What This Concept Is Saying
The term 虚妄 (abhūta, "the unreal") is Sanskrit *abhūta*, meaning "not real, false and deceptive." But the "not real" here cannot be simply rendered as "fake" or "nonexistent," otherwise an extremely deep doctrinal meaning gets flattened.
The most precise classical definition is the scriptural citation in the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* (《中論》, *Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way*): "It falsely and wrongly grasps at marks; because the formations (諸行, saṃskārāḥ) wrongly grasp, this is called 'false.'" In other words, the unreal is not "completely absent" but "wrongly grasping at marks in a deceptive manner"—there is manifestation, but it does not truly establish itself as it appears. Two aspects must be held together: there is manifestation (not sheer nothingness), and it is not real in the way it appears (not as it appears).
The *Mahāratnakūṭa Sūtra* (《大宝积经》) repeatedly says "truly knowing that form arises as unreal" (如实知色虚妄生故) and "truly knowing that consciousness arises as unreal" (如实知识虚妄生故)—the five aggregates (五蕴, pañcaskandha) all arise from unreal discrimination (虚妄分别, abhūta-vikalpa), so when the bodhisattva contemplates their impermanence, suffering, non-self, and impurity, he "no longer gives rise to thoughts of terror." The three characters "虚妄生" (arises as unreal) are crucial here: it is "born"—born by the power of inverted discrimination (颠倒, viparyāsa). So the unreal is not a static "fake thing" but a dynamic process manifested by erroneous cognition.
The *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* states even more directly: "The inversion of pure and impure—inversion is called the unreal." Inversion and the unreal are synonyms here. Whenever one grasps the "impure" as "pure," the "impermanent" as "permanent," the "non-self" (无我, anātman) as "self," or the "suffering" as "bliss," that is the unreal. This also means the scope of the unreal is broader than people usually think—it is not just attachment to bad things; even "good attachments" are inversions, and thus unreal.
The Classical Similes, One by One
The concept of the unreal appears in the scriptures and treatises through several similes, each illuminating one facet—it cannot be flattened into the vague slogan "everything is fake":
**1. The Magician Conjuring the Four Divisions of an Army (《大宝积经》, *Mahāratnakūṭa Sūtra*) "A skillful magician conjures various things such as the four divisions—elephant troops, horse troops, chariot troops, and infantry troops, all magically manifested. The wise see them and give rise to no terror. Why? They well know that the unreal is magically made, manifested to deceive and delude sentient beings." This simile illuminates the "deceptive manifestation"** aspect of the unreal—there is fundamentally no substance; it is manifested before you solely by the power of unreal discrimination. The bodhisattva contemplates the five aggregates as impermanent without terror for the same reason: knowing it is "magically made," he is not frightened.
**2. The Image Simile (《入中论善显密意疏》, *Illuminating the Hidden Intent of the Madhyamakāvatāra*) The image arises depending on causes and conditions such as a mirror coming together; it can be an object of eye-consciousness and can give rise to the corresponding consciousness. Yet although the image appears as if it had an essence, everything that appears in it is "empty as it appears," hence it is called "the unreal that is empty of essence." This simile illuminates the "has manifestation but no essence"** aspect of the unreal—the image is not utterly absent (you do see it), but it lacks the essence it imitates.
3. The Dream Simile (《入中论善显密意疏》) In a dream, the eye, visible forms, and eye-consciousness appear as three dharmas coming together, yet have no real substance. The treatise specifically distinguishes: - The three dharmas of the eye etc. in the dream (objects of the first five consciousnesses): "although there is no such substance, yet that mark appears"—there is fundamentally no such substance, yet that mark appears; - The three dharmas of the mind etc. in the dream (objects at the level of consciousness): "there is, yet without self-nature (无自性, niḥsvabhāva) it appears to have self-nature"—there is indeed the arising of that thing, but it has no self-nature yet appears as having self-nature.
Both are called unreal, but they are unreal in different ways. The treatise infers from this: since the faculties, objects, and consciousnesses in a dream are all not truly existent, so too are all dharmas in the waking state all delusive.
