Zen Master Hong Wen Liang:
While translating Total Exertion, I realised ChatGPT likes to turn it into 'wholeness'. I gathered the following quotations to correct ChatGPT.
John Tan said years ago:
"Though wholeness can also be said to be beyond space and time, it is an entity concept. But total exertion is totally exerted as an activity. All becomes that activity. When you write, everything is contributing in the activity of writing. Subsuming into all-embracing consciousness is a wholeness and oneness experience also."
"In total exertion, we should not only understand from the standpoint of wholeness but as one functioning, one action. When you breathe, the tree, the air, the lung, the heart, the mind, ears, eyes, toes, and the body are one functioning of breathing. There's no eye, no toes, no body, as all transcend their conventionalities into the single function. Do you understand the difference? When you say this breath is also the breath you breathed ten thousand years ago, you have totally exerted the infinite past into a single action of breathing. What does this mean? You would not call this wholeness, right? When you show me this passage of total exertion, Daowu or Dōgen are also participating in the communication of total exertion to you. If you can feel it, the past is as present and the ancient masters are as alive. If you can feel it not as beautiful words but as living experience, the whole lineage of ancient masters is transmitted without reserve, instantly."
"Freedom from all elaborations cannot be said to be "wholeness"; it is just "purity," free from all elaborations. Purity transcends both notions of parts and whole. Conventionally, parts and whole arise dependently."
"One must be able to discern clearly the difference between "wholeness" and "capacity to participate in togetherness." One is due to empty nature and therefore participates freely in dependence. Free of structures, it therefore assimilates all structures. The other has the scent of a fixed and definite structure (still an essence view). Empty in nature, consciousness never stands apart; there is no moment outside relation. Where conditions arise, it is precisely that event—sound in hearing, color in seeing, thought in thinking; where none, nothing is found to point to. Participation without a participant; dynamism without a whole."
Conversation — 5 August 2023
John Tan wrote to someone else:
John Tan: Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche is Nyingma and champions the Shentong view. I think Malcolm once confronted him and said that harboring that sort of view is no different from the Advaita view. Wei Yu may have the text since he compiles Malcolm's answers and comments.
John Tan: However, it is not exactly wrong to emphasize clarity/awareness when one has somehow missed the "clarity" aspect when negating the inherentness of reified mental constructs. In other words, negation involves two authentications of critical insights: one is in clearly seeing how reified constructs are mistaken as real, and two, the direct recognition that appearances are one's empty clarity.
John Tan: It is not that their experiential insights differ; it is how it unfolds.
John Tan: The two can be treated as separate, which results in the 外道 [externalist/non-Buddhist] view. This means a direct taste of clarity, yet without realizing its empty nature. This results in a self-view.
John Tan: For example, one can have very powerful experiences and authentication of clarity as "I-I" in phase one, as in my case or Sim's case, but still not have realized that sound, sensations, thoughts, etc. (appearances) are one's radiant clarity. Then, when we authenticate that later in anatta insight, it becomes very clear. For these practitioners, clarity/presence/awareness is nothing special at all and, more often than not, is misunderstood.
John Tan: Appearances are treated as external. Even in the case of non-duality where it is clearly experienced, it is still treated as if the Self is special and something beyond, which is a misconception due to our inherent pattern of analyzing things.
John Tan: These Shentong practitioners do not understand "self-aware" as "sounds hear themselves," as you wrote, or as how you understand the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta. They see "self-aware" as a special Awareness apart from luminous appearances. Many can't get around that. Rangtong is pointing out what you are saying. Rangtong is not against appearances or the union of appearances and emptiness. Shentong can be skewed towards pointing to some super awareness, which is Advaita.
John Tan: However, there are some Rangtong practitioners that somehow do not get the clarity part, but that is not the teaching of Rangtong.
Soh Wei Yu: I skimmed through the Mountain Doctrine on Dolpopa's texts before. To me, it was no different from Advaita at all. But that is the founder of Shentong. The modern proponents of Shentong, however, are often clear about anatta and empty clarity. Even Thrangu Rinpoche taught the view of Shentong, but instead of the original "empty of everything else but not itself," he taught Shentong as the ultimate also being empty.
Soh Wei Yu: Which, in my opinion, seems to be different from the original Dolpopa teaching but more aligned with anatta.
John Tan: Yes. It is simply tradition and sectarian biasedness to present Rangtong as denying clarity. Mipham also rejected Shentong. Tibetan Buddhism has this problem of stereotyping and presenting a one-sided view.
Soh Wei Yu: Yes, I read that even Longchenpa anticipated and rejected Shentong, even though he lived before its time. He rejected the kind of view that Buddha nature is empty of everything else but its own existence.
John Tan: In the Buddha's time, there was no need to emphasize Presence and clarity. It was the orthodox view and taught in the Vedas, Upanishads, and Bhagavad Gita throughout India. This did not require the birth of the Buddha to point out.
....
Soh Wei Yu: It depends on who the Shentong writer is. Some teachers like Thrangu Rinpoche and many others are very clear. Still, I find most Buddhist teachers today are also not clear—mostly awareness teachings.
John Tan: There may have been an overemphasis on emptiness without clarity that gave birth to Yogacara teaching to bring out this clarity aspect.
...
Soh Wei Yu: This part should be criticized, which is the general understanding of Shentong from the start. But people like Thrangu Rinpoche don't see it that way when explaining Shentong. Also, it will fall under the same criticism as this:
“Also, Mipham Rinpoche, one of the most influential masters of the Nyingma school wrote:
...Why, then, do the Mādhyamika masters refute the Cittamātra tenet system? Because self-styled proponents of the Cittamātra tenets, when speaking of mind-only, say that there are no external objects but that the mind exists substantially—like a rope that is devoid of snakeness, but not devoid of ropeness. Having failed to understand that such statements are asserted from the conventional point of view, they believe the nondual consciousness to be truly existent on the ultimate level. It is this tenet that the Mādhyamikas repudiate. But, they say, we do not refute the thinking of Ārya Asaṅga, who correctly realized the mind-only path taught by the Buddha...
