Also see:
What is Nirvana?
Great Resource of Buddha's Teachings
The Deathless in Buddhadharma?
The Meaning of Nirvana


[9:07 PM, 8/27/2020] John Tan: Yes pretty much agree with what he said.
[9:40 PM, 8/27/2020] John Tan: But the same insight of anatta must be applied to object, characteristics, cause and effect, production and cessation...which is a more slippery issue.  Nevertheless, experientially seeing through self/Self is still most crucial.

Also see: Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm

The Degrees of Rigpa 


Posted by Kyle Dixon. Kyle Dixon = Krodha

100% Upvoted 
level 1
3 points · 16 days ago

An interesting topic coming off the heels of the previous post about “non-duality.” In the Rig pa rang shar non-duality is rejected, but not completely, and for specific reasons.

The type of “non-duality” that is rejected is a substantialist non-duality like that found in Advaita Vedanta, which asserts a singular, transpersonal nature that is solely valid. Dzogchen rejects this view (i) because it is substantialist and eternalist, and (ii) because relatively we do experience ontic dualities in the form of conventional juxtapositions.

Moreover, the “non-dual” view of Dzogchen is emptiness free from extremes. This is how the Cuckoo of Vidyā can state ”The nature of diversity is non-dual,” because while refraining from negating a diverse array of discrete conventional entities, we understand that each discrete entity, being empty, is free from the dual extremes of existence and non-existence, hence “non-dual.” Thus the rang bzhin aspect of our nature appears as a diversity while being completely and totally inseparable from ka dag, or original purity, which is the Dzogchen treatment of emptiness free from extremes.

As such, Dzogchen champions a “non-dual duality,” or a “dualistic non-duality,” as Malcolm says, “take your pick.”

level 1

thank you for posting.

level 1
2 points · 16 days ago · edited 16 days ago

“In Ati, the pristine consciousness — subsumed by the consciousness that apprehends primordial liberation and the abiding basis as ultimate — is inseparable in all buddhas and sentient beings as a mere consciousness. Since the ultimate pervades them without any nature at all, it is contained within each individual consciousness.”

Excerpt From: Ācārya Malcolm Smith. “Buddhahood in This Life: The Great Commentary by Vimalamitra”.

How is this pristine consciousness not functionally transpersonal? And why is "dualistic non-duality" not the same as Advaita? If the ultimate has no nature then why label it 'pristine consciousness that pervades'? I find this quite confusing and as much as I respect Malcolm he didn't really clarify these issues. Any ideas?

level 2
3 points · 16 days ago · edited 16 days ago

How is this pristine consciousness not functionally transpersonal?

A “transpersonal” jñāna would be a single, universal instance of jñāna that is shared by all sentient beings.

Instead jñāna is a generic characteristic like the heat of fire or the wetness of water, indentical in expression in each unique conventional instance but since the mind it represents the nature of is personal, belonging to a discrete entity, we do not say that there is a single, transpersonal, universal jñāna as an entity itself that is collectively shared.

If the ultimate has no nature then why label it 'pristine consciousness that pervades'?

It “pervades” consciousnesses in the same way wetness, as an identical quality, pervades each and every instance of water.

Ultimately there are no minds, no sentient beings etc., but conventionally we say there are discrete instances. When we negate entities from the stand point if the way things really are, we don’t then assert that there is a single extant purusa that is established in their place.

level 3

Ah o.k. So jñāna is a property of the individual. If you have a mind then you have jñāna. But then ultimately there are no minds? So ultimately there is no jñāna?

level 4
2 points · 16 days ago

So ultimately there is no jñāna?

Yes, ultimately there is nothing at all. This is the meaning of the exhaustion of dharmatā at the end of the Dzogchen path. Since all dharmas are realized to be non-arisen, their dharmatā or nature likewise cannot be said to remain. Jñāna [ye shes] is after all simply the dharmatā or nature of our mind. Our citta dharmatā or cittatā [sems nyid].

Nevertheless, at the time of the result there are still appearances that manifest as the non-dual expressions of one’s own primordial state. The exhaustion of dharmatā does not actually mean everything disappears into some blank void. It just means we are totally liberated from everything, even jñāna.

level 5

We are liberated because there is nothing at all?

level 6
2 points · 16 days ago · edited 16 days ago

Ultimately no dharmas at all, no conditioned phenomena. And in classic buddhadharmic fashion, Dzogchen considers that a dharmatā, a “nature,” is the nature of an apparently conditioned entity, a dharmin. Upon realizing the nature [dharmatā] of the dharmin, the dharmin is recognized to have never arisen in the first place, it cannot be found anywhere. That absence of arising is the dharmatā to be realized. And so we do not then state that the dharmatā as such continues to be a dharmatā. With the exhaustion of the dharmin, dharmatā is also exhausted because the objective to be realized in relation to the dharmin has been realized, and the absence of arising is now known.

This is a non-reductive system. Nothing is actually reifed as being established at the end of the path. Just an array of illusory appearances.

level 7

Ah o.k so it's like this:

“Since all phenomena are included within the mind, there is no phenomena that exists outside the mind. The mind, which is by its very nature unborn, is simply referred to as “actual reality.” Now, who is it that meditates on what? It has thus been stated:

'Just as space is without reality and therefore

Space as such is not meditated upon,

How could the mind, which is by its very nature unborn,

Meditate on the unborn as such?'

Yet, if someone asks, “Just how is it that the convention meditation is designated?” it is stated:

'All effort is eliminated after recognizing that

Problems and their remedies are indistinguishable;

Practice the simple convention we call meditation by

Settling within an uncontrived state of great equanimity.'

That is, when it is recognized that both the class of afflictions that should be eliminated and the remedies that should be taken up are indistinguishable by nature, all effort connected to bias is eliminated and one simply settles into a state of great equanimity that is only conventionally labeled meditation.”

Excerpt From: Rongzom Chokyi Zangpo. “Entering the Way of the Great Vehicle”.

level 2

If the ultimate has no nature then why label it 'pristine consciousness that pervades'?

Ultimate nature cannot be labelled as anything.

Ultimate nature cannot be labelled as pristine awareness, rigpa, nondual, emptiness free from extremes, or whatsoever.

Simply because ultimately there is no a single object or a single phenomena for you to describe.

level 3

It seems to have a function and characteristics.

level 4
2 points · 16 days ago

Yes, but it is a generic characteristic [samanyalakṣana], not a specific characteristic [svalakṣana].

level 5

There are no generic characteristic and specific characterisric in ultimate truth

level 6

So-called “ultimate truth” is a generic characteristic of phenomena. Not a specific characteristic of a relative entity like the blue color of a car. That is the meaning of this distinction.

level 4

Those function, those characteristics are simply continuous changes that look like interaction of multiple objects.





15 points · 12 days ago · edited 12 days ago

Here is an old post on this topic, just swap “Advaita” with “Upanisad” and it is the same deal.


I wrote this in the past, in the context of the definition of “non-dual” in these systems, but it describes how emptiness [śūnyatā] is different from the brahman or purusa of Advaita:

An ontological non-duality [advaita] is monistic, we find this type of non-dualism in teachings like Advaita Vedanta. Buddhism has a different type of non-duality [advāya], which is epistemic instead of ontological.

An ontological non-duality is where everything is reduced to a single substance that exists alone by itself, which is the definition of monism. For example if subject and object were merged and we then held a view that the union of the two as a single X is truly substantial and valid. This is an affirming negation, where an unconditioned purusa is affirmed via negation of phenomenal entities.

On the other hand, an epistemological non-duality is simply a recognition that the nature of phenomena is free from the dual extremes of existence and non-existence, hence "non-dual". This is a non-reductive non-duality, and a non-affirming negation because it does not leave anything in its wake, there is no X left over once the nature of phenomena is recognized.

