Here are some Chinese articles from 2010~2013 containing writings about my realizations and experiences with English translations provided.
以下是我撰写的一些关于个人体悟与经历的中文文章。
附注：虽然文章探讨了超越“源头”的见解，但在实际的修行旅程中，首要之举应是通过自我探寻来证悟“源头”（亦称本我），正如第一篇文章中所强调的那样，这是一切修行的基石。
English Translation (Paragraph 1)
Note:
Although these articles delve into perspectives that transcend the view of a "source,"
in the actual journey of practice, the primary step should be to realize the
"source" (also known as the true self/I AM) through self-enquiry. As
emphasized in the first article, this is the foundation of the spiritual path.
June 29, 2010
On February 9, 2010, I
experienced an insight in my practice: I realized what self-nature (自性), what my original face (本来面目) before birth, and what
the true self (真我) is. At that time, I was meditating,
and a question arose in my mind—“What was my original face before
I was born?” I very much wanted to find the answer, but I also clearly knew
that this was not something I could understand by mere intention or thinking.
Then, in that instant, all thoughts suddenly vanished, the self‑nature manifested,
and in my mind it became clear and evident; what I realized was extremely
vivid, and all doubts dissolved. Since I began transmitting the Dharma, I had
already begun to have some experience of self‑nature a few
years prior, but after that day, I have had no further doubts about it.
Original Text (Paragraph 1)
2010年6月29日
在2010年2月9日，我经历了一个修行上的体悟：我体悟了什么是自性、本来面目、真我。当时我正在打坐，脑海里有一个疑问——“我未生以前的本来面目是什么？”我非常想找出答案，但也清楚地知道，这并不是凭借意念或思考就能明白的。就在那一刻，突然一切意念都消失了，自性显现，心中了然明白；所悟到的极其清晰，一切疑惑也随之荡然无存。自从传法后，我在几年前便开始对自性有所体会，但那次之后，我对它再无疑惑。
English Translation (Paragraph 2)
Because this is a truth
that transcends words and language, the portion that can be expressed in words
is very limited (it is like “when one drinks water, one knows for oneself
whether it is cold or warm”). On top of that, since most of my communication
with friends is in English, I will still do my best today to express my insight
in my rather limited Chinese.
Original Text (Paragraph 2)
因为这是一个超越语言文字的真理，能用言语表达的部分非常有限（就如“如人饮水，冷暖自知”）。再加上和朋友之间多半都用英语交流，但今天我还是会尽量用我浅薄的中文来表达我的体悟。
English Translation (Paragraph 3)
Just now, I mentioned the
term “self‑nature.” What exactly does it refer to? What is the “original face
before you were born”?
If you can relinquish all
thoughts, the attachment to “I,” and deluded thinking, and even completely let
go of both body and mind, at that moment, would you truly disappear and cease
to exist? Would your body become a corpse? No. In that moment, empty and with
nothing at all, what remains is the self‑nature—that which neither
arises nor ceases—your original face, that is to say, your own
“existence.” It has no form or appearance, yet it has always existed since
beginningless kalpas. It neither increases nor decreases, transcends time and
space, remains thus and unmoving, and is the fundamental essence /
the spiritual [aspect] / numinous awareness (靈知). Its nature is
“awareness”—clear, distinct, and keenly perceptive, able to reflect all
phenomena, just like a mirror reflecting all. Everything that is seen or heard
naturally manifests because of this nature of awareness. It is
precisely through this “existence” itself and this “nature of awareness” upon
which it relies, that your body possesses vitality—this is the wondrous
functioning of awareness. As The Bloodstream Sermon of Great Master
Bodhidharma says: “Buddha is the word used in the West; in our land,
we call it ‘nature of awareness.’ Awareness means numinous awareness (靈覺). It meets conditions and responds to beings; raising the
eyebrows and blinking, moving the hands and feet, are all one’s own numinous
awareness by nature.” If one’s power of attentive illumination is strong, one
can illuminate everything clearly in every movement—even during ordinary
activities like eating or walking, one will feel “inexpressibly wondrous,”
because that is the wondrous functioning of the nature of awareness. In
contrast, for most people in daily life, no matter what they do, they are
always doing one thing while they are lost in random thoughts, so it is very
difficult for them to truly understand and experience this “wondrousness.”
Original Text (Paragraph 3)
我刚才提到的“自性”，到底指的是什么？什么是“未生以前的本来面目”？
如果你能够将一切意念、我执和妄想都舍弃，甚至把身心都完全放下，此刻你真的会彻底消失、不复存在吗？你的身体会变成一具尸体吗？不会。就在这时，空然无一物，剩下的便是不生不灭的自性、本来面目，也就是你自身的“存在”。它无形无相，却自无始劫以来就始终存在，不增不减，超越时空，如如不动，是本体/灵性/灵知。它的本质便是“觉”——了了分明、灵敏觉知，能照见万物，如同镜子可映照万物。一切所见所闻都因这“觉性”而自然显现。有了这个“存在”的本身，有了“觉性”作为依靠，身体才具备活力——这就是觉性的妙用。正如《达摩大师血脉论》所说：“佛是西国语，此土云觉性。觉者灵觉，应机接物，扬眉瞬目，运手动足，皆是自己灵觉之性。”如果觉照力强，便会在一举一动中都照得清清楚楚——甚至平时吃饭、走路，也会让人感觉“妙不可言”，因为那都是觉性的妙用。与之相对，一般人在日常生活中，不管做什么事，总是一边做事一边胡思乱想，很难真正理解和体会到这种“妙”。
English Translation (Paragraph 4)
Our faculty of hearing
does not change; all thoughts and feelings arise and subside within the nature
of awareness, but the nature of awareness always illuminates and is not
affected. Ordinarily, we identify our body and mind as “I.” If we walk or move,
we feel as if this body–mind “I” is moving through its surroundings. But if you
can maintain illuminating awareness while walking or running, you will discover
that the surrounding scenery is actually coming and going within your fundamental
nature, which is formless, shapeless, all‑encompassing, and akin to empty space—and
you, that self‑nature with no form, do not move at all.
Original Text (Paragraph 4)
我们的“闻性”不变，一切意念与感受都在觉性之中起落，但觉性常照不受影响。通常，我们都会把自己的身心认定为“我”，若是走路或行动时，就好像“我”这个身心在周围环境里移动。但如果在走路或跑步时能持续觉照，你会发现周围的景色实际上是在你的“本性”当中来来去去，而你——无形无相、包含万物、有如虚空一般的自性——并未移动。
English Translation (Paragraph 5)
If you truly witness the
truth of the “original face before you were born,” you will be utterly free
from doubt, and you will find it impossible even to deny it. You will
understand that in your life, this self‑nature / nature
of awareness / mere “existence” is the only truth that cannot be
negated. Everything else is but the manifestation of that self‑nature; if not
for the self‑nature, you would not be able to read this article here. All of
this can be confirmed without any thinking; it is not something that depends on
thought in order to be concluded or understood. For example, upon seeing a
person who behaves genteelly and wears thick glasses, you might conclude by
thinking that “he is a learned individual,” yet you can never be one hundred
percent sure that this is really true. But seeing the nature is completely
different: it does not rely on thinking. In that moment when the previous
thought has passed away, and the next thought has not arisen, when there is no
thought in the present, you can be certain that this is our genuine fundamental
nature in a most tangible way, and thus you no longer have any doubts.
Original Text (Paragraph 5)
如果你真正见证了“未生以前的本来面目”这一真理，就会完全没有疑惑，你甚至想否认都做不到。你会明白，在你的人生中，自性/觉性/存在本身是唯一不可否认的真理。一切也是自性的显相；若没有自性，你就不可能在这里阅读这篇文章。这一切都无需思考便可确信，它并不是透过思考才能得出的结论或理解的东西。比如，你看到一个人举止斯文，又戴着很深的眼镜，便用思考得出“他是个有学问的人”的结论，可你却无法百分之百确定这就是真相。而见性则完全不同：它并不依靠思考，只是在前念已过、后念不生、当下无思无念时，就能肯定这就是我们实实在在的真如本性，从而不再疑惑。
English Translation (Paragraph 6)
In the one or two months
following my seeing of the nature, I had an even deeper realization: I further
realized that self‑nature is like the “great air,” neither belonging to “me”
nor to “you,” and that all things—sentient and insentient—arise from this
cosmic fundamental essence / vast emptiness. This also led me
to understand the meaning of “Heaven and Earth share the same root; all things
share the same body.” The empty space is filled with the nature of awareness,
able to manifest all things; at the same time, I more clearly saw through the
illusoriness of “the mark of self” and “the mark of others.” In truth,
everything is a phenomenon of the cosmic fundamental essence; even walking,
coughing, speaking—none of them are performed by “me” or “you,” but are natural
workings of the cosmic fundamental essence. “I” is utterly unreal. If one does
not relinquish clinging to “I” and “what is mine,” various afflictions will
arise—this is the root of all afflictions. Practice is like a “small patch of
air” merging into the “great air / great universe,” letting go of the “small
self” so that one naturally operates and is at ease within this cosmic
fundamental essence, without obstruction.
Original Text (Paragraph 6)
在见性后的一两个月里，我有了更深的体会：进一步了解到自性就像“大空气”，既不属于“我”，也不属于“你”，一切有情无情万物都从这宇宙本体/大虚空而生。这也让我明白了“天地同根，万物同体”的涵义。虚空中充满觉性，能显现一切；同时，我也更清楚地看破了“我相”和“人相”的虚幻。原来一切都是宇宙本体的现象，连走路、咳嗽、说话，也都不是“我”或“你”在做，而是宇宙本体的自然运作。“我”是完全虚假的，如果不舍弃对“我”和“我所”的执着，就会生起各种烦恼——那正是一切烦恼的根源。修行就像“小空气”融入“大空气/大宇宙”，将“小我”舍弃，在这宇宙本体之中，自然运作，自在无碍。
English Translation (Paragraph 7)
However, this does not
mean that in practice we must completely cease giving rise to mind—otherwise,
day‑to‑day life and our activities could not be carried out. Our thoughts are
like clouds, while the nature of awareness is boundless and
vast, like the sky. If you can maintain illuminating awareness while doing
things, thoughts will arise in accordance with conditions and cease in
accordance with conditions; with keen illuminating awareness, you will see
thoughts arising and subsiding, just like clouds drifting through the sky,
while the sky remains serene and peaceful, still pure and unstained
(“Originally, there is not a single thing—where could dust alight?”). The sky
does not reject the clouds, and the clouds do not obstruct the sky. All things
follow their conditions and then are gone, leaving no trace. The most important
thing is to maintain illuminating awareness, without clinging to thoughts. If
one clings to the delusion of “I” and “mine,” one will not attain liberation;
but if one clings to discriminating consciousness and defilement, one also
cannot attain liberation. So “awareness” means illuminating awareness of all
things without discrimination or clinging. Hence “awareness” and “mind” must be
distinguished clearly. If one wants liberation, one needs “awareness.” Even if
there is thought, as long as there is also “awareness,” then that is not the
ordinary person’s “conscious mind” but an “aware mind.”
Original Text (Paragraph 7)
不过，这并不是说修行时要完全不生心——否则，日常生活和做事都无法进行。我们的念头就像云朵，而自性是开放无量、无边，如天空一般。如果能保持觉照去做事，心念也会随缘而生、随缘而灭；觉照灵敏，看到念头的起落来去就像云朵飘过天空，而天空仍然是一样地宁静、祥和，依旧清净无染（“本来无一物，何处惹尘埃”）。天空并不拒绝云朵，云朵也不会障碍天空，一切随缘而了，不留痕迹。最重要的是保持觉照，不执着于念头。如果执着于“我”和“我所”的妄想，就不得解脱；而若执着于意识的分别与染着也不得解脱。所谓“觉”，就是觉照一切而无分别与染着。所以，“觉”和“心”要分得清清楚楚。若想解脱，就需要“觉”。即使有念头，但其中也有“觉”，那就不是凡夫的“意识心”，而是“觉心”。
English Translation (Paragraph 8)
I do not regard these
insights themselves as particularly remarkable, because every dedicated
practitioner, upon reaching a certain stage, will have their own realization,
and these insights do not mean one is already completely liberated. The
principle of “From realization, [one must] proceed to practice” is very
important. I feel that my own path of practice is only just beginning. In
truth, ultimately speaking, there is no need to practice anything, because
the nature of awareness is originally complete, originally
thus—it only requires “upholding” (i.e., maintaining awareness). If everything
is relinquished, then what remains is our intrinsic completeness, unsullied and
pure—our primordial gnosis that has always been.
Original Text (Paragraph 8)
我认为这些体悟本身并没什么了不起的，因为每个认真修行到一定阶段的人都会有他自己的体悟，而且这些体悟也并不代表就完全解脱了。“从悟起修”非常重要，我觉得我的修行之路才刚开始。其实究竟来说，也并不需要修什么，因为自性本具足、本来如是，只需“持”（保持觉照）。如果把一切都舍弃，那么剩下的就是我们本来具足、清净无染的本觉。
English Translation (Paragraph 9)
January 14, 2011
Four months after I wrote the previous article, I experienced another new
realization.
I realized that “seeing
forms” is precisely “seeing the nature,” and there is really no differentiation
between “nature” and “forms.” Previously, I had read in the teacher’s writings
that “the lush green bamboo is wholly the Dharmakāya [Dharma‑body], and the
abundant yellow flowers are without exception prajñā,” and this time, I deeply
realized the meaning of those words.
Original Text (Paragraph 9)
2011年1月14日
在我写上一篇文章的四个月后，我又有了新的体会。
我悟到：原来“见相”就是“见性”，并无所谓“性相”之别。我曾经在师父的文章里读到“青青翠竹尽是法身，郁郁黄花无非般若”，这次我深切体悟到了这句话的涵义。
English Translation (Paragraph 10)
From here, I realized that
what I had understood on February 9, 2010, was actually just the “essence of
nature.” Back then, although I spoke of “everything being the wondrous
functioning of the Buddha‑nature,” I was still making a distinction between
“essence” and “function,” and I did not yet know what “essence and function are one suchness” meant. In that level of realization, my understanding of
the essence of awareness was still that of “void of anything, without form or
appearance, capable of awareness,” so I always tried to abide in that “void,”
giving rise to a Dharma‑attachment inclined toward “emptiness.” I still did not
understand that all dharmas are originally equal, that they are all the
wondrous functioning of Buddha‑nature. It was not until mid‑October 2010, when
I followed the instructions in a certain Buddhist sūtra—The Bahiya Sutta (the
“Bāxījiā Jīng,” 婆酰迦经)—to engage in
contemplative illumination, that I had a new breakthrough.
Original Text (Paragraph 10)
从这里，我明白自己在2010年2月所悟到的其实只是“性体”。当时虽然也说“一切是佛性的妙用”，但在“体”和“用”之间仍然起了分别，还不知什么是“体用一如”。在那种层次里，对觉性本体的认识还是“空无所有、无形无相的能觉”，所以总想守住那个“空”，在偏向于“空”之中生起了“空”的法执。还不理解一切法本来平等，都是佛性的妙用。直到2010年10月中旬，我依照一部佛经——《Bahiya Sutta》（《婆酰迦经》）——的指示来观照，这才有了新的突破。
English Translation (Paragraph 11)
According to the record in
the sūtra, because people were offering Bahiya reverence and support, he gave
rise to the thought, “Have I already attained the Way?” A deva who had
practiced alongside him in a former life knew that Bahiya harbored such doubt,
so the deva manifested and told him, “Not only have you not attained the Way,
but you have not even entered onto the Path of attaining the Way.” Bahiya
asked, “Who, then, is already awakened?” The deva answered, “In Śrāvastī, there
is an awakened Sage teaching the path to awakening—he is the Buddha.” So Bahiya
went to Śrāvastī to see the Buddha, and it happened that the Buddha was begging
for alms. Bahiya requested the Buddha to instruct him, but the Buddha refused,
saying that this was not the right time. Bahiya entreated him repeatedly,
explaining that no one could foresee the dangers in either his or the Buddha’s
life. Later, the Buddha agreed to give him instruction, saying:
“Bahiya, when seeing, only
the seen; when hearing, only the heard; when
smelling, tasting, or touching anything, only
just smell, taste, or touch; when thinking,
only thoughts. Precisely because when seeing, there is only the seen; when hearing, there is only sound; when smelling, tasting, or touching, there is only smells, tastes, touch; when thinking, there is only thought—there is no ‘you’ in relation to anything. Since there is
no ‘you,’ there is no ‘you’ there; since there is no ‘you’ there, there is also
no ‘you’ here, there, or in between. This is the end of suffering.”
Hearing just that single
sentence, Bahiya was liberated on the spot. However, that very day he was gored
to death by a bull. A disciple asked, “To which realm was Bahiya reborn?” The
Buddha answered, “Bahiya was wise; he relied on the Buddhadharma in his
practice, and he did not trouble me with further Dharma questions. Bahiya has
completely attained liberation.”
Original Text (Paragraph 11)
经里记载：婆酰迦因为受到人们的恭敬与供养，心中生起了“我是不是已经成道”的念头。一位前世曾与他共修的天神知道巴希亚心中存有疑虑，便现身告诉他：他不仅没有成道，也根本还没进入成道之道。婆酰迦问：“那么现在谁已成道？”天人回答：“在舍卫城有一位开悟的圣者正在传授成道之法，他就是佛陀。”于是婆酰迦前往舍卫城见到佛陀时，恰逢佛陀在化缘，他请求佛陀为他开示，但佛陀拒绝了，表示此时不宜。婆酰迦再三请求，表示谁也无法预料他和佛陀生命中的危险。后来佛陀答应为他开示，说道：
“婆酰迦，在看东西时，只有看东西；在听声音时，只有听声音；在闻、尝、触任何东西时，就只有闻、尝、触；在思想时，就只有思想。正因为在看时只有看，在听时只有听，在闻、尝、触时就只是闻、尝、触，在思想时就只是思想，所以于一切境界并没有一个‘你’。既没有‘你’，就没有一个‘你’在那里；既没有‘你’在那里，也就没有一个‘你’在这里、那里或中间。此即苦的止息。”
婆酰迦听了短短一句话，当场解脱。然而，当天他就被牛撞死了。佛陀的弟子问：“婆酰迦往生到哪一道？”佛陀回答：“婆酰迦有智慧，他依据佛法修持，却不以有关佛法的问题来打扰我，婆酰迦已经彻底解脱了。”
English Translation (Paragraph 12)
At that time, I followed
the Buddha’s instruction in the Bahiya Sutta to contemplate
all (and I practiced it while in motion), and suddenly I realized—when seeing
mountains, rivers, and the great earth, there is actually no opposition between
what can be aware and what is being perceived. This “subject–object” distinction
simply does not exist: that which can be aware is precisely that which is
perceived! Awareness is not some “formless, shapeless substratum that is aware,”
but rather it is exactly “what is seen and heard.” When hearing a sound, there
is only sound—there is no hearer; when watching a scene, there is only the
scene—there is no viewer; when thinking, there is only thinking—there is no
thinker. Precisely because there is no subject–object, there is no distance.
There is no “standpoint” (the so‑called distinction of “me” versus “outer
scenery”) that could give rise to discrimination or evaluate near versus far.
The universe is self‑nature, with no “you” here or there, and thus there is no
limitation in time or space. When I see mountains, rivers, and the great earth,
I no longer have the sensation that “I am in the body looking out at the
scenery,” for the body is also an illusory false appearance. At that moment,
body and mind drop away, both subject and object vanish, and there is utterly
no sense of inside or outside. The mountains, rivers, and great earth are the
Dharmakāya; the whole universe is a vast radiance, with no inside or outside,
no center or periphery, no place at all. “Seeing forms is seeing the nature,”
yet there is no “one who sees” and no “object seen.” Though body and mind drop
away and subject–object are both removed, ordinary life proceeds as usual. Yet
now there is no “doer” doing, and no “awarer” that is watching; everything
is crystal clear and distinctly evident, arising and passing in accord with
conditions. All that is seen and heard is “neither grasped nor rejected,” right in that moment is the wondrous functioning of
Buddha‑nature; thoughts are the same way—like waves on the ocean, be they many
or few, in essence they are still water. There is no need to “eliminate the
waves” to look for water (here, “water” is an analogy for the empty and luminous/aware nature of all phenomena). So practice is not about whether
we have “thought” or “no thought,” but about whether or not we are deluded
about thoughts. As long as there is no delusion, there is no longer any
difference between “movement” and “stillness.”
Original Text (Paragraph 12)
我当时依照佛陀在《婆酰迦经》给婆酰迦的开示去观照一切（那时我是在动中修），突然体悟到——当看见山河大地时，并没有一个能觉与所觉的对立，这种“能所”的分别根本不存在：能觉就是所觉！觉性并不是一个“无形无相的能觉”，觉性就是“所见所闻”。在听声音时只有声音，并没有听者；在观看景色时只有景色，并没有观者；在思想时只有思想，并没有思想者。正因为没有能所，也就没有距离。没有一个“立场”（所谓“我”对“外景”的分别）来生起分别或衡量远近。宇宙就是自性，没有任何“你”在这里或那里，也就没有任何时空限制。当看到山河大地时，就没有一种“我在身体里看着外面的景色”的感觉——因为身体也只是一个虚幻的假相。此刻身心脱落、能所双亡，完全没有内外之分；山河大地就是法身，整个宇宙就是一片大光明，无内外、无中边、无方所。“见相就是见性”，但却没有一个“能见者”和“所见之境”。虽身心脱落、能所双亡，一切平凡的生活和处世依然照旧，只是已没有一个“行者”在做，也没有一个“觉者”在看，一切都清清楚楚、了了分明，来去随缘自显。所有所见所闻都“不即不离”，当下就是佛性的妙用，念头也一样，如同海上的波浪或多或少，总归其本质还是水。并不需要“去掉波浪”去找水（这里“水”比喻一切法的法性和质地——空性、觉性）。所以修行并不在于究竟是“有念”还是“无念”，而在于对念头有没有迷惑。只要不迷惑，便不会在“动”与“静”之间产生差别。
English Translation (Paragraph 13)
Many people think “no‑self”
is some kind of attainment of practice—for example, that through practice, one
no longer clings to the notion of “I.” Of course, that is very important, too,
and a major attainment in practice. But in this sūtra, the Buddha teaches that
“no‑self” is not some attainment but rather a Dharma seal—for all
dharmas, there never was a self in the first place! There never was any
opposition between “someone who can be aware” and “objects that are perceived,”
and there never was a seer, hearer, or doer! For all time, when hearing sound,
there has only been sound, and never was there some “me” or “hearer.” This has
always been the case, requiring no “elimination” of a “self,” because there was
never any “self” to eliminate from the start. This is something one must
personally realize; it is not something attained through practice or states. If
one has never truly realized prajñā, no matter how one cultivates,
it is difficult to enter such a natural state. Therefore “no‑self” is not some
sort of attainment; it is simply that all dharmas are by nature no‑self and
have always been so.
Original Text (Paragraph 13)
很多人以为“无我”是一种修行的成就，比如通过修行而让自己不再执着“我相”，当然这很重要，也是修行中的一大成就。但佛陀在这部经文中所讲的“无我”，并不是一种修行后才有的成就，而是一个“法印”——对一切法而言，本来就无我！本来就无能觉者/所觉的对立，本来就无见者/听者/行者！一直以来，在听声音时都只有声音，没有所谓的“我”或“闻者”。这本来就是如此，并不需要去“消灭”一个“我”，因为从头到尾就没有一个“我”可以消灭。这是需要实际体悟的，并不是通过修行或境界才能获得。如果没有真正亲证般若智，无论如何修行，也很难进入这样的自然状态。所以“无我”不是一种成就，而是法本无我、本来如此。
English Translation (Paragraph 14)
There are also many people
who think that one must “eliminate arising‑ceasing phenomena or thoughts” in
order to realize the self‑nature that is “unborn and undying.” I used to hold
such an understanding, too, but now I realize: if these arising‑ceasing dharmas
do not create dualistic distinctions, then right in that moment there is
neither arising nor ceasing—neither coming nor going, no difference between
movement and stillness. That means you no longer harbor the distinction stated
in my earlier article, namely that “arising‑ceasing phenomena come and go
within the unmoving self‑nature.” Because for this present thought or a
particular sound, so long as there is no dualistic differentiation or clinging,
then right here and now it is reality itself, transcending past, present, and
future. Although everything is constantly changing, in the midst of that
change, there is actually no “mark of movement,” no sign of coming or going,
only the truth, which is neither moving nor still. Therefore, in
the Śūraṅgama Sūtra it says:
“Ānanda! You still do not
understand that all fleeting dust and various illusory appearances, each arise
and vanish on the spot. These are falsely named and conceived, yet their nature is truly the luminous essence of marvellous
awakening. So it is with the five aggregates and six entrances, going on
through the twelve sense fields and the eighteen elements, which are deceptively
‘born’ upon the
union of causes and conditions; the dispersal of conditions bestows the
deceptive name of ‘extinction.’ You simply do not realize that birth and extinction,
coming and going, are fundamentally the Tathāgata‑store, ever present,
wondrously bright, unmoving, pervading in all directions—this wondrous truly‑such
nature. Within this nature that is truly permanent, if you search for coming, going, confusion, awakening,
birth, and death, you will not obtain them at all.”
(Update
by Soh: John Tan wrote before, “permanence means absence of cause of origination
and cessation, not "unchanging and real" in Mahayana Buddhism.”, "Permanent"
is not referring to something not undergoing change, it refers to the absence
of causing of arising.")
And in the Awakening
of Faith in the Mahayana it also says:
“Regarding the view of
‘substantial existence of dharmas and of a self,’ the Buddha taught only the
emptiness of a self for the dull‑rooted of the two vehicles. Because that
teaching was not ultimate, they still regard the five aggregates as arising and
ceasing and are afraid of birth and death, clinging foolishly to nirvana. How
to counter that? Because the self‑nature of the five aggregates is not born,
there can be no extinction. They have been in nirvana from the start.”
Thus, if we still want to
“discard arising‑ceasing dharmas” to reach “nonarising, nonceasing,” that is
still a form of subject-object dualism and a form of Dharma‑attachment. One does not see that all
dharmas are illusions arising from dependent origination, not truly existing,
but rather the wondrous functioning of the wondrous luminous body of awakening,
having neither arising nor ceasing, neither coming nor going. At the same time,
we must realize that separate from phenomena, there is no so‑called “Buddha‑nature”—essence
and function are inseparable. Emptiness is revealed through appearances, and
appearances rely on emptiness. Reality and illusion are not two different
things. Likewise, when you look at something, if you are deluded, you cling to
appearances; if you are awakened, everything is reality itself. All is like
illusions, bubbles, shadows, yet at the same time they are the manifestation of
the radiance of self‑nature. These two aspects are not in conflict.