...So, if this so-called “self-illuminating nondual consciousness” asserted by the Cittamātrins is understood to be a consciousness that is the ultimate of all dualistic consciousnesses, and it is merely that its subject and object are inexpressible, and if such a consciousness is understood to be truly existent and not intrinsically empty, then it is something that has to be refuted. If, on the other hand, that consciousness is understood to be unborn from the very beginning (i.e. empty), to be directly experienced by reflexive awareness, and to be self-illuminating gnosis without subject or object, it is something to be established. Both the Madhyamaka and Mantrayāna have to accept this…”
John Tan: It is not easy to sort out all of this, and it takes some time to get used to it.
Soh Wei Yu: Malcolm says Rangtong is totally a strawman set up by Shentongpas. It doesn't actually exist.
John Tan: This is good.
Soh Wei Yu: “Yes, realization of emptiness automatically entails having right view.
Your next statement presumes that those debating Gzhan stong and Rang stong have realized emptiness.
Since Rang stong is just a strawman set up by Gzhan stong pas, there is really no debate between Gzhan stong and Rang stong since there is no Rang stong Madhyamaka except in the imagination of those who call themselves "Gzhan stong" Madhyamakas.
N Pure because purity has always been a nonexistence. Sound Tantra, 3:12.5”
“I mean that there is no Rang stong at all from a Madhyamaka perspective: Nāgārjuna states:
If there were something subtle not empty, there would be something subtle to be empty, as there is nothing not empty, where is there something to be empty?
I mean that there is no Rang stong at all, apart from what the Gzhan stong pas have fabricated.
The Gzhan stong controversy arose out of a need by Tibetans to reconcile the five treatises of Maitreya with Nāgārjuna's Collection of Reasoning based upon the erroneous historical idea that the five treatises were authored by the bodhisattva Maitreya rather than a human being (who incidentally was probably Asanga's teacher).
In my opinion, the five treatises were a collection of texts meant to explicate the three main thrusts of Indian Mahāyāna sutras: Prajñāpāramita, Tathāgatagarbha, and Yogacāra. Four of the five are devoted to these three topics independently, with the Abhisamaya-alaṃkara devoted to Prajñāpāramita; Uttaratantra devoted to Tathāgatagarbha; and the two Vibhangas devoted to Yogacāra. The last, the Sutra-alaṃkara is an attempt to unify the thought of these three main trends in Mahāyāna into a single whole, from a Yogacara perspective.
When these treatises arrived in Tibetan, at the same time, a text attributed to the original Bhavaviveka, but probably by a later Bhavaviveka, translated under Atisha's encouragement, called Tarkajvala, presented the broad outline of what we call today "the four tenet systems".
In this text, the three own natures and so on were presented in a very specific way from a Madhyamaka perspective and labelled "Cittamatra".
So, the Gzhan stong controversy (with additional input from Vajrayāna exegesis based on a certain way of understanding the three bodhisattva commentaries) is about reconciling Madhyamaka with Yogacara.
