2.To see the buddha, you must see your nature, do notfall into “blank emptiness”

If you see your nature, you are a buddha; if you do not see your nature, you are a mortal. 

If the true nature of mind is realized, all living beings become buddhas; if it cannot be realized, they still appear as living beings, even though they are buddhas in essence. Simply put, the enlightened is the buddha, and the deluded is the living being. The difference between living beings and the buddha lies in this and nothing else.

For those who are not yet enlightened, concepts such as "seeing one's nature is the buddha" and "afflictions are bodhi" are too profound, and sometimes difficult to believe and accept; but for those who have some realization, they are quite natural. As previously mentioned, in the moment we become enlightened, we can roughly understand what the state of the buddha is like, what the state of clarity that is mentioned in the sutras really means, how the buddha spontaneously undertakes the deliverance of sentient beings, and so on. When we are still at the intellectual stage of listening and contemplating the Dharma, it is indeed difficult to apprehend what these statements truly mean.

This is not the case with emptiness, which is relatively easy to understand. The Buddha said that all things are like an illusion, like a dream. This can be established through the methods of reasoning in Madhyamaka. But buddha nature is a little different. It is not only emptiness, but also clarity or luminosity. What exactly is clarity? Unless you have some level of realization, clarity is just clarity, no matter how many words you use to explain it. To fully understand its meaning, you must attain enlightenment; only then will it become clear.

We have heard the word "enlightenment" countless times. Specifically, enlightenment is understanding the nature of one's own mind directly. What does "directly" mean? First, it is not to infer through logic, let alone speculate; second, it is not to listen to others, but to experience it ourselves. If you believe the nature of mind is emptiness and clarity solely because the Buddha, Nagarjuna, Bodhidharma, or your root guru said so, this is not enlightenment. Although that is indeed what they said, the ultimate confirmation must come from yourself. If you lack personal experience and rely entirely on the words of the Buddha and your teacher, you are still left with nothing in the end. Regardless of how well the ideas are conveyed or how deep and broad the understanding is, in fact it remains at the level of words and does not qualify as enlightenment.

In Chan Buddhism, there is also a saying: " A person drinking water knows whether it is cold or warm." If you take a sip of water and know its temperature, do you still need to prove it is cold or warm? No, it is not necessary. Do you still need to say "Why is this water warm? Because so-and-so said it is warm water"? No, it is not necessary, because you have already experienced it. This experience is called enlightenment.

To understand this, let us examine the spiritual and material aspects of a human being. The material side is mainly composed of thousands of cells. Do we know which cell among these is “I”? No cell can possibly be “I.” We cannot find a so-called “self ” that exists in any of these cells. This is explained very clearly in Buddhism.

What about the spiritual side? Although we have many emotions every day, emotions are only the surface phenomena of the mind, not its essence. For example, a table that we can see with our eyes and touch with our hands is merely its surface, not its true nature (essence). Likewise, the emotions we feel, such as happiness at one moment and sadness at another, are not their true nature. We need to get past the layers of emotion to the deepest level to see its essence. When we discover or feel this essence very clearly, it is called enlightenment.

Therefore, when we feel intense anger, we can pause and look at the nature of this anger. What exactly is anger? All our lives, we have never seriously reflected on this question, nor have we felt there is a need to think about it. However, it is imperative to do so now. Once we understand it and see its essence, this anger transforms into the wisdom of the buddha.

Although the word "transformation" is used, it is in fact not accurate, because the essence of anger is basically the wisdom of the buddha. It is just that in the past we only saw its appearance and never understood its essence. Once we realize there is more to anger than meets the eye, we penetrate the surface and proceed to see its true face.

Buddhist scriptures often talk about "eliminating defilements" or "transforming defilements" for ease of understanding. If more precise and direct terminology were used initially, it would confuse people, so words such as "change" and "transformation" were used instead. In fact, it is neither transformation nor elimination of defilements but seeing their true nature.

When we see the nature of anger, we realize that its essence is very different from its appearance. On the surface, anger can cause us a lot of pain, even to the point of cursing, hitting, and killing others. However, once we see its true nature, the negative power of anger immediately disappears and another kind of power takes over.

What is the other force? It is a very positive force. Tantra makes it very clear that certain functions of the consciousness are always at work, whether as a person or a buddha. However, how these functions are applied – whether to harmful or beneficial ends – depends on the individual's state of mind. Before enlightenment or any realization, we create karma because of it; after enlightenment, we use it to benefit sentient beings.

Take desire, for example. As ordinary beings, we suffer when our desires cannot be satisfied; to fulfil our selfish desires, we deceive, steal, and so forth. After desire is transformed and purified, its essence is in fact a power of acceptance and accommodation. Without this function, the buddha cannot embrace and save sentient beings. As ordinary people, we accept only those people and things that we like. When we become a buddha, this same function is used to accept and free all sentient beings.