Original Text (Paragraph 14)
还有许多人以为要“去掉生灭相/念头”才能达到“不生不灭”的自性。这正是我曾经也有的理解，但现在明白了：如果这些生灭法不起分别对立，当下即是不生不灭，不来不去，动静不二。也就不会再有上一篇文章里所说的“生灭法在不动的自性中来去”的分别——因为对当下这一念、一种声音来说，若不起分别、对立、执着，当下就是实相，超越过去、现在与未来。一切虽然不断演变，但在演变当中的当下却并无“动相”，没有来去之相，只有实相，非动非静。因此《楞严经》才说：
“阿难！汝犹未明一切浮尘诸幻化相，当处出生、随处灭尽。幻妄称相，其性真为妙觉明体。如是乃至五阴六入，从十二处至十八界，因缘和合，虚妄有生；因缘别离，虚妄名灭；殊不能知生灭去来本如来藏，常住妙明，不动周圆，妙真如性。性真常中，求于去来、迷悟、死生，了无所得。”
（更新：Soh指出，John
Tan此前写道：“大乘佛教中的‘常’意味着不存在生灭的因，而非所谓的‘不变与真实’。”, ““常”并非指有个东西保持不变，而是指没有生之因。”）
而《大乘起信论》亦云：
“法我见者，依二乘钝根故，如来但为说人无我。以说不究竟，见有五阴生灭之法，怖畏生死，妄取涅槃。云何对治？以五阴法自性不生，则无有灭，本来涅槃故。”
因此，如果想要“去除生灭法”来达到“不生不灭”，依然是在能所的对立与法执当中。并不知道一切法都是缘起性空的幻相，并非实有，而是妙觉明体的妙用，并没有生灭与来去之相。同时也要知道，离开现象就无所谓“佛性”可言——体用不可分。空由有显，有因空立。实相与幻相并非截然二物；同样看到某个东西，迷时着相，悟时一切是实相。一切如梦幻泡影，但同时也是自性光明之显现，这两者并不矛盾。
English Translation (Paragraph 15)
Hence, what is called
“leaving appearances” or “no thought” does not mean eradicating all external
appearances and mental activity, but rather means leaving behind the delusory
environment of subject–object, seeing through the notion that external
appearances truly exist, and not giving rise to dualistic discrimination and
clinging, nor rejecting any appearance. Whatever you face in the present moment
is therefore the true aspect of reality. Consequently, the Platform
Sūtra of the Sixth Patriarch says:
“Huineng immediately
discerned the master’s meaning and entered his room at the third watch. The
Patriarch covered him with his robe, preventing others from seeing, and
expounded the Diamond Sūtra to him. When he reached the line,
‘Let the mind arise without abiding in anything,’ Huineng awakened in that very
moment. He realized that the myriad dharmas never depart from self‑nature.”
If one wants to “leave
behind what is seen and heard” in order to find “Buddha‑nature,” that is
entirely superfluous. If you wish to realize “essence and function are one suchness,” you must “discern the mind by seeing forms, realize the
Way by hearing sounds,” neither inclining toward emptiness nor clinging to
existence.
Original Text (Paragraph 15)
所以，所谓的“离相”和“无念”，并不是要消灭一切外在之相和念头，而是要离开能所的妄境，看破一切相的实有与执着，不生对立与分别，也不拒绝任何现象。当下所面对的一切便是实相。因此《六祖坛经》说：
“惠能即会祖意，三鼓入室。祖以袈裟遮围，不令人见，为说金刚经。至‘应无所住而生其心’，惠能言下大悟，一切万法，不离自性。”
若想“离开所见所闻”去找一个“佛性”，那完全是多余的。如果要悟到体用一如，就要“见色明心，闻声悟道”，既不偏空，也不执有。
English Translation (Paragraph 16)
Finally, let me summarize
with a short verse:
Enter deeply into contemplative
illumination,
Bahiya Sutta as the guide;
Realize the essence of the sūtra,
Directly pointing to no‑mind.
With no clinging to
subject–object,
Forgetting both body and mind;
Then one knows that seeing the nature
Only requires illuminating appearances.
Illuminating appearances
is seeing the nature,
Seeing forms is apprehending Mind;
True mind is empty by nature,
Arising in accord with conditions, manifesting appearances.
Deluded, they are illusory
appearances;
Awakened, they are the true mind.
The mountains, rivers, and great earth—
Originally the Dharmakāya.
Forms, sounds, smells,
tastes—
All are the wondrous mind.
Original Text (Paragraph 16)
最后，以一首偈语来总结：
深入观行，婆酰迦经；
了悟经旨，直指无心。
无执能所，忘却身心；
方知见性，只需明相。
明相见性，见色明心；
真心空性，随缘显相。
迷时幻相，悟时真心；
山河大地，原是法身。
色声香味，尽是妙心。
English Translation (Paragraph 17)
June 5, 2011 (Last
updated: October 16, 2011)
Note: This is a shorter version. For the longer version, please see:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/p/updated-poems.html
Original Text (Paragraph 17)
2011年6月5日（最后更新：2011年10月16日）
注：此为较短版本，较长版本请见：
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/p/updated-poems.html
English Translation (Paragraph 18)
Being with the Buddha
Singapore X
(Son of Layman X, 21 years old)
Original Text (Paragraph 18)
与佛同在
新加坡 X
(X居士之子，21岁)
English Translation (Paragraph 19)
Prefatory Note
This is an essay I wrote about my insight into emptiness. What I wish most to
expound upon in the text is the indivisibility of “no‑self” and “emptiness.” I
often hear many discussions about “emptiness,” but if a practitioner merely
rests on having realized the “essence of awareness” [觉体] and assumes thereby that he
understands emptiness, then he is unable to correctly grasp what genuine empty‑nature (性空) is, because he still “returns to” and “abides in” a real ground, failing to see that, within or apart from the five aggregates and the myriad dharmas, no real existence can be found. He does not understand that
“the empty‑nature of all dharmas” is the extension of the wisdom of “no‑self”
into all phenomena. Therefore, if one has not first awakened to “no‑self,” one
cannot delve deeply into “empty‑nature.”
Original Text (Paragraph 19)
通序
这是我写的一篇关于我对空性的体悟，文中最想阐述的便是“无我”与“空”的不可分性。常听到很多对于“空”的讨论，但若一个修行人仅仅从“悟觉体”就自以为了解空性，那便无法正确把握什么是真正的“性空”，因为那修行人依旧“归守”于一个真实体，不见五蕴万法内外皆无实有，不懂得“诸法性空”乃是“无我”的智慧延伸到一切法之上。所以若不先悟“无我”，便无法深入“性空”。
English Translation (Paragraph 20)
In this essay, apart from
discussing my recent insight into pratītyasamutpāda‑empty‑nature
(i.e., “conditioned arising is empty‑nature”) in the second section, “Magical
Transformations, Arising from Nothing”, in the first section, “Emptiness
and Clarity Are Not Two, Yet They Are Not the Same”, I also mention several
extremely important points in the path of practice:
- Realizing the “aware essence” (觉体) or “root source.”
- Realizing “awareness,” and
understanding that “essence, root source” is simply a habitual view (习见), so that you can break that
obstruction of “habitual view” and further realize “no‑self.”
- Emptiness / no‑self is not merely
a “spiritual state” or “antidote” used in a dualistic manner. In the
ultimate correct view, one attains liberation by departing from all ways
of “knowing” (i.e., not establishing any view). For the wise person of
emptiness, no dharma is established; all dharmas are equal, manifesting
the truth.
- Realizing “no‑self”—that “I” is
learned, that there never was an “I.”
- Recognizing the importance of
correct view in one’s awakening.
If any of these types of
realization is lacking, it is impossible to have a deep understanding of the
meaning of “empty‑nature.” All of these insights are equally precious and
equally important. A practitioner of the Small Vehicle (Hīnayāna) attains
insight into the emptiness of “self,” whereas a Mahayana practitioner
realizes the emptiness of both “self” and “dharmas.” Still, one cannot
realize “the empty‑nature of dharmas” without first realizing “no‑self.” Once
you understand this, you will know that “the insights of the Small Vehicle and
the Great Vehicle are naturally just different progressions on the same path.”
In fact, self‑nature (true
suchness) is already thus, already complete from the beginning, neither
increasing in sages nor decreasing in ordinary beings. However, if one does not
awaken to this originally possessed Tathāgata treasury, then although he has a
precious jewel in his pocket, he forgets it out of ignorance and must go beg
from others. A rich person can also turn into a pauper if he cannot benefit
from the treasure he already has. In the same way, even though our true
suchness is innately complete, ignorance and false views obscure us, so we need
the correct view, the correct guidance, and correct Dharma practice to
gradually awaken—yet in the end, we realize “there is nothing to attain.” It
can also be said that originally, all is empty. If one had never been deluded,
there would be no need for any “awakening.” Buddha‑nature is innately complete;
there is no such thing as delusion or awakening. But because sentient beings
are drifting in the sea of birth and death, lost in delusive dreams, they need
to wake up.
Original Text (Paragraph 20)
在这篇文章里，除了在第二部分《魔术幻变，无中生有》中表达我近期对“缘起性空”的体悟外，在第一部分《空明不二，但非相同》中也提及了修行道路上极为重要的几点：
- 体悟“觉体”、“根源”。
- 体悟“觉”，而明白“体、根源”只是一种“习见”，破除此“习见”障碍以更进一步了悟“无我”。
- 空/无我并不是境界或对治法，究竟的正见在于摆脱一切知见的解脱；空慧者不立一切法，诸法平等，彰显真如。
- 体悟“无我”——原来“我”是学来的，本就没有我。
- 觉悟正见之重要性。
若缺失以上几种体悟，就无法深入理解“空性”的意义。
这些体悟同样宝贵，也都同等重要。小乘行者证人我空，大乘行者证人法二空；但若不先悟“无我”，便不可能真正了悟“性空”。若能明白这一点，便能理解“小乘与大乘的体悟只是同一路上的自然进展”。
其实，自性本来如此、本来具足，在圣不增，在凡不减。但若一个人不觉悟这本具的如来宝藏，就好比他口袋里早有一颗钻石，却因无明而忘了，只好当乞丐向别人讨钱。有钱人也能变成穷人，因为虽然本来拥有宝藏，但无法受益。同理，我们真如本性本自具足，却被无明妄见所迷，所以必须通过正见、正确的指引与正法修持才能渐次觉悟，但最终仍是“悟无所得”。也可以说，本来就是空。如果本来没有迷，也就不需要什么“悟”。佛性本来具足，无所谓迷悟。但众生在苦海生死的迷梦中，才需要觉醒。
English Translation (Paragraph 21)
(1) Emptiness and Clarity Are Not Two, Yet They Are Not the
Same
Nature and appearance are one suchness
All appearances are none
other than the empty and luminous self‑nature, and nature and
appearance are one suchness, embracing both emptiness and presence.
The empty‑nature does not negate the wondrous functioning of awareness.
Illusory phenomena lack any intrinsic substance, yet appears vividly, like wind blowing and water running.
Luminosity of awareness has no intrinsic substance, yet it has inexhaustible illusory functioning; wondrous Dharma is neither existent nor nonexistent.
They are not exactly the
same
Emptiness and clarity are not two, but they are not identical; realizing the
“awareness essence,” realizing “nature,” are not identical.
If one has seen the “essence of awareness” but has not realized empty‑nature,
that is merely seeing “essence” and not yet seeing “nature.”
If one sees the essence of awareness as an unchanging real substratum, that still
constitutes an externalist [i.e., non‑Buddhist] view of eternalism and self.
Therefore, in order to truly see the nature, one must realize no‑self. Then one
goes on to realize the emptiness of all dharmas, thereby entering the important
gateway of the path: the triad of view (正见), realization, and
conduct in practice.
Original Text (Paragraph 21)
（一）空明不二，但非相同
性相一如
一切相无非自性空明，性相一如而具空有。
性空不否认妙觉之用，幻法无体相却生动，有如风吹水流。
觉光无体，假用无穷，妙法非有也非空。
即非相同
空明不二，但并非相同；悟体、悟性并不相同。
若见本觉却不悟空性，只是见“体”而未见“性”。
若见觉体有不变实体，仍执外道常、我见。
因此，要见性须证无我，再悟诸法性空，方入道要门：在于“见、证、行”三者。
English Translation (Paragraph 1)
Annotation
In the course of practice, quite a few people do have certain realizations, yet not many recognize that realizations come in different levels. For instance, in February of last year, I first realized the “essence of awareness” (觉体); two months later, I experienced the illusoriness of the “small self”; by August, I began to realize “awareness has no subject–object” (觉性无能所); and by October, I awakened to “no‑self” (无我). Nonetheless, even upon awakening to “no‑self,” while I had already transcended externalist views (like the brahman‑self or God‑self, etc.), that did not necessarily mean I had penetrated the “emptiness of all phenomena.” In reality, “the no‑self of all dharmas” has yet deeper implications, which surpass the usual Small Vehicle understanding of emptiness and no‑self. (For example, Bahiya—mentioned in my second article—attained only the Arhathood of the Small Vehicle, i.e., “the emptiness of the self.”) Practitioners of the Small Vehicle realize only “the emptiness of the self,” whereas the Great Vehicle teaches the emptiness of both selves and dharmas. Even awakening to “the emptiness of selves and dharmas” is only the beginning of the Buddha‑path—for the seeds planted over many lifetimes in the eighth consciousness have not yet been purified, so one has not reached perfect Buddhahood. Although I realized “no‑self (the emptiness of the self)” last year, it was not until June of this year that I truly realized “the emptiness of dharmas.”
Original Text (Paragraph 1)
注解
在修行中，具有某些体悟的人其实不少，但能明白体悟有不同层次的人并不多。比如我在去年二月，第一次体悟到“觉体”；两个月后又体会到“小我”的虚幻；到了八月，开始体会到“觉性无能所”；十月则悟到“无我”。然而，即便悟到“无我”，虽然已经超越了外道之见（如梵我/神我等），也并不意味着已经悟入“一切法空性”。“诸法无我”其实还有更深的含义，这已超越了一般小乘行者对空和无我的理解。（如我第二篇文章中提到的婆酰迦，他只证得小乘阿罗汉果，也就是“人我空”。）小乘行者只悟“我空”，大乘则悟“人法二空”。而即使体悟到“人法二空”，也只是踏上佛道的开端——因为尚未净化多生累劫于第八识中所植的种子，未达究竟佛果。虽然我去年就体悟了“无我（人我空）”，但今年六月才真正体悟“法空”。
English Translation (Paragraph 2)
Note:
I have read certain externalist texts, and through those experiences, I gradually came to understand the difference between external paths and the Buddhadharma. An externalist might also realize the “essence of awareness,” and might even break subject–object duality, merging everything into “the one awareness essence.” Yet they still fail to go beyond self‑view or the view of permanence, commonly believing that “awareness” is some unchanging reality, in which all phenomena arise and perish—while that “immense fundamental substratum” “constantly illumines,” remaining unaffected. The “small self” is regarded as a mere illusory appearance, like a river flowing into the sea. They call this “transpersonal essence” “brahman/self/God/Lord,” viewing it as the spiritual basis generating all physical movement and the phenomena of life (this “mystical teachings” type of perspective can be found in Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.).
Original Text (Paragraph 2)
注：
我曾看过一些外道书籍，通过这些体悟，逐渐明白外道与佛法的区别。外道也可能体悟到“觉体”，甚至破除能所分别，把一切归为“同一觉体”，可他们依然无法超越“我见、常见”，往往认为“觉性”有一个不变的实体，万物都在这个“无量无边”的本体内生起灭去，但本体“常照”不被影响。“小我”只是虚假假相，如河水注入大海。而他们称这个“超个人之体”为“梵我/神我/主”，视之为产生一切物质运动和生命现象的精神本体（印度教、基督教、犹太教、回教等宗教里都有这种“内行派”观点）。
English Translation (Paragraph 3)
The Sixth Patriarch Huineng declared: “What is impermanent is exactly Buddha‑nature; what is permanent is precisely the mind that discriminates all good and evil dharmas.”
Zen Master Dōgen said: “The impermanence of grasses and forests is Buddha‑nature. The impermanence of people’s bodies and minds is Buddha‑nature. Because nations, lands, mountains, and rivers are impermanent, precisely thus are they Buddha‑nature. Anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi is impermanent, therefore it is Buddha‑nature; Mahāparinirvāṇa is Buddha‑nature precisely because it is impermanent. Those in the two vehicles with their myriad small viewpoints—scriptural teachers, treatise masters, Tripiṭaka masters, etc.—all become alarmed and fearful at the Sixth Patriarch’s words. Thus, they themselves become a party of externalists.”
Original Text (Paragraph 3)
六祖慧能说：“无常者，即佛性也；有常者，即一切善恶诸法分别心也。”
道元禅师则说：“草木丛林之无常，即为佛性；人物身心之无常，即为佛性；国土山河是无常，以其即佛性故。阿耨多罗三藐三菩提是无常，以其即佛性故；大般涅槃是佛性，以其即无常故。持二乘诸种小见者，经师、论师、三藏师等等，皆对六祖言论惊疑怖畏，如是则彼等即为外道之党。”
English Translation (Paragraph 4)
The difference between the Buddhadharma and external paths is that Buddhism not only frees practitioners from attachment to the “small self,” it also frees them from attachment to a “philosophical highest reality or essence—the brahman/Greater Self.” All great religious founders may well escape from the realm of the “small self,” discovering that their own “essence” is the entire cosmos, one with the myriad things. All phenomena appear to derive from their “own essence.” Although they realize the “I” does not truly exist, they still affirm some cosmic essence or “ultimate truth” that stands independently, continuing to divide “an inner essence” from “external phenomena” in a dualistic way, believing that “the essence” is permanently unchanging, while “phenomena” arise and vanish within it. This falls under what the Buddha called an externalist view of “partially‑permanent, partially‑impermanent,” leaving the view of permanence and self unbroken. According to the Buddhadharma, “essence” (本体) and “phenomena” (現象) are not two different things, nor can they be compared to the back and the palm of one’s hand—because phenomena themselves are the essence. “Apart from phenomena, there is no essence.” The “reality” of essence is found precisely in the “unreality” of phenomena. The impermanence and transformation of appearances is itself the truth. Only by fully comprehending this does one genuinely awaken to “no‑self.”
Original Text (Paragraph 4)
佛法与外道的不同之处在于：佛法不仅让修行者消除对“小我”的执着，也能消除对“哲学上最高真理或本体——梵我/大我”的执着。一切伟大的宗教家都可能从“小我”的境域中解脱出来，发现自己本体即是整个宇宙的存在，与万物无二无别；一切现象似乎皆由他们的“自体”衍生。但他们虽然明白“我”并不存在，却仍承认宇宙本体或“最高真理”始终独立存在，依然将“内在的本体”和“外在的现象”区分为对立：认为“本体”常住不变，而“现象”则在其内生灭，落入佛所说的“半常半无常”外道见，常见我见仍未断。佛法所见的本体与现象并非两物、也不能用手背与手掌作比喻——因为现象本身就是本体，“离开现象别无本体”。本体的“实在”恰恰就在现象的“不实”中；现象无常变幻正是真理所在。唯有在这点上彻底明了，才是对“无我”的真正体悟。
English Translation (Paragraph 5)
If one were to say, “Thoughts and the myriad phenomena arise and perish, yet only the essence of awareness remains unchanging and undying,” how would that differ from the externalist brahman view? If we claim “ever‑abiding,” then all phenomena would be “ever‑abiding.” If we say “quiescent extinction,” then all phenomena are equally “quiescently extinct.” Hence the Sixth Patriarch Huineng and Zen Master Dōgen both say “impermanence itself is Buddha‑nature; essence and appearance are not two.”
Original Text (Paragraph 5)
若说“念头万物生灭来去，唯有觉体不变不灭”，那与外道梵我观有什么两样？如果我们说“常住”，则一切万法都常住；若说“寂灭”，一切法都寂灭。所以六祖慧能、道元禅师才会说“无常即佛性，性相不二”。
English Translation (Paragraph 6)
Thus, while realizing the “essence of awareness” (觉体) is significant, it does not necessarily represent ultimate attainment. Sentient beings cling to various ideas and knowledge, generating attachments to self and to dharmas, remaining deluded and failing to see that no phenomenon can be truly obtained. Nor do they see that “all returns to self‑nature,” making it impossible to behold their own nature or emptiness. Although certain experiences or glimpses do not equate to the final realization, we should not deny these experiences (which is impossible anyway). As the ancients taught, “Trust your experience, but keep refining your views.” Even if you have gained a precious realization or experience, deeper insight awaits; when realization of the “essence of awareness” is accompanied by correct view, the progress is that much faster.
Original Text (Paragraph 6)
因此，虽体悟“觉体”并不代表就已究竟。众生执着各种知见，生种种我执、法执，执迷不悟，看不破无一法可得，也不知“一切皆归于自性”，故而无法见到本性与空性。有某些体悟或见证不代表就究竟，但我们也不能否认这些体验（那是不可能的）。正如古德所言：“要信任你的体验，但要继续精炼你的知见。”就算已经得了珍贵体悟/体验，依然还有更深的体悟可期；若能体悟“觉体”再辅以正见，则进展会更快。
English Translation (Paragraph 7)
If one recognizes the “essence of awareness” but lacks correct view, one may remain stuck in externalist views, holding the “essence of awareness” as an eternal brahman self. Though one might see some progress in practice, one cannot achieve a fundamental “transformation of the basis” (Āśrayaparāvṛtti), i.e., eradicating root ignorance.
Original Text (Paragraph 7)
如果认识了“觉体”却缺乏正见，就有可能停留在外道知见，执着“觉体”为真常梵我；这样虽然在修行上或许会见到某些进展，但还无法达到彻底“转依”（破除根本无明）。
English Translation (Paragraph 8)
What the Buddha referred to as “Buddha‑nature” or “Tathāgata‑garbha” is in fact another name for “the emptiness of dharmas” (法空性), a skillful means meant to help beings frightened by “no‑self” or “emptiness,” or to guide externalists who believe in or imagine a “true self.” That is why Venerable Sheng Kai said, “In truth, ‘true self’ is only a placeholder term—if you genuinely treat the ‘true self’ as real, you are mistaken; it must be ‘no‑self’ that is the ‘I,’ and only that is the real I.” However, most people do not realize this, so they lack the right understanding of Buddha‑nature. They know or have realized the “essence of awareness,” yet fail to see the no‑self / emptiness of awareness (觉性的无我/空性) or the nonduality of emptiness and clarity, and therefore remain in externalist views.
Original Text (Paragraph 8)
佛陀所说的“佛性”或“如来藏”，其实是“法空性”的别名，系方便法门，用来度化害怕“无我”“空”的众生，或者用以教化那些相信或认为存在“真我”的外道。所以圣开师父才说：“其实‘真我’不过是一个代名词，若你真把‘真我’当真，那就错了；必须‘无我’才是‘我’，这才是真我。”但大多数人并不清楚，所以对佛性缺乏正确见解。他们只知道或体悟到“觉体”，却不明“觉性的无我/空性”，不晓得“空明不二”，因此落入外道知见。
English Translation (Paragraph 1)
It is thus evident that in order to realize the Buddhadharma, it is not enough to “practice diligently” in a simplistic sense (after all, an external‑path practitioner might also practice very diligently yet remain at a single level for life, lacking correct knowledge and correct view). Hence, practice requires the simultaneous advancement of “view, realization, and conduct.”
Original Text (Paragraph 1)
可见，想证悟佛法并不止是“要认真修”那么简单（毕竟外道也可能很认真修，但终生只停留在某一个层次，因为无正知正见）。所以，修行才需要“见、证、行”三者并进。
English Translation (Paragraph 2)
View (见): One must establish correct view, understand that originally there is no self (no‑self), see that all things arise through causes and conditions and are devoid of any substantial reality, and thus eliminate all signs/mark of dharma/phenomena (i.e., break the delusions of imputing entities bearing characteristics).
Original Text (Paragraph 2)
见：要建立正见，明白本来无我，观一切皆因缘所生，非有实体可得，破除一切相。
English Translation (Paragraph 3)
Realization (证): By means of practice, one personally verifies and experiences awakening.
Original Text (Paragraph 3)
证：经由修持而亲自印证体悟。
English Translation (Paragraph 4)
Conduct (行): Apply what has been seen and realized, incorporating it into one’s behavior and integrating it with everyday life.
Original Text (Paragraph 4)
行：将所见所证落实于行持，融入日常。
English Translation (Paragraph 5)
Teacher Chen said, “Having understanding without conduct increases wrong views; having conduct without understanding increases ignorance.” I deeply resonate with this. Correct view stands foremost in the Noble Eightfold Path. What is “wrong view”? It includes eternalist view, nihilist view, self‑view, and so forth—various forms of deluded views (dṛṣṭi). Every clinging arises from a “deluded view.” Ignorance causes us to imagine the “existence” or “non‑existence” of “things” or “self,” fundamentally believing “I” and all phenomena to be truly existing or truly nonexisting. Since ordinary people regard the “I” as having a solid, unchanging essence, they cling to an eternally unchanging “I,” the body, awareness, or mind as a real entity, unwilling to let go. If one awakens to no‑self, one dissolves all sorts of doubts about “I,” “mind,” “body,” “existence,” or “nonexistence,” and realizes with certainty there is no real “I”—so daily life becomes like wind passing over water, leaving no trace. If there is any view (such as self‑view, extremist view, etc.), a trace is left. Awakening to no‑self removes attachments to “one who is aware, one who does, the owner, me, mine,” then further realizes “dependent arising and empty nature,” eliminating clinging to dharmas—seeing all as dreamlike illusions.