Personally, I see no need to attempt to reconcile Madhyamaka and Yogacara. Madhyamaka is the pinnacle of sutra explication. But Tibetans did and still seem to need to do so, and they have passed on this need to their students.
But from my perspective, one cannot go beyond freedom from extremes.
N”
English Original: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2015/12/self-liberation-by-khamtrul-rinpoche-iii.html
另请参阅《大手印的皇印：第一卷：共起现成证悟指南：John Tan/Thusness 的评论。
我刚刚在翻阅一本新近翻译出来的大手印著作，我非常喜欢目前读到的一些段落。 看起来是一本很好的书，但我只来得及随手翻了几页。
强烈推荐阅读。 John Tan 认为它非常好。
这本书是《大手印的皇印：第一卷：共起现成证悟指南：1》，作者是第三世堪楚仁波切（Khamtrul Rinpoche III），译者是 Gerardo Abboud。
下面是一段关于“自解脱”的摘录：
当下此刻，观察者——觉知——是否与被观察者——寂静与运动——是分离的，还是说它其实正是那寂静与运动本身？ 以自己的觉知之眼去探究，你会明白：正在探究本身的那个，就是寂静与运动本身，毫无二别。 一旦这样发生，你将体验到清明的空性，呈现为天然光明的自知觉知。 最终，无论我们称之为本性与光辉、不应取的与对治、观察者与所观、正念与念头、寂静与运动，等等，你都应当知道：每一对名词两边并没有差别；在得到上师的加持后，要如实确证它们本来就是不分离的。 最终，抵达无观察者亦无所观的广大开敞界域，即是真义的现证，也是全部抉择与分析的究竟圆满。 这被称为“超越概念之见”，它离一切概念分别而自由，亦被称为“金刚心之见”。
“果位的毗钵舍那（观照慧）就是对于‘观察者与所观不二’这一最终定解的正确现证。”
(John Tan 就上述内容发表评论：
[9:14 PM, 6/20/2020] John Tan: 这并不只是单纯的经验而已。
[9:15 PM, 6/20/2020] John Tan: 它是透过这些名言假立与分析，看穿这些约定俗成之物，并现见这些约定本身的空性……
[7:52 PM, 6/20/2020] John Tan: 直到禅修者或“主体/行者”这个主宰者永远消失为止。
[7:53 PM, 6/20/2020] John Tan: 很少有人能把“全机”（total exertion）以及 DO【缘起】融入无我（anatta）当作正见（除了道元以外），这其实挺令人感到惋惜。
[7:54 PM, 6/20/2020] John Tan: 不过有些西藏上师写的文章真的非常好。
[7:58 PM, 6/20/2020] Soh Wei Yu: 哪些文章？
[8:02 PM, 6/20/2020] John Tan: 我刚刚在翻我们博客时，发现你贴过一篇关于“安住于六种感官”的文章。 忘了是哪一位噶玛巴了。
[8:03 PM, 6/20/2020] Soh Wei Yu: 哦……就是这篇
[8:05 PM, 6/20/2020] John Tan: 你真的很会找 🤣🤣🤣
[8:05 PM, 6/20/2020] John Tan: 下次我直接问你就好了……
[8:05 PM, 6/20/2020] John Tan: 哈哈)
……同样地，凡是在触觉根门所现的任何事物，比如柔软或粗糙的布料，这种被触到的触受本身就是你自心。 避免陷入执取或排斥。 无论柔软还是粗糙，都不要试图到柔软或粗糙之外另找“心”在何处，而是就安住在那柔软或粗糙本身之中，自在放松而不分散。 如果升起愉快或不愉快的感受，要认出它，并以正念安住。
同样，凡是在意识根门中升起的一切念头——无论对或错、好或坏、细腻或粗猛——也都是你自心。 避免喜欢“正确的”念头、厌弃“错误的”念头。 无论升起什么念头——好的、坏的或中性的；细微的、具体的或粗重的——都要以觉知认出它的本然面目，并让它自然持续。 如果出现任何攀附，比如围绕“对与错”去想这想那，这本身就是一个执著的念头。 因此要认出那个执取的念头，并就安住在它上面，轻松放下。 总之，即使当下并不是“好坏念头”的问题，而是“寂静与运动”的情形，也要避免作抉择。 不要以阻挡或追逐去染污它。 如果心是寂静的，就在那寂静的本然面目上放松。 如果它散开、驰散了，就在那散开的本然面目上松开。 无论寂静，或任何东西正在生起，就在那上面放松。 紧贴当下所现之物自身，让它的连续性自然保持，不要另外执取什么好或什么坏。
事实上，无论六种感官领域中现起任何“好或坏”的体验——眼根所见之色相、耳根所闻之声、鼻根所嗅之香、舌根所尝之味、身根所触之触、意根所生之念——都不要评断好坏，也不要沉溺于好恶。 无论出现什么、升起什么，先认出它，然后在那个状态中放松安住，最后让它自己解脱。
对我们而言，由于自无始以来的强大串习，我们一生都在生死轮回之中，因此贪爱与嗔恨的念头不可能不生起；这些念头毫无疑问会出现！ 你必须立志不再堕入迷失，要认出这些念头，并在它们当下直接放下。 就安住在了知这些贪著与排斥之念真相的状态中。
噶藏巴尊者（Lord Gotsangpa）说：
“总体而言，一切林林总总的显现，都是自心本身。 由于现象与空性从未以两个分离的实体而安住，所以根本没有必要把觉照拘束在内里。”
另外他说：
“当眼根境界中现起某个色相，这个所现的色相本身就是自心；所现之色相与空性并非二个。 轻轻地、毫无执取地就安住在色相上时，主客体自然得以解脱。 对声、香、味、触，以及意根中所现的种种心理活动，同样如此：只要安住在其当下的现起本身，它就自解脱。 也就是说，不是去打坐在‘觉照本身’上，而是毫无执取地直接安住在六种感官外境之上，使六根的现起本身即是禅修，增上功德由此而生。”
悉达·俄金巴（Siddha Orgyenpa）说：
“凡是能被看见的外在世界之静态或动态诸法，包括任何无情之物——比如大地、石头、山峦、岩石、房屋、地产——乃至三界中高低不同的有情众生——诸如天众、阿修罗，以及三恶趣的一切众生——无论所见为何，没有任何一法哪怕有一丝一毫，是真正在外面独立存在的实体。 它们都是自心之光辉所显现的本然光明。
在实际修持时，应当这样行持。 当大地、石头、山峦或岩石等无情之物显现时，不要在那个无情之物上陷入‘能见者—所见物’的固执分裂。 无论它怎样显现，都要松松地就安住在它上面。 不要以对美好经验的希求，或对不良经验的恐惧，去染污它。 无论现起什么，都要把核心修法直接用在它本身上。 不被任何其他念头打断，就在那个状态里宽松而安住。 以这种方式安住时，你不需要阻断显现、不需要去成就空性、也不必到别处寻找对治。 无情之物与觉知明确无二地相融一体，这就被称为“以现象为道”、“将万法与心合为一体”，以及“见到无二本质”。 如此行持，你就已经掌握了修行的关键要点。 若你不知道如何就在现象上如此宽松安住，反而是透过大量思虑、不断用观念去修正情境，那么这些现象就不会在你面前自然现起为禅修本身。