4. The Simile of Seeing Hairs with Diseased Eyes (《入中论善显密意疏》) A person with an eye disease (cataract) sees hairs floating in the air. This simile illuminates the "relativity" of the unreal: - Relative to the inner perception of the one with diseased eyes: both the consciousness and the object consisting of the appearance of hairs are existent; - Relative to the clear vision of the undiseased eye: both the appearing hairs and the consciousness that sees them are unreal and unarisen.
The unreal is not absolutely "existent" or absolutely "nonexistent," but whether it is real or unreal is determined by the state of the observer. This point is extremely important: the determination of the unreal cannot be divorced from the observing mind.
**5. The Simile of the Mountain Echo (《大智度论》, *Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra*, T1509) Because of space and mountain valleys, a person's voice issues from the mouth into emptiness, and this is called an echo. The echo is fundamentally empty, and the mouth's sound is likewise—both sounds are "false and unreal." Yet worldly people take the mouth's sound as real and the echo as unreal; this very "distinction between real and unreal" is itself an inversion. The treatise uses this simile to reveal prajñā (般若, "wisdom"): all dharmas are ultimately empty (毕竟空), like illusion, like a dream, like an echo—both worldly dharmas and noble dharmas are false and unreal**.
The Ontological Status of the Unreal: Fine Differences Among the Treatises
This is where understanding the unreal gets most confusing, and the positions of each treatise must be clearly distinguished:
**The *Abhidharmakośa* (《阿毘达磨俱舍论》) uses "not real" as the positive expression of the unreal, and establishes the ontological status of the unreal through the dual negation of "not other, not absent" (非异、非无). The treatise uses the simile of a friend and an enemy: "not a friend" is not something other than a friend, nor is it the absolute absence of a friend—it is an entity that can be posited within the remedial relationship of "opposed to a friend." Extending this to ignorance (无明, avidyā): ignorance has a distinct entity that is remedied by "clear knowing" (明, vidyā); ignorance is not other than clear knowing, nor is it the absence of clear knowing, for the reason that "it is said to be a condition" (the sūtra says ignorance is the condition for the arising of formations, which proves ignorance has a real self-substance that can be established). The gist of this treatise: the unreal is not merely a nominally posited conventional dharma, but an entity with real function within dependent origination (缘起, pratītyasamutpāda)**—without this entity, "remedy" (对治, pratipakṣa) would have nothing on which to operate.
**The *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* equates the unreal directly with absence of self-nature: "Because all formations have unreal marks, they are empty; because formations arise and cease without abiding, without self-nature, they are empty." And from this it presses the deeper question: "If the afflictions are unreal, without nature, without ownership, then how can they be cut off? Who can cut off what is without nature?"** —If the nature of the afflictions is unreal and without nature, then both the agent and the object of cutting off afflictions become questionable. Although this question is not directly answered here, it shows that the unreal is not merely a negation of the real nature of formations, but a pivot that triggers deeper contemplation of emptiness.
**The *Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra*** (《大智度论》) breaks attachment through double negation and double denial: "All dharmas are real; all dharmas are unreal; dharmas are both real and unreal; neither real nor unreal!" —Neither purely real nor purely unreal, and even "neither real nor unreal" is an extreme view to be broken. This is the core of prajñā.
**The *Chuanxin Fayao* of Chan Master Huangbo** (《黄檗山断际禅师传心法要》, *Essential Dharma of Mind Transmission*) goes straight to the root: "Delusion has no root; it exists only because of discrimination." "Raising delusion to dispel delusion is also delusion." "Only having no mind at all is called uncontaminated wisdom" (无漏智, anāsrava-jñāna). Delusion has no substance or self-nature; its arising depends entirely on the discriminating function of mind-consciousness; and the very thought of "dispelling delusion" itself falls into delusion. Dissolving delusion happens only "when the feelings of both ordinary and noble are exhausted."
