Flattening All Hierarchies: Conversation on Sunyata Mu (2009)

Conversation — 9 May 2009

AEN: Hi, are you there?

Thusness: Yes. Going to watch Star Trek later. :)

AEN: Sunyata Mu said:

"Basically from my birth to about somewhere in my thirties there was a belief that I was the thoughts. This belief that I was the thoughts led to a situation which was basically 'out of control'. I believed I was the thoughts, so basically I was trapped on a roller coaster ride with them. There was no place to sit back from them... I was a slave to them and a victim of them.

So, when the realization occurred that I was the witnessing of the thoughts (...what I would call 'awakening' ) then there was some space from them.

I'd discovered a deeper part of me which I could abide in and just watch the thoughts pass by. There was then a freedom from the thoughts. They could be grabbed or let go. The slavery to them had been broken. To get to this point it was very useful to see the thoughts as 'not me' and to see them for what they actually are... dead symbols.

This awakening then opened up the next step of the 'journey'. It went from 'the witness' (which is seen as a separate self which is witnessing).... to 'the witnessing', which is non-personal. 'The witnessing' is like the 'one witnessing' in a dream. All of the dream characters have the same witnessing flowing through them. They seem separate, but it's the same witnessing (awareness) flowing through them all.

So, now that the deepest part of 'me' had been realized I could now begin to reclaim the world of thought.

An analogy would be.... I am the sun. But I didn't realize that I was the sun. I thought that I was the suns' rays and was oblivious to the fact that there was a sun which was emanating those rays. I then realized that my deepest self (the bit that the rays depend on to exist) was the sun. So I 'awakened' to the fact that the sun was there, and that it was my deepest self. And now that I realize that I am the sun I can safely take back ownership of the rays. Sure I am the rays.... but now there is also the realization that I am the sun.

So, now, there is a realization that at one end there is pure non-personal witnessing. At the other end there is the world of thoughts. And now there is a freedom to move between the two. Before, there was just a stuckness in the thoughts.... that was the only possibility. Now there is a free movement between the two. ( And yes, they are not actually 2, they are like the sun and its rays.... which are actually one.)"

Thusness: Yes. But the deeper realization is that witness and the thought is flat. :) Both are dust; don't differentiate. This is the profound truth of emptiness.

AEN: What do you mean witness and thought is flat? By the way, what he said is nonduality, right?

Thusness: There is no hierarchy.

AEN: I see.

Thusness: Yes. When we first experienced eternal witness, there is this awakening to the real you. But we are still unable to separate from the subtle idea of 'you' from pristineness.

AEN: I see...

Thusness: Then non-dual comes. That's the observer and the observed. This is the beginning of non-duality. One must penetrate very deeply into non-dual.

AEN: I see... so what he described here is still witness or like non-dual?

Thusness: Then comes the realization that absolute and relative are really inseparable. Then till one day we are so clear about the layer of tendencies that affect our thinking mechanism. When we re-examine the experiences, insights of non-duality without the subtle influences due to the neutralization with the arising of prajna wisdom (dependent origination), we begin to understand how the dualistic and inherent view distort our understanding with much deeper clarity. Experience then move from non-dual to anatta and emptiness. Eventually the background, the transience are simply same level. The absolute that is so dear to us becomes flat. Emptiness flattens all.

Thusness: That is why I said it is the last mark, last trace that must be further purified by emptiness.

Thusness: Email me this conversation... My keyboard keys are spoiled... jump here and there. Then close this window... haha. When we talk about the natural state, if we have not reached this clarity of insight, we will not be able to be truly natural. Because there is a center. Not all are centers... That center is the grasping, the more special. How natural can that be?

Thusness: This last mark must be clearly seen.

AEN: By the way, I remember you said regarding the sun analogy: "Yes Sinweiy, The Buddha out of infinite compassion spoke the lucid luminosity, the unconditioned Obviousness, the pure. But the self-luminous awareness from beginningless time has never been separated and cannot be separated from its conditions. They are not two -- This is, That is. Along with the conditions, Luminosity shines without a center and arises without a place. No where to be found. This is the Tatagatha Nature. :)"

Thusness: Conditions and luminosity = appearances. This is DO [dependent origination]. This is not relative and absolute. Don't mistake relative as conditions.

Thusness: Relative is the transience. The appearance. This is the subject-object view. Luminosity and conditions are DO [dependent origination]. In DO [dependent origination], there is only appearances. All are flat. Equally pure. That is why replace the inherent and dualistic view with DO [dependent origination]. That is the right view. To orientate and articulate with the right view. Then when experience comes, it will not be distorted. Insight will arise.

Thusness: When I talk about insight, I am talking about anatta and DO [dependent origination]. Get it?

Thusness: You will see Advaita and Vedanta sees the absolute. The non-dual experience is there but there is the hierarchy that the Absolute is high above. In Buddhism, even the Absolute is closely examined. Nothing substantial, as empty. :)

Thusness: Seeing its nature, one realized the truth of luminous yet empty. All is just like an illusion but not an illusion. Like a dream but not a dream. Merely magical display. This is stage six. Then is the realization that all these realizations are already so before beginning. :)

AEN: OK. By the way, John Astin just posted this in his blog, I posted in the forum also: "To remain or abide as awareness does not mean we get into some state called “awareness” and then find a way to remain in that state. To remain as awareness is to simply recognize that all states and experiences are the continuous flow of awareness."

Thusness: Yes... very good. This is attempting to use dualistic mode of expression to express. And there is subtle influences even when one is clear and is able to trace the differences. But due to the effects of the tendencies, we cannot have that clarity.

AEN: I see. You mean that expression is still dualistic?

Thusness: Not exactly. What I meant is it is very difficult to have the clarity. From John Astin's words, he spotted the difference but it is very difficult to have thorough clarity of DO [dependent origination] when using dualistic framework. Get it?

Thusness: I got to go.

AEN: OK... see you.

Thusness: goldisheavy already have insight into the 2fold emptiness.

AEN: He just posted something? Hmm. What do you mean by insight?

Thusness: I just read his posts. Quite good.

AEN: You mean he realized emptiness?

Thusness: I go now.

AEN: OK... see you. By the way, you mean he realized emptiness or he understand theoretically?

---

Conversation — 10 May 2009

AEN: So how should I reply Sunyata Mu? :P

Thusness: Who is he?

AEN: The person who wrote the witness one. This one: http://www.inthenow.tv/actual%20pages/awakeinthenow.html

Thusness: Everyone has their own experience. I need to read through first. Some have direct insight of emptiness. Some have direct insight of anatta. Some have Advaita sort of non-dual.

AEN: Oh yeah, the gold realized both?

Thusness: And there are varying degree.

AEN: goldisheavy*

Thusness: Nope... I only say he has insight into emptiness.

Thusness: But that does not mean he will have realization of awareness, or the intensity of no dog may differ. Like you experience witness however that is not the experience I want you to have. You do not have that certainty, that eureka sort of realization. So there are differing degree.

[Note by Soh: That realization of the Certainty of Being came for me through self-enquiry next year, in February 2010 - see My e-book/e-journal)

Thusness: Similarly non-dual there are varying degree. Some non-dual have no thoughts. Some have thoughts. Though from the perspective of emptiness, all is flat, the experience differs in terms of intensity and vividness. Realization however is different. It is a realization. Means you see. You suddenly understand. And knows very clearly.

AEN: Anyway, I emailed you the Sunyata Mu's email, about the sun's ray and sun.

Thusness: What did you write to him?

AEN: I haven't replied him.

Thusness: I meant what did you write to him to have him replied you that way?

AEN: I just pasted some quotes about witness and witnessed are non-dual.

Thusness: Show me your email to him first. Then re-send me his reply.

AEN: OK, hold on. Wah. But very long. :P I just forward you.

Thusness: OK. He has potential to go beyond stage 4.

AEN: By the way, he posts in now-for-you also but only a few posts. I saw his site from there. I see. I emailed you his reply. I mean, I emailed you my email to him. I also emailed you his reply, yesterday, with the title 'Fw: From Sunyata Mu ...'

AEN: So what he said is like stage 4?

Thusness: That is a guide for you, don't always think of stage. Some start with emptiness but have no experience of luminosity. Then luminosity will become a later phase. Does that mean that the most pristine experience of "I AM" now is the last stage? Don't get yourself confused.

Thusness: I told you to look into at it as phases of insight but your entire mind is looking at it as a stage.

Thusness: Some have no experience of luminosity at all and is able to understand the profound wisdom of emptiness. Yet have no direct experience of luminosity, or the degree of experience is simply just not there.

Thusness: Some have experienced luminosity but does not understand how he get himself 'lost'. No insight to the tendencies at all therefore cannot understand DO adequately. Does that mean that one that experience emptiness is higher than one that experience luminosity? I told you so many times it does not mean that. And I wrote in the article too. How come you fail to see despite me telling you umpteen times?

Thusness: Didn't receive yet.

AEN: Huh, don't have? Yesterday I sent you also never receive?

Thusness: What you should understand is what is lacking in the form of realization. There is no hierarchy to it. Just insights.

Thusness: Then you will be able to see all stages as flat. Get it?

Thusness: And simply talk about the progress of insights. But all insights are equally precious. And flat. No higher.

Thusness: Like dharma dan experience non-dual but not no-dog. Then no-dog is precious. Even after non-dual, that will bring out the luminosity aspect more.

Thusness: When in non-dual, one can still be full of thoughts. Therefore experience the thoroughness of being no-thoughts, fully luminous and present. Then it is not about non-dual, not about the no object-subject split, it is about the degree of luminosity for these non-dualist. But some monks that is trapped in luminosity and rest in samadhi, then it is about non-dual. For non-dualists, depending on the level of understanding, you can move forward or backward, there is no-hierarchy.

Thusness: Send me his reply too... I didn't have it in this computer.

AEN: Yeah, I sent you both but you didn't receive? I think I save into document. Initiated a file transfer. You there?

Thusness: thevoice talking to me.

AEN: Oh, I see...

Thusness: I will tell you how to reply him... maybe write something about natural state... later this evening when I solve my email problem for my e75. Think have to go change the phone.

AEN: I see... OK.

Thusness: This astraldynamics is generating a lot of traffic... haha.

AEN: Yeah, haha. Didn't know his website so popular.

Thusness: His books sold more than 50,000 copies... so his readers should be a lot.

Thusness: Sunyata Mu is from Australia?

AEN: Yeah. I think Sydney. Why?

Thusness: I thought this was him: Blaxland, New South Wales, Australia, 0 returning visits. Haha.

AEN: I think his house in Blaxland then his workplace in Sydney or something. Yeah. Because at first he came in from Sydney...

Thusness: Now many visitors return.

AEN: I see, yeah.

AEN: Sunyata Mu is saying there is a universal consciousness in everybody, I think. And that each individual and experience is 'emanating' from the one source. Then his idea of 'no separate self' is the universal brahman.

---

Conversation — 12 May 2009

AEN: Hi.

Thusness: Hi. :)

AEN: You saw my messages just now? I asked "how should I reply Sunyata Mu :P"

Thusness: My next post is related to Sunyata Mu however I do not have the time to write yet. :) It is about the difference between phase 4 and 5.

AEN: I see. You saw his emails, right?

Thusness: Yeah, about the sun and the ray.

AEN: Yeah. I think he's talking about universal consciousness. He thought no separate self means everyone has a universal brahman or something, if I'm not wrong.

(Note by Soh: For readers who tend to extrapolate a “Universal Mind,” the following pieces explicitly refute that view and explain why it is a subtle reification that deviates from Buddhadharma:

“The Tendency to Extrapolate a Universal Consciousness” (Awakening to Reality): https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/12/the-tendency-to-extrapolate-universal.html

“No Universal Mind” (Awakening to Reality; with a helpful quote from Khenpo Tsewang Dongyal): https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2021/08/no-universal-mind.html .

“No Universal Mind, Part 3” (Awakening to Reality): https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2022/03/no-universal-mind-part-3.html)

Thusness: Partly yes.

AEN: I see.

Rebirth Without Soul

As for the Question of How Rebirth Can Take Place Without Soul

Sent to someone.

Chinese translation: Simplified Chinese translation

As for the question of how rebirth can take place without soul, this is a commonly asked question. I just posted this a week ago to Geovani:

Soh Wei Yu:

Disjoint and unconnected in the sense that there is no underlying substratum and linking agent that is carried on or persisting from moment to moment. It is not disjoint and unconnected in the sense of negating interdependencies.

Like if you have a sense that “last thought came, this thought arrived, next thought arriving, but I AM constant throughout, or the NOW is unmoved throughout,” that is not being “disjoint and unsupported.”

But even though they are disjoint and unsupported and groundless by nature, unproduced by any linking agent, one must further penetrate into the total exertion of that disjointed thought/sensation/experience. Then furthermore, one may see the karmic conditions in play (this is completely missed out by the neo-Advaitin circles):

As Thusness wrote before:

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.

...

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.

— Thusness

Soh Wei Yu:

As Thusness wrote in 2014: “If we continue to look for the carrying medium between 2 moment of thoughts, profound insight of anatta will not arise and non-locality will not dawn. Our mode of perception will be obscured by the inherent way of understanding things.”

This also relates to many people asking the question of rebirth, since rebirth is taught by Buddha. In Hinduism the jivas (souls) are the medium which persists after death and reincarnates, until they are fully absorbed into and dissolved into Brahman through Self-Realization. But if in Buddhism there is no soul, no self/Self whatsoever, what is it that is reborn, if there is no “carrying medium”?

Actually it is just action, tendencies, and the manifestation/reactions of these action (karma) and tendencies, both from moment to moment and life after life. It is no different from how rebirth is taking place moment by moment even in this lifetime.

Rizenfenix on Rebirth and Continuity

Rizenfenix wrote: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../emptiness-and...

Continuing consciousness after death is, in most religions, a matter of revealed truth. In Buddhism, the evidence comes from the contemplative experience of people who are certainly not ordinary but who are sufficiently numerous that what they say about it is worth taking seriously into account. Indeed, such testimonies begin with those of the Buddha himself.

