Soh

请参阅:揭开佛法的面纱:深入探索安山Hoshin禅师的汉译法教


English:
A compilation of Zen teacher Ven. Jinmyo Renge sensei's teachings

Word: https://files.awakeningtoreality.com/%E7%A6%85%E5%B8%88%20Ven.%20Jinmyo%20Renge%20sensei%20Chinese%20Compilation.docx

PDF: https://files.awakeningtoreality.com/%E7%A6%85%E5%B8%88%20Ven.%20Jinmyo%20Renge%20sensei%20Chinese%20Compilation.pdf

我很高兴能在此分享另一套珍贵的佛法教诲,这些教诲来自加拿大禅师、安山Hoshin禅师的法嗣——尊者仁明莲华老师 (Ven. Jinmyo Renge sensei)。这份合集同样在AI翻译的协助下完成,收录了她多年来的佛法开示,以一种清晰、亲切且深刻的方式,为我们揭示了禅修的核心。

仁明老师的教诲,既是其自身深刻修证的展现,也是对其师父安山Hoshin禅师教法的延续与发扬。对于所有修行者而言,这份文集是一份独特的礼物。它不仅阐明了禅的根本原理,更以其个人化、充满故事性的风格,将抽象的法理与我们日常的挣扎和洞见紧密相连。这份合集将带领我们深入一位已证悟的女性导师那明晰而慈悲的心。

减法的艺术:生活中的禅

仁明老师的教诲非常注重将修行落实于日常生活的每一个细节。她善于以“减法”的概念,教导我们如何剥离多余的心理活动,让生活回归其本然的简约与清晰。

  • 照管的修行: 无论是关灯、洗猫碗,还是处理纳税申报单,老师都向我们展示了如何将这些平凡琐事,转化为照管自心、斩断习气的道场。

  • 著手处: 在《著手处》等开示中,她反复强调,我们真正的修行起点,永远是“就在此地,就在此刻”。修行并非要逃离或改变什么,而是全然地向我们当下的呼吸、感受、色彩与声音敞开。

心智的机关:解构我们的习气

仁明老师的一个独特教学风格,是运用生动而有力的比喻,来揭示我执(ego-self)运作的内在机制。

  • 收缩的机关: 在《收缩的机关》一文中,她将我执的运作比作一部由齿轮、链轮和飞轮组成的陈旧机器。我们惯性的思维模式和情绪反应,就像这部机器的嘎吱作响,将我们卷入其中。而修行,就是学习看清这部机器的破败,并从中走出来,进入开放的场域。

  • 咀嚼: 在另一篇开示中,她将我们沉迷于故事情节的倾向,比作狗啃骨头,甚至不惜咀嚼自己流出的血,却误以为是肉味。这个比喻一针见血地指出了我们是如何在精神内耗中伤害自己,却又乐此不疲。

个人化的道路:修行的故事与传承

这份文集最动人的部分之一,是仁明老师毫不吝惜地分享她个人的修行历程。这使得教法不再是冰冷的理论,而是充满了温度和生命力。

  • 垃圾开花: 在《垃圾开花》一文中,她讲述了自己如何因一个被丢弃的凤梨头而生起烦恼,以及安山老师如何借此机缘,巧妙地将“垃圾”转化为庄严的供养和深刻的教诲,向她展示了万物一体、无有分别的实相。

  • 传承与印可: 在《传承》和《领受法印》等开示中,她分享了自己被确认为法嗣的历程与感悟。这些个人叙述不仅让我们得以一窥禅宗“心心相印”的奥秘,也展现了师徒间深厚而真挚的道情。

无相之形:修行仪轨的真义

对于禅堂中的各种仪轨(形),仁明老师也给出了深刻的阐释。她教导我们,这些形式并非僵化的规则,而是体现和实现觉知的方式。

  • 对齐的修行: 在《无相之形》中,她解释了与老师或上座的动作“对齐”,其意义远超模仿。它是一种训练,要求我们以更开放、更精微的注意力去感知他人,从而打破自我的壁垒,体验到更深的连接与亲密。

  • 姿势的所指: 她强调,坐禅姿势的要点,不在于外表的完美,而在于它持续地指向我们身心周围及内在的那个开放空间,指向觉性本身。每一个细节,都是为了帮助我们释放紧缩,安住于实相。

实相的滋味:直指觉醒的教诲

仁明老师的教诲最终都导向一个核心:直接体验实相。她的语言直接、朴素,却又充满力量。

  • Tada(只是如此): 在题为《Tada!》的开示中,她用这个简单的日语词来描述“如是性”——事物如其本然的样子,空于我们所有的观念和期望。无论是秋叶飘落,还是膝盖的疼痛,都只是“Tada”,一个无需任何阐释的直接呈现。

  • 透明性: 她教导我们,对经验保持“透明”,意味着全然、完整地与“如是”相遇,不带任何隔阂。此时,见与所见、听与所听之间再无分别,一切都只是“知”的光明显现。

总而言之,仁明莲华老师的这份教诲集,以其无比的真诚、实用的智慧和动人的个人故事,为我们提供了一条清晰而温暖的修行之路。它让我们看到,一位在传承中成长起来的老师,是如何将深奥的佛法,融入到切洋葱、洗碗、乃至每一次呼吸的平凡瞬间中。对于任何渴望将修行活出来的人,这都是一份不容错过的宝贵指南。

特别提醒

请注意,仁明莲华老师 (Ven. Jinmyo Renge sensei) 及其禅社的老师们是加拿大人,主要使用英语进行教学和沟通。

本页呈现的中文翻译并非由其组织白风禅社” (White Wind Zen Community) 官方发布或认可。这些译文由一位该传承教诲的外部欣赏者,在AI翻译的协助下完成,仅为分享与学习之用。

如果您希望通过他们的官方网站联系他们,请务必使用英文撰写您的邮件,以确保他们能够理解并回复。

Soh

Also See: Tara and "Manifestation"

Told a friend:

Do you remember when I told you that after awakening, fear loses its grip? I mentioned that even when I look down from a tall building, I don't feel that fear anymore.

Well, here’s what that means: This "fear" arises from a tight, contracted holding pattern. It’s like the infinite space of consciousness folding in on itself, with attention congealing into a fixed center-point that feels separate from the world. The more your attention collapses into the illusion of "I, me, mine," the more you experience suffering and fear, which in turn feeds that very pattern of contracted energy.

The key, then, is to learn how to relax and release this tight grip and the tendency to congeal into a separate self and a fixed center-point. Allow thoughts of the past and future to fade away. Let your present awareness expand into the boundless, infinite space that already includes the entire world. In reality, this is its natural state; we just fail to see it because we cling so tightly to the illusion of a separate self. When you let go, fear dissolves, because there's no longer a small, separate self inside that feels it needs protection from a dangerous outside world.

When you're eating dinner, for instance, simply release yourself into the entirety of experience. Fully enjoy the simple, direct, and brilliant colors, smells, and tastes of the food. You'll notice an intense brightness and luminosity in everything. This is the radiance of your own pristine awareness—joyful and blissful. Everything unfolds as a brilliant, marvelous display of this pristine consciousness.

I know this can sound difficult, and it does take time and practice. In the meantime, you can start with a simple practice: chanting Tara (Om Tare Tuttare Ture Svaha). When you chant, try not to be anxious about the past or future. Just chant with faith and confidence, trusting Tara to help you, and don't worry about anything else. Simply meditate and release your sense of a false, illusory, separate self into the pure act of chanting. Continue until only the universe is chanting and exerting itself as chanting, with no separate "you" doing the chanting.

You release your worries, your grasping, and your self-contraction, and you let Tara take over.


你还记得我曾告诉过你,开悟之后,恐惧就失去了它的掌控力吗?我提到过,就算我从高楼往下看,也再感觉不到那种恐惧了。

这么说吧,这其中的意思是:这种“恐惧”源于一种紧绷、收缩的执着模式。它就像意识的无限空间向内自我折叠,注意力也随之凝固成一个感觉上与世界相分离的固定中心点。你的注意力越是塌缩进那个“我、我的”幻象中,你所体验到的痛苦和恐惧就越深,而这反过来又滋养了那个收缩的能量模式本身。

所以,关键就在于要学会如何放松,去释放掉这种紧抓不放的执着,以及那种固化为一个分离自我与中心点的倾向。让关于过去和未来的念头都消散。让你当下的觉知扩展开来,融入那片本已包罗整个世界的无垠空间。实际上,这才是它的自然状态;我们只是因为太紧地执着于一个虚幻的分离自我,才没能看见这个实相。当你放手时,恐惧便会消融,因为那个感觉需要保护自己、以对抗危险外界的小我已不复存在了。

比方说,当你吃晚餐时,就把自己全然地释放、融入到那份整体的体验中去。去充分享受食物那简单、直接而又鲜亮的色、香、味。你会注意到,万事万物中都有一种强烈的明亮和光芒。这就是你自己那纯净觉知的光辉——喜悦而又极乐。一切都作为这份纯净意识的、灿烂而奇妙的展现而自然地发生着。

我知道这听起来可能很难,而且确实需要时间和练习。在此期间,你可以从一个简单的修持开始:念诵度母心咒 (Om Tare Tuttare Ture Svaha)。当你念诵时,试着不为过去或未来而焦虑。只管带着信心去念诵,相信度母会帮助你,别的什么都别担心。纯粹地去禅修,并将你那虚假、虚幻的分离自我感,释放到纯粹的念诵行为中。继续念下去,直到唯有宇宙本身在念诵,其存在与运作即是念诵,再没有一个分离的“你”作为念诵者。

你放下你的忧虑、你的执取、你的自我收缩,然后,让度母来接管一切。

Soh

请参阅:法脉的延续:深入探索仁明莲华老师的汉译法教



English: A compilation of Zen teacher Anzan Hoshin Roshi's teachings

揭开佛法的面纱:深入探索安山Hoshin禅师的汉译法教

Word: https://files.awakeningtoreality.com/%E7%A6%85%E5%B8%88%20Anzan%20Hoshin%20Chinese%20Translations.docx
PDF: https://files.awakeningtoreality.com/%E7%A6%85%E5%B8%88%20Anzan%20Hoshin%20Chinese%20Translations.pdf

我很高兴能在此分享一系列内容丰富的佛法教诲,这些教诲来自加拿大禅师安山Hoshin Roshi,现已汇编成一套完整的中文译本。这份卓越的合集是在AI翻译的协助下完成的,内容横跨数十年,收录了从1980年代至2010年代的开示、工作坊和精进禅修的记录,为我们提供了一个深刻而多维的视角,以洞察禅修的精髓。

对于任何一位“道”上的学人来说,这份合集都是一个名副其实的宝库。它不是一本书,而是一座图书馆,内容无所不包,从对初学者最基础的指导,到对禅宗义理最精微、最深刻的阐述,均有涵盖。在此,让我们一窥这份重要文献中所蕴含的珍宝。

修行的基石:如何修行

此合集的核心是为禅宗的基础修行提供了清晰、直接的指引。其中有专门的开示和工作坊,细致地解析了各项基本功:

  • 坐禅 (Zazen): 文中详细说明了坐禅的姿势,包括全莲花坐、半莲花坐、缅甸坐等多种坐姿,以及如何使用椅子或坐禅凳,确保各种身体条件的人都能修行。重点在于通过一个平衡、稳定、开放的姿势,来显现一颗觉醒的心。

  • 呼吸: 指导学人如何与呼吸共处,不把它当作操控的工具,而是作为将身心在当下汇集一处的“试金石”。

  • 经行 (Kinhin): 提供了行禅的指导,专注于在动态中体验每一步的简单与直接,以此来修习正念。

  • 顶礼: 优美地探讨了顶礼的意义,它不仅是一种文化礼节,更是一种体现“道”、统一身心、放下自我的深刻修行。

  • 处理疼痛: 提供了直接而富于慈悲的建议,教导如何处理长时间静坐中不可避免的身体疼痛,并将其从障碍转化为理解与慈悲的门户。

生活中的禅:坐垫之外的修行

教诲中有很大一部分致力于将修行融入我们生活的每一个角落。这份合集优美地阐明,禅并非逃离世界,而是一种全然投入世界的方式。

  • 作务 (Samu): 一篇名为《积极的体认:论作务》的关键开示,将“工作”从一个名词(职业)重新定义为一个动词——一种持续的行动。它教导我们如何将自己的专业和日常杂务,转化为一种对修行、责任与相互关联性的深刻表达。

  • 典座教训 (Tenzo Kyokun): 禅师对道元禅师的这篇经典著作进行了详尽的评注。这个教诲以给僧团准备饭菜这一行为作为强有力的隐喻,说明了如何以一丝不苟、真诚和慈悲的心来修行,珍惜每一种食材和每一个当下。

修行地图:核心教义解析

对于希望加深对佛教和禅宗哲理理解的读者,这些开示提供了非凡的清晰度。

  • 禅的五种风格: 一篇引人入胜的论述,概述了五种不同的“禅”或禅修路径:凡夫禅(为健康与幸福)、外道禅(“外在的”或宗教性的禅)、小乘禅(旨在个人证悟)、大乘禅(为解脱一切众生)和最上乘禅(只管打坐)。这为理解自身的修行及其动机提供了一个清晰的框架。

  • 二入四行论: 这一系列开示评注了被认为是中华禅宗初祖菩提达摩的根本教法。它阐释了“理入”(直接证悟)和“行入”(在生活中随缘修行,坦然面对各种境遇)。

  • 八正道: 禅师呈现了佛陀关于解脱之道的根本教义,不视其为僵化的次第,而是一个相互关联的整体,强调“圆满”或“完整”而非单纯的“正确”。

  • 菩萨戒: 《将猫斩为一体》一文是对戒律的精湛探讨,视其为觉醒之心的表达,而非简单的规则列表。它从“小乘”、“大乘”和“佛乘”三个角度,深入探讨了如何理解和实践“不杀生”等戒律。

智慧之心:高深与诗意的论述

此合集还包含了一些极富诗意、触及体验最精微层面的教诲。

  • 评注道元著作: 文中深入探讨了道元禅师那些以精微著称的作品,如《有時》(Uji,存在-时间)和《葛藤》(Katto,纠缠),探索了时间、存在以及语言与实相之间纠缠的本性。

  • 心的本性: 诸如《六窗房里的猴子》等开示,运用经典的佛教比喻,描述了凡夫心那不安、喋喋不休的特质,以及修行如何致力于打开这间“屋子”的窗户并消融其墙壁。

  • 回应苦难: 在一篇题为《毫无慰藉》的力作中,禅师回应了一位学生因9/11事件而感到的悲痛。他不提供廉价的安慰,而是直指世界的本然面目,以及在巨大苦难面前修行的终极责任。

修行的节奏:夜坐的传统

最后,此合集的一个独特之处在于一系列关于“夜坐”(Yaza,通宵坐禅)的开示。这些每年一度的开示,旨在纪念佛陀在菩提树下的彻夜禅坐,同时也是一种庆祝。它们为如何在深夜修行、如何与疲劳共处提供了实用建议,将夜坐从一场耐力的考验,转变为一次喜悦而深刻的机遇。

总而言之,安山Hoshin禅师的这份教诲合集是一套完整的精神修行指南。它引导修行者从坐垫上的第一口呼吸开始,直至对禅道获得深刻、切身的理解。这是一生修行与教化的见证,如今慷慨地呈现给中文世界的佛法学人。

特别提醒

请注意,安山Hoshin禅师及其禅社的老师们是加拿大人,主要使用英语进行教学和沟通

本页呈现的中文翻译并非由其组织“白风禅社” (White Wind Zen Community) 官方发布或认可。这些译文由一位该传承教诲的外部欣赏者,在AI翻译的协助下完成,仅为分享与学习之用

如果您希望通过他们的官方网站联系他们,请务必使用英文撰写您的邮件,以确保他们能够理解并回复。

Soh
See Chinese original below.

Ten Benefits of Taking Refuge in the Three Jewels

By Master Huilü

The meritorious benefits of taking refuge in the Three Jewels, it can be said, are so great and numerous that even the sum of all benefits one could gain in a lifetime cannot compare to the merit of taking refuge in the Three Jewels. The Buddha Speaks of the Rare and Incomparable Merits Sūtra states that the merit gained from taking refuge in the Three Jewels is so vast that even the merit from making offerings of the Four Requisites or building a stupa adorned with seven treasures to house relics does not amount to even one percent of the merit obtained from taking refuge. "As for the Three Jewels, they are rare to encounter in a thousand lifetimes, difficult to meet in countless eons. For those who take refuge, blessings increase boundlessly; for those who pay homage and recite their names, sins as numerous as the sands of the Ganges are extinguished. Like a miraculous elixir, they cure a hundred illnesses and dispel them. In the deep, dark night, the Three Jewels are a lamp; in the vast, suffering sea, the Three Jewels are a ship; in the blazing, fiery house, the Three Jewels are a shower of rain." From this, one can see the merit of the Three Jewels.