同样地，当你看见六道任一类众生——无论高或低、善或恶、快乐或痛苦——无论是谁，都如同对无情之物那样修持。 认出眼前所现之人（或众生），并在几乎无造作、仅仅不散乱的非修非作状态中，就宽松地安住在他/它上面。 如此，万法与心无别。 不要用“过失或功德”的角度去看待当下的显现。 避免人为造作或修改。 不要以排斥或成就的意图去染污它。 完全如其所是地，把它们当下现起的样貌当成修行本身。”
安住的方法不应只局限在我们刚才举过的那些情况。 将六根的现起用作修道之径，应当在任何时候都当作主要修持。 否则，尽管你在正式坐禅时也许还能保持某种安住，但之后一旦遭遇外在可爱境界——色、声、香、味、触——你就会完全失去决心，以凡夫方式去享受感官乐趣，而陷入迷惑。 如果你开始转动贪爱与嗔恨、或希望与恐惧的轮子，我们刚才所说的训练在关键时刻就不会现前。 那么你就是忽略了最重大的目标，关键点与根本意趣都会不见。 因此，不仅在主要的禅修安住时，尤其在一切时刻，你都应当学习让一切所现的感官经验，原原本本地被用作修行本身。
以六根的现起当作修道之径，具有许多层次的意义。 最初的效用是：你将停止被六根牵着走，从而任由它们肆意；此后，外境现象将不再对你的禅修造成负面影响，而是会逐渐转为庄严的饰相；最终，法与心不再有二分，你已安住于法身遍一切处的广大法界（界域）。
……
据说，彻底斩断关于“法与心不可分”这一点上的一切误解，真正将心与诸法无希求无畏惧地合而为一，正是在“一味”之较高阶段时所成办的。
……
第四，就“究竟功德是否已经出生”而言：由于身、心与诸法融为一体，并且以无二而现为多样，你便通达诸大元素，能够示现神变。通过殊胜的神通知与胜义智慧，你对外在与内在的诸法获得主宰，因此清净诸地的殊胜功德现起。在一刹那的觉知之中，生死与涅槃中所有善妙之事得以成办，一切不圆满与过失被舍离；并且因为你具有生起殊胜功德的能力，你便善于调御念头。你在往昔生世中所积集、原本要在无量劫之后于阿鼻地狱中受用的业力，那些沉睡的业，自行如一场扰乱不宁的梦般涌现出来，于是它们自然自净。同时，那些本应在无量劫之后才成熟的善业，也会在当下这一刻直接显现。你就掌握业。你证悟过去、现在、未来三时无别，在一瞬中见到它们不可分；无量劫被收摄成一瞬，一瞬又舒展成无量劫。你就掌握时间。由于身、心与诸法被统合，虚空与手掌平等无别；十亿世界系容入几粒微尘；一者化为多，多者成为一；你现为六道中任一类有情的特定形相，以与他们相应的语言宣说正法，乃至种种如是。你就掌握诸法。当喉部的脉道开启时，法藏涌流不息，言语之主得以现前；你在撰写论典时的自信无有阻碍，对于佛陀经教的意义毫无混乱。毫无障碍地了知一切所应知之法，你便掌握本初智慧。若是已得成办这些以及其他神变之力，那么“一味”的功德已然升起。但若虽对“一味”多少有所证得，而令此等功德觉醒的道之因缘微弱，因此尚未现起成就之征兆，那么这些功德就尚未出生。
第五，就“世俗层面是否已经通达”而言：种种现象在一味的证悟体性中不可分离，这种证悟对多种因果获得完全的掌握。一刹那的缘起，鲜明地显现为因果之轮，好似在日轮正中铺上一匹锦缎。在一刹那的觉知体验中，生死轮回与涅槃被辨明为二：你采纳善行、遮止恶行，并训练自己以增上对障染的净除。在空性的究竟实相之中，空性的诸法现起；如虚空般的因果被现证。由于与串习的连结已被切断，业的因果不会在第二个刹那中持续。因为你明白，生死、涅槃与修道一切诸法的生起、因由、安住、依处与坏灭，全都是依缘而起的情况，所以，只要身、语、意一有动静——甚至仅仅是一块石头或一根木棍在滚动——你便会了知哪些过失与功德是应当舍弃，哪些是应当采纳。外在的诸现象，乃至飞鸟与老鼠，都会向你显露正法。由此，你了知诸法具备你自心的本然特征，你对缘起与因果的认知臻于圆满，而世俗层面已被通达。“一味”被洞见为心的区别性特征；基于现象的种种误解被心所清除。世俗位的觉知便是般若，因此，导致对因果迷惑的无明被遣除，了知一切存在之法的智慧相应当生起。然而，若在多样的因果之中，没有升起“空性的一味”，那么世俗层面就尚未被通达。
……
偏向于“本性”的空性
无始以来对所知本性的偏离
将诸法与空性不可分地禅修，被称为“具足最胜相之空性”。由于不了解空性与缘起如何以不二而安住，你便认定空性是某种从未存在过的虚无，完全不受功德或过失所影响。于是你轻视善恶业因果，或者只是一味沉溺于“一切本自清净、本初解脱”等说法之中。怀持这样的空性，就无法通达缘起层面的世俗位。 在这一点上，所谓“大手印”（mahamudra）是指：自性本来无生，由于它既非有也非无，既非永恒也非全无，既非真实也非虚妄，亦非任何此类相状，所以它根本没有任何可安立的实有。然而，它那不间断的光明流现，呈现为一切种类的缘起之世俗层面，因此这被称为“空性具足缘起之核心，缘起具足空性之体性”。因此，空性并未偏离到“所知万法的本性”之上。 正如《中论·根本中道颂》所说： 任何并非依缘而生之法， 皆是毫无真实存在的法。 因此，凡是不空之法， 也都是毫无真实存在的法。 又如《菩提心论疏》所说： 说明世俗即是空性， 而唯有空性正是世俗界。
https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/1oc0zx7/is_nirvana_truly_the_ending_of_rebirth_or_the/
11h ago
R41NBOWRUMP3R
Is Nirvana truly the ending of rebirth or the understanding that rebirth was not happening to begin with?
Question
Been desperately trying to get some conceptual grasp on samsara and rebirth for a while now.
I’ve seen folks try to scientificate it by relating it to atoms in your body becoming a tree later on
I’ve seen it related back to karma as in rebirth is the collective consequences with made you and which you added to continuing on
I’ve seen it described in countless other ways
What all these descriptions seem to lack, in my eyes, is a compatibility with being ended
If it’s just an ‘energy continuing on in absence of a body’ then how does insight END that? My body won’t just disappear once I realize my Buddha nature
So is salvation actually just insight into anatta? Thus, if I truly understand anatta, I will subsequently understand my misconceptions about rebirth previously, recognize that rebirth isn’t compatible with no self, and at that point escape it? Realizing it was never there to begin with?
