I. What This Concept Is Saying
1. First, Let's Clarify Who This "God" Is
To understand 非神 (anātman, "non-self"), you must first know who this "God" is—but the "God" here is not the deity who controls wind and rain in folk religion, nor the jealous pantheon of Greek mythology. The "God" here is that permanent, autonomous, possessing, sovereign "True Self" of ancient Indian thought, *ātman* in Sanskrit, often rendered in Chinese as 神我 (shénwǒ, "the divine Self").
In the Upaniṣadic tradition that prevailed before and after the Buddha's appearance, this "divine Self" was described as:
- Permanent and imperishable — the body ages and decays, the world collapses, but "I" is real and unchanging; - Autonomous and sovereign — behind all experience, all choices, there is an "I" that is in charge; - Ownership and belonging — the body is "mine," feelings are "mine," thoughts are "mine"; - Pure and original — suffering is an external overlay; the true "I" is originally complete and undefiled.
This is a "Master" — one who sits inside the body, behind experience, above everything.
What 非神 (anātman) dismantles is precisely this Master. It is not saying there are no deities, no religion, no cosmos; it is saying: within everything you experience, there is no such Master.
This is the first gate at which it is extremely easy to go wrong: 非神 is not "atheism," not "there is no God in the world"; it is a dual declaration—ontological and soteriological: one cannot find a permanent, autonomous "True Self" that owns all of this.
2. Why Say "Non-God" Instead of "No-Self"
The term we are familiar with today is 無我 (wúwǒ, "no-self"; *anatta*), but the entire 《中阿含經》 (Madhyama-āgama, T0026) runs throughout on the term 非神.
These two terms point to the same doctrine, but differ in tone and targeting:
- 無我 is an abstract proposition — negating the substantiality of the self; - 非神 is a direct antidote — taking the sacred "divine Self" of the Vedic tradition and saying plainly: the "God" you point to is not to be found here.
When early Buddhism taught outsiders, 非神 was more direct: the "divine Self" you affirm—wherever you try to locate it, in the body, in feelings, in Brahmā, in the sphere of infinite space—is not it.
On this point, the 《中阿含經》 is utterly thorough: it breaks through from the five aggregates and the physical body, all the way up to Brahmā, the sphere of measureless space, and the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception—breaking through all the way up. This will be discussed point by point below.
3. Not a Syllogism but an Order of Observation — Impermanence, Suffering, Non-God
When the 《中阿含經》 speaks of 非神, it does not state an isolated abstract proposition, but arrives at it through two steps of observation:
「色者无常，无常则苦，苦则非神。觉、想、行、识亦复如是。」
*"Form is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is suffering is not the divine Self. So too for feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness."*
This is the order of observation in practice; it cannot be reversed:
- First step: impermanence — the form/feeling/perception/volition/consciousness of this moment is already not that of the next moment; - Second step: suffering — because it is impermanent, it cannot be securely grasped, relied upon, or possessed; this inability to hold on is suffering; - Third step: non-God — a thing that is impermanent and suffering cannot possibly be that permanent, autonomous "divine Self."
Why take these two steps? Because if one merely says "I am not the body," "I am not the thoughts," people will immediately retort: "But that which can feel, think, and observe—that is me, isn't it?"
The sūtra's response: anything you observe, as long as it is impermanent, must be suffering, and must not be the divine Self. This chain of reasoning is not a detour; it uses the fact of impermanence that you see with your own eyes to compel a conclusion you cannot refute.
4. The Five Aggregates, Each One Not-God
The five aggregates in the 《中阿含經》 have their own distinctive terminology, and must be presented exactly as the text has them:
- 色 (rūpa, form) — not only the physical body, but all material forms, including the body, sounds, smells, and even external objects; - 覺 (vedanā, feeling) — note that the text here uses 覺, not the more common 受 of later traditions. 覺 is sensation, feeling—cold and warm, pleasure and pain, agreeable and disagreeable; the body's and mind's first response to stimuli; - 想 (saṃjñā, perception) — apprehending marks, discriminating. "This is red," "This is Zhang San," "This is work"—the mental factor that labels and categorizes the stream of incoming stimuli; - 行 (saṃskāra, volitional formations) — intention, construction. The rising and falling of thoughts, decisions of choice, the flow of emotions—these are not merely "happening," but operations at the level of volition; - 識 (vijñāna, consciousness) — discernment, cognition. The overall awareness of an object, constituting "I know I am seeing," "I know I am thinking."