These positions seem different, but the difference lies in the level of operation: the *Abhidharmakośa* affirms at the level of conventional truth (世俗谛, saṃvṛti-satya) that the unreal has real function (otherwise remedy would have nothing on which to operate); the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* and *Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra* press to the level of ultimate truth (胜义谛, paramārtha-satya) and point out that the unreal has no self-nature; Huangbo, from the standpoint of Chan experience, points out that the unreal "fundamentally has no root" and arises only through discrimination. Different levels, not contradictions.
The Remedial Face of the Unreal: Not "Elimination," but "Discerning Insight" and "Exhaustion of Feeling"
The treatises and sūtras differ in their technical terms and entry points for the wisdom that remedies the unreal, but all point in the same direction:
- The *Mahāratnakūṭa Sūtra*: takes "truly knowing" (如实知), "truly contemplating," "truly realizing" as the remedial wisdom—discerning the unreal clearly is the remedy. - The *Śūraṅgama Sūtra* (《楞严经》): uses the double-negation formula "fundamentally neither causes and conditions, nor of spontaneous nature" (本非因缘、非自然性)—neither the temporary existence of conditioned coming-together, nor the eternal existence of a self-nature. - The *Abhidharmakośa*: takes "true speech, real, clear knowing" as the remedial face—true speech and clear wisdom remedy false speech and ignorance. - The *Jingde Chuandeng lu* (《景德传灯录》, *Records of the Transmission of the Lamp*): uses the simile of "meditative concentration as still water" ("if the true does not cease, the false does not arise. The source of the six faculties (六根, ṣaḍ-indriya) is clear like still water"), with "discerning the false and returning to the true, myriad thoughts empty" as the direction. - Huangbo: takes "only having no mind at all" as synonymous with uncontaminated wisdom. - The *Weishan Record* (《沩山语录》, cited from Baizhang Huaihai): "After awakening, the same as before awakening; no mind and no dharmas, only without the unreal"—the minds of ordinary people and sages are originally equal; the presence or absence of the unreal is not a gain or loss to the original mind-dharma.
Special attention should be paid to the famous line from the *Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra* (《金刚经》, *Diamond Sūtra*): "All marks are unreal. If you see that marks are not marks, you see the Tathāgata." In the *Jingde Chuandeng lu*, Master Guisheng of Yongming's lineage spoke these words to the assembly before his death—this is the most frequently cited line on the unreal in the Chan tradition. And the line from the *Heart Sūtra* (《心经》): "Discerning that the five aggregates are all empty, he transcends all suffering" —this is precisely the ultimate landing point of the contemplation of the unreal: the five aggregates are manifested by unreal discrimination; discerning their emptiness, the suffering of the five aggregates loses its support.
Walking Through It in Daily Life
To walk the concept of the unreal through contemporary life scenes is not for "illustration" but to map it step by step according to the classical definitions, to see in which moments of a day we are living in the unreal, and in which moments we approach discerning insight.
Scene One: The First Thing in the Morning—Scrolling Your Phone
You wake up, reach for your phone, unlock it. The first screen you open is some social platform.
According to the structure of "arises as unreal" in the *Mahāratnakūṭa Sūtra*, this action itself is manifested by unreal discrimination:
- The form aggregate (色蕴, rūpa-skandha; all derived matter of the four great elements, including external objects): the images on the screen, the short videos, other people's words—these are all "unreal-born" forms, not pure material forms, but "manifestations" edited, clipped, filtered, and retouched by algorithms. This is the image simile rather than a real object—you can see it, but it lacks the essence it imitates. - The feeling aggregate (受蕴, vedanā-skandha; reception): scrolling past a post, your heart tightens, envies, irritates—this "tightening" is reception. The unreal is not in the feeling itself, but in the immediate grasping of the feeling—thoughts like "I shouldn't feel this way" or "I must reply." - The perception aggregate (想蕴, saṃjñā-skandha; grasping marks and recognizing): you immediately label what you scroll past—"this person is doing better than me," "I want this kind of life too," "I disagree with this view"—grasping marks and recognizing is the typical operation of unreal discrimination: labeling before verification. The simile of seeing hairs with diseased eyes is especially apt here: the screen's presentation is the "eye disease," what you see as "other people's lives" is the "hairs"; relative to the operating logic of this screen and this app, they "are existent"; relative to the facts themselves, they are unreal and unarisen. - The volition aggregate (行蕴, saṃskāra-skandha; volitional formation): you decide to reply, to share, to tap "like"—this "decision" is volitional formation. It is driven by your perception aggregate to do something not actually needed (the mountain echo simile: the mouth's sound is taken as real, the echo as unreal, but both are false and unreal). - The consciousness aggregate (识蕴, vijñāna-skandha; discernment): the most basic "knowing that I am looking at my phone."
