‘True appearances are not something that can be expressed by ordinary conceptions or everyday language. So how can we say they are empty or that they exist, much less argue about them? Nevertheless, true appearances do not exist apart from anything else. Hence, we shouldn’t speak of them as separate from language. At the same time, if we don’t rely on speech, we have no other means to lead beings from attachment toward understanding. Thus, as long as we aren’t misled by provisional names when we speak of the nature of dharmas, there is no harm in using “existence’ or ’emptiness’ to describe them. Some people say true appearances are objective truth, which isn’t created by the Buddha or by anyone else but is realized by insight. Others say true appearances transcend such dialectics – that they are the absolute, subjective mind – the mind’s self-nature. Actually, they are neither subjective nor objective, nor is there any ‘realization’ or ‘true mind’we can even speak of!’ (Commentary on the Diamond Sutra)

Got it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s