Nevertheless, it’s important to understand that what’s called reincarnation in Buddhism has nothing to do with the transmigration of some “entity” or other. It’s not a process of metempsychosis because there is no “soul”. As long as one thinks in terms of entities rather than function and continuity, it’s impossible to understand the Buddhist concept of rebirth. As it’s said, “There is no thread passing through the beads of the necklace of rebirths.” Over successive rebirths, what is maintained is not the identity of a “person”, but the conditioning of a stream of consciousness.

Additionally, Buddhism speaks of successive states of existence; in other words, everything isn’t limited to just one lifetime. We’ve experienced other states of existence before our birth in this lifetime, and we’ll experience others after death. This, of course, leads to a fundamental question: is there a nonmaterial consciousness distinct from the body? It would be virtually impossible to talk about reincarnation without first examining the relationship between body and mind. Moreover, since Buddhism denies the existence of any self that could be seen as a separate entity capable of transmigrating from one existence to another by passing from one body to another, one might well wonder what it could be that links those successive states of existence together.

One could possibly understand it better by considering it as a continuum, a stream of consciousness that continues to flow without there being any fixed or autonomous entity running through it… Rather it could be likened to a river without a boat, or to a lamp flame that lights a second lamp, which in-turn lights a third lamp, and so on and so forth; the flame at the end of the process is neither the same flame as at the outset, nor a completely different one…

— Rizenfenix

Soh Wei Yu:

In the Milindapañha the King asks Nāgasena:

“What is it, Venerable Sir, that will be reborn?”

“A psycho-physical combination (nāma-rūpa), O King.”

“But how, Venerable Sir? Is it the same psycho-physical combination as this present one?”

“No, O King. But the present psycho-physical combination produces kammically wholesome and unwholesome volitional activities, and through such kamma a new psycho-physical combination will be born.”

— Milindapañha

Visuddhimagga:

Mere suffering is, not any sufferer is found
The deeds exist, but no performer of the deeds:
Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it,
The path is, but no wanderer is to be seen.

Everywhere, in all the realms of existence, the noble disciple sees only mental and corporeal phenomena kept going through the concatenation of causes and effects. No producer of the volitional act or kamma does he see apart from the kamma, no recipient of the kamma-result apart from the result. And he is well aware that wise men are using merely conventional language, when, with regard to a kammical act, they speak of a doer, or with regard to a kamma-result, they speak of the recipient of the result.

No doer of the deeds is found,
No one who ever reaps their fruits;
Empty phenomena roll on:
This only is the correct view.

And while the deeds and their results
Roll on and on, conditioned all,
There is no first beginning found,
Just as it is with seed and tree. ...

No god, no Brahma, can be called
The maker of this wheel of life:
Empty phenomena roll on,
Dependent on conditions all.

— Visuddhimagga

Malcolm on Nāgārjuna’s Heart of Dependent Origination

Soh Wei Yu:

There is a relevant post that Malcolm just wrote. https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=30102...

Seeker12 wrote: ↑ Fri Dec 14, 2018 3:54 am. Link Here: http://www.lotsawahouse.org/.../heart-dependent-origination

In verse 6, he says,

“Then, as for extremely subtle entities,
Those who regard them with nihilism,
Lacking precise and thorough knowledge,
Will not see the actuality of conditioned arising.”

Can anyone explain this a bit? What is being referred to as extremely subtle entities that may be regarded with nihilism, lacking precise and thorough knowledge?

Thank you for input.

Malcolm wrote:

The extremely subtle existents are particles, paramanus.

A more precise translation would be:

Although the aggregates are serially connected,
the wise are to comprehend nothing transfers.
Someone, having conceived of annihilation,
even in extremely subtle existents,
is not wise,
and will never see the meaning of “arisen from conditions”.

The auto commentary states with respect to this:

Therein, the aggregates are the aggregates of matter, sensation, perception, formations and consciousness. Those, called “serially joined”, not having ceased, produce another produced from that cause; although not even the subtle particle of an existent has transmigrated from this world to the next.

The purpose of this is to point out that even though nothing transfers from this life to the next, the assertion that even a subtle particle is annihilated is false. Why? Because in Madhyamaka causes and effects are neither the same nor different.

— DharmaWheel thread

Soh Wei Yu:

Verses on the Heart of Dependent Origination by Ārya Nāgārjuna

In the language of India: pratītyasamutpāda hṛdaya kārikā

In the language of Tibet: རྟེན་ཅིང་འབྲེལ་པར་འབྱུང་བའི་སྙིང་པོའི་ཚིག་ལེའུར་བྱས་པ།, (rten cing 'brel par 'byung ba'i snying po tshig le'ur byas pa)

Homage to Mañjuśrī, the Youthful!

These different links, twelve in number,
Which Buddha taught as dependent origination,
Can be summarized in three categories:
Mental afflictions, karma and suffering.

The first, eighth and ninth are afflictions,
The second and tenth are karma,
The remaining seven are suffering.
Thus the twelve links are grouped in three.

From the three the two originate,
And from the two the seven come,
From seven the three come once again—
Thus the wheel of existence turns and turns.

All beings consist of causes and effects,
In which there is no “sentient being” at all.
From phenomena which are exclusively empty,
There arise only empty phenomena.
All things are devoid of any “I” or “mine”.

Like a recitation, a candle, a mirror, a seal,
A magnifying glass, a seed, sourness, or a sound,
So also with the continuation of the aggregates—
The wise should know they are not transferred.

Then, as for extremely subtle entities,
Those who regard them with nihilism,
Lacking precise and thorough knowledge,
Will not see the actuality of conditioned arising.

In this, there is not a thing to be removed,
Nor the slightest thing to be added.
It is looking perfectly into reality itself,
And when reality is seen, complete liberation.

This concludes the verses on “The Heart of Dependent Origination” composed by the teacher Ārya Nāgārjuna.

| Translated by Adam Pearcey, 2008.

---

The Mādhyamika therefore has to explain how we can account for an object changing and persisting through time without having to assume that there is some unchanging aspect of the object which underlies all change. Nāgārjuna claims that this can indeed be done. Understanding how this can be the case becomes particularly important in the context of the Buddhist conception of the self when the temporal continuity of persons has to be explained without reference to the concept of a persisting subjective core (ātman).

— Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka, p. 126, by Westerhoff

---

Kyle Dixon and Malcolm on Mindstream, I-Making, and Rebirth

Kyle Dixon recently posted:

There is no actual self or entity in the mindstream, which is a continuum comprised of aggregated and discrete causal instances that create the illusion of a consistent consciousness. That mindstream is unceasing, and is present through many lifetimes.

Regarding the process of I-making in relation to rebirth, Ācārya Malcolm explains this point well:

The Buddha taught rebirth without making recourse to a self that undergoes rebirth.

There are a variety of ways of explaining this, but in essence, the most profound way of understanding this is that the habit of I-making appropriates a new series of aggregates at death, and so it goes on and on until one eradicates the knowledge obscuration that creates this habit of I-making. In the meantime, due to this habit of I-making, one continues to accumulate affliction and karma which results in suffering for infinite lifetimes, just as one has taken rebirth in samsara without a beginning.

But no soul-concept has been introduced in this thread, not at all. The sentient being I was in a past life is not identical with me in this life, even though I suffer and enjoy the results of the negative and positive actions that sentient being and all the other sentient beings engaged in who make up the serial chain of the continuum which I now enjoy. But when I die, all trace of my identity will cease since my identification with my five aggregates as “me” and “mine” is a delusion, and that identity, self, soul, etc., exists merely as a convention and not as an ultimate truth. When the habit of I-making that drives my continuum in samsara takes a new series of aggregates in the next life, it is unlikely I will have any memory of this lifetime, and my habit of I-making will generate a new identity based on the cause and conditions it encounters in the next life.

[The] delusion of “I” is an agent, capable acting and receiving the results of action, even though it does not exist.

It is important to understand that this “I” generated by the habit of I-making does not exist and is fundamentally a delusion. But it is a useful delusion, just like the delusion of a car allows us to use one.

An analogy is using the last candle to light the next candle. One cannot say that two flames are different, nor can one say they are identical, but they do exist in a continuum, a discrete series.

— Kyle Dixon / Ācārya Malcolm

---

21 DECEMBER 2013 — 22 DECEMBER 2013

Soh Wei Yu:

The shop is playing Jing Kong Fa Shi VCD. He talks about an unborn, undying ling xing — spirit. That which is reborn in six realms, he says, is not the body but the ling xing spirit. It is that which goes to Pure Land. Haha.

John Tan:

His view is more substantial view.

Buddhism does not deny luminous clarity; in fact it is to have total, uncontrieved, direct non-referential of clarity in all moments... therefore no-self apart from manifestation.

Otherwise one is only holding ghost images.

So understanding a spirit traveling in the 6 realms is difference from recognizing these realms are nothing more than one’s radiance clarity.

Soh Wei Yu:

Yeah. I told Truth that before as well because he asked.

John Tan:

About Jing Kong Fa Shi?

Soh Wei Yu:

I see. Yeah, Truth thinks Jing Kong Fa Shi is misleading people and is working for Mara lol.

John Tan:

He was once a follower of Jing Kong, right?

Soh Wei Yu:

I told him Jing Kong is speaking from I AM perspective and one mind. So he sees one God in all religion and he says Brahman in Hindu is same as Buddhism Buddha nature. Don’t think so.

John Tan:

I see.

---

Bardo, Clear Light, and Empty-Radiance

As to what happens after death, there is the interesting text called Bardo Thodol by Padmasambhava in the Tibetan Buddhism and Dzogchen tradition — a very good text that resonates much. It talks about the stages of bardo/after life, where the first phase is the shutting of all senses and gross concepts are dissolved and one is being absorbed into the formless clear light, even for only a short moment. This is actually rather similar to the I AM experience. But one will usually fail to recognise its true nature, so that moment passes as a mere glimpse or experience without true recognition and the next phase of bardo begins. Following that, one sees all kinds of visions. In each phase there is the possibility to liberate (and the teacher beside the dying will recite the Bardo Thodol verses in order to “remind” or “introduce” the dying/dead/transitioning to the nature of mind in whatever is appearing), by recognising whatever appears or is experienced as one’s empty-radiance; in other words, one instantly liberates on the spot the reification of “self” and “phenomena”, “subject” and “object” by recognizing the empty and luminous nature of mind/display.

Also, Thusness wrote in 2008:

Hi Longchen,

Must be having a challenging time sustaining the vivid presence of non-dual experience. Just to share with you some of my thoughts:

When we die, the thoughts and emotions that are karmically linked to the body are temporarily suspended. The contrast in experience that resulted from the dissolution of the “bond of a body” gives rise to a more vivid experience of Presence; although the experience of Presence is there, the insight into its non-dual essence and emptiness nature isn’t there. This is similar to the experience of “I AM”. Thoughts and emotions will continue to arise and subside with the bond of “I” and “Mine” after death.

Awareness is always non-dual and all pervading; obscured but not lost. In essence all manifestation, transient (emotions, thoughts or feelings) is really the manifold of Presence. They have the same non-dual essence and empty nature. All problems lie not at the manifestation level but at the fundamental level. Deep in us we see things inherently and dualistically. How the experience of Presence can be distorted with the “bond” of dualistic and inherent seeing maybe loosely categorized as:

1. There is a mirror reflecting dust. (“I AM”)
   Mirror bright is experienced but distorted.
   Dualistic and Inherent seeing.
2. Dust is required for the mirror to see itself.
   Non-Dualistic but Inherent seeing. (Beginning of non-dual insight)
3. Dust has always been the mirror (The mirror here is seen as a whole).
   Non-Dualistic and non-inherent insight.

In 3, whatever comes and goes is the Rigpa itself. There is no Rigpa other than that. All along there is no dust really, only when a particular speck of dust claims that it is the purest and truest state then immediately all other arising which from beginning are self-mirroring become dust.

— Thusness, 2008

---

Originally Posted by Longchen, 2008

Hi Friend,

Just my understanding only. For discussion sake. Also, I find this topic very interesting.

What appears to us are registered by all the sense organs. The eye sight sees some thing, the ears hear something, etc., etc. There are not happening in some place. They are the arising of certain conditions.

To illustrate that what we experience is not standardised, we know that human beings see in term of colour range. Some animals are colour-blind. So they see differently. But none of us is seeing the truth nature directly. The senses of different species of sentient beings experience things differently.

Likewise, the 31 planes of existence are due to different conditions arising. In the jhana meditation, one is said to be able to access these planes of existence. This is because they are not specific locations. They are mental states. In the jhanas, our consciousness changes and “aligned” more with these other states or planes of existence.

All the planes of existence are simultaneously manifesting, but because our senses are human-based conditioned arisings, we only see the human world and other beings that shared “similar” resonating arising conditions. But nevertheless, the other planes of existences are not elsewhere in some other places.

What we think of as places are really just consciousness... no solidity whatsoever. Even our touch sense is just that. It gives an impression of feeling something 3D with textures and so on so forth. But there is no solid self-existing object there... it is simply the sensation that gives the impression of solidity.

— Longchen

Thusness:

Hi Longchen,

I can see the synchronization of emptiness view into your non-dual experiences — integrating view, practice and experience. This is the essence of our emptiness nature and right understanding of non-dual experience in Buddhism that is different from Advaita Vedanta teaching. This is also the understanding of why Everything is the One Reality incorporating causes, conditions and luminosity of our Empty nature as One and inseparable. Everything as the One Reality should never be understood from a dualistic/inherent standpoint.

This also explains the nature of “supernatural power” like clairvoyance and seeing things far away, etc.

Indeed! You can see the how the view, practice and experience leading to the understanding of non-locality in terms of views, practices and experience.

Stage 6. The Nature of Presence is Empty

Not only is there no “who” in pristine awareness, there is no “where” and “when”. This is its nature.