Original Text (Paragraph 5)
陈老师说：“有解无行，增长邪见；有行无解，增长无明。”对此我感触很深。正见在八正道里位居首位。何谓邪见？即常见、断见、我见等各种见惑。我们每一个执着都来源于“见惑”。无明导致我们妄想“有物、有我”之“存在”或“不存在”，其根本在于我们把“我”和万法都立成“实有”或“实无”。因为凡夫见“我”确有实体存在，执真常不变之“我”、身体、觉、心等为真实之体，不肯放下；若悟无我，则可化解对“我”“心”“身体”“存在”或“不存在”种种疑惑，体证确无真实之我可得，日常生活就像风过水流，不留痕迹。若有任何见（如我见、边见等），就会留痕。悟无我则能去除“能觉者、作者、主人、我、我所”等执着，再悟“缘起性空”并破除法执——一切如梦如幻。
English Translation (Paragraph 6)
If we have correct view, then we can bring our insight into “awareness” (覺) to bear on “all phenomena,” seeing that “awareness” is precisely everything heard and seen, and that there is no separate essence that “can be aware.” This also enables us to see that “essence” or “root source” is simply a “habitual view,” not genuine awareness itself, nor actual experience. What is a “habitual view”? It is the view of subject–object and self‑view. From childhood, all beings are conditioned to believe there is truly a “knower” observing an “object known” outside, thus generating a distinction between inside and outside, subject and object, whereas such a distinction never genuinely existed—it is just a “habitual perception” (a deluded view built up since childhood). We typically feel, “From childhood to adulthood, I have been me,” even though the body or environment changes, so we still think there is an unchanging “I.” Such “habitual view” is deeply implanted in the eighth consciousness: at every moment, it applies a mistaken interpretation to whatever we experience, thus misidentifying “awareness” as an “unchanging true self.” But this is not true “awareness”—it is merely a habitual view. Besides “the view of the self,” there is also “the view of a real dharma self,” believing that the myriad phenomena have an independently existing essence.
Original Text (Paragraph 6)
若有正见，我们才能将对“觉”的体悟，落实到“一切现象”上：原来“觉”就是所有所见、所闻，并非有个能觉者。于此我们也能看破“体、根源”只是个“习见”，并非觉之本身，也不是实际体验。何谓“习见”？即能所之见、我见。众生从小受熏习，就会觉得真有个“能觉者”在这里观外面的“所觉之境”，产生内外、能所的分别，而这本来就不存在，只是一种“习见”（从小逐渐养成的见惑习性）。我们普遍会觉得“从小到大，我还是我”，即便身体或环境改变，仍会觉得有一个不变的“我”。这种“习见”深深种入第八识，每一刻都用错误见解去攀取当下所体验的一切，因此把“觉性”误解成“不变真我”。但这并非真正的“觉”，只是习见。除了“人我见”，尚有“法我见”，认为万法有独立存在的实体。
English Translation (Paragraph 7)
However, since “awareness” is a “function” (用) that arises precisely because its nature is empty (性空), it has no genuine, real, unchanging essence. Therefore, “awareness” is not truly the “essence” or “root source.” Correct view is required to break the habitual obstruction of “essence/root source,” thus leading one further to realize “no‑self.” In other words, when hearing there is only sound, when seeing there is only form and color—there is fundamentally no “observer/hearer/awareness‑agent” who hears or sees. That “I” and that “observer” do not actually exist; they are notions acquired later on. Once this is understood, the practitioner no longer “returns to,” “guards,” or “abides in” a real essence, and then they can see that “the five aggregates and the myriad phenomena, both within and without, lack any real existence.” Because one no longer clings to an unchanging essence, all the swiftly transforming phenomena spontaneously reveal their “true suchness,” and one experiences what “liberation” is: being free from deluded views and attachments.
Original Text (Paragraph 7)
然而，“觉”作为“用”，它本因“性空”而无实有、不变之本体，所以“觉”并不是真正的“体、根源”。这就需要透过正见去破除“体/根源”这种习见障碍，从而更进一步了悟“无我”。换言之：在听时只有声音、在看时只有景色，根本没有“观者/听者/能觉者”在听或看——那个“我”与“观者”本就不实际存在，只是后天学来的观念。一旦明白此点，修行人便不会再“归、守、住”于一个真实体；也就能见到“五蕴万法，内外无一实有”。因为没有执着一个不变的本体，一切瞬息万变的现象才可自然显露“真如本性”，人也能体验到何谓“解脱”，何谓摆脱妄见执着的自由。
English Translation (Paragraph 8)
Hence, only with correct view can we muster the strength to overcome these habitual obstacles, surpass subject–object perception, self‑view, the view of a real dharma self, and all sorts of mistaken knowledge and viewpoints. If we comprehend “originally there is no self,” then everything is simply a process of dependent arising, and we will no longer see any “subject–object,” “agent,” or “knower” creating, observing, or assume that all things come from some “ultimate root source,” or that there is any “truly existing thing.” In reality, everything is just a process of appearances, with no coming or going, arising and ceasing due to conditions, leaving no “doer” at all. If one has correct view, one will not regard “awareness” as some independent, unchanging “essence” or “root,” thereby giving rise to self‑view. Only then can one realize: “The nature of awareness is originally the process of all conditioned phenomena—sounds, sights, tastes… everything is vividly distinct yet without any tangible substance.”
Original Text (Paragraph 8)
因此唯有正见，我们才有力量去突破习见障碍、突破能所见、人我见、法我见等种种邪知邪见。如果明白“本来无我”，一切不过是因缘法的过程，就不会再见到有什么“能所”或“作者”或“能觉者”在造作、在观照，或以为所有东西都出于某个“究竟根源”，或认为有“实在的事物”。事实上，一切都只是现象过程，无来无去、缘起缘灭的假相，无所谓“作者”。若具正见，便不会把“觉”看成一个独立不变的“体”或“根源”，从而生出我执。也才能体悟：“觉性本来就是一切的因缘现象过程：声音、景色、味觉……一切都了了分明，却又虚幻无体。”
English Translation (Paragraph 9)
Ultimately, correct view is just as Great Master Dazhu (大珠禅师) said: “Seeing where there is nothing to see—this is called correct view.”
Original Text (Paragraph 9)
究竟而言，正见就如大珠禅师所说：“见无所见，即名正见。”
English Translation (Paragraph 10)
The wisdom of “emptiness” means recognizing that our ways of seeing are, in fact, delusory and unreal, and that neither self nor others possesses a true self‑essence. Naturally, one then “establishes no dharmas whatsoever,” and through correct view one is freed from the deluded clinging born of viewpoints; hence, “Even dharmas should be relinquished, how much more so what are not dharmas.” This is the genuine Buddhadharma, not “using one dharma to oppose another dharma”—which would drag on forever with no true liberation. Once the deluded views are cut off, there is no need to treat any dharma‑attachment—one is spontaneously liberated. All dharmas and states are originally no‑self, inherently equal. Therefore, when you truly realize “originally no self,” you do not need to seek out some “higher realm” or “higher dharma” to transcend certain dharmas or states; rather, you realize the twofold emptiness of selves and dharmas, discarding your own deluded views and attachments, and naturally true suchness appears. The power of correct view is like a flame that, after burning a candle, itself goes out, leaving no stance or position behind—not even “emptiness” remains. Prajñā wisdom is simply the elimination of dharma‑clinging and deluded views, without establishing a loftier dharma or viewpoint: when hearing, only sound; when seeing, only scenery; there is no self, no dharma, and not even “no‑self.” Hence, “the Dharma of the Dharma King is no dharma at all—just thus.”
Original Text (Paragraph 10)
“空”的智慧就是看破我们的知见其实是虚妄与不实，人我都无真实我体，自然也就“不立一切法”，能凭正见解脱见惑执着，从而“法尚应舍，何况非法”。这才是佛法，不是“以一种法对治另一种法的执着”——那样永远没完没了，无法真解脱。一旦断了见惑，一切法执也不必对治即能自然解脱。一切法、境界本来就无我，皆平等。所以，当你真正体悟“本来无我”，并不是要再去找一个“更高境界”或“更高之法”去超越某些法或境界，而是悟到人法二空，舍除自身妄见执着，便能显现真如。正见之力好比一把火，把蜡烛燃尽后，自己也自灭，不留任何立场或观点，乃至“空”也一并“空”了。般若之智仅是断除法执妄见，并不立更高之法、观点：听时只有声音，看时只有景色，无我、无法，也无“无我”。故而“法王法是无法可说，只是如是”。
English Translation (Paragraph 11)
By teaching the correct view and doctrine of “all phenomena being no‑self, arising dependently as emptiness,” the Buddha enables us to completely awaken and realize the emptiness of selves and dharmas, and thereby cast off all views, reaching liberation. Then all appearances revert to their nature, and true suchness is revealed.
Original Text (Paragraph 11)
佛陀教导“诸法无我、缘起性空”的正见与教义，能使我们彻底觉悟、体悟人法二空，从而摆脱一切知见，达到解脱；诸相皆归于性，真如得以显现。
English Translation (Paragraph 1)
Realization (证)
In practice, it is not about suppressing thoughts—thoughts themselves are not wrong. The problem lies in the constant presence of “view‑confusions,” which cause one to be deluded by thoughts, giving rise to self‑attachment, attachment to dharmas, and afflictions. If there is no view or clinging, one will not be swayed by thoughts; thoughts can freely be used in their natural manner, unobstructed and at ease.
Original Text (Paragraph 1)
证
修行并不在于压制念头——念头本身并无错；问题在于“见惑”不断，因而被念头所迷，产生我执、法执和烦恼。若不存见或执着，就不会被念头左右；念头照常可以被自然运用、无碍自由。
English Translation (Paragraph 2)
Although many people have learned about the principle of “dependent arising and empty nature” (缘起性空) from books or teachers, that remains at the level of “knowledge.” They are still far from genuine realization. Some might have realized only the “essence of awareness” (觉体), yet cling to it as though it were a substative reality, believing they already understand the doctrine of emptiness but in reality having never truly experienced the meaning of emptiness and dependent arising. This indicates they have not yet grasped the essential points of practice.
Original Text (Paragraph 2)
很多人虽然从书本或师长口中对“缘起性空”的道理有所了解，但那只是一种“知识层面”的理解，远未达到真正的证悟。他们也许只悟到“觉体”，却又执着“觉体”有实体，自以为已经明白空的教义，却未曾真正体悟空性与缘起的真义；这就是还没抓住修行要点的表现。
English Translation (Paragraph 3)
Why is “realizing no‑self” the key to realizing “dependent arising and empty nature”? Because if one does not first awaken to no‑self, one’s understanding of dependent arising remains at the level of “knowledge” rather than direct confirmation. If self‑view (我见) remains, one cannot liberate even subtle self‑attachments; even “awareness” might be clung to as “I.” That makes it impossible to genuinely realize impermanence, no‑self, and emptiness via dependent arising. The reason is that one still believes in some “independent, non–dependent‑arising essence/root source,” as though everything were generated by a single “eternally unchanging source.” How, then, could one truly grasp dependent arising?
Original Text (Paragraph 3)
为什么“体悟无我”是体悟“缘起性空”的关键？因为如果不先悟无我，对缘起法的认识就会停留在“知识”上，而非亲证。若“我见”尚存，就无法把细微我执解放；连“觉”本身也可能被执着为“我”。这样就无法真实体悟无常法、无我法、以及缘起性空。缘由在于你还认为有某个“独立非因缘之体/根源”，好像一切从一个“永不变的根源”产生，又怎么能够体会“缘起”？
English Translation (Paragraph 4)
When you truly realize “no‑self,” seeing no “I,” no knower, no doer, you naturally perceive that “all phenomena are only in the course of transformation, and all are impermanent.” Because there is no “I” or “doer,” you also realize all is a process of “causation,” merely “one aggregated appearance.”
Original Text (Paragraph 4)
当你真能体悟“无我”，不见有“我”、能觉者或作者，自然就能领悟“一切现象仅在演变之中，皆是无常法”。因为无“我”、无“作者”，也就明白一切是“因缘法”的过程，都是“一合相”。
English Translation (Paragraph 5)
For example, Poqiuṇa (Pauṇṇa) Bhikṣu once asked the Buddha, “For whom does feeling arise?” The Buddha replied, “I have never said there is a ‘feeler.’ If I had said there was a feeler, you would ask, ‘Who is feeling?’ But you should be asking, ‘Under what causes and conditions does feeling arise?’ And I would answer, ‘Because there is contact, there is feeling; and from feeling arises craving.’”
Original Text (Paragraph 5)
譬如颇求那比丘问佛陀：“为谁受？”佛陀答：“我从未说过有‘受者’。假若我说有受者，你应问：‘是谁在受？’可你应当问的是‘何因缘故有受？’而我会回答‘触缘故，有受；受缘爱。’”
English Translation (Paragraph 6)
If there is no “feeler” bearing experience, no “knower” that is aware, no “actor” performing deeds, and no “essence” or “root source,” then how do all phenomena arise? They are processes of causes and conditions: all dharmas arise due t o conditions, disperse when conditions part. This is not mere theoretical knowledge; only by genuinely realizing “no‑self” can you profoundly understand and confirm the principle of conditional causation. Once you see “there is originally no self,” liberating the “consciousness of an independent self,” you naturally experience the reality of impermanence and dependent arising. Yet at the same time, correct view is still necessary; if pure experience lacks correct view, you cannot integrate your awakening to “no‑self” with the principle of dependent arising, nor can you deepen insight into “emptiness through dependent arising.” In this way, there are levels of insight in practice—a crucial point.
Original Text (Paragraph 6)
若并无一个“受者”在承受，也无“觉者”在觉知或“行者”在行动，更无“体、根源”，那一切法如何而生？都是因缘法之过程：诸法因缘生，因缘散则灭。这并非单纯知识上的理解；唯有真正体悟“无我”才能真切地体会和印证因缘法。当你见“本无我”，将自我/独我意识解放，就会自然体会到无常法与因缘法。但与此同时，仍需正见配合，因为纯粹的体验若无正确见解，一样无法把对“无我”的体悟，与“因缘法”结合，难以进一步深悟“缘起性空”。由此可见，修行体悟存在层次差别，也正是这个原因。
English Translation (Paragraph 7)
If we keep believing there is an “ultimate root source” or a “knower” who is aware of everything, with everything perceived arising from an “essence of awareness” (覺體), then we will not perceive that all phenomena are in fact processes of dependent arising. If subject–object perception and self‑view still exist, it is impossible to realize “dependent arising.”
Original Text (Paragraph 7)
如果我们总以为有一个“究竟根源”“能觉者”在觉知一切，一切所见所闻都从“觉体”而生，就不会觉知到一切都是“因缘法”的过程；若还存在能所之见与我见，就不可能体会到“因缘法”。
English Translation (Paragraph 8)
Everything is revealed by conditions: hearing a sound is not a matter of a hearer listening to an external sound, nor is it awareness acting like a mirror reflecting some external scene (that is just a teaching device easily misunderstood). In reality, there is no separate “seer” or “object seen.” “Hearing a sound” is merely what manifest through conditional causation: for instance, dog, dog’s bark, air, a human ear—and so forth all combine, thus there is “hearing the sound.” The moment these conditions meet, the entire universe is that sound, leaving no “hearer,” rather than “some knower shining or hearing.” That phenomenon—“sound heard”—is precisely “awareness” itself, so “awareness” does not stand apart from conditionally arisen dharmas. To truly understand dependent arising, you must first cut off the notion of subject–object and the notion of “I,” only then can you experience it.
Original Text (Paragraph 8)
一切皆因缘所显：听到声音，并非因为有个听者在听外面的声音，也不是觉如同镜子照外境（那只是一种表法，但也容易让人误解），实际上本来就无所谓“见者”或“所见”。“听到声音”只是因缘法所显现：比如狗、狗吠声、空气、耳朵等各种因缘聚合，于是便有“听到声音”；当这些因缘聚合的那一刻，整个宇宙就是那个声音，没有听者，而非某个能觉者在“照”“听”。那个因缘所生的“听到声音”，正是“觉”的本身，所以“觉”不离因缘所生法。要真正明了缘起，就要先断能所见与我见，这才能体会得到。
English Translation (Paragraph 9)
If you still hold the notion “hearing arises from some hearer / ultimate root source,” how could you realize that hearing sounds is simply due to the coinciding of causes and conditions?
Original Text (Paragraph 9)
若你仍抱持“听声音是从某个听者/究竟根源而来”的观念，怎能体悟到原来听到声音乃是因缘和合？
English Translation (Paragraph 10)
Hence, one must first awaken to “originally no self,” naturally letting go of self‑attachment and the habitual notion that “everything is generated from some essence / root source.” Once you truly discover that everything does not proceed from some “ultimate root source,” but is rather a flow of phenomena, you will realize that all things “manifest suddenly through a confluence of conditions,” without coming from anywhere, without abiding place, and without anywhere to go. Things arise when conditions gather and disperse when conditions fade—a complete process of causes and conditions, with no self, no essence, no root continuing throughout.
Original Text (Paragraph 10)
故必须先悟“本来无我”，自然就舍了“我执”和“一切从体/根源而生”的习见。因为真正发现一切并非从某个“究竟根源”而来，而是现象的过程，你才会体悟一切都是“因缘和合而顿时所现”，无来无处、无住所、无去处。诸法因缘生、缘尽则散，全然是因缘法的过程，并无我、体、根源在其中连续。
English Translation (Paragraph 11)
Venerable Sheng Kai (圣开师父) once said:
“So‑called ‘self‑view’ means: first, an ordinary person misunderstands that form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness (the five aggregates) are a real, eternal combination, clinging to a self that persists eternally. After death, they believe, the next life is still the same self—that is ‘view of a self (人我见).’ Further, most ordinary people do not understand that all phenomena arise and cease through conditions, so they cling to the idea that dharmas possess real substance and function—this is called ‘view of a real dharma self (法我见).’ Combined, these two are called ‘self‑view.’”
Original Text (Paragraph 11)
圣开师父说过：“所谓‘我见’，一是凡夫不了解色、受、想、行、识（五蕴）本是假的和合体，执著人之我体是永恒的，死了以后，来生还是我体，称为‘人我见’。再者，一般凡夫不了解万法乃是缘生缘灭，却固执诸法实有体用，这种恶见则称为‘法我见’。二者合并，便是‘我见’。”
English Translation (Paragraph 12)
Someone might ask, “If there is originally no self, then who undergoes birth‑and‑death and saṃsāra?” But that question is mistaken. Since there never was a real self, “rebirth” or “saṃsāra” as described in Buddhism is not the continuation of an unchanging self‑entity—rather, it is just the ongoing phenomena of causes, conditions, and karmic fruition. So we should not ask “who transmigrates?” but “what causes transmigration?” My answer: because of ignorance, one clings to an “I,” and out of that ignorance arises the false “I” of the seventh consciousness / antarābhava ("bardo body"), then through karmic cause and effect, one experiences rebirth. These processes are part of “conditioned phenomena,” and there is truly no “I” creating, persisting, or experiencing them.
Original Text (Paragraph 12)
有人会问：“如果本来无我，那谁在生死轮回？”但这个问题其实问错了。因为本来无我，而佛教所言的“轮回”并不是一个不变我体的延续，只是因缘与因果现象的延续，所以不应该问“谁在轮回”，而该问“什么因缘导致轮回”。我的回答是：由于无明，执着有“我”，于是从无明之缘，生起第七识假我/中阴身，再由因果业报而有轮回。这些都是“因缘法”的过程，并非真的有某个“我”在造作、延续、经验这一切。
English Translation (Paragraph 13)
During the stage of practice where one has only “directly witnessed the essence of awareness” but not yet completely severed subject–object perception, the practitioner may see an “unchanging awareness essence / knower” in the “background,” watching thoughts and the arising and ceasing of myriad things, while itself neither arising nor ceasing—like having some unchanging “substratum.” But, once one genuinely realizes “no subject–object” and further awakens to “no‑self,” one might still feel “there is an unchanging substratum manifesting as all phenomena.” Because one might see “the knower” and “what is known” as merged into oneness, inseparable, and thus subsumes all phenomena into a “real essence” (some call it “one mind”), believing all phenomena emerge from this “awareness essence.” One still feels the need for some “essence,” only that one no longer distinguishes subject and object. Yet one cannot truly attain “no mind” and remains in essence a “habitual view.” By contrast, a genuine realization of ‘no‑self’ is different: originally there is no “knower,” nor is there any “union of knower and known.” When hearing, there is only sound; when seeing, there is only scenery; thus, there is no need to “trace them back to a real substratum” or grasp at a “true essence / root / source.” Moment by moment is disjointed, with no single, unchanging “entity” or “real self.” If one has not uprooted attachment, one might merely have fleeting experiences of “no mind.” The reality is: all appearances arise due to conditions, vanish with conditions, leaving no trace—at the same time experientially verifying that “emptiness, clarity, and appearances” cannot be separated. Only at this point can one truly appreciate the subtlety of “dependent arising,” without relegating it to a mere “convenient explanation.”
Original Text (Paragraph 13)
在“纯体悟觉体”但“能所见”尚未彻底断除的修行阶段，修行者可能会看到一个“不变的觉体/能觉者”在“幕后”观看念头、万物生灭，而它本身不生不灭，好像有个不变之“体”。但是，当真正体悟“无能所”并进一步体悟“无我”时，尚且可能会觉得“还有一个不变之体在显现一切相”。因为此时见到的可能是“能觉者”与“所觉之物”合而为一，不能分开，于是又把一切法归为一个“真实体”（有人称“一心”），认为万法都归此“觉体”，依然需要一个“体”。只是不再区分能所，但还不能真正做到“无心”，本质上还是“习见”。而**真正的“体悟无我”**就不同：本来无能觉者，也无所谓能所合一。在听时只有声音、看时只有景色，也就不必把它们“归于一个真实体”或执一个“真体/根源”；念念不相续，并无连续不变的“实体”或“真我”。若未根除执着，这种“无心”也可能只是一时体验。事实是：一切相皆因缘生，因缘灭，不留任何痕迹；同时也印证“空、明、相”不可分割。唯有到这时才能真正体会“缘起”的精妙，不至于将缘起看作一种“方便说”而已。
English Translation (Paragraph 14)
From this, we see that first awakening to “no‑self” is extremely important; otherwise, it is difficult to truly comprehend the meaning of emptiness. Many people wish to “skip ahead,” lacking correct knowledge and correct view, still clinging to an eternal, independent “reality” (for example, merely witnessing “the essence of awareness,” or realizing “no subject–object” yet still grasping a permanent “nature‑essence”). As long as “self‑attachment” persists, one cannot truly realize “emptiness,” nor directly experience impermanence or conditionality. Hence, the realization of “emptiness” begins with “no‑self.”
Original Text (Paragraph 14)
由此可知，先证悟“无我”极其重要，否则很难真正了解空性的真义。很多人想“跳班”，因为没有正知正见，还执着一个永恒不变的“独立实体”（比如只是见证“觉体”，或悟到“无能所”却依旧执着一个不变的“性体”）。只要“我执”不断，就无法真正体悟“空性”的真义，也无从切身体会“无常法、因缘法”。所以，“空性”的证悟从“无我”开始。
English Translation (Paragraph 15)
So‑called “I” is merely a provisional name and appearance, like “weather” being only a label. There is no real “substance of weather” to be found. If you look for where it actually resides, you cannot locate it—“weather” is just the shifting combination of clouds, wind, rain, lightning, none of which remains constant or independent. Hence, “weather” is but a nominal concept. Likewise, if—as the Buddha taught—while hearing, there is only sound, and while seeing, there is only sight, with no “knower” seeing an external scene, then “awareness” as “function” includes all that is perceived. Consequently, “awareness” is likewise a name; it has no substantial essence, yet keeps manifesting, just like “weather.” As the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra states: “If one takes the Tathāgata‑garbha to be truly existing and real, one is no different from an externalist view. Mahāmati, to avoid externalist views, you should trust in the Tathāgata‑garbha of ‘no‑self in dharmas.’” Although the nature of awareness is naturally complete, it is unlike the externalist notion of an “unchanging, independent ultimate reality.” Because it is empty in nature (性空) and unobtainable, yet at the same time present at all times and places, manifesting throughout the five aggregates, six sense entrances, and eighteen sense fields, it has no “essence” to be found. It is akin to “weather.” Just as “wind” and “blowing” are one, so “essence” and “function” are one; “essence” cannot exist apart from “function,” and beyond function there is no separate “essence.” It is only a nominal label.
Original Text (Paragraph 15)
所谓的“我”，只是假名假相，如同“天气”只是假名，并无真实“天气之体”可寻。想找它具体坐落何处，必然找不到——“天气”不过是云朵、风、雨、闪电等现象之流动组合，没有哪一样是恒常或独立。可见，“天气”只是假名假相。如果就如佛所说，在听时唯有声音、在看时唯有景色，并无“能觉者在看所觉之境”，那么“觉”即是“用”、即是一切所显，所以“觉”也是假名；它并无可得之本体，却不断展现，如同“天气”。正如楞伽经所言：“若以为真有一实在的如来藏，就与外道的见解毫无区别。大慧啊，为远离外道见，应当相信‘法无我’之如来藏。”觉性虽然本具、永恒不失，却不像外道所说的“不变独立体”；觉性“性空”而不可得，却又无时无处不在，遍现于“五蕴六入十八界”内外，却无“体”可得，有如“天气”。正如“风”与“吹”是一体的，“体”与“用”也是一如；“体”离不开“用”，在用之外并无别的本体，也只是一个假名而已。
English Translation (Paragraph 16)
To “awaken to the emptiness of the self” means realizing there is originally no “I,” seeing that this “I” is only a name. Advancing further, one realizes “the emptiness of the dharma self,” thus seeing that all phenomena are empty of inherent nature through dependent arising, dreamlike and illusory, recognizing their “illusoriness of appearances.” If one wishes to realize that “all dharmas are empty,” one must first realize “no self,” then rely on “the correct view of dependent arising and empty nature,” integrating that with personal experience, and further examine phenomena from the perspective of “the emptiness of physical forms/matter,” thereby generating wisdom of “the twofold emptiness.” Therefore, without realizing no‑self and lacking correct view, no matter how one practices, one cannot truly grasp the meaning of emptiness. This point is extremely important.
