Ir al contenido principal

AtR Guide - abridged version

 


This is a shortened version of the complete AtR Guide (1000+ pages), which in turn is a compilation of texts of John Tan’s and Soh Wei Yu’s ‘Awakening to Reality’ blog (950+ entries). It is intended to serve as an introduction for those other sources, that shouldn’t be skipped further down the road. This abridged version follows closely AtR Guide’s format, selecting the most juicy texts and adding headings and so spark the readers' interest and help retain the  most valuable teachings. It’s meant to be used as a kick start for those new to this kind of teachings. Links to the original sources will be provided at the end of the entries. This abridged guide is placed in only one page for making it easier to search for terms (Control + F). From now on, all texts were written by Soh Wei Yu, unless it’s specified. 

Table of Contents
                                    · - · - · - ·

The 7 stages of Enlightenment
Stage 1 - I AM


 The Realization
How to Practice to Realize I AM
Why Realize the I AM first 
Other Questions on Self-Inquiry and I AM
Practices to Focus On after I AM Realization

(I) Four Aspects of I AM
(II) Two Types of Nondual Inquiry
Samadhi
Pitfalls and Dangers of the I AM Phase



Stage 5 - No Mirror Reflecting

The Realization
Bahiya Sutta
Two Stanzas of Anatta
Anatta and Emptiness of Awareness
Anatta misunderstood as mere non-doership, impersonality and subject-object nondivision
Having breakthroughs and insights into Anatta, but not stable yet
No Actor does not Imply No Action
Neo-Advaitic 'No-Practice Doctrine' is Wrong and Unhelpful
No-Self is Not Associated with a State of No Thoughts
Possible Dangers and Sidetracks of Stage 5
Mind-Body Drop
Contemplative Practices to Focus On After Anatta

Stage 6 - The Nature of Presence is Empty ("Sunyata/Secondfold Emptiness")

+A and A Emptiness (The Two Yogic Tastes of Emptiness)
Conceptual and Dependent Designation
Causes Dependent on Effect (Two-way Dependency)
Nine Points on Anatta to Emptiness
Dependent Origination
General Principle of Dependent Origination
Inseparability of Awareness and Conditions
Afflictive Dependent Origination and the DeathFree (Not “The Deathless”)
Freedom from the Four Extremes 
Total Exertion and Maha (+A) 
The Integration of Maha Total Exertion (+A) and Non-Arisen Nature of Phenomena (-A)
Emptiness as Non-Conceptuality
What emptiness is NOT
Recognition of Appearances as One’s Empty Radiance Clarity
The Four Levels of “The Place Where There is No Heat and Cold”
Wrong Understanding of Emptiness as Nihilism (Everything Doesn’t Exist)
Stage 7 - Presence is Spontaneously Perfected

What Stage 7 is about
Original Enlightenment/Nature/Liberation is a Wrong View
· - · - · - ·

Introduction

Beyond the realm of imagination. Can you imagine living every moment in purity and perfection without effort? Where grasping at identity does not take hold? Where there is not a trace or sense of 'I' as a seer, feeler, thinker, doer, beer/being, an agent, a 'self' entity residing inside the body somewhere relating to an outside world? And what shines forth and stands out in the absence of a 'self' is a very marvelous, wondrous, vivid, alive world that is full of intense vividness, joy, clarity, vitality, and an intelligence that is operating as every spontaneous action, as there is no sense of being a doer? Where any bodily actions, speech and thoughts are just as spontaneous as heart beating, fingernails growing, birds singing, air moving gently, breath flowing and sun shining? No distinction between ‘you are doing action’/’you are living’ and ‘action is being done to you’/‘you are being lived’, as there is simply no ‘you’ and ‘it’ only total and boundless spontaneous presencing...

Awakening is experiential realization and completely beyond the realm of intellectual understanding … It is important to understand that reading this AtR Guide alone will not by itself bring about the benefits one finds in actual enlightenment/awakening. The difference is analogous to memorizing a restaurant menu versus actually eating the meal. (But) an intellectual understanding can be a good semblance of reality and be a good forerunner to true contemplative insights. 

Awakening to an immediate and intimate taste of reality. Personally, I can say from direct experience that direct realization is completely direct, immediate, and non-intellectual, it is the most direct and intimate taste of reality beyond the realm of imagination. It far exceeds one’s expectations and is far superior to anything the mind can ever imagine or dream of. 

Utter freedom. A freedom that is free from any artificially constructed boundaries and limitations. And yet, this boundlessness does not in any way lead to the dissociation from one’s body, instead one feels more alive than ever as one’s very body, one grows ever more somatic, at home and intimate as one’s body.

Only one indivisible, boundless and measureless world/mind. Only an infinitude of a dynamic and seamlessly interconnected dance that we call ‘the universe’. This is not a body normally conceived of, as the boundaries of an artificially solidified body that stands separated from the universe, dissolve into energetic streams of aliveness dancing and pulsating throughout the body in high energy and pleasure … The body is no longer conflated with a constructed boundary of ‘inside’ and ‘outside’, ‘self’ or ‘other’. No trace of an ‘inside’ and an ‘outside’ can be found in one’s state of consciousness. There’s only one indivisible, boundless and measureless world/mind. Only this infinitude of a dynamic and seamlessly interconnected dance that we call ‘the universe’. 

Despite complete openness and utter nakedness, no experience leaves a trace in consciousness. Despite experiencing life to its fullest every moment without any veils, in complete openness and utter nakedness, nothing gains a foothold in consciousness. For as vivid as they are, they leave no trace just as a bird leaves no tracks in the sky, an empty and lucid display such as a gust of wind and the glittery reflections of moon on the ocean waves appearing but nothing ‘there’ or anywhere.

Even after direct realization of the nature of mind, it will almost certainly take several years for the awakening to mature. The experience I described above, which is what I am experiencing on a daily basis all the time, can only come about via direct realization of the nature of mind. Even after direct realization of the nature of mind, it will almost certainly take several years for the awakening to mature. I can say that my depth of awakening has matured by a lot from my initial awakening in 2010, and was still having breakthroughs in 2019. 

Realizing the nature of mind is not the same as having temporary and fleeting peak experiences of what I have described above. Having a peak experience is common and can come about in various ways, sometimes spontaneously. You may even have several glimpses of the perfection and purity that I describe above. Glimpses are good, because at least then, you know from personal experience that I’m not just bullshitting here. That this is all truly possible and your confidence in this is born out of your direct experience and not based merely on some fickle blind faith in the reports of others ... To have the experience that I described become a natural state 24/7 requires thorough realization. Direct realization comes with a doubtless certainty that will never be lost. This guide should hopefully make clear the importance and difference between view, realization and experience.

But realizing the nature of mind isn't a kind of let down either. Some practitioners who have purportedly gained certain awakening seem to imply that enlightenment is a kind of let down. I do not know what their experience, level or depth of enlightenment is, but that is wrong and has simply not been the case for me.

This is a very lengthy guide, but do not fear or be overwhelmed by the amount of information.  The idea is to serve as a guide, and so if it serves to point you in the right direction to your next step, that itself might be good enough. Just like it is not necessary to memorize all the signposts in your city, you just need to see or utilize the correct signpost at the correct location, time and situation. 

The seven stages are not attainments but facets of our true nature, aspects which can be revisited and deepened endlessly. AtR Guide is a practice manual to realize and actualize the nature of mind … The point is not to see the ‘7 stages’ as a form of attainment. Although in some sense it may be seen that way and be conventionally true, I generally don’t see it in terms of attainment but in terms of View, Realization and Experience. Perhaps it would be more useful to see them as facets of our true nature, aspects which can be revisited and deepened endlessly … It should be noted that the following phases of insights may not unfold in the same exact and linear way for everyone. It is also not hierarchical, and it is not a measurement of importance. Even the first phase of realization is very important and precious. 

John Tan and Soh Wei Yu do not make claims to Arahantship nor Buddhahood. John Tan’s ‘7 stages model’ is based on experiential insights for the purpose of pointing out the subtle points regarding the nature of mind. It is not written for the purpose of claiming that one is an Arahant, Buddha or whatever stage of enlightenment. John Tan had indicated before that he would rather not be associated with the traditional Four Paths or Bhumi System. We would rather not map the 7 stages model unnecessarily to other maps of enlightenment, as it can be complex, messy, controversial, speculative, and perhaps not very fruitful.

We are not teachers nor authoritative figures representing any particular school or lineage. We are not in a position of teaching, we are not teachers, we do not have students, nor does our limited time as busy laypersons permit for such an endeavor, nor are we even interested in taking up the burden of ‘teaching’, nor are we authoritative figures representing any particular school or lineage. 

We should consider ourselves to be very fortunate for the easy access to written spiritual resources. In the old times, many practitioners may not have very strong view due to the lack of easy access to written spiritual texts or scriptures, even though they may have been very dedicated, disciplined and sincere, perhaps more so than modern day people. This can have implications on the swiftness of our spiritual progress. So consider ourselves to be very fortunate.

But online fellowship doesn't replace a face-to-face spiritual community or teacher. More people are now able to read up and get connected with spiritual resources and fellowships with the help of an open internet which brings entire libraries of information to their fingertips. This is certainly not a replacement for a face-to-face spiritual community or teacher which always remains important and most valuable. But at least more people are becoming aware and have a huge resource available to their aid and have more directions. And it is with the aid of technology, the spread of information through online media, and the support of online communities –like  the Awakening to Reality Facebook Group– that enables so many people from across the world to awaken.

May the AtR Guide be for the benefit of all motherly sentient beings. May the growing awareness of the innate potentiality to awaken to our true nature, spread like wildfire in time to come for the benefit of all motherly sentient beings. And may technology continue to evolve and become an even greater aid for our spiritual advancements.

The 7 Stages of Enlightenment

Stage 1: I AM. The mind exhausts itself and come to a complete standstill, and from that stillness comes an earthshaking revelation: a pure Certainty of Being ... This stillness absorbs, excludes and includes everything into just I ... There is neither external nor internal, there is also no observer or observed. Just complete stillness as I … It’s a doubtless certainty and realization of one’s existence being a formless yet undeniably obvious Presence Awareness, rather than mind and body. Oceanic Ground of Being out of which all phenomena emerge from and subside back to … Being freed from individuality coming and going, life and death, all phenomena merely pop in and out from the background of the AMness. The AMness is not experienced as an ‘entity’ residing anywhere, neither within nor without; rather it is experienced as the ground reality for all phenomena to take place.

Stage 2: I AM everything. Whenever and wherever there IS, that IS is Me ... It is bringing this I AM into everything. I AM the I in you. The I in the cat, the I in the bird. I AM the first person in everyone and Everything. The I is ultimate and universal … Observer and observed as one is nondual experience, sunk back to a source. It is always the source, the Self, the background, even if you fuse and merge into everything.

Stage 3: Entering Into a State of Nothingness. It’s about entering into a state of oblivion to get rid of the sense of ‘I’. In this phase comes an important understanding – The ‘I’ is the root cause of all artificialities, that true freedom is in spontaneity. Surrender into complete nothingness and everything is simply Self so … Drop everything to get around the problem of intense luminosity and at the same time experience naturalness and spontaneity by way of dropping … The mysterious gate of Taoism … The Tao is the way. The way of always in Union with the ‘source’. One has to be aware of this dimension but nothing to seek. It is rather only in daily encounter and manifestation … The ‘unfathomable depth’ cannot be approached through (intellectual) ‘knowing’. Only through moment to moment gnosis in seeing, feeling, thinking, tasting, hearing and smelling. The way to understanding the nature of aliveness and clarity is to fully ‘live’ and ‘express’.  Taoism is unique in this sense in expressing this dark illumination. It is not really interest in presence, but what is behind presence... 

Stage 4: Presence as Mirror Bright Clarity. The taste of nondual Presence, previously felt to be a formless background, is now tasted in the foreground as sound, colors, scents, textures and fabric of whatever manifests, through a (partial) realization of No-Self and the penetration of the illusionary paradigm of subject-object/perceiver-perceived division or duality. It’s the beginning of nondual realization, but not yet the full maturity.  Stage 4 tends to end up in the case of dissolving separateness into the pole of an ultimate pure subjectivity rather than seeing consciousness as the mere flow of phenomenality (as in Stage 5), thus leaving traces of an Absolute … The tendency to extrapolate an Ultimate Reality or Universal Consciousness where we are part of this Reality remains surprisingly strong. Effectively the dualistic knot is gone but the bond of seeing things inherently isn't … At this phase, experience switches back and forth between ‘One Mind’ and ‘No Mind’. In ‘One Mind’, there is a changeless open and limitless space of awareness that is indistinguishable / inseparable from –but not identical to– the changing contents of consciousness that it contains. It assumes consciousness is of true existence like a container. In ‘No Mind’, consciousness is seen as the substance of matter. There are peak experiences of no subjectivity, but not effortless nor perpetual, as the default view is still based on inherent existence and subtle subject/object duality.

Stage 5: No Mirror Reflecting. No subject/object division, no doer-ship and absence of agent. The direct and thorough seeing that 'the mirror is nothing more than an arising thought'. With this, the solidity and all the grandeur of 'Brahman' go down the drain ... The need to reify a Universal Brahman is understood as the karmic tendency to 'solidify' experiences … Yet it feels perfectly right and liberating without the agent, and being simply as an arising thought or as a vivid moment. All the vividness and presence remains, with an additional sense of freedom. Here a mirror/reflection union is clearly understood as flawed, there is only vivid reflection. There cannot be a 'union' if there isn't a subject to begin with. It is only in subtle recalling, that is in a thought recalling a previous moment of thought, that the watcher seems to exist … This phase is a very thorough non-dual experience; there is effortlessness in the non-dual … (many cycles of refining our insights are needed to make the nondual less 'concentrative' and more 'effortless') … and one realizes that in seeing there is always just scenery and in hearing, always just sounds. We find true delights in naturalness and ordinariness as commonly expressed in Zen as 'chop wood, carry water; spring comes, grass grows'. Non-dual is ordinary as there is no 'beyond' stage to arrive at. It appears to be extraordinary and grandeur only as an afterthought due to comparison.

Stage 6: The Nature of Presence is Empty. Stages 4 and 5 are the grayscale of seeing through the subject –which actually does not exist (Anatta) –, that there are only the aggregates. The realization in this Stage 6 is that even the aggregates are empty … Neither is there a mirror to cling to as the background reality nor a maya to escape from … A phenomenon's lack of inherent existence is inseparable from its dependent arising. Such mode of apprehension acts as an antidote to the extremes of both substantialism and nihilism … By Dependent Origination, it’s meant that nothing included within inner or outer phenomena has arisen without a cause. Neither have they originated from what are not their causes; that is, non-causes such as a permanent creator in the form of the self, time, or God.

Stage 7: Presence is Spontaneously Perfected. Non-dual luminosity, Anatta, empty nature, are spontaneously manifesting, self-arising and emerging naturally and every actualized sight, sound, form, experience blossoms into wisdom on its own without dualistic effort … No body, no mind, no dependent origination, no nothing, no something, no birth, no death. Profoundly deconstructed and emptied. Just vivid shimmering appearances as Primordial Suchness in one whole seamless unobstructed-interpenetration. (AtR)

On the Non-Linear and Non-Hierarchical Unfolding of Insights. We should not see these stages/phases as strictly linear or having a hierarchy. For example, some are able to understand the profound wisdom of Emptiness from the start but have no direct experience of Luminosity, then Luminosity becomes a later phase. So does that mean the most pristine experience of I AM is now the last stage? 

On the other hand, some have experienced Luminosity but do not understand how he got himself 'lost', as there is no insight to the karmic tendencies/propensities at all, therefore Dependent Origination cannot be adequately understood. But does that mean that the one that experiences Emptiness is higher than the one experiencing Luminosity? 

Some people experience nondual but do not go through the I AM, and then after realizing non-duality the I AM becomes even more precious because it brings out the Luminosity aspect more. Also, when in nondual, one can still be full of thoughts, therefore the focus then is to experience the thoroughness of  being no-thoughts, fully luminous and present... then it is not about nondual, not about the no object-subject split, it is about the degree of luminosity for these nondualist. 

But for some monks that is trapped in luminosity and rest in samadhi, then the focus should be on refining nondual insight and experience.

For nondualists, depending on the level of understanding, one can move forward and backward, there is no hierarchy.  So just see the phases as different aspect of insights of our true nature, not necessarily as linear stages or a 'superiority' and 'inferiority' comparison. What one should understand is what is lacking in the form of realization. There is no hierarchy to it, only insights, all of which are important. Understanding this means that one will be able to see all stages as flat, no higher.

That being said, although there is no strict order of precedence of insight (i.e. not everyone starts with the realization of I AM), of late, I and John realized that it is important to have a first glimpse of our luminous essence (i.e. the I AM realization) directly before proceeding into understanding nondual, Anatta and Dependent Origination. Sometimes understanding something (e.g. Emptiness/Dependent Origination) too early will deny oneself from actual realization as it becomes conceptual. Once the conceptual understanding is formed, even qualified masters will find it difficult to lead the practitioner to the actual ‘realization’ as a practitioner mistakes conceptual understanding for realization.

Therefore, if I were to make an advice to ‘beginners’ reading this, my advice would be to start with the practice of self-inquiry (though this is by no means the only method, it is one which is very direct and one which I am familiar with), realize the certainty of Being (the I AMness), then progress from there to investigate the nondual, Anatta, and empty nature of Presence. However it also depends on the person’s interests and inclinations and he/she should discern for themselves. 

Lastly, I see enlightenment as nothing mystical. It is simply the lifting of veils by practice and insight to reveal subtler aspects of reality. Once we lift conceptual thoughts, we discover I AM. Once we lift the bond of duality, we experience and discover nondual awareness. Once we lift the bond of inherency, we experience and discover the absence of agent and a wonderfully luminous yet empty universe occurring via dependent origination. 

Soh Wei Yu's awakening journey in a nutshell. (Here's) my attempt to summarize some of the insights and experiences I've gone through. Also do note that there is no strictly fixed linear way of progression - the insights/experiences can unfold in somewhat different order for different people. 
  • Non-doership (Realization+Experience): No control or doership over things, everything is spontaneously happening on its own without effort. Does serious damage to notions of free will. When one sees through the notion of 'self as doer', one realizes freedom does not lie in 'free will' but lies in releasing sense of doership/control which is a subtle aversion going against the flow of happening, contraction, sense of self, holding. One finds joy, freedom and release from 'let live' and 'surrendering'.
  • I AM (Experience): I have a glimpse of myself as a sense of changeless Beingness or Awareness or Witness behind everything.
  • I AM (Realization): I am EXISTENCE! Doubtless certainty. Sat-chit-ananda: beingness-consciousness-bliss. I am the ground of Being out of which everything emerges. Self-Realization.
  • Impersonality (Deconstruction+Experience): I am the one divine life living myself in the body, no different from the life expressing in the trees, in the other human being, or spinning the planet. Dissolving 'self' into a state clean of ego/personal self, not-mine sort of sensation. God-Realization.
  • Intensity of luminosity (Experience): Wow, amazing, the textures of touch, the taste of food, the colours and shapes so wonderfully alive and intense!
  • One Mind (Realization/Experience): I am this boundless space of awareness, and all forms/thoughts/perceptions are indistinguishable from that field, no inside/outside. Subject-Object inseparability. All is Mind/Self/Awareness/etc.
  • No Mind (Experience): Only sound. Only sight. Vividly manifest without background or any sense of self/Self. (Not even a greater 'awareness' being inseparable from forms) This state has the same effect as 'intensity of luminosity' except that all sense of a perceiver is obliterated, i.e. no 'you' looking out from your body at the 'scenery' but only brilliant scenery.
  • Anatta (Deconstruction+Realization+Experience): There never is/was a Source/Awareness/Self/Agent/Perceiver/Controller apart from manifestation! In seeing just the seen, no seer. Not only no self but no Self (caps) exists behind phenomena. No Subject. After *realization* of Anatta as the Nature of experience (empty of background subject), the experience of No-Mind becomes an effortless natural state rather than peak experience. Then one sees that no-mind is both wonderful and yet nothing special, as it simply is the natural state of phenomena when released from the extra imputation of Self/observer behind it, it is experienced as the ordinary state of phenomena rather than the 'Wow' factor accompanied by peak No Mind experiences prior to Anatta.
  • Mind-body drop (Deconstruction+Realization+Experience): No shapes/boundaries of body, just centerless boundless vibrating energies! Body/self/things as an imputation dissolves through deconstructive insight.
  • Groundlessness (Deconstruction+Realization+Experience): No persisting ground, no Here/Now, no coordinating agent, disjoint bubble-like self-releasing thought!
  • Maha +A (Deconstruction+Realization+Experience): Totality (dependencies) walking, breathing, seamless process. Mind-body drop transforms into Dharma Body. Six senses reconstruct into one suchness, whole universe in an atom, all nodes in one indra's node.
  • Karmic Propensities (Deconstruction+Realization+Experience): Karmic propensities are never hidden, totally exerted! Feel the realness of the amazing creation of the Subject/Object fiction manifesting as one's given experiential reality. Realize the 12 afflictive links of dependent origination where ignorance manifests the whole mass of grasping and suffering.
  • Emptiness -A (Realization+Experience): Directly tasting thought/perceptions as clarity without background as basis, further penetrate its nature, that very appearance which dependently originates has never arisen, like a dream or reflection, like a burning flame.

A Simple Summary

When there is simply a pure sense of existence;
When awareness appears mirror like;
When sensations become pristine clear and bright;
This is Luminosity.

When all arising appear disconnected;
When appearance springs without a center;
When phenomena appears to be on their own without controller;
This is No Doership.

When subject/object division is seen as illusion;
When there is clarity that no one is behind thoughts;
When there is only scenery, sounds, thoughts and so forth;
This is Anatta.

When phenomena appears pristinely crystal;
When there is merely one seamless experience;
When all is seen as presence;
This is Nondual Presence.

When we feel fully the un-findability and un-locatability of phenomena;
When all experiences are seen as ungraspable;
When all mind boundaries of in/out, there/here, now/then dissolve;
This is Emptiness.

When interconnectedness of everything is wholly felt;
When arising appears great, effortless and wonderful;
When presence feels universe;
This is Maha.

When arising is not caged in who, where and when;
When all phenomena appear spontaneous and effortless;
When everything appears right every where, every when;
This is Spontaneous Perfection.

Seeing these as the ground of all experiences;
Always and already so;
This is Wisdom.

Experiencing the ground in whatever arises;
This is Practice.

André Pais - Stages of Insight into Identity

[ This is a brilliant recap of the 7 stages/phases map written by André Pais, a seasoned spiritual practitioner who regularly contributes with texts and pointers to the AtR community. ]  

(1) I Am

Initially, at stage one, the invitation is to see that there is an awareness that observes everything – internal or external – without getting involved. Some call it the witness, the observer, the seer, consciousness, awareness, etc. Some call it God. This awareness is what we truly are, what “I” is. It’s not the body or the mind; it is not a person or a self, but it is detachedly aware of everything – body, mind and world. The universe comes and goes, like reflections in a mirror, while awareness remains unchanged. The main spiritual blockages (perception of duality and inherency) are both still in place, for there is clearly a separation between awareness and the objects it perceives; there is also a sense of essence, independence or ultimate status concerning awareness. There is, however, a major displacement of identity – from the forms of body, mind and world to the formlessness of awareness.

(2) One Mind

One is then, at stage two, invited to see that what is observed is, in fact, not separate from the pure awareness that observes it. The so-called external world is, indeed, nothing other than modulations in the observing awareness, like waves in the ocean. The sense of duality is dissolved here, since the appearances are essentially of the nature of awareness. However, there is a tendency to see awareness as independent of the appearances. The appearances depend on awareness, like waves on the ocean, but not the other way around – awareness can exist without its objects, as the ocean can exist without the arising of waves. Moreover, even in the presence of waves, the deepest layers of water are not disturbed and always remain “peaceful” and “unmanifest”. So too, it is believed that awareness, in its deepest sense, is unaffected by the manifesting appearances, always remaining, in some transcending way, “unmanifest” and “unknowable” as a background, despite its profound non-duality with the foreground of appearances. If seen clearly, the stage of ONE MIND still retains part of the duality inherent to the insight into I AM.

(3) Anatta

In the two previous stages, the sense of personal identity, the small “I”, was questioned and transcended. What the “I” really is, is the impersonal and inconceivable awareness that, in the first case, observes all phenomena and, in the second, is the substance of all phenomena. First, in the realization of I AM, where “I” is seen as pure consciousness, one severs the identification with the body, mind and world – the realm of forms in general. Second, in the realization of ONE MIND, where “I” is seen as the substance of body, mind and world, one dissolves the sense of duality between observer and observed, between awareness and experience. Moreover, one drains the sense of physicality, solidity and materiality out of the perceived world. All is, in fact, awareness – insubstantial and fleeting, despite awareness itself being permanent and unchanging.

At this third stage, ANATTA, one is invited into questioning, not the sense of personal identity – the small “I”, – but the sense of impersonal identity – the big “I”, – awareness itself. If I AM and ONE MIND can be seen as subscribing to a “no-self” type of teaching, ANATTA can be seen as putting forth a “no-self/Self” view. The notion of a background awareness that remains unchanged, despite the dance of appearances happening in the foreground, is deconstructed. It is understood that any sense of a background awareness is nothing but a foreground subtle object; that the connection between awareness and appearances, if they are to be truly non-dual, implies that no separation or distinction can exist between awareness itself and the appearances arising in it; that a background awareness either is forever unexperiencable (and thus imaginary) or experiencable (and thus a foreground object); that if there is a background awareness residing beyond experience, and is therefore unaware of any experience, such “unaware awareness” is not, in any way, a viable type of awareness.

What’s left is the luminous display of the foreground, the transience of appearances. No background is possible or needed to make sense of experience. Awareness is no longer seen as unchanging or independent, but as the mere clarity or luminosity intrinsic to the show of appearances itself. What happens here is that, for the first time in this model, the sense of identity, small or big, is questioned. Although the sense of duality or separation is often seen as the main blockage to spiritual understanding, the sense of inherency, or essential existence, is subtler and more pervasive – and thus harder to eradicate and deeper in its repercussions. 

~

Nonetheless, the absence of background and the exclusivity of foreground can be seen under two different lights. One can understand that there is no awareness outside or beyond the display of luminous experience, but still see the foreground as pertaining or making reference to some kind singular field of awareness. Although awareness morphs with the ever-changing flow of experience – and is therefore not seen as unchanging, independent and stable in its own identity, – it is still seen as retaining some type of consistency, being always the same “unitary” awareness. It is like an ever-changing hologram that, despite its transience, is always the same hologram, not to be mistaken for “another” hologram somewhere else. It feels as luminous experience is enveloped within or pervaded by some type of ever-changing, but consistent, awareness. The simplest way to express this point is to say that, despite the flux of appearances, all of them arise as the same awareness. If I see an apple and an orange resting on top of the same table, I assume they are arising in, or as, the same awareness. Only the foreground exists, but it’s “one foreground” and, implicitly, “my” foreground.

Another reading of the “no background” principle, subtler and far more liberating than the first, is one that deconstructs the sense of foreground as retaining some essential consistency, despite its utter transience. After all, if through the emptiness reasonings one analyzes and refutes any possibility of unchanging intrinsicality (temporal identity) or singularity (spatial identity), then what could serve as the base for positing the foreground as pertaining or making reference to some specific or singular ground? What could make the display of foreground luminosity belong to some changing, though consistent, awareness?

The sense that the foreground belongs to the same singular awareness is equivalent to seeing such awareness as separate from the appearances – and thus an instance of the I AM stage; and the sense that the foreground amounts to "one fluid awareness", or "one big sphere of transient sentience", is equivalent to seeing it as one singular event – as thus an instance of ONE MIND. 

So, what is proposed in this second reading of the insight on ANATTA is that appearances are not known by awareness – as such would reestablish the duality overcome in ONE MIND, along with all the incongruities that come with such duality. Rather, appearances are seen as actually self-luminous. They are not known by anything external to them; they shine naturally of their own accord. When looking at the apple and orange resting on the table, the presence of the apple refers to a somewhat separate instance of “luminosity”, while the orange refers to another instance, or manifestation, of “luminosity”. They are not the same luminosity or the same awareness, because there is no overarching awareness enveloping, controlling, owning or pervading the display of appearances. 

In a dream, we may assume that the same mind knows the dream from beginning to end – again, some type of temporal identity, as if stretching over time. Moreover, if we could freeze one single frame of “dream-activity”, we would certainly feel that the dreamscape is known, or pervaded by, the same mind – again, some type of spatial identity, as if stretching three-dimensionally. However, this subtler insight into anatta questions such claims. Not only is the mind dissolving moment-by-moment, which prevents any mind from knowing a dream from beginning to end; but also, there is no central mind permeating, enveloping or being referred to in a single “frame” of luminous experience. Whatever is experienced in a single moment is a mere multiplicity of instances of luminosity, empty of being part of one unified field. Very naturally, the same applies to the waking state. 

So, not only there is no background to experience, there is also no unity, consistency or “spreadness” of awareness in the foreground, like the same awareness extends throughout all experience. It’s not that appearances arise in awareness (ONE MIND) or even that awareness arises as appearances (first level of ANATTA). All there is, is the self-shining luminosity of appearances, devoid of any central reference point or ground. This liberates experience from the sense of being a single or unitary event or from simply being “one thing”, as opposed to "other things". Actually, this experience is merely the shape of the universe as it unfolds here and makes absolutely no reference no any unitary owner, container or experiencer. This is not “one experience”, but a naturally occurring multiplicity of luminous activity. It’s not “this experience”, or “my experience”. It’s not even “experience”, as in a singular event. Every object is its own experience, its own luminosity. 

Thus, the idea of awareness itself – as a type of mind or knowing subject or principle – is pacified and rendered superfluous. There is no awareness knowing things (I AM), as that would imply an external world and a subsequent internal representational-model. There is also no lasting awareness modulating as things (ONE MIND), as that would mean that some type of permanence or unity pervaded, and was consistent throughout, all appearances. Rather, luminous activities roll on, in total coordination, but in a somewhat independent and de-centralized fashion. With this insight, the grasping into any type of subjectivity, observing principle or background is dropped, like one is falling completely into the objective side. The sense that there is something knowing experience, or itself, is dropped. The very concept of awareness is dropped; reality is self-luminous. The need for any type of subject, or even subjectivity itself, is released. If the stage ONE MIND could be called a “mind-only” type of teaching, ANATTA could be called a “matter-only” one – a luminous “matter”, though.

(4) Shunyata 

The emptiness reasonings may now come in handy, as a natural tendency to reify the luminous appearances may arise. Of course, if one has arrived at this level of insight, emptiness reasonings have probably been investigated before. In this specific model of progressive insights into identity, the emptiness/madhyamaka reasonings are very useful when trying to move from the stage of ONE MIND to ANATTA, as usually the former represents an absolutized identitary position resulting from a reified understanding of awareness. 

Now that only "luminous activities" are seen as being present, what else is there to do? If the sense of identity is truly dissolved, then there isn't much to do. However, if the luminous appearances are seen as solid and truly existing, then a natural sense of identity may start building up around some of those appearances. If this is the case, one may be returning to square one. 

Of course, during the previous investigations, much, if not all, of the solidity of experience and reality has been deconstructed and seen through. In ONE MIND, reality is already seen as insubstantial and immaterial. So, after ANATTA, the tendency to see the luminous activities as solid or permanent is already severely weakened. (There's further clarifications of these topics in this AtR's entry)



Stage 1: I AM

Soh Wei Yu (2020):  I AM is a crucial realization that shouldn’t be dismissed by Buddhists. “The ‘I AM’ is a very important –in fact crucial– realization, even in various traditions of Buddhism. It should not just be relegated as ‘merely a non-Buddhist insight that Buddhists should skip’. I provide plenty of quotes in this AtR Guide to demonstrate the point. AtR Guide simply puts I AM realization in its proper place and explains how to navigate those territories without getting stuck in wrong views”.

The Realization

Soh Wei Yu: A pure Certainty of Being. A pure Certainty of Being. It’s a doubtless certainty and realization of one’s existence being a formless yet undeniably obvious Presence Awareness, rather than mind and body. Oceanic Ground of Being out of which all phenomena emerge from and subside back to. 

John Tan (2006): A complete standstill. A pure sense of existence. “It was about 20 years back and it all started with the question of “Before birth, who am I?” I do not know why but this question seemed to capture my entire being. I could spend days and nights just sitting focusing, pondering over this question; till one day, everything seemed to come to a complete standstill. Not even a single thread of thought arose. There was merely nothing and completely void, only this pure sense of existence. This mere sense of I, this Presence, what was it? It was not the body, not thought as there was no thought, nothing at all, just Existence itself. There was no need for anyone to authenticate this understanding”. 

John Tan (2019): A non-conceptual and direct path. The mind exhausts itself and come to a complete standstill, and from that stillness comes an earthshaking revelation. “Presence, Awareness, Beingness, Isness are all synonyms. There can be all sorts of definitions but all these are not the path to it. The path to it must be non-conceptual and direct. This is the only way. When contemplating the koan ‘before birth who am I?’, the thinking mind attempts to seek into its memory bank for similar experiences to get an answer. This is how the thinking mind works compare, categorize and measure in order to understand.  However, when we encounter such a koan, the mind reaches its limit when it tries to penetrate its own depth with no answer. There will come a time when the mind exhausts itself and come to a complete standstill and from that stillness comes an earthshaking BAM! I. Just I. Before birth, this I. A thousand years ago, this I. A thousand later, this I. I AM I. It is without any arbitrary thoughts, any comparisons. It fully authenticates its own clarity, its own existence, ITSELF in clean, pure, direct non-conceptuality. No why, no because. Just ITSELF in stillness, nothing else”.

John Tan (2020): This stillness absorbs, excludes and includes everything into just I. Neither external nor internal, neither observer nor observed. “This stillness absorbs, excludes and includes everything into just I ... That experience is non-dual. And in that experience actually, there is neither external nor internal, there is also no observer or observed. Just complete stillness as I … That is the first phase of a non-dual experience. We say this is the pure thought experience in stillness. Thought realm. But at that moment we don't know that...we treated that as ultimate reality”.

John Tan (2020): Practices to still the mind. "It has to be completely still as I-I. No room for movement, no gap. There are certain practices to slow down thoughts and then eventually still the mind completely. That is necessary. Koan is designed to trigger that authentication. Likewise for Neti-Neti of Self-Inquiry”.

John Tan (2006): All phenomena merely pop in and out from the background of the AMness. The AMness is not experienced as an ‘entity’ residing anywhere, neither within nor without. Rather, it is experienced as the ground reality for all phenomena to take place. “Like a river flowing into the ocean, the self dissolves into nothingness. When a practitioner becomes thoroughly clear about the illusory nature of individuality, subject-object division does not take place. A person experiencing AMness will find AMness in everything. What is it like? Being freed from individuality coming and going, life and death, all phenomenon merely pop in and out from the background of the AMness. The AMness is not experienced as an ‘entity’ residing anywhere, neither within nor without; rather it is experienced as the ground reality for all phenomenon to take place ... We cannot lose that AMness; rather all things can only dissolve and reemerges from it … This AMness is God. Practitioners should never mistake this as the true Buddha Mind! ‘I AMness’ is the pristine awareness. That is why it is so overwhelming. It’s just that there is no insight into its emptiness nature”.

Soh Wei Yu (2020): I AM feels like being an unmoving beingness (like a cinema screen) in which passing images of people, trees and sceneries and even your bodily movements float by/emerge from/within/then subside back into that unmoving ground of Being/Presence. “After I AM everything else does seem unreal like a dream, a movie projection on the cinema screen of Self or Pure Consciousness which is the sole doubtless reality, the more Real than Real. You feel like an infinite ground of being out of which the apparently moving sceneries and characters float by/emerge from within an unmoving, formless and attributeless ground of Pure Being and Pure Consciousness, or the Source. When you jog, you don't feel like a person going pass the trees and people and scenery around you, you feel like being an unmoving Beingness (like a cinema screen) in which passing images of people, trees and sceneries and even your bodily movements float by/emerge from/within/then subside back into that unmoving ground of Being/Presence. That’s how I experience or describe the world at my I AM phase, when exercising and moving about in the world”.

Sim Pern Chong (2004): The Presence is all pervasive, yet un-intrusive. It seems to be in all things and observes with utter passiveness. “In one ‘awakening’ meditation, I came to a state of no thoughts ... In the void of no thoughts, one naturally assume that everything must be an unconscious blank. However, that was not the case! What came next was quite a revelation to me. In the void of no thought, I perceived myself to be a Presence... Here's how I will describe myself: ‘The Presence is all pervasive, yet un-intrusive. He seems to be in all things and observes with utter passiveness. He exists beyond concepts, beliefs and do not need any form. Therefore, I understand him as eternal’. It also seems to be the subtler state of myself. I also got the feeling that it existed in all my lifetimes or even more. If I were to name it, I would describe it as The Eternal Watcher”.

Sim Pern Chong (2004): How to arrive at the Eternal Watcher. “The Eternal Watcher is ever present. That you can’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not there. Because the Presence is so close to the mind, it is not easily perceived.  Perceiving the Eternal Watcher was achieved through the relaxed observation of my own breath. The ultra-relaxed observation eventually becomes a purely passive allowance for thoughts to pass through my consciousness. This, in turn, led to a gradual shutting down of the mental processes of my physical brain cumulating into a state of ‘no thoughts’. Beyond the transitional phase of ‘no thoughts’, I became the Eternal Watcher … I believed the Eternal Watcher is the individualized God/Source Presence within oneself. I also believe this Presence is Rigpa as described in Tibetan Buddhism”. 

Soh Wei Yu (2018): What Luminosity is. “Someone asked me about Luminosity. I said it is not simply a state of heightened clarity or mindfulness, but like touching the very heart of your being, your reality, your very essence without a shadow of doubt. It is a radiant, shining core of Presence Awareness, or Existence itself. It is the More Real than Real. It can be from a question of ‘Who am I?’ followed by a sudden realization. And then with further insights you touch the very life, the very heart, of everything. Everything comes alive. First as the innermost 'You', then later when the centerpoint is dropped (seen through there is no 'The Center') every 'point' is equally so, every point is a 'center', in every encounter, form, sound and activity”. 

John Tan (2020): I AM is seen down the road as just the thought realm. “Presence is the same as I AM. Of course, other people may disagree, but actually they're referring to the same thing. The same authentication ... Even in Zen is still the same.  But in later phase, I conceive that as just the thought realm. Means, in the six, I always call the six entries and six exits, so there is the sound and there’s all these… During that time, you always say I’m not sound, I’m not the appearance, I AM the Self that is behind all these appearances, alright? So, sounds, sensations, all these come and go, your thoughts come and go, those are not me, correct? This is the ultimate Me. The Self is the ultimate Me … The I AM stage is non-conceptual. And it is non-dual. Why is it non-dual? At that moment, there is no duality at all. At that moment when you experience the Self, you cannot have duality, because you are authenticated directly as IT, as this pure sense of Being. So, it’s completely I, there’s nothing else, just I. There’s nothing else, just the Self”. 

I AM sub-phases in no particular order:

- Innermost Core of Existence (aka Soul/Atomic)
- Infinite All Pervading Self/Presence
- Ocean of Bliss
- I and all beings/things are being lived by the one cosmic life and intelligence, the Source of being and will (aka God-Realization as distinguished from mere Self-Realization)
- I am the I in you, me, and everything

Experiences associated with I AM include:

- Spacious mirror-like Presence behind all objects
- Being an unchanging and formless Witnessing Presence
- Not being the body, but a Spirit
- Energetic experiences/releases 

Soh Wei Yu (2018): Glimpses vs Self-Realization. One can have glimpses and experiences of I AM without Self-Realization (the point of complete doubtless Certainty of Being/Existence with a Eureka! factor), but Self-Realization will surely come with experiences. Self-Realization is characterized by the direct realization of Self in complete stillness, ultimate, without thoughts, no inference, entire and complete, complete certainty without a trace of doubt, resting completely as Self, as if you have found what your Self is and there is nobody and nothing who can shake your understanding from that point onwards. This is not merely a glimpse or experience that later fades or leaves doubts or uncertainty, in which case you can be said to have had an “I AM experience” but not “I AM realization”.

Soh Wei Yu (2018): I AM is not a fabricated state. It is Unfabricated Presence Awareness. The I AM is not a fabricated state. It is Unfabricated Presence Awareness. You do not ‘cultivate’ the I AM Presence. It is not merely a state of Witnessing to be maintained. It is not a maintenance state. It is not a state to be reached through effort and cultivation. Instead it is discovered and directly realized to be one’s doubtless shining core of Existence, much like the clouds dissipating (our misidentification with perceived objects of mind and body as self) revealing the shining sun that was all along present but never noticed.

If one has an experience of being a Witness or enter into a state of Witnessing, but it needs to be “maintained” or is felt to be “gained” or “lost”, even if one intuits that Witness to be ever-present, that is still an “experience” but not “realization”. This does not mean after the I AM realization one can never be distracted by thoughts ever, it just means there is a kind of unshakeable certainty of Being that is never lost. You realized this is You without a shadow of doubt, as the ground of Being.

John Tan (2009): First comes luminosity, then the pristine quality of awareness. “It is common to get into this pristineness first. You will first only know about the luminosity, the clear, sharp, vivid experience. Then when you progress further, it is the empty space, void yet with a crystal clear sensation that becomes the object of your grasp. You will become intrigued by the 'transparency', like a crystal clear void. This is experiencing the 'pure', 'pristine' quality of awareness.” 

Soh Wei Yu (-): Non-breakthrough experiences disappear after a while. “There are also many other meditative states and moods, generally categorized into bliss, non-thought and clarity. You can experience episodes of bliss, episodes of being free from thoughts, episodes of intensified clarity or expansion of consciousness. However all these experiences are like mist, they disappear after a while. They are not the kind of pivotal breakthrough realization or Eureka that Self-Realization brings, a realization that comes with unshakeable certainty that will never be lost”.

Soh Wei Yu (2009): When aligned with spacious awareness, there is no fixation on anything, but at the same time they are felt intimately. “Our true nature is like clear space, a presence pervading everything but not limited or confined by anything. It is sky like awareness. However we are often fixated on particular thoughts, feelings, and because of this we lose sight of spacious awareness. Just like most of us look at particular shapes and forms but never notices the space surrounding them. When one aligns with spacious awareness, there is no fixation on anything, like the sky doesn't bother or get bothered by the clouds passing by. They just pass by without hindrance. But at the same time they are felt intimately in that field of spacious presence”.

John Tan (2009): Clarification on spacious awareness. “Yes, not to be fixated (on phenomena, thoughts and feelings) but also not to objectify the ‘spaciousness’, otherwise ‘spaciousness’ is no less fixated. The ‘space’ appears appealing only to a mind that abstracts. But to a fully participating and involving mind, such spaciousness immediately sets itself apart, distancing itself from inseparable. Emptiness is never a behind background but a fully partaking foreground manifesting as the arising and passing phenomena absence of a center. Therefore, understand ‘spaciousness’ not like sky but like passing clouds and flowing water, manifesting whenever condition is. If ‘Emptiness’ has made us more fixated and immobilized this innate freedom of our non-dual luminosity, then it is ‘stubborn emptiness’ … Nevertheless, no matter what said, it is always inadequate. If we want to fully realize the inexpressible, be willing to give up all centers and point of references that manifests in the form of ‘who’, ‘when’ and ‘where’. Just give up the entire sense of self, then instantly all things are spontaneously perfected”.

John Tan (2009): There is no forgoing of the Witness in later stages, it is rather a deepening of insight to include the non-dual, groundlessness and interconnectedness of our luminous nature. “You may have the blissful sensation or feeling of vast and open spaciousness; you may experience a non-conceptual and objectless state; you may experience the mirror like clarity. But all these experiences are not Realization. There is no ‘eureka’, no ‘aha’, no moment of immediate and intuitive illumination that you understood something undeniable and unshakable a conviction so powerful that no one, not even Buddha, can sway you from this realization, because the practitioner so clearly sees the truth of it. It is the direct and unshakable insight of ‘You’. This is the realization that a practitioner must have in order to realize the Zen satori”. 

“You will understand clearly why it is so difficult for those practitioners to forgo this ‘I AMness’ and accept the doctrine of Anatta. Actually there is no forgoing of this ‘Witness’, it is rather a deepening of insight to include the non-dual, groundlessness and interconnectedness of our luminous nature … Keep the experience but refine the views. Lastly this realization is not an end by itself, it is the beginning. If we are truthful and not over exaggerate and get carried away by this initial glimpse, we will realize that we do not gain liberation from this realization. On the contrary, we (might) suffer more after this realization (due to energy imbalances). However it is a powerful condition that motivates a practitioner to embark on a spiritual journey in search of true freedom”.

Soh Wei Yu (2009): Once realization of I AM happens, neither grasping for an experience of this Awareness nor feeling that Awareness is some state to be maintained. “I AM realization comes with doubtless certainty, and is different from an experience or glimpse … no longer felt that this 'Awareness' is some state to be maintained or an experience to be grasped, or that comes and fades”. 

Angelo Di Lullo (AtR FB group): Non-dual realization takes several months to several years clarifying practice, dissolving fixations, integrating/dissolving afflicting repressed emotions, investigating how the most fundamental beliefs tied to self-operate. “What I find with people that go through this initial gate-less barrier is that this initial shift is consistent and has certain aspects that are undeniable. Few people clarify ongoing non-dual realization right after initial awakening but it can happen as well. More likely it will take several months to several years. That period is one of clarifying practice, dissolving fixations, integrating/dissolving afflicting repressed emotions, investigating how the most fundamental beliefs tied to self-operate, which leads naturally to clarification etc. Also I find that right after awakening the person usually seems quite enlightened for a period. They often touch into non-dual and even no-self for a time but those are usually experiential / unstable and followed by that not-so fun period of feeling quite un-enlightened. Then with good guidance and willingness to let this process dissolve the fixations more and more there can be those further refinements as described in AtR’s stage 4/5”.

Sogyal Rinpoche (Dzogchen): If we are not contriving or manipulating the mind in any way, but simply resting in an unaltered state of pure and pristine awareness, then that is (initial) Rigpa. “Sometimes when I meditate, I don't use any particular method. I just allow my mind to rest, and find, especially when I am inspired, that I can bring my mind home and relax very quickly. I sit quietly and rest in the nature of mind; I don't question or doubt whether I am in the ‘correct’ state or not. There is no effort, only rich understanding, wakefulness, and unshakable certainty. When I am in the nature of mind, the ordinary mind is no longer there. There is no need to sustain or confirm a sense of being: I simply am. A fundamental trust is present. There is nothing in particular to do… If meditation is simply to continue the flow of Rigpa after the introduction, how do we know when it is Rigpa and when it is not? I asked Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche this question, and he replied with his characteristic simplicity: ‘If you are in an unaltered state, it is Rigpa’. If we are not contriving or manipulating the mind in any way, but simply resting in an unaltered state of pure and pristine awareness, then that is (initial) Rigpa. If there is any contriving on our part or any kind of manipulating or grasping, it is not. (Initial) Rigpa is a state in which there is no longer any doubt; there is not really a mind to doubt: You see directly. If you are in this state, a complete, natural certainty and confidence surge up with the Rigpa itself, that is how you know”.

Adyashanti (somewhere before 2010): I AMness is not the totality of what you are. Whenever you touch upon a deep truth, each aspect feels like it’s total and complete and all-inclusive at that moment. That’s why it’s hard to walk to the next insight. “(I AMness) is not the totality of what you are. It’s a profound aspect of what you are; it's a profound taste of your true nature. But it's not the totality of what you are any than getting up in the morning and feeling good is the totality of what you are, or feeling bad is a totality of what you are... ...Whenever you touch upon a deep truth, suchness of reality, your true nature, each aspect feels like it's total and complete and all-inclusive at that moment. So that's why teachers have a very hard time getting through to people when they have an initial experience of anything. Because if it's an initial experience of reality, it feels totally complete and there is a certain innate confidence that arises within you. Not an egoic confidence but a confidence that comes from reality”.

Adyashanti (2021): The Universal I AM. The I AM is a doorway into the essential, the universal, and the sacred. “(One) way to approach the I AM sense is to simply attend to your immediate sense of being. This is not as simple as it sounds because we are so accustomed to thinking about our experience rather than simply experiencing our experience. This is exactly where good spiritual practice comes in. The essence of any good spiritual practice is to focus on direct experience rather than on what we think about the experience. To focus on the immediate sense of I AM devoid of all interpretations and evaluations is itself a powerful spiritual practice ... With a little practice and willingness to let go of clinging to one’s familiar identity, this simple and immediate sense of I AM will reveal itself to be the same underlying conscious presence as all other conscious beings. This then forms the basis of a transformed relationship with all beings, where our essential sameness becomes the ground of our relatedness with others, even as we have a newfound respect and appreciation for our human differences. The universal I AM wears an infinite variety of masks that we human beings call our personality. But connecting with the universal I AM in oneself and in other beings allows us to connect from a universal and essential basis, rather than from being exclusively entranced by surface appearances and conditioned reactions”.

“The I AM is a doorway into the essential, the universal, and the sacred. To gain entry into that doorway requires us to step into the realm of not knowing—which is simply to say that we must un-know, or temporarily suspend, everything that we think that we know about ourselves. We must enter into a state of innocent unknowing just prior to all egocentric identification ... (and so) directly sense into the I AM the conscious presence which pervades any and all perceptions and experiences. Then we dwell as that conscious presence. The rest of the unfolding will happen by itself, in its own time. Patient persistence is the key. Eventually, even the I AM sense will fall away . . . and self-consciousness will dissolve into its source”. 

How to Practice to Realize I AM

Self-Inquiry: Practice self-inquiry in seated meditation and in daily life (whenever not engaged in activities that require specific or full attention, such as walking, eating, etc). Keep asking ‘Before birth, who am I?’ or just ‘Who am I?’ 

Read these books:

- ‘Who Am I?’, by Ramana Maharshi
- ‘Discourses and Dharma Words’, by Ch’an Master Hsu Yun
- ‘Awake: It’s Your Turn’, by Angelo Di Lullo
- ‘True Meditation’, by Adyashanti

And check these videos:

- Who Am I?, by Greg Goode  
- A Guided Self-Inquiry, by Greg Goode   

Ken Wilber (Some Writings on Self-Inquiry and Non-duality): On Neti-Neti. “In Self-Inquiry while asking Who am I?, everything you observe the objects of five senses (vision, sounds, sensations, smells, tastes) as well as thoughts, feelings, emotions, mind, body, etc, are seen to be not me, not this, not this (Neti-Neti). What remains when all objects seen are dissociated from as ‘not me, not me’ is the realization of the Seer, the formless Presence Awareness, the doubtless pure Being which remains”. 

Soh Wei Yu (2021): Letter to his mother. “Contemplating a Zen koan is about inquiring … discovering, realizing … what exactly our Self-Nature is. It is not about achieving a meditative state … After the utter cessation of all thoughts, one must turn ones light around to find out, What am I? What is it that is Aware? If there is a thought which answers 'it is this or that' then that's wrong, because the real answer lies not in words and letters. Therefore cast aside those thoughts and continue inquiring, turning the light around. This is the most direct method to apprehend one's Mind”.

“You should meditate every day. Master Yuan Yin asks his student to meditate 2 hours a day”.

“If you are unable to quiet your mind to a state of no thought, it will be difficult to realize. You should think carefully what is the best method for you to still your mind? Is it meditation? Or is it chanting the Buddha's name and reciting mantras? Whatever method which calms the mind will do, but you have to practice every day, not only practice intermittently or occasionally”. 

“However, reaching a state of no thought is not awakening. Upon reaching a state of no thought, continue turning the light around to find out who is that which is the Clear Knowingness? What is it? Then you will realize your Self-Nature. Otherwise your meditation is merely a state of stillness, not yet realizing Self-Nature”.

Ramana Maharshi: When the mind abides in the Heart, the 'I', the root of all thoughts vanishes. Having vanished, the ever-existing Self alone will shine. “If other thoughts arise, one should, without attempting to complete them, enquire, 'To whom did they occur?' What does it matter if ever so many thoughts arise? At the very moment that each thought rises, if one vigilantly enquires 'To whom did this appear?' it will be known 'To me'. If one then enquires 'Who am I?' the mind will turn back to its source and the thought that had arisen will also subside. By repeatedly practicing in this way, the mind will increasingly acquire the power to abide at its source”.

“When the mind, which is subtle, is externalized via the brain and the sense organs, names and forms, which are material, appear. When it abides in the Heart, names and forms disappear. Keeping the mind in the Heart, not allowing it to go out, is called 'facing the Self' or 'facing inwards'. Allowing it to go out from the Heart is termed 'facing outwards'. When the mind abides in the Heart in this way, the 'I', the root of all thoughts vanishes. Having vanished, the ever-existing Self alone will shine. The state where not even the slightest trace of the thought 'I' remains is alone swarupa (one's real nature). This alone is called mauna (silence). Being still in this way can alone be called jnana drishti (seeing through true knowledge). Making the mind subside into the Self is 'being still'”. 

John Tan (2020): Don’t relate, don’t infer and don’t think. Don’t go after experiences and knowledge, return back to simplicity. “Self-Inquiry is called a direct path for a reason: “Don’t relate, don’t infer, don’t think. Authenticating ‘You’ yourself requires nothing of that. Not from teachers, books, Mahamudra, Dzogchen, Zen or even Buddha, whatever comes from outside is knowledge. What that comes from the innermost depth of your own beingness, is the wisdom of you yourself … There is no need to look for any answers. Ultimately, it is your own essence and nature. To leap from the inferencing, deducting and relating mind into the most direct and immediate authentication, the mind must cease completely and right back into the place before any formation of artificialities”. 

“Don’t go after experiences and knowledge, you have read and known enough, so return back to simplicity. Your duty is not to know more, but to eliminate all these and get back to the simplicity of the direct taste. Otherwise you will have to waste a few more years or decades to return back to what that is most simple, basic and direct. And from this simplicity and directness, you then allow your nature to reveal the breadth and depth through constantly   authenticating it in all moments and all states through engagement in different conditions. Unless you drop everything and get back into a clean, pure, basic simplicity, there is no real progress in practice. Until you understand the treasure of simplicity and start back from there, every step forward is a retrogress”. 

Eckhart Tolle (The Power of Now): On I AM Presence. “So when you listen to a thought, you are aware not only of the thought but also of yourself as the witness of the thought. A new dimension of consciousness has come in. As you listen to the thought, you feel a conscious presence your deeper self behind or underneath the thought, as it were. The thought then loses its power over you and quickly subsides, because you are no longer energizing the mind through identification with it. This is the beginning of the end of involuntary and compulsive thinking. When a thought subsides, you experience a discontinuity in the mental stream a gap of ‘No-Mind’(*)”. 

“At first, the gaps will be short, a few seconds perhaps, but gradually they will become longer. When these gaps occur, you feel a certain stillness and peace inside you. This is the beginning of your natural state of felt oneness with Being, which is usually obscured by the mind. With practice, the sense of stillness and peace will deepen. In fact, there is no end to its depth. You will also feel a subtle emanation of joy arising from deep within: the joy of Being”.

“It is not a trancelike state. Not at all. There is no loss of consciousness here. The opposite is the case. If the price of peace were a lowering of your consciousness, and the price of stillness a lack of vitality and alertness, then they would not be worth having. In this state of inner connectedness, you are much more alert, more awake than in the mind-identified state. You are fully present. It also raises the vibrational frequency of the energy field that gives life to the physical body”.

“As you go more deeply into this realm of No-Mind(*), as it is sometimes called in the East, you realize the state of pure consciousness. In that state, you feel your own presence with such intensity and such joy that all thinking, all emotions, your physical body, as well as the whole external world become relatively insignificant in comparison to it. And yet this is not a selfish but a selfless state. It takes you beyond what you previously thought of as ‘your self’. That presence is essentially you and at the same time inconceivably greater than you. What I am trying to convey here may sound paradoxical or even contradictory, but there is no other way that I can express it”.

(*) It should be noted that what Eckhart Tolle calls ‘No-Mind’ here is more akin to a state of no conceptual thinking + I AM Presence, which is different from how the Awakening to Reality blog uses the term ‘No-Mind’ as referring to an experience free from any sense of subjectivity of self/Self, which we will discuss later on in this AtR Guide. 

Annamalai Swami (Final Talks): Intensity of inquiry, no part-time effort. “You should persist and not give up so easily. When you intensely inquire 'Who am I?' the intensity of your inquiry takes you to the real Self. It is not that you are asking the wrong question. You seem to be lacking intensity in your inquiry. You need a one-pointed determination to complete this inquiry properly. Your real Self is not the body or the mind. You will not reach the Self while thoughts are dwelling on anything that is connected with the body or the mind. The intensity of the inquiry is what determines whether success or failure. If the inquiry into the Self is not taking place, thoughts will be on the body and the mind. And while those thoughts are habitually there, there will be an underlying identification: ‘I am the body; I am the mind.' This identification is something that happened at a particular point in time. It is not something that has always been there. And what comes in time also goes eventually, for nothing that exists in time is permanent. The Self, on the other hand, has always been there. It existed before the ideas about the body and the mind arose, and it will be there when they finally vanish. The Self always remains as it is: as peace, without birth, without death. Through the intensity of your inquiry, you can claim that state as your own”.

“Self-Inquiry must be done continuously. It doesn't work if you regard it as a part-time activity. You may be doing something that doesn't hold your interest or attention, so you think, ‘I will do some self-inquiry instead'. This is never going to work. You may go two steps forward when you practice, but you go five steps backward when you stop your practice and go back to your worldly affairs. You must have a lifelong commitment to establish yourself in the Self. Your determination to succeed must be strong and firm, and it should manifest as continuous, not part-time, effort”.

Nisargadatta (I Am That): On Trust, Earnestness, Laziness and Restlessness. “I got my realization through my Guru’s teaching and my trust. My confidence in him made me accept his words as true, go deep into them, live them, and that is how I came to realize what I am. The Guru’s person and words made me trust him and my trust made them fruitful. I was so attuned to my Guru, so completely trusting him, there was so little of resistance in me, that it all happened easily and quickly. But not everybody is so fortunate. Laziness and restlessness often stand in the way and until they are seen and removed, the progress is slow. All those who have realized on the spot, by mere touch, look or thought have been ripe for it. But such are very few. The majority needs some time for ripening. The ripening factor is earnestness, one must be really anxious. After all, the realized man is the most earnest man. Whatever he does, he does it completely, without limitations and reservations. Integrity will take you to reality”.

Sailor Bob Adamson: What is Pure Silence? “Let go of the thoughts, the imagination, the emotions; let go of everything and see what is left … Pure Silence is within you. It is not just the absence of sound, or lack of noise. It is the ground, the basis of your very being. There is nothing to find out, nothing to prove. Just listen with your whole being to what is here, now. It is the most amazing thing you can ever discover. It is with you now. It is you. The only way to find this is to stop everything else. Everything! Just be!”

“What you are in essence is self-shining, pure intelligence. The very idea of shining implies a movement. Movement is energy. I call it ‘pure intelligence energy’. It is shining through your eyes. You cannot say what it is, and you cannot negate it either. It is ‘no thing’. It cannot be objectified. It ever expresses as that living, vibrant sense of presence, which translates through the mind as the thought I AM. The primary thought I AM is not the reality. It is the closest the mind or thought can ever get to reality, for reality to the mind is inconceivable. It is no thing”.

“Without the thought I AM, is it stillness? Is it silence? Or is there a vibrancy about it, a livingness, a self-shining … All these expressions are mental concepts or pointers towards it, but the bottom line is that you know that you are. You cannot negate that knowing that you are. It is not a dead, empty, silent stillness. It is not about keeping the mind silent, but seeing that what is prior to the mind is the livingness itself. It is very subtle. When you see that that is what you are, then the very subtleness expresses itself. That is the uncaused joy ...  We think that we have to attain something and then stay there. Realize that you have never left it at any time. It is effortless. You don’t have to try or strive or grasp or hold. You are That!”

Soh Wei Yu: “…The pure silence underneath the sound is your true nature, but it is not an inert nothingness, in fact not even silence as such, but more accurately a featureless wide awake space which perceives all sounds, all sights, all thoughts, etc. It cannot be understood by the mind. You have to trace the hearing, the radiance, the seeing, to its Source”.

“If you truly and successfully traced all perceptions to its Source, you will realize and experience a Certainty of Being, an un-deniability of your very Consciousness which is formless and intangible but at the same time a most solid self-evident fact of your being”. 

“…By turning the attention to the mind, immediately there are doubts. More thoughts rush in to question the questions, confirm or contradict other thoughts. A maddening cycle... Notice when thoughts are paused there are no doubts; the certainty of (doubtless) Being is obviously present; the unquestionable FACT of EXISTENCE. Notice that the Being is ALWAYS presently shining, effortlessly and spontaneously. Stay with that undeniable non-conceptual confidence. Your Being has always been present for every single experience. That natural cognition in which all experiences arise is not a person. Be as you ARE and not what you imagine yourself to be.”

Lama Surya Das (Natural Radiance): Self-Inquiry instructions

Once your mind is calm, focused, lucid, and clear, abruptly turn the mind on itself, mind the mind and turn it inward, with laser like self-inquiry questions: “Who is thinking my thoughts? Who is trying to meditate? Who is it; what is it; where is it? Who is experiencing my experience right now?” 

There is no need to analyze too much, just abruptly pop the question and observe what happens. Let go and see if you can startle yourself into a new way of seeing and being, short-circuiting your usual outward looking, dualistic thought process of self and other. See through the seer, directly experience the experiencer, and be free; rest in luminous centerless openness, the natural Great Perfection, pure presence, rigpa.

Again cutting even deeper, abruptly turn the mind upon itself again: Who is experiencing? Who and what is hearing? Who and what is seeing, thinking, and feeling? Who is having these physical sensations? Who is it; what is it; where is it? Is it in the head; is it in the body; is it in the heart; is it in the mind and consciousness? Who is experiencing? Who or what am I? How is it happening? 

See if you can enter the bottomless gap between thoughts, beneath thoughts. See if you can directly experience whatever is not thought—the luminous awareness that exists pre-thought or beyond or beneath thought, or after all thought has ceased. Trace the source of all of your thoughts, feelings, experiences, physical sensations, and perceptions. Notice how they arise, and, after they arise, where they are in your present experience and where they go. 

See if you can follow the disillusion point back into the luminous void that is centerless—the openness that is everything’s ultimate identity, the great Who, the great What that is known as Buddha Nature. And if you cannot find anything to follow, just rest in that great silence, and be nothing for just one instant. Being nothing but pure awareness for an instant would be transformative in itself, and more than enough. Emaho!

When the mind starts to move, as it will, and thoughts and feelings and physical sensations again begin to proliferate, turn the mind upon itself again instead of looking outward at outer phenomena, projections, and perceptions. Turn the searchlight inward and mind the mind, becoming more keenly aware of awareness itself. Continue this laser like questioning of who and what is experiencing, who is thinking, who is hearing, who, what, where, how and then let go and release—drop everything: drop body and mind—and sense who or what is present between thoughts and when thought has ceased, even for a moment. If you discover that you really do not know who you are, then that is enough. That is what is true for you in this moment, and that is sufficient truth for now.

Angelo Di Lullo: Helper Pointers to I AM Awakening 

… Use “Who am I?” self-inquiry vehicle as a sort of depth charge. Its purpose is to plunge you down through all those layers of belief and personal narrative, right to the core of identity. If we do this the right way, it will detonate when it reaches that core. This detonation will blow a hole right through the bottom ... of everything. We are going to blow a hole right through the bottom of reality … The transformation that we’re referring to is so radical that even dimension (bottom, top, near, far) will be seen to be an illusion. Still, it’s a reasonably apt description. After my own awakening, these were the exact words that occurred to me ... “I was meditating and the bottom fell out” … Oddly enough, when the bottom fell out, there was nothing for everything to fall into. The framework of reality as I had known it had completely deconstructed itself. What was left was something like a deep and pervasive peace, and that’s how it remains. It’s obvious that whatever I thought was real before was only a very small “model” of reality, something like a shadow on a wall. 

Self-Inquiry has the power to bring this about for anyone who is willing to take the plunge … Your identity will find a new equilibrium with unbound consciousness, which is essentially limitless. The limitless experience of consciousness-Being, while astounding, is but the staging area for the more radical unfolding ahead. Yet it is a very important milestone in the process of realization.

(I) Self-Inquiry’s optimal conditions

Alert: You don’t want to be slack with your attention, daydreaming, or mind-wandering. But it’s unnecessary to be hyper-vigilant or to strain your attention into a hyper-focused state. You want to be alert enough to assure that nothing escapes your attention, including any thought. A relaxed and dilated (open) attention, engaged in the process of inquiry is ideal ... It can take a bit of practice to strike the right balance of alertness and relaxation. Keep practicing and you will find that sweet spot where you are neither daydreaming nor straining.

Curious: Genuine curiosity is necessary for this approach to work … We often circumvent natural curiosity by moving our attention to a familiar but artificial mental construct when we find ourselves in the unknown. We do this to feel some sense of certainty. This means that when faced with the unknown we often cling to old habituated patterns of thinking to help us avoid admitting to ourselves that we really don’t know … The paradox here is that using thought to “cure” that sense of unknowing will undermine the inquiry. A willingness to remain in unguarded curiosity is the lamp that lights the way forward.

Empirical: When conducting self-inquiry, it’s best to forego comparing your experience to any idealized experience or expectation. So any description we’ve read or heard about what is supposed to happen when we self-inquire is useless. We’re only interested in what we directly discover. If you’re willing to take a strictly empirical approach, then only immediate, obvious, and self-explanatory experience matters. When you really get the spirit of this, it is quite a relief. How nice it is to not to have to stress over whether your experience is the “right” one ... 

Fresh: When you begin this inquiry just let go of everything you know. Let go of past inquiries and results. Let go of any insights you might have had, even the last time you meditated or engaged in inquiry. In fact, let go of what happened five minutes ago. Just this one question. Just this one experiential observation. Do this every time you return to inquiry. Better yet, do this as you go about inquiry. It’s like writing on a chalkboard and there is an eraser immediately following the chalk. In this way every moment is fresh. Every time a question is asked, it’s asked from complete innocence and unknowing … When we free ourselves up from the bondage of the past, we are free to synchronize with the moment to moment flow of reality.

Consistent: Initially, you might approach this inquiry during seated meditation, or when you feel inclined to introspect. Over time, as the curiosity and desire to wake up build, you will find that you can carry this inquiry with you for longer periods of time. You might be surprised as it becomes quite enjoyable to carry this throughout daily activities such as cooking, working, exercising, and even talking with others. With consistency a certain momentum builds. When I was close to awakening (though I didn’t know it at the time), I would even carry inquiry off into sleep. I would try to stay with the query even as my consciousness seemed to disappear into nothingness. I would then pick it up just as soon as I remembered upon waking up. 

(II) Self-Inquiry’s Basic Process

(1) Become receptive to thought. It’s so common for us to attempt suppress or avoid thoughts when we want to relax and rest ... When it comes to self-Inquiry we actually want the thoughts to come. We orient toward thoughts, as if we can’t wait for the next thought to arrive. This might sound counterintuitive but when you truly embrace the arrival of thoughts (regardless of their content), it can relax you in a different way than you might be used to. It’s not a checked-out sort of relaxation, it’s a checked-in relaxation. To put it simply, a lot of strain is involved in resisting thoughts, and we resist thoughts to various degrees all day long. So the first step is to simply become thought-receptive … 

(2) Take a neutral stance. As a thought arrives, don’t evaluate its content. There’s no need to assign a value to it such as, “this is a good thought or a bad thought” … Just take it as a neutral experience ... When we see a thought as a thought, we have this opportunity to perceive its neutrality. It’s when we believe a thought points to some reality “out there” that we begin to struggle with polarity. As you practice with one thought at a time, you will get better at perceiving this neutrality.

(3) Clarify the thought. This step can take a bit of practice because we usually have a dynamic relationship with thought inside consciousness. We tend to move past certain thoughts that are uncomfortable or partially unconscious. This is even more marked when we are feeling restless and our monkey-mind is swinging from branch to branch so quickly that we’re not fully aware of what thought branches it’s swinging from. So slow down. Take one thought at a time as it arrives. Once you recognize a thought (whether conceptual, auditory, or visual image), try to clarify it a bit …  If you think of this like watching a slide show of thoughts on a movie screen, you want to slow down the slides. Then you want to move closer to the screen and clarify exactly what that thought/image/slide is. As you get better at holding a single thought in your mind you might be surprised how simple and even relaxing it becomes. You might also be surprised that the closer you look at a thought the less substance it seems to have. This is analogous to walking so close to the screen that all you see are soft forms, shapes, and light.

