on a much deeper level.

In response to their shared practice state, understanding of Dharma concepts, and specific questions, I provided the following detailed reply:

---

My Reply:

Hello,

I am glad to receive your email. I rejoice in your deep exploration of the Dharma and your acute observations regarding your experiences. I have carefully organized the confusions and summaries you raised and will provide comprehensive explanations and answers here:

Regarding the experience of "No-Mind" and the differences between stages

Glimpses or experiences of no-mind can arise at any point, even before one attains any of the seven stages. However, as explained in the article I sent you earlier—https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2025/03/thusnessjohn-tan.html "区别于“真如（Thusness）/John Tan第一阶段与第二阶段”及其他阶段 - Difference Between Thusness Stage 1 and 2 and other Stages"—Stage 2 is not merely about an experience of no-mind.

Similarly, Stage 3 is not just what you described; it also involves entering a state of oblivion. You can read more about this in my newly translated article: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2026/04/blog-post_42.html 真如第三阶段 (Thusness Stage 3).

Regarding the assessment of your current state and contemplation

You mentioned: "Because my view of self is still very strong, there is a tendency to try to rest in the background of Awareness, viewing everything else as the foreground. (Does this count as 'One Mind', or is it still 'I AM'?)"

-- This is still the 'I AM'. You are still sinking back into the source and background; the insights into non-duality and anatta (non-self) have not yet arisen.

You mentioned: "If I don't try to cling to the background, without correct guidance, I can also be quite lost. (Before contacting you, Teacher, in my own state, I wasn't sure how exactly to observe—Focus? Relax? Merge? The experiences are different—until I came across the Two Stanzas of Anatta and the Bahiya Sutta)."

-- It is great that you found a suitable method for contemplation. It is crucial to give rise to the insight of anatta as a Dharma Seal.

Regarding "Non-arising" and "Wood and stone having no mind"

Regarding "non-arising", I recommend re-reading my article here: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2025/08/blog-post_5.html.

As for wood and stone, they do not possess awareness. The idea of a "universal awareness" is a wrong view rejected in the Buddhadharma. Practitioners at the 'I AM' and 'One Mind' phases often harbor this misconception, which is highly misleading. I have elaborated on this in a newly translated article: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2026/04/blog-post_61.html 将“普遍意识”推论出来的倾向. Please read it in full. Any notion of a universal consciousness is merely an extrapolation and reification of a metaphysical, substantial entity.

Furthermore, as the Shurangama Sutra (Volume 10) states:

“Further, the good person has thoroughly investigated the formations aggregate as empty. He has ended arising and ceasing, but he has not yet perfected the subtle wonder of still extinction. Based on this pervasive, perfect knowing, he forms a mistaken understanding. He claims that all the plants and trees in the ten directions are sentient, no different from human beings. He claims that plants and trees can become human beings, and that when human beings die they return to become plants and trees in the ten directions. By generating this superior understanding of a pervasive, unselective knowing, this person falls into the error of attributing knowing to what has no knowing. Vasishtha and Senika, who clung to the idea of universal awareness, will become his companions. Confused about the Buddha's bodhi, he loses his proper knowledge and vision. This is the fourth state, in which one conceptualizes a perfectly knowing mind, resulting in an empty and false fruition. It strays far from perfect penetration, turns its back on the City of Nirvana, and sows the seeds of inverted knowing.”

[Chinese original: 「又善男子穷诸行空，已灭生灭，而于寂灭精妙未圆。若于所知，知遍圆故，因知立解，十方草木皆称有情，与人无异；草木为人，人死还成十方草树。无择遍知生胜解者，是人则堕知无知执。婆吒霰尼执一切觉，成其伴侣。迷佛菩提，亡失知见。是名第四计圆知心，成虚谬果；违远圆通，背涅槃城，生倒知种。」]

Simplified Explanation:
This passage is not just talking about whether plants and trees have feelings; it is directly pointing to and deconstructing the wrong view of a 'Universal Consciousness' or 'Monistic substance' that practitioners easily fall into.

If a practitioner in deep samadhi (breaking through the feeling and thinking aggregates, entering the formations aggregate) experiences an extremely subtle, profound, and seemingly omnipresent "pure bright awareness" (knowing), they are very prone to a cognitive illusion. They will establish a wrong view based on this experience: believing that there exists a universally pervasive "universal consciousness" or a monistic substance of consciousness. Because they experienced the boundless, empty, and luminous nature of awareness, they unconsciously extrapolate and reify it into an omnipresent "noumenon" or "True Self", believing it permeates and pervades the entire universe, serving as the same shared source for everyone.

Once this wrong view is established, the logical deduction is inevitable: since this substance of consciousness pervades the universe and is everywhere, then the insentient plants, trees, rocks, and earth of the ten directions are naturally within this substance and composed of it. Therefore, they assert that "rocks, trees, and plants also possess sentience (awareness), no different from humans"; they might even believe a human can become a plant after death, and a plant can become a human. Those who produce such views fall into the attachments of non-Buddhists (like the ascetic Vashistha who clung to the idea of universal awareness).