The text applies the same order of observation to each aggregate:
「色者无常，无常则苦，苦则非神；觉亦无常，无常则苦，苦则非神；想亦无常，无常则苦，苦则非神；行亦无常，无常则苦，苦则非神；识亦无常，无常则苦，苦则非神。」
*"Form is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is suffering is not the divine Self. Feeling is likewise impermanent... Perception likewise... Volition likewise... Consciousness likewise."*
The "one-to-one correspondence" here is the key point: no aggregate can step forward and say, "I am the divine Self."
I want to point out here a common error among the general public: when many people hear "the five aggregates are not-God," they instinctively think only "the body is not the real me"—thereby narrowing 非神 into a problem of the body. In fact, the text breaks through each and every aggregate, including "I am thinking," "I am feeling," "I am deciding"—these likewise are not the divine Self.
5. The Physical Body Is Not-God — The Similes of Disease, Boil, Arrow, Snake
In refuting outsiders, the 《中阿含經》 uses four extremely weighty similes for the body:
「身即是病、是癰、是箭、是蛇、是无常、是苦、是空、是非神。」
*"The body is disease, is a boil, is an arrow, is a snake, is impermanent, is suffering, is empty, is not-God."*
These four similes are not ornament; they are the body's own condition:
- Disease (病) — the body is itself in imbalance, in need of treatment; - Boil, festering sore (癰) — a skin that looks intact on the surface, but hidden putrefaction within; - Arrow (箭) — it pierces us, forcing us to revolve around it; - Snake (蛇) — once grasped and held fast, it will bite.
What is being refuted here is the heretical view of "taking the physical body as nirvāṇa" — certain outsiders held that the body itself was liberation, that cultivating to this body was the ultimate. The text's point: the body is not even the divine Self, much less could it be nirvāṇa. It is disease, a boil, an arrow, a snake, a burden and affliction.
This passage is especially important for contemporary readers: many today take the body as the root of self—"my figure," "my health," "my good looks," "my lifespan"—the text reminds us: this is taking the arrow as the master.
6. All Phenomena of the World Are Not-God — Negation in Three Directions
The 《中阿含經》 extends the refutation of 非神 to all objects of the world, listing earth, water, fire, wind, gods (神), devas (天), Prajāpati (生主), Brahmā (梵天), Avṛha (無煩), Atapa (無熱), and the four formless attainments: the sphere of infinite space (無量空處), the sphere of infinite consciousness (無量識處), the sphere of nothingness (無所有處), and the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception (非有想非無想處).
Each object is run through the same three-directional negation:
「地非是神，地非神所，神非地所。」
*"Earth is not the divine Self; earth does not belong to the divine Self; the divine Self does not belong to earth."*
And finally the summary:
「一切非是神，一切非神所，神非一切所。」
*"All things are not the divine Self; all things do not belong to the divine Self; the divine Self does not belong to anything."*
This three-directional negation is extremely deep and must be examined separately:
- Is not the divine Self (非是神) — this object in itself is not that divine Self; - Not owned by the divine Self (非神所) — this object does not belong to the divine Self; it is not something the divine Self possesses; - The divine Self is not owned by... (神非...所) — the divine Self does not belong to this object; it is not contained in, not housed by, this object.
The third direction is especially important. Many can understand the first two: "I am not the body," "the body does not belong to me." But the third direction says: no object is where "I" dwells, hides, or is contained—
- God is not in the body; - God is not in the mind; - God is not in Brahmā; - God is not in the sphere of infinite space; - God is not in the sphere of nothingness; - God is not in the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception.
That Master is nowhere to be found, nowhere to be placed.
This is the most thorough refutation in the 《中阿含經》: it is not merely "there is no such self," but "there is no place to put such a self."
7. Awareness Is Not-God — Taking Apart Even "That Which Is Aware"
Someone may defend: fine, the body is not me, feelings are not me, thoughts are not me, but surely that "I" which is aware is me?