Many people think "the unreal" means "this content is fake, so don't look at it." But the classical definition does not mean this. The unreal is "though there is manifestation, it does not truly establish itself as it appears"—that content does manifest, and you do receive it, but it does not truly establish itself the way it appears. Taking "other people's wonderful lives" as the whole truth is the unreal; taking "other people are just images" as an excuse for indifference is also the unreal—Huangbo says "raising delusion to dispel delusion is also delusion."
Scene Two: The "I Must" of Working Late
The project deadline is approaching. You sit at the computer, and in your head there is a clear voice: "I must finish this, or everything is over."
According to the structure of "the inversion of pure and impure—inversion is called the unreal" in the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā*: - You grasp the "impure" as "pure": you take the sense of security that completing the project might bring (which is not actually absolute) as a guarantee of "purity"; - You grasp the "impermanent" as "permanent": you take the importance of this project as an eternal, unchanging fact; - You grasp the "non-self" as "self": you take that "I"—the I that completes tasks, the I that is evaluated, the I that will be better in the future—as a real subject; - You grasp the "suffering" as "bliss": working late until your body signals distress and your mind is agitated, you still feel "this is worth it."
These four inversions are all unreal. They have manifestation (the sentence "I must" does arise), and do not truly establish themselves as they appear (it is not really a permanent, non-self guarantee).
The simile of the magician conjuring the four divisions of an army is also apt here: you think you face real elephant and horse troops, but it is the magician's work—the image of "if I don't finish, everything is over" is itself born of unreal discrimination; the wise see it without giving rise to terror.
The easiest place to mis-map: many people think that discerning the unreal means "lying flat and giving up." No. The person who discerns the unreal still does things—but is no longer pushed by that unreal voice of "I must." The tasks are still the same tasks; the mind is already different.
Scene Three: The "That Person" in an Intimate Relationship
You have been with your partner for a while, and a clear image gradually forms in your mind: "He is just this kind of person," "She should understand me."
This is the typical operation of the image simile: - The image arises depending on causes and conditions such as a mirror coming together—the "that him" in your mind arises depending on your past experience, needs, and projections; - It can be an object of eye-consciousness and can give rise to the corresponding consciousness—you can see "evidence" that he fits that image (you selectively attend); - Everything that appears in it is "empty as it appears"—this image lacks the essence it imitates (that is, no one truly "is just this way").
Deeper still, the dream simile reveals a very fine distinction here: - Your partner's specific words and deeds accessible to the first five consciousnesses (the range of the first five aggregates) belong to the unreal of "no such substance, yet that mark appears"—those words and deeds did occur, but they are not really "his whole person"; - Your overall judgment of your partner's character and personality (the operation at the level of consciousness) belongs to the unreal of "there is, yet without self-nature it appears to have self-nature"—this judgment does arise, but it has no self-nature yet appears as having self-nature.
Neither type of unreal can be grasped, but they are grasped differently: attachment to specific words and deeds is easier to loosen (circumstances change); attachment to the overall judgment "he is just this kind of person" is harder to loosen (because the operation at the level of consciousness is deeper and more stable). The latter is precisely what the *Śūraṅgama Sūtra* breaks: "the perceiving subject and the perceived object, both places are unreal"—this "perceiving" by which you judge, and this "perceived" which you judge, are both unreal, "fundamentally neither causes and conditions, nor of spontaneous nature."