The Buddhadharma strictly rebukes this view because the concept of a "universal consciousness" completely violates the core Dharma seals—Dependent Origination and Anatta. There is no grand "universal consciousness" lurking in the background as the common substrate of all things, nor is awareness a material-like base that can attach to wood and stones. This passage serves as a profound warning: do not extrapolate and weave the boundless experience of awareness in samadhi into a metaphysical "universal consciousness", as this will cause one to lose the true Bodhi of the Buddha and produce inverted views. Instead, we should understand and realize all of this through the view of Anatman, Dependent Origination, and Emptiness. For more on this, please also see: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2025/03/blog-post_4.html 觉与缘起 - Awareness and Dependent Origination.

As Kyle Dixon shared years ago:

“Although Bhāviveka doesn’t struggle that much, he is quite clear:
‘Since [the tīrthika position of] self, permanence, all pervasiveness and oneness contradict their opposite, [the Buddhist position of] no-self, impermanence, non-pervasiveness and multiplicity, they are completely different.’”

- Kyle Dixon, 2020

“Bhāviveka demonstrates the proper way to view buddhanature:
The statement "The tathāgata pervades" means wisdom pervades all objects of knowledge, but it does not mean abiding in everything like Viśnu. Further, "Tathāgatagarbhin" means emptiness, signlessness and absence of aspiration exist [in] the continuums of all sentient beings, but is not an inner personal agent pervading everyone.”

- Kyle Dixon, 2021

Regarding whether wood and stones have Buddha-nature/awareness, I want to share a conversation from the Dharma Wheel forum years ago between Acarya Malcolm Smith (N/Namdrol) and others:

Huseng: “In Chinese contexts the word 'Buddha-nature' (fo xing) means an awful lot of things. :) Buddha-nature is emptiness, and since all things are empty, yes, stones have Buddha-nature.”

- Huseng (Sun Jul 31, 2011 12:26 am)

Malcolm: “This is incorrect. Sentient beings are defined as buddhadhātu, stones are not sentient. They cannot become Buddhas. The fact that stones are empty and sentient beings are empty does not mean that stones can attain awakening.”

- Malcolm (Sun Jul 31, 2011 12:42 am)

Astus: “The logic here is quite simple. All is mind - mind is buddha - stones and trees are buddha.”

- Astus (Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:28 am)

Malcolm: “Piss poor reasoning.”

- Malcolm (Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:28 am)

Astus quoting Anam Thubten:
“When the ego dissolves, all things are awakened. Trees are awakened, stones are awakened, birds are enlightened, and clouds in the sky are enlightened. When the Buddha had this fully realized moment, he found that this entire universe was already enlightened. Not only that, he realized that every speck of dust on the ground was enlightened. He saw every single speck of dust as a pure land of the Buddha. Inside every speck of dust there are hundreds of thousands of trillions of pure lands. Inside each of these specks of dust there are billions of buddhas dwelling. This entire universe as it is suddenly became enlightened and perfect.” (Anam Thubten: No Self, No Problem, p. 46)

- Astus (Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:55 am)

Malcolm: “Do not mistake poetry and rhetoric like the above for fact. It merely means that all objects of knowledge are a display of one's own jñāna. It does not mean that stones, trees, etc., are independently awakened.”

- Malcolm (Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:55 am)

Regarding the extinction of subject and object [能所双亡]

Regarding the "extinction of subject and object" [能所双亡], I actually dislike this term because it implies the existence of two distinct poles that somehow dissolve or merge into one another. Most teachers, both in ancient and modern times, who use this term only manage to describe a non-dual state. This is not the realization of anatta, nor is it realizing anatta as a Dharma Seal. Many living teachers I have spoken with who use this term have only attained a non-dual state, lacking the insight of anatta.

To add to this point, I recently researched the origin of the term '能所双亡' using ChatGPT, which indicated that it was first used by Zongmi. Zongmi is a very prominent figure in Chinese Buddhism, acting as a patriarch in both the Huayan and Chan traditions. However, Dogen heavily criticized him for holding substantialist views. You can refer to my newly translated article on this here: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2026/04/blog-post_2.html.

In truth, substantialist tendencies are extremely common throughout both history and the modern era. Today, I would say 99% of teachers—even within Buddhism—lean toward substantialism, even if they possess some genuine realizations. They have not yet truly approached the realizations of anatta or emptiness.

On the other hand, Teacher Hong Wenliang (洪文亮老师) is very clear about realizing anatman as a Dharma Seal:

"Originally there is no 'subject and object' [能所]. What we call fundamental ignorance in Buddhism is actually not fundamental ignorance; it is just our natural state of being muddled and confused. Everyone is sitting there confused. But 'that subject and object' [那个能所] originally never existed. 'Extinction of both' [双亡] does not mean you actively extinguish them; it is discovering that this subject and object fundamentally never existed, that is why it is called the extinction of subject and object [能所双亡]."

[Chinese original: 本来没有“能所”，我们佛学里头的根本无明，其实那不是根本无明，是我们自然的糊里糊涂，每个人都在那里糊 里糊涂，但是“那个能所”本来没有，双亡不是你去亡掉，是发觉这个能所本来没有，所以叫能所双亡。]

- Teacher Hong Wenliang

Anatta is a Dharma Seal or Truth that is Always Already So, Anatta is Not a State

Soh wrote in 2018:

"If someone talks about a certain experience he had and later lost, that is not [true, profound] awakening... As many teachers say, it is the great samadhi without entering or exiting."