Similarly, when we are ordinary people, arrogance, jealousy, and other feelings of rejection or exclusion are negative. After becoming a buddha, the buddha's wisdom also has the power to exclude; it is a power to automatically eradicate the afflictions that harm and do not benefit sentient beings.

In short, the five mental functions are always present whether it is now and after becoming a buddha. In ordinary beings, they are called the five poisons; in buddhas, they are called the five wisdoms. This transformation is a process of continuous dedication and effort. In Buddhism, it is called practice. In a word, if you are enlightened, all problems are resolved; if you are confused, all problems arise. Hence, this treatise repeatedly emphasizes the principle "seeing one's nature is the buddha." Once you see your nature, nothing more is needed.

These principles are explicated brilliantly. Although the content is somewhat repetitive, important things need to be repeated. This is intentional. If they are said over and over, everyone will remember them. However, since this discussion focuses exclusively on this from beginning to end, there is no need to explain every line the same way. Tantric teachings like Dzogchen or the Guhyagarbha Tantra also espouse the same content, but the depth and level of detail are to some extent different. You will know it when you study these in the future.

If you can obtain your buddha nature outside your mortal nature, where is it? 

If sentient beings leave behind the true nature of their mind, there will be no buddha nature to be obtained. If we always think that the buddha is outside, that there is an external buddha, then where is it?

Many people will say that there is Amitabha Buddha in the Western Paradise, and there are many different buddhas in other lands, and so on. But we can be certain Bodhidharma would tell us that these are images of the buddha, not the real buddha. The difference between the two is like a real person and a photo of him. Are not Amitabha Buddha and Sakyamuni Buddha just like human beings in having an appearance? The Diamond Sutra makes it very clear that anything we can see and express in words is not the real buddha.

If Amitabha and Sakyamuni Buddha are not buddhas, then what is a buddha? The dharmakaya is the real buddha. Where is the dharmakaya? If you are looking for a dharmakaya’s pure land outside, you will not find it, because the dharmakaya is in your mind, and the nature of your mind is the buddha.

To elucidate this principle, Bodhidharma asked repeatedly, “If you think the buddha is outside, where is the buddha”?

Our mortal nature is our buddha nature. There is no buddha outside of this nature, the buddha is our nature. Apart from this nature there is no buddha, and apart from the buddha there is no nature.

Our mortal nature is our buddha nature. The nature of all living beings is buddha nature.

There is no buddha outside of this nature, the buddha is our nature. Buddha nature is also the nature of our mind.

Apart from this nature there is no buddha, and apart from the buddha there is no nature. The logic is the same.

Question: If I do not see my nature, can I still attain enlightenment by invoking the buddhas, reciting sutras, making offerings, observing precepts, practicing diligence, and doing good deeds? Answer: No. 

What follows is a Q&A.

Question: If I do not see my nature, can I still attain enlightenment by invoking the buddhas, reciting sutras, making offerings, observing precepts, practicing diligence, and doing good deeds? If you cannot see the nature of mind, can you still become a buddha by practicing good deeds such as working as a volunteer, building roads and bridges, etc.? Answer: No. You cannot.

Why not? Answer : If there is anything to be attained, it is conditioned dharma, it is cause and effect, it is retribution, it is samsara. So long as you are subject to birth and death, you will never attain enlightenment.

Why not? Why can't we achieve buddhahood?

Answer: If there is anything to be attained, it is conditioned dharma. The word "dharma" refers to all things; "attain" refers to the attachment in our mind to things. For instance, if there is a thought of upholding the precepts, this thought is an attachment, a delusion. It means that even if you are attached to something as small as a mote of dust, it is not the buddha. Why? Because delusional thoughts and their objects are all conditioned dharma; there is none in the dharmakaya.

Regarding conditioned and unconditioned dharma, Buddhism explains it this way: things created by causes and conditions are conditioned dharma; things that cannot be created by causes and conditions are unconditioned dharma. An object of attachment arises from causes and conditions, it is cause and effect; everything in the category of cause and effect belongs to conditioned dharma. Things that are conditioned are all illusory, unreal, and impermanent; they are all unreliable, hence they are not the buddha.

There is nothing in the buddha, above or below, within or outside, that is conditioned dharma. The opposite is true for an ordinary person; from head to toe, from inside to outside, everything is conditioned. Why? Because every emotion we have and every cell in our body arises from causes and conditions.

The buddha is not a product of causes and conditions, but an eternally existing nature. The buddha mentioned here is the dharmakaya; of course, the dharmakaya is without form – there is no so-called head or feet, inside or outside; this is said only to facilitate our understanding. If we think that Sakyamuni Buddha is the buddha, then from the standpoint of ordinary people, isn't he just an enlightened person? As a human being, he is certainly classified as conditioned dharma.