(4) Notice how the thought feels like it’s about ‘Me’. The previous steps can become somewhat passive once you get the hang of them. This step requires active engagement with each thought, if only for a moment. This is because this step addresses the precise moment when we become unconscious, meaning the moment we become identified with thought. It’s a subtle transition, so we must train ourselves to recognize it if we ever want to finally be free of it. Here you may feel like you are doing a bit of detective work, but it’s essential to do it every time … Not only does the thought appear to suggest it is about ‘me’ as the star of the internal movie, but it also suggests that there is a ‘me’ that is interested in the thought at all. Can you see that distinction? … You could say it suggests a ‘me’ in two different respects. One is a remembered ‘me’, as a thought subject. The other is an immediate ‘me’ that is aware of that thought right in this moment. Can you feel into both of those? … Do you feel the edges of identity starting to soften or distort? ... Give this some practice and sooner or later those perceptual frameworks will start to loosen and fragment … 

(5) Now, look for the ‘me’. All of the steps up until this one, were preparatory steps. They are all necessary and you shouldn’t skip over them using this approach. However, they are merely a means to orient you properly for this final step. This step is very simple. Now that you have a sense that the thought you have become aware of is about ‘me’, look for that me … Now look for it in your immediate experience. By that I mean don’t think about who/where/what that sense of me is. You have to look for evidence of it right in your experience. It helps to start by looking in the place where it feels like you are right now. Look right in the center of the one that feels like the ‘me’ that thought was about. Do you find something there? Is there something definite you can identify and say, “There’s the ‘me,’ there’s exactly what I am?” If you can then what is it you found there? If you don’t find anything specific then just keep looking. 

(III) Some common immediate results and how to navigate them

(i) You immediately start thinking again, “Well I know who I am, this practice is silly it doesn’t work for me...” When this happens, great! That is your next thought. So, start from step 2 with that thought and proceed through the inquiry ... If it is a thought it is obviously not you right? It can’t be you because you were there before that thought and you will be there after that thought, right?  … So just keep looking, and if a thought sucks you in then just start at step 2 with the new thought.

(ii) You totally forget what you’re doing. This is fine, it can be confusing to put the mind on the rack in this way. It’s not used to it. If at any point you’ve totally lost track of what you’re doing, find yourself daydreaming, etc, just start again at step 1.

(iii) You go to look for the ‘me’ that the thought says it’s about and can’t find it ... a looking that just keeps on going with no landing on anything solid or specific … the looking goes on and there is genuine curiosity even though nothing is found, then great! Just keeping doing that. You’ve figured out the point of self inquiry. If you find yourself in that pure looking but landing nowhere specific and there are no thoughts, you are doing pure self-inquiry. Just keep at it. Stay in the gap. It might happen for a few seconds at first. Then a thought will come. Over time you might go from several seconds to a few minutes or longer. The key is thoughtless looking. Neither rejecting thoughts nor getting entangled in their content. A pure movement of innocent curiosity. It might feel dynamic or it might feel quite still. Either is fine, just keep that looking going.

(IV) Fine tuning

Once you get the hang of these steps and can move through them in a short time you will notice it’s not hard to get that thoughtless gap, even if it is for a short time. The following suggestions can help fine tune to that frequency of pure self-inquiry. It’s something like tuning a radio between stations. You neither land at this thought nor at that thought, yet you aren’t rejecting any thought. Perhaps it could be said that attention moves toward a thought so quickly that it has no time to fully form. Attention becomes the thought. Over time it will become far more spontaneous and relaxing to remain in this thoughtless gap of pure looking, pure knowing without thought, and pure being.

(i) Recognize when another thought has emerged and has bound your attention. Often the thought will be about the immediate inquiry practice. This is often the moment we become re-identified with thought and don’t realize it, simply because the content of the thought is about the practice itself.

(ii) Recognize that anything you can put into words is a thought. Also any image, even vaguely defined images, are thoughts.

(iii) You may have to reinvigorate your curiosity periodically, you don’t want to practice this mechanically.

(iv) You can use the body as a gauge to assure you are doing this in a non-straining (relaxed) manner. You can periodically put attention into various parts of the body just to see if you’re holding tension anywhere or straining. This is especially useful if the inquiry feels strained, frustrating, or tense. Once you get the hang of doing self-inquiry without straining it may not be necessary to check in with the body in this way.

(v) Keep in mind that the pure looking in thoughtless gap doesn’t mean that you are out of contact with the stuff thoughts are made of (consciousness). It’s quite the opposite. It’s more like all of experience gets replaced by thought-stuff, which is also you-stuff. It’s all one endless continuum of pure conscious experience. The looking/questioning, the sense of you, the gap, and the thought stuff, are all the same substance.

(vi) Even though we’re using a question as a launch vehicle, we’re not looking for a specific arrival place, a conceptual understanding, or a certain pre-defined experience. We’re more interested in “settling in” to pure experience itself which is not apart from the experiencer. The pure experience is infused with curiosity and fascination. However it’s a satisfied curiosity, so it doesn’t require resolution like a typical question would.

 (V) Potential Pitfalls

(i) Asking “Who Am I?” or “Where am I?” and then looking around for a conceptual answer. This simply leads to more inner dialogue, thinking, and frustration.

(ii) Concluding “Oh there is no I/me/self”. This will lead to a dull inquiry with little interest in actually looking for the sense of ‘me’. The reason this happens is because we’ve become identified with the thought “There is no I/me/self.” When we are identified with that thought we don’t recognize it as just another thought ... The self we are investigating is not a mere thought or belief. It’s a sense, frame of reference, or a feeling-assumption ... 

(iii) We get frustrated. It doesn’t feel like anything is happening so we feel frustration, impatience, or even anger. If this occurs it doesn’t mean you’re doing anything wrong. In fact when we start digging into our identity, it’s common for emotions to come to the surface. If this occurs. Just take a breath and relax for a minute. Then acknowledge the emotion. Feel it in your body. See if you can relax any tension in the body associated with the emotion. Then look for the thought or belief associated with the experience. It might be something like, “I’m feeling frustration”. Then proceed with the inquiry starting with step 2.

(iv) Staring at the thought/question “who am I?” endlessly without realizing that the one who feels like you doing this practice, and having a history, and a spiritual path etc, is what you are supposed to try to investigate. 

(v) Concluding that because you haven’t found an I or a self, there is no value in continuing to look. The non-conceptual looking is the point.

(vi) Being uncomfortable with the thoughtless state, then reengaging thoughts. This happens very frequently. When it occurs, we rarely realize that the mind re-engaged thought to avoid the fear response that can arise with thoughtless gaps. If we keep at self-inquiry, returning to the thoughtless gap again and again, we will often realize there is a certain fear associated with letting go of the addiction to thoughts … If we persist in spite of any uneasiness or fear, then these emotions will settle with time and experience. If we just keep returning to this gap and remain there beyond the fear and physical responses, then things will start to change experientially. This is where magic can happen, but you have to stay in that gap.

Angelo Di Lullo (FB Group: Awakening, Realization and Liberation): Just be willing to suspend judgement, to forego conclusions, to let go of all monitoring of your progress. The inquiry that leads to first awakening is a funny thing. We want to know ‘how’ precisely to do that inquiry, which is completely understandable. The thing is that it’s not wholly conveyable by describing a certain technique. Really it’s a matter of finding that sweet spot where surrender and intention meet. I will describe an approach here, but it’s important to keep in mind that in the end, you don’t have the power (as what you take yourself to be) to wake yourself up. Only Life has that power. 

So as we give ourselves to a certain inquiry or practice it’s imperative that we remain open. We have to keep the portals open to mystery, and possibility. We have to recognize that the constant concluding that ‘no this isn’t it, no this isn’t it either...’ is simply the activity of the mind. Those are thoughts. If we believe a single thought then we will believe the next one and on and on. If however we recognize that, ‘oh that doubt is simply a thought arising now’, then we have the opportunity to recognize that that thought will subside on its own... and yet ‘I’ as the knower of that thought am still here! 

We can now become fascinated with what is here once that thought (or any thought) subsides. What is in this gap between thoughts? What is this pure sense of I, pure sense of knowing, pure sense of Being? What is this light that can shine on and illuminate a thought (as it does thousands of times per day), and yet still shines when no thought is present? It is self-illuminating. What is the nature of the one that notices thoughts, is awake and aware before, during, and after a thought, and is not altered in any way by any thought? 

Please understand that when you ask these questions you are not looking for a thought answer, the answer is the experience itself.

When we start to allow our attention to relax into this wider perspective we start to unbind ourselves from thought. We begin to recognize the nature of unbound consciousness by feel, by instinct. This is the way in. At first we may conclude that this gap, this thoughtless consciousness is uninteresting, unimportant. It feels quite neutral, and the busy mind can’t do anything with neutral so we might be inclined to purposely engage thoughts again. If we recognize that ‘not interesting, not important, not valuable’ are all thoughts and simply return to this fluid consciousness, it will start to expand. But there is no need to think about expansion or watch for it. It will do this naturally if we stay with it. 

If you are willing to recognize every thought and image in the mind as such, and keep your attention alert but relaxed into the ‘stuff’ of thought that is continuous with the sense of I, it will all take care of itself. Just be willing to suspend judgement. Be willing to forego conclusions. Be willing to let go of all monitoring of your progress, because these are all thoughts. Be open to the pure experience. Just return again and again to this place of consciousness with no object or pure sense of I Am. If you are willing to do this it will teach itself to you in a way that neither I nor anyone I’ve ever seen can explain, but it is more real than real. 

Andrew Cohen (Evolutionary Enlightenment: A New Path to Spiritual Awakening): Resting in a boundless empty space, where the mind is completely still, there is no time, no memory, not even a trace of personal history. In order to answer the question “Who am I?”, in order to go back to before the beginning within your own experience, you have to put your attention on the deepest sense of what it feels like to be yourself right now, and simultaneously let everything else go. Letting go means falling so deeply into yourself that all that is left is empty space.

To discover that infinite depth in your own self, you must find a way to enter into a deep state of meditation—so deep that your awareness of thought moves into the background and eventually disappears. As your awareness detaches itself from the thought-stream, your identification with emotion and memory begins to fall away. When awareness of thought disappears, awareness of the passing of time disappears along with it. If you keep penetrating into the infinite depths of your own self, even your awareness of your own physical form will disappear.

If you go deep enough, letting your attention expand and release from all objects in consciousness, you will find that all the structures of the created universe begin to crumble before your eyes. Awareness itself—limitless, empty, pristine—becomes the only object of your attention. As your attention is released from the conditioned mind-process, freed from the confines of the body and the boundaries of the personal self-sense, the inner dimension of your own experience begins to open up to an immeasurable degree. Imagine that you have been fast asleep in a small, dark chamber. Then, suddenly awaken to find yourself floating in the infinite expanse of a vast, peaceful ocean. 

That’s what this journey to the depths of your own self feels like. You become aware of a limitless dimension that you did not even know was there. Moments before, you may have experienced yourself as being trapped, a prisoner of your body, mind, and emotions. But when you awaken to this new dimension, all sense of confinement disappears. You find yourself resting in, and as, boundless empty space. 

In that empty space, the mind is completely still; there is no time, no memory, not even a trace of personal history. And the deeper you fall into that space, the more everything will continue to fall away, until finally all that will be left is you. When you let absolutely everything go—body, mind, memory, and time—you will find, miraculously, that you still exist. In fact, in the end, you discover that all that exists is you!

Ken Wilber (Boomeritis, Sidebar E: “The Genius Descartes Gets a Postmodern Drubbing): Integral Historiography in a Postmodern Age”) – On the Witness and One Taste: “There are many things that I can doubt, but I cannot doubt my own consciousness in this moment. My consciousness IS, and even if I tried to doubt it, it would be my consciousness doubting. I can imagine that my senses are being presented with a fake reality – say, a completely virtual reality or digital reality which looks real but is merely a series of extremely realist images. But even then, I cannot doubt the consciousness that is doing the watching… The very un-deniability of my present awareness, the un-deniability of my consciousness, immediately delivers to me a certainty of existence in this moment, a certainty of Being in the newness of this moment. I cannot doubt consciousness and Being in this moment, for it is the ground of all knowing, all seeing, all existing…”

“…This pure I AM state is not hard to achieve but impossible to escape, because it is ever present and can never really be doubted … I can doubt that clouds exist, I can doubt that feelings exist, I can doubt that objects of thought exist – but I cannot doubt that the Witness exists in this moment, because the Witness would still be there to witness the doubt. I am not objects in nature, not feelings in the body, not thoughts in the mind, for I can Witness them all. I am that Witness – a vast, spacious, empty, clear, pure, transparent Openness that impartially notices all that arises, as a mirror spontaneously reflects all its objects…”

“You can already feel some of this Great Liberation in that, as you rest in the ease of witnessing this moment, you already feel that you are free from the suffocating constriction of mere objects, mere feelings, mere thoughts – they all come and go, but you are that vast, free, empty, open Witness of them all, untouched by their torments and tortures”.

“This is actually the profound discovery of… the pure divine Self, the formless Witness, causal nothingness, the vast Emptiness in which the entire world arises, stays a bit, and passes. And you are That. You are not the body, not the ego, not nature, not thoughts, not this, not that – you are a vast Emptiness, Freedom, Release, and Liberation”.

“With this discovery… you are halfway home. You have disidentified from any and all finite objects; you rest as infinite Consciousness. You are free, open, empty, clear, radiant, released, liberated, exalted, drenched in a blissful emptiness that exists prior to space, prior to time, prior to tears and terror, prior to pain and mortality and suffering and death. You have found the great Unborn, the vast Abyss, the unqualifiable Ground of all that is, and all that was, and all that ever shall be”. 

“But why is that only halfway home? Because as you rest in the infinite ease of consciousness, spontaneously aware of all that is arising, there will soon enough come the great catastrophe of Freedom and Fullness: the Witness itself will disappear entirely, and instead of witnessing the sky, you are the sky; instead of touching the earth, you are the earth; instead of hearing the thunder, you are the thunder. You and the entire Kosmos because One Taste – you can drink the Pacific Ocean in a single gulp, hold Mt. Everest in the palm of your hand; supernovas swirl in your heart and the solar system replaces your head… You are One Taste, the empty mirror that is one with any and all objects that arise in its embrace, a mindlessly vast translucent expanse: infinite, eternal, radiant beyond release”.

Why Realize the I AM First 

Soh Wei Yu: Non-dual experiences are dry and barren without the luminous taste of Presence-Awareness. Some people wonder if it is necessary to go through the I AM realization before they realize further stages of insight like Anatta (Stage 5). While possible, it is easy to miss out certain aspects like the luminous Presence. One can have non-dual experiences but it is dry and barren without the luminous taste of Presence-Awareness. Furthermore, as discussed towards the end of this document, the stages are not to be seen as purely linear progression nor as a measurement of importance even the first phase of I AM Realization is important as it brings out the luminous essence. Actually, the taste of Stage 1 (I AM) and Stage 4 and 5 is similar, only the insight and view is different. At Stage 4, John Tan wrote that it is the same luminous taste as the direct taste of Mind (called “I AM”) but now extended to all six senses.

Soh Wei Yu (2020): being stuck is due to lack of right pointers and directions, not inherently an issue with I AM. “Regarding whether it is important to go through I AM realization or can we skip to Anatta, John Tan, Sim Pern Chong and I have had differing and evolving opinions about this over the years. I remember Sim Pern Chong saying he thinks people can skip it altogether. John also wondered if it is possible or advisable as certain AF people seem to have skipped it but experience luminosity. However after witnessing the progress of people it seems to us that those who went into Anatta without the I AM realization tend to miss out the luminosity and intensity of luminosity. And then they will have to go through another phase. For those with I AM realization, the second stanza of Anatta comes very easily, in fact the first aspect to become more apparent. Nowadays John and my opinion is that it is best to go through the I AM phase, then non-dual and Anatta… There was also the worry that by leading people into the I AM, they can get stuck there. (As John Tan and Sim Pern Chong was stuck there for decades). But I have shown that it is possible to progress rather quickly (in eight months) from I AM to Anatta. So the being stuck is due to lack of right pointers and directions, not inherently an issue with I AM”. 

John Tan (2020): Realizing the intensity of Luminosity. “People that do not go through the phases of insights between I AM will not know the difference but it is important to go through I AM to realize the intensity”.

John Tan (2009): Understanding Anatta too early could deny oneself from actual realization. “… it is important to have a first glimpse of our luminous essence directly before proceeding into such understanding (Anatta). Sometimes understanding something too early will deny oneself from actual realization as it becomes conceptual. Once the conceptual understanding is formed, even qualified masters will find it difficult to lead the practitioner to the actual ‘realization’ as a practitioner mistakes conceptual understanding for realization”.

John Tan (2009): I AM Experience/Glimpse/Recognition vs I AM Realization (Certainty of Being). “If a practitioner can experience like what Ramana Maharshi experience as SELF in Anatta, then he is near full enlightenment liao (already). It is the thoroughness and the depth and degree of luminosity. For non-dual Anatta to have that sort of presence, there must be complete effortlessness. Because unlike concentrative mode of practice, non-dual or the formless and pathless path requires one to be completely effortless and spontaneous to have total non-dual luminosity … (Ramana’s is still a concentrative mode of practice rite, like abiding on self) … If a person can have that experience then go into non-dual, it is different. If Anatta can be experienced, it will be better. A person can experience non-dual, there is no separation. But there is no such experience like "I AM", so he does not have that 'quality' of experience. However he a practitioner experience that "I AM", then when non-dual he knows that there is such an experience and all experiences are really like that”.

“(Not that the non-dual experience will be more in-depth). No. it is all the same, but found in all manifestation, not as a stage … If luminosity and emptiness is taught but there is no realization that it is the great bliss, then one has not realized anything ... not that it is pointless but just a step along the path. So what is it the great bliss? It is actually a sort of absorption. I think I will write about Anatta, so that you don't get confused with non-dual. Anatta is about no agent. Clarity that there is no agent, and because there is no agent, it has to be direct. It is naturally non dual”.

Soh Wei Yu: The I AM realization does not contradict Anatta realization but complements it. I noticed that many Buddhists trained under the doctrine of Anatta and emptiness seem to be put off by the description of “I AM realization” as it seems to contradict Anatta. This will prevent their progress as they will fail to appreciate and realize the depth of luminous presence, and their understanding of Anatta and emptiness remains intellectual. It should be understood that the I AM realization does not contradict Anatta realization but complements it. It is the “original face before your parents were born” of Zen, and the unfabricated clarity in Dzogchen that serves as initial rigpa, it is also the initial certainty of Mind discovered in the first of the four yogas of Mahamudra (see: Clarifying the Natural State by Dakpo Tashi Namgyal). Calling it “I AM” is just another name for the same thing, and you should also know that AtR’s definition of I AM is different from Buddhism’s term “conceit of I Am” or Nisargadatta’s I Am. The I AM of AtR is a direct taste and realization of the Mind of Clear Light. The view gets refined and the taste gets brought to effortless maturity and non-contrivance in all manifestation as one’s insights deepen”. 

John Tan (2011): I AM is PCE in thought (only)

John Tan: What is "I AM"? Is it a PCE (pure consciousness experience)? Is there emotion? Is there feeling? Is there thought? Is there division or complete stillness? In hearing there is just sound, just this complete, direct clarity of sound! So what is "I AM"?

Soh Wei Yu: It is the same, just that pure non conceptual thought.

John Tan: Is there 'being'?

Soh Wei Yu: No, an ultimate identity is created as an afterthought.

John Tan: Indeed. It is the misinterpretation after that experience that is causing the confusion. That experience itself is pure conscious experience. There is nothing that is impure, that is why it is a sense of pure existence. It is only mistaken due to the 'wrong view'. So it is a pure conscious experience in thought. Not sound, taste, touch...etc. PCE (Pure Consciousness Experience) is about direct and pure experience of whatever we encounter in sight, sound, taste... The quality and depth of experience in sound, in contacts, in taste, in scenery, has he truly experience the immense luminous clarity in the senses? If so, what about 'thought'? When all senses are shut, the pure sense of existence as it is when the senses are shut. Then with senses open have a clear understanding. 

John Tan (2007): I AMness and non-dual is the same. It is just the clarity in terms of insight, not experience. You don't think that "I AMness" is low stage of enlightenment? A person that has experienced "I AMness" and non-dual is the same. The experience is the same. It is just the clarity in terms of insight, not experience. Non dual is every moment there is the experience of presence. Or the insight into the every moment experience of presence. What prevents that experience is the illusion of self, and "I AM" is that distorted view. The experience is the same leh ...  there is nothing wrong with that experience to Sim Pern Chong, Jonls... I only say it is skewed towards the thought realm. So don't differentiate but know what is the problem. I always say it is misinterpretation of the experience of presence. not the experience itself. but "I AMness" prevents us from seeing.

John Tan (2009): I AM is the experience of no background (background becoming foreground) and experiencing consciousness directly

John Tan: I AM is the same as Hokai’s description of the Shingon practice of the body, mind and speech into one. That’s an I Am experience, except that the object of practice is not based on consciousness. What is meant by foreground? It is the disappearance of the background and what’s left is it. Similarly, the "I AM" is the experience of no background and experiencing consciousness directly. That is why it is just simply "I-I" or "I AM".

Soh Wei Yu: I've heard of the way people describe consciousness as the background consciousness becoming the foreground... so there's only consciousness aware of itself and that’s still like I AM experience.

John Tan: That is why it is described that way, awareness aware of itself and as itself.

Soh Wei Yu: But you also said I AM people sink to a background?

John Tan: Yes

Soh Wei Yu: Sinking to background = background becoming foreground?

John Tan: That is why I said it is misunderstood. And we treat that as ultimate.

Soh Wei Yu: But what Hokai described is also non-dual experience rite.

John Tan: I have told you many times that the experience is right but the understanding is wrong. That’s why it is an insight and opening of the wisdom eyes. There is nothing wrong with the experience of I AM". Did I say that there is anything wrong with it?

Soh Wei Yu: nope

John Tan: Even In stage 4 what did I say?

Soh Wei Yu: It’s the same experience except in sound, sight, etc

John Tan:  Sound as the exact same experience as "I AM"... as presence.

John Tan (2010): Don’t deny Witnessing, but its personification, reification and objectification

Can you deny Witnessing? Can you deny that certainty of being? Then there is nothing wrong with it. How could you deny your very own existence? How could you deny existence at all? There is nothing wrong experiencing directly without intermediary the pure sense of existence. After this direct experience, you should refine your understanding, your view, your insights ... You do not deny the Witness, you refine your insight of it. What is meant by non-dual. What is meant by non-conceptual. What is being spontaneous. What is the 'impersonality' aspect. What is luminosity. Do not deny that Witnessing but refine the view. You merely deny the personification, reification and objectification so that you can progress further and realize our empty nature.

Soh Wei Yu: I AM is am appearance of the Mind door, a formless one, but it is still a manifestation: "Presence is just appearance (however it will not be seen as such prior to Anatta realization, instead it will be seen as very Absolute and Ultimate and distinguished from other transient appearances due to immaturity of insight). The so called formless is really another appearance, another manifestation, not any different from the appearance of a color, a sound. A sound is not a sight, but a sound is a manifestation, an appearance. A sight is not a sound, but a sight is a manifestation, an appearance. A sensations is not a sound, but it is manifestation, appearance. The I AM is likewise just another appearance, it is of the Mind door and therefore you say it is not a sight, not a sound. That I AM or Mind (pure sense of formless Presence Awareness even when five senses are shut) is formless because it is not visually seen nor auditory heard (because it is the Mind door, not the visual or auditory sense door) but it is still a manifestation. But it is really just another appearance, a manifestation. You do not say Presence allows appearance, for Presence is just appearances in all its diversities. In other words, Presence has not just one particular face but ten thousand faces”.

“The view of Anatta, dependent origination and emptiness is very different from Advaita … Don't get disturbed by whether Presence is self or not self while doing self-inquiry, or on Anatta, etc. Just direct realize the Awareness/Presence/I AM first. If you get disturbed by thinking or concepts, you will never come to the Certainty of Being / Existence”.

“As a matter of fact, that doubtless taste of luminous Presence does not contradict Anatta, but complements it when properly understood. Merely understanding Anatta without the direct taste of Presence is dry and nihilistic or merely intellectual. However after you realize Presence (I AM), then non-dual, then Anatta and dependent origination and emptiness, you will start to see and appreciate that Buddha's view and insight is profound”.

“John Tan told me in 2008: ‘Although the 'teaching of Anatta' helps to prevent you from landing into wrong views, the downside is it also denies you from experiencing that deep and ultimate conviction, that certainty beyond doubt of your very own existence "I AM'. This is a very important factor for Advaita practitioners. The next important factor is the duration of this non-dual experience must be prolonged; long enough for you to enter into a sort of absorption that the experience becomes 'oceanic'”.

Soh Wei Yu: Self-Inquiry and Mahasi Noting: “… Someone asked me about self-inquiry vs Mahasi style noting. Pure noting would not suit me or my character because it would have felt dry and barren to me. That taste of Presence, a direct taste of Spirit or the Heart seems missing in those practices. Which I was already having glimpses of as early as 2006-2007, a few years before doubtless Self-Realization arose. But through awareness teachings and the practice of self-inquiry when I AM realization arose, all further progressions are based on the maturing of insight in relation to that non-dual luminous taste of presence. However if you are drawn to MCTB approach there is nothing wrong pursuing noting and the path as outlined there. The luminosity aspect is eventually brought forth at the 3rd path of MCTB and matures at 4th and post 4th path (Daniel Ingram’s exploration of AF practices). You have to gauge and see for yourself which approach you felt more resonance with”.

John Tan (2009): Gradual Approach and Direct Path. “It appears that there are two groups of practitioners in DhO, one adopting the gradual approach and the other, the direct path … You have to gauge your own conditions, if you choose the direct path, you cannot downplay this ‘I’; contrary, you must fully and completely experience the whole of ‘YOU’ as ‘Existence’. Emptiness nature of our pristine nature will step in for the direct path practitioners when they come face to face to the ‘traceless’, ‘centerless’ and ‘effortless’ nature of non-dual awareness”.

“Perhaps a little on where the two approaches meet will be of help to you. Awakening to the ‘Watcher’ will at the same time ‘open’ the ‘eye of immediacy’; that is, it is the capacity to immediately penetrate discursive thoughts and sense, feel, perceive without intermediary the perceived. It is a kind of direct knowing. You must be deeply aware of this ‘direct without intermediary’ sort of perception too direct to have subject/object gap, too short to have time, too simple to have thoughts. It is the ‘eye’ that can see the whole of ‘sound’ by being ‘sound’. It is the same ‘eye’ that is required when doing vipassana, that is, being ‘bare’. Be it non-dual or vipassana, both require the opening of this 'eye of immediacy'”.

John Tan (2007): Impermanence door and No-Self door. "In the three (or four) dharma seals, the universal seals (characteristics of existence), there is the understanding of no-self, there is impermanence, there is suffering and there is nirvana. Entering from the door of impermanence is different from entering the door of no-self".

"When you observe the arising and passing away of your thoughts, it can also lead to the understanding of no-self, but from the door of impermanence. This means that Self is seen as a series: Self1, Self2, Self3, that does not remain, from moment to moment it changes". 

"However, a person that enters through the door of no-self, means understanding no-self directly, he enters through luminosity. That is more like a mirror bright, but he cannot understand the luminosity due to momentum, then he separates the external world and the internal world. But the no-self itself will break this mirror; he will then see that everything is the Mind". 

"Do you get it? One is from the luminosity door. No-self leads to the mirror bright, and then breaking the mirror and then experience everything as the nature. The other one that leads to no-self is through the understanding of impermanence".

"The understanding of these two is important, it must later be fused into one to understand what Emptiness about. This means there is no point of reference, there is no centricity, there is no where, there is no when, there is no I, but there is manifestation all and everywhere. If you enter the gate of impermanence, later you have to experience no-self from luminosity, then you have to fuse the two, then you have to stabilize the two, then you can understand Emptiness".

Other Questions on Self-Inquiry and I AM
 
Soh Wei Yu: A relatively silent stable state is needed for effective Self-Inquiry

“Ramana Maharshi teaches that the most direct path to self-realization is Self-Inquiry. That is what Ramana would teach first. However if the seeker says he/she has trouble inquiring properly, Ramana may advice on other methods like controlling the breath. Other secondary practices are useful, such as breath control, if one is unable to get the mind to a relatively silent stable state for effective inquiry. A wandering monkey mind –a chattery mind– is not able to effectively inquire into what you truly are prior to thinking. However one must come back to inquiry at the end”.

The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi: Should Self-Inquiry be done 24/7?

Happinessofbeing.com: “You ask, ‘Should I keep doing Self-Inquiry all day for hours in seated position? Should I continue the inquiry in bed as well before sleep? Or should I stop the inquiry from time to time to give some rest to the body?’ Firstly, self-investigation has nothing to do with the body, so we can practice it whether the body is lying, sitting, standing, walking or doing anything else. For the same reason, we do not have to stop being self-attentive in order to give some rest to the body, because being self-attentive cannot strain the body in any way. In fact, when the body and mind are resting is a very favourable condition for us to be self-attentive”.

“Regarding your question about continuing the practice in bed before sleep, that is also good, but since we are generally very tired at that time, we usually subside into sleep soon after trying to be self-attentive. There is no harm in that, because when we need to sleep we should sleep. There is no time and no circumstance that is not suitable for us to be self-attentive, so we should try to be self-attentive as much as possible whatever the time or circumstances may be, but we should not try to deprive ourselves of however much sleep we may need”.

Soh Wei You (personal communication): “I think it’s better to just sleep when you are sleeping. No need to inquire. But (do) inquire when meditating and when doing not so cognitively engaging tasks, like walking”.

Soh Wei Yu: The purpose of generating doubt is not to create endless doubt but to direct the mind to the Source so that the very doubt resolves into the Doubtless Self/Beingness that is revealed in its shining radiance

The point of self inquiry is really to investigate (and this process of investigation consists of an earnest curiosity and inquisitiveness) and direct the mind to the Source, which is prior to everything thoughts, perceptions, etc. The purpose of generating doubt is not to create endless doubt but to direct the mind to the Source so that the very doubt resolves into the Doubtless Self/Beingness that is revealed in its shining radiance. The doubt is itself the inquisitiveness and curiosity (an important key element to successful self-inquiry, otherwise the thought 'Who am I?' will just be a monotonous and robotic mental chanting like a mantra rather than lead the mind to the Source), to really find out the truth of your Being. You have to ask "Who am I?" like you really, really mean it, like you really, really want to find out what you truly are at the core of your Being and unlock the secret of Existence. Like, what the hell, after all these years living on this planet, what is at the core of this wondrous Life itself? What is this Existence? What am I??? I've seen many things in life and lived for so many years, but WHO is living this Life? Who is seeing, hearing, smelling? Who is dragging this corpse along? That's the meaning of doubt, nothing else.

Soh Wei Yu: Why is "before birth, what am I?" being advocated 

Before any observable five senses or conceptual phenomena, what are you? There is a doubtless Presence before senses. But don’t intellectualize the question or ponder conceptually while enquiring. The purpose of self-inquiry is to have a direct non-conceptual realization of Self/Presence. So any conceptual rumination will be an obstruction during the practice of self-enquiring.

Wayne Woo: What is the Original Face? 

What is the Original Face? It is the face all of us have before our parents gave birth to us. Before we even have the 6 sense organs of eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body & brain to perceive the 6 sense objects of form, sound, smell, taste, feeling & thought. Before we even know good & evil, happiness & suffering, samsara & nirvana. Simply  the pure awareness untainted by all 6 senses that is the real YOU. That is also me, that is also all sentient beings & all Buddhas. (The Original Face)

Angelo Di Lullo: Once in the thoughtless space, stay alert but don’t strain

“… With any of these perceptions, experiences you can simply inquire ‘who is the one perceiving?’ Then look ‘there’. Also can just notice the vantage FROM which you seem to be perceiving each experience and rest there. Often this comes with a sort of stepwise inward moving experience but hold that description loosely. When you come to a truly contentless experience there will be nothing to do, no where specific to look, and an alertness to any arising thought or perception which will be immediately discounted as such. Once this is clear there’s not a lot more to do but stay with it, stay alert but don’t strain. There are a few expected ‘reactions’ at this point one being physiologic fear/terror. If it comes and you remain in thoughtless clarity it will pass. Practice this way and let me know what you find. I’ve worked with a handful of people in exactly the way you are practicing in last couple weeks who all broke through. You got this. But you gotta go where you no longer know where you are”.

Soh Wei Yu: Not necessary to enter extra-ordinary meditative states in order to realize I AMtion states needed

It should be noted that it is not necessary to enter certain states of meditation to shut off the five senses before realizing I AM. As Ramana Maharshi said before, it is not necessary to lose body consciousness to realize Self, although doing so simply intensifies the samadhi or absorption in Self. 

The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi: Self-Inquiry and Kundalini

Happinessofbeing.com: “When you say ‘The practice of Self-Inquiry, especially in seated position –just being aware of awareness itself, not meditating in any object or form etc, simply just being, not even ‘I’ in the I AM– boosted my kundalini’, it is not clear to me what you are actually practicing, because you say you are ‘just being aware of awareness itself’ but then seem to say that you are not meditating even on ‘I’. Meditating on ‘I’ means attending only to yourself [not in the space], or in other words, just being self-attentive, so if you are not meditating on ‘I’, what do you mean by saying that you are ‘just being aware of awareness itself’?”

This is why Bhagavan gave us the powerful pointer ‘to whom?’ If we understand this pointer correctly, it is directing our attention back towards our-self, the one to whom all other things appear. In other words, it is pointing our attention back to what is aware, away from whatever we were hitherto aware of”.

“If you are aware of any phenomenon, such as the boosting of your Kundalini, your attention has been diverted away from yourself, so you need to turn it back to yourself, the one to whom all phenomena appear … the energy, the spine, the chakras and the energy’s movement are all objects or phenomena, so you should ignore all such things by trying to be keenly self-attentive … If you turn your attention back to yourself and hold firmly to yourself –that is, if you just remain firmly self-attentive–, whatever phenomena may have appeared will thereby disappear, because no phenomenon can appear or remain in your awareness unless you attend to it at least to a certain extent”.

Devotion and AMness

Albert Hong: “Devotion for instance is a great access point to realize AMness. When you truly love something without boundaries, without desire then the aliveness or soul essence of what you love shines forth”.

Soh Wei Yu: “…Ramana Maharshi became more devotional after Self-Realization. Some people were devotional before Self-Realization, e.g. Greg Goode mentioned about devotion leading to some opening of the heart that facilitated his non-dual inquiry. Metta definitely has the same heart opening potential and can definitely aid inquiry and other non-dual contemplations. Personally I'm never the really devotional kind but I still pray to Buddhas and Bodhisattvas at times”.

Shinzen Young’s Do Nothing Approach

Soh Wei Yu: “Also as an alternative to Self-Inquiry, John Tan back then asked me to look into the Do Nothing method by Shinzen Young as another alternative way to realize the Self. However I did not focus on that practice”.

Soh Wei Yu: I AMness without Self-Inquiry is a gradual approach

 Is it possible to experience I AMness without self-inquiry? For example, the person who wrote ‘awareness watching awareness’ just focused on awareness alone then experienced I AMness. He didn’t ask ‘Who am I?’. But I think ‘Who am I?’ is very useful.

John Tan: It’s possible but that sort of practice it is a more gradual approach. It will not have that sort of 'Eureka' factor. The next step into non-dual is to bring this into the foreground by practicing bare attention of our body sensations. The Eureka factor is very important part for Realization. Self-Inquiry is the direct (not gradual) method to Self-Realization.

Soh Wei Yu: Awareness Watching Awareness is a gradual approach 

“IMO, Self-Inquiry is more direct than Michael Langford's ‘Awareness Watching Awareness’ practice. Though they are in some ways related, AWA is a more gradual path towards Self-Realization, but also effective”.

John Tan: Kundalini related practices can lead to I AM realization as well, although it’s a different process from self-enquiry

Soh Wei Yu: Kundalini related practices may lead to experience but for realization you need to do some kind of investigation like self-inquiry or koan. 

John Tan: No, both can lead to realization, koan is just an instrument … The Self (may be) realized by kundalini, opening of chakras, or by micro and macroscopic orbit of chi … when you practice into a state of total openness, purity and clarity (as in Kundalini), you will realize your non-dual luminous essence … Kundalini leads you differently to realization of Self too, ultimately. However, the path is different. It is like the difference between gradual path and direct path … When you practice bringing to the foreground, you will also experience complete and full integration of energy. You may then focus on energy.

John Tan: How does awakening of kundalini lead to Self-Realization? It’s the same as koan, except that it is by way of awakening the magic serpent in this case. You do not need to penetrate by way of koan, koan might not suit everyone. if you ask your mum, it might be more suitable to do chanting or even kundalini practice, but she would have to know the purpose of practice. Much like your grandmaster teaches you ‘illumination of awareness’, same like teaching ‘awareness of awareness’. If you practice until there is total practice openness, pure like a mirror, spaciousness and luminous… if you stabilized these experiences, you will realize. But your experience and realization will be very stable, not like direct path of realization, the strength is not there.

Soh Wei Yu: Same for kundalini? Will the experience be stable?

John Tan: Yeah...because they start from there, opening gate by gate.

Soh Wei Yu: Michael Langford, the one who taught awareness watching awareness practice, practiced 2 to 12 hours of AWA practice every day for almost 2 years... and then he achieved something like eternal bliss or liberation or something. But it sounded like he has a very very stable experience plus realization through that practice alone.

John Tan: yes. I have told you once you realized, you are guided by what?

Soh Wei Yu: The taste of a pure, original, primordial, non-conceptual and non-dual luminous state of existence.

John Tan: Yes. Isn't that an experience? I have said I do not like to differentiate but it is just to bring out this point, so you might stabilize your experience of mirror like clarity, you practice non-conceptuality and stabilized it. You practice purity of intention till you deconstruct personality.

Soh Wei Yu: Oh I see. It means that after realization, one must work to stabilize those experiences?

John Tan: You can, and indirectly yes. But you can also do by further refining your realizations. Like bringing this experience to the foreground, and then you realized Anatta, and then Emptiness and Self-Liberation … Foreground practice becomes very important to you now. Now if you were to practice bringing this experience to the foreground, what will you realized?

Soh Wei Yu: That there is no inside and outside, subject and object division in direct experience of sound, seeing, taste, etc

John Tan: Yes. You challenge 'inside/outside', boundaries, arising and ceasing... one by one. You must come to several important direct realizations. What did Richard teach the AF practitioners? How is ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ different from bringing the experience to the foreground? Anything special?

Soh Wei Yu: I think 'being alive' can mean background or foreground depending on context of it being said.

John Tan: You have already experienced the background. And the AF crowd is not interested in the background … [if you realize the background, you realize the foreground and viceversa] 

Albert Hong: Taste of I AMness and Integration with the Somatic

“To get access to AMness or Beingness one has to distinguish the vital energy from the body … If you do anything body-based or breath-based then naturally you will understand what is meant by inner vitality: an inner sense of aliveness or well-being or just having more energy due to spiritual practice. If you give you attention to that life energy then it will naturally become more subtle until your whole sense of a body is just bliss and knowingness. Then, AMness becomes the very most subtle substance of everything. But it all begins with coarse to subtle to AMness. A large part of isolating the sense of YOU ARE is due to interacting with being abiding in such state. Then it becomes clear what that taste or flavor is. Then it becomes a process of distinguishing that from coarse body identification, which is nothing but muscular tensions. Those tensions then when recognized as the YOU ARE become bliss, become nothing but YOU ARE”.

Sailor Bob Adamson: Before the next thought arises, you are absolutely certain of the fact of your own being, your own awareness, your own presence. This awareness is what you are; it is what you always have been. All thoughts, perceptions, sensations and feelings appear within or upon that

“Right now, as you read this, you exist and you are aware that you exist. You are undoubtedly present and aware. Before the next thought arises, you are absolutely certain of the fact of your own being, your own awareness, your own presence. This awareness is what you are; it is what you always have been. All thoughts, perceptions, sensations and feelings appear within or upon that. This awareness does not move, change or shift at any time. It is always free and completely untouched. However, it is not a thing or an object that you can see or grasp. The mind, being simply thoughts arising in awareness, cannot grasp it or know it or even think about it. Yet, as Bob says, you cannot deny the fact of your own being. It is palpably obvious, and yet, from the time we were born, no one has pointed this out. Once it is pointed out it can be grasped or understood very quickly because it is just a matter of noticing, ‘Oh, that is what I am!’ It is a bright, luminous, empty, presence of awareness; it is absolutely radiant, yet without form; it is seemingly intangible, but the most solid fact in your existence; it is effortlessly here right now, forever untouched. Without taking a step, you have arrived; you are home. No practice can reveal this because practices are in time and in the mind. Practices aim at a result, but you (as presence-awareness) are here already, only you don’t recognize it till it is pointed out. Once seen, you can’t lose it, and you don’t have to practice to exist, to be. This is, in essence, what Bob pointed out to me in the first conversation I had with him.

Once I saw this, I felt very clear and free immediately. Later, some thoughts came up, some old personality patterns, some old definitions of who I thought myself to be. I seemed to lose the clear understanding of my nature as presence-awareness. The next day, I talked to Bob about it. He said, ‘Let’s have a look. Do you exist? Are you aware? What is illumining the thought that you have lost it?’ Then I realized that thoughts of suffering were only passing concepts being illumined by the ever-present awareness. I hadn’t lost anything at all. The awareness that we are is never obscured! Suffering seems real because we don’t have a clear understanding of our true nature. Instead, we believe the passing thoughts, such as ‘I am no good,’ ‘I am not there yet,’ ‘I am stuck’ or whatever the thought may be. Eventually we understand that we are not those thoughts. Once our real self is pointed out, the suffering loses its grip.

Bob pointed out that there is no person here at all. The person that we think we are is an imaginary concept. There are thoughts and feelings and perceptions, but they are not a problem. They just rise and fall like dust motes in the light of the presence-awareness that we are. 


Ajahn Brahm: When the body disappears along with sensory perception, one discovers I AM

There's one living in your mind right now, and you believe every word he says! His name is Thinking. When you let go of that inner talk and get silent, you get happy. Then when you let go of the movement of the mind and stay with the breath, you experience even more delight. Then when you let go of the body ,all these five senses disappear and you're really blissing out. This is original Buddhism. Sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch completely vanish. This is like being in a sensory deprivation chamber but much better. But it's not just silence, you just don't hear anything. It's not just blackness, you just don't see anything. It's not just a feeling of comfort in the body, there is no body at all.

When the body disappears that really starts to feel great. You know of all those people who have out of the body experiences? When the body dies, every person has that experience, they float out of the body. And one of the things they always say is it's so peaceful, so beautiful, so blissful. It's the same in meditation when the body disappears, it's so peaceful, so beautiful, so blissful when you are free from this body. What's left? Here there's no sight, sound, smell, taste, touch. This is what the Buddha called the mind in deep meditation. When the body disappears what is left is the mind.

I gave a simile to a monk the other night. Imagine an Emperor who is wearing a long pair of trousers and a big tunic. He's got shoes on his feet, a scarf around the bottom half of his head and a hat on the top half of his head. You can't see him at all because he's completely covered in five garments. It's the same with the mind. It's completely covered with sight, sound, smell, taste and touch. So people don't know it. They just know the garments. When they see the Emperor, they just see the robes and the garments. They don't know who lives inside them. And so it is no wonder they're confused about what is life, what is mind, who is this inside of here, where did I come from? Why? What am I supposed to be doing with this life? When the five senses disappear, it's like unclothing the Emperor and seeing what is actually in here, what's actually running the show, who's listening to these words, who's seeing, who's feeling life, who this is. When the five senses disappear, you're coming close to the answer to those questions. 


John Tan: The experience of dark nights are very real for many reasons but it still depends on one’s individual conditions

“The dark nights described by Dharma Dan are very real for many reasons but then it still depends on one’s conditions. I experienced most of the problems. It took me more than 9 months to overcome them. This self-claimed Arahat is truly experience, he has all my respects! All is still due to the propensities of the ‘Self’, they are working at a very subtle level. It is not detectable at the conscious level and it is for this that I must commend you for not being misled by the non-dual experience. You are mindful that the karmic patterns still hover around. This is very important. Deeper insight must come from understanding how consciousness works. It is not at the conscious level alone. So deep are these propensities then even with the non-dual experience that is so clear and vivid, the propensities still persist and manifest from moment to moment. They do not go even after death. It is these patterns that we must be aware. Once rooted, they cannot be easily overcome. The antidote is to habituate the non-dual insight deep down into our consciousness. Do not push yourself too hard, but make more regular meditations. It is not easy to submerge entirely into the luminous bliss of arising and dissolving from moment to moment in day to day working life. Though you can’t completely fuse the experience into daily working life, you will still be authenticated”.

John Wheeler: The closest that the mind can come to representing who we are is the thought I AM

“The closest that the mind can come to representing who we are is the thought I AM. But that thought is not who we really are. Whether that thought is there or not, we still exist. We know the thought I AM. That thought is the start of the false sense of an individual, a separate ‘I’. Because we didn’t know any better, the mind attached other labels to this ‘I’ thought, such as ‘I am good,’ ‘I am bad,’ ‘I have this problem,’ and so on. But those thoughts don’t have anything to do with us, because the very ‘I’ thought itself, the sense of separation, is not actually who we are. Once you see the falseness of the ‘I’ thought, that what we are is not an individual person at all, the identifications and ideas of a lifetime all collapse because they are all based on a false premise”. 

John Tan: The thinking mind will mistake the Eternal Witness as the ultimate

“The thinking mind will mistake the Eternal Witness as the ultimate. Smile if without the correct insight and understanding of our emptiness nature, somehow the thinking mind is able to ‘sway’ the experience into thinking ‘No-Self’ as the absence of personality and ego. It is this ‘personality’ or Ego, the totality of all our cultural makeup, that does not exist; but that Reality behind all forms, thinking, mental formations and feelings is very real; it is the ultimate background of all existence. This is false and in Buddhism, this is the ‘big Self’ that should be eliminated through the experience of non-duality (Anatta). Our pristine nature is not what the linear mode of reasoning can understanding. However ‘seeing in raw’ does not necessarily lead to the experience of true non-duality; the experience of AMness is also a very crucial condition. Together with the realization of ‘the sense of self is not the doer of action’, then the conditions are ready. They are all part of the progress”.

Soh Wei Yu: Different levels of I AM

“There are different levels of I AM. At a deeper level, it reveals its non-localized, diffused, infinite and all-pervading aspect. Also at I AM, you feel like the luminous void background containing all sceneries. You do not pass by objects while walking, they pass through you. Perhaps you can get a sense of it if you do Douglas Harding’s exercises on having no head: Who are we really? 1A and Who are we really? 1B   

What is the drive to look any deeper?

Soh Wei Yu: “Once the I AM is realized, I'm guided by the taste of a pure, original, primordial, non-conceptual and non-dual luminous state of existence. To bring it into natural, effortless, full-blown spontaneous perfection and intensity in all experience, manifestation, activities, the way I found out (thankfully not very long process due to pointers by John Tan) is through deepening of insights into non-dual, Anatta and Emptiness”.

“After the initial realization, I AM becomes stagnant water as one becomes fixed on a dead Absolute. This is where Zen Master Hakuin criticized about an evil spirit watching over the corpse and being stuck in stagnant waters”.

“The direct realization of Mind is formless, soundless, smell-less, odor-less, etc. But later on it is realized that forms, smells, odors, are Mind, are Presence, Luminosity. Without deeper realization, one just stagnates in the I AM level and get fixated on the formless, etc. That is John Tan Stage 1”.

“The I AM is later realized to be simply one aspect or 'sense gate' or 'door' of pristine consciousness. It is later seen to be not any more special or ultimate than a color, a sound, a sensation, a smell, a touch, a thought, all of which reveals its vibrant aliveness and luminosity. The same taste of I AM is now extended to all senses. Right now you don't feel that, you only authenticated the luminosity of the Mind/thought door. So your emphasis is on the formless, odorless, and so on. After Anatta it is different, everything is of the same luminous, empty taste”.

“And the 'I AM' of the mind door is not any more different than any other sense door … It doesn't imply some sort of hierarchy or ultimacy of one mode of knowingness over another. They are simply different sense gates but equally luminous and empty, equally Buddha-Nature”.

John Tan: “When consciousness experiences the pure sense of I AM, overwhelmed by the transcendental thoughtless moment of Beingness, consciousness clings to that experience as its purest identity. By doing so, it subtly creates a ‘watcher’ and fails to see that the ‘Pure Sense of Existence’ is nothing but an aspect of pure consciousness relating to the thought realm. This in turn serves as the karmic condition that prevents the experience of pure consciousness that arises from other sense objects. Extending it to the other senses, there is hearing without a hearer and seeing without a seer the experience of Pure Sound Consciousness is radically different from Pure Sight Consciousness. Sincerely, if we are able to give up ‘I’ and replace it with “Emptiness Nature”, Consciousness is experienced as non-local. There isn't a state that is purer than the other. All is just One Taste, the manifold of Presence”.

“The ‘who’, ‘where’ and ‘when’, the ‘I’, ‘here’ and ‘now’ must ultimately give way to the experience of total transparency. Do not fall back to a source, just the manifestation is sufficient. This will become so clear that total transparency is experienced. When total transparency is stabilized, transcendental body is experienced, and Dharmakaya is seen everywhere. This is the samadhi bliss of Bodhisattva. This is the fruition of practice”. (Buddha Nature is NOT "I Am")

John Tan: “The True Buddha Nature is the Pure Presence, however when the mind attempts to grasp its essence after its initial experience, it creatively creates the I AM: an Entity having all the properties of, yet still stubbornly attached to the ‘I'. It is the tricks of the monkey mind unwillingness to let go yet trying to recapture the Pure Presence experience as such, when it turns inwards to break layer by layer of its own boundaries. It will have all hurdles to clear”.

John Tan: “First is directly authenticating mind/consciousness 明心(Soh: Apprehending Mind). There is the direct path like Zen sudden enlightenment of one's original mind, or Mahamudra or Dzogchen direct introduction of Rigpa, or even Self- Inquiry of Advaita the direct, immediate, perception of consciousness without intermediaries. They are the same. 

However that is not realization of emptiness. Realization of emptiness is Seeing Nature. In my opinion there is direct path to Apprehending Mind but I have not seen any direct path to Seeing Nature yet. If you go through the depth and nuances of our mental constructs, you will understand how deep and subtle the blind spots are. 

Therefore emptiness or 空性 (Soh: Empty Nature) is the main difference between Buddhism and other religions. Although Anatta is the direct experiential taste of Emptiness, there is still a difference between Buddhist's Anatta and selflessness of other religions whether it is Anatta by experiential taste of the dissolution of self alone or the experiential taste is triggered by wisdom of emptiness. 

The former focused on selflessness, and whole path of practice is all about doing away with self, whereas the latter is about living in the wisdom of emptiness and applying that insight and wisdom of emptiness to all phenomena”.

Dropping – Let Go

Soh Wei Yu: “When I was practicing Self-Inquiry, John Tan told me to practice 'dropping' as well. Separate sessions: morning practice self-inquiry, at night practice dropping. However I personally skewed towards the self-inquiry part. That said, dropping is also important and the experience of intense luminosity without being accompanied by letting go (even of the radiance) can lead to other issues. A rather balanced book I would think is ‘True Meditation’ by Adyashanti, that seems to incorporate both aspects. If you are practicing self-inquiry, do check out that book”.

John Tan: “You need to understand that even up to the phase of non-dual, is still not Anatta and Dependent Origination. So you must further refine your so called 'Advaita Vedanta' experiences, learn to drop, mind body and presence. At night learn how to drop. Morning and after, practice vivid, non-dual awareness”. 

Soh Wei Yu: By ‘dropping’ I mean: release, relax, let go of everything.

John Tan: Yes. You are already experiencing "I AMness" and that is natural. But that insight of non-duality will not come that easily. Even glimpses after glimpses, it will not be obvious and clear. The most difficult task of all practice is 'letting go'. You can take life after life, you will not understanding the essence of it. Though ultimately there is not even a letting go, with the sense of 'self', the essence will not be understood. So don't underestimate it. You must practice letting go. Drop your body, mind… all … Give up. Give up everything… everything during your practice. In meditation just practice that. Within that period of meditation, it should be fully and totally dedicated to giving up… of everything. Whenever there is holding even the slightest sense, there is self. All thoughts, all teachings, everything, family, mind, life...let go … There is no intention even to find out what is presence, what is Buddha Nature. You only have to give up everything, not to reason… initially you will want to understand... but keep this in mind and as a practice. For non-dual insight to arise, these 2 practices must go hand in hand, but it will take years. Initially without fail, it will always appear as the background, the Eternal Witness. It is necessary and from there know the 'strength' of propensities.

Soh Wei Yu: “Someone asked me: ‘Is letting go is another form of grasping? A concession to make as a practice until realization occurs? Kinda like effortful mindfulness’. I replied that letting go is not necessarily grasping. That you can reach very deep levels of de-grasping like John Tan’s Stage 3 without realizing Anatta, but it becomes like a trance state samadhi, temporary. There are different levels of dropping, the 5th and 6th requires Anatta to be effortless.

Six Stages of Dropping

(1) ‘Someone’ is dropping…
(2) Dropping appears as a mirror reflecting…
(3) There is only endless dropping without footing and mental reasoning…
(4) Dropping as vivid wide opening…
(5) Vivid wide opening as everything…
(6) Only Dharma spontaneously manifesting…

Soh Wei Yu: Can the Four Aspects of I AM be experienced without the realization of I AM?

“The four aspects of I AM do not come simultaneously with I AM realization. The aspect of impersonality (like being lived by a cosmic and impersonal Life/Spirit/Intelligence/God) is experienced for some before I AM realization, and for me it is experienced a few months after the I AM realization. They complement each other and a mature state of I AM will include impersonality”. 

“Some Indian Advaita masters distinguish 'Self-Realization' from 'God-Realization', with the latter being a more advanced phase. God-Realization is the Impersonality aspect being experienced after initial I AM realization”.

“To me, the scriptural version (as opposed to other versions like MCTB, which is rather defined as the 4th Path) of Stream Entry requires realization of Anatta, a thorough seeing through of self view. John Tan Stage 5. Otherwise it cannot be called the end of self view. All stages before John Tan Stage 5 still does not overcome the false view of self and extreme views like Eternalism thoroughly, therefore fall into various non-Buddhist views”.

“I AM is absolutely not Buddhist Stream Entry. It is also not found in some maps like MCTB, nor does it feature as a stage of enlightenment in the earliest Buddhist teachings, although it is very likely that Buddha went through that phase while studying under two Samkhya meditation teachers but that’s another story”.

Soh Wei Yu: Whether it is suitable or not to skip I AM and directly attempt to realize Anatta 

“Regarding whether it is important to go through I AM realization or can we skip to anatta -- John Tan and I and Sim Pern Chong have had differing and evolving opinions about this over the years (I remember Sim Pern Chong saying he thinks people can skip it altogether, John also wondered if it is possible or advisable as certain AF people seem to have skipped it but experience luminosity), however after witnessing the progress of people it seems to us that those who went into anatta without the I AM realization tend to miss out the luminosity and intensity of luminosity. And then they will have to go through another phase. For those with I AM realization, the second stanza of anatta comes very easily, in fact the first aspect to become more apparent. Nowadays John and my opinion is that it is best to go through the I AM phase, then nondual and anatta..

There was also the worry that by leading people into the I AM, they can get stuck there. (As John Tan and Sim Pern Chong was stuck there for decades)

But I have shown that it is possible to progress rather quickly (in eight months) from I AM to anatta. So the being stuck is due to lack of right pointers and directions, not inherently an issue with I AM.” - Soh, 2020

On a related topic, John Tan wrote in Dharma Overground back in 2009,

“Hi Gary,

It appears that there are two groups of practitioners in this forum, one adopting the gradual approach and the other, the direct path. I am quite new here so I may be wrong.

My take is that you are adopting a gradual approach yet you are experiencing something very significant in the direct path, that is, the ‘Watcher’. As what Kenneth said, “You're onto something very big here, Gary. This practice will set you free.” But what Kenneth said would require you to be awaken to this ‘I’. It requires you to have the ‘eureka!’ sort of realization. Awaken to this ‘I’, the path of spirituality becomes clear; it is simply the unfolding of this ‘I’.

On the other hand, what that is described by Yabaxoule is a gradual approach and therefore there is downplaying of the ‘I AM’. You have to gauge your own conditions, if you choose the direct path, you cannot downplay this ‘I’; contrary, you must fully and completely experience the whole of ‘YOU’ as ‘Existence’. Emptiness nature of our pristine nature will step in for the direct path practitioners when they come face to face to the ‘traceless’, ‘centerless’ and ‘effortless’ nature of non-dual awareness.

Perhaps a little on where the two approaches meet will be of help to you.

Awakening to the ‘Watcher’ will at the same time ‘open’ the ‘eye of immediacy’; that is, it is the capacity to immediately penetrate discursive thoughts and sense, feel, perceive without intermediary the perceived. It is a kind of direct knowing. You must be deeply aware of this “direct without intermediary” sort of perception -- too direct to have subject-object gap, too short to have time, too simple to have thoughts. It is the ‘eye’ that can see the whole of ‘sound’ by being ‘sound’. It is the same ‘eye’ that is required when doing vipassana, that is, being ‘bare’. Be it non-dual or vipassana, both require the opening of this 'eye of immediacy'.”


Practices to Focus On after I AM Realization

(I) Four Aspects of I AM

(1) Impersonality

This happens when practitioners experience that everything is an expression of a universal cosmic intelligence. There is therefore no sense of a personal doer... rather, it feels like I and everything is being lived by a higher power, being expressed by a higher cosmic intelligence. But this is still dualistic – there is still this sense of separation between a 'cosmic intelligence' and the 'world of experience', so it is still dualistic.

Soh Wei Yu experienced impersonality after the I AM realization, however some people experience it before I AM realization. 

Some of the Theistic Christians may not have I AM realization (it depends although many Christian mystics including Jesus Christ himself have pointed out the I AM realization), however through their surrendering to Christ, they can drop their sense of personal Doership and experience the sense of 'being lived by Christ', as in Galatians 2:20: “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me”. This is an experience of impersonality that may or may not come with the realization of I AM. 

Sailor Bob Adamson: The patterning and functioning of this body implies that there is a wonderful intelligence expressing through it, as it. And that is actually what you are—that intelligence-energy. “That separate entity, the belief in that entity or person, has never done a damn thing! It never can and never will. You must realize that you have been lived. That body-mind that you call 'you' is being lived, and it is being lived quite effortlessly. As Christ said, 'Which of you, by taking thought, can add one cubit to his stature?' That separate entity can’t do a bloody thing”.

“What I'm talking about is that same intelligence that functions the universe. The very fact that the stars can orbit or the planets can orbit around the Earth and form out of the gases into the particular shape and form and hold that form implies an intelligence. That which keeps the seasons coming and going implies an intelligence. The tides coming in and out imply an intelligence. Look at it closely. It is beating your heart right now. It is growing your hair and your fingernails. It is digesting your food. It is replacing the cells in your body. The patterning and functioning of this body implies that there is a wonderful intelligence expressing through it, as it. And that is actually what you are—that intelligence-energy. It formed you, grew you and is continuing to grow you. It is replacing the cells in your body and doing other things naturally, the same as it is in the universe. But that natural state has seemingly been clouded over by the reasoning or the functioning of the mind. Look at the body and break it down. There is no center here in this body that I can say 'This is what I am'. It started with the sperm and the ovum coming together. If the body had any center it would be that original cell. But that is long since gone. There are many cells dying in this body right now and being replaced”.

John Wheeler: There are thoughts, but no thinker; actions, but no actor; choices, but no choice maker. "The ‘knockout blow’ was seeing the absence of a person. There is no such entity in the machine. There are only thoughts, experiences and objects arising and subsiding in awareness. There is no one controlling them and no one affected by them. Once this is seen, everything happens just as before, but the imagined person is removed from the film. The film goes on but there is no person starring in it. There are thoughts, but no thinker; actions, but no actor; choices, but no choice maker. Basically, there is no difference from before, except the sense of separation is gone, along with the psychological suffering, confusion and doubt that appear along with the belief in a separate ‘I’. There is no one at the controls. Life is happening; thoughts are arising; actions are occurring spontaneously. You, as a separate person, are not doing any of these things. You don’t choose your thoughts, feelings, sensations. As Bob says, ‘You are being lived’”.

John Wheeler (Clear in Your Heart): Moreover, there is no one there to step back or refuse to play the fake ‘I’ game. “Thinking, seeing, living, breathing and so on all are going on just fine. The limited ‘I’ notion comes in as a subsequent concept. Just because you are not a limited, isolated, defective person, why should any of the natural functioning stop? Life goes on just as before but without any reference to the assumed self-center”.

“You say, ‘Who or what is doing this sorting and selecting, coming and going? And since there is no ‘I’, why not just not step back, stop, refuse to participate in the fake ‘I’ game, and just let the river take its course?’

“Who is there to step back? Who is present to refuse to participate? Who is there to let the river take its course? All appears in awareness and functions. The separate person is not. Your question implies that without a self-concept, no functioning is possible. That is not true. Which self-center is beating your heart? None! When you say ‘Why not just step back?’, you are bringing in a tacit reference to an entity with the capacity to do that. There is no one there to step back or refuse to play the game. The fake ‘I’ game, as you call it, is a fake game. When seen, it is all over. All your questions are really hanging on the assumed reality of the conceptual ‘I’: that it is either necessary for functioning, which is false, or that it is present to step back, refuse, not decide or whatever. 

“You say, ‘There are decisions but no decider, doing but no doer, acting but no actor, thinking but no thinker’. This is it exactly. All these things are going on and will continue to do so. There is just no ‘I’ doing any of it. This is a description of your own experience, even now. Seeing is happening. Thinking is happening. Later the mind comes in and posits an ‘I’ doing those things, but that ‘I’ is only a concept. The ‘I’ concept cannot see, think or do anything. Are ‘you’ beating your heart or growing your hair? Yet there is no problem with any of that functioning. It is the same with thoughts also. It is an illusion to think there is a ‘you’ manufacturing thought. Do you know what the next thought is going to be before it appears? No! Then how can you say ‘you’ created it? You cannot! And yet it happens just fine”.

“You ask, ‘Why not just sit on a bench, blow smoke rings towards the sun and talk to the birds?’ Yes, if there is any entity present to do that! If it happens it will happen; if not, not. Planning, deciding and functional activity do not imply or require a separate self concept. In fact, things flow better without that erroneous notion mucking up the works”.

“You say, ‘How did those decisions get made without some kind of a reference point?’ That is just it. It is a reference point, not who you are. Until people look into this, they are apt to confuse the reference point, which is a conceptual construct, with their actual identity. With the basic identity clear, you can use the reference point, if necessary, but not be used by it”.

Soh Wei Yu: Impersonality is not just an experience of non-doership but a sense that everything and everyone is being expressions  of the same aliveness/intelligence/consciousness. “It should be noted that impersonality is not just an experience of non-Doership. It is the dissolving of the construct of 'personal self' that led to a purging of ego effect to a state of clean, pure, not mine sort of perception shift, accompanied with a sense that everything and everyone is being expressions  of the same aliveness/intelligence/consciousness. This can then be easily extrapolated into a sense of a 'universal source' (but this is merely an extrapolation and at a later phase is deconstructed) and one will also experience 'being lived' by this greater Life and Intelligence”. 

David Carse (Perfect Brilliant Stillness): “Of course, make no mistake, from the point of view of the total Understanding this teaching about whether you are the doer is in fact redundant; the question does not even arise. With the Understanding comes the natural and spontaneous apperception that there is no one here no individual to either be the doer or not be the doer. So the question is moot. What you think of as yourself; the whole package of body, mind, personality, ego, sense of individuality, personal history; none of that even exists as such, as anything other than an idea, a story, a concept in Consciousness”. 

“At the morning talks recently there has been a musician who plays traditional Indian flute for the group after the talks. The flute does not know music: it does not know 'G' from 'B flat;' it does not know tempo or emphasis, and cannot make music come out of itself: it's just a hollow bamboo stick with holes in it! It is the musician who has the knowledge and the skill and the intention and the dexterity, and whose breath blows through the instrument and whose fingers manipulate the openings so that beautiful music flows out. When the music is ended, no one congratulates the wooden stick on the music it made: it is the musician who is applauded and thanked for this beautiful gift of music”.

“It is precisely so with what we think of as our 'selves'. We are instruments, hollow sticks, through which the Breath, the Spirit, the Energy which is Presence, All That Is, Consciousness, flows. Just as it is not the flute making the note, but the Musician making the note through the instrument, so it is the breath which is Presence which animates this mind and body and comes out through this mouth to make it seem that this mouth is speaking words. The basic misunderstanding, the basic ignorance, is this unwitting usurpation of the role of Musician by the instrument. This inversion of the truth is spontaneously realized when the Understanding occurs. It becomes obvious that there is no individual, that there is 'nobody home’, 'no entity’ here to be the doer or not. Because awakening is simply the Understanding that there is no one here to awaken”.

Soh Wei Yu: Impersonality will help dissolve the sense of self but it has the danger of making one extrapolate an universal consciousness. “Impersonality will help dissolve the sense of self but it has the danger of making one attached to a metaphysical essence or to personify, reify and extrapolate an universal consciousness. It makes a practitioner feel ‘God’. At this phase it is good to focus on this impersonal and universal aspect of consciousness, but beware of the tendency to extrapolate”.

Joseph Naft (A Meditation: Climbing Jacob's Ladder): “Next — and remarkably there is a next — we become aware of the other side of I Am, of the source from which it arises, within a stillness of surpassing quality. We see our ‘I’ as a knot that blocks off the depths, a knot that makes itself the source of our will, intentions, choices, and decisions, including the intention to meditate in this moment. Gradually we loosen the knot until it gives way, until I let go entirely of being myself, of being my own source”.

“Until this point, our ascent has been into the depths within us. But always we have remained at the core of the experience, with the experience outside of us, of our core. Now we must empty that very core and open to what is deeper than our innermost center. We ourselves become the outside to the Sacred Will of the World, Who is our Source, and let that Will come through us, as us”.

“We inwardly prostrate ourselves, begging for reconnection, begging to become a part of that Greatness. Silently and wholeheartedly calling out to the Ultimate, completely and utterly opening the very kernel of who we are, we reach beyond the world of sacred light, into the unbounded emptiness, which is also an overflowing fullness, an intimacy with all, with the All”. 

“This ultimate stage of the meditation comes only as an act of grace from Above. It lies well beyond our ability to make happen, although our emptiness, our surrender, and our love are necessary. Attempting to enter here, prayer may help. If you are so inclined, silently repeat one of God’s names, one close to your heart, one that both expresses your yearning and brings you peace”.

“In closing the meditation, we climb back down Jacob’s Ladder to return to our daily life, though somewhat changed inwardly. We come, in turn, back to the sacred light, back to the cognizant stillness of consciousness and the presence of I Am, back to sensation and relaxation, and thus back to the base of the ladder. We rest in awareness as the meditation settles in us”.

Joseph Benner: The Impersonal Life, a book on Christian Mysticism emphasizing on the aspect of impersonality after I AM realization. “I AM the Tree of Life within you. My Life will and must push forth, but It will do it by gradual and steady growth. You cannot come into your fruitage before you have grown to it … You who have begun to realize I AM within, but have not yet learned to commune with Me. Listen and learn now”.

“… Yes, this cell consciousness is common to every cell of every body, no matter what its kind, because it is an Impersonal consciousness, having no purpose other than doing the work allotted it. It lives only to work wherever needed. When through with building one form, it takes up the work of building another, under whatever consciousness I desire it to serve”.

“Thus it is likewise with you. You, as one of the cells of My Body, have a consciousness that is My Consciousness, an intelligence that is My Intelligence, even a will that is My Will. You have none of these for yourself or of yourself. They are all Mine and for My use only. Now, My consciousness and My Intelligence and My Will are wholly Impersonal, and therefore are common with you and with all the cells of My Body, even as they are common with all the cells of your body”.

“I AM the directing Intelligence of All, the animating Spirit, the Life, the Consciousness of all matter, of all Substance. If you can see it, You, the Real you, the Impersonal you, are in all and are one with all, are in Me and are one with Me; just as I AM in you and in all, and thereby am expressing My Reality through you and through all”.

“This will, which you call your will, is likewise no more yours personally than is this consciousness and this intelligence of your mind and of the cells of your body yours. It is but that small portion of My Will which I permit the personal you to use. Just as fast as you awaken to recognition of a certain power or faculty within you and begin consciously to use it, do I allow you that much more of My Infinite Power”. 

“All power and its use is but so much recognition and understanding of the use of My Will. Your will and all your powers are only phases of My Will, which I supply to suit your capacity to use it. Were I to entrust you with the full power of My Will, before you know how consciously to use it, it would annihilate your body utterly”.