John Tan: No entering and exiting. Especially for Anatta. Why no entering and exiting?

Soh: Anatta is always already so, not a stage to reach. So it is about a realization and a shift of perception.

John Tan: Yes 👍

As John always used to say to others:

"The insight of 'Anatta' as a seal and not a stage must arise to further progress into the effortless mode. Meaning Anatta is the ground of all experiencing and is always already so without an 'I'. In seeing, there is always only the seen; in hearing, always only sounds; in thinking, always only thoughts. No effort is required, and there never was an 'I'."

Distinguishing Wisdom from Art

John Tan recently wrote to someone in a Linji group:

"I think we must distinguish wisdom from an art or state of mind. In Master Sheng Yen's death poem:

Busy with nothing till old.
In emptiness, there is weeping and laughing.
Originally there never was any 'I'.
Thus life and death can be cast aside.

This 'Originally there never was any "I"' is the wisdom and seal of anatta. It is neither an art like an artist getting in the zone, a dissolving of self into the flow of activity, nor a state to be achieved like the Daoist 'sit and forget' -- a no-mind state.

E.g., in cooking, there is no self cooking, just the activity of cooking. The hands move, the utensils operate, water boils, potatoes are peeled, the universe sings together in the act of cooking. It does not matter whether one is clumsy or smooth in the activity of cooking; when the dish is served, it might still taste terrible; but in any moment of the activity, there never was an 'I'. In the wisdom of anatta, there is no entry and exit point."

- John Tan

Labels: Anatta, Master Sheng Yen 1 Comments | |

---

Soh wrote in 2007 based on John Tan's writings:

First of all, I do not see Anatta merely as the experience of freedom from personality that you are referring to; I see it as: apart from the stream of present manifestation, no self / agent / doer / thinker / watcher etc can be found, or as it is often said, "the observer is the observed"; there is no self apart from arising and passing away. What is very important here is that Anatta is a Dharma Seal, it is the nature of reality that is always so—and not merely a state of freedom from personality, ego, or "small self", nor a stage to be achieved. This means that experiencing Anatta does not depend on the high or low achievement of the practitioner, but reality has always been without a self; what is important here is the intuitive insight into Anatta as the nature and characteristic of phenomena (Dharma Seal).

To further emphasize the importance of this, I want to borrow the Bahiya Sutta's (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.irel.html) "In the seen, there is only the seen, no seer", "In the heard, there is only the heard, no hearer" as an illustration. When a person says I have transcended the experience of "I hear the sound" and entered the stage of "becoming the sound", he is wrong. When it is seen as a stage, it is illusory. Because in reality, in hearing there is only and always only sound; there never was a hearer. Nothing attained, because it is always so. This is the seal of Anatta. Therefore, for the non-dualist, practice lies in understanding the illusionary views of the sense of self and the sense of division.

Before prajñā wisdom awakens, there will always be an unconscious attempt to maintain a purest state of "presence". This purest presence is the "how" of the dualistic mind—it is the dualistic solution it tries to offer due to a lack of clear recognition of the spontaneous nature of the unconditioned. What is crucial to notice here is that doubts / confusions / seekings, and the solutions created for these doubts / confusions / seekings, actually stem from the same cause—our karmic habit of always looking at things dualistically.

John Tan added: "This is the seal of Anatta, which can be realized and experienced at all times; it is not just a concept."

- John Tan

Labels: Anatta |

It is not just a modern issue; many ancient commentators were also mistaken...

This explains why when exploring the "extinction of subject and object" and "anatta," we find that many ancient and modern commentators have not thoroughly penetrated these teachings. It is not just a modern issue. This is precisely why Ven. Hui Lu stated in his commentary: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2012/12/true-mind-and-unconditioned-dharma_18.html :

Commentary on the Shurangama Sutra by Ven Hui Lu, on the chapter that discusses "All dharmas are Buddha-nature"

Second chapter: Every single dharma is fundamentally the Treasury of the Thus Come One [tathagatagarbha/Buddha-nature], what are the dharmas? Five aggregates, six entries, twelve sense bases, eighteen elements, are all fundamentally the Treasury of the Thus Come One. How do we explain this?

What sentient beings call Form/Matter, Feelings, Perceptions, Volition, and Consciousness; when the eighth consciousness transforms into the Great Perfect Mirror Wisdom, the labels/conventional images of these five aggregates completely disappears. Although the names are transformed, its body is not transformed. This false name is being transformed into what is being called the Great Perfect Mirror Wisdom, [hence] Form IS Buddha-nature, feeling IS buddha-nature, perception IS buddha-nature, volition IS buddha-nature, consciousness IS buddha-nature.

To put it in another way: by illuminating/seeing that the five aggregates are empty, that its essence is empty, Buddha-nature reveals itself. Therefore it is saying, form/matter is body/matter, feelings, perceptions, volitions, and consciousness is mind. Those who are able to see through/be disillusioned with Body and Mind, are able to let them go, and furthermore are able to be complete [in disillusionment/letting go], precisely that is Buddha, being able to illuminate that the five aggregates are empty, and thus liberate all sufferings.