Scene Four: Projecting onto Your Child's Future
Parents hope their son will become a dragon and their daughter a phoenix. Looking at report cards and talent performances, they have already drawn a picture of years or decades ahead.
The mountain echo simile is extremely apt here: - The mouth's sound is "my expectation"—clear, contentful, directional; - The echo is "the child's future"—born from the coming together of the mouth's sound and space (the environment) and the valley (the child's own nature); - "Both sounds are false and unreal"—the projected future and the projection itself are neither truly established.
Many people, hearing "the unreal," immediately jump to "then I should have no expectations." But the classics do not mean this. The contemplation of the unreal does not cancel action; it cancels the inverted grasping behind the action. You can guide your child, but that solid image in your mind of "I have designed his future for him"—that is the unreal, not a fact.
The Easiest Places to Mis-Map in These Scenes
Walking through the above scenes, the four most common mis-mappings are:
1. Taking "the unreal" as "pretending it doesn't exist": thinking that discerning the unreal means closing your eyes and pretending not to see. Wrong. The unreal "has manifestation"; discerning the unreal is clearly seeing it manifesting, but no longer being deceived by its mode of manifestation.
2. Taking "the unreal" as "negative emotion": thinking that only sadness, anger, and fear are unreal; happiness, hope, and love are not. Wrong. According to the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā*, "the inversion of pure and impure—inversion is called the unreal"—even grasping "bliss" as real bliss, "self" as real self, "purity" as real purity is the unreal.
3. Taking "without the unreal" as "without mind": thinking that Chan's "without the unreal" means becoming a senseless block of wood. Wrong. Huangbo says "only having no mind at all is called uncontaminated wisdom"—this "no mind at all" means non-discrimination, non-attachment, not numbness.
4. Taking "all marks are unreal" as an excuse for nihilism: thinking that since everything is unreal, nothing deserves seriousness. Wrong. The contemplation of the unreal calls you to be serious, but no longer to be inverted by the object of your seriousness.
Why Contemporary People Need It
Why has this word from over two thousand years ago become more urgent today than ever?
One: The Productivity of the Unreal Has Been Amplified by Technology
In ancient times, the unreal—images, dreams, echoes, illusions—was born of the individual's inner discriminatory mind, and its intensity was limited. In the contemporary world, the "production" of the unreal has been enormously amplified by technology:
- Algorithm-generated content (short videos, AI-generated images, deepfakes)—this is the strongest magician's work of our time. The ancient magician could deceive a few people at a time; the contemporary algorithm deceives millions at once. - The curated self of social media—the image you carefully compose from nine photos is an image arising from causes and conditions such as the mirror (the way you want to be seen); it can be an object of eye-consciousness and can give rise to corresponding consciousness, but it lacks the essence of your whole person. - The summons of notifications and red dots—a red dot with no real urgency manifests in the posture of "unread," pulling at your mind. This is the contemporary mountain echo: the echo is fundamentally empty, and the red dot is also fundamentally empty, but it has manifestation, and does not truly establish itself as it appears. - Virtual reality and the metaverse—when people begin spending large amounts of time "living" in virtual spaces, the more real that "life" feels, the more urgent the contemplation of the unreal becomes.
Comparison, not equation: we are not saying "technology is the unreal," nor "science has proven Buddhism." Technology is neutral, but it mass-produces content that "manifests yet does not truly establish itself as it appears"—this is the modern version of the unreal. What AI and brain science can currently tell us is this: the human perceptual system is inherently inclined to construct coherent narratives, and algorithms accommodate and amplify this inclination; as for the relationship between "construction" and "reality," that is a question at a different level, on which science has not yet reached a conclusion.
