by Tang Huyen

I often say that in Fénelon, God is a place-holder,
but an empty place-holder, in that it holds the place
for nothing, nothing comes to replace it. The only thing
left is the contemplation empty of any object, like self
and God. That contemplation is its own reward, its own
justification, its own end (Selbstzweck). It makes no
reference to anything outside of itself, it makes no
reference to anything at all. It is purely in and of itself.
Which is why it has no limit.

Grace comes free, it is sourceless and stateless.
It is nothing other than an attitude. Buddhism
does nothing about the world and only helps one
change one's attitude, and that attitude has no
object to which it would be beholden, it has no
thing and object in it. One can pray, but one prays
to nothing and nobody. One feels grateful, but one
feels grateful to nothing and nobody. The prayer
and the feeling of gratitude, etc. are objectless
and homeless. They are strictly speaking baseless,
supportless.

The Diamond scripture says: "the bodhisattva
mahāsattva ought to give rise to an unsupported
thought (a-pratiṣṭhitaṃ cittam), to a thought
unsupported by anything (na kvacit-pratiṣṭhitaṃ
cittam), to a thought unsupported by form, sound,
scent, flavour, tangible, object-of-mind." Hui-neng
is supposed to awaken when hearing this short
disquisition. It is often quoted by the Hva-shang
of Northern Chan in the Lhasa debate against
Kamalaśīla.

A being devoted to awakening (bodhi-sattva),
a great being, having stood in the perfection of
wisdom, by way of not taking his stand on it
(prajñā-pāramitāyāṃ sthitvā-asthāna-yogena),
should perfect the perfection of giving, by way
of seeing that no renunciation has taken place,
since gift, giver, and recipient have not been
apprehended (Iha Śāriputra bodhi-sattvena
mahā-sattvena prajñā-pāramitāyāṃ
sthitvāsthāna-yogena dāna-pāramitā
paripūrayitavyā aparitya-yogena
dāyaka-pratigṛhaka-deyānupalabdhitāṃ
upādāya). Edward Conze, The Large Sutra on
Perfect Wisdom, 45; Étienne Lamotte, Le traité
de la grande vertu de la sagesse, II, 650.

The above quotations say roughly: "All support
is unsupported." "All foundation is unfounded."
"All basis is baseless." "All establishment is
unestablished." "All ground is groundless."
"All bottom is bottomless." Just float free and
all is done.

I often say that in Fénelon, God is a place-holder,
but an empty place-holder, in that it holds the
place for nothing, nothing comes to replace it.
One uses God as a trick (an Ansatz) to meditate,
to guide the mind in a certain way, but there is
nothing to substantiate the trick. It is a pure
mind-game. One uses God to annihilate oneself
(auto-annihilation), to do away with all
self-interests, as one loves God in pure love,
one loves God purely for the sake of God and not
for oneself, and when all that is accomplished,
there is no self and God left, because they are
all mere hypotheses. The only thing left is the
contemplation empty of any object, like self and
God. That contemplation is its own reward, its
own justification, its own end (Selbstzweck).
It makes no reference to anything outside of
itself, it makes no reference to anything at all.
It is purely in and of itself. Which is why it
has no limit.

Colophon

Written by Tang Huyen and posted to
talk.religion.buddhism on 28 May 2006, in reply
to a discussion of grace, freedom, and the
objectlessness of spiritual gratitude. The
correspondent Advaita Bob had raised the
question of whether grace can truly be sourceless:
any attitude of gratitude seems to imply a "grateful
to someone." Tang Huyen's reply dissolves the
problem — not by argument but by pointing to
the Diamond Scripture's apratisthita-citta and
Fénelon's via negativa, both of which arrive at
the same place: a contemplation that has
annihilated all objects including itself.
Original Message-ID: <[email protected]>.

Tang Huyen was a regular contributor to
Buddhist Usenet groups through the 2000s,
distinguished by rigorous citation of Pali,
Sanskrit, and Chinese canonical sources
alongside Western scholarship. His sustained
engagement with Fénelon — the 17th-century
French Catholic mystic and archbishop —
as a cross-traditional parallel to Chan and
Prajñāpāramitā thought is one of the most
distinctive contributions in the corpus.

Preserved from the Usenet archive for the
Good Work Library by the New Tianmu
Anglican Church, 2026.
Original Message-ID: <[email protected]>.

🌲