Therefore, the Buddha transforms this body of five aggregates into the Indestructible Diamond Body, that is refering to the Marvellous Nirvanic Nature, it is not refering to appearance. Shakyamuni Buddha manifests in appearance birth, ageing, sickness and death, that is speaking from the perspective of appearance.

What is termed Buddha, is to leave [all conceivings with regards to] all appearances, that is named as all Buddhas; the Thus Come One means being 'such' with regards to all dharmas. In other words: no matter how form, feelings, perceptions, volition and consciousness changes, his mind is always unmoving in suchness, whenever his mind arises and thought moves, there is no attachment to self, nor attachment to dharmas, therefore it is said that the aggregates are fundamentally the Treasury of the Thus Come One, the marvellous nature of True Suchness.

These are the six entries: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind, being correlated with form, sound, smell, taste, touch, thought, which means: with regards to these six entries, actually they are also manifested through the dependent arising of the Treasury of the Thus Come One. It cannot be seen, cannot be touched, cannot be smelled; however, it can give rise to functions.

Ordinary beings' eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind are creating karma, therefore, from these six entries, it (deluded karmic tendencies) pollutes our pure mind; on the other hand these six entries are for the Buddha exactly the place that illuminates light and moves the earth, its marvellous activities are inexhaustible.

Henceforth, from the viewpoint of saints, it is known that "when you are not prejudiced with regards to the six sense-objects, you in turn are in union with true enlightenment."

The six sense-objects are absent of what is known as good or bad, however it depends [or is conceived based] on your arising mind and moving thoughts, therefore it is known that the six sense-objects that are not prejudiced is to be in harmony with true enlightenment. As for the entry of eyes, it is as said by the Buddha, what is known as entry has in reality no entry, why is it so?

Pure self-nature does not have an exit or an entry, [repeat:] it does not have exit or entry.

Within our China's Mahayana Buddhism, there are many, in fact the majority of those latter-day commentators, due to not having attained Great Realization, have distorted the Buddha's meaning.

For example: Shakyamuni Buddha has never said anything like "while following conditions one is unchanged, one is unchanged while following conditions". That [saying] actually came from our Mahayana venerables, they keep on spouting such saying, such a saying is actually [based on] beginningless ignorance, it is a false understanding, the Buddha has never said such a saying; the Buddha has never said: from true emptiness comes marvellous existence, marvellous existence true emptiness, [I have] searched throughout the entire Tripitaka [the three textual collections of sutras, vinaya and abhidharma] and Shakyamuni Buddha has never ever said such a thing.

The Buddha has also never said: from the illusory one enters into emptiness, from emptiness the illusory is produced; not attaching to either side is known as the middle way.

Shakyamuni Buddha has never said such a saying, never!

I have flipped through the Tripitaka's twelve sections of sutras, it has never ever said anything with regards to "being unchanged while following conditions, following conditions while being unchanged"; it has never said: "true emptiness produces miraculous existence, from miraculous existence comes true emptiness"; and it has never said: "from the illusory one enters into emptiness, from emptiness comes the illusory, not attaching to either side is known as the middle way". Having an exit and entry, how could that be Buddha-nature?

Therefore, the first saying should be changed into: Appearing according to conditions.

Those who say: being unchanged by the flow of conditions, the flow of conditions does not change/affect us - we usually have the view of a self-nature, conceiving that the Treasury of the Thus Come One is always unchanging in suchness, unchanging in suchness, like a pool of dead water. Wrong!

It can give rise to marvellous function, therefore, it manifests according to conditions. When the Buddha preaches the dharma he is also in Samadhi, in movement, standing, sitting and sleeping, the ingenuity in varying usage depends on natural intelligence, how could there be an unchanging thing?

This "being immutable in the midst of conditions" will cause people to fall into (the conclusion of): there is a kind of "something" that is unchanging, and one constantly seeks after a kind of "something that is not changing", mistaken that there is a kind of "something" that is called "eternal".

[In actuality] what is known as eternal is eternally non-abiding, filled with wisdom-mind - that is called eternal, it is not that there is a kind of "thing" that is called eternal.

We have to understand, conditioned dharma IS precisely unconditioned dharma, conditioned dharma is the dependently arisen, arising and ceasing, impermanent dharmas; it is completely empty and hence unconditioned dharma, its immediate essence is empty, we do not speak of any dualities.

Therefore we say: manifesting according to conditions, is what completely and greatly realized people would say, for if you talk about "being immutable in the face of conditions", what is the thing that never changes?

Those greatly realized mind knows that Buddha-Nature is like the Wish-Fulfilling Gem, when the Hu man arrives Hu man is made manifest, when the Han man arrives Han man is made manifest, it will always change, if it were unchanging it would be like a pool of dead water, how could it manifest functions?

Isn't that the case? If the Treasury of the Thus Come One never changes, then how would Shakyamuni Buddha expound the sutras and preach the dharma?

[If] it is unchanging, [it would be like] a pool of dead water, when Shakyamuni Buddha expounds the sutras that would be the coming forth of marvellous activities, how could it have been that it never changes?

