Appearance and Reality

1. Introduction: The Problem of Illusion and Manifestation

Every philosophy of the Absolute eventually encounters the same paradox: If ultimate reality is perfect, self-sufficient, unborn, or absolute being, then how do appearances arise? Why is there a world at all, if the true nature of things is emptiness or Brahman? This question presses equally on Unborn Mind Zen and Advaita Vedānta, albeit in distinct registers.

For the Unborn tradition, appearances are the ceaseless “dreamings” of the unenlightened mind. They hold no independent ground, yet they press upon the ordinary mind as though they were real. The way of freedom, according to this view, is to remain always “prior-to” the arising of phenomena—to abide in the luminous stillness of the Unborn Mind, unentangled in its projections.

Advaita Vedānta frames the matter differently but with a strikingly similar intuition: the world is māyā, a projection upon Brahman, much like the illusory snake mistaken for a rope in dim light. Appearances are neither real (since they dissolve upon inquiry) nor unreal (since they function in experience). They are superimpositions, veils that obscure the substratum of pure consciousness.

Thus, both traditions wrestle with the relationship between reality and illusion, appearance and ground. Yet their resolutions diverge in crucial ways. Zen refuses to grant appearances any positive metaphysical standing, insisting on the discipline of remaining unborn. Advaita, meanwhile, classifies the phenomenal as a dependent level of reality, to be seen through in the process of spiritual discernment.

Before entering into Advaita’s māyā, however, we must first explore how the Unborn Mind tradition deals with the world of appearances—its shimmering dreamscapes, its illusory grasp, and its ultimate lack of self-nature.—

2. Unborn Mind Zen: Phenomena as Shadows of the Unborn

The Unborn Mind tradition emphasizes a radical stance toward appearances: they are not to be polished, embraced, or ritualized, but simply recognized as non-binding shadows. Whereas some Zen schools, especially through Dōgen, affirm the reality of phenomena as expressions of the dharma (“mountains and rivers are the Buddha”), Unborn Mind Zen draws a sharp line. Phenomena, for the Unborn perspective, are distractions at best and fetters at worst.

Here, the world is likened to the restless play of reflections on water. They dance, shimmer, and take on endlessly shifting forms, but they hold no essence of their own. To take them as real is to be caught in the dream, unable to awaken. The luminous Mind—the Unborn—is ever-present behind this play, prior to it, untouched by it. Liberation means learning to “remain prior-to” all phenomena, never descending into their seductions.

This insistence sets Unborn Mind Zen apart from many strands of Mahāyāna Buddhism. Where Dōgen encouraged practitioners to see practice itself as realization, to affirm the “isness” of phenomena as dharmic, Unborn Mind Zen sees this as perilously close to reification. To affirm the mountain as Buddha is, from the Unborn view, to lose sight of the Mind prior to all form. Hence their critique of seated meditation (zazen): to sit in hopes of polishing the mirror is to remain in the dream, waiting for what never comes. The Unborn is not attained; it is prior-to, always already the case.

This perspective creates a very different relationship to appearances. In classical Zen, one might find poetry in the cherry blossoms, finding them radiant with impermanence and dharmic truth. In Unborn Zen, one is cautioned not to romanticize the blossoms at all, but to stand firmly in the unborn clarity from which both blossoms and observer arise.

The emphasis is not on celebrating the phenomenal, but on withdrawing into the unborn awareness beyond it. As the Unborn texts repeatedly remind: “The Unborn cannot be grasped. It cannot be cultivated. It is prior to birth and death, prior to all things. Rest there.”

3. Advaita Vedānta: The Doctrine of Māyā

If Unborn Mind Zen treats phenomena as shadows of the unborn, Advaita Vedānta treats them as māyā—the cosmic illusion that veils Brahman. Māyā is among the most discussed, debated, and misunderstood terms in Indian philosophy. It is not simply “illusion” in the sense of false appearance, nor merely “magic.” Instead, it is the mysterious principle by which the real appears as the unreal, the eternal as the temporal, the infinite as the finite.