Consequently, in all schools of Buddhism from Hinayana on, it is wisdom, that is, the state of the buddha or the state of enlightenment, that one takes refuge in, not the body of Sakyamuni Buddha. Because the body of Sakyamuni Buddha is also an ordinary body produced by a father and mother – it itself is unreliable. Except for great compassion and great wisdom, we do not take refuge in any other worldly matter.

It is cause and effect, it is retribution, it is samsara. If there is cause and effect, there must be retribution, this is the law of samsara. But how can the buddha be subject to the law of samsara?

So long as you are subject to life and death, you will never attain enlightenment. If we cannot escape the suffering of life and death, when will we achieve buddhahood?

At all times, the buddha that Bodhidharma talks about is the dharmakaya of the buddha. The dharmakaya does not have causes and conditions. Therefore, anyone with attachment is not a buddha.

To become a buddha, you must see your nature. Unless you see your nature, you are an outsider espousing cause and effect, etc. The buddhas do not practice teachings given by outsiders. 

To become a buddha, you must see your nature. To become a buddha, you must attain enlightenment, understand your mind, and see your nature.

Unless you see your nature, you are an outsider espousing cause and effect, etc. If you cannot realize your mind and see your nature, all that you say about the suffering of samsara, the impermanence of life, good begets good, evil begets evil, and so forth are heretical.

Are you saying this is not Buddhism? No, we are not saying that. What is “outside” and “inside” is relative, there is no absolute boundary. We usually think that anyone who takes refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha is a Buddhist, and anything else is a heretic. But here we are not making this kind of distinction. When Bodhidharma talks about what is inside, it is the highest state of Chan. People in this state of realization are the insiders; people who do not understand this state are outsiders. On that basis, Hinayana Buddhism is also on the outside, as is most of Mahayana Buddhism, except for some scriptures that expound on buddha nature.

The buddhas do not practice teachings given by outsiders. The buddhas do not practice the words of outsiders! How could they possibly!

A buddha is free of karma, free of cause and effect. But to say he has anything to attain is to slander the buddha. What can possibly be attained? 

A buddha is free of karma, free of cause and effect. The buddha has neither karma nor good or evil retributions.

The manifestation of the nirmanakaya of a buddha is certainly due to cause and effect. The cause is the learning and practicing of the Dharma in the past, the result is its subsequent attainment. For example, the thirty-two signs and eighty attributes of the buddha each has its own cause; the nirmanakaya inside and outside is replete with the workings of karma. Of course, this is also a conventional saying. The dharmakaya is different; it is free of cause and effect.

But to say he has anything to attain is to slander the buddha. The word "but" here should be understood as "so long as." It means that so long as there is a thing or object of attachment, such as thinking that the buddha has cause and effect, this is slandering the buddha. Why? Because the buddha is free of cause and effect. If it is said that the buddha is a product of causes and conditions, in effect it also denotes the buddha is illusory and transitional – this is denigrating the buddha!

Of course, from the perspective of the nirmanakaya, the question of slandering the buddha does not exist. Sakyamuni Buddha came into this world and eventually passed away; this is impermanence. The slandering of the buddha here refers specifically to the dharmakaya rather than the nirmanakaya. The two should be treated separately.

What can possibly be attained? If we slander the buddha this way, what can possibly be achieved?

Even clinging to a mind, a power, an understanding, and a view, the buddha does not allow. 

Even clinging to a mind, a power, an understanding, and a view. What are these things we are attached to? Firstly, what is “a mind”? If we are attached to a certain mind, for instance, bodhicitta or renunciation, and think the buddha also has such a mind, this is attachment to “a mind.” If we think the buddha has the power to deliver sentient beings from suffering and believe this power exists, this is attachment to “a power.” There are two ways to interpret “an understanding”: one is liberation, as for example, the buddha is already liberated; the other is understanding, that is, the buddha’s understanding and cognition of this world. If we are attached to seeing the nature or essence of mind as enlightenment, this is attachment to “a view.”

So long as we have some attachment to "a mind, a power, an understanding, and a view," for example, we think that the buddha has a mind, a view, and a power that we can express in words, or believe that the buddha has a mind, a view, and a power that we can cling to, these are all wrong. The dharmakaya does not have any of these. They are all mistaken conceptualizations.

The buddha does not allow. These are not allowed. Why is that? Because they are all our attachments. We think that the buddha has a mind, power, understanding, and view, but in fact the buddha is far removed from all these. Although only four attributes are mentioned here, it is not just these four. Any attachment that we may have to the dharmakaya is inconsistent with reality.