Original Text (Paragraph 16)
“悟人我空”，即体悟本来无我，了解只是“假名”；再悟“法我空”，便见万物缘起性空如梦如幻，了知其“假相”。若想体悟“诸法皆空”，首先要体悟“无人我”，然后以“缘起性空的正见”来配合所证所体验，再从“物理空相”的层面观察诸法，就会生起“二空”的智慧。所以，没有体悟无我、缺乏正见，再怎么修行也难以了悟空性的真义。这点非常重要。
English Translation (Paragraph 17)
Conduct (行)
By acting with “the wisdom of emptiness,” neither grasping nor rejecting, one does not cling. Since all is like an illusion, what is there to be grasped? If there is no grasping, there is no clinging; with no clinging, there is no need to discard. Given that one is not attached, there is no need deliberately to deny “emptiness” or “illusoriness.” All dharmas are illusory and without substance, mere appearances; yet these “empty appearances” are subtle, including both emptiness and presence, which is the Middle Way. Neither identical nor separate—this is “the Way.” So “practice after awakening” proceeds in this manner. Actually, there is no “one dharma to cultivate,” nothing to grasp or abandon, wide open to the Dharma‑realm— with the practitioner’s mind being effortless and leaving no trace, naturally at ease. If self‑view remains uncut, then one will choose or reject, wanting what one likes and avoiding what one dislikes, or desiring to escape from all thoughts or phenomena. All of these are caused by deluded views. As long as ignorance remains, one cannot truly achieve “no taking, no rejecting.”
Original Text (Paragraph 17)
行
依“空智”而行，不即不离。因为一切皆如幻，还有什么可取？不取则不执；无执则何须舍？既然不执，“空、假”也无需故意否认。一切法皆虚幻无体，是假相；但“空相”微妙，具足空、有，即是中道。不即不离，即是“道”。所谓“悟后起修”正是如此。其实也无所谓“一法可修”，不取不舍，敞开于法界，行者无心、不留痕迹，自然自在。倘若“我见”未断，就会有所取舍，想取自己喜欢、离自己不喜欢，或想游离一切念头或事物；这些都是由见惑引起。只要无明不断，就无法做到“不取亦不舍”。
English Translation (Paragraph 18)
The Buddha teaches us to transcend “greed, anger, and ignorance,” but not by fleeing from afflictions. Rather, we must awaken, right in the present moment, to the “unattainable” nature of dharmas, knowing that dharmas are originally so. Most people, upon hearing “let go,” assume they must distance themselves; yet if we force ourselves to distance, self‑view still remains—for there is a “knower” attempting to separate from the “known.” Such an approach cannot bring liberation. With correct view, you need not deliberately “take appearances” or “flee from them”: everything resolves by itself, for from the start it is empty and impermanent. If you can “illuminate that afflictions are fundamentally empty,” then immediately “affliction is bodhi,” and thoughts naturally subside; all phenomena come and go naturally, self‑liberating. By seeing all as illusions and bubbles, one can free the mind of all hindrances.
Original Text (Paragraph 18)
佛陀教导我们解脱“贪嗔痴”，却并非要我们逃离烦恼，而在于当下觉悟法之“不可得”，了知法性本然。大多数人一想到“放下”，就认为要远离，若想远离，则仍有“我执”——因为还有能觉者企图与所觉之物分离，如此绝不能解脱。若具正见，便无需刻意“取相”或“远离”，“一切自然即了”，因为本来就是空性、无常性。若能“照见烦恼本空”，当下“烦恼即菩提”，心念自然脱落；一切事相自生自灭，自然解脱。若照见一切如梦幻泡影，就可解脱内心种种挂碍。
English Translation (Paragraph 19)
About half a year ago (shortly after finishing the second article), I realized I still held a subtle “mark of dharma/phenomena.” Two weeks later, upon no longer clinging to those mark of dharma/phenomena, I awakened to “nothing continues or depends, no essence abides.” If any dharma could be obtained or had an essence that abides, traces would remain, preventing “each thought from passing without continuing.” All conditioned phenomena are like illusions or bubbles, like dew or a flash of lightning, so we should contemplate them as such. Every mind‑moment is unobtainable—past mind is unobtainable, present mind is unobtainable, future mind is unobtainable. Therefore, one should not be attached to events that have happened or not yet happened. Some say “return to the present” or “live in the now,” but there is no “present” to be obtained—so what “present” is there to live in? This is precisely an attachment to mark of dharma/phenomena (taking Here/Now as Ground) that must be relinquished without leaving any trace, letting everything come and go according to conditions, dissolving naturally. From this, I also came to appreciate this line in the Diamond Sūtra: “Therefore, Subhuti! Bodhisattvas and great beings should thus generate a pure mind, not dwelling in form, not dwelling in sound, scent, taste, touch, or dharmas. They should give rise to that mind while abiding nowhere.” From that, I gained a deeper understanding of “no‑self.” Not only is “I” unobtainable—“now,” “here” are also unobtainable—there is no “I” in the middle linking all processes. Each thought arises unsupported and disjointed. (Revealing groundlessness)
Original Text (Paragraph 19)
大约半年前（写第二篇文章不久），我又觉知到自己还有微细的“法相”在，两个星期后因不再执着法相，体悟到“一切不续不依，无体可住”。若一切法可得、有体可住，便会留下痕迹，无法做到“念念无续”。一切有为法，宛如梦幻泡影，如露亦如电，应作如是观。所有的心都不可得：过去心不可得、现在心不可得、未来心不可得。因此，不应再执着已发生或未发生之事。有人说“要回到现在”，或“活在当下”，但其实连一个“现在”也不可得，又何来“现在”可住？这便是对于法相的执着，需要舍去而不留痕迹，让一切随缘来去、自然化解。我也从中体悟到《金刚经》的这句：“是故须菩提！诸菩萨摩诃萨应如是生清净心，不应住色生心，不应住声香味触法生心，应无所住而生其心。”并对“无我”有了更深理解。不仅“我”不可得，“现在”“这里”也不可得，也没有“我”在中间串连一切过程——其心生起却不依不续。
English Translation (Paragraph 20)
Zen Master Mazu Daoyi said, “Hence the scripture states: ‘It is only through the confluence of the various dharmas that this body is formed. When they arise, only dharmas arise; when they cease, only dharmas cease. When these dharmas arise, do not say “I arise”; when they cease, do not say “I cease.” The previous thought, subsequent thought, and middle thought do not wait for each other; each thought is quiescent as it arises—that is called the Ocean-Seal Samādhi.’”
This shows that practice lies in seeing emptiness and impermanence, at all times open to the Dharma‑realm, relinquishing one’s inner clinging, being clearly aware yet abiding nowhere. However, everything is impermanent, like a lightning flash arising and vanishing in an instant, with neither beginning nor end. All phenomena scatter without leaving a trace. Thought by thought, they do not link with each other; each thought is quiescent as it arises.
Original Text (Paragraph 20)
马祖道一禅师有言：“故经云：但以众法合成此身。起时唯法起，灭时唯法灭；此法起时，不言我起，灭时不言我灭。前念、后念、中念，念念不相待，念念寂灭，唤作海印三昧。”
这说明修行在于明了空性、无常性，时时开放于法界，放下心中执着，了了分明却无所住；然而一切都是无常，如电光石火刹那生灭，无有前际后际。一切法分散，不留痕迹，念念不相待，念念寂灭。
English Translation (Paragraph 21)
(2) Magically Transforming Illusions, Arising from Nothing
Illuminating Emptiness
While I was on Pulau Ubin, contemplating “Where exactly do thoughts arise and where do they go?”, I awakened to the fact that all “empty appearances” (空相) are manifestations of mind/heart’s nature, displays of emptiness and clarity. There is no real “place of arising” or “dwelling place.” Causes and conditions come together to reveal all appearances—“This is, that is.” Without those conditions, there is no phenomenon to appear. All phenomena are one aggregated appearance, without an independent essence. Empty appearances are like a magician’s illusions, seemingly distinct yet without any substance: forms, bodies, scents, and tastes are like mirages under the hot sun. All illusions proceed from dependent arising and lack any determinate essence; one can call them “dreamlike.” Though you can clearly see and feel them, if you try to find their exact location or substance, you can never do so—because they are the illusory manifestations of mind, or in other words, revelations of “dependent arising and empty nature.” The so‑called “mind” is itself only an intangible functioning. Similarly, although things appear vividly, their nature is empty and without any substantial core. Everything is empty nature, and though nothing comes from anywhere, they distinctly manifest infinite wonders, as if by a magician’s transformations. The subtlety of these empty appearances is awe‑inspiring and naturally gives rise to great Dharma joy. Within the luminous stillness of the Dharma‑realm, boundless radiance illuminates in every direction, manifesting all phenomena; yet no single dharma can truly be obtained or established, ultimately resembling a dream. Thus, you see but there is “nothing to be seen,” you awaken but there is “nothing to attain.”
Original Text (Paragraph 21)
（二）魔术幻变，无中生有
照见空性
我在乌敏岛观察“念头究竟生于何处”时，体悟到一切“空相”都是心性的显现，皆是空明之展现，并无所谓“所生处”或“住所”。因缘和合显万相，即“此有故彼有”，若无这些因缘，便无所显之相；一切诸法皆是一合相，并无独立之体。空相如魔术幻化，看似清楚却无实体；色、身、香、味如同阳焰。一切幻相都源于缘起，不具任何定位实体，可说如同梦境。虽然你清清楚楚能看得到、摸得到，但若要找出其定位或实体，终究找不到——因为皆是“心”的幻现，也即“缘起性空”的显相。所谓“心”，也只是无体之用。同理，所有事物虽清晰显现，却性空无体。一切性空之万法，在无从何来的同时，却又分明展现神通妙用，仿若魔术师变幻一般。空相之微妙令人惊叹，能让人自然生大法喜；在法界寂光之中，遍照十方而显一切相，却无一法可得、可立，终究犹如一场梦。故见而无所见，悟亦无所得。
English Translation (Paragraph 22)
Annotation
In early June 2011, while fulfilling military duties on Pulau Ubin, I contemplated “Where do thoughts arise and where do they go?” Suddenly I realized: all appearances are empty by nature. Every thought, and all that is seen or heard, lacks any real essence or location; they are merely illusionlike appearances of “dependent arising and empty nature.” In that moment, I awakened to “the five aggregates are all empty.” This emptiness, with nothing obtainable, is like a magician’s illusions—everything is clearly visible, yet in the end there is no discernible origin, destination, or abode. Though apparently real, there is no substantial core. I thus also understood that every moment of daily life is endowed with miraculous functioning.
What is called “the mirage simile” (焰喻) arises when sunlight strikes dust blown by the wind, producing in wilderness an illusory “body of water.” Sentient beings often cling to it as though it were truly water, but in reality it is only shadows of dust mistaken for water. Another example:
-
In human eyes, a rose is red.
-
In a dog’s eyes, a rose may appear black.
-
In heavenly beings’ perception, water looks like glass.
-
To a hungry ghost, that very same water is fire.
Because of different karmic forces, sentient beings of different realms perceive the same object differently. These phenomena are merely combinations of conditions, having no fixed, inherent essence.
Original Text (Paragraph 22)
注解
2011年六月初，我在乌敏岛执行军事任务，期间观察“念头从哪里来，又从哪里去”。突然我体悟到：一切相性本空，所有念头、所见、所闻都无实体定位，皆是“缘起性空”的假相。当下我便悟到“五蕴皆空”。这种空无所得的相恰似魔术师的幻术——一切清晰可见，却终究找不到来处、去处、住处。看似真实，却无实体可得。于是也明白，原来日常生活每一刻都是神通妙用。
这里所谓“焰喻”，即因日光照射与风吹起尘埃，在旷野中出现宛如“有水”之假象，众生往往取执此相为实有；实际上，只是尘影被误认为水。再比如：
-
在人眼中，玫瑰花是红色；
-
在狗眼中，玫瑰花可能是黑色；
-
在天人眼里，水看起来像琉璃；
-
对饿鬼来说，同一处水则是火。
各道众生由于业力不同，对同一事物会有不同感受，这些现象不过是因缘和合，并无一个固定实体可得。
English Translation (Paragraph 23)
As another example: you see an object reflected in a mirror, but it certainly cannot truly dwell inside the mirror. If it actually resided in the mirror, why would the reflection shift as you move to the right? This is precisely how dependent arising functions: “When this is, that is.” No independent and real entities can be found. All that is seen or heard is like a mirror reflection, lacking a real “place” or “substance.” It appears “over there,” but in fact it cannot be located, being only the illusion of dependent arising and empty nature. If someone thinks there really is some “thing” residing in the mirror, or believes the five aggregates possess an actual body or abiding place, that is “view of a real dharma self,” considered a wrong view. Because all is just “one aggregated appearance“ due to the “the union of causes and conditions,” with no separate essence. Once one awakens to emptiness, one realizes that all dharmas originally never arise.
Original Text (Paragraph 23)
再举一例：看到镜中所映之物，不可能真住在镜中。若真住在镜中，为何你往右走，影像也随之变动？缘起原理如此：“此有故彼有。”没有任何独立实体可得。一切所见所闻，皆如镜中影像，不具真实“住所”或“实体”，看似在“那里”，实则无处可寻，这全是缘起性空之假相。若有人以为在镜子里真有个“东西”存在，见五蕴有体或可得之住所，便是“法我见”，属邪见。因为一切不过“因缘和合”之“一合相”，并无独立之体。悟到空性，就会领悟诸法本无生。
English Translation (Paragraph 24)
Previously, my understanding of “dependent arising and empty nature” was limited to theory; only upon really reflecting and experiencing did I discover how vastly different it truly is. Some people think “the four great elements are all empty” is pessimistic, or they interpret “emptiness” as a nihilistic, hazy view on life—yet this is far from the truth. To genuinely awaken to the subtlety of empty appearances brings admiration and joy. As Jetsun Milarepa said, “Ah, indeed! Everything is solely manifestations of mind! All dharmas in the three realms of saṃsāra are empty yet appear, how marvelous!” In that state, body and mind become free, and one attains deeper insight into practice. And since it is empty by nature, in that moment there is “nothing to attain.” If all things are like illusions or dreams, are of the nature of emptiness, what is there to grasp?
Original Text (Paragraph 24)
过去我对“缘起性空”只停留在理论了解；当真正去体悟、体会后，便知截然不同。有些人以为“四大皆空”是一种消极悲观想法，或将“空”理解成“虚无缥缈的人生观”，其实与事实相距甚远。真正悟到空相之微妙，会令人赞叹与喜悦。就像密勒日巴大师所言：“噫戏，一切唯心现！三界轮回诸法，空而显现，甚奇哉！”这时身心将获自在，对修行也有更深体悟。而既然性空，当下便是“无所得”；若万事如幻如梦，皆属空性，又有什么可得呢？
English Translation (Paragraph 25)
Intrinsic Non‑Arising of Dharmas
All phenomena are indeed like dreams; even though they seem tangible, you cannot actually obtain them. Birth, old age, sickness, and death resemble scenes in a theatrical performance. On TV, you might clearly watch life‑and‑death drama, but outside that show there is no true “life and death” to be found—no origin, no destination. Conditions make illusions appear, yet there is no abiding place to discover. Therefore, in the magician’s transformations, there is fundamentally no arising, abiding, or ceasing. If someone separately “clings” to a so‑called “unborn, undying essence,” that is superfluous, because all phenomena are originally quiescent, which is precisely nirvāṇa.
Original Text (Paragraph 25)
法本无生
一切既如梦相，纵然看似真实，却并不可得。生老病死如同戏剧演绎，电视里放生死情节，你看得真切，但在这出戏之外并无实在的“生死”可得，既无来处也无去处。因缘显现出幻相，却无住处可寻，所以魔术幻变本无生、住、灭。若有人另外去“妄取”一个不生不灭，那也是多余，因为诸法本来寂灭，即是涅槃。
English Translation (Paragraph 26)
Annotation
I used to interpret “unborn, undying” as “the essence of awareness remains unchanging while thoughts change.” But after awakening to no‑self, I no longer see it that way.
Consider how a mosquito coil burns into ash—mosquito coil is mosquito coil, ash is ash. Within ash there is mosquito coil, and within coil there is ash. All are one aggregated appearance. All things manifest via conditions in the universe. Hence, birth does not become death, and death does not become birth; birth is simply birth, death is simply death. There is no unchanging “I” undergoing birth and death. Therefore, birth is no birth, and death is no death. Impermanence naturally transcends concepts of time, not bound by any “prior” or “later,” so talk of coming or going, arising or ceasing, is irrelevant.
Now I have a fresh realization: I see how everything is like an illusion, all of it the manifestations of mind’s nature—empty-clarity, lacking any substance, all illusory appearances of conditions. There is neither source nor abiding place nor destination, so where could real arising and ceasing be found? Beyond “an apparent brightness or appearance” lacking arising and ceasing, there is no additional “unborn, undying essence.”
A week before gaining this insight, coincidentally a friend in the US—two years older than I—emailed me his progress in practice, asking me to confirm. He wrote about his insight into “non‑arising” and “emptiness,” quoting a passage from the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra:
““Mahāmati, how do all great Bodhisattvas perceive the dharma of being far removed from arising, abiding, and ceasing? They regard all phenomena as illusions and dreams, so no phenomenon is produced either from self or from others; rather, these phenomena manifest according to the mind’s own perceptions. Since there is no external dharma, consciousness does not arise, and thus they see that causes and conditions are not truly accumulated. They see that the three realms depend on conditions, yet they perceive neither internal nor external phenomena, for none possesses real substance. They are free from the mistaken view that ‘phenomena truly arise’ and enter into the ‘illusory aspect’ (如幻相) of all dharmas.
At that time, the Bodhisattva attains the forbearance of non‑arising (anutpattika‑dharma‑kṣānti) on the first bhūmi. Having transcended mind (citta), thought (manas), consciousness (vijñāna), the five dharmas, and any intrinsic essence, they realize the two aspects of no‑self and thus obtain the mind‑made body (意生身). Continuing this progressive attainment, they likewise obtain the mind‑made body on up to the eighth “Immovable” bhūmi.””
When I finished reading, I suddenly realized: oh, this is precisely the meaning of the scripture! The Sixth Patriarch said, “Sūtras are not the Dharma itself; the text of a scripture is visible to the physical eye, but the Dharma must be seen with the wisdom eye.” Only by personally confirming the meaning of the Dharma can one truly grasp the scriptures, rather than stay at a superficial, partial comprehension, which is beyond mere eyesight or thought.
Original Text (Paragraph 26)
注解
我以前对“不生不灭”的理解是：“觉体不变，念头在变”。但悟无我后，就不再这么认为。
就像蚊香燃烧变成灰，蚊香是蚊香，灰是灰；灰中具蚊香，蚊香具灰，都是一合相法。万物都由宇宙因缘和合而显现；所以说生不变死，死不变生，生就是生，死就是死，并无一个不变之“我”在经历生死。故生即无生，死即不死。无常法本超越时间观念，无谓前际与后际，也无所谓来去生灭。
如今又有新的体悟：明白一切如幻化，无不是心性空明之显现，毫无实体，全属因缘显现的假相。既无来处，也无住处、去处，所以何来真实的生灭？乃至于“明相假”无生灭之外，更无他种“不生不灭之体”可言。
在得到此体悟前一周，恰好有位住在美国、比我年长两岁的朋友写来他修行中的心得，问我印证。他写到他对“无生”与“空性”的体悟，并引用楞伽经的一段：
“大慧。云何一切菩萨摩诃萨见远离生住灭法。谓观诸法如幻如梦故一切诸法自他二种无故不生。以随自心现知见故。以无外法故。诸识不起观诸因缘无积聚故。见诸三界因缘有故。不见内外一切诸法无实体故。远离生诸法不正见故。入一切法如幻相故。菩萨尔时名得初地无生法忍。远离心意意识五法体相故。得二无我如意意身。乃至得第八不动地如意意身故。”
读完后，我才豁然开朗：原来经义就在此！六祖说：“经不是法，经文是肉眼可见，法须慧眼能见。”唯有亲证法义，才能对经文了然无疑；否则只会流于文字表面的似懂非懂，非眼力所能及、非思考所得。
English Translation (Paragraph 27)
Reality
Truly empty yet wondrous in its presence, like the magical illusions of a magician; dependent arising makes appearances manifest, with boundless wondrous functions.
All appearances are dependent‑arising and empty in nature; even that “one aggregated appearance” is not a truly existent “one aggregated appearance.”
If you can observe in this way, you see reality. Seeking truth outside of appearances is the practice of a fool.
Observing forms, one awakens the nature—this is prajñā wisdom. All phenomena return to the “one,” but where does that “one” return?
Illusory appearance and illusory function—these are precisely true suchness.
Original Text (Paragraph 27)
实相
真空妙有，如魔术妙幻；缘起显相，妙用无穷。
一切相皆是缘起性空，一合相亦非真一合相。
若能如是观，即见实相；离相求真，是痴人之行。
见色悟性，即是般若智慧；万法归一，一归何处？
假相假用，即是真如。
English Translation (Paragraph 28)
Annotation
Some believe that recognizing all phenomena as false (unreal) and then seeking a “reality” beyond these illusions constitutes “seeing the nature.” In truth, since the nature (自性) is empty, all seen appearances are illusory. Once one sees that “all appearances are not true appearances,” one sees the Tathāgata. It does not mean you must search beyond phenomena for a “true Tathāgata.” The Tathāgata, whose Dharma‑body is empty, is “the empty clarity of one’s own nature,” free from arising and ceasing, without coming or going. It is not about positing some super‑phenomenal or nonmaterial truth apart from the visible world. Taking that route would be an externalist’s view. Buddhism is “awakening to the truth that all phenomena are empty through dependent arising,” not “eliminating illusions to seek some reality.”
Original Text (Paragraph 28)
注解
有些人以为，见万法皆假，再去寻一个超越假相之实体才算见性。其实，自性性空，凡所见相皆虚幻；若见“诸相非相”即见如来，不是说要去“假相之外”找一个“真如来”。所谓法身性空之如来就是“自性空明”，无生灭来去。并不是要在现象之外再立一个超现象/非物质的真理；若如此，即是外道知见。佛法是“悟一切现象皆缘起性空之真理”，不是“去妄求真”。
English Translation (Paragraph 29)
Arising Mind Establishes Dharmas
All appearances are empty; all dharmas are fundamentally equal, with no real higher or lower—like illusions in a dream. Ignorance arises in the mind, thus establishing all dharmas; the discriminating mind arises, thus creating distinctions of higher versus lower.
Original Text (Paragraph 29)
心生立法
一切万相皆是空，诸法平等本无高下，如梦幻故。
无明生心而立一切法，识心起分别而立法之高低。
English Translation (Paragraph 30)
No Mind
All phenomena arise due to mind, all phenomena vanish with mind. Mind arises from delusion, and mind liberates through wisdom.
When no mind is involved in establishing phenomena, that is truly “no mind.” If there is no mind, there are no dharmas to be set up—so how can there be high or low?
Ordinary and holy, Pure Land and all others are equal; Saṃsāra and Nirvāṇa are equally liberation.
Original Text (Paragraph 30)
无心
万法由心生，万法由心灭；心因痴而起，心因慧而了。
无心来立法，即是真无心；无心无法，又何有高下？
凡圣、净土皆平等；娑婆、涅槃亦是解脱。
English Translation (Paragraph 31)
Annotation
What does “mind arises, establishing dharmas” mean? For example, some people find durian fragrant, some find it foul. A greedy person might become excited at the sight of money; an Arhat might see money as no different from a stone. Thus when the mind arises, all dharmas appear. Good and bad, high and low, are determined by our habitual tendencies, ignorance, or deluded views. If one is able to dwell in “no mind,” then all dharmas appear as equal.
Original Text (Paragraph 31)
注解
“心生立法”指什么？举例：有人觉得榴莲很香，有人觉得榴莲很臭；贪心者见到金钱会兴奋，罗汉则视金钱与石头无异。所以，心生则万法生；一切法之好坏、高低，皆因我们的习气、无明或妄见而立。若能“无心”，则见诸法平等。
English Translation (Paragraph 32)
Essence and Function in Equality
After what I referred to in the second article as “awaken to no‑self,” when I look at things, there is only “the scene”; when I hear sounds, there is only “the sound,” no longer any “hearer in the background.” That “knower in the background,” so to speak, simply never existed. Originally, there is no “I,” which is itself a Dharma seal (not a state reached through some practice). Once one truly awakens and is no longer deceived by false views, one naturally confirms the “fundamental nature of awareness” (觉性本体) in all phenomena—because “awareness” cannot be separated from “function,” just as wind is inseparable from “blowing,” and a river from “flowing.” Without blowing, wind is not wind; if a river does not flow, it is no longer a river. The same is true of awareness: awareness is function, and function is awareness. Knowing is that which is known, and what is known is precisely knowing. Thus the saying “the green bamboo vividly reveals the Dharmakāya, and the lush yellow flowers express prajñā,” showing that essence and function are equal.
Original Text (Paragraph 32)
体用平等
当我在第二篇文章中所言“体悟无我”之后，看东西时只余“景色”，听声音时只余“声音”，再没有一个“听者在后面听”。那个“在背后观照”的“能觉者”根本不存在，这正是多余的；本来就无我，这是一个法印（并非通过某些修行才能达到的境界）。一旦真正体悟，不被妄见所迷，就会自然而然地在一切现象中印证“觉性本体”——因为“觉”不离“用”：犹如风不离“吹”、河水不离“流”。风若无吹的作用，就不成其为风；河若不流动，也不能称为河。觉也是一样：觉即是用，用即是觉；觉知即是所知，所知即是觉知。所谓“假青青翠竹而显露法身之体”“假郁郁黄花而表般若之用”，体用平等。
English Translation (Paragraph 33)
If one reifies the “fundamental nature of awareness” into an unchanging, independent “self‑essence,” then treats all things as “merely passing in and out of awareness,” labeling them unimportant illusions that awareness “looks at, letting them pass,” and further exalts the “essence of awareness” as the highest, most ultimate truth—one is effectively imposing a hierarchy on dharmas, resulting in “inequality of essence and function.”
Original Text (Paragraph 33)
假如把“觉性本体”实体化为不变独立之我体，然后把万物都当作“仅是在觉性里进进出出，不重要的幻象，只是被觉性看着，让它过去就行”，再把“觉体”视为最究竟、最特别、最高真理——这就等于人为地设定法之高低，造成“体用不平等”。
English Translation (Paragraph 34)
Equality Like a Dream
Now, I have a new realization: all phenomena are like illusions—clearly distinct, yet unobtainable—manifestations of “the empty nature of one’s own self‑nature” (自性空性). They are all illusory appearances without anything to be grasped, as though conjured by magic, each one being the “dependently arisen emptiness” of dharmas. Where, then, is any higher or lower? For instance, if everything is like a dream, are the dream world and the everyday world different in their essential nature? I often experience becoming lucid in a dream, seeing it appears real but is actually an illusion of mind. When I awaken, I find that the so‑called “awake world” is not much different—both dream and reality are illusions without any true substance, solely manifestations of mind, empty in nature. You cannot say one is absolutely real and the other absolutely false. Since both belong to the illusion of dependent arising, there is no hierarchy. Therefore, if all is emptiness, why set up another dharma beyond the mundane, seeking purity or nirvāṇa? In fact, fundamentally there is neither purity nor defilement, neither increase nor decrease. As with a Buddha statue or a demon depicted on TV, they are equal in their fundamental nature.