The text responds to this very idea:
「覺非神，亦不見神能覺、神法能覺，但見神無所覺。」
*"Awareness is not the divine Self; nor is a divine Self seen that is able to be aware, nor a divine dhamma able to be aware; one only sees that the divine Self has no part in awareness."*
Let us take it apart:
- Awareness is not the divine Self (覺非神) — the phenomenon of awareness itself is not the divine Self; - No divine Self is seen that is able to be aware (不見神能覺) — you cannot find a "God" doing this awareness; - No dhamma of the divine Self is seen that is able to be aware (不見神法能覺) — nor can you find a "dhamma belonging to the divine Self" doing this awareness; - One only sees that the divine Self has no part in awareness (但見神無所覺) — in observation as it is, you see only this: the divine Self has no share whatsoever in awareness.
This is an extremely delicate passage. It targets the most stubborn refuge in the history of philosophy: "surely there is an aware-er doing the awareness" — the text's meaning: awareness does indeed occur, but there is no "God" being aware; awareness is a flow of conditionally arisen factors, not the work of some master.
8. Observing Non-God — A Practice Seated at the Highest Merit
The 《中阿含經》 also places 非神 within a comparison of fruits of practice:
「观一切诸法无常、苦、空及非神者，此于彼施为最胜。」
*"One who observes all phenomena as impermanent, suffering, empty, and non-God—this is the foremost among all offerings."*
This says: among all giving and offerings, the one who observes all phenomena as they are through the four contemplations of impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-God has the supreme merit.
Why place 非神 alongside impermanence, suffering, and emptiness? Because 非神 is the summation of these three contemplations:
- Impermanence — there is nothing permanent; - Suffering — there is nothing to rely upon; - Emptiness — there is nothing substantial; - Non-God — there is no owner.
Thus 非神 is not an isolated doctrine, but a practice that must be truly examined upon all phenomena. The text's use of the word "observe" (觀) emphasizes direct seeing and direct realization, not merely mouthing "there is no self" and being done with it.
II. Walking Through It in Life
Let us take this ancient concept of 非神 and walk it through several concrete contemporary scenarios. Strictly mapping according to the classical definitions, without glossing over anything.
Scenario One: The Morning Commute, Squeezed Into the Subway
The subway is so crowded your feet barely touch the ground; music plays in your earbuds, but your mind is thinking, "Why am I the one riding this line every day?" "Is this all my life is?"
Walking through it according to the classics:
- Form aggregate (色) — the body is sweating, being squeezed, muscles aching; this moment's form aggregate is not the same as the form aggregate of ten years ago on the subway (impermanent → suffering → non-God); - Feeling aggregate (覺/受) — irritability, suffocation, helplessness; this is the arising and ceasing of feeling (impermanent → suffering → non-God); - Perception aggregate (想) — "me," "my commute," "my fate," "my life"—these labels are the work of perception (impermanent → suffering → non-God); - Volition aggregate (行) — restless thoughts rising and falling: "I'm going to be late," "I need to reply to this WeChat," "Should I quit?"—this is the flow of volitional construction (impermanent → suffering → non-God); - Consciousness aggregate (識) — "I am experiencing all of this"—this overall discernment is also changing (impermanent → suffering → non-God).
That "me" in "my life is just like this"—which aggregate is it?
Look carefully: you cannot find a master behind all of this. The body is the body, feeling is feeling, perception is perception, volition is volition, consciousness is consciousness—they occur together through conditions, but there is no "I" standing there lamenting.
The classic's counter-question: if "I" is the master of all this, why is the master squeezed in the middle, unable to move? Why can the master not control its own irritability? If the master is master, how could it be reduced to such a sorry state, packed in like this?
Scenario Two: Scrolling Your Phone Late Into the Night
At two in the morning, you are scrolling short videos, and the more you scroll, the harder it is to stop. The "me" that the algorithm knows—constructed from my dwell time, likes, and saves, it builds a "user profile" and pushes content I like.
This gives us a brilliant contemporary contrast: the algorithm is already helping us dismantle the "me."
- Your "interest profile" is not "you"—it is data; - Your "consumption preferences" are not "you"—they are statistics; - That "me" on the screen that you cooperatively perform—is the conditional arisal of form, feeling, perception, volition, consciousness, not you.
And when you scroll to some video and suddenly break down emotionally—a line of copy, a piece of music, an image—the feeling aggregate (受) has been struck. You say, "I am so sad."