The dharmakaya is indeed an inconceivable state. As mentioned before, if we achieve enlightenment one day, we can roughly understand what the dharmakaya of the buddha is like! But before that, there is basically no way to describe its essence. Therefore, whether it is a mind, power, understanding, or view, they are all attachments that do not align with the truth.

A buddha neither upholds nor violates the precepts, his mind is essentially empty, it is neither pure nor impure. 

A buddha neither upholds nor violates the precepts. A buddha will not keep or break the precepts.

His mind is essentially empty. The nature of his mind is basically empty.

Everyone should note that these texts by Bodhidharma, as well as the Platform Sutra and many scriptures in the third turning of the wheel of Dharma, mainly discuss buddha nature and clarity, while seldom addressing emptiness. Why is this? Because the Buddha expounded on emptiness extensively when he turned the wheel of Dharma the second time. Just like after finishing primary school, you enter middle school and study its curriculum without revisiting primary school material. Similarly, during the third turning, the teachings of the second turning were not reiterated – not as a denial but because they were already well covered. This progression can be discerned in these scriptures.

Here we only talk about this one principle "the nature of mind is basically empty," but it is very important. If we regard buddha nature as a real, tangible entity that is not empty but truly existent, it would be completely indistinguishable from the teachings of Brahmanism in India, except that the wording is sometimes different.

In the time of the Buddha, there were many different religions in India, with numerous and diverse views. Some of these religions were very similar to Buddhism, but the most crucial difference was that they all believed there is ultimately a true "self." This "self" is the essence of all things in the universe; the word "inconceivable" is also used to describe it. Many of the views of various religions in India today are very different from those in the time of the Buddha. For example, in Hinduism, which still exists today, the "self" is taught to be the secular self. Nevertheless, followers still hold on to the belief that the "self" is real and not empty; moreover, they cling to this "self." Because they have not severed this attachment, Buddhism believes that they cannot achieve liberation.

Buddhism completely breaks down this "self." Buddhism believes that there is no such "self" at all, and that everything is empty. This is where they are different. Therefore, although words such as buddha nature, tathagatagarbha, and clarity sound glorious, if you have an attachment to this in your mind, you become what Bodhidharma called a heretic!

"The nature of mind is basically empty." The nature of mind is buddha nature, the dharmakaya; the dharmakaya is also empty. Does the dharmakaya exist or not? In our everyday language, this is all duality: if it exists, it cannot possibly not exist; if it does not exist, it cannot possibly exist. Only by transcending this duality and fundamentally overturning the concepts of yes and no, and right and wrong, can we see the dharmakaya. It is difficult to express in words now, but we will know it when we enter its original state through practice.

In the initial stage of realization, such as when enlightenment has just been achieved, the state of enlightenment is relatively vague. Although it is vague, we can essentially experience what buddha nature is like! At that time, words will no longer be needed, as we can completely understand and accept it. But for now, without the slightest idea what it is, we can only rely on these words.

Although Buddhism uses the term "inconceivable" to describe this state, it does not posit the existence of a so-called "inconceivable" thing. If it does not exist, why say it is inconceivable? This is to counter people's obsession with "conceivable." However, if you are now attached to the word "inconceivable," I will immediately deny it and say that the word "inconceivable" does not exist. So, what is it really? You would need to truly experience it yourself.

These very profound concepts are indeed difficult to express in everyday language. It is hard enough to define the deepest structure of matter, such as certain discoveries in quantum mechanics, let alone the state of the buddha. So, do not think that things cannot exist if they are inexpressible. Under what circumstances and to what end was the human language created? If you think about it, you will know its scope of application.

Simply put, the dharmakaya is a union of emptiness and clarity. Of course, it is not really a composite, but described this way to facilitate our understanding. It would be unrealistic to say nothing. Expressed in words, the dharmakaya is a union of emptiness and clarity, so it is both emptiness and clarity. If it is both, isn’t that a contradiction? No, it is not. Consider the concept of "wave-particle duality" in physics: the smallest structure of matter is a granular substance, called a particle, that also spreads across space in the form of a wave, which is not matter at all. To say it is both a wave and particle may seem contradictory, but in fact it is not. There are many such things in the world.

Everyone must remember such sayings as "the nature of mind is basically empty." We should always bear in mind the words of Master Hui Neng – "originally there is nothing." When combined with "buddha nature is inherently pure" in the Dunhuang version of the Platform Sutra, this is a perfect dharmakaya, called Dzogchen or “Great Perfection.” Why is it called "great"? As explained before, the term "great" in Dzogchen and Mahamudra does not mean that they are bigger and others are smaller. All duality is within the scope of human thinking. For example, perfection is produced relative to imperfection, and its opposite is imperfection and defects, so it is also a product of cause and effect. To transcend duality, we add the word "great" in front of it. However, if we are always obsessed with words, adding the word "great" is not the solution to the problem – what is great and not great are relative, it is still duality.