Śaṅkara, Advaita’s most authoritative exponent, frequently resorts to analogies to clarify māyā’s elusive nature. The most famous is the rope-snake analogy: in dim light, one mistakes a rope for a snake. The snake has no reality of its own, yet it terrifies, paralyzes, and conditions one’s experience. The snake is not “real,” for closer inspection dispels it; yet it is not wholly “unreal,” for it has exerted force upon the perceiver. Such is the world of appearances. It does not exist apart from Brahman, yet it conceals Brahman by its projections.

Māyā is thus said to be anirvacanīya—indescribable. It cannot be called real, since it disappears upon realization. Nor can it be called unreal, since it manifests as experience. It is a liminal force, a superimposition (adhyāsa) upon the real. The Upaniṣads declare: brahma satyam, jagan mithyā—Brahman is real, the world is illusory. But Śaṅkara is careful to stress that “illusory” does not mean the world is a mere nothingness, but that its apparent independence and self-subsistence are false. The world is dependent, provisional, not ultimate.

This distinction allows Advaita to account for the practical reality of life while preserving the absoluteness of Brahman. The tradition distinguishes between three orders of reality:

1. Pāramārthika satya (ultimate reality): only Brahman.
2. Vyāvahārika satya (empirical reality): the world as experienced in daily life, governed by cause and effect, dharma, and ethical responsibility.
3. Prātibhāsika satya (illusory reality): dream-objects, mirages, and errors like mistaking a rope for a snake.

From this perspective, appearances are not simply dismissed. They have a functional role at the empirical level. What is denied is their ultimate self-standing. As the Chāndogya Upaniṣad puts it: “All this is Brahman.” The world is Brahman seen through māyā, a dependent projection of the one substratum of consciousness.

Thus, while Unborn Mind Zen urges the practitioner to remain prior-to phenomena, Advaita allows for a graded realism: appearances have their place within empirical life but must be seen through to reach the non-dual ground. Liberation (mokṣa) comes when the veil of māyā is pierced, and the world is no longer seen as separate from Brahman.

4. Two Structures of Truth: Buddhist vs. Advaitic

At this juncture, the parallels and contrasts become especially illuminating. Buddhism, especially through Nāgārjuna and Madhyamaka, articulates the Two Truths Doctrine:

* Conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya): the everyday functioning of

appearances.

* Ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya): emptiness, the lack of inherent existence in all things.

Advaita’s two-tier reality (with an additional prātibhāsika level) mirrors this in structure but differs in content. For Buddhism, ultimate truth is the emptiness of all dharmas. For Advaita, ultimate truth is the fullness of Brahman, the substratum that remains after negation. Both deny the ultimate self-existence of appearances, but Advaita resolves into Being, while Zen resolves into the unborn clarity of no-thingness.

The Buddhist two truths resist any substantial grounding, insisting that even emptiness is empty. Advaita, by contrast, insists on an Absolute that is not empty but full—sat-chit-ānanda (being-consciousness-bliss). In the first, appearances dissolve into a groundless openness; in the second, appearances dissolve into pure, self-luminous consciousness.

5. Remaining Prior-to Phenomena: Unborn Mind Zen’s Antithesis to Phenomenal Engagement

Unborn Mind Zen is relentless in its warning against being seduced by appearances, whether they are mundane perceptions or exalted meditative states. All are regarded as distractions from the Real. The very act of attending to phenomena, of giving them ontological weight, is to step away from the unborn ground.

Thus the guiding injunction: remain “prior-to” phenomena. This does not mean rejecting them as though they were foreign or antagonistic; rather, it means not allowing one’s awareness to collapse into them. To remain prior is to recognize phenomena as aftereffects, echoes, shimmering shadows that cannot define or contain the Unborn.

This stance leads to a profound contrast with the Zen of Dōgen, where shikantaza (just sitting) embraces the flux of phenomena as inseparable from enlightenment. For Dōgen, “to study the self is to forget the self, and to forget the self is to be illuminated by the ten thousand things.” In Dōgen’s Zen, the very multiplicity of appearances participates in realization. In Unborn Mind Zen, however, such a view risks falling into samsaric enchantment. The true Self—the Nirvanic Suchness—does not need to be illuminated by appearances. It shines self-luminously when freed from them.