Without taking refuge in the Three Jewels, even if one worships the Buddha and burns incense, one can only be considered a reverer of Buddhism, not a Buddhist. If one is a Buddhist, the first requisite condition is to take refuge in the Three Jewels.

So what, exactly, are the meritorious benefits of taking refuge? Summarizing from the sūtras, the meritorious benefits include the following ten points:

First, one has found the number one greatest sage in the universe, Śākyamuni Buddha, as one's teacher and becomes an official disciple of the Buddha.

Second, the sūtras state: "Take refuge in the Buddha, do not fall into hell; take refuge in the Dharma, do not fall into the animal realm; take refuge in the Sangha, do not fall into the hungry ghost realm." Thus, once one takes refuge in the Three Jewels, one's name is immediately removed from the evil paths, and one has a share in the human and heavenly realms.

Third, just as wearing a jeweled crown and fine robes immediately adorns the human body, by taking refuge in the Three Jewels, one's morality, character, and faith are thereby elevated.

Fourth, the Buddha instructed the Dharma protectors, dragons, devas, and all virtuous gods to protect and bless all disciples who have taken refuge in the Three Jewels during the Dharma-ending age.

Fifth, one is able to gain the respect of the masses in the world and be seen as a role model.

Sixth, calamities are dispelled and misfortune is averted, bringing peace and auspiciousness; all good things will be accomplished.

Seventh, one can accumulate vast blessings and fortune, attaining great wealth and nobility, as if paving a smooth road for life's future, or finding a ship in the boundless sea of suffering.

Eighth, afflictions are reduced, one meets virtuous people as friends, and one finds convenience everywhere.

Ninth, one has the qualification to receive precepts. A person who has taken refuge in the Three Jewels can receive and uphold the Five Precepts, participate in the Eight-fold Precepts of Purification, and so on.

Tenth, one day, one will surely attain liberation. Even without cultivation, as long as one takes refuge in the Three Jewels, one can still attain liberation during the three assemblies of Maitreya Bodhisattva in the future.


Question: What is meant by taking refuge? 

Answer: Taking refuge can be divided into two perspectives: one is Refuge in Appearance; the other is Refuge in Principle-Essence. First, let's speak of Refuge in Appearance: Taking refuge in Śākyamuni Buddha and all Buddhas of the ten directions and three times is called taking refuge in the Buddha; taking refuge in the Tripiṭaka's twelve divisions of scripture, relying on the Dharma and not on individuals, is called taking refuge in the Dharma; taking refuge in formally ordained monastics who have received the Three Platforms of Complete Precepts is called taking refuge in the Sangha. Next is Refuge in Principle-Essence: this is to return to the pure self-nature. Our inner nature of awareness, our self-nature, is the Buddha. After tapping into this inner nature of awareness and wisdom, what is reflected is entirely the supreme truth; the mind inherently possesses the Dharma of the Tripiṭaka's twelve divisions of scripture. Our hearts are endowed with great compassion and harmony; people get along with each other peacefully and harmoniously; within the mind there are no emotions, no turmoil, no arising and ceasing—it is complete harmony. This is called the Sangha of the self-nature. The awakening of the self-nature is called taking refuge in the Buddha Treasure; the truth of the self-nature is taking refuge in the Dharma Treasure; the harmony and non-contentiousness of the self-nature is taking refuge in the Sangha Treasure. Both the Three Jewels of Principle and the Three Jewels of Appearance must be fully present.


Refuge Teaching

January 1, 2010

By Master Huilü at Manjushri Lecture Hall, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

Please join your palms!

Namo Original Teacher Śākyamuni Buddha! Namo Original Teacher Śākyamuni Buddha! Namo Original Teacher Śākyamuni Buddha!

Please lower your palms!

Today is the New Year's Day of 2010. Today you will all enter a very meaningful stage of your life, which is called taking refuge. In the past, the older generation conducted refuge ceremonies rather briefly, so many people who took refuge didn't even understand the most basic rules. Therefore, here, when we conduct this refuge ceremony, I am very insistent. (Could you turn up the volume?) I am very insistent. What is meant by being insistent is that the explanation must be clear, and also that basic etiquette must be understood. We are disciples of the Three Jewels, after all!

The worldly and world-transcending Dharma are fundamentally not two different dharmas. (Young man, a little louder, a little, because my voice is rather weak.) What we insist on is the hope that everyone can have the basic concept of a Buddhist disciple with proper faith. That is why we are using a relatively long time to explain the rules and clarify the ritual, making it hard for you all. You arrived here to register at 1:30 PM, and now it is already past 4:00, almost 4:30, over three hours. Most people don't take this long for a refuge ceremony. Usually, they just recite a few lines: "I take refuge in the Buddha, I take refuge in the Dharma, I take refuge in the Sangha," and then they go home. Here, we are very insistent because this initial education is very important. There is a Chinese proverb that says: "Three generations without study, and one becomes like a pig." The grandfather doesn't study, the father doesn't study, and the grandson doesn't study, just like a pig. Just foolish, foolish. So foolish they can't tell a mouse from a tiger. In Buddhism we say: "If by thirty one has not studied Buddhism, one's mind is like a monkey's." That is to say: if a person is nearly thir... Confucius was established at thirty, if you are already thirty years old and have not yet studied Buddhism, then simply put: your life has no goal whatsoever. If I were to ask you: "What are you pursuing? What are you pursuing?" They would say: "My career, I must face reality, I need to make money." And then? "What are you pursuing? What is the ultimate goal of life? What is the meaning of being alive?" One must reflect on this question very calmly.

"If by forty one seeks not the Dharma, white hair comes quickly; if by fifty one is not awakened to the Way, one's words are reckless and errant." By fifty, if one has not seen the nature and awakened, the Dharma they speak will be utter nonsense. In order to survive, to maintain their expenses, if they don't invent some strange things to make people believe them, they will have no income. Without income, it will affect their survival. For the sake of survival, they are forced to do some illicit things. This is very frightening!

So we should understand, what is the meaning of refuge? Self-awakened sagely wisdom is the Buddha; to realize that every dharma is fundamentally empty is the Dharma; harmony and non-contention is the Sangha.

Self-awakened sagely wisdom is the Buddha. Today we come to take refuge in the Three Jewels, relying on external, illusory appearances—this Buddha statue—to trigger our inner nature of awareness. This is the meaning of studying Buddhism. With sentient beings, if you don't place a convenient Buddha in front of them, they won't bow. So we know that statues of clay, wood, or painted images, these externally manifest Buddha statues, are meant to trigger our inner self-awakened sagely wisdom. "Self-awakened" means you must awaken yourself, you must awaken. The people of this world are unable to awaken even up to their deaths.

Previously, when I was in college, and when I was in high school, I was always contemplating: What exactly is this life? What are its value and meaning? Why have we come? From where does life come? Where does one go after death? Why was I born? After I die, is there truly reincarnation in the six realms? What is the meaning of living this life? If I were to study until I got a master's degree, an MA or a PhD, or study abroad in America and get dozens of "super" doctorates from various countries, then so what? What would that represent? Oh! It represents that I have a certain status in society; or if I go into politics, it's an illusory appearance, a degree; or if I get into finance, I can contribute to the stock market or humanity; or if I get into science, and then what? What do you possess? When you hold out your hand, what can you grasp to take with you when you leave this world? Grasp gold and silver? Grasp fame and fortune? Grasp honor? Grasp status? Grasp emotional attachments—between men and women? Grasp desires? What exactly are you going to grasp to take with you when you leave this world? When we come to this world, do we truly own it? This is what one must contemplate. When I was in high school, I already began to have these thoughts. At that time, I was preparing to study philosophy at National Taiwan University. My father said, "Studying philosophy at NTU, at best you'll become the director of a mental hospital, but you won't have food to eat, no food to eat!" When I got to college, I was still contemplating this question. Later, I heard the Buddha-Dharma. This is the path I was looking for; this is the ultimate refuge of my life; this is the ultimate, the ultimate truth of life and the universe. So, self-awakened sagely wisdom is the Buddha. Studying Buddhism is for the sake of developing the prajñā wisdom that we inherently possess.

Humanity, thinking itself wise, humanity that thinks itself wise, yet dies by the things of its own creation. Today we created language and writing, and we die within language and writing; today we created concepts, and we die within concepts. Originally, there was no issue of "blue" or "green." We created blue, we created green. This concept, because of political ideology, makes it so a person can never... be free from bondage. It's the same even for PhDs, the same for members of parliament. Every day is spent arguing with oneself. They too worry about the country and the people, and work for the people, but from the perspective of an awakened sage, this is all meaningless. So, self-awakened sagely wisdom is the Buddha. Studying Buddhism is for the sake of developing one's own originally inherent pure self-nature.

To realize that every dharma is fundamentally empty is the Dharma. You understand that everything in this world is a product of dependent origination. Therefore, all our discriminations and attachments are completely meaningless. For example, what is this? Oh! This is a towel. What is a towel? It's rectangular. Its shape is long, short, square, or round—that is what is seen. Then, what color is it? That is the study of its colors. If you analyze it through chemistry, it becomes particles of fine dust. So, whether it is a large appearance, like the sun, moon, stars, mountains, and rivers; or a small appearance, like electrons, protons, and neutrons, when you have some concept of physics, you will discover that large appearances are also empty, and small appearances are also empty. Because all large appearances and small appearances—the sun, moon, stars, mountains, and rivers; the appearance of a self, the appearance of a person, the appearance of a sentient being, the appearance of a life-span—are all constituted by the nature of particulate dust, and their substance is emptiness itself. Oh! So that's what the Buddha meant: "If one sees all appearances as non-appearances, one then sees the Tathāgata." So, when you see that the original face of all appearances is emptiness, you realize this is the principle. The meaning of life is to awaken to the fact that any dharma is of an empty nature.

Today, if we did not have the Buddha-Dharma, we would live in a state of confusion. Why live in confusion? We too would go to the New Year's Eve countdown. Tens of thousands of people, they say at Times Square it's hundreds of thousands, squeezing in so you can't get out, six hours without being able to use the restroom. Why suffer so much for fun? Running to the countdown: ten, nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one, and then "Happy New Year!" You hug me, I hug you. After the hugging, what's next? You still have to go home. It's not like hugging leaves anything behind. Nothing! The confusion in life, the kind of life lived by those who haven't studied Buddhism, is one of ignorance and confusion, without knowing where their own problems lie. But people with good roots from past lives, like all of you, today you wish to come and take refuge, you want to walk this path. It is not easy, very much not easy! And the Buddha-Dharma is very difficult, so difficult that even the most super-qualified PhDs cannot grasp it! There was a PhD in philosophy from NTU who came. He had seen my program on television, which happened to be broadcasting the Śūraṅgama Sūtra. He suddenly became interested in the Tathāgatagarbha nature. Interested, he came to the lecture hall. His first question was: "Master! In your lecture, you said that every person has the Tathāgatagarbha nature." I said: "Yes!" He then asked me: "Then why haven't I seen it?" He asked me: "So, where is the Tathāgatagarbha nature?" I said: "It is right before your eyes!" He said: "Then why don't I see it?" I said: "It is because your mind contains an 'I'." "Master! Are you enlightened, have you seen the nature?" I said: "Now your mind contains a 'you'." "Master! Is having no 'I' and no 'you' what is called seeing the nature and being enlightened?" I told him: "With no 'I' and no 'you', who is there to see the nature?" He said: "Ah! This Buddha-Dharma is really difficult!" Difficult! It transcends all appearances, transcends all ideologies and concepts. To say it is like any one thing is to miss the mark. Whatever you say is completely wrong, because it is not a matter of concepts. It transcends all appearances. In philosophy, what is called metaphysics is just inference, endless inference... If A equals B, and B equals C, then it continues to infer... But the Buddha tells us: A does not exist. Does one plus one equal two? One does not exist. One is a hypothesis, one is dependent origination, one is of an empty nature, one is a concept, one is merely a definition given to it by human convention. So it is said: to realize that every dharma is fundamentally empty is the Dharma.

Harmony and non-contention is the Sangha. In one's mind, one must understand the mind of equality. The reason humans suffer is because they pursue the wrong things. The reason humans suffer is that they wish to change others, believing themselves to be others' teachers. We today do not understand the principle that changing others is not as good as changing oneself. We constantly want to change others. So, when two people are talking, they begin to have a strong, attached consciousness, speaking from their own standpoint. No matter what is said, they negate the other person entirely. These newspapers and magazines, you can only use them for reference. Only for reference. So, this includes these television programs; they cannot avoid political color. None of them can! You say they are objective? Not objective enough. They will surely say: "I am very objective!" Why? They are speaking from their own standpoint. So when you are attached to a certain point, you will lose the entire universe. You will lose the entire universe. And why do we study Buddhism? It is to relinquish this point and possess the entire universe. This is the greatness of the Buddha-Dharma. So, someone asked: "Master! Are you blue or green?" I said: "Neither! Don't you know the Buddha is without thought? Right? No appearance of a self, a person, a sentient being, or a life-span. I am neither blue nor green." "Then what party are you?" "If I must be categorized, I belong to the Śākyamuni Buddha party. If I must say, I am of the Śākyamuni Buddha party."

So, therefore we must understand, to rely on illusory appearances to guide the prajñā wisdom within us, and then to realize that every dharma is fundamentally empty, to realize: Oh! So it turns out that if one sees all appearances as non-appearances, one then sees the Tathāgata; to be free from all appearances is to be named a Buddha. So that's how it is.

We also don't know, and we are always worshipping a Buddha outside the mind... There was a lay practitioner who was studying the Buddhist path, and he was doing quite well. He often bowed to the Buddha and visualized. He had perhaps studied a bit of Esoteric Buddhism, and then he said: "Master! I chant mantras!" I said: "Very good!" "You recite the Buddha's name?" He said: "I recite the Buddha's name." He said: "A certain master told me that I should visualize the non-duality of the Buddha and myself. So when I recite the Buddha's name, I recite 'Amitābha Buddha,' and at the end I visualize: Amitābha Buddha is me, and I am Amitābha Buddha." I said: "This is taught as a skillful means. It is not that by visualizing Amitābha Buddha, you become Amitābha Buddha. This of yours is the 'perception' within form, sensation, perception, volition, and consciousness; it is not realized attainment. It has no connection to realized attainment. The Buddha-Dharma has skillful means. Cultivation that tells you to visualize the Buddha's form while reciting the Buddha's name is for the skillful means of gathering the mind. This has no relation to samādhi. Samādhi is a realized attainment, without subject and object, an enlightened mind that has seen the nature, a great awakening, something without coming and going, arising and ceasing, or increase and decrease." I gave him an example. I said: "When we went to Japan, I saw some portraits, portraits of warriors. The spirit of the Japanese samurai, with two swords at their sides, very long, and the faces were all cut out, a hole was dug. Why? For your convenience to take a photo. You stick your head through: take a picture! Snap! A photo is taken." I said: "A person sticks their head into that empty hole to take a photo. Is that person a warrior? No, of course not! When we went to Korea, they took us for a walk... we went to a filming location for Dae Jang Geum. They had also cut out the face of Dae Jang Geum. People said: 'Master! Aren't you going to take a picture?' I said: 'I'm not Dae Jang Geum. My face is that of a man. How would it look?' Right? A woman taking the photo would look like Dae Jang Geum. Right? After you take the photo, are you Dae Jang Geum? You are not! Visualization is like this. Visualizing yourself as the Buddha is a contributory cause, it's just a way of training you to gather your mind, to make it easier to enter a state of meditative concentration. Visualization and realized attainment are two entirely different things. This is not the ultimate meaning of the Buddha-Dharma."

Therefore, we must understand the Buddha-Dharma, and then we can be liberated at all times.