When there is this, that is.
With the arising of this, that arises.
When this is not, neither is that.
With the cessation of this, that ceases.
— the principle of conditionality

The self-luminous awareness from beginning-less time has never been separated and cannot be separated from its conditions. They are not two — This is, That is. Along with the conditions, Luminosity shines without a center and arises without a place. No where to be found. This is the emptiness nature of Presence.

— Thusness

---

Forum Topic: Will the Soul Leave One When One Meditates?

Thusness: 20 May 2006 · 10:02 AM

From a conventional point of view, it is. If we feel, see, hear and think in terms of “entity”, then it seems that there is a “self” leaving the body. This is because all along, we experience all phenomenon appearances as “solid things” existing independently. Such conventional mode of comprehending our meditative experiences masked the true character of these experiences.

If we treat consciousness to be an atomic-like-particle residing in our body somewhere, then we are making it as a self too. Do not do that. The true character of Consciousness is not a thing, it does not enter, leave, reside within or outside the body. Clear Luminosity is bonded by karmic propensities, causes and conditions. There is no need for a place “within”. Yes, there is a “mental phenomenon” arising but the sensation of “entering” and “leaving” is the result of associating it with a “self”. Just like it is illusionary to see a “self” succeeding from moment to moment, an “entrance” and “exit” is equally illusionary.

Mystical experiences are extremely crucial during the journey of enlightenment. Do not discard them unwisely but assign them correct places. These experiences loosen karmic bonds that latent deep down in our consciousness where it is almost impossible to break through ordinary means. It is an essential condition for the awakening of penetrating insight. The main different between non Buddhist and Buddhist practitioners is that transcendental and mystical experiences are not molded into a “self” but correctly understood and purified with the wisdom of emptiness. This applies true to the Luminous Clarity Knowingness that is non-dual, it is not wrongly personified into Brahman. In perfect clarity, there are no praises for radiance bright, only the Dharma is in sight. The wisdom of emptiness is so deep and profound that even if one has entered the realm of non-dual, he/she will still not be able to grasp its essence in full. This is the wisdom of the Blessed One. The second level of Presence.

— Thusness

---

Thusness: 06 July 2006 · 10:01 AM

Interesting site...

In most religions and mystical path, the dissolving of the “Self” is necessary for the experience of the divine. The “self” is always experienced as the ultimate block that prevents one from experiencing the transcendental. Glimpses of the beyond arise when we are able to go beyond labels and concepts.

I respect her experience but would just like to add some comments:

On the experience of “AMness”:

The key when the “I” drops away lies in “fusing into everything”. Without this experience, it is still resting in “I AM”, there is no breakthrough. Even with the experience of “fusing into all things”, it remains as a stage having an entry and exit point. To experience pathless that is without entry and exit point is where the doctrine of anatta and emptiness steps in.

On the unchanging self:

It is strange that when people want to know their real self, they start looking at relative bunches of ever changing concepts. Reality is that which underlies relativity. Reality is unchanging.

We must ask ourselves: “What is the only unchanging reality of our life? What is the only phenomenon that has never changed since we were born?”

The answer can readily be experienced when we close our eyes and go introspective. It is our sense of BEING. Our I AM-ness. Everybody can always experience the sense that they exist. That inner sense never changes and is there if we are happy, angry, sad, drunk, — whatever. Further, it cannot be localized within any part of the body. It is limitless and experienced by everyone the same way. It is infinite REALITY!

When observing moment to moment changes, it is almost natural to conclude this way. There must be an unchanging observer observing change is a logical deduction. It is the result of the lightning flash changes, logical deduction and memories that create the impression of an unchanging entity. There is continuity, but continuity with an unchanging entity is not necessary.

On feeling lightness and experiencing “astral traveling”:

My own experience is that the density of the body seems to change. Years ago I experienced the phenomena of “astral traveling.” During this experience you have the feeling of leaving the coarser body and floating. At some stage you have to return to the body, and the feeling is not very pleasant. You are going from a feeling of freedom and “lightness” back into what feels like cold, dense, clay. This “clay” is the collective emotions, experiences, and holding of the body. After some AMness has fallen away, the body feels lighter and less dense. You just keep feeling lighter and freer.

The “density” and “lightness” is the weight of “losing her identification with certain aspect of the self”. The power of this “identification” cannot be underestimated.

Next is her experience of “astral traveling”; if she is in a stage of absorption and then out of a sudden awareness, the eyes of awareness may allow her to witness something that is altogether different from the physical place but this does not necessary mean that “consciousness” has left and re-enter the body. Consciousness is propelled by causes and conditions. According to her conditions of absorption and clarity, just IS.

But then everyone has their own experiences. Just my 2 cents.

— Thusness

A Lamp to Dispel Darkness: An Instruction Pointing Directly to Mind’s Face, According to the Tradition of the Old Realized Ones

A Lamp to Dispel Darkness

An Instruction Pointing Directly to Mind’s Face, According to the Tradition of the Old Realized Ones

By Mipham Jampal Dorje

Original Tibetan text: https://www.lotsawahouse.org/bo/tibetan-masters/mipham/lamp-to-dispel-darkness

Gemini Prompt reference used for the earlier draft: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2025/04/ai-gemini-prompt-to-translate-atr-blog.html

Translator’s Note for This Fifth-Pass Tibetan-Anchor Working Version

This fifth-pass working translation is provided solely for personal reference. It is not a critical edition and its accuracy is not guaranteed. In this pass, the Tibetan text itself is treated as the source authority. Public English translations, including Lotsawa House, are treated as contaminated comparison witnesses only; none is allowed to determine wording where Tibetan/source-control, the [redacted] criticism supplied by the user, or AtR terminology safeguards point elsewhere. It should still be reviewed by someone proficient in Tibetan and Dzogchen before being reproduced or distributed.

In this revision, rig pa is not translated as “awareness,” “awareness of awareness,” “reflexive awareness,” or svasaṃvedana. Following the Acarya Malcolm/Kyle Dixon criticism supplied by the user and the Prompt 1/6 termbank, rig pa is kept as rigpa and glossed as vidyā / knowledge where needed. Ye shes is rendered as pristine consciousness, sems as mind, rnam shes / ordinary cognitive modes as consciousness, kun gzhi as all-basis, and lhun grub as natural perfection rather than “spontaneous presence.”

If you are proficient in Tibetan and can offer corrections regarding this working translation, please contact: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/p/contact-us.html

The Homage

Homage to the Guru and Mañjuśrī Jñānasattva.

The Power of the Profound Path

Without needing extensive training in hearing, reflection, and practice, one may simply sustain the recognition of mind’s own face according to the pith instructions of the experiential lineage. By the power of this profound path, even ordinary village mantrikas and the like can, without too much difficulty, reach the level of a vidyādhara.

Yet this is done by letting this very mind settle in its own natural way, without deliberately imagining anything at all, while maintaining an undistracted continuity of recollection in that very mode. When this is done, there arises a cloying, dense darkness: a dull, inert consciousness, blank and devoid of active thought.

1. Opening the Husk of Unknowing

At that time, so long as clear seeing has not arisen — the special insight, vipaśyanā, that discerns precisely what is what — masters may rightly call that state ignorance. Since one cannot identify it by saying, “It is like this,” it is also called indeterminate. And because there is no taking up of any object and no thought being entertained, it is called common equanimity. In reality, it is merely abiding in an ordinary state within the all-basis.

Such methods of equipoise are useful as conditions for bringing forth non-conceptual pristine consciousness. Yet because the pristine consciousness that recognizes the state itself has not yet dawned, this cannot count as the main practice of Dzogchen meditation. As the Prayer of Kuntuzangpo says:

A dense state in which nothing at all is recalled —
This itself is the cause of ignorance’s confusion.

Therefore, when mind experiences such an unconscious, inert, dense state, look naturally and gently at the knowing of that very state. Right there, rigpa, free from discursiveness, is vividly clear, beyond any notion of inside or outside, like a clear sky.

Although there is no dualistic separation between the experienced object and the experiencing agent, if certainty about one’s own nature arises — a sense that, “Apart from this there is nothing else,” then, because it cannot be stated or described as “it is like this,” it may be called the primordial radiant clarity beyond extremes and expression, or rigpa. Since the pristine consciousness to which one has been introduced has dawned, the cloying dense darkness clears away. Just as one can see inside a house when day breaks, certainty arises regarding the dharmatā, the true nature, of one’s own mind.

This is the pith instruction called Opening the Husk of Unknowing.

2. Cutting the Net of Cyclic Existence

When it is realized in this way, one knows that dharmatā, by its very nature, is unconstructed. From the very beginning, it has abided without being compounded by causes and conditions, and it does not undergo transition or change across the three times. Apart from that, not even the slightest particle of something called “mind” is observed.

Earlier, the unconscious, inert darkness was not described. Its very inability to be described means that it lacks decisive determination. Rigpa, too, cannot be thought or described; nevertheless, the decisive point is this: the difference between these two kinds of inexpressibility is like the difference between blindness and clear sight. Thus, the distinction between the all-basis and the dharmakāya is gathered into this essential point.

Therefore, terms such as ordinary consciousness, not attending mentally, and freedom from expression have two sides: authentic and unauthentic. When sound and meaning are brought fully into accord and the essential point is fixed, one gains experience of the profound meaning of the Dharma.

When leaving mind to settle in its own way, some try to guard “mere clarity” or “mere knowing,” settling into a mode of ordinary mental consciousness while thinking, “This is the clarity of consciousness.” Others focus on a blank vacuity, taking “knowing” to have disappeared and “emptiness” to have occurred. Yet both are attachments within the range of ordinary mental consciousness: one clings to the apprehended and apprehender of clarity, while the other clings to the apprehended and apprehender of emptiness.

At that point, look at how the stream of memory and attention is functioning. If there is clinging to an apprehended clarity or emptiness and to an apprehender of it, cut the tether of that conceptual consciousness. Then rigpa — clear and empty, beyond extremes — is decisively ascertained by itself, and a lucid vividness arises. This is called recognizing the face: rigpa, pristine consciousness arising uncovered, free from the husk of grasping and appropriation.

This is the pith instruction called Cutting the Net of Cyclic Existence.

3. Remaining in Space-Like Equality

Likewise, without relying on companion factors such as analysis and so forth, rigpa free from elaboration should be recognized as dharmatā through the gate of self-settling and self-clarity — like a grain of rice freed from its husk.

Because the nature of rigpa is not known merely through conceptual knowing-about, one must establish one’s footing in that very state. Therefore, it is crucial to guard, without distraction, the stream of recollection that lets knowing settle in its own natural way.

When one trains in this way, at times there will be dull non-conceptuality in which one does not know what is what. Sometimes there will be a transparent non-conceptuality in which the clarity of special insight has not yet emerged. Sometimes there will be blissful experiences with attachment, and sometimes blissful experiences without attachment. Sometimes there will be various experiences of clarity that involve holding, and sometimes there will be clear, lucid vividness that is unsullied and free from holding.

Sometimes there will be rough, unsettling experiences; sometimes smooth, pleasing experiences. Sometimes, because conceptuality becomes very coarse, one is carried off into outward discursivity. Sometimes, because dullness and clarity have not been distinguished, the state becomes murky. Beginningless habituations of conceptuality, together with the various gusts of karmic winds, arise without certainty or fixed measure. This is like traveling a long road and encountering many places, some pleasant and some difficult. Therefore, whatever arises, do not deliberately hold to it; keep strengthening your own path.

Especially when one is untrained, there will be times when the many thoughts blaze like fire and times when experiences waver. Do not reject them. Remain relaxed and pliant, without breaking the continuity. Later, meditative experiences such as attainment will arise in stages.

At this time, in general, once the distinctions between recognizing and not recognizing rigpa, between all-basis and dharmakāya, and between consciousness and pristine consciousness have been discerned through the lama’s pith instructions and through one’s own experience, one should sustain the introduction with confidence. Just as water becomes clear by itself when it is not stirred, when consciousness is left in its own place, unmoved like a still pool, the key point is that its dharmatā — self-arisen, self-clear pristine consciousness — becomes clear by itself. This should be made the main point of practice.

One should not expand proliferations of adopting and abandoning, nor swell the movement of scriptural study and inference, thinking, “Is this object of my meditation consciousness or pristine consciousness?” To do so slightly obscures both calm abiding and special insight.

When the training becomes stable as the union of calm abiding and special insight — the calm abiding that keeps steady the stream of recollection leaving mind to settle, and the special insight by which one’s own face is recognized as self-clarity — then natural settling and the innate radiant clarity of one’s own nature are known as indivisible from the very beginning. The self-arisen pristine consciousness, the intent of the Great Perfection, becomes manifest.

This is The Instruction on Remaining in Space-Like Equality.

Supporting Quotations

Thus, strictly in accordance with the glorious Saraha:

Utterly abandon thoughts and objects of thought,
And remain without thought, like a young child.

— Saraha

And regarding the method of resting:

Focus on the guru’s words and apply great effort—

— Saraha

And if one possesses the pith instruction pointing out rigpa:

There is no doubt that the co-emergent nature will arise.

— Saraha

The Condensed Point

As stated there, the co-emergent nature of mind — rigpa, self-originated pristine consciousness — has arisen together with one’s own ordinary mind from the very beginning. Since this is not different from the dharmatā of all phenomena, it is also the genuine primordial radiant clarity.

Therefore, this way of resting naturally while sustaining dharmatā — the essence of mind, the recognition of rigpa’s own face — is the pith instruction that gathers a hundred key points into one. This is what must be guarded continuously.

As for the measure of familiarization, it is to maintain radiant clarity even during sleep. As for the signs of the right path, faith, compassion, and wisdom increase naturally. Through one’s own experience, one knows that realization is easy and involves little hardship. As for the profundity and swiftness of this approach, one attains certainty by comparing the measure of realization with those who enter this or other paths only after accomplishing them through very great effort.

As for the fruition attained by meditating on the radiant clarity of one’s own mind: when the obscurations of conceptual thoughts upon that mind, together with their habitual tendencies, naturally clear away, the twofold knowing expands without effort. One seizes the stronghold of one’s own primordial state, and the three kāyas are naturally perfected.