In epistemic non-duality the nature of a conditioned phenomenon [dharma] and its non-arisen nature [dharmatā] are ultimately neither the same nor different, hence they are "non-dual", because the misconception of a conditioned entity is a byproduct of ignorance, and therefore said entity has never truly come into existence in the first place. This means that the allegedly conditioned entity has truly been unconditioned from the very beginning. And to realize this fact only requires a cessation of cause for the arising of the misconception of a conditioned entity, i.e., a cessation of ignorance. If dharmins and dharmatā were not non-dual then it would be impossible to recognize the unborn nature of phenomena because that nature would be rendered another conditioned entity.


Non-duality in Hinduism and sanatanadharma in general is a view that promulgates an ontological, transpersonal, homogenous, unconditioned existent. Which means that non-duality in the sanatanadharma is a substantial and reductive non-duality.

Whereas one's (ultimate) nature in the buddhadharma is epistemic, personal, heterogeneous and free from the extremes of existence and non-existence. This means that one's so-called "non-dual" nature in Buddhism is an insubstantial and non-reductive non-duality.

Regarding these differences, the Tarkjavālā states:

Since [the tīrthika position of] self, permanence, all pervasivness and oneness contradict their opposite, [the Buddhist position of] no-self, impermanence, non-pervasiveness and multiplicity, they are completely different.


You should read this to start, it was authored by a teacher who began as an Advaitin, and realized the result of Advaita. He was urged to teach Advaita by his contemporaries and master because his realization was considered profound. However he did not feel his realization was complete, and later discovered Vajrayāna, and continued to refine his insight and realized that the purusa of Vedanta can also be seen through.

His view is very clear, and he is extremely well informed. I heard of him because he came to my friend in a dream and invited him to receive teachings at his place in Nepal I believe. At any rate, he very thoroughly demonstrates the differences in view, and having mastered both paths, is adamant that they are very different in praxis and result. I agree with him wholeheartedly.

This one as well (which goes over advāya vs. advaita, and the real meaning of tathāgatagarbha): Enlightenment in Buddhism vs. Vedanta




Mind Space Light
André A. Pais·Wednesday, August 12, 2020·Reading time: 11 minutes

Most spiritual traditions realize that the essence of the spiritual work that is to be done lies within the mind: either pacifying the mind, transcending it altogether, or simply knowing its nature.

Some traditions aim at pacifying the mind, ridding it of agitation, extraneous thoughts and troublesome emotions; some aim at transcending the mind, or simply ignoring it, in the hope that some other reality or essence might be attained; others solely aim at knowing what the mind is, what its nature is, its way of existing.

Using the example of a sheet of paper, imagine a sheet that is totally filled with ink, random letters, drawings and symbols. Its space and whiteness are totally obscured. Some spiritual traditions aim at reducing the amount of "dirt", chaos and randomness in that sheet of paper; others aim at totally removing all additions, recovering the original whiteness of the paper, its original purity; finally, some schools aim at examining the nature of this sheet of paper, at knowing what it really is.

Coming back to the mind, what these last traditions try to do is pinpointing exactly what and where mind is; does it arise from anywhere? Does it cease anywhere? Is its arising and ceasing perceptible at all? And while it remains, does it have a color, a shape, a center and a periphery? Does it abide inside the body or outside the body? Is it physical or ethereal, or no substance can be attributed to it at all?

The interesting thing is that, and coming back to the example at hand, the traditions that aim at the content of the sheet of paper tend to end up stuck at the level of the sheet of paper. On the other hand, the traditions that study and investigate the nature of said paper end up stumbling at a remarkable event: the recognition that there is no sheet of paper, a possibility that may seem so outrageous and improbable that, unless pointed out, it's unlikely to arise spontaneously. By deeply investigating the nature of the sheet of paper, these traditions go totally beyond the sphere or dimension of sheet of paper, and wind up landing, which is actually no landing at all, in a much subtler realm - space.

Concerning mind, what is found is that it very much resembles space - it has no color, no center or shape, no specific location, it is free from arising and ceasing, and, concerning how it abides or remains, even when investigated nothing can actually be found. Some traditions call the nature of mind the "basic space of phenomena". Phenomena themselves, when scrutinized, are realized as being unfindable, giving way to space. If we deconstruct any appearance, it is seen as nothing but an aggregate of multiple parts, and putting aside each and every part, or by zooming in penetratingly, all that is found is unfindability itself - that is, space.

The advantage of realizing space as the groundless ground of reality, rather than establishing it as mind, awareness, spirit or God, is that space has an utterly impersonal feel to it. Very few things are as impersonal as space - after all, space isn't a thing at all to start with. And while awareness or spirit aren't things either, the truth is that we commonly envision ourselves as possessing, or making use of, awareness, a spirit or a soul. These are terms that, no matter how abstract they may seem, are still very much tainted by personalistic traits and anthropomorphic tendencies. Feeling like personal attributes, they aren't totally helpful when trying to arrive at an understanding of no-self, emptiness or lack of identity.

So, we could say: mind is no mind, its nature is space. Space couldn't in any way be more impersonal, to the point that it may even feel somewhat uninspiring, dry and profoundly unmystical. This apparent downside to space, however, offers a superb opportunity of liberation from our deep-seated grasping tendencies. Moreover, it is a very intuitive concept - the notion that things need a space to exist in. So, what the mind is, is this very space that accommodates all appearances; and mind, lacking any specific location - since it has no characteristics that could be located somewhere -, is the space where all notions of location arise. "Here", "there", "elsewhere" and "everywhere" actually appear nowhere, meaning in groundless space.

So, space arises initially as an impersonal realm - as the actual nature of the mind, of beings and of phenomena. In this sense, although it is synonymous with utter freedom and openness, like stated previously it may seem a bit dry and prosaic. And yet, it gets reframed in a very interesting way when we introduce another characteristic of space.

According to certain philosophical views, space isn't a thing in itself; and although that point was already touched upon, the idea here is rather different. Despite the fact that space isn't considered to be an object, we ordinarily conceive it as a vast ground, realm or intangible dimension in which things arise, abide and then cease. We imagine that, if all phenomena were to be removed from space, space itself would still be there. Empty of performers, the stage remains; empty of images, the screen remains. However, this second characteristic of space defines it as a non-affirming negation, which is a technical term meaning that the concept of space is used to deny something, but not to affirm anything else. It's like a scalpel that removes something, but adds nothing; like an antidote, removing poison but adding nothing extra, serving only the purpose of reestablishing the natural state of health.

So, space being a non-affirming negation, what is it that it negates and what is it that it does not affirm? Space negates the notion that things are rigid, stuck in their very specific ways of being, unmovable, unchanging. Ultimately, space merely points to the natural unobstructedness of experience, to the naturally interpenetrative nature of reality. It's deeply tied with the notion of impermanence, change and, ultimately, emptiness - absence of reference points and modes of existence. As a non-affirming negation, it doesn't serve any function other than removing the notions of solidity, essence, permanence, etc. But we could say that, and this is what we must be particularly attentive to, what space is definitely and specifically not affirming is the presence of some ground, basis or open vastness that remains after appearances or phenomena vanish. That would be just a huge - vast - object of clinging, a seed for identity to establish itself and fill our experience with limitations, dualities and suffering.

For example, if space is seen as the vast container of all things, then there is immediately a distinction between space and phenomena; and if such an intrinsic distinction exists, then it is impossible for space and phenomena to interact and interpenetrate and we therefore end up with the problem of having space and phenomena abide in two separate, impenetrable planes of existence. We find a space devoid of phenomena, and phenomena abiding somewhere outside of space. Moreover, if space refers to physical extension - which is what the term "vastness" usually implies -, then the inseparability of subject and object becomes problematic, and the primordial wound that we innately inflict unto experience - the subject-object, inner-outer, essence-appearance split - becomes unsolvable.