A Prajñāpāramitā sutra says, “All dharmas are like dreams and illusions; nirvāṇa is like dreams and illusions. If there is some dharma beyond nirvāṇa, it is likewise dreams and illusions.” That is, if there were a dharma surpassing nirvāṇa, it would still be dreamlike and illusionlike, revealing that the highest state is an equality in the emptiness of all, with no special “state” to be obtained.
Be with the Buddha.
Original Text (Paragraph 34)
梦幻平等
现在，我又有了新的体悟：一切法都如幻化，了了分明却不可得，皆是“自性空性”的显现，都是无可得的幻相，如同魔术演变，一切皆“缘起性空”之假相，又哪来的高低？譬如，如果万物如梦，梦境与日常生活在本质上难道不平等吗？我常体验在梦中觉悟到“梦”看似真实却是心之幻相，当我醒来时发现清醒也没多大区别——梦里和现实其实都是如梦，皆是无体、心现、空相。你无法说一个是绝对真的，另一个是绝对假的，没有高低，因为都属于缘起的假相。既然一切皆空相，又何须再另立一个法去超越世间、去寻清净或涅槃？其实本来就不净不垢，不增不减。正如电视里演的佛像、魔鬼，在本性上都是平等的。
《般若经》云：“诸法如梦如幻，涅槃如梦如幻。若有超胜涅槃之法，亦如梦如幻。”也就是说，如果还有一个比涅槃更超胜的法，那也依旧是如梦如幻，可见最高境界正是一切空性平等，无境界可得。
与佛同在。
English Translation
(Paragraph 1)
On January 20, 2012 (excerpted from an email to a Dharma friend):
That day, you mentioned
“we must let go of self‑consciousness,” and I very much agreed. I therefore
took a moment in the barracks to write down, on my phone, some of my personal
insights and experiences to share with you. Concerning “no self‑consciousness,”
I have personally experienced this in multiple ways; there is not necessarily a
hierarchy of higher or lower levels, but there are indeed different facets, all
of which are important. Generally, practitioners know that in practice one must
eradicate self‑identity view (我相) and not cling to self‑consciousness—for instance, being
modest toward others, patient, and compassionate; treating others equally
whether they are kind or unkind to us, and not generating discrimination. We
must not think too highly of ourselves, often remind ourselves that we are no
better than others, and not be self‑serving but consider others’ needs.
Whatever person or situation we encounter, we strive not to give rise to “I” or
“my own opinions”; if self‑consciousness does arise, we must promptly
illuminate it (through awareness) and relinquish it on the spot. Because we do
not cling to our own ideas, we can more easily accommodate and understand
others, and also learn from their strengths and weaknesses. Such principles
need to be applied and experienced in daily life. Since I began practicing
Dharma, my attachment to the mark of self (我相) and self‑consciousness has indeed weakened a lot, so that
when people criticize me or are unfriendly, I do not feel much disturbance; I
might even feel grateful for their suggestions or be able to empathize with
them. Because I do not cling to “me” and “my thoughts,” everyday stress is
greatly reduced. This is what is meant by “unselfishness/non-egoity.”
Original Text (Paragraph
1)
2012年1月20日（摘自给一位道友的邮件）
那天你提到“要放下自我意识”，我也深以为然，所以抽空在兵营里用手机写下自己的部分体会与经验，与你分享。关于“无自我意识”，我个人经验中有不同方面可去体会，倒不一定分什么高低层次，但确实有不同的面向，而这些面向都很重要。一般修行者都知道，修行要修掉我相，不要执着自我意识，比如对人要谦虚、忍让、慈悲，无论对方对我好与不好，都平等对待、不生分别，也不要觉得自己了不起，经常想到自己不如他人；也不要自私自利，要多替别人着想。遇到任何人事物，尽可能不生我相、我想；若自我意识生起就得立即觉照并当下舍弃。因为不执着于自己的想法，就能更容易包容、体谅他人，也能从他人的好坏中学到东西。这些道理要落实在生活里去修、去体会。自从修法以来，我对“我相、自我意识”的执着确实减轻很多，所以别人批评我、对我不好时，我也没觉得怎样，甚至会感恩对方的指教，或能体谅对方；因为不那样执着我相、我想，生活的压力就小了许多。这就是所谓的“无私我”。
English Translation
(Paragraph 2)
However, “self‑consciousness” extends beyond this. Several months after I had
the experience of the “essence of awareness,” I gradually realized that
“everything—including me, you, and all phenomena—has no actual ‘self’
whatsoever”; everything is but the spontaneous functioning of the cosmic fundamental
essence, manifesting with “no action and no self” (無為無我). It was as if there were simply no “I” living life or
doing things—everything was just the natural unfolding of the cosmic fundamental
essence. At that point, my sense of “self” progressively faded.
Original Text (Paragraph
2)
但是“自我意识”并不止于此。体悟到觉体几个月之后，我逐渐体会到“一切——包括我、你、以及万物——都没有真正的自我”，一切皆是宇宙本体的自然运作，无为无我地显现，好似并没有一个“我”在生活或做事，一切都是宇宙本体自然而然的运作。此时对“自我”的感觉已渐渐消失了。
English Translation
(Paragraph 3)
Nonetheless, this still does not mean that “self‑consciousness” is entirely
gone, because in daily life, there remained a subtle sense of “inside versus
outside” and “subject versus object.” It was not that I was rejecting external
phenomena or thoughts, but rather that when I saw things or heard sounds, it
still felt as if there was an “invisible, formless perceiver/essence of
awareness” inside, while the external scene or sound seemed “outside.” In other
words, all phenomena seemed to arise and subside within this “essence of
awareness.” This is still a subject–object, inside–outside distinction. Because
of “inside” and “outside,” one can fall into what Teacher Chen calls
“preserving inner emptiness.”
Original
Text (Paragraph 3)
不过，这还不等于“完全没有自我意识”，因为此时在日常中依旧会存有一种微细的“内外”“能所”之分。并不是说我在排斥外境或念头，只是当看见东西、听见声音时，仿佛仍是一个“无形无相的觉者/觉体”在里头，而外境、声音好像在“外面”——或者说，一切现象都生灭于这个“觉体”之内。这仍然是能所、内外之分。因为有内外，所以也会落入陈老师所说的“守内空”。
English Translation
(Paragraph 4)
Later, I further realized that “the nature of awareness” and “the myriad
phenomena” are not two different things—“mountains and rivers and the great
earth are all the Dharmakāya (Dharma‑body).” Ordinarily, people think “I am
here,” “I am in the body,” or feel “there is a perceiver within this body
looking out at the scenery,” thus generating a sense of subject–object,
inside–outside. But if one sees that originally there is no subject–object, one
awakens to the fact that the highest mountain or the most distant thing is
actually nothing but the nature of awareness itself—there is no distance, nor
is there any distinction of inside or outside, subject or object. It is not
“the nature of awareness looking at the scenery,” but rather “the scenery is
precisely the nature of awareness.” Around August or September 2010, I started
experiencing things in that direction: that originally, there is no
subject–object, no inside or outside.
Original Text (Paragraph
4)
后来我进一步体会到“觉性”与“万象”并非两样——“山河大地皆是法身”。众生通常会觉得“我在这里”“我在身体里”，又或觉得“身体”里有个观者在看外面景色，于是生出能所、内外的感觉。但若见本无能所，便会领悟：最高的山、最远的事物，其实都只不过是觉性而已，并无距离，也无能所内外之别。不是“觉性在看景色”，而是“景色就是觉性”。2010年八、九月间，我也渐渐在此方向体会到：本来就无能所、内外之别。
English Translation
(Paragraph 5)
Yet even then, one cannot claim that “self‑consciousness” has been fully
extinguished. For at that time, one might still “merge everything into a single
real essence,” clinging to “everything is the manifestation of one single
essence”—like a mirror and its reflection appearing inseparable, feeling as if
they are “one.” Although one no longer perceives a subject–object division,
deep inside there remains a self‑view, believing “everything is manifestation of One Real Essence.”
Original
Text (Paragraph 5)
可这时依然不能说“自我意识”全部消失。因为此时可能还将一切“归为一真体”，执着“一切是一体的显现”——仿佛镜子与影像不分彼此，好像是“一体”，虽然不见能所，但深处仍有我见，觉得“一切都是实有的一体之显现”。
English Translation
(Paragraph 6)
It was not until October 2010, when I engaged in contemplative practice
according to the Bahiya Sutta, that I truly realized the Buddhist
principle of “no‑self in all phenomena,” or what is also called “the Dharma
seal of no‑self.” This “no‑self” is not as simple as “everything just unfolds
naturally, and there is no particular me.” There is a gongan (public
case) that goes: A certain monk asked Master Dongshan Liangjie, “When it’s cold
or hot, where should one hide?” The master replied, “Why not hide in a place
where there is no cold or heat?” The monk asked, “Where is that place of no
cold or heat?” The master answered, “When it’s cold, freeze that monk of yours
to death; when it’s hot, burn that monk of yours to death.” Why did Master
Dongshan reply in this way? He was not talking about the naturalness of “wear more clothes when
cold, eat when hungry, sleep when tired,” nor was he saying there is some
“essence of awareness” that remains unaffected by cold or heat—those still
belong to subject–object perception. Rather, when it becomes hot, the entire
universe is simply “hot,” with no “I,” no “perceiver,” no “recipient.” This is
the true ending of suffering. Similarly, when Bahiya met the Buddha, the Buddha
was out on his almsround and initially refused to give instruction. Bahiya
begged him repeatedly, and then the Buddha, right on the spot, said:
“Bahiya, when seeing, only
the seen; when hearing, only the heard; when
smelling, tasting, or touching anything, only
just smell, taste, or touch; when thinking,
only thoughts. Precisely because when seeing, there is only the seen; when hearing, there is only sound; when smelling, tasting, or touching, there is only smells, tastes, touch; when thinking, there is only thought—there is no ‘you’ in relation to anything. Since there is
no ‘you,’ there is no ‘you’ there; since there is no ‘you’ there, there is also
no ‘you’ here, there, or in between. This is the end of suffering.”
Bahiya heard this single
statement, was immediately liberated from birth and death, and attained the
level of Arhat.
Original Text (Paragraph
6)
直至2010年十月，我在观行《婆酰迦经》时才真正体悟到佛法的“诸法无我”或说“法印之无我”。这个“无我”并不是简简单单“都自然运作，好像没有我”那样。有一个公案：某和尚问洞山良价禅师：“天气冷或天气热时，该躲到哪里去呢？”禅师回答：“你为何不躲到没有寒暑的地方？”和尚再问：“哪里是没有寒暑的地方？”禅师答：“当冷起来时，就冷死你这个和尚；当热起来时，就热死你这个和尚。”洞山禅师为何如此回答？他所说的并不是“冷时穿衣，饿时吃饭，累时睡觉”的自然，也不是说有个觉体不受冷热之苦（那还是能所见）。而在于热起来，整个宇宙就是“热”，完全没有“我”“觉者”“受者”。这才是真正苦的终结。好比婆酰迦见到佛陀时，佛陀正在托钵，原先拒绝为他开示，婆酰迦再三恳请后，佛陀当场说：“婆酰迦！当看东西时，只是看，当听声音时，只是听；在闻、尝、触时，就只是闻、尝、触；在思想时，就只是思想。正因为看时只是看，听时只是听，闻、尝、触时只是闻、尝、触，思想时也只是思想，所以对于一切，并没有一个‘你’，并没有一个‘你’在那里，也就没有一个‘你’在这里或那里或中间。此即苦的止息。”婆酰迦听完当下了脱生死，证阿罗汉果。
English Translation
(Paragraph 7)
Because of habitual views, ordinary people presume there is an “I,” an
unchanging self. Whenever they see anything, they categorize it as three
components: “a seer who is seeing, the act of seeing, and the object seen,” or
similarly “a hearer who is hearing and a sound that is heard.” Yet this is
actually a complete mistake! When one truly realizes no‑self, one discovers,
“Originally there is no ‘I’! ‘I’ is nothing but a false notion, a learned
delusion.” From the beginning, there never was any “seer” or “seeing” or “what
is seen.” When seeing, there is just the scenery, vividly displaying all sorts
of colors and shapes; when hearing, there is only the sound (pure, clear
awareness), with no “I” or “hearer.” From start to finish, no “I” exists. It is
simply a delusion of the ordinary person, like someone with impaired eyesight
imagining flowers in the sky.
Original Text (Paragraph
7)
凡夫由于习见，以为有我、有不变之我体，在看任何东西时，都会把情境认作三者：“能看者，在看，所看之景”；或“能听者，在听，所听之声”。但这本身就是完全错误的！当真正体悟到无我，会发现：“本来无我！‘我’只是虚妄的妄见、习见。”原本，并没有所谓“能看、看、所看”之三者，看时只是景色，清清楚楚地显现各种色彩形象；听时只有声音（纯粹清净觉知），并没有一个“我”或“听者”。从头到尾都没有“我”，只是凡夫妄见罢了，犹如视力不良者以为天空中见到花朵。
English Translation
(Paragraph 8)
During that period in which I awakened to “the Dharma seal of no‑self,” I also
experienced what is called “body and mind dropping away.” This does not refer
to a temporary experience of the body disappearing in meditation (like a state
of physical lightness and mental clarity), but rather to the complete absence
of the concept of “body.” It does not mean one feels no pain when pain arises,
but rather that one sees through the “body” as just a provisional
label—sentient beings, amid ceaseless arising and ceasing of tactile
sensations, erroneously perceive and designate an embodied form with shape and
features. If one realizes “no‑self,” one naturally sees through the body and no
longer fantasizes that it is truly existent. And because there is “no‑self,”
even “mind” drops away—one does not perceive body and mind as “me,” and thus
there is no longer a sense of “this body” or “inside versus outside,” abiding
in an ever‑open Dharma‑realm. This is not some special “state” that one can
enter or leave, and is not limited to the meditative seat. From that time
onward, I have not perceived body or inside–outside or subject–object in my
cognitions, only “pristine awareness”: when hearing, there is only sound; when
seeing, only scenery… By realizing “originally no ‘I,’” it has always been like
this. No‑self is not some “state” to be entered or exited; since the self‑view
is dissolved by the “wisdom of emptiness,” it no longer deceives me. From my
own experience, only through correct view and an awakening to the true nature
(the nonduality of emptiness and clarity) can one truly be liberated.
Original
Text (Paragraph 8)
在那段期间（“觉悟法印之无我”），我也体悟到所谓“身心脱落”。这并非坐禅入定时身体消失的暂时体验（例如身心清安），而是彻底没有一个“身体”的概念！并不是痛时没有知觉，而是看破“身体”也只是个假名假相——是众生于一些生灭不已的触受中妄见、妄立为一个有形相的身体法相。如果悟“无我”，自然看破“身体”而不再妄想真有其体。也因为“无我”，连“心”也脱落，不见身心有我，从而不再有“身体”或“内外”的感觉，时时敞开于法界。这并非可出可入的某种“境界”，也不只是在静坐时才体验到。自那时至今，我都不见身体或内外、能所之知见，只余“清净觉知”：听时只有声音，看时只有景色……因悟“本来无我”，本来如此。无我并非某种境界，根本没有“进入”或“出来”的现象。由于我见被“空性之智慧”化解，不再被我见迷惑。从我的经历来看，正见与对法性的觉悟（空明不二），方能真正解脱。
English Translation
(Paragraph 9)
Many people mistakenly think that “no‑self” is some fruit of practice, for
example, “I have practiced to the point that I no longer have the mark of
self.” Indeed, that is very important—a major milestone of practice—but what
the Buddha said in the Bahiya Sutta about “no‑self” is not an
attainment but a “Dharma seal”—for all phenomena, there never was a self in the
first place! There was never an opposition between “one who perceives” and
“objects perceived”; from the beginning, when hearing a sound, there was just
the sound, never any “hearer” or “I.” This has always been the case, with no
need to “eliminate a self,” because from the start there was no self that could
be eliminated. It is something you must personally realize—it is not derived
from practice or a meditative state. If you have not truly realized it, you
cannot spontaneously dwell in such ease no matter how much you cultivate. “No‑self”
is not an accomplishment or a state; dharmas are originally no‑self,
fundamentally so.
Original
Text (Paragraph 9)
很多人误以为“无我”是一种修行成果，例如“修到没有我相”之执着。诚然，这点很重要，是修行上的一大进步，但佛陀在《婆酰迦经》里所说的“无我”并非一种成就，而是“法印”——对一切法而言，本自无我！本来就没有什么“能觉者/所觉对象”之对立，一直以来听声音时只有声音，不曾有一个“闻者”或“我”。它原本如此，无须“消灭一个我”，因为从来就没有一个“我”可消灭。好比有人从恶梦中醒来，不再见“梦中魔鬼”，何须期盼魔鬼“消失”？因为本来就没有！
English Translation
(Paragraph 10)
Similarly, “no‑self” is not merely “self‑forgetfulness,” “merging with
everything,” or “merging with nature”—those are temporary experiences rather
than true realization, and they cannot uproot self‑view. The “Dharma seal of no‑self”
must be personally awakened to as “the dharma is fundamentally and originally
so” (法爾如是). That is, no‑self is a truth that has always been so, not
something “gained” or “reached” through practice. Without a definite
realization, no matter how you cultivate, you cannot spontaneously reach that
condition. Therefore, “no‑self” is not an attainment or state; dharmas are no‑self,
originally so.
Original
Text (Paragraph 10)
同理，“无我”并不是什么“忘我”“融入一切”或“融入大自然”的体验——那都是暂时性的体验，并非真正觉悟，也无法断除我见。法印之“无我”必须亲自体悟到法印之无我「法尔如是」，也就是说，无我是个本来如此的真理，不是通过修行“得到”或“达到”某个境界。如果没有确切体悟，无论如何修，都无法自然达到这种状态。所以，“无我”并不是成就或境界，法本无我，本来如此。
English Translation
(Paragraph 11)
There are also various aspects to experiencing “no‑self.” Many people are
unfamiliar with what Buddhism calls “the Dharma seal of no‑self” and assume “no‑self”
is merely “unselfishness/non-egoity,” thus stopping at practicing a “selfless
attitude,” without attaining correct view or correct awakening. Though
“selflessness” can bring more ease and benefit to both oneself and others, and
lead to a happier life, it does not amount to the ultimate liberation of
Buddhism, for the fundamental ignorance of sentient beings lies in the unbroken
“self‑view.” Only by awakening to “no‑self in all phenomena” can one sever the
root ignorance.
Original Text (Paragraph
11)
“无我”也有不同方面可以体会。很多人不知道佛法所说的“法印之无我”，往往以为“无我”仅仅是“不自私”的“无私我”，只停留在修“无私我相”，并未达正见正觉。虽然说“无私我”能让人更自在、也更能利益他人，生活上更快乐，但还达不到佛法的究竟解脱，因为众生的根本无明在于“我见”未断，唯有觉悟“诸法无我”方能断除根本无明。
English Translation
(Paragraph 12)
In early 2011, I had a deeper realization: I became aware that “all phenomena
lack a continuous self,” and therefore all dharmas are unsupported and disjointed (without linking up). I recalled these lines from the Diamond Sūtra:
“Therefore, Subhuti, a Bodhisattva, a great being, should give rise to a pure
mind in this way: not dwelling in forms to give rise to that mind, not dwelling
in sounds, smells, tastes, touch, or dharmas to give rise to that mind; one
should give rise to that mind while abiding nowhere.” I then encountered a
passage by Zen Master Mazu Daoyi:
“As the scripture says:
This body is composed solely of myriad dharmas. When they arise, only dharmas
arise; when they vanish, only dharmas vanish. When these dharmas arise, do not
say, ‘I arise.’ When they vanish, do not say, ‘I vanish.’ The prior thought,
the subsequent thought, and the middle thought—none of them wait for each
other; each thought is quiescent as it arises. This is called ‘the Ocean‑Seal Samādhi.’”
This gave me an even
deeper understanding of “all phenomena are impermanent and without self,” and I
no longer clung to the subtle “mark of phenomena” I used to hold (like trying
to “abide in the present moment” or “cling to some real essence”). I had not
previously noticed those attachments.
Original
Text (Paragraph 12)
2011年初，我又有更深体悟：意识到“诸法并无一个连续的我体”，故一切法都不依不续。我想起了《金刚经》的那句：“是故须菩提！诸菩萨摩诃萨应如是生清净心，不应住色生心，不应住声香味触法生心，应无所住而生其心。”随后又见到马祖道一禅师的一段：“故经云：但以众法合成此身。起时唯法起，灭时唯法灭；此法起时，不言我起，灭时不言我灭。前念、后念、中念，念念不相待，念念寂灭，唤作海印三昧。”让人对“诸法无常无我”有更深刻领悟，也不再执着于那一点细微法相（如要“守住当下”“守住一个真实体”等，这些都还是法相的执着，以前自己没觉察到）。
English Translation
(Paragraph 13)
I even drew a diagram to illustrate this realization (the original text says it
referenced a diagram, omitted here).
.jpg)
On June 1, 2011, I once
more examined the arising and ceasing of thoughts and gained an even deeper
insight: all thoughts and all phenomena truly have neither origin nor
destination, no place to abide. They are empty of inherent nature, like a dream
or a magician’s illusions, lacking any real substance, akin to an empty shell
or the surface of a bubble—apparently possessing shape but without true
solidity. Likewise, a single rose is perceived as red by humans, black by dogs,
like glass by the gods, and like fire by hungry ghosts—sentient beings in
different realms have differing karmic conditions, so they see differently. All
these are illusory forms arising from conditions, lacking inherent reality;
there is no “true rose” that definitely has a “truly existent red property.”
Once you truly realize this, you clearly see them but do not cling to them as
real. All is like “flowers in the sky” or “the moon’s reflection in water,”
lacking any substantial core. In this way, the emptiness of the self (as explained
in the Bahiya Sutta) and the emptiness of phenomena (as explained
in the Heart Sūtra) both appear.
Original
Text (Paragraph 13)
我还画了一幅图来表达这种体会（此处原文提到一幅图示，略）：
2011年6月1日，我再次观察念头生灭的来处，有了更深领悟：一切念头与万象皆无来处、无去处、无住所，因缘性空、如梦如幻如魔术，无实体，如同空壳或水泡表面看似形象却无实体可得。再如同样一朵玫瑰，人看成红色，狗看成黑色，天人看成琉璃，饿鬼却看成火——六道众生因业力不同而见相不同，这些皆是缘起假合、无实体的假相；并无一朵“真玫瑰花”存在或它真正实有的“红色属性”。若真能体悟此点，会清清楚楚感知，却不执为实有，皆如空花水月，无实体。如此，人空（婆酰迦经要旨）与法空（心经要旨）皆显。
English Translation (Paragraph
14)
I also realized that all clinging to “I” and “mine” as well as clinging to
dharmas arises because of deluded views. Every attachment arises from sentient
beings’ mistaken belief that there is some unchanging “I,” “mine,” or “dharma.”
So, what exactly is “self‑view”? Venerable Sheng Kai said:
“‘Self‑view’ means that
ordinary people do not understand that the human body—form, feeling,
perception, volition, consciousness (the five aggregates)—is a false
combination, and so they cling to the person’s self as eternal. After this life
ends, they think that in the next life it will still be ‘my self.’ This
mistaken view is called ‘view of the self (人我见).’ Also, ordinary people do not understand that all
dharmas arise and cease due to conditions, but instead cling to all dharmas as
if they truly had substance and function—this erroneous view is called ‘view of
the dharma self (法我见).’ Put together, they are
called ‘self‑view (我见).’”
The Treatise on
the Five Aggregates (五蕴观) says:
“The root of birth and
death lies in the twofold clinging: clinging to the self and clinging to
dharmas. Confused about the general appearance of body–mind, one clings to a self as truly existent; confused about the distinct characteristics of
the five aggregates, one presumes a dharma self as truly existent.”
“If one can thoroughly contemplate the nature of this body–mind, seeing that in
every situation there are only the five aggregates, one will never find a self. This is called ‘the contemplation of the emptiness of the self.’ By relying on this contemplation, one departs from the coarser cycle
of birth and death, forever abiding in nirvāṇa—this is called the liberation of
the two vehicles. As for clinging to a dharma self, one then proceeds with
further contemplation, knowing that each aggregate arises from conditions,
lacking self‑nature, so one cannot grasp any real existence in the aggregates.
Thus the five aggregates are empty—this is called ‘the contemplation of the
emptiness of dharmas.’ If one contemplates both simultaneously, realizing that
neither the self nor the dharma self truly exists, one is freed from
all fear and overcomes suffering, escaping even the subtler transformations of
birth and death—this is called ultimate liberation.”
“In short, clinging to a self is the ordinary person’s delusion;
clinging to a dharma self is the two vehicles’ limitation. Therefore, one must
cultivate both contemplations to break illusions and realize truth—there is no
bypassing them.”
What we call “view of the self” means that from childhood to adulthood, or across lives, one
believes in a permanent “me.” Someone might say, “I have grown up, but I am
still me; my real self has never changed,” or believe in an eternal “knower,”
“perceiver,” when in truth, from childhood to adulthood, across all lives, it
is only endless arising and ceasing of conditions, with no unchanging “I.” In
fact, hearing and awareness do not require a “hearer”—they are merely a process
or phenomenon, just as in the flowing of water, there is no separate “essence
of water” aside from its flow, and in the movement of wind, there is no
separate “essence of wind” aside from blowing. Though the nature of awareness /
Buddha‑nature is never lost, with its functions arising ceaselessly, “awareness
/ Buddha‑nature” and “appearances,” “essence” and “function” are one; there is
no independent, unchanging real essence. If one supposes “Buddha‑nature is
permanent while the myriad phenomena change,” that is still a type of
eternalist / self‑view, no different from the external teaching of brahman.