In that case, however many times the word "great" is added, the problem still exists.

Here, "the nature of mind is basically empty" is none other than "originally there is nothing," which Hui Neng expounded; "nothing can be obtained" mentioned earlier also has the same meaning. Therefore, the teachings of the Buddha in the third turning of the wheel of Dharma are not inconsistent with the teachings in the second turning. We must know that the nature of mind is also emptiness.

It is neither pure nor impure. If "pure" means no contamination, no afflictions, then "impure" would mean there is contamination. This is how we all think: if it is not clean, it is unclean; if it is not unclean, it is clean. Opposing elements cannot have a third party. This is a basic concept in logical reasoning: there is no third party in any contradiction or duality.

For example, left and right are either left or right, just like the left hand and right hand, there is nothing in between. Some people would say, is there not a body in the middle? The body can also be divided into left and right, in the end only a very small particle is left in the middle; this particle can further be divided into left and right, one half belonging to the right and the other half belonging to the left. Our usual way of thinking is like this: if it is not right, it must be left; if it is not up, it must be down. However, when all duality is transcended, logic no longer applies. The nature of our mind is not pure or impure in the conventional sense; it is a state said to be "neither pure nor impure."

Ordinarily, we say that the nature of mind is pure. Master Hui Neng also stated that "buddha nature is inherently pure." So why do we say here that it is not pure? Are Hui Neng and Bodhidharma in contradiction? No. Here pure and impure are relative and dualistic, just like left and right. Hui Neng's "buddha nature is inherently pure" refers to a transcendent state beyond worldly notions of purity and impurity. Since there are no mundane afflictions in this state, the word "purity" is temporarily used to help us understand it. This purity is not the duality of purity and impurity, it is just that the word "great" is not added in front of it. By understanding this distinction, all Buddhist scriptures can be understood clearly without contradiction.

There is nothing to cultivate and nothing to realize, no cause and effect. A buddha does not observe precepts, a buddha does not do good or evil, a buddha is not diligent or lazy, a buddha is one who does nothing. 

There is nothing to cultivate and nothing to realize, no cause and effect. All things are inherently pure, so what can be cultivated or realized? In other words, the dharmakaya is basically enlightened and wise, so there is no need to practice or realize anything.

A buddha does not observe precepts, a buddha does not do good or evil. The precepts, good, and evil here must be understood as secular concepts, and this buddha must be understood as the dharmakaya. It is impossible for the dharmakaya of the buddha to observe precepts, since the disparity between the dharmakaya and upholding or breaking the precepts in the secular world is huge.

A buddha is not diligent or lazy, a buddha is one who does nothing. There is nothing for the buddha to do now.

But if you cling to the thought of seeing the buddha, it is not allowed. The buddha is not a buddha, so do not try to interpret it as a buddha. If you do not understand this, you will never know your fundamental innate mind. 

But if you cling to the thought of seeing the buddha, it is not allowed. So long as there is attachment, it is impossible to see the buddha.

The buddha is not attached to anything, such as purity or impurity. The buddha and emptiness are one and the same. All things that we think about are attachments; for example, we think that the buddha is pure, so we become attached to purity. To cut through these attachments, we can only pronounce that the buddha is not anything. This is a very common and important saying in Buddhist scriptures.

The buddha is not a buddha. How should we understand this? Not only can we not label the buddha, thinking that the buddha is pure, untainted, etc., we cannot even label him "buddha" because all labels are wrong; they are all created by our consciousness. When you achieve enlightenment, you will know what the buddha is. Before you achieve enlightenment, you must not even cling to the word "buddha."

Do not try to interpret it as a buddha. "Interpretation" means cognition. Our current understanding of the buddha is also wrong. The buddha in our mind is in fact our own concept and attachment. However, by correcting this misunderstanding and then practicing step by step, we will eventually be able to see the real buddha.

If you do not understand this, you will never know your fundamental innate mind. If we do not understand this, we will not be able to understand the nature of our own mind at any time or place.

People who do not see their nature and imitate the buddha by practicing thoughtlessness and inaction all the time are transgressors and fools that fall into blank emptiness; they are as dazed as drunks, and they cannot tell good from evil. If you practice not doing anything , you must first see your nature, then abandon all conceptualizations. Unless you see your nature, attaining buddhahood is impossible. 

People who do not see their nature. What will happen if we do not see our nature?

And imitate the buddha by practicing thoughtlessness and inaction all the time. The phrase "thoughtlessness and inaction" is a very important one and must be remembered. In particular, the word "inaction" frequently appears in Chan, Dzogchen, and Mahamudra. In Tibetan Buddhism, how to understand "inaction" is disputed. It is essential that we know its true meaning.