“... All this may be difficult for you now to accept, and you may protest very strenuously that it cannot be, that every instinct of your nature rebels against such yielding and subordinating yourself to an unseen and unknown power, however Impersonal or Divine ... Fear not, it is only your personality that thus rebels". 

John Tan (2009): We experience God-like qualities. But that is not non-duality. That is impersonality. “When we move from I AMness and mature the deconstruction of personality, we experience God-like qualities. Seeing everything as one manifestation of 'One Life' and Presence being the same for everyone. ... Just like the Isness but without the individuality. Once this individuality is gone (whether permanently or temporary), you will intuit that all as sharing the Source or as Manifestation of this Source. But that is not non-duality. That is impersonality. That is why you need to experience that too.” 

John Tan (2010): Divine Will is just Dependent Origination

John Tan: (Once realized) Certainty of Being, when you focus on the 4 aspects till the peak and with right understanding, you will also have the same experience as Anatta and Emptiness. When you felt that the will of the source becomes your will, you become life itself, that’s the same experience. Actually, all is the same experience except that Buddhism provides the right understanding. In the experience of "I AM" and the article you posted about the divine, what is the peak of experience phase? … After glimpses and realization of the source, when the divine will becomes your will, you must be able to experience every manifestation as the grace of Divine Will. So must understand this in terms of direct experience and right view. Do you know why there is the sensation of a 'Divine Will'?

Soh Wei Yu: Because the sense of self is being let go... and it’s seen that everything is spontaneously arising from the source

John Tan: And what is this 'source' that seems to be doing the work?

Soh Wei Yu: Consciousness, life?

John Tan: Isn't I AM the consciousness?

Soh Wei Yu: Yeah but at the beginning it still feels like an individuated sense of presence... but then later its seen as more impersonal, like everything is merely the expression of the source.

John Tan: First you must understand the separation is due to dualistic thought. Thought separates. Do you know what is the 'Divine Will'? What causes the 'Divine Will' is the sensation due to “the sense of self is being let go... and it’s seen that everything is spontaneously arising from the source” (you said).

John Tan: Then, what is the Divine Will?

Soh Wei Yu: It means it’s happening due to the divine source, nothing is happening due to an individual will/agent/doer

John Tan: When someone hits the bell, is anything due to Divine Will?

Soh Wei Yu: It’s also Divine Will because there is ultimately no separate person who acts, and no separate person who experience. Everything is manifested by the Divine Will... including every action that is spontaneously arising.

John Tan: When someone hit the bell, anything so divine?

Soh Wei Yu: It’s a manifestation of consciousness.

John Tan: Not good, not good. Because of the lack of understanding of your nature. Your nature is empty. What is this Divine Will? It’s just Dependent Origination. It’s because we think in terms of entity and the 'weight of this dualistic and inherent' tendencies that makes us feel separate and inherent. Instead of seeing Dependent Origination, we see it as Divine Will. Not knowing empty nature, we mistaken Dependent Origination for Divine Will. Not knowing no-self nature, we thought we are independent. When no-self is fully experienced and insight of Anatta rises, you do not feel source as separated from 'you'. There is merely manifestation, empty luminosity. Empty as in Dependent Origination and therefore does not require 'Divine Will', yet all manifests due to empty nature, effortless and spontaneous. There are conditions that are required for manifestations. A 'Divine Will' is not necessary.

When a practitioner realizes no-self and Anatta insight arises, he clearly sees conditions. There is no divine will to listen to, but whenever condition is, manifestation is. Slowly understand this. Do not see Dependent Origination as something dead. See it as direct manifestation of your breathe, just like you experience everything as the grace of this Divine Will. Feel this grace of life everywhere. Letting go of yourself completely and feel this life.

The second experience is more of ‘heaven and earth have one root, ten thousand phenomena have the same substance’. Clouded by self-image, egoity. It means that the second experience is more of a realization on the same source. 

Soh Wei Yu: Why you said clouded by self-image, egoity?

John Tan: Self-image is simply a construct. That is from a dualistic point of view, being 'connected' must always be the case. When you deconstruct personality, you merely discover. A practitioner must also be aware of the 'weight' of these constructs. From an empty point of view, when the tendency is there, it is also not right to say that the interconnected state is always there, always the case. Obviously 'you' are not 'connected'. When the 'construct' is strong, there is no such experience or when the 'personality' is there, there is no experience of ‘everything has the same substance/source’. Or 'personality' is that very experience of individuality and therefore cannot have any experience of same 'source'. 

The former does not realize the causes and conditions for any arising. When we say it is always 'there' we are having 'absolute view'. If we cling to that, then that will prevent clear seeing. So what is the experience of 'individuality' like? it is the very experience of what practitioner before the 'connection' feel and understand. That is a state of reality, cannot be said to be determined or not.

Soh Wei Yu: What you mean by that is a state of reality cannot be said to be determined or not … So one must deconstruct the individuality otherwise there is no feeling of connection.

John Tan: Yes. For personality is the very state of individuality. What I want you to understand is not to have a predetermined state.

Soh Wei Yu: So that means that according to conditions we experience the connection, but it’s not always there?

John Tan: Yes it is better to understand that way.

John Tan: Now when you experience Certainty of Being, you only experience the un-deniability of your existence. doubtless, certain and present. But being connected to the source is different. It will also determine your later phase of practice. If you are attached to the Presence, what happens?

Soh Wei Yu: hmm. You mean when you are attached to Presence you will have difficulty seeing the connection?

John Tan: You wanted the state of Presence to transcend to the 3 states (waking, dreaming and sleeping) for you are only interested in that Certainty of Being. Whereas when you realized the source, you don't do that. You are surrendering much like the Christian mystics. You are devoting. Nothing is important besides serving the divine. Sustaining the state of presence and devoting to a divine source is different. You sleep when it is time to sleep. Whatever thy will is. In Presence, you still think of control, in surrendering, you realized you are being lived. Awareness is being done. it is almost the opposite, but then there is also the integration.

Soh Wei Yu: Actually, I think if we let go of control completely the presence is also naturally there, there is no need to try to control presence. 

John Tan: if you think that, that becomes a hindrance. Because you are torn in between. You are serving 2 masters. Presence and Source. But then there is also the integration where divine will becomes your will. Then in Jacob’s Ladder meditation: after realization and experience of the grace, it must be found everywhere. Therefore you return to Phase 1 of the Ladder with new understanding. You are directly and intuitively experiencing all manifestations as the expression of life. Where you and the divine become one, where phenomena and the divine becomes indistinguishable, as transient, as inner and outer world.

However that is because we are trying to express and understand this in an inherent and dualistic way. We speak in such a way because we are using a dualistic paradigm. And the experience seems difficult to reconcile and become seamless. So you must arise insight. You realized, what you call Self/self is just a label. Rhis is very difficult to understand. Then you are not trapped in 'reconnection' or surrendering.

You realized there is no-self (Stage 4 and 5). Whatever experienced is vividly present and aliveness everywhere because what that 'blocks' is no more there through the arising insight. Now, how clear are you in directly experiencing sensation? In experiencing sound, color, sight, taste? The mind at present is more interested in the behind reality. So Anatta transform the experience of individuality through insight, clear seeing. There is a difference in saying what you call Awareness has always been sight, sound, the scent of fragrance… and there is Awareness and there is sound, sight, taste… When you see and mature your insight of Anatta, it is realized that wrong view is what that is causing the problem. 

However after that, you must practice directly. You shouldn't think theoretically too much after the arising insight of Anatta. There is a difference between thinking that a Weather truly exist and the changing clouds, the rain exist inside weather. Get it? So when you took that to be real, it creates the problem of reification and intensifying the inherent existence of Self. If there is no-weight to the constructs, then there would be no problem. Unfortunately, constructs are like spells. 

Just experience first. Feel this aliveness everywhere. In other words, what you realized is beyond appearance, but you do not understand the impact of (imputed) appearance. 

Soh (2015): Vast Impersonal Intelligence. “If you think that I am sounding like an advocate of 'God', I have to reiterate that this so called 'God' or intelligent Mind is empty of its own existence apart from Dharma, is not something changeless and independent, and is not some sort of source acting behind the scenes or pulling the strings. Because this vast impersonal intelligence is so magnificent, powerful and impersonal, it can give the impression that we are all just the dream or expression of a Universal Mind of God, and if we follow this 'personification' and 'reification' we may start to think whether we are living in a matrix, a dream of Shiva for no other reason than his own enjoyment. But we are not the play or lila of a Brahman, there is no need to personify or reify this at all. This intelligence IS the miracle of manifestation. The divine has no face of its own, and yet every face is the face of divinity. There is no I, no perceiver, or a controller of this spontaneous intelligent happening. Living this is living in complete ecstasy and joy born of this total intelligence, life and clarity”. (Note: I wrote this post-Anatta insight, therefore there is no more reification of this impersonal intelligence into universal consciousness)

John Tan (2005): On the phases of I AM into Impersonality. “Hi Omsairam, you are such a sincere seeker, just do not get trap into too much analysis. When one first experienced Total Presence, how clear and vivid it was! But when the experience descended into thought-level, It became ‘I am I’, the name of Yahweh. And later a metaphysical Self, either way up above or deep down in us. Eventually the 'I' becomes a tiny conscious being living inside our body seeking union with God that is DEEP down in us… and the beginning of all confusions and divisions”.

“When we made progress by taking the 'I' out for a moment and transform ‘I am I’ into ‘AMness’, subject and object temporarily becomes one. Then we begin to wonder, how does God get slip outside and become IT? Has it always been an ‘IT’ and never was an enclosed ‘I’? Was it always Suchness, Thusness, Isness?”

“If you like thinking, think about it until you exhaust the entirety of your thinking mechanism. Until you are willing to let go. Completely let go of the illusionary 'I' and see our true nature. The mind travels to and fro in an unbelievable speed, playing multiple roles, one as You and the other as God. It plays hide and seek as long as we continue to adopt the method of analysis”.

“Can the ultimate Subject be made an Object of observation? God is within and without, it cannot be contained. It is the current mode of thinking and understanding God that is at fault. As long as Reality is concerned, it is the wrong tool to use. Analysis is the way of comparison and measurement, it is dual. The Luminous Light 'knows' not through analysis. 'Knowing' to the Mystic is not to make an object in mind and study it. It is ‘knowing’ through oneness, it is ‘knowing’ through Beingness. It is losing yourself and finding itself in otherness. It is an entirely different art - Merely reflecting and simply IS. If we are resistant to the idea of dropping the 'How' and 'What', then the path of faith and total submission towards God is preferred. If we love God, do not analyze him, we are slaying him. The mysterious gate is ever open in the HERE and NOW. To experience in full, let go completely and leave not a trace of ourselves”.

(2) The Intensity of Luminosity

The degree of luminosity refers to feeling with entire being, feel wholly and directly without thoughts. Feeling 'realness' of whatever one encounters, the tree bark, the sand, etc. As with Impersonality, one may experience this even before the I AM realization. I (Soh) did. However one should practice to experience this aspect further after the I AM realization. This will also serve as one of the conditions further nondual insight. You will also need to engage in nondual contemplation (Two Types of Nondual Contemplation after I AM), explained here after the 4 aspects. This aspect will come by practicing Vipassana, see Thusness's Vipassana  and Vipassana. 

John Tan (2007): Revisit and re-experience each of the 6 sense doors.  “It will be advisable to take a step back to revisit and re-experience each of the 6 sense doors, in order to cultivate a little on the aspect of being 'bare' for all the senses. Experience as much vividness as possible and have clarity on the luminous aspect of awareness first. Touch, taste, smell and sound… are all equally vivid as compared to seeing. Experience the texture and fabric of awareness. The rest of the conditions that give rise to no-self will come later. There is no ‘willful’ entrance into non-duality, create enough conditions, that’s all”. 

Eckhart Tolle (The Power of Now): Be totally present. Measure your success in this practice by the degree of peace that you fell within: “In your everyday life, you can practice this by taking any routine activity that normally is only a means to an end and giving it your fullest attention, so that it becomes an end in itself. For example, every time you walk up and down the stairs in your house or place of work, pay close attention to every step, every movement, even your breathing. Be totally present. Or when you wash your hands, pay attention to all the sense perceptions associated with the activity: the sound and feel of the water, the movement of your hands, the scent of the soap, and so on. Or when you get into your car, after you close the door, pause for a few seconds and observe the flow of your breath. Become aware of a silent but powerful sense of presence. There is one certain criterion by which you can measure your success in this practice: the degree of peace that you fell within”.

John Tan (2009): Why Vipassana is needed. “Self inquiry is a form of meditation like koan. The purpose is to have a direct experience of our inner most essence called 'Self'. The next step is to bring this 'Self' into the foreground. That requires vipassana meditation. It is the key towards nondual. Even after nondual, we have to practice vipassana but the focus is in being 'bare'. By being 'bare', it becomes mirror like, pristine, clear and luminous”.

“The next step is to bring this Presence into the foreground by practicing bare attention of our body sensations. When we first experience the Eternal Witness, it is nondual, presence, very real, it is the Reality. At that moment the experience is nondual. When we come to understand it, it becomes dual. We understood it wrongly but we think that it is right. Therefore it appears to be 'there', still, unchanging, wherever is. In actual fact, we are abstracting the characteristics of 'pristine clarity' from a moment of arising and call it Presence. It is the mind doing the abstraction”.

“This is a tendency that is dividing. That is why vipassana is taught. Observing all arising sensation. That sensation is already Awareness itself. Otherwise, self-inquiry instead of vipassana would be taught and there is no point observing sensation. To be bare is to understand sensation in its pristineness, its luminosity that when it is bare. Yet it is impermanent”. 

Soh Wei Yu (2009): When we experience Awareness directly without using our thoughts, everything is experienced as having a magical, alive, shimmery, fresh, amazing and blissful quality to it. “When we experience Awareness directly without using our thoughts, everything is experienced as having a magical, alive, shimmery, fresh, amazing and blissful quality to it. Life is not the 'boring and ordinary' as the mind interprets it, even the most ordinary things (such as eating, walking, etc) just feels awesome. You will be naturally attracted, pulled towards the pristine awareness than to stressful thoughts. The ego will melt in the wonder and majesty of awareness.” 

Eckhart Tolle: “I was awakened by the chirping of a bird outside the window. I had never heard such a sound before. My eyes were still closed, and I saw the image of a precious diamond. Yes, if a diamond could make a sound, this is what it would be like. I opened my eyes. The first light of dawn was filtering through the curtains. Without any thought, I felt, I knew, that there is infinitely more to light than we realize. That soft luminosity filtering through the curtains was love itself. Tears came into my eyes. I got up and walked around the room. I recognized the room, and yet I knew that I had never truly seen it before. Everything was fresh and pristine, as if it had just come into existence. I picked up things, a pencil, an empty bottle, marveling at the beauty and aliveness of it all”.

“That day I walked around the city in utter amazement at the miracle of life on earth, as if I had just been born into this world. For the next 5 months, I lived in a state of uninterrupted deep peace and bliss. After that, it diminished somewhat in intensity, or perhaps it just seemed to because it became my natural state. I could still function in the world, although I realized that nothing I ever did could possibly add anything to what I already had”.

Din Robinson (2006): Enjoying all as a child would enjoy a new and novel experience ... Energy radiated outwards in all directions at the same time … It feels very right and it makes everything sacred, my own body, and everything else in the world. “I was walking through the park on my way home when something happened. Something holy arose from within and took over. I was standing there looking out at the trees and the grass like it was the first time I was seeing them. I was looking at my hands and feeling my body as it moved and I was marveling at being alive and being in this body. I was acutely aware of being in the world, that I was a separate being in the world. I was enjoying all this as a child would enjoy a new and novel experience. I went over to a tree and grabbed a branch, I touched it softly and then grabbed it firmly, I really wanted to feel the tree, I really wanted to be there with it, to be present, to feel and see and take it all in. I bent down and touched the trunk near the roots, it was very real, very solid to my touch, it felt very alive. I noticed some bare earth around the tree trunk and picked up a chunk and broke it in my hand and watched and felt it crumble and stream through my fingers as it fell down to the earth. I was feeling so primal, so alive, I went around to the other side of the tree where the branches were a little higher off the ground and squatted under the branches near the tree trunk and put my hand on the trunk and left it there. I was feeling the roots and feeling extremely rooted myself in being. I stayed there for a few minutes, the feelings arising were so intense and overwhelming that tears were streaming down my face. Finally I left the tree and moved closer to the bench and sat and watched the crescent moon in the clear blue sky, there was a very bright star right beside it, so bright that I thought it might be the headlight of a plane heading towards me. I sat there and watched this scene and marveled at life and being alive”.

“(…Then) I went into the bedroom … I was drawn down to my knees and I bent very low with my forehead against the carpet. The energy was flowing like crazy inside, it felt like it was all emanating from the gut area. My head was on the carpet and my gut was much higher since I was still on my knees, this felt right as it had so many times before. Energy was flowing from my gut down through my head and out. But the energy also radiated outwards in all directions at the same time, like a sacred sun was shining in my gut. It was extremely intense and overwhelming and continued for at least 15 minutes. I have no idea what is going on and I don't care. It feels very right and it makes everything sacred, my own body, and everything else in the world. It's almost a mystical experience at times to be alive. I'm completely filled by this experience, it's overflowing”.

Olivier S. (2020): Totally immanent, direct perception, pure unfolding of shapes and colors bound by nothing, flux. “At noon, after getting up and waiting for the bell to call us up for lunch, I kept an extremely relax and extremely sharp investigation of objects of perception going while sitting on a bench. Opening my eyes, I looked at one of my fellow retreatants walking back to her room. This was astounding. I don't really know how to explain it, but I believe I was experiencing emptiness in real time. It was absolutely clear that there was no past and future in that immediate experience: though she was obviously changing position, her movement was not of time. It was utter immanence, eternity: she was moving, and everything around her was moving; yet nothing was moving. In fact, she didn't exist, and yet existed more than ever. Something angelic”.

“I got up, went to get my food. As I looked upon the face of some of my fellow meditators, I was struck by two profound things: first, I was perceiving them in such detail and in such a light, that they appeared like universes, like   infinite things which had nothing to do with anything else; each one of them was a miracle, right here in front of me, indistinct from me, of the same fabric. This brought about deep compassion and love, which moves me to tears now as I write about it. As I was eating, in silence, my visual perception was deepening. It was already quite astounding, in detail and brightness”.

“For about two hours I explored the premises, walking around the pond, into the forest, etc. It was completely surreal, psychedelic. Visual perception was totally illuminated: every object that had some kind of brightness or movement was emitting intense light in the whole of my visual field. It was like the experience I described earlier, x10, with an added depth to spatial perception that was astounding. Furthermore, I could ‘freeze’ perception on command by stilling it on a particular object, which would start to acquire the same ‘transfigured’ quality I described. The same, yet totally different, totally new, totally immanent: direct perception, pure unfolding of shapes and colors bound by nothing, flux”. (Note by Soh: it is important to understand the terms ‘Emptiness’ and ‘Realization’ used here is very different from how AtR uses these terms. This person’s experience has more to do with the intensity of luminosity aspect, it has nothing to do with realizing the empty nature)

John Tan (2010, right after Soh’s I AM realization): In nondual, the same sacredness you find in the background is also found in the transience. “I have already told you that in nondual, especially Anatta, the same sacredness you find in the background is also found in the transience. Identification is getting lost in the story or content. Not to deny yourself the clarity of the essence and nature of the phenomena and aggregates. You do not resort to a background from dis-identification. But from dis-identification, realize the essence and nature of the aggregates in its primordial and pure state. When you do that, you are disassociating. When you dis-identify from your body, you free yourself from the 'inherent aspect of the body construct' but is having a full vivid experience of the sensations”. 

(3) Dissolving the Need to Return or Abide in I AM

Two pitfalls that prevent effortless and total Presence. There are two tendencies after I AM realization which are pitfalls that prevent effortless and total Presence, although the second is more helpful than the first:

(a) Attempting to reconfirm the ever-presence of Awareness through reasoning
(b) Attempting to abide in Presence 

Dissolving the need to reconfirm is important as whatever is done is an attempt to distance itself from itself, if there is no way one can distant from the I AM. Furthermore, the attempt to abide in it is itself an illusion. However, abiding in presence is a form of meditative practice, like chanting, and leads to absorption. It can result in the oceanic experience. So although it is a pitfall that prevents effortless and nondual experience of Presence (this requires deeper insights) and is a form of efforting, abiding in Presence through samadhi is a form of development after I AM realization. But once one focuses on the 4 aspects discussed here, one will have that experience of oceanic Presence too.

John Tan (2020): Depth of the moment of authentication of I AM. “It’s crucial how still, how silent, how oceanic and immense is that moment of authentication of I AM”. 

Attempting to reconfirm the ever-presence of Awareness through reasoning is a retrogression. On the other hand, attempting to reconfirm the ever-presence of Awareness through reasoning (reasoning to oneself that Presence Awareness is always here regardless of what experiences arise) is a retrogression from the I AM realization (which is direct certainty without inference), instead of any kind of development. The following conversation explains why:

John Tan: What is the difference before and after the realization of "I AM"?

Soh Wei Yu: A non-conceptual certainty that does not come from inference, words and concepts: Certainty of Being.

John Tan: This certainty is unshakeable at that moment of realization. Complete, Done, Still, Perfect, Pure, nondual, non-conceptual, primordial. Yet it doesn't seem 'there' anymore. Intuitively it can't be lost, but this clarity does not stay despite the realization.

Soh Wei Yu: Because of conceptual thoughts... the I AM experience is a non-conceptual direct authentication, just abiding as that.

John Tan: Why does conceptual thought arise?

Soh Wei Yu: By habit mostly. I can see that thoughts are illusory... yet when I get lost in thoughts it still seems real and powerful. That’s why suffering still arise.

John Tan: I remember reading something you said you read somewhere that the only problem is 'thought', because it becomes a 'reality' to the mind. Suggestion is very real to the mind to consciousness, so how does problem arise? You cannot have 'problems' if you do not react to the content of 'thoughts'... if you can't understand this, it is difficult for you to progress and understand deeper.

Soh Wei Yu: Yeah… We invest meaning and invest identity to our thoughts. I wrote about 'What's wrong with right now unless you think about it?'. It’s when we label and give meaning to things that there are problems. Otherwise, there are just wordless vibrations. Even thoughts are wordless.

John Tan: Yes, and problems includes confusions. Now in the direct mode, is there confusion?

Soh Wei Yu: no

John Tan: Is any explanation needed?

Soh Wei Yu: no

John Tan: Is any reconfirmation needed?

Soh Wei Yu: no

John Tan: Now if I were to ask you about source, is there any differentiation in that mode? You do not differentiate between source and you. There is no such differentiation… But when you are out of that mode, you seek explanation. You attempt to reconfirm, and your way is by explaining to yourself. This very act itself already distant itself from the direct and immediate mode ... no matter how logical it sounds, how much sense it makes, it is irrelevant, and from that (when comparing the logical reasoning process with direct realization) quality of experience in your realization, it is completely off the mark… ...actually Ramana Maharshi only tells to abide in the Self. There is no explanation, just the abiding. However, that is not the way though it is better than explanation… hahaha. Is surrendering a form of 'explanation'?

Soh Wei Yu: no

John Tan: It is just a quality of nondual experience... a direct, immediate, nondual, pure and non-conceptual experience that is still, complete and entire. Nothing matters in that mode. It is not about reading or no reading. If I don't explain to you, how are you to know? It is about getting into that mode and not falling into the trap. If you want to relive the experience, you cannot approach that way. 

(4) Effortlessness

Any effort to sustain or achieve a state of Presence is contrary to the self-shining and spontaneous nature of Presence. But this aspect will require further insights (into nondual, anatta and empty nature Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment)  to unfold and mature much further. Aspects 3 (Dissolving the Need to Return or Abide in I AM) and 4 (Effortlessness) are especially clear after realization of Anatta.

John Tan (2009): Awareness is already and always at rest. Nondiscrimination does not deny us from clear discernment. “In the most direct path, Awareness is already and always at rest. In the most direct path, whatever manifests is Awareness; there is no ‘in Awareness’ and there is no such thing as going deeper in Awareness or resting in Awareness. Anything ‘going deeper’ or ‘resting’ is nothing direct. Nothing more than the illusionary appearances of 'hierarchy' caused by the inherent and dualistic tendency of understanding things … By the way, nondiscrimination does not deny us from clear discernment. An enlightenment person is not one that cannot differentiate 'left' from 'right'”.

Distinction between Effortlessness and Dissolving the need to return or abide in I AM

Aditya Prasad: I've never understood the distinction between aspects 3 and 4. Shouldn't effortlessness (4) just be the result of dissolving the need to return (3)?

Soh Wei Yu: Aspect 3 is about un-contrivance, while aspect 4 is about effortlessness, spontaneous emergence of presence. One is telling you to stop creating karma. The other is telling you the effortless spontaneity of presence. But all these are difficult without the correct insights... But still, we have to practice in this way as a means of imitating what life is like in Anatta. Means Anatta has all the four aspects in maturity, but if you have not reached Anatta realization, you consciously and knowingly imitate all those aspects and then with the right pointers and contemplation a breakthrough occurs.

Aditya Prasad: Let me see if I understood: Aspect 3 is about not needing to return to presence and Aspect 4 is noticing that it's there even if you don't.

Soh Wei Yu: Yes but not even a ‘noticer’ remains. In I AM just I AM, in seeing just scenery, both are nondual actualization and not the usual noticing or noting. Not as a subject object knowledge Although.. Even after Anatta (‘in the seen just the seen...’) initially it may be concentrative before it turns into totally effortless spontaneous presence.

Soh Wei Yu (2020): Anatta should resolve the need to return and abide. Effortlessness reaches full maturity in later phase of Spontaneous Presence. “In initial Anatta, one has the realization there is no one purest state to abide in or return to, no I to abide in. In the seen, just the seen. Initial Anatta should resolve the need to return and abide (Aspect 3). But effortlessness (Aspect 4) reaches full maturity in later phase of spontaneous presence. That’s how it is for me. Then concentrative mode is not necessary. The intensity of luminosity (Aspect 2) also varies even after Anatta. Because J. Krishnamurti was stucked at concentrative mode of Anatta instead of maturing it into spontaneous presence, his over exertion in PCE mode caused life-long energy imbalances and pain, kundalini issues … I think Stage 5 to Stage 5.5 is the phase where Anatta turns from subtly concentrative to effortless and spontaneous presence. Energy and tension in over-focusing on the details release, all effort releases into selfless spontaneity”.

(II) Two Types of Nondual Inquiry

Two Types of Nondual Inquiry which leads to the collapse of perceiver/perceived duality

(i) Where does awareness end and manifestation begins? Is there a border/dividing line between awareness and manifestation? (Leads to One Mind)

(ii) Contemplating Bahiya Sutta -- in seeing only the seen, on hearing only the heard, (no seer or hearer besides) and same for all other senses. Until it is suddenly realized that the whole structure of Seer-Seeing-Seen doesn't apply and there is no seeing besides colors -- no seer, no hearing besides sound -- no hearer, no awareness besides manifestation. This is not just realising the lack of borders or duality but realizing the Absence of an inherently existing Self/Agent/Awareness behind manifestation. This is the realization of Anatta. (link)

TD Unmanifest (AtR,DhO): Nondual experience moved from mind to body to everything. “I got stuck in I AM for a long time due to clinging to dissociation and the experience as Soh mentioned above. The focus was almost entirely on the mind. When I shifted to other sense doors (hearing in particular) something ‘popped’ and the nondual experience moved from mind to body to everything (not really the best description, but the only way I can think to explain it). Contemplation on where the nondual Self ended and manifestation begins shifted my experience again, and began the process to a taste of No Mind then to Anatta. The issue wasn't the dissociation; it was the clinging to the experience that was taken to be something more transcendental than it was”. 

Instead of abiding in I AM, Non-Dual is the key. It becomes rather effortless and is not a matter of sustaining a samadhi state

John Tan: When you first experience I AM, what you think is your next phase?

Soh Wei Yu: The four phases or aspects of I AM? impersonality, etc

John Tan: No, I mean you yourself.

Soh Wei Yu: Oh, to constantly abide in I AM.

John Tan:  That would be a state of perfection to you, isn't it?

Soh Wei Yu: Yeah

John Tan:  But that would be quite impossible. And requires deep concentration and focus however when you realized nondual, what happened?

Soh Wei Yu: It becomes rather effortless and is not a matter of sustaining a samadhi state

John Tan:  You realized that instead of abiding, nondual is the key. So your next focus is nondual, how to make it seamless. Then you realized Anatta.

Soh Wei Yu: Yeah

John Tan:  And you realized the key to perfection of nondual. Then you are now perfecting the Anatta. All is about the same taste throughout. And you refine understanding and view accordingly.

Samadhi

When one has deepened meditative samadhi, the I AM or Pure Presence turns oceanic and can be intensely blissful. The I AM or Pure Presence turns oceanic and can be intensely blissful when one has deepened meditative samadhi, a prime modern example being Ramana Maharshi who can sit for days in Nirvikalpa Samadhi or a thoughtless state of Self-Abidance in Pure Presence without leaving his seat, although you do not need to go to such extremes. Even contemporary teachers like Eckhart Tolle spent years sitting in meditative absorption and bliss of Self in a park after initial Self-Realization.

Ramana Maharshi: Remain in the state of meditation, free from thoughts. “In samadhi, there is only the feeling 'I am' and no thoughts. See to whom the trouble is. It is to the 'I-thought'. Hold it. Then the other thoughts vanish. When these thoughts are dispelled, you remain in the state of meditation, free from thoughts. The limited and multifarious thoughts having disappeared, there shines in the Heart a kind of wordless illumination of 'I-I', which is pure consciousness”.

Samadhi training is a good complementary practice even after Self-Realization, but focusing in the four aspects of I AM and two nondual contemplations is key. However, entering a state of samadhi is not the same as Self-Realization, it can simply be an experience. Some training in samadhi (a daily meditation practice is important in any phase of one’s practice) even after Self-Realization can be a good complementary practice both in this phase and for future phases, but it is even more important to focus on the four aspects of I AM and two nondual contemplations for further advancement.

In many cases, including John Tan, one can spend years cultivating deep samadhi in the I AM phase before cultivating any further insights into Nondual, Anatta and Emptiness. In Soh Wei Yu’s case, due to being familiar with certain pointers and a map, he progressed from I AM to Anatta realization in less than a year even before mastery of samadhi was developed. One can get stuck in I AM for decades or a whole life abiding in Samadhi without any further progress of insights; or one can get speedy insights, but needs to cultivate samadhi further later.
Developing Wisdom and Samadhi in tandem. One other possibility is that a practitioner develops both the Wisdom and Samadhi aspect in tandem, such that there is no need for a ‘catching up’ of the other aspect later on. (Related: Buddha’s teachings in Yuganaddha Sutta) In either case, eventually both Samadhi and Wisdom, Shamatha and Vipassana need to be conjoined and perfected for total liberation and bliss. Maha Total Exertion in the latter phase comes with the aspect of samadhi.

John Tan (2019): “Total exertion is shamatha and vipassana into one. It is total focus and involvement of the entire body-mind, of everything. However that requires post-Anatta insight”. 

John Tan (2010): Bringing Non-Dual to Foreground. “After the initial realization (I AM), there is a strong desire to ‘relive’ the experience this pure sense of existence; in fact the mind wishes the experience be made permanent and it is not uncommon that practitioners perceive the permanent, natural and effortless abiding of this state as ‘Nirvana’. Therefore it is a natural progression for you to seek permanent abiding in the Self as a background at this point in time. If you intensify your meditation and abide in the Self, an oceanic blissful experience may arise as a result of deep absorption but it is still a contrived effort, it is not the ‘key’ towards effortlessness”.

“Nonetheless having a ‘taste’ of deep Samadhi bliss and understanding the relationship between deep concentration and this oceanic bliss is still crucial. Having said that, since none of your (Soh’s) recent posts are about the absorptive state but are experiences relating to nondual in transience, it is appropriate to practice bringing this ‘taste’ of pure luminous brilliance to the foreground. By ‘foreground’, I am referring to all your six entries and exits (eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind) and experience vivid luminous aliveness in colors, forms, shape, sound, scent, taste and thoughts. It is essential for Phase 4 and 5 insights, that is, experiencing directly the 18 dhatus and aggregates and realize that the entire idea of 'I and Mine' is learnt. Also, I do not think you have the time to practice deep absorptive meditation in army. You can revisit this ‘Oceanic Samadhi Bliss’ later when there is thoroughness and fearlessness in forgoing the sense of self/Self”.

The universe is this arising thought.
The universe is this arising sound.
Just this magnificent arising!
Is Tao.
Homage to all arising.

“Doing this foreground practice, you are effectively refining your realization from ‘You as pure Existence’ to ‘Existence is the very stuff of whatever arises’. The actual stuff the screen, the keyboard, the clicking sound, the cool air, the taste, the vibration…is the actuality of Universe itself, there is no other. Nevertheless, do take note that these are still experiences, they are not realizations. You will have to go through what you have gone through in the phase of ‘I AM’ from intermittent experiences to realizations”.

“I have read some of the articles written by Richard (AF), they are very well written and will be of great help in this 'foreground' practice. There are values in the teachings of Actual Freedom but there is no need to over-claim anything. In my opinion, saying what that is more than necessary does not make one superior”.

“Also do not get overwhelmed by the vivid luminous brilliance that manifests as the background source or foreground phenomena, let go of all; much like lamas building a sand mandala that is so vivid, colorful and beautiful, is destroyed immediately after it is completed. It is not just about the 'brilliant luminosity', it is also about the 'Gone'; therefore vividly present and instantly gone GATE GATE PARAGATE PARASAMGATE BODHI SVAHA”.

“Lastly be sincere to the deeper dispositions, they reveal more about us more than the ‘surface’ achievements, not to take it lightly. You are a sincere guy so allow your sincerity and your realizations be your inner guides they are your only ‘true teachers’, I am not”.

Soh Wei Yu: Grounding insights into daily living is not indicative or equivalent to the depth of insights. “…I have seen many who have realized I AM yet remain pretty grounded in their everyday life, they treat daily life as practice and as a way to express their realization of I AMness even though they have not had deeper realizations into non-duality, Anatta or Emptiness. As John Tan said in 2007, grounding one’s insights into daily living is not indicative or equivalent to the depth of insights, yet in each phase of insight one’s realizations should be actualized and grounded in our daily living as a practice. On the other hand, people, particularly the NeoAdvaitins, advocate no further need for meditation and practices after (or even before) some initial I AM or nondual breakthrough. Don’t listen to these naïve statements”.

Dogen (Zen): Buddha sat for six years, Bodhidharma for nine years. Why can we not practice like them? “Although Buddha was endowed with natural knowledge, he sat in zazen for six years. Bodhidharma bequeathed us the legacy of the Buddha-mind, yet still sat facing a wall for nine years. Such were the ancient sages. Why can we not practice like them? Therefore, desist from pursuing words and letters intellectually and reflect upon your self inwardly. Thus your body and mind shall be cast off naturally and your original nature shall be realized. If you wish to attain it, be diligent in zazen at once”. 

Greg Goode (The Direct Path FB Group - Advaita Vedanta): How silent meditation helped me with nondual inquiry. “This is about how silent meditation helped me with nondual inquiry. Silent meditation is different from inquiry, and helps prepare one for doing inquiry. It helps in several ways, which I’ll say more about below. There are various forms of silent meditation and various paths of inquiry. For example, Shamatha is recommended if one wants to realize emptiness via analytic meditation. Personally, I found Zazen helpful for nondual inquiry. How can it help? It stabilizes the mind so that the mind doesn’t get off track or fall asleep during the inquiry. Here is a very rough and schematic quasi Vedantic account of how this works. It’s not a DP account, but something that we were taught in the Chinmaya Mission. Vedanta looks at the body/mind apparatus as composed of various layers or sheaths of active energy. At the grossest is the body. At a more subtle layer is the ‘emotional body’, then the mind as controller of its activities. And more subtle still is the intellect, the process of ratiocination, making connections and insight”. 

“All activities engage all of the levels, but some activities have their center of gravity more on one level than another. According to the present scheme, Nondual inquiry begins largely at the energetic level of the intellect. But the insights permeate all levels. And nondual insights deconstruct the levels altogether. In order that the intellect does its appointed job well, it needs to be somewhat calm. It cannot be jumpy or inclined to nod off into sleep. For the intellect to be calm, the less subtle levels need to be somewhat calm as well. This is familiar if there is emotional turbulence, it is hard to think.

“There are activities that address each of the levels: karma yoga or recreational dancing or athletics for the physical level; Bhakti yoga or art or singing or performing music for the emotional level; Raja yoga or study or concentrated meditation for the level of controlling the mind; Jnana yoga or mathematics or other kinds of coursing stuff out for the intellectual level”. 

“The calmer the levels that are less subtle than the intellect, the calmer the intellect will be able to be. This is where zazen helped me. It came in at the level of the control of the mind level and smoothed things out wonderfully. Plus it gives a taste of silence. For me, it helped the mind stay with the subtleties of jnana yoga without a a rage of chattering thoughts, and without getting drowsy and falling asleep”. 

“Zazen is taught at Zen centers. Phenomenally (not doctrinally) it is a process of keeping the mind extremely steady on a subtle object like counting or the breath. There are two things that could depart from that: a chatty mind or a sleepy one. Whenever you notice that either has happened, you simply go back to counting or following the breath. Besides calmness and stability and subtlety, I noticed physically healthy things, like better digestion, more energy on the lower body and more closely focused in everything where needed. One can do zazen earlier in the day, and then nondual inquiry later in the day. And nondual inquiry will be supercharged. Of course there are other preparatory activities that will help”.

Thrangu Rinpoche: The Correct Sitting Posture. “Generally, one might think that one meditates with one’s mind and it doesn’t really matter what position the body is in, that one will still be able to meditate without taking the physical posture into account. But there is a very central factor of meditation involved with the physical posture in making the mind stable. It is said that if one is sitting with the body straight, the channels within the body will also be straight. What is the benefit if the channels in the body are straight because the body is straight? It means that the air flowing through the channels will then flow straight. Then there will be no blockages and nothing preventing the flow of the airs within the channels. What is the benefit if the airs flow straight through the channels? It means that the mind will be in accord if the channels are straight and the airs flow straight. This means that if the mind itself is wavering and unsteady, it is usually based on the wavering movements of the airs flowing through the channels. The nature of the air is related to the mind, so the movement of the mind depends on the movement of the airs. Therefore, if the airs are flowing in a straight way through the channels, then the mind itself will become still and stable; it will not be agitated or unstable. This is the reason why the correct posture in sitting is important for meditation. There is what is called “the seven aspects of Vairocana” for the physical posture in meditation, which doesn’t refer to Buddha Vairocana but to the seven aspects of the physical posture that will bring clarity to one’s meditation”.

“Two faults can occur during meditation. The first is mental dullness, in which case the mind is not clear. So, first there is a lack of clarity, then a dullness of mind, then stupor, and finally sleep. When these occur, one doesn’t have the necessary clarity for the meditation; there is a lack of clarity in the meditation. That is one defect one has to be free of. Another defect is agitation of the mind, in which case one may think about things one likes. Feeling happy and glad, one becomes involved with those thoughts and then the mind becomes more and more unstable. Sometimes agitation may arise because one regrets something, in which case one ponders things one has done, e.g., thinking, “Oh, that was bad. I shouldn’t have done that.” One feels more and more regret, which creates instability in one’s meditation. Or agitation may arise due to thoughts of doubt, e.g., thinking, “Oh, it should be like this or like that.” One feels more and more doubt, which creates instability of meditation. That is the second fault of meditation, which has to be overcome. One can eliminate the two faults arising in meditation by taking in the seven aspects of sitting that bring clarity to meditation. If one is sitting in the correct posture, sometimes one can have dullness or agitation, but one can eliminate these faults more easily by sitting in the correct posture”.

Kyle Dixon (2021): On non-doing. “Relaxing means remaining still, coordinated breathing, holding a fixed gaze, etc., that is the actual meaning of ‘non-doing’. Essentially, it’s staying still for prolonged periods of time, like in Thögal. Yet at the same time, that lack of doing takes a great deal of effort, it isn’t easy to sit still for that long. The same goes for resting in a moment of unfabricated consciousness, that clarity takes no effort, but remaining undistracted and self-liberating thought takes a great deal of effort. One could say it is a paradox but it isn’t really, the ‘doing’ and ‘non-doing’ are different facets of the same undertaking. It is just that sometimes the non-doing is emphasized to contrast causal vehicle practices. Dzogchen isn’t all non-doing though, there is much to do”.

Kyle Dixon (2021): Resting undistracted in the nature of mind. “The true method that develops the view is undistracted self-liberation. It is not so easy, as Sogyal Rinpoche discusses here: ‘It is extremely hard to rest undistracted in the nature of mind, even for a moment, let alone to self-liberate a single thought or emotion as it rises. We often assume that simply because we understand something intellectually, or think we do, we have actually realized it. This is a great delusion. It requires the maturity that only years of listening, contemplation, reflection, meditation, and sustained practice can ripen’”.

Kyle Dixon: Dzogchen meditation and effort

Reddit poster: And to me the logical answer to how one can sustain 24/7 meditation and bliss is by doing the effortless practices. Since it was posted in r/dzogchen I gave a dzogchen explanation.

Kyle Dixon: To which I replied with the Dzogchen explanation that you cannot jump into effortlessness without initially cultivating the view with effort, and you proceeded to reject that and claimed I am explaining things from the standpoint of causal methods, which I am not, this is mennagde.

Reddit poster: But that’s honestly where it started and I feel we’re kind of saying the same thing—I agree in the beginning effort based practices are used after recognition.

Kyle Dixon: I’m not sure that we are saying the same thing. You think practice is effortless, yet for how long can you sustain the view before distraction arises? Not long unless you are in retreat, and so sustaining the view requires effort and diligence, and then later when some stability is achieved, it becomes more and more effortless. Eventually, awakened equipoise dawns, and then it is actually effortless. There is a gradient of degrees in practice and how it develops, and you seem to want to throw that all out the window and pretend your practice is effortless when it absolutely isn’t. No one’s practice is effortless who does have a high degree of stability. There are aspects of practice that are effortless, but someone who claims their practice in toto is effortless is deluded.

Reddit poster: But using effort based practice to try and sustain 24/7 meditation and bliss, as OP was saying, seems harmful.

Kyle Dixon: It isn’t harmful. Your practice will not develop otherwise. 24/7 isn’t necessary, but set sessions where the view is cultivated are necessary, and the longer the better. We are discussing actual practice here. Actual Dzogchen practice. Not catch phrases about effortlessness we cherry pick from expositions. Trekchö develops through applied effort and it will never, ever, develop without skillfully applied effort.

Reddit poster: I’ve posted a bunch of teachings talking about this effortless dzogchen practice

Kyle Dixon: Yes, but you have no understanding as to how effort is applied within that so-called “effortless” context. The approach is multifaceted, aspects which require effort coupled with aspects that are effortless, it is not black and white like you are suggesting, all effortless. If it were truly effortless there would be no need for 18 month trekchö retreats, and it wouldn’t take teachers like Kunzang Dechen Lingpa 7 years in strict retreat to accomplish the third vision. If it were effortless, these accomplishments would arise spontaneously by themselves, but they don’t. They arise for those who employ the view effectively and who understand how diligence and effort are dovetailed with these so-called effortless aspects of the view. The problem is that if you go around just saying it’s all effortless, you end up closing the door on many people who will follow that advice, form an aversion to effort, and their precious human life will not reach its full potential, worst case it will be wasted altogether.

Reddit poster: You will fall into distraction and this state of being distracted can be left as it is, unaltered

Kyle Dixon: No my friend, the minute you detect that you have fallen into discursiveness the view has to be reeled in immediately and that all has to be cut off so that one goes back to exercising self-liberation. Discursiveness is never left as it is, it is a total corruption of one’s practice. 

Reddit poster: Maybe you do some other practice and that’s fine. 

Kyle Dixon: I practice the actual view, which involves the attributes I have already covered in previous posts, that is the method as described in the 17 tantras. If you are distracted and allowing distraction to be left unaltered, then you aren’t even practicing sūtrayāna, much less dzogpachenpo. Distraction is impossible if you are accurately cultivating the view, because every arising is directly hit.

Reddit poster: I’ve acknowledged effort based practices are used in the beginning.

Kyle Dixon: I’m not talking about effort based practices. I am discussing the role of effort in the very same discipline you claim is devoid of effort.

Malcolm (Loppon Namdrol): The mental factors of first dhyana should be developed. “Rongzom makes the point very clearly that Dzogchen practitioners must develop the mental factors that characterize the first dhyana, vitarka, vicara, pritvi, sukha and ekagraha, i.e. applied attention, sustained attention, physical ease, mental ease and one-pointedness. If you do not have a stable samatha practice, you can't really call yourself a Dzogchen practitioner at all. At best, you can call yourself someone who would like to be a Dzogchen practitioner a ma rdzogs chen pa. People who think that Dzogchen frees one from the need to meditate seriously are seriously deluded”.

John Tan (2018): On nihilistic understanding of non-doing. “People that have gone into the nihilistic understanding of 'non-doing' ended up in a mess. You see that those having right understanding of 'non-doing' are free, yet you see discipline, focus and peace in them. Like just sitting and walking... ...in whatever they endeavor. Fully Anatta”. 

Pitfalls and Dangers of the I AM Phase

John Tan (2007): Beware of saying 'this is it' if not knowing the process. “Though Buddha Nature is plainness and most direct, these are still the steps. If one does not know the process and said ‘yes this is it’… then it is extremely misleading. For 99% of ‘realized’/’enlightened’ persons what they  are talking about is ‘I AMness’, and has not gone beyond permanence, still thinking of permanence, formless… ...all and almost all will think of it along the line of I AMness, all are like the grandchildren of ‘AMness’, and that is the root cause of duality”.

Soh Wei Yu (2020): Most people who realized I AM just stagnate there. “One of the most common pitfalls is thinking that the ‘I AM’ is the final, ultimate Truth. Most people who realized I AM think that way and just stagnate there. As I mentioned before, as an estimate based on my decade+ years of encountering, reading and conversing with many realized practitioners and teachers, roughly 90% of any given realized person is simply having the realization of I AMness, 8% are about One Mind, and only 2% or less are having Anatta realization and further.

Adyashanti: Whenever you touch upon a deep truth, suchness of reality, your true nature, each aspect feels like it's total and complete and all-inclusive at that moment. “Emptiness (Adyashanti’s Emptiness is ‘I AMness’ - John Tan’s Stage 1, not the Buddhistic Emptiness/Sunyata of John Tan’s Stage 6 discussed in this AtR Guide) is not the totality of what you are. Emptiness is a profound aspect of what you are. It's a profound taste of your true nature, (but) it's not the totality of what you are any (other) than getting up in the morning and feeling good is the totality of what you are, or feeling bad is a totality of what you are... ...Whenever you touch upon a deep truth, suchness of reality, your true nature, each aspect feels like it's total and complete and all-inclusive at that moment. So that's why teachers have a very hard time getting through to people when they have an initial experience of anything because if it's an initial experience of reality it feels totally complete and there is a certain innate confidence that arises within you. Not an egoic confidence but a confidence that comes from reality”.

Soh Wei Yu (2010): On Reifying Host and Guest (An Unchanging Awareness). “There is a tendency at the I AM phase to reify the space of awareness as the unchanging background, Absolute host, and container, of all the passing contents of thoughts, perceptions, feelings and sensations. Instead of focusing on reifying and solidifying this image of a changeless and inherently existing Host, we should instead focus on the four aspects of I AM as described above. Otherwise we will get stuck in the I AM phase. During my I AM phase, I saw Awareness as an unchanging host, like an infinite empty space where the ‘guests’ of all transient phenomena come and go leaving the formless host of awareness untouched”. 

“(As an example of reification, from my personal journal around 2010:) While jogging just now, I 'forgot' my mind and body. It feels like I'm the still presence in which the world moves through. Instead of being a body running on the road from here to there, it's seen that I am the space that encompasses the whole world and the whole world moves through me. I am not moving. The world is moving through me. It feels like you're running on the treadmill, you're not actually moving! Except that the scenery moves through you. You can practice seeing this next time when you walk or jog. This space of awareness is unmoving, whether or not the world is moving”.

Soh Wei Yu (2010): Don't reify ‘Host and Guest’ but focus on the 4 aspects of I AM and the 2 non-dual contemplations. “The experience of the Witness is important, and is undeniable. The Certainty of Being is a natural certainty that cannot be negated. This is not wrong. You cannot deny your own existence (how could you? if you try to deny it, who is it denying it?). There is nothing wrong with experiencing directly without intermediary the pure sense of existence. But after this direct experience, one should refine the understanding, our views, our insights. Instead of deviating from the right view, reinforcing the wrong view, after the experience”.

“John Tan also told me that what I have experienced has nothing to do with 'beingness being unchanging, constant and permanent'. Yet I was re-enforcing this wrong view into my consciousness like chanting. He told me not to do that, and that what I described is not my direct experience, but instead it is my mind playing tricks. What is experienced is just luminosity, non-conceptuality, directness, nothing more than that. So instead of describing what I experienced, I was reminding myself what is not true. We actually never experience anything unchanging”.

“He also said that though I am experiencing the ‘host and guest’, he told me not to focus on 'permanent, unchanging, and independent' aspect as by doing so with a few more months of intense training, I will become stuck for decades in the formless realms and it will be difficult to get out. Instead, I should be focusing on the impersonality aspect, and the four aspects of I AM he talked to me about, (so) then (I could) afterwards experience non-dual and Anatta”. 

It is not about denying the Witness, but refining our insight of it:

What is meant by nondual?
What is meant by non-conceptual?
What is meant by being spontaneous?
What is the 'impersonality' aspect?
What is luminosity?

Soh Wei Yu's further clarification: “Many people experience mature I AM with impersonality yet still cannot overcome host and guest. Rather, what is meant is: don’t mentally reify host and guest (reifying and clinging to an ‘unchanging’ awareness) but focus on the four aspects and two nondual contemplations instead for progression. They will eventually lead to nondual Anatta”. 

“If one instead focuses on establishing oneself as unchanging host underlying passing guests, one is just strengthening one’s deep karmic propensities or conditionings and it will become very difficult to overcome later on”. 

“Impersonality alone will not overcome host and guest. It’s rather that the focus must be on the four aspects and two nondual contemplations and right view. And the direction must be correct and not focus on the wrong things. Impersonality alone is insufficient, as it does not overcome inherent view. Anatta insight will. But only the beginning… there are degrees… and twofold emptiness”. 

The space-like, boundless field of consciousness neither should be reified into a static background nor be objectified; otherwise it’s no less fixated

John Tan: If you are looking from the perspective of object, everything is moving. If you are looking from the perspective of awareness, nothing seems to move. If you realize luminous essence and empty nature, then nothing also moves. The former is One-Mind, the latter is No-Mind. But No-Mind can have varying degrees of insight and experience. Though people might say it is conceptual to say or categorize further, but it is a skillful means. 

Soh Wei Yu: In the I AM phase the spacious all-pervading aspect of Presence is reified into a static background, while in the further phase of Anatta, the space-like, boundless field of consciousness/universe is experienced and realized to be the foreground without being abstracted and reified into a background.

John Tan: Yes. Not to be fixated, but also not to objectify the ‘spaciousness’ otherwise ‘spaciousness’ is no less fixated. The ‘space’ appears appealing only to a mind that abstracts but to a fully participating and involving mind, such ‘spaciousness’ has immediately sets itself apart, distancing itself from inseparable. Emptiness is never a behind background but a fully partaking foreground manifesting as the arising and passing phenomena absence of a center. Therefore understand ‘spaciousness’ not like sky but like passing clouds and flowing water, manifesting whenever condition is. If ‘Emptiness’ has made us more fixated and immobilized this innate freedom of our nondual luminosity, then it is ‘stubborn emptiness’.

“Nevertheless, no matter what said, it is always inadequate. If we want to fully realize the inexpressible, be willing to give up all centers and point of references that manifests in the form of ‘who’, ‘when’ and ‘where’. Just give up the entire sense of self then instantly all things are spontaneously perfected”.

John Tan (2012): The failure to recognize the Three Characteristics of Existence is the problem of all problems. “The so called ‘Clear Aware Space’ is no more special than this moment of arising sound or passing scent. The failure to recognize that all apparent arising and passing transience is no other than the Dharmakaya is the problem of all problems. When a pith instruction like ‘Relax and fully open to whatever is’ is taught to a mind that is still under strong influence of dualistic tendencies, it is easy for such a mind to read and practice in the form of clinging to the ‘Aware Space’ and shunting away from the transience, thereby setting itself infinitely apart unknowingly”.

“If however there is maturity of insight that whatever arises share the same taste luminous yet empty (via twofold emptiness), then practice is naturally and simply unreserved opening to whatever is, it cannot be otherwise. There can be no movement, duality and preference from this to that for there is no ‘this’ that is more ‘this’ than that”.

“With clear recognition and unperturbed practice of complete unreserved opening to whatever is, all transience will reveal to poses the same taste of nondual samadhi and self-liberation that we once thought to be the monopoly of the so called ‘Clear Aware Space’. It is therefore advisable that after the direct experience and realization of the pure sense of existence, a practitioner further penetrates Anatta and the empty nature of phenomena. These insights are necessary and should not be considered ‘long cut’ (not the shortest path). It will help a practitioner better appreciate the art of great ease in time to come”.

“The degree of ‘un-contrivance’ is the degree of how unreserved and fearless we open to whatever is. For whatever arises is mind, always seen, heard, tasted and experienced. What that is not seen, not heard and not experienced, is our conceptual idea of what mind is. Whenever we objectify the ‘brilliance, the pristineness’ into an entity that is formless, it becomes an object of grasp that prevents the seeing of the ‘forms’, the texture and the fabric of awareness”. 

“The tendency to objectify is subtle, we let go of 'self-ness' yet unknowingly grasped ‘now-ness’ and ‘here-ness’. Whatever arises merely dependently originates, needless of who, where and when”. 

“All experiences are equal, luminous yet empty of self-nature. Though empty, it has not in any way denied its vivid luminosity. Liberation is experiencing mind as it is. Self-Liberation is the thorough insight that this liberation is always and already is; spontaneously present, naturally perfected!”

John Tan (2020): Advaita falls short of understanding The Three Characteristics of Existence. “Be it Theravada, Mahayana or Vajrayana; be it Dzogchen, Mahamudra or Zen; they do not deviate from the definitive view of the 3 universal characteristics of dharma. Therefore experiences and realizations must always be authenticated with right view, otherwise we end in wonderland that is neither here nor there. The ‘who am I?’ of Advaita and ‘before birth who am I?’ may have the same initial ‘realization’, the face to face direct authentication of one's original face, and followed by a series of similar mind-shaking experiences, but when subject to Madhyamaka (Emptiness Doctrine) ultimate analysis, they fall short of the prajna that Buddhism (wisdom on the 3Cs) is talking about”. 

Soh Wei Yu (2010): Reifying an Universal Consciousness. “This reification comes when the impersonality aspect of the Four Aspects of I AM is experienced. Your mirror-like awareness has no limitations, has no boundaries and edges. It does not belong to any object that appears on it. It does not belong to the bodymind object that you identify as 'yourself'. It does not belong to anything. But everything arises from that… …Impersonal/Universal Awareness is animating or ‘powering’ the body and the personality like electricity is powering the TV to show the images on screen. Whatever happens on screen is ‘run’ only by the ‘power’ of the One Mind. Everything and everyone is the spontaneous functioning of One Mind, there is no individual doers/actors/selves”.

“John Tan told me that there is a problem of saying more than what is necessary, and that it comes from a clinging mind. That is, stripping of 'individuality' and 'personality' becoming a 'Universal Mind' is an extrapolation, a deduction. It is not direct experience like ‘in thinking just thoughts’, ‘in perceptions just perceptions’, ‘in seeing just the seen’ just 'what is'. Similarly, when I experienced 'impersonality', it is just 'impersonality', but it becomes a 'Universal Mind' due to clinging which prevents seeing. And if I further reinforce this idea, it becomes a made belief and appears true and real”.

“Therefore when I said 'impersonality', I am not being blinded as I am merely describing what I have experienced. This Mind is still an individual mindstream, and though impersonality leads one to have the sort of 'Universal Mind' kind of sensation, one must correctly understand it. Buddhism never denies this mind stream, it simply denies the self-view. It denies separation, it denies an observer, a thinker. It denies a perfect controller, an independent agent. This is what 'Self' means, otherwise why is it a 'Self'? An individual mindstream remains as an individual mindstream, but it is nothing related to a Self. Hence it is important to understand liberation from the right understanding, otherwise one gets confused”.

“There is the experience of non-duality, Anatta, 'Tada' [Just as it is, Suchness] (Tada!), Stainlessness (http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/04/stainlessness.html), but these have nothing to do with Self. Hence if one wants to understand Presence, then one must clearly and correctly understand Presence”.

“It is important to refine the understanding of Presence through the four aspects: impersonality, degree of luminosity, dissolving the need to reconfirm and understanding why it is unnecessary, and effortlessness. These have no extrapolation and are what I am experiencing currently, and these requires improvement so that one can progress from ‘I AM’.

“There is the experience of impersonality. It is the stripping off of the personality aspect, and it causes one to link to a higher force, as if a cosmic life is functioning within me, like what Casino_King (a forum member who posted many years ago in both the Christian and Buddhist forums) experienced and described the impersonal life force, which he called Holy Spirit”.

It is as if it is all the functioning of a higher power, that life is itself taking the functioning, so dissolving 'personality' somehow allows me to get 'connected'.

“I agreed with John and told him that just yesterday I remembered a Christian quote that is very apt in describing this aspect: ‘I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me’ (Galatians 2:20). John agrees and told me that it is about surrendering to this greater power, that it is not you, but the life in you that is doing the work. It is the key of getting 'connected' to a higher power, to a divine life, to a sacred power and one wants to lose oneself for this divinity to work through us. And this is what John meant by John Stage 3 experience, the 'I' is the block, because of 'holding' one is unable to 'surrender' completely. When one completely surrenders, the ‘divine will’ will become your 'will'. This is not the nondual sort of experience, nor is it about I AM or the Certainty of Being, nor is it about Anatta”. 

“For example, I AM allows you to directly experience 'your' very own existence, the beingness, the innermost essence of 'You'. 

“A true and genuine practitioner must give rise to all these insights, and understand the causes and conditions that give rise to the experiences and not get mixed up. Many people get mixed up over different 'types' of 'no self'. For example, no-self of nondual, no-self of Anatta, non-inherent existence and impersonality, are all not referring to the same experience but rather they are different results of dissolving certain aspect of the tendencies”.

“Hence, a practitioner must be sincere in his practice to clearly see, and not pretend that one knows. Otherwise practice is simply more mix-up, confusion, and nonsense. It is not that it cannot be known, it is just that the mind isn't clear enough to see the causes and conditions of arising”.

Stage 2 - I AM Everything

A general remark about this stage/phase: Whenever and wherever there IS, that IS is Me ... It is bringing this I AM into everything. I AM the I in you. The I in the cat, the I in the bird. I AM the first person in everyone and Everything. The I is ultimate and universal … Observer and observed as one is nondual experience, sunk back to a source. It is always the source, the Self, the background, even if you fuse and merge into everything.

John Tan (2013) – Bringing I AM into everything: “It is bringing this I AM into everything. I AM the I in you. The I in the cat, the I in the bird. I AM the first person in everyone and Everything. I. That is my second phase. That the I is ultimate and universal”. 

John Tan (2008) - Observer and observed as one is nondual experience: “Observer and observed as one is nondual experience. Stage 2 is nondual but there is no insight of no-self. The insight is that you know and understand the pathless path of no-self. You see it although it is pathless. You see the path. This is due to insight and therefore there is more permanent lucidity. Stage 2 remains as a stage you don't know how to get it. Don't know when it comes again or the path towards it. It’s needed to further refine by penetrating into the deeper depth of nondual and into Anatta as stated in the Bahiya Sutta, then comes Emptiness. So you understand more about the various stages? Stage 1 can be very blissful too when the meditative strength is there, but there is no understanding of the 'forms’. Only the pure sense of existence in thought realm. Not in the 'forms'”.

John Tan (2007) - It's nondual and sunk back to a source:  “Stage 2 is like nondual and sunk back to a source. It is always the source, the Self, the background, even if you fuse and merge into everything”.  

Stage 3 - Entering Into a State of Nothingness

A general remark about this stage/phase: It’s about entering into a state of oblivion to get rid of the sense of ‘I’. In this phase comes an important understanding – The ‘I’ is the root cause of all artificialities, that true freedom is in spontaneity. Surrender into complete nothingness and everything is simply Self so … Drop everything to get around the problem of intense luminosity and at the same time experience naturalness and spontaneity by way of dropping … The mysterious gate of Taoism … The Tao is the way. The way of always in Union with the ‘source’. One has to be aware of this dimension but nothing to seek. It is rather only in daily encounter and manifestation … The ‘unfathomable depth’ cannot be approached through (intellectual) ‘knowing’. Only through moment to moment gnosis in seeing, feeling, thinking, tasting, hearing and smelling. The way to understanding the nature of aliveness and clarity is to fully ‘live’ and ‘express’.  Taoism is unique in this sense in expressing this dark illumination. It is not really interest in presence, but what is behind presence...

John Tan (2008) - The focus is not on luminosity, but effortlessness, naturalness and spontaneity: “There is the experience of practitioners by way of complete surrendering or elimination (dropping) like Taoist practitioners. An experience of deep bliss that is beyond that of what you experienced can occur. But the focus is not on luminosity, but effortlessness, naturalness and spontaneity. In complete giving up, there is no 'I' ; it is also needless to know anything; in fact 'knowledge' is considered a stumbling block. The practitioner drops away mind, body, knowledge...everything. There is no insight, there is no luminosity there is only total allowing of whatever that happens, happen in its own accord. All senses including consciousness are shut and fully absorbed. Awareness of 'anything' is only after emerging from that state”.

John Tan (2018) - It can only come as a leap over: “It’s the mysterious pass. It can only come as a ‘leap over’ because it can't be approached with a ‘known mind’. Therefore the mysterious gate is dark. So, subjective radiance from one's clarity is secondary, entirely not a concern at all. When we look at the idea of Mu and the technique of koan, it is not difficult to see that Zen is a crossbreed...lol”.

The way to understanding the nature of aliveness and clarity is to fully ‘live’ and ‘express’. Taoism is unique in this sense in expressing this dark illumination

John Tan: Lately I kept seeing articles and conversations relating to "nothingness" wonder why. The mysterious gate of Taoism. Taoist valley spirit is the opposite of clarity... it attempts to express the depth ‘source’ of life.

Soh Wei Yu: Sounds like Christianity? Was reading some Christian mystic website I think based on Father Thomas Keating. They are aware of I AM and witnessing but states that the goal of Christian contemplation is beyond that, is the source of that and will and doing. 

John Tan: Nothingness. Even Nisargadatta. There is nothing to contemplate as it cannot be approached through a known mind. They call it contemplative prayer.

Soh Wei Yu: More like prayer or meditation. Dunno, what is it. Maybe surrendering.

John Tan: Yes. The Tao is the way. The way of always in union with the ‘source’. Or even yoga. One has to be aware of this dimension but nothing to seek. It is rather only in daily encounter and manifestation.

Soh Wei Yu: Union with source is like divine happening? Not my will but the source.

John Tan: Yes, but we cannot approach the ‘unfathomable depth’ through ‘knowing’. Only through moment to moment gnosis in seeing, feeling, thinking, tasting, hearing and smelling. 

Soh Wei Yu: Knowing as in intellect?

John Tan: Yes, intellect. The way to understanding the nature of aliveness and clarity is to fully ‘live’ and ‘express’. Taoism is unique in this sense in expressing this dark illumination. It is not really interest in presence. But what is behind presence...when in deep sleep, where is awareness? So the valley spirit is often described as dark. How is this different from Anatta?

Soh Wei Yu: Anatta does not see something behind presence but source is none other than manifestation.

John Tan: What does ‘source is none other manifestation’ mean to you?

Soh Wei Yu: Means when hearing sound, I don’t see it arising out of a nothingness but sound springs from right where it is fully aliveness and full expression of life. 

John Tan: First you must differentiate between experiential insight that there is nothing behind and directly experiencing presence as the 6 entries and exits. From seeing through conventions and how the mind mistaken. How the mind mistakes and reify conventions. How the mind attempt to fix and fit and explain in a "known" pattern according to its existing paradigm. What is the difference? And only when these two insights arise, practitioner can clearly understand and experience.

Soh Wei Yu: Insight that there is nothing behind is realizing Anatta, directly experience presence is all six senses is just PCE. (AtR)

John Tan (2006) – How is Stage 3 different from other stages: “Stages 1 and 2 are non-dual experience. Stage 3 is dropping. Stages 5 and 6 are nondual insight”. 

John Tan (2008) - Dropping is the antidote of intense vividness. Then, Anatta is like the integration of both luminosity and dropping: … Dropping is the antidote of intense vividness. And dropping allows you to have another experience … The purpose of me telling you to drop is for you to get around the problem of intense luminosity and at the same time experience naturalness and spontaneity by way of dropping. However, all these experiences contribute later to the insight of Anatta. Or great clarity of Anatta. Therefore, I told you to summarize at the same time. And also learn how to drop. Anatta is like the integration of both with right understanding. With luminosity and dropping, you experience new frontiers and refinement of what you know about consciousness then continue to summarize it. And take the Bahiya Sutta seriously until the insight dawn.

There are six stages of dropping. First is ‘someone’ is dropping. Second is dropping appears as a mirror reflecting. Third is there is only endless dropping without footing and mental reasoning. Fourth is dropping as vivid wide opening. Fifth is vivid wide opening as everything. Sixth is only Dharma spontaneously manifesting. The last two stages of dropping require deep insights into nondual, Anatta and Emptiness.

Stage 4 -  Presence as Mirror Bright Clarity

A general remark about this stage/phase:  The taste of nondual Presence, previously felt to be a formless background, is now tasted in the foreground as sound, colors, scents, textures and fabric of whatever manifests, through a (partial) realization of No-Self and the penetration of the illusionary paradigm of subject-object/perceiver-perceived division or duality. It’s the beginning of nondual realization, but not yet the full maturity.

John Tan (2006) - There is thinking, no thinker. There is sound, no hearer. Suffering exists, no sufferer. Deeds there are, no doer: “This time it was not ‘I AM’, it was not asking ‘who am I’, it was not the pure sense of ‘I AM’, it was ‘TONGSss…’ the pure Sound … There is no Sound out there or in here… There is no ‘I’ apart from the arising and ceasing… The manifold of Presence… Moment to moment Presence unfolds…” 

John Tan (2009) - The illusory nature of subject-object division is seen through. The sense of sacredness that was once the monopoly of the Absolute is now also found in the Relative: “Nondual realization is a deep understanding that comes from seeing through the illusory nature of subject-object division. It is a natural nondual state that resulted from an insight that arises after rigorous investigation, challenge and a prolonged period of practice that is specially focused on ‘No-Self’. Somehow focusing on No-Self will spark a sense of sacredness towards the transient and fleeting phenomena. The sense of sacredness that is once the monopoly of the Absolute is now also found in the Relative. The term ‘No-Self’ like Zen Koan may appear cryptic, senseless or illogical but when realized, it is actually obviously clear, direct and simple”. 

John Tan (2009) - Subject/Object as an inseparable union, rather than absolutely no-subject: “Phase 4 is merely the experience of non-division between subject/object. The initial insight glimpsed from the Anatta stanza is without self, but in the later phase of my progress it appeared more like subject/object as an inseparable union, rather than absolutely no-subject.”

Soh Wei Yu – Back and forth between One Mind and No Mind:  “Experience switches back and forth between One Mind and No Mind, due to persisting view/paradigm of inherent existence despite nondual realization. In fact, if you look at certain people like Ken Wilber in his journal/book ‘One Taste’, he kept switching between Witnessing (I AM) and nondual (one mind to no mind) despite their insight of nondual (Stage 4), and occasionally lose access even to that Witnessing (such as when drinking alcohol, thus resuming the merely normal, egoic state of consciousness). This is because the very deeply rooted view of inherency as well as subject-object paradigm is still present, therefore nondual Presence cannot be effortlessly sustained. After Stage 5 is realized deeply, there will be no more switching, there will not be a trace of subject-object duality and agency 24/7, and no mind becomes constant. Even wine does not disturb my state of no-mind the slightest, however I must say I seldom partake of alcohol and even if I do, it is in very moderate amounts”.

One Mind

A changeless open and limitless space of awareness that is indistinguishable-inseparable from, but not identical to, the changing contents of consciousness that it contains.

John Tan (2013): “One Mind means consciousness is of true existence like a container. Consciousness is not in the body, but the body is in consciousness. Sound arises in consciousness. Therefore consciousness doesn't change”. 