Walking through it according to the classics: this moment's feeling aggregate is impermanent; the "me" that is sad in this moment is suffering (because it is hurting); this "me" that is sad is not the divine Self.
Note: the classics do not deny the sadness—sadness is a real event in the feeling aggregate. What the classics deny is the presupposition: "there is a permanent 'me' that is possessed by sadness."
That "me" in "I am so sad"—no owner can be found for it.
Scenario Three: "I Was Hurt" in an Intimate Relationship
Being hurt in an intimate relationship is one of the deepest pain points of contemporary life. You say: "I was hurt by them," "I am not loved," "my heart is shattered."
Walking through it according to the classics:
- "I was hurt" — who was hurt? The body was not hurt (maybe pushed once, but the form aggregate is impermanent). Actually it is the feeling aggregate (受) that is receiving—that ache, that pain of not being seen; - "I" — what is this "I"? It is the composite appearance of the five aggregates. But a composite appearance is not the divine Self; - "My" heart — "my" is a word of ownership. If the divine Self existed, it should actually own this heart. But your heart is now wounded by something they said, and also loosened once you see the impermanence clearly—it is changing; it belongs to no master; - "Hurt by them" — this is a passive construction, presupposing a passive recipient. But from the perspective of dependent arising, their behavior, your feeling, your reaction are multiple strands interweaving—there is no "me" passively waiting to be hurt.
The attachment to be broken here especially: "I was hurt by them" sounds like a description of fact, but in fact it is establishing a "divine Self"—a permanent, pure "me" that ought never to have been hurt. And this is precisely the typical construction of the divine Self.
Scenario Four: "My Child" in Parenting
The thing parents cling to most is "my child."
Walking through it according to the classics:
- This child is not your divine Self (the child is not-God—this is at the child's level); - This child does not belong to you (the child is not owned by the divine Self—not your possession); - You do not belong to this child (the divine Self is not owned by the child—you are not an appendage dwelling on the child).
Sounds cold? Actually this is breaking two extremes:
- One is treating the child as an extension of oneself, equating the child's success or failure with one's own worth; - One is treating the child as an investment target, treating the child's performance as return on investment.
Both presuppose a "divine Self" behind it all. The child is the child; the child is an independent stream of conditional arisal. What parents can do is care for and guide—but it is not "my" ownership over "my child."
Scenario Five: Working Late, Asking Your Life "Why"
"What exactly am I living for?" This is the deepest question of the contemporary overworked person at some late night.
Walking through it according to the classics:
- "I" — a composite of the five aggregates; - "Exactly" — a seeker; - "For what" — treating existence as a question awaiting an answer; - "Living" — treating life as a tool with a purpose.
In this entire sentence, every aggregate is in motion, but there is no "I" as protagonist.
The text does not say "don't ask." What the text says is: the "I" that asks is itself the movement of the five aggregates, not the divine Self. When you are asking, the "asking" itself is impermanent—the asking of this moment and the asking of three years ago are not the same; the "I" behind it has never appeared as a permanent face in any of your askings.
Common Mapping Errors, Pointed Out in Passing
- 非神 = "I have no self" — Wrong. This sentence has a grammatical trap: the subject of "I have no self" is still "I"; it still presupposes an "I" making the statement. Same trap. Better phrasing: "no permanent, autonomous divine Self can be found"—that is the tone of the text. - 非神 = "I must annihilate the self" — Wrong. The text does not say to annihilate anything; the five aggregates continue to operate as usual. There is simply no master. - 非神 = "I must be humble, not proud" — Wrong. Humility or its absence is a matter of personality; non-God is a matter of ontology. - 非神 = "I must take things lightly, not cling" — Wrong. Taking lightly and not clinging are results, not methods; the method is observing impermanence, suffering, and non-God as they are.
III. Why Contemporary People Need It
This concept of 非神—sounding very classical, very Eastern, very philosophical—actually precisely targets several symptoms of contemporary life.
1. The Age of Identity Anxiety
Today is an age of "be yourself."
- Pop phrases: "Be yourself," "find your true self," "live your authentic self," "be the one-of-a-kind you"; - Psychology buzzwords: "authentic self," "core self," "inner child," "true self"; - Commercial language: "personalized customization," "craft the exclusive you," "my brand."
Every one of these phrases reinforces the presupposition of a "divine Self": behind your experience, there is a real, unchanging "me" that should be recovered.