"Imitate" means to copy. As mentioned before, the buddha has no karma, he does nothing. If we want to learn from the buddha and be a person who does nothing, of course that is not a problem, but there must be a process. If we do nothing now, we are transgressors and fools. 

Why is that? Because as mentioned before, "If we do not see our nature," that is, if we are not yet enlightened, we are transgressors and fools to follow the example of the buddha by doing nothing. This is not to infer we should always be doing something. After enlightenment, we can do nothing, but before enlightenment, what is the consequence of inaction? The result is to fall into blank emptiness. This state of mind is mentioned repeatedly in the Platform Sutra, and can be interpreted as "not thinking about anything at all" – a saying in the text which means being thoughtless, letting go of all thoughts, and having a very peaceful mind.

In blank “emptiness” and in “emptiness” being the nature of mind, the same word is used but its meaning is entirely different. Emptiness being the nature of mind means that the mind's nature is empty like space. Blank emptiness refers to the often-heard expression "the brain is a blank," as when answering a superior's question or taking an exam, the mind suddenly goes blank and cannot think of anything. The former is the state of an enlightened person, that is, the dharmakaya of the buddha; the dharmakaya is indeed virtuous, but it is not virtuous in the usual sense of good and evil, but virtuous in a very special way. The latter is likened to a short-circuited brain, unable to remember anything; in this state, there is no thought of good or evil.

What is it like to descend into blank emptiness? It means we are as dazed as drunks and cannot tell good from evil. Our mind is groggy like a drunken person, and we cannot tell what is good and what is bad. This is particularly important. There is a lot of analysis and research on this in Dzogchen and Mahamudra in Tibetan Buddhism; there are also many related written records which clearly analyze this state of mind.

More than a thousand years ago, despite the great inconvenience in transportation, there were in-depth exchanges between Tibetan Buddhism and Chinese Buddhism. At that time, a Chan master named Moheyan went to Tibet to propagate Chan ideas. The view he spread was close to blank emptiness – just do nothing. Under his influence, even the water and flower offerings to the buddha statue at Samye Temple, the first monastery of Tibetan Buddhism, were discontinued. This was a very controversial issue, which only came to a resolution when Kamalasila was specially invited from India to preside over the debate.

In fact, the true intent of Chan Buddhism is not this. Perhaps Moheyan did not fully grasp the words of Bodhidharma and Hui Neng; or perhaps he was the perfect example of an enlightened Chan master, except his mode of expression during the dissemination process was questionable. We cannot judge his state of realization; masters of Tibetan Buddhism also have different evaluations of Moheyan. In any case, this incident did happen in history. Chan practitioners must pay attention to this kind of emptiness.

There are three types of blank emptiness: the first is the blank emptiness of view; the second is the blank emptiness of practice; the third is the blank emptiness of behavior. In the Platform Sutra, most of the criticism is directed at the blank emptiness of practice; the Bloodstream Treatise talks about the blank emptiness of behavior and view; Mipham Rinpoche also has a special commentary on this topic in Beacon of Certainty.

First, what is blank emptiness in terms of view? The so-called view refers to our understanding of the truth or buddha nature, that is, our point of view. Some people think that after completely eradicating all defilements, nothing is left, the buddha no longer exists. But if there is nothing at all, how did Shakyamuni Buddha save sentient beings? They believe that the power of his aspirations before becoming a buddha really made a difference and were brought into full play. Although everything comes to an end after becoming a buddha and there is nothing left, the buddha's ability to save sentient beings is not interrupted. Because the Buddha perfected all his merits and virtues during his past practice, the activities of freeing sentient beings continue spontaneously. Even though he is gone, these activities still exist. To say there is no buddha is the blank emptiness of view.

This view is incorrect. It is merely the understanding of some individuals in Mahayana Buddhism. Do not think that emptiness means nothing, this view completely conflicts with the teachings in the third turning of the wheel of Dharma; buddha nature cannot be established this way, we must not enter this kind of emptiness. This is not only important for theoretical study but also for actual practice.

Second, what is blank emptiness during practice? It is just doing nothing. From the standpoint of Buddhism, inaction is a neutral word that is not meant to be derogatory. However, if we interpret the word incorrectly, it conveys the wrong meaning.

There are two types of inaction. The first is when one has truly realized the nature of mind; in this state, nothing needs to be done, this is the correct form of inaction. The other is when one has not yet attained enlightenment; in meditation, we let go of all thoughts and do not cling to anything, thinking that all problems will be solved when the mind is calm – this kind of emptiness is the blank emptiness of practice, namely the saying mentioned in the Platform Sutra. We must avoid this path.