Two: The Unreal Has Become Finely Grained Far Beyond the Past
In ancient times, inversions were mostly on the great questions of life—permanence, bliss, self, purity (常乐我净). Today, the unreal has become fine-grained down to every decision point in daily life:
- In consumer choices, "I am a user of this brand"—a micro-version of the image simile; - In political positions, "I support / I oppose"—a collective version of the mountain echo simile; - In career planning, "I should become this kind of person"—the magician's work; - In emotional management, "I shouldn't have this feeling"—taking the feeling itself (the feeling aggregate) as the object to eliminate, without seeing that the "shouldn't" itself is unreal discrimination.
The "unreal" that the classics determine relative to the diseased eye versus the undiseased eye has become especially relevant today: the same piece of information is unreal for a person in information overload, but may be a fact for one who can abide in stillness. The determination of the unreal is closely related to the observing mind—this is especially worth noting in the contemporary world.
Three: "All Marks Are Unreal" Has Been Nearly Worn Out in Contemporary Usage
From self-help books to inspirational platitudes, from stress-reduction meditation apps to pop psychology, this phrase is endlessly quoted, but mostly flattened into the secular success-culture rhetoric of "don't take things too seriously" and "let go of attachment." Its original meaning—"if you see that marks are not marks, you see the Tathāgata"—has been obscured. Contemporary people need this phrase's original depth, not its popular version.
Four: The Question of the Self in the Age of AI
A new tension in the contemporary world: the concept of "I" is being challenged by AI. AI can imitate your tone of voice, generate your image, predict your preferences. When an AI assistant "knows" what you like better than you do yourself, what is your "I"? This is the sharpest contemporary version of the unreal question: the diseased-eye simile tells us that the manifestation of the "I" image depends on the observer's state—relative to a certain mechanism of identification, "I" is existent; relative to deeper observation, both "I" and "the consciousness that sees I" are unreal and unarisen.
Huangbo says "the minds of ordinary and noble are delusion," and the *Jingde Chuandeng lu* says "all marks are unreal," "the Buddhas speak of mind so that you know mind; marks are unreal"—these words carry new weight in the age of AI: when external tools can simulate "I," the "I" that was originally taken as real immediately manifests its unreality. This is not to say that AI proves Buddhism, but that the experiential situation of the AI age happens to make the contemplation of the unreal easier to enter.
Common Misreadings and Clarifications
Misreading One: "The Unreal = Nonexistent"
This is the most common misreading. Hearing "the unreal," one immediately thinks of "fake," "not there," "hallucination." But the classical definition is precisely the opposite: the unreal "has manifestation." Images have manifestation, dreams have manifestation, mountain echoes have manifestation—no sūtra or treatise says they "do not exist." **The *Abhidharmakośa* especially emphasizes that the unreal is "not other, not absent" (非异、非无)—it is not another thing apart from the real, nor is it the absolute absence of the real.**
Understanding the unreal as nonexistence leads to two deviations: - Nihilism: since everything is unreal and nonexistent, nothing deserves seriousness; - Escapism: since the painful thing is unreal, pretend it never happened.
Neither is the contemplation of the unreal. The contemplation of the unreal is to see clearly that it manifests, and to see clearly that it does not truly establish itself as it appears. The former is the starting point of compassion (you know it is happening); the latter is the starting point of wisdom (you know it is not the whole truth).
Misreading Two: "The Unreal = Something Negative, to Be Eliminated"
Taking the unreal as "evil," "defilement," "poison," and thinking that practice means "removing the unreal." But the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* says plainly that the unreal is inversion, and inversion is not limited to the negative—grasping "bliss" as permanent, "self" as real, "purity" as true, grasping positive things as eternal—all these are inversions, all unreal.
The *Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra* goes further: "Lesser bodhisattvas take worldly dharmas as false and noble dharmas as real"—thinking that after becoming a Buddha everything becomes real and the unreal disappears is itself another layer of the unreal. The core of prajñā is "all dharmas are real, all dharmas are unreal, dharmas both real and unreal, neither real nor unreal"—even the opposite "real" must be broken.
Misreading Three: "Breaking the Unreal = Destroying Life"
Many people think the contemplation of the unreal is a world-weary view: since everything is unreal, don't invest, don't be serious, don't love. This is the deepest misreading of the contemplation of the unreal.