Isn't that the case? Therefore: Buddha nature is Impermanence. What is known as Buddha-nature is Impermanence, is spoken from the point of view of marvellous activities; when Buddha-nature is spoken as permanent, it is spoken from the perspective of [fundamental] essence, when speaking to those who have not realized, this is the only way we can explain.

When speaking of Impermanence, that is due to the Buddha's bemoaning the state of the universe and pitying the fate of mankind, thus letting us realize that the ten thousand dharmas are arising and ceasing in impermanency, empty without self-nature, therefore, Shakyamuni Buddha cannot avoid speaking about Impermanence to let you realize it earlier.

When explaining Permanence, it is for the purpose of providing something to rely on for the practitioners of the two [lower] vehicles, wherefore we speak of our Treasury of the Thus Come One as Permanence, Bliss, Self and Purity, however the practitioners of the two [lower] vehicles then grasp after a kind of something that is 'Permanent, Blissful, Self and Purity', and thus again becoming attached to an eternal something.

(Soh's personal comments: certainly this issue does not apply to the 'arahants' of Buddhism who have realized anatta or no-soul, maybe the comment is more appropriate for adherents of the non-Buddhist tradition, the term 'two vehicles' originally meant for the arahants and pratyekabuddhas have in latter days of Chinese Mahayana become a very loose term used to imply all and any kind of 'misguided practitioners')

When the Shakyamuni Buddha talks about impermanence, it is meant for severing your craving; when speaking about permanence, it is meant for providing a means of support for the practitioners of the two vehicles, yet the practitioners of the two vehicles then attached to a kind of something that is called 'permanent'.

Shakyamuni Buddha tells us: when talking about Permanent, Bliss, Self and Purity, that is just a kind of skillful means, [for] when it arises transformation, then it is impermanence.

Could expounding sutras and preaching the dharma have been permanence?

It will change/be impermanent, impermanence in its essence is empty, just that is permanence.

Therefore, nature and appearance are fundamentally one suchness, where could there be permanence or impermanence?

Nature and appearance are fundamentally one suchness, where could there have been abidance or non-abidance?

When reaching the state of the Buddha, if we impute a view then it is completely wrong. Imposing any kind of view is not allowed, not one dharma is established, only then is this the true Dharma.

Buddha has never talked about true emptiness producing marvellous existence, or marvellous existence [comes] true emptiness, this is a commentary from China's patriarchs.

The Buddha has also never said: from the illusory one enters into emptiness, from emptiness comes the illusory, the Buddha has said: Not-two dharma door [the Dharma of Non-Duality], you have to be clear about this!

What is known as the dharma door of non-duality means Mind and Environment are not two, isn't it so?

Dependent arising is equivalent to empty nature, it is not that apart from dependent arising there is another empty nature.

Or that apart from dependent arising there is another empty nature, dependent arising is going in accord with conditions, and apart from that there is an empty nature that is known to be permanent.

Isn't it the case? Then that would be splitting it into two, then this is no longer the dharma door of non-duality. Dependent arising is fundamentally empty, just that is the empty nature; birth and death are fundamentally empty, just that is Nirvana, birth and death and nirvana is without distance, Bodhi [enlightenment] is originally not one thing.

Regarding the metaphor of Emptiness (Trading Market) and further deconstruction

Returning to your metaphor of the trading market, it is excellent and shows your deep insight that there is no objective universe existing independently of consciousness. However, the next step—as you might have already intuited—is to break through into the insight of anatta, realizing that "consciousness" itself is also empty. You can refer to this related passage from my newly re-translated article: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2025/11/i-am_2.html Distinguishing I AM, One Mind, No-Mind, and No-Self [辨析 I AM、一心、无心与无我]:

30–31 DECEMBER 2020

John Tan: Vase empty of vase is like the semantics, meanings, definitions that are associated with a conventional term. The whole idea of and concept about vase, cause and effect, physicality, existence. For example the whole idea of self/Self is eliminated but will that lead one to the same initial insight and experience of anatta, I doubt so and Non-dual seems to come only much later after maturing of deconstruction. Initially it is the releasing of the mind from the attachments to the "definitions and meanings" of the concepts. Inherentness is like hearer of sound (imo). However they are related. Yet the experiences differs initially but ultimately both insights will align. Empty of inherentness is more intuitive.

Soh Wei Yu: I see..

John Tan: So vase empty of vase is doing away completely with conceptualities. If practitioner were to start from such a way of practice, will take a long time to give rise to experiential taste similar to anatta. It must be directed to self/Self first before one look at phenomena. Like chariot is empty of chariot. If you start from there, it is hard to get to an experiential taste similar to anatta.

Soh Wei Yu: I see..

Soh Wei Yu: Vase empty of vase is like Atmananda way of deconstructing objects into consciousness right? It is also taught in Tibetan Buddhism?