I’m willing to just continue the practice with an expectation that I might one day understand, I just wanted to vocalize my problem that every explanation I have seen for samsara and rebirth has been wholly incompatible with the concept of escaping said process. Curious what others think about that.
Edit: thank you all for your replies and discussions, I appreciate it all and it’s helped me formulate my next steps in research and practice. I hope I never came off argumentative, it was just my method to try to understand. Thanks again.
Upvote
21
Downvote
49
Go to comments
u/xabir avatar
xabir
•
10h ago
An intellectual understanding of no-self or anatman is far from the experiential realization of it. But even the experiential realization only marks the beginning of the path to liberation from samsara. It is the attainment of stream entry, in which Buddha gave the assurance that one will attain liberation from samsara within seven more lifetimes (or this very life if one is diligent in practice).
On what stream entry entails, see: https://www.reddit.com/r/streamentry/comments/igored/insight_buddhism_a_reconsideration_of_the_meaning/
No-self is completely compatible with rebirth.
Rizenfenix wrote:
“Continuing consciousness after death is, in most religions, a matter of revealed truth. In Buddhism, the evidence comes from the contemplative experience of people who are certainly not ordinary but who are sufficiently numerous that what they say about it is worth taking seriously into account. Indeed, such testimonies begin with those of the Buddha himself.
Nevertheless, it’s important to understand that what’s called reincarnation in Buddhism has nothing to do with the transmigration of some ‘entity’ or other. It’s not a process of metempsychosis because there is no ‘soul’. As long as one thinks in terms of entities rather than function and continuity, it’s impossible to understand the Buddhist concept of rebirth. As it’s said, ‘There is no thread passing through the beads of the necklace of rebirths.’ Over successive rebirths, what is maintained is not the identity of a ‘person’, but the conditioning of a stream of consciousness.
Additionally, Buddhism speaks of successive states of existence; in other words, everything isn’t limited to just one lifetime. We’ve experienced other states of existence before our birth in this lifetime, and we’ll experience others after death. This, of course, leads to a fundamental question: is there a nonmaterial consciousness distinct from the body? It would be virtually impossible to talk about reincarnation without first examining the relationship between body and mind. Moreover, since Buddhism denies the existence of any self that could be seen as a separate entity capable of transmigrating from one existence to another by passing from one body to another, one might well wonder what it could be that links those successive states of existence together.
One could possibly understand it better by considering it as a continuum, a stream of consciousness that continues to flow without there being any fixed or autonomous entity running through it… Rather it could be likened to a river without a boat, or to a lamp flame that lights a second lamp, which in-turn lights a third lamp, and so on and so forth; the flame at the end of the process is neither the same flame as at the outset, nor a completely different one…”
Upvote
8
Downvote
Reply
Award
Share
302
u/R41NBOWRUMP3R avatar
R41NBOWRUMP3R
OP
•
10h ago
This gets to the heart of my question though. You’ve provided a great concept of what not self really is getting at, or a possibility thereof. However it doesn’t seem compatible with liberation?
If the continuing essence is a stream of consciousness, what then is the escape FROM? Where is that stream wandering off to in order to be eternally free of suffering? A judeo Christian heaven? Orrrrrr
Upvote
2
Downvote
Reply
Award
Share
u/xabir avatar
xabir
•
10h ago
Anatman rejects an “essence”, there is no entity but just a stream of consciousness.
Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith said before, “Malcolm wrote: Omniscience is the content of a mind freed of afflictions. Even the continuum of a Buddha has a relative ground, i.e. a the rosary or string of moments of clarity is beginingless.
Origination from self is axiomatically negated in Buddhadharma,
Each moment in the continuum of a knowing clarity is neither the same as nor different than the previous moment. Hence the cause of a given instant of a knowing clarity cannot be construed to be itself nor can it be construed to be other than itself. This is the only version of causation which, in the final analysis, Buddhadharma can admit to on a relative level. It is the logical consequence of the Buddha's insight, "When this exists, that exists, with the arising of that, this arose." “
Even this stream of consciousness never ceases after liberation or Buddhahood, but it is transformed or purified (of delusion and afflictions) into its pure modality of jnana/wisdom.
This is also what Nirvana is - not a place or destination like some sort of heaven, but the end of afflictions.
Wrote this in Reddit years ago regarding anatman (no self) and nirvana:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/2xuq7b/is_nirvana_basically_nonexistence/cp3k7c2/
“Nirvana is simply the cessation of craving, aggression, and delusion. Delusion includes the construct of self, that I exist, that I am the perceiver or controller of experiences and actions. Nirvana is not annihilation because what ends is simply a process of delusional I-making and mine-making and other related mental afflictions, it is not the annihilation of some actual self (which never existed).
Nirvana is when, in seeing the seen, it's realized and experienced that there is simply that scenery, and no seer. No you in terms of that. In hearing sound, there's simply (always already) only sound, no hearer. In thinking... only thought, no thinker. When this is realized, not merely intellectualized, and directly experienced as being so, and all sense of self are being released, then that is Nirvana. This is peace, bliss, freedom from suffering. It is not boring: in fact, boredom only exist when there is a sense of self, and a sense of dissatisfaction with what is present, therefore a craving for something to be 'better than what is'. There is a subject and object here: 'I' want 'something better out there'. But when anatta is realized and actualized, there is no sense of self, there is no subject and object, no dichotomy of perceiver and perceived, and everything is just lucid and luminous and blissful and perfect as it is. Nirvana is also the cessation of craving.
(For more information check out Bahiya Sutta)
Also Buddha teaches that we have past lives and future lifetimes, but if you attain Nirvana, you are no longer stuck in this cycle of samsaric rebirth and suffering.
Mahayana Buddhists then say the Buddhas continue to emanate out of compassion to guide suffering beings out of samsara.
....