So today, you have come to take refuge. The most important thing is to transform the ordinary into the sacred, to transform an ordinary person into a sage, to be able to cast off all unnecessary desires. To transform consciousness into wisdom. To transform this discriminating mind into a non-discriminating mind. To transform affliction into bodhi. We live every day in affliction. Like my mother, she is like this. Someone asked: "Aunty, Aunty! Do you have afflictions?" She said: "I do! Even after reciting the Buddha's name for a long time, I still have them." She said: "For no reason at all, I suddenly get angry. While reciting the Buddha's name, I'm not careful and I get angry." They said: "Aunty! You've recited the Buddha's name for so long, how can you still get angry?" She said: "It's not something I can control. It just pops up on its own. I don't even know where it comes from!" So this mind of ours has not been trained. Although we understand the principles, we still cannot control it. There is no peace or happiness to speak of within the mind. The illusory appearances of dependent origination that a person pursues will definitely disappear, they will definitely disappear! Everyone! One day you will become a pile of white bones, with no exceptions! Whether it is Mao Zedong, or Chiang Kai-shek, or Comrade Deng Xiaoping, an official of the highest rank, including Napoleon, including Stalin, including Lincoln, it's the same all over the world. You know all these people I've mentioned. Not a single one of them will not become bones. And the end point of bones is a pile of yellow earth. Just buried in the earth. If cremated, what's left is that one urn of ashes. Everyone! There are no exceptions. It's not that today I can think of a way to escape this death, or to avoid this death. There is no way! You must face this fact: impermanence will definitely arrive! So the question is: how do you live your days? Many people place their hopes in the future. Of course, this is a skillful means: "At the end of my life, I want to be reborn in the Land of Ultimate Bliss." But the Buddha-Dharma is not like this. If the Buddha-Dharma cannot return to the present moment, if the Buddha-Dharma cannot be applied to our current era, our modern life, then the Buddha-Dharma has no meaning whatsoever. The Buddha-Dharma was established for the living, and its teachings were spoken for the living. Śākyamuni Buddha spoke the Dharma for those living monks. So the Buddha-Dharma is for practical application, for the living to use. Of course, it also helps to deliver ancestors; this is an added value, to let everyone understand the greatness of Buddhism. It not only helps departed spirits at the end of life, but most importantly, it allows us to live very happily and joyfully!

Why do you study Buddhism? To be happier! Right? This happiness is not like that of worldly people, which is what? The 2010 New Year's Eve celebrations, with galas, inviting singers and movie stars to come and dance. Right? Most of what we see now are the same few people, what Yang Zongwei, and what Jam Hsiao, Jolin, what Jay Chou, Lin Chi-ling, they invite these people, the programs are pretty much all the same. Then, does it mean that after coming to sing and dance, one is very happy? Is that so? We mistake transient stimulation for true happiness. Right? Go dancing, singing, and come back at three or four in the morning when the subway is no longer running. After coming back, you're very tired. You sleep, rest, and wake up again, think about the shadow of the singing and dancing, and then, there is nothing left!

The Buddha-Dharma is different. In the Buddha-Dharma, if any single sentence can resonate with your heart, that one sentence is incredible! A philosopher said it; or perhaps Buddhism has some common ground with it: humanity, thinking itself clever, dies by the things of its own creation. Take the Industrial Revolution for example; it produced a massive amount of pollution—CO2. CO2 has become our... 2008, 2009, now the so-called hottest topic: global warming. Humanity is very clever, creating industry. Because we need to use electricity, we must generate energy. This energy from power plants, some use coal, hydro, or thermal power, which produces CO2. When CO2 in the atmosphere reaches a certain level, this CO2 is absorbed by plants and the sea, the great oceans. When the oceans absorb too much CO2, they will acidify. When they acidify, the coral will bleach. It cannot survive. Coral is the most sensitive; a change of one or two degrees and it will bleach. Coral is the most sensitive. After the coral dies, the fish, the fish populations that need it for breeding, for feeding, for hiding, their entire ecosystem's food chain will collapse. Like the ice caps and glaciers at the North and South Poles, they are continuously melting, dissolving. So, this earth is very fragile, extremely fragile. So, life and death are impermanent.

Everyone! Today you have come here to take refuge. I was very moved. In the past, I asked our abbot, Master Fawu, to come up and speak, and conduct the refuge ceremony. I said: refuge is taking refuge in the Buddha, in the Dharma, in the Three Jewels! I wouldn't come up to say a few words. Later, after a few times, the feedback was not very good. They said: "We came because of Master Huilü! We have to see the Master before we take refuge!" I became a super idol, a superstar idol. He had to come and see the Master. There was one person who came from very far away, didn't see the Master, and then went back. When he got back, people asked: "Who did you take refuge with?" He said: "I took refuge with Master Huilü." "Did you see the Master on this trip?" He said: "No!" "Why not?" "I don't know if he has passed away or not." What? Ah! To say such a thing, how could he say that? Saying: "I don't know if he has passed away or not." Wow! That's too outrageous. So, if I don't come down and let you see if I've grown taller, it's also very strange! Right? So I come out to let you see, I'm very normal, how could you say I've passed away? That's too absurd! Isn't it? Even tenors and sopranos couldn't sing that high—out of tune! Isn't it? So today you have all come, everyone has come to take refuge. I am very much in praise of you all, regardless of your academic qualifications—whether you are a PhD, or a common laborer, or even if you say: "I am just an ordinary person," that's fine too. I go to National Taiwan University and tell them: this Buddha-Dharma, the Buddha-Dharma has nothing to do with academic qualifications. Because the Buddha-Dharma is not proficient in language or writing, nor is it proficient in academic degrees. What is it related to? It is related to good roots from past lives. That is to say: for you today to take this step into studying Buddhism and taking refuge, without good roots, there is absolutely nothing that can be done. Nothing at all. Really! You all are remarkable. I am... quieter, a little quieter. Our microphone is also sick. Perhaps it has a bad cold these past few days, it's not very normal. The dharma of impermanence. We humans are also like this. We humans can also be not very normal. Even the microphone is impermanent. Remember! In the world of the dharma of impermanence, anything can happen. Don't feel it's strange. When you feel that so-and-so doing this thing is crazy, very crazy! Right? Or incredible, very inconceivable; actually, if you look at it with an ordinary mind, you will feel it's nothing. The world is impermanent, anything can happen. Alright! Finally, you have all worked hard. Come! We will now give you a few minutes to ask questions. We have an interactive relationship, an interactive relationship. See if you have any questions about the Buddha-Dharma. The questions you ask should have substance, be meaningful. Don't ask questions that are completely meaningless. For example, if I ask: "Any questions?" "Yes!" "Grandma! What's your question?" She says: "My grandson won't eat!" I say: "He won't eat? What mantra is most effective?" I say: "No mantra is useful. Using a rattan cane is the fastest!" She even asks about this, what a headache! There was a pregnant woman who came: "Master! Can you see if my baby is a boy or a girl?" I told her: "I am a Dharma Master, not a medical doctor. This is not an obstetrics and gynecology department. You should ask about the Buddha-Dharma, why ask about this? Amitābha! Guanshiyin Bodhisattva! You have to ask the right question, don't just ask anything! Right? For boys or girls, you should ask an obstetrician, how can you come and ask my department? I'm a Dharma Master, not a medical doctor!" Come! What questions do you have? This is a rare opportunity! Do you see any questions? Your level is very high, no questions; or are you just dazed and don't know what to ask? I don't know. Someone told me: "Master! I have a house that I can't sell. Should I recite Amitābha Buddha or Guanshiyin Bodhisattva to sell it sooner? After the house is sold, I will take out a little to make an offering." I said: "You are really something! Even real estate is Guanshiyin Bodhisattva's responsibility, that's a bit much, isn't it! Just let things take their course with such matters." He said: "But I have this intention!" I said: "Then you should pray to Guanshiyin Bodhisattva to let your house sell quickly." Being Guanshiyin Bodhisattva is also very hard work. If the stock market falls, recite Guanshiyin Bodhisattva; if you get sick, recite Guanshiyin Bodhisattva; if you've been cheated out of money, also recite Guanshiyin Bodhisattva; if your house won't sell, also recite Guanshiyin Bodhisattva. So they say: Guanshiyin Bodhisattva has hundreds of hands, I think there is a reason for that. A thousand hands and a thousand eyes are for handling these difficult matters. It's really hard work!

Alright! Do you have any other questions?

Question: In the Diamond Sūtra, there is the section where the Buddha tells Subhūti about the prophecy from Dīpaṃkara Buddha.

What?

Question: The Buddha tells Subhūti about the prophecy at the time of Dīpaṃkara Buddha.

Right! And then what?

Question: And then, how is this "prophecy" explained?

Answer: A prophecy means transmitting the Dharma to him, and authenticating him. He realized that there is nothing to be obtained. "Nothing to be obtained" means that Śākyamuni Buddha had a mind of no attainment, without subject and object, and so Dīpaṃkara Buddha transmitted the Dharma to him. If there was something to be obtained, Dīpaṃkara Buddha would not have transmitted the Dharma to him. That is the meaning.

Alright! Come! No questions from this side? Do any of the Dharma brothers and sisters have any questions? It's alright, don't be shy!

Alright! Since you have no questions, you can't blame me. We are going to end now, we'll end.

When you go back, you should watch more VCDs or DVDs, or Buddhist programs. Do you understand? The Buddha-Dharma, now you can see it just by turning on the television. People now have it very convenient, but instead, they are very lazy. It's just muddle-headedness every day, living in a daze. These things like wealth, sex, fame, food, and sleep, every day they live such hard lives, without knowing that one day we will go into the yellow earth, or into an urn for ashes. They have never contemplated this question.

Some people say: "Then isn't life very pessimistic?" Wrong! On the contrary, it is more proactive. Understanding the impurity, suffering, emptiness, impermanence, and no-self of life, one realizes the insubstantiality of life. The appearances are illusory, the nature is true. Our fundamental nature is true. We should even more so resolve to save sentient beings. Since all dharmas are without self, there is nothing in the world that can cause grievance. There is no subject, no object; no coming, no going; all dharmas are utterly unobtainable. This means proactively saving sentient beings. Although one saves limitless, boundless sentient beings, in reality, there are no sentient beings to be saved.

The Buddha-Dharma, it is very difficult. I also tell everyone, like when I went to teach at National Taiwan Normal University, I taught for two weeks. I taught the Fourteen Tables, and these university students may not necessarily gain a slightly deeper understanding of the Buddha-Dharma.

When I was teaching at Tsinghua University, suddenly a student, after I finished class and came down, when I came down, I asked him: "Are there any students from Tsinghua who want to take refuge?" There were none. As it turned out, when I came down, a Tsinghua student came up beside me and asked me a question. He was startled. He said: "I don't dare to take refuge. If you take refuge, you can't marry a wife, how could I dare?" I said: "Who told you that if you take refuge you can't marry a wife?" "Huh? You can get married after taking refuge?" "You can!" "You can marry a wife?" "Yes! Just don't marry too many." "Really? That's great, that's great! So you can get married after taking refuge?" "Yes!" There was another who asked a trickier question. He said: "Master! After taking refuge, I don't know if I can gamble?" I said: "You can, you can gamble, but don't lose too much. Ideally, you shouldn't!" Taking refuge doesn't have any special rules. He was afraid in his heart: I wonder if taking refuge will prohibit this and prohibit that? No, no! Taking refuge just means acknowledging "I am a disciple of the Buddha," and slightly restraining one's own behavior. Restraining it: "I am a disciple of the Buddha!" For example, your smoking, you should smoke a little less. You're a disciple of the Buddha! Every day over there: "The Incense Cloud Canopy..." When others are lighting incense, he's smoking a cigarette!

There was one person, whose bad habits were very hard to change. There was a lay practitioner, Mr. Sun. I asked him: "Before you studied Buddhism, you smoked so heavily, so much. Now that you have studied Buddhism, have you kicked that smoking habit? You are a disciple of the Buddha!" He said: "I've changed! Master, I've changed. I've changed from smoking one pack to two packs!" Oh! That's even more serious. He can't change it! You see, studying Buddhism, a person studying Buddhism, just with smoking like this, actually changed from smoking one pack to two packs! Isn't that serious? It's really hard for worldly people to study Buddhism! So, the pronunciation must be accurate: study Buddhism (xué Fó), not study a monkey (xué hóu). Study Buddhism, not study a monkey. A monkey's mind is unstable; to study Buddhism, the mind must be stable. Within the mind, slowly, slowly change those bad habits. If you don't change yourself, even the Buddha cannot save you. You must be able to protect yourself, to change yourself, for the Buddha to be able to help you. Everyone must have this concept. You must save yourself first, for the Buddha to be able to save you.

There was a young person who played online games until three or four in the morning. The vendors selling breakfast were already out, working hard setting up their stalls. But not him, he played online games until four o'clock! Right? And then, he prays to the Buddha, asking for what? Asking for: "my body to be healthy!" I said: "This is simply impossible. It's completely counterproductive!" Right? You play online games, you play until four in the morning without going to sleep, how can your body be healthy? Right? We must understand, the Buddha-Dharma gives you a contributory cause. The Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha bless us, but we ourselves must be able to change ourselves. Only then is there a way. If you don't change yourself, no one can help you. Even if the Buddha came, there would be no way! So, because the Buddha-Dharma is very profound and very difficult.

Today you have come to take refuge. I will not speak too much more.

Alright! One last thing. After we finish, I know some people are very devout and have brought red envelopes from very far away. If you don't accept this red envelope... there was an old Bodhisattva, I used to tell him: "No need!" He would come, come to make an offering. In the past, I was more compassionate. He'd make an offering, and this old Bodhisattva would come, clutching his pocket so tightly it was almost ruined. His intention was good, the old Bodhisattva. He'd say: "Master! This red envelope is an offering for you." I'd say: "It's getting torn, it's getting torn!" He was just for this red envelope offering. So now I use a better method which is: for offerings, when you come, you just line them up on this table, right? With your own sincerity, you just place it there. You leave it, and I will find time to collect them. There's no need to do it one by one like this... everyone is working so hard.

Alright! Since everyone has worked hard, we will conclude here today.

Alright! Everyone please stand up. Please stand up. Alright! Step back, step back.

The merit of taking refuge is complete. Let the assembly make three prostrations to the Buddha.

Alright! Bow once. Bow down, bow down. Alright! Rise. Learn and apply right away. Bow again. Rise. Third bow. Rise. Bow to the master.

Alright! Thank you everyone, and I wish you all a Happy New Year! Thank you everyone, goodbye! (Audience applauds.)


....

皈依三宝的十点利益

慧律法师 

  皈依三宝的功德利益,可以说在人生中,所得利益总加起来,也不及皈依三宝的功德之大之多。《佛说希有校量功德经》说:皈依三宝所得的功德之大,若具足四事供养,乃至建七宝塔供养舍利的功德,尚不及皈依三宝所获得的功德之百分之一。 “夫三宝者,千生难遇,万劫难逢,皈依者,福增无量;礼念者,罪灭河沙。譬如灵丹之妙药,疗百病而蠲除。冥冥黑夜中,三宝为灯烛;滔滔苦海内,三宝为舟航;焰焰火宅中,三宝为雨泽。”由此可知三宝的功德。
  没有皈依三宝,即使拜佛烧香,也只能算是佛教的尊敬者,不能算做佛教徒,如果是佛教徒,第一具备的条件就是皈依三宝。
  皈依三宝究竟有什么功德利益呢?总结经典中的功德利益有下列十点:
  第一、找到了宇宙间第一伟大的圣者释迦牟尼佛作为老师,成为正式的佛弟子。
  第二、经云: “皈依佛,不堕地狱;皈依法,不堕畜生;皈依僧,不堕饿鬼。”故一旦皈依三宝以后,立刻可以恶道除名,人天有份。
  第三、如顶戴宝冠,身著华服,人身立刻庄严;而皈依三宝,则道德、人格、信仰因而提升。
  第四、佛陀指示护法龙天、一切善神,在末法时代,要保护、加被所有皈依的三宝弟子。
  第五、能够获得世间大众的尊敬,并以为模范。
  第六、消灾免难,平安吉祥,一切好事,都会成就。
  第七、能积集广大福德,得大富贵,如为人生前途造了平坦的道路,如苦海茫茫中有了舟航。
  第八、减少烦恼,得遇善人为友,到处都能得方便。
  第九、有受戒的资格。皈依三宝的人可以受持五戒,参加八关斋戒等。
  第十、终有一天,必定得度。即使没有修行,只要皈依三宝,将来弥勒菩萨龙华三会的时候,也能得度。

...

問:什麼叫做皈依?
答:皈依分兩個角度:一是事相皈依;二是理體皈依。
首先講事相皈依:皈依釋迦牟尼佛還有十方三世佛叫做皈依佛;皈依三藏十二部經典,依法不依人,叫做皈依法;皈依受過三壇大戒正規的僧,叫做皈依僧。
其次是理體皈依:就是回歸到清淨的自性。我們內在的覺性、自性就是佛;開採了內在的覺性和智慧以後,所反射出來的全部都是無上的真理,心中本來就具足三藏十二部經典的法;我們內心裡面具大慈悲、和合,人與人之間相處和睦、和諧,內心裡面沒有情緒、沒有動亂、沒有生滅,完全是和諧,這個叫做自性的僧。自性的覺悟叫做皈依佛寶;自性的真理就是皈依法寶;自性的和諧無爭就是皈依僧寶。理三寶和事三寶兩種統統要具足。

 

...