Thus, if space was initially introduced as an impersonal realm, a helpful insight in deconstructing personal identity, it is later reframed as to point to, or consisting of, no realm at all, becoming a helpful insight in deconstructing phenomenal identities - the identity of objects and appearances, namely that of space itself. Space, in this later sense, doesn't set in place the conventional notions of distance, separation and extension usually associated with the term. Space merely means interpenetration, the natural flux of appearances - no duality or separation are implied; not even distance or extension.

Usually, when it is said that mind resembles space, such statement is immediately followed by the affirmation that it is, however, not like space, since space is entirely non-sentient and unaware, while mind very clearly is of a knowing nature. Here, we'll stick with the notion of space, because a mind knowing an object or an object being known by a mind amount, experientially, to the same thing - a process whose only visible aspect is the resulting appearance itself. In this sense, to speak of a knowing mind serves only to posit a structure justifying the vivid clarity of appearances that obviously arises as experience.

So, more than speaking of knowing or being known, here we'll point to the natural luminosity or clarity of experience, that arises naturally with its own self-evident brightness, shining spontaneously without the need of being recognized by some external agent of perception. In this sense, the notion of space serves two primary purposes: first it refutes the seeming identity and fixed existence of the entity or principle we ordinarily call mind - and yet, such negation of a mind does nothing to the natural radiance of experience that still unimpededly manifests; secondly, space serves the purpose of characterizing this natural clarity we call appearances, pointing out that such clarity flows and manifests in an unobstructed, interpenetrating fashion. Again, space initially is perceived as an impersonal realm; later, as no realm at all, or even the understanding that the very notion of some extended "realm" or location" is merely inferred from interpenetrating appearances which, arising as a space-mind devoid of location or dimension, can't themselves have such dimensional characteristics.

Therefore, we can say that natural clarity - appearances - arises not in space, but as space. Space, being less of a container and more of a way of being, is not where clarity appears - where appearances manifest - but how clarity unobstructedly functions. We could, perhaps poetically, affirm that light is the body of reality, while space is its soul; clarity is how reality appears, while its empty and unobstructed nature is how it functions. So, bridging back to the theme of mind, we could now quote a Prajnaparamita Sutra that says: mind is no mind, its nature is luminosity.

The term "unobstructedness", like space, can be read as having two different intentions. Initially, it points to the way appearances - the so called objects - interpenetrate, how everything functions together, how information travels and is processed in a natural way, how phenomena are supported by each other in an intricate web of conditionality, how everything inter-is. In this sense, unobstructedness refers mainly to impermanence and interdependence. Later, we come to appreciate what is perhaps a more nuanced and potentially deeper and more liberating meaning of the word. Unobstructedness points to the fact that reality - experience - presents no obstruction to the arising of anything. As long as conditions are present, anything whatsoever can arise or manifest. Clarity has no specific nature to respond to, no intrinsic and unsurpassable characteristic that must not be violated, like some cosmic law. The groundless ground - space - of reality is unobstructing to the arising of anything.
After all, what could limit existence itself? What could impose some format or limit to reality? Sure, conventionally, minds and bodies are seemingly limited in their capacity to experience; existence itself, however, must necessarily be unrestrained by anything at all. In this context, the notion of unobstructedness is equivalent to emptiness, in the sense of absence of intrinsic nature - and thus absence of any intrinsic limitation.

This unobstructed nature of experience, reality or natural clarity points to its plasticity, its capacity to limitlessly shape and reshape itself according to conditions. If specific beliefs and conceptual frameworks are present, clarity shapes itself as a materialistic and dualistic landscape; if a more contemplative and explorative context is given, then clarity may present itself as a non-dual luminous field. Space and time may arise experientially, or they may not, depending on the conditional configuration of some specific luminous appearance. An infinity of beings may arise experientially, or it may not. Lacking any specific nature or way of being, perception and experience can assume any possible shape, gesture or structure. And what is it that is possible? Everything at all, except rigid, unchanging phenomena, closed in self-existing independent natures. The fabricless fabric of reality is unobstructing - it imposes no limitation whatsoever - to the arising of anything at all.

For an experience limited by somatized conceptual structures, the expression of such experience is necessarily very limited - in accordance with the nature of such beliefs. To the omniscient space-mind of what is called a Buddha, experience is unconfined by any limitation and thus the entirety of existence, both in extension and duration, manifests unimpededly, revealing the utter plasticity of time and space themselves. To a Buddha, there's no contraction into a limited, specifically located self-center, and no distinction between him/herself and existence is made, and so "whole universe" and "personal experience" are synonymous from such a perspective.

As a summary, the following may be offered:

Looking for mind, we find only space;
Looking for space, we find only light;
Looking for light's nature, we find no nature.
Looking for no nature, we find it arises as anything at all.

And Tilopa has said:

Just as we apply the term empty to space,
In fact, there is nothing within space
That we are accurately describing by that term.
In the same way, although we call the mind
Clear light or luminosity,
Simply calling it so does not make it true
That there is actually any thing within the mind
That is a true basis for that designation.

Thus, all words can really do is point, inspire, invite a certain contemplation and experience. To attribute any name to the groundless ground - awareness, God, emptiness, dharmakaya, soul, universe - is nothing more than sticking a label to empty space, just writing - not even on water - but in mid air. From a certain perspective, the deepest pointers only aim at fully deconstructing our innermost assumptions and going beyond all extremes of existence, all possible reference points, inviting us to rest in natural clarity and pierce through to the
nameless, centerless heart of reality.

Please ignore previous link. I posted the wrong link, the previous link was incomplete. This is the complete article:


壹、前言: 大家一起想想,为什么我们修佛那么多年,自己觉得不上路?原因在什么地方?当然,这里有很多位是新参加的,有的是老道友。禅修方面,实际的都很熟练,我都知道。但是,我们今天来共同来讨论这个题目。虽然我们在修佛、听佛法,好像得益在什么地方?有什么法益,自己都不知道。有的呢,修净土的,念佛号;念佛号又不同,有的念观世音菩萨,有的观阿弥陀佛, 有的光念南无妙法莲华经’(日语),有的就念别的咒。那么修禅宗的,他说:我们是不念佛的,我们只管打坐,做禅定功夫。那么修其他法门的呢?方法都不同。

所以说,真正修佛,一定要考虑到你真正得的证量,光做形式上的礼拜、 念佛,或者只是知道经典的解说,对你自己一点帮忙都没有,当然对别人也没有什么用。这个是非常实际的问题。

修行为何不易上路--洪文亮医师演讲实录 (2)
贰、修行的三个谬思 那么,今天为什么要谈不上路?这个不上路,实际上的意思就是:对你有没有发生真正的利益、法益。
第一种 是根本就把茶壸倒过来,让你不能装进去,很多人是这样子。
第二种 茶壸里有一个洞,你怎么装,都从小洞里漏出去!听了一百次,忘了一百
第三种 很严重,这茶壸里头有毒!你放甘露也好,清净的水也好,茶壸里本身有


这个是什么?他已经有对有跟空,跟平常人接受这个东西的存在的有没有,在这个境界里,判断那个中间。他以为这个是Middle Way,中庸之道。像这样的错误,是常常见到的例子。像这样的情况之下,他的边见、邪见加进来,把佛法扭曲了。我们叫distorted。这个扭曲,是非常严重的。本来佛是这样讲,但是一扭曲,变成别的意思去了。
参、空性是什么? 我们扭曲得最厉害的是什么?
所以,所有看到、 听到、摸到的,都没有它本身的自相。都是透过我们的心,去了解、去觉受,那个样子不是它真正的本性,因为本性没有。所以诸法没有自性。




请大家千万不要误会,以为我们看到这个茶杯,看东西,知道这个是手表,看到这一位是林教授,那一位是一个 lady,以为这个是我的心。错了!佛讲的心,不是这一种心!我们时常把这作用;因为有对象,你看到、你听到、你摸到,才知道的这个作用;我们把它当作心。

他比方说:一个孩子,很小的时候给人换掉了,爸爸妈妈不知道。养大了,一直以为这个孩子是自己亲生的孩子。你亲生的儿子,给隔壁的抱过去、掉换了,他不知道, 永远认为这个是自己亲生的儿子。
我们把攀缘的这个心,当做自己的心。所以看啦、听啦,听到不高兴,就生气。看到好漂亮的,就很喜欢~以攀缘心当做自己!把自己的这一种不是你真正的心,当做自己。结果,这些攀缘心引出来的很多的感想、情绪:喜欢、不喜欢,讨厌、恨、嫉妒、不高兴,这个是攀缘心带出来的。这个是Emotion,情绪都是这些带出来的。这个情绪越来越大,像雪球一样,变成我们的习性,我们的个性。都给这个攀缘心骗去了!为什么骗去呢?Distortion,边见,有毒呀! 茶壸里头有毒!佛讲的这个心,我们又听错了!