Also, for a much longer, detailed, accurate explanation with multiple scriptural citations on Anatman (no self) and Nirvana, please read this well written writing by Geoff: http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2012/09/great-resource-of-buddha-teachings.html “
Likewise there is a good post by Krodha recently: In chapter 2, sections 69 through 80, The Suvarṇaprabhāsottamasūtra says: Noble ones, the bodhisattva mahāsattvas know through these ten qualities that the Tathāgata Arhat Samyaksaṃbuddha correctly and truly teaches that there is a great passing into nirvāṇa. What are these ten? First, nirvāṇa means that the tathāgatas have completely eliminated the obscuration of the kleśas and the obscuration of knowledge. Second, nirvāṇa means that the tathāgatas know that there is no self in the individual and no self in phenomena. Third, nirvāṇa means that there is a transformation of the body and of qualities. Fourth, nirvāṇa means that there is a spontaneous guidance of beings. Fifth, nirvāṇa means that there is sameness in the dharmakāya because there is no differentiation of characteristics through the truth becoming manifest. Sixth, nirvāṇa means that there is no duality between the nature of samsāra and nirvāṇa. Seventh, nirvāṇa means that purity is manifested through the realization of the essence of phenomena. Eighth, nirvāṇa means that there has been the skillful accomplishment of all phenomena being devoid of birth and devoid of destruction. Ninth, nirvāṇa means that there is the attainment of the gnosis (jñāna) of the equality of the true nature, the dharmadhātu, and the ultimate conclusion. Tenth, nirvāṇa means that there is the knowledge that there is no difference between the nature of all phenomena and the nature of nirvāṇa. https://84000.co/translation/toh556
Also, Krodha previously clarified:
"Nirvana is just a total purification of the mindstream, not a place that is entered or departed from." "Does the mind-stream continue after Parinirvana? "Yes, it is unceasing. Nirvana etc., is only the total purification of the mindstream."
Upvote
1
Downvote
Reply
Award
Share
107
u/R41NBOWRUMP3R avatar
R41NBOWRUMP3R
OP
•
10h ago
I really appreciate the thorough answer and citations.
Is it then a misnomer that nirvana is escape from samsara? If their natures are no different?
Upvote
1
Downvote
Reply
Award
Share
u/xabir avatar
xabir
•
10h ago
It is an escape from samsara in the sense that there is an end to karmic births and deaths in samsara. Yet, this escape, or nirvana, turns out to be samsara (the world of phenomena) rightly perceived with wisdom. This is why samsara and nirvana is nondual, etc. The nature of all phenomena is of the same nature as nirvana because all phenomena that dependently originates are fundamentally without birth and cessation, are non-arising and non-originated (anutpada) due to lack of an essence or self-nature — i.e. empty.
Upvote
3
Downvote
Reply
Award
Share
70
u/R41NBOWRUMP3R avatar
R41NBOWRUMP3R
OP
•
9h ago
But how can something both have a birth and death but also be without birth and cessation?
This is the root of my question in OP. Is nirvana just realizing that birth and death aren’t real? Or is it an actual cessation of a rebirth process?
I’m not sure how you escape something by realizing it doesn’t exist. Surely that means you were never trapped to begin with? If it’s just the cessation of illusion, or the right perception that you were girdled by a falsehood then why do we insist of saying rebirth actually exists? Shouldn’t the masters have just said “it might seem to you that you exist in a cycle of rebirth, but this is an illusion, and you’ll understand that if you practice” etc etc
Upvote
1
Downvote
Reply
Award
Share
u/R41NBOWRUMP3R avatar
R41NBOWRUMP3R
OP
•
9h ago
You’ve verbalized a thought I had a bit earlier before writing the OP. Like, the best possible remedy for my skepticism at embracing the questionable and seemingly illogical aspects of Buddhism is that I can’t seem to get a straight answer about any of it out of anybody haha.
Upvote
2
Downvote
Reply
Award
Share
u/xabir avatar
xabir
•
8h ago
First thing one must understand is that emptiness does not deny conventional validity and functionalities. It is not the naive and nihilistic assertion that “everything is just nothingness, non-existent”, etc.
Rather: It is precisely because all things lack an essence or svabhava, svabhava being an essence (of a self or phenomena) that exists independent of the various causes and conditions contributing to the arising of a given phenomena, that the soteriological value of the Buddhadharma is made possible, and an end to samsara is possible. If there were svabhava or essence in self and phenomena, everything would exist independent of causes and conditions, would be static and immutable, and hence suffering cannot be ended, the path would be impossible, and so on.
The Sixty Stanzas states: “That which originates due to a cause… disappears when the conditions are absent—how can it be understood to ‘exist’ (in itself)?”
From the Madhyamaka standpoint, “not born” (anutpāda) negates inherent birth—birth from its own side—without denying the dependent, conventional arising of aggregates. Nāgārjuna’s Chapter 24 is explicit: to deny dependent arising is to undercut emptiness itself, which would “contradict all worldly conventions” and make action/karma, etc impossible; if things had svabhāva, “the whole world would be unarising, unceasing, and static.” In short: conventional arising depends on the ultimate absence of svabhāva.
This is why he can also say, in the very same chapter, that for whom emptiness is clear, everything (on the path and in the world) becomes clear/possible—and for whom it isn’t, nothing does (MMK 24:14). What looks paradoxical dissolves once “unborn” is read as “not inherently, but dependently arisen.”
Hence: It is precisely because of emptiness that all things are made possible, being a dependent origination and dependent designation, and the conventional validity of the four noble truths, the process that starts samsara and the liberation from samsara and cyclic rebirth is made possible. This is discussed in Chapter 24 of the Mulamadhyamikakarika by Arya Nagarjuna, chapter on the Four Noble Truths.
You basically asked: “How do you escape something by realizing it doesn’t exist?”