John Tan: One Mind is you are always looking at an ultimate mind behind, you are not looking at manifestation

Soh Wei Yu: But it's not I Am, right?

John Tan: It is not

Soh Wei Yu: It's like integrating foreground as being an aspect of background

John Tan: I AM is just the pure background behind but external objects are not subsumed into it… like separate. I AM I is dualistic. In this case of One Mind, all is being consumed/subsumed into the source. One mind is different. One mind is that the witness is gone but subsume into an overarching Awareness.

No Mind

There are peak experiences of no subjectivity, but not effortless nor perpetual, as the default view is still based on inherent existence and subtle subject/object duality. 

John Tan (2013): “No-Mind is as if consciousness is the substance of matter. When we say sound-consciousness, there is no such thing as sound and sound-consciousness… When the hearer is gone and there is only sound, that sound is precisely consciousness. That is the experience of No-Mind”.

“No mind is like the mirror becomes transparent and there is just that. But the view is the reflection and the mirror is not the same. Like sky is not the flowing cloud”.

“You may have No-Mind as an experience and understood that there is such an experience as simple manifestation or just the radiant world, but still it remains as a stage. You have no idea that it is a wrong view that hinders effortless actualization. We do not 'see' that it is the wrong view that 'blinds', a mistaken view shaping our entire experience.

“No-Mind is the peak of nondual, the natural state of nondual where the background is completely gone. Very often a practitioner in an advance phase of nondual and One Mind, will naturally know the importance of No-Mind. And that becomes the practice. They know they have to be there. However, to come to this natural state of nondual where the background is deemed irrelevant, it requires insight of Anatta”. 


John Tan (2011): “To mature Anatta realization, even direct experience of the absence of an agent will prove insufficient. There must also be a total new paradigm shift in terms of view. We must free ourselves from being bonded to the idea, the need, the urge and the tendency of analyzing, seeing and understanding our moment to moment of experiential reality from a source, an essence, a center, a location, an agent or a controller and rest entirely on Anatta and Dependent Origination”.

“Therefore despite the clear realization and right experience, seamlessness and effortlessness of nondual experience will not be smooth without ‘right view’. The reason though obvious is often overlooked; if deep at the back of a practitioner’s mind he still hold the dualistic and inherent view, how is it possible to have seamless and effortless experience of in seeing, just scenery; in hearing, just sound? How unreserved, open and seamless can a practitioner be in transcending the self altogether into the transience? Hence equip oneself with a view that can integrate with the realization and experience, it will help practitioners progress more smoothly”. 

“With regards to the attachment of view, it does not apply to practitioners that have gone pass certain phases of insights. Practitioners after certain phases of insights are constantly abolishing ground and are clear that whatever pith instructions and views are merely provisional. There are masters that caution practitioners and there are students that parrot their masters’ advises, so do not follow blindly. In fact, every deepening of view is a giving up. In the case of Anatta, it is the total elimination of Self”.

“Anatta is often not correctly understood. it is common that one progress from experience of nondual to No-Mind instead of direct realization into Anatta. Many focus on the experience and there is a lack of clarity to penetrate the differences, so you must be clear of the various phases of insights first and not mistake one for the other. At the same time, refine your experience these few days... Have deeper sleep and exercise more. Balance your body energies”.

John Tan (2020) – Difference between One Mind, No Mind and Original Mind: “So what is One Mind, what is No Mind and what is Original Mind (*) in this context? One Mind is post nondual but subsuming leaving trace. No Mind is just One Mind except that there is evenness till the last trace is gone … All is time therefore no time. When you go from dual to nondual or One Mind to No Mind, those are stages and experiences... If you got the condition to get pointed out that originally there never was a mind, there are no stages to climb... that is Original Mind. This requires insights and wisdom”. 

(Note by Soh: the Original Mind spoken here does not mean some unborn metaphysical primordial mind such as the I AM, but the originally, already is nature of mind –empty of itself– … originally there never was a mind, empty of all self/Self.)

Stages 1 and 2 are also like One Mind, except dualistic

Soh Wei Yu: One Mind is Phase 4 onwards? Before Phase 4 you also had glimpse of One Mind, right?

John Tan: One Mind, doesn't matter if dual or nondual, it is just a subsuming tendency that the mind attempts to explain everything into an ultimate consciousness.

Soh Wei Yu: So Stages 1 and 2 are also like One Mind, except dualistic. And Stage 4 is like nondual but still have subsuming tendency, so might not yet overcome One Mind.

John Tan: Yes.

Soh Wei Yu: I remember during I AM, I also had subsuming tendency. But that I AM sort of One Mind was somewhat different from post nondual (as in, nondual sort of One Mind) but only really overcome subsuming after Anatta. 

John Tan: Subsuming tendency is always beautiful to an inherent mind.

…

Soh Wei Yu (2020) – No Mind is like PCE. Even after Stage 4 one is still cycling between One Mind and No Mind, until Stage 5 clears that tendency: “No Mind is not Stage 3 but a peak experience of the dissolution of being self/Self or a 'Mind' -- even 'One Mind'. It’s hard to put No Mind into a stage. For example I had glimpses of No Mind even before Stage 1. Also, after Stage 4 one is cycling between One Mind and No Mind until Stage 5 clears that tendency, as insight is very clear on Anatta as always so. No mind is like PCE. No self/Self just luminous manifestation. But as a state of experience, it is not necessarily realization of Anatta as always so. After Anatta, no mind should become a natural state”.

No Mind is important, though should not be making of it a state but addressing the view aspect

Matt H.: I have consistent access to One Mind as an experience and periodic, but not consistent, access to No Mind as an experience. Judging by what I've read so far, the missing piece is deeper insight into Anatta to make the flip from 'temporary experience' to 'baseline ground reality'. Over the last few months I've been practicing a certain kind of letting go (*) to cause the No Mind experience to arise more consistently, but I guess the AtR view is that this approach is somewhat mistaken and my time would be better spent contemplating Anatta?

(*) In a nutshell, it's about finding a sense of 'pulling together' (towards a center point) in my experience, which seems to be what's behind the subjective sense of a central point, and then allowing that to relax. What's been tricky over the last few months of exploring this is that sometimes the 'fist' will relax and sometimes it won't, and I don't yet have a clear enough sense of why or why not to be able to make it more consistent. I'd found that gently inclining my mind toward a sense of space/silence between/around/behind thoughts was a good way of kick-starting the process. And then, when the No-Mind experience opens up, that sense of space/silence being inclined toward vanishes, leaving just the thoughts …  https://www.facebook.com/groups/AwakeningToReality/permalink/3999299513444782 

Soh Wei Yu: Not exactly mistaken because No Mind is important, but should be complimented with the two stanzas and Bahiya Sutta style of contemplation and make sure not to contemplate in a way of making it a state but in a way that addresses the view aspect.

You might stay in One Mind/No Mind for some time even after Anatta

John Tan: Unlike you, I have been stuck in One Mind for quite some time. It is not easy to get rid of that trace. Without guidance, it can take many years. Even then one may just be a state of No Mind rather than Anatta. So it remains a form of experience rather than insight and realization. A state I mean.

Soh Wei Yu: So, you realized through contemplating the first stanza of Anatta in 1997 but that was still followed by One Mind and No Mind for a few years? 

John Tan: No... post Anatta, the karmic tendency wasn't that strong anymore...maybe 1 year or so for One Mind and No Mind... Before that, overcoming of background is tough.

Three Levels of Non-Dual 

1. There is an Awareness reflecting thoughts and manifestation. ("I AM") Stages 1 and 2. Mirror bright is experienced but distorted. Dualistic and Inherent seeing.

2. Thoughts and manifestation are required for the mirror to see itself. Stage 4. Non-Dualistic but Inherent seeing. Beginning of nondual insight.

3. Thoughts and manifestation have always been the mirror (The mirror here is seen as a whole). Stage 5. Non-Dualistic and non-inherent insight.

In 3 not even a quantum line can be drawn from whatever arises; whatever that appears to come and goes is the Awareness itself. There is no Awareness other than that. We should use the teachings of Anatta (no-self), Dependent Origination and Emptiness to see the 'forms' of awareness.


How to Progress from Stage 4 into Stage 5

Investigate and challenge all sense of awareness being unchanging and independent. Contemplate on Bahiya Sutta and the Wind/Blowing analogy (Stage 5). In Stage 4, Awareness is still understood to be a one-way dependency: transient forms are none other than expressions of changeless awareness, but changeless awareness is not equivalent to transient forms. Contemplating on the two-way dependency can also be helpful if you like analytical approach: Greg Goode on Advaita/Madhyamika.

Soh Wei Yu (2021) - Realize the emptiness of awareness, and understand consciousness in terms of Dependent Origination: “At phase 4 one may be trapped in the view that everything is one awareness modulating as various forms, like gold being shaped into various ornaments while never leaving its pure substance of gold. This is the Brahman view. Although such a view and insight is nondual, it is still based on a paradigm of essence-view and ‘inherent existence’. Instead, one should realize the emptiness of awareness, and should understand consciousness in terms of Dependent Origination. This clarity of insight will get rid of the essence view that consciousness is an intrinsic essence that modulates into this and that”.

John Tan (2020) - Consciousness is in a perpetual state of fluxing and in any moment it’s one of the six types of consciousness: “Buddha named consciousness after its ayatanas (internal and external senses). This is to prevent us from abstracting and reifying a pure self standing consciousness. In other words, consciousness is in a perpetual state of fluxing and if you were to slice a moment out of this stream of consciousness-ing, it is always one of the six types of consciousness eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness and mental-consciousness.”

John Tan (2013) - When you see through reification, you realized ‘awareness’ is just a label point to these (six senses) manifestations: Anatta is a realization that there isn't a consciousness besides sound, scenery...etc. You see through reification of that agent and get in touch with the base manifestation where the label relies upon. So sound is the actuality that consciousness is referring to. There is no consciousness other than that. When they see through reification, then phenomena has a different meaning. Seeing everything as awareness is not One Mind. Seeing everything as the same unchanging mind is the problem. When you see through reification, you realized ‘awareness’ is just a label point to these manifestations. So there is nothing wrong saying that. Only when we treat awareness to be of true existence then we are deluded, because there isn't any. In hearing, there is only sound. Hearing implies the presence of sound”.

Daniel Ingram (2009) – Rigpa and the aggregates: “Assume something really simple about sensations and awareness: they are exactly the same. In fact, make it simpler: there are sensations, and this includes all sensations that make up space, thought, image, body, anything you can imagine being mind, and all qualities that are experienced, meaning the sum total of the world”.

“In this very simple framework, Rigpa is all sensations, but there can be this subtle attachment and lack of investigation when high terms are used that we want there to be this Super-Rigpa, this awareness that is other. You mention that you feel there is a larger awareness, an awareness that is not just there the limits of your senses. I would claim otherwise: that the whole sensate universe by definition can't arise without the quality of awareness by definition, and so some very subtle sensations are tricking you into thinking they are bigger than the rest of the sensate field and are actually the awareness that is aware of other sensations”.

“Awareness is simply manifestation. All sensations are simply present”.

“Thus, be wary of anything that wants to be a Super-Awareness, a Rigpa that is larger than everything else, as it can't be, by definition. Investigate at the level of bare sensate experience just what arises and see that it can't possibly be different from awareness, as this is actually an extraneous concept and there are actually just sensations as the first and final basis of reality”.

“As you like the Tibetan stuff, and to quote Padmasambhava in the root text of the book The Light of Wisdom”:

‘The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity. It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates, nor as identical with these five aggregates. If the first were true, there would exist some other substance. This is not the case, so were the second true, that would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent. Therefore, based on the five aggregates, The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging. As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent. The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny’.

“I really found this little block of tight philosophy helpful. It is also very vipassana at its core, but it is no surprise the wisdom traditions converge. Thus, if you want to crack the nut, notice that everything is 5 aggregates, including everything you think is super-awareness, and be less concerned with what every little type of consciousness is than with just perceiving them directly and noticing the gaps that section off this from that, such as rigpa from thought stream, or awareness from sensations, as these are golden chains”. 

 
John Tan - Two major causes that gave rise to such phenomena like awareness as an observer and nondual awareness: “With the arising insight of Anatta, self is seen through. A new mode of perception arises, a mode of perception that pierces through reification. Does this sound like the practitioner has now acquired ‘a new mode of perception’, as if a third eye suddenly appears in between the eyebrows? In truth nothing new has arisen; contrary it is a process of elimination. What eliminated is the habitual tendency to ‘reify’. Now using the same analogy, let’s look at ‘nondual’? It will be helpful to understand the 2 major causes that gave rise to such phenomena like awareness as an observer and nondual awareness. They are: (1) one's ability to suspense ‘conceptualization’; (2) habitual tendencies to ‘reify’ and ‘dualify’”.

“Without conceptualization experience becomes direct, clean, clear, vivid, crystal, brilliance and transparent. Without the layer of conceptualization, there is no layer that separates observer from the observed. If there is no insight that all along the subject-object division is assumed, then ‘nondual’ becomes a state and there is oscillation between duality and non-duality. If there is realization of the emptiness of the ‘division’, then experiences turn effortlessly nondual”. 

“How does ‘nondual awareness’ arise? It is the continuation of the habitual tendency to reify that objectifies the ‘clean, clear, vivid, crystal, brilliance and transparent’ state of experience that is free from duality into nondual awareness. This also means that latent tendencies lie far deeper than surface conceptualization, mere cessation of conceptual thoughts is unable to overcome these tendencies”.

John Tan (2010) – When an experience of intense luminosity happens, the bodymind will not rest in great content but get more attached to a nondual ultimate luminous state. For the mind to rest, it must have an experience of ‘great dissolve’ that whatever arises perpetually self-liberates: “We cannot get carried away by all these blissful experiences. Blissfulness is the result of luminosity whereas liberation is due to prajna wisdom. For intense luminosity in the foreground, you will not only have vivid experience of ‘brilliant aliveness’, ‘you’ must also completely disappear. It is an experience of being totally ‘transparent’ and without boundaries. These experiences are quite obvious, you will not miss it. However the bodymind will not rest in great content due to an experience of intense luminosity. Contrary it can make a practitioner more attached to a nondual ultimate luminous state”.

“For the mind to rest, it must have an experience of ‘great dissolve’ that whatever arises perpetually self-liberates. It is not about phenomena dissolving into some great void but it is the empty nature of whatever arises that self-liberates. It is the direct experience of groundlessness and non-abiding due to direct insight of the empty nature of phenomena and that includes the nondual luminous essence”.

“Therefore In addition to bringing this ‘taste’ to the foreground, you must also ‘realize’ the difference between wrong and right view. There is also a difference in saying ‘Different forms of Aliveness’ and ‘There is just breath, sound, scenery...magical display that is utterly unfindable, ungraspable and without essence empty’”.

“In the former case, realize how the mind is manifesting a subtle tendency of attempting to ‘pin’ and locate something that inherently exists. The mind feels uneasy and needs to seek for something due to its existing paradigm. It is not simply a matter of expression for communication sake but a habit that runs deep because it lacks a ‘view’ that is able to cater for reality that is dynamic, ungraspable, nonlocal, centerless and interdependent”.

“After direct realization of the nondual essence and empty nature, the mind can then have a direct glimpse of what is meant by being ‘natural’, otherwise there will always be a ‘sense of contrivance’”.

Soh Wei Yu - Different trigger points for Anatta: “So far, many people who came across our group and blog has realized Anatta. I estimate about 40 people. So I have collected some of their writings and even requested some to write a little. From all these cases, you can see that some of them have slightly different trigger points. You can look into them and see what is their inquiry and contemplations that triggered the shift of insight for me. 


- For me (Soh), it was slightly different, although not all that different, it was through contemplating on Bahiya Sutta to penetrate the subject-action-object dichotomy http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/10/my-commentary-on-bahiya-sutta.html , https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-wind-isblowing.html 


- For Soto Zen priest and teacher Alex R. Weith, it was through Bahiya Sutta http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/10/a-zen-exploration-of-bahiya-sutta.html 

- For Robert Dominik too there was a series of contemplations and inquiries http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2019/09/robert-dominiks-break-through.html 

- For Joel Agee, reading a verse on Dzogchen triggered the insight https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2013/09/joel-agee-appearances-are-self_1.html  

- For TD Unmanifest, it was the two nondual contemplations in the AtR Guide and Zen Master Dogen's Uji that led to his insights http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2020/07/breakthroughs-to-anatta.html 

- I think you will like the approach of Kyle Dixon, because he approaches deconstruction and contemplation from many angles even quite early on, not just from the aspect of Anatta, which is why he penetrated into twofold emptiness pretty quickly, so, highly recommended reading http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2012/03/a-sun-that-never-sets.html and https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2014/10/advise-from-kyle_10.html   You can see that he actually also integrated a little bit of his insights from Madhyamika, DP, J. Krishnamurti, Alan Watts etc along with AtR, Dzogchen, all into it.

Kyle Dixon is very clear about view and realization and experience are clear. He practices Dzogchen and his teacher Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith is also clear. Might want to read this on Madhyamika, will help: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2020/06/choosing.html  and https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2019/10/investigation-into-movement.html 

The 90 Days Cycle 

Soh Wei Yu: “John Tan often cautioned about the 90 day cycle to those who just had a breakthrough awakening into no-self. This refers to the intense nondual luminous clarity and bliss that occurs for a period of 90 days after the initial breakthrough of some insights into no-self (could be phase 4 or phase 5 insight), only for it to become dull as karmic (deep conditioning) propensities return. Only after some periods of practice and deepening of insights does the experience become stabilized. The purpose of cautioning is so that one does not prematurely think that the experience has stabilized, and one should not be disheartened when some dullness or karmic propensities creep back. Simply continue practicing diligently and mature one’s insights even further”.

John Tan explained to someone: “There is a sudden realization of non-duality. Then you will be in a stage of probably 60 to 90 days of bliss, of joy, or rapture. These things will happen first. Then, you will suddenly feel {inaudible} the momentum is coming to work. Now, this sudden {inaudible} of non-duality or the experience of non-duality will come again probably in {inaudible} even with practice. Because it will not just stop, but it will not just continuously surface. I mean it will continue to surface, but it will take place with the momentum, that you feel a bit confused. Can you get what I mean? But, if after certain time about 2, 3 years of continuous practice and continuous experiencing it becomes stabilized. Then it becomes very clear. Then the experience of transparency will {inaudible}. And when you experience, a person will feel radiance bright. Means when you see him, you will find radiance bright, you know? Because once a person experience non-duality, there is no holding, there is just luminosity. There is just a pure sense of existence, of clarity, of all things. Somehow, there is an utmost joy and energy that flows from everywhere, that sustains a person. This is its nature”.

John Tan: “Most intense is Anatta, explosion of luminous intensity into 3 states (waking, dreaming, deep sleep) into meditative experiences into 3 states and several episodes of dreams of clarity … but even then never went beyond 90 days cycle… that’s why I tell you always wait for 90 days cycle.” 

John Tan (2017): “In the 90 days cycle, different experiences can manifest depending on the depth of intensities. It is also best and easiest to witness all sort of phenomena in the first 90 days cycle commonly described as intense meditative experiences. This is due to the powerful momentum from the breakthrough of insight at that moment. If he has strong base of meditation previously, the effect is sort of ‘multiplied’”.

“The first factor is the willingness to let go. Surrendering is thorough. The release is thorough. Therefore, second factor is energy release. There is tremendous energy that is previously held up and tied up in preserving the ‘I’ is now released. The mind and body constructs dropped and practitioner feels ‘light’. Fearlessness is third factor. The intensity of clarity due to directness of perception is fourth factor. All these factors serve as the conditions that intensify the 6 entries and exits”. 

“Whether energy turn oceanic-wave like pattern or sensations turns crystal and transparent is experienced or surrendering leading to mind state ceased, they are all A&P. Test is whether the factors can penetrate into the 3 states and whether unconscious dreams manifest karmic tendencies or dreams of clarity or dreamless clarity. Also diet is an important factor that is often overlooked. Anyway we are not teachers, so don’t anyhow advice and mislead”.

Seven Factors of Enlightenment

John Tan (2007): “I read a post saying that after sometime, enlightenment becomes dull. And this is true until a form is emptiness is clearly experienced. Forgotten. It becomes dull because Isness, the clarity and intensity of no-self, nondual oneness cannot be experienced. If there is clarity, spontaneity and aliveness, how can there be dullness? Bear this in mind and relate it to the seven factors of enlightenment”.

“In addition to deepening one's insights, which is very important, all seven factors of enlightenment must be present with nondual insight so that one can overcome our karmic (deep conditioning) momentum. So we should continue practicing diligently”.

“…When we practice, we are not practicing to attain the ultimate. There is nothing to attain. We only attempt to create conditions to experience certain aspect of our pristine awareness. When we put attention into mindfulness, into 'bare' attention. 'Seeing' bare, we actually give up other aspect of our pristine awareness. That is the effortless spontaneity. So when someone teaches mindfulness, he said put in effort to be bare in attention....he is not wrong. When someone said no no no, gentle effort in being mindfulness and be bare in attention, he is also not wrong. For all these paths are truly pathless. One that thinks he knows what is pathless doesn't really know. He thinks effortless is doing nothing, laze around, and when he act, he thought that is effort. It is a misunderstanding of a dualistic mind”.

Soh Wei Yu: “How do we develop the 7 factors of enlightenment? Through the practice of the four foundations of mindfulness, which the Buddha said was the only way to liberation. He also assures that practitioners developing the four foundations of mindfulness can expect to attain the high levels of awakening such as Non-Returner or Arahantship in 7 years or as little as 7 days. So check out Satipatthana Sutta https://plumvillage.org/sutra/discourseonthefourestablishmentsofmindfulness/ and also the Anapanasati Sutta https://plumvillage.org/sutra/discourseonthefullawarenessofbreathing/. Anapanasati – Mindfulness of Breathing – is recommendable and in it the Buddha taught that it develops the four foundations of mindfulness which in turn develops the seven factors of awakening”.

Pitfalls and Dangers of One Mind

Soh Wei Yu: “At the One Mind phase, there is still the reification of an unchanging consciousness, and for some an unchanging and universal consciousness. The pitfalls of the One Mind phase can also be present in the I Am phase, as explained in the chapter on reifying Host and Guest. In One Mind, the Host is now seen to subsume all Guests and be inseparable with them, instead of being absolutely distinct and separate from them as in the I AM phase, however the Host is still as Absolute and Unchanging”.

John Tan (2009):  “Phase 4 is the beginning of seeing through no-self. Insight into no-self has arisen but nondual experience is still very much 'Brahman' rather than 'Sunyata'; in fact it is more Brahman than ever. Now ‘I AMness’ is experienced in All. Nevertheless it is a very important key phase where the practitioner experiences a quantum leap in perception untying the dualistic knot. This is also the key insight leading to the realization that ‘All is Mind’, all is just this One Reality. The tendency to extrapolate an Ultimate Reality or Universal Consciousness where we are part of this Reality remains surprisingly strong. Effectively the dualistic knot is gone but the bond of seeing things inherently isn't. 'Dualistic' and 'inherent' knots that prevent the full experiencing of our Maha, empty and nondual nature of pristine awareness are two very different 'perceptual spells' that blind. The subsection ‘On Second Stanza’ of the post ‘On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection’ further elaborates this insight”. http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html 

Alex R. Weith (Soto Zen teacher): “Having got hold of the ox, one has realized the One Mind. In Zen literature this One Mind has often been compared to a bright mirror that reflects phenomena and yet remains untouched by appearances. As discussed with one of Sheng-Yen's first Western students, this One Mind is still an illusion. One is not anymore identified to the self-center, ego and personality, yet one (the man) is still holding to pure nondual awareness (the ox). Having tamed the ox, the ox-herder must let go of the ox (ox forgotten) and then forget himself and the ox (ox and man forgotten)”.

“The problem is that we still maintain a subtle duality between what we know ourself to be, a pure nondual awareness that is not a thing, and our daily existence often marked by self-contractions. Hoping to get more and more identified with pure nondual awareness, we may train concentration, try to hold on to the event of awakening reifying an experience, or rationalize the whole thing to conclude that self-contraction is not a problem and that suffering is not suffering because our true nature is ultimately beyond suffering. This explains why I got stuck in what Zen calls ‘stagnating waters’ for about a year”.

“This is however not seen as a problem in other traditions such as Advaita Vedanta where the One Mind is identified with the Brahman that contains and manifests the three states of waking, dreaming and deep sleep within itself, yet remains untouched by its dreamlike manifestation”.

Soh Wei Yu: “I have seen many Buddhist teachers reify I AM, many reify One Mind, while some have realized Anatta and Emptiness. By the way, it is not necessary to get stuck with a belief in universal consciousness to get stuck at I AM or One Mind. Even non Buddhist systems like Samkhya is about I AM but each I AM is individual. And as I wrote in AtR Guide, there are different phases of I AM. Those who gone through impersonality are more prone to reifying the universal, until insight into Anatta arise at least”.

“I have seen many Theravadin, Zen and Tibetan masters and teachers reify universal awareness. I reckon so many Chan/Zen teachers conceive a universal consciousness partly due to doctrinal influence. For example the ‘The Awakening of Faith in Mahayana’ of Ashvagosha talks about One Mind and that text has been criticized by Lopon Malcolm to be holding a view similar to Advaita Vedanta. But this text is usually taken as authoritative in Chinese Buddhism, and even Huang Po talks about One Mind in a way that sounds like that or is often interpreted that way, e.g. ‘All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but the One Mind, beside which nothing exists. The One Mind alone is the Buddha, and there is no distinction between the Buddha and sentient beings’”. 

“Of course, there are those like Dogen that reinterprets One Mind in a way that makes it congruent with Anatta. And Soto Zen masters like Steve Hagen are very clear about Anatta, his use of the term is congruent with Anatta, ‘This Mind is nothing other than the Whole. It's simply thus, the fabric of the world itself the ongoing arising and falling away that are matter, energy and events’. But that is not the case for most”.

“In Tibetan Buddhism side, I have seen a few masters (although more infrequently than Chinese Buddhism) elude to universal awareness, but generally even if they do not, they often still reify an unchanging awareness that is one’s innermost essence. Meaning I AM is reified like an unchanging background of pure awareness, or one mind subsuming all phenomena. The sky and clouds, mirror and reflections that AtR talks about in the One Mind chapter often gets reified, that is very common. I have seen many Tibetan books just talking about I AM, some one mind, etc. It is rare even in Tibetan Buddhism today (but this applies to any tradition) to break through to no mirror and Anatta and Emptiness, but as I mentioned there are some”. 

“As for Thai Forest Theravada, as I mentioned many get stuck at Poo Roo (Witness), and one master that broke through that got stuck at One Mind. It is very common in awareness teachings to get stuck there. Therefore, the Thusness 7 stages can help and do apply to all traditions, whatever tradition one is following so that one has a clearer direction and can avoid the pitfalls”.
  
Stage 5 -  No Mirror Reflecting

The Realization 

What No Mirror Reflecting Means: No subject/object division, no doer-ship and absence of agent. The direct and thorough seeing that 'the mirror is nothing more than an arising thought'. With this, the solidity and all the grandeur of 'Brahman' go down the drain ... The need to reify a Universal Brahman is understood as the karmic tendency to 'solidify' experiences … Yet it feels perfectly right and liberating without the agent, and being simply as an arising thought or as a vivid moment. All the vividness and presence remains, with an additional sense of freedom. Here a mirror/reflection union is clearly understood as flawed, there is only vivid reflection. There cannot be a 'union' if there isn't a subject to begin with. It is only in subtle recalling, that is in a thought recalling a previous moment of thought, that the watcher seems to exist … This phase is a very thorough non-dual experience; there is effortlessness in the non-dual … (many cycles of refining our insights are needed to make the nondual less 'concentrative' and more 'effortless') … and one realizes that in seeing there is always just scenery and in hearing, always just sounds. We find true delights in naturalness and ordinariness as commonly expressed in Zen as 'chop wood, carry water; spring comes, grass grows'. Non-dual is ordinary as there is no 'beyond' stage to arrive at. It appears to be extraordinary and grandeur only as an afterthought due to comparison.

A general remark: Anatta is a key insight for liberation. Why is this so? Because as Buddha taught, Appropriated Aggregates are Suffering  which means all aggregates tainted with I-making and mine-making are suffering. There can be no liberation from suffering without realizing and actualizing anatta. This is why of the 7 Stages of Thusness, only stage 5 onwards are considered the key important insights of Buddhism. Stages before Stage 5 are in fact not considered ‘Buddhist enlightenment’ and can be found in other religions.

John Tan: The dharma seal of Anatta. This "Originally there never was any 'I' " is wisdom and the dharma seal of Anatta. It is neither an art like an artist in zone where self is dissolved into the flow of action nor is it a state to be achieved in the case of the taoist "坐忘" (sit and forget) a state of no-mind. For example in cooking, there is no self that cooks, only the activity of cooking. The hands moves, the utensils act, the water boils, the potatoes peel and the universe sings together in the act of cooking. Whether one appears clumsy or smooth in act of cooking doesn't matter and when the dishes are out, they may still taste horrible; still there never was any 'I' in any moment of the activity. There is no entry or exit point in the wisdom of anatta.”

John Tan: No mirror reflecting, manifestation alone IS. But what exactly is this “witness” we are talking about? It is the manifestation itself! It is the appearance itself! There is no Source to fall back, the Appearance is the Source! Including the moment to moment of thoughts. The problem is we choose, but all is really it. There is nothing to choose. There is no mirror reflecting Manifestation alone IS. From blinking your eyes, raising a hand...jumps...flowers, sky, chirping birds, footsteps...every single moment...nothing is not it! There is just IT. The instantaneous moment is total intelligence, total life, total clarity. Everything Knows, it's it. There is no two, there is one.

John Tan: Stage 5 is the beginning  of Buddhism. In Buddhism, insight is to see, penetrate and investigate and become thoroughly clear that the idea of a source, an essence is unnecessary. Once you experience and arise the insight of Anatta, you begin open to happening without source, without the need of an essence. This is then the beginning of Buddhism. 

John Tan: Replacing the Self in Hinduism with Conditioned Arising. Buddhism is nothing but replacing the 'Self' in Hinduism with Condition Arising. Keep the clarity, the presence, the luminosity and eliminate the ultimate 'Self', the controller, the supreme. Still you must taste, sense, eat, hear and see Pure Awareness in every authentication. And every authentication is Bliss.

John Tan: Impersonality and Anatta. The doing away of the ego is Impersonality (remember the four aspects of I AM). Doing away with the I AM is Anatta. 

John Tan: Anatta and Effortlessness. Insight that 'anatta' is a seal -and not a stage- must arise to further progress into the 'effortless' mode. That is, anatta is the ground of all experiences and has always been so, no I. In seeing, always only seen, in hearing always only sound and in thinking, always only thoughts. No effort required and never was there an 'I'.

John Tan: True delight in naturalness and ordinariness. This phase is a very thorough nondual experience; there is effortlessness in the nondual and one realizes that in seeing there is always just scenery and in hearing, always just sounds. We find true delight in naturalness and ordinariness as commonly expressed in Zen as 'chop wood, carry water; spring comes, grass grows'.

John Tan: Phase 4 vs Phase 5. Phase 4 is the dissolution of subject/object division. Phase 5 onwards is the dissolution of inherent tendency. But not denying clarity. Rather it is the full, complete, effortless expression of empty clarity. Or experience in its total and natural state… which is nondual, insubstantial and natural.

Soh Wei Yu: Stage 4 vs Stage 5. Basically the difference between Thusness Stage 4 and Stage 5 is that in Stage 4, there is the view that awareness is the unchanging substance that can only experience itself in various forms and modulations. Stage 5 is the realization that like lightning and flash (no lightning ever existed besides flash), wind and blowing (there is no wind besides blowing), there is simply no awareness besides manifestation, no seer-seeing-seen, agent-action dichotomy.. then from there one replaces one's view of a source, substratum, substance, and continue to penetrate into D.O., total exertion and emptiness.

For Stage 5, you must see the no-agent, not only no-division

Soh Wei Yu (2010): What's the difference between stages 4 and 5 other than stabilizing non dual?

John Tan: Because you have not experienced non-division, so you do not know what is non-division, what is no-doership and what is no-agent in experience, and it is difficult to know what is that 'marks' that prevent the experience of spontaneity. There is a difference seeing thinker/thoughts as one and hearer/sound as one…. then sound is awareness, no hearer. Stage 4 is more like hearer/sound as one, that is why I said 'one thought, then another thought'. Just like you, you said you feel like an open space. Then you hear sound, sound and awareness seem to be one. Indistinguishable, but you cannot have that experience that there is only sound. Only in logic you have, but not in experience. Until one day you mature that experience.

John Tan: It's difficult to see Anatta. You must see the no-agent, not only no-division ... If you ask non-dualists, they will not realise that they are an arising thought. They will feel damn ultimate. They see self, not events, process phenomena. They see Brahman, not Sunyata. Even when the experiences are very similar, the insight has not matured into Anatta. Like Shingon sort of practice, the experience can be said to be Maha like, but it is not the Maha sort of experience I am talking about. it is oneness sort of experience, but it is a stage. What I said is: oneness is always there when one realises that presence is always a manifestation and full embodiment of interconnectedness. No effort needs to be done to induce a maha experience.

Stage 5, Spaciousness and Emptiness

Not to be fixated but also not to objectify the “spaciousness”,  otherwise “spaciousness” is no less fixated. The ‘space’ appears appealing only to a mind that abstracts but to a fully participating and involving mind, such “spaciousness” immediately sets itself apart, distancing itself from inseparable. 

Emptiness is never a behind background, but a fully partaking foreground manifesting as the arising and passing phenomena absence of a center. 

Therefore understand ‘spaciousness’ not like sky but like passing clouds and flowing water, manifesting whenever condition is. If ‘Emptiness’ has made us more fixated and immobilized this innate freedom of our non-dual luminosity, then it is ‘stubborn emptiness’.

The quality of spaciousness is important even in Stage 5, but is experienced and realized to be a fully participating foreground and total exertion of a boundless and immense universe, with no trace of spaciousness being reified as an ultimate background or even a container subsuming all else as ‘mere contents of the Absolute’ (One Mind). 

Hence John Tan’s advise to be “as light as a feather, as immense as the universe”, the lightness being the energetic quality of total mind-body relaxation and release from self in all aspects, and not overly contrived and overfocused with an obsessive intent to experience more, but a natural and spontaneous presencing of the manifold. 

In short, without contrived overfocus, there is a natural spaciousness that is the immensity of the luminous and boundless world in total exertion, not in anyway absolutized and aggrandised into a metaphysical substratum.

Soh Wei Yu: Glimpses of experience but lacking the direct realization. Phase 5 onwards are the crucial elements of the Buddhist form of enlightenment. It should be noted that it is possible to have peak experiences of no-mind (sense of a self temporarily dissolve, leaving merely the vivid colors/forms/sounds/sensations) but not having the direct realization of anatta as a dharma seal (characteristic of mind/phenomena/experience) as being always already so. This is similar to having a glimpse of recognition or experience of I AM and yet lacking direct realization of I AM as stated in Stage 1. A similar thing can happen for Stage 5, or Stage 6 having glimpses of experiences similar to Stage 5 and 6, but lacking the direct realization that is the defining criteria for having realized the insights of these phases.

John Tan: There is no neutral state to hold on to. The basic nature has no nature. To negate the "inherentness" of nature is to directly see and taste the dynamism of one's empty clarity. To negate "color" as "no color" is to see and experience the rainbow of colours. There is no neutral state to hold on to, the neutral state is a state fabricated by the conceptual mind as that is the further it can go conceptually. If one tries to maintain a state of "neutrality" of neither this nor that, then he will be imobilized therefore no "no color". To be free is to fully open to whatever is, for whatever appears is just one's radiance clarity. Therefore anatta is a crucial experiential taste and insight.

Soh Wei Yu: 'Consciousness' is just the mere event and manifestation happening or dependently originating without agent. Anatta is the realisation that there never was a truly existing mind/Mind/Awareness/Brahman/Presence/Ultimate-Reality etc. Mind, Awareness, Seeing, etc, all these are just conventions for the ongoing appearance. There is simply no seer-seeing-seen. Having such a realization, one simply stops projecting an ultimate substance or substratum. 

I remember right after Anatta, it was a very obvious shift. I no longer see consciousness as a 'substance' holding all appearances. Rather 'consciousness' is just the mere event and manifestation happening or dependently originating without agent, there isn't even a single thought about 'consciousness', just the self-luminous event/manifestation happening or gaplessly and nondually appearing at no distance, that's all. 

No self/Self or static source and substratum or reality underlying all. Completely dynamic and centerless and boundless and seamless beyond/free of the threefold structures of subject-action-object, seer-seeing-seen. Even the notion that 'consciousness is modulating as everything' falls apart. 

Dependent origination and emptiness is then another leap that liberates the 'foreground'.

John Tan: Using DO to refine the experience of Anatta. It is very difficult to move from substantialist nondual to Anatta. Even after arising insight of Anatta, there is still this problem. Very often you need to have clarity in DO to rid it... that is using DO to refine the experience of Anatta. So when a person undergoes awareness practice until a certain phase (non-dual), it is very very important to keep instilling the right view, keep breaking the essence. For this, a certain amount of faith in the teacher is very important. Otherwise one will not be able to progress to the next phase. 

Even if you have undergone the experience (experience of Anatta like a glimpse of No Mind experience), you will not be able to realize Anatta, until practitioners realized that it is not necessary to have 'essence' at all... It is just simply a distorted view ... There must be willingness to let go of the 'wrong view' entirely, then with the experience of No-Mind and realization, the adoption of the view carries you... until you perfect the experience. Then the doubts are completely gone. Your entire experience transcend the entire idea of 'essence'. The center is completely gone... just flat, disjoint, unsupported, dimensionless and pure experience, manifested as whatever arises. 

Kyle Dixon: A substantial background substrate is an afflictive byproduct of delusion. Take the Advaitan who takes the passive knowing witness to be an ultimately substantial background substrate. That apparent attribute is assumed to be an unerring and unassailable characteristic of consciousness, and said practitioner will use that characteristic as an anchor in their practice, which will then be refined into its purest form as what the Advaitan considers to be their ultimate purusa. 

For Buddhists, that same characteristic (revered by the Advaitan) is considered to be an afflictive byproduct of delusion. It is seen as faulty, ultimately erroneous and an obscuration. Jigme Lingpa, for example, states that those who mistake that substrate and its strata as definitive and something to be cultivated are "like blind men wandering in the desert without a guide".

A mirror is not feeling the reflection 

John Tan: When you say mind/clarity and sound/phenomenon...why mirror and reflection is a bad analogy?

Soh Wei Yu: Because it can be mistaken as an inherent mirror reflecting inherent objects.

John Tan: Because a mirror is not feeling the reflection. Is awareness like that? hearing sound, there is just sound... the whole of sound... fully experienced... It is always the reflection. Fully felt and tasted... Separation is simply a mistaken view. So how can a mirror be a good example ... Instead it is misleading people turning away from realising what exactly is clarity. 

What actually one wants to emphasize is the non-arisen unborn nature of sound... instead we created a mirror and mislead people to look at the mirror and neglect the reflection. Distancing further from directly and effortlessly experiencing what we called "awareness" and also misleading people from see non-arisen from DO view.

The issue about a mirror is always it gives people a sense of something is beyond. Instead of bringing people into the relative, conventional, day to day. Seeing the nature of the relative and conventional is the key and is where profound insights and wisdom lie.

Kyle Dixon: Self is inferred, a tool for engaging with and navigating experience. There is ultimately no separate self as an entity which possesses those personality traits. The self is a mere construct which is only those traits, and so on. In actuality however, those traits do not truly construct an entity. The entity or self is inferred, and we use that inference as a tool for engaging with and navigating experience, but we mistake that inference to be a referent, meaning we become entrenched in the nexus of conditions and come to view the self as an inherently real entity. 

The actual meaning of selflessness in these teachings revolves around the non-conceptual, direct realization that there in fact is no inherent self, or any self at all for that matter. This results from recognizing that there is no thinker of thought, no separate feeler of feelings, no seer of sights, no hearer of sound, and so on.

Selflessness means there is ultimately no actual subject, which means there is no actual internal reference point that is apprehending sensory phenomena. 

Bahiya Sutta

Buddha's words: “Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: in the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized. Practising in this way, Bāhiya, you will not be 'because of that' (because of any sensory experience). When you are not 'because of that', you will not be 'in that'. And when you are not 'in that', you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering”.

AtR's recap: “There is thinking, no thinker. There is hearing, no hearer. There is seeing, no seer. In thinking, just thoughts. In hearing, just sounds. In seeing, just forms, shapes and colors”. 

Leigh Brasington: Why did the Buddha give this particular instruction to Bahiya? The bark cloth clothing marked him as a serious student of the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad; thus he would be familiar with the teaching found there: "The unseen seer, the unheard hearer, the unthought thinker, the uncognized cognizer... There is no other seer but he, no other hearer, no other thinker, no other cognizer. This is thy self, the inner controller, the immortal...." (Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 3.7.23) 

Bahiya would also be familiar with "... that imperishable is the unseen seer, the unheard hearer, the unthought thinker, the ununderstood understander. Other than it there is naught that sees. Other than it there is naught that hears. Other than it there is naught that thinks. Other than it there is naught that understands...." (Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 3.8.11) 

Ajahn Brahmavamso: What the Buddha meant. When the sensory processes are discarded as tenable evidence for a self, a soul or a me, then you are no longer located in the sensory experience. In the Buddha's words, "You will not be 'in that'". You no longer view, perceive or even think that there is a 'me' involved in life.

Just to close off the loophole that you might think you can escape nonexistence of a self or soul by identifying with a transcendental state of being beyond what is seen, heard, sensed or cognized, the Buddha thunders, "and you will be neither here (with the seen, heard, sensed or cognized) nor beyond (outside of the seen, heard, sensed or cognized) nor in between the two (neither of the world nor beyond the world).

The Third Gyalwa Karmapa: The Aspiration Prayer of Mahamudra 

... All phenomena are illusory displays of mind. 
Mind is no mind -the mind's nature is empty of any entity that is mind .
Being empty, it is unceasing and unimpeded, 
manifesting as everything whatsoever. 

Examining well, may all doubts about the ground be discerned and cut. 
Naturally manifesting appearances, that never truly exist, are confused into objects. 
Spontaneous intelligence, under the power of ignorance, is confused into a self. 
By the power of this dualistic fixation, beings wander in the realms of samsaric existence. 

May ignorance, the root of confusion, he discovered and cut. 
It is not existent -even the Victorious Ones do not see it. 
It is not non-existent -it is the basis of all samsara and nirvana. 
This is not a contradiction, but the middle path of unity. 

May the ultimate nature of phenomena, limitless mind beyond extremes, be realised. 
If one says, "This is it," there is nothing to show. 
If one says, "This is not it," there is nothing to deny. 
The true nature of phenomena, which transcends conceptual understanding, is unconditioned.

May conviction he gained in the ultimate, perfect truth. 
Not realising it, one circles in the ocean of samsara. 
If it is realised, buddha is not anything other. 
It is completely devoid of any "This is it," or "This is not it." 

May this simple secret, this ultimate essence of phenomena, which is the basis of everything, be realised. 
Appearance is mind and emptiness is mind. 
Realisation is mind and confusion is mind. 
Arising is mind and cessation is mind. 

May all doubts about mind be resolved. 
Not adulterating meditation with conceptual striving or mentally created meditation, Unmoved by the winds of everyday busyness, Knowing how to rest in the uncontrived, natural spontaneous flow.

May the practice of resting in mind's true nature be skilfully sustained.
The waves of subtle and coarse thoughts calm down by themselves in their own place, and the unmoving waters of mind rest naturally, free from dullness, torpor, and, murkiness.

May the ocean of shamatha be unmoving and stable. 
Looking again and again at the mind which cannot be looked at, The meaning which cannot be seen is vividly seen, just as it is. Thus cutting doubts about how it is or is not. 

May the unconfused genuine self-nature be known by self-nature itself. 
Looking at objects, the mind devoid of objects is seen; 
Looking at mind, its empty nature devoid of mind is seen; 
Looking at both of these, dualistic clinging is selfliberated. 

May the nature of mind, the clear light nature of what is, be realised.
Free from mental fabrication, it is the great seal, mahamudra. 
Free from extremes, it is the great middle way, madhyamika. 
The consummation of everything, it is also called the great perfection, dzogchen. 

May there be confidence that by understanding one, the essential meaning of all is realised. 
Great bliss free from attachment is unceasing. 
Luminosity free from fixation on characteristics is unobscured.
Non-thought transcending conceptual mind is spontaneous presence.


John Tan: Post-Anatta, mind and phenomena are indistinguishable. In Zen, though they say there is 'no mind', they in fact embrace mind more fully than 'all is mind', until no trace of mind can be detected. Yet, Ven. Sheng Yen said this is just the entry point of zen because originally there is no mind and this is clearly realized in Anatta. So post Anatta, mind and phenomena are completely indistinguishable. If both mind and phenomena are completely indistinguishable in experience, then distinctions are nothing more than conventional designation of empty luminous display. 

Emptiness of Emptiness: Nagarjuna’s fundamental ontology paradox 

Since all things are empty, all things lack any ultimate nature, and this is a characterization of what things are like from the ultimate perspective. Thus, ultimately, things are empty. 

But emptiness is, by definition, the lack of any essence or ultimate nature. Nature, or essence, is just what empty things are empty of. Hence, ultimately, things must lack emptiness. To be ultimately empty is, ultimately, to lack emptiness. 

In other words, emptiness is the nature of all things; by virtue of this they have no nature, not even emptiness. As Nagarjuna puts it in his autocommentary to the Vigrahavyavartanı, quoting lines from the Astasahasrikaprajnaparamitasutra: ‘‘All things have one nature, that is, no nature.’’ 

Nagarjuna’s enterprise is one of fundamental ontology, and the conclusion he comes to is that fundamental ontology is impossible. But that is a fundamentally ontological conclusion—and that is the paradox. 

There is no way that things are ultimately, not even that way. The IndoTibetan tradition, following the Vimalakırtinirdesasutra, hence repeatedly advises one to learn to ‘‘tolerate the groundlessness of things.’’ 

The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and, in the end, that it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things, and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath these deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we take there to be ontological depths lurking just beneath.

(excerpt from Jay Garfield's "Nagarjuna and the limits of thought")

John Tan: I really like this article from Jay Garfield expressing 'emptiness of emptiness' as: (1) The everydayness of everyday; (2) Penetrating to the depth of being, we find ourselves back to the surface of things; (3) There is nothing after all beneath these deceptive surfaces. Also, he concisely and precisely expressed the key insight of Anatta in AtR.

Loppon Namdrol/Malcolm: No apophatic absolute. Buddhism is all its forms is strictly nominalist, and rejects all universals (samanyaartha) as being unreal abstractions. If you imagine there is really some transpersonal overmind, you are far outside the Buddha's teachings. The difference between Buddhism and K. Shaivism (but not the only difference) is that in Dharma there is no apophatic absolute. This kind of absolute is completely absent in Buddhadharma, despite the fact that many people import their absolutist and theistic misconceptions into their understanding of Dharma. 

Ted Biringer: To say that Zen is somehow mysterious, ineffable or inexpressible is simply off the mark. True nature, according to the classic Zen records is ever and always immediately present, particular, and precise. Notions or assertions suggesting that Zen is somehow mysterious, ineffable, or inexpressible are simply off the mark. The only place such terms can be accurately applied in Zen is to definite mysteries, particular unknowns, and specific inexpressible experiences. Indeed, in Zen, the terms definite, particular, and specific accurately characterize all dharmas. Dogen’s refrain, ‘Nothing in the whole universe is concealed’ means exactly what it says; no reality is the least bit obscure or vague.

John Tan: What Isness is. It is extremely difficult to express what ‘Isness’ is. Isness is awareness as forms. It is a pure sense of presence yet encompassing the ‘transparent concreteness’ of forms. There is a crystal clear sensations of awareness manifesting as the manifold of phenomenal existence. If we are vague in the experiencing of this ‘transparent concreteness’ of Isness, it is always due to that ‘sense of self’ creating the sense of division… ...you must stress the ‘form’ part of awareness. It is the ‘forms’, it is the ‘things’.

John Tan: Impermanent and dynamic aspect of Isness presence. Thoughts, feelings and perceptions come and go; they are not ‘me’; they are transient in nature. Isn’t it clear that if I am aware of these passing thoughts, feelings and perceptions, then it proves some entity is immutable and unchanging? This is a logical conclusion rather than experiential truth. The formless reality seems real and unchanging because of propensities (conditioning) and the power to recall a previous experience and the experience of ‘impersonality’ may not be able to bring sufficient clarity to the ‘impermanent and dynamic’ aspect of isness presence. The bliss and peace experienced here, is still the bliss of formlessness. 

There is also another experience, this experience does not discard or disown the transients forms, thoughts, feelings and perceptions. It is the experience that thought thinks and sound hears. Thought knows not because there is a separate knower but because it is that which is known. It knows because it's it. It gives rise to the insight that isness never exists in an undifferentiated state but as transient manifestation; each moment of manifestation is an entirely new reality, complete in its own. This brings about the insight of nonduality but the experience of impersonality need not necessarily arise. 

My experience is fusing and stabilizing these 2 experiences are necessary to help further dissolve the ‘I’. With the dropping of the 'I' , experience wholeheartedly and dropped the experience immediately; then nothing will imobilize the flow.

The Transience 

The arising and ceasing is called the Transience, 
Is self luminous and self perfected from beginning. 
However due to the karmic propensity that divides, 
The mind separates the ‘brilliance’ from the ever arising and ceasing.
This karmic illusion constructs ‘the brilliance’, 
Into an object that is permanent and unchanging. 
The ‘unchanging’ which appears unimaginably real, 
Only exists in subtle thinking and recalling. 
In essence the luminosity is itself empty, 
Is already unborn, unconditioned and ever pervading. 
...
Therefore fear not the arising and ceasing. 
There is no this that is more this than that. 
Although thought arises and ceases vividly, 
Every arising and ceasing remains as entire as it can be. 
The emptiness nature that is ever manifesting presently 
Has not in anyway denied its own luminosity. 

Although nondual is seen with clarity, 
The urge to remain can still blind subtly. 
Like a passerby that passes, is gone completely. 
Die utterly And bear witness of this pure presence, its non-locality.

(John Tan)

Ted Biringer: Time, Impermanence and Total Exertion. In light of Shobogenzo’s (hence Zen’s) vision of existence-time (uji), existence (ontology; being) and time are not-two (nondual); dharmas are not simply existents in time, they are existents of time, and (all) time is in and of existents (i.e. dharmas). In short, dharmas do not exist independent of time, and time does not exist independent of dharmas. 

On a corollary note, since (all) existence demonstrates the quality of ‘impermanence,’ time too is impermanent. In Zen the nonduality of impermanence and time is treated in terms of ‘ceaseless advance’ or ‘ever passing’ – ‘ceaseless’ and ‘ever’ connoting ‘permanence’ or ‘eternity,’ ‘advance’ and ‘passing’ indicating ‘impermanence’ or ‘temporal’ (temporary). Accordingly, ‘impermanence’ is ‘permanent’ and ‘change’ is ‘changeless’ – existence-time ever-always (eternally) advances (changes).

Dogen’s vision of reality exploits the significance of this to the utmost, unfolding its most profound implications with his notion of ‘the self-obstruction of a single dharma’ or ‘the total exertion of a single dharma’ (ippo gujin). This notion reveals a number of important implications concerning the nature of existence-time; two of which are: (1) Each and all dharmas reveal, disclose, or present the whole universe (the totality of existence-time); (2) Each and all dharmas are inherently infinite and eternal.

(Ted Biringer,Zen Cosmology: Dogen's Contribution to the Search for a New Worldview) 

Soh Wei Yu: Impermanence in itself is the Buddha-Nature. "It is often misinterpreted that Buddha-Nature is some sort of immutable soul or inherently existing essence that is contrasted with the impermanent and mutable aggregates of the mind and body. Dogen however insists that impermanence is the Buddha nature. He quotes the following words of Huineng: 'The sixth Patriarch taught his disciple Hsingch'ang (Gyosho) that impermanence in itself is the Buddha nature, that permanence is good and evil, each and every phenomenal thing, and discriminating mind' ". 

Dogen: "Therefore, the very impermanency of grass and tree, thicket and forest is the Buddha nature. The very impermanency of men and things, body and mind, is the Buddha nature. Nature and lands, mountains and rivers, are impermanent because they are the Buddha nature. Supreme and complete enlightenment, because it is impermanent, is the Buddha nature. Great Nirvana, because it is impermanent, is the Buddha nature."

Soh Wei Yu: Inference through glimpses of Impersonality and Non-Doership is not Anatta realization. It is important to understand that the realisation of Anatta is not just understanding everything to be impermanent and momentary, and hence, not-self. Many people understand anatta/noself that way. However, as John Tan said before, that is merely an inferential understanding and not a direct realization. Most Buddhists only understand Anatta (if they have any understanding at all) inferentially, through logical deductions like that, or even a partially deduced understanding based on some glimpses of the momentary nature of all experiences in meditation which led to a mental conclusion that what is impermanent does not belong to a self, but all these partially or fully inferentiallydeduced understandings are far from the yogic and direct realization, taste and actualization of anatta as in the case of John Tan Stage 5.

Furthermore, if one has certain insights and experiences into no-self but has not given rise to the realisation of ‘no background’ and ‘no agent’ leading to effortless nondual luminosity, that is still not the Phase 5 type of realization of Anatta but a more minor aspect of no-self experience such as impersonality and non-doership. You can have those insights even at the I AM phase or even before the I AM phase, while experience still remains dualistic most of the time (experience remains split into a subject and object, a Witness/observer and a witnessed/observed).

Soh Wei Yu: Centerless is just one aspect of Anatta. Had a conversation with someone who shared about an experience of dissolving into centerless space. I told him what I call Anatta is not just being centerless, it is the effulgence and radiance of the transience. And John Tan concurs with me on this point. That is, regardless of any realization of no-self, and no matter how centerless one feels or how centerless is one's experience of awareness and so forth... still, anything short of direct realization of the radiance or luminosity as the very stuff of transiency is still not what I call the realization of Anatta (and that too is also just an aspect of anatta, and furthermore not yet into the two-fold emptying).

Soh Wei Yu: Hinaya Buddhism as the straw man. It is also important to understand that this realisation of non-dual Anatta is crucial to all vehicles/traditions of Buddhism, even though the majority of current practitioners and teachers may not have attained these realisations themselves. I noticed many teachers in Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism are making a straw man out of so called ‘Hinayana Buddhism’, hence I wrote in Problems with Zen Teachings:

“...Basically, this Venerable (and many other teachers) make the mistake of attributing Hinayana to I AMness level of formless realisation, and Mahayana to One Mind where the Substance can produce infinite functions and is non-dual with its functions. They get stuck between Thusness Stage 1 to 4. They didn't realise that 'Hinayana'/Theravada teachers like Daniel M. Ingram can have an effortless, constant non-dual experience of 'Bamboos are dharmakaya' WITH Right View and realization of Anatta which makes nondual even more effortless". 

"Other Theravadin masters/teachers/practitioners who realized non-dual Anatta insights include but are not limited to Ajahn Amaro, Phra Kovit Khemananda, and so on. Hence, the notion that Theravada leads only to 'Causal/Formless/I AM' realization and do not have access to nondual insights is unequivocally false".  

"... (It's also true that) many Theravada masters also have the misunderstanding that Anatta is not nondual. Many Theravada masters like from the Thai forest tradition fall into a dualistic and eternalistic Witness or an ultimate and changeless Mind while dissociating from the aggregates as not self, making them no different from Advaita Vedanta. Even if they do not hold eternalistic views, they usually do not have experiential realization of anatta, which is to say that their understanding of anatta remains inferential or intellectual or surface level".

"The Venerable (Chinese Mahayana) didn't realise that the 'Hinayana sutta', Bahiya Sutta, is clearly not only nondual but in fact taught the peak of nondual experience, with right view, and Bahiya attained arahantship instantly upon hearing Buddha speak of that teaching. Bahiya Sutta, Kalaka Sutta, and many other suttas are all about this. Without the direct realisation of right view (Anatta, Dependent Origination, Emptiness), whatever nondual realisations cannot be considered Buddhadharma, even at the Hinayana level, let alone Mahayana which further elaborates on the direct realisation of the nonarising of all phenomena that are dependently designated/dependently originated”. 

"...We cannot completely blame the Mahayana and Vajrayana teachers for denigrating or underestimating the realizations of the Theravada tradition, because these teachers come from a tradition that has lost touch and communication with Theravada Buddhism (also called ‘Hinayana’ in a more derogatory convention of Mahayana-speak) for centuries or millenniums".

"However, today we live in a time of unprecedented technological breakthroughs that allow the teachers and practitioners of many traditions to coexist at the same place, and that alone should encourage and foster more cross-traditional dialogues, or at least online conversations, and provide for access to recorded materials of other traditions online and in libraries. Hence, dharma teachers ought to look outside of their own little bubble and not make faulty or grossly inaccurate assumptions about what kind of realisations and experiences the other traditions are capable of ‘producing’, before making unfair and inaccurate criticisms about other traditions". 

Soh Wei Yu: Many Theravadins fail to grasp the essence of Anatta. Even though Vipassana is commonly taught in many Theravadin dharma centers, the key towards luminous manifestation and nondual anatta is often not taught, a point John Tan made years ago (see: Vipassana Must Go With Luminous Manifestation). Although it should also be mentioned that not all Mahayana/Vajrayana teachers make the same criticisms, as some would relegate the realization of an arahant to a higher level or even be on par with a sixth or eighth bhumi bodhisattva, the views vary according to schools and teachers. 

The Mahayana and Vajrayana teachers’ often made criticisms that the Theravadins/early traditions do not grasp the truth of nonduality (i.e. The nonduality of subject and object, Mind and phenomena, etc) isn’t helped by the fact that most teachers and practitioners in the Theravada tradition themselves did not truly realize nondual Anatta, and may instead be prone towards dissociation and equanimity, although there are also clearly those who do realize nondual Anatta in the Theravada tradition. 

That is not to say that the situation in Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions nowadays are much better, as I have seen too many teachers and masters from those traditions who are also stuck at the I AM and One Mind level, holding eternalistic views no different from Advaita Vedanta. This statement is not made to belittle or denigrate Advaita Vedanta which I have much respect for, but it would be a pity that the true essence, import and liberative potential of Buddhadharma (teachings of Buddha) continues to be missed and misinterpreted by these teachers and communities. 

However, as a general trend I find that Soto Zen masters/teachers/communities tend to produce more practitioners that realise anatta. This is due to the deep clarity of anatman in the writings of their school’s founder, Zen Master Dogen: 

"When you ride in a boat and watch the shore, you might assume that the shore is moving. But when you keep your eyes closely on the boat, you can see that the boat moves. Similarly, if you examine many things with a confused mind, you might suppose that your mind and nature are permanent. But when you practice intimately and return to where you are, it will be clear that there is nothing that has unchanging self".

John Tan: Actual Freedom and the Immediate Radiance in the Transience. What Richard (AF) teaches has some problem... that focus is in the experience. You should focus on the realization. The PCE (Pure Consciousness Experience) is what I told you, bring what you experience into the foreground. Richard has a very important realization: he is able to realize the immediate radiance in the transience. This is like the second point of anatta in the anatta article. There is nothing to argue, it is obvious and clear. However I do not want to focus on the experience.

John Tan: Awareness is a DO manifestation. Non-dual and Anatta is a matter of degree of clarity of the relationship between awareness and transience. Is truly existing behind reality somehow having a 'nondual' experience. One is realizing that awareness is a DO manifestation. 

Two Stanzas of Anatta

John Tan (2009): The 2 stanzas below were pivotal in leading me to the direct experience of no-self. Although they appear to convey the same stuff about Anatta, meditating on these 2 stanzas can yield two very different experiential insights, one on the emptiness aspect and the other on the non-dual luminosity aspect. The insights that arise from these experiences are very illuminating as they contradict so much our ordinary understanding of what awareness is.

Soh Wei Yu (2010): Without thorough breakthrough of both stanzas of Anatta 1 and 2, there is no thorough or clear realization of Anatta proper by AtR definition. 

Stanza One 

There is thinking, no thinker. 
There is hearing, no hearer. 
There is seeing, no seer.

1. The lack of doership that links and coordinates experiences

John Tan: Without the 'I' that links, phenomena (thoughts, sound, feelings and so on and so forth) appear bubblelike, floating and manifesting freely, spontaneously and boundlessly. With the absence of the doership also comes a deep sense of freedom and transparency. Ironical as it may sound but it's true experientially. We will not have the right understanding when we hold too tightly 'inherent' view. It is amazing how 'inherent' view prevents us from seeing freedom as nodoership, interdependence and interconnectedness, luminosity and nondual presence. 

David Loy (Zen teacher): Thought is "unsupported" because it does not arise in dependence upon anything else, not "caused" by another thought ("mind-objects") and of course not "produced" by a thinker, which the Bodhisattva realizes does not exist. Such an "unsupported thought" is prajña, arising by itself non-dually. Normally, we leave one thought only when we have another one to go to , but to think in this way constitutes ignorance. Instead, we should realize that thinking is actually like this (thoughts arising on its own). Then we will understand the true nature of thoughts: that thoughts do not arise from each other but by themselves.

John Tan: Dependent Origination and the idea of substantialist cause and effect is different. 'Arise in dependence' cannot be said to be causeless/uncaused or caused. That is why it is the middle path. So we say 'arise in dependence'. 

U G Krishnamurti: Is there in you an entity which you call the 'I' or the 'mind' or the 'self'? Is there a coordinator who is coordinating what you are looking at with what you are listening to, what you are smelling with what you are tasting, and so on? Or is there anything which links together the various sensations originating from a single sense the flow of impulses from the eyes, for example? 

Actually, there is always a gap between any two sensations. The coordinator bridges that gap: he establishes himself as an illusion of continuity. In the natural state there is no entity who is coordinating the messages from the different senses. Each sense is functioning independently in its own way. 

When there is a demand from outside which makes it necessary to coordinate one or two or all of the senses and come up with a response, still there is no coordinator, but there is a temporary state of coordination. There is no continuity; when the demand has been met, again there is only the uncoordinated, disconnected, disjointed functioning of the senses. This is always the case. Once the (illusory) continuity is blown apart, it's finished once and for all.

When there is no coordinator, there is no linking of sensations, there is no translating of sensations; they stay pure and simple sensations. I don't even know that they are sensations. 

I may look at you as you are talking. The eyes will focus on your mouth because that is what is moving, and the ears will receive the sound vibrations. There is nothing inside which links up the two and says that it is you talking. 

I may be looking at a spring bubbling out of the earth and hear the water, but there is nothing to say that the noise being heard is the sound of water, or that that sound is in any way connected with what I am seeing. 

I may be looking at my foot, but nothing says that this is my foot. When I am walking, I see my feet moving it is such a funny thing: "What is that which is moving?"

Leo Hartong: Let's say it will be noticed that the body is out of shape. A thought may arise that the body could do with some exercise. Next a decision to go to the gym could come up. Nowhere in this 'chain of events' is there the need for an entity that takes the decision. If there was such an entity, it first would have to decide to take such a decision to be able to claim 'authorship'. It also would have to decide to decide to decide ad infinitum, thus creating an infinite regress. 

What I always say is that non-doership does not mean that you are helpless, but that the 'you-agent' is fictitious. We say "I live, I think, I breathe" and so on but living, thinking and breathing is not done by someone; it happens by itself. 

Let's have a look at thinking: Is there really a 'thinker of thoughts' independent of thought? Does this 'thinker' know what the next thought will be? Or is the thought only known when it comes along? This thought may get claimed in the next thought, which could goes something like "Oh, I just thought about such and such". But is the 'I' claiming to be the thinker of the thoughtnot itself part of the thought? 

Do not take this too literally please, as there actually isn't even a 'next thought'; only this thought right now. There is no past, which has led up to this moment. There is only THIS; including memories and other apparent evidence for such a past. 

Nevertheless, there is the unfolding of this dream in which "the Tao, without doing anything, leaves nothing undone." As such there may be the appearance of doing exercises, making decisions, planning your day, falling asleep, waking up, gazing at the stars, reading these words, or registering the sounds around you. It all happens by itself.

John Tan: "There is no thinker, just thoughts". A practitioner must not only see that there is "no agent", he must also see the "just thoughts". 'Thought' not as a passing phenomenon and nothing to care about, but 'thought' as pristine, luminous, non-dual, emptiness, its dependent originated nature and powerful imprints it can cause leading to the understanding of actions and tendencies rolling on. The best part is when 'tendency' is experienced in conventional sense it appears 'so solidly real'. Only when emptiness nature is directly experienced does reality becomes dream-like.

There are 4 important insights a practitioner must have on the experience of Anatta: 

1. The no doership leading to a spontaneous arising experience. Though spontaneous, it is not by 'nature' or 'haphazard'; with the presence of conditions, the arising is spontaneous. 

2. The absence of an agent leading to a 'direct' experience of phenomena. A nondual experience that dissolve the subject/object split. 

3. No doer but there is doing and leading to the understanding of imprints and actions. 

4. The impermanence and manifestation that leads to the understanding of arising due to conditions. The no-self nature of dependent origination that is free from the view based on who, where and when. 

Buddhism is not exactly the union or co-arising of subjective witness and objective phenomena, but rather the inseparability of luminosity and emptiness, appearances and conditions.

There is just this actual moment, which is a thought. Not arising from anywhere or going anywhere. There is even no “right now”, no timeline; free from the dream of the 3 times and resting entirely in this actual phenomena which is, a thought. Arising and ceasing is an appearance, the nature of clarity is non-arising, always just this: a moment, a thought, a witnessing, an action, yet empty!

2. The direct insight of the absence of an agent

John Tan: There is a direct recognition that there is “no agent”. Just one thought then another thought. So it is always 'thought watching thought' rather than a 'watcher watching thought'. 

However the gist of this realization is skewed towards a spontaneous liberating experience and a vague glimpse of the empty nature of phenomena. That is, the transient phenomena being bubble-like and ephemeral, nothing substantial or solid. 

At this phase we should not misunderstand that we have experienced thoroughly the ‘empty’ nature of phenomena and awareness, although there is this temptation to think we have. Depending on the conditions of an individual, it may not be obvious that it is “always thought watching thought rather than a watcher watching thought” or "the watcher is that thought”.

John Tan: Having immediate and direct experience but with dualistic framework intact vs complete replacement of the dualistic framework entirely with DO, yields very different experiential insight. Investigate further and move from "they are all flowing independently" to "manifesting in seamless interdependencies".

Stanza two 

"In thinking, just thoughts.
In hearing, just sounds. 
In seeing, just forms, shapes and colors". (John Tan)

Soh Wei Yu/John Tan: Direct realization of luminosity/radiance as the very vividness of forms and textures of transience beyond subject/object division. 

John Tan: Division of subject and object is merely an assumption. Thus someone giving up and something to be given up is an illusion. When self becomes more and more transparent, likewise phenomena become more and more luminous. In thorough transparency all happening are pristinely and vividly clear. Obviousness throughout, aliveness everywhere!

John Tan: Have adequate experience of the vividness, realness and presence of Awareness and the full experience of these qualities in the transience. Without which it will not be easy to realize that "the arising and passing sensations are the very awareness itself". A balance is therefore needed, otherwise practitioners may experience equanimity but skew towards dispassion and lack realization.

The key towards pure knowingness is to bring the taste of presence into the 6 entries and exits. So that what is seen, heard, touched, tasted are pervaded by a deep sense of crystal, radiance and transparency. This requires seeing through the center.

Khamtrul Rinpoche: Regarding whatever is in the field of the tactile sense organ, such things as fabrics that are soft or rough to the touch, this tactile sensation itself is your own mind. Avoid slipping into grasping or rejecting. Whether soft or rough, do not try to find the mind anywhere apart from the softness or roughness itself, but rest at ease right there without distraction. If a pleasant or an unpleasant feeling arises, recognize it and rest mindfully.

Vipassana

John Tan: It is of absolute importance to know that there is no way the stanzas can be correctly understood by way of inference, logical deduction or induction. Not that there is something mystical or transcendental about the stanzas but simply the way of mental chattering is a 'wrong approach'. The right technique is through 'vipassana' or any more direct and attentive bare mode of observation that allows the seeing of things as they are. Just a casual note, such mode of knowing turns natural when non-dual insight matures, before that it can be quite 'efforting'.

John Tan: As whatever can be expressed is easily reified, objectified and grasped instead of realizing, it is merely pointing at seen, heard, sensed ... all 6 entries and exits, nothing beyond. The conventions created artificial boundaries when there is none. So, vipassana is taught but not just the 3 seals (impermanence, suffering, no-self), (it) needs to go hand in hand with the luminous manifestation. Otherwise it becomes just a mindful reminder, but vipassana is a direct insight. 