修行为何不易上路--洪文亮医师演讲实录 (3)
所以,最根本的无明是什么?就是真正你的心,mind 它的真正的空性,那个空性,你抓不到。没有智慧看清楚你自己的心的真正的本性,禅宗所讲的本地风光。这个本地风光看错了,把它当做我。
因为你这个空性、你自己本性、 本心,心的本地风光是空性的,这个空性,你误认、看错了!把本地风光的那个境界、那个东西,你抓为是,这个是我见的由来。那就开始有我了,是不是?本来是空无自性的,有很多Limitless Characteristics,没有限制可以描逑它。你自己真正的心的空性,没有智慧去认到它,然后把这个空性呀,Essential Empty、本来就空无自性的这个,把这个扭曲成是我,就有的概念出现了。
因为这是根本无明出现的 Mechanism,这是很细、很细,我特地用讲、讲出来的。其实,知道这个理之后,你要真正透过你的亲证,direct real,直接的体验,一定要透过禅定。


那么,既然有我的话,那问题来了。因为有我,就出来了。不是我就是对方,是你!有了你呢,再另外第三个,更多的众生来了。有我的话,从我这里看对象,我跟所对的出来了,二元的妄想境界出现了。二元就是有看到这一只表摸到这一个杯子,没有我的话,谁去摸这个呢?因为你时时抱着这个身心,这个从小长大到现在,我做什么,我是男的、女的、姓什么,我做什么工作, 我是教书的,我是行医的,我是...,这个一直加强。那么,有了我之后,当然有对方,所对的,能、所就成立了。我们叫做二元Dualistic,就是二元的概念世界呈现了。

没有你我之分的话;你说什么让我高兴的话,我会很快乐吗?你讲一句毁谤我的话,Blame me 就很不高兴;这种情绪会来吗?因为有你我的关系,当然就有这个情绪发生。

但是,我们一般众生所追求的幸福,为什么不如意呢?就错在这个 Distortion,这个边见。以我自私的立埸去追求,永远不能满足你,而且可以带来更多的 Suffering 痛苦!你能够知道这一切,生起真正的慈悲心,原谅别人,这一种真正的慈悲生起的话,反而会带给我们很多的幸福,但我们不知道。
这是我们的大妄想:看到眼前对我有利,就是好像可以给我带来幸福。结果呢?背道而驰、缘木求鱼。真正可以带给你幸福快乐的,是能够生起真正 Non-Conceptualize,不属于概念的慈悲。

我们很多时候,好像自己做了很多慈悲的事。但是这个慈悲,如果我们加以反省的话,很多都是因为对慈悲有一个自己的概念,这样、这样就是慈悲,我们叫做概念化的慈悲,Conceptualize Compassion



他举一个例子,他问我:比方这个杯子在这里,你说这个杯子它本来没有,没有自性、毫无自性。但是你知道这个是茶杯,是因为你眼睛看到、用手摸到呀! 或者甚至你打开盖子来喝喝,才晓得这是一杯茶。这个觉受,我承认没有自性。你的舌头什么样子,它就觉得什么味道;敲一敲,你的耳朵听到什高音低音,长音短音,知道它敲起来的声音;你的手接触到,那个触觉怎么样,透过你的心才有!那个觉受,是透过你的心,我承认它是毫无自性。但是,当你死掉了,别的人,侯教授来这里看,这个茶杯还依然在嘛!我死掉了,这个茶杯还在这里呀!跟你的心识没有关系嘛!它本来就在,你说:这个是毫无自性、本来没有。你在说假话呀!
这个人很聪明,能够这样反驳,是相当深入的思惟。但是,他的错误在那里?很多念唯识的还错在这里:他以为他有一个心能够观察,他有他的 Mind,他有他本身的心能够知道:这个东西,虽然我没有了,但这个东西依然在这里,这个茶杯没有破坏掉,这是很重要的一点。你走了,你不在了,但你讲:这个存在,是因为你的关系这个存在,它本身没有。是的心的影像。那你走掉、你不在了,怎么侯教授还看到这个杯子呢?那这杯子,是跟我存在不存在,毫不相干的存在嘛!Independently Existence,独立的存在嘛!你还讲什么这个心的影像!他的错在那里?哈!
又把自己心的作用抓得紧紧的,我的心的作用,他的心的作用还在!佛讲的这个心,不是你有你的心,他有他的心!衪跟本告诉我们:这个我们以为的那个心,你把那个攀缘心当做心,就错掉了!衪指的心,就是所有一切时间、空间的时空里头所显现的,都是那个 Mind Manifestation’。这一点透不过去。所有桌子也好,天体~地球、太阳、星星,空间、时间的流动,通通是真心、佛心的一种显现。这个是理,是唯识中观的理。但是,这个理没有透过禅修(Through Meditation),最重要的是要禅修,没有禅修呀!这一点就透不过去!这个不是你亲证到的。
你听别人讲了好几次:夏威夷多好玩、多好玩!你没有亲自到那地方,好玩是人家说的啦!旅行的指导书讲的啦!或者是那个照片上看的啦!你真的亲自到了那个地方,你才能说:Oh HowaiiWonderful!所以,我们这个前面的很多见,像我分析的这个Mind,为什么会有那一种错误、对于这个空性这么大的错误认知?

这是喜欢用头脑、用概念、用自己的聪明才智去做学问的,像我这样,过去的习惯这样带来的人,最大的一个缺点(Short Coming)!很不容易去想到这一点!除非你真正放下去做,这个经典、理论,都只是让我们多一层知识,Knowledge,而已!

修行为何不易上路--洪文亮医师演讲实录 (4)


使修行不易上路的几种心态 除了这个以外,顶果钦哲仁波切他讲这个是本身的缺陷,叁个缺陷,是不是?茶壸倒过来啦、有洞、有毒啦!他现在提,有叁种染污,Pollution ,或者是Stain,污点。几个染污,使我们修法很不容易上路。
因为,我慢是从那裡来呢?从我执来的嘛!没有我相,怎么有我慢呢?因为你强调是我能干,你们都不会!我的Knowledge、我的学问,我的漂亮、美丽,我的什么‧‧,什么都是我的、我的、我的。 所以,刚刚讲把真正诸法的空性,你没有办法、不能真正有智慧的可以认到:诸法,所有,包括时空的一切,那是无自性的这个空慧。你没有智慧能够亲証到,这个时候,你马上引起Confusion,那个Confusion就认为是「我」!
宗萨仁波切把这个叫做 Shock,你被无明 Shock 掉了,休克掉了!所以,当下就觉得是我。那『我』的概念是从ShockBeing Shocked!被震坏了,震撼掉了!这个结果,就是『有我』。那是Because you want of wisdom,没有智慧的结果,你就在一瞬间就觉得『这是我』。这个我的开始,『I』,那变成『I am』,『我』变成『我是』。我是什么?我是男的,我是女的,我是中国人,我是有钱,我是聪明,『I变成I am』,我是‧‧;那我是之后呢?变成什么?I want,我需要。我要什么,都从「I」开始,I I amI am 变成 I want,这样愈滚愈大。这个delusion,这个妄想境界,Confusion这样来的。