Profound. Guhya. Samaya.

Colophon

On the twelfth day of the second lunar month in the Fire Horse year (1906), this profound instruction was arranged by Mipham Jampal Dorje for village mantrikas and others who, though they do not exert themselves greatly in hearing and reflection, nevertheless wish to practice the face of mind. It accords with the easy-to-understand Dharma language of direct experiential guidance from most of the old realized ones. Virtue. Maṅgalam.

---

Revision Notes

• rig pa: kept as rigpa and glossed as vidyā/knowledge, rather than translating it as “awareness.”
• ye shes: rendered as pristine consciousness, not “wisdom” in a generic sense.
• kun gzhi: rendered as all-basis.
• sems: rendered as mind; ordinary cognitive modes are rendered as consciousness where appropriate.
• lhun grub: rendered as natural perfection / naturally perfected, avoiding “spontaneous presence.”
• gcer/bare language: rendered contextually as uncovered, direct, or laid bare, not as physically “naked.”
• Anti-reification: this fourth pass continues reducing repeated “intrinsic reality” language by using dharmatā or true nature where appropriate, so as not to imply a substantial inner entity.
• Fifth-pass Tibetan-anchor review: the Tibetan title, homage, opening verse, dull/inert/dense-state terminology, Kuntuzangpo quote, three instruction titles, rice-husk image, Saraha sequence, and colophon were rechecked against the Tibetan page where accessible, with Lotsawa and Wallace used only as comparison witnesses.
• Acarya Malcolm / reflexive-awareness safeguard: the supplied screenshot was treated as a release-critical warning. This pass removes wording that could suggest “awareness of awareness” or reflexive-awareness/svasaṃvedana as the meaning of rig pa. Non-source explanatory glosses have been removed from the body; any remaining doctrinal caution is confined to this QA note.

(繁體中文) 達賴喇嘛論大圓滿（Dzogchen）、大手印（Mahāmudrā）、空性以及佛性

達賴喇嘛論大圓滿（Dzogchen）、大手印（Mahāmudrā）、空性以及佛性

Soh

英文原文：Dalai Lama on Dzogchen, Mahamudra, Emptiness and Buddha Nature
簡體中文：達賴喇嘛論大圓滿（Dzogchen）、大手印（Mahāmudrā）、空性以及佛性
另見：達賴喇嘛在新書中關於無我（anatta）和佛性空性的論述

剛才與 Yin Ling 討論時，我重新讀到達賴喇嘛書中的一段文字。寫得很好，所以想分享。

尊者達賴喇嘛：大圓滿（Dzogchen）和大手印（Mahāmudrā）

依經教而言，單是禪修心清明而能知的本性，或單是禪修可轉化佛性，並不能根除煩惱。不過，這確實會讓我們更有信心：煩惱並不是心中本具的一部分，因此成佛是可能的。

這又會引導我們追問：是什麼染污了心？又有什麼能夠徹底消除這些染污？爲了尋求淨化可轉化佛性的方法，我們會修習證悟無自性空性的智慧，並斷除無明。

依大圓滿和大手印而言，禪修心清明而能知的本性，可能令粗分氣消融，並使最微細的光明心顯現。此時，若修行者先前已經修習了對空性的正確理解，便會把這種理解融入禪修，並運用俱生光明心來證悟空性、斷除煩惱。

從大圓滿和大手印的角度，正確理解《寶性論》（Sublime Continuum）非常重要。有些人按字面理解它，由此誤以爲本初覺智是常住的、實有的、不依賴任何其他因素，也不依因緣而生。於是他們會說出諸如“如果你解開這個祕密，就會解脫”之類的話。

多智欽·吉美丹貝尼瑪（Dodrup Jigme Tenpai Nyima，1865–1926）及其弟子楚臣桑波（Tsultrim Zangpo，1884–約1957）是偉大的大圓滿學者兼修行者。他們說，僅僅因爲我們具有這種本初覺智，並不足以讓我們解脫。爲什麼呢？臨終時，其他一切心識都已消融，只剩下本初之心。雖然在我們輪迴中無數次死亡時它都曾顯現，但這並沒有幫助我們成就佛果。

這兩位大德說，若要成佛，必須運用本初覺智來證悟空性；唯有如此才會令我們解脫。這與宗喀巴大師的知見一致。

有些大圓滿和大手印的註釋說：安住於煩惱中的這份智慧就是真實智慧；基於這一點，每一個有情衆生本來已經是佛。雖然我們從無始以來就是佛，但仍須再次被“喚醒”。我們現在具有的智慧，就是佛陀的遍知心；佛陀三身本來具足於每一個有情衆生。有情衆生具有一個本質清淨之基；這並不只是空性，而是具足三方面。

其體是法身——即本初覺智的安住方式；其性是受用身——也就是此心的顯現面向；而悲心是化身——也就是它的光明流露或表現。簡言之，他們說三種佛身在我們的平常狀態中都已圓滿具足，只是因爲被障蔽，我們才沒有覺察到它們已然具足。

如果把這些說法照字面理解，就會帶來許多問題。有些人批判時帶有偏頗，而且並不公允，只駁斥某些傳承中的誤解；章嘉·若必多吉（Changkya Rolpai Dorje，1717–1786）則不偏不倚，指出了藏傳佛教四大傳統——包括他自己的格魯派——中都可能出現的錯誤解釋。

他在《體驗知見之道歌》（Song of the Experience of the View）中說：“我說這些，並不是對那些上師不敬；只是也許他們較少有機會對大論典作嚴密的哲學探究，因此未能恰當地使用某些術語。”也就是說，他們主張中的困難，在於寬泛使用了一些並未立足於大論典權威的術語。

當然，章嘉的評論並不適用於多智欽·吉美丹貝尼瑪以及他的上師阿瓦·旁楚（Awa Pangchu）這樣的真正大圓滿和大手印大師；他們曾嚴肅研習並檢驗大論典，並以此爲依據來安立他們對大圓滿的理解。他們的解釋和著述都非常卓越。

藏傳佛教四大傳統都教授探尋心的修法：探究心從何而來、往何處去、它有什麼形狀和顏色等等。談到這種共同修法時，章嘉說，當我們這樣尋覓之後，會發現心並不是可觸摸的實體，沒有顏色和形狀，也不是從某處來、往某處去。發現這一點後，禪修者會生起一種空無感。

然而，這種空無並不是心之究竟實相——無自性空性；它只是“心並非可觸摸之物”的單純缺失。即使有人把這種空無誤認爲究竟實相，並長期安住其中禪修，那也不是在禪修心的究竟本性。禪修心有兩種方式。第一種如上所述，檢驗心是否具有顏色、形狀、位置、可觸性等等。

這會讓人感受到：心的世俗本性並不具有這些特質。第二種則是禪修心的究竟本性：檢驗心的究竟存在方式，並發現它無自性空。

若有人混淆這兩種禪修心的方法，以爲心沒有可觸性、沒有顏色等等就是心的究竟本性，便可能批評陳那、法稱等大師對辯論、理則和推理所作的精細闡釋，認爲這些只會增加先入之見。另一位能夠公允分析藏傳佛教各傳統的大師——貢唐·貢卻丹貝仲美（Gungtang Konchog Tenpai Dronme，1762–1823）——對此感到驚訝。

有些人認爲，在修道上不需要推理或探究，只要對上師具足信心、接受上師加持，本初覺智就會生起。有鑑於此，我非常欣慰地看到，現在有更多講授印度與西藏傳統哲學典籍的學術院校（shedra）建立起來。

有些西方人同樣不重視佛法的學習與探究，也許是因爲佛法在西方仍相對新。缺乏對佛法的全面理解時，人們往往會尋求最容易、最快捷的覺醒之道——一條不需要捨棄執著的道路。這樣的態度在藏人當中也同樣存在。

宗喀巴大師曾說，許多人認爲佛陀的功德令人讚歎；可是當善知識以理證和經教引文說明如何獲得這些功德時，他們便灰心喪氣，說：“誰真能成就那樣的證悟呢？”

我們已經是佛了嗎？

在《如來藏經》（Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra）中，佛陀開示：每一個有情衆生都具有一個常住、堅固、恆常而不壞的如來藏；它是具足佛陀三十二相的圓滿佛身（kāya）。

於是便會產生這些疑問：如果我們內在已經有一尊已證悟的佛，豈不是成了“無明的佛”嗎？如果我們現在就是實際的佛，那麼修道還有什麼意義？如果我們已經是佛，卻仍須淨化染污，豈不是佛也有染污嗎？如果我們具有一個常住、堅固且恆常的本質，豈不是與無我教法相違，反而類似外道所主張的我或靈魂嗎？大慧（Mahāmati）在《楞伽經》（Descent into Lanka Sūtra）中也向佛陀提出同樣的疑問：

“（佛在某些經中）所宣說的如來藏，被說成本性爲光明，從本以來完全清淨，並且在一切有情的身中具足三十二相。

如果佛說此如來藏如同被污布包裹的寶石：被蘊、界、處之布包裹並染污；被貪、瞋、癡之力壓伏；被分別概念的垢染污；並且是常住、堅固、恆常的，那麼這所宣說的如來藏，與外道所宣說的我有何不同呢？”[88]

有些藏地學者把“常住、堅固、恆常的佛性”這一教法照字面接受，認爲它是了義教。應成派（Prāsaṅgika）承接前文大慧提出的疑問，說這是不了義、需解釋的教法。他們並不是一時興起才這樣說，而是通過考量以下三點：

應成派考量點

1. 佛陀說這句話時，最終想表達的本意是什麼？
當佛陀說每個有情衆生都有一個常住、堅固、恆常的本質時，他真正的本意是：心的空性，即自然安住的佛性，才是常住、堅固、恆常的。正因爲心無自性，而染污是客塵，成佛才成爲可能。

2. 佛陀爲什麼這樣說？
佛陀之所以宣說一個常住、堅固、恆常且具足三十二相的本質，是爲了平息某些人對無我的恐懼，並逐步引導外道信衆圓滿證悟如如。此時，這些根機尚未成熟的人，對“常住本質”的觀念比較安心。無自性空性令他們害怕；他們誤以爲空性意味著一切法都完全不存在。

他們害怕通過證悟空性，自己會消失、不再存在。爲了平息這種恐懼，佛陀便以符合他們當前觀念的方式說法。後來，當他們更能接受時，佛陀才會教授真實義。這就像善巧的父母會把複雜觀念簡化，使年幼的孩子能夠理解。

3. 如果把這句話照字面理解，會產生哪些理性上的矛盾？
若把“常住、堅固、恆常的佛性”這一教法照字面接受爲究竟義，就會與佛陀在《般若經》中所闡明的空性與無我了義相衝突。在這些經典中，佛陀提出許多理據來破斥這種見解。此外，若照字面接受這種說法，佛陀的教法就會與主張常住自我的外道教法沒有差別。

無自性空性——也就是心的究竟實相和自然清淨——無差別地存在於一切有情之中。基於這一點，才說“有佛在其中”。但佛陀的究竟實相並不存在於有情衆生之中。

佛與有情衆生相同之處，在於他們心的究竟本性都是空性；但這種究竟實相並不相同：一個是佛陀之心的究竟實相——自性法身；另一個則是染污心的究竟實相。如果說自性法身存在於有情衆生之中，那麼我們也必須說，與它同一體性的智慧法身同樣存在於有情衆生之中。

那就意味著有情衆生已經遍知，這顯然並非事實！同樣，如果斷盡一切染污的清淨已經存在於普通有情衆生之中，就沒有任何東西能阻止他們直接現見自心的自然清淨；他們理應直接證悟空性。但事實也並非如此。

有些人說，具足二種清淨——自然清淨以及斷除一切染污之清淨——的法身，存在於有情衆生的心相續中；只是因爲有情被障蔽，所以沒有覺察到它。

如果真是如此，那麼究竟是誰的心被淨化？又是誰獲得了那種“斷盡一切染污的清淨”之自由？如果有情衆生本來就具有法身，就不需要修道、也不需要淨化自心，因爲從無始以來，他們的心就已經遠離客塵染污。

主張一尊具足三十二相的佛完整存在於一切有情的心相續中，這呼應了有神論關於永恆清淨、不變自我的理論。如果三十二相已經存在於我們之中，卻又說我們仍需修道來創造它們的因，那就自相矛盾了。

如果有人說這些相已經以未顯現的形式存在於我們之中，只需要使它們顯現出來，那就類似於數論派（Sāṃkhya）所謂“從自體生”的主張；因爲即便這尊佛已經存在，它仍須再次被生起，才能顯現出來。龍樹菩薩及其追隨者已經徹底破斥了“從自體生”。

經文接著記載佛陀的回答：

“大慧，我所宣說的如來藏，並不類似外道宣說自我。大慧，如來、阿羅漢、圓滿正等覺佛，以空性、圓滿清淨之邊際、涅槃、無生、無相、無願等詞義來指示如來藏。這樣做，是爲了讓幼稚的有情完全捨棄對無我的恐懼，並教導無分別境界、無顯現之界。”[89]

由此可見，佛陀會依衆生當下所需以及從長遠而言對其修道有益之處，善巧地教授不同觀念。我們也由此知道，必須深入思維教法，從不同角度加以探究，並結合推理所得以及閱讀其他經典所得的知識，來辨別其了義。

學習佛性的目的，是爲了明白心並非本身就有缺陷；相反，它可以被圓滿成就。不只是心可以被轉化；心中已經具有某種使它能夠被淨化並圓滿成就的因素。理解這一點，會給予我們極大的信心和力量，去修持那些淨化並圓滿我們自心的方法，使其成爲全然覺醒的佛心。

反思

• 說“本初覺智安住於煩惱中”是什麼意思？
• 我們是否已經是具智慧的佛，只是自己不知道而已？
• 佛陀有煩惱嗎？
• 佛陀說我們每個人都有一個常住、堅固且恆常的佛性。他說這話的最終本意是什麼？他這樣教導的目的是什麼？
• 如果照字面理解這句話，會產生哪些邏輯矛盾？