Original
Text (Paragraph 14)
我也体悟到：所有我执与法执都因妄见而生。一切执着，皆因众生妄见有个“不变”的“我”“我所”或“法”而执着。那么什么是“我见”？圣开师父说：“所谓我见者，因一般凡夫众生，不了解人的身体是色、受、想、行、识五蕴的假和合体，固执人之我体是永恒的，今生死了，来生还是我体，这种恶见叫‘人我见’。世间凡夫不了解一切法乃缘生缘灭，固执诸法有真实体用之虚不实的见解，这种恶见叫‘法我见’。合此二者，简称为‘我见’。”
《五蕴观》有言：“夫生死之本莫过人法二执。迷身心总相。故执人我为实有。迷五蕴自相。故计法我为实有。”，“若 能依此身心相。谛观分明。于一切处但见五蕴。求人我相终不可得。名人空观。乘此观。行出分段生死。永处涅槃。名二乘解脱。计法我者用后观照之。知一一蕴皆 从缘生。都无自性。求蕴相不可得。则五蕴皆空。名法空观。若二观双照。了人我法我。毕竟空无所有。离诸怖畏。度一切苦厄。出变易生死。名究竟解脱。”，“且计人我者。凡夫之执也。计法我者。二乘之滞也。故令修二观。方能了妄证真。岂可离也。”
所谓“人我见”，就是从小到大、生生世世，都以为有一个不变之“我”。比如有人说：“我长大了，但我还是我；真我是永恒不变的。”或者觉得有个“能见、能觉”者，一直不变，却不知其实从小到大、生生世世无非是生灭不已的因缘法，并没有哪个不变之“我”。实际上，听闻觉知并无“觉者”，只是现象过程，就像水之流动之外，并无“水之体”可得；风的吹动之外，并无“风之体”可寻。虽说觉性/佛性永恒不失，起用不断，但“觉/佛性”与“现象”，“体”与“用”亦是一如，不存在一个独立不变之真实体。倘若立“佛性不变，万法在变”，则依然是一种常见/我见，与外道梵我无异。
English Translation
(Paragraph 15)
Adherents of external paths may likewise witness the “essence of awareness,”
yet due to lacking the correct Buddhist view, they cannot reach the ultimate.
They speak of “acting with no personal self,” but most often this refers to a
“selfless attitude” or “not personally attached.” Some might even experience
“transpersonal” states (like feeling the entire universe is the natural functioning of the fundamental
cosmic essence, or abiding in a state with no subject–object). Nonetheless, they have not truly
realized the Buddhist principle of “the Dharma seal of no‑self,” and so they
remain attached to a “transpersonal brahman self.” In their view, phenomena are
illusions that arise and perish, while only the “essence of awareness” is real
and unchanging. The Buddha condemned this as the “third externalist view: partial eternalism,” which, though possibly admitting that “the small personal self is
unreal,” still claims that “some universal, inherently existing and unchanging substance is truly real.”
They conceive that “the essence of awareness is formless,” yet they insist
on a “permanent, independent reality,” diverging from the Buddhist teaching that
the Buddha‑nature / nature of awareness is no‑self and inseparable from
appearances—i.e., “the nonduality of emptiness and clarity.”
Original
Text (Paragraph 15)
外道者虽能见证“觉体”，但因缺乏佛法正见，无法究竟。他们也提出“行无我”，但多半是“无私我”或“不自我”的概念，甚至有人能体会到“超个人”（如一切有情无情万物都是宇宙本体的自然运作），或者进入无能所之境，但依旧没有真正证得佛法“法印之无我”，因此还执一个“超个人的梵我”。在他们眼中，现象都只是生灭幻相，只有觉体才是真实不变的本体，正如佛陀所批评的“第三外道，一分常论”。他们虽然认“觉体无形相”，但却坚持存在一个“不变独立之体”，与佛法的无我/空性不同。佛法认定佛性/觉性空性无我，且和现象不可分离，故称“空明不二”。
English Translation
(Paragraph 16)
The Sixth Patriarch Huineng said, “Impermanence is precisely Buddha‑nature;
permanence is precisely the mind that discriminates good and evil in the myriad
dharmas.”
Zen Master Dōgen said, “The impermanence of grasses and forests is Buddha‑nature;
the impermanence of beings’ physical forms and mental processes is Buddha‑nature;
because countries, lands, mountains, and rivers are impermanent, precisely thus
they are Buddha‑nature. Anuttarā Samyaksaṃbodhi is impermanent, therefore it is
Buddha‑nature. Mahāparinirvāṇa is Buddha‑nature, precisely because it is
impermanent. Followers of the two vehicles—scripture teachers, treatise
teachers, Tripiṭaka masters—are all startled and afraid of Huineng’s words.
Thus they stand as a party of externalists.”
Many people treat Buddha‑nature
as the “true self” but lack the correct Buddhist view, falling into a brahman‑like
notion of “the great self.” The Buddha clarifies in various scriptures (e.g.,
the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra) that “Buddha‑nature / Tathāgata‑garbha is
simply another name for the empty‑nature of all phenomena.” He taught this
skillful means to instruct those who fear “no‑self” or “emptiness,” or to guide
externalists who believe in or assert a “true self.” But the Buddha’s “Buddha‑nature
/ Tathāgata‑garbha” is not truly a self—this differs from the externalists’
brahman. Venerable Sheng Kai also said, “Ultimately, ‘true self’ is just
another name. If you truly take ‘true self’ to be a ‘real’ self, you are
mistaken; only ‘no‑self is the self’ is the real self.” Most people are not
aware of this, so they fail to establish the correct view of Buddha‑nature.
They only know or realize the “essence of awareness,” but do not understand
that the nature of awareness is no‑self, or the nonduality of emptiness and clarity,
so they fall into an externalist view and cannot eradicate the “view of subjective self.” (Some indeed see that the essence of awareness
pervades everything and is not tied to any single person, regarding it as a
“transpersonal brahman self,” yet still conceive of it as an substantially real essence)
Original Text (Paragraph
16)
六祖慧能：“无常者，即佛性；有常者，即一切善恶诸法分别心。”
道元禅师：“草木丛林之无常，即为佛性；人物身心之无常，即为佛性；国土山河是无常，以其即佛性故。阿耨多罗三藐三菩提是无常，以其即佛性故。大般涅槃是佛性，以其即无常故。持二乘诸种小见者，经师、论师、三藏师等等，皆对六祖言论惊疑怖畏。如是则彼等即为外道之党。”
不少人将佛性当成“真我”，却缺少佛教正见，坠入和外道相同的梵我见。佛陀在经典（如《楞伽经》）中详述：佛性/如来藏是“诸法空性”之别名，并非真的“我”，只是佛为度“惧怕无我、空”之众生，以及教化相信“真我”的外道方便所说。佛教的佛性/如来藏并非真的有我，不同于外道的梵我。圣开师父亦云：“其实‘真我’也只是一个代名词，你若真把‘真我’当‘真’的我，那就错了；必须‘无我是我’才是真我。”只是很多人不了解，遂不能对佛性建立正确见解。他们只知或体悟到“觉体”，却不懂“觉性无我、空明不二”，便落入外道见，难以断“人我见”。（有的人虽见觉体遍满一切，不属于哪一个人而是“超个人的梵我”，但仍执其为“实体”。）
English Translation
(Paragraph 17)
I mention these because they are precisely what I went through in my own practice. I deeply realize that if one merely recognizes the “essence of
awareness” without having correct view, or if one has not yet fully awakened to
it with right view, it is not complete.
“I” is only a nominal
designation—like the term “weather,” which is likewise just a name. “Weather”
is composed of clouds, wind, rain, lightning, and so on; there is no single,
unchanging “essence of weather.” In the same way, “I,” with respect to the five
aggregates, is just a convenient label. Although these impermanent five
aggregates manifest in an endless array of functions arising from conditions,
they do not originate in some “fundamental essence / root source / brahman
self,” nor is there any real root self to be found. They are merely a “process
of conditions.” The same applies to “Buddha‑nature” and “its manifestation,” or
“the essence of awareness” and “the functioning of awareness”: they, too, are
empty‑nature and no‑self. The nature of awareness that knows does indeed keep
manifesting, revealing the Dharmakāya of mountains and rivers, yet we cannot
cling to “the Dharmakāya” as truly existent. The Dharmakāya cannot be pinned
down in or beyond the myriad phenomena; it has no real substance.
Original Text (Paragraph
17)
之所以提到这些，是因为这正是我修行过程中的亲身经历与体会。我深知，若仅仅是悟了“觉体”却无正见、或未彻底了悟正见，还不算圆满。
“我”只是假名假相，好比“天气”不过是假名而已，无独立“天气之体”可得。就如“天气”是云、风、雨、闪电等现象汇集的假名，无有恒常不变的“体”。同理，“我”之于五蕴也只是个方便称呼。尽管无常五蕴显现各种因缘起用，但并非由一个“体/根源/梵我”所生，也不见有我体根源，不过是一个“因缘过程”。“佛性”与“显现”，“觉体”与“觉用”也同此理——它们都是空性无我，但觉性觉知却不断地起用，令山河大地尽显法身，同时又不可执着“法身”为实有。法身于万法内外无法可立，不存真实之体。
English Translation
(Paragraph 18)
Thus, the Buddha asked Ānurodha:
“What do you think,
Anuradha, do you regard the Tathagata as in form?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Do you
regard the Tathagata as apart from form?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Do you regard
the Tathagata as in feeling? As apart from feeling? As in perception? As apart
from perception? As in volitional formations? As apart from volitional
formations? As in consciousness? As apart from consciousness?”—“No, venerable
sir.”
“What do you think,
Anuradha, do you regard form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and
consciousness taken together as the Tathagata?”—“No, venerable sir.”
“What do you think,
Anuradha, do you regard the Tathagata as one who is without form, without
feeling, without perception, without volitional formations, without
consciousness?”—“No, venerable sir.”
“But, Anuradha, when the
Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and actual here in this very life,
is it fitting for you to declare: ‘Friends, when a Tathagata is describing a
Tathagata—the highest type of person, the supreme person, the attainer of the
supreme attainment—he describes him apart from these four cases: ‘The
Tathagata exists after death,’ or … ‘The Tathagata neither exists nor does not
exist after death’?”
“No, venerable sir.”
“Good, good, Anuradha!
Formerly, Anuradha, and also now, I make known just suffering and the cessation
of suffering.”
- https://suttacentral.net/sn22.86/en/bodhi?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false(For
further information, see Anatta:
Not-Self or No-Self?)
This is meant to eradicate
people’s assumption that a self or dharma self is truly existent.
Original Text (Paragraph
18)
因此，佛问阿奴逻陀：“于汝意云何，如来可以色身见否？"不也，世尊。""如来可以色外见否？""不也，世尊。""如来可以受、想、行、识见否？""不也，世尊。""阿奴逻陀，生时汝尚不能立下如来的实存，死时即立如来终存在、如来终不存在、如来终存在即不存在、如来终非存在亦非不存在？” 这也意在破除人们把人我、法我当作实有的观念。
English Translation
(Paragraph 19)
Once “view of the self” is eradicated, one must further
break the “view of a dharma self.” Even if you realize there is no self in the
five aggregates—no see‑er or hear‑er when you see or hear—you still need to
realize that all phenomena (like scenery or sound) are also empty of inherent
nature, illusory like a dream, without any substance. Only then can you be said
to have “fully realized the emptiness of both self and phenomena.”
Since the obstacle stems
from ignorant, deluded views, if one does not awaken to both emptinesses,
illusions and attachments remain unremoved. Even diligent practice cannot bring
ultimate liberation. Correct view is the unique core of Buddhism and holds first
place in the Noble Eightfold Path. Only by relying on proper knowledge and
practice, thereby engendering wisdom, seeing the twofold emptiness, and
destroying deluded views, can one completely free the mind of self‑consciousness.
It is not easy, but neither is it impossible; the key is that if we can spark
wisdom, we can break through.
A few years ago, I had
read about “no‑self” and “emptiness” in theory. Yet only recently did I
genuinely awaken and experience them. If one only has theoretical knowledge
with no direct realization, the Buddha’s teaching is not truly grasped; nor is
it correct to claim it is “too profound” and avoid study or practice. In fact,
one need not read hundreds of volumes of Prajñāpāramitā sūtras—so long as one
grasps the basic principles, establishes correct knowledge and view, and
practices genuine observation accordingly, realizing wisdom is not that
difficult.
Original Text (Paragraph
19)
破除“人我见”后，还需破“法我见”：即便体悟到五蕴内外并无人我之体，“看时唯景色，听时唯声音；无看者、听者”，亦需了悟万法（景色、声音等）也都是缘起性空，如梦如幻，无体可得。唯如此，方是“了达二空”。
因为障碍源于无明妄见，若不觉悟二空，妄见妄执仍未根除，纵然修行再用功，也难得究竟解脱。正见正是佛教特有的精髓，是八正道中的首要。唯有依佛法正知正见并实修正法，生起智慧，了达二空、破除妄见，方能彻底解放自我意识。并非容易，却也非难到不可得；关键在于“无明妄见”，若能开智慧，自然能突破。
我几年前就读过这些“无我”或“空”的道理，但近来才真正觉悟、体会。光有文字知识而无亲身证悟，便失去佛陀所教的真正意义；若一味觉得“太深奥”而不学习、不修行，也不对。其实也不必看完几百卷般若经，只要明白基本观念，建立起正知正见，并依之如实修观，要开智慧并非难事。
English Translation
(Paragraph 20)
Once awakened, one should apply correct view in everyday life—correct view is
precisely awakened wisdom, perceiving the twofold emptiness and casting off all
deluded opinions, abiding in “pristine awareness.” This is a very natural thing; if you really
want to call it “practice,” it does not seem like practice. We should note that
although “maintaining no thought and sustaining awareness” may describe a
certain meditative condition, one cannot say “no thought + illumination of awareness =
complete realization of twofold emptiness.” For example, if someone imagines “a
demon is following me,” and I teach him “just do not think about demons, keep
your mind blank,” he might temporarily forget, but the fear can easily return.
Or at night, when sleeping, one temporarily forgets one’s worries, but on
waking they reappear—because the root delusion is unbroken.
Likewise, to thoroughly
eradicate self‑view, simply “not thinking” does not suffice; that is only
cultivating concentration, not awakening. Even entering a state of “utter self‑forgetfulness,
merging with everything” cannot break self‑view if one has not seen one’s
nature. Only by truly realizing “there never was a demon in the first place”
can one be fully liberated from fear; similarly with “no‑self.” It is not about
“trying not to think,” for I personally had many states of “self‑forgetfulness”
or “merging with nature” since 2006, but these were temporary, never breaking
self‑view. Once you awaken that fundamentally there is no “I,”—that “I” is as
fictitious as “a demon,” “Santa Claus,” or “flowers in the sky”—from that
moment on, false views no longer deceive you. That cannot be accomplished by
“not thinking.” Yet, once self‑view is broken, “self‑forgetfulness” occurs
naturally and no longer seems unusual.
Original
Text (Paragraph 20)
若觉悟了，就应把正见落实在生活中——正见即开了智慧，看破二空而摆脱一切妄见知见的“清净觉知”。这是一个“很自然”的东西，真要说修也不算修。我们要明白，“保持无念并觉照”虽然是修行的一种状态，但不能说“无念+觉照=已经了达二空、破除妄见”。譬如，有人妄想“有魔鬼跟踪我”，我若教他“不要想魔鬼，保持不想就好”，他也许能暂时忘记，可终究难免恐惧回流。或晚上睡觉虽暂时忘了烦恼，但醒来又回到原形——因为妄见未断，未从错觉中醒来。
同理，要彻底破除我见，也不是“不要去想”就能解决，这只是在修定，不是觉悟。即使达到“完全忘我、融入一切”，若未见性，也无法破除我见。
唯有真正觉悟到“本来并无魔鬼”，才会彻底解脱恐惧和烦恼；“无我”亦然，非“不要想”就能行。自2006年起，我修行中也常有“忘我”或“融入自然”等体验，但这些都只是暂时的，无法破除我见。唯有觉悟本来无我，“我”只如“魔鬼”“圣诞老人”“空中花”等妄见，根本不存在，才会从此不再被妄见迷惑；这并不是“不要想”就可办到。然而，一旦我见破除，“忘我”就会很自然地发生，不再像以前一样觉得那么特别。
English Translation
(Paragraph 21)
By way of illustration, many years ago, I told you that when I quietly looked
at a tree, suddenly “I” disappeared—there was no sense of “me in my body
looking at outside scenery”; it was as if I merged with nature, leaving only
“the tree,” only “the scenery,” distinctly perceived without inside or outside,
subject or object. At the time, I thought it was astonishing, but in fact many
people—sometimes as children or unintentionally—have experienced “self‑forgetfulness.”
It may not require specific practice to occur. Therefore, it is not
necessarily genuine realization or “clearly seeing the nature,” but rather a
kind of experience (demonstrating that practice can indeed transcend self‑consciousness).
Because the difference between living with self and forgetting self is so
great, it felt remarkable.
But after truly awakening
to “originally no self,” the experience is different. From that point on, I
never see a “me,” nor do I need to “deliberately forget myself.” I no longer
treat “no‑self” as a special state (it was never a “state” to begin with—it is
a Dharma seal, intrinsically no‑self). There is no sense of “jumping out of” or
“entering into” no‑self; I do not have to keep practicing “to become no‑self,”
nor do I constantly remind myself “no‑self,” because even “emptiness” is empty.
Everything appears in distinct clarity, with no subject and object, no self or dharma, while hearing and seeing remain, all distinctly marvelous yet
seamlessly ordinary. “When seeing, only the scenery, with no seer” means no self, not a state of blankness or numbness, but
rather an absence of subject–object. Although scenery is as evanescent as
illusions or dreams, it vividly appears as “awareness,” and that is how “the
twofold emptiness reveals true suchness.” The Treatise on Buddha‑Nature says,
“Buddha‑nature is precisely the true suchness revealed by the emptiness of both
self and dharmas. Because of this true suchness, there is neither that which ridicules
(subject) nor one who is ridiculed (object). By realizing this principle, one is freed from deluded
clinging.” We need not rely on special meditation sessions; in every moment
confronting people or situations, it is present. So my practice has changed in
this sense.
Original Text (Paragraph
21)
举个例子，多年前我跟你说过，我静静看着树时，突然“我”消失了，没有“我在身体里看外面景色”的感受，只是好像融入大自然；只有“树”、只有“景色”，清楚知觉却无内外能所。这种境界当时觉得稀奇，但其实很多人在童年、无意间也经历过“忘我”，并不一定需要修行才能体验，不算真正的觉悟或“明心见性”，只能说是一种见证（说明修行确能超越自我意识）。因为从自我到忘我落差巨大，所以觉得殊胜、特别。
但自觉悟“本来无我”后，就不同了。自那时以来，我时时不见有“我”，也无须“刻意忘掉我”。不会再把“无我”当成特殊境界（原本就不是境界，而是法印，本自无我）。更不会说有什么“跳出”或“进入”无我的过程；既无需用心修或达到“无我”，也不用常常想着“无我”（因为连“空”也空了）。一切了了分明地显现，没有能所，没有人与法，却又听闻觉知，分明微妙，同时又自然平凡。“看时只见景色，并无观者”，不仅意味着无我，也不是“什么都空空的没感觉”，而是没有“能所”，景色虽如梦幻泡影，却仍清晰可现，便是“觉性觉知”。如此才是“二空显真如”。《佛性论》云：「佛性者，即是人法二空所显真如。由真如故，无能骂所骂，通达此理，离虚妄执。」且不需特别在静坐中才体验，而是每时每刻面对人事物都能如此。现在我的修行也不一样了。
English Translation
(Paragraph 22)
For example, before awakening, during seated meditation, I often had various
goals: to let go, to stop discursive thought, to strengthen mindful awareness,
to see my nature, to return to self‑nature, and so on. Now it is different:
sitting in meditation is not in order “to manifest Buddha‑nature,” but because
“sitting is Buddha‑nature.” Sitting is simply sitting, nothing more. The hum of
the air conditioner or the body’s breathing is the Buddha‑nature—originally no
self, originally pristine awareness. If one’s self‑view is not broken, even if one
intellectually knows “all dharmas arise and cease from conditions,” one still
cannot truly experience this, because one silently clings to “a perceiver who
sees external conditions.” Once you awaken to “originally no self,” you can
truly realize that everything is a process of dependent arising. If dog, dog’s
bark, air, and a person’s ear all coincide, “hearing” arises in that moment. At
that moment, the entire universe is just that sound, a pure, clear awareness,
with no “hearer.” It is not that “some perceiver is reflecting on the sound,”
but that the universe momentarily gives rise to “hearing.” Similarly, when
eating, it is the entire universe that is “eating.” Although it sounds hard to
grasp intellectually, it can be directly experienced. (This is akin to Purna
Maitrayaniputra asking the Buddha, “Who feels?” and the Buddha replying, “If I
said there was a feeler, you would ask ‘who feels?’ But you should be asking,
‘Under what conditions does feeling arise?’ and I would answer, ‘Due to
contact, there is feeling; from feeling arises craving.’”)
Hence, in walking,
standing, sitting, lying down, in all daily activities, we can practice in this
way, without setting a goal of “attaining awakening” or “recovering one’s self‑nature.”
Right here and now is awakening, is Buddha‑nature.
Original Text (Paragraph
22)
譬如，我过去未觉悟时，静坐往往存有各种目标：要放下、要不起念、要更专注觉照、要明心见性、要回归自性等等。如今则不同：打坐并不是为了“显现佛性”，而是“坐即佛性”。打坐只是打坐，仅此而已，空调声、身体呼吸，都是佛性——本来无我、本自清净的觉知。如果我见未断，即便知识上晓得“诸法因缘生、诸法因缘灭”，还是无法真切体会，因为心中仍执着“有个觉者在看外缘/外境”。如若悟“本来无我”，才能真实体会：一切皆因缘法。若有狗、狗吠、空气、人耳朵等因缘，在那一刻显现“听到声音”，此时整个宇宙就只有那声音，一个清净的觉知，并没有“听者”。也非“某个能觉”在照听那声音，而是宇宙因缘和合下所显“听”之现象；吃饭亦同理——是整个宇宙在吃饭。虽然这种说法不易凭思考理解，但却能亲身感受到。（类似颇求那比丘问佛陀：“为谁受？”佛陀答：“若我言有受者，你会问‘谁在受？’；但实际上应问‘何因缘故有受？’佛陀会答‘触缘故有受，受缘爱。’”）
由此，在日常行住坐卧，都能像这样修行，无需再设什么“开悟”或“恢复本性”的目标，当下既是悟，也是佛性。
English Translation
(Paragraph 23)
Neither do we cling to “eradicating delusions,” “eradicating thoughts,” or
“eradicating the three poisons.” Once one has realized the emptiness of self and phenomena, there is no need to grasp those objectives; rather, we simply
verify and confirm at each moment. We see that all thoughts, wanderings, and
afflictions are empty and unattainable. Knowing that, one does not treat
delusive thoughts as truly existent; one naturally does not cling, so they
simply dissolve without leaving traces. If we treated delusive thoughts as
something real that must be driven out, we would leave “imprints,” causing
those thoughts to perpetuate. As the teaching says, “Contemplate all phenomena
as dreams and illusions; though they appear, they have no intrinsic substance.”
By conditions they arise, by conditions they cease, with no forced action. One
can thus liberate oneself from greed, anger, and ignorance. If one still holds
self‑view, one believes “I control the arising of thoughts” or “I guard a
perceiver that observes thoughts yet remains untouched,” but that is still
contrived action, with self‑view unbroken, so liberation is not attained.
Original Text (Paragraph
23)
也不必执着“去妄”或“去念”或“去三毒”而修。若已了达人法二空，连这些目标都不必执着，只有每时每刻的“实证、印证”。也就是觉知：一切念头、妄想、烦恼，皆空不可得。如果了知这点，不会把妄念当真，自然不执着，则一切念头无为无作，自行了脱，不留痕迹。如果把妄念当真实之物非得去掉，那就留下了痕迹，使念念相续。正所谓“当观一切法如梦幻泡影，显现却无实体”。因缘所生，因缘尽即了，无需造作，可自解脱三毒。若有我见，则以为“我能控制念头的生起”，或“我守着一个觉者去看念头、不受其影响”，那还是假造作，我执尚未断，故不得解脱。
English Translation
(Paragraph 24)
For someone who has not awakened, though they may understand the principle “one
must remain mindfully
aware, avoid random wandering, do not
cling,” they have yet to realize the emptiness of both self and phenomena, so
it will differ in practice. For instance, “non‑continuation of thought” for an
unawakened person means “maintaining awareness so thoughts do not go on
endlessly,” whereas for a person awakened to no‑self, it means “since one sees
that all phenomena lack any continuous self, they are unsupported and disjointed, and so one naturally never clings to the notion of
continuity—everything simply vanishes by itself.” Hence, after awakening,
“correct view and correct awareness” make practice more effortless and more
directed. Practice requires not only correct view but also awakening, and it
must be integrated into everyday life (action). Focusing only on “practice”
without correct view can easily become an externalist approach; focusing solely
on “correct view” without applying it in insight meditation is just book knowledge;
or if one studies some Buddhist theory and practices diligently but retains
self‑view, one remains unenlightened. Therefore, “view, realization, and
action” must be complete, and theory and practice must coincide, in order to be
fulfilled.
These are not empty words
but things tangibly verifiable. I am not claiming any great attainment in my
own practice, nor do I claim to be especially diligent, but these small steps
have greatly increased my confidence in the Dharma. I see that the Buddha’s
teaching is not reserved for lofty Bodhisattvas or sages; we ordinary beings
can also tangibly benefit and experience it. For example, since my recent
awakenings, my greed, anger, and ignorance have softened; I have released many
attachments, and life has become less troubled and more content. Of course, I
know the path to Buddhahood is still far.