我们活到的时候,对世间法太执着、太用心了,法执很重!看得太过分,Take it too seriously。非常执着的话,你在用功,这个修佛法的时候,很容易这个散乱,我们叫『掉举』。如果不是掉举的话呢,因为疲劳了,一上坐,一修佛,一念咒,你就会昏昏沈沈Drowsiness。不是昏沈,就是掉举,就犯这个第叁个毛病。(昏沈和掉举)

有的人认为:哎呀,我现在事业正在颠峰,没有时间听法,也没有时间花五分、十分鐘去想想这个佛说的道理,或者是把心静下来做这个止的功夫、没有时间。等我十年,或者等怎么样、孩子大了我再说。这个是环境、受到环境的影响,Annoy!还有一种人,他说:『喔!阿有法度!』(台语)。要成佛这么难,我没有办法,这就是Discourage,自己没有勇气去学。 所以,一开始就用这个藉口说:我无法度!要成佛,我那有可能!我不行!我不可以!我不能做到这么难的事!我不要!也有这一种人。这一种都是Stains,缺点,都是不正确的心态。

那么,现在关于这个教法,为什么我们修佛法不容易上路,关于这个 Teachings,他们所教的内容。我们的态度,我们用功的方法不对,这个是比较简单了。他说什么?有的人晓得经典的意思,名相,名相都知道。名相呀,文字上的了解有了,意义不知道。真正它指的意义,他没有、没有确切的了解;有的人呢倒过来,意思知道,名相却常常忘掉,这个都不好!有的呢名相、意义他都知道,但是,对不起,他呢、最究竟的胜义、真正的究竟义,他不知道;释迦牟尼佛他有的时候是方便讲的,不了义经;文字了解记得、意义也知道,但是究竟义他不知道,就错掉了


有的人文字也知道,意义也通,究竟义也知道,但是他呢,次第颠倒了。修佛法是有次第的,一个次第,一个次第慢慢进步,他把次第弄颠倒了。好像,我们修无上瑜珈 (YOGA),应该是先修生起次第,对不对?生起次第修好了,你才修圆满次第,一步一步来。圆满次第要先修「身远离」,然后是「语远离」,然后是「心远离」(有的人叫意远离),然后修那个净光,「根本净光」,对不对?净光修好了,你再修「幻身成就」,是不是?幻身成就了,你最后才修 Union,「融合」。这是圆满次第的六次第。你前面的身远离都没有;身远离知道意思吗?
各位。可能在修的人都知道;身远离都没有修好,一下子想要修净光,自己想:「喔!我死的时候,头一个 Stage,头一个出来的,是慢慢四大分解啦,然后细心的作用出现啦,根本净光出现的时候,我认到它,就法身成就、解脱了!」我一下子来修这个净光,于是,在打坐时拼命想看光。结果,他看光是什么光?会带你到神经病的那个光!那是给光影门头骗去了!这真是糟糕的事。


把空的那个理呀,他没有透彻的、有智慧照到,因为你的福慧不够啊!你善事做不够,坏事做很多。坏的行为,那个Karmic Tendency,坏的业力的 Tendency 都没有去掉,一下子去想了解、想透彻空的话,你会出毛病,变成呢、抓住空不放。
8W.l8V5~ F:K/C  

修行为何不易上路--洪文亮医师演讲实录 (5)     

陆、真妄之别 因为真正的心,它本身有明觉、明照,它本身不是煳裡煳涂的,它本身不是什么都不知道。心,我讲的是真心,不是攀缘心。真正的RIGPA,藏文把这个真的心,用RIGPA表示,把我们那个攀缘的心叫SEM;现在我看到各位,听到声音,能起作用的这个,是攀缘心,不是你的真心;我们给这个攀缘心骗了,所以一直在轮迴,这个心叫做SEM。它分得很清楚,RIGPA是真正的心。我介绍中阴身解脱的时候,头一个Stage就出现的那个净光,Clear light of The death,那死净光,那是RIGPA。所有一切都从这裡出现,这个是真正的佛心。有的人教做佛心,禅宗叫本地风光,或者是用『这个』、『那个』讲这个。有的呢,唯识学家就是『真常唯心』的『真常』。但是呢、印顺长老常常讲『真常唯心』是这个密宗、禅宗的真常论,其实他是从学问讲的。真常唯心的『唯心』,不是你用想像概念,去想那个真常的那个,它既不属于无常、也不属于真常。常、无常都是你的概念,时间就是一个妄想境界,既然时间是妄想,你怎么能够描写这个RIGPA是真常呢?还是无常呢?你不能把它用时间的概念套进去描写它嘛!所以真正的RIGPA,不是这样的东西!这死净光,RIGPA本身,它的Essential Nature,它的本性是空,是不是?我已经介绍很多次了。但是,它还有其他的特性。这个特性,请大家千万注意喔!知道了这个特性之后,中阴身阶段所显现的境相,或者你打坐时候出来的境相,到底是什么东西你就清楚了,不会给它骗了!这个心,真心,佛心或者是本地风光,它本性是空的。虽然是空的,它自已本有明觉觉照,明明觉觉、明明了了,Clarity是它本有的特质。它本身明,明并不是说:我看到这个杯子,知道这个杯子,那是妄想,有能有所。能看的、能显出来很多境界的那个「能的」,你能知道明啦、暗啦,那个能知道的那个,不属于明、不属于暗。知道明,那是动了妄想,「啊!这个是明。」,妄想!这没有光明,这是暗,那是己经动了二元的念头,已经是Dualistic,已经是Conception,已经是概念化,已经是妄想境界。那个能这样分别明暗的那个能,是不属于明,也不属于暗喔!否则,明过去了,你不知道暗喔!暗过去,知道暗的,如果它是属于暗的话,那明来了,你也不知道呀!它本身不属于明跟暗,是不是?楞严经裡是这样慢慢讲。