Continued below
Upvote
2
Downvote
Reply
Award
Share
34
u/xabir avatar
xabir
•
8h ago
The answer is: we are not negating valid functionalities; we are negating inherent existence. Seeing that “self”, “phenomena”, “birth” are an empty and dependently originating and dependently designated process that never truly originated as truly existent entities undercuts the ignorance and grasping that fuels its re-production—this is precisely how cessation of ignorance brings cessation of the rest. This is already the Buddha’s middle teaching and Nāgārjuna’s point in equating dependent arising ≡ emptiness ≡ the middle way ≡ dependent designation.
Emptiness should not be misunderstood as nothingness or non-existence (which pertains to the wrong view of the nihilists) but must be understood in terms of dependent origination.
“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
Buddha described nirvāṇa as the cessation of the causal chain: with the cessation of ignorance there is cessation of formations … up to the cessation of birth, and thus aging-and-death (the standard reverse order of dependent origination). That is a conventionally real cessation—but it is the cessation of empty conditions, not the extinguishing of a self-thing. The Kaccānagotta Sutta guards the view: avoiding the extremes “everything exists” and “nothing exists,” the Tathāgata teaches the middle via dependent arising. It is because all phenomena are empty and appear in the manner of reflections through dependent origination — functional and appearing vividly yet illusory and having no core or essence anywhere like a mirage, arisen due to dependencies, that once these conditions are removed, they vanish. To give another analogy: If the reflection of moon in water had an essence of its own, that it truly originated and established its own independent existence inside the body of water, then its appearance could not be made to vanish by removing the conditions.
Madhyamaka thus preserves both sides: conventionally, rebirth and cessation talk track the functioning of causes and results; ultimately, “whatever is dependently arisen, that is emptiness… therefore a non-empty thing does not exist” (MMK 24:18–19). Hence the master formula: saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are non-different in emptiness, even while they are experientially distinct as bondage vs. release.
Contrary to the assertion that only things possessing an intrinsic nature (svabhāva) could function, the Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka reverses this. It is precisely because phenomena are empty of inherent existence that they can arise, change, and interact. As scholar Jay L. Garfield summarizes: "Nāgārjuna’s point is not that empty things are inefficacious, but that only because they are empty can they function; were they to possess intrinsic nature they would be inert.”
This is why emptiness in Buddhism does not negate the conventional validity and functionalities of karma and the twelve links of dependent origination. They are empty and illusory like reflections and water-moons, but not empty in the sense of conventionally non-existent such as rabbits with horns.
Jamgön Mipham, in his commentary on Candrakīrti's Madhyamakāvatāra, explicates this contrast with reference to karmic causality:
“Although virtuous and non-virtuous deeds are alike in lacking inherent existence, an unripened action will still ripen... Just as a patient with an ocular disease may see black lines [that appear and seem to function visually for that patient] that nevertheless disappear once the malady is cured, so too karmic seeds operate once and then cease. A rabbit’s horn, by contrast, never appears at all.” (Adapted from Introduction to the Middle Way, pp. 122-123)
Mipham further elaborates in his auto-commentary:
“All illusory objects—rabbit horns, black lines, water-moons—are equal in lacking inherent nature. Yet an ocular patient sees black lines, and these appearances condition a matching consciousness; they are functional [conventionally, for that perceiver]. A rabbit horn never appears, hence is non-functional. Likewise, virtue and non-virtue are equally unreal [i.e., empty of inherent existence], yet one yields happiness and the other suffering."
This illustrates that conventional phenomena, though empty like a water-moon, are not nothing; they appear and have specific functional capacities within the dependent web of reality. The illusion of inherent existence (svabhāva), however, is like a rabbit's horn—purely imaginary, not found even conventionally, and has no functional capacity. Nāgārjuna’s MMK 15 insists that if something were inherently existent, it would be as impossible to arise or cease as a rabbit’s horn; hence svabhāva is denied both ultimately and conventionally.
On the other hand, Indian exegesis links the water-moon to arthakriyaˉ (“pragmatic efficacy”): what appears empty can still perform a function, like a conceptual designation allowing trade in “fiat” currency. Because its appearance depends on multiple conditions (water, light, viewpoint), the image is vivid yet collapses under analysis—just as persons depend on the skandhas and labeling.
On the other hand, if phenomena possessed a fixed, independent, intrinsic nature, they would be immutable and causally inert. Nāgārjuna makes this point powerfully:
Continued below
Upvote
2
Downvote
Reply
Award
Share
36
u/xabir avatar
xabir
•
8h ago
Vigrahavyāvartanī (Vv) — the “where emptiness applies…” chain
My literal rendering of the Sanskrit chain (vv. ~70–71):
Where emptiness is operative, dependent origination is operative. Where dependent origination is operative, the Four Noble Truths are operative. … where those [truths and their practices] are operative, the ten wholesome dharmas are operative … the Three Jewels are operative … and worldly conventions hold good.
Published translation for the same passage (Bhattacharya):
“All things prevail for him for whom emptiness prevails … where the Four Noble Truths are in force, fruits, the spiritual community, and the Buddha are in force too … where the Three (Jewels) are in force, the conventions of the world are in force.” Internet Archive
(Source has the Sanskrit and Bhattacharya’s English together; the quoted lines condense the list he gives just beneath the verse.)
MMK 24 (Examination of the Four Noble Truths) — core verses
Objection/response setup (24:1–2):
“(Opponent:) If all of this is empty, neither arising nor ceasing, then for you it follows that the Four Noble Truths do not exist. If the Four Noble Truths do not exist, then knowledge, abandonment, meditation and manifestation will be completely impossible.”
Emptiness ↔ convention/efficacy (24:6–8):
“If dependent arising is denied, emptiness itself is rejected. This would contradict all the worldly conventions. If emptiness is rejected, no action will be appropriate. There would be action which did not begin, and there would be an agent without action. If there is svabhāva, the whole world will be unarising, unceasing, and static. The entire phenomenal world would be immutable.”
