English
É is referred to as the nature of ultimate reality in terminology. As it is said, "The noble ones who directly see the nature of ultimate reality," and so on. This very reality is referred to by various names such as non-different name, ultimate reality, ultimate truth, emptiness, suchness, and the ultimate limit. On each phenomenon, merely the aspect of severing true establishment is just ultimate reality, but it is not the ultimate ultimate reality. Because it is merely negation, merely exclusion, merely an image of realization, and merely a temporary dharma. Therefore, what is the nature of reality that does not abide in all extremes, that transcends the elaboration of negation and affirmation? It cannot be the suchness of all phenomena, which is the object of non-conceptual activity. Therefore, in the context of examining whether or not it is an object of mind, one speaks of the non-different name, but there is nothing to say about the ultimate reality with different names. Because the ultimate reality with different names is merely a fabrication made in front of conceptual thought when a beginner gradually enters emptiness. For wisdom that has eliminated dualistic appearance, such as the samadhi wisdom of noble ones, where is an object of experience like it? It is like how it is impossible for a Mutoba to sit on the throne of a Chakravartin. How is it so? When the non-conceptual samadhi of a noble learner directly realizes emptiness in the manner of eliminating dualistic appearance, phenomena such as vases do not appear before it. If there is not even the grasping of what is to be negated, true establishment, then how can the exclusion of "untrue" be made an object? Because the object of the grasping of "untrue" depends on the severance of what is to be negated, true establishment, and appears in the mind, it is impossible for it to appear in the manner of establishing itself independently. If it appears as an object without depending on phenomena and what is to be negated, then it becomes ultimate reality established by its own nature, and therefore becomes a reason for refuting others. Furthermore, those who analyze ultimate reality with inference, or those who confidently claim to have found or seen the nature of the object with the wisdom that directly realizes ultimate reality, no matter how they refute other-emptiness, it is merely that they have not noticed that their own inner depths have been controlled by other-emptiness. Therefore, the wisdom of the noble ones, being without conceptual thought, sees the self-character of the ultimate truth, which is empty of all extremes.