摘自：達賴喇嘛、圖登秋準（Thubten Chodron）所著《輪迴、涅槃與佛性》（《智慧與慈悲文庫》第3卷，第372頁），Wisdom Publications，Kindle 版。

---

2025年更新：Nafis 發給我達賴喇嘛另一部著作中的一段精彩引文：

普通人死亡時的光明被說成是“有分別的”；在此語境中，這意味著心仍被障蔽。當普通有情經驗死亡時的根本俱生光明心時，他們並不了知此心具有所緣。有些學者主張，空性會顯現於死亡光明，但並未被確定了知；另一些學者則說，它的所緣是一種類似空性、卻並非無自性空性的空無。

無論哪一種說法，在死亡光明顯現時，現行無明雖暫時不現前，但這種止息只是暫時的；八十種指示性分別念及其他煩惱，會在中陰和下一次投生中再次現行。然而，若有人勤修密乘法門，就能利用光明中無明自然暫息的狀態來禪修空性。缺乏訓練的普通有情則錯失這個機會。對他們而言，光明顯現時，就好像他們的心陷入昏厥。

有些證量很高的修行者，在呼吸停止後，仍能於死亡光明中禪修數日。有些人由此獲得證悟，甚至獲得圓滿覺醒。然而，臨終時安住於光明中，並不一定表示具有瑜伽證量。有些看起來並非瑜伽行者的人——雖然他們在生前或許曾體驗過某種形式的光明——也會因爲其他因緣而安住於光明中。最可能的原因，是他們善德的力量。

雖然如此，如果他們缺乏證悟空性的智慧，便無法從安住於光明中得到巨大利益。

所有大德都強調理解心性的關鍵意義。在圓滿次第中，這指的是顯現喻光明與義光明——也就是能夠證悟空性的心識狀態。能夠做到這一點的瑜伽士，已接近佛地。這些心識狀態遠比波羅蜜多乘所運用的心識微細。

義光明，就是能證悟空性的根本俱生光明心；它通過令一切氣消融於心間中脈而顯現。此外，空性的所依非常特殊：它不再是我們平常五蘊那樣的染污對象，而是已經被淨化的最微細心。

簡言之，在圓滿次第的高階位上，根本俱生光明心證悟自身的空性本質；這賦予它特別的力量，能夠從心中斷除染污。能取（最微細心）與所取（空性）二者皆得清淨。

這就是密續中“證悟心性”的含義；這樣的證悟會迅速引向圓滿覺醒，也就是我們的最終目標。當岡波巴初次見到密勒日巴時，曾誇耀自己具有強大的單點專注。密勒日巴回答：“那很好，但我了知自己的心性。”

標籤：佛性、空性、尊者達賴喇嘛

---

此外，與此相關的還有：

Soh 寫信給 Mr. J： 正如 John Tan 之前所說，並且許多經歷過相似階段的人（包括 Ācārya Malcolm Smith、達賴喇嘛等）也曾重申過：修行過程中存在明顯的階段。認識覺知（Awareness，雖然 Ācārya Malcolm Smith 並不以相同方式使用此術語），也就是認識明（rig pa / vidyā）中那無造作的清明面向，與證悟空性是不同的體證。甚至龍欽巴（Longchenpa）及其他大圓滿大師也會指出，證悟空性要到妥噶（Thögal）四相中的第三相才真正發生。

John Tan 回應 Ācārya Malcolm Smith 2020 年一篇文章時寫道：

“這正如我對你所說的，本質上強調：‘明心非見性。先明心，後見性。’
（Soh 注：明心即領會心識，而非見其性；先領會心識，後體證本性。）

首先是直接認出心/識——明心（Soh：領會心識）。有一種直接途徑，就像禪宗的頓悟本心、大手印、大圓滿的直接直指明（rig pa / vidyā），甚至 Advaita 的自我探究——也就是不經中介、直接、即刻地感知‘識’。這些都是相同的。

然而，那並不是空性的體證。空性的體證即爲見性。依我之見，雖然存在通向明心的直接途徑，但我還沒有見過任何通向見性的直接途徑。如果你深入探究我們心識結構的深度與微細之處，就會明白盲點是多麼深邃、微妙。

因此，空性或‘空之本性’（Soh：空之本性）是佛教與其他宗教之間的主要區別。雖然無我（anatta）是直接體驗空性之味，但佛教無我與其他宗教所強調的無我之間仍有差別：這種無我是僅僅通過自我消融的體驗而感受到，還是由空性智慧觸發。

前者側重於無我，其整個修行途徑都是爲了消除自我；後者則是活在空性智慧中，並將空性的洞見與智慧應用於萬法。

至於空性，有一種細微區別：一方面是宗喀巴大師所指的‘看破自性見’，另一方面是果朗巴大師（Gorampa）所說的‘離於極端的空性’。兩者各有其深刻之處，因此不要胡說八道、用輕蔑言語談論結論；歸根結底（依我之見），它們是相同的。” — John Tan

達賴喇嘛：“本性（Nature）有許多不同層次。世俗層面，是一種本性；此外，還有其他不同層次。然後是究竟層面，也就是終極實相……所以，只要體認心的清明，那就是世俗層面。這與印度教徒是相通的。因此我們必須瞭解這些不同層次……”（見達賴喇嘛在新書中關於佛性、無我與空性的論述。）

或者，正如 Kyle Dixon 就徹卻（trekchö）的知見向 Ācārya Malcolm Smith 重申的那樣：

Kyle Dixon：是的，徹卻的真實狀態，就是瑜伽現量直觀空性的無分別等持。未覺悟者無法認識空性，但清明卻是可以被知道的。我們在體證空性之前所練習的名義上的徹卻，其運作都依靠清明面向（gsal cha）。名義上的“小”徹卻也稱爲“明瑜伽”。

Ācārya Malcolm Smith：“這個問題的表述並不準確。徹卻（trekchö）通常可概括爲一種將空性洞見與奢摩他相結合的修法。但在見道位以下，這種洞見是概念性的，是基於直指傳授時的喻智慧。因此，在踏上見道位之前，徹卻中所禪修的空性也是比量所得。實際上，般若波羅蜜多、大手印、禪宗等，與徹卻之間並沒有真正的區別。我聽說祖古烏金仁波切曾斷言徹卻存在於所有乘中。究竟是什麼使徹卻有別於其他直指法門？徹卻，和任何密咒乘修法一樣，都是基於加持/直指的。”

“事實上，人所安住的是空寂的清明。然而，在見道位以下，那清明中的空性是概念推理。不過，在修定時，我們只是安住於清明面向，而不陷入‘這是空的’之類概念。我們早已知道它是空的，因爲我們在心的 rushan（區分有寂）或漸頓空性的 semzin（持心法）中已經作過分析確認。”

以下是根據 Ācārya Malcolm Smith 2011 年關於此主題的發言編輯而成的一段說明：

認識明（rig pa / vidyā）與體證空性之間有什麼差別？認識明，意味著你是一位修行者；體證空性，意味著你是一位覺悟者（聖者 / ārya）。

認識明並不等於在初地進入見道位。一個人對空性的理解，不再只是智識構造，而成爲有效的現量經驗之時，就是達到見道位。[1] 換言之，當一個人不再把諸法實體化爲四邊（四個極端）時，那就是對空性的現量直觀。在那之前，你的“空性”仍只是一個否定序列的智識，也許是準確的，但依然是概念性的。此處在 Dzogchen 中體證的空性，與其他大乘宗派中體證空性的意義相同。

對明的認識，即是對清明的認識。它只是關於自己修行所依工作基的明（rig pa / vidyā），而不是智識性的“知識”。這種對明的認識——對基的明——並不要求預先體證空性。若真如此，非聖者就根本無法修行 Dzogchen。所以，需要正確的理解，但不要求已經體證空性。因此，這種認識並不等同於見道位中對空性的體證；它只是一種喻智慧。

體證空性也不是徹卻基本要求的前提；徹卻的基本要求，是穩定安住於一剎那無造作之識（ma bcos pa shes pa skad gcig ma）。只需要對空性有正確理解。

這種對空性的理解雖是必要條件，但絕不等於體證空性。空性的體驗，是體驗一種不被概念染污的識（shes pa），常被稱爲覺察兩念之間的間隙。如果你依循 Chögyal Namkhai Norbu 的教法，卻把這種體驗稱爲“法身”，那是錯誤的；它只是無常的體驗。

就妥噶及四相而言，只要你仍繼續把諸法實體化，就不會達到第三相。這也是現代 Dzogchen 修法爲何更強調徹卻基礎、而非妥噶之道的主要原因。如果你是一位初地菩薩等，Dzogchen 中的四相顯現會非常非常迅速。然而，由於僅靠徹卻修習並不能保證必然體證空性，因此也推薦拙火（tummo）等修法。
[1] 詳見《現觀莊嚴論》（Abhisamayālaṃkāra）。

Soh Wei Yu：rig pa skad cig ma 是最初未成熟的明（vidyā / rig pa）。

Kyle Dixon：“如果心性被證悟……”

有一系列可以被認識與體證的層面，從明（vidyā / rig pa）到心性（sems nyid），二者在技術上並非同義。在其中，我們必須區分 ngo shes（認識）、rtogs pa（體證），再到 grol ba（解脫）。對 sems nyid 的認識並不等於體證 sems nyid；同樣，最初以心所形式出現的明（rig pa skad cig ma）——Norbu Rinpoche 所稱的“瞬時臨在（Instant Presence）”——其性質並不等同於明的終極表達，也就是那知曉心之精要（snying po）的狀態。

所以，這個議題其實並不是那麼簡單明瞭。

“這就是爲什麼第一相有時被譯爲‘顯現內在實相’（出自達賴喇嘛的《Dzogchen》中關於第一相的說法），或‘直接體驗法性’（出自《A Guide to the Practice of Ngöndro》）。直接體驗法性並不排除空性。”

是的，這個議題確實頗爲有趣。第一相中，chos nyid 在 chos nyid mngon sum（“法性現前相”）這一說法裏，實際上與經乘中“法性”的用法不同。在這裏，當我們看到 chos nyid 時，它表示 rig pa mngon sum du gtan la phebs，也就是“在現量中確定明（vidyā）”。因此，在第一相中，我們所說的法性並不是空性，而是一個用來指稱通過現量（pratyakṣa）所確定之明（rig pa）顯現的術語。

當空性得到全面體證時，便進入第三相，稱爲“明量圓滿相”（vidyā 的圓滿尺度），因爲那時，在體證空性與無生之後，我們對諸法的明（vidyā）已經完整，達到圓滿境。

“我們並沒有任何誤解。再次說明，這是修辭與實相的差別。直到第三相以前，‘空性’仍然被障蔽；因此在直指傳授時，它只是修辭上的說法。心性，作爲非二元的清明與空性，直到第三相才被真正體證；這同樣是依龍欽巴、Khenpo Ngachung 等所說。我們在直指傳授中通常認識到的是什麼？我們認識到清明（gsal ba），以及伴隨清明而來的明（vidyā）面向。明支撐我們的修行，但明並不是 citta dharmatā，也就是心性。

這就是爲什麼前兩相類似奢摩他，而後兩相類似毗鉢舍那。”

“我從未見過有人在直指傳授時獲得任何對空性的洞見。倒是見過很多人認識到剎那之明（rig pa skad cig ma）。我不敢自稱比龍欽巴和 Khenpo Ngachung 等大師更懂；他們都指出，空性直到第三相才真正體證。如果你另有看法，我們可以各持己見。” — Kyle Dixon

Kyle Dixon：有人問：

大家好！🤗 我在理解 Rigpa 作爲 AtR 階段定義時遇到了困難。感覺它就像我所處的“I AM”階段，但我想要發問，因爲我覺得自己似乎遺漏了什麼。我已經閱讀了 AtR 上那篇《對“Rigpa”術語的澄清》……但仍有些不確定和困惑。謝謝 🙏🏻

Soh 回覆道：“感覺確實像是‘I AM’階段。”你不能這樣說，因爲存在多種模式。Kyle Dixon 舉例列出了五種類型的明（vidyā / rig pa）。

Kyle Dixon 之前曾分享：
這只是對“住、動、明”三分法（gnas gyu rig gsum）中初步洞見的認識（ngo shes）。這便是以心所形式出現的剎那之明（skad cig ma yi rig pa），在“知住動者”（gnas gyu shes pa）的語境中，表現爲一個“不變背景”；在這個背景上，靜止（gnas pa）與運動（gyu ba）的“流動體驗”得以發生。

這意味著，上述討論的是未成熟的明（ma smin pa’i rig pa）。這種明的模式必須通過證悟之智慧（prajñā）的體證而成熟。正如龍欽巴在《句義寶藏論》（Tshig don mdzod）中所說：“此外，由基而生的明（rig pa）如同種子；其結果既可能導向解脫，也可能導向迷亂，因此稱爲‘未成熟的明’：使其成熟爲圓滿佛果的，是證悟之智慧（prajñā）。”

無論它是否成爲體證（rtogs pa），上述所描述的認識確實就是我們作爲修行基石所採用的知見；但這種知見只是底層，它需要被培養、成熟並圓滿。

……

法王晉美彭措（Khenpo Jikphun）對這一段的評註說：

“你具有自然狀態之基（gzhi）。由於該狀態的動態性，基中有一種明（rig pa）閃現而出。它閃現（‘phags pa）的方式（tshul）是不確定的（ma nges pa），因爲這種方式的性質會隨著體證而改變。因此，這種明之狀態被稱爲‘未成熟’（ma smin pa），因爲它尚未通過智慧（prajñā）而成熟。如果沒有認識到從基中閃現的聲音、光芒與光線之本質，就會進入無明（ma rig pa）的模式，並誤入迷亂；如果認識到這種閃現的本質——聲音與光線作爲我們自身的自然顯現（rang snang）——就會進入明（rig pa）與解脫（grol ba）的模式。當那明被清楚地體證爲其本來狀態之後，不確定性便消失。”