John Tan: Sort of. That is why I cut and paste this part to you. This is vase empty of vase: ==> "to suspend paying attention to thoughts, actively thinking thoughts and investing belief in any thought" This will lead one into dry non-conceptualities without insights. Rather the purpose is to trigger the "insight" to see through and transcend all these man-made constructs and conventions and mistake them as "real" (reifications). So my first question to you is, will such an insight lead to non-dual, collapsing subject and object duality and inherentness? If no, why? If yes, when? ==>"As the process cuts deeper, all conceptual reference points are cut through and abandoned. The beliefs in a self, a soul, a being, a spirit, a god, a guru, a path, enlightenment, a Buddha, Brahman, other people, creatures, objects, planets, stars, galaxies and universes, all are seen to be your own conceptual constructs. When all such beliefs and all other remaining reference points have been cut though, what remains is a pristine and pure Awareness (Dharmakaya) that can’t possibly be understood conceptually or captured in thought. Samsara is the self and its world created by the mind’s thought constructs and beliefs... all thought constructs must be “cut through” and abandoned." "When all such beliefs and all other remaining reference points have been cut though, what remains is a pristine and pure Awareness (Dharmakaya) that can’t possibly be understood conceptually or captured in thought." My second question, is this the purpose like what Jax said? Will this lead to "what remains is pristine, pure Awareness"? If yes how? If no why? My third question, what is the final result of vase empty of vase? Quite good. (Referring to Soh's writing on Life/Death as designation).

Soh Wei Yu: No need for deconstruction to realise awareness. Just self enquiry is enough. But deconstruction leads to deeper insights.. like for the Atmananda path there is deconstructing objects after the I AM. Initially the deconstruction of objects does not result in non-dual in that path. It's like from opaque to transparent witness. Everything is deconstructed to arisings in awareness.. but still dual. Then later that duality collapses. But that's for Atmananda path. For me I was more like into anatta first.

"I’ve found that the deconstruction of physical objects (including the body) to be the single most important step. People want to rush past this step to get to the sexy things like thoughts, feelings, free will, etc. But here’s the catch. Almost invariably, we think of thoughts and feelings and free will with the help of physical metaphors... But if we work with the book in order, and begin by deconstructing physicality completely, we will no longer think or experience in physical terms... It is then that we begin to understand witnessing awareness much more clearly, and amazingly enough, witnessing awareness begins to become less and less real and substantial at the same time."
- Greg Goode

Soh Wei Yu: But Greg Goode said before those who want to realise anatta should not do Atmananda direct path. Because it only gets to something like it at the very very end and only like talked about it briefly.

John Tan: Very interesting. Where you get this?

Soh Wei Yu: Greg Goode website.. the whole article is longer. He explains Advaita ajativada here. No creation.

John Tan: Seems like he stop writing after 2017. (Facebook comment to Geovani): There is the way of de-construction from analysis where one analyses and understands that "named things" are empty and "non-arisen" but still, one may not directly taste that empty clarity even after clearly understanding it conceptually. We must ask why is it so. So, my question is: How can the understanding that conceptual notions are empty "SUDDENLY" lead to direct authentication of one's empty "clarity/awareness"? Or it does or does not affect one's "clarity/awareness"? If it does not, then what is the purpose of such contemplations? If we want to authenticate "clarity" directly, don't you find the neti neti way to self enquiry of "who am I" a much more direct and intuitive approach? How do 1 and 3 differ from ATR anatta enquiry of: In hearing, there is just sound, no hearer; In seeing, there is just colors and shapes, no seer; All the above are ways of deconstructing conceptual constructs, but they lead to different results. Clearly understanding which de-constructing technique lead to what "result" is crucial.

My take:

Soh Wei Yu: In Greg Goode direct path, the conceptual notions and constructs of physicality and objectivity is deconstructed even at the I AM phase prior to collapse of witness. In this path, objects and physicality become deconstructed into arisings within witnessing awareness, even before witness collapses. This leaves the subjective pole undeconstructed until much later.
will lead to dissociation and I AM. But neti neti is needed for self enquiry and I AM realization.
deconstructs subjective pole, leading to direct realization and taste of radiance as all manifestations. Aka anatta.
As for 2) I think 1) can be a kind of release on mental level even if anatta isn’t realised. Greg Goode said that by the time he reached transparent witness he was free of mental suffering.

John Tan: What is opaque witness? Free of mental suffering is true.

Soh Wei Yu: Sorry wrote wrong. Opaque witness first followed by transparent witness. He became free from mental suffering at transparent witness.

John Tan: How does insight of "I Am" got triggered via such method of seeing through "named things"?

Soh Wei Yu: To me I AM is triggered from self enquiry, not deconstruction. Seeing through named things is more on deconstruction.

John Tan: So you are saying 1 will not lead to realization of "clarity" but just mere release of mental suffering?

Soh Wei Yu: If the deconstruction of all conceptual notions goes along with meditation into a state of cessation of concepts, there is also a possibility of discovering pure awareness / I AM. Doesn’t have to be self enquiry. Like Sim Pern Chong got there by breathing meditation, some people through psychedelics, some people through yoga, kundalini etc.

John Tan: Yes but not necessarily until total cessation of concepts, however at a much later phase of de-construction. The insight by then will be much clearer and stable imo though it comes at a later phase of de-constructing. I am more interested in how and why.

1 January 2021
Soh Wei Yu: (Quoting Anurag Jain) In the Direct Path, when "the gestalt of arisings" is seen through, the witness collapses. Objects, as you said before, should have been thoroughly deconstructed before that. Once objects and arisings are deconstructed, there is nothing left to witness, so the witness collapses.