柒、真心的特质 这个Clarity,明明觉觉的这个特性,你在打坐、修行,真正的在Meditation,禅修的时候,这个明的境界,你会接触到!好了,你因为太用功,你的修行的功夫很好;很多人修行的功夫没有这么好,他不会误会;但是,你的禅修很深、很高,可达到深的定。所谓深的定是什么意思呢?就是那一种属于概念思维的、大脑的那一种作用都没有,都消失了。那种假的作用消失、一直消失,一直掉,掉到本心的、本地风光的明觉的明明觉觉让你接触到。如果误认为这就对了,你对这个明开始执着了。你不执着,就对!你以为这个本心,佛的本心、本地风光、佛心就是这个,这个是自性。你以为这个是自性,你是Clinging,你是执着了,抓了它了,对不对?把那东西当做对象,一抓了,就出毛病!打坐、用功、唸佛念得非常好,能够看到自己心的明觉,以为这个就是,你开始对它执着,将来投胎时,没有办法跳出轮迴,到那裡去?林教授?天界。天界有几天?十七天,一个、一个生前不一样。叁界大家都知道吗?天界有十七天,一层一层的,看你的明觉、明亮度怎么样,你就投胎到十七天里的一个天道,做天人去了!做天神呢!我们台湾习俗很多是拜天公,但是,有的时候是拜欲界天的啦!还没有到色界天。这个明觉,误认为这个就是自性、佛的本地风光,将来你到再生投胎、再生中阴的时候,耶!一下子投胎到明的这个地方去了!然后,我们的真心,还有它的另一个面,它的aspect可以描述它:它很乐,Bliss。乐、明、无念就是它的属性。刚刚讲明吗?把这个明,误认做是我们的佛性,我们的自心就是明,把明一抓住,你呢、叁界没办法解脱,到天界十七天裡头某一个天做天神!还不错,做天神。把那个乐;真正乐,超出欲界的乐、超出很多很多的;有的人打坐到这个地方,喔!爽得不要出定!耽在那个舒服、超过欲界男女之欲好多好多倍的那个乐境界,Bliss,把这个当做就是!所以,外面很多朋友打坐的功夫还不错,那些讲灵异的,你不要小看他们哦!他们很多禅定功夫可以到乐明无念,但是,错在没有佛的正见,把这个当做是真的,这个就是道,到家了!是佛性,就是自性,就是法身!完了!到那裡去投胎?欲界天。欲界,我们欲界的最上面有欲界天。我们是欲界的,是不是?欲界裡面,有畜生道啦、人道啦!最上面有欲界天。投胎到欲界,变成欲界天的天神,不是色界天的天神,欲界天的天神!为甚么投胎到这裡?因为乐,非常舒服,乐得你不想出定。好了,最后一个属性是什么?无念。这个无念,在那个境界,你二元的思想都没有了。已经达到Non-Conceptualize,没有概念化的二元境界。不起了,你的那个心不起,绝对不起。这个妄想,认为这是空,以为『这就是空』;你一执着,把这个空当做是真的、真的佛性,宇宙万象的秘密的根源,就是这个。把这个Emptiness当做对象抓住了,到那裡投胎?无色界。无色界,死的时候不经过中阴身,一下子这个Consciousness,这个灵识一出来呢、就马上、一下子、不经过中阴,一下子投胎到无色界(formless realm);这是因为你禅定功夫太好了。无色界有四个:空无边处、识无边处、无所有处、非想非非想处;到无色界的四个、不晓得那一个地方去了。这个都是你看差错,差那么一点点。 打坐的时候的乐、明、无念,是非常殊胜的一种功夫境界。但是,如果你缺少了正见,缺少了过来人或者真正的老师,给你做一个Oral Instruction(口授),你高兴了,因为这个境界;你明的境界,可以使你能够知道,找你问问题,都会回答,一个月后或者你会出车福啦、你过去世是什么道的啦,他都清清楚楚。他达到那个境界;非常厉害。但是,你一执着了,就变成障碍,在叁界裡滚,没有办法脱开。你超越这个,那才是!因为执着在乐明无念这上头,最后的叉路就变成这个样子。所以,做禅修的道友,千万注意这一点!所以,实証功夫的非常要紧!

修行为何不易上路--洪文亮医师演讲实录 (6)     
捌、为什么我们很不容易看到真心? 现在,最后一个问题,很有趣的一个问题。为什么我们很不容易看到心?不懂得真心?RIGPA我们认不到,祇认这个SEM。跟境界转,给境界转掉了,没有办法护念这个真的,这个你偶而一闪看到的RIGPA!这个RIGPA很有趣喔,请大家注意喔,不是禅定中你才能看到根本净光~心的塬来面目。但禅定中一闪就过去,真有禅定功夫的大师呀,像丁果、卡鲁仁波切、蒋扬康慈,这些大师们,或者敦珠法王,他们能够在禅定、修禅定中,就定在、休息在这个Clear Light,根本净光中,不必等到死的时候,这个才出现!有的道友,可能在坐中会出现这个现象,但是,很可能是一、二秒,一闪就过去了。很不容易,自己看到都不知道,它现出来,你也不知道。有的人定力较好一点,智慧好一点,能够知道,但是没办法Stabilize()。善护持的『持』,是这个意思。金刚经的善护念,是护念这个。不是说『你不要起贪心啦!』,那只是粗浅的讲。你真正见道,叫明心见性。真正明心见性之后,你再入定、出定,入定、出定;开悟之后,为什么还在修呢?就是要能够把『净光』的时间拉长,Duration,能够维持住、保护住越久越好,能够你要多久,就定多久。所以,丁果仁波切去年过去的时候,他定在根本净光中半年以上。但是,他告诉他的徒弟:到农历114(1993),他还没有化光的话,把我火化掉。他两公尺那么高的身体,到那个时候 (114),已经(化虹光)缩成30公分这么小(坐姿)。那是屏东一个我的喇嘛朋友,去到尼泊尔亲自看到,回来跟我讲。那敦珠法王也是,一样缩成这么小,贡噶师父也一样。 玖、死亡的实相 为什么能这样呢?我们死掉,物质的四大~地水火风,开始慢慢分解,然后,粗的心慢慢溶掉(dissolve)、细的心出现,白心、红心,然后,最后全黑暗时期,一闪,根本净光出现!打坐的时候一样,就是把这个四大分解,粗心分解的过程在坐中经验!这个ExperienceYour mind itself!你的mind本身!Mind可以体验,Experience无限无量的境界, 所以说它有『无可限制的特性』!所以说Limitless Characteristics,没有办法限碍它,所以把它叫做『空』。但是这个空,威力大得很!死的时候,它能够经验很多境界、很多的相。由于你过去的业力、你的习惯,它能够显出来:你多坏,它就显出多坏的可怖的相;多慈悲、心多柔,那个时候,它就显出净土的境界出来;对你的上师、对你的师父,非常诚敬,那你的师父的影子,他的智慧、就由你的Mind现出来,所以把心叫做不可思议!很多人误会了,通通从概念裡头看佛法,不从实証的立埸讲。出家的师父,也可能都注重解说,或从宗教信仰方面去开脱,而它是实証的、科学的东西,不是说光在那裡讲来讲去,『好心肠啦!』『拜佛,你就可以到西天啦!』‧‧‧,那是靠不住的。为什么靠不住?因为你没有进到实验室去做实验!怎么做实验呢?等一下我们有时间再解说!
修行为何不易上路--洪文亮医师演讲实录 (7)     

拾、禅修的真正目的 这是个实証的功夫。我们讲到四大分解,细心现出来。根本净光在禅定、禅修的时候,不管你是光打坐、或者是念咒,或者是观想观世音菩萨,或者準提佛母,你能够自己、慢慢知道你的心的变化,经验的过程慢慢变,变到最后定中出现光。因为你不是等到死嘛,这个叫子净光,Son Clear Light。是你修行的功力和智慧达到这个本事。做到才算本事,没有做到,那是书上写的,是释迦牟尼佛的,诸大菩萨的,不是你的!你会讲法,你会穿着袈裟讲来讲去,被人恭维,到死的时候一点用都没有,不管你是什么大师不大师!平常听懂佛法,知道如何用功,在日常生活裡真正培养你的慈悲心,把心净化了,在念佛中或者打坐中,一闪,看到净光,定中看到。并且,你能够时常训练,出定入定,在出入中,慢慢的你能够跟它(净光)熟了,你出定时成就幻身!这是一个秘密!定中慢慢、慢慢,好像死亡现象的境界,最后根本净光出现 (佛光出现),然后出定,再变作平常的你。React process倒过来,Reverse。因为你的智慧的力量,你出定的时候,并不走普通人的『黑心红心白心』这个路子,出定时,你会成就一个『幻身』,Illusory Body,我们叫『浊幻身』。当然,平常一般人没有办法做到很『纯净』的幻身,刚刚开始成就的时候,变做『浊』幻身。但是,悟后你时常这样练习,由于你的功力、定力和智慧的关係,最后变成『净幻身』。所谓净幻身,是在印度,二千五百年前佛的色身。释迦牟尼佛他也有色身,祂的色身跟我们为什么不同?这个净幻身,就是我们自己成佛的时候,色身的基础。我们的肉、皮都会烂掉,这是生灭法。所以,定中能够做到的修行人,悟后起修,是在修这个,要成就幻身!有了幻身,就不会有生灭的身体。浊跟净有什么差别?浊幻身就是,你对空性还是概念的了解;你成就净幻身是:你的智慧,已经达到directly realize、直接悟认、亲証到空。你稍微有真正的空的智慧,它变成你实在的力量、实在的智慧,你有这个本事!我们的Mind,我们的心的本性是「空」。初地菩萨就亲証到了!初地,开悟了。这个时候和你没有亲証到空慧,有什么地方不一样?举个例子,千手千眼观世音菩萨,千手、每一个手拿东西,手指裡头有眼睛啦、相是怎么样啦,你如果时常修这一尊的话,当你証到空慧的时候,一『定』下来,祂的千手千眼、每一隻手、衣服、颜色、形状,甚至有一百个很小的项目,都可以同时记到、显现!但是,每一位修的本尊都不一样,并不是每一位都这样。如果你修的本尊是準提佛母的话,你说:我了解空、我証到空。那么这个修行人,怎么知道呢?他眼睛一闭起来观想準提佛母;不是矇眬,刚开始练习是矇眬;每一隻手指、眼睛,手裡拿什么东西,十六隻手剎那间清清楚楚现出来,不要费力,这就是証明。Prove It!做到,算是对空慧有一点了解。这是无上瑜珈讲很深的Teaching(教授法),请大家应该感谢无上密宗的传承,很多(空行)都在这裡听!