Soh Wei Yu: A good video on Vipassana by Daniel M. Ingram and relating it to Anatta realization: Vipassana, the Six Sense Doors and the Three Characteristics  


Soh Wei Yu: The purpose of the practice of the four foundations of mindfulness. Stability of experience has a predictable relationship with the unfolding and deepening of insights. For example how seamless and effortless can nondual experience be, if in the back of one's mind, subtle views of duality and inherency and tendencies continue to surface and affect our moment to moment experience for example conjuring an unchanging source or mind that results in a perpetual tendency to sink back and referencing experience back to a source. 

For example even after it is seen that everything is a manifestation of awareness or mind, there might still be subtle tendencies to reference back to a source, awareness or mind and therefore the transience is not appreciated in full. Non-dual is experienced but one sinks back into substantial nonduality, there is always a referencing back to a base, an "awareness" that is nevertheless inseparable from all phenomena. 

If one arises the insight that our ideas of an unchanging source, awareness or mind is just another thought that there is simply thought after thought, sight after sight, sound after sound, and there isn't an inherent or unchanging "awareness", "mind", "source". Nondual becomes implicit and effortless when there is the realisation that what awareness, seeing, hearing really is, is just the seen... The heard... The transience... The transience itself rolls and knows, no knower or other "awareness" can be found. Like there is no river apart from flowing, no wind apart from blowing, each noun implies its verb... Similarly awareness is simply the process of knowing not separated from the known. Scenery sees, music hears. Because there is nothing unchanging, independent, ultimate apart from the transience, there is no more sinking back to a source and instead there is full comfort resting as the transience itself. 

Lastly do continue practicing the intensity of luminosity... When looking at tennis ball just sense the tennis ball fully.... Without thinking of a source, background, observer, self. Just the tennis ball as a luminous light. When breathing... Just the breathe... When seeing scenery, just sights, shapes and colours intensely luminous and vivid without an agent or observer. When hearing music... Sound of bird chirping, the crickets… Just that chirp chirp. A zen master noted upon his awakening... When I am hearing the bell ringing, there is no I and no bell... Just the ringing. The direct experiencing of no-mind and intensity of luminosity.. This is the purpose of the practice of the four foundations of mindfulness that is taught by the Buddha.

Soh Wei Yu: Wind and Blowing are simply two words referring to a single activity. There is no wind performing the blowing, since the activity of blowing is itself “wind”. Likewise for “awareness” and “experience”: awareness is not aware of experience, but is none other than experience. Same for “hearer-hearing-sound”, “seer-seeing-colors”, “doer-doing-deed”, etc. The subject-action-object paradigm is thus seen through.

"A thinker is thinking a thought" is simply a construct of a faulty framework and view of inherent and dualistic self. Just like language is structured in a way that it often requires subject-action-object predicates, making us to say things like "the wind is blowing", "I am thinking a thought"... but, is there really a truly existing and independent thing called "the wind" that "is blowing" or is "wind" and "blowing" simply two words referring to a single activity? 

Likewise is there truly an "I" that is "thinking, a thought" or is "I", "thinking", and "thought" three different labels imputed on a single activity? Seer, seeing and seen are just a conventional view... they only appear as separate, independent existences due to ignorance but such a view does not tally with reality.

Alan Watts: Chickens imply eggs, and vice versa. Most languages are arranged so that actions (verbs) have to be set in motion by things (nouns), and we forget that rules of grammar are not necessarily patterns of nature. 

Scientists would be less embarrassed if they used a language, on the model of Amerindian Nootka, consisting of verbs and adverbs, and leaving off nouns and adjectives ... Everything labeled with a noun is demonstrably a process or action, but language is full of spooks, like the “it” in “It is raining,” which are the supposed causes, of action.

... In each instance the “cause” of the behavior is the situation as a whole, the organism/environment. Indeed, it would be best to drop the idea of causality and use instead the idea of relativity ... It is easier to think of situations as moving patterns, like organisms themselves.

As the Chinese say, the various features of a situation “arise mutually” or imply one another as back implies front, and as chickens imply eggs—and vice versa. They exist in relation to each other like the poles of the magnet, only more complexly patterned.

Moreover, as the egg-chicken relation suggests, not all the features of a total situation have to appear at the same time. The existence of a man implies parents, even though they may be long since dead, and the birth of an organism implies its death. Wouldn't it be as farfetched to call birth the cause of death as to call the cat's head the cause of the tail? Lifting the neck of a bottle implies lifting the bottom as well, for the “two parts” come up at the same time. If I pick up an accordion by one end, the other will follow a little later, but the principle is the same. Total situations are, therefore, patterns in time as much as patterns in space... 

Acarya Malcolm Smith: Dependent Designation. Agents are mere conventions. If one claims there is agent with agency, one is claiming the agent and the agency are separate. But if you claim that agency is merely a characteristic of an agent, when agent does not exercise agency, it isn't an agent, since an agent that is not exercising agency is in fact a non-agent. Therefore, rather than agency being dependent on an agent, an agent is predicated upon exercising agency.

... The key to understanding everything is the term "dependent designation." We don't question the statement "I am going to town." In this there are three appearances, for convenience's sake, a person, a road, and a destination. A person is designated on the basis of the aggregates, but there is no person in the aggregates, in one of the aggregates, or separate from the aggregates. Agreed? A road is designated in dependence on its parts, agreed? A town s designated upon its parts. Agreed? 

If you agree to this, then you should have no problem with the following teaching of the Buddha in the Vimalakirti Sutra:

This body arises from various conditions, but lacks a self.
This body is like the earth, lacking an agent. 
This body is like water, lacking a self. 
This body is like fire, lacking a living being. 
This body is like the wind, lacking a person. 
This body is like space, lacking a nature. 
This body is the place of the four elements, but is not real. 
This body that is not a self nor pertains to a self is empty. 

In other words, when it comes to the conventional use of language, Buddha never rejected statements like "When I was a so and so in a past life, I did so and so, and served such and such a Buddha" ... It is merely a question of distinguishing between conventional use of language versus the insight into the nature of phenomena that results from ultimate analysis. 

Acarya Malcolm Smith: There are no agents. There are only actions. Things have no natures, conventionally or otherwise. Look, we can say "water is wet", but actually, there no water that possesses a wet nature. Water is wet, that is all. There is no wetness apart from water and not water apart from wetness. 

If you say a given thing has a separate nature, you are making the exact mistaken Nāgārajuna points out in the analysis of movement: it is senseless to say there is a "moving mover" 

... A "mirroring mirror" is redundant, just like moving movers ... There is no "typing typer", no "learning learner", no "digesting digester", "thinking thinker", or "driving driver" ...

There are no two parts. The purpose is the insight that sees through reification of mental constructs. Once it is seen through in real time experientially, all appearances become naturally pellucid, transparent, crystal and pure. No amount of effort can bring us to this natural luminosity, it is not man-made (unconditioned).

...There is no point to eternalism if there is no eternal agent or object.

Spontaneous Presence

John Tan: Why spontaneous presence is important for anatta insight?

Soh Wei Yu: Without agent, what arises does not arise by manner of agency, self, control.... but via conditionality. So naturally there is a sense of spontaneity, effortless, natural. Like non-doership but more than that. More like self arising by total exertion.

John Tan: The phrase Spontaneous Presence! can be separated into two words: (1) Spontaneous = no doership = first stanza; (2) Presence = second stanza. Spontaneous presence to me is perfection of the union of these 2 stanzas in AR anatta insight. So from Anatta, then the in between (connecting) dots to spontaneous presence and natural perfection. What are these dots? Mipham has 2 models of 2 truth and they are linked, this is exactly where the dots are. The notional emptiness will take the most time, freedom from all elaborations, coalesence, purity and equality =>> the spontaneous presence and natural perfection (言语道断) .

The Weather Metaphor

There is no weather actively creating, as an independent agent, the activities of clouds, rain, sun, wind, etc. Weather is a designation conceptually established upon a multiplicity of events/activities which are seamlessly interconnected, dynamic, and conditionally arisen. It is important to realize these metaphors directly, as the empty nature of Awareness/Mind in one’s direct experience and not remain as an intellectual concept or ideation.

John Tan: When you understand anatta, you realize awareness is like weather, it is a label to denote this luminous yet empty arising, that is pure aggregates.

-

John Tan: When you say "weather", does weather exist? 

Soh Wei Yu: No. It's a convention imputed on a seamless activity. Existence and non existence don't apply. 

John Tan: What is the basis where this label rely on? 

Soh Wei Yu: Rain clouds wind etc 

John Tan: Don't talk prasanga. Directly see. Rain too is a label. But in direct experience, there is no issue but when probed, you realized how one is confused about the reification from language. And from there life/death/creation/cessation arise. And whole lots of attachment. But it does not mean there is no basis...get it? 

Soh Wei Yu: The basis is just the experience right? 

John Tan: Yes which is plain and simple. When we say the weather is windy. Feel the wind, the blowing… But when we look at language and mistaken verb for nouns there are big issues. So before we talk about this and that. Understand what consciousness is and awareness is. Get it? When we say weather, feel the sunshine, the wind, the rain. You do not search for weather. Get it? Similarly, when we say awareness, look into scenery, sound, tactile sensations, scents and thoughts”. 

(Note that this is still understanding emptiness from the perspective of firstfold emptiness, in secondfold emptiness there is nothing to ground conventions on to be elaborated in the chapter on Stage 6).

Realizing Anatta - Some Conversations

Seraph Tai's Case

Seraph Tai: I was reading the text on integral psychotherapy and transpersonal identity development, and while reading the notions about the Non-dual, it happened. 

Those notions are worth mentioning, I think: in Kashmir Shivaism, they outline ancient guidelines about obstacles to ultimate reality, so called malas (impurities): 

(1) anava mala: the belief that any given person occupies particular space (i.e. I am here not there, and certainly not everywhere) 

(2) mayiya mala: the belief that there are other objects outside of us (i.e. Jane is out there, not here where I am located). 

Basically that is the root perception of false ego, the illusory center of reference. 

By that time, Non-dual was already here (only seeing the seen, hearing the sound etc...), it seems the first two malas were recognized as false straight away. 

It is important to note that I was at that point able to switch back to "I am" presence, perceiving the well known Omnipresence of my True self. For years I entered this state at will, hence falling back to the "I am" presence was happening, I guess. It was different this time, however: I realized with the so called aha! moment, that the I am presence is exactly the same as the "sensory input" I was experiencing. The seen, sensed, cognized AS the "I am" presence only that "I am" presence was not there anymore. I was however, able to switch, back and forth, so to speak. Maybe it is worth mentioning that the Nondual was/is (still is) more liberating and peaceful than "I am" presence insight. 

What sealed the deal, so to speak LOL, was: 

(3) karma mala: the belief that a person must perform an action, do something to remedy any given situation, say "I need to meditate to get enlightened".

It happened few moments after I read that notion, and everything just became crystal clear, no switching back to "I am" presence, there was no one here, there, anywhere to switch to!! And I am not talking only about the little false ego, I am also talking about the ultimate "I am" presence! For years, I was happy to abide as a Witness, Omnipresent and liberated, free from mental/emotional/physical bullshit. 

But now, the "I am" presence was gone!! Even the so called Unmanifested "I am" was nowhere to be found (the Causal level has two sublevels, lower (I am presence, the Witness) and higher (No "I am", just the Unmanifested, latent absolute potential), according to Wilber). 

It seems that after years of entering satori at will, I was allowed to move on. Only there isn't anyone to give the permission, or anyone to be allowed to move on. No one is here, it never was, it can not exist, because events are unfolding by their own, on their own. Phenomena is free, separated from every other phenomena, not touching but liberating as they come and go.

I can enter into Non-dual at will now, especially after the shared experience. Driving the car, eating, looking out the window it seems that these situations are easy and do not require much mental effort on my part, so I can easily let go. 

What I also notice now is that I can discern the Advaita texts from the Non-dual ones. To my saddness, I realized that my favorite master, Sri Ramana Maharshi, is not speaking about Anatta, or not even about Non-dual (as far as I can see), He mentions that even in Sahaja Nirbikalpa Samadhi (the ultimate state, according to Him) there is "something" there which mediator is at One with. Well, He must be talking about something different, not about Anatta or Non-dual. 

Regarding Anatta, I can enter almost at will now, but it usually just slips back to the Non-dual insight, with slight resemblance of something here, traces or tendencies from years of "I am" presence samadhis, I guess. 

Soh Wei Yu: What is your view about what consciousness is now? Does consciousness have any characteristics of being unchanging, independent or etc and if not what is it?" 

Seraph Tai: Well, now I view consciousness as non-local, not centered in the "I am presence" anymore, there is no split between samadhi and everyday life, in a sense that there is no one to make that distinction. I am more at peace now, more at ease, laid back so to speak. Yes, at the moment, I see the consciousness as something free, liberating in itself, "changing" by itself: events come and go by themselves, no one is in control, so to speak, no one to instigate coming and going, not even God. And, I promise you, for me this notion ( there is no God, as a separate entity or Absolute Self etc... ) is rather dramatic change. 

Soh Wei Yu: Have you read Thusness's articles in our blog? How stable is your non dual experiencing now? Any changes in your sleep and dream?" 

Seraph Tai: I have read most of Thusness' articles at your blog, yes. But I don't get everything yet, especially about the Sunyata insights. 

How stable is my Nondual experiencing now? I don't know what is the criteria for stability, but I can enter Non-dual at will, it is easiest to do, as there is no effort needed (apart from letting go) or something gained. When everything is let go of, the Nondual remains, not as a state or level, but as base reality. No need to do anything, as it already and alone is. All of this, it is not spontaneous yet, though. 

It is interesting you should mention sleep (dreamless one, I suppose) and dreams. Lucid dreaming is an important part of my sadhana, I have been dreaming lucidly (on and off) for years. The change I am noticing for a few years is that all three states (waking, dreams and dreamless sleep) are happening to Me, the base Reality, they are happening in Me, so to speak (actually, everything else, everything, is happening in Me, as a part of my Being). Even in dreaming I am aware of this, not as in  classic lucid dreaming sense but more profound. It is like common denominator, silver lining in all three states, so to speak. But now even this has changed as I know beyond the shadow of the doubt that there is no Me as the base reality. It is a process, I think, so I look forward to experiencing new insights.

Soh Wei Yu: Good insights there Seraphis! You seem able to actualize the living experience of anatta without dwelling much into view. Your insights unfold from recognizing "the same taste" of I AM in all six entries and exits, into seeing that the very idea of abiding is a hindrance, to the doubtless realization that there never was a "This I" to abide in, and whatever arises is already free and liberating. 

There are similarities with my experience but somewhat different triggers. I had an intense non-dual experience (Aug '10) when dancing at a nightclub that totally dissolved the Witness for a few days (after which I was switching between I AM and non-dual for a period of time due to previous practice tendencies like you until clearer insights), before this event nondual glimpses was occassional, few, short and intermittent but after this event I was able to 'switch' into non-dual mode with relative ease as my insight into Awareness/Existence was refined from "I AM pure Existence" to "Existence is the very stuff of whatever arises". Soon I was also contemplating and challenging the sense of subjectobject, insideoutside, border and boundaries of awareness and manifestation, etc until it was all seen as seamless awareness (one mind). Then nondual was pretty clear to me. Later (October 2010), I wrote two articles in reference to my insights, first on One Taste and then it was contemplating on the Bahiya Sutta about a week later that triggered the clear insight into anatta/"No I" (Commentary on Bahiya Sutta). For now, you should not be distracted with stages of insights (sunyata or whatever) but be thorough and leave no trace of "I" for the willingness to let go completely (the I) has arisen.

Mr NR's Case

Mr NR: Not sure what stage this is, just sharing from personal experience. Will try to be as clear as possible. For the past 2 months, I focused mainly on somatic techniques due to having an energy imbalance. Very limited contemplation or formal meditation. 

When I walk, there is just the sensation of my feet touching the hard floor. When hearing a song on Youtube, it’s just hearing the sound itself without any kind of internal interference. Sometimes I even redevelop an energy imbalance while listening to music. There’s no need for a “hearer” to hear for me, but it’s actually happening in real-time rather than merely theoretically. 

Any concept of anything absolute or unchanging no longer exists. I used to believe in God, but it disappeared as well. There’s no need for a separate awareness, and through practicing the exercises in Seeing that Frees and Clarifying the Natural State I know firsthand that the self never existed in the first place. It was all a self-deception.

I’ve had no-mind experiences in the past, but since it’s been stable for over one month, I think the insight has fully developed. However I still have thoughts, emotions, and get absent-minded. The world around me still feels very much physical. After practicing some of the emptiness exercises, I have weird visions and hallucinations, like objects have no boundary surrounding it. But still working on it, so ignore this section. 

Sometimes the world seems “flat” like everything is 2D or a painting, but again, I’m not confident in anything beyond Anatta. Or that the colors of each object start mixing together like a wet painting. I feel like I can make everyday experience even more direct, that the directness of how everything is perceived can be increased. However when I do so, I experience pressure around my third eye. If I try to delve into sensations even more it spreads to the crown chakra. Even with Anatta I feel there are phases in terms of how directly everything is perceived by the 5 senses. But again, it’s difficult to go further at present.

John Tan: Even in Anatta there are several phases. Anatta as in the experiential insight of seeing through self, and seeing through the cause for the sense of self are different. The later path, one towards emptiness realizing "inherency" is the result of a reification. One then progress through deconstructing the reification thoroughly and gain the wisdom that not only sees through directly the mental constructs and conventionalities but also the direct knowledge of one's empty clarity. 

Don't rush post Anatta or even no-mind but refine one's view. Nevertheless, it is hard not to get energy imbalances initially which is due attachment of going after certain experiences. 

The sense of self/Self or any sense of it-ness is a hindrance for natural spontaneity and therefore thorough exhaustion is necessary. However maturing this emptiness of "it-ness or self-ness" post anatta is an ongoing process. Deeply held blindspots are slippery and extremely difficult to see and can take decades to reveal. 

So practice calmly and evenly...don't rush into anything... Just relax and be fully open to whatever arises without dual, don't go after anything and keep refining view instead of chasing after experiences. Eventually the clarity of seeing through will automatically result in the everyday experiences. Without dual and without self.

Mr NR wrote: Yeah, I was too busy chasing after the experience itself rather than focusing on view. Right now I'm focused on gently deconstructing emptiness and dependent origination. Should I focus on theoretical books instead or continue with this current practice? 

John Tan: Just continue with current practice. Allow the whole body mind to become a sensing organ, vibrantly alive and intimately connected with the ten thousand things!

...

Mr NR wrote: Totally Random thoughts, not sure it will be that helpful… I had experiences of anatta (just sound, touch, smell) in the past that lasted over 3 days, and thought this was it! But the sense of self always came back although significantly weakened, and there was a subtle clinging to God or some kind of cosmic force.

Personally, I had to approach the self from multiple angles, really explore how it manifested in the mind in relation to the Thusness stanzas and everyday experience. For example, when hearing sound, why is there a necessity for a hearer to hear for me, rather than just hearing directly? Why go through this unnecessary loop of “hearer is hearing a sound”? Even for thinking, why should this separate thinker think for me? Thoughts are still happening regardless, better to just kick this thinker out of my head! Going through the ebook from I Am all the way to Anatta (don’t touch stage 6) really helped in terms of view. Especially the difference between onemind, nomind, or void in terms of direct experience. The book Crystal Clear by Thrangu Rinpoche really provided the tools and the trigger to just smash this self into pieces until you realize you’re just hitting empty air. But it’s not immediately obvious, so some patience is necessary. Especially being radically honest with oneself about one’s insights and experience. Always remain selfcritical. I probably spent 2 weeks after the “realization” just reading Advaita books to challenge this breakthrough as much as possible.

This is an article by Soh that I found helpful: Different Degress of NoSelf: NonDoership, Nondual, Anatta, Total Exertion and Dealing with Pitfalls (I kept on clinging to nondoership in earlier phases)

Anatta and Emptiness of Awareness

Although Awareness is seen to not seem to exist in and of its own (its nature is empty), it is not a denial of Awareness/Clarity. 

John Tan: Since all 6 senses become transparent and pure, entire body-mind becomes transparent and pristine. To be without dual is not to subsume into one and although awareness is negated, it is not to say there is nothing. Negating the Awareness/Presence (Absolute) is not to let Awareness remain at the abstract level. When such transpersonal Awareness that exists only in wonderland is negated, the vivid radiance of presence are fully tasted in the transient appearances; zero gap and zero distance between presence and moment to moment of ordinary experiences and we realize separation has always only been conventional. Then mundane activities hearing, sitting, standing, seeing and sensing, become pristine and vibrant, natural and free.

Buddhism does not deny luminous clarity. In fact, it is to have a total, uncontrived, direct non-referential experience of clarity in all moments… Therefore, no-self apart from manifestation. Otherwise one is only holding ghost images.

Dissolve the self in the incredible realness of the phenomenon world… When someone ask zen masters what is buddha's nature.... it’s the tile, rocks… feel the hardness, jumps… it is exactly that. Experience anything… everything…

Awareness effortlessly and marvelously manifests without the slightest sense of referencing and point of centricity and duality and subsuming… be it here, now, in, out… This can only come from realization of Anatta, Dependent Origination and Emptiness so that the spontaneity of appearance is realized to one's radiance clarity.

This pristine, clean, transparent quality is always there, otherwise there is no cognition nor manifestation. When there is no conceptual thoughts, it is obvious...when covered with mental thoughts, it is not that obvious but all manifestations are pervaded with this taste...

In Anatta, since all 6 senses become transparent and pure, entire body-mind becomes transparent and pristine... So one should not separate this transparent, pristine quality as if it is something separate from manifestation. The radiance is naturally pristine and crystal, no polishing needed. Nor can one distance from it.

Soh Wei Yu: Presence is mystically alive, wondrous and magnificent, more real than real. There is something tremendously alive, intelligent, a quality of pure Presence and that is nothing inert but intensely luminous (not in the sutric definition of purity and emptiness) but in the sense that the intensity of our cognizant mind evokes the sense of powerful radiance and illumination but without any separation between an illuminator and the illuminated, with absolutely no agent/perceiver/doer involved. It can evoke the sense of a radiance that is so intense that it completely outshines all visual darkness of night and brightness of the sun. This Presence is mystically alive, wondrous and magnificent, “more real than real”, and the complete opposite of an inert or merely some dull state of non conceptuality and absorption. 

This outshining of Presence-Awareness is not about some hidden invisible background existing behind manifestation (although it will be perceived this way at the I AM stage) but is vividly manifest or “Presencing” (Presencing is a better word than Presence as it is not a static background or entity and none other than the dynamic stuff of transience) as the very “realness” or “vividness” of any appearance/display, color, sound, scent, touch, taste, thought, as if everything comes alive and there is something very wonderful and beautiful about it. The brilliant light of Presence-Awareness is none other than the body-mind-universe which when deconstructed and freed from self/Self/physicality is experienced as spheres of vivid light, colors, sounds, and sensations.

Soh Wei Yu: Luminosity is not simply a state of heightened clarity or mindfulness. Someone asked me about luminosity. I said it is not simply a state of heightened clarity or mindfulness, but like touching the very heart of your being, your reality, your very essence without a shadow of doubt. It is a radiant, shining core of Presence-Awareness, or Existence itself. It is the More Real than Real. It can be from a question of "Who am I?" followed by a sudden realization. And then with further insights you touch the very life, the very heart, of everything. Everything comes alive. First as the innermost 'You', then later when the centerpoint is dropped (seen through there is no 'The Center') every 'point' is equally so, every point is a 'center', in every encounter, form, sound and activity.

Soh Wei Yu: All the qualities of I AM are effortlessly experienced without contrivance, and the sense of cosmic Impersonality is now experienced as the total exertion where a single activity is the exertion of the Whole. There is a wide variety of methods to bring oneself to an abrupt stoppage of concepts and a face to face encounter of Pure Presence ... Whatever method one uses to introduce that initial glimpse and taste of Presence, it is always through the deepening of insight into nondual Anatta that brings that taste to effortless uncontrivance and fullblown maturity in all encounters and manifestations. 

So when one has access to a state of nondual, one should ask whether it is dull and inert or suffused with a powerful sense of Presence. After Anatta, this Presence is no longer seen as a background but vividly shining forth as the manifold dynamic and seamlessly interconnected display, and the play of dharma and dependent origination is something which is alive, not just inert and mechanistic as someone wrote. 

All the qualities of I AM (infinite like space, powerful Presence, Luminosity, Clarity, Vitality and Intelligence) are effortlessly experienced without contrivance, and furthermore no longer seen as something hidden behind but fully manifested from moment to moment activity.

And the sense of cosmic Impersonality which was once experienced as being lived through a reified cosmic intelligence is now experienced as the total exertion where a single activity is the exertion of the Whole: an activity that is seamlessly connected and coordinated with the entire Whole, a spontaneous exertion of the Whole of seamless dependencies. 

In other words all the taste of Presence similar to the I AM, including all the Four Aspects of I AM and the experience of Anatta as requisites, are fully present in the experience of Maha suchness in each single manifest experience, even as simple and ordinary as a breath. Maha suchness is an experience of greatness beyond measure, such that a single breath, a single step forward while walking feels cosmic and limitless.

John Tan: Anatta is no ordinary insight. When we can reach the level of thorough transparency, you will realize the benefits. nonconceptuality, clarity, luminosity, transparency, openness, spaciousness, thoughtlessness, nonlocality... all these descriptions become quite meaningless.

... What Malcolm is trying to convey about the inexpressibity is the unconditioned, creative, intelligence aspect beyond expression of conventions. The Advaita abstract this into an absolute beyond relative, whereas Anatta insight brings us back right to the relative and directly realised the relative is exactly where this so called inexpressible clean purity is. Therefore it is naturally and effortlessly nondual.

Background seen as foreground means I AM seen as foreground

Soh Wei Yu: The background is empty like rabbit horns but the foreground is free from extremes like reflection. Is that right? 

John Tan: To me all are like an occurence

Soh Wei Yu: Hmm but the background to me is totally an illusion has never arisen for the past 8 years.. like once seen through it never arises. Foreground is a bit different, its clearly appearing just whether its non arisen nature is seen 

John Tan: That is why you have to integrate. There is this issue. To you, background is nonexistence. And foreground is appearance like reflection.

Soh Wei Yu: Even if i access I AM now it is seen as foreground, not background.

John Tan: Yes 

Soh Wei Yu: Therefore is an occurrence.

John Tan: If background is seen as foreground, then where is the difference? The difference is like sound, color, thoughts and tastes 

Soh Wei Yu: Background seen as foreground means I AM seen as foreground right? Its just a sense of existence in the thought realm, so the difference is simply in the differing mode of appearing like you said sound, color, etc 

John Tan: Yes. So the difference is like sound and colors, thoughts and sensations. So, do you know the way of "non-inherence"? 

Soh Wei Yu: Just spontaneous opening and springing forth of occurrence without reifying subject, object or arising

John Tan: You must understand what is meant by inherent way and what is not... 

Soh Wei Yu: Inherent way is like seeking and grasping. Such as abiding in an ultimate or Self. Non inherent way is spontaneous opening and releasing all grasping 

John Tan: Don't just look at releasing of grasping...look at the creative living expression... But first clearly understand and taste clarity/appearance without any distortion.

Anatta misunderstood as mere non-doership, impersonality and subject-object nondivision

Not a genuine authentication if there is no direct taste

John Tan: Like in prasangika mmk, the non-affirming negation, in the phases of insights approach of the 2 stanzas, one is not interested in the affirmation, just the thorough deconstruction of self construct. The seeing through of self in Anatta is the direct experiential taste of non-dual, purity and spontaneity. So, when someone describe to you, they say they have deconstruct self/Self but there is no direct taste of colors, smell, sensation, sound, no direct face to face of the radiance, pellucidity, purity, spontaneity, insubstantiality and nonduality of appearances, is that genuine authentication? 

Soh Wei Yu: No its not.. more like impersonality or nondoership.

John Tan: Dzogchen has a phrase "spontaneous presence". I do not know it's exact meaning in Dzogchen, however the phrase is intimately related to the two experiences of the 2 stanzas of Anatta: (1) No doership = spontaneous ; (2) Mere appearances as Presence.

Soh Wei Yu:  Stage 5 is the thorough dissolution of the many faces of self/Self through deep experiential insight. Many people mistakenly think that they have realized Stage 5 but in fact they have not. This is because there are many faces of self/Self. Note the big letter and small letter distinctions of self/Self. In Phase 5, not only is the sense of ‘small ego’ or ‘sense of individuality’ dissolved. Even the sense of being a metaphysical Self, an ultimate, changeless, transcendental Subject is being seen through, dissolved and made irrelevant through insight, even though the Presence/Presencing and unfabricated Clarity is not denied but ‘made’ total, uncontrived, direct and non-referential (as mentioned in the previous section). 

Relinquishing one aspect self does not mean other aspects of self/Self has been dissolved. Stage 5 is the thorough dissolution of the many faces of self/Self through deep experiential insight. Someone may experience non-doership and think it is the same as the Stage 5 realization of Anatta, but in fact it isn’t. Some people may experience impersonality (see: Four Aspects of I AM above)… non-dual (as in stage 4)… and think of it as Anatta. But it isn’t the same.

... All phenomena happening by itself spontaneously and causally (via dependent origination) on its own, without the sense of doership or control, is not what I call Anatta realization. This is so even if one has the experience of impersonality, being lived by the divine or cosmic life and intelligence as a divine happening. You can trigger an insight or experience into non-doership by asking yourself: do you know what your next moment of thought or experience is, or does it just happen? Then by observing your experience, you see that all thoughts and experience just happens spontaneously on its own accord, unbidden.

In the case of mere non-doership and impersonality, the subject/object paradigm is still present, and although one feels that phenomena happens on its own, the sense of being an observer watching things happening on its own is still present. This is not what I call the realization of Anatta, in fact it is not even non-dual realization yet. 

Soh Wei Yu: Experiencing non-doership before Anatta. One can experience non-doership during the I AM phase, or for some people even before the I AM realization. Hence non-doership is not equivalent with Anatta realization.

Soh Wei Yu: Non-doership is important, though. Although the aspect of non-doership itself does not indicate the realization of Anatta, this does not mean it is not important. Particularly, non-doership becomes clearly experienced when the first stanza of anatta is penetrated and clearly realised. However, this stanza is not merely non-doership. It conveys both absence of agent and non-doership, and not just non-doership. 

John Tan: No agent as phenomena. No agent as a phenomena means seeing there is no agent, that is without the subject in experience. Then there is no controller, no coordinator, no agent that links. means on phenomena. not only doership. that there is no agent and phenomena. Only phenomena exist. That is different from no-doership. Means one, just that doing. Means seeing the actual phenomena that there is no agent, just phenomena. 

No agent as no doership... Means in terms of controlling, coordinating. Means there can be an agent, but that agent has no control this means no doership. The other is the absence of an agent in phenomena. Usually there are 2, the subject and the object

John Tan: Three Levels of Understanding of Non-dual Awareness. When Soh Wei Yu said: "Thought is, but no thinker. Sound is, but no hearer. Awareness cannot be separated from thoughts and manifestation", John Tan replied: "Yes, but what said can still have the following scenario": 

(1) There is an Awareness reflecting thoughts and manifestation. (I AM). Mirror bright is experienced but distorted. Dualistic and Inherent seeing
 
(2) Thoughts and manifestation are required for the mirror to see itself. NonDualistic but Inherent seeing. Beginning of nondual insight
 
(3) Thoughts and manifestation have always been the mirror (The mirror here is seen as a whole). Non-Dualistic and non-inherent insight 

In (3) not even a quantum line can be drawn from whatever arises; whatever that appears to come and goes is the Awareness itself. There is no Awareness other than that. We should use the teachings of Anatta (noself), DO (dependent origination) and Emptiness to see the 'forms' of awareness.

Mulapariyaya Sutta - The Root Sequence

Thanissaro Bhikkhu on "Buddhist" metaphysics. Although at present we rarely think in the same terms as the Samkhya philosophers, there has long been — and still is — a common tendency to create a "Buddhist" metaphysics in which the experience of emptiness, the Unconditioned, the Dharmabody, Buddhanature, rigpa, etc., is said to function as the ground of being from which the "All" — the entirety of our sensory & mental experience — is said to spring and to which we return when we meditate. Some people think that these theories are the inventions of scholars without any direct meditative experience, but actually they have most often originated among meditators, who label (or in the words of the discourse, "perceive") a particular meditative experience as the ultimate goal, identify with it in a subtle way (as when we are told that "we are the knowing"), and then view that level of experience as the ground of being out of which all other experience comes. Any teaching that follows these lines would be subject to the same criticism that the Buddha directed against the monks who first heard this discourse (Mulapariyaya Sutta).

Rob Burbea: The only sutta where at the end it doesn’t say the monks rejoiced in Buddha's words. One time the Buddha to a group of monks and he basically told them not to see Awareness as The Source of all things. So this sense of there being a vast awareness and everything just appears out of that and disappears back into it, beautiful as that is, he told them that’s actually not a skillful way of viewing reality. And that is a very interesting sutta, because it’s one of the only suttas where at the end it doesn’t say the monks rejoiced in his words. This group of monks didn’t want to hear that. They were quite happy with that level of insight, lovely as it was, and it said the monks did not rejoice in the Buddha’s words. And similarly, one runs into this as a teacher, I have to say. This level is so attractive, it has so much of the flavor of something ultimate, that often times people are unbudgeable there.

John Tan: Resting in a 'Source' becomes irrelevant. The advaita experience will sort of see awareness as permeating and transcending that is because the view is rest upon subject-object dualism. (Instead,) if it is resting upon DO, there is no such problem. How important is the 'Source' if it is resting on a view that has no source, center, substantiality and inherent essence? it becomes irrelevant and erroneous and nothing to boast about. Only when we rest our view on a 'Source', Ultimate reality seems very special. 

The realization of the selfluminosity of manifestation an important criteria for Stage 5 hasn’t arisen in all of these earlier phases of mere nondoership, impersonality and nondual (nondual luminosity is also experienced in Stage 4 but reified into an unchanging awareness inseparable from manifestation, but in Stage 5 even that something unchanging is seen through and dissolved).

Soh Wei Yu: Non-dual luminosity before Stage 5 is reified into an unchanging awareness inseparable from manifestation. The realization of the self-luminosity of manifestation -an important criteria for Stage- 5 hasn’t arisen in all of these earlier phases of mere non-doership, impersonality and non-dual. Non-dual luminosity is also experienced in Stage 4, but reified into an unchanging awareness inseparable from manifestation. But in Stage 5, even that something unchanging is seen through and dissolved. Daniel Ingram explains well the self-luminosity of manifestation below:

Daniel Ingram: Luminosity is both a useful and possibly very misleading term. Here's what Luminosity doesn't mean: That a person will suddenly see things more brightly, that there will be more light in things than the standard amount, or anything like that. Here's what it points to, said a number of equivalent ways: (1) In the seeing, just the seen. In the hearing, just the heard. In cognition, just the cognized. In feeling, just the felt... This standard line from the Bahiya of the Bark Cloth Sutta in the Udana is one of the most profound there is in the whole of the Pali Canon. It means that sensations are just sensations, simply that, with no knower, doer, be-er (not beer, as that is a beverage), or self in them to be found at all. (2) Point one, taken in its logical inverse, means that the "light" of awareness is in things where they are, including all of the space between/around/through them equally. (3) Said another way, things just are aware/manifest/occurring where they are just as they are, extremely straightforwardly.

Luminous Presence may come at a later phase,  depending on conditions · Pellucid No-Self vs Non-Doership

For John Tan, Soh Wei Yu and many others, the aspect of luminous Presence-Awareness was realized even at their earliest phases of development. However, some people may have certain understanding (perhaps not direct realization) into Emptiness, and certain insights into non-dual Anatta, without the direct realization of Luminous Presence. Without this aspect, one’s experiential insights are still incomplete.

Pellucid No-Self vs Non-Doership

Soh Wei Yu: Of late I had a few conversations with a number of people whose experience of noself is skewed towards nondoership rather than pellucid noself, the pellucidity of luminosity in nondual and noself. John Tan too have similar encounters. At the most their insight is into the first stanza of Anatta (No doership = spontaneous) but not the second stanza (mere appearances as Presence).

John Tan: The non-affirming negation, in the phases of insights approach of the 2 stanzas, one is not interested in the affirmation, just the thorough deconstruction of self construct. The seeing through of self in Anatta is the direct experiential taste of non-dual, purity and spontaneity. So when someone describe to you, they say they have deconstruct self/Self but there is no direct taste of colors, smell, sensation, sound, no direct face to face of the radiance, pellucidity, purity, spontaneity, insubstantiality and nonduality of appearances, is that genuine authentication? (No its not, but more like impersonality or non-doership instead.)

Soh Wei Yu: Pellucidity in no-self is important (second stanza). But this does not mean the non-doership or no agent aspect of first stanza is less important. As John Tan also said about someone else: "More towards second stanza, non-doership is equally important".

Even if Luminosity and Anatta is realised, there are differing depths
 
Soh Wei Yu: Even after anatta, John Tan has at times told me to revisit the aspect of I AM. It is possible, even important, to integrate that quality and taste. He also calls it ‘reversing the cycle of insight’. One may need to cycle through the phases of insights, sort of to refresh one’s practice and deepen it, for a few rounds.

-

John Tan: After the maturity of Anatta insight and twofold Emptiness, eventually there is effortless, ongoing and intense experience of "everything as Self", "As in that experience of I AM powerfully present at this moment", "As if like Awareness clear and open like space, without meditation yet powerfully present and nondual. Where the 4 Aspects of I AM are fully experienced in this moment. 

This experience will become more and more powerful later yet effortless and uncontrived. How so? If it is not correct insights and practice, how is it possible for such complete and total experience of effortless and uncontrived Presence be possible?. Indeed and this is being authenticated by the immediate moment of experience. How could there be doubt about it? The last trace of Presence must be released with seeing through the emptiness nature of whatever arises. After maturing and integrating your insights into practice, there must be no effort and action.... The entire whole is doing the work and arises as this vivid moment of shimmering appearance, this has always been what we always called Presence. Yes and you should in all moment of 6 entries and exits experience all coming together for this moment to arise....this will dissolve all senses of holdings and will lead you effortless and maha experience of suchness effortlessly, interpenetration, open, boundless, effortless and uncontrived.

-

John Tan: There is a very intense and much deeper state I assure you. But there is clear understanding that the manifestation is it. However, awareness is like an unbounded and limitless expanse field. The luminosity is intensely clear, the experience is like Non-Dual Awareness broke loose and exist as an unbounded Field. There is a difference in seeing sound and a hearer and realizing sound as awareness itself. You cannot focus and there cannot be any sense of effort, there cannot be any sense of boundaries, just itself. 

You must be very very stable and mature in the Anatta state, and you cannot be in an enclosed room... it is the effortlessness and crystal clear transparency and intensity of luminosity... but duality must no more trouble the practitioner, phenomena is clearly understood as the radiance... so nothing is obscuring then in total effortless and emanation arises and the expanse just continues ... one mind is subsuming, therefore there is a sense of dual. In this case there isn't. It is like a drop of water landed on the surface of a clear ocean. The nature of water and ocean are one and the same...nothing containing anything, when sounds and music arise... they are like water and waves in ocean... everything is it.

- 

John Tan: Experience should be natural and spontaneous, no strain and no effort. What appears is fully transparent, vivid, pure, clean and pristine as the layer that blocks dissapears. Until each moment of experience is free from observer and observed, just natural spontaneous pellucid appearance in obviousness. When we deconstruct more and more, we will also notice the relationship between radiance energy and mental deconstructions. The universe will reveal itself more and more as radiance of vibrational energies in dance rather than "concrete things".

As for nonconceptuality, it is not a mind trying to free itself from symbols and language. Rather it is the insight that sees through mental constructs (reifications) and conventionalities. It is an unbinding process of freeing the mind from being blinded by the semantics of conventions (existence, physicality, cause and effect, production) that is more crucial.

-

Soh Wei Yu: Lately the intensity here seems to be intensifying even further and whole bodyminduniverse is/are spheres of boundless light as manifestation, the textures and details of the moment. Was jogging just now and this boundless light (emptyclarity as the whole infinite field of manifestation) just keeps intensifying and intensifying into complete stunning brilliance, and had this out of body feel which is not a dissociated state (I can no longer experience subject/object dualistic state nor dissociation, nondual is always experienced here) but like a dispersing into the infinite field, and yet this is not mere mindbody drop as mindbody drop is already my everpresent state for many years.

John Tan: Like pure open awareness. Lol. Without center without boundaries. However it is often misinterpreted as always...something behind. Don't hold on to any experience, not the radiance. Allow the knowledge of emptiness to seamlessly integrate into radiance clarity. Let the radiance be as light as feather but immense like universe. Don't be intense.

-

Soh Wei Yu: Today the sense of tightness seems loosening and yet the radiance is still as clear. I had headache two days ago dunno why. Maybe some tenseness. 

John Tan: Yes. Because you don't know how to relax. You have wrong understanding attempting to focus on intensity unknowingly, wanted to feel more. Therefore I kept telling you relax, don't hold, be as light as feather and as immense as universe. With practice Awareness will stand out, more braman than braman… lol. However that is an emergence effect due to evenness of pristine empty clarity.

-

Soh Wei Yu: There are those that have very clear understanding of sunyata, and yet lack direct taste of PCE and luminosity and clear realization of Anatta (direct realization of radiance/effulgence in/as transience), and in that case the luminosity must come up in later phases. But for those who went through I AM phase first, there is not much danger of missing out the luminosity aspect of direct realization, and it is just a path of letting that luminosity's taste and nature unfold into complete freedom from fabrication and effortless, spontaneous perfection.

Having breakthroughs and insights into Anatta, but not stable yet

John Tan: Focus on vividness. It will be ´concentrative´ for some time before it turns effortless.

Continue contemplating until the insight of “always already so” arises and sinks in deeply into your mindstream. At first 'effort' to focus on experiencing on the vividness of 'sensation' in the most immediate and direct way will remain. It will be 'concentrative' for some time before it turns effortless. There are a few points I would like to share: 

(1) Insight that 'Anatta' is a seal and not a stage must arise to further progress into the 'effortless' mode. That is, Anatta is the ground of all experiences and has always been so, no I. In seeing, always only seen, in hearing always only sound and in thinking, always only thoughts. No effort required and never was there an 'I'. 

(2) It is better not to treat sensation as 'real' as the word 'real' in Buddhism carries a different meaning. It is rather a moment of vivid, luminous presence but nothing 'real'. It may be difficult to realise why is this important but it will become clearer in later phase of our progress. 

(3) Do go further into the aspect of Dependent Origination and Emptiness to further 'purify' the experience of Anatta. Not only is there no who, there is no where and when in all manifestation.

No Actor does not Imply No Action

This refers to a wrong understanding of anatta, prior to the direct realization of anatta. Wrong understanding includes the notion that “suffering” is caused by a real “sufferer”, “action” is caused by a real “actor/doer”, and hence if the doer dissolves there is no more action, or if there is suffering/action that implies there is a real sufferer/doer that is present and causing it (and when sufferer dissolves the suffering goes with it), etc. Or that because there is no sufferer, there is also no suffering (a nihilistic interpretation of no-self and emptiness).

John Tan: No-Self must be understood from the perspective of dependent origination. There never was a self. One must re-orientate oneself that it is functionality and action that give rise to [the sense of a] self/entity rather than [a real] agent giving rise to action. Therefore from anatta, we see Dependent Origination, cause and conditions, action, karma... unlike [the misunderstanding of] no-self therefore no dependent origination and causality. The former is non-substantialist view, the later is using substantialist self view to understand anatta (no-self).

Kyle Dixon: In Buddhism the self is ultimately just a secondary imputation, action never required an agent/self.

Buddhist teachings refer to this idea that an ultimate absence of identity somehow renders conventional activity and processes invalid as “nihilism” [uccedavāda].

A “self” is ultimately a secondary imputation that is attributed to a complex nexus of causal activity. By negating that imputation in a blanketed manner which calls into question and all processes that said “self” is attributed to, we only negate that surface level designation. However this does not resolve the causal nexus of afflictive activity that the designation is imputed onto.

In Buddhist teachings, the sense of selfhood is a byproduct of activity. Not the other way around.

In some “spiritual” approaches, such as neo-Advaita, they believe the imputation is primary and the activity is secondary. And so they only negate the imputation and then ask “who is there to do X?” or “who could have such and such realization?” or “there is no one who suffers because the self is a concept,” etc., but this only negates a surface level imputation and completely ignores the underlying factors that cause identification as a whole.

In contrast, the buddhadharma says that identity and identification in general is a process that is caused by afflictive action. The “self” as an imputation ie merely the very tip of the iceberg in terms of the activity that spawns identification and suffering. Therefore negating the self does not actually resolve the issue.

We agree that the self is a construct, and that selves are ultimately false, but we as practitioners of the buddhadharma also understand that there is underlying activity that manifests the self. That affliction must be resolved. Ignorance, grasping, etc., the afflictive chain of dependent origination that underlies selfhood.

The self does not create action. Action creates the self.

Therefore negating the self does not resolve affliction or the activity of dependent origination that creates the driving force of identification which binds us as sentient beings.

The process of bondage and the process of liberation in Buddhism are agentless action. Agentless activity. The agent is always secondary and is merely a useful designation that claims ownership. Therefore it is vital to understand there are causes and conditions that create samsara and the delusion of selfhood, and there is the undoing of those causes and conditions which leads to liberation”. 

Soh Wei Yu: It's important to understand the difference between genuine anatta insight vs dualistic conceptual understanding.

"No-self/Anatta is not about denying thinking, action, carrying water and chopping wood... and this is the key difference between genuine anatta insight from dualistic conceptual understanding. The very notion that "action" and "intention" implies, or necessitates, an "actor", and therefore for non-action the intentions and actions must also cease, is precisely using dualistic thinking to understanding anatta...

Action never required a self (in fact there never was a self or a doer apart from action to begin with: only a delusion of one), and action does not need to perpetuate the myth of a self. The myth of a self is not exactly dependent on action or lack thereof. Sure, action that arises out of the dualistic sense of actor/act where there is an "I" trying to modify or achieve "that" is a form of action produced by ignorance. But not all actions necessarily arise out of an underlying sense of duality. If all actions arise out of a sense of duality, then after awakening one will just die as he cannot even feed himself.

When one is operating with a dualistic way of understanding, one thinks that action implies a self that is doing an act, and one thinks that non-action implies that the self ends with the action. But genuine insight into non-action is simply the realization that never was there a real actor behind action, so there is always in acting just that action - whole being is only the total exertion of action, and this is always already the case but not realized. That is true non-action - there is no subject (actor) performing an act (object)".

Buddhagosa (Visuddhimagga): Poem on no-agent.

Mere suffering is, not any sufferer is found
The deeds exist, but no performer of the deeds:
Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it,
The path is, but no wanderer is to be seen.

No doer of the deeds is found,
No one whoever reaps their fruits,
Empty phenomena roll on,
This view alone is right and true.

No god, no Brahma, may be called,
The maker of this wheel of life,
Empty phenomena roll on,
Dependent on conditions all. 

John Tan: Choosing never required an agent/chooser.

The logic that since there is no agency, hence no choice to be made is no different from "no sufferer, therefore no suffering". 

This is not anatta insight.

What is seen through in anatta is the mistaken view that the conventional structure of "subject action object" represents reality when it is not. Action does not require an agent to initiate it. It is language that creates the confusion that nouns are required to set verbs into motion.

Therefore the action of choosing continues albeit no chooser.

"Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found;
The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there;
Nibbāna is, but not the man that enters it;
The path is, but no traveler on it is seen. 

Neo-Advaitic “No-Practice Doctrine” is Wrong and Unhelpful

Soh Wei Yu: This is related to “No Actor does not Imply No Action”. The Neo Advaitins, as well as some Buddhists these days, teach that you should not do any practices, since there is no one to do them and so on. That is based on the faulty premise the practices and actions require a doer, and that they are ineffective, or that they necessarily perpetuate the notion of a self or doer. That is lacking the discernment into conditionality, karmic conditionings, the role and relationships of path, view, experience, realization, fruition. It requires people with deep wisdom like Buddha, or like John Tan to be able to discern this.

Padmasambhava: Impossible to realize Buddhahood without engaging in practice.
 
Just as is the case with the sesame seed being the cause of the oil and the milk being the cause of butter,
 
But where the oil is not obtained without pressing and the butter is not obtained without churning,

So all sentient beings, even though they possess the actual essence of Buddhahood,

Will not realize Buddhahood without engaging in practice.
 
If he practices, then even a cowherd can realize liberation.
 
Even though he does not know the explanation, he can systematically establish himself in the experience of it.
 
(For example) when one has had the experience of actually tasting sugar in one's own mouth, one does not need to have that taste explained by someone else.

Acarya Malcolm Smith: Buddha-nature only exists in terms of potentiality, useless unless discovered or pointed-out.
 
That does not matter. Let's say you have a house, and in your house is a million dollars. If you never discover the million dollars or it is never shown to you, you will have a million dollars and never know it. Likewise, unless those buddha qualities are discovered by you in a direct perception, or pointed out to you, even if you have them, they are of no use to you. 
 
As far as Dzogchen view goes, such qualities exist in the form of potential only. The analogy Longchenpa uses is that even though you may not need to gather the two accumulations ultimately in order to possess the kāyas and wisdoms, practicing the two accumulations is like polishing a dirty gem. One is not really adding anything new, but instead one is revealing what is already there, but hidden from ordinary sight.
 
Dzogchen teaching make a clear distinction between the basis (the time of non-realization) and the result.
 
The real issue which causes argument is whether tathagatāgabha, a.k.a., the dharmakāya at the time of the basis, is something that is naturally perfected or something which requires development. In general, the Sakyapas for example argue that the natural perfection of the qualities of awakening in the person does not conflict with transformation in the same way the natural presence of the quality in milk which produces butter does not mitigate or render unnecessary the process of transformation which produces butter (churning). Longchenpa for example argues that while the two accumulations have always been perfected, they need to be reaccumulated in the same sense that a gem that has been lost in a swamp needs to be polished in order to restore its former luster". 

Nyingma master Dampa Deshek: On people advocating nihilistic views. There are some who show they are weary (or fatigued) about practicing something profound (like Dzogchen); they say that all phenomena are primordially liberated; they argue that they (themselves) are naturally liberated, and being carried away by these numerous reasons (or quotes), they do not practice (formally) and thus signs of success do not arise, nor (liberating) experiences. They say they are (already) Buddhas and don’t practice virtues; they are those who don’t give up vices. These are people (advocating) a nihilist view (chad par lta ba rnams).

Kyle Dixon: No-practice doctrine leads to complacency and a false of security.

Stian, Mr. J is implying that there is nothing to do, because all notions of 'anything to do', 'emptiness', 'right view', 'wrong view', 'ignorance', 'defilement' etc., are nothing more than concepts which arise and fall within the space of 'awareness' which cannot be improved upon or defiled... that is his view he is proposing. I beg to differ... to me this view is nothing more than a license for stagnation and complacency which only serves to perpetuate the issue. It is a false sense of security that one has already 'arrived' so to speak. 

The quote applies to Mr. J, because he claims precisely what Jigme Lingpa is describing in that statement to be true, and did so directly above that quotation: Jackson's view being, nothing need be done, because all concepts (including those of the dharma such as emptiness etc.), are nothing more than thoughts which arise in what is already complete, as expressions of what is already complete. His logic therefore being, there is no need to even entertain such notions, one is already innately realized. Jigme Lingpa is stating that such a notion is an incorrect view which actually severs one from the profound dharma. Mr. J’s assertion that 'nothing needs fixin' is a view he has touted for a very long time now, it is very unskillful and misleading. 

Kyle Dixon: Warning against holding neo-advaitic views.

And to clarify, I only harp on this issue like I do because I used to carry the same view: that everything is already perfect... there's nothing to realize... there's no one here to do anything... there's no such thing as "correct" or "incorrect"... or that concepts were the enemy, and so on, and so on, and so on. All the same narratives you see being spun by most neo-nondual teachers and systems. I remember I used to argue with a friend/mentor all the time about how he doesn't get it, and he's just fooling himself with practice and so on. And I used to cite the same quotations from Longchenpa and others that were speaking from the point of view of the ultimate, and I (in my delusion) provided them as proof that I was correct etc.

Then one day that changed, and I experientially tasted what all of these masters are pointing to. And I was shown directly that I had been wrong, and that was very humbling.

That made these teachings real for me. And surprisingly, instead of continuing to reject practice, and all of these other aspects of these systems that I had previously thought to be extraneous and a waste of time... I saw their value and their place for the first time. It became clear how and why they are applied, where they fit into the scheme of things... and I saw the sheer wisdom behind the structures that I had once mistakenly rejected.

So I only speak out against those who attempt to propagate the same mistakes because I've been there. I was so certain that I was right, and that I "got it", and that others didn't understand. And I was so wrong... unbelievably wrong. 

I'm no teacher or messiah, I don't have a superiority complex or have some strange need to be "right", it's nothing like that. I simply speak out because when I see others who appear to be passionate about these teachings, making the same mistakes I made, I see myself, I can't help but to want to say "hey, it really isn't that way." And if all I accomplish is at least planting some shred of a seed of a possibility that X person may think twice and consider being open to the fact that they don't have it completely figured out, then that is good enough for me. If not, that is alright too, but at least I can say I tried......

No-Self is Not Associated with a State of No Thoughts

The association of anatta (no-self) to the cessation of thoughts is due to a lack of insight that anatta is a seal, not a stage of attainment. In thinking there are always only thoughts, no thinker. In fact it is the realization that the continual arising and ceasing of thoughts without a thinker that is precious. The 2 important qualities that must be experienced are non-dual and spontaneity. Thoughts can slow down or even completely ceased but it has nothing to do with the insight of anatta.

John Tan: Commenting on posts misinterpreting freedom as a state of thoughtlessness.

I dunno what to say and dont want to comment.  It is just seeing through reification that results in pristineness of appearance free from imputations... that is thought free wakefulness.  There is clear intuitive discernment that is boundless and spontaneously free.

One should first have the experiential insight of anatta as it is the exhaustion of the background self as the reified construct.  To just say free of thoughts or to say it is a blank state that one can't differentiate left from right is just nonsense and pure ignorance.

Soh Wei Yu (2022): To summarise, thoughts are buddha nature. They are not the problem. The problem is due to ignorance it is misconstrued that thoughts necessitate a thinker or there is a thinker, agent, or watcher behind thoughts. In thinking there is only thoughts, no thinker. Thoughts are empty and self luminous. That is buddha nature and same goes for all other senses. 

No-Self is Not Pre-Determinism

(This issue is not peculiar to Stage 5 but can be present the moment one has glimpses or experiences of the non-doership aspect of no-self, even if one has not yet reached Stage 1) 

There is a kind of pathology or danger in various kinds of insights because they are partial and one may not have yet seen the complete picture. As you may have seen in my recent discussions, the pathology or danger in non-doership is that one will fall into a kind of extreme deterministic thinking - that somehow because there is no doer, nothing can/should be done about things. This leads to a very passive attitude to things, or rather, one is restricted to experiencing no-self in a passive way (of merely letting experience happen in non-doership), one which prevents the experience of non-dual in action/activities via complete non-dual engagement, involvement, incorporating intentions, and later going into total exertion. (Also non-doership does not imply one has arisen non-dual insight).

John Tan: On the disease of non-doership. 

“Nihilistic tendencies arise when the insight of anatta is skewed towards the no-doership aspect. The happening by itself must be correctly understood. It appears that things are accomplished by doing nothing but in actual case it is things get done due to ripening of action and conditions.

So the lack of self-nature does not imply nothing needs be done or nothing can be done. That is one extreme. At the other end of extreme is the self-nature of perfect control of what one wills, one gets. Both are seen to be false. Action + conditions leads to effect.”

Kyle Dixon: Differences between classical determinism and Buddhist karmic causality.

As to the specifics of your question I’m not sure, but here are a few major differences between classical “determinism” and Buddhist karmic causality:

Determinism proper necessarily involves inherently existent causes giving rise to inherently existent effects in a unilateral manner.

Karmic cause and effect in the context of the buddhadharma is only valid conventionally, and since every cause is an effect and every effect a cause, they are, in a coarse sense, bilateral in nature. 

Karma can be “determined” in a certain sense, but since karma takes direction from intention, change can occur, certain results can be averted, suffering can be mitigated and ideally uprooted altogether.

Life is not a fully automated process in the sense that you are like a helpless leaf being blown around by the wind, is the point.

You can make choices and direct volition. 

Soh Wei Yu: Endless dependencies play out in order for an event to occur rather than spontaneous arising or some form of determinism.

What you said is not completely wrong but can be misleading unless you understand 'nature' as 'dependent origination' (replying to a post about anger, killing, suffering being the expression of nature instead of a self). Which is to say, it is not fate, or some sort of outside determinism, nor is it spontaneous arising without causes, but simply dependencies playing out here.

For example, torturing people is the result of ignorance, aggression, etc etc. There are various causes and conditions as listed in the twelve links of dependent arising. And it is not something that is fixed. By engaging in dharma practice we deal with the afflictions and liberate them. Four noble truths are like what doctor does - diagnosis, cause, relief, cure. Four noble truths are completely in alignment with "no self, dependent origination". It would be erroneous if a doctor realizes there is no self, therefore, thinks that all diseases are 'just as it is' and should not or cannot be dealt with. They should be dealt with. But they are dealt with not via the attempting to exert control or hard will via by the false notion of agency (sickness can't be cured merely by trying to will or control it out of existence - there are so many dependencies involved). They are dealt with via seeing its dependent origination and treating its dependent origination in a non-inherent way.

Now in the case of 'torturing', if someone practices metta, it can help (or if you prefer, leave out the 'someone' -- 'practicing metta can help'). Then when fundamental delusion is cleared, aggression can no longer arise. There is nobody controlling anger, anger arise whether one wants to or not -- yet it can be treated by applying the right antidote (e.g. metta) or actualizing wisdom so that it releases (e.g. anatta, twofold emptiness), just like diseases happen whether one wants to or not -- yet there is medicine, cure. There is suffering, the cause of suffering, the end of suffering, and the path that ends suffering.

John Tan: Anger from the perspective of dependent origination.

Someone else: There is nobody controlling anger, anger arise whether one wants to or not”

John replied: Maybe sees it this way:

There is no one controlling anger, anger arises due to dependent origination.

With ignorance comes attachment. When attachment meets its secondary conditions, anger arises. Without secondary conditions, anger does not arise. Although it does not arise, it will not cease to arise unless the primary cause is severed. Here the appearance of “spontaneous arising” is seen from the perspective of DO.

Seeing this way, there is anatta; there is dependent origination; there is mindfulness of the cause of anger, the conditions, the cure and the ending of it. There is no bypassing as in “nothing needs be done”, albeit no-self.

Soh Wei Yu: No-self does not imply pre-determinism.

As I wrote to someone:

Yes but not to be mistaken that will has no part in all these. The teaching of anatta or no self does not deny will or the aggregates... The buddha teaches that a sentient being is simply a convention for five aggregates: matter/body, feelings, perception, volition, consciousness. Notice that volition is part of it. This will/volition can be directed towards a wholesome or unwholesome path. However, also remember that the five aggregates are empty of self - and are without agent. Does that mean there is no free will? In a sense yes, but neither does it imply determinism: another dualistic extreme. Free will means subjective controller determines action, determinism means objective world determines subjective experience. In reality there is no subject and object - in thinking just thought, in hearing just sound. But there are requisite conditions for every manifestation. Those conditions can be changed if there is a correct path.

A concrete example: if you ask a beginner to run 2.4km in 9 minutes with an unfit body, that is asking for the impossible. No matter how hard willed is he, he is never going to make it. Why? The current requisite conditions of his body is such that the result of running 9 minutes is impossible. Control, agency, doesn't apply when manifestation always arise due to conditions.

It however also means that if you exercise regularly for months or years, there is no reason the body (conditions) cannot be improved to the degree that running 9 mins is definitely possible. This is what I mean by working with conditions.

So those teachers who say meditation are useless are not understanding latent tendencies and conditions. They mistook no doership with some kind of fatalism. Every proper practice has its place in working with one's conditions.

Just because there is no self, no doer, doesn't mean my body is fated to be unfit and I can't reach the 9 min. Just because I exercise regularly doesn't mean I am reinforcing the notion of self or doership. In any case, action is always without self.

It also does not mean that "will" has no place at all. "Will" is often misunderstood to be linked to a self or agent that has full control over things, whereas it is simply more manifestation and conditions. Yes, sheer will going against conditions isn't going to work – this is not understanding no-self and dependent origination. But if will is directed properly with correct understanding of no-self and conditionality, at a proper path and practice, it can lead to benefits.

That is why the first teaching of Buddha is the four noble truths: the truth of suffering, the cause of suffering, the end of suffering, the way to end suffering. This path arises as a result of his direct insight into no-self and dependent origination.

Like a doctor, you don't tell your patients "you are fated to be ill and sick and in pain, because there is no individual controller, everything is the will of God". That is nonsense. Instead, you diagnose the illness, you seek the cause of illness, you give a treatment that eliminates the cause of illness. There is no self, there is no controller, but there is conditions and manifestation and a way to treat bad conditions. This is the way of the four noble truths.

No-Self Does Not Imply Solipsism

(This issue is not peculiar to Stage 5 and in fact may be more common in earlier phases of insights prior to thorough deconstruction of Subjectivity, the issue of falling into the other extreme of inherently existing physicality may be more pertinent to Stage 5)

Some people fall into the erroneous view of solipsism, the notion that there is no others than yourself, or that there are no others and only your presently arising experience exists. No-self does not negate conventional (other) mindstreams, only an inherently existing and unchanging and independent soul, self/Self, agent (perceiver, doer) or medium of experiences and actions. Mindstreams are conventionally valid like chariot, while the notion of inherent existence and souls are as impossible and invalid even conventionally as a rabbit with horns, which is to say they have no valid basis of designation at all and is purely a figment of imagination, just like unicorns. Inherent existence does not exist even conventionally, it is an impossible way of existence much like the impossibility of a “square triangle”. Conventionally, we can understand minds and mindstreams to be unique for each individual, there is nothing universal (all beings are mere extensions of One Mind) nor solipsistic (only my present mind/experience exists) about minds. However, just as with a chariot, mindstreams when sought for cannot be found whether apart from or within the parts or basis of designation, so mindstreams too are merely (dependently) designated and are ultimately also empty and non-arisen.

Soh Wei Yu: Ontological oneness doesn’t exist in Buddhism unlike Advaita Vedanta. 

Anatta and emptiness is in some ways diametrically opposite of Advaita view. We deconstruct "Oneness", there is no ontological "oneness" or a unifying reality in Buddhism. That would be an essence view, and the insight of anatta and emptiness deconstructs all essence views. Not only does all mindstreams remain differentiated rather than collapsed into oneness, all experiences are also not collapsed into oneness - therefore sight is not same as sound, no two moments or experience arising in dependence on the different sense faculties and objects are the same, and consciousness is always simply the myriad manifestation in all its diversities.

John Tan: Only when you subsume into one, it turns solipsistic.  So either freedom of extremes or you see DO and total exertion and emptiness.  Then you do not fall into extremes.

Bhaviveka: Since [the tīrthika position of] self, permanence, all pervasiveness and oneness contradict their opposite, [the Buddhist position of] no-self, impermanence, non-pervasiveness and multiplicity, they are completely different.

The statement "The tathāgata pervades" means wisdom pervades all objects of knowledge, but it does not mean abiding in everything like Viśnu. Further, "Tathāgatagarbhin" means emptiness, signlessness and absence of aspiration exist the continuums of all sentient beings, but is not an inner personal agent pervading everyone.

John Tan: How to overcome solipsism using Madhyamaka reasoning. 

The subsuming of everything into one's mind took place because one's mind seems to be the common factor in the mode of enquiry in solipsism.
 
However if using the same line of reasoning, it is in others’ mind as well.  If everything is in everyone's mind, then mind is no more the common factor but "Everything".  If you see this common factor of everything and shift your attention to everything, then experience turns very "physical".
 
Prasangika overcomes such issue by inquiring into its "inherentness".  Taking the “seed-plant-tree" example, why is the seed "growing"? Is there anything at the side of the "sprout" that is saying it is growing?  It can be understood as a decaying process as well.

Soh Wei Yu: Necessary to perceive reality in terms of endless dependencies to avoid falling into the view of solipsism. 

On solipsism, as pointed out by John before based on his own experience (that is, he too faced this tendency of solipsism after an initial breakthrough to nondual decades ago), the danger of someone going into nondual or even emptiness without the taste of total interpenetration is that one can easily fall into the extreme of solipsism. If we are directly experiencing our reality like in Vipassana, what we see are endless dependencies - seamless and intricate, in such a case there is no danger of falling into the view of solipsism.

Soh Wei Yu: Dependent Origination has to step in to fully dissolve solipsist views.

John Tan: you see, when we say there is no self or other, we can still not see in terms of DO.

Soh Wei Yu: I commented - this is very important.. and lately I'm seeing it more as well. To overcome all sense of I, me, and even mine, D.O. has to step in. Many people talk about no I, no background, but still there is sense of mine... and there are also those that say everything is 'the manifestation of my mind or my nature'.. that is subtly subsuming everything to mind. Even if there is no duality.

In dependent origination you totally see the entire formation of interdependencies... not in words but directly taste the totality of its workings forming every moment of experience. When the drum beat sounds you don't see it as just 'the manifestation of my mind' but you see it as the person hitting, the drum, the vibration, the ears etc... all in total exertion... how can that have anything to do with I or mine? It is not 'mine' anymore than it is the person hitting, the drum's, the vibration's... etc. It is not only that there is no hearer behind sound... not only no I but no mine at all.. the sound itself does not belong to anyone... it is the entire universe in total exertion so to speak.. but it is not understood in logic. You have to see the whole process and interdependencies directly. Breathing is like this... walking is like this... every action every experience is like this. This is the path to dissolve I, me, mine... only through D.O. is the release thorough.

Not 'everything is just consciousness' or 'everything is my consciousness'... consciousness isn't that special or important. It does not have a special, independent, ontological status. Rather it is the interdependencies the workings of D.O. through which that moment of consciousness/experience is in total exertion. The true turning point is when mind is completely separated from mine.. I, me, mine.. the dualistic and inherent tendency must be dissolved and replaced with the wisdom of D.O.

The Lucknow Disease

Generally Buddhists don’t have this issue, the neo-Advaitins have this issue.

Greg Goode: Description of Lucknow Disease. Linguistic malady befalling seekers at neo-advaita satsangs, from a manner of speech first observed in Lucknow, India in the early 1990's. It is characterized by never using the word "I." Avoidance of the "I-word" is to demonstrate to one's self but mostly to others that there is no longer any ego or sense of self here. Instead of using the word "I" in sentences, Lucknow Disease sufferers say things like "This form is going to the bathroom." The irony of the Lucknow Disease is that it only strikes when the person's sense of self is present and poorly integrated. It has never been observed in those whose sense of self is well-integrated - or absent.

Kyle Dixon: Conventional distinctions are not negated if anatta is understood properly.

You recognize and stabilize.
 
Dzogchen does not negate conventions such as our nominal identity as an agent who can engage in activity.
 
Identity is negated ultimately, through the cessation of the conditioned mind, however we are still free to implement conventional distinctions.
 
Otherwise we end up like neo-Advaita. Saying “who recognizes? Who is there to stabilize? No one wakes up.” These are unnecessary statements if the teaching is understood correctly.

Kyle Dixon: On ‘what’ realizes emptiness.

Answering someone’s question on “what is it that realizes emptiness?” Kyle Dixon wrote,

This used to confuse me as well, but really when it comes to insights and realizations of this nature, you can insert your conventional designation of choice.

I, you, he, she, they, them, the mind, consciousness, etc., I’ve even seen an excerpt Malcolm shared which said prajñā is the “realizer.” 

Conventions serve to indicate functions accurate to the characteristic, process or entity they are designating. The convention is a tool for communication and given that we are already functioning on the premise that everything is empty, the convention in question is ultimately treated as an inference. Therefore there is freedom to employ whatever convention is fitting to the context, as long as it is accurate in its application. 

In this sense you can say the conventional identity realizes emptiness and this is not an assertion that actually reifies said identity. 

In another context the inclusion of an agent, identity or entity related to the realization of emptiness is also extraneous. The process of delusion and the cessation of delusion is in one sense, a completely agentless process. 

Hence the famous “Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements [...] Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements.”

There truly is just the presence or absence of afflictive factors, which obstruct cognition of the nature of phenomena when present, and do not obstruct when absent. The identity is a secondary imputation that arises as the result of the appearance of a seemingly personal reference point once affliction is present. But a conventionally useful identity which can perform conventional actions and have conventional realizations of emptiness just the same.