 

慧律法师:皈依开示(2010元旦) 日期:2020/7/6 18:56:00 下载DOC文档 微博、微信、支付宝分享 皈依开示 2010年1月1日 慧律法师讲于台湾高雄文殊讲堂 请合掌! 南无本师释迦牟尼佛!南无本师释迦牟尼佛!南无本师释迦牟尼佛! 请放掌! 今天是2010的元旦,诸位今天将成为生命当中,非常有意义的,进入一个阶段,也就叫做皈依。以前那个老一辈的办皈依,时间都稍微短了一点,很多皈依以后,连最基本上的规矩都不懂,所以我们在这里所办的这个皈依,师父都非常坚持。((声音)开大声一点。)师父就是非常坚持,所谓坚持就是要解释得清楚,还有就是基本上的礼貌要懂,我们是三宝弟子嘛! 世出世法,本来就无二法。(小哥再声一点,一点点,因为我讲话比较吃力。)我们所坚持的,就是希望大家能够有一个正信的佛弟子的基本观念,所以用比较长的时间讲这个规矩,解释这个仪轨,让大家很辛苦。你们从一点半来到这里报到,一直到现在就四点多了,四点半,三个钟头了,一般人办皈依没有这么久的,念几句:皈依佛、皈依法、皈依僧,然后就回去了。我们这里是很坚持,因为这个刚开始的教育是很重要的,中国有一句谚语就是说:三代不读书,就像一只猪。这个爷爷不念书、爸爸不念、孙子也不念书,就像一只猪。就是笨笨的笨笨的,笨笨的,所以像傻呼呼的,老鼠、老虎就分不清楚。我们佛教讲的就是:三十不学佛,心中像猕猴。也就是说:你一个人如果将近三……孔子三十而立,你已经三十岁了,如果还没有学佛,那么简单讲:你的人生并没有任何的目标。如果师父问你们:你们在追求什么?在追求什么?他就会说:事业啊,我要面对现实,要赚钱。再来,你要追求什么?人生的最终目标是什么?你活着的意义是什么?要很冷静这个问题。 四十不求法,很快就白头发;五十不悟道,开口便乱道。五十岁没有见性开悟,他讲出来的法就胡说八道,他为了生存,他要维持开销,又不弄一些稀奇古怪的东西,让人家信服,他没有收入,没有收入,就会影响到他的生存,为了生存,不得不逼自己做一些非法的事情,这个就是很可怕的! 所以我们应当了解,皈依它的意义是什么?自觉圣智即是佛,法法本空即悟法,和合无诤即是僧。 自觉圣智即是佛。我们今天来皈依三宝,借重于外在的假相——这个佛像,来引发内在的觉性,这个就是学佛的意义。众生你不给他放一个方便佛,他不会拜的。所以我们晓得泥塑、木雕、画像,这个外在显现的佛像,是要引发我们内在的自觉圣智,自觉就是自己要觉悟,要觉悟。这世间人,他到死没办法觉悟的! 以前,以前我读大学的时候,念高中的时候就一直在思惟:这个生命到底是什么?它的价值和意义到底是什么?我们所为何来?生从何来?死往哪里去?我为什么会来投胎?我死了,是不是有六道轮回?到底这个生命活着是什么意义?如果说我现在读到这个硕士,master or doctor,或者到美国留学,拿了几十个国家的super超级的博士,那so what?这个到底又如何?代表什么意义?喔!代表就是说:我在社会上有一个身份地位;或者是我搞政治,有一个假相,就是一个学历;或者是说我搞一个财经,对股票、人类有所贡献,或者是搞一个科学,这些接下去要做什么?你拥有什么?当你把手伸出来的时候,你能抓什么东西跟着你一起离开这个世间?抓金银财宝?抓名闻利养?抓荣耀?抓地位?抓感情——男女?抓欲望?你到底要抓什么东西来离开你这个世间?我们来到这个世间,真的拥有它吗?这个就是思惟了。师父念高中的时候,就开始有这个想法,那时候就准备要念台大哲学系了,我爸爸说:念台大哲学出来,最多当精神病院院长,没饭吃,没饭吃!读到大学的时候,也是思惟这个问题,后来就听到佛法,这个才是我要找的路线;这个才是我生命最终的依归;这个才是究竟,人生、宇宙的究竟真理。所以,自觉圣智即是佛,学佛就是为了开发自己本来拥有的般若智慧。 人类自以为智慧,自以为有智慧的人类,却死在自己创造的东西,我们今天创造语言、文字,死在语言、文字里面;我们今天创造观念,死在观念里面,本来就没有蓝、绿这个问题,我们创造了蓝、创造了绿,这个观念因为政治的意识形态,使一个人永远没有办法……,束缚,就是念到博士也一样,干到国会议员都是这样子,每天就是跟我自己争执,他们也是忧国忧民,也是为人民,这个在一个悟道的圣者来看,没有任何的意义。所以自觉圣智即是佛,学佛就是为了要开发自己原来本有的清净自性。 法法本空即悟法。你了解这个世间每一件事情,它都是因缘生的东西,所以,我们所有的分别跟执著,都没有任何的意义。譬如说这个是什么?喔!这个就是毛巾,毛巾是什么?就是方形的,形状就长短方圆,那就是看到的。那么,这是什么颜色的呢?就是它有色彩学。如果说透过化学分析的话,这个就变成颗粒微尘的东西。所以,无论是大的相,就是日月星辰、山河大地;无论是小的相,都是电子、质子、中子,当你如果有一些物理学的观念的时候,你会发现大的相也是空、小的相也是空,因为所有的大相、小的相,日月星辰、山河大地,我相、人相、众生相、寿者相,都是颗粒微尘性所构成的东西,当体就是空。喔!原来佛讲的:若见诸相非相,即见如来。原来你看到相相,它的本来的面目就是空,原来这个道理就是这样子,生命的意义就是要觉悟到任何法都是空性的东西。 我们今天如果没有佛法,就会活得很迷茫。为什么活得很迷茫呢?就是我们也一样去跨年,好几万人,说到纽约广场是几十万人,挤进去挤不出来,六个小时没有大小便,玩得这么痛苦做什么?跑去跨年倒数:十、九、八、七、六、五、四、三、二、一,然后就happy new year你抱我,我抱你,抱完后要做什么?一样得回家啊,并不是说你抱一抱就能留下什么东西,没有!生命当中的迷茫,没有学佛的人他所过的那种日子,就是无知、迷茫,而不知道自己问题出在哪里。可是有宿世善根的人,就像你们一样,今天你们想要来皈依,会要走这一条路线,很不容易的,非常不容易!而且佛法它非常难,难到所有的超级博士都没有办法!有一个台大哲学系的博士来,他看了师父的电视,刚好就播这个《楞严经》,他突然对这个如来藏性有兴趣,有兴趣就来到讲堂,第一句话就问:师父!你在讲经的时候,是说每一个人都有如来藏性。我说:是啊!他就问师父说:那我怎么没有看见啊?他就问师父说:那么,如来藏性在哪里啊?我就说:在眼前啊!他说:那我怎么没有看到呢?我说:你就因为心中多了一个“我”。师父!那你明心见性吗?我说:你现在的心中又多了一个“你”。师父!无我无你,就叫做明心见性吗?我就跟他讲:无我无你,谁来见性呢?他说:唉!这个佛法还真是难啊!难!它是超越一切表相的,超越一切意识形态、观念的东西,说似一物即不中,你讲什么统统不对,因为那不是观念的问题,超越一切表相的,哲学中philosophy形而上的东西,它就是推论,一直推论……A,如果是A等于B,B等于C,然后一直推论……。而佛陀告诉我们:A不存在的,一加一是不是等于二?一不存在的,一是假设、一是缘起、一是空性的东西、一是观念的东西,一是人类所有能力给它下一个定义,一个观念而已。所以叫做法法本空即悟法。 和合无诤即是僧。内心里面要懂得平等的心;人类之所以痛苦,在于追求错误的东西,人类之所以痛苦,就是希望去改变别人,自己认为自己是别人的老师。我们今天不了解,改变别人,不如改变自己的道理,我们一直想要改变别人,所以,当两个人在讲话的时候,他就开始有强烈的一种执著意识,站在自己的立场上讲话,不管讲什么,把对方统统否定,这些报纸、报章杂志,你也只能参考一下而已,只能参考一下而已。所以,包括这一些电视的节目,都没有办法去避免政治的色彩,都没有办法!你说他客观吗?不够客观。他一定会说:我很客观!为什么?站在自己的立场上。所以当你执著某一个点的时候,你就会失去整个宇宙,你就会失去整个宇宙。而我们学佛是为了什么?是放弃这个点,而拥有整个宇宙,这个就是佛法的伟大。所以,有人问就是说:师父!那您是蓝的是绿的?我说:没有啊!你不晓得佛是无想的吗?是不是?无我相、人相、众生相、寿者相,我不蓝也不绿。那您是什么党?如果勉强讲,我就是释迦牟尼佛这一党的,勉强讲的话,我就是释迦牟尼佛这一党的。 所以,因此我们要了解,借着假相来引导我们的内在里面的般若智慧,然后法法本空,体悟到:喔!原来若见诸相非相,即见如来;离一切相即名诸佛。原来是这样子。 我们也不知道,老是拜心外佛……有一个居士他修学了佛道,满不错的,拜佛常常观想,然后他可能学了一点密宗,然后就说:师父啊!我持咒!我说:很好!你念佛?他说:我念佛。他说:有一个师父就告诉我说,要观想佛自他不二,所以当我念佛的时候,我是念阿弥陀佛,到最后观想:阿弥陀佛就是我,我就是阿弥陀佛。我说:这样讲是方便讲,不是你观想阿弥陀佛,你就是阿弥陀佛,你这个是色受想行识里面的想,不是证量,跟证量没有关系。佛法有善巧方便的,修行叫你观想佛像念佛,是为了叫你善巧方便摄心,这个跟三昧没有关系的,三昧它是证量,没有能所的,明心见性,大悟,没有来去、生灭、增减的东西。我就跟他举一个例子,我说:我们到日本去的时候,我有看人家那个画像,那个画像武士,日本的武士道的精神,两肋插刀,很长的武士,然后那个脸都挖一个洞,都挖一个洞,为什么?给你方便照相,伸过去的时候:照一张!啪!照一张。我说:一个人头放进去那个空洞照一张相,他本身是不是武士?不是,当然不是啊!我们到韩国去的时候,带我们去走一走……走到一个拍摄大长今的景点,它也是把大长今那个脸挖一个洞,人家说:师父!您不照一张吗?我说:我又不是大长今,我是男众的脸,照起来能看吗?对不对?女众来照才会像大长今。对不对?你照完的时候,你是不是大长今呢?你又不是!观想就是这样,观想自己是佛,那个是增上缘,那只是一个训练你摄受,让你比较容易进入定的这个功夫,观想跟证量是完全两回事情的,这个不是佛法的究竟义。 因此我们要懂得佛法,那就时时刻刻都能够解脱。 所以今天你们来皈依,最重要的就是要转凡成圣,要转凡夫变成圣人,能够抛下一切不必要的欲望。转识成智,要转这个分别心变成没有分别心,转识成智。转烦恼成菩提,我们每天活得都是烦恼,像我妈妈她就这样,人家问:师妈,师妈!你有没有烦恼?她说:也是有啊!念佛念了很久也是有。她说:莫名其妙突然就是发脾气,念佛念一念,不小心就发脾气。他说:哎呀!师妈!你念佛都念那么久,怎么还发脾气呢?她说:不是我能控制啊,它就自己冒出来啊,也不晓得从哪里冒出来?所以我们就是这一颗心没有训练过的,虽然道理懂了,还是克制不住的,内心没有安祥,没有幸福可道的。一个人所追求的这种缘起性的假相,一定会消失的东西,一定会消失的!诸位!你有一天一定会变成白骨,没有任何例外的!不管是毛泽东也好,不管是蒋介石也好,不管是邓小平同志,这个官干到最大,包括拿破仑、包括斯大林,包括林肯,全世界都是这样子的,这些讲的你们都知道,没有一个不会变成骨头的,那么骨头的终点就是一坯黄土,就是土埋一埋;如果火葬的话,就是剩下那一坛骨灰。诸位!没有例外,不是说我今天我想尽办法去逃避这个死亡,或者是避免这个死亡,都没有办法的!你一定要面对这个事实:就是无常一定会到!所以问题就是:你怎么过日子?很多人把希望寄托在未来。当然,这是一种善巧方便:我临命终要往生极乐世界。但是,佛法它不是这样子,佛法如果不能回归当下,佛法如果不能运用在我们现在的这个时代、现代的这个生活,佛法就没有任何的意义。佛法是为活的人设立、为活的人讲经说法的。释迦牟尼佛讲经说法,是为那些活着比丘讲经说法的。所以佛法它是活用,是活着的人在用的;当然兼顾的也拔度这些祖先,这个是附加价值,让大家了解佛教的伟大,不但是临命终可以帮助一些亡灵,最重要的就是让我们生活活得非常地幸福快乐! 你为什么要学佛?就是为了更幸福!对不对?这个快乐不是像世间人,就怎么样?2010年南北这个什么……除旧布新,还有那个晚会,晚会,请歌星、影星来就跳,对不对?现在大部分看的就是那几个,大部分,什么杨宗纬,还有什么萧敬腾,Jolin、什么周杰伦、林志玲,都请这些人,差不多都是一样的节目。再来,是不是说你今天来讲,唱完歌、跳完舞就是很快乐?是不是?我们把短暂的刺激误认为叫做真正的快乐。对不对?去跳跳舞、唱唱歌回来,凌晨三、四点捷运都没有开了,回来以后很累了,睡觉休息再起来,想一想唱唱歌、跳跳舞的影子,再来,什么都没有! 佛法不一样,佛法,你任何一句话,你能够契入你的内心里面的时候,这一句话就不得了!哲学家讲了;或者佛法有某些相通之处:人类自以为聪明,却死在自己创造出来的东西。像我们创造了工业革命,产生了大量的污染——CO2,CO2变成我们今年……,2008、2009,现在所谓最夯的话题:global warming地球暖化的问题。人类很聪明,创造了工业,因为我们要用电,所以要产生能量,这个能量发电厂,有的用煤、水力、火力,它这个就会产生CO2,而这个大气当中产生CO2到一个量,这个CO2由植物还有海、大海吸收,这个大海吸收太多的CO2的时候,它会酸化,酸化的时候,这个珊瑚就会白化,它没有办法活。珊瑚是最敏感的,一度、二度它就会白化,珊瑚是最敏感的。珊瑚死了以后,鱼,鱼群要繁殖、要觅食、要隐藏,它整个生态系统的食物链它就会崩溃。像南北两极冰帽、冰河,就是一直溶化、溶解。所以,这个地球很脆弱的,非常脆弱的。所以生死无常。 诸位!今天你们来到这里来皈依,师父因为很感动,我以前就请我们当家师法无师起来讲一讲,就跟他办皈依,我说:皈依是皈依佛、皈依法、皈依三宝嘛!师父就不上来讲几句话。后来经过了几次,反应回来不是很好,他说:我们去是因为慧律法师啊,我们要看到师父我们才要去皈依!我就变成supper idol(idol['aidl]偶像)了,变成超级的偶像,他就一定要来看看师父。有一个人很远来,没有看到师父,然后就回去了,回去,人家问说:你去皈依谁啊?他说:我去皈依慧律法师。你这一次去有没有看到师父?他说:没有!为什么没有?不晓得往生了没有?什么?哎呀!讲这种话,怎么会这样讲?说:不晓得往生没有?哇!这太离谱了,所以,不下来让你们看看我有没有长高,也是很奇怪!对不对?就出来给你们看一下,我很正常啊,怎么说我往生了?讲得那么离谱!是不是?男高音、女高音都唱不上去了——离谱!是不是?所以你们今天来,大家来皈依,师父是非常地赞叹诸位,不管你们的学历——是博士也好,乃至贩夫走卒也好,乃至就是说:我就是一个平凡人,也没有关系。我去台湾大学告诉他们:这个佛法,佛法跟学历没有关系,因为佛法无善于语言、文字,也不善于学历,跟什么有关系呢?跟宿世善根有关系。也就是说:今天你们要跨进来这个学佛皈依,没有善根,是一点办法都没有,一点办法都没有。真的!你们是很了不起的,师父是……小声一点,小声一点。我们这个麦克风也生病了,可能这几天重感冒,不太正常。无常法,我们人也是这样,我们人也会不太正常,连麦克风也是无常。记得!无常法的世间,什么事情都有可能发生,不要觉得意外。当你觉得说:这个某某人做这件事情很疯狂,很疯狂!对不对?或者是incredible(incredible[in'kredəbl]难以置信)很不可思议的;其实你把它平常心看,却觉得没有什么,世间无常,什么事情都会发生。好!那么最后,你们很辛苦,来!我们现在给你们几分钟问问题,我们有互动的关系,互动的关系,你们看看有什么佛法的问题?问的那个问题要有营养的、有意义的,不要问那个完全没有意义的。例如师父问:有问题吗?有啊!阿嬷!你有什么问题?她说:我孙子都不吃饭!我说:不吃饭?要念什么咒比较有效?我说:念什么咒都没用啦,拿藤条打最快啦!连这个也要问,真是伤脑筋!有一个人,孕妇来:师父!您看我一胎是男孩还是女孩?我跟她说:我是法师,又不是医师,这里又不是妇产科,要问佛法,怎么问这个?阿弥陀佛!观世音菩萨!你要问对,不要乱问!对不对?生男生女要问妇产科,怎么会来问我这一科?我是法师呢,不是医师!来!你们有什么问题?难得!你们看有什么问题没有?你们水准很高,都没有问题;还是傻呼呼的,不知道要问什么?不知道。有一个人跟我说:师父!我有一栋房子卖不出去,是要念阿弥陀佛还是念观世音菩萨,才能早一点卖出去?房子卖了以后我会多少拿一点来供养。我说:你真是的!观世音菩萨连房地产都要管,这也太严重了吧!这种事随缘就好。他说:我有这份心啊!我说:那你求观世音菩萨,让你那栋房子赶快卖出去。当观世音菩萨也是很辛苦,股票跌了念观世音菩萨;生病了念观世音菩萨;被倒帐了也念观世音菩萨;房子卖不出去也念观世音菩萨,所以说:观世音菩萨有几百只手,我看不是没有原因的,千手千眼就是要处理这些难处理的事,真的很辛苦! 好!你们看还有什么问题吗? 问:《金刚经》里面,佛告须菩提,然灯佛授记这一段。 什么? 问:佛告须菩提,在然灯佛那个时候授记。 对!然后怎么样? 问:然后,“授记”这个是怎么解释? 答:授记就是把法传给他,印证他,悟无所得。悟无所得就是说:释迦牟尼佛以无所得心,没有能所,所以,然灯佛才把法传给他;若有所得,然灯佛不把法传给他,是这个意思。 好!来!你们这边没有问题?各位师兄师姊都没有问题吗?没关系,不用客气! 好!因为你们没有问题,这不能怪我了,我们现在就要把它结束了,就结束了。 回去的时候,你们要多看VCD或者DVD,或者是佛教的节目。知道吗?佛法,现在打开电视就可以看得到,打开电视,现在的人很方便,反而很懒惰,反正就是每天都是浑浑噩噩、迷迷糊糊,这些财色名食睡,每天都过这种很辛苦的日子,不晓得我们有一天会进去黄土里面,或者是骨瓮里面,从来没有思惟这个问题。 有的人讲说:那这样人生是不是很消极呢?错了!这样反而更积极,了解生命的不净、苦、空、无常、无我,就体悟到原来生命的这种不实在性,相妄性真,我们本性是真的,我们更应当发心来救众生。既然一切法无我,世间就没有什么东西可以委屈的,没有能、没有所;没有来、没有去;一切法总不可得,就是积极地救众生,虽度无量无边众生,实无众生可度。 佛法,它非常地难,师父也告诉大家,像师父去师范大学上课,上了两个礼拜,上《十四讲表》,这大学生都不一定能够对佛法有一点点深一点地认识。 我去清华大学上课的时候,突然有一个学生,我上课完,结束的时候下来,下来的时候我就问他:你们清大的同学有没有人要皈依啊?就没有。结果下来的时候,一个清大同学跑来旁边,跟我问了一个问题,他吓一跳,他说:我不敢皈依啦,皈依不能娶老婆,我怎么敢?我说:你听谁讲皈依不能娶老婆?啊?皈依可以结婚吗?可以!可以娶老婆?可以!不要娶太多个就好。真的吗?太好了太好了!这样皈依可以结婚喔?可以!还有一个问得比较刁钻的问题,他说:师父!我皈依后不知道能不能赌博?我说:可以,可以赌博,但是不要输太多,尽量是不要啦!皈依没有什么特别地规定,他内心恐惧:皈依不晓得会不会这个也禁止、那个也禁止?没有没有!皈依只是说承认我是佛弟子,自己的行为稍微约束一下,约束一下:我是佛弟子!譬如说你的抽烟,稍微少抽一点,佛弟子嘛!每天在那边:香云盖菩……抽烟的时候,人家点香,他抽烟! 有一个人,那个恶劣的习性很难改,有一个居士,孙居士,我就问他说:你以前没有学佛,抽烟抽得那么厉害,那么重,你现在学佛以后,你那个抽烟有没有改掉?你是佛弟子!他说:改了!师父,我改了,从抽一包改成两包!喔!那更严重,改不过来!你看,学佛呢,学佛的人,只有抽烟这样子,竟然从抽一包改成两包!这样有没有很严重?这世间人要学佛真的很难!所以,这个音要读得准确,学佛,不是学猴,学佛,不是学猴,学猴心不定,学佛心要定,内心里面把那个坏的习惯慢慢慢慢改变;你不改变自己,佛也没有办法救你,自己要能够保佑自己,改变自己,佛才有办法帮助你,诸位一定要有这样的观念,自己要自救,佛才有办法救你。 有一个,年轻人,那个网络都玩到凌晨三点、四点,人家卖早点的已经出来,很辛苦正在摆早点了,他不是,他玩网络玩到四点!对不对?然后,拜佛,求什么?求:我身体能够健康!我说:这个根本不可能嘛,背道而驰嘛!对不对?你玩网路,你玩到凌晨四点不去睡觉,你身体怎么健康呢?对不对?我们要了解,佛法给你增上缘,佛、法、僧加被我们,我们自己一定能够改变自己,才有办法。你不改变自己谁也没有办法,佛来也没有办法!所以,佛法因为很深、很难。 今天你们来皈依,师父就不讲太多,不讲太多。 好了!最后一个,等一下结束以后,我知道有的人很虔诚,从很远很远就带红包来。你不收这个红包;有一个老菩萨,我以前跟他讲:不用啦!他就来,来供养,以前就是我比较慈悲,供养,然后就来,这个老菩萨来,把口袋捏得紧紧的,快要烂掉了,他是好意,老菩萨,说:师父!这红包供养您。我说:拉破了拉破了!他就为了这个红包供养。所以我现在用一个比较好的方式就是:供养,你们来了,就排在这个桌子上面,是不是?你自己的,以诚意就摆在这个,你放着,我会找时间来收,就不需要这样子一个一个来……大家这么辛苦,大家这么辛苦。 好!既然大家都很辛苦,我们今天就到此结束。 好!诸位请站起来,请站起来,好!往后站、往后站。 皈依功德圆满,大众礼佛三拜。 好!拜一拜。拜下去,拜下去,好!起来,现学就现卖,再一拜,起来,三拜,起来。问讯。 好!感谢大家,祝大家新年快乐,谢谢大家,再见!(众鼓掌。)"