John Tan: Incorrect. Objects and arisings can also collapse by being subsumed into an all-encompassing awareness.

Soh Wei Yu: Yes, but that's more like non-duality. Meaning, after the witness and arisings collapse, it can be non-dual, but it is still One Mind. Right? Though Atmananda also said that eventually even the idea of "consciousness" dissolves. I feel that's more like One Mind entering No-Mind, but Im not sure if that is referring to Anatta.

John Tan: Yes.

Soh Wei Yu: (Quoting Anurag) "Where does this idea of an 'all-encompassing awareness' come from? It sounds like reifying awareness into a container." Also, when you say "consciousness dissolves," you first have to answer: how did it exist in the first place? 🙂

John Tan: In subsumption, there is no "container-contained" relationship, only awareness. Regardless, this is not meant to be a pointless argument; if he really understands, let it be. What about the mind freeing itself from all concepts, such as existence, physicality, causality, etc.? How is this different from the insight into agency-action? I'm more interested in: what kind of insight, clarity, and experience does seeing through these concepts bring, versus seeing through agency? If these two indeed bring clearly different insights and experiential tastes, then the difference is obvious. They are very different types of deconstruction, just like the stages of insight from I AM to spontaneous perfection. This is important for you too. I don't want to keep asking you either, I'm tired. 🤣

Lastly, I want to leave you with something John Tan shared with Albert Hong in 2012. This dialogue is extremely crucial, as it deeply explores how to see through the subject-object duality and realize "dependent origination/non-arising":

22/09/2012
Thusness’s comments on Taiyaki (Albert Hong)’s post to Liberation Unleashed:

Albert Hong:
Just some more thoughts to doodle out:
In the direct experience of vision the eyes move around. That movement or volition is impersonal and spontaneous. But with the realization of anatta the sense of watcher looking from here to the object out there has vanished. There is a no dimensional flat appearance as colors, shapes and forms.

John Tan (Thusness):
(well described)

Albert Hong:
When looking at the color the very color itself is awareness and it is total clarity, crisp with zero distance between what I once grasped as the eye looking outwards at the object. So in seeing, just the seen, no seer.

John Tan (Thusness):
(well expressed)

Albert Hong:
The seer just being an assumption of thought referencing back to a sense of watcher or a position that is held in the body/mind. Even the body is color and shapes. For instance the hand is typing on the keyboard. Is there a true distinction between the hand and keyboard? Is this me? Is this mine? Is there an agent controlling? Everything is spontaneously happening

John Tan (Thusness):
in a dependently originated matter (‘spontaneous’ as in effortlessness due to no doership but does not arise without the presence of supporting conditions).

Albert Hong:
The difference between the hand and keyboard is only a thought. And we say that is my hand, which is also a thought. And these thoughts self liberate. They are just sounds.

John Tan (Thusness):
(Try not to understand thought self liberates this way.

Instead, penetrate deeply into the following aspects:

1. The amazing power of the spell of an arising thought
Clearly understand the power and implications of this arising thought. It is the mystery of all mysteries. When this arising thought sees dualistically and inherent, everything appears infinitely separated and apart. That is all that matters.

2. Look deeply into the cause of suffering as a result of dualistic and inherent thought rather than thought self liberates, penetrate the ‘cause and conditions’ of suffering.
When an arising thought see dualistically, how the entire experience is shaped.
When an arising thought sees inherently, how the entire experience has changed.
With this as the cause, what happens, with the absence of that, what happens.

3. There is no willing off of dualistic and inherent thought, that would be self-view. If there is no doership, is overcoming possible?
From this understand, an arising thought is not just an arising thought, but the total exertion and entire chain of conditionality is in action. Clearly understand the difference between self-view and principle of conditionality with direct experience. The overcoming is not by way of self-view approach but by understanding the principle of conditionality.)

Albert Hong:
So what if we consider the color as self. This appearance is the self, this is me. This awareness is me. But that too is a thought, an assumption of mind. What exactly is color? Isn't that an imputation as well? This magical display rolls on without a doer, without a self, without even objects or things. And that is just for the act of seeing.

John Tan (Thusness):
First is no one behind, just fully and completely that “Color” -- the place where there is no heat or cold. Just this as this, not this becoming that. No remainder, no trace, non-conceptuality.

Second is although that “Color” is fully clear, vivid and amazing “real”, it is nothing substantial – Empty! -- This seeing involves concepts.

Albert Hong:
In sensation there is only sensation, no feeler. No person owning the sensation. Just a sensation arising and falling. We label the sensation as soft or hard. Is the sensation arising in the body mine, me or I? No just a sensation. If the thought arises this is my body, that is just another thought. The thought a sound. The sound thought a vivid appearance arisen spontaneously.

John Tan (Thusness):
First is no one behind -- no feeler, just fully and completely that “Sensation”. No ownership, no center, no doership, non-dual.

Next examine the entire whole of sensations. The intensity and clarity of hardness, coldness, solidness...etc...The entire sense of “hereness” is just an impression. An impression of dependently originated formation, nothing inherently “here” nothing substantial – Empty! -- This seeing involves concepts.

Let conceptuality and non-conceptuality work as one.