Buddha: Conventional pronouns such as ‘I’ and ‘mine’ are still used for pragmatic purposes after no-self realization.

“Would an arahant say "I" or "mine"?

Other devas had more sophisticated queries. One deva, for example, asked the Buddha if an arahant could use words that refer to a self:

"Consummate with taints destroyed,
One who bears his final body,
Would he still say 'I speak'?
And would he say 'They speak to me'?"

This deva realized that arahantship means the end of rebirth and suffering by uprooting mental defilements; he knew that arahants have no belief in any self or soul. But he was puzzled to hear monks reputed to be arahants continuing to use such self-referential expressions.

The Buddha replied that an arahant might say "I" always aware of the merely pragmatic value of common terms:

"Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,
He uses such terms as mere expressions."

The deva, trying to grasp the Buddha's meaning, asked whether an arahant would use such expressions because he is still prone to conceit. The Buddha made it clear that the arahant has no delusions about his true nature. He has uprooted all notions of self and removed all traces of pride and conceit:

"No knots exist for one with conceit cast off;
For him all knots of conceit are consumed.
When the wise one has transcended the conceived
He might still say 'I speak,'
And he might say 'They speak to me.'
Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,
He uses such terms as mere expressions." (KS I, 21-22; SN 1:25)” - (link)

Acarya Malcolm Smith: Anatman doesn’t negate conventional designations.

Anatman is the negation of an unconditioned, permanent, ultimate entity that moves from one temporary body to another. It is not the negation of "Sam," "Fred," or "Jane" used as a conventional designation for a collection of aggregates. Since the Buddha clearly states in many Mahāyāna sūtras, "all phenomena" are not self, and since everything is included there, including buddhahood, therefore, there are no phenomena that can be called a self, and since there are nothing outside of all phenomena, a "self," other than an arbitrary designation, does not exist.”

Buddha never used the term "self" to refer to an unconditioned, permanent, ultimate entity. He also never asserted that there was no conventional "self," the subject of transactional discourse. So, it is very clear in the sutras that the Buddha negated an ultimate self and did not negate a conventional self.

Soh Wei Yu (2011): Active No-Self vs Passive No-Self

After realization of anatta, there is the passive no-self of experiencing non-dual anatta clarity in all six senses, but there is a further phase where there is the no-self in actions and activities which in its mature phase will lead to total exertion (see Stage 6 subchapter on total exertion for more details).

Next step is not to stagnate in no-self and engage wholly and completely into actions and activities then "satori" has no entry or exit; when the thunder claps, the whole of "satori" is actualized! - (link) 

Soh (2012): Full engagement in terms of no-self leads to total exertion. 

Hi James, I think after realizing anatta, the super-clarity of mindfulness becomes sort of effortless and uncontrived. Pure natural aliveness and crystal clarity in all six senses. Isn't it the case for you? So any kind of contrivance becomes counterproductive. But if you try to practice mindfulness before penetrating no-self, it is quite effortful to maintain. This is because clarity is intrinsic to mind/experience rather than being produced, only the sense of self is 'obscuring'.

Also the non-action that Thusness said is not merely 'no doer, everything just happening, just being done' but total involvement, total action, entire being is just action, so intention and effort is fully exterted to do what is being done. It is not a contrived effort like "trying to maintain a witness of what is being done", no. No contrived mindfulness is involved. I'm talking about full exertion in just doing that activity like the whole being, whole universe is fully exerting as the action, eating the apple, cleaning the stain off the toilet. Intention is fully included/involved in that moment, rather than dissociated/a kind of "let things happen on their own".

Whole body-mind is engaged in seeing, hearing, acting: "When you see forms or hear sounds fully engaging body-and-mind, you grasp things directly. Unlike things and their reflections in the mirror, and unlike the moon and its reflection in the water, when one side is illumined the other side is dark." - Dogen

When there is total action, that is also non action because there is no doer-deed dichotomy, whole being is just action and there is no doer or acting or even movement.” (link)

Soh (2016): Understanding freedom in terms of boundlessness rather than merely non-attachment.

What you said is very good. I was reminded of a discussion I just had with Thusness about a new book by Tony Parsons called "This Freedom".

I asked Thusness what freedom is. Freedom is not doing what one likes, that would be still self-view. It is also not just simply being unentangled within the paradigm of duality of subject/object, life/death division.

The realization of anatta and emptiness relinquishes the self and reified constructs, consequently artificial boundaries and hindrance are also dissolved.

When artificial constructs are dissolved, the natural, primordial and untainted are also spontaneously manifested in every engagement. If it is not, then one risks the danger of still being entangled in a non-dual ultimate and drowned in stagnant water. Hence there is a difference in understanding non-dual free from the framework of duality and the actualization of the non-dual realization as the spontaneity of action that is full of energy and compassion.

So as Thusness pointed out to me, freedom must be realized not simply as non-attachment but also as boundless expression that is full of life and power.

Therefore not only the path of non-attachment is seen clearly but the way of boundless compassion and powerful viriya must also be directly felt and lived. Not immobilized by artificial constructs and duality, action is natural and spontaneous; without self, there is no hesitation and obstruction.

If one only sees freedom as non-attachment, then one will have missed an enormous part of the experiential insight of anatta and will not understand why Mipham is so insistent on talking about the positive attributes of Buddha, yet not falling into the views of Shentong.

For example when Thusness asked me what fear is, my answer had mostly to do with the mental/psychological factors and attachment. However what Thusness want me to see is that fear is not only overcome by non-attachment but also by the feeling of unbounded life and energy.

Possible Dangers and Sidetracks of Stage 5

(a) Falling into reification of the physical like Actual Freedom teachings: 

Soh Wei Yu: After Anatta, luminous radiance or aliveness is naturally experienced in the foreground as everything: mountains, rivers, sky, etc. The luminosity becomes natural, effortless and very intense, however the tendency to reify the physical body and physical world as truly existing, solid, inherent is strong.

Actual Freedom founder Richard Maynard: I am the universe’s experience of itself. The limpid and lucid perfection and purity of being here now, as-I-am, is akin to the crystalline perfection and purity seen in a dew-drop hanging from the tip of a leaf in the early-morning sunshine; the sunrise strikes the transparent dew-drop with its warming rays, highlighting the flawless correctness of the tear-drop shape with its bellied form. One is left almost breathless with wonder at the immaculate simplicity so exemplified ... and everyone I have spoken with has experienced this impeccable purity and perfection in some way or another at varying stages in their life... ...‘Where you say ‘the outside world’ again you are speaking of the reality which the identity within creates ... in actuality one does not perceive the world ‘by our senses’ as one is the senses. The whole point of actualism is the direct experience of actuality: as this flesh and blood body only what one is (what not ‘who’) is these eyes seeing, these ears hearing, this tongue tasting, this skin touching and this nose smelling – and no separative identity (no ‘I’/ ‘me’) means no separation – whereas ‘I’/ ‘me’, a psychological/ psychic entity, am inside the body busily creating an inner world and an outer world and looking out through ‘my’ eyes upon ‘my’ outer world as if looking out through a window, listening to ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ tongue, touching ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ skin and smelling ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ nose ... plus adding all kinds of emotional/ psychological baggage to what is otherwise the bare sensory experience of the flesh and blood body. That identity (‘I’/ ‘me’) is forever cut-off from the actual ... from the world as-it-is.” “Everything and everyone has a lustre, a brilliance, a vividness, an intensity and a marvellous, wondrous vitality that makes everything alive and sparkling ... even the very earth beneath one’s feet. The rocks, the concrete buildings, a piece of paper ... literally everything is as if it were alive.”, “this actual world (the sensate world) which is the world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum” “This physical universe exists in its own right”, “Only this, the actual world, genuinely exists.

Soh Wei Yu: John Tan previously went through a phase post-anatta where everything was very physical similar to Actual Freedom (AF).

John Tan has undergone a phase initially after his realization of anatta where he became very “physical”.

Also John Tan told me a few times many years ago when I met him privately that he has gone through the Actual Freedom phase by his own practice without having read about actual freedom. That is, during his earlier years in anatta, he has gone through a phase where everything is very physical, and there was a sense that he was no different from cats and dogs and trees, physically. It even led to a sense of despair or existential angst. Interestingly, I later found out that AF Richard has also went through a period of existential angst in his earlier years after attaining AF, but I am not sure if it is the same thing. However, Richard often talks about the cats, dogs, trees, carrots being of the same stuff as his [physical] existence as the body only (not exact words but something like that), which was similar to how John Tan described that period for him.

Personally I don't recall having been stuck in that condition (extremely physical and existential angst), or even if I had it was not for long, perhaps due to the aid of right view (emptiness + dependent origination). My guess is that (and John Tan would agree) not everyone will go through sidetracks like AF Richard or U.G. Krishnamurti after anatta. E.g. Kyle's insight of anatta was followed shortly with realization of emptiness due to the help of right view.

Soh Wei Yu: Importance of deconstructing any notions of physicality that can occur post-anatta due to intense luminosity.

After initial breakthrough of seeing through and dissolving the self/Self, the physical flesh and blood body and universe can seem solid, tangible and truly existing. It is possible to remedy this by penetrating the construct of ‘physical’ and ‘mind-body’ into the bare sensations that make up the moment of experience. Even the term ‘sensation’ can become another construct, so be careful of that. A useful way of contemplating experientially/vipassanically would be to deconstruct the physical world and the mind and body into the sensory qualities of the five elements in direct experience. This leads to deconstruction of physical + mind-body drop. But even this is not yet the realization of Emptiness [Thusness Stage 6].

John Tan: Even after anatta realization one may end up reifying external reality.

First emptying of self/Self does not necessarily lead to illusion-like experience of reality. It does however allows experience to become vivid, luminous, direct and non-dual… ...First emptying may also lead a practitioner to be attached to an 'objective' world or turns physical. The 'dualistic' tendency will resurface after a period of few months so it is advisable to monitor one's progress for a few months (link) 

Is your experience now more physical or like awareness become like a gust of wind or reflection, or holographic?

John Tan: Illusionariness in terms of external reality is a natural progression after anatta realization as long as someone has right view.

André, to me anatta is a very specific and definite phase of seeing through the background self/Self quite thoroughly at least in the waking state but there is a tendency that experience can somehow turn very "physical, sense-based and causal" for me.

Every experience is direct, gapless, non-dual, non-conceptual and radiance even total exertion is present, just not empty. Almost equivalent to Actual Freedom as narrated by Richard. In fact I find Richard's description very much my version of arahat 🤣.

For Kyle, due to his view in emptiness, the experiential insight of anatta not only pierce through the self/Self but also triggered the arising insight of emptiness. However this may not be true (imo) in most cases if one's view isn't firmly established. For me when I first encountered the chariot analogy, there is an immediate and intuitive recognition that it is referring to anatta but I am unable to grasp the essence of the phrase "emptiness and non-arisen" there and then.

In other words, in addition to self immolation, a specific insight must arise, it is the prajna that clearly sees through the referent is empty and non-arisen. So anatta I would say is about severing the self/Self whereas phase 6 is the blossoming of this specific insight. Extending this insight from self to phenomena, from conventions to magical appearances is then a natural progression.

(b) Disease of Non-Conceptuality: 

John Tan: There are different tiers of non-conceptuality.

I think it is still too early to say that insight of anatta has arisen. There seem to be a mixing up and a lack of clarity of the following experiences that resulted from contemplating on the topic of no-self:

1. Resting in non-conceptuality
2. Resting as an ultimate Subject or
3. Resting as mere flow of phenomenality

In Case 1 practitioners see ‘The seen is neither subjective nor objective.... it just IS....’ In terms of experience, practitioners will feel Universe, Life. However this is not anatta but rather the result of stripping off (deconstructing) identity and personality. When this mode of non-conceptual perception is taken to be ultimate, the terms “What is”, “Isness”, “Thusness” are often taken to mean simply resting in non-conceptuality and not adding to or subtracting anything from the ‘raw manifestation’. There is a side effect to such an experience. Although in non-conceptuality, non-dual is most vivid and clear, practitioners may wrongly conclude that ‘concepts’ are the problem because the presence of ‘concepts’ divides and prevent the non-dual experience. This seems logical and reasonable only to a mind that is deeply root in a subject/object dichotomy. Very quickly ‘non-conceptuality’ becomes an object of practice. The process of objectification is the result of the tendency in action perpetually repeating itself taking different forms like an endless loop. This can continue to the extent that a practitioner can even ‘fear’ to establish concepts without knowing it. They are immobilized by trying to prevent the formation of views and concepts. When we see ‘suffering just IS’, we must be very careful not to fall into the ‘disease’ of non-conceptuality.

In Case 2 it is usual that practitioners will continue to personify, reify and extrapolate a metaphysical essence in a very subtle way, almost unknowingly. This is because despite the non-dual realization, understanding is still orientated from a view that is based on subject-object dichotomy. As such it is hard to detect this tendency and practitioners continue their journey of building their understanding of ‘No-Self based on Self’.

For Case 3 practitioners, they are in a better position to appreciate the doctrine of anatta. When insight of Anatta arises, all experiences become implicitly non-dual. But the insight is not simply about seeing through separateness; it is about the thorough ending of reification so that there is an instant recognition that the ‘agent’ is extra, in actual experience it does not exist. It is an immediate realization that experiential reality has always been so and the existence of a center, a base, a ground, a source has always been assumed. This is different from 'deconstructing of identity and personality' which is related to non-conceptuality but 'actual' seeing of the non-existence of agent in transient phenomena.

Here practitioners will not only feel universe as in Case 1 but there is also an immediate experience of our birth right freedom because the agent is gone. It is important to notice that practitioners here do not mistake freedom as ‘no right or wrong and remaining in a state of primordial purity’ ; they are not immobilized by non-conceptuality but is able to clearly see the ‘arising and passing’ of phenomena as liberating as there is no permanent agent there to ‘hinder’ the seeing. That is, practitioner not only realize ‘what experience is’ but also begin to understand the ‘nature’ of experience.

To mature Case 3 realization, even direct experience of the absence of an agent will prove insufficient; there must also be a total new paradigm shift in terms of view; we must free ourselves from being bonded to the idea, the need, the urge and the tendency of analyzing, seeing and understanding our moment to moment of experiential reality from a source, an essence, a center, a location, an agent or a controller and rest entirely on anatta and Dependent Origination.

In my opinion, the blog that hosts the articles on “Who am I” and “Quietening the Inner Chatter” provide more in depth insights on non-duality, Anatta and Emptiness. The author demonstrates very deep clarity of ‘what experience is’ and the ‘nature (impermanent, empty and dependent originates according to supporting conditions)’ of experience.

Andre A. Pais: Clinging to non-conceptuality can hinder long-term spiritual progress.

For me, the idea that conceptuality is a trap is actually a trap itself that depletes the potential of spiritual practice. It entails throwing away a very valid dimension of experience - after all, thinking is part of reality as well. And since it is thinking that creates the illusion of duality, it is at the level of thought that illusions must be dismantled. At the level of "reality" there is nothing to be done.

"Observe and see" [which is the only instruction you say you follow,] is also doing something. A spiritual path without instructions is not a path. And from the moment there are instructions, all of them may be valid, depending on the practitioner.

The neo-Advaita has this characteristic of tending to be nihilistic in relation to the path and means of liberation. "There is no one, there is nothing that needs to be done." This reveals a profound misunderstanding concerning the nature of experience: Everything happens in experience, even without an agent to perform it - the spiritual path is no exception.

The simplicity of "not thinking" is a comfortable nest that prevents us from asking important and bothersome questions. There is "presence" in the act of observation, but that presence has to be investigated in order to make its nature known. Otherwise, we are substituting a belief - in the self - for another - in some immutable and eternal presence. Both ego and presence are obvious and undeniable for those who establish them.

Buddhism also dissolves all concepts, but only when they have already done their job of deconstructing all concepts. "Silencing" conceptuality too soon is to throw away the ladder (of analytical thinking) before we've used it to go beyond the wall (of conceptual ignorance).

John Tan: Focusing on view as well rather than only mere experience.

Dry non-conceptualities means PCE without insight and wisdom. Without insight of how the conceptual mind affect experiences and wisdom of the nature of mind and phenomena.

There is the experiences, the view and the realization. So practice is not just about experiences, one must realise clearly what the view anatta and emptiness is pointing to in real-time experiences. Essentially it is about understanding how reification from conceptualities confuse the mind leading to dualistic and inherent thoughts and the freedom from them into spontaneous perfection of natural condition.

John Tan: Concepts are necessary for ultimately realizing non-conceptual insights.

“First is no one behind, just fully and completely that “Color” -- the place where there is no heat or cold.  Just this as this, not this becoming that.  No remainder, no trace, non-conceptuality.

Second is although that “Color” is fully clear, vivid and amazing “real”, it is nothing substantial – Empty! -- This seeing involves concepts.

First is no one behind  -- no feeler, just fully and completely that “Sensation”.  No ownership, no center, no doership, non-dual. 

Next examine the entire whole of sensations.  The intensity and clarity of hardness, coldness, solidness...etc… The entire sense of “hereness” is just an impression.  An impression of dependently originated formation, nothing inherently “here” nothing substantial – Empty! -- This seeing involves concepts. 

Let conceptuality and non-conceptuality work as one. 

John Tan: Unhelpful to over-emphasize on mere experience. 

There are those that only emphasized on experience alone with no clear discernment.  A sincere practitioner should not fall into the disease of it.

Practice is not just about the immediate appreciation of the no seer, just the scenery.  That would be just an experience of no-mind.  When asked, who ‘sees’, the practitioner may say no one sees but deep in him, it is the void boundless clarity that sees.  This certainly does not help and over emphasizing on the appreciation of mere experience will not go very far.  This “trace” must be overcome with earnest sincerity.  

If a practitioner can clearly see that “who sees” is a wrong question and rephrase it to what conditions give rise to this activity seeing, then that “trace” will be overcome completely in time to come.  For refining the view itself is the practice and the process of overcoming the “trace” completely.

Elizabeth Napper: Dissolving ignorance requires a realization of the truth rather than merely thought suppression.

 The process of eradicating avidyā (ignorance) is conceived… not as a mere stopping of thought, but as the active realization of the opposite of what ignorance misconceives. Avidyā is not a mere absence of knowledge, but a specific misconception, and it must be removed by realization of its opposite. In this vein, Tsongkhapa says that one cannot get rid of the misconception of 'inherent existence' merely by stopping conceptuality any more than one can get rid of the idea that there is a demon in a darkened cave merely by trying not to think about it. Just as one must hold a lamp and see that there is no demon there, so the illumination of wisdom is needed to clear away the darkness of ignorance.

John Tan: Stopping conceptualization doesn’t cure reification.

Without concepts, experience is naturally present and luminous is not exactly true imo.

We can stop conceptualization or even have many episodes of sustained non-conceptual non-dual or no mind experiences, still intellectual obscurations of seeing entities, entity possessing characteristics, cause and effect, agent and movement... etc continue to haunt us. Non-analytical cessation is temporary.

So the freedom from conceptualization cannot simply be a stopping of "conceptualization", a clear insight that sees through the emptiness of conventional constructs must arise.

Although the insight results in non-conceptuality, it also recognizes the cause of obstructedness is ignorance that obscures and blinds, not designations and constructs.

When contemplating DO (though conceptual), not only does the sense of self not arise, it replaces self view. Non-conceptual resting is too a means to an end. The end is not a non-conceptual luminous state but the complete uprooting of ignorance.

Therefore when Dogen rolls the boat in total exertion, there are concepts, designations and conventions but there is no sense of self, no sense of boundaries, no sense of obstructedness between the sky, the boat, the oar and the sea...all inter-penetrate beyond their conventional boundaries into the act of rolling.

Soh Wei Yu: Necessary to engage in investigation and challenge one’s views in order to realize non-substantialist insights vs clinging to non-conceptuality. 

The tendency to be nonconceptual is very ingrained not just after anatta, but even after I AM. It is a non conceptual and non-dual realization and taste of luminosity that is wonderful and blissful, but not necessarily liberating. But what happens after I AM? One always try to remain non conceptual, thoughtless, samadhi in pure beingness... while the views of duality and inherency of an ultimate Self, Source, Substratum remains uninvestigated and unchallenged. Insight into non dual and anatta does not arise until one actively engages in investigating one's views and concepts and penetrate further into the nature of reality.

Likewise, even after anatta, by getting stuck with PCE one does not investigate into dependent origination and emptiness, then all the uninvestigated views of inherency still remain in full force but are either unrecognised or taken as true (like AF) or merely suppressed in a nonconceptual state.

I used to think why the need to engage in conceptual conditionality etc.. prefer to rest in anatta non-conceptuality. Nowadays I know total exertion is triggered by contemplating on the conceptual conditional relations.. but its not an issue to me. More important is seeing dependent origination and then into total exertion and emptiness. Then one is liberated be it conceptual or non-conceptual. It's more important to experience release and taste of total exertion and emptiness be it in conceptual and nonconceptual.. rather than getting confused in conceptual and then seeking refuge in nonconceptual.

However, I believe total exertion can also remain a mere nonconceptual experience, in the sense of mere infinitude, taste of maha... this is the AF sort of total exertion but this fails to see the dependencies involved... and because one doesn't see dependencies one ends up in a very solid physical view of universe, everything is local, existing inherently in specific space time as objects and properties.

(c) Nihilism

Soh Wei Yu: Action doesn’t require an actor.

No-self/Anatta is not about denying thinking, action, carrying water and chopping wood... and this is the key difference between genuine anatta insight from dualistic conceptual understanding. The very notion that "action" and "intention" implies, or necessitates, an "actor", and therefore for non-action the intentions and actions must also cease, is precisely using dualistic thinking to understanding anatta

John Tan: Focus on having right understanding of non-doing vs spiritual nihilism. People that have gone into the nihilistic understanding of 'non-doing' ended up in a mess. You see that those having right understanding of 'non-doing' are free, yet you see discipline, focus and peace in them. Like just sitting and walking... ...in whatever they endeavor. Fully anatta.

Mind-Body Drop

Soh Wei Yu: Mind-Body Drop arise as a result of deconstructing the construct of a ‘body’. For some, this may arise even at the One Mind phase in John Stage 4 realization (e.g. Rupert Spira wrote about mind-body drop even in the One Mind phase in Transparency of Things), for others (such as Soh) as a further progression after John Stage 5 realization. If you have realised anatta but have not yet undergone a distinct phase of mind-body drop, investigating the body-mind construct according to this chapter might help. I (Soh) remember having a realization and penetration of the body construct - that it is merely a construct extrapolated out of a bunch of disjointed bodily sensations, and thus the ‘body’ along with its shape, contour and boundaries never truly existed as the entity that was conceived, one week after my realization of anatta through Bahiya Sutta that led to mind-body drop. My experience of anatta was deepened and further purified as a result.

I was investigating the sense of a body about a week after anatta realisation, then it was just seen that just like anatta realization, in hearing just sound and in seeing just seen, what we call “body” really cannot be found as an entity beside the various disjoint sensations.. the whole construct of an inherent body along with the sense of a boundary, shape, size, weight is thus penetrated via insight into its delusory nature. 

This is different from people who only had a glimpse of mind body drop.. just like anatta realization is a realization of what always is, it is not just a peak experience of no mind. I think you should know the difference.

John Tan: Key points regarding mind-body drop realization.

Gary (DhO): In walking meditation the "I" appears to place or make sense of the sensory perception. This involves a body image for example foot sensations are perceived to be at the foot, movement is perceived in relation to the previous position. Once in walking meditation I had the body disappear so there was just the feet touch sensations belonging and going nowhere. Does this describe direct without intermediary?”

John Tan: Yes Gary, what you said is correct. It is only a matter of depth and intensity, ie, how clear, how vivid, how real, how pristine the arising and passing sensations are when compared to the “I AM”. In the case of “I AM”, it is so clear, so real and so pristine that it burns away all traces of doubts. Absolutely certain, still and thoughtless that even Buddha is unable to shake the practitioner from this direct Realization of “I-ness”.

By the way, there should not be any ‘image’ in whatever experienced, thus, direct.

With regards to the “body's disappearance” that you mentioned, it relates to an experience called the “mind-body drop”. There are few more important points that you may want to take note:

1. It is not just due to “concentration on the sensations, the body image had no opportunity to arise”, the insight that mind and body are mere constructs must also arise and the disappearance is also the result of dissolving of these constructs.

2. Mind-body drop must also come with a sense of lightness. In the first few glimpses, you will also feel weightless and when the experience becomes clearer, you will also realize the “weight” of these constructs.

3. From the constructs, you may also want to explore further what happen when the constructs of “in/out” disappears.

Lastly the practice of self enquiry is not without danger. A practitioner can also be led into a state of utter confusions when exploring the ‘I’ through mere analytical process. So practice with care.”

Do note however that the dissolution of the sense of body can also occur as a peak experience in deep meditation or samadhi. This is not the same as the mind-body drop that occurs as a result of penetrative wisdom and insights that deconstructs all artificial and constructed boundaries, shapes, and solidity of a body and mind. The mind-body drop of wisdom can be a 24/7 experience, whereas dissolution of body-sense from a peak experience or a state of samadhi is short-lived and temporary.

Soh Wei Yu: Mind-body drop is form of insight/prajna wisdom rather than a temporary meditative state.

It is true that when no-self is actualized and when the body is deconstructed, a practitioner naturally experiences the mind-body drop. This means any sense or image of a body and a mind completely dissolves along with any senses of 'entrapment' or 'boundaries' at all. But do note that this is not a stage of meditative achievement. It is the result of wisdom-insight into the delusional constructions that conceives of a substantial body and a mind. In other words it is a form of self-view and view of a physical body being dissolved via prajna wisdom. Our notion of a solid body with fixed shape, boundaries, and substance deconstructs when we examine it and see that there is only flickering sensations without a center or boundary. After which, mind-body drop becomes natural and effortless, not a stage to be attained in meditation and lost outside meditation.

And because this is so, *mind body drop is an experience in daily life*. It is not separated from your mind, body, and daily life. It does not mean your body and mind ceases - it is your deluded image of an inherently existing self, body and mind is being released, so your daily life is experienced in a liberated manner.

Therefore it is erroneous to think of "mind-body drop" as a stage of achievement separated from this very experience of body-mind-world. It is only that this body-mind-world is seen as empty of anything graspable, transparent, and boundless. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.

More importantly, by that stage, you realize that "Awareness" itself is an imputation on the entire flow of manifestation - "Awareness" itself does not exist separately apart from each momentary mind moment, whether it is a sense of formless presence in deep sleep, or the shapes and forms of each waking moment. In other words, Awareness is also empty of being an independent, separate self.

Since this is the case, it is seen at this stage that the very notion of "true absolute Awareness" vs "phenomena" is a false, dualistic paradigm in the first place. There is only the one suchness of form and essence - in so far as each experience, each form, is both luminous clarity (Awareness) in essence and empty of self in nature. This is the nature of mind. 

U.G. Krishnamurti: Your ‘body’ is just points of sensations.

You do not realize it, but it is your thinking that creates your own body. Without this thought process there is no body consciousness -- which is to say there is no body at all. My body exists for other people; it does not exist for me; there are only isolated points of contact, impulses of touch which are not tied together by thought. So the body is not different from the objects around it; it is a set of sensations like any others. Your body does not belong to you.

Perhaps I can give you the 'feel' of this. I sleep four hours at night, no matter what time I go to bed. Then I lie in bed until morning fully awake. I don't know what is lying there in the bed; I don't know whether I'm lying on my left side or my right side -- for hours and hours I lie like this. If there is any noise outside -- a bird or something -- it just echoes in me. I listen to the "flub-dub-flub-dub" of my heart and don't know what it is. There is no body between the two sheets -- the form of the body is not there. If the question is asked, "What is in there?" there is only an awareness of the points of contact, where the body is in contact with the bed and the sheets, and where it is in contact with itself, at the crossing of the legs, for example. There are only the sensations of touch from these points of contact, and the rest of the body is not there. There is some kind of heaviness, probably the gravitational pull, something very vague. There is nothing inside which links up these things. Even if the eyes are open and looking at the whole body, there are still only the points of contact, and they have no connection with what I am looking at. If I want to try to link up these points of contact into the shape of my own body, probably I will succeed, but by the time it is completed the body is back in the same situation of different points of contact. The linkage cannot stay. It is the same sort of thing when I'm sitting or standing. There is no body.

Kyle Dixon (link): 

Now the idea that there is a bordering line between an internal aspect of the body and an external aspect apart from the body has to be taken into account as well. This 'bordering line' creating the dichotomy of internal/external is based on identification with 'the body'. But the body itself is not separate from vision either, there are other colors and shades which are identified as 'my body' but just like the colors which composed the salt, these colors appearing as a 'body' do not communicate a possessive nature. The colors simply arise no different than any other color in the field of vision. We only impute a notion of 'my body' over these colors. There are other faculties that seem to correlate with vision to give the appearance of a homogeneous cluster of sensations conventionally called the body and we can discuss those separately, but all are merely qualities appearing to awareness as awareness itself. So the notion of an 'subject inside' viewing an 'object outside' is not self-evident in vision. Vision simply appears and is completely non-discriminative. Another thing which isn't self-evident in vision is the presence of 'eyes' doing the seeing, we never experience or see our own eyes at any time, even in the act of looking at a mirror we only are ever seeing colors and shapes arise that we identify with as 'me' and 'my eyes' but the eyes appear nowhere within vision itself, we again only accept a story about this.

Anatta as Dispersing into Multiplicity + Spontaneous, Disjoint and Unsupported

Anatta stanza two leads to dispersing of Presence into/as multiplicity, while Anatta stanza one leads to spontaneous, disjointed and unsupported nature of arising. This leads to dissolving even the grounding into ‘Here/Now’, which will be an issue if one focuses solely on the second stanza of anatta (like many Actual Freedom and Zen teachings that I’ve seen which keeps emphasizing on being grounded in Here/Now).

On the dispersing of Presence as multiplicity:

John Tan: In many of your recent posts after the sudden realization of anatta from contemplating on Bahiya Sutta, you are still very much focused on the vivid non-dual presence. Now the everything feels ‘Me’ sort of sensation becomes a daily matter and the bliss of losing oneself completely into scenery, sound, taste is wonderful. This is different from everything collapsing into a “Single Oneness” sort of experience but a disperse out into the multiplicity of whatever arises. Everything feels closer than ‘me’ due to gaplessness. This is a natural [state after anatta].

Greg Goode: It looks your Bahiya Sutta experience helped you see awareness in a different way, more .... empty. You had a background in a view that saw awareness as more inherent or essential or substantive?

I had an experience like this too. I was reading a sloka in Nagarjuna's treatise about the "prior entity," and I had been meditating on "emptiness is form" intensely for a year. These two threads came together in a big flash. In a flash, I grokked the emptiness of awareness as per Madhyamika. This realization is quite different from the Advaitic oneness-style realization. It carries one out to the "ten-thousand things" in a wonderful, light and free and kaleidoscopic, playful insubstantial clarity and immediacy. No veils, no holding back. No substance or essence anywhere, but love and directness and intimacy everywhere...” (link)

On the spontaneous, disjoint and unsupported nature of arising aspect of anatta:

“This experience is radically different from One Mind that is non-dual. It is not about stillness transparency and vividness of presence but a deep sense of freedom that comes from directly experiencing manifestation as being disjoint, spontaneous, free, unbounded and unsupported.

John Tan: Inherent view hinders us from seeing the spontaneous and disjointed nature of self and phenomena.

The lack of doer-ship that links and co-ordinates experiences. Without the 'I' that links, phenomena (thoughts, sound, feelings and so on and so forth) appear bubble-like, floating and manifesting freely, spontaneously and boundlessly. With the absence of the doer-ship also comes a deep sense of freedom and transparency. Ironical as it may sound but it's true experientially. We will not have the right understanding when we hold too tightly 'inherent' view. It is amazing how 'inherent' view prevents us from seeing freedom as no-doership, interdependence and interconnectedness, luminosity and non-dual presence.

Soh Wei Yu: Luminosity is ultimately ungraspable and disjointed without any solidity/centerpoint.

In the beginning... when I had the sudden realization by contemplating on Bahiya Sutta, there was a very clear realization of 'in the seeing just the seen' - the second stanza of Anatta in John's article... seeing, hearing, is simply the scenery, the sound, it is so clear, vivid, without dualistic separation (of subject and object, perceived and perceived)... there never was, there is only the music playing and revealing itself. The scenery revealing itself...

It is very blissful, the luminosity is very clear and intensely felt. Yet it became a sort of object of attachment... somehow, even though luminosity is no longer seen as a Self or observer, there is still a sense of solidity that luminosity/presence is constantly Here and Now. A subtle tendency to sink back into substantialist non-dualism is still present.

Later on, I came to realize that luminosity, presence itself, is ungraspable without solidity. Much like the first stanza of Anatta in John’ article. There is no luminosity inherently existing as the 'here and now'... presence cannot be found, located, grasped! There is nothing solid here. There is no 'here and now' - as Diamond Sutra says, past mind is ungraspable, present mind is ungraspable, future mind is ungraspable. What there is, is unsupported, disjoint thoughts and phenomena... There is only the ungraspable experiencing of everything, which is bubble like. Everything just pops in and out. It's like a stream... cannot be grasped or pinned down... like a dream, yet totally vivid. Cannot be located as here or there.

Prior to this insight, there isn't the insight into phenomena as being 'scattered' without a linking basis (well there already was but it needs refinement)... the moment you say there is a Mind, an Awareness, a Presence that is constant throughout all experiences, that pervades and arise as all appearances, you have failed to see the 'no-linking', 'disjointed', 'unsupported' nature of manifestation.

The luminosity and the emptiness are inseparable. They are both essential aspects of our experiential reality and must be seen in its seamlessness and unity. Realizing this, there is just disjoint thoughts and phenomena arising without support and liberating of their own accord. There is nothing solid acting as the basis of these experiences and linking them... there is just spontaneous and unsupported manifestations and self liberating experiences. 

Sim Pern Chong: There is no base/source for appearances, thoughts, and sensations.

Will like to add that, in my experience, no-self is a more subtle insight than non-duality.

Usually, we see a continuity of mental formation... well... my experience is that it is not always so. The streams of thought seems to be linear but it is not.. To my experience, it is the fast movement of thoughts that give the impression of continuity of self.

Now... thoughts can appear and disappear and they do not have to be linear... 'Simpo' the name pop up and disappear... another image appears and disappears... all of them are not self... just appearance, sensations, etc... and we cannot say they arise from a base or sink into the base. There is no base (as far as I see it)... just this ungraspable appearing and disappearing.

Without this realization, one can never hope to understand this phrase in Diamond Sutra:

Therefore then, Subhuti, the Bodhisattva, the great being, should produce an unsupported thought, i.e. a thought which is nowhere supported, a thought unsupported by sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touchables or mind-objects.

Soh Wei Yu: Manifestation is completely trace-less and disjointed.

Just as Zen Master Dogen puts it: firewood does not turn into ashes, firewood abides in the phenomenal expression of firewood while ash abides in the phenomenal expression of ash, while at the same time ash contains firewood, firewood contains ash (all is the manifestation of the interdependent universe as if the entire universe is coming together to give rise to this experience and thus all is contained in one single expression).

The similar principle applies not just to firewood and ash but to everything else: for example you do not say summer turns into autumn and autumn turns into winter - summer is summer, autumn is autumn, distinct and complete in itself yet each instance of existence time contains the past, present and future in it. So the same applies to birth and death - birth does not turn into death as birth is the phenomenal expression of birth and death is the phenomenal expression of death - they are interdependent yet disjoint, unsupported, complete. Accordingly, birth is no-birth and death is no-death... Since each moment is not really a starting point or ending point for a entity - without the illusion and reference of a self-entity - every moment is simply a complete manifestation of itself. And every manifestation does not leave traces: they are disjoint, unsupported and self-releases upon inception. This wasn't Dogen's exact words but I think the gist is there, you should read Dogen's genjokoan which I posted in my blog (link) 

Zen Teacher David Loy: Thoughts are disjointed and arise not from each other but by themselves. 

Mahāyāna emphasizes realizing the emptiness of all phenomena, whereas Advaita distinguishes between empty Reality and phenomena, with the effect of devaluing the latter into mere māyā.

The image of a worm hesitant to leave its hold was used in a personal conversation I had in 1981 with a Theravada monk from Thailand, a meditation master named Phra Khemananda. This was before I discovered the passage from Ramana Maharshi; what Khemananda said was not prompted by any remark of mine, but was taught to him by his own teacher in Thailand. He began by drawing the following diagram:

 

Each oval represents a thought, he said; normally, we leave one thought only when we have another one to go to (as the arrows indicate), but to think in this way constitutes ignorance. Instead, we should realize that thinking is actually like this:

 


Then we will understand the true nature of thoughts: that thoughts do not arise from each other but by themselves.”  (link) 

Daniel Ingram: Even the ‘present moment’ is merely empty transience and doesn’t withstand scrutiny.

Someone asked Daniel: Why the need to experiment with all sorts of practices? Why the need for the switch to Zen, Vajrayana, prayer, Catholic devotional practices, martial arts, magickal practices, and so on? Why not just continue to observe exactly what's going on in the present moment and see the Three Characteristics?

Daniel Ingram: Well, it could be enough, sort of. The Three Characteristics are profound, very profound, staggeringly profound, and not easily grasped in their entirety. It seems perfectly reasonable to grasp them in their entirety by observing them, but there is a problem, actually, that last line contains a bunch of problems that are not obvious until you see them clearly. I will go by the words in that last line to illustrate the problem.

"Continue": there is no continuing. There is nothing to continue, no past that could be continued, no future to continue into, and this moment is entirely ungraspable. No sensation could ever actually grasp or continue. Everything is fresh but perfectly ephemeral. The notion of continuing, from a high insight point of view, is a serious problem. Instead, there has to be a deep non-grasping, a perfect and flawless appreciation of non-continuing, a deep never could be a continuing, a deep nothing could ever be continuing, a deep sense of not only discontinuity, but of the utter flowing, vanishing, empty transience of anything that seemed to be able to continue. One must figure out how to go beyond continuing, beyond grasping, beyond that strange mental illusion that such a thing could ever occur or have occurred.

"Observe": there is no observing. There can be no observing. There is nothing that can observe at all. Everything is just occurring where it is, naturally, straightforwardly. There is no observer. There can't be any observer. There never was any observer. Deeply understanding this is required. There never was any observation. Observation can't finally do it. One must figure out how to shift out of observing to just phenomena occurring.

The qualifier "in the present moment" is a problem in some way. This almost always involves some subtle or gross pattern of sensations that we refer to mentally when we say "now", or "the present", which are not actually stable, not actually a present, not actually anything but more empty transience, yet we make them seem like a stable present. This is very subtle, deep, profound. Even "the present" doesn't withstand scrutiny, and we must be careful with this sticky concept, as it can itself become a sort of a solidified thing, part of the illusion of continuity, observation, practitioner, etc.

So, while it is true that deeply comprehending emptiness, non-continuity, non-observation, and even non-present, can occur by just continuously observing this present moment, we must be careful, and sometimes it takes people shifting out of their trench of "good practice" to do something that is out from good practice and instead is just the unfolding empty wisdom dharma. Various people find various methods to make this subtle shift, and one size definitely does not fit all, so best wishes sorting out what will help you work out your salvation with diligence.

Daniel Ingram: Concepts such as ungraspable, discontinuous, ephemeral, non-existent, etc, should not be reified. 

One could just say that each transient moment, however it is, naturally understands its ungraspable, discontinuous, ephemeral, non-existent, empty nature, straightforwardly, perfectly.

However, one must be careful not to idealize or intellectually reify any of those concepts and qualifiers, and instead this is something that is purely perceptual.

It applies to every transient moment, regardless of any other consideration of the specific qualities of that moment.

All that said, I did, as my last push, go back to the Three Characteristics and Six Sense Doors, just those, but at a level of extremely high precision, inclusiveness, and acceptance, and found that effective. Yet, the place I had gotten to that seemed to make it effective was a radical disenchantment and dispassion towards with everything “I” had attained, everything “I” was, everything “I” could become, everything “I” could experience, and how to arrive at such a place varies a lot by the person.

John Tan: Unless someone experiences ‘disjoint and unsupported’ with sufficient clarity, they will end up falling back to reifying awareness.  

it is insight into anatta and DO then you lose all dualistic and inherent view and what's left is simply dharma… I do not want you to fall back to Awareness. when you do not experience 'disjoint and unsupported' with clarity, you will fall back. when you are able to mature the disjoint and unsupported experience then there is no holding to Awareness… it is just a word. what is actual is just simply this luminous activity or ceaseless activity. so you know what I meant about AF (Actual Freedom) not talking about liberation last time?

It is more on stanza 2. direct apprehension… flesh and blood of this body… all these are trying to get grounded much like in the here and now. Though tarin talk about that recently [Soh: letting go of the grounding in Here/Now], I cannot see the clarity of insight. But I do not want you to go around making noise...

You just have to 'taste' this directly and realize whether it is true or not. Only when a practitioner mature the 'disjoint' and 'unsupported' realization, the 'grounding' can then be gone. otherwise it is only 'talk'. :P so you must realize it, have a glimpse of this truth, then you know the 'how' of proceeding.

John Tan (2011): Experiencing no-mind in a disjointed and unsupported manner is different from experiencing it as focus attention. 

John Tan: now experiencing no-mind as focus attention is different from experiencing no-mind in a disjoint and unsupported manner. what is the difference?

Soh: as focus attention still has some level of effort because there is a need to sustain the ground... no mind in a disjoint and unsupported manner is just constant opening and releasing without effort and without ground

John Tan:  well said... so what is the sensation like?

Soh Wei Yu: disjoint and unsupported manner is like a sensation of not staying anywhere... ephemeral, bubble like phenomena arising and passing without traces

John Tan: the key word is 'freedom' or “liberating” 

Contemplative Practices to Focus On After Anatta

First give rise to anatta realization, afterwards, let it mature and stabilize in passive mode of no-self, then actualize anatta into the active mode (pure action) and then mature into total exertion. Then also, look into twofold emptiness, and integrate the tastes of +A and -A.  That's been my progression. First be thorough and without traces of self/Self or even subtle clinging to an ‘intrinsic clarity/Awareness’.

John Tan (2011 to Soh): Adopting right view in order to eliminate any lingering trace of a background. 

The summary of the experiences and realizations that you have written for your teachers and masters are good documentations of your journey but not to get too attached to external 'authentication'. :)

What that is more important now is to realize after the arising insight of anatta, how through the adoption of 'right view' lead to thorough seamless and effortless experience of non-dual. As I have told you in the earlier post:

The initial break-through although may appear thorough to you but the clear experience of no-mind should not last more than few months. It will lose its grandeur and the 'split' will surface intermittently.

So go through few cycles of refining your experience of no-mind and continue to adopt the 'right view' of understanding the experience. Have no doubt that Phenomena in their primordial purity is Dharmakaya. Always check whether there is any lingering trace of a background. If there is, there will always be division.

Do not fear challenging your imaginary split. In time to come, you will realize you can't re-experience the 'division' even if you want to.

Once again, check and fearlessly challenge whether such lingering trace remains. Is non-dual intermitent or reversible and has the right view sunk into the deep most of your consciousness.  This step must be done with utmost sincerity and must not be compromised.

The grandeur will disappear after a few months but once the right view is practiced correctly, your experience will be stable and continuous. There must be complete thoroughness and effortlessness in non-dual.

This is the only true authentication.

John Tan: Stabilizing active mode of no-self.

John Tan: With regards to this innate clarity that is non-dual in nature, is there anything required for you to improve anything?

Soh Wei Yu: No

Soh Wei Yu: Trying to improve is like adding dirt to improve a jewel, lol

John Tan: Precisely, it is just relaxation into clarity...there is truly nothing that needs to be done. That division is gone.

John Tan: What will be your natural progression next?

Soh Wei Yu: Total exertion?

John Tan: No don't talk about that

John Tan: Look into your experience now
Soh Wei Yu: To fully experience that clarity naturally?

John Tan: Yes and you must be very careful about that, to fully experience means? To improve the clarity?

Soh Wei Yu: No.. Like you said, simply relax into experience as it is manifesting

John Tan: So there are few distinct phases, B4 and after the arising insight of anatta and when that insight of anatta becomes stable with almost no trace and gap left in passive mode of experience in the six entries and exits.

Soh Wei Yu: Ic..

John Tan: Fully relax without holding anything, everything is in clearest expression.

Soh Wei Yu: Ic..

John Tan: And what does that mean?

Soh Wei Yu: There is just the happening which is pure clarity, without any effort to abide, improve, etc

Soh Wei Yu: When there is no self clinging, there is just the happening/clarity which is self-so, and the intensity of clarity reveals itself due to the absence of obscuration (clinging)

John Tan: Yes and what you call clarity is really just "the everything in clearest expression" so forget about the clarity, it is the trick of language.

John Tan: So what does it mean by "everything"?

John Tan: Means it's no more looking at no-self or clarity but this so called "everything"...

John Tan: There is truly nothing to be done "when" the division is gone

John Tan: If you were to do awareness practice, is it easy for you to understand how non-dual in action is like?

Soh Wei Yu: No, tendency is to rest in passive awareness

John Tan: Just like 2-fold emptiness, extending the emptiness of self to phenomena yet another vehicle is needed to point this out.

John Tan: Even a practitioner after maturing his/her non-dual in passive mode may not necessarily see how non-dual in movement is like. He/she can resort to resting in wide open Awareness instead.

John Tan: are you afraid of having a view?

Soh Wei Yu: No

John Tan: you can consider total exertion = non dual-action (total action) + deep sense of interconnectedness

John Tan: Tell John Ann, even for this "boundless stillness", the universe has given its very best, therefore no effort and naturally still.  

John Tan: Actualizing anatta into total exertion. 

John Tan: It will go but will come back again... Your case was a bit unique...lol. But not to the state where there is no heat or cold (Soh: link)... this will be eventually become normal and effortless then you must practice channelling towards specific goal

John Tan: Total opening up first for now

John: For whatever arises

John: Once the taste and the view seamlessly integrate...practice specific concentration ...then slowly understand how consciousness works

John: Nowadays does sense of separation still arise?

Soh Wei Yu: I see..

Soh Wei Yu: Not so much.. But the intensity varies...

Soh Wei Yu: Specific concentration like anapanasati?

Soh Wei Yu: Should I do it now

John: No

John: Until sense of self is gone and transcend into the moment of action

Soh Wei Yu: Should I close my eyes or open my eyes in meditation?

Soh Wei Yu: Think closing eyes is more suitable for anapanasati. But dogen teach open eye meditation

Soh Wei Yu: More like zazen

John: Now for you is simply doing non dual opening and with the help of view, the entire experience is realized as this arising, this action...until this mature first

John: There is no difference

Soh Wei Yu: I see

John: Just practice non dual opening first

Soh Wei Yu: Oic

John: For anatta, opening will be realized as action...this manifestation

John: But for those that practice non-dual awareness, they always trace back to the source

Soh Wei Yu: I see..

John Tan: For anatta, there is no source to trace, it is fully manifested as the immediate moment of manifestation or as this flow of action

Soh Wei Yu: Oic..

John Tan: Until this view is fully integrated into moment to moment of experience... Then you start practicing concentration

John Tan: First understand no-self

John Tan: Has total exertion anything to do with innate clarity?

Soh Wei Yu: When there is no self, naturally everything is vivid clarity. But there is no inherently existing clarity like an atman

John Tan: KOK your head can you answer directly to the point

Soh Wei Yu: Total exertion isn't about clarity, but whenever there is no self be it active or passive the clarity aspect of everything shows itself clearly

John Tan: What is total exertion about if it is not about this innate clarity?

Soh Wei Yu: Full involvement and participation in action, intention, thought, without a self or doer/deed gap, instead only action

John Tan: What else?

John Tan: What you first understand anatta it is just intensity of luminosity but slowly how has experience become after you begin to look into DO.

Soh Wei Yu: Not solid and inherently existing, instead fluid and involving all causes and conditions in creating/manifesting activities

John Tan: And later?

Soh Wei Yu: I dunno.. Just transcending into the activity of d.o.?

Soh Wei Yu: As in total exertion

Soh Wei Yu: I feel every moment is an actualizing of all conditions including intentions in one activity, activity is actualized by conditions

John Tan: Yes...that clarity is now forgotten...no diff from a Self... Into this interdependent activity

Soh Wei Yu: you mean forgetting clarity as some here/now ground

Soh Wei Yu: There is no presence in and of itself, no here/now

John Tan: No

Soh Wei Yu: Oh you mean the clarity becomes traceless in activity

John Tan: Why presence and here and now?

Soh Wei Yu: Its due to substantial view... Prevents fully appreciating total exertion and transience

John Tan: are you saying yourself?

John Tan: Or you are making a general remark

Soh Wei Yu: General remark. But that's also the case for myself in the past

John Tan: So what else?

John Tan: For you now it is as if that clarity has turned inside out and become traceless into this moment of activity

Soh Wei Yu: Yes

Soh Wei Yu: That's what you mean by being like a view actualized and forgotten?

John Tan: Let's say you are chanting now with your entire body-mind

John Tan: Mind-body all drop and become this moment of action in chanting

John Tan: Then another one came and start chanting in the same frequency

John Tan: Then another one

John Tan: Then another one

John Tan: Tell me what it is like right now with the mere thought of what I said right now

Soh Wei Yu: The whole universe is chanting... I get this sense like one year ago when chanting in dharma center

John Tan: ? (thumbs up)

John Tan: All consume each other into maha suchness...great and miraculous

John Tan: There are 4 points from innate clarity to DO.

John Tan: 4 points

John Tan: From Innate clarity to DO

John Tan: To one action and what are the diff

John Tan: To inter-consume that each node of the net inter-consume and feels the same total exertion

John Tan: To this has always been the "Pre-condition" as you quoted..obscure and too occupied by that sense of self and went un-notice

John Tan: Dun also whole universe...lol

John Tan: Dun Always

John Tan: people read until they’re sick and tired of it and mean nothing

John Tan: Means the point you want to bring out is how the no-self when understood from anatta, do allow you to move passive to active, slowly from mere traceless clarity of the six entries and exits to one action (no doer-deeds gap) to one-activity to total exertion until you understand the implication of Indra-net. "You" must be lost but the full implication of inter-action, inter-be... Must be realized.

John Tan: you cannot think or understand intellectually... you have to engage and fully involved.

John Tan: When no-self is experienced this way it is completely different from Awareness practice.

Soh Wei Yu: Oic..

John Tan: These are the few turning points.

John Tan: Did Wu bong said that?

John Tan: How come exactly what I wrote... Lol

John Tan: Not one process to total exertion

Soh Wei Yu: No he said "Why am I talking about this? Because of this one word, seamless. According to our teaching, our original experience is seamless. That means that name and form is always changing, but one thing remains consistent. Although you can make sandalwood into an incense stick, into a carved elephant, or into a little box, its smell is the same. Also our teaching tells us that we are originally like one big net. That means we are all interconnected, continuously, without any break or separation.

Together is already a pre-existing condition. We are also this wide, interconnected experience. We are all originally pulsating dynamically moment by moment, moment by moment. Together-action is not something we create. Whatever we practice as together-action is just to remind ourselves."

Soh Wei Yu: what you mean?

Soh Wei Yu: Oops

Soh Wei Yu: Wrote wrong

Soh Wei Yu: Sorry not wu bong, is wu kwang

John Tan: And not "understand Indra-net and dependent origination as one action"

John Tan: Take out "as one action"

Soh Wei Yu: Ok

John Tan: You are still unable bring out the essence of how total exertion is like the opening gate that when more and more nodes are added...the inter-consume

John Tan: When in passive mode this is also directly experienced and intuit

John Tan: But let your experience and understanding settle first

John Tan: It is like every node when added exert every single one

John Tan: After that you will never feel innate clarity or self or anything but the immensity of this interconnectedness

John Tan: Get it

Soh Wei Yu: Oic..

John Tan: Not just in the seen, just the seen...lol

John Tan: Two different flavors of total exertion. 

Total exertion has 2 flavors: the interpermeation and interpenetration of all things and wholeheartedness of action without self/Self.", “Total exertion is not just interpenetration. Maha is an experience of great beyond measure. It is an experience of everything being consumed as it. Only in anatta this experience can be accessed without much issue. So [for] I AM if [one is] without that experience [of I AM] is short of I AM… ...I have told you experientially there is no difference [between I AM and anatta]. Only a refinement of view.” 

John Tan: After stage 5 and refining our experience of emptiness and DO, sensory experience feels grander than brahman/universe.

Soh Wei Yu: if im not wrong ramana maharshi is still talking about stage 4 rite he's not talking about no subject but union of subject/object... he still talks about brahman

John Tan: yeah

John Tan: in Buddhism, after stage 5 and refining our experience of emptiness and DO, even an arising breath is as great as brahman. 

John Tan: an arising thought, an arising breathe, a re-sounding sound...all is maha.  All feels universe.  There is no need to hold on to a self.

John Tan: Think should make this as a stage or a phase of insight

John Tan: Entering Maha, all is clear. if you ask a person that chant, what is universe? he says "OMmmmm"

John Tan: he says "Amitoufo"

John Tan: If you ask some one that practice 'breathing', he say just this breath.

John Tan: if you ask one in zazen, he say just this sitting

John Tan: events and activities are buddha nature in reality.

John Tan: Being open and spacious after post-anatta along with deconstructing mental constructs. 

Commenting on a monk who realized anatta through AtR, “Yes good.  As a monk unlike us because we think so much, once he gets to this point when both sense of observer and observed disappeared into non-dual sitting, just relax the mind. Be natural and spontaneous, until it enters the 3 states.

Don't be focused, be open and spacious.  Problem with most of us is even after anatta, the mind has so many thoughts creating confusions that we are unable to have very deep and mature taste of no mind in natural state until the bliss burns away all doubts and confusions.  So we need to equip ourselves with thorough de-construction techniques and see through all the mental constructs.

Like and dislike won't go away that fast as the strength of openness and energy aren't there yet to fill the body mind.

Is your no-mind strong immediately after sleep in the morning and then into the day?

Soh Wei Yu: Practice-Enlightenment is a natural progression after developing anatta realization. 

I see Shikantaza (The Zen meditation method of “Just Sitting”) as the natural expression of realization and enlightenment.

But many people completely misunderstand this... they think that practice-enlightenment means there is no need for realization, since practicing is enlightenment. In other words, even a beginner is as realized as the Buddha when meditating.

This is plain wrong and thoughts of the foolish.

Rather, understand that practice-enlightenment is the natural expression of realization... and without realization, one will not discover the essence of practice-enlightenment.

As I told my friend/teacher 'Thusness', “I used to sit meditation with a goal and direction. Now, sitting itself is enlightenment. Sitting is just sitting. Sitting is just the activity of sitting, air con humming, breathing. Walking itself is enlightenment. Practice is not done for enlightenment but all activity is itself the perfect expression of enlightenment/buddha-nature. There is nowhere to go."

I see no possibility of directly experiencing this unless one has clear direct non-dual insight. Without realizing the primordial purity and spontaneous perfection of this instantaneous moment of manifestation as Buddha-nature itself, there will always be effort and attempt at 'doing', at achieving something... whether it be mundane states of calmness, absorption, or supramundane states of awakening or liberation... all are just due to the ignorance of the true nature of this instantaneous moment.

However, non-dual experience can still be separated into:

(1) One Mind

- lately I have been noticing that majority of spiritual teachers and masters describe non-dual in terms of One Mind. That is, having realized that there is no subject-object/perceiver-perceived division or dichotomy, they subsume everything to be Mind only, mountains and rivers all are Me - the one undivided essence appearing as the many.

Though non-separate, the view is still of an inherent metaphysical essence. Hence non-dual but inherent.

(2) No Mind

Where even the 'One Naked Awareness' or 'One Mind' or a Source is totally forgotten and dissolved into simply scenery, sound, arising thoughts and passing scent. Only the flow of self-luminous transience.

However, we must understand that even having the experience of No Mind is not yet the realization of Anatta. In the case of No Mind, it can remain a peak experience. In fact, it is a natural progression for a practitioner at One Mind to occasionally enter into the territory of No Mind... but because there is no breakthrough in terms of view via realization, the latent tendency to sink back into a Source, a One Mind is very strong and the experience of No Mind will not be sustained stably. The practitioner may then try his best to remain bare and non-conceptual and sustain the experience of No Mind through being naked in awareness, but no breakthrough can come unless a certain realization arises.

In particular, the important realization to breakthrough this view of inherent self is the realization that Always Already, never was/is there a self - in seeing always only just the seen, the scenery, shapes and colours, never a seer! In hearing only the audible tones, no hearer! Just activities, no agent! A process of dependent origination itself rolls and knows... no self, agent, perceiver, controller therein.

It is this realization that breaks down the view of 'seer-seeing-seen', or 'One Naked Awareness' permanently by realizing that there never was a 'One Awareness' - 'awareness', 'seeing', 'hearing' are only labels for the everchanging sensations and sights and sounds, like the word 'weather' don't point to an unchanging entity but the everchanging stream of rain, wind, clouds, forming and parting momentarily...

Then as the investigation and insights deepen, it is seen and experienced that there is only this process of dependent origination, all the causes and conditions coming together in this instantaneous moment of activity, such that when eating the apple it is like the universe eating the apple, the universe typing this message, the universe hearing the sound... or the universe is the sound. Just that... is Shikantaza. In seeing only the seen, in sitting only the sitting, and the whole universe is sitting... and it couldn't be otherwise when there is no self, no meditator apart from meditation. Every moment cannot 'help' but be practice-enlightenment... it is not even the result of concentration or any form of contrived effort... rather it is the natural authentication of the realization, experience and view in real-time.

Zen Master Dogen, the proponent of practice-enlightenment, is one of the rare and clear jewels of Zen Buddhism who have very deep experiential clarity about anatta and dependent origination. Without deep realization-experience of anatta and dependent origination in real time, we can never understand what Dogen is pointing to... his words may sound cryptic, mystical, or poetic, but actually they are simply pointing to this.

Someone 'complained' that Shikantaza is just some temporary suppressing of defilements instead of the permanent removal of it. However if one realizes anatta then it is the permanent ending of self-view, i.e. traditional stream-entry.

John Tan (2022): Five points of general advice for practitioners post-anatta.

As for those layman practitioners that for some reasons still prefer to go on their own asking for some general guides post anatta insights, I think they can focus on the 5 following points:

1. Extend the insight of anatta, the de-reification process to all events and phenomena. MMK comes handy here. It will help one investigate most of the subtle assumptions we held to be "true" in a hypnotic way.

2. Open up our body and go deeply into body-awareness. This is critical imo. Less intellectual activities and more body-awareness. Post anatta and along the path, due to the de-construction process, the energy released from unconsciously holding of our mental constructs can be quite overwhelming. It may also be due to other reasons, for example, attachment to non-dual experiences and as a result it will engender discomfort to both our mind and body.

3. So opening up our body is key at this phase. The imbalance can be released by massage, non-inflammatory diet, qi gong, tai chi movements, yoga or any other body awareness exercises. Just open up our body and bring awareness to our body to complement the anatta insight and less intellectual activities. 

4. If after that, the practitioner can intuit directly the relationship between mind, prana and body and wish to pursue his knowledge further on how the energy system works, they can then look for experienced teachers in this space to guide them. U are not into this, hence, do not advise ppl on what you are unsure and have no experience. 

5. Lastly, bring the insight of anatta into our daily activities, meet conditions and engage. 

John Tan: Understanding the meaning of empty and non-arisen post-anatta. 

Understand the meaning of empty and non-arisen. Self is one reification. Arising, abiding and cessation are also the product of reifications.

1. See through these conceptual notions analytically. 
2. Understand that whatever arises in dependent do not arise.
3. Link your understanding with absence/presence. Read the article on the 4 levels of understanding 2 fold emptying (link 1) , (link 2) 
4. Compare the difference: Insight of anatta but still with arising, abiding, and cessation vs absence/presence. 

John Tan: Realizing anatta doesn’t mean there is nothing to do and nothing to practice.

After this insight [of anatta], one must also be clear of the way of anatta and the path of practice. Many wrongly conclude that because there is no-self, there is nothing to do and nothing to practice. This is precisely using "self view" to understand "anatta" despite having the insight.  

It does not mean because there is no-self, there is nothing to practice; rather it is because there is no self, there is only ignorance and the chain of afflicted activities. Practice therefore is about overcoming ignorance and these chain of afflictive activities.  There is no agent but there is attention. Therefore practice is about wisdom, vipassana, mindfulness and concentration. If there is no mastery over these practices, there is no liberation. So one should not bullshit and psycho ourselves into the wrong path of no-practice and waste the invaluable insight of anatta.  That said, there is the passive mode of practice of choiceless awareness, but one should not misunderstand it as the "default way" and such practice can hardly be considered "mastery" of anything, much less liberation. 

John Tan: The afflictive chain of ignorance still remains after anatta realization and needs to be throughly exhausted. 

Anatta not only realizes the marvelous spontaneous functioning, anatta also clearly experience the afflictive chain being rolled out from ignorance to the formation of self. There is no self always, but there is the afflictive sense of self formation from ignorance. The path is therefore the thorough exhaustion of ignorance in the 3 states (waking, dreaming and sleeping)... … [There are] differences in degree of overcoming [thoroughness of exhausting ignorance in the 3 states completely]

John Tan: Dissolving the lingering sense of self requires 'non-dual' experience to be further refined similar to Tozan’s no heat or cold koan. 

John Tan: Now with your current insight and understanding, what should be the right approach to end this lingering sense of self? Your practice should be always realization, experience and views. Your experience must refine [to be] like the place where there is no heat or cold*. Your anatta view must be extended to whatever arises. Your realization must extend your anatta to dependent origination.

The Place Where There is No Heat or Cold: A monk asked Tozan, “When cold and heat come, how can we avoid them?”

Tozan said, “Why don’t you go to the place where there is no cold or heat?”

The monk said, “What is the place where there is no cold or heat?”

Tozan said, “When it’s cold, the cold kills you; when it’s hot, the heat kills you.”

This is not advice to “accept” your situation, as some commentators have suggested, but a direct expression of authentic practice and enlightenment. Master Tozan is not saying, “When cold, shiver; when hot, sweat,” nor is he saying, “When cold, put on a sweater; when hot, use a fan.” In the state of authentic practice and enlightenment, the cold kills you, and there is only cold in the whole universe. The heat kills you, and there is only heat in the whole universe. The fragrance of incense kills you, and there is only the fragrance of incense in the whole universe. The sound of the bell kills you, and there is only “boooong” in the whole universe...

~The Flatbed Sutra of Louie Wing, Ted Biringer

John Tan: After anatta one must be fully engaged but non-attached.

“When anatta matures, one is fully and completely integrated into whatever arises till there is no difference and no distinction.

When sound arises, fully and completely embraced with sound yet non-attached. Similarly, in life we must be fully engaged yet non-attached” 

Soh Wei Yu: Sense of ‘mine’ or ownership/attachment still occurs after anatta realization.

As John Tan pointed out before, even though anatta realization allows one to penetrate and dissolve the I, agent, subject, perceiver, experiencer, it does not necessarily immediately dissolve the ‘mine’ bond and attachment. By our karmic/deep conditioning, grasping at phenomena as objects that are ‘mine’ may still occur out of habit. That requires deeper wisdom and insight into emptiness and dependent origination to resolve. And it is only through completely dissolving all traces of I-making and mine-making that one achieves liberation. That is the end of all activities of appropriation, grasping, craving and identifying [objects as mine] – it is truly the end of suffering. In the seen only the seen.

John Tan: 60% of the work is done once someone frees themselves from the sense of self. 

“John Tan: Just free ourselves from sense of self first, then it is probably 60% done. After then gradually to all notions into supreme purity.

Arthur Deller: I like that. Where did the 60% factor in!?!? No self is true. For whom would the other 40% apply. 😎

John Tan: an arbitrary number...haha. "For whom" is within the 60%. If we start from other notions like cause and effect, will most likely end up as intellectual entertainment.😝

Arthur Deller: in the words of Maximus. “Are you not entertained”. I’ve had enough intellectual stimulation to last an eon or so.

In thinking no thinker
Thought with no thinking.
 
John Tan: If both thinker and thinking are deconstructed, why do you keep that thought?

Arthur Deller: I don’t. They just come and go. Like pixels. Fuzzy characters with no landing place.

John Tan: then notion of "coming", "landing" and "going" must be subjected to the same scrutiny like thinker, thinking and thought.

Arthur Deller: I had a feeling that you picked up on that. Was gonna go into the non-arising via DO, but my brain 🧠 said it isn’t necessary.

Arthur Deller: you just lit a 🔥. In deep samadhi and insight meditation that’s very clear. On the go throughout the day while interacting, not as much.

John Tan: distinguishing appearances and imputed notions added to mere appearances is a life long journey and indeed, daily engagement is the real meditation.

Arthur Deller: Hence the other 40%. Nice.

John Tan: Understanding chariot analogy is the next step after anatta realization. 

John Tan: Chariot analogy is next step of anatta

John Tan: It is THE view for practitioners that has arisen insight of anatta

John Tan: But there is a catch

John Tan: It is in the way it is presented

John Tan: In fact anatta is the most key and base insight after knowing dzogchen, mahamudra, madhyamaka, zen

John Tan: you need anatta to beam through dzogchen and mahamudra but to have a stable base you need some further insight into mmk [Soh: Nagarjuna’s teaching on Mūlamadhyamakakārikā].

Sevenfold reasoning of the Chariot

“There is no chariot which is other than its parts
There is no chariot which is the same as its parts
There is no chariot which possesses its parts
There is no chariot which depends on its parts
There is no chariot upon which the parts depend
There is no chariot which is the collection of its parts
There is no chariot which is the shape of its parts”

- Chandrakirti, on 'mere designation'

John Tan: Seamlessness and effortlessness of non-dual experience will not be smooth without right view. 

“To mature this realization, even direct experience of the absence of an agent will prove insufficient; there must also be a total new paradigm shift in terms of view; we must free ourselves from being bonded to the idea, the need, the urge and the tendency of analyzing, seeing and understanding our moment to moment of experiential reality from a source, an essence, a center, a location, an agent or a controller and rest entirely on anatta and Dependent Origination.”

Therefore despite the clear realization and right experience, seamlessness and effortlessness of non-dual experience will not be smooth without ‘right view’. The reason though obvious is often overlooked; if deep at the back of a practitioner’s mind he still hold the dualistic and inherent view, how is it possible to have seamless and effortless experience of in seeing, just scenery; in hearing, just sound? How unreserved, open and seamless can a practitioner be in transcending the self altogether into the transience? Hence equip oneself with a view that can integrate with the realization and experience, it will help practitioners progress more smoothly. Understanding the impact of view in practice is what I find lacking in many of your posts. You may want to look into it. 

With regards to the attachment of view, it does not apply to practitioners that have gone pass certain phases of insights. Practitioners after certain phases of insights are constantly abolishing ground and are clear that whatever pith instructions and views are merely provisional. There are masters that caution practitioners and there are students that parrot their masters’ advises, so do not follow blindly. In fact if understood correctly every deepening of view is a giving up. In the case of anatta, it is the total elimination of Self.

Soh Wei Yu: Importance of deconstructing the sense that there are intrinsic luminosity/clarity or objects and characteristics or essence.

Jayson MPaul: I was investigating Presence this morning and trying to probe into beliefs that are hidden or unquestioned. I saw that presence was still not emptied. It was assumed to have a clarity/luminosity as an attribute of it. This was giving it a subtle essence or reification. I saw that the clarity/luminosity was dependently designated on the IS-ness of presence. Everything seemed to get "closer" or more intimate and somehow presence became more direct, more present, less fixed, less grasping. This was a nice release and thought I would share in case this opens anything up for others.

Someone else: can you please describe how you were investigating Presence? ie. if I wanted to do the same, how would I go about it?

Jayson Paul: Sure. I'll give you the lead up to it as well since the mindset was probably a condition leading to the insight. Having got comfortable in presence (in the seeing, just the seen, no seer for all senses), I was reading this blurb from the blog: The section labelled "On Emptiness" in link  this was happening I was investigating where is that voice that occurs when reading, is located. I had been getting more comfortable recently looking at where thoughts occur directly and not psyching myself out because they don't seem to exist in space. I did this for awhile noticing how the reading continues, the eyes move on their own, and this voice of the text is appearing as a vague somewhere. After getting really settled at looking at this voice and how it is non-local (doesn't have a location of itself) which gives a feeling of it's emptiness, I realized that presence itself is still being grasped at, specifically the clarity aspect. I investigated this by looking directly at presence itself (which also has no location) and seeing that it doesn't have clarity as an attribute as it's existence. More that there is presence and we give it the attribute "clarity" with our mind as a conceptual designation only. It doesn't inherently exist like that. At this point from my previous practices in seeing things as conceptual designations only, the mind saw presence was empty and stopped grasping it. At that moment I saw how there was still subtle grasping at the clarity of presence and how it was even nicer to let that go.