This divergence is crucial: where Dōgen’s Zen sacralizes the phenomenal as the locus of awakening, Unborn Mind Zen deems such emphasis anathema. It calls the practitioner back to what precedes all arising, insisting that ultimate liberation is not to be found within the tapestry of the ten thousand things but in their groundless ground, their unborn priorness.

6. Advaita Vedānta: The Veil of Māyā

Against this, Advaita Vedānta’s doctrine of māyā operates differently. Māyā is not dismissed outright but is seen as the necessary condition for manifestation. The world as we experience it is a projection of Brahman through māyā, and while ultimately unreal, it has a provisional and pragmatic validity.

This means that Advaita accepts, for soteriological purposes, a graded path. The student first learns to discriminate between the real and the unreal (viveka), then practices detachment (vairāgya), then cultivates the six virtues (ṣaṭ-sampat), and only after long reflection (nididhyāsana) comes to pierce the veil of māyā.

Thus, Advaita does not advocate remaining prior-to phenomena in the radical sense of Unborn Mind Zen. Rather, it teaches a slow disentangling of appearances, a stripping away through negation (neti-neti). Phenomena are engaged but gradually reclassified as non-ultimate, until only Brahman remains.

7. Nishida and the Paradox of Absolute Nothingness

Enter Kitarō Nishida, whose philosophy of Absolute Nothingness attempts a synthesis beyond these poles. For Nishida, reality is not a static substance (as in Advaita’s Brahman) nor a sheer negation of phenomena (as in the radical reading of Zen emptiness). Instead, Absolute Nothingness is the dynamic field wherein subject and object, appearance and reality, self and world interpenetrate.

Nishida speaks of the “self-determination of nothingness”—an activity of the groundless ground that manifests phenomena without being bound by them. In this light, appearance is not simply to be rejected, nor simply to be seen as illusory, but to be understood as the self-expression of a nothingness that is simultaneously empty and full.

This places Nishida closer to Dōgen in his openness to phenomena, yet his concept of Absolute Nothingness resonates also with the Unborn emphasis on priorness. For Nishida, the “prior” does not exclude the phenomenal but makes it possible. Appearances are neither independently real nor utterly null: they are the play of Absolute Nothingness, the way the groundless ground gives itself form without ceasing to be formless.

8. Comparative Insights: Three Attitudes Toward Appearance

By this point, three distinct attitudes emerge:

1. Unborn Mind Zen: Radical refusal to collapse into appearances; liberation lies in remaining prior-to all arising.
2. Advaita Vedānta: Engagement with appearances as provisional; liberation is gradual unveiling of the substratum (Brahman) behind the veil of māyā.
3. Nishida’s Philosophy: A paradoxical embrace of appearances as the self-determination of Absolute Nothingness, where the ground expresses itself as the phenomenal without ceasing to be non-phenomenal.

Each system honors the need to overcome attachment to phenomena, yet each configures the relationship differently: as outright bypass (Unborn), as graded unveiling (Advaita), or as dialectical expression (Nishida).

9. Practical Approaches to Appearance in Unborn Mind Zen

For Unborn Mind Zen, the imperative to remain “prior-to” phenomena translates into concrete guidance for meditation and practice. Unlike traditions that encourage contemplative attention to the flux of thought, sensation, or perception, Unborn Mind practice directs the practitioner to the very source before such contents arise.

Meditation, in this frame, is not an act of watching thoughts or allowing perceptions to pass by like clouds. It is instead a radical refusal to grant them any ontological footing at all. The practitioner cultivates a stance of indifference toward both coarse and subtle contents. Visions, blissful states, even apparent insights—these are deemed mere phenomena, deceptive sparks in the void.

Here the teaching is uncompromising: to sit “with phenomena” is already to concede defeat. Hence the sharp criticism of Dōgen’s shikantaza, where the arising and passing of the “ten thousand things” is embraced as the very theater of awakening. From the Unborn standpoint, such openness risks perpetual entanglement. True freedom emerges only when awareness recognizes itself as unborn, untouched, and utterly prior to the whole parade of appearances.