If not thinking about anything while meditating is "inaction," what about not having thoughts when we are in a daze, in a coma, or in deep sleep, or even when animals are hibernating? Can all that be meditation? No. Not only is it not meditation, it is also very dangerous. If you indulge in such meditation, you may fall into the animal realm in your next life. If your blessings are relatively great, you can be reborn in the form and formless realms, but you still cannot transcend samsara. Why does this happen? Because this kind of meditation is likened to a daze; although there are no thoughts on the surface, in fact attachment is always there, but it is hidden in the meditation and does not appear as thoughts. If attachment is not eradicated, it is impossible to transcend cyclic existence. Therefore, we must be particularly careful about such inaction and not confuse these two types of inaction.

The Platform Sutra and the Bloodstream Treatise are very well known in Chinese Buddhism and are recognized as classics around the world. So long as this version is correct, no one will disclaim it. Students of Mahayana Buddhism, especially those who study Chinese Buddhism, have even less reason to refute it. Of course, if you choose to deny it, you will need to provide evidence and logic to make your argument. Not believing or accepting, and denying are two different things.

So, why is a person who "practices thoughtlessness and inaction a transgressor and a fool"? Doing nothing is basically not a sin, the buddha indeed does nothing. However, if nothing has been realized, all attachments have not been resolved, and you do nothing at this time, you might as well invoke the buddhas, kowtow, or recite sutras. If you overlook even these opportunities and remain indifferent to everything, how are you different from an animal in hibernation? Animals hibernate for several months without attaining enlightenment. How can we achieve enlightenment if we practice two or three hours of blank emptiness every day? Not possible. What a waste of time! If you think this is what Buddhism means by emptiness, you are deceiving yourself and others. If you propagate this view, you are compounding the mistake; the consequences are even more serious. To mislead others and sever their path to wisdom, that is the real transgressor!

Can we ever accept not doing anything? As I have just said, “inaction”is a neutral word, which can be understood in both positive and negative ways. In many Buddhist scriptures, the word "inaction" often appears, so of course we can accept it.

So, when is it acceptable? What are the prerequisites?

If you practice not doing anything, you must first see your nature. If you want to practice not doing anything, the prerequisite is that you must attain enlightenment. After enlightenment, you can experience the emptiness of all things, and practice meditation in a state of emptiness. This kind of inaction is right, there is really nothing to do at this point. But when you have not yet attained enlightenment, you must not cling or become attached to this inaction.

Many of Lama Tsongkhapa's treatises have criticized the word "inaction." Why? Because some people who are not yet enlightened have read Buddhist scriptures that talk about "inaction" and think it means not thinking about anything. This is a misunderstanding which Tsongkhapa went to great extent to point out.

In Tibetan Buddhism, "inaction" is a very controversial word, but after much controversy and debate, a consensus was finally reached – the word "inaction" itself is fine, the key is how it is understood. If you think "inaction" in the Buddhist scriptures means letting go of all thoughts and thinking about nothing, this understanding is wrong. After enlightenment, you will find nothing truly exists, so naturally there is nothing to do; to abide in a state where nothing truly exists is the correct understanding of “inaction.” This conclusion coincides with the view taken by Bodhidharma and Hui Neng.

Correctly grasping the meaning of "inaction" will not only help everyone understand Buddhist scriptures, but also benefit our actual practice. I have said many times before that when we meditate, we sometimes feel better and our mind becomes very tranquil, which is seemingly consistent with the inaction and clarity described in the Buddhist scriptures. But in fact, this is not enlightenment at all, it is just a calm mind. This misunderstanding can be dangerous for those who have not given ample time to listening and reflecting, or have insufficient knowledge of Buddhism. If you fall into such misunderstanding, you will never achieve enlightenment, because you will always think this is enlightenment. No matter how others persuade you, you will feel they do not understand that your own state is enlightenment. Many such things have happened in the history of Buddhism, so everyone must develop the acuity to distinguish between inaction in true enlightenment and inaction in blank emptiness. This is particularly important.

In addition, although the text says "if you practice not doing anything," in reality, it is not a choice you can make; rather, it is a practice that you must undertake in the end. However, the prerequisite is to attain enlightenment. Only after enlightenment can you do nothing; prior to enlightenment, it is wrong and futile to do nothing.

Then abandon all conceptualizations. "Conceptualizations" refer to thoughts arising from causes and conditions, that is, all kinds of thoughts. After attaining enlightenment, you then try to calm these thoughts; when the thoughts subside, you can in the end reach the state of inaction. There must be such a process.

Unless you see your nature, attaining buddhahood is impossible. If you cannot attain enlightenment, it is impossible to become a buddha.