John Tan: That is great insight but not just thoughts, sound, smell..etc.  what about colors, lights...vividly vision?  Where is the lurid scenery right before the eyes now?  Don't privileged mind over phenomena or phenomena over mind.

It does not only apply only to referent of conceptual constructs are not found, even non-dual presence is not found...taste this not found deeply...the -A...

Then look at DO....if mind is de-constructed, there is no mind and into anatta, and phenomena too are deconstructed....without privileging either mind or phenomena, move deeply into dependent designation/origination, taste the formation, deconstruction and see the freedom of natural and spontaneous perfection.

Post anatta, insight is not so much about the radiance of presence, that is a given, it is the +A and -A taste...

John Tan: Knowing is not enough...but taste the depth of how this "not found" becomes the wisdom that frees (link) 

Jayson MPaul: Yes exactly. I have been doing the not found tastes a lot recently. How mind is not found, thoughts are not found, I've done the vivid scenery not found in the past as well. Appearance is, but in no location at all

John Tan: Not found is more tasty than full presence. If extended to all appearances, then the entire body mind will be pervaded by this single taste of "not found" -- immensely spacious and free, natural and spontaneous. He should spend some quality time on that.

Then relate this taste to essencelessness and understand the conceptual relationship and experiential taste of:

--Essencelessness and the 8 extremes.
--Essencelessness and dependent designations.
--Essencelessness and total exertion.
--Essencelessness and the manifold of appearances.

Jayson MPaul: Thanks! I will do that. Not found is more tasty than full presence  

John Tan: Means see the essencelessness of what appears and refine the view of essencelessness according to the abv instead of relating through presence. Put presence aside     

John Tan: you should focus on that instead of PCEs, it will help you relinquish fear, attachment and energy imbalances, radiance of presence will be soft and light, yet natural and immense.

John Tan: Completely integrate the general principle of dependent origination post-anatta. Perfection of no-mind is not possible in my opinion without complete integration of the general principle of Dependent Origination, and very clear penetration of the problem of dualistic/inherent framework. That is even after very mature phase 5, no-mind is not necessarily perfected. One has to continue to refine the view.

Post anatta insight, what is important is how is one to practice in the conventional world of relatives where traces of imprint are still intact. 
 
How is one to exhaust the karmic imprints and what view will stop one from harbouring the inherent and dualistic tendencies.
 
"Seeing is only seen, no seer" helps in triggering experiential insight of anatta but it is not an appropriate view for the conditioned mind to function effectively and efficiently in a conventional world.
 
Embrace the view of dependent arising fully, a precious and perfect view for anatta practitioners.

John Tan: Maintaining a balance and spend quality time into this state of anatta while being non-conceptual. 

When you are luminous and transparent, don't think of dependent origination or emptiness, that is [the contemplative practice for] post-equipoise. When hearing sound, like the sound of flowing water and chirping bird, it is as if you are there. It should be non-conceptual, no sense of body or me, transparent, as if the sensations stand out. You must always have some quality time into this state of anatta. Means you cannot keep losing yourself in verbal thoughts, you got to have quality hours dedicated to relaxation and experience fully without self, without reservation. 

John Tan: Emptiness and Total Exertion go further than anatta realization. 

The awakening for phases of insight is centred on two aspects really.  The direct taste of clarity and the full blown freedom from the perceiver and perceived.  This is mark by anatta where the insight into no-self is the key to the floodgate.  It is THE key insight that lead to effortless and spontaneous non-dual expression that is free from perceiver and perceived.

Emptiness goes further and so does total exertion.  It penetrates deeply into the conventional world and see how powerful constructs affect the intellectual mind and the breadth and depth of freeing oneself from all these mental constructs.

John Tan: Necessary to slow down the continous stream of thoughts we have while maintaining right view in order to realize the view of anatta and dependent origination. 

The problem is the thought.  Thought after thought. 

This continuous stream of thoughts form a chain that is still under the deep influence of the dualistic and inherent paradigm that prevents the seeing.  

So despite the training like your local sangha teaching to lengthen the gap between thoughts, each arising thought is still under the influence and prevents the clear seeing.  Therefore you need right view with certain training to slow down the thoughts to allow the clear seeing of what the view of anatta, DO is trying to convey. So that when each thought arises, it can with the help of the view, see the actuality of what is going on.  So that it can authenticate the view, to realize in real time the "always and already is" of anatta.  

Once it is authenticate, you are the view is no more needed, it is real time actualization and one realizes that the state of no mind that is free from a perceiver and perceived is always effortlessly manifesting. 

Next step you can ask people if it is always so, how is it that we can still be in confusion?

This paradox or koan will trigger another insight to allow practitioner to clearly understand what liberates. 

As I told you, whether in confusion or realization it is always in a state of no mind and no-self otherwise confusion is not possible as I explain to you about ignorance. So what exactly liberates? Can you see clearly why the paradox?

Soh Wei Yu: Understanding of impermanence changes post-anatta.

In anatta, impermanence is directly authenticated as simply the dynamic and traceless nature of appearances. It is not about having a conceptual view of impermanence, it is about the direct authentication of 'in hearing only sound, no hearer', 'in seeing only scenery, no seer', 'in thinking only thoughts, no thinker'. Everything is gapless and direct and luminous. Yet there is no staying, totally dynamic and traceless like drawing on water. Of course, you're right that there can be a subtle view remaining of dharmas having subtle existences arising and ceasing in flickering speed. That too must be seen through, then one realises and tastes the non-arisen nature of dharmas.

Since no phenomena are found to arise, abide, and cease, merely dependently originating -- no dharmas are established to either be permanent or impermanent. That is the emptiness of all dharmas.

After anatta there is no unchanging awareness at all, just dynamic appearances (therefore impermanence is more accurate than permanence), but even dynamic appearances are never found, never arose, empty and non-arisen, like reflections.

John Tan: Differences between Advaita and Buddhist understanding of no-self.

That is what I understand too.  There are subtle differences between Advaita non-duality and buddhist's anatta both in terms of realization and experience.

When contemplating on the subject of 'no-self', the mind of the practitioner is directed towards the transient phenomena and upon the ripening of conditions, the mind suddenly sees the illusionary division of subject-object duality; with the maturing of this realization, experience becomes seamlessly whole. There is no hearer in hearing or perceiver in perceiving, just simply a sense of perception.   In terms of this experience, they are similar.

However although the blinding bond of 'duality' is dissolved, the tendency to see things 'inherently' isn't. The practitioners continue to resort back to a Self despite after the clear seeing of this truth and rest their understanding of 'no-self based on Self'.  This is substantialist non-duality.  There is an ultimate essence and abiding in Self is still the way towards liberation and there is also the temptation to treat this experience as a sort of pseudo finality.

Buddhism on the other hand sees this experience and realization as the first step in the 8 fold path -- right view.  It means right view of anatta is fully authenticated with this non-dual experience but Buddhist’s non-dual is non-abiding, groundless and essence-less.  There is no resorting back to an ultimate essence and the entire idea of liberation is based on seeing clearly the anatta, non-substantiality, essence-less empty nature of whatever arises, including Awareness or Self.  Experience is luminously non-dual yet empty.

Therefore in Buddhism, besides the experience, right view is very important.  Upon the clearing seeing of ‘no division’, it is advisable to penetrate further into the impermanent nature of phenomena both at the micro and macro level of experience.   In terms of practice, there is no letting go to an ultimate ground or great void  but the letting go is due to the thorough insight of the ‘empty nature’ of all arising -- Reality is perpetually ‘letting go’. 

So in addition to the non-dual seamless experience, there must also be the clear experience of perpetual letting go of non-holding to whatever arises.  Therefore when AEN told me non-dual presence, the NDNCDIMOP or being lock up permanently in PCEs of the AF as the key solution to eliminate emotion, pride and anger…the 10 fetters, I told him not yet, not because I am stubbornly attached to Buddha's teaching but because that is my realization and experience. :-)

The journey towards 'no-self' is analogous to peeling an onion.  Practitioner goes through the process of peeling from dissolving of personality and identity to non-conceptuality to non-duality to realization of the lack of ownership to clear seeing of 'no agent behind transient phenomena to the empty nature of whatever arises.  As we peel, the 'willingness' to let go certain aspects of 'self'/Self' grow and with more 'willingness' to let go, we come closer to seeing the true face of freedom.

Deeper clinging to a Self is not washed away with the non-dual insight.  There must be further integration of the ‘non-dual’ experience into this arising and passing away, this impermanent nature, to dissolve the illusionary sense of self, anger, emotion, pride even the non-dual presence that we treasure so much; let whatever arises goes, be it during the waking, dreaming or deep sleep state.  There will then come a time where a practitioner realizes the same ‘taste’ of the 3 states as there is no holding of the non-dual presence and all experiences turn natural, effortless and self-liberating.

John Tan: Integrating some sort of practice such as yoga, pranayama or qigong post-anatta in order to access total exertion. 

“John Tan André, for the metta question it is not for altruistic reasons but rather to further open up oneself into total exertion. 

Post anatta, one can access to the state of no mind easily and this state of no mind is "key" to opening up new dimension of the mind where experience turn maha, immense and great.

If possible, it is advisable to integrate a practice, be it yoga, pranayama or qi gong or vipassana or chanting where you can focus your attention into an oceanic state of no-mind as if everything in the 10 directions and 3 times are all into a single action. 

Don't worry too much whether is it realistic, just don't place any limitation in the expansion in this practice. Just open up and connect as is presented in Hale's badly drawn diagram.😂”  (link) 



Stage 6 - The Nature of Presence is Empty (“Sunyata / Secondfold Emptiness”)


John Tan (2023): Realizing freedom from extremes requires insight into the general view of dependent origination. What is important is DO [dependent origination] tells you directly it is freedom from all extremes aka 8 negations of Nagarjuna without the need to give up concepts, parts, causes or conditions. That is the key. Not just like illusion which is simply an experiential taste, not an insight of the view.



+A and -A Emptiness (The Two Yogic Tastes of Emptiness)

+A and -A originated from Diamond Sutra’s A is not A, therefore A is A.

+A Emptiness is Total Exertion and Maha. -A Emptiness is the empty, non-arising and illusory nature of presencing appearance. Phase 6 is about replacing the whole view with Dependent Origination and Emptiness through direct realization, and +A and -A are the experiences from it. However, it is possible to have glimpses of +A and -A and still lack definitive realization. For example, one may have taste of dream-like nature from all appearances arising as one’s radiance, but it is still a glimpse or experience than the realization of emptiness, which overturns the view of seeing phenomena in terms of existing by way of its own essence, arising, abiding and ceasing.

In phase 6, it is no longer about clarity (clarity is already implicit and forgotten rather than singled out or over-emphasized). It is possible to realize and experience +A without going into -A, or realize and experience -A without going into +A, and it is also possible to experience both and later come to an integration of +A and -A through an experiential realization. Total exertion too has various depths, at a mature phase the total exertion penetrates not only the ten directions but the three times (past, present and future).

John Tan (2014): “What is empty and non-arising in Buddhist context is important. Realizing this practitioner liberates the pure sensory experiences... In anatta, experience is characterized by the brilliance of whatever arises in a state of no-mind. In phase 6, the total exertion of this immediate pure appearance is realized to be empty and non-arising. You must directly taste and realize the nature of pure experience/appearances." "In anatta, it is clear that presence is experienced in the 6 entries and exits. But still it is not the degree of perfection. Spontaneous perfection requires one to realize the non-arising nature.

Non-arising means appearances without essence similar to a reflection, like a rainbow.”

Soh Wei Yu: What is non-arising?

Non arisen means like reflection of moon on water, nothing is created or originated anywhere in the water but appears due to dependencies. If nothing is created or originated despite appearance, how can we speak of the real arising, abiding, cessation of said entity?

If something could arise and exist by way of self existence, that would also contradict the possibility of its dependent origination and impermanence conventionally. It is precisely because everything is illusory without essence like a reflection, that its appearance and dynamic potentiality is possible, by way of dependent origination.

A friend Jayson MPaul also wrote, "Rainbows need to have eyes in correct position, water droplets, light, radiant mind, all like so for rainbow to appear. Move slightly and rainbow is gone. Never came from anywhere, stayed anywhere, or went anywhere. The rainbow was insubstantial, but vividly displayed. All phenomena are like this”.

Soh Wei Yu (2022): Everyone understands dynamic but not everyone understands what is dynamic is dependently originating and non arising like a rainbow or reflection. Vividly present yet nothing there. Hence the dynamic phenomena is also free of some sort of real existence undergoing arising, abiding and ceasing.

Dynamic phenomena can be mistaken as not empty - that is, it may be mistaken that there exists phenomena that have some sort of real essence or existence that is truly undergoing arising, abiding and ceasing by its own self existence, even if that process happens momentarily and quickly.

John Tan: Meaning of non-arisen.

Non-arisen means although there is vivid display, the appearances cannot be found anywhere. Like an optical illusion that appears does not truly exist cannot be said to have originated -- it was never there in the first place.  All dependent originated are like that.

John Tan: Important to understand what dependent origination is pointing to.

In addition to anatta insight, one must be able to intuit what this  insight is all abt with the rainbow analogy.  We don't actually understand what DO is pointing.  Most see from emptiness (freedom from elaboration) and non-arisen point of view perspective only."

Soh Wei Yu: Journey from Anatta to Emptiness
 
Soh Wei Yu: No background besides manifestation, manifestation are self luminous and empty without agent, watcher or doer

John Tan: Still only anatta then pure appearances as one's radiance clarity. That will not lead u to the insight of emptiness. U need two more insights, what are those?

Soh Wei Yu: Whatever dependently originates are non arising, everything is like chariot

John Tan: Ur head.

John Tan: How does anatta lead u to such understanding?

Soh Wei Yu: Anatta is before emptiness

Soh Wei Yu: But it sees through inherent view of awareness and background

Soh Wei Yu: So is also a form of emptiness

John Tan: So from anatta, without any linked, u jumped to emptiness?

John Tan: Empty of self-nature, inherent existence is one of the important insights.

Soh Wei Yu: Anatta leads to seeing the self and consciousness as a construct like weather or chariot.. when applied to all phenomena they are also like that, non arisen

So seeing through the background and [inherent existence of] awareness leads to direct taste of manifestation, likewise seeing through the constructs of objects leads to vivid nonrefential empty clarity-appearance.. meaning no longer apprehended as entities or objects with characteristics 

Like red is no longer mistaken to be redness of flower as an object, the redness and flower deconstructs into mere vivid red

Soh Wei Yu: Oic

John Tan: Yes u realized "self/Self" is learnt, there is no self. A reified mental construct, a named thing mistaken as real. Then u extend that insight to all phenomena. A thorough de-construction of inherentness on all aspects of named things in which “觉” (Soh: Awareness) is one of such phenomena/dharma only, although a very crucial one. All these deal directly with alaya in "uprooting" ignorance, this deals with alaya. 

If u stay at this, "No background besides manifestation, manifestation are self luminous and empty without agent, watcher or doer", then u only know "oh, there is no self" and all Ur focus is on elimating self, it will not lead to emptiness.

John Tan: If u go further, then u will have understanding of primordial purity and equality through seeing through all notions and self-nature.

Soh Wei Yu: Oic..

Soh Wei Yu: When i say luminous and empty i mean also unreal, illusory like a reflection and like chariot, not any inherent entity

Soh Wei Yu: Otherwise will be luminous and real like AF (Actual Freedom) lol

John Tan: Yes

John Tan highly recommends this (link), the teacher John Dunne has expressed all 7 phases of insights.

Kyle Dixon: Realizing emptiness involves realizing the absence of characteristics as well. 

“The absence of characteristics [alakṣaṇa] is a synonym for emptiness [śūnyatā].

In short, we believe we are a self that possesses characteristics, or that objects are discrete entities that possess characteristics. In realizing emptiness however, it is recognized non-conceptually and experientially that there is no object or self that possesses characteristics, and without the inherent object to possess characteristics, characteristics cease to be characteristics.” 

Samadhirāja Sūtra on no characteristics

“Youth, bodhisattva mahāsattvas know well that all phenomena are insubstantial, devoid of inherent existence, devoid of signs, devoid of characteristics, nonarising, unceasing, devoid of syllables, empty, peace from the beginning, and utterly pure by nature.

The  Bhagavān,  knowing  the  thoughts  that  were  in  the  mind  of  the  youth Candraprabha, said to him, “Young man, bodhisattva mahāsattvas will attain all  these  qualities,  and  they  will  quickly  attain  the  highest,  complete enlightenment of perfect buddhahood, if they possess just one quality. What is that one quality? Young man, it is when the bodhisattva mahāsattvas know the nature of all phenomena.

Young  man,  how  do  bodhisattva  mahāsattvas  know  the  nature  of  all phenomena? Young man, bodhisattva mahāsattvas know that all phenomena are nameless; they have no names. They know that all phenomena have no vocalization, they have no expression in speech, they have no letters, they have no birth, they have no cessation, they have no characteristics of cause, they have no characteristics of conditions, they are devoid of characteristics, they have  the  one  characteristic  of  having  no  characteristics,  they  are  devoid  of attributes, they cannot be conceived of, they have no thought, and they have no mentality.”

John Tan (2014): Whatever manifests is non-arising due to dependent origination. 

“Thoughts (and whatever else that appears in one’s experience) are neither arising and ceasing, nor non-arising and non-ceasing… ...Whatever manifests (dharma/appearances/phenomena/pure sensory experiences) is directly realized to be non-arising because of dependent origination.”

John Tan: Do not let your contemplation remain at merely the mental level but relate directly to sensations, thoughts, smells, colors, tastes, sounds and understand what is meant by ‘neither inside nor outside your head’. This will lead to a deeper level of illusionariness 

John Tan: Sentient being see production from cause and conditions but they do not see non-production, they see true production.

John Tan: When it is non-origination is realized from origination in dependence, that is DO [dependent origination].

“When contemplating, do not just let our contemplation remain as a mental reasoning exercise. For example: 

What appears is neither "internal" nor "external". For the notion of "internality" is dependent on the notion of "externality", without either, the sense of neither can arise. 

Do not just let our contemplation remain at this level. If we do that, at most the freedom will simply remain at the mental level -- merely a pellucid, pure and clean state. It is no different from practicing raw attention although insight on how conceptualities proliferate the mind may arise. 

But go further to relate directly to our sensations, thoughts, smells, colors, tastes, sounds and ask: 

"What do we mean by thoughts are neither inside nor outside our head?" 

Seeing through this will be much more penetrating. It will bring a deep sense of illusoriness and mystical awe as a real-time lived-experience into our entire body mind.” 

John Tan: The conceptual view behind total exertion.  

John Tan: When Dogen row the boat, can you feel the total exertion?  When Buddha walk, can you feel the total exertion? When you hear someone describe immense connectivity and interconnectedness, can you feel total exertion? 

Soh Wei Yu: yeah seamlessly connected.. just like dogen rowing the boat makes boat what it is, dogen, boat, rowing the boat are a seamless exertion.. so reading dogen now, and dogen rowing the boat is a seamlessly connected exertion.. lol dunno how to describe

John Tan: Seamless exertion into what?

Soh Wei Yu: this very presencing or whatever is appearing

John Tan: No good.  Into the act of rowing

Soh Wei Yu: oic..

John Tan: What appears in presence. But that is not the question. I am asking you about total exertion. Do you need conventions and concepts? If there are no concepts and conventions, can you feel this total exertion?  If you are free from concepts and conventions, can there be emptiness? Or all those illusion that you are talking about? You are too worried to be non-conceptuality and can't see anything.  So tell me are there conventions or just plain pure experience?

Soh Wei Yu: total exertion depends on seeing that all those conventional phenomena are intimately linked in seamless exertion.. but those conventions are not seen as separate and independent. means you are not denying boat or rowing or dogen.. yet they are all exerting seamlessly in rowing

John Tan: Is there a sense of self? In total exertion?

Soh Wei Yu: not as a separate, distinct, independent entity.. but depending on circumstance they can arise as thoughts and concerns or energy of grasping

John Tan: In total exertion do you have energy of grasping?

Soh Wei Yu: in fully experiencing total exertion no

John Tan: So no sense of self, but feel sense of immense connectivity?  Only when you what?

Soh Wei Yu: you see the dependencies and emptiness of those conventional phenomena and self.. means they are all dissolved into the act of rowing

John Tan: You are not investing into your experience again. What emptiness

John Tan: When in total exertion, you look into the conditions of the origination

Soh Wei Yu: as in those conventional phenomena are empty of being independent, separate existences.. they are intimately connected

John Tan: It is the immense web of linkings that give rise to the experience

Soh Wei Yu: oic..

John Tan: Like the chariot, it is at the other side of the equation. When you look at this moment of experience in a state of no self, you realize the immensity of the conditions right?

Soh Wei Yu: yeah

John Tan: So when you want to practice the chariot I am talking about...don't just focus on the empty aspect... 

John Tan: Is there a need to relate chariot as dependent on its parts to talk about emptiness? Why do you need to talk about chariot as dependent on its parts at all? not just what appears is empty?

Soh Wei Yu: its conveying that whatever appears although empty of findable essence is the total exertion of all the immense conditions

John Tan: It is conveying all you need to know and understand. It is conveying emptiness. Conveying spontaneous presence. Conveying dependent origination is not a cause-effect relationship as we understand. Conveying origination in dependence

John Tan: To me, post anatta, all these must be experienced and understood.”

Chandrakirti: Sevenfold reasoning of the Chariot.

There is no chariot which is other than its parts
There is no chariot which is the same as its parts
There is no chariot which possesses its parts
There is no chariot which depends on its parts
There is no chariot upon which the parts depend
There is no chariot which is the collection of its parts
There is no chariot which is the shape of its parts

Acarya Malcolm Smith: On Dependent Origination.

MMK refutes any kind of production other than dependent origination. It is through dependent origination that emptiness is correctly discerned. Without the view of dependent origination, emptiness cannot be correctly perceived, let alone realized. The MMK rejects production from self, other, both, and causeless production, but not dependent origination. The MMK also praises the teaching of dependent origination as the pacifier of proliferation in the mangalam. The last chapter of MMK is on dependent origination. The MMK nowhere rejects dependent origination, it is in fact a defense of the proper way to understand it. The only way to the ultimate truth (emptiness) is through the relative truth (dependent origination), so if one’s understanding of relative truth is flawed, as is the case with all traditions outside of Buddhadharma, and even many within it, there is no possibility that ultimate truth can be understood and realized.

Excerpt from (link) 

Kyle Dixon: On Dependent Origination and Emptiness. 
 
The middle way is actually a freedom from the misconceptions of existence and non-existence. Holding that things exist (whether they are conditioned or unconditoned phenomena) is eternalism, holding that things do not exist (whether they are conditioned or unconditioned) is nihilism. Annihilationism is the belief that something existent becomes non-existent.

The way to avoid these various extremes is emptiness, which means (i) a lack of inherent existence, (ii) a freedom from extremes, (iii) a lack of arising [non-arising], (iv) dependent co-origination. All of those definitions being synonymous.

Dependent origination is the proper relative view which leads one to the realization of the ultimate view; which is emptiness. Many people misunderstand emptiness to be a negative view, but it is actually the proper middle way view which avoids the extremes of existence, non-existence, both and neither.

All in all there is really no way to ELI5 [explain like I'm 5 years old] with this topic, you'll just have to ask questions. It is simple once understood, but very, very few people actually understand dependent origination.

Here is a collection of stuff I wrote a while ago on dependent origination for the sake of the discussion:

The general definition of independent origination, the very idea that things are endowed with their own-being/essence [svabhāva], or self [ātman]. In order for something to be independently originated it would have to be unconditioned, independent and uncaused, but this is considered an impossibility in the eyes of Buddhism. The correct conventional view for emptiness is that of dependent origination, and so we see that in order to have objects, persons, places, things and so on, they must possessed of causes and conditions. Meaning they cannot be found apart from those causes and conditions. If the conditions are removed, the object does not remain.

The adepts of the past have said that since a thing only arises due to causes, and abides due to conditions, and fails in the absence of cause and condition, how can this thing be said to exist? For an object to inherently exist it must exist outright, independent of causes and conditions, independent of attributes, characteristics and constituent parts. However we cannot find an inherent object independent of these factors, and the implications of this fact is that we likewise cannot find an inherent object within those factors either. The object 'itself' is unfindable. We instead only find a designated collection of pieces, which do not in fact create anything apart from themselves, and even then, the parts are also arbitrary designations as well, for if there is no inherently existent object, there can be no inherent parts, characteristics or attributes either. Therefore the object is merely a useful conventional designation, and its validity is measured by its efficacy, apart from that conventional title however, there is no underlying inherent object to be found.

Dependent origination is pointing to a species of implied interdependency; the fact that an allegedly conditioned 'thing' only arises via implication from the misperception of other conditioned things, and so each 'thing' is simultaneously a cause and an effect of each other, and everything else. Dependent origination isn't a case in which we have truly established things which are existing in dependence on other truly existent things, for instance; that we have objects which are truly constructed of parts which are in turn made of smaller parts such as atoms etc. This is of course one way of looking at dependent origination, but this would be considered a very coarse and realist/essentialist view. One that subtly promotes a sense of own-being or essence to things. So instead what dependent origination is pointing out, is that there is no inherent object to be found apart from (or within) the varying conventional characteristics we attribute to said object. On the other hand there would also be no inherent objects found in relation to (or within a relationship) with the various characteristics attributed to said objects. For each would only be valid when contrasted with the other, and upon discovering a lack of inherency in regards to one, the validity of the other would be compromised as well. Our experiences are merely interdependent conventional constructs composed of unfounded inferences.

In this way, the object 'itself', as an essential core 'thing' is unfindable. We instead only find a designated collection of pieces, which do not in fact create anything apart from themselves, and even then, the parts are also arbitrary designations as well, for if there is no inherently existent object, there can be no inherent parts, characteristics or attributes either.

So for example, if a table were truly inherently existent, meaning it exists independently, then we would be able to find that table independently of its varying characteristics. The table would be able to exist independently of being observed, independent of its color or texture, independent of its parts and pieces, independent of its designated name, independent of its surroundings etc. In contrast, if observation - or consciousness for example - were truly existent, we would likewise be able to find it apart from the perception of the table, surrounding environment, and so on. There is no essential, 'core' nature that a table in fact 'is' or possesses, and the same goes for consciousness and anything else.

For sentient beings afflicted with ignorance, conceptual imputation and conventional language are mistaken as pointing towards authentic persons, places, things, etc. When ignorance is undone, there is freedom to use conventional language, however it doesn't create confusion because wisdom directly knows ignorance for what it is. In Buddhism conventionality is allowed to be a tool implemented for communication, so we're allowed to be John Doe or Mary Smith, trees, rocks, cars are allowed to be designations. Conventionality is simply a useful tool which doesn't point to anything outside of itself. The conventional truth is relative... words, concepts, ideas, persons, places, things etc., and is contrasted by ultimate truth, which is emptiness.

All apparent phenomena which fall under the category of 'conditioned' - meaning they accord with one or more of the four extremes (existence, nonexistence, both, neither) - originate dependently. We know this is so because there is no such thing as phenomena which doesn't arise dependent upon causes and conditions.

"Whatever is dependently co-arisen
That is explained to be emptiness.
That, being a dependent designation
Is itself the middle way.
Something that is not dependently arisen,
Such a thing does not exist.
Therefore a non-empty thing
Does not exist."
-- Nāgārjuna

Excerpt from (link) 

Conceptual and Dependent Designation

Greg Goode: Different types of dependencies.

“Different types of dependency: several people have given examples, and here's another one.

A table..

1. A table depends on legs, a top, screws and braces (parts)
2. A table depends on being constructed, and trees, and sun and air, and builders (causes and conditions).
3. A table depends on being conceptualized and designated as a table.

This is the subtle one. Let's say you see a leg and a top. Do you see a backrest? No, so you won't call this a chair. The designation goes like this - you see some forms, and make them out as legs and a top. You give those forms the name, label, designation of "table."

This is subtle because the table is not exactly equal to the parts. The table cannot equal the parts, because then, if the parts change, the parts would be different, and so, following the equation, the table would have to change. Another reason the equality cannot hold is that there are many parts and only one table. The table cannot equal the *collection* of parts, because if the parts change, or if a leg gets broken off, or swapped out, then the collection changes. So the table would have to be a different table.

But we really don't want to say that the table would be different just because the parts are different. We want to somehow say that the table can remain relatively stable as the same table, even if the parts change, or get painted, etc.

And at the same time, we cannot find a truly existent, unchanging table behind or within the parts. If we did find such a truly existent table, then we wouldn't need to designate the parts as a table. But we do. It makes no sense that the table would really be a table if no one had ever in history designated anything as a table.

So we allow ourselves to end up saying, in a loose, conventional way, that the table depends on the parts, but is not the parts. It's a table in name only. This kind of naming is the designation-aspect of the dependency.

And this loose, conventional approach to tables and selves and life and all things is the experience of emptiness. It's a free, flexible, sweetly joyful, open-hearted way of life....” 

John Tan (2013): And also functionality. A Chariot continues to function even with some of its parts missing. Dependencies based on parts, causes and conditions, relations, functions and imputations.

Vajira Sutta

“Why do you believe there’s such a thing as a ‘sentient being’?
Māra, is this your theory?
This is just a pile of conditions,
you won’t find a sentient being here.
When the parts are assembled
we use the word ‘chariot’.
So too, when the aggregates are present
‘sentient being’ is the convention we use.
But it’s only suffering that comes to be,
lasts a while, then disappears.
Naught but suffering comes to be,
naught but suffering ceases.”

John Tan: Journey of deconstruction post-anatta.

To me, realization simply means authenticating the view experientially; in other words, an experiential insight and taste of the view like anatta or emptiness or non-arisen of "chariot" in real-time.”

The initial insight of anatta was mainly what I have stated in scenario 2 -- seeing through the center that the center has always been assumed, it is extra. In reality it does not exist.

Up until this point of anatta, I was very much a non-conceptual advocator, less words more experience. I have heard of the word “Kong 空” (Emptiness) numerous times but never exactly know what it truly meant. The idea of Emptiness struck me probably “2 years later when I came across the chariot analogy of the Buddhist sage Nāgasena. There was an instant recognition that the analogy is precisely the insight of anatta and anatta is the real-time experiential taste of the “Emptiness” in relation to self/Self except that it is now replaced with “chariot” in the example.

The insight was huge and I began to re-examine all my experiences from the perspective of "Emptiness". This includes mind-body dropped, the impression of hereness and nowness, internal and externality, space and time...etc. Essentially a journey of deconstruction, that is, extending the same insight of anatta from the perspective of emptiness to all phenomena, aggregates, mental constructs and even to non-conceptual sensory experiences. This led to the taste of instant liberation at spot of not only the background (self) but also the cognized, seen, heard, tasted, smelled and sensed without the need to subsume either subject into object or object into subject but liberates whatever arises at spot.

The deconstruction process reveals not only the taste of freedom from freeing the energy that is sustaining the constructs (in fact tremendous energy is needed to maintain the mental constructs) but also a continuous formation of a perceptual knot that blinds us in a very subtle way and that relates to scenario 3 -- Seeing through the fundamental nature of the perceptual knot itself. Seeing the nature of perceptual knot involves in seeing clearly certain very persistent and habitual patterns that continues to shape our mode of knowing, analysis and experience like a magical spell. The perceptual knot is the habitual tendency to reify and Emptiness is the antidote for this reifying tendency.

The journey of emptying also convinces me the importance of having the right view of Emptiness even though it is only an intellectual grasped initially. Non-conceptuality has its associated diseases… lol… therefore I always advocate not falling to conceptuality and yet not ignoring conceptuality. That is, strict non-conceptuality is not necessary, only that habitual pattern of reification needs be severed. Perhaps this relates to the zen wild fox koan of not falling into cause and effect and not ignoring cause and effect. A koan that Hakuin remarked as "difficult to pass through.

John Tan: Mere imputation has a special meaning in terms of Prasangika Madhyamaka.

Don’t misunderstand the term “mere imputation” wrongly. It is very important to understand the term “mere” is very special in Prasangika. “Mere” and “cannot stand at its own side” are synonym. In other words, you can treat “mere” to mean “because the emptiness of phenomena is deep and the dependencies are profound, it cannot be expressed but called it ‘mere’”. Much like Tao cannot be expressed, very reluctantly, Lao Tze named it Tao. It is completely opposite of our common usage like “don’t worry, it is merely a label”.

The very fact that phenomenon are empty of inherent existence means that phenomena are not existing at their own side therefore this “mere designation” cannot be eliminated in the ordinary sense; in fact there is no elimination, you can’t. To free it, one must see “Emptiness” and Dependent Origination. Because of the profundity, if one practice the inferring and reasoning path, there are various lines of reasoning like diamond silver, sevenfold reasoning, unfindable as one or many, four extremes and lastly of course, the king of reasoning Dependent Arising to guide the practitioners towards right understanding.

Thus this “mere imputation” can’t be overcome by deep shamatha concentration; can’t be overcome by ordinary non-conceptuality; can’t be overcome by non-thinking because it is “dependent” on its basis; it is not just a designation. Even the cessation of Nirodha-samapatti cannot do away with this “mere imputation” permanently.

In Prasangika, only the intuitive insight of prajna wisdom of both self/Self and Phenomena is able to break the chain of specific dependent origination because ignorance as the root cause of cyclical existence is severed.

John Tan: What is conceptual designation. 

I see conceptual designation as a process that includes naming and labelling. Naming and labeling is at the end of the process.  If we just focus on naming and labeling, we end up rendering wordless perception as the destination.

When mind designates, it does not have to name.  When we open eyes, the natural tendency to see distinctly a group of features (BOD Basis of designation) into one even before naming is considered designation (imo).

Therefore to me, designation includes wordless perception.  When form or sound arise, those already are forms of mind designation.  Otherwise practice would be very surface and not deep down into mind tendencies and energy level.  Anatta deconstruction is at the level of pre-labelling.

Soh Wei Yu: Sensory perception is merely dependently designated. 

Looking at the tree [in a PCE mode of wordless anatta perception].. seems like a huge entity but when examined is not one or many, many branches and leaves swaying in different directions.. just like chariot and h2o is just an essenceless display of interdependence

The perception of tree is shaped by conditions and views.. in truth nothing can be found, unborn. A vividly luminous and empty display

Actually in anatta and emptiness, there is no absolutes, no noumenon. Especially in emptiness, everything is conventions. Even the nondual perception of a pure sound, sight, floor, is seen as dependently designated, with no essence whatsoever when sought. The complete unfindability of a referent of a convention is precisely the emptiness of that convention, and all conventions are equally empty and dependently designated.

Soh Wei Yu: Important to realize that all phenomena are designated in dependence (on parts, conditions, function, designating consciousness) and empty of existing by its own side [which is to say, empty of inherent existence -- inherent existence means existing by its own side independent of imputation], along with being empty of any essence.  

Mr. G: ‘Without relying on convention, the ultimate will not be understood."

Soh Wei Yu: I disagree. The taste of orange can be conventional when described..... or, not at all.’

Taste of Orange is already two conventions combined. The moment concept arises to establish taste, orange, know that is designation. Taste of orange does not exist objectively or inherently somewhere to be found, when examined no taste of orange can be found despite whatever appearances that serves as conditions for the designation, and those appearances too cannot be found. Is taste the characteristic of orange or is orange imputed subjectively in dependence on taste, and other factors too? Is taste truly existing and findable or is it too imputed? Just like the red of the rose does not exist objectively in the rose, for it depends on conditions (only humans and certain species can see red) and on designating consciousness that names 'red' and then attributes 'red' to 'a rose', and the rose too does not exist inherently, objectively, by its own side, independent of imputation and the factors [other conventional and designated phenomena] that contribute to that imputation of rose, including the 'red color' (which too is conventional). Prior to designation, there is no taste of orange. Even during the designation, there is no taste of orange for the taste of orange cannot be found to exist anywhere besides a designation that depends on a whole host of other conventional phenomena and designations, it does not exist objectively, inherently. The parts of the car does not amount to an inherently existing car existing by its own side, for the car, and even the parts, are designated in dependence on the designating consciousness and a whole host of factors, which too are dependently designated.

A state without or prior to designation or where thoughts and concepts are suspended is not the end of ignorance, for there must be the realization that all phenomena are designated in dependence (on parts, conditions, function, designating consciousness) and empty of existing by its own side [which is to say, empty of inherent existence -- inherent existence means existing by its own side independent of imputation], empty of any essence. And this applies even to seemingly pure taste, touch, sights, in PCE (Pure Consciousness Experience) mode.

John Tan: Designation is dependent on the set of dependencies that defines it.

It is also important to know that because of this thorough on going "becoming", when expressed in a conventional and relative world, it has to be expressed as dependent arising and emptiness.

In other words, because the mind designates using static conventions, it has to qualify these conventions with dependencies to present the flux.  "Dependent arising and emptiness" is simply a more elegant way of presenting "change without changing thing".

Taking the growing process of the seed to plant and plant to tree example, if we divide it into a million frames and asked at which point has the seed become a plant and at which point it becomes a tree? They will say it "depends", whichever frame they choose.  The frame they chose is the designation, the "it depends" are the dependencies.  The designation is only valid within the set of dependencies that defines it…

...By the way, even the fluxing view of dependent origination is put to the challenge in prasangika… and it is the key of dependent designation.” 

Greg Goode: Dependent arising doesn’t require something dependent that arises or something that phenomena is dependent on, rather it’s more like a web of dependencies.

Steve, Madhyamika interprets the "thingness" gestalt as a type conception, a way of reacting or conceptualizing words or concepts or sensations, as if there were existence involved.  Maybe some words seem to invite this kind of reifying conceptualization more than others - we usually feel that more physical-sounding, more concrete words entail a more independent kind of existence.  But Madhyamika would refute this kind of existence across the board.

Does "dependent arising" require there is (A) something dependent that arises, and (B) something that A is dependent on?   Even though Madhyamika itself refutes this?

Not according to Madhyamika itself.  When A is said to be dependent, the meaning is that it is not INdependent.  It is not self-sufficient, it has no essence or true nature.

What does "dependent" mean?  Dependence is usually broken down into three types.  Phenomenon A relies on pieces and parts, on conditions, and on conceptual designation.

But none of these things (pieces + parts, conditions, conceptual designation) is an inherent, self-standing thing.  Each of these things itself dependent.

This kind of dependency is not linear, tracing back to an original first cause or universal stopping point.  It's more like a web of dependencies. It's not arboreal, it's rhizomatic.” 

Causes Dependent on Effect (Two-way Dependency) 

Relevant articles: 


Acarya Malcolm Smith: Summary of Buddhapalita’s MMK (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā) commentary on arising being merely conventional. 

Nāgārjuna's arguments run in three phases: first, self-arising is negated; then, arising from others is negated; and finally causeless negation is negated. Of these three types of arising, the second is what we conventionally term "arising."

[However] Things do not [truly] arise. Why? Because their causes and conditions cannot be established when investigated. This is why Buddhapalita states [in his commentary on Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā]:

"Here, with respect to your claim for an ascertained cause for the production of a result, wheat, etc., and a non-productive condition and non-condition, ‘the arising of a result is not accepted’ was previously explained.

If that result does not exist, where will ‘these are not conditions, these are conditions’ be accepted? If both of those come to be from depending on a result, also that result is does not exist. Because the result does not exist, where will there be a non-condition or a condition? If that is so, still results are not accepted, and even conditions and a non-conditions are non-existent. Because results, conditions, and non-conditions do not exist, descriptions for arising are merely conventional.”

John Tan: Mutual dependency in terms of Prasangika Madhyamaka is important to understand in order to realize total exertion.

John Tan: Now in hearing, there is only sound. In total exertion, not only the ears heard, the eyes, the hair, the entire body hears...there is no eye, no ear, no body...all six entries are one function and even that act of hearing is profoundly deconstructed.

Or let's say just anatta, in hearing there is only sound. If you search for "sound", you can never find it. If you try to find the line of demarcation that separates sound and the conditions that give rise to it, can you find that line?

Soh Wei Yu: Nope

John Tan: In non-conceptual mode of anatta, just a dimensionless sphere of clear "tingsss" and even saying that is too much. Is there separation of the bell, the ear, the stick, the air...etc? All is profoundly exerted into the suchness beyond speech. However when you expressed conventionally, must you not see the dependent arising, the causal dependencies?

So you must know at the ultimate it is expressed as if there is no sound, no conditions but at the conventional it is expressed as Dependent Origination.

Therefore if one does not see Dependent Origination, he will not see the ultimate correctly. To teach emptiness is to to see Dependent Origination and to see Dependent Origination is to see emptiness. Appears therefore empty, empty therefore appears. There is no emptiness without appearance and no appearances that is not empty.

John Tan: Just read Greg's comments. He pointed one important point that is mutual dependency. In Prasangika, this mutual dependency is quite unique and important but not in the sense that they affect or produce each other but they (cause and effect) are mutually dependent for their conventional existence. For example we normally think sound is causally dependent on its causes and conditions for its arising but in Prasangika, sound is dependent on its conditions and the conditions are also dependent on sound for their existence. Why so? This is important to understand total exertion.

Soh Wei Yu: Its like without sunlight, the sun would not be the sun... sunlight makes sun what it is conventionally.. sound actualizes a bell, and blowing wind actualizes a fan

Interesting.. if we think of computer screen as an entity, then the images on the screen and the screen is only a one way dependency. the images are dependent on the screen and the screen is not dependent on the images... the screen will always be the screen (until it gets 'destroyed') and the images come and go, shows on and off. but seeing the lack of intrinsic existence of screen and image... then it’s like water pouring into water, screen and image co-emerge in total exertion... its not youtube happening on a screen... the screen is manifested through youtube and it is youtube-screen. the same goes for consciousness... that’s why buddha said consciousness is reckoned by its conditions (reference: link) ...

(comments by Soh: The same can be said in many other examples: Plane and Flying (we may think of 'flying' as something that 'plane' is 'doing', but what does the co-emergence of plane and flying and the lack of intrinsic identity of both tells us?), Subject-Action-Object, etc...)

John Tan: Well said. The heart of total exertion and emptiness...feel it. you are beginning to bring the taste of total exertion into "view". Even in conventionality and conceptuality, the experience of "water pouring water" in meditative equipoise can be brought into actual taste. +A and -A can be integrated.

p.s. This excerpt by Dogen is worth repeating: “Birth is just like riding in a boat. You raise the sails and row with the pole. Although you row, the boat gives you a ride, and without the boat no one could ride. But you ride in the boat and your riding makes the boat what it is. Investigate such a moment.”

H.H. Dalai Lama: Description of Dependent Designation.

"Something is not a cause in and of itself; it is named a “cause” in relation to its effect. Here the effect does not occur before its cause, and its cause does not come into being after its effect; it is in thinking of its future effect that we designate something as a cause. This is dependent-arising in the sense of dependent designation." 

But when you take it further, the dependent-arising of cause and effect comes because of dependent designation, which itself indicates that cause and effect do not have their own being; if they did have their own being, they would not have to be dependently designated." 

Nagarjuna: Verses from MMK on Dependent Designation.

Whatever is dependently co-arisen
That is explained to be emptiness.
That, being a dependent designation
Is itself the middle way.
Something that is not dependently arisen,
Such a thing does not exist.
Therefore a non-empty thing
Does not exist. 

Buddhapalita: All phenomena are dependently originated and designated.

If there is something which exists, it must originate dependently and be designated dependently. Why? There are no phenomena at all that are not dependently originated, therefore, a non-empty phenomena does not exist.

Soh Wei Yu: Non-division in terms of Madhyamaka is different from Advaita Vedanta.

Water pouring into water may be understood as mere non-division of subject and object, in fact you hear descriptions of how the realization of Atman-Brahman is like pouring a drop of water into the great ocean, and so on.

However, the water pouring into water in Madhyamika has a more subtle meaning. The subject and object, realization and object of realization, etc etc is released like water pouring into water. This means seeing the selflessness, the emptiness of self and object, screen and images, plane and flying, car/driver/driving, etc etc leads to the taste of empty and non-dual seamless exertion.

For example now you no longer see yourself as an independent driver existing independent of the driving (driver is dependently designated in dependence of driving and car), driving a car which is mistakenly seen to exist independent of the driver and driving. Neither are you saying the driver collapses into the car or the car collapses into the driver. Rather, by seeing how driver, car and driving are dependent and empty, then car, driver, driving, environment 'melts' into empty, non-dual seamless exertion. Your riding makes the boat what it is.

In this case, subject and object are non-dual like Advaita but not really the same in view, because you are not collapsing one pole to another but releasing them into non-obstruction.

Kyle Dixon (u/krodha): In Madhyamaka, causes and effects are interchangeable and bilateral. Every cause is an effect and every effect a cause.


Reddit poster: What does Nagarjuna mean when he says causes depends on effects?

He seems to mean this in more than just referential way as in “East land” cannot exist without “Westland” where the notions of Eastland and Westland cannot exist without each area but the area can. So Eastland physically can exist without Westland but it’s referential name cannot.

But Nagarjuna seems to suggest the cause itself cannot exist without the effect. Could someone explain this please? Are there any texts/commentaries which go in-depth about this? Thanks.

Kyle Dixon: Nāgārjuna gives the example of a parent and child. The parent creates the child, but the child also creates the parent.

The cause [parent] cannot be established without the effect [child].
In Madhyamaka, causes and effects are interchangeable and bilateral. Every cause is an effect and every effect a cause.

Nagarjuna: Verses on causes and effects.

"In brief from empty phenomena
Empty phenomena arise;
Agent(cause), karma(action), fruits(effect), and their enjoyer(subject) -
The conqueror taught these to be [only] conventional.

Just as the sound of a drum as well as a shoot
Are produced from a collection [of factors],
We accept the external world of dependent origination
To be like a dream and an illusion.

That phenomena are born from causes
Can never be inconsistent [with facts];
Since the cause is empty of cause,
We understand it to be empty of origination."

Four Levels of Insight into Emptiness

(1) ANATTA - realizing the complete absence of a background self/Self;

(2) Appearances like empty mist, transient and evanescent, but still momentarily arising-abiding-ceasing in flickering instants;

(3) Seeing absence (non-arisen nature) in vivid presence (Beginning of truly entering Stage 6) - in clear vivid non-dual appearance, realize it is never there at all. At this phase, there must be complete conviction without the slightest doubt from logical analysis in understanding why it is "never there".

(4) Turning #3 into a taste, merging the two mindstreams (Dependent Origination + Emptiness). The key is in recognizing the taste of absence (i.e translate the logical and inferring consciousness into a taste).


Nine Points on Anatta to Emptiness

John Tan wrote 9 points to Taiyaki (Albert Hong) after his realisation of anatta back in 2012:

There are several points that maybe of help to Taiyaki:

1.  First there must be a deep conviction that arising does not need an essence. That view of subjective essence is simply a convenient view.

2.  First emptying of self/Self does not necessarily lead to illusion-like experience of reality. It does however allows experience to become vivid, luminous, direct and non-dual.

3.  First emptying may also lead a practitioner to be attached to an 'objective' world or turns physical. The 'dualistic' tendency will resurface after a period of few months so it is advisable to monitor one's progress for a few months.

4.  Second emptying of phenomena will turn experience illusion-like but take note of how emptying of phenomena is simply extending the same "emptiness view" of Self/self.

5. From these experiences and realizations, contemplate what is meant by "thing", what is meant by mere construct and imputation.

6.  "Mind and body drop" are simply dissolving of mind and body constructs. If one day the experience of anatta turns a practitioner to the attachment of an 'objective and actual' world, deconstruct "physical".

7.  There is a relationship between "mental constructs", energy, luminosity and weight. A practitioner will experience a release of energies, freedom, clarity and feel light and weightless deconstructing 'mental constructs'.

8. Also understand how the maha experience of interpenetration and non-obstruction is related to deconstructions of inherent view.

9. No body, no mind, no dependent origination, no nothing, no something, no birth, no death. Profoundly deconstructed and emptied! Just vivid shimmering appearances as Primordial Suchness in one whole seamless unobstructed-interpenetration."

---------

On another occasion, John Tan wrote (not to Taiyaki):

“...Like after anatta, as I have said many times the sense of externality and physicality can still be very strong. My deconstruction process of "externality" and "physicality" is actually based few questions: 1. Why is mind which is "mental" is able to "interact" with something "physical"? 2. Why does consciousness need conditions for its arising? 3. What is interaction? All these questions help stabilized my experiences when I penetrated them in my own way.

Illusion like realization (arose) when I contemplated "hereness" and "nowness" until my mind was able to intuit the logic behind all these, then experience becomes stable. However one can enter by experience to have a taste of it…”

There is a very good video by Alan Watts that I highly recommend to watch in its entirety as it addresses the issue of whether there is objective reality and the interrelationship between an organism and its environment: (link) 

Dependent Origination 

Āryapratītyasamutpādanāmamahāyānasūtra:

“This dependent arising is the dharmakāya of all the tathāgatas. A person who sees dependent arising sees the Tathāgata.”

Acarya Malcolm Smith (2018): DO and realization of Emptiness

“Unless one understands dependent origination as the Buddha taught it, one will not realize emptiness.” 

Jamgon Mipham Rinpoche: On dependent origination.

“What is meant by dependent origination? It means that nothing included within inner or outer phenomena has arisen without a cause. Neither have they originated from what are not their causes; that is, noncauses such as a permanent creator [in the form of] the self, time, or the Almighty. The fact that phenomena arise based on the interdependence of their respective causes and conditions coming together is called dependent origination. To proclaim this is the unique approach of the Buddha’s teaching.

In this way, the arising of all outer and inner phenomena require that their respective causes and conditions come together in the appropriate manner. When these factors are incomplete, phenomena do not arise, while when complete, they will definitely arise. That is the nature of dependent origination.

Thus, dependent origination ranks as an essential and profound teaching among the treasuries of the Buddha’s words. The one who perceives dependent origination with the eyes of discriminating knowledge will come to see the qualities that have the nature of the eightfold noble path, and with the wisdom gaze that comprehends all objects of knowledge will perceive the dharmakaya of buddhahood. Thus it has been taught.

John Tan: Two aspects of dependent origination.

“There are two [aspects of dependent origination], general (non-afflictive) and specific (afflictive) D.O. [dependent origination]. Both are enlightened views. Means the mind suddenly stops seeing self and he must drop self/Essence view.” 

“When the mind divides and see separation, D.O. and emptiness is the excellent tool to de-construct essence and triggers the insight of anatta and emptiness. So it is the enlightened view.” 

John Tan: If you do not see dependent origination, you will not see the essence of Buddhism.

"Be it Buddha himself, Nagarjuna or Tsongkhapa, none [of them] never got overwhelmed and amazed with the profundity of dependent origination. It is just that we do not have the wisdom to penetrate enough depth of it." and "Actually if you do not see Dependent Origination, you do not see Buddhism [i.e. the essence of Buddhadharma]. Anatta is just the beginning." 

John Tan: Buddhism involves the arising of prajna wisdom in order to see through notions of existence/non-existence and eliminate afflictive dependent origination. 

“Buddhism is not about attaching to a special immutable essence that is unborn and eternal but the arising of prajna wisdom that brings about the cessation of flawed perception of "birth" and "death", existence and non-existence. This is the process of specific (afflictive) Dependent Origination that starts from ignorance. Therefore I told you dependent origination is the enlightened view. For the unenlightened do not understand or see it this way.”

John Tan: Seeing through afflictive dependent origination is enlightened view. 

Seeing afflictive Dependent Origination is enlightened view because one sees Dependent Origination. There is no [insight into] afflictive Dependent Origination for sentient beings, there is [the conceiving of a] Self/self... they do not see Dependent Origination.

John Tan: Sense of self in anatta is the activity of grasping, it sees through not only the notion of a background but also directly perceives dependent origination, both afflictive and non-afflictive. 

John Tan: Because there is mind, if there is no mind, what happened?

Soh: Just activities, thoughts, scenery, sounds.

John Tan: What is the sense of self in anatta?

Soh: The activity of grasping.

John Tan: Very good and well said.

The anatta insight not only sees through background but directly perceives dependent origination, both afflictive and non-afflictive. Self is that afflictive dependent origination that arises from ignorance. It is that formation. The general dependent origination becomes the effortless spontaneous presence when ignorance is not in action. Both are directly experienced in real-time. So with anatta insight, no-self is authenticated. Afflictive D.O. chain is authenticated, general D.O. is authenticated, the purpose of vipassana is authenticated from moment to moment in real-time. What doubt is there?” 

Soh Wei Yu: Fruit of stream-entry according to the Pali Canon involves insight into dependent origination. 

“Monks, there are these six rewards in realizing the fruit of stream-entry. Which six? One is certain of the true Dhamma. One is not subject to falling back. There is no suffering over what has had a limit placed on it. [1] One is endowed with uncommon knowledge. [2] One rightly sees cause, along with causally-originated phenomena. These are the six rewards in realizing the fruit of stream-entry." - AN 6.97

The Buddha also taught, 

"When a disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they are actually present, it is not possible that he would run after the past, thinking, 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past?' or that he would run after the future, thinking, 'Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' or that he would be inwardly perplexed about the immediate present, thinking, 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?' Such a thing is not possible. Why is that? Because the disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they are actually present."

— SN 12.20

Soh Wei Yu: Conditioned reality is dependently originating, requires deep wisdom like the Buddha in order to perceive this. 

“Conditioned reality” as in the twelve links in operation is samsara itself, but realizing it is dependently originating is not a samsaric view because sentient beings do not realize dependent origination, it is the deep wisdom of Buddha that he realised dependent origination on the night of his awakening, such that he said,

“Deep is this dependent co-arising, and deep its appearance. It’s because of not understanding and not penetrating this Dhamma that this generation is like a tangled skein, a knotted ball of string, like matted rushes and reeds, and does not go beyond transmigration, beyond the planes of deprivation, woe, & bad destinations.” - (link) 

John Tan: Realizing no-self of Buddhism involves insight into dependent origination unlike no-self of Advaita Vedanta. 

John Tan: A sudden non-dual realisation of the relationship between mind and phenomena.  An intense non-dual realisation and experience due to certain koan...is he a zen practitioner?

John Tan: There is a difference between no-self of Advaita and no-self of Buddhism.  The later must led to the realisation of dependent arising.

Soh Wei Yu: Oic.. He lives in Thailand and talks with monks so I thought he could be Theravada but I'm not sure

Soh Wei Yu: So his is like advaita no self?

John Tan: Ai Yoh...Not like Advaita...his descriptions of his experiences can only b said to b like a non-dual experience triggered by a realisation of no-self.  How it develops will depends on his conditions.

John Tan: Like phase 4, my experience is fully non-dual and intense but does not lead to realisation and importance of DO [Dependent Origination].

Soh Wei Yu: Oic..

Soh Wei Yu: So his next step is to contemplate on d.o?

John Tan: How does he sees DO.

John Tan: there r 2, general (non-afflictive) and specific DO (afflictive).  Both r enlightened views.  Means the mind suddenly stops seeing self and he must drop self/Essence view.

Soh Wei Yu: Ic.. Should I ask him

John Tan: U can ask him how he understands DO.

John Tan: Important to understand non-arising and emptiness in terms of endless dependencies rather than getting trapped in the view of non-conceptual clarity. 

John Tan: You are escaping into non-arising and emptiness of "no neck and no pain", trapped in the view of non-conceptual clarity also. What is the purpose of seeing the emptiness of "pain"? To ignore and rest in non-conceptual clarity? "Pain" does not arise? 

Buddha is telling you how to release suffering, free from birth by right understanding. Not telling you to be confused and not know what to do. He sees DO and know what causes re-birth and taught DO, anatta to free us from sufferings. The purpose of telling you there is no pain in the neck so that you don't apply wrong medicine to the pain! It is not in the neck for example. So you are not trapped! Don't keep thinking it is just the neck get it? So that you can "see" clearly the causes and conditions of this empty "pain" in the neck. Otherwise you are not curing the "pain in the neck" because there is no so called inherent "pain" in the neck… You keep pressing and poking the neck cause more problems...lol. Wrong way, wrong understanding, wrong medicine! Get it? Like a person suffered from slipped disc and the big toe always feel numb and pain, the "pain in the toe" is empty, this is not to say there is "no pain", but to tell you DO...so you can correctly see and realize the exact causes and conditions and understand that it is from the disc protrusion that touches the spinal cord. So you can "cure" it …

Soh Wei Yu: ic.. so its like seeing four nobles truths.. suffering, cause, cessation and path 

John Tan: Yes. Every sensation, experience, mental object, event...whatever appears to arise is so. Now if I go to the doctor and he gives me muscle relaxant and it cures for a while and come back again...what is it telling me?

Soh Wei Yu: The root cause is not removed?

John Tan: Yes...assuming you learn by trail and error...by experimentation ... You start pressing the neck and press until it swollen...lol...it is not working. Then you go to the doctor it gives you muscle relaxant, it cures and comes back and you visit a Chinese doctor, it gives you medicine that you purge the "heaty" stuff...and it cures and then it comes back again... You begin to know more and more of the dependencies… Until you are able to link and see the stress that associates with the "pain"...the mental factors… When that attachment to projects, the success and failure, the mental attitude of total acceptance and release...and the pain is gone… You begin to understand deeper… The projects, the mental attitudes, the stress, the medicine, the energy imbalances...how they exert into this arising. Then the mental attitude of acceptance of the pain of the raw sensations and the mental attitude of full acceptance of success and failure of the projects… And the pain in the neck...all the karmic activities. When I visited my Chinese doctor, I told him about my neck pain...he was telling me not to earn so much of "$$$"...lol. He was not just joking...but he sees "the link" in a very practical sense. Total exertion of DO is not to make us more dumb...lol. From top to bottom, there is no self, just these activities.

General Principle of Dependent Origination

Soh Wei Yu: Buddha on the general principle of dependent origination. 

The Buddha applied the principle of dependent origination not only to the afflictive twelve links, but also in other examples such as the transcendent dependent arising that ends suffering. The principle of dependent arising also applies to the arising of the six types of consciousness. This must be seen as so even in the unafflicted state of anatta ‘in the seen just the seen, in the heard just the heard’. Otherwise the seen and heard becomes reified as inherently self-existing, independent from conditions.

When there is this, that is.
With the arising of this, that arises.
When this is not, neither is that.
With the cessation of this, that ceases.

~ Samyutta Nikaya, II:28, 65, as translated by P. A. Payutto, 1994

John Tan: See thoughts in terms of dependent origination.

“This arising thought and previous thought, are they the same or different? This arising thought and previous thought, are they dependent or completely independent? Beyond the extremes, see the middle path of dependent origination.” 

John Tan: Contemplating the general principle of dependent arising in any given mundane activity is important for experientially realizing Maha Total Exertion. 

Furthermore, in practice, contemplation of the general principle of dependent arising in any given mundane activity is important for the experiential insight into Maha Total Exertion (see below). Although the afflictive chain of dependent origination is the predominant experience of someone prior to realization of anatta, the general principle of dependent origination is even more relevant for post-anatta experience especially when anatta is thoroughly stabilized and self/Self dissolved, as all experiences are pure, clean, luminous, centerless, agentless, traceless. Yet, the pure experience of anatta is seen as the functioning of seamless interdependencies which leads to the taste of Maha Total Exertion. Furthermore, the foreground presencing/aggregates must be realized to be empty and non-arising through dependent origination and dependent designation.

John Tan: Do you feel being caused or effected? It is just a single flow. Now when we see one, the 10000 things arise

Soh Wei Yu: Yes single flow..

John Tan: This is the right way of seeing… not ignorance. This is the general principle of DO” 

John Tan: Understanding phase 7 is dependent on understanding phase 6 in addition to reversing the afflictive chain of dependent origination. 

“In order to understand phase 7 you need to understand phase 6. For those that have not dissolved the background, reversing the afflictive chain is important. For those that have, it is the general Dependent Origination that is important. Conventional it is dependent on causes and conditions but at the ultimate level it is just spontaneous presence. Tsongkhapa’s Prasangika [Madhyamaka] refines a lot of my view.”

John Tan: The quintessence of Prasangika Madhyamaka’s ‘mere imputation’ is in my opinion the essence of Buddhism and the whole of 2 truths (conventional/ultimate reality).

"If asked what I am most drawn to (in Tsongkhapa's teachings), I am most drawn to Prasangika's "mere imputation". The quintessence of "mere imputation" is IMO the essence of Buddhism. It is the whole of 2 truths; the whole of 2 folds. How the masters present and how it is being taught is entirely another matter. It is because in non-conceptuality, the whole of the structure of "mere imputation" is totally exerted into an instantaneous appearance that we are unable to see the truth of it. In conceptuality, it is expanded and realized to be in that structure. A structure that awakens us the living truth of emptiness and dependent arising that is difficult to see in dimensionless appearance."

John Tan: In ultimate reality, there is no trace of causes and conditions, suchness expressed relatively is dependent arising. 

"In ultimate (empty dimensionless appearance), there is no trace of causes and conditions, just a single sphere of suchness. In relative, there is dependent arising. Therefore distinct in relative when expressed conventionally but seamlessly non-dual in ultimate."

When suchness is expressed relatively, it is dependent arising. Dependent designation in addition to causal dependency is to bring out a deeper aspect when one sees thoroughly that if phenomena is profoundly without essence then it is always only dependent designations."  

John Tan: Different phases of understanding dependent origination post-anatta.


Soh Wei Yu: Means the whole appearance is an unfolding of dependent origination, has no referent besides the magical unfolding that is nowhere to be found but vividly spontaneously displayed

John Tan: Now if I tell you in total exertion, the sound of someone opening the door is like my heart beat...

John Tan: The Aircon is closer than my skin

John Tan: So how is this different?

John Tan: A vivid sponstaneous display before division...

John Tan: Like color, sensation, sound, odor

John Tan: Hearer hearing sound and Ear, sound and sound consciousness 

John Tan: Now if I tell you in total exertion, the sound of someone opening the door is like my heart beat... Any differences?

Soh Wei Yu: in hearer hearing sound, hearer is one thing, hearing is one thing, sound is one thing.. but in total exertion, the ear, sound, sound consciousness, and all the conditions are factors are the hearing

Soh Wei Yu: *and factors

Soh Wei Yu: in anatta in hearing there is just sound, the ear, sound, sound consciousness are just delineations of the field of happening.. one can also see and have insight into dependent origination at the anatta level but not exactly like total exertion yet.. right after anatta i wrote my experience is more like spontaneous happening dependent on conditions but without agency or subject-object

Soh Wei Yu: field of happening but without agent*

Soh Wei Yu: so right after anatta, its like there is no hearer, only ear, sound and sound consciousness... the sound consciousness manifests spontaneously when ear meets sound. but there can still be true existence of ear, sound, sound consciousness as truly arising momentary dharmas

Soh Wei Yu: even if there is no subject-object

John Tan: So in hearing, there is only sound, no hearer. This deconstructs hearer. 
Ear, sound, sound consciousness is post anatta. 
But now ear and sound is not deconstructed.

Soh Wei Yu: yeah

John Tan: In total exertion, it is not only ear hears, the eyes, ears...whole body hears...ear is no ear, and eyes is no eyes, body is no body and mind is no mind...all are deconstructed into that sound...

Soh Wei Yu: ic.. yeah

John Tan: Now when you look back all the deconstructions, it is just the sound that is heard. John Tan: Only sound...but it was "hearer hearing sound" then "Ears, sound, sound consciousness" then it is connectedness of everything as this hearing...

John Tan: So look into your experience, sees how the parts are divided by names and designations

John Tan: Now where does causes and conditions step in? Is there any division and can you trace any division?

Soh Wei Yu: Cause and conditions step in when the parts, conditions and relations and designation step in

Soh Wei Yu: Therefore Cause and effect are interdefined

Soh Wei Yu: There is no real division, only dependently designated relations

John Tan: So what does it mean that causes and conditions are empty? Also what is the purpose of deconstructing?

Soh Wei Yu: The conventional causes and conditions unfindable and dependent on the whole host of factors and relations.. purpose is to deconstruct the naive notion of real entities like real ears interacting with real sound producing real effects (inherent production).. in effect all relations are experienced as total exertion and empty clarity rather than truly existent causes and effects or what malcolm said as if eye is inherent agent of inherent forms etc

John Tan: If you don't use any Buddhist terms, what do you think is the purpose of deconstruction?

Soh Wei Yu: to experience fully free of artificial fragmentation and solidification and holdings

John Tan: Quite good but not good enough.  Solidification and holdings are not necessary.  They are means to an end to allow the mind to understand the cause of contrivance.  Feel how is post anatta like, how do you feel?

Soh Wei Yu: non division, luminous, gapless, no distance... in the seen merely the seen is experienced as luminous and gapless. also another aspect is spontaneous.. i always talk about spontaneous happening, agentless, doerless, perceiverless.. and also dependent on conditions

Soh Wei Yu: but not total exertion or emptiness yet

Soh Wei Yu: no agent, nondual, luminosity, spontaneous and dependent on conditions

John Tan: Purpose of Deconstruction and Dependent Origination.

(link) 

Soh Wei Yu: Actually my experience is always vibrant presencing.. just a matter of degree.. like getting lost in thought also affects, not enough shamatha. There are probably some other obscurations but i dont understand yet

John Tan: Yes

Soh Wei Yu: No mind is a direct insight for me on anatta

John Tan: So what exactly is obscuring is what I am asking you...

Soh Wei Yu: There is no mind and all is mind simultaneously

John Tan: Now if I asked you do you know what DO is all abt?

John Tan: If I say A is causally connect to be what is it really talking about? And when I ask A is empty and be is empty and so is the causal connection between them. What does it mean?

John Tan: Saying theyare empty doesn't mean anything at all. What is the insight and wisdom from deconstructing them.

John Tan: Further I have been asking you what is the purpose of deconstruction?

John Tan: And why is view important is deconstruction is everything.

John Tan: Therefore when you answer andre, your points aren't clear.

John Tan: Having insight of anatta is one thing, having insight of DO is another.

John Tan: Having deconstruction doesn't mean DO. Advaita practitioner deconstruct self, but why they did not see DO? That is the question.

John Tan: Now, in Tibetan practice, conceptualization is as if the root of all evils but is it? you have to have your own insights and experiences to authenticate the truth of it.

John Tan: Why is view important when you need deconstruction? So understand the purpose of deconstruction and understand the view when you have direct insight of anatta to help you.

Soh Wei Yu: Advaita subsume everything into one. So their deconstruction leads to collapsing into undifferentiated oneness which has the characteristics of permanence and Self

Whereas buddhism deconstructs Self and sees self and all phenomena like chariot.. so it collapses oneness into multiplicity and then the nature of multiplicity is revealed to be dependent origination and non arising, neither one or many, etc

John Tan: Subsuming into one, why?

John Tan: If deconstruction frees one from conceptualizing, how is it that there's subsuming?

Soh Wei Yu: Because after I AM the I AM appears like ultimate reality. So it does not occur to them that the view of subjectivity can be seen through via insight

Soh Wei Yu: They do not even see subjectivity as a view

Soh Wei Yu: To them its the absolute

John Tan: Therefore this not seeing is the root of ignorance. So don't see mind or not mind doesn't imply insight.

Soh Wei Yu: Ic.. But for me all observable phenomena are awareness and there is no awareness besides observable phenomena, this is from direct insight

John Tan: When one over emphasizes non conceptualization as the ultimate goal, he is letting karmic blind spots sway his understanding. 

John Tan: So as I have said many times, despite having experiences turned effortlessly non-dual and non conceptual post anatta, I am not into no view. Rather I am into direct authentication of right view.

Soh Wei Yu: Ic..

John Tan: This however is not promoting conceptualization over non- conceptual experience. They support each other.

John Tan: Why do I ask you what is the purpose of deconstruction? You need to know what exactly does deconstruction achieve. You have deconstructed mind, body and divisions...so what is this deconstruction about and what is the purpose?

Soh Wei Yu: Experience presence without boundary and artificial separation or fragmentation

John Tan: Yes. To access directly presence without intermediary. Having direct access does not mean wisdom and insight will arise. But when you are able to to access the state of non-dual presence, you are able to authenticate the view so that you insight may arise.

Soh Wei Yu: Ic..

John Tan: So the view, the experience and the realization.

John Tan: Now what is dependent origination abt? Is it relation between 2 things? If not what is it pointing at?
Soh Wei Yu: It is pointing to the nature of this presencing appearance.. because we do not comprehend the nature of appearance we come up with the idea that things come into existence and abides somewhere for a moment or a while... but when we look into appearance, appearance is none other than the various conditions exerting, like for example the image on screen is dependent on eye, electricity, etc.. you can’t say it has been created and is locatable somewhere. it is none other than a seamless exertion just like chariot is none other than the parts dependencies functions

It is not relation between two things because the depending and depended are not one or two.. the vision is not vision of its own apart from eye.. eye is not eye on its own apart from vision.. it is the nature of this presencing vision to be dependent and non originating

John Tan: Quite good.