Original
Text (Paragraph 24)
对一个尚未觉悟的人而言，可能也理解“修行要觉照、不要胡思乱想、不执着”等道理，但尚未了达人法二空就仍会有所差别。譬如“念念不相续”对未觉悟的人来说是“在觉照中，不让胡思乱想没完没了”，但对觉悟无我的人来说，则是“因见一切法本就没有连续之我体，不依不续，所以不会再执着任何连续体，一切自然当了”。因此，觉悟之后，“正见、正觉”会让修行更自如，也更有方向。修行既需要正见，也需要觉悟，还要能将其落实在日常里（行）。若只讲“修”不讲正见，容易落入外道式修行；若只讲“正见”而不修观行，不过是书本知识；或者虽学了些佛理、也认真修行，但若“我见”不断，仍不能解脱。故必须“见、证、行”三者具足，行解相应，方得圆满。
这些并非空想，而是真实可见的。我不敢说自己的修行有多大成就，也不敢说自己修得很精进，但小小进步已使我对法更有信心。我明白佛法并非只属于大菩萨、圣者；我们凡夫也能切实感受和受用。比如，我感觉自从某些觉悟后，内心贪嗔痴逐渐淡薄，很多执着都放下，生活中烦恼轻、幸福感增强。当然，我也知道成佛之路还很遥远。
English Translation
(Paragraph 25)
April 25, 2013 – Written for my mother, Explaining Hīnayāna (Small Vehicle)
Practice
In my second article, I mentioned:
“Many assume ‘no‑self’ is
a state of practice in which one has removed the mark of self. True, that is
vitally important—a major attainment. However, what the Buddha says in that
sūtra about ‘no‑self’ is not an attainment but a Dharma seal—for all phenomena,
no self has ever existed. There never was any dualism of perceiver and
perceived, no seer/hearer/actor. From the start, whenever you have heard a
sound, there has only been sound, never a ‘hearer’ or an ‘I.’ It has always
been like this, so there is no need to forcibly ‘destroy a self’—there simply
was no self to destroy. This must be realized through direct insight, not by
technique or meditative absorption. If one does not realize it directly, one
cannot spontaneously dwell in freedom. ‘No‑self’ is not an achievement or a
meditative state; dharmas are inherently no‑self, originally so.”
Practitioners of the
Hīnayāna proceed gradually with the dual cultivation of samādhi and prajñā,
eventually attaining “awareness of the emptiness of the self.” As I
illustrated in the second article, upon reaching that level, one no longer
needs to rely on entering meditative absorption to experience “forgetting
oneself” or “body and mind dropping away.” One can at all times naturally merge
with the Dharma‑realm, with no subject–object or inside–outside, not depending
on any conditioned method. If one only has a temporary experience of bodily
disappearance, that is meditative absorption, not awakening. Someone at the
initial stage described in the first article might occasionally enter a state
of “discarding body and forgetting self,” but cannot sustain it, because the
view of the body and the self is not yet severed. Once one truly realizes the
emptiness of self, even in daily life the self and the notion of
body–mind both fall away, requiring no reliance on entering meditative
absorption. Samādhi and prajñā serve distinct functions, yet both are
cultivated.
Original
Text (Paragraph 25)
2013年4月25日 写给我母亲，解释“Hīnayana(小乘)”修法
在我第二篇文章里提过：
“许多人以为‘无我’是修到没有我相的一种境界。诚然，这的确重要，是一种修行成就；但佛陀在经中所言‘无我’并不是成就，而是‘法印’——对一切法而言，本来就无我，本来就无‘能觉者/所觉对象’的对立，无‘见者/听者/行者’。在听声音时，一直以来都只有声音，没有‘闻者’，也没有‘我’，本来就是如此，无需刻意‘消灭’一个‘我’，因为根本没什么‘我’可消灭。这是需要体悟的，不是修行或境界。如果没有真正体悟，无论如何修也达不到自如。‘无我’并非成就或境界，而是法本无我，本来如此。”
小乘行者以渐修的方式定慧双修，最终得以“征悟人我空”。正如我在第二篇文章所举例，当达到那种层次后，也无需透过入定去体会“忘我”“身心脱落”，可以时时自然融入法界，没有能所内外，不依靠任何有为法的辅助。若只是暂时体验身体消失，那是入定，不是开悟。若有人在第一篇文章所描写的见地，也许可以暂时进入一种“舍身忘我”的状态，却无法持续，因为身见、我见尚未断。若真正了悟人我本空，日常生活中我相、身心相都会脱落，无需靠打坐入定就能达成。定与慧不同，却需双修。
English Translation
(Paragraph 26)
May 14, 2013
My mother asked me a question that day, and in my reply email, I spoke about
“habitual tendencies, karmic force,” “natural non‑action,” and the importance
of correct view.
Question:
“Recently I heard a VCD with a lovely tune. I only listened twice, but the next
two or three days I repeatedly recalled its pleasant melody. Is that ‘liking’
and hence attachment? Teacher Chen says people nowadays are always on their
phones or computers, unable to stop, which may harm their practice—because such
habits undermine untainted clarity. Does that mean I shouldn’t even play games
on my phone? You all must use computers for work or studies—how do you keep it
from becoming habitual? Don’t you all listen to music—aren’t you mesmerized by
it? I don’t understand.
“Aunt Fang gave me a book
by Master Hongyi which speaks of the Eight Precepts forbidding singing,
dancing, or watching performances—these obstruct the mind set on the Way—and
likewise poems, songs, and so on. I usually like reading, or used to like watching
movies—surely these experiences get stored in the eighth consciousness. As
laypeople, we constantly face external conditions and want every thought to
remain dignified and free of defilement or rejection, but it is not easy. Do
you practice that way? If you have time, might you compose some verses for me? May you be with Buddha.”
Original
Text (Paragraph 26)
2013年5月14日
母亲问我一个问题，我在邮件中回覆，谈到“习气、业力”、“自然无为”、以及见地的关系。
问：
那天听了一首VCD里的歌，旋律优美，我只听了两遍，但接下来两三天脑海里不时浮现这首轻快的曲调。是不是因为“喜欢”而执着了？陈老师说现在的人时时用手机、电脑，让他们停也停不下来，是否会危害修行？因为这种习性会影响不染着的清净。那我是不是连手机游戏都不该玩？你们工作学习都要用电脑，如何才能不让它成为习性？你们常听音乐，不会着迷吗？我不明白。
芳姨送我一本弘一大师的书，我正在读，里头讲到八关斋戒禁止唱歌跳舞看戏——说这些都障碍道心——诗词歌赋亦然。我平时喜欢看书、以前爱看电影，这些内容肯定会储存到八识田里。我们做在家人，处处外缘，想要每一念都保持庄严、不染不除，不容易。你是不是都这样修？
有空可否再写些偈语给我看呢？与佛同在。
English Translation
(Paragraph 27)
Answer:
Our true suchness is manifest every moment: Buddha‑nature is
both “clarity” (the numinous awareness) and “emptiness” (the absence of self‑nature).
“Clarity” means “mind,” while “emptiness” means “no‑self.” Though it is
brightly aware, it is empty and cannot be grasped. This true suchness is
complete in itself, lacking nothing, so it needs no artificial effort or
refinement. Given that its nature is originally like this, why would we require
any contrivance? But why have we been trapped in birth‑and‑death and
afflictions since beginningless time? Because of “ignorance”—failing to see our
fundamental nature and adopting wrong knowledge/wrong views (i.e., self‑view),
generating all kinds of fabrications (karmic forces), thus perpetuating birth‑and‑death
afflictions. If one truly awakens to one’s fundamental nature, one can verify
it in every instant, abiding in “natural non‑action” and no further
contrivance.
What do we mean by
“conditioned action” (有为) or “fabrication” (造作)? Whenever there is craving, that is fabrication; whenever
there is clinging, that is fabrication; when there is self‑view, that is
fabrication. Any sense of duality is also fabrication—trying to separate the
perceiver from the perceived is fabrication. Fabrication becomes a “force,”
like a turning wheel—the faster it spins, the stronger its momentum, so
stopping it suddenly is difficult. Since no‑self is a Dharma seal and all
phenomena are originally without a self, even fabrication itself has no real
“doer.” If there truly were an “I” and “what is mine,” then upon thinking “I
will not fabricate,” it would instantly cease. But that is not the fact.
Fabrications arise due to conditions, become imprinted in the eighth
consciousness, and keep resurfacing. Even the thought “I want to control these
fabrications” might itself be yet another contrivance or self‑view arising from
ignorance/karmic habits, believing there is a real “I” to manage or suppress
thoughts—but that does not bring liberation. That is how the eighth
consciousness operates: as soon as there is fabrication or clinging, imprints
form. Why is it that hearing traffic noise leaves no imprint, whereas hearing a
song you love does? Because of attachment, which gives it power, forming a
habitual tendency. If we neither follow it nor reinforce its power, it
gradually loses strength, and the thoughts subside naturally. For instance, if
you sit on grass, you make an impression (symbolizing an imprint in the eighth
consciousness), but once you get up, over time the grass springs back.
Yet, this still does not
resolve the “fundamental ignorance of self‑view”—so the root of fabrication
remains. This root self‑view in the eighth consciousness, plus karmic seeds, is
the source of greed, anger, and ignorance. The misguided assumption that “I”
can gain what I desire or reject what I dislike, unaware that outside of “me”
there is no real substance—this is ignorance. To uproot it at the source, one
must “see the nature.” Using brute willpower to fight afflictions or self‑view
is futile.
We have discussed
“fabrication”; now let us discuss “non‑action” (無為) and “naturalness.” After awakening to one’s fundamental
nature, one experiences “naturalness.” This is not the same as “being used to
something.” People often say, “I’m used to it, so it’s natural now,” or “I
didn’t know how to ride a bike, but once I learned, it feels natural,” but that
is different. True “naturalness” means that everything we see or hear, every
behavior or movement, is simply the wondrous function of the Buddha‑nature /
nature of awareness spontaneously manifesting through dependent arising, with
no “self” controlling. Under the right conditions, things arise or fade away,
freely coming and going.
What is “non‑action”?
Laozi in Daoism speaks of non‑action—for instance, “Humans follow the earth,
earth follows the sky, sky follows the Dao, the Dao follows the natural,” and
so forth. Buddhism likewise discusses non‑action, but better calls it “acting
through non‑action.” Laozi said, “Act through non‑action, attend to affairs
through attending to nothing, taste the tasteless.” Non‑action does not mean
“doing absolutely nothing, like a block of wood.” It means that in every action
and experience, we do not set up subject–object or cling to the “I,” so
phenomena manifest naturally of their own accord. Genuine non‑action is “seeing
originally there is no ‘I,’ no doer or deed, so everything at this moment
appears completely from fundamental nature, with no trace of self.” That is the
true non‑action. What I call “no mind” is not merely “no distinction between
good or bad thoughts,” but “no self.” (A temporary “self‑forgetfulness” or “no
mind” does not signify seeing the nature; only after one truly realizes the
Dharma seal of no‑self does “no mind” naturally manifest. “Experience” is not
the same as “realization.”)
Only by truly realizing
“no‑self” can one say “the whole nature is exactly one’s practice, and one’s
practice is exactly that nature—nature and practice are not two.” For
example, when reciting the name of Amitābha Buddha, one’s entire fundamental
nature is fully present in that single phrase “A‑mi‑tuo‑fo,” with no doer, no
deed, no inside or outside; the whole universe is contained within that “one
recitation of Amitābha.” In everyday tasks of walking, eating, or working, the
same principle applies, seamlessly uniting motion and stillness. Non‑action is
not passive but is great freedom.
If one has not realized
the nature, “naturalness” and “non‑action” feel out of reach. Many exclaim, “I
want to let go; I want liberation,” but fail to accomplish it. The reason is
that fundamental self‑view must be shattered through awakening, which requires
the spark of wisdom. Only by awakening does one see through and let go. The way
to remove ignorance is not “stop thinking,” but “turn on the light,” just as
someone afraid of ghosts in a dark room should turn on the light to see there
never was any ghost—his ignorance was unfounded.
Likewise, to break free of
clinging to subjective self or phenomenal/dharmic self, one must personally realize prajñā wisdom,
genuinely awakening to “originally no self,” like turning on the light. After
awakening to emptiness, most of one’s self‑grasping fades. Yet only at the final stage
of Buddhahood are even the finest traces transcended. Once self‑and‑phenomena
are seen as empty, all thoughts and dharmas shine as pristine awareness, yet are unreal illusions lacking any place to
abide or be extinguished, like a dream or bubble. Conditions give rise,
conditions vanish, with no contrived action. They naturally dissolve greed,
anger, and ignorance. Even if momentary “fabrications” appear, they
spontaneously free themselves, with no forcing or resistance.
Therefore, although I
speak of “non‑action” and “naturalness,” these are more suitable for “practice after awakening.” If from the outset one declares, “Just let everything be
natural,” “our nature is complete, no need to practice,” “don’t do
anything—let thoughts come and go,” a person might misunderstand that as
genuine practice and become the “laziest practitioner.” A liberated sage abides
in “thought by thought, quiescent with no contrivance,” whereas someone
unawakened who tries to do “nothing” might only produce endless wandering
thoughts. The gap lies in whether “self‑view” is removed. If self‑view remains,
relaxing the mind simply lets old habits pull you back. But once one awakens to
“the wisdom of inseparable
emptiness and clarity, nature and appearances are one suchness,” the path of non‑action fits perfectly without needing
external instruction, and one spontaneously blends with it. Conditioned methods
requiring contrivance are no longer appropriate for such a practitioner.
If one has not awakened,
basic practice is still very important. For instance, one can sit in meditation
daily to develop samādhi and insight; as a householder, minimize pointless
distractions, treasure the brevity and rarity of human existence for Dharma
practice, sustain mindful awareness in daily life, cultivate quietude, reflect
on one’s original face, or practice “turning awareness inward.” Step by step,
never rushing to “skip a grade.” Yet if, like me, you inquire into 'Who am I?' and subsequent contemplations, it serves as a direct path to realization, then one may awaken more swiftly and
directly. In recent years, many have awakened from the Dharma pointers I
share—certainly more than a couple of examples.
First, one can try to
realize “the nature of awareness” (refer to my first article). While
meditating, contemplate: “What was my original face before I was born?” or
“When no thought arises, who is aware?” Do not rely on discursive reasoning,
but “turn awareness back on itself.” You will know only when you truly awaken.
Book answers are useless—only direct experience is like “drinking water—only
you know if it is cold or warm.” Continue observing thus, and one day, when all
wandering thoughts vanish, you see that self‑nature pervades everything. Primordial
gnosis is precisely “my very existence,” leaving no doubt. Next,
proceed to contemplate further to break subject–object, further exposing the
emptiness of subjective self—consult the Bahiya Sutta. Then you will
grasp what the Śūraṃgama Sūtra means by “Our five aggregates
are Buddha‑nature,” that “in delusion they are illusory appearances; in
awakening they are the true mind; essence and appearance are not two.” Next,
contemplate further to break clinging to “dharma self.”
If one’s insight into no‑self
is already deep, practice need not be confined to seated meditation. Still,
meditation remains valuable. At that stage, “practice” mostly means
verifying and confirming in the midst of daily life—when walking, speaking,
watching TV, or working, remain completely open, wholly engaged in the present
action. As I say, “with no doer or deed, let the entire fundamental nature
manifest entirely in that present action,” utterly free of “I.” Before
awakening, we face daily matters; after awakening, we face daily matters—yet
the difference is that with wisdom, the entire cosmos “faces” them, not an “I.”
When conversing, there is no longer “me” and “them,” but one seamless
interaction, free of the four marks (self, other, beings, lifespan). At this
time, we should cultivate the four immeasurables—loving‑kindness, compassion,
joy, and equanimity—sharing the Dharma we know with others, practicing both
merit and wisdom. And we keep meditating as well, because it is still
beneficial—even the Buddha continued meditating after awakening, and I, too,
meditate whenever possible.
Addendum:
For further clarity about how practice and meditation should continue even
after seeing reality, here are some relevant excerpts:
John Tan said many years
ago:
"After this insight,
one must also be clear of the way of anatta and the path of practice. Many
wrongly conclude that because there is no-self, there is nothing to do and
nothing to practice. This is precisely using "self view" to
understand "anatta" despite having the insight.
It does not mean because
there is no-self, there is nothing to practice; rather it is because there is
no self, there is only ignorance and the chain of afflicted activities.
Practice therefore is about overcoming ignorance and these chain of afflictive activities. There
is no agent but there is attention. Therefore practice is about wisdom, vipassana,
mindfulness and concentration.
If there is no mastery over these practices, there is no liberation. So one
should not bullshit and psycho ourselves into the wrong path of no-practice and
waste the invaluable insight of anatta. That said, there is the
passive mode of practice of choiceless awareness, but one should not
misunderstand it as the "default way" and such practice can hardly be
considered "mastery" of anything, much less liberation."
In 2013, John Tan remarked:
"Anapanasati is good.
After your insight [into anatta], master a form of technique that can bring you
to that the state of anatta without going through a thought process." and
on choiceless awareness Thusness further commented, "Nothing wrong with
choice. Only problem is choice + awareness. It is that subtle thought, the
thought that misapprehend (Soh: falsely imputes/fabricates) the additional
"agent"."
As for “choiceless
awareness,” John Tan further clarified:
“A state of freedom is
always a natural state, that is a state of mind free from self/Self. You should
familiarize yourself with the taste first. Like doing breathing meditation
until there is no-self and left with the inhaling and exhaling... then understand
what is meant by releasing.”
“True freedom always
abides in the natural state, free from bondage to self or Self. One should
first become familiar with that ‘flavor’: for instance, by concentrating on the
breath in meditation until no self is found, leaving only inhalation and exhalation…
then one understands what ‘letting go’ truly means.”
Original Text (Paragraph
27)
答：
我们的真如本性时刻展现在每一刻：佛性即“明”（灵明觉体）与“空”（性空无我）。其中，“明”指的是“心”，“空”指的是“性”。它虽灵明，却性空不可得。真如本性本自圆成，无所缺，所以也无需另外造作、修、改进。既然性本来如此，何须人造？但为什么我们从无始以来一直在生死烦恼之中？因为“无明”——不明本性与错误知见/我见，从而生起种种造作（造作=业力），使得生死烦恼不已。若真正证悟本性，便可于每一刻印证，自然无为，不再造作。
什么是“有为”？什么又是“造作”？只要有所求，就是造作；有执着即是造作；有我执也是造作；任何对立也是造作；想将所见与相分离还是造作。造作会变成一种“动力”，就像轮子在转——转得越快，惯性越大，忽然要停也不容易。既然无我是法印，一切法本无我，那么“造作”本身也本无我。如果真有个“我”和“我所”，那就能一想到“我不要造作”，造作就立刻停止，可事实并非如此。造作是因缘所生的法，一旦生起，动力印刻在第八识里，便会不断浮现。那个“想要控制造作”的念头也可能是“无明/业力的习性”产生的另一个造作/我执，认为有我可以控制或压制念头，但其实并不能解脱。第八识的特性如此：只要有造作、执着，便种下印痕。为什么听到马路声不会留下印痕，而喜欢的歌却会？正是由于执着，带来动力，形成一种习性。若我们不跟随它，不再加大这股动力，它就会渐渐失去力量，念头自然平息。好比坐在草地上会压出一个痕迹（比喻第八识的记印），但当我们离开，那痕迹会慢慢复原。
不过，这还没能解决“根本无明我执”——所以仍不能彻底解决造作根源的问题。根本我执来源于“造作习性”与第八识的无明种子。贪嗔痴之造作基于错误见解（能所对立）：自认为“我”能得到想要的（贪），或排斥不想要的（嗔），而不知“我”之外本无体（无明）。想要从根本上破除，就必须“见性”。用意志力强行破烦恼、我执并无用。
前面谈了“造作”，再说说“无为”与“自然”。证悟本性后会体会到“自然”。不过，这里的“自然”并不是“习以为常”的意思。平时人们常说“我早就习惯了，已经自然了”，或“本来不会骑车，学会之后就顺手自然”——这不一样。真正的“自然”是指：一切所见所闻、所有行为动作，都是佛性/觉性自然之妙用，皆是缘起法，并无我在主宰。因缘之下，自然生灭，来去自由。
什么是“无为”？道教/老子也讲无为，如“人法地、地法天、天法道、道法自然”等。佛教同样提倡无为，不过这里最好前面加一字，叫“为无为”。老子说：“为无为，事无事，味无味。”无为不是说我们什么都不做、像根木头；而是说我们每一个行为、每一个体验都在不立能所、不执着“我”的前提下自然而生。真正的无为是“洞悉本来无我，知道没有作者或所作，一切当下本性充分显露，毫无自我牵扯”。这才是真无为。我所说的“无心”不单是“没有分别善恶念头”，而是“无我”。（暂时的“忘我无心”不代表见性，唯有真正证悟法印之无我后，才会自然呈现“无心”。“体验”与“体悟”不同。）
唯有真正“无我”，方能“全性即修，全修即性，性修不二”。举例：若念佛时，全部本性仅仅展现在这一句“阿弥陀佛”的圣号当中，无作者、无所作、无内外，整个宇宙都仅仅展现在这“一念阿弥陀佛”中。日常生活中的走路、吃饭、做事，同样可以如此，这就能动静一如。无为并非消极，而是大自由。
若尚未见性，就会觉得“自然”“无为”遥不可及。很多人嚷着“我要放下，我要解脱”，却做不到。因为根本我执必须通过“悟”来破，需要启发智慧。唯有觉悟方能真正“看破、放下”。去除无明的方法并非“不要想就好”，就像有人怕房里有魔鬼，要解决办法不是叫他“别想魔鬼”，而是“把灯打开”，一看就知根本没有魔鬼，可见他的无明是没有依据的。
同理，若要破除对人我、法我之执，就得亲证“般若智慧”，真正觉悟“本来无我”，如同打开灯，一下就明白了。悟到空性后，大部分我执会逐渐淡薄，只是初悟还会有细微之惑，唯至佛位才彻底超越。通达人法二空时，一切念头、万法皆是清净觉知，且无体虚幻，本无生住灭、无方所可得，如梦幻泡影。缘起既生，缘灭则了，所念所见所闻所行，如水中作画，虽历历分明，却不留痕迹，毕竟空明。即便暂有“造作”之现象，也能自然解放，不必刻意“放下”，也无需对抗。
所以，虽我说“无为”“自然”，它更适合“悟后起修”。若一开始就喊“一切行自然”“本性具足不必修”“不要有为，一切随它生灭”，有人可能误以为那就是修行，结果反而成为“最懒惰的修行人”。解脱圣者是“念念寂灭、无为”，他若未悟，还以为自己在修“无为法”，实际上是一堆妄想不断。这种落差就在“我执”是否除去。若“我见”还在，一旦放松，又被习性牵着走。但当真正悟到“空明智，性相一如”，无为法对他就十分相合，且不必人教，他也能自然融入无为修行。有为法那种“有所造作”式的修行方法对他不再适合。
若尚未证悟，一些基础修行还是很重要。譬如每天打坐，培育定慧；在家人要尽量减少不必要的外攀缘，要珍惜人身短暂且难得的修行因缘；在日常保持觉照，多修定心、观照本来面目或反闻自性。修行须脚踏实地，一步一步来，不可急于“跳级”。不过，如果像我一样参究“我是谁”以及随之而来的探究，它是一条直达觉悟之路，那么你或许能更快、更直接地觉醒。近年来已有不少人因我所分享的法要而得证悟，绝非一例两例。
首先可以先体悟“觉性”（参见我第一篇文章），打坐时可参：“未生我以前的本来面目是什么？”或“念头未起时，谁在知？”不必用思考去回答，而要“反闻闻自性”，真证悟后才知道。课本答案都没用，唯有亲证“如人饮水，冷暖自知”。不断观修，终有一日忽然妄念不生，看到自性遍满一切，本觉即是“我之存在本身”，不再疑惑。接着，再继续观修以破能所见，更进一步看破人我见，可依《婆酰迦经》。此时会领悟《楞严经》里所说“吾人五阴就是佛性”(“阿难！汝犹未明一切浮尘诸幻化相当处出生、随处灭尽、幻妄称相，其性真为妙觉明体；如是乃至五阴六入，从十二处至十八界，因缘和合，虚妄有生；因缘别离，虚妄名灭；殊不能知生灭去来本如来藏常住妙明、不动周圆妙真如性；性真常中，求于去来迷悟死生，了无所得。”)，迷时为幻相、悟时为真心，性相一如。再来观修破除法我见。
（更新：Soh指出，John
Tan此前写道：“大乘佛教中的‘常’意味着不存在生灭的因，而非所谓的‘不变与真实’。”, ““常”并非指有个东西保持不变，而是指没有生之因。”）
如果对无我的体悟已够深，则不仅仅专注于静坐，但是静坐还是重要的。此时“修”更多是在日常中去印证——无论行走、说话、看电视、做事，都要完全敞开，完全融入当下的行为，就如我说的“没有作者与所作，一切本性全然展现在此刻行为或体验中”，完全没有一个“我”。未悟时也得面对人事物，悟后也得面对人事物，区别在于：若有智慧，整个宇宙在面对，而非“我”在面对。与他人交谈时，并无“我”与“别人”，而是一整个行动，没有我相、人相、众生相、寿者相。这时也应多修慈悲喜舍，把自己了解的佛法分享给别人，这样才能福慧双修。当然，还需维持打坐，因为打坐仍是很有益处的；连佛陀悟后也日日静坐，我也尽量抽空打坐。
更新：
为了更明确地说明在见到实相以后，修行和禅修依然需要持续进行，以下是一些相关的摘录。
John
Tan多年前曾说：
“在这个见地（见无我）之后，务必要对‘无我’之道与修行之路了然。许多人错误地认为，由于无我，所以无需做任何事、也无需修行——但这正是用‘自我观点’来理解‘无我’，即使已经获得了见地仍然如此。
并非因为没有自我，就什么都不用练习；而是因为没有自我，才显现出‘只有无明’与‘烦恼链锁’的活动。修行因此是为了对治无明以及这些带来苦恼的连串活动。虽无主体，但仍有“注意”可运用。因此，修行离不开智慧、观（毗婆舍那）、正念与定力。如果对这些修持无法娴熟，就不可能解脱。所以不要自欺欺人、给自己心理暗示，走上‘不修行’的错误道路，而白白浪费了无我这一珍贵的见地。
当然，也存在一种‘被动模式’的修行方式——无抉择的觉知（choiceless awareness），但不应将之误解为默认途径。这种方式很难算得上对任何技能的‘娴熟掌握’，更遑论究竟解脱了。”
2013年时，John Tan提到：
“安般念（Anapanasati，观息法）很好。在你对无我有了洞见之后，要掌握一种方法，能在不经过繁琐思考的情况下，让你进入无我的状态。”
至于“无抉择的觉知”，John Tan还补充道：
“选择本身没有问题。唯一的问题在于‘选择 + 觉知’。正是那一点微细的念头——误以为有一个额外‘主体’（Soh 注：也即错误地添加或虚构出一个‘主体/施为者’）。”
“真正的自由状态始终是自然的状态，也就是不再被自我/大我束缚的心境。你先要熟悉那种‘味道’：比如，通过专注呼吸的禅修练习，直到不见自我，只剩下吸气和呼气……然后你就能理解‘放下’究竟意味着什么。”
English Translation (Paragraph
1)
No‑Self (Anatta) Email (Chinese Version)
Soh
I have discovered that this is an article I wrote ten years ago.