空的智慧愈来愈深的时候,心的自由度可以发挥到极点!这什么意思呢?心本来是非常自由的(Freedom of Mind),因为我们的妄想,把攀缘心抓住,认为这个是「我」,把我的心,当做是「我」。所以,真正的心(RIGPA)很多、无限制的Manifestation,自由自在的能力都被盖住,而使不出来。証到空慧的人,可以自由发挥这个能力。所以,密勒日巴尊者为什么在定中一下子就可以化出十隻、二十隻老虎,在山下阻挡坏人上来?这就是心的自由度的发挥,不是灵异、也不神奇。亲証到这个,如果你不是这样,而是用唸符咒的、邪神附身,来表示一点灵异,那是入魔、着魔了!不是由你的定慧来的!真正开发、见到RIGPA,这个真心、真的『空』,你就溶入、Dissolve了,我们就和「空慧」一起出现,心的自由度,由你自由自在的控制。这时候,才叫真的証到空慧!!不是我们嘴吧上谈的:『诸法无自性,是由很多缘凑在一起,它没有本体,这就是空。』,那是理论。你业力要去做一隻老虎,你能不能不要去做老虎,我要去做一隻蟑螂?你都没有办法!不要说要做人了!所以,修行是实实在在,不是光讲理论而已。我们进一步来说明心的体性和作用。我们现在知道,它的本性、它的Essential NatureEmptiness。要描写它的形状、大小、ColorLocation,都没有办法。那么它的用呢? 它的Clarity,是明明觉觉。所以我们能够知道境界,这是它的报身;Essential Nature,那是它的法身,我们叫做它的Dharmakaya;它本身,有明明觉觉的觉照,我们叫做它的报身,Sambhgakaya。大家不要给法身、报身、化身搞得煳裡煳涂,其实这个是亲証的境界。Nirmanakaya是什么意思?它能够呈现各种各样的形相,Limitless Manifestation照你的业力现出来:你想太空梭,太空梭就显出来。它有这个无罣无碍、能够呈现出来的,我们叫做它的『化身』,Manifestation,就是Nirmanakaya。所以,刚刚学佛的朋友们,接触佛法有很多的戒律。我们要厌离世间,这个不好、这个不是真的啰,这是假的啰、我们不要执着了~小乘,这是小乘的教导。小乘的教导是:「都是真的,但是无常,会变掉,我们不要执着它!」杯子是杯子,人是人,坏人是坏人,善人是善人,女是女,男是男,不能随便接触异性,这是要你产生厌离心。但是,他没有教你这些是『不实』,而只讲『无常』。无常,表示是真的存在,但是它会变掉,会死掉、会老掉、会毁坏掉、变旧了!没有直接告诉你:「本来都是空的。」因为刚刚开始学佛,我们智慧未开,这样教我们。等你智慧开了一点,他就来了一个Mahayana,大乘的教授。他说:「这一切都虚幻无实、空无自性!」。他讲的『空无自性』,还是承认有相、有境界!境界是空无自性,大家因为不知道而争名夺利。你真正懂得空无自性的空慧,真懂得『空』的道理的话,一定会同情这些人。大家都不知道,而在那裡你争我夺,争得头破血流,太可怜了,包括你自己。所以大乘就慈悲,利他为主要精神。最高的教授是什么?我们这裡叫做『金刚乘』、『密乘』,这只是我们给的名字,其实佛在世的时候已经教了的,尤其是莲花生大士带来的。就是时机到了,因为你透过小乘、大乘,有基础了!没有这个基础,你没有办法!你没有通过小学、中学、大学,能不能念研究院呢?不能呀!

 一样呀,佛法最高的教授,在最后,佛才讲真话:「一切相,都是法身的显现!」。一切相,空间、时间,有情、无情,物质的、有生命的,通通是Dharmakaya,都是佛的净土!境界是佛的净土,我们看到的众生,每一位都是你的本尊,Deity,都是佛的身!每一位众生、每一个毛孔都是衪!净土那裡找呀?到西方找阿弥陀佛净土呀?当下即是!你的智慧高,没有Impure Perception;用眼耳鼻舌身意所接受的Perception是觉受嘛;你的智慧开了,妄想的云雾清除掉了。你的Perception本身,变成纯净的Perception。所映现的,都是佛的净土,这是最高的教授。Each and Every Being,都是Deities!声音,空中飞鸟的声音,大家在纸上写字的声音,所有声音,都是佛的咒音、佛的真言。声音那裡来呀?你说:是空气振动经过神经,所以变成声音。那是给喜欢理论的人的解说。其实,声音本身空无自性。那空无自性怎么有声音?本来没有东西,怎么会显现成声音?佛的咒音!都是佛性现出来的。那我们的思想呢?声音还有高低、长短能够分别,它当然是没有相,总是还有Voice Sound,这是报身的境界,佛的。思想呢?我能够知道你心裡想甚么。那是我刚讲的空慧,空的智慧証到相当高的人,注意到你,就知道你心裡想什么。他真正証到那个、入到那个「空的智慧」境界。人的思想本身,就是Dharmakaya,法身境界。无形、无相、无色!你不知道,看不出来,但是,你怎么能够移动你的身体,说出话来?你心不动,动不了!身、口都是受『意』的指挥出来的,意是君王,身口是奴隶!那意怎么动呢?动了,我们也看不出来呀!有没有颜色?有没有味道?在那裡动?都不知道!法身,佛的法身。声音是诸佛的报身,显现出来的是佛的净土,各位每一个众生都是Deity

知道了这个,然后以这个正见为基础,去禅修。修定、修慧,定之后有慧,慧之后,定慧合一。这样的境界,密宗就称为『一味』,显教叫做『定慧等持』。禅修的步骤,先专一、离戏,第叁个是一味,第四个呢?无修。所谓专一,就是定。你的心,定在一点都不动,不受环境的影响,不会散乱、不会昏沈。把心安伏下来,你才能是用很平稳的心的状态,去想想诸佛所讲的『一切都无自性』,开发空的智慧。这是修慧,我们叫做『离戏』。我们从眼耳鼻舌身意蒐集来的资讯,通通是Impure Perception的关係,都是戏论!最简单而明显的是:觉得这个是我、那是你。那已经是根本的颠倒了,但我们没办法!在定中,你能够修到离戏,有空的智慧。定中是:我知道无我,我是假的,根本、本来就没有我,所以无我也是多余的。定中知道得很清楚,出定呢?又没有了!为什么?这个禅定的功夫跟Action(行愿),在实际生活裡,还没有融合。所以,第叁个是一味,定跟慧都不分了,两个合而为一,『你、我』『能、所』合一了,没有二元的境界叫One Taste,一味。就是没有你我,没有能所!我们都是有能所、有对立呀! 我看到什么、我听到什么,这是能所的对立的境界。