10. Practical Approaches to Appearance in Advaita Vedānta

Advaita Vedānta recommends a more graduated, pedagogical engagement with appearance. A seeker is not immediately told to dismiss phenomena as nothing. Instead, Advaita adopts a strategy of provisional reality: the world exists in a relative sense, and its appearances can serve as stepping-stones toward realization.

Meditation in Advaita often takes the form of discriminative inquiry (viveka) and negation (neti-neti). One examines each experience, asking: “Is this permanent? Is this self-luminous? Does it endure across time?” Inevitably, all phenomenal objects fail the test. By stripping away each layer—body, mind, emotion, thought—the practitioner uncovers the one reality that cannot be negated: the witnessing Self (Ātman), which Advaita declares identical to Brahman.

Thus, while Unborn Mind instructs the seeker to refuse phenomena from the start, Advaita uses them as provisional tools. Appearances are not denied but reclassified, their impermanence and dependence leading the student inexorably toward the unconditioned ground.

11. Practical Approaches to Appearance in Nishida’s Philosophy

Nishida’s Absolute Nothingness reshapes the very question of practice. For him, appearances are not obstructions but the dynamic unfolding of the groundless ground itself. To encounter the world is already to encounter Absolute Nothingness expressing itself.

This does not mean clinging to appearances; rather, it means perceiving them as transparent to their origin. Aesthetic experience, ethical action, and contemplative life all become avenues of disclosure. For example, in moments of self-forgetfulness—whether in art, moral sacrifice, or deep meditation—one perceives the self and world as mutually arising within a larger field of nothingness.

Thus, while Unborn Mind advocates radical bypass and Advaita insists on negation, Nishida suggests transformation of perception: to see appearances as the play of Absolute Nothingness, neither rejected nor clung to, but revealed in their paradoxical unity with the formless.

12. Ethical Implications: How to Live Among Appearances

The differences in metaphysical attitude spill naturally into ethics.

* Unborn Mind Zen: Ethics is grounded in the refusal to be ensnared by appearances. Compassion arises spontaneously, but it is not cultivated through engagement with the phenomenal. It emerges as a natural radiance of the unborn Self, untouched by illusion. To act compassionately is to act without being defined by the flux of the world.

* Advaita Vedānta: Here, ethics is initially pragmatic. The seeker is advised to live a life of detachment and virtue—non-harming, truthfulness, simplicity—as preparatory disciplines (sādhana). Ethical life purifies the mind so it can discern the unreality of phenomena. Eventually, when Brahman is realized, ethics becomes spontaneous, a byproduct of non-dual seeing.

* Nishida’s Philosophy: Ethics finds its root in the field of Absolute Nothingness itself. Because appearances are expressions of the groundless ground, ethical action is a way of aligning with this dynamic field. Selfless action—where the ego steps aside and the field acts through one—is the highest ethical form. Compassion, creativity, and responsibility emerge naturally from the recognition of interpenetration within Absolute Nothingness.

13. Comparative Summary of Practice and Ethics

To crystallize:

* Unborn Mind Zen: Practice = radical refusal of phenomena; Ethics = spontaneous radiance from unborn Self.

* Advaita Vedānta: Practice = gradual discrimination and negation of phenomena; Ethics = preparatory purification leading to spontaneous virtue.

* Nishida: Practice = transformation of perception, seeing appearances as Absolute Nothingness; Ethics = selfless action as expression of the groundless field.

These stances provide not only differing metaphysical insights but also profoundly different orientations toward daily living. Where one tradition urges detachment, another insists on reclassification, and another celebrates transformation. Each yields a unique path for engaging the unavoidable fact of appearances in human life.

14. Unborn Mind Zen in Critical Contrast with Advaita

From the standpoint of Unborn Mind Zen, Advaita Vedānta’s reliance on a graded, pedagogical approach risks reinforcing the very illusions it seeks to transcend. To discriminate between “real” and “unreal,” to examine the ephemeral, to say “not this, not that”—all of this presupposes giving phenomena enough weight to investigate.