The words of Sikongshan Benjing in the *Jingde Chuendeng lu* are especially worth reading repeatedly: "Because there is delusion, we set the true against the delusive; but when we push to the bottom, the nature of delusion is originally empty, so how could the true ever have existed? Thus we know that true and delusive are both nominal designations (假名, prajñapti); the two things, in mutual remedy, both lack substance." True and delusive are both nominal designations; neither is a substance. So breaking the unreal is not about establishing a "real world" to oppose the "delusive world," but discerning the unreality of the opposition itself.
The person who discerns the unreal does not have life destroyed; life is instead restored. He is not pushed by "I must succeed" into working late until collapse, not boxed into intimate relationships by "he is just this kind of person," not projecting onto his child with "I have designed his future"—but he still does things, still loves, still accompanies. This is not indifference; it is what the *Baizhang Record* (《百丈语录》) says: "After awakening, the same as before awakening; no mind and no dharmas, only without the unreal"—awakened and unawakened show no difference in outward appearance; the difference is only in the cessation of that unreal discrimination within the mind.
Misreading Four: "The Contemplation of the Unreal Is Buddhism's Existentialism"
Some contemporary introductions conflate the unreal with Western existentialism's "existence precedes essence" and nihilism's "everything is empty." But the contemplation of the unreal differs essentially from both:
- Nihilism says everything is nothing; the contemplation of the unreal says everything has manifestation but no real self-nature—the emphasis is on "has manifestation." - Existentialism says existence precedes essence; the contemplation of the unreal says the "essence" manifested by inverted discrimination itself does not stand—the emphasis is on "inverted discrimination." - Existentialism emphasizes the individual's choice and responsibility; the contemplation of the unreal emphasizes that this very emphasis is itself a kind of unreal discrimination—the *Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra*'s "raising delusion to dispel delusion is also delusion."
The contemplation of the unreal does not deny the existence of phenomena, nor does it claim everything is the same. It advocates observing in layers: at the level of conventional truth (the *Abhidharmakośa* says the unreal has real function as the object of remedy), at the level of ultimate truth (the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* says the unreal is absence of self-nature, which is emptiness), and at the ultimate level (Huangbo says delusion fundamentally has no root). Flattening it into a single philosophical position is a simplification of the classics.
Misreading Five: "The Unreal = An Enemy of Practice, to Be Destroyed"
Master Huangbo's one sentence punctures this misreading: "Raising delusion to dispel delusion is also delusion." If your practice strategy is "eliminate the unreal," that resolve of "I want to eliminate it" is itself a product of unreal discrimination. You cannot use another delusion to dispel this delusion.
Huangbo's remedy is "Only when the feelings of both ordinary and noble are exhausted is there naturally no delusion"—not establishing a remedy outside the unreal, but letting the "feeling" that gives rise to the unreal exhaust itself. "Only having no mind at all is called uncontaminated wisdom"—this is not "the mind becomes blank," but "the mind no longer discriminates."
The *Jingde Chuendeng lu* quotes the verse "Push the true and the true has no mark; exhaust the delusive and the delusive has no form; turn back and observe the pushing mind—know that the mind is also a nominal designation" (推真真无相，穷妄妄无形，返观推穷心，知心亦假名)—pushing the unreal itself, you find that the unreal is also formless and markless. When you seriously look for the unreal, you cannot find a substantial "unreal" to fight against. This itself is discerning insight.
Finally: One Sentence to Hold On To
The concept of the unreal most easily goes wrong in two places:
- Explaining it pessimistically (everything is fake, meaningless)—this is nihilism, not the contemplation of the unreal; - Explaining it optimistically (the unreal doesn't matter, it all empties out in the end)—this is escapism, also not the contemplation of the unreal.
The contemplation of the unreal is clarity. It does not cancel any manifestation, but it keeps you from being deceived by the mode of manifestation. The magician's four divisions are still manifesting, but you no longer take them for a real army—this not being deceived anymore is discerning insight.