如果我們只是認識到心的背景覺知能力，就等於認識了清明（gsal ba）。然而，我們尚未“體證”，因爲我們還沒有體證諸法之性，或體證究竟的心性；這種心性直到第三相才得以體證。

我把“體證者”定義爲對心性及諸法具有知見的人。終極“體證”的明之表達，實際上是一種 jñāna（覺智），也就是親證事物本來面目的智慧，即 pratyātma vid（一種個人親證之覺智）。

在未成熟的明中，覺智（jñāna）尚未出現。它是明中潛藏的可能性，但尚未表現爲一種活躍的認知方式，因爲 rtsal（潛能/動態能量）尚未被認識爲自顯（rang snang）。相反，它被外化並具體化爲客觀的現象、人物、地點、事物以及五大。只要內界與外界的二分仍然存在，個體在技術上就還未“體證”。

若你願意把對瞬時臨在的認識稱爲“體證”，我想你可以；但認識（ngo shes）、體證（rtogs pa）與解脫（grol ba）這三者之所以並列建立，是有原因的。

……

一個不變的背景，對照著不斷變化的體驗，這是最初的知見。這並不是成熟的知見。在真正體證的等持中，沒有不變背景，也沒有變化的體驗。

……

這就是最初形式的明，是的，雖然不是“終極”形式。終極形式與智慧（shes rab / prajñā）同義。

進一步說明：Norbu Rinpoche 在上述引文中討論 rig pa 時，是在 gnas gyu rig gsum（住、動、明）的語境中說明的。此處的 rig pa 定義爲 gnas gyu shes pa，即“知住動者”。Norbu Rinpoche 明確指出，這種初始形式的明，只是對自己心識清明的領會；因此稱爲“明”，因爲它屬於 shes pa（知/識）的一種。

這種類型的明可以被認識，並可作爲修行基石；但它尚未達到伴隨本初覺智（ye shes / jñāna）的覺悟形態。作爲單純心識清明之表現的這種初步明，是一種較粗的明，表現爲無垢友（Vimalamitra）所謂的識蘊（vijñāna skandha）。他稱之爲“取相之明”。無垢友把這種明定義爲：“把現象歸爲普遍性、僅僅作爲個人名相來把握的明；也就是被無數認知污染的、單純非概念化的自知。”Chögyal Namkhai Norbu 稱這種明的模式爲“被誤認爲虛幻心的明”，也稱之爲“取相之明”。

Jean-Luc Achard 將這種明稱爲“未成熟的明”（ma smin pa’i rig pa）。

Tsoknyi Rinpoche 明確指出，我們不應把這種初步形式的明與究竟覺悟的明混爲一談：

“這種初期覺察或觀察心是否安住、是否有念頭生起的階段，也稱爲 rigpa。然而，它的含義不同於大圓滿中所說的自生之明（rang byung rig pa）。” — Tsoknyi Rinpoche

他的父親，Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche，也如此說明：

“在安住、念頭生起以及覺察之中，rigpa 一詞用於指察覺。而自生之明也稱爲 rigpa。詞雖相同，含義卻不同。這兩種修行的差別，就像天與地之間的距離一樣巨大。” — Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche

达赖喇嘛论大圆满（Dzogchen）、大手印（Mahāmudrā）、空性以及佛性

Soh

英文原文：Dalai Lama on Dzogchen, Mahamudra, Emptiness and Buddha Nature
简体中文：达赖喇嘛论大圆满（Dzogchen）、大手印（Mahāmudrā）、空性以及佛性
另见：达赖喇嘛在新书中关于无我（anatta）和佛性空性的论述

刚才与 Yin Ling 讨论时，我重新读到达赖喇嘛书中的一段文字。写得很好，所以想分享。

尊者达赖喇嘛：大圆满（Dzogchen）和大手印（Mahāmudrā）

依经教而言，单是禅修心清明而能知的本性，或单是禅修可转化佛性，并不能根除烦恼。不过，这确实会让我们更有信心：烦恼并不是心中本具的一部分，因此成佛是可能的。

这又会引导我们追问：是什么染污了心？又有什么能够彻底消除这些染污？为了寻求净化可转化佛性的方法，我们会修习证悟无自性空性的智慧，并断除无明。

依大圆满和大手印而言，禅修心清明而能知的本性，可能令粗分气消融，并使最微细的光明心显现。此时，若修行者先前已经修习了对空性的正确理解，便会把这种理解融入禅修，并运用俱生光明心来证悟空性、断除烦恼。

从大圆满和大手印的角度，正确理解《宝性论》（Sublime Continuum）非常重要。有些人按字面理解它，由此误以为本初觉智是常住的、实有的、不依赖任何其他因素，也不依因缘而生。于是他们会说出诸如“如果你解开这个秘密，就会解脱”之类的话。

多智钦·吉美丹贝尼玛（Dodrup Jigme Tenpai Nyima，1865–1926）及其弟子楚臣桑波（Tsultrim Zangpo，1884–约1957）是伟大的大圆满学者兼修行者。他们说，仅仅因为我们具有这种本初觉智，并不足以让我们解脱。为什么呢？临终时，其他一切心识都已消融，只剩下本初之心。虽然在我们轮回中无数次死亡时它都曾显现，但这并没有帮助我们成就佛果。

这两位大德说，若要成佛，必须运用本初觉智来证悟空性；唯有如此才会令我们解脱。这与宗喀巴大师的知见一致。

有些大圆满和大手印的注释说：安住于烦恼中的这份智慧就是真实智慧；基于这一点，每一个有情众生本来已经是佛。虽然我们从无始以来就是佛，但仍须再次被“唤醒”。我们现在具有的智慧，就是佛陀的遍知心；佛陀三身本来具足于每一个有情众生。有情众生具有一个本质清净之基；这并不只是空性，而是具足三方面。

其体是法身——即本初觉智的安住方式；其性是受用身——也就是此心的显现面向；而悲心是化身——也就是它的光明流露或表现。简言之，他们说三种佛身在我们的平常状态中都已圆满具足，只是因为被障蔽，我们才没有觉察到它们已然具足。

如果把这些说法照字面理解，就会带来许多问题。有些人批判时带有偏颇，而且并不公允，只驳斥某些传承中的误解；章嘉·若必多吉（Changkya Rolpai Dorje，1717–1786）则不偏不倚，指出了藏传佛教四大传统——包括他自己的格鲁派——中都可能出现的错误解释。

他在《体验知见之道歌》（Song of the Experience of the View）中说：“我说这些，并不是对那些上师不敬；只是也许他们较少有机会对大论典作严密的哲学探究，因此未能恰当地使用某些术语。”也就是说，他们主张中的困难，在于宽泛使用了一些并未立足于大论典权威的术语。

当然，章嘉的评论并不适用于多智钦·吉美丹贝尼玛以及他的上师阿瓦·旁楚（Awa Pangchu）这样的真正大圆满和大手印大师；他们曾严肃研习并检验大论典，并以此为依据来安立他们对大圆满的理解。他们的解释和著述都非常卓越。

藏传佛教四大传统都教授探寻心的修法：探究心从何而来、往何处去、它有什么形状和颜色等等。谈到这种共同修法时，章嘉说，当我们这样寻觅之后，会发现心并不是可触摸的实体，没有颜色和形状，也不是从某处来、往某处去。发现这一点后，禅修者会生起一种空无感。

然而，这种空无并不是心之究竟实相——无自性空性；它只是“心并非可触摸之物”的单纯缺失。即使有人把这种空无误认为究竟实相，并长期安住其中禅修，那也不是在禅修心的究竟本性。禅修心有两种方式。第一种如上所述，检验心是否具有颜色、形状、位置、可触性等等。

这会让人感受到：心的世俗本性并不具有这些特质。第二种则是禅修心的究竟本性：检验心的究竟存在方式，并发现它无自性空。

若有人混淆这两种禅修心的方法，以为心没有可触性、没有颜色等等就是心的究竟本性，便可能批评陈那、法称等大师对辩论、理则和推理所作的精细阐释，认为这些只会增加先入之见。另一位能够公允分析藏传佛教各传统的大师——贡唐·贡却丹贝仲美（Gungtang Konchog Tenpai Dronme，1762–1823）——对此感到惊讶。

有些人认为，在修道上不需要推理或探究，只要对上师具足信心、接受上师加持，本初觉智就会生起。有鉴于此，我非常欣慰地看到，现在有更多讲授印度与西藏传统哲学典籍的学术院校（shedra）建立起来。

有些西方人同样不重视佛法的学习与探究，也许是因为佛法在西方仍相对新。缺乏对佛法的全面理解时，人们往往会寻求最容易、最快捷的觉醒之道——一条不需要舍弃执著的道路。这样的态度在藏人当中也同样存在。

宗喀巴大师曾说，许多人认为佛陀的功德令人赞叹；可是当善知识以理证和经教引文说明如何获得这些功德时，他们便灰心丧气，说：“谁真能成就那样的证悟呢？”

我们已经是佛了吗？

在《如来藏经》（Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra）中，佛陀开示：每一个有情众生都具有一个常住、坚固、恒常而不坏的如来藏；它是具足佛陀三十二相的圆满佛身（kāya）。

于是便会产生这些疑问：如果我们内在已经有一尊已证悟的佛，岂不是成了“无明的佛”吗？如果我们现在就是实际的佛，那么修道还有什么意义？如果我们已经是佛，却仍须净化染污，岂不是佛也有染污吗？如果我们具有一个常住、坚固且恒常的本质，岂不是与无我教法相违，反而类似外道所主张的我或灵魂吗？大慧（Mahāmati）在《楞伽经》（Descent into Lanka Sūtra）中也向佛陀提出同样的疑问：

“（佛在某些经中）所宣说的如来藏，被说成本性为光明，从本以来完全清净，并且在一切有情的身中具足三十二相。

如果佛说此如来藏如同被污布包裹的宝石：被蕴、界、处之布包裹并染污；被贪、瞋、痴之力压伏；被分别概念的垢染污；并且是常住、坚固、恒常的，那么这所宣说的如来藏，与外道所宣说的我有何不同呢？”[88]

有些藏地学者把“常住、坚固、恒常的佛性”这一教法照字面接受，认为它是了义教。应成派（Prāsaṅgika）承接前文大慧提出的疑问，说这是不了义、需解释的教法。他们并不是一时兴起才这样说，而是通过考量以下三点：

应成派考量点

1. 佛陀说这句话时，最终想表达的本意是什么？
当佛陀说每个有情众生都有一个常住、坚固、恒常的本质时，他真正的本意是：心的空性，即自然安住的佛性，才是常住、坚固、恒常的。正因为心无自性，而染污是客尘，成佛才成为可能。

2. 佛陀为什么这样说？
佛陀之所以宣说一个常住、坚固、恒常且具足三十二相的本质，是为了平息某些人对无我的恐惧，并逐步引导外道信众圆满证悟如如。此时，这些根机尚未成熟的人，对“常住本质”的观念比较安心。无自性空性令他们害怕；他们误以为空性意味着一切法都完全不存在。

他们害怕通过证悟空性，自己会消失、不再存在。为了平息这种恐惧，佛陀便以符合他们当前观念的方式说法。后来，当他们更能接受时，佛陀才会教授真实义。这就像善巧的父母会把复杂观念简化，使年幼的孩子能够理解。

3. 如果把这句话照字面理解，会产生哪些理性上的矛盾？
若把“常住、坚固、恒常的佛性”这一教法照字面接受为究竟义，就会与佛陀在《般若经》中所阐明的空性与无我了义相冲突。在这些经典中，佛陀提出许多理据来破斥这种见解。此外，若照字面接受这种说法，佛陀的教法就会与主张常住自我的外道教法没有差别。

无自性空性——也就是心的究竟实相和自然清净——无差别地存在于一切有情之中。基于这一点，才说“有佛在其中”。但佛陀的究竟实相并不存在于有情众生之中。

佛与有情众生相同之处，在于他们心的究竟本性都是空性；但这种究竟实相并不相同：一个是佛陀之心的究竟实相——自性法身；另一个则是染污心的究竟实相。如果说自性法身存在于有情众生之中，那么我们也必须说，与它同一体性的智慧法身同样存在于有情众生之中。

那就意味着有情众生已经遍知，这显然并非事实！同样，如果断尽一切染污的清净已经存在于普通有情众生之中，就没有任何东西能阻止他们直接现见自心的自然清净；他们理应直接证悟空性。但事实也并非如此。

有些人说，具足二种清净——自然清净以及断除一切染污之清净——的法身，存在于有情众生的心相续中；只是因为有情被障蔽，所以没有觉察到它。

如果真是如此，那么究竟是谁的心被净化？又是谁获得了那种“断尽一切染污的清净”之自由？如果有情众生本来就具有法身，就不需要修道、也不需要净化自心，因为从无始以来，他们的心就已经远离客尘染污。

主张一尊具足三十二相的佛完整存在于一切有情的心相续中，这呼应了有神论关于永恒清净、不变自我的理论。如果三十二相已经存在于我们之中，却又说我们仍需修道来创造它们的因，那就自相矛盾了。

如果有人说这些相已经以未显现的形式存在于我们之中，只需要使它们显现出来，那就类似于数论派（Sāṃkhya）所谓“从自体生”的主张；因为即便这尊佛已经存在，它仍须再次被生起，才能显现出来。龙树菩萨及其追随者已经彻底破斥了“从自体生”。

经文接着记载佛陀的回答：

“大慧，我所宣说的如来藏，并不类似外道宣说自我。大慧，如来、阿罗汉、圆满正等觉佛，以空性、圆满清净之边际、涅槃、无生、无相、无愿等词义来指示如来藏。这样做，是为了让幼稚的有情完全舍弃对无我的恐惧，并教导无分别境界、无显现之界。”[89]

由此可见，佛陀会依众生当下所需以及从长远而言对其修道有益之处，善巧地教授不同观念。我们也由此知道，必须深入思维教法，从不同角度加以探究，并结合推理所得以及阅读其他经典所得的知识，来辨别其了义。