So, does it mean that we cannot practice not doing anything before we are enlightened? No. You can also cultivate this practice when you are not yet enlightened; the inaction at this time is called calm abiding. Calm abiding is also a basic practice for enlightenment. It can temporarily be used as a step to reach the next level. If you remain in this state indefinitely, however, it becomes meaningless as you will end up "descending into blank emptiness, as dazed as a drunk." In other words, you can use it as a transition, but it would be a grave mistake to equate it with the ultimate state of emptiness and clarity mentioned in Buddhist scriptures. It is a distinction we must make. This is blank emptiness during practice.

Third, what is blank emptiness in terms of behavior? It is doing nothing; it is giving up on all such activities as offering alms to others, observing the precepts, cultivating patience, and so on. I once visited several Chan temples abroad and met a Chan master who said that he does not pay reverence to the buddhas himself, nor accept the notion of past and present lives; he only acknowledges the practice just mentioned of not thinking about anything, and believes all else is an attachment. Are we not supposed to let go of all attachments? Why are we bringing these attachments back again? Such a belief is extremely dangerous. Of course, it is only a problem for the very few, nor is it representative of other Chan masters. What follows is this kind of emptiness.

Some people refute the existence of cause and effect and commit bad karma without hesitation. They falsely claim that since everything is empty, committing evil is not wrong. These people will descend into the darkness of avici hell and never come out. A wise person should not hold such a view. 

Some people refute the existence of cause and effect. There are two types of people who deny the existence of cause and effect. First, atheists who believe that good and evil, cause and effect, do not exist, so they deny it; their view has nothing to do with emptiness. Second, people who misinterpret the true meaning of emptiness; since all dharmas are empty, how can good beget good, evil beget evil? Are not cause and effect also empty? If the buddhas do not observe precepts or do anything, should we not also follow in their footsteps by not doing anything? This refutation of cause and effect is a mistaken view.

Regarding this point, I have made it very clear before. Any sect that emphasizes the ultimate state, especially Dzogchen, Mahamudra, and Chan, will inevitably refute the existence of cause and effect, because there is no good or evil, cause and effect, etc. in the state of the buddha. However, the absence of cause and effect in the buddha's state does not mean that there is no cause and effect in our world; these are completely different things. Just as in a dream and in real life, the horrific scenes we see in our dream no longer exist when we wake up. Be that as it may, if we go back to the dream, the horrifying things still exist and affect us; the fear, desire, etc. we experience in the dream are no less than our real feelings in everyday life. Therefore, when describing dreams, one cannot say that these things do not exist. It is useless to deny everything in dreams from the perspective of real life, because these are two different worlds that need to be treated separately.

From the perspective of buddha nature or emptiness, cause and effect can be denied without hesitation. Because there is no good and evil in the state of the buddha, we can essentially deny cause and effect and boldly say that there is no cause and effect at all when describing the state of the buddha. Some people believe that "cause and effect exist, but the essence of cause and effect does not exist." In fact, there is no need for this. If cause and effect does not exist, it means that its essence does not exist. For instance, when we describe and judge a dream from the standpoint of real life, we should completely deny everything in the dream; at this time, there is no need to say, "All phenomena in the dream exist, but their essence does not exist." We should say, "From the perspective of real life, everything in the dream does not exist; from the perspective of the dreamer, everything exists." To confuse the two would be problematic.

This is explained very clearly in Tantric Buddhism. Wherever your level of realization, when you return to real life, you must still respect the law of cause and effect, because these are two different worlds. Unenlightened people only have a theoretical understanding of the state of the buddha, but cannot experience it. When they completely enter that state one day, good and evil, cause and effect, etc. will truly cease to exist.

If you have not yet attained enlightenment, refuting cause and effect will lead to committing bad karma without hesitation, to killing, stealing, committing adultery, lying, and doing anything at will. Why? Did not the Buddha say there is no cause and effect? If so, I can do whatever I want.

They falsely claim that since everything is empty, committing evil is not wrong. To defend their actions, they will also quote scriptures to prove that they are right. Since everything is empty, what point is there in observing precepts, invoking the buddha, and doing good deeds? Of course there is no fault in doing evil, everything is empty!

These people will descend into the darkness of avici hell and never come out. If you commit evil in this way, you will certainly fall into the lower realms. There will be a time to escape, but it will be slow and extremely long, so it is said that there will never be a time to escape.

A wise person should not hold such a view. If you are a wise person, you should not have such an opinion. The word "view" appears here, even though this narrative is on behavior; it is indicative of the connection between our behavior and viewpoint, hence the three aspects of blank emptiness– view, practice, and behavior – should all be included.

Bodhidharma once said, “Do not live your life in vain, you must strive hard.” If all dharma is empty, why strive for it? This is to say although nothing in essence exists, everything at the conventional level exists, so you must strive hard.

The above points are extremely important whether it is practicing Dzogchen, Mahamudra, or Chan. Everyone must keep them in mind!