Soh

John Tan wrote to someone:


One should not focus on radiance at all. Instead, recognition is what is most crucial. Recognition of what? It is the recognition that the "nature" of whatever appears is always perfect and requires no modification or effort. That is the so-called "practice."

The practice of concentration arises from a misconception and non-recognition of the "nature" of radiance.

This means that after one directly tastes the clarity of radiance but remains unclear about its "perfect nature," the impulse for "doing" originates from this non-recognition.

Therefore, one must "undo" this through recognition; otherwise, we unknowingly create more hindrances.

Sitting is OK, but the process is about recognition and opening up (deconstruction). Then, from this deconstruction, one realizes the perfect nature, and everything becomes effortless and natural, from prajn~aˉ to yeshe.

We must understand the difference between the "concentrative path," the "deconstructive path," and the "natural state."

For example, consider someone trying to open their third eye by focusing on their brow chakra, its color, and its intensity. This can easily lead to an energy imbalance. This is the concentrative path.

The deconstructive path is not about focusing. Instead, it is about recognizing that all abilities are already present but have been "covered" up. The path, therefore, involves deconstructing and uncovering phenomena such as the sense of self, the sense of boundaries, the perceived characteristics of the subject and object, and the belief in the inherent causal power of things.

Get it?

Soh

John Tan wrote:  

Intuiting the middle path of buddhism via Prajna.

It is not easy to grasp the "Middle Way" of Buddhism, for it is not a conceptual midpoint between two opposing views. Rather, it must be intuitively realized through the wisdom of emptiness (śūnyatā).

For instance, when we observe how seamlessly experience unfolds with changing conditions — as if mind and matter dance in perfect coordination without any separation — the habitual tendency is to assume that such intimacy must arise from a shared substance, a unifying essence. This is the reflex of reification.

However, through the penetrating insight of prajñā, we come to see that this seamlessness does not arise from a common underlying essence, but from the emptiness of inherent boundaries. What appears as continuity is not the result of an indivisible oneness, but the absence of any independently existing edges to begin with.

In this light, the heart intuits the Middle Way — not as a static center or a compromise between views — but as a dynamic openness that does not rest on any essential foundation. It is through recognizing the non-arising of borders that the Middle is felt, directly, without grasping.

Take the simple example of “left” and “right” in my previous.  Conventionally, they seem to refer to distinct positions, spatial opposites — as if there is some boundary, some inherent line that divides them. Yet upon analysis, we find no such boundary that can be located, no intrinsic dividing line, no essential base that gives either side its identity. Still, their functionality remains entirely intact. We turn left or right, navigate streets, orient ourselves in space — all without ever requiring any inherently existing division between left and right.

Not only are meaning and function preserved, but causal efficacy — the ability to respond, coordinate, and act — unfolds effortlessly. There is no need for a substance in between, no carrier of a signal, no bridging essence. And yet, everything flows in harmony.

This is the profound taste of the Middle Way: causal coherence without inherent causes, relational meaning without intrinsic reference points, seamless connection without binding substance. It is the insight that emptiness does not collapse function, but liberates it from the burden of having to be something in order to work.

In this, we recognize: the world is not stitched together by substance, but dances in the openness of dependency and designation, free from all foundations. The seamlessness is not evidence of an underlying unity — it is the mark of non-arising boundaries.

This is the magic of emptiness — that which dissolves the need for foundations, yet does not destroy function. Through this wisdom, we come to see that the seamlessness of experience does not imply substance, but reflects the emptiness of boundaries. The intimacy between phenomena is not the product of merging into oneness, but of never having been divided to begin with.


As this insight matures, the entire field of experience becomes pervaded by a profound openness — without boundary, without base, without center or edge. One senses an intimacy throughout, not by collapsing distinctions, but by seeing through their reified edges. Appearances remain diverse, but the felt sense of separation dissolves. What remains is vibrant clarity everywhere, alive in its responsiveness, yet free from the need to anchor in anything fixed.

This is the Middle Way — not between two poles, but beyond them, precisely because it is neither-nor, and yet fully present. It is the path of directness, openness, and luminous functioning, liberated from extremes not by suppression, but by wisdom’s gentle cut through illusion.


The Error of Substantial Unity

A common mistake arises when the seamlessness of experience is misinterpreted as evidence of a singular substance behind appearances. The intimacy between mind and matter, or between self and world, is often mistaken as proof of an underlying oneness — a foundational unity that binds all things together.

But this view is precisely what the Middle Way dismantles. It is not that things merge into a unified ground; rather, the seamlessness is possible because no fixed boundary exists between them. The apparent continuity of experience is not due to a shared substance, but to the complete absence of self-existing borders. The mind’s compulsion to find something “underlying” is a reflex born from ignorance, not insight.

To abide in the Middle is to be free from the need to ground experience in either multiplicity or unity. This openness does not collapse distinctions but allows them to function fluidly without the need for inherent separation or identity.


Dependent Arising as the Language of Emptiness

Dependent arising (pratītyasamutpāda) expresses this middle way with precision. It reveals how all phenomena arise in mutual dependence, without any need for inherent existence. Things do not exist independently, but neither do they arise from nothing. They function because of their relations, not because of a core essence.

Take again the example of left and right. Their existence depends entirely on mutual designation. Remove one, and the other vanishes. And yet, we turn left and right every day without confusion. Their function is real, but not rooted in anything independently real.

Likewise, the sound of a bell arises not from the bell alone, nor from the ear, nor from air vibrations alone. It arises from a complex interplay of conditions. But when heard, the sound is vivid, clear, real in experience — and yet, try to find where the sound “truly” resides, and it eludes grasp. This unfindability is not a defect; it is the very mark of emptiness.

When understood properly, dependent arising is not a mechanical process of cause and effect but a luminous, participatory, and intimate unfolding of appearance, where function and clarity emerge without requiring a base. This is the elegance of the Middle Way: reality functions, radiates, and responds without the burden of being anything in itself.

Soh

Also See: Emptiness as Dependent Arising and Causal Efficacy: Distinguishing Water-Moon from Rabbit-Horn

Unpacking Nāgārjuna’s Method: How Realist Premises Self-Destruct

Mind, Matter, and the Middle Way: Deconstructing Reality with Nāgārjuna

Someone wrote that sentient beings perceive dependent origination while Buddhas perceive spontaneous presence. I felt that this way of putting is misleading. Hence I wrote in response:


The Intertwined Path: Dependent Origination and Emptiness in Buddhadharma – A Unified Perspective

In the profound teachings of Buddhadharma, "Dependent Origination" (pratītya-samutpāda) and "emptiness" (śūnyatā) are not separate concepts but rather two facets of a single, indivisible awakened insight. This understanding forms the bedrock of the Buddhist path to liberation. However, for ordinary sentient beings (puthujjanas), caught in the web of ignorance, this reality remains obscured. They tend to perceive a world of inherently produced things, constantly coming into existence and ceasing. When I speak of “inherently existing things being produced or destroyed,” I am not invoking any abstract philosophical doctrine about objects possessing intrinsic existence that magically appears or vanishes. Rather, I mean our everyday, concrete sense that people, places, and possessions—our spouse, children, friends, and so on—are solid, independently real entities subject to aging, death, arrival, and departure. This is not some rarefied theory; it’s the ordinary, afflicted way sentient beings naturally perceive selves and others, without needing any official philosophy or religion to endorse it.

While learners on the path can study these doctrines (
"Dependent Origination" (pratītya-samutpāda) and "emptiness" (śūnyatā)) analytically, it is only the āryas (awakened noble ones) who directly realize that all appearances are an empty, primordially pure display (Tibetan: ka dag / lhun grub). 

1. The Primacy of Dependent Origination: The Apex of Buddhist Teaching

The centrality of Dependent Origination to the Buddha's message cannot be overstated; indeed, contemporary scholar-practitioners like Dzogchen teacher Ācārya Malcolm Smith affirm that there is no teaching in Buddhism higher than Dependent Origination. It is the key that unlocks the door to understanding the nature of reality and, consequently, to liberation from suffering.

  • The great Indian philosopher Nāgārjuna, in his seminal work, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK), begins by bowing in homage to the Buddha, "the supreme teacher (the complete Buddha) who taught that which is dependently arisen—neither ceasing nor arising, neither annihilated nor eternal, neither coming nor going, neither one nor many, peaceful and free from (conceptual) elaborations." (Sources: Lotsawa House, tushita.info)
  • The Tibetan master Je Tsongkhapa echoes this sentiment in his eulogy, "In Praise of Dependent Origination," asserting that anyone of intelligence must recognize dependent arising as "the heart of [the Buddha’s] doctrine" and "the weapon that severs every root of suffering." (Sources: FPMT, Study Buddhism, Lama Yeshe Wisdom Archive)

The reasoning is clear: ignorance (avidyā) is the fundamental root of all torment and cyclic existence (saṃsāra). Only the profound understanding of Dependent Origination can cut this root. Teaching any other doctrine first would miss the critical target. As Tsongkhapa elucidates, "Understanding to kill this root … is none other than dependent arising." (Source: FPMT)

Therefore, Tsongkhapa compellingly argues that it would be nonsensical to claim that one grasps Dependent Origination after attaining enlightenment. The very definition of Buddhahood is the non-dual, non-conceptual cognition of how things dependently arise and are thereby empty of inherent existence. This realization is what liberates. Claiming enlightenment first and then understanding Dependent Origination would be akin to "claiming to be cured first and then taking the medicine." Liberation presupposes this vision; it doesn’t follow it. (Sources: Study Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhist Encyclopedia)

2. The Perception of Ordinary Beings (Puthujjanas)

The Buddha himself highlighted the profundity of Dependent Origination. When his attendant, Venerable Ānanda, once remarked that Dependent Origination seemed "perfectly clear" to him, the Buddha gently corrected him: "Say not so, Ānanda, say not so! Deep is this dependent co-arising, and deep its appearance. It is through not understanding, not penetrating this law that this generation has become like a tangled skein, a matted ball of thread." (Source: DN 15, Access to Insight)

The esteemed modern Thai monk Buddhadasa Bhikkhu notes that because of this inherent depth, "the majority of people cannot understand the law of Dependent Origination." (Source: Dhamma Talks)

So, what do unawakened beings perceive if not Dependent Origination?