Original Text (Paragraph 1)
无我（Anatta）邮件（中文版）
Soh
我发现这是我十年前写下的文章。
English Translation (Paragraph
2)
Reply to XX
XX,
Thank you for your reminder. In what I wrote to YY, I mainly wanted to convey
the importance of “correct view.” Only by establishing correct view can one
break through all deluded views and attachments to marks of dharma/phenomena, so if we truly
want to achieve “signlessness” (no forms, no phenomena to cling to), we must
depend on correct view.
When I wrote the first
article (June 2010), I really did still have some “attachment to the mark of dharma/phenomena of emptiness.” Yet as I continued to relinquish my attachment to mark of dharma/phenomena, no
longer deliberately affirming any “empty‑space mark of dharma/phenomena,” I gradually realized that
the nature of awareness (覺性) will act in accord with
conditions and respond to all objects. Since I was not deliberately “affirming”
any “empty‑space mark of dharma/phenomena,” in everyday life I simply maintained a sort of
natural, “non‑doing, non‑fabricating” (無為無作)
awareness and knowing.
However, it was not until
October 2010, when I truly awakened to the “Dharma seal of no‑self,” that I
completely eradicated the confusion, deluded view, and attachment concerning a
“self‑essence.”
In the past, precisely because I
clung to a “self‑essence”—even mistaking the “essence of awareness” (覺體) for a “self‑essence”—there arose these so‑called
attachments to “empty‑space sign” or to “inside/outside and subject/object.”
All of these remain within the scope of “self‑view.” In other words:
- Taking one’s personal body–mind as “I” is a
kind of “self‑view.”
- Taking something like “empty, spacious
awareness” to be one’s “self‑essence” is also “self‑view.”
- Taking an “undivided/nondual, boundaryless
awareness” as an eternal, unchanging “I” is likewise “self‑view.”
But ever since awakening to
“originally no self,” such confusion and attachment naturally vanished. No
longer do I regard the “essence of awareness” as an “empty‑space self‑essence,”
nor do I see any inside/outside, subject/object, or essence/function
distinction. Although awareness pervades all things, there is no “I.” Once one
realizes “originally no self,” one no longer treats “awareness” as a “self‑essence,”
nor falls into “a pure, undefiled empty‑space mark of dharma/phenomena,” and certainly does not
“affirm” some self‑essence (even an empty‑space self‑essence), nor try to “hold
on to” any self‑essence or marks of dharma/phenomena.
Because after awakening, one
sees clearly that there are no “three spheres” (the observer, the act of
observing, and the observed). In other words, there is no “formless, empty‑space
essence of awareness” that is “looking at” some “scene/thought/sound within empty
space.” When seeing scenery, there is only the appearance of the scenery—and
that is precisely the aware knowingness/Buddha‑nature. One no
longer deliberately abides in the “formless, empty‑space essence of awareness” as a mark of dharma/phenomena.
Since there is no subject–object, even the farthest mountain is none other than
self‑awareness / pure, clear awareness, with not even a hint of inside/outside
or distance. Therefore, mountains, rivers, and the great earth are entirely the
Dharma‑body (法身). Awareness is not restricted
to an “empty‑space mark of dharma/phenomena”; awareness is not “an intangible empty‑space mark of dharma/phenomena,”
but rather a total emptiness of nature, without any substantial entity. Now in
daily life, when looking at something or doing something, it is simply a
natural “knowing”—no self, and no “empty‑space mark of dharma/phenomena”—a very natural “awareness knows, emptiness liberates knowing,” free from contrivance.
In short, all marks of dharma/phenomena (法相) fall under the category of “self‑view / wrong
view,” which is why, from my perspective, “correct view” is extremely
important. Once one awakens to “the twofold emptiness” and eliminates all
deluded views and attachments, one transcends every marks of dharma/phenomena.
Original Text (Paragraph 2)
给 XX 的回复
XX，
谢谢你的提醒。我在写给 YY 的内容里，主要想表达的是“正见”的重要性。因为唯有建立正见，才能突破对一切法相的妄见和妄执，所以若想真正做到“无相”，就必须依靠正见。
我在写下**第一篇文章（2010年6月）**时，的确还存在“执着于虚空法相”的现象。不过，随着不断舍弃对法相的执着，不再刻意去肯定一个“虚空相”，渐渐地体会到：觉性会随缘而行、随物而应。由于不特意去“肯定”某种“虚空相”，日常生活中便只是保持一种“无为无作”的自然觉照和觉知。
然而，直到2010年10月真正觉悟到“法印之无我”，才彻底断除了对“我体”的迷惑、妄见和妄执。
以前正是因为执着一个“我体”，甚至把“觉体”误认为“我体”，才会出现所谓“虚空相”或“内外、能所”等执着。这些都离不开“我见”的范畴。也就是说：
- 将个人身心执为我，是一种“我见”；
- 将如虚空的“觉”执为“我体”，也是“我见”；
- 将一个“不分内外”的觉体当作永恒不变的“我”，同样是“我见”。
但自从觉悟到“本来无我”之后，这种迷惑与执着便自然消失，不会再把“觉体”视为“虚空相的我体”，也不会见到有内外、能所、体用之分。觉性虽然遍满一切，却并无“我”。若觉悟到“本无我”，就不再把“觉”当成“我体”，也就不会掉入所谓“清净无染的虚空法相”，更不会去“肯定”某个我体（乃至虚空相的我体），也不会想要“守住”某个我体或法相。
因为在觉悟后，看得很清楚：并没有“三者”（观者、在观、所观）。换句话说，没有一个“如虚空般的无形觉体”在“看着”某个“虚空内的景色/念头/声音”等等。当看到景色时，就只有景色的显现——而这便是觉性的觉知/佛性，再也不会刻意守住“无形如虚空的觉体”这一法相。由于无能所，连最遥远的山都只是自觉/清净觉知而已，完全没有内外或距离之分。所以山河大地尽是法身；觉性并不限于“虚空相”，觉也不是“无形相的虚空相”，而是彻底的性空、无体可得。如今在日常生活中，看东西、做事情，仅仅是自然的“知”——无我，也无“虚空法相”，很自然地就是“觉性觉知、空性了知”，不假造作。
总而言之，一切法相都属于“我见/邪见”范畴，因此在我的体会里，“正见”极其重要。一旦觉悟了“二空”并破除了所有妄见妄执，就能超越一切法相。
English Translation (Paragraph
3)
Reply to YY
YY,
I basically agree with what you said. But “a state in which you are not bound
by anything yet still remain aware” is not what I refer to as “the Dharma seal
of no‑self” or “awakening to correct view.” Here, “awakening to originally no
self” means “awakening” plus “eradicating mistaken views and confusion,” not
just experiencing “no longer being tied down by anything, yet awareness
remains.”
Indeed, you might discover that
what used to “bind you” was all your own illusion, never real, hence you
suddenly feel free, releasing the “burden” born of “ego delusions.” That
experience is certainly significant, but it is not what I call “eliminating self‑view,”
nor is it the “originally no self / the Dharma seal of no‑self” in the sense I
mean. Regarding your statement about “being willing to sacrifice for the Dharma
center and for sentient beings,” that is a grand aspiration, but such
aspiration or vow is not necessarily what Buddhism specifically
advocates—anyone can hold such aspirations, including non‑Buddhists. Mahayana
Buddhism does indeed emphasize “vows,” but having a vow does not automatically
mean one is a Bodhisattva or truly understands the Buddhadharma. A non‑Buddhist
can also have the spirit of selfless dedication, having never encountered
Buddhism or its teachings. These qualities—doing things thoroughly, caring for
others—are virtues anyone should learn. Even my father, who does not know much
about Buddhist teachings, is very thorough and considerate in his actions, and
I often learn from him. This basic foundation in life, though valuable, does
not imply one comprehends the Buddhadharma or has reached “freedom from
hindrance in both principle and phenomena.”
You mentioned “although the
Small Vehicle practitioner can achieve no‑self (dwelling in the essence of
awareness, unimpeded in principle).” But in my own understanding and personal
realization, the no‑self realized in the Small Vehicle is not merely “seeing
and dwelling in the essence of awareness.” Simply “seeing the essence of
awareness” does not mean one has entirely awakened to “the emptiness of self.” For example, back in my first article, though I had already
witnessed the “essence of awareness” and experienced “not being bound by
anything while still aware,” I later practiced the Bahiya Sutta and
suddenly realized “the emptiness of the self,” thereby fully severing
self‑view. Bahiya (婆酰迦) attained Arhatship immediately
from a single statement by the Buddha, so I believe that the core of the Small
Vehicle’s realization is “realizing the emptiness of the self.”
At that point, even the analogy
of “mirror and reflection” is unnecessary, because there is no “reflector /
reflected.” Everything is simply the bright, distinctly aware knowingness—yet not
“some bright, distinct self‑essence doing the reflecting.” Later, I had deeper
insights into “the empty nature of all phenomena through dependent arising,
like illusions or bubbles.” This is “the twofold emptiness revealing true
suchness,” exactly as the Buddha mentions in the Kalaka Sutta:
“Bhikkhus, when the Tathāgata
sees, he does not posit a ‘thing being seen.’ He does not posit ‘something
unseen.’ He does not posit ‘something not yet seen.’ He does not posit ‘a
seer’… The same for hearing, touching, thinking. Therefore, Bhikkhus, for all
things that can be seen, heard, touched, or thought, for the Tathāgata, it is
only ‘thus.’ I tell you, there is no ‘thus’ higher or nobler than this.”
This “not positing” is not as
simple as “just don’t think about it,” but means realizing the truth of the
emptiness of both selves and dharmas. Because one no longer holds deluded
views, true suchness naturally manifests. In the Chan tradition, there is a
similar expression:
Xuefeng said, “To grasp this
matter is like an ancient mirror—if a Hu (barbarian) comes, it reflects a Hu;
if a Han comes, it reflects a Han.”
Xuansha then asked, “But if the mirror is broken, what then?” Xuefeng replied,
“Both Hu and Han disappear.”
Xuansha remarked, “Old Master, your feet have not yet touched the ground!”
Jiandai responded, “Hu and Han appear just as they are.”
So in my personal experience,
even after “seeing the essence of awareness,” one must go further to realize
“awareness.” Moreover, one must see that the idea of “essence/root source” or
“one unified essence” is only our “habitual view.” Only by breaking through
such habitual views and obstacles can one further realize “no‑self.” If we keep
viewing “awareness” through a habitual lens, we cannot overcome the “attachment
to phenomena / self‑view” that could form around “awareness” itself. That
hinders us from truly understanding what “awareness” really is. Venerable Sheng
Kai’s statement “like a wild goose flying across the vast sky, or a sword
slicing water that leaves no trace” is extremely important. But “not clinging”
can be understood on various levels. To truly reach “no trace at all,” one must
eradicate all self‑view and self‑attachment, including attachment to or self‑view
about “awareness.” Then “awareness knows, emptiness liberates knowing” can
genuinely be integrated. Otherwise, when one takes up “one essence, root
source, mirror” as some “mark of self or phenomenon/dharma,” that is still attachment and
leaves traces.
Once one has thoroughly broken
such self‑view and self‑attachment and applies that correct view and correct
awakening to daily life, spontaneously one can experience “like a wild goose
flying in the open sky, or a blade slicing water with no mark” in one’s
walking, standing, sitting, lying down, and everyday activities.
I have also emphasized that “no‑self”
is not a “pure state” but rather a Dharma seal indicating that all phenomena
have “originally been this way,” so it is fundamentally not some “state or
realm” or something called “purity.” If one truly realizes the “Dharma seal of
no‑self,” it is not about maintaining a “state of purity”; it is a reality one
can witness and confirm in each moment—whether dealing with people, busy at
work, or quietly meditating, with or without thoughts, it remains the same
truth. When hearing sound, there is originally only the pure awareness of the
sound, no hearer; when seeing a scene, thinking, or doing something, all is
conditioned phenomena—no “knower, observer, thinker, or doer.” Originally,
there is no self, no subject–object, no inside–outside, and yet right in the
moment there is “pure awareness.”
It is like saying “there is no
Santa Claus in the world” or “there are no flowers in the sky.” These are
objective truths (though someone may deludedly see flowers in the sky or
believe in Santa). If a person tries to “maintain some ‘pure state where there
is no Santa Claus,’” that proves he has not understood that it is an actual
fact—there is no “special pure realm” to abide in. Both “Santa Claus” and “a
pure realm where Santa does not exist” are illusions! Because from the start,
there is no “Santa Claus”—why create a “realm with no Santa Claus” to keep?
The same goes for “no‑self”: if
one truly awakens to this truth, one does not face any obstruction between
principle and phenomena; principle is phenomena, and phenomena are principle.
One does not look beyond phenomena for a separate “pure realm of no‑self.” All
dharmas are empty; form is emptiness, emptiness is form, form does not differ
from emptiness, emptiness does not differ from form. There is not an emptiness
apart from phenomena, nor is there a Buddha‑nature outside phenomena. Essence
and appearance are one and the same. As I mentioned in my second article, if we
depart from “appearances” or “function,” there is no so‑called “Buddha‑nature.”
Only then can principle and phenomena be perfectly merged, free of hindrance.
If the truth of “the emptiness of selves and dharmas” were wholly separate
from everyday realities, practice would not help in any way.
As of now, because I have less
“I” and “mine” attachment, and since everything (and every phenomenon) is empty
in nature and impermanent, like illusions or dreams, it is easier for me to let
go of both “good and bad” or “gain and loss.” I face people and situations with
more calmness and joy, no longer clinging to “I” or “gain/loss.” Any activity I
do is “acting according to conditions, then letting go according to
conditions.” I, myself, am still learning, and can only share my limited
experience. Hence, “awaken to no‑self” does not mean holding on to some
extramundane state so as “not to be bound.” It means that in each moment of
worldly life, one can be liberated. This is “correct view” with no duality of
principle and phenomena, but “principle and phenomena not two” (所謂“理事不二”). Ordinary people become
deluded or remain undeluded in phenomena because of whether or not they have
correct view. If one can apply correct view in walking, standing, sitting,
lying down, and dealing with others, that is like “wild geese flying across the
sky” or “a knife slicing water without leaving a mark.”
Original Text (Paragraph 3)
给 YY 的回复
YY，
你所说的，我大致认同。但“没有被任何东西束缚、却依然存在觉知的状态”，并不是我所说的“法印之无我”或“觉悟正见”。这里所说的“觉悟本来无我”，指的是“觉悟”并“断除错误知见与迷惑”，而不是仅仅体会到“没有被东西绑住却还有觉知”的某种体验。
确实，你可能觉察到原来那些“绑住你”的东西都只是自己幻想出来、本就不实在的，所以顿时感到解放，解除因“自我妄想”而生的“累”。这种体会固然重要，但这并不是我所说的“断除我见”，也不是“本无我/法印之无我”的“觉悟”。至于你说的“愿意为道场和众生牺牲”，那是一种很大的理想与愿望，这种愿力未必就代表一定是佛教所提倡——任何人都可以有这种发心，包括非佛教徒。大乘固然注重“愿力”，但有愿不等于已经是菩萨或真正懂佛法；非佛教徒一样可能有牺牲奉献的精神，却从未接触过佛教或佛法。这些做事周到、为他人着想的品质，是每个人都应该学习的；即便我父亲不懂很多佛法，但他也做事非常周到，我也常向他学习。这种人生基础固然重要，却不代表已经明白佛法或达到“理事无碍”。
你提到“小乘者虽能无我相（住于觉体，理上无碍）”，但在我的理解和亲身领会里，小乘所证的无我相不只是“见到并住于觉体”。仅仅“见到觉体”并不代表完全觉悟“人我空”。就像我在第一篇文章里，虽已见证“觉体”，也体会过“没有被任何东西束缚却仍有觉知”，但后来我依《Bahiya Sutta》观行，才忽然证悟“人我空”，从而彻底断除“我见”。婆酰迦（Bahiya）因佛陀当时的一句开示当下证得阿罗汉果，所以我认为小乘的体悟核心就是“证悟人我空”。
这时，连“镜子与影子”的比喻都不必使用了，因为已不存在“照者/所照”——一切就是了了分明的觉性觉知，而并不是某个“了了分明的我体”在照物。后来我对“万法缘起性空、如梦幻泡影”的真理又有更深的体悟。所谓“二空显真如”，正如佛陀在《Kalaka Sutta》（迦罗迦经）中提到的：
「比丘，如来在看时，不立有一个‘所看之物’，不立一个‘不被看到的东西’，也不立‘尚未看的东西’，不立‘观者’……在听时、在触时、在思时也是如此。因此，比丘，如来对于所有可见、可闻、可触、可思的现象，都只是‘如’。我告诉你：并没有任何‘如’比这更高或更崇高。」
这个“不立”，并不是“不要去想”那么简单，而是要证悟人法二空的真理，由于不再妄见，所以真如自然显现。禅宗公案里也有类似表述：
雪峰说：“要会得此事，如同古镜——胡来胡现，汉来汉现。”
玄沙听后问：“倘若镜子破了又如何？”雪峰回答：“胡汉俱隐。”
玄沙说：“老和尚的脚跟还没点地呀！”
健代回应：“胡汉现成。”
所以，就我个人经验看，“见到觉体”之后，还需进一步体悟“觉”。并了悟“体、根源”/“一体”其实只是我们的“习见”。唯有破除“体、根源”这类习见障碍，才能更进一步明白“无我”。因为如果我们一直以习见来看待“觉”，就无法突破对“觉”本身可能产生的“法相/我执”。这也就无法真正了解“觉”的真面目。圣开师父所说的“如鸿飞空空无际，似刀割水水无痕”十分重要，可是“不执着”也分不同层次；要想真正做到“一点痕迹都不留”，就得破除一切我见、我执，包括对“觉”的执着与我见。这样才能让“觉性觉知、空性了知”真正落到实处。否则哪怕把“一体、根源、镜子”都视为某种“我相/法相”，依旧是执着，还会留下痕迹。
当彻底破了这种我见与我执，再将所证得的正见正觉运用于日常，就自然而然能在行住坐卧中体会到“如鸿飞空空无际，似刀割水水无痕”。
我也强调过：“无我”并非是一种“清净状态”，而是“诸法本来如此”的法印，根本不是某个“状态、境界”或“清净”的东西。若体悟到“法印之无我”，那并不是要你维持住什么“清净境界”，而是在每时每刻、行住坐卧中都能体会并印证的真理。无论是待人处事、忙碌之中或静坐时，无论有没有念头，都同样是真理。听声音时，本来就只有声音的“清净觉知”，没有听者；看到景色、思想、做事时，全是缘起法——并无“觉者、观者、思想者、作者”。本来无我，无能所、无内外，而当下也都只是清净觉知。
就好比“世界上没有圣诞老人”或“天空里没有花”是客观真理（只是有人会妄见天空花、或迷信圣诞老人）。如果有人还想努力“保持一个‘没有圣诞老人的清净状态’”，就说明他没明白那是真理——因为哪里会有一个“特别的清净境界”可守？“圣诞老人”和“没有圣诞老人的清净境界”都只是妄想！本来就没有“圣诞老人”，何需另设“没有圣诞老人的境界”呢？“无我”也是如此：若真证悟到这个真理，就不会在“理”和“事”上有障碍；理即事，事即理。不存在于事外另求“清净的无我之境”。万法皆空、色即是空，空即是色，色不异空，空不异色；并不是在事物之外另有“空”，也不是在人事物之外另有“佛性”。性相本一如，正如我在第二篇文章里提过：如果离开“相”或“用”，就无所谓“佛性”。所以才能真正做到理事圆融、无有障碍。如果“人法二空”之理与现实事物是两个截然不同的东西，那修来也无济于事。
如今，因为我对“我和我所”的执着减少了；毕竟本来就无我，万事万物又皆空性、无常性，宛如梦幻泡影，所以对待善恶、得失都能看得淡些。面对人事物时，也较为平静欢喜，不再执着于“我”或“得失”。做任何事皆是“随缘而作，随缘了”。我自己也在不断学习，只能将我有限的经验拿来分享。所以“觉悟无我”并非要保持某种出世间境界才“不被束缚”，而是在世间的每一个当下都能解脱。这就叫“正见”没有理事的障碍，而是“理事不二”（所谓“理不离事，事不离理”）。众生在事相中迷或不迷，关键在于有没有正见。若能在行住坐卧或为人处世中，将正见落到实处，就可以如“鸿飞空空”“刀割水无痕”。
English Translation (Paragraph
4)
Postscript (p.s.)
“I want to add one more thing:
we need not only ‘correct view,’ but also to personally realize and awaken to
it. ‘No‑self’ and ‘emptiness’ as Dharma seals are not abstract concepts; they
are truths that can be experienced and actualized in each moment. Once seen, they become one’s natural state, requiring no effort, without
entering or exiting.”
Original Text (Paragraph 4)
附言（p.s.）
“我想再补充一点：不仅要有‘正见’，还要亲证、证悟正见。‘无我’与‘空’作为法印，并不只是抽象观念；它们是能够‘活生生地被体验、被落实在每个当下’的真理。一旦‘见’到，就会成为自然状态，无费力也无出入。”
English Translation (Paragraph 1)
Chinese Translation:
「2011年，Soh 曾写信给另一位修行者：」
Original Text (Paragraph 1):
Soh wrote to someone else in 2011:
English Translation (Paragraph 2)
Chinese Translation:
「洞见不错。经验的稳定性，与洞见的展开与深化之间，确实存在可预测的关联。试想：如果在我们意识的深处，仍然有些微的二元观、实体观以及惯性不断浮现并影响我们每个当下的体验——例如在心中编造出一个不变的根源或心体，使我们反复地往后退回、并将所有经验都往某个『源头』上去归依——那么，不二体验能有多么无缝且不费力呢？」
Original Text (Paragraph 2):
“Good insight. Stability of experience has a predictable relationship with the unfolding and deepening of insights. For example how seamless and effortless can non-dual experience be, if in the back of one's mind, subtle views of duality and inherency and tendencies continue to surface and affect our moment to moment experience - for example conjuring an unchanging source or mind that results in a perpetual tendency to sink back and referencing experience back to a source.
English Translation (Paragraph 3)
Chinese Translation:
「举例来说，即便已看见一切都是心或觉知的显现，仍可能在细微处，习惯性地回归到某个『源头』、『觉体』或『心体』，因此并未充分领会变动与无常。不二虽已体验，但又退回到实体化的不二：总是回到某个基底，一个与万法不离不弃的『觉体』。」
Original Text (Paragraph 3):
For example even after it is seen that everything is a manifestation of awareness or mind, there might still be subtle tendencies to reference back to a source, awareness or mind and therefore the transience is not appreciated in full. Nondual is experienced but one sinks back into substantial nonduality - there is always a referencing back to a base, an "awareness" that is nevertheless inseparable from all phenomena.
English Translation (Paragraph 4)
Chinese Translation:
「若人顿悟到：我们所想的那个『不变的源头』、『觉体』或『心体』，其实也只是另一个念头而已——事实上，就是念头接著念头、所见接著所见、所闻接著所闻，并没有一个固有或不变的『觉体』、『心体』或『源头』。当真正明白『觉』『心』『见』『听』其实都只是『所见、所闻、无常流变本身』时，不二就会自然而然、毫不费力地显现。因为这『无常』本身运行且知觉，不再能找到任何『知者』或其他『觉知』。就像没有脱离『流动』的河，没有脱离『吹拂』的风，每个名词都暗含它的动词……同理，觉知不过是『知』的过程，与所知不分彼此。风景在『看』，音乐在『听』。由于除了这无常流变外，并没有任何不变、独立、终极的东西，所以不再退回什么源头，而是安然全然地安住于这『流变』之中。」
Original Text (Paragraph 4):
If one arises the insight that our ideas of an unchanging source, awareness or mind is just another thought - that there is simply thought after thought, sight after sight, sound after sound, and there isn't an inherent or unchanging "awareness", "mind", "source". Non-dual becomes implicit and effortless when there is the realisation that what awareness, mind, seeing, hearing really is, is just the seen... The heard... The transience... The transience itself rolls and knows, no knower or other "awareness" can be found. Like there is no river apart from flowing, no wind apart from blowing, each noun implies its verb... Similarly awareness is simply the process of knowing not separated from the known. Scenery sees, music hears. Because there is nothing unchanging, independent, ultimate apart from the transience, there is no more sinking back to a source and instead there is full comfort resting as the transience itself.
English Translation (Paragraph 5)
Chinese Translation:
「最后，请持续练习那种强烈的光明度……例如，凝视网球时，就彻底去感知那颗网球……不必去想什么源头、背景、观察者或自我。只有那颗网球，如同光般鲜明而明亮。呼吸时……就只有呼吸本身……看见风景时，就只有形色、光影——强烈而鲜活，却没有任何能观之主体。听音乐的时候……或听到鸟鸣、蝉声……就只是那声音——啾啾。某位禅师在他悟道时曾说：『当我在听钟声时，没有我，也没有钟……只有钟响。』这就是直接体验『无心』以及强烈光明度的感觉……而这正是佛陀在教导的四念处之核心意义。」
Original Text (Paragraph 5):
Lastly do continue practicing the intensity of luminosity... When looking at tennis ball just sense the tennis ball fully.... Without thinking of a source, background, observer, self. Just the tennis ball as a luminous light. When breathing... Just the breathe... When seeing scenery, just sights, shapes and colours - intensely luminous and vivid without an agent or observer. When hearing music... Sound of bird chirping, the crickets… Just that - chirp chirp. A zen master noted upon his awakening... When I am hearing the bell ringing, there is no I and no bell... Just the ringing. The direct experiencing of no-mind and intensity of luminosity.. This is the purpose of the practice of the four foundations of mindfulness that is taught by the Buddha.” - Soh, 2011
Footnotes/Annotations (if any):
(None)
Bibliographic References or Acknowledgments
- Quotations from the Diamond
Sūtra, Śūraṃgama Sūtra, Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, Awakening
of Faith in the Mahayana, and references to Zen masters Mazu, Dongshan,
Dōgen, Sixth Patriarch Huineng, etc., come from commonly known Buddhist
canon and Zen records.
请参阅我的善知识John Tan的文章：
Posts
.jpg)
.jpg)