Identity of dependent arising and emptiness (24:18–19):
“Whatever is dependently co-arisen, that is explained to be emptiness. That, being a dependent designation, is itself the middle way. Something that is not dependently arisen—such a thing does not exist. Therefore a non-empty thing does not exist.”
Candrakīrti, Madhyamakāvatāra — conventions and the two truths
Conventional truth and “fabricated entities” (VI.28 in this translation excerpt):
“The true (satya) for a concealer [i.e., conventional truth] is that fabricated entities are merely conventional; ultimately they are not established.” Shantideva Center -
“Buddha did not quarrel with the world” — keeping everyday discourse intact (VI.82):
“The Perfect Buddha did not quarrel with the world; in the everyday world, aggregates, and so on, are accepted to exist.”
Upvote
2
Downvote
Reply
Award
Share
24
Someone wanted to understand more about Tsongkhapa understanding.
I sent him:
“I don’t think you’re off. You’re already pointing at a lot of the right territory — dependent arising, lack of inherent existence, purity, recognition, how afflictive functioning appears. It’s clear you’re not treating this casually.
Where I think the next step is: you’re opening many threads at once, but not yet following any one of them all the way through. At this stage, instead of widening, it’s about drilling down.
Take the statement “things are empty and pure because they’re dependently arisen.” That’s good, and it’s in line with how Tsongkhapa links dependent arising and emptiness: whatever depends on causes and conditions (and on designation by mind) cannot have any inherent nature of its own.
But Tsongkhapa will immediately press you further:
1. If x is empty because it depends on causes and conditions —
do those causes and conditions themselves have any inherent nature?
2. If you say no, what is the exact reasoning that shows even those causes/conditions are empty and only exist by being dependently designated?
3. Can you carry that all the way through such that nothing in the entire causal network — not the object, not the causes, not “dependent arising” itself — is left standing as something that exists from its own side?
That part is crucial. It’s not enough to say “it’s dependently arisen, therefore empty / pure” as a slogan. In Tsongkhapa’s reading, you have to demonstrate precisely how dependence defeats inherent existence at every level, not just assert it in general terms.
Same with how you talk about “stain,” “afflictive efficacy,” and “recognition.” You said: when there’s non-recognition, confusion functions as an affliction; with recognition, that confusion is seen as never having truly stained anything, and the afflictive force collapses.
That’s very close to how Dzogchen talks about primordial purity (ka dag) and adventitious obscurations: under non-recognition, the kleshas appear and operate; with recognition, they release, and you see they never truly established themselves.
From the Madhyamaka/Gelug side, that invites a few surgical questions that are worth answering clearly, because they sharpen your view instead of leaving it a general intuition:
• When you say “stain,” what exactly is being stained?
• Through what mechanism does that “stain” create afflictive functioning — i.e. what, exactly, is the mode of operation of ignorance?
• When recognition happens and the afflictive force stops, what actually happened? Did something get removed, or was something seen through?
These aren’t nitpicks. They’re the heart of insight practice. They force you to describe ignorance and release in a way that is precise, not poetic.
And this is why this can’t really be wrapped up in a few casual lines like “everything is dependently arisen so everything is pure.” If it were that straightforward, we wouldn’t have thousands of pages of Prajñāpāramitā literature and Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā going verse by verse dismantling inherent existence. The Buddha didn’t just drop “it’s empty lol” and walk away — the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras go on and on, and Madhyamaka develops extremely fine-grained arguments about exactly what is negated and how. (The long Prajñāpāramitā texts run into tens of thousands of lines dedicated to this single point, and Nāgārjuna’s MMK is basically a systematic demolition of every candidate for inherent existence.)
So if you’re serious about understanding Tsongkhapa’s stream — not just getting reassurance that you’re “already there,” but actually internalizing the view — then this is where, honestly, study becomes necessary. This isn’t something that can be resolved by clever phrasing alone.
Yin Ling very strongly recommends going through the Dalai Lama / Thubten Chodron “Library of Wisdom and Compassion” series for this, especially the emptiness-focused volumes like “Searching for the Self,” “Realizing the Profound View,” and “Appearing and Empty.” These books are explicitly designed to walk a modern reader through Tsongkhapa-style Prāsaṅgika logic: how we wrongly project inherent existence, how dependent arising undercuts that projection, how designation works, and how to hold appearance and emptiness together in meditation. They’re deep, not just inspirational, and they’re meant to take you right into the core analysis. Read them and the volume 5 commentary by Geshe Sopa on insight if you really want to understand Tsongkhapa's stream of thoughts.
Also recommended: His Holiness’s “How to See Yourself As You Really Are.” That one is more introductory — it’s very readable and practical, and it trains you to observe in real time how “I,” “object,” and “function” are being projected as solid, and then to watch that projection unravel via dependence, karma, and imputation. It’s extremely useful groundwork, but it doesn’t go all the way into the very sharp, technical Prāsaṅgika moves that Tsongkhapa is famous for. Think of it as establishing the habit of looking, preparing you for the heavier material.
So my suggestion is basically:
• You’re on the right track.
• At this point, depth matters more than clever synthesis.
• The way to get that depth is to sit with those very specific questions (about how dependence actually erases inherency in every link, and what “stain / recognition” actually means in lived cognition), and to work through systematic presentations that were designed to answer exactly those questions, line by line.
If you do that, you’re not just collecting viewpoints (“Tsongkhapa says X, Dzogchen says Y”), you’re actually doing the same analytic work those traditions expect of a serious practitioner. And that’s the part that really matures the view.”
Welcome to Awakening to Reality Hello! Welcome to the Awakening to Reality site. Must-Read Articles “Thu...
Posts