  • They do not perceive the subtle, interlocking twelve links of Dependent Origination (ignorance → formations → consciousness … → ageing-and-death) as a seamless, empty process, either analytically through study or directly through insight.
  • Instead, they simply infer and operate under the delusion that "real things" or truly existent causes and results are being independently produced and destroyed. In daily life, they might notice a superficial causality, for instance, that painful actions tend to lead to unpleasant feelings later, but they do not apprehend the deep, underlying mechanism of how ignorance perpetuates suffering.

John Tan offers a crucial clarification regarding this distinction: "Dependent Origination does not arise out of ignorance. 'Things' arise out of ignorance and are therefore non-arisen—Dependent Origination is non-origination. Therefore, Dependent Origination is an enlightened view. Sentient beings do not see Dependent Origination; they see truly existent things being produced and destroyed (essential causality). So, Dependent Origination is taught because sentient beings in confusion (ignorance) mistake reified conventions as 'things' being produced and destroyed."

This perspective underscores why the teaching of Dependent Origination is so vital: it directly counters the fundamental misperception rooted in ignorance.

3. The Journey of Understanding: Learners, Āryas, and Buddhas – Analysis and Direct Recognition

The path to fully realizing Dependent Origination and emptiness is progressive:

  • Learners: Individuals who are studying and reflecting on the Dharma (prior to the first direct insight of a first bhūmi) may grasp Dependent Origination conceptually. This intellectual understanding, central to approaches like Madhyamaka which utilizes rigorous analysis, is valuable and necessary but remains inferential and can still operate with subtle forms of reification.
  • Āryas (Noble Ones): From the stage of a first bhūmi upwards, individuals have a direct, non-conceptual realization of dependent arising. They see it not as a theory but as the very mode of how all phenomena appear. This direct seeing is simultaneously the seeing of emptiness (śūnyatā); they no longer reify causes or results. This is captured in the profound sutta maxim: "Whoever sees dependent co-arising sees the Dhamma; whoever sees the Dhamma sees dependent co-arising (or sees the Buddha)." (Sources: MN 28, Dhamma Talks) The Dzogchen path emphasizes this direct recognition.
  • Buddhas: An enlightened Buddha rests continuously in this non-conceptual realization. As Nāgārjuna famously states in MMK 24:18: "Whatever is dependently arisen is explained as emptiness. That, being a dependent designation, is the middle way."

Dzogchen teacher Ācārya Malcolm Smith highlights that while the philosophical view of Dzogchen and Prasaṅga Madhyamaka is essentially the same (with emptiness being uniform in both, and the Madhyamaka view itself being Dependent Origination), their methods differ: Madhyamaka often reaches this view through intellectual analysis, whereas Dzogchen emphasizes direct, non-analytical recognition.

4. The Enlightened Vision: How a Buddha Perceives Reality – The Unity of Emptiness, Appearance, and Natural Perfection as Your Own Nature

Crucially, for a Buddha, it is not Dependent Origination that vanishes. Rather, what ceases is the ingrained wrong idea of inherent production and arising—the very notions of origination, cessation, permanence, annihilation, coming, going, unity, and diversity that Nāgārjuna's eight negations show are inapplicable to ultimate truth when phenomena are correctly understood through Dependent Origination. This cessation also means seeing through the illusion of production from itself, from an other, from both, or causelessly, which the Madhyamaka analysis of Dependent Origination refutes. From a Buddha's enlightened perspective, the very same stream of appearances, the world of causes and effects, continues to be perceived. However, it is cognized as a non-originating, primordially pure display. As John Tan's insight clarifies, Dependent Origination itself is "non-origination," an enlightened view that transcends the ordinary perception of production and destruction.

In the language of Dzogchen (the Great Perfection school of Tibetan Buddhism), one’s nature is understood as the basis (gzhi). It is vital to understand that this basis (gzhi) is not a substantial, pre-existing source, entity, or background from which phenomena emerge. To conceptualize the basis (gzhi) as a "thing" that gives rise to other things is a subtle form of reification. Instead, the basis (gzhi) is the inseparability of emptiness and luminous clarity/unobstructed appearance – a self-display (rang snang) that is unproduced and uncaused. Dzogchen teacher Ācārya Malcolm Smith underscores that this basis must be empty and illusory; if it were truly real or ultimate, no processes like delusion or Samantabhadra's awakening could occur within it.

This very basis (gzhi) is, in fact, your own true nature. This nature has three inseparable aspects: (1) Ka Dag (Primordial Purity): the empty essence, timeless and unconditioned, "empty of inherent existence from the very beginning." (2) Lhun Grub (Natural Perfection / Spontaneous Presence): the nature or spontaneous presence aspect, the radiant, unceasing, non-conceptual, self-luminous clarity. Dzogchen teacher Ācārya Malcolm Smith explains lhun grub as "natural formation," an unafflicted causality, or "Dependent Origination free of afflictive patterning," meaning "not made by anyone, everything happens naturally." This "natural formation can be understood to underlie Dependent Origination." (3) Thugs Rje (All-Pervading Compassion / Unceasing Compassionate Energy): the dynamic, responsive, and communicative energy of this empty, luminous nature.

The direct, non-conceptual knowing of this reality is what is termed rig pa (Sanskrit: vidyā). Rig pa is not the basis itself; rather, rig pa is the awakened gnosis that is the knowledge or recognition of one's basis, which is ka dag, lhun grub, and thugs rje. Dzogchen teacher Ācārya Malcolm Smith clarifies that rig pa is one's knowledge of the basis, never deluded, and not participating in afflicted Dependent Origination but rather initiating unafflicted Dependent Origination (vidyā leading to nirvāṇa). He also points out that rig pa is not separate from the constituents of the universe (earth, water, fire, air, space, consciousness) but is their pure aspect—the radiance of the five wisdoms—contrasted with their impure manifestation as elements arising from consciousness. This "one coin, two sides" is entirely empty.

The Non-Duality of Spontaneous Presence (Lhun Grub) and Dependent Arising (Pratītya-samutpāda): Spontaneous presence (lhun grub) and Dependent Arising (pratītya-samutpāda) are two ways of "tasting" the same indivisible reality of your nature:

  • Spontaneous Presence (Lhun Grub): The direct, unelaborated taste of reality as luminous, dynamic presence. As John Tan sometimes puts it, "Whatever appears, though a mere reflection, is entire and spontaneously perfect," where the mind rests on nothing.
  • Dependent Arising (Pratītya-samutpāda): The conventional articulation of that same spontaneous display. Dzogchen teacher Ācārya Malcolm Smith notes that contextual uses of "Dependent Origination" in Dzogchen (e.g., for the origin of ma rig pa) don't imply a philosophical disagreement with Nāgārjuna's equation of emptiness and Dependent Origination.

The insight that "Dependent Origination is natural perfection (lhun grub)," associated with teachings discussed by Dzogchen teacher Ācārya Malcolm Smith, is profound. This means understanding that all causes and conditions in Dependent Origination are empty (ka dag), their interplay an unmade, naturally occurring (lhun grub), compassionately responsive (thugs rje) display.

This enlightened vision is Nāgārjuna's Middle Way. The deconstruction of "physicality" into "mere empty sensations," as discussed by John Tan, is part of this. Dzogchen teacher Ācārya Malcolm Smith emphasizes that realizing Dependent Origination as non-arising ("Whatever arises in dependence, in reality, that does not arise," from Prajñāpāramitā) is the state of Great Perfection, aligning with Nāgārjuna's homage. 

5. The Enduring Indispensability of Dependent Origination and Avoiding Extremes

Dependent Origination remains indispensable. Dzogchen teacher Ācārya Malcolm Smith points out that Dzogchen teachings describe the Four Noble Truths in terms of Dependent Origination and that Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK) refutes all forms of inherent production (from self, other, both, or causeless) but not Dependent Origination itself. Rather, the MMK is a defense of the proper understanding of Dependent Origination, through which emptiness is correctly discerned. He stresses that the only way to ultimate truth (emptiness) is through relative truth (Dependent Origination); thus, a flawed understanding of conventional, dependent reality bars the path to realizing the ultimate.

A Buddha teaches Dependent Origination because, as John Tan elucidated, ordinary beings mistake reified conventions for truly existing things. John Tan further clarifies the common misunderstanding that "ultimately empty" means Dependent Origination (as conventional) is ultimately non-existent. He explains that "empty ultimately but conventionally valid" means that nominal constructs like Dependent Origination are valid modes of arising and explanation, unlike invalid constructs such as "rabbit horns." Even "mere appearances free from all elaborations" manifest validly, not haphazardly, and this valid mode of arising is Dependent Origination. There's a right understanding of "arising" conventionally, and that is Dependent Origination. When we see that notions of inherent existence or independence from causes and conditions are untenable for anything to arise, we then correctly see Dependent Arising.

This dismantling of ignorance via Dependent Origination avoids nihilism. Madhyamaka accepts conventional validity. Dzogchen teacher Ācārya Malcolm Smith cites Sakya Pandita: "If there were something beyond freedom from extremes, that would be an extreme," reinforcing the Middle Way.

6. Crucial Clarifications: Avoiding Common Misunderstandings

  • Misconception 1: "Ordinary sentient beings perceive Dependent Origination."
    • Correction: No. As John Tan stated, "Sentient beings do not see Dependent Origination; they see truly existent things being produced and destroyed (essential causality)."
  • Misconception 2: "Dependent Origination ceases for Buddhas."
    • Correction: What ceases is the misperception, the wrong idea of inherent production and arising. The luminous display, seen via rig pa as the empty (ka dag), spontaneously perfect (lhun grub), and compassionate (thugs rje) play of one's nature, remains. Dependent Origination, as an enlightened view of non-origination, is precisely what is realized.

Conclusion and Verbatim Facebook Post:

Dependent Origination is not a mere preliminary but is awakened insight into emptiness. In Dzogchen, rig pa (awakened gnosis) recognizes the basis (gzhi)—your nature with its empty essence (ka dag), spontaneous perfection (lhun grub), and compassionate energy (thugs rje)—revealing Dependent Origination as the natural, dynamic perfection of reality.

Here is a consolidated reply you can paste on Facebook:

Chris, there’s a subtle slip in equating ordinary perception with Dependent Origination. Its true understanding reveals a profound depth, unifying Madhyamaka and Dzogchen perspectives.

  • Dependent Origination (pratītya-samutpāda) = Awakened Insight: Nāgārjuna and Tsongkhapa state that seeing Dependent Origination is seeing the Dharma. It's the highest teaching, as affirmed by Dzogchen teacher Ācārya Malcolm Smith. John Tan clarifies it's an enlightened view of non-origination, not arising from ignorance.
  • Unawakened Don't See It: They see truly existent things being produced/destroyed, mistaking reified conventions for reality. Dependent Origination is taught to counter this.
  • Awakened Realization (Āryas/Buddhas): For them, the false idea of inherent production/arising (refuted by Nāgārjuna's eight negations and analysis of causality) ceases. They see Dependent Origination as a non-originating, pure display.
    • Dzogchen & Madhyamaka Alignment: Philosophically, their view of emptiness via Dependent Origination is the same (differing in method: direct recognition/gnosis vs. analysis). Dependent Origination is indispensable for realizing emptiness.
    • Your True Nature (Dzogchen): rig pa (awakened gnosis) is the recognition/knowledge of the basis (gzhi) – your nature: empty essence (ka dag), natural perfection/spontaneous presence (lhun grub), and compassionate energy (thugs rje).
  • Conventionally Valid, Ultimately Empty: Dependent Origination is a valid conventional explanation of how things appear (not random or like "rabbit horns"), as John Tan explains. This avoids nihilism while upholding ultimate emptiness.
  • Dependent Origination as Natural Perfection: Teachings discussed by Dzogchen teacher Ācārya Malcolm Smith equate Dependent Origination with lhun grub (natural, unmade perfection). Understanding Dependent Origination as non-arising is the state of Great Perfection.

This is why Dependent Origination is an enlightened view, revealing reality as a timelessly pure, spontaneously perfect, compassionate display—our fundamental nature.

 

----


Malcolm: "People have fetishized anatman to an impractical degree.

Innate self-grasping is the cause of samsara, suffering, and every thing else, but the solution to this is not an intellectual rejection of conventional truth. It’s is to reflect deeply on dependent origination and penetrate it’s true meaning. For that, the Rice Seedling Sutra is exemplary: https://read.84000.co/translation/toh210.html#UT22084-062-010-section-1

When you read and understand this, you will understand why the basis is personal, why it is not a self, and why dependent origination is natural perfection."

-----


Mr. CJ
Thanks for the clarification. It was a long read, but pretty good. I agree with most of this.
What I meant by "dependent origination ceases for a Buddha" was that as John Tan himself stated, "dependent origination is non-origination". So that means ultimately there is no origination, nor dependence. But this is a subtle linguistic issue. I think we are pretty much on the same page.
On a relative level, yes, things originate dependently. But not ultimately. What is there to originate or cease, and in dependence on what? (btw, I’m referring to the afflicted form of dependent origination here).
  • Like
  • Reply
  • Edited
Soh Wei Yu
"dependent origination ceases for a Buddha" is not the same as "dependent origination is non-origination". The afflicted chain of dependent origination does cease for a Buddha, but that is also talking about something different than the realization of "dependent origination is non-origination". Also as John Tan said, "the [12 links of] dependent arising is more on the Theravada view. For Mahayana, the focus is on the expansion of the general principle of dependent arising rather than the specific 12-links." which is taught in MMK (goes beyond just discussing DO in terms of 12 links).
There is nothing truly existent that 'things depend on'. Empty conventional phenomena depend on empty conventional phenomena, so yes they are relative and not ultimately existent.
"
Does dependent arising require some “thing” to depend on?
Greg Goode:
Steve, Madhyamika interprets the "thingness" gestalt as a type conception, a way of reacting or conceptualizing words or concepts or sensations, as if there were existence involved. Maybe some words seem to invite this kind of reifying conceptualization more than others - we usually feel that more physical-sounding, more concrete words entail a more independent kind of existence. But Madhyamika would refute this kind of existence across the board.
Does "dependent arising" require there is (A) something dependent that arises, and (B) something that A is dependent on? Even though Madhyamika itself refutes this?
Not according to Madhyamika itself. When A is said to be dependent, the meaning is that is is not INdependent. It is not self-sufficient, it has no essence or true nature.
What does "dependent" mean? Dependence is usually broken down into three types. Phenomenon A relies on pieces and parts, on conditions, and on conceptual designation.
But none of these things (pieces + parts, conditions, conceptual designation) is an inherent, self-standing thing. Each of these things itself dependent.
This kind of dependency is not linear, tracing back to an original first cause or universal stopping point. It's more like a web of dependencies. It's not arborial, it's rhizomatic."
  • Like
  • Reply
Soh Wei Yu
"11. The knowledge that appearances arise unfailingly in dependence,
And the knowledge that they are empty and beyond all assertions—
As long as these two appear to you as separate,
There can be no realization of the Buddha’s wisdom.
12. Yet when they arise at once, not each in turn but both together,
Then through merely seeing unfailing dependent origination
Certainty is born, and all modes of misapprehension fall apart—
That is when discernment of the view has reached perfection.
13. When you know that appearances dispel the extreme of existence,
While the extreme of nothingness is eliminated by emptiness,[3]
And you also come to know how emptiness arises as cause and effect,
Then you will be immune to any view entailing clinging to extremes." - Tsongkhapa https://www.lotsawahouse.org/.../three-principal-aspects
Three Principal Aspects of the Path
LOTSAWAHOUSE.ORG
Three Principal Aspects of the Path