The Unborn critique runs as follows: why analyze mirages? To study them is already to be caught in their spell. The neti-neti method is therefore viewed as unnecessarily circuitous. If the Self is unborn, luminous, and prior to all arising, why not rest there immediately? To grant appearances a provisional status is still to be ensnared by their seeming significance. The Unborn practitioner would say: “Drop it all at once; refuse the seduction of analysis; abide in the Unborn, and be free.”

By contrast, Advaita responds: only a rare few can make that radical leap. For most, the gradual process of negation is indispensable. The path of discrimination prevents the seeker from mistaking ordinary states of indifference or dissociation for realization. The very act of negating reveals the Self’s luminosity. Thus Advaita sees Unborn Mind Zen’s immediacy as admirable but perhaps too uncompromising, potentially leaving unprepared seekers stranded in a nihilistic misunderstanding.

15. Unborn Mind Zen in Critical Contrast with Nishida

Unborn Mind Zen’s dismissal of appearances also collides with Nishida’s more generous stance. For Nishida, the world is not an enemy but the unfolding of Absolute Nothingness itself. Appearances are transparent to their ground and thus can serve as revelations.

Unborn Mind Zen, however, is skeptical. If one embraces appearances as revelatory, does that not risk subtle attachment? Even if one sees the world as play, the sensory manifold continues to ensnare attention. “Prior-to phenomena” means never granting them ontological dignity, not even as translucent expressions of a deeper ground.

Yet Nishida might reply: by denying appearances so sharply, Unborn Mind Zen risks devaluing lived life. The flowers of spring, the call of a friend, the brushstroke of an artist—are these to be rejected outright as snares? Nishida’s philosophy insists they are the very sites where Absolute Nothingness reveals itself. Without the world’s manifold, how would the formless shine?

Thus, while Unborn Mind insists on severance, Nishida insists on embrace. The two stances mark divergent strategies for liberation: one radical refusal, the other paradoxical affirmation.

16. Advaita in Contrast with Nishida

Advaita occupies a middle ground between these two poles. It shares with Unborn Mind Zen the conviction that appearances are ultimately unreal, but it shares with Nishida the acknowledgment that they can be provisionally useful.

For Advaita, appearances are ladders: one climbs them, only to cast them away once Brahman is realized. Nishida, by contrast, insists that the ladder is never cast aside—the Absolute expresses itself through every rung. Even after realization, the world is not illusion to be transcended, but manifestation to be embraced.

Thus Advaita critiques Nishida as overvaluing the phenomenal, while Nishida critiques Advaita as failing to appreciate the paradoxical fullness of emptiness. The conversation between them mirrors the tension between negation and affirmation, transcendence and immanence.

17. Three Stances in Triangular Dialogue

If we stage an imaginary dialogue:

* Unborn Mind Zen declares: “To grant appearances any role is to be ensnared. The Unborn Self is prior-to all arising. Rest there, or remain bound.”

* Advaita Vedānta responds: “Few can rest there without preparation. Appearances are stepping-stones, illusions that nonetheless lead one to the real.”

* Nishida interjects: “Appearances are not obstacles nor mere ladders. They are the Absolute Nothingness itself at play. To see this is to live the paradox of fullness in emptiness.”

The dialogue crystallizes the unique value and limitation of each stance: immediacy, pedagogy, and paradox.

18. Toward a Comparative Synthesis

Rather than seeing these as mutually exclusive, one might consider them as complementary insights into the human encounter with appearances.

* Unborn Mind Zen reminds us of the danger of subtle attachment, insisting that freedom requires radical severance.

* Advaita reminds us of the necessity of gradual unfolding, offering a compassionate path for seekers of diverse capacities.

* Nishida reminds us that the world itself need not be denied, but can be perceived as the very radiance of the Absolute.

Together, they form a triangular constellation: refusal, negation, and affirmation. Each, in its way, addresses the same riddle: how to live in a world of appearances without being bound by it.

19. Appearance and Reality in the Realm of Art

Art provides a rich testing ground for the philosophy of appearance.