你在修定、禅修念佛的时候,能亲証到一味;显教就叫定慧等持;等于说是你『能所』都消失了,在一元境界,没有在二元戏论裡头。然后『无修』。那出定了做人做事,你已经『幻身成就』,秘密在这裡了!为什么你能够在日常生活裡,出定入定一样呢?因为你幻身成就了!你Illusory Body修成功,在心轮那裡有,假如我修到,我一看,就知道你修有了;如果我没有修成功这个,就是你幻身在心轮裡头,我也看不出来。因为,外表跟他还没有成就以前完全一样,没有差别!No difference at all!并不是说,你幻身成就了,你外表就红光满面,或肤色有什么变化。塬来廋廋的、小小的,黄色皮肤,就是那个样子。但是,他已经幻身成就在心轮裡头。但是,要你真正自己成就的人才看得到!他的心已经变成Pure Perception,净幻身。他的心从『他的幻身的心』这里出现、这裡用,所以出定、入定一样!不是说:「你出定、入定都一样保持那个境界。」。这是最大的秘密,最高级的「幻身成就」的教授。

修行为何不易上路--洪文亮医师演讲实录 (8)  
拾壹、大手印的秘密 最后,我再报告为什么我们心的自性、心的本体不容易看。根本净光,就是我们的心的本地风光,也就是心的源头,为什么我们不容易看到?第一个塬因:真正的、我们的佛心Too close,太近了。我们要看纸上的字,太近,你能够读吗?太接近我们了!生下来到现在,那一个人自己看到自己的脸?因为太近了嘛,所以看不见!这个RIGPA,是因为这个道理,我们不容易认到它。太近了!每天用的是它,就像自己没办法看到自己的脸一样的,不容易认到,这是第一个塬因。第二个塬因:这RIGPA会显现很多的境相,让你经验,所有我们现在看到、听到,都是它的经验。这个Experience太深了,莫测高深!好像我们在海边看大海,想知道海多深,你能够测量它吗?无法测量!一样的,我们的心,能够让我们经验的那个~深不可测。所以,我们跟本没有办法了解这个RIGPA!最后,密宗明心见性,就是禅宗的顿悟法门。「直指人心,见性成佛」那一下子,在密宗的修法,叫做『大手印』教授,直接看到你心的塬来面目。这一种指导,Instruction,我们叫MAHAMUDRA,大手印。大手印太简单了,Too easy!因为太简单,所以你就没有办法认到它!Too easy!你问问那真正的大修行人,像宗萨仁波切等,因为丁果仁波切、敦珠法王都走了。问他们真正亲証到『心的本体』、『心自性』,禅宗讲的本地风光的人,『那么简单,你怎么不会呀?』。Too easy的关係,我们没有办法做,这有一点怪怪的呢!第叁个是:成佛的境界太神妙、太美妙。

我们的思想,好像很窄的一条沟,大海的水,要从这么小的沟里,一下流过去,能吗?一样的!佛的境界的美妙、神妙,不是我们人这么小小的脑:妄想一大堆的二元境界裡滚的那一种思想能够知道它的。这叫做Inlightmence too excellent,太神妙、太神奇!你看这多怪,第一个是太近Too close,第二个是佛心的经验;实际上,我们所有的经验,都是心、心本体的经验。我举一个例子,这里有银幕,你要映什么电影,它都可以做,拿什么片子来,它就给你做,是不是?心就是银幕一样,它所有经验都没有问题,你来做什么,我就现出什么给你。一样呀!这佛心的经验!这个味道有一点不对,也只能这样讲。实在难讲这个境界。心本身,好像银幕一样,你拿什么片子来照,我都如实的给你放映,所有的,我们现在、过去、未来时间的经验、空间的经验。到美国西海岸,要坐喷射机十几个小时,好远哪!那个远的感觉,这个距离的长短,心没有动,没有时间的!你觉得『哎呀!那么久还没到!』,那是心作用了,才有时间的观念。从这裡走到候教授那裡,一、二、叁步就到了,好像是可以测量那个长度,我们认为距离是真的东西,你心没有动,有没有距离呀?你心想叁步就到了,那个是心的念头一起,才有距离!所有一切就是心本身,能够经验就是心本身!;太莫测高深了。第叁个呢?大手印、顿悟的法门,太容易了!真正亲証到心的本体的修行者说:『哎呀,这么简单,你怎么不会!』。太过简单,所以大家不会。为什么简单?他说:『只要你,不要东想西想,妄想都不要,轻轻的把你的心安放在它的本来的、塬来的面目上就对了。』但是,我们就不敢放呀,也不会放呀!叫你放,就:『安呢耶塞麦?』(这样可以吗?)。那个,就是你的妄想!放了,「对吗?」,又是你又随便来了,又头上安头了!「耶,这样吗?」「嗯?不对、不对」「这样就对了」「耶、这个也是不对!」。就是lightly(很轻轻的) rest in your nature of Mind!轻轻的把你的心,放在本来的、它那个安祥的、本来的、明明觉觉的,它的本位上就对了!做得到的人说:「这么简单,怎么不会呢?」。Too Easy, MahaMudra!顿悟,就是那么简单!但是,悟后要起修喔!悟后没有起修的话,你一起来,就什么都没有,又失掉了!

我们在日常生活裡,不一定打坐才能够看到那个根本净光,就我们在擤鼻涕,『ㄎㄥ~』那个时候,哎,看到那个鼻涕,「哦,多了、黄了」,这个要看看什么颜色,那已经没有了。『ㄎㄥ~』那一下子,一闪,过去了。想要擤鼻涕,那个还不是,正在做的时候,『嗯~』什么念头都没有,空的!那一下子,那是一闪,你也认不到。一百公尺跑完了,『ㄏㄜ、ㄏㄜ、ㄏㄜ』(气喘如牛),什么念头都没有,『哎呀!累了!』又不是了!It’s confusion discursive consciousness,又在混乱颠倒的意识裡头,『哎呀!太累了!』,Discursive Consciousness,已经在我们轮迴的、妄想的凡夫境界。那当下跑完的时候,那『ㄏㄜ、ㄏㄜ、ㄏㄜ』,一闪,过去了。『哎哟!不得了!』,哎、哎,又来了,又是凡夫的轮迴境界了!所以,大手印too easy,我们没有自信,都是怀疑『这个对吗?』『难道这么简单吗?』,这个又丢了!又掉了!就这么一回事。第四个是:如果你能够善护念,能够把这个境界DevelopedStabilized,稳定化,并把它扩张的话,太美妙、太美妙,所有的神通变化,都从心的本体的这个,它本身具有,何其自性本自具足!我们就用这一句话,做今天的结语,谢谢各位! 我所讲的这个,是大家『心』的经验,(大众鼓掌)。听到声音的时候,大家都说『耶!很多人拍手的声音。』,声音都是拍手的声音,这个念头去不掉,都有这个经验。「喔!这是大家拍手的声音」「哎!这是你讲得好!」,这个就是执着,就是轮迴的动因。根本没有这个东西耶!显现出来这个声音,是佛的法身的那个Wonderful MindNature MindManifestation,它的一个Sambhgakaya,报身境界,就是声音耶!那我们就不是、就抓了!我们不但对声音这样,对自己的相,抓得更紧!我漂亮、我是女的,我的头髮怎么样。睡觉的时候,你都知道你烫成什么头髮!身相拿不掉,你怎么能够成佛呢?相都执着了,还说要把我执拿掉,那是不可能的!为了要去掉身相,所以我们要修『生起次第』嘛!把自己观成释迦牟尼、观世音菩萨,或把自己观成阿弥陀佛,生起次第,是不是?就是为了要去掉我们对身相的执着。