Three Principal Aspects of the Path

  • Like
  • Reply
  • Remove Preview
Mr. CJ
Soh Wei Yu Hmm, I still don’t see the logical difference between what I wrote (“dependent origination ceases for a Buddha”) and John Tan’s statement that “dependent origination is non-origination”. For the record, I understand what he actually meant by this, that causes and effects are not truly existent, and so nothing truly originates in DO. But what I wrote is a logical consequence of that.
If it’s non-origination, would you agree that nothing truly originates? (I’m talking only about the ultimate perspective here).
Following from that, would you agree that if nothing originates, there is no actual “dependent origination” (nothing originates, and because of that, there can also be no dependence)?
I mean it is pretty clear if you read anything by Longchenpa for example, that in the ultimate view nothing is truly existent. So there isn’t anything that could have originated, dependently or otherwise.
12 link dependent origination occurs for sentient beings, as the Buddha stated. If we accept DO for Buddhas, then we have to accept ignorance exists for Buddhas (first link) which is totally contradictory. Again I’m only talking about the 12 links. I accept the Mahayana general principle of DO still applies.
  • Like
  • Reply
  • Edited
Soh Wei Yu
Mr. CJ Your questioning implies non-arising refutes dependent origination. That is not the case. Non-arising affirms dependent origination (via dependent designations and conditionality) but refutes truly existent entities that arise by the four ways (from itself, other, both, neither [causelessness]). This is also why as Greg said, dependent origination does not require 'things' which MMK refuted.
And as quoted earlier, malcolm (Acarya Malcolm Smith):
"MMK refutes any kind of production other than dependent origination. It is through dependent origination that emptiness is correctly discerned. Without the view of dependent origination, emptiness cannot be correctly perceived, let alone realized. The MMK rejects production from self, other, both, and causeless production, but not dependent origination. The MMK also praises the teaching of dependent origination as the pacifier of proliferation in the mangalam. The last chapter of MMK is on dependent origination. The MMK nowhere rejects dependent origination, it is in fact a defense of the proper way to understand it. The only way to the ultimate truth (emptiness) is through the relative truth (dependent origination), so if one’s understanding of relative truth is flawed, as is the case with all traditions outside of Buddhadharma, and even many within it, there is no possibility that ultimate truth can be understood and realized."
Nothing originates must be understood from dependent origination, it is not nihilistic nothingness:
“Pursuant to the middle view, Tson-kha-pa cites Nagarjuna's Yuk-tisastika and Candrakirti's Yuktisastika-vrtti.
Nagarjuna:
What arises in dependence is not born;
That is proclaimed by the supreme knower of reality 😊 Buddha).
Candrakirti:
(The realist opponent says): If (as you say) whatever thing arises in dependence is not even born, then why does (the Madhyamika) say it is not born? But if you (Madhyamika) have a reason for saying (this thing) is not born, then you should not say it "arises in dependence." Therefore, because of mutual inconsistency, (what you have said) is not valid.)
(The Madhyamika replies with compassionate interjection:)
Alas! Because you are without ears or heart you have thrown a challenge that is severe on us! When we say that anything arising in dependence, in the manner of a reflected image, does not arise by reason of self-existence - at that time where is the possibility of disputing (us)!” - excerpt from Calming the Mind and Discerning the Real: Buddhist Meditation and the Middle View
This is why Nagarjuna corrected the persons who asked how could four noble truths be valid if everything is empty, because he mistakenly took emptiness as non-existence. (Scroll down https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../how-experiential... to "
Nagarjuna's Critique of the Dharma
")
How Experiential Realization Helps in Liberation
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
How Experiential Realization Helps in Liberation

How Experiential Realization Helps in Liberation

  • Like
  • Reply
  • Remove Preview
  • Edited
Soh Wei Yu
" If we accept DO for Buddhas, then we have to accept ignorance exists for Buddhas (first link) which is totally contradictory. "
As said earlier, DO is not just the 12 links. The general principle of Dependent Origination is not to be equated with the 12 links, which is merely the afflicted *mode* of dependent origination, not the principle itself.
  • Like
  • Reply
Soh Wei Yu
Precisely because nothing is truly existent, dependent origination is possible, and because of dependent origination no true existence applies.. or as Candrakirti is quoted above, "anything arising in dependence, in the manner of a reflected image, does not arise by reason of self-existence", and that's key to MMK throughout. If one sees dependency as requiring true existence, that is precisely the erroneous understanding refuted by Nagarjuna and Candrakirti.
You said: "nothing originates, and because of that, there can also be no dependence"
Not true, because what dependently originates are dependently designated empty phenomena, not the interaction between truly established or findable core entities that never truly originated.
  • Like
  • Reply
  • Edited

Emptiness as Dependent Arising and Causal Efficacy: Distinguishing Water-Moon from Rabbit-Horn
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Emptiness as Dependent Arising and Causal Efficacy: Distinguishing Water-Moon from Rabbit-Horn

Emptiness as Dependent Arising and Causal Efficacy: Distinguishing Water-Moon from Rabbit-Horn

  • Like
  • Reply
  • Remove Preview
Soh Wei Yu
John Tan just had a chat with me and commented, "First, you must understand why saying, 'If it’s non-origination, would you agree that nothing truly originates? (I’m talking only about the ultimate perspective here). Following from that, would you agree that if nothing originates, there is no actual “dependent origination” (nothing originates, and because of that, there can also be no dependence)?' is a substantialist view. Why?
A substantialist mindset thinks that unreality has no consequences.
However, in the worldview of a non-substantialist, nothing is substantial, and that is why there is pain, suffering, and all these consequences.
So, you have to understand why the conventional is so important: because sentient beings mistakenly believe you need true existence to have causal efficacy.
They think that because there is no true existence ultimately, therefore, there are no consequences.

Understand? If you cannot feel this deep in your heart, you are still harboring substantialist view.

If conceptual elaborations have no consequences then how can freedom from all elaborations liberate? You won't need to be free from conceptual elaborations at all, right?"
  • Like
  • Reply
  • Edited


Mr. CJ
Soh Wei Yu A lot to respond to, I will go one at a time and pick out the main points.
"Your questioning implies non-arising refutes dependent origination. That is not the case." - I didn't say this. I believe the two are compatible, as you do. The difference is that you are saying "non-arising" actually produces some result. For me, non-arising means non-arising, no result is produced (ultimately). No cause, no result, no dependent origination. From the afflicted view, yes of course, things are reified as being real and therefore there are also apparently real results.
"MMK refutes any kind of production other than dependent origination. It is through dependent origination that emptiness is correctly discerned. ..."
I agree, this doesn't contradict what I've said. In fact, this actually affirms my claim: "The only way to the ultimate truth (emptiness) is through the relative truth (dependent origination)". Note that he is clearly equating dependent origination with *relative* truth here, not ultimate.
"As said earlier, DO is not just the 12 links. The general principle of Dependent Origination is not to be equated with the 12 links, which is merely the afflicted *mode* of dependent origination, not the principle itself."
I didn't equate them. I stated that I'm referring only to the 12 links, and that I accept the general principle. I clearly distinguished between the two in my response.
"Not true, because what dependently originates are dependently designated empty phenomena, not the interaction between truly established or findable core entities that never truly originated."
Yes, so this is what I stated. There is no entity that dependently originates, there are only the dependent designations (relative truth). Ultimately, nothing originates (non-arising).
I don't really see a contradiction, unless you're asserting something truly existent is actually produced, ultimately, through dependent origination.
  • Like
  • Reply
Soh Wei Yu
Mr. CJ dependent origination and dependent designation are not different. Dependent origination correctly understood are dependent designations. Nagarjuna affirms dependent origination and dependent designations, calling it the middle way. Understood wrongly, they are dependent existence, a wrong view rejected by Nagarjuna and a guise of svabhava. Dependent existence is Not dependent origination, it only sounds alike to the unlearned.
If you reject dependent origination, it becomes a nihilist view and you also fail to see the causal efficacies of karma and so on. See John Tan’s comment above and my article on emptiness and causal efficacy.
Such views are also criticized by Longchenpa:
  • Like
  • Reply
  • Edited
Mr. CJ
Soh Wei Yu I think I understand what John is saying here. I don't believe I have a substantialist view, but I'm open to any and all "criticism" or advice 🙂. I guess by consequences, he means results of causes?
In my view, nothing is substantial. If things are ultimately non-arisen as I said, then how can anything be substantial? There are consequences, *relatively*. But if consequences are asserted to be ultimately truly existent, then surely that would be incompatible with emptiness (the idea that nothing is inherently existent)? As I'm sure we all agree, emptiness is the ultimate reality. Hopefully that clarifies what I meant to say.
  • Like
  • Reply
Soh Wei Yu
Longchenpa, in Finding Rest in the Nature of Mind, powerfully refutes this:
“Those who scorn the law of karmic cause and fruit / Are students of the nihilist view outside the Dharma. / They rely on the thought that all is void; / They fall in the extreme of nothingness...
”The law of karmic cause and fruit, / Compassion and the gathering of merit - / All this is but provisional teaching fit for children: / Enlightenment will not be gained thereby. / Great yogis should remain without intentional action. / They should meditate upon reality that is like space. / Such is the definitive instruction.” / The view of those who speak like this / Of all views is the most nihilist...
How strange is this! / They want a fruit but have annulled its cause...
Throw far away such faulty paths as these! / The true, authentic path asserts / The arising in dependence of both cause and fruit, / The natural union of skillful means and wisdom. / Through the causality of nonexistent but appearing acts, / Through meditation on the nonexistent but appearing path, / The fruit is gained, appearing and yet nonexistent; / And for the sake of nonexistent but appearing beings, / Enlightened acts, appearing and yet nonexistent, manifest. / Such is pure causality’s profound interdependence...
Thus all the causal processes / Whereby samsara is contrived should be abandoned, / And all acts that are the cause of liberation / Should be earnestly performed.”
  • Like
  • Reply
Mr. CJ
Soh Wei Yu Yes, but he also says in the Choying Dzod that there is no karma, no enlightenment, no sentient beings, etc. So we just have to understand the meaning behind the words. He's referring to conventionality here. Conventionally, we shouldn't reject karma, DO, cause and result and I agree.
Also in Finding Rest in Illusion, the final book of this trilogy where he describes the ultimate view, he describes all phenomena as being like dreams, illusions, etc (8 similies of illusion). In other words, they're not truly existent. Karma, causes and results are illusory appearances and are not truly established.
  • Like
  • Reply
  • Edited
Soh Wei Yu
You miss the point of John Tan and Longchenpa (along with Nagarjuna, etc). Both clearly explained how conventional phenomena have causal efficacy precisely because they are empty and illusory, like water moons, not rabbit horns.
Failing to see this, one becomes a nihilist.
  • Like
  • Reply
Soh Wei Yu
Conventional does not mean “without consequences and unimportant”.
  • Like
  • Reply
Soh Wei Yu
Hence as Longchenpa stated, “Throw far away such faulty paths as these! / The true, authentic path asserts / The arising in dependence of both cause and fruit, / The natural union of skillful means and wisdom. / Through the causality of nonexistent but appearing acts, / Through meditation on the nonexistent but appearing path, / The fruit is gained, appearing and yet nonexistent; / And for the sake of nonexistent but appearing beings, / Enlightened acts, appearing and yet nonexistent, manifest. / Such is pure causality’s profound interdependence...
Thus all the causal processes / Whereby samsara is contrived should be abandoned, / And all acts that are the cause of liberation / Should be earnestly performed.”
  • Like
  • Reply
Mr. CJ
Soh Wei Yu They have causal efficacy *conventionally*. Longchenpa never says otherwise. How could conventional phenomena produce ultimately real results, if they themselves are not real?
  • Like
  • Reply
  • Edited
Soh Wei Yu
Mr. CJ nobody said anything about truly existent phenomena.
They are causally efficacious because they are unreal and illusory.
Dependent origination is not somehow “unimportant” just because they are “empty and conventional”.
Hence:
“A lot of talk on here lately about how lame relative reality is vs how awesome ultimate reality is.
Apparently an omniscient master is supposed to see how both the relative and the ultimate exist at the same time in a Union of Appearance and Emptiness.
It's because everything is dependently arisen that it can be seen as empty.
Not even the smallest speck exists by its own power.
Je Tsongkhapa said, "Since objects do not exist through their own nature, they are established as existing through the force of convention."
He was the biggest proponent of keeping vows and virtuous actions through all stages of sutra and tantra.
He also leveraged the relative by practicing millions of prostrations and offering mandalas.
He also practiced generation and completion stages of tantra while keeping his conduct spotless.
He held conduct in the highest regard in all of his texts on tantra such as his masterwork, A Lamp to Illuminate the Five Stages.” - Jason Parker, 2019
  • Like
  • Reply
Mr. CJ
Soh Wei Yu "Conventional does not mean “without consequences and unimportant”." Sure, but I never said "without consequences and unimportant". Where did I say that?
I just said they are conventional, which you seem to now agree with.
  • Like
  • Reply
Mr. CJ
Soh Wei Yu I never denied causal efficacy on a conventional level or said that dependent origination is unimportant. I denied them on an ultimate level, because nothing is produced, and therefore nothing is causally efficaceous, on an ultimate level.
  • Like
  • Reply
Soh Wei Yu
It's good that we're aligned on the conventional importance and causal efficacy of dependent origination. Your distinction between the conventional and ultimate levels is indeed central to Madhyamaka.
When you say, 'nothing is produced, and therefore nothing is causally efficacious, on an ultimate level,' this resonates with Nāgārjuna's refutation of inherently existing production (svabhava-production). From an ultimate standpoint, no inherently existent entity is produced, nor does it inherently act as a cause or experience an effect.
The crucial Madhyamaka insight, as Ācārya Malcolm Smith articulates, is that "there is no such thing as an ultimate that exists separate from a relative entity." The ultimate truth of emptiness (sunyata) isn't a different place or a denial of the relative world; rather, it is the very nature of the relative world when analyzed correctly. Malcolm notes, "When one analyzes something, whatever is left over is 'ultimate,' because this is the limit of one's analysis... For a Madhyamaka, water is a relative truth, and it is also empty of all extremes... hence, emptiness is ultimate truth for Madhyamaka."
So, the ultimate is precisely the emptiness of inherent existence of conventionally appearing phenomena. This is why the Heart Sūtra famously states, "Form is emptiness, emptiness is form; emptiness is not other than form, form is not other than emptiness." The "form" (relative phenomena, including production and causality) is not annihilated by its ultimate nature (emptiness); its ultimate nature is its emptiness.
Nāgārjuna's genius lies in showing that it is precisely because phenomena are empty of inherent existence (their ultimate nature) that they can dependently arise and function causally (their conventional reality). If they possessed an intrinsic, unchanging nature, they would be static.
As he states in MMK 24:18-19:
'Whatever is dependently co-arisen,
That is explained to be emptiness.
That, being a dependent designation,
Is itself the middle way.
There is no thing whatsoever that is not dependently arisen;
therefore there is no thing whatsoever that is not empty.'
Nāgārjuna puts it succinctly in the Vigrahavyāvartanī : “Where emptiness is operative, dependent arising is operative; where dependent arising is operative, the Four Noble Truths are operative… Where emptiness is not operative, nothing works; where it is operative, everything works.” (paraphrasing Vv 70–71; Sanskrit: *yatra śūnyatā pravartate…*).

As Nāgārjuna states in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 24:14: “Everything is possible for whom emptiness is possible; for whom emptiness is not possible, nothing is possible.”
Conventionally: Dependent origination functions; causes appear to produce effects, and these have consequences. This is relative truth – how things appear prior to deep analysis.
Ultimately: This entire conventional process, when analyzed, is found to be empty of any inherent existence (svabhava). This emptiness is its ultimate truth. The 'no production' on an ultimate level signifies the absence of inherent, findable, independent production.
The ultimate truth does not negate the conventional functioning of dependent origination; it clarifies its true, empty nature. As Malcolm Smith further clarifies, "All entities bear two natures, one relative, the other ultimate. Why? Because all phenomena are empty." The two truths are not "independent domains."
So, if your statement 'nothing is produced ultimately' means that 'no inherently existent thing is produced ultimately,' then this aligns perfectly with Madhyamaka. The production that appears conventionally is understood ultimately as being empty of such an inherent nature. The key is the inseparability: conventional dependent arising is ultimately empty, and that very emptiness is the nature that allows conventional dependent arising to appear and function. To perceive them as separate, or for the ultimate to negate the conventional function, would miss Nāgārjuna's Middle Way.
This also aligns with Malcolm's point that for us, "the ultimate depends on the relative, since it is only through analysis of relative truths that one arrives at ultimate truth." We start with conventional appearances and, through analysis, discern their empty nature.
  • Like
  • Reply
  • Edited
Soh Wei Yu
John Tan wrote in the past: "Sentient beings in ignorance tend to seek truly existent entities to attribute causal efficacy to them. In their confusion, they wrongly conclude that since conceptual constructs do not exist inherently, they lack causal efficacy and significance. This view is inverted and in fact contradicts our daily experiences of how things function. The mind that grasps at substantiality fails to comprehend how phenomena, being empty of inherent existence, can still function and possess causal efficacy. This failure arises because the "framework of essentiality" obstructs the "logic" that only phenomena empty of inherent existence can arise dependently and thus have causal efficacy."