学习佛性的目的，是为了明白心并非本身就有缺陷；相反，它可以被圆满成就。不只是心可以被转化；心中已经具有某种使它能够被净化并圆满成就的因素。理解这一点，会给予我们极大的信心和力量，去修持那些净化并圆满我们自心的方法，使其成为全然觉醒的佛心。

反思

• 说“本初觉智安住于烦恼中”是什么意思？
• 我们是否已经是具智慧的佛，只是自己不知道而已？
• 佛陀有烦恼吗？
• 佛陀说我们每个人都有一个常住、坚固且恒常的佛性。他说这话的最终本意是什么？他这样教导的目的是什么？
• 如果照字面理解这句话，会产生哪些逻辑矛盾？

摘自：达赖喇嘛、图登秋准（Thubten Chodron）所著《轮回、涅槃与佛性》（《智慧与慈悲文库》第3卷，第372页），Wisdom Publications，Kindle 版。

---

2025年更新：Nafis 发给我达赖喇嘛另一部著作中的一段精彩引文：

普通人死亡时的光明被说成是“有分别的”；在此语境中，这意味着心仍被障蔽。当普通有情经验死亡时的根本俱生光明心时，他们并不了知此心具有所缘。有些学者主张，空性会显现于死亡光明，但并未被确定了知；另一些学者则说，它的所缘是一种类似空性、却并非无自性空性的空无。

无论哪一种说法，在死亡光明显现时，现行无明虽暂时不现前，但这种止息只是暂时的；八十种指示性分别念及其他烦恼，会在中阴和下一次投生中再次现行。然而，若有人勤修密乘法门，就能利用光明中无明自然暂息的状态来禅修空性。缺乏训练的普通有情则错失这个机会。对他们而言，光明显现时，就好像他们的心陷入昏厥。

有些证量很高的修行者，在呼吸停止后，仍能于死亡光明中禅修数日。有些人由此获得证悟，甚至获得圆满觉醒。然而，临终时安住于光明中，并不一定表示具有瑜伽证量。有些看起来并非瑜伽行者的人——虽然他们在生前或许曾体验过某种形式的光明——也会因为其他因缘而安住于光明中。最可能的原因，是他们善德的力量。

虽然如此，如果他们缺乏证悟空性的智慧，便无法从安住于光明中得到巨大利益。

所有大德都强调理解心性的关键意义。在圆满次第中，这指的是显现喻光明与义光明——也就是能够证悟空性的心识状态。能够做到这一点的瑜伽士，已接近佛地。这些心识状态远比波罗蜜多乘所运用的心识微细。

义光明，就是能证悟空性的根本俱生光明心；它通过令一切气消融于心间中脉而显现。此外，空性的所依非常特殊：它不再是我们平常五蕴那样的染污对象，而是已经被净化的最微细心。

简言之，在圆满次第的高阶位上，根本俱生光明心证悟自身的空性本质；这赋予它特别的力量，能够从心中断除染污。能取（最微细心）与所取（空性）二者皆得清净。

这就是密续中“证悟心性”的含义；这样的证悟会迅速引向圆满觉醒，也就是我们的最终目标。当冈波巴初次见到密勒日巴时，曾夸耀自己具有强大的单点专注。密勒日巴回答：“那很好，但我了知自己的心性。”

标签：佛性、空性、尊者达赖喇嘛

---

此外，与此相关的还有：

Soh 写信给 Mr. J： 正如 John Tan 之前所说，并且许多经历过相似阶段的人（包括 Ācārya Malcolm Smith、达赖喇嘛等）也曾重申过：修行过程中存在明显的阶段。认识觉知（Awareness，虽然 Ācārya Malcolm Smith 并不以相同方式使用此术语），也就是认识明（rig pa / vidyā）中那无造作的清明面向，与证悟空性是不同的体证。甚至龙钦巴（Longchenpa）及其他大圆满大师也会指出，证悟空性要到妥噶（Thögal）四相中的第三相才真正发生。

John Tan 回应 Ācārya Malcolm Smith 2020 年一篇文章时写道：

“这正如我对你所说的，本质上强调：‘明心非见性。先明心，后见性。’
（Soh 注：明心即领会心识，而非见其性；先领会心识，后体证本性。）

首先是直接认出心/识——明心（Soh：领会心识）。有一种直接途径，就像禅宗的顿悟本心、大手印、大圆满的直接直指明（rig pa / vidyā），甚至 Advaita 的自我探究——也就是不经中介、直接、即刻地感知‘识’。这些都是相同的。

然而，那并不是空性的体证。空性的体证即为见性。依我之见，虽然存在通向明心的直接途径，但我还没有见过任何通向见性的直接途径。如果你深入探究我们心识结构的深度与微细之处，就会明白盲点是多么深邃、微妙。

因此，空性或‘空之本性’（Soh：空之本性）是佛教与其他宗教之间的主要区别。虽然无我（anatta）是直接体验空性之味，但佛教无我与其他宗教所强调的无我之间仍有差别：这种无我是仅仅通过自我消融的体验而感受到，还是由空性智慧触发。

前者侧重于无我，其整个修行途径都是为了消除自我；后者则是活在空性智慧中，并将空性的洞见与智慧应用于万法。

至于空性，有一种细微区别：一方面是宗喀巴大师所指的‘看破自性见’，另一方面是果朗巴大师（Gorampa）所说的‘离于极端的空性’。两者各有其深刻之处，因此不要胡说八道、用轻蔑言语谈论结论；归根结底（依我之见），它们是相同的。” — John Tan

达赖喇嘛：“本性（Nature）有许多不同层次。世俗层面，是一种本性；此外，还有其他不同层次。然后是究竟层面，也就是终极实相……所以，只要体认心的清明，那就是世俗层面。这与印度教徒是相通的。因此我们必须了解这些不同层次……”（见达赖喇嘛在新书中关于佛性、无我与空性的论述。）

或者，正如 Kyle Dixon 就彻却（trekchö）的知见向 Ācārya Malcolm Smith 重申的那样：

Kyle Dixon：是的，彻却的真实状态，就是瑜伽现量直观空性的无分别等持。未觉悟者无法认识空性，但清明却是可以被知道的。我们在体证空性之前所练习的名义上的彻却，其运作都依靠清明面向（gsal cha）。名义上的“小”彻却也称为“明瑜伽”。

Ācārya Malcolm Smith：“这个问题的表述并不准确。彻却（trekchö）通常可概括为一种将空性洞见与奢摩他相结合的修法。但在见道位以下，这种洞见是概念性的，是基于直指传授时的喻智慧。因此，在踏上见道位之前，彻却中所禅修的空性也是比量所得。实际上，般若波罗蜜多、大手印、禅宗等，与彻却之间并没有真正的区别。我听说祖古乌金仁波切曾断言彻却存在于所有乘中。究竟是什么使彻却有别于其他直指法门？彻却，和任何密咒乘修法一样，都是基于加持/直指的。”

“事实上，人所安住的是空寂的清明。然而，在见道位以下，那清明中的空性是概念推理。不过，在修定时，我们只是安住于清明面向，而不陷入‘这是空的’之类概念。我们早已知道它是空的，因为我们在心的 rushan（区分有寂）或渐顿空性的 semzin（持心法）中已经作过分析确认。”

以下是根据 Ācārya Malcolm Smith 2011 年关于此主题的发言编辑而成的一段说明：

认识明（rig pa / vidyā）与体证空性之间有什么差别？认识明，意味着你是一位修行者；体证空性，意味着你是一位觉悟者（圣者 / ārya）。

认识明并不等于在初地进入见道位。一个人对空性的理解，不再只是智识构造，而成为有效的现量经验之时，就是达到见道位。[1] 换言之，当一个人不再把诸法实体化为四边（四个极端）时，那就是对空性的现量直观。在那之前，你的“空性”仍只是一个否定序列的智识，也许是准确的，但依然是概念性的。此处在 Dzogchen 中体证的空性，与其他大乘宗派中体证空性的意义相同。

对明的认识，即是对清明的认识。它只是关于自己修行所依工作基的明（rig pa / vidyā），而不是智识性的“知识”。这种对明的认识——对基的明——并不要求预先体证空性。若真如此，非圣者就根本无法修行 Dzogchen。所以，需要正确的理解，但不要求已经体证空性。因此，这种认识并不等同于见道位中对空性的体证；它只是一种喻智慧。

体证空性也不是彻却基本要求的前提；彻却的基本要求，是稳定安住于一刹那无造作之识（ma bcos pa shes pa skad gcig ma）。只需要对空性有正确理解。

这种对空性的理解虽是必要条件，但绝不等于体证空性。空性的体验，是体验一种不被概念染污的识（shes pa），常被称为觉察两念之间的间隙。如果你依循 Chögyal Namkhai Norbu 的教法，却把这种体验称为“法身”，那是错误的；它只是无常的体验。

就妥噶及四相而言，只要你仍继续把诸法实体化，就不会达到第三相。这也是现代 Dzogchen 修法为何更强调彻却基础、而非妥噶之道的主要原因。如果你是一位初地菩萨等，Dzogchen 中的四相显现会非常非常迅速。然而，由于仅靠彻却修习并不能保证必然体证空性，因此也推荐拙火（tummo）等修法。
[1] 详见《现观庄严论》（Abhisamayālaṃkāra）。

Soh Wei Yu：rig pa skad cig ma 是最初未成熟的明（vidyā / rig pa）。

Kyle Dixon：“如果心性被证悟……”

有一系列可以被认识与体证的层面，从明（vidyā / rig pa）到心性（sems nyid），二者在技术上并非同义。在其中，我们必须区分 ngo shes（认识）、rtogs pa（体证），再到 grol ba（解脱）。对 sems nyid 的认识并不等于体证 sems nyid；同样，最初以心所形式出现的明（rig pa skad cig ma）——Norbu Rinpoche 所称的“瞬时临在（Instant Presence）”——其性质并不等同于明的终极表达，也就是那知晓心之精要（snying po）的状态。

所以，这个议题其实并不是那么简单明了。

“这就是为什么第一相有时被译为‘显现内在实相’（出自达赖喇嘛的《Dzogchen》中关于第一相的说法），或‘直接体验法性’（出自《A Guide to the Practice of Ngöndro》）。直接体验法性并不排除空性。”

是的，这个议题确实颇为有趣。第一相中，chos nyid 在 chos nyid mngon sum（“法性现前相”）这一说法里，实际上与经乘中“法性”的用法不同。在这里，当我们看到 chos nyid 时，它表示 rig pa mngon sum du gtan la phebs，也就是“在现量中确定明（vidyā）”。因此，在第一相中，我们所说的法性并不是空性，而是一个用来指称通过现量（pratyakṣa）所确定之明（rig pa）显现的术语。

当空性得到全面体证时，便进入第三相，称为“明量圆满相”（vidyā 的圆满尺度），因为那时，在体证空性与无生之后，我们对诸法的明（vidyā）已经完整，达到圆满境。

“我们并没有任何误解。再次说明，这是修辞与实相的差别。直到第三相以前，‘空性’仍然被障蔽；因此在直指传授时，它只是修辞上的说法。心性，作为非二元的清明与空性，直到第三相才被真正体证；这同样是依龙钦巴、Khenpo Ngachung 等所说。我们在直指传授中通常认识到的是什么？我们认识到清明（gsal ba），以及伴随清明而来的明（vidyā）面向。明支撑我们的修行，但明并不是 citta dharmatā，也就是心性。

这就是为什么前两相类似奢摩他，而后两相类似毗钵舍那。”

“我从未见过有人在直指传授时获得任何对空性的洞见。倒是见过很多人认识到刹那之明（rig pa skad cig ma）。我不敢自称比龙钦巴和 Khenpo Ngachung 等大师更懂；他们都指出，空性直到第三相才真正体证。如果你另有看法，我们可以各持己见。” — Kyle Dixon

Kyle Dixon：有人问：

大家好！🤗 我在理解 Rigpa 作为 AtR 阶段定义时遇到了困难。感觉它就像我所处的“I AM”阶段，但我想要发问，因为我觉得自己似乎遗漏了什么。我已经阅读了 AtR 上那篇《对“Rigpa”术语的澄清》……但仍有些不确定和困惑。谢谢 🙏🏻

Soh 回覆道：“感觉确实像是‘I AM’阶段。”你不能这样说，因为存在多种模式。Kyle Dixon 举例列出了五种类型的明（vidyā / rig pa）。

Kyle Dixon 之前曾分享：
这只是对“住、动、明”三分法（gnas gyu rig gsum）中初步洞见的认识（ngo shes）。这便是以心所形式出现的刹那之明（skad cig ma yi rig pa），在“知住动者”（gnas gyu shes pa）的语境中，表现为一个“不变背景”；在这个背景上，静止（gnas pa）与运动（gyu ba）的“流动体验”得以发生。

这意味着，上述讨论的是未成熟的明（ma smin pa’i rig pa）。这种明的模式必须通过证悟之智慧（prajñā）的体证而成熟。正如龙钦巴在《句义宝藏论》（Tshig don mdzod）中所说：“此外，由基而生的明（rig pa）如同种子；其结果既可能导向解脱，也可能导向迷乱，因此称为‘未成熟的明’：使其成熟为圆满佛果的，是证悟之智慧（prajñā）。”

无论它是否成为体证（rtogs pa），上述所描述的认识确实就是我们作为修行基石所采用的知见；但这种知见只是底层，它需要被培养、成熟并圆满。

……

法王晋美彭措（Khenpo Jikphun）对这一段的评注说：

“你具有自然状态之基（gzhi）。由于该状态的动态性，基中有一种明（rig pa）闪现而出。它闪现（‘phags pa）的方式（tshul）是不确定的（ma nges pa），因为这种方式的性质会随着体证而改变。因此，这种明之状态被称为‘未成熟’（ma smin pa），因为它尚未通过智慧（prajñā）而成熟。如果没有认识到从基中闪现的声音、光芒与光线之本质，就会进入无明（ma rig pa）的模式，并误入迷乱；如果认识到这种闪现的本质——声音与光线作为我们自身的自然显现（rang snang）——就会进入明（rig pa）与解脱（grol ba）的模式。当那明被清楚地体证为其本来状态之后，不确定性便消失。”