But the 《中阿含經》 says directly: there is no such "me" to be found. The "true self" you find is the perception aggregate, volition aggregate, and consciousness aggregate of a certain moment—the conditional arisal of the present—and in the next moment it is not that.
Making "be yourself" a life mission is itself chasing a master that cannot be found.
2. The Side Effects of Self-Help Culture
Self-help culture tells you: "I" is an object that can be optimized, upgraded, and healed. And so:
- Meditation apps: become a "better self"; - Fitness culture: sculpt a "better body"; - Psychotherapy: integrate a "more complete self"; - Learning communities: iterate a "higher-level me."
But there is a hidden paradox here: when you treat "I" as an object to be optimized, you are manufacturing a new "I"—a subject that is doing the optimizing. This new subject is still the divine Self.
The 《中阿含經》 says: there is nothing that is the object of optimization, and there is no optimizer either. There is only the flow of conditional arisal.
Self-help culture leaves people emptier the more they optimize, because it can never find the master being optimized — of course it can't; there isn't one.
3. The Trap of the "Narrative Self"
Psychology today has a popular distinction: the "narrative self" versus the "experiencing self."
- The experiencing self: the feeling, seeing, thinking of this very moment; - The narrative self: the storyteller who strings past, present, and future into "the story of my life."
The narrative self is actually the work of the volition and consciousness aggregates, but it can be mistaken for the divine Self. We say: "my life," "my story," "my past"—presupposing an "I" dwelling inside that story.
The 《中阿含經》's response: the story is the story; the "I" cannot be found. When you equate "me" with your story, the moment the story changes, you collapse; the moment the story ends, you are "gone." The root of this fragility is the presupposition of the divine Self.
4. The "Manufactured Self" of the Algorithm Age
The algorithm age has a new phenomenon: the algorithm knows you better than you do.
- Douyin knows better than you what you want to watch; - Shopping platforms know better than you what you want to buy; - Social media knows better than you what you want to follow.
This means: "I" is being continuously rewritten by an external system. What you take today as "my own interest" is the result of yesterday's algorithmic feeding; what you take as "my own view" is a result shaped by what was pushed to you.
Contemporary people are actually closer to the experience of 非神 than any previous age: the so-called "me" is a confluence of data streams + neural streams + cultural streams—no true master is there.
The 非神 of the 《中阿含經》 resonates deeply with this contemporary experience—of course, analogy is not equivalence. The 非神 spoken of in Buddhism is a liberative thrust that utterly cuts off the presupposition of the divine Self; the "manufactured self" of the algorithm age is a philosophical reflection—the two are not the same. But contemporary experience can serve as an entry point for understanding 非神.
5. The Resonance of Contemporary Neuroscience (With Its Limits Noted)
Contemporary neuroscience has found: there is no unified "control center" in the brain.
- Decision-making is the result of competition among multiple modules, not decided by an "I"; - Memory is reconstructed after the fact, not stored by an "I"; - The brain activity of the "self" is fluid and multi-sited.
This is not to say "science has proven Buddhism"—that would be too heavy a claim; Buddhism does not rely on scientific proof, and science also cannot definitively falsify the existence of the divine Self. But contemporary science at least loosens the common-sense assumption that "I" is a unified subject. This forms a parallel contemporary echo with the 《中阿含經》's "five aggregates not-God," "three-directional negation," and "awareness not-God," proposed more than two thousand years ago.
IV. Common Misreadings and Clarifications
Misreading 1: 非神 = Atheism
Clarification: Not at all.
非神 is a soteriological + ontological proposition: "no permanent, autonomous divine Self can be found." It is not saying there are no deities, no Brahmā, no religious objects.
The 《中阿含經》 itself lists the categories of "gods" such as Prajāpati, Brahmā, Avṛha, Atapa, and still performs the three-directional negation within those categories—rather than denying the objective existence of those categories.
It even acknowledges these "gods" as conditionally arisen existences—only, no "god" is a permanent, autonomous true Self.
Translating 非神 as "atheism" imposes the modern meaning of "god = deity" from Chinese religious contexts onto the text's "god = divine Self"—a complete displacement.
Misreading 2: 非神 = Denying That an "I" Exists
Clarification: Not so.
The text does not say "I" does not exist; it says there is no permanent, autonomous "divine Self."