Malcolm:

Thorough knowledge of relative truth is ultimate truth; for this reason the two truths are mutually confirming and not in contradiction at all.

….

The ultimate truth is that neither you, the child, nor the candy exist inherently. As QQ pointed out, whatever is dependently originated, that is empty and dependently designated. The two truths are inseparable.

Queequeg said:

I'm not sure cause and effect as you have in mind applies to the view explained through ichinen sanzen. "Since suffering and its causes do not exist..." I don't think its any sort of conventional view. As I understand, its the view taught in, for instance, the Heart Sutra: 

There is no suffering, no cause of suffering,

no end to suffering, no path to follow.


Malcolm replied:

Which actually means:

There is suffering, a cause of suffering,

an end to suffering, a path to follow.

Why? "Matter is empty, emptiness is matter; apart from matter there is no emptiness; apart from emptiness there is no matter, the same for sensation. perception, formation, and consciousness."

The Heart Sūtra is merely saying there is no inherent suffering, cause, end, or path, and that the two truths, samsara and nirvana, etc., are inseparable.

John Tan:

A substantialist mindset thinks that unreality has no consequences.

However, in the worldview of a non-substantialist, nothing is substantial, and that is why there is pain, suffering, and all these consequences.

So, you have to understand why the conventional is so important: because sentient beings mistakenly believe you need true existence to have causal efficacy.

They think that because there is no true existence ultimately, therefore, there are no consequences.


Chris Jones
Soh Wei Yu That was my point this whole time though. I never denied conventional causality in the first place. Which is why I was confused when you started sending me paragraphs on how conventional causality is valid, and accusing me of having a substantialist view.
They’re not different domains, but they also need to be distinguished properly. If someone fails to realize the ultimate, then there’s no realization, no liberation from samsara.
Any ordinary person knows that causes have effects. This isn’t really something profound or a liberating insight. The liberating insight is emptiness and dependent origination, which is why these things are emphasized in dharma texts and not ordinary causality.
Anyway, glad we agree.
  • Like
  • Reply
Mr. CJ
Soh Wei Yu "Did you get to see this response:
It's good that we're aligned on the conventional importance and causal efficacy of dependent origination ..."
No, didn't see this one. But I see it now 🙂 I think I got most of your responses though so it's ok. FWIW I think these are good posts, you are probably right that I need to remind myself more of the fact that the two truths are inseparable. I don't know where but you said something earlier about not having to negate something truly non-existent (like rabbit horns). There is no entity there to negate, and so we only negate that which is conventionally valid. That was an interesting point. When we negate something, there is always the basis for imputation as well which shouldn't be denied.
  • Like
  • Reply
Mr. CJ
Soh Wei Yu Also, some dharma texts actually flip your analogy and state that phenomena *are* in fact totally nonexistent, like rabbit horns. For example the Dharmadhātustava:
"Just as the horns on rabbits' heads, do not exist except in the imagination, phenomena are all precisely like that, merely imagined, having no existence."
Also from krodha:
"Things that are free of the four extremes do not exist. They are free from the second extreme of “nonexistence” in the tetralemma because having never arisen in the first place, they never existed, and never having existed, they cannot cease to exist and become nonexistents in that regard. That said, they never existed in the first place either, again like the son of a barren woman or horns on a rabbit, for that reason things that are free of the four extremes do not exist."
What do you think about this?
  • Like
  • Reply
Soh Wei Yu
Mr. CJ Yes I am aware of these passages and Krodha's posts on this matter. I do not have issues with them.
-----
Hey everyone\! 👋 Ever come across Buddhist philosophy that sounds a bit intense, maybe even nihilistic? It's a common point of discussion, especially when we encounter profound teachings on emptiness\! Someone (let's call him Chris) shared a couple of fascinating quotes that are perfect for diving into this, particularly within Madhyamaka (Middle Way) thought.
Let's break them down and see why they aren't actually saying "nothing matters," but something much more liberating\!
**First, where do Chris's quotes come from?**
1️⃣ **Quote 1:** "Just as the horns on rabbits’ heads do not exist except in the imagination … phenomena are all precisely like that, merely imagined, having no existence.”
\* **Source:** This is from the great master Nāgārjuna, in his work *Dharmadhātustava* (In Praise of the Dharmadhātu), verse 30.
\* (Reliable English versions can be found from translators like Jim Scott or Karl Brunnhölzl – often discussed on platforms like dharmawheel.net or siteofenlightenment.org).
\* **What the text is doing:** This verse kicks off a section using strong similes (like rabbit horns) to dismantle the idea of *intrinsic existence* (svabhāva) – the mistaken belief that things exist independently, from their own side. Crucially, verse 35 immediately pivots to say that precisely *because* everything is empty of this imagined inherent existence, the luminous Dharmadhātu (the essence of reality) can shine\! ✨
2️⃣ **Quote 2:** “Things that are free of the four extremes do not exist … like the son of a barren woman or horns on a rabbit.”
\* **Source:** This is a more contemporary paraphrase by Kyle Dixon (known as "krodha" online, e.g., on Dharmawheel/Reddit).
\* **What the text is doing:** Dixon is summarizing the classical *catuṣkoṭi* (four extremes or four-cornered logic). This explores whether things: (1) Exist, (2) Don't exist, (3) Both, or (4) Neither. The point is that reality, when deeply analyzed, cannot be neatly boxed into any of these concepts.
🤔 **Context: Why these texts can sound "nihilistic" (but aren't\!)**
This is the core of it\! It's all about understanding what's being negated.
* **Nāgārjuna’s Rhetorical Strategy:**
When Nāgārjuna uses images like "rabbit horns," he's aiming to pulverize our deep-seated belief in *svabhāva* – that fixed, independent way we imagine things to exist. He’s NOT denying everyday appearances or that things function. In fact, he often clarifies that these very same phenomena, when seen free of our conceptual overlays, are manifestations of the ultimate nature.
* **"Non-existence" in Madhyamaka & The Two Truths:** This is crucial\! Madhyamaka philosophy beautifully distinguishes between two truths:
➡️ **Relative Truth (Conventional Truth):** Phenomena appear, they function, karma works, and we interact with the world. Apples fall from trees, kindness has effects. This is the world of our everyday experience.
➡️ **Ultimate Truth:** When we search for the ultimate, findable *essence* of these phenomena, nothing stands up to analysis. From this perspective, they are said to "never arise" (*anutpāda*) in an *intrinsic, independent* way.
So, when texts say phenomena are "totally nonexistent," they are primarily targeting that mistaken idea of **inherent existence** (the belief that things exist independently, from their own side, with a solid, findable essence). More broadly, some interpretations emphasize that this negation targets *any* form of **true establishment** – any notion that phenomena are ultimately real or findable in themselves, even our conventional experiences. The ultimate aim is to free the mind from all forms of clinging to things as being more fixed or independently real than they are.
Critically, this doesn't erase their conventional, everyday utility or appearance\! Great thinkers like Tsongkhapa (from the Gelug school) and Gorampa (from the Sakya school, often highlighting a perspective shared by other non-Gelug traditions) equally warned that conflating these two levels (i.e., taking ultimate non-existence to mean conventional non-existence) slides directly into nihilism. So, appearances are still appearances, and they function\!
* **Four-Extremes Language (Catuṣkoṭi):**
Statements like Dixon's paraphrase echo Nāgārjuna (e.g., MMK Chapter 15). Saying something "does not exist" after showing it doesn't fit any of the four extremes doesn't mean a blank void. It means that reality itself is indescribable by these limited conceptual fabrications. It transcends them.
-----
DHARMAWHEEL.NET
Dharma Wheel - Buddhism Discussion Forum

Dharma Wheel - Buddhism Discussion Forum

  • Like
  • Reply
  • Remove Preview
Soh Wei Yu
💡 **A Concise Reply You Can Post (to Chris or anyone raising similar points):**
"Hi Chris — really appreciate your careful reading and bringing up these important quotes\!
* That powerful "rabbit-horns" line (Nāgārjuna’s *Dharmadhātustava*, v. 30) aims to dismantle our fixed idea of *intrinsic existence* (things existing independently). It's not erasing conventional appearances. In fact, Nāgārjuna quickly shows that once this fixation drops, the luminous *dharmadhātu* shines. So, it's a skillful tool, not nihilism.
* The Kyle Dixon quote summarizes the classic *catuṣkoṭi* (four extremes). If something is free from existing, not existing, both, or neither, none of those conceptual labels stick. "Not existing" here means it never existed in that solid, independent way we imagined, not that it conventionally disappears.
So, we end up in full agreement:
➡️ **Conventionally:** Causes bring effects; ethics and karma matter.
➡️ **Ultimately:** This same process is empty of inherent essence; "arising" is dependently designated.
Holding both without mixing them up is key to Nāgārjuna’s Middle Way. 🙏"
-----
🌟 **A Deeper Dive: Nuances in Understanding Emptiness** 🌟
The points above offer a general map. But Madhyamaka philosophy is incredibly deep, with centuries of rich discussion\! For instance, as some of you might know or be curious about, different schools and masters (like the Nyingma scholar Mipham Rinpoche, or figures from Sakya traditions) explore the "object of negation" (*dgag bya*) with profound subtlety.
They might emphasize that Nāgārjuna's powerful analysis doesn't just stop at refuting a specifically defined "inherent existence." Instead, it thoroughly deconstructs *any* trace of "true establishment" (*bden grub*) for *all* phenomena. This means that when examined from the ultimate viewpoint, nothing – not even our everyday conventional experiences – can be found to possess an ultimate, intrinsic, or truly established nature.
Sounds radical, right? But here’s the key: this ultimate unfindability **does not mean** that conventional things don't appear or function. Far from it\! Masters like Mipham stress that it's precisely *because* phenomena lack any such fixed, true establishment that they can dynamically arise, change, and interact dependently. Think of it like a dream – vivid and affecting while it lasts, but without ultimate substance.
So, while the precise language and the breadth of what's being ultimately negated can be articulated differently, the core remains consistent across authentic Madhyamaka traditions:
* To dismantle all forms of clinging to phenomena as truly or inherently real.
* To fully uphold conventional reality, dependent arising, and the efficacy of karma.
* To lead to liberation by realizing the profound union of appearance and emptiness.
These subtle distinctions really show the depth and sophistication of Buddhist thought\! It's a lifelong journey of learning and contemplation.
-----
📚 **Want to explore even more? Here are some fantastic resources (many are free\!):**
* **Jim Scott (tr.), *In Praise of the Dharmadhātu* PDF:** Search "In Praise of the Dharmadhātu Jim Scott PDF" (e.g., on abuddhistlibrary.com).
* **Karl Brunnhölzl, *In Praise of Dharmadhātu* (intro & tr.):** Tsadra Foundation's RYWiki: [https://rywiki.tsadra.org/index.php/In\_Praise\_of\_Dharmadh%C4%81tu](https://www.google.com/search?q=https://rywiki.tsadra.org/index.php/In_Praise_of_Dharmadh%25C4%2581tu)
* **Nāgārjuna's *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way):** Lotsawa House is great for root texts: [https://www.lotsawahouse.org/.../fundamental-verses...](https://www.google.com/search?q=https://www.lotsawahouse.org/indian-masters/nagarjuna/fundamental-verses-middle-way) (Jay Garfield's commentary is also excellent).
* **"Clarifying the Middle Way" handout, Kadampa Center:** Search on [https://kadampa-center.org/](https://kadampa-center.org/)
*(Exploring these texts further can reveal the subtle distinctions discussed in the "Deeper Dive" section\!)*
Hope this sparks some interesting reflections and discussions\! What are your thoughts? 👇
ABUDDHISTLIBRARY.COM
A Buddhist Library

A Buddhist Library

  • Like
  • Reply
  • Remove Preview
Soh Wei Yu
On an unrelated note, here's a new writing by John Tan:
Intuiting the middle path of buddhism via Prajna.
It is not easy to grasp the "Middle Way" of Buddhism, for it is not a conceptual midpoint between two opposing views. Rather, it must be intuitively realized through the wisdom of emptiness (śūnyatā).
For instance, when we observe how seamlessly experience unfolds with changing conditions — as if mind and matter dance in perfect coordination without any separation — the habitual tendency is to assume that such intimacy must arise from a shared substance, a unifying essence. This is the reflex of reification.
However, through the penetrating insight of prajñā, we come to see that this seamlessness does not arise from a common underlying essence, but from the emptiness of inherent boundaries. What appears as continuity is not the result of an indivisible oneness, but the absence of any independently existing edges to begin with.
In this light, the heart intuits the Middle Way — not as a static center or a compromise between views — but as a dynamic openness that does not rest on any essential foundation. It is through recognizing the non-arising of borders that the Middle is felt, directly, without grasping.
Take the simple example of “left” and “right” in my previous. Conventionally, they seem to refer to distinct positions, spatial opposites — as if there is some boundary, some inherent line that divides them. Yet upon analysis, we find no such boundary that can be located, no intrinsic dividing line, no essential base that gives either side its identity. Still, their functionality remains entirely intact. We turn left or right, navigate streets, orient ourselves in space — all without ever requiring any inherently existing division between left and right.
Not only are meaning and function preserved, but causal efficacy — the ability to respond, coordinate, and act — unfolds effortlessly. There is no need for a substance in between, no carrier of a signal, no bridging essence. And yet, everything flows in harmony.
This is the profound taste of the Middle Way: causal coherence without inherent causes, relational meaning without intrinsic reference points, seamless connection without binding substance. It is the insight that emptiness does not collapse function, but liberates it from the burden of having to be something in order to work.
In this, we recognize: the world is not stitched together by substance, but dances in the openness of dependency and designation, free from all foundations. The seamlessness is not evidence of an underlying unity — it is the mark of non-arising boundaries.
This is the magic of emptiness — that which dissolves the need for foundations, yet does not destroy function. Through this wisdom, we come to see that the seamlessness of experience does not imply substance, but reflects the emptiness of boundaries. The intimacy between phenomena is not the product of merging into oneness, but of never having been divided to begin with.
As this insight matures, the entire field of experience becomes pervaded by a profound openness — without boundary, without base, without center or edge. One senses an intimacy throughout, not by collapsing distinctions, but by seeing through their reified edges. Appearances remain diverse, but the felt sense of separation dissolves. What remains is vibrant clarity everywhere, alive in its responsiveness, yet free from the need to anchor in anything fixed.
This is the Middle Way — not between two poles, but beyond them, precisely because it is neither-nor, and yet fully present. It is the path of directness, openness, and luminous functioning, liberated from extremes not by suppression, but by wisdom’s gentle cut through illusion.
The Error of Substantial Unity
A common mistake arises when the seamlessness of experience is misinterpreted as evidence of a singular substance behind appearances. The intimacy between mind and matter, or between self and world, is often mistaken as proof of an underlying oneness — a foundational unity that binds all things together.
But this view is precisely what the Middle Way dismantles. It is not that things merge into a unified ground; rather, the seamlessness is possible because no fixed boundary exists between them. The apparent continuity of experience is not due to a shared substance, but to the complete absence of self-existing borders. The mind’s compulsion to find something “underlying” is a reflex born from ignorance, not insight.
To abide in the Middle is to be free from the need to ground experience in either multiplicity or unity. This openness does not collapse distinctions but allows them to function fluidly without the need for inherent separation or identity.
Dependent Arising as the Language of Emptiness
Dependent arising (pratītyasamutpāda) expresses this middle way with precision. It reveals how all phenomena arise in mutual dependence, without any need for inherent existence. Things do not exist independently, but neither do they arise from nothing. They function because of their relations, not because of a core essence.
Take again the example of left and right. Their existence depends entirely on mutual designation. Remove one, and the other vanishes. And yet, we turn left and right every day without confusion. Their function is real, but not rooted in anything independently real.
Likewise, the sound of a bell arises not from the bell alone, nor from the ear, nor from air vibrations alone. It arises from a complex interplay of conditions. But when heard, the sound is vivid, clear, real in experience — and yet, try to find where the sound “truly” resides, and it eludes grasp. This unfindability is not a defect; it is the very mark of emptiness.
When understood properly, dependent arising is not a mechanical process of cause and effect but a luminous, participatory, and intimate unfolding of appearance, where function and clarity emerge without requiring a base. This is the elegance of the Middle Way: reality functions, radiates, and responds without the burden of being anything in itself.
Intuiting the Middle Path of Buddhism via Prajna
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Intuiting the Middle Path of Buddhism via Prajna

Intuiting the Middle Path of Buddhism via Prajna

  • Like
  • Reply
  • Remove Preview