Unborn Mind Zen would likely warn against identifying too much with artistic creation. To be enthralled by beauty is to fall back into the snare of appearances. The Zen practitioner is advised to remain “prior-to” the brushstroke, the melody, the stage performance. If art arises, it should be seen as a spontaneous expression of the Unborn Mind, not a crafted object to be clung to.

Advaita Vedānta, however, could embrace art as a pedagogical tool. A painting, a poem, or a piece of music can point beyond itself. Just as a metaphor in the Upaniṣads hints at Brahman, art can become a mirror reflecting the truth of the Self—though, ultimately, it too must be transcended.

Nishida’s philosophy would go further, affirming art as one of the most luminous revelations of Absolute Nothingness. In the dance of color and form, in the silence between musical notes, the very paradox of emptiness as fullness shines forth. Art is not a distraction but a disclosure of the ground.

Here we see the divergence: Unborn Mind Zen minimizes art, Advaita instrumentalizes it, and Nishida sacralizes it.

20. Appearance and Reality in Ethical Life

The ethical realm forces philosophy into human terms: how should one live among others?

Unborn Mind Zen maintains that ethics arise naturally when one abides in the Unborn. Compassion is not cultivated but flows spontaneously from the recognition of Suchness. Yet it warns: if one is caught in appearances, even compassion can degenerate into egoic performance.

Advaita Vedānta emphasizes dharma (righteous action) as preparation. Ethical living purifies the mind, creating the inner clarity necessary for realizing Brahman. Appearances of duty and obligation are not the end, but they form the stepping-stones toward liberation.

Nishida envisions ethics as the creative expression of Absolute Nothingness through the individual. To act ethically is to embody the paradox of selfless selfhood, where the particular serves as a site for the universal’s unfolding. Appearances of relationship are not hindrances, but the very place where the formless takes form.

Thus, Unborn Mind Zen severs appearances, Advaita harnesses them, and Nishida redeems them.

21. Appearance and Reality in the Face of Death

Death is the crucible where theories of appearance and reality are tested.

For Unborn Mind Zen, death is the ultimate appearance—illusory, fleeting, incapable of touching the Unborn Self. To abide prior-to phenomena is to see that birth and death never truly occur.

For Advaita, death is dissolved by discrimination: “I am not the body, not the mind, not the senses.” Neti-neti carries the seeker through the threshold, revealing the timeless Self beyond change.

For Nishida, death is not annihilation but the ultimate revelation of Absolute Nothingness. In the vanishing of the self, the boundless field becomes visible. Death is not negation but fulfillment—the paradoxical fullness of emptiness unveiled.

In each, the fear of death is transformed, but the route differs: refusal, negation, and paradoxical embrace.

22. The Question of Freedom

The treatment of appearances is, at its heart, a question of freedom.

Unborn Mind Zen defines freedom as emancipation from appearances altogether. True liberation is to abide in the Unborn, untouched by the fleeting play of form.

Advaita defines freedom as the realization that appearances are not-self, culminating in abiding as Brahman. One is free when one sees the unreality of the world and the sole reality of the Self.

Nishida defines freedom as the creative play of Absolute Nothingness through the finite. Freedom is not flight from appearances, but living them as expressions of the infinite.

Thus, freedom is imagined as severance, as transcendence, and as paradoxical immanence.

23. Concluding Synthesis 

The study of appearance and reality in Unborn Mind Zen, Advaita Vedānta, and Nishida’s philosophy offers three profound but distinct answers to the human predicament.

Unborn Mind Zen: Freedom is already here, if only one remains prior-to phenomena.

Advaita Vedānta: Freedom is reached by negating appearances until only Brahman remains.

Nishida: Freedom is the paradoxical realization that appearances are Absolute Nothingness itself.

Together, they form not a contradiction but a spectrum: radical refusal, stepwise negation, and paradoxical affirmation.

This spectrum is not just theoretical. It touches art, ethics, death, and the meaning of freedom itself. By seeing these contrasts, the seeker gains clarity: appearances may bind us, guide us, or reveal to us the very ground of being. Reality is not one but encountered through different windows, each offering a distinct but overlapping vision of the same ineffable truth.