There are those that only emphasized on experience alone with no clear discernment. A sincere practitioner should not fall into the disease of it.
Practice is not just about the immediate appreciation of the no seer, just the scenery. That would be just an experience of no-mind. When asked, who ‘sees’, the practitioner may say no one sees but deep in him, it is the void boundless clarity that sees. This certainly does not help and over emphasizing on the appreciation of mere experience will not go very far. This “trace” must be overcome with earnest sincerity.

If a practitioner can clearly see that “who sees” is a wrong question and rephrase it what conditions give rise to this activity seeing, then that “trace” will be overcome completely in time to come. For refining the view itself is the practice and the process of overcoming the “trace” completely.

Albert Hong:
So the self is a total construction. If the thoughts are taken to be reality then the world is built on that assumption.

But its not the self that is just a construction, it is what we consider self as well. All the sensations, colors, smells, tastes, thoughts, sounds. Even the perceptions. Even the intentions/volition. Even the sense of awareness/presence. All of these are absent of thingness. Totally not findable and a total construction on the basis of an assumption of a thing.

This has brought in a way a permanent shift into the fact and obviousness that reality has always been as such with no doer, no subject, no objects. Just impersonal magical arisings. Without thought nothing is connected. Everything is diverse. Thoughts arise and have nothing to do with anything. There is no link. Sounds arise and have nothing to do with any of the other senses.

Vision and thought are completely separate. The construction begins when we connect thought with vision. When we believe that the color is out there and the seer is in here and that these things are actual. It is just a thought construction. From this the push and pull and from that the closing in of awareness and the solid sense of self.

John Tan (Thusness):
This arising thought and previous thought, are they same or different?
This arising thought and previous thought, are they dependent or completely independent?

Beyond the extremes, see the middle path of dependent origination.

This is a vital teaching of the Buddha and closely relates to what John Tan expressed. Lastly, I would like to direct you to the Phagguna Sutta: https://suttacentral.net/sn12.12/en/bodhi?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false (or the Pali equivalent, SN 12.12). It clearly demonstrates that we should not ask 'who', but rather observe 'dependent origination':

Saṁyutta Nikāya 12.12 (Phagguna Sutta)
At Sāvatthī. “Bhikkhus, there are these four nutriments for the maintenance of beings that already have come to be and for the support of those seeking a new existence. What four? The nutriment edible food, gross or subtle; second, contact; third, mental volition; fourth, consciousness. These are the four nutriments.”

When this was said, the venerable Moḷiya Phagguna said to the Blessed One: “Venerable sir, who consumes the nutriment consciousness?”

“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One replied. “I do not say, ‘One consumes.’ If I should say, ‘One consumes,’ in that case this would be a valid question: ‘Venerable sir, who consumes?’ But I do not speak thus. Since I do not speak thus, if one should ask me, ‘Venerable sir, for what is consciousness a nutriment?’ this would be a valid question. To this the valid answer is: ‘The nutriment consciousness is the cause for the arising of a renewed existence in the future. When that which has come into being exists, there is the six sense bases; with the six sense bases as condition, contact.’”

“Venerable sir, who makes contact?”

“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One replied. “I do not say, ‘One makes contact.’ If I should say, ‘One makes contact,’ in that case this would be a valid question: ‘Venerable sir, who makes contact?’ But I do not speak thus. Since I do not speak thus, if one should ask me, ‘Venerable sir, with what as condition does contact come to be?’ this would be a valid question. To this the valid answer is: ‘With the six sense bases as condition, contact comes to be; with contact as condition, feeling.’”

“Venerable sir, who feels?”

“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One replied. “I do not say, ‘One feels.’ If I should say, ‘One feels,’ in that case this would be a valid question: ‘Venerable sir, who feels?’ But I do not speak thus. Since I do not speak thus, if one should ask me, ‘Venerable sir, with what as condition does feeling come to be?’ this would be a valid question. To this the valid answer is: ‘With contact as condition, feeling comes to be; with feeling as condition, craving.’”

“Venerable sir, who craves?”

“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One replied. “I do not say, ‘One craves.’ If I should say, ‘One craves,’ in that case this would be a valid question: ‘Venerable sir, who craves?’ But I do not speak thus. Since I do not speak thus, if one should ask me, ‘Venerable sir, with what as condition does craving come to be?’ this would be a valid question. To this the valid answer is: ‘With feeling as condition, craving comes to be; with craving as condition, clinging.’”

“Venerable sir, who clings?”

“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One replied. “I do not say, ‘One clings.’ If I should say, ‘One clings,’ in that case this would be a valid question: ‘Venerable sir, who clings?’ But I do not speak thus. Since I do not speak thus, if one should ask me, ‘Venerable sir, with what as condition does clinging come to be?’ this would be a valid question. To this the valid answer is: ‘With craving as condition, clinging comes to be; with clinging as condition, existence; with existence as condition, birth; with birth as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.

“But with the remainderless fading away and cessation of the six sense bases comes cessation of contact; with the cessation of contact, cessation of feeling; with the cessation of feeling, cessation of craving; with the cessation of craving, cessation of clinging; with the cessation of clinging, cessation of existence; with the cessation of existence, cessation of birth; with the cessation of birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.”