"I" as a conventional designation for the conditional arisal of the five aggregates can still be used at the conventional level—the Buddha says "I" did this and that in many sūtras. It is only that no substantial, autonomous "I" is to be found.
This is like a fine-grained ontological analysis:
- You can continue to say "I am tired," "I am hungry," "I am thinking"; - But when you try to find where "I" is, what it is, whom it belongs to, where it is headed—no permanent one is found.
The English translation of 無我 (*anatta*) as *non-self* is sometimes rendered *no-self*—the latter is an over-translation. No divine Self ≠ no "I" at the phenomenal level.
Misreading 3: 非神 Opposes All Agency and Responsibility
Clarification: No.
Actions occur conditionally, causality remains. But there is no "divine Self" initiating everything.
So the 《中阿含經》 does not deny that people do evil, create karma, and receive retribution—it only says that what does evil, creates karma, and receives retribution is not the divine Self, but the flow of conditional arisal.
This is also why 非神 in Buddhism does not lead to indulgence or nihilism—causality is not void; it is only that no permanent "I" carries the burden of causality.
Misreading 4: 非神 Is a Kind of Coldness or Heartlessness
Clarification: No.
非神 does not require you to "not cling," "not care," "be unmoved." It requires you to see clearly that the "I" that is "clinging," "caring," "being moved" is not the divine Self.
After seeing this clearly, compassion is actually purer—because you no longer love from the starting point of a divine Self ("me," "my child," "my partner"), but care from sentient beings as dependently arisen.
What the 《中阿含經》 refutes is not love, but the owner-presupposition behind love.
Misreading 5: 非神 Means Nothing After Death
Clarification: No.
非神 speaks of the present reality of the five aggregates, not about whether an "I" goes somewhere after death. In many places the Buddha declined to answer the metaphysical question of "whether an 'I' exists after death" (the 《中阿含經》 contains related discussions), but positively asserts: right now, in the five aggregates, no divine Self can be found. This is a different question from "nothing remains after death."
Misreading 6: 非神 = Nihilism
Clarification: No.
Nihilism says "nothing has meaning." 非神 draws no such conclusion.
What 非神 breaks through is the divine Self, not phenomena themselves; suffering can be brought to cessation (this is nirvāṇa), and dependent arising remains clear (causality is not void). Breaking the divine Self is not breaking everything—it is only breaking that counterfeit master presupposition.
Misreading 7: 非神 = "應無所住而生其心" (Give Rise to the Mind Without Dwelling Anywhere)
Clarification: These are echoes between two traditions, not the same concept.
The 《金剛經》's "應無所住而生其心" is a formulation of the Mahāyāna Prajñāpāramitā lineage; The 《中阿含經》's 非神 is a formulation of the early Āgama lineage.
Both break clinging, but the terminological lineages, the systems of practice and realization, and the problematics are different. The 《金剛經》 unfolds within the Mahāyāna development of emptiness; the 《中阿含經》 unfolds within the direct observation of the five aggregates.
When citing, one should accurately mark the source; the two should not be conflated.
Misreading 8: 非神 Only Concerns the Body
Clarification: Wrong.
The 《中阿含經》 goes from the five aggregates (form/feeling/perception/volition/consciousness) to the physical body, to all phenomena of the world, to awareness itself—breaking through layer by layer. Understanding it only as "the body is not the divine Self" is narrowing a precise ontological dismantling into a single proposition about the body.
In Closing
非神 sounds like a negative concept—refuting, dismantling, sweeping clean. But it is in fact a gentle concept.
Why?
Because it tells us: there is no "true self" that you must defend, must prove, must fear losing.
You do not need to be yourself—because there is no permanent "self" that needs to be enacted; You do not need to prove yourself—because there is no permanent "self" that needs to be proven; You do not need to lose yourself—because there is no permanent "self" that can be lost.
You only need to:
- Observe as they are the impermanence of the present five aggregates; - See the suffering within impermanence; - From that seeing of suffering, naturally let go of the presupposition of the divine Self.
This is what the 《中阿含經》 calls "觀一切諸法無常、苦、空、非神" — that line seated at the highest merit.
It does not teach us to become nihilistic; it teaches us to open our hands.
After opening the hands, what remains is the conditionally arisen, the flowing, the unbound by any master, the clear and lucid present moment.