如果我们只是认识到心的背景觉知能力，就等于认识了清明（gsal ba）。然而，我们尚未“体证”，因为我们还没有体证诸法之性，或体证究竟的心性；这种心性直到第三相才得以体证。

我把“体证者”定义为对心性及诸法具有知见的人。终极“体证”的明之表达，实际上是一种 jñāna（觉智），也就是亲证事物本来面目的智慧，即 pratyātma vid（一种个人亲证之觉智）。

在未成熟的明中，觉智（jñāna）尚未出现。它是明中潜藏的可能性，但尚未表现为一种活跃的认知方式，因为 rtsal（潜能/动态能量）尚未被认识为自显（rang snang）。相反，它被外化并具体化为客观的现象、人物、地点、事物以及五大。只要内界与外界的二分仍然存在，个体在技术上就还未“体证”。

若你愿意把对瞬时临在的认识称为“体证”，我想你可以；但认识（ngo shes）、体证（rtogs pa）与解脱（grol ba）这三者之所以并列建立，是有原因的。

……

一个不变的背景，对照着不断变化的体验，这是最初的知见。这并不是成熟的知见。在真正体证的等持中，没有不变背景，也没有变化的体验。

……

这就是最初形式的明，是的，虽然不是“终极”形式。终极形式与智慧（shes rab / prajñā）同义。

进一步说明：Norbu Rinpoche 在上述引文中讨论 rig pa 时，是在 gnas gyu rig gsum（住、动、明）的语境中说明的。此处的 rig pa 定义为 gnas gyu shes pa，即“知住动者”。Norbu Rinpoche 明确指出，这种初始形式的明，只是对自己心识清明的领会；因此称为“明”，因为它属于 shes pa（知/识）的一种。

这种类型的明可以被认识，并可作为修行基石；但它尚未达到伴随本初觉智（ye shes / jñāna）的觉悟形态。作为单纯心识清明之表现的这种初步明，是一种较粗的明，表现为无垢友（Vimalamitra）所谓的识蕴（vijñāna skandha）。他称之为“取相之明”。无垢友把这种明定义为：“把现象归为普遍性、仅仅作为个人名相来把握的明；也就是被无数认知污染的、单纯非概念化的自知。”Chögyal Namkhai Norbu 称这种明的模式为“被误认为虚幻心的明”，也称之为“取相之明”。

Jean-Luc Achard 将这种明称为“未成熟的明”（ma smin pa’i rig pa）。

Tsoknyi Rinpoche 明确指出，我们不应把这种初步形式的明与究竟觉悟的明混为一谈：

“这种初期觉察或观察心是否安住、是否有念头生起的阶段，也称为 rigpa。然而，它的含义不同于大圆满中所说的自生之明（rang byung rig pa）。” — Tsoknyi Rinpoche

他的父亲，Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche，也如此说明：

“在安住、念头生起以及觉察之中，rigpa 一词用于指察觉。而自生之明也称为 rigpa。词虽相同，含义却不同。这两种修行的差别，就像天与地之间的距离一样巨大。” — Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche

Visual Diagram of the Thusness Seven Stages

 

“我是”的经验/瞥见/体认 vs “我是”的证悟（存在的确定性）

English original link: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/12/i-am-experienceglimpserecognition-vs-i.html

另请参阅：从不同视角看待证悟、经验与非二元经验

相关中文视频：https://youtu.be/RsHH2gOQHxM?si=2GlrgDErQl7edESV

交流 — 2009年2月11日

AEN: http://dharmaoverground.wetpaint.com/thread/2385161/Sharing+like+back+in+the+day ... 期待听到（大家的）讨论。

当自我变得越来越透明，

万法也同样变得越来越充满光明。

在彻底的透明中，一切显现都纯粹而活泼泼地清晰。

处处分明，无处不生机盎然！

我刚才清楚地体会到了这一点。自我消失得越多，一切就越显现出它的清晰、自然与开阔感。但开阔感并不像顽空（void）；越是开阔，一切就越清晰。今天尽管我只睡了2个小时，却出奇地清醒。

顺便说一下，我在这里发了一篇关于佛教和道教的文章：http://www.sgclub.com/singapore/difference_between_127679.html。写完这篇之后，我在网上搜东西才发现了 Zisirum 的博客。不过我觉得我的帖子对那个人来说太复杂了。

Thusness: 不要偏离我在论坛里写的路径。无论你经验到了什么，它本来就已经是这样了；当你继续（造作）时，你只是在增强习气与无明。如果你现在无法走出来，你认为在不断强化你的习气之后你就能走出来吗？一切造作皆留习气。

AEN: 我明白了。

Thusness: 观察你的思想；看看，那里有任何主宰者（agent）吗？去真实地体证它。如果你看到了，你自然就是非二元的。

AEN: 我明白了。

Thusness: 所以为什么需要绕一大圈，最后落得满脑子邪见呢？如果没有自我，你已经是最直接的了……哪里还需要去“成为”非二元？如果你不了解习性，你永远不会知道它是如何蒙蔽你的。然而，即使有了无我（anatta）的体证，你仍然不会理解缘起。运气好的话，你需要3到5年才能替换掉你那分裂的意识知见。运气不好的话，可能需要好几生。

AEN: 我明白了。

Thusness: 要保持恒常的明晰非常困难，你应该从现在就开始。我不是在贬低你的老师，但她到了这个年纪也还没有达到那一步。你认为你在修行上有她那样的奉献精神和诚意吗？

AEN: 没有。

Thusness: 所以不要继续用错误的理解来强化你自己。相反，在有了这些知见之后，要去修，让这些知见在实际经验中得到印证。当你证悟无我时，会有一段时间需要去适应，让你的知见与经验同步。做到这一点并不容易。然而这非常重要，因为我们不了解意识。除了非二元与空性之外，你还必须经验习气。而要拥有正见，可能会花掉你一生的时间。

AEN: 我明白了。

Thusness: 如果你像不二论（Advaita）那样修持，你甚至都不会谈论习气和习性。你不会知道在缘起层面的自然生起（spontaneous arising）是什么。你无法知道意图（intention）是什么。

AEN: 我明白了。顺便问一下，你看到我早些时候发的信息了吗？

Thusness: 没有。

AEN: 我不记得我发了什么，因为我是在学校发的。我问你的其中一件事是，推荐什么书给“Thevoice”。

Thusness: 关于什么？

AEN: 他发给我一个吉尔·伯特·泰勒（Jill Bolte Taylor）的视频链接，然后问我知不知道有什么演讲。然后我发给他托妮·帕克（Toni Packer）的文章和特贾南达（Tejananda）的文章，因为我觉得这些比较实用。我认为他在寻找更实用的东西。我也告诉他可以去找《澄清自然状态》（Clarifying the Natural State）。但他也提到大手印对他来说太复杂了；他以前或上次对那有一点经验。顺便问一下，我也问过你——你上次提到Thevoice知道光明的层面……但他告诉我，他不明白纯粹的觉知是什么意思，而且他以前从未经历过。但也许有增强或扩展的觉知。书也是，我的意思是。我告诉他可以买托妮·帕克的书。

Thusness: 嗯。

AEN: ？

Thusness: 我说过他把它当作个体性（individuality）来对待。他知道“我”，但是作为个体性。而不是作为纯粹的觉知。我告诉过你，“我是”（I AM）有不同的阶段。意思是，他知道他不是这具身体。而不是那种永恒见证者的体验。

AEN: 和见证者不同？

Thusness: 倒不是指见证者，而是说他超越了身体。像精神，但不是对“我”的直接体证。

AEN: 不是对“我”的直接体证？你是什么意思？

Thusness: 就像你在论坛上发的那篇文章里描述的一样。那不是对永恒见证者的直接体验。那是在推断、关联、测试。但这人知道自己不是身体。对觉知有模糊的了解，但并没有直接触碰到觉知。你知道吗，即使在“我是”（I AM）的阶段直接触碰觉知，也与所描述的完全不同。就像肯·威尔伯（Ken Wilber）说的那样：毫无疑影。就像罗摩克里希那（Ramakrishna）所描述的那样。不是他说自己像死人一样被抬着的那部分。那就像 Thevoice 正在体验的那样。是对“我是”（I AM）的直接体证。完全的止息，终极的，没有思想。完全的确定。罗摩克里希那在后来的阶段谈论的是那个——完全安住为大我（Self）。我指的是拉马纳·马哈希（Ramana Maharshi）……

AEN: 噢，哈哈。难怪，我以前没怎么读过关于罗摩克里希那的书。

Thusness: 当他观想自己死了并被抬去火化时，他意识到他不是这具身体。那不是对“我是”的直接体证。

AEN: 不是吗？

Thusness: 是的，不是。那只是一瞥。不是那种直接的体证。那种体验就像禅师参公案——是那种体验。对“我”的直接体证。找到了。没有思想，没有推断，完整且圆满。只是那种体验安住在“我”之中，并没有作为万法显现，也没有看到空性（empty nature）。那个体验是正确的。

AEN: 我明白了。是正确的？

Thusness: 是的。你读过我的阶段4吗？我说了，声音完全就像“我是”。

AEN: 它在声音等方面和“我是”一样，对吗？哦，是的。

Thusness: 这不像你对声音的体验。

AEN: 你是什么意思？你的意思是它是完全非二元的？

Thusness: 非二元意味着没有分离。有不同的程度。你觉得你是上帝吗？当一个人体证到“我是”时，他感觉自己就像是上帝。就是那种体验。那种体验会是平凡的吗？

AEN: 不会。

Thusness: 它是超越性的。

AEN: 我明白了。刚才你在论坛里说，有一篇文章是在推断，而不是直接的经验。

Thusness: 这就是为什么一个人会被引导走上完善那种状态的旅程。就像你这样做，稍微动一下然后你意识到……就像它像一个屏幕一样……什么都不是。你不能那样去理解觉知。要么通过自我探究（self-enquiry）直接体证它，要么通过公案。没有所谓“不确定”这种事。

AEN: 我明白了。http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6865032740128202927 ——这是我第一次听到拉马纳的声音。不知道他还会说英语。

Thusness: 有几个拉马纳。

AEN: 是拉马纳·马哈希（Ramana Maharshi）。但也可能不是他。

Thusness: 如果一个修行者能在无我（anatta）中体验到像马哈希作为大我（SELF）的那种体验，那么他就接近彻底的证悟了。

AEN: 我明白了。你是说体验到无我的人可能无法体验到拉马纳所体验的？两者都需要吗？

Thusness: 这在于透彻度。以及光明的深度和程度。为了让非二元的无我具有那种临在感，必须完全毫不费力。因为不同于专注模式的修持，非二元，或者说无形相、无路之路径，需要一个人完全毫不费力且自然而然，才能拥有完全的非二元光明。

AEN: 我明白了。顺便问一下，对拉马纳来说，这仍然是一种专注模式的修持，对吗？比如安住在大我（self）上。

Thusness: 对我来说，是的。这个视频很好。但不要……

AEN: 不要什么？

Thusness: 这是一个非常好的视频。但不要把它发在论坛上。

AEN: 哦，哈哈，我明白了。好的，我不会发。

Thusness: 如果一个人能有那种体验，然后再进入非二元，那是不同的。如果能体验到无我，那就更好了。

AEN: 我明白了。你说的“那是不同的”是什么意思？

Thusness: 一个人可以体验到非二元，没有分离，但是没有像“我是”那样的体验。所以他不具备那种体验的“品质”。然而，如果一个修行者体验了那个“我是”，那么当达到非二元时，他知道有这样一种体验，并且所有的一切其实都是那样的。

AEN: 我明白了。非二元的体验会更深入吗？

Thusness: 不。都是一样的。但在所有的显现中都被发现，而不是作为一个阶段。我在《光明的空性》（Luminous Emptiness）中写过，如果教授了光明与空性，但没有体证到那就是大乐（great bliss），那么一个人就等于什么都没有证悟。但 Chodpa 说，不是说它没有意义，而只是路径上的一步。那么什么是大乐呢？

AEN: 对光明的专注融入？清晰？我不知道。我有过大乐的体验，但不知道是不是你说的意思。

Thusness: 它实际上是一种定（absorption）。

AEN: 是的，我注意到当有定的时候就会有大乐。

Thusness: 下次再谈这个。我想我会写一些关于无我（anatta）的内容，这样你就不会把它和非二元混淆了。无我（Anatta）是指没有主宰者。清楚地看到没有主宰者。并且因为没有主宰者，它必定是直接的。

AEN: 我明白了。意思是，在声音中，就只是声音。

Thusness: 它自然就是非二元的。

AEN: 我明白了。刚才我给你写了点东西，但不知道你收到了没有。

http://dharmaoverground.wetpaint.com/thread/2385161/Sharing+like+back+in+the+day...

期待听到（大家的）讨论。

当自我变得越来越透明，

万法也同样变得越来越充满光明。

在彻底的透明中，一切显现都纯粹而活泼泼地清晰。

处处分明，无处不生机盎然！

我刚才清楚地体会到了这一点。自我消失得越多，一切就越显现出它的清晰、自然与开阔感……但开阔感并不像顽空（void）……越是开阔，一切就越清晰……今天尽管我只睡了2个小时，却出奇地清醒。

顺便说一下，我在这里发了一篇关于佛教和道教的文章：http://www.sgclub.com/singapore/difference_between_127679.html。写完这篇之后，我在网上搜东西才发现了 Zisirum 的博客。不过我觉得我的帖子对那个人来说太复杂了。

Thusness: 是的。我想体验这种清晰。你必须睡觉。然后再进入无我。

AEN: 我晚上好像睡了2个小时。

Thusness: 你体验到的是非二元。现在你必须修持无我和放下。你自然会体验到那种清晰。你必须明白无我和缘起也意味着习气。你总是在与习气打交道。然后等待合适的条件，让你的经验成熟。

AEN: 我明白了。