John Tan: But DO must been seen and understood from conventional perspective. How it serves as antidote for the conventional fictions of the mind.

John Tan: Deconstruction process for realizing total exertion by contemplating ayatanas and resolving various conceptual blindspots.


John Tan: As for the deconstruction process via total exertion, a more effective way will be contemplating the ayatanas (Soh: See link) and consciousness sort of deconstruction..

As I told you the insight trigger from  "hearer hearing sound" and "ear, sound, ear-consciousness" are different.  Also  "ear, sound, ear-consciousness" imo is post anatta into phenomena and action.

Soh Wei Yu: Oic.. but ear sound ear consciousness is before deconstruction of ear and sound into total exertion right

John Tan: Post anatta, you are left with sound.  When you look at sound from "ear, sound, ear-consciousness" we are led to total exertion.

John Tan: But before you talk about total exertion let's look at fluxing...

Buddha named consciousness after its ayatanas. This is to prevent us from abstracting and reifying a pure self standing consciousness. In other words, consciousness is in a perpetual state of fluxing and if you where to slice a moment out of this stream of consciousness-ing, it is always one of the six types of consciousness -- eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness and mental-consciousness.

Soh Wei Yu: Ic..

John Tan: Now what is that ear-consciousness?

Soh Wei Yu: Cannot be spoken besides in relation to ear and sound.. it is just that sound in relation to ear, manifesting that sound consciousness

John Tan: Yes. If I were to hit a bell with a stick and produce a "tingssss" sound...where and what is that "tingss"?

Is it in the stick, the bell, the air, the vibration of the air, the ear canal, the eardrum?

Also is that "tingss" produced?  Is it caused?

John Tan: And if you take out a part of the conditions, is there still "tingss" at that moment?

Soh Wei Yu: No

Soh Wei Yu: It is relational but not produced or caused

John Tan: The conventional world is populated with discrete separated objects as the mind sees in bits and pieces and languages play a role in enforcing the hoax of separations. 

We link these separated objects and say this causes that.  We must see through all these symbols and names constructs and cause and effect issues, not just no-self.

John Tan: When you say no? are you able to see how and why it is "no"?  Like choosing, without all its parts, is it still that choosing?

When you flip a coin, can you flip the head without flipping the tail? When you flip the head, you are at the same time flipping the tail.  So can the tail choose not to be flipped?

When we say sensation, sensation is always the sensation of something.  Can there be sensation without an object? And we say sensation is not free from that something?

Soh Wei Yu: Ic.. yeah.. nothing can be found besides those relations. Sensation of heat cannot be found to reside somewhere besides the exertion of hand grasping on the cup and the hot coffee, etc etc.. Therefore unproduced, not inherent production or cause and effect... If produced then it could exist apart from those relations. Choosing also cannot be found besides the relations which volition plays an important role.. volition etc too is dependently originating. It is not determinism which is a kind of fixed view of inherent production, just dependent origination

Soh Wei Yu: Choosing is dependent on choosable objects, the subjective mental factors which includes ignorance, afflictions, habits, or conversely wisdom, mindfulness, willpower, external influences, internal rational reasoning, etc etc.. all those factors exerting in the activity of choosing

John Tan: It is not exactly important how words are being replaced but what exactly is "uprooted" from the process of decosntruction.  It must lift the veil of "production" and separation, entity and it's characteristics to understand the vivid vibrancy of that "tingss"...

So there can be a direct pointing that enables one to taste without intermediary beyond names and forms of that "tingsss", a non-dual, non-local or total exerted experience, but that does not mean the intellectual blindspot is uprooted. 

There can also be clear understanding of intellectually but somehow the blindspot is not lifted and a second pointing into the taste of clarity is needed.

John Tan: So direct experience is one thing, clearly seeing through and uprooting of the blindspots is altogether another question.

Soh Wei Yu: Oic..

John Tan: When I say soh is very successful, a damn good programmer.  So when you look at "success" and see through this label, what did you see?

John Tan: Just suddenly successful?

Soh Wei Yu: No.. years of gaining experience etc

John Tan: Tell me more

John Tan: Everything ...

John Tan: Go into it...

Soh Wei Yu: It includes learning from teachers, working with others, learning from failures and mistakes, continually refining knowledge and learning, and experience, hmm... actually cannot finish listing all the factors lol..

John Tan: Yes...that includes coding ten of thousands of lines of codes, many sleepless nights, continual refining ones logic...etc

John Tan: All of these all is being exerted into soh as a good programmer here and now...

John Tan: So success is designated based on these conditions

John Tan: So soh that is here and now and the whole exertion, what is the difference?

Soh Wei Yu: No difference

John Tan: No difference how come?

Soh Wei Yu: Here and now is just another designation... cannot be found besides the whole exertion of ten directions and three times.. just like consciousness is named and designated after conditions

John Tan: Similarly, when you studying an object A, you will soon find that you are not just studying the object itself, you are at the same time studying it's environment, it's conditions...until the line between the thing you study and it's environment and conditions become a blur...until the boundaries and the divisions dissapears ... What can you realize from that?

Soh Wei Yu: To study something is to study the relations and exertion of everything involved

Reminds me of dogen..

“To study the Buddha Way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be actualized by myriad things. When actualized by myriad things, your body and mind as well as the bodies and minds of others drop away. No trace of enlightenment remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly.”

Soh Wei Yu: Also dependent designations.. everything is dependent designations

John Tan: The Soh that is here and now and the whole exertion are not two different phenomena.  The splitting up creates the impression as if they can be separated. As if you can choose some part and still retain the same successful Soh at the moment.  We also create a cause and effect relationship as if Soh that is here and now is a puppet that can't do anything.  

Like the head and tail of a coin, they are two aspects of the same coin. The mind that sees the bits and pieces and the language creates an alienated experience and confusions. 

All these deconstructions and uprooting of blindspots are to allow the full and total experience of the sound "tingss". Each moment is also the dynamic total participation of the entire situation of the three times.

So in the total exertion of that "tingss", there is no outside, no inside, therefore nothing to cause...no cause, no conditions, no self, no arising, no ceasing.  Effortless, boundless, immense, vibrantly alive and free.”

Alan Watts: On Net of Indra and Total Exertion.


Soh Wei Yu: (youtube video of AW)

Soh Wei Yu: Nice talk by alan watts on net of indra and total exertion

John Tan: Yes very good... Like the success

John Tan: Because we are so used to seeing and understanding from a truly objective world excluding consciousness from the equation or a subsuming consciousness which is just the other end of the pole.

Similarly, we may think that we have to "get out" of conventionalities and be non-conceptual, non-dual, non-local and live in vivid vibrancy prior to separation. 

We think that the conventional world and the non-dual, non-conceptual must be mutually exclusive.

What is the sound of one hand clapping in a fully and completely engaged conventional world? 

When you move not a single step away from concepts and names, conventions and forms, what is that taste of one hand clapping like? Can you identify it?

John Tan: But that is not to tell you to keep engaging in conceptual thoughts...lol

John Tan: Sound makes ear, the ear and the ear makes sound, the sound.  No sound, no ear. Neither prior nor after. This you understand. 

But what about Dogen hits a bell, soh hears it? How intimate and how deep have you embraced it?

John Tan: There are at least 5 phases of total exertion.  Each is a deepening.

Adyashanti: The World of Interrelatedness.

Recommended reading: The World of Interrelatedness

John Tan: Yes good stuff. "Things" are just set of relations.

Whatever felt, seen, heard, tasted, smelled and thought that seem so real and awareness that is often taken to be more "real than real" is no different from the "chariot" and its basis of designation.

John Tan: However the [Adyashanti] article should not lump all into one. They are different insights. "More real than real" is one insight. Everything is in fact truly real is another. The "real" is just "inter-ratedness". Then the clear view of the relationships and how to re-understand and live with the new experience and insights.

Soh Wei Yu: More real than real is different from everything is in fact truly real? What do you mean? More real than real is just luminosity right

Soh Wei Yu: Btw it occurred to me that advaita talks about non arising but the diff with buddhism is that buddhism non arising is the rejection of inherent production due to being free from causation by self, others, both and causeless, which is to say everything is non arising and free from inherent production due to dependent origination. Whereas in advaita everything is non arising due to everything being mere imputation and projection upon the inherently existing substratum of brahman

John Tan: Yes. That (More real than real) is also an insight that turns the mind internal. Non-arising means appearances without essence similar to a reflection, like a rainbow. That (More real than real) comes with I AMness. The difference between anatta and substantiality is beside appearance, there is innate feeling of some essence separate from the appearances of colors, sensations, sound, smell, taste and thoughts. Therefore one cannot be fully open and release.

Inseparability of Awareness and Conditions

John Tan (2009): In Buddhism there is no ultimate source or origination due to D.O. (dependent origination).

Soh Wei Yu: btw the other day I asked you about what padmasambhava said 

‘Since (intrinsic awareness) is self-originated and spontaneously self-perfected without any antecedent causes or conditions,’ then isn't it contradictory to D.O.?

John Tan: padmasambhava is not referring to no causes and conditions

Soh Wei Yu: oic then what he meant

John Tan: he is referring to luminosity is not created. nothing is created. they dependently originates. there is no creation of anything. that is what Buddhists have to understand

Soh Wei Yu: oic..

John Tan: non buddhists reify a source that is non-created. only the source is not created… in buddhism, there is no origination

Soh Wei Yu: icic.. so non buddhist see source and everything originates from source while buddhism doesnt see a source and origination?

John Tan: yes. I have already told you awareness has no monopoly 

Zen Patriarch Bodhidharma: On the Inseparability of Awareness and Conditions.

See full article (link): “With the condition of the eye, forms are seen, With the condition of ears, sounds are heard, With the condition of nose, smells are smelled, With the condition of tongue, tastes are tasted, every movement or states are all one's Mind.”

John Tan’s comments:

Here there are 2 important points to take note. First is that Buddha Nature is the transience. Second it is more of '应'. Means with the condition of the eye, forms arise. With ears, sound arises.

Awareness is not like a mirror reflecting but rather a manifestation. Luminosity is an arising luminous manifestation rather than a mirror reflecting. The center here is being replaced with Dependent Origination, the experience however is non-dual.

One must learn how to see Appearances as Awareness and all others as conditions. Example, sound is awareness. The person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, ears...are conditions. One should learn to see in this way. All problems arise because we cannot experience Awareness this way.

Conventionally we experience in the form of subject and object interaction taking place in a space-time continuum. This is just an assumption. Experientially it is not so. One should learn to experience awareness as the manifestation. There is no subject, there is only and always manifestation, all else are conditions of arising. All these are just provisional explanations for one to understand.

Further comments:

What's seen is Awareness. What's heard is Awareness. All experiences are non-dual in nature. However this non-dual luminosity cannot be understood apart from the ‘causes and conditions’ of arising. Therefore do not see ‘yin’ as Awareness interacting with external conditions. If you see it as so, then it still falls in the category of mirror-reflecting. Rather see it as an instantaneous manifestation where nothing is excluded. As if the universe is giving its very best for this moment to arise. A moment is complete and non-dual. Vividly manifest and thoroughly gone leaving no traces.

Phrase like “everything arises from Emptiness and subsides back to Emptiness” is equally misleading. By doing so, we have made ‘Emptiness’ into a metaphysical essence; similarly not to make the same mistake for “causes and conditions”, not to objectify it into a metaphysical essence. All are provisional terms to point to our insubstantial, essence-less and interdependent nature.”

Acarya Malcolm Smith: All awarenesses are conditioned, there is no such thing as a universal undifferentiated ultimate awareness in Buddhadharma.

Malcolm wrote: Yes, I understand. All awarenesses are conditioned. There is no such thing as a universal undifferentiated ultimate awareness in Buddhadharma. Even the omniscience of a Buddha arises from a cause.

PadmaVonSamba: isn't this cause, too, an object of awareness? Isn't there awareness of this cause? If awareness of this cause is awareness itself, then isn't this awareness of awareness? What causes awareness of awareness, if not awareness?

If awareness is the cause of awareness, isn't it its own cause?

Malcolm: Omniscience is the content of a mind freed of afflictions. Even the continuum of a Buddha has a relative ground, i.e. a the rosary or string of moments of clarity is beginingless.

Origination from self is axiomatically negated in Buddhadharma, each moment in the continuum of a knowing clarity is neither the same as nor different than the previous moment. Hence the cause of a given instant of a knowing clarity cannot be construed to be itself nor can it be construed to be other than itself. This is the only version of causation which, in the final analysis, Buddhadharma can admit to on a relative level. It is the logical consequence of the Buddha's insight, "When this exists, that exists, with the arising of that, this arose."

PadmaVonSamba: I am not referring to cognition, rather, the causes of that cognition.

Malcolm: Cognitions arise based on previous cognitions. That's all. If you suggest anything other than this, you wind up in Hindu La la land.

Malcolm wrote: There is no such thing as a universal undifferentiated ultimate awareness in Buddhadharma.” 

- Take from a well written article (link) 

John Tan (2008): When the inherent view is gone, there is no longer any separation between awareness and sensory experience. 

Soh Wei Yu: hmm ya joan tollifson said: This open being is not something to be practiced methodically. Toni points out that it takes no effort to hear the sounds in the room; it's all here. There's no "me" (and no problem) until thought comes in and says: "Am I doing it right? Is this 'awareness?' Am I enlightened?"; Suddenly the spaciousness is gone?the mind is occupied with a story and the emotions it generates.

John Tan: yes mindfulness will eventually become natural and effortless when true insight arise and the whole purpose of mindfulness as a practice becomes clear.

Soh Wei Yu: oic

John Tan: yes.

John Tan: That will only happen when the propensity of 'I' is there.

John Tan: When our Emptiness nature is there, that sort of thought will not arise.

Soh Wei Yu: Toni packer: ... Meditation that is free and effortless, without goal, without expectation, is an expression of Pure Being that has nowhere to go, nothing to get.

There is no need for awareness to turn anywhere. It's here! Everything is here in awareness! When there is a waking up from fantasy, there is no one who does it. Awareness and the sound of a plane are here with no one in the middle trying to "do" them or bring them together. They are here together! The only thing that keeps things (and people) apart is the "me"-circuit with its separative thinking. When that is quiet, divisions do not exist.

Soh Wei Yu: icic

John Tan: but it will even after the insight arise before stabilization.

Soh Wei Yu: oic

John Tan: There is no Awareness and Sound.

John Tan: Awareness is that Sound. It is because we have certain definition of Awareness that the mind cannot sync Awareness and Sound together.

Soh Wei Yu: icic..

John Tan: When this inherent view is gone, it becomes very clear that Appearance is Awareness, everything is nakedly exposed and unreservedly experienced effortlessly.

Soh Wei Yu: oic..

John Tan: a person hit a bell, no sound is being produced. Mere conditions. :P

John Tan: Tong, that is awareness.

Soh Wei Yu: icic..

Soh Wei Yu: wat you mean by no sound is being produced

John Tan: you go experience and think lah

John Tan: no point explaining.

Soh Wei Yu: no locality rite, its not produced from something

John Tan: no

John Tan: hitting, bell, person, ears, whatever whatever are summed as 'conditions'

John Tan: necessary for 'sound' to arise.

Soh Wei Yu: icic..

Soh Wei Yu: oh the sound is not externally existing

Soh Wei Yu: but just an arising of condition

John Tan: nor internally existing

Soh Wei Yu: icic

John Tan: then the mind think, 'I' hear.

John Tan: or the mind think I am an independent soul.

John Tan: Without me there is no 'sound'

John Tan: but i am not the 'sound'

John Tan: and the ground reality, the base for all things to arise.

John Tan: this is only half true.

John Tan: a deeper realisation is there is no separation. We treat 'sound' as external.

John Tan: not seeing that as 'conditions'

John Tan: there is no sound out there or in here.

John Tan: it is our subject/object dichotomy way of seeing/analysing/understanding that makes it so.


Afflictive Dependent Origination and the Death-Free (Not “The Deathless”)

John Tan: Important to understand anatta (no-self) from the perspective of dependent origination.

"There never was a self. One must re-orientate oneself that it is functionality and action that give rise to [the sense of a] self/entity rather than [a real] agent giving rise to action. Therefore from anatta, we see Dependent Origination, cause and conditions, action, karma... unlike [the misunderstanding of] no-self therefore no dependent origination and causality. The former is non-substantialist view, the latter is using substantialist self view to understand anatta (no-self)." 

Kyle Dixon: On karmic propensities.

“Karmic propensities are habitual tendencies of perception and behavior which are predicated upon ignorance [avidyā].

The three poisons are a succinct example of this: (i) ignorance [skt. avidyā/moha], (ii) acceptance [skt. rāga], (iii) rejection [skt. dvesa].

Acceptance and rejection are the karmic tendencies which are based on the initial ignorance. One is ignorant of the fact that phenomena ultimately lack any essence or substantiality and therefore appearances are mistaken to be existent objects. Attachment/acceptance of those apparent objects and or aversion/rejection of those alleged objects creates the illusion of a subjective entity which is doing the accepting and/or rejecting.

So the action [karma] itself gives rise to the delusion of an autonomous entity and that delusion is further engrained and fortified through continual action/activity in the same vein.

This process is the foundation and sustenance of samsara. The cause is the ignorance And the conditions are the proliferation of karmic tendencies, e.g. accepting and rejecting.” 

Kyle Dixon: Substantialist tendencies that occur prior to anatta and emptiness realizations.

"...prior to anatta and emptiness realizations the perception of an external dimension populated with objects and entities that possess characteristics and perform functions as instruments or agents is an unerring fact of experience. As is the apparent internal point of reference. These structures are simply in place, at all times.

Only after anatta and emptiness is this directly discovered to be false.”

Continued:

That phenomena appear to be real is not an advanced philosophical view. It is just a fact of life for people.

People experience objects, persons, places, things as established entities and so on.

They form attachment to persons, places and things. They form aversion to other persons, places and things. Attachment to experiences, aversion to experiences.

For common people this is all based on a cognition of real persons, places and things.

Things that appear unreal to people, again such as dream appearances, mirages, reflections, hallucinations, echoes, are not a basis for attachment and aversion because they are known to be insubstantial appearances.

Kyle Dixon: The cognition of real entities or conditioned phenomena occurs due to ignorance. 

“This sort of gets into the whole "cause and condition" side of this equation, where the perception of real entities (persons, places, things, etc.) is caused by a certain type of ignorance. And that being the case, the very cognition of real entities (or what is called "conditioned phenomena" such as an internal, personal self, or external, impersonal objects) quite literally arises because of that ignorance and is therefore fundamentally no different than that ignorance. And in this sense, when one realizes that said apparently real entities are actually empty of inherency, that realization or epiphany is really just a cessation of cause [ignorance] for the arising of the perception of those entities. Meaning; it is simply a cessation of ignorance.

In that way there is either the presence of ignorance, and the results of ignorance, or the cessation of ignorance and the results of that cessation, but an underlying, substantial nature (like we would find in Vedanta) is not part of that process.” 


Kyle Dixon: In Dzogchen, mind/consciousness and phenomena viewed as objective, separate or subsumed within that mind are both products of delusion, grasping and clinging along with imputation and conceptualization.

“I'm not sure about the 'everything arising from rigpa' but Tsoknyi Rinpoche's comments regarding rigpa (Soh: Rigpa means ‘knowledge’ or vidya, particularly of the true nature of mind/phenomena) completely pervading all things, and by understanding rigpa you understand all phenomena... are pointing to the fact that once recognition of one's nature has occurred, the delusion that apperceives phenomena as objectively arising qualities of experience which appear to a mind, is overcome. 

So that is to say, the recognition of rigpa is essentially the very first time one's experience is known accurately, and that knowledge is then the foundation for one's practice in dzogchen. It's not only the refutation that appearances are the samsaric dualistic mind, but the very idea that appearances and phenomena are subsumed into the mind or consciousness. It's the notion that the objective phenomena are non-dual with a subjective mind or consciousness, and that there is a union of those polarities. 

The Dzogchen view is that both the mind/consciousness and the objective appearances are byproducts of delusion, just as Longchenpa says in the quote above; "Likewise, various kinds of phenomena are appearing in the deluded mind because of the interdependent origination of the causes and conditions of delusion." The mind/consciousness and phenomena viewed as objective, separate or subsumed within that mind are both products of delusion, grasping and clinging, imputation and conceptualization etc. The moment a mind or consciousness is posited, that which is not-that-mind arises, that is the dependent origination. 

The idea is to see that the mind/consciousness and the phenomena are dependently originated and therefore both are rendered empty if that is ascertained successfully. Also, nothing truly arises from the basis (gzhi), the basis simply displays it's appearance as the five lights, but since that spontaneously and naturally formed display (lhun grub) is primordially pure (ka dag) it's not established (nor unestablished) in any way. Only when that display isn't recognized to be self-display, does phenomena arise. 

The basis is never involved in delusion in any way nor does it display delusion, delusion arises due to non-recognition. The recognition of rigpa is simply the knowledge or discernment which results from ascertaining the display of the basis to be self-display. The Mahamudra instructions which say 'everything is mind' is usually a line of reasoning which runs like so: 'everything is mind, mind is empty' so it's a way of helping the aspirant to achieve recognition (if recognition didn't occur in direct introduction). 

Everything is the mind deems everything as nondual with the mind, and then the mind is empty i.e. insubstantial, unfindable, unestablished. It's just a way to say that which you perceive as 'objective phenomena' is truly neither the same nor different than the mind, both are imputed designations. Since dzogchen is resting in rigpa, the nature of the mind has already been recognized and so its emptiness is implicit in the view to begin with.” 


John Tan: Understanding thoughts from the perspective of total extertion and the principle of conditionality.

“...penetrate deeply into the following aspects:

1.    The amazing power of the spell of an arising thought

Clearly understand the power and implications of this arising thought.  It is the mystery of all mysteries.  When this arising thought sees dualistically and inherent, everything appears infinitely separated and apart.  That is all that matters.

2.  Look deeply into the cause of suffering as a result of dualistic and inherent thought rather than thought self liberates, penetrate the ‘cause and conditions’ of suffering.  

When an arising thought see dualistically, how the entire experience is shaped.

When an arising thought sees inherently, how the entire experience has changed.

With this as the cause, what happens, with the absence of that, what happens.

3. There is no willing off of dualistic and inherent thought, that would be self-view.  If there is no doership, is overcoming possible?

From this understanding, an arising thought is not just an arising thought, but the total exertion and entire chain of conditionality is in action. Clearly understand the difference between self-view and principle of conditionality with direct experience. The overcoming is not by way of self-view approach but by understanding the principle of conditionality.” 

Soh Wei Yu: Karmic propensities from the perspective of total exertion. 


Karmic propensity is the whole of one's experiential reality. If one feels like a changeless witness, that experience of feeling like a changeless witness IS that propensity in action, in experience... if one is seeing fully that there's only transience (the radiant flow of sights/sounds/smells/taste/touch/thoughts), that is the actualization of wisdom (of anatta).

If one sees manifestation but appears solid, that's also the view of latent tendency, that view of inherent existence in action. That very feeling of concreteness IS karmic tendency. If one sees this very presence (of any experience - sight, sound, smell, etc) is empty of any it-ness, concreteness, solidity, apparent yet empty, that very vision itself is the actualization of wisdom, it is the total exertion of wisdom, it IS wisdom. Or as Dzogchen puts it - those very five elements (space, wind, fire, water, earth) are wisdoms by nature, so experienced in its actual state, is that actualization of wisdom.

In a way, the view is the experience... every samsaric experience is the total exertion of ignorance along with the 12 links in a single moment. Occasionally ignorant view is forgotten in a peak experience, such a cessation is however non-analytical and merely a passing state, as the conditions for the re-emergence of ignorance and afflictions have not been cut off from its roots. Only the analytical cessation resulting from penetrative prajna wisdom of twofold emptiness can lead to a permanent and quantum shift of perception away from ignorance, what Lankavatara Sutra calls the "turning-about" in the deepest seat of consciousness (but again this deepest seat is not somewhere else but fully manifesting!).

So the karmic tendency, and wisdom, you've been searching for has never been elsewhere but is staring right in your face as your experiential reality all along! Funny how one doesn't see that. That very activity that is mentally fabricated but appearing real as one's only experiential reality at that given moment, just that is the spell of karmic tendency. That activity that is (experienced/seen as) luminous and empty as one's only experiential reality at that given moment is the wisdom.

I remember when Ciaran (of Ruthless Truth) saw the real fiction of self (a process of creative imagination brought into real life, a real creation based on an imaginary character) he wrote that it was a "zen on drugs" moment. Yeah, I can see why he said that!

John commented, "Very good, so the dreams in dreams (http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/buddha-dharma-dream-in-dream.html). Otherwise you are seeing clarity as empty and tendencies as inherent... hiding somewhere.”

Soh Wei Yu (2007): The Spell of Karmic Propensities.


The following article is a summary (by me) of some of the conversations Thusness had with me on the topic of Karmic Propensities/Karmic Momentum/Deep Conditionings and how it blinds us and completely affects the way we see phenomena.

Karmic Propensities is what blinded us from seeing the ultimate reality. Our entire mind is affected by karmic propensities such that our entire system of enquiry, even when we want to inquire on reality, we cannot know beyond "Who", "When", "What", "Where". Our mind is always thinking dualistically, in terms of subject and object (an I and a Not-I/an Observer apart from the Object of Observation, which cannot be found in reality). It is a momentum that cannot be located, yet it can be directly felt and experienced, and the momentum arises every moment and affect the entire way we see things. When we are affected by momentum the mind cannot know the ultimate reality (Emptiness).

Because our momentum is at work, we will always assume a subject-object duality. That is, there is a Self, an Agent, and observer, doer, thinker of thoughts. A self that persists in time in a connected way... experiencing things... It blinds us into seeing self and objective world as 'entities', as 'things' with inherent existence, as a separate and permanent 'me'.

So when momentum is in action, we cannot help but react with our karmic patterns. If we were to ask, "If you lost your shoe, are you still you?" or "If you lost your hands, do you still exist?". It almost seems certain to say "Yes, of course I am still I." because we always assumed there is a truly existing "Self" experiencing changes. This momentum can continue even after experiences of transcendental Presence, and distorting the experience.

Dharma Dan calls the karmic propensities of seeing subject/object division, or a separate Agent that is the observer, the "fundamental knot of perception". (See: The Non-Duality Models of Enlightenment by Dharma Dan)

Because it is our habit energy that made us think that way, we are so used to thinking in terms of subject-object duality that it has become so deeply part of us, deeply imprinted into our consciousness.

Apart from understanding our non-dual nature, what is important is the question of why is there a separation in the first place. Why is it that practitioners of all ages see thoughts, sensation, transience, the impermanence as not our Buddha Nature itself? Even when told non-duality, explained and experienced, how is it that it is not known? Understanding the power that blinds is equally important.

As my friend Longchen said, it's the working of the imprints and subtle recalling that makes us sink back to the illusion of a permanent background Source, Witness, Self... separating into form and formless, impermanence and permanence, and thus fail to see that the Appearance is the Source.

http://www.dreamdatum.com/no-eternalwitness.html (broken link, found this instead)

...From deep meditative observation, the witness is realised to be just an impression that is caused by subtle knowingness and sequential observation. Moment to moment arises in lightning fast speed. The second moment got a subtle imprint of the recently preceded one. This sequential change causes the sense of Subtle Witnessing known as the Eternal Witness...

If we were to eliminate this bond, then we can begin to realise, there is no "Self". In reality, there is only Self1, Self2, Self3 (which are not self), moment to moment our mental and karmic factors arise spontaneously but not in a connected way. We are not a permanent self, life is just a vivid, alive, yet momentary and insubstantial stream of mental and physical phenomena and nothing stays, everything is ever flowing. (Also see What is Self? and What Is The "Me"? (broken link))

Without seeing things as 'entities', we can begin to realise the nature of Dependent Co-Arising, Conditionality, Interdependence, etc, i.e Emptiness. The nature is always so, but our karmic propensities obscure us from seeing the truth, distorting the way we see things, enquire things, and perceive things. It is this bond that bonds us life after life in Samsara.

To eliminate the bond we have to feel it, feel the power of the bond, experience it. To eliminate the bond is a matter of insights, the insight into our true nature, the insight into self-liberation, etc. Not only must we eliminate the bond, we must be able to see how "Propensities" blinds us, and that is through naked awareness.

How can naked awareness lead to the insight of our "Propensities"?

Space, time, life, death, in and out are all ‘deeply held’ impressions. We are seldom aware of the “deeply held” until we are able to rest adequately in naked awareness. The nakedness creates the big contrast that provides us the condition for the arising of the insight of the 'deeply held'. The insight into the full power of our ‘propensities’ and resting in naked awareness are both equally crucial in our understanding of our non-dual (no subject-object duality, no separate permanently existing self) and empty (interdependently originated) nature.

To consciousness 'propensities' (deep conditioning or imprints) are all that matters. It is the only 'force' that blinds, bonds and prevents a liberating experience. Once formed it remains latent and only surface when conditions are riped for fruition. We are unable to get rid of it by will. Therefore to know consciousness, it is also to know the impact of deep conditioning, how it is formed and how it subsides. There is really no 'why', it is just how consciousness works.

“If we drop our body, we experience astral body.
If we drop our thoughts, we experience “I AM”.
If we drop ‘I’, we experience non-duality.”

Every major dropping results in a totally new experiential reality. Perhaps that is why Lao Tze teaches us to eliminate until none to experience Tao.

To drop the bondage/deep conditionings, the mind MUST realise that another way of 'knowing' is possible; an effortless, total sensing and experience of wholeness. Next the experiences of the joy, bliss and clarity of wholeness. Without the insight into the possiblity and the experience of the positive factors, the mind will not release itself from holding.

Even open pure and innocent inquiry is a deep conditioning. Makes the mind chatters incessantly. Every what, when, where and why by itself is a distancing from start. Freeing itself from such mode of inquiry aka 'knowing', the mind rests. The joy of this resting must be experienced for the 'willingness' to arise.

(P.S. there are different types of meditative bliss/joy/rapture.

Like samatha meditation, each jhana state represents a stage of bliss associated with certain level of concentration; the bliss experienced from insight into our nature differs)

The happiness and pleasure experience by a dualistic mind is different from that experienced by a practitioner. “I AMness” is a higher form of happiness as compared to a dualistic mind that continuously chatters. It is a level of bliss associated with a state of ‘transcendence’ – a state of bliss resulting from the experience of “formlessness, odorless, colorless, attributeless and thoughtlessness’.

No-self or non-dual is higher form of bliss resulted from the direct experience of Oneness and no-separation. It is related to the dropping of the ‘I’. When non-dual is free from perceptions, that bliss is a form transcendence-oneness. It is what Thusness called the transparency of non-duality.”

John Tan: Afflictive chain is released by the pacification of mental proliferation rather than dry non-conceptuality.

“Also, the afflictive chain is released by the pacification of mental proliferation but not through dry non-conceptuality. Like what you said can be by:
  • Direct insight of anatta into empty clarity.
  • Total exertion. ----- However in total exertion, doing away with self is not necessary. It is fully embraced and fully authenticated by 10 thousand things. Most of your articles seem quite persistent in trying to get rid of “self” even when expressing total exertion. In total exertion, emptiness and endless dependencies of dharma (including self) are a given otherwise total exertion is not possible. Every dharma is purified by its own endless dependencies. 
  • Persistently seeing of whatever arises dependently is free from extremes will eventually free the mind. Consistently seeing neither self nor no-self, neither arise nor not-arise, breaks the chain of mental proliferation.”

Kyle Dixon: Different tiers of subject-object reification. 


John Tan: Can't understand him. This aside, recently he posted some extracts about selflessness written by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso:

"When we realize the selflessness of the individual, however, this whole process stops. The wrong views that have their root in the belief in self cease, then the mental afflictions cease, then karmic actions cease, and as a result of that, birth in samsara’s cycle of existence ceases."

"We can formulate the following logical reasoning: Karmic actions and results are mere appearances devoid of true existence, because no self, no actor, exists to perform them. This is a valid way to put things because if the self of the individual does not exist, there cannot be any action, and therefore there cannot be any result of any action either."

Would like to hear your view Kyle, that because there is no-self, there is no action.

Frankly this is not inline with the experience and insight of anatta I have. I seriously cannot accept Mr. J's "because there is no self, there is nothing to do". I resonate more with Buddhaghosa's 'Suffering as such exists, but no sufferer is found; The deeds are, but no doer is found.'

Kyle Dixon: I was thinking about these comments from KTG just the other day because I saw Mr. J post them, they do seem off.

The only guess I have regarding the first quote is that he is referring to the complete realization of selflessness, not a mere recognition. It would not be right to think all of those processes cease upon initial recognition, but that is of course how Mr. J misinterpreted the excerpt. I don't have the text, but I can imagine there is more context that is missing.

As for the other quote, it isn't the best way to communicate the message in my opinion.

My view is that the self is imputed onto the action or afflicted activity. And the activity is the result of ignorance. First there is ignorance regarding the nature of appearance, and appearances are mistaken to be external, whereas mind is then internal. From there further grasping occurs which fortifies this split, and the alleged inner reference point is then treated as mine and myself, which leads to I-making in the form of imputation. That activity of imputation then further deepens the fallacious structure of self and other because activity unfolds based on the misconception of the self.

But the self is not the lynchpin. Ignorance is. Is the self and ignorance synonymous? I don't think so. Because ignorance is two fold in that it reifies the apparent inner dimension and external dimension. The self that karma is related hto is the mind reified as self. We can recognize non-arising related to that substrate knower, and still perceive a substantial external dimension. Likewise we can recognize non-arising of objects in the external dimension and the inner substrate knower remains in tact. Then, we can also recognize the non-arising in different sensory gates at different times. For instance one can recognize the non-arising of sound yet visual perception remains afflicted, and vice versa.

So it isn't as simple as just negating the self and washing our hands of the massive nexus of afflictive processes. It is much more complex than that.

Is it true that the self is unreal and the activity base on the self is unreal? Sure. But KTG is sort of communicating this in a backwards fashion. Just because the self is unreal does not mean it is not constructed and based on a complex nexus of afflictive activity, that is then based in delusion. And that activity is habitual.

This is why Padmasambhava says my view is higher than the sky but my attention to karmic cause and effect is finer than flour.

The karmic cause and effect is the patterns of grasping that reinforces the inner and outer yings or dimensions.

KTG's message is true in a certain context, but is communicated recklessly. And of course the nuance of the issue are completely lost on you-know-who. I feel he has had some coarse insights into substantial non-dual states, maybe. But he has never really seen equipoise. This is my feeling.

The self does not create the fundamental afflictive activity. The fundamental afflictive activity gives rise to the self, and then both spin out of control from there. But one will not resolve the affliction by merely negating the self.

Kyle Dixon: Anatta equipoise is related to absence of time, and in this sense action is indeed negated. Also the threefold actor, action, acted upon is undone when the insight is twofold. Anatta in objects is related to unreality of space. But only Buddhas are in non-retroactive state of that nature.

John Tan: Yes Kyle, like you said it is not so straight forward and logical deduction can be slippery. Does freedom from subject/object duality necessarily frees one from "mine" attachment?

"First there is the ignorance regarding the nature appearance and appearances are mistaken to be external whereas mind is then internal. "

My view is this misapprehension is the result of ignorance but grasping need not arise. That is, I/others, subject/object are not the result of grasping but a non-recognition. However when "mine" arises, that is grasping.

Kyle Dixon: I agree that the feeling of subject-object precedes grasping and "mine."

In some systems there is actually a tiered model of ignorance for this very reason, and that simple non-recognition is treated as a different aspect of ignorance. That bare non-recognizing ignorance is sometimes illustrated in the example of the first instances when waking up from sleep where one is cognizing appearances, and those appearances are externalized, but self-identification has not arisen yet. I've had these moments extend to where I will wake up and it takes a few moments to even register where I am, yet bare cognizance is certainly functioning. Then imputation arises and recollection of person, place, time, plans, schedule etc., all unfold, which is held as a different type of ignorance.”

“I’m obviously preferable to the Dzogchen system because I started there and although branching out, my primary interest has remained there. But I do appreciate the run-down of avidyā or ignorance in the Dzogchen system because it is tiered and accounts for this disparity I am addressing. 

There are two or three levels of ignorance which are more like aspects of our delusion regarding the nature of phenomena. The point of interest in that is the separation of what is called “innate” (or “connate”) ignorance, from what is called “imputing ignorance.”

The imputing ignorance is the designating of various entities, dimension of experience and so on. And one’s identity results from that activity. 

The connate ignorance is the failure to correctly apprehend the nature of phenomena. The very non-recognition of the way things really are. 

This is important because you can have the connate ignorance remain in tact without the presence of the imputing ignorance. 

This separation is not even apparent through the stilling of imputation like in śamatha. But it can be made readily apparent in instances where you awaken from sleep, perhaps in a strange location, on vacation etc., or even just awakening from a deep sleep. There can be a period of moments where you do not realize where you are right yet, and then suddenly it all comes back, where you are, what you have planned for the day, where you need to be, etc., 

In those initial moments you are still conscious and perceiving appearances, and there is still an innate experience of the room being external and objects being something over-there, separate from oneself. That is because this fundamental error in recognition of the nature of phenomena is a deep conditioning that creates the artificial bifurcation of inner and outer experiential dimensions, even without the activity of imputation.” 

Soh Wei Yu: Description of afflictive dependent origination in terms of the process of rebirth.

Afflictive dependent originated more related to the more commonly known afflictive twelve links of dependent arising as taught by Buddha, as shown above. It is a direct insight into how ignorance and karmic propensities are exerted into our reified samsaric world of solid self, body-mind and universe with its incumbent clinging and sufferings in real time. And as you might know, a central teaching of Buddha in the Pali canon is the four noble truths, pertaining to suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering and the path that ends suffering (ref: link). The afflictive chain of the twelve links of dependent origination can only cease upon the cessation of ignorance via the unfolding of wisdom through development of insight, therefore merely suppressing one’s suffering or even entering a temporary state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi or even Nirodha Samapatti is not going to reverse the chain of afflictive dependent origination. Reversing the chain of twelve links requires analytical cessation, not merely non-analytical cessation (see: two cessations), otherwise the chain of dependent arising driven by ignorance cannot be put to an end (related: link).

Afflictive dependent origination/the twelve links pertains to the origin of suffering. Everything perceivable and experience-able are conditionally arisen in dependence on causes and conditions, with the exception of the two cessations  (analytical and non-analytical) and unconditioned space*. Nirvana (cessation; specifically analytical cessation) is obviously not conditioned by causes and conditions and hence called asaṃskṛta (not-conditioned), however, according to Madhyamaka even the two cessations (analytical and non-analytical) and unconditioned space are empty and dependent - although not dependent on causes and conditions, they are dependently designated, and hence are empty of inherent existence.

“There are two kinds of space discussed in Buddhist texts. The first and most important is space as "absence of obstruction." This is uncompounded or unconditioned space. The second kind of space is dimension, such as the dimension of the cavity in a cup. That kind of space is compounded.

The other two unconditioned dharmas, the two cessations, also lack inherent existence because they are the absence of causes, and do not by themselves exist.” - Lopon Malcolm

In the suttas (scriptures) and traditional Buddhism, there is both the three lifetimes model of the twelve links, where afflictive dependent origination plays out through past (first two links), present (next eight links) and future (last two links) lifetimes, as well as the one-lifetime model where all twelve links are exerted in one life or in each moment of afflicted experience. While this guide focuses on the dependent origination that can be experienced in this very lifetime, it should also be mentioned that the Buddha clearly did have the three lives in mind as evinced when he talked about gandhabba (rebirth-linking consciousness) descending into the mother’s womb as part of the process of the twelve links (DN 15: Mahā Nidāna Sutta - read this to have a thorough and clear analysis by Buddha on the twelve links of dependent origination), and it is taught that it is the rebirth-linking consciousness which contributes to the birth and development of the fetus’s body (and the goal of his teachings is to put an end to suffering and the uncontrolled cycle of rebirth - the Mahayana Buddhists hold the higher goal of Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings rather than the cessation of arahants of early Buddhism, but that is another topic of discussion) and the rest of the chain of dependent origination, thus the twelve links of dependent origination is not merely psychological in the context of the Buddhadharma (teachings of Buddha). However going into the details of this, along with the topic of rebirth is beyond the scope of this guide. Suffice to say, both the three and one lifetime model of the twelve links of dependent origination are seen to be valid in the teachings of Buddhadharma. The process of rebirth does not require a soul, a self or a Self, but is explained as a causal process of dependent origination - more details in  Rebirth Without Soul 

The doctrine of rebirth is intrinsically tied to the three-lives model of the twelve links of dependent origination. Even if you don’t believe in rebirth or reincarnation, it is doubtless that the Buddha clearly had literal rebirth (i.e. rebirth/afterlife in the literal and not merely metaphorical or psychological sense) in mind when describing the twelve links of dependent origination, plus it is irrefutable that he had discussed about rebirth and his countless past lives in more than numerous occasions. It is important to understand this to see the context in which the twelve links of dependent origination and the so called ‘death-free’ and ‘not-conditioned’ nature of Nirvana is taught, otherwise it will be misunderstood. If you have read the suttas and Pāli Canon, you will see that the Buddha does not hold any sort of view of an Essence and only taught about process and dependent origination, that is to say, suffering, the origin of suffering, the end of suffering and the path that ends suffering. He has never taught about an I, me and mine, or an ultimate source and substratum, in fact he rejected all these views such as in (MN 1 - The Root Sequence, Mūlapariyāya Sutta - read this one if you have not, including the commentary by Ven. Thanissaro at the top of the page). The whole process of birth and death is simply the chain of dependent origination in action and the reversal or cessation of rebirth (becoming, birth and death) is likewise through the cessation of the afflictive chain of dependent origination with the cessation of ignorance, and so on. Death-free simply means the end of birth, ageing, sickness and death, which precisely and merely means the end of rebirth, it does not require or posit some “deathless ground” that remains after cessation. Because most people do not understand essencelessness, they wrongly grasp on the wrong translation of the epithet of nibbana/nirvana (which literally means cessation or extinguishment, a big hint there already) - amata (death-free) and turn it into an apophatic absolute “The Deathless” and thereby distort Buddhism into a doctrine of their own making that is no different from Advaita Vedanta.

Furthermore, not only did the Buddha recalled his past lives, but so did many of his students, and even today there are many seasoned practitioners and meditators that recalled their past lives, including John Tan, Sim Pern Chong and many others. There are also many interesting researches and findings that validates rebirth, including Dr. Ian Stevenson’s research into the past life memories of children. Whether you treat these findings, experiences and memories as valid and regardless of your belief/lack-thereof in rebirth or reincarnation, it is doubtless that rebirth and ending rebirth in the literal sense is a major theme of Buddha’s teachings, and the secular version of Buddhism devoid of literal rebirth is a rather modern offshoot or development where modern materialists try to sell their version of Buddhism stripped of its spiritual contents and only go for the tangible benefits of practice to be experienced in this life only. From the perspective of traditional Buddhism, it is as Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith said, “Dharma sets out to solve one existential problem and one only: rebirth in samsara due to afflictions. If you are practicing ethics, meditation, etc. with any view in mind other than ceasing to take rebirth in samsara, you may be engaged in this or that practice, but you are not practicing Dharma. As Mañjuśrī said, "If one has clinging to this life, one is not a Dharma person."”

I am not saying that the secular approach is completely devoid of merits (you can certainly benefit from the practice in various ways even if you do not accept rebirth, although perhaps to a different extent than someone who wholeheartedly accepts, investigates and practices Buddhadharma in its entirety), and it is not the purpose of this guide here to convince you of rebirth (although it certainly helps to be more open minded when it comes to exploring spirituality). But as I mentioned, in order to even understand what the Buddha was teaching in the first place, it is important to understand the context in which the twelve links of dependent origination, as well as the death-free nirvana (cessation) is taught. Why is this so? In the context of one-life dependent origination, ‘death-free’ does not make sense, as even an arahant’s body is subjected to ageing, sickness and death (sometimes in gruesome and unpleasant ways - such as Mogallana’s death), and although a living arahant has ended passion, aggression and delusion, and ended all identifications and the conceit of ‘I Am’ or any traces of self-identity, their five senses remain unimpaired and still experience pleasure and pain*. However, this all makes sense in a three-lifetime model - because there is no more birth in a future life, there is henceforth no more future ageing, sickness and death of a future lifetime, and hence death-free is spoken in that context (absolutely not in the sense of an unchanging metaphysical substrate). 


Soh Wei Yu: Appropriated Aggregates tainted with I-making/mine-making leads to suffering.
 
A common misunderstanding is that Buddha taught "life is suffering". As Alan Smith pointed out, there is often an overemphasis on  suffering, but actually in Buddhism, there is only suffering when there  is appropriation and clinging. To be clear: Buddha has never said "life is suffering", however, he did teach right from the beginning in his first discourse on the four noble truths that "appropriated aggregates are suffering", and by appropriated I mean tainted with I-making and mine-making.

In the Pali suttas, clinging and appropriation are not equated with the sheer aggregates ( The Shorter Set of Questions & Answers Cūḷa Vedalla Sutta  (MN 44) ), and as Stian mentioned, he thinks aggregates are almost never mentioned in the sense of 'sheer aggregates' in the Pali canon. I think you get glimpses of how are 'sheer aggregates experienced by Buddha/arahants' in scriptures like Bahiya Sutta and Kalaka Sutta. In any case, the appropriation is what causes suffering, and the end of appropriation is the end of suffering.

In Bahiya Sutta (link), the end of appropriation is equated to the end of suffering, and it is the definition of Nirvana (Great Resource of Buddha's Teachings). The first discourse he taught was on the four noble truths and one of his five students attained stream entry then, and the second discourse (The Anatta-lakkhaṇa Sutta) he taught was on anatta and all the five monks became arahants. 

Now when we come to the Mahayana teachings, all aggregates are taught to be primordially pure and luminous. Does this negate the Pali suttas which says appropriated aggregates are suffering? No, it does not, if understood correctly in context – continued in Appropriated Aggregates are Suffering 

Soh Wei Yu: One becomes trace-less in post-equipose total exertion. 

The peak of the 'completeness of the present moment' and absence of 'feeling of lack' which Eckhart Tolle eludes to, is 'in the seen just the seen', 'in the heard just the heard'.

If the heat is just heat, the heat kills you and the whole universe is the heat. If cold is just cold, the cold kills you, and the whole universe is cold. (See: Where There Is No Cold or Heat) In such a state, you are completely 'killed'. It is as if, and in fact in an experiential sense it is absolutely true, 'you' no longer exist at all. There is no trace of 'you' left anywhere in the universe. It is such a state of equipoise accompanied with prajna wisdom that liberates. And how can there be incompleteness, imperfection, or feeling of lack in such a state? How can there be mental unease, resistance, or craving in such a state, whether you are sitting on a porch in front of a beach, a mountain, or a slum?

Bitten by mosquitoes is just another sensation - in sensing only sensation, no sensor. Sensations are just sensations, they kill 'you' (and in fact after anatta is realised as always already so and becomes stable natural state then there is no longer even a 'killing you' it's just naturally so as an actualized state). The sensations don't bother you at all, it is more like you bother the sensation, or rather the sense of 'self' is in fact the karmic activity of resisting that sensation. It's like someone can be very annoyed at some sounds, and another person just sits there in a state of zen and equanimity, why? The sounds in and of itself doesn't bother the person, it's the person 'bothering the sound'. The Buddha said, the eyes and forms, body and sensations, and so on, doesn't fetter you, it is the desire [or resistance/aversion/delusion] towards them that constitutes the fetter. Fetter or afflictions is simply 'self-created' chains and bondage, the aggregates are in and of themselves free when seen as they are.

(Update: and when I said self-created I don't mean arising from a truly existing agent as there isn't any, but rather arising due to the nexus of ignorance-driven dependent origination)

Anzan Hoshin Roshi: On craving and grasping. 

Bodhidharma says, "The usual person, through basic ignorance, fixates on one thing and then another." 

This basic ignorance is the root of self-image, avidya, basic ignorance, ignoring the fact that one is already fundamentally free and pretending to be bound. In the midst of space, trying to carve out some territory, as if one could build walls out of the sheer air, as if one could tie knots in the air, nail clouds in place.

This tying of knots, this erecting of walls, this nailing things down, is this fixating on one thing and then another, grasping at thought, grasping at sounds and feelings, grasping at forms, and names. This is called craving.

And so the craving that we need to address in our practice is not just a matter of giving up our attachment to fashion or a beautiful house, a beautiful wife, a beautiful husband, beautiful children, a beautiful life in which there are no problems. Dropping that does not liberate, because all craving, all greed, all lust, all anger, are rooted in this fundamental strategy of self-image to contract and localize, to create boundaries within emptiness, to grasp at emptiness. And so we must understand this process of fixation as it arises, and it arises not in a beautiful house. It arises in this moment of seeing and hearing. It arises as mind moments display themselves, and as this display is interpreted to be self and other, time and space, body and mind. This is the craving that we must understand and release.

Adittapariyaya Sutta (SN 35.28): Describing pleasure and pain along with sensory afflictions in terms of six sense-spheres (ayatanas).


At one time the Buddha was staying near Gayā on Gayā Head together with a thousand mendicants. There the Buddha addressed the mendicants:

“Mendicants, all is burning. And what is the all that is burning?

The eye is burning. Sights are burning. Eye consciousness is burning. Eye contact is burning. The painful, pleasant, or neutral feeling that arises conditioned by eye contact is also burning. Burning with what? Burning with the fires of greed, hate, and delusion. Burning with rebirth, old age, and death, with sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress.

The ear … nose … tongue … body …

The mind is burning. Thoughts are burning. Mind consciousness is burning. Mind contact is burning. The painful, pleasant, or neutral feeling that arises conditioned by mind contact is also burning. Burning with what? Burning with the fires of greed, hate, and delusion. Burning with rebirth, old age, and death, with sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress, I say.

Seeing this, a learned noble disciple grows disillusioned with the eye, sights, eye consciousness, and eye contact. And they grow disillusioned with the painful, pleasant, or neutral feeling that arises conditioned by eye contact.

They grow disillusioned with the ear … nose … tongue … body … mind … painful, pleasant, or neutral feeling that arises conditioned by mind contact.

Being disillusioned, desire fades away. When desire fades away they’re freed. When they’re freed, they know they’re freed.

They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence.’”

That is what the Buddha said. Satisfied, the mendicants were happy with what the Buddha said. And while this discourse was being spoken, the minds of the thousand mendicants were freed from defilements by not grasping.

Rana Rinpoche: Must understand reality in terms of pure process and dependent origination. 

The whole teaching of Buddha is revolutionary, it replaces the need for the view of an Essence and explains reality in terms of pure process and dependent origination, and liberation is taught without recoursing to a metaphysical principle, or some kind of deathless Atman-Brahman as the principle or ground for liberation, or as Archaya Mahayogi Shridhar Rana Rinpoche said, “in the Buddhist paradigm, it is not only ‘not necessary’ to have an eternal ground for liberation, but in fact, the belief in such a ground itself is part of the dynamics of ignorance.”  (Source: Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta)

Also related: The Root Sequence Mūlapariyāya Sutta  (MN 1) - Thanissaro Bhikkhu explained how in this teaching Buddha refuted the teaching of a Source/Root based on Samkhya.

John Tan: Important to understand impermanence from personal, micro, and macro point of view. 

"It's not in my nature to seek Buddhism. I have a strong Taoist background and passion for Hinduism when I was young. So philosophically and culturally, essencelessness is not a view that suits me. But it takes painful experiences to come to a willingness to let go, to see the truth of impermanence and anatta. To challenge and come to an understanding that you don't actually have to do this and that.... (or have an) ultimate here and there to release. But rather to truly accept and look deeply into impermanence, then you will let go and we can come to a new understanding of the relationship of suffering and the truth of suffering having to do with a fundamental paradigm we hold so dearly.

..Your mindset and experience can change, so is your understanding, and you just begin a new path with new understanding. Impermanence from personal, micro and macro view. You see when you see impermanence and use it as a door in practice, your view changes also, from Vipassana observing the minutest sensations in our bodily sensations to appreciating a view in current quantum physics, macro view, to observe events. So our idea changes and we adopt such understanding in our life over time. Sometimes it really depends and it needs the right condition and situation to trigger it, just like the case of financial crisis.”- continued in What is an Authentic Buddhist Teaching?

Soh Wei Yu: Understanding not-conditioned/death-free from the perspective of the Pali Canon. 

You can also see that whenever the Buddha taught about ‘not-conditioned’ or ‘death-free’, it is always about the release and elimination of the afflictive conditions driving rebirth and suffering, and not the positing of some kind of eternal ground ala Advaita Vedanta: The Deathless in Buddhadharma?
 

Soh Wei Yu: Very common among Hindus and also many Buddhists to misinterpret what ‘death-free’ (amata) means in the context of Nibbana/Nirvana. 

It is a very common misinterpretation among Hindus but also many Buddhists, that the ‘death-free’ (amata) of Nibbana/Nirvana is referring to a deathless Self or unconditioned ground, substrate, substratum, substance, etc. This is not just the view/misinterpretation among Advaita Vedantins, and not just among certain Vajrayana and Mahayana Buddhists, but even the Theravadins (especially the Thai Forest Traditions - though there are exceptions) can be prone to misinterpreting Nibbana/Nirvana in terms of the extreme of eternalism. Their much prized Poo Roo (Knower) and changeless Citta (Mind) is none other than the I AM or Eternal Witness. I have just watched a video where a famous Thai Forest monk described the unborn, uncreated reality as one’s Consciousness in contrast to the transient and passing conditioned states of experiences. This kind of view is common among the Thai Forest teachings. Ajahn Brahmavamso, one of the well known monks in the Thai forest tradition, criticized such a view and said that (not in these exact words) many of those Thai forest monks, even those of high status, fail to understand Buddhadharma and are holding views no different from Hindus by reifying and clinging to the Poo Roo (“The One Who Knows”). I agree. 

The tendency to deviate from the Buddhadharma and fall into the two extremes of eternalism and nihilism runs rampant in all the current traditions of Buddhism, be it Theravada, or Mahayana, or Vajrayana. It is quite disappointing sometimes when I look through the bookshelves on Buddhism, as I always find that there are very, very few clear-eyed authors and teachers. Now, if I am reading a Hindu or Advaita book, I will not have thoughts of disappointment since they are accurately portraying the views of Adi Shankara, and it is all good with me. I do appreciate Advaita Vedanta and continue to recommend Advaita books to those pursuing the path of self-realization, and books like those of Ramana Maharshi have been very helpful for the earlier period of my practice. But to present the views and realizations of Advaita as if they are the views and realization of Buddha? I think this does not do justice to the Buddha and his teachings, and if Buddha were to be around, he would have forcefully reprimanded these people with very strong words like how he verbally reprimanded and trashed his monk Bhikkhu Sati. In the absence of Buddha, we need more people to do his work of ‘reprimanding these people (that misrepresents him)’ by openly criticizing such views (both eternalism and nihilism) without reservation. It is necessary for the continued flourishing and non-degeneration of Buddhadharma.

禅宗有个公案，僧问大同曰：“天上天下唯我独尊，如何是我？”，大曰：“推倒老师有什么过？”健曰：“往往有等禅师，示人：‘高高山上立，深深海底行。’皆欲以这天上天下之神我，害尽天下苍生。一般瞎汉，死死执着这个，最难出也；打倒不惟无过也，且救他慧命，是释迦真儿孙。”

Translation: Ch'an school has a koan, monk asks Da Tong, "Throughout heaven and earth only I AM the world honoured one, what is this Self?" Da answers, "any faults for pushing down the teacher?" Jian says, "often there are Ch'an teachers, teaching people, 'We should stand atop the highest mountain, walk the floor of the deepest ocean’". With this God-Self of the Universe (Atman-Brahman), [one] causes harm to the common people. The commoners stubbornly cling to this, and it is most difficult to come out of it, [thus] not only is there no faults in pushing down [such a teacher], one furthermore saves the person's wisdom-life, and is a true child of Shakya.

It does not mean literally or physically pushing the teacher down, it just means refuting them strongly when necessary in order that others do not be misled by such teachers.

Of course, criticizing faulty teachings and views should be done moderately, respectfully and appropriately (not for the purpose of creating confrontations with the students of other teachers - what a waste of precious practice time!), and we should know that there are wisdom and lessons that are valuable from the sharing of any genuine practitioners and teachers regardless of their depth of realization. Convincing others only work if they have faith in Buddha to begin with or they seem very open minded to investigate and question their own views and paradigm. Open mindedness is key, and conditions are vital - as John Tan said, even the Buddha cannot save someone who does not have yuan (conditions) （佛不度无缘之人）, and as John told me, he only speaks when he discerns the conditions are there for genuine communication, and whoever he speaks to about the dharma have come to direct realization very quickly (it’s true). Conditions and timing are vital and John Tan seems to be always sensitive and deeply aware of the precise conditions and timing, there are times where John Tan told me to quickly and immediately reply with a certain message to someone because the precise condition and timing is ripe for an opening for that particular person, and after I came back from the toilet he told me I missed the timing and the conditions were gone.

Without proper conditions, conversations might just end up in endless repetitive arguments and echo chambers with each camp repeating their own views (I have done plenty of useless online debating 10+ years ago).

Soh Wei Yu: Only Buddhism deconstructs all notions of universal awareness compared to other spiritual traditions. 

D wrote: One can see this tendency to reify in many of the nonduality speakers on YouTube. I also liked your remarks, later on, about the confusion between nonduality and passivity. Thanks for sharing.

Soh replied: Yeah. Almost all neo-Advaitins with very very few exceptions (only one exception I can think of: Tony Parsons - Tony Parsons: No Union, Container, or Mirror) reify a universal awareness.  

Also, all traditional Advaitins without exceptions (except perhaps people like Sri Atmananda although Greg Goode pointed out that he basically went against traditional scriptures in his final proclamations) reify universal awareness, since it is the key doctrine that defines their entire tradition - Brahman is the universal awareness and ultimate reality, one without a second. Disagreeing with this key tenet that defines the entire tradition is likely to put you outside the tradition -- as we see happen in cases like Buddha and his disciples, and even modern Indians like U.G. and J. Krishnamurti who had an insight that deconstructs Atman-Brahman. These people, understandably, became iconoclasts that broke off from their tradition, rejected the authority of all teachers in the whole of their Indian sub-continent, and rejected all scriptural authority. Because although they may have gone through the I AM phase (we know J. Krishnamurti went through that), they later had a further realization which repudiates the Upanishads. We also see that happen with Actual Freedom Richard.

As I wrote before in Three Paradigms with Nondual Luminosity , it is my experience that deeper insights into 3) of the non-essentialist or non-reductionist kind leads to deeper freedoms and liberation. However there are many teachings belonging to 1) that does not see essentialism or substantialism as 'wrong' but completely buys into this view. As Greg Goode wrote before,

Greg Goode: Oh, another thing - Advaitins don't see (what we're calling) substantialism or essentialism as a bad thing. For them, it is the only thing. Since Brahman = truth, being and freedom from suffering, it makes no sense to be without it. One needs it even to deny it, is the thinking there. So even the standards of evaluation are different. Not to mention the varna/caste system, which is defended on upanishadic, doctrinal grounds. Oops, I just mentioned it!

Greg Goode: I love the Mandukya Upanishad and the Gaudapada Karika. I think it is effective and profound, and like many views, doesn't need to be reconciled with other views. I know that some Advaitins shy away from that Upanishad because of gossip about G's Buddhist influences. I studied that text for a few years, and it never felt subversive to me... 

As for those who hold the Advaitin doctrine as definitive and authoritative, it might be useless debating or trying to convince them. Only those who are non-dogmatic, curious, inquisitive, open to challenging their assumptions and views -- be they derived partly from their own contemplative realizations or from doctrinal traditions, may come to appreciate a non-substantialist form of insight or realization. 

It is only in Buddhism where we experientially deconstruct universal awareness in all traditions, be it Theravada, Mahayana or Vajrayana (although many adherents and teachers of these traditions themselves fall into the trap of reifying a universal awareness).

Freedom from the Four Extremes

Soh Wei Yu: Pali Canon on freedom from the four extremes. 

The Buddha rejects the four extremes: existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence, whether it be with regards to the world, or the self, or the Buddha/Tathagata. This is through comprehending that the nature of mind/phenomena is to be empty of self, empty of inherent existence, and merely dependently originates.

 
Soh Wei Yu: The nature of presence post-anatta. 

“No behind, presence as only form is anatta"

Presence-as-form is merely appearing, nothing there, that's emptiness (the nature of Presence)

Not only no who, but truly no it, no there, no here, no now, no when, no where, no arising, no ceasing, no abiding or place of abidance. Coming to rest in the nature of presence with no place to rest, whole field of spontaneous illusory display emerges as empty-clarity-bliss.

Continued:

I really like a statement by Jang-gya, “appearance negates existence”. It starts with the very vivid "Presence" (or you can call it Awareness or Clarity) that is simply shining as the very vividness of forms, sounds, thoughts, whatever appears, as the subject/object or perceiver/perceived dichotomy has collapsed into a non-conceptual experience of the vividness of whatever manifests with zero sense of distance. There is no more standalone Presence or Awareness or Clarity in anatta. The illusion of a background Self/Mind has been penetrated. Even so, the very empty nature of 'foreground Presence' may not yet reveal itself initially.

Let's say you're looking at the floor, or a table, or whatever it is. It seems very solid and real, but then upon some investigation it's realised to be merely appearing without substance or essence, and that happens to be the very nature of Presence -- vividly appearing according to conditions but completely empty of anything 'there', empty of an 'it-ness' or 'floor-ness' or any sort of substance. Basically it's sort of like suddenly an apparent figure you've been looking at or talking to is suddenly realised to be literally a hologram. The very nature of Presence as merely appearing without substance basically negates the extreme of existence.

For me the nature of Presence reveals in a more experiential sort of examination rather than through analytical reasonings. Like what Thusness wrote in his article: On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection 

Soh Wei Yu: Observing the empty nature of thoughts in terms of how and where it arises. 

"If we observe thought and ask where does thought arise, how does it arise, what is ‘thought’ like. 'Thought' will reveal its nature is empty -- vividly present yet completely un-locatable. It is very important not to infer, think or conceptualise but feel with our entire being this ‘ungraspability’ and 'unlocatability'. It seems to reside 'somewhere' but there is no way to locate it. It is just an impression of somewhere "there" but never "there". Similarly “here-ness” and “now-ness” are merely impressions formed by sensations, aggregates of causes and conditions, nothing inherently ‘there’; equally empty like ‘selfness’."

That said not everyone uses or likes the term "Presence". Tsongkhapa doesn't use that term. You can substitute that for other terms like "dharma" etc, it's just the empty and luminously clear nature of the display.

Foreground emptying has this taste where appearance negates existence.” 

Acarya Malcolm Smith: The terms "emptiness," "dependent designation," and "middle way" are synonyms.

You keep mistaking the two truths for principles, rather than what they are, that is, cognitions. 

The terms "emptiness," "dependent designation," and "middle way" are synonyms. They refer to the same thing. In other words, there is no sublime middle that can be peeled away from the two truths. The two truths are inseparable, this is why Dharmamitra, in his commentary on Haribhadra's Sphutartha commentary on the Perfection of Wisdom states:

“Called "deep," because some people do not understand the inseparable two truths, and for them it becomes a place of fear, its depth difficult to realize."

It is possible we are talking about the same thing, but thus far, I don't think so. Jayānanda states in his commentary on Candra's Introduction to the Middle Way:

“The middle way is understood as dependent origination, having abandoned grasping to permanence and annihilation.”

And:

“The middle way is the path free from concepts of entities and nonentities.”

Nāgārjuna again, in the Vigrahavyavartani: “I pay homage the supreme peerless Buddha who taught emptiness, dependent origination, and the middle way to have one meaning.”

Or Buddhapalita: "Having a view of existence or nonexistence with respect to entities results in many errors, therefore, "entities lack inherent existence" is seeing the truth, i.e., the middle way, and that is proof of the ultimate.”

Bhavaviveka states: “Whatever is emptiness, that is designated in dependence. Because the convention of mundane and transcendent is asserted, there is designation dependent on appropriation. That is the middle way, because the middle is free from the extremes arising and nonarising, existence and nonexistence...For the meditation of the middle way it is said that one does not conceive at all, "The eye is an existent entity," "The eye is not an existence entity," and so on. The Ārya Ratnakuta Sūtra states, "Kāśyapa, "Existence" is one extreme; 'Nonexistence" is the second extreme, whatever is between those extremes is without form and cannot be shown, is unimpeded, nonabiding, does not appear, is not perceptible, is not a place." Those are the proofs. "Path" is a convention for "method of obtaining."” (Dharmaweel forum link)
 

Total Exertion and Maha (+A) 

Some clarifications: In earlier writings, John Tan used Maha as a descriptor and in latter writings he used both “Maha” and “Total Exertion”, but what they are describing is the same. Maha is a Sanskrit word that means “great”, which you can understand as infinite vastness without boundaries. In the experience of Maha/total exertion, there is the experience that the centerless and boundless infinitude of the universe, i.e. all conditions of the ten directions (spatial) and three times (temporal), are exerting even a simple activity of breathing, eating and walking. Upon the maturing of insights even after anatta realization, as John Tan wrote in 2009, that Maha must become a natural state. It should be your persisting baseline experience, without which the anatta experience and insight has not fully matured.”

John Tan (2009): “The Maha experience that I share with longchen [Sim Pern Chong] is very important.  After the maturing of non-dual experience, this greatness without boundaries and universe doing the work is also understood as part of the natural state.” 

Watch these two very good videos by A. H. Almaas which describes total exertion: A. H. Almaas on Anatta and Total Exertion

John Tan: Causes and conditions that trigger ‘Maha’ (Total Exertion).

“Maha means great without boundaries. When I use the term ‘Maha’, I am expressing an experience of that immensity… what causes or what are the conditions that trigger ‘maha’?

1. Samadhi in a prolonged period of oneness
2. Total exertion where one feels so immensely connected with everything
3. A prolonged period of non-dual experience where the boundaries of subject and object dissolves
4. Non-doership into action

In whatever cases, the sense of self drops and evaporates. But how the sense of self drops is the question. Is it a form of insight like anatta or is it an experience or a particular state?” 

John Tan: Total exertion has two flavors. 

"Total exertion has 2 flavors: the interpermeation and interpenetration of all things and wholeheartedness of action without self/Self.", “Total exertion is not just interpenetration. Maha is an experience of great beyond measure. It is an experience of everything being consumed as it. Only in anatta this experience can be accessed without much issue. So [for] I AM if [one is] without that experience [of I AM] is short of I AM… ...I have told you experientially there is no difference [between I AM and anatta]. Only a refinement of view.” 

Zen Master Dogen (Shobogenzo): On perceiving sensory experience with the whole body-and-mind. 

“In ceremony there are forms and there are sounds, there is understanding and there is believing. In liturgy there is only intimacy. Haven't you heard the ancient master's teaching: Seeing forms with the whole body-and-mind, hearing sounds with the whole body-and-mind one understands them intimately. Intimate understanding is not like ordinary understanding. Ordinary understanding is seeing with the eye and hearing with the ear; intimacy is seeing with the ear and hearing with the eye. How do you see with the ear and hear with the eye? Let go of the eye, and the whole body-and-mind are nothing but the eye; let go of the ear, and the whole universe is nothing but the ear.” 

John Tan: Must see immense connectedness in terms of no seer + seeing + seen. 

“Six stream experiences is just a convenient raft. Nothing ultimate. Not only must you see that there is no Seer + seeing + seen… you must see the immense connectedness.” 

John Tan: Realizing total exertion is a result of fully embracing the view of two-fold emptiness rather than being fully concentrated. 

“Also in between ”seeing the Ocean as extra” to directly experiencing the “total exertion in the ceaselessness of this ongoing activity”, a process of maturing the insight of anatta is necessary. By maturing I am referring to the ending of any reification of mind-objects be it "Self/self", "here/now", "mind", "body", "weather"... -- there is no "Self/self", only changing aggregates; no "body", only changing sensations; no “here and now” besides changing phenomena; no "weather" besides changing clouds, rain and sun shines. If this insight can be thoroughly extended to whatever arises then the interconnectedness and total exertion of this moment will become clear and obvious. So much so that when eating an apple, the universe tastes it! -- the full exertion of the apple, the hand, the taste, the throat, the stomach, the everything of everything is completely transcended into this simple action of suchness where nothing is excluded. Here again, do take note that this "total exertion" is not the result of being fully concentrated; it is the natural outcome when practitioners have adequately embraced the 'view' of 2 fold emptiness.” 


Zen Master Dogen: Quote on riding a boat as an analogy for total exertion. 

“Birth is just like riding in a boat. You raise the sails and you steer. Although you maneuver the sail and the pole, the boat gives you a ride, and without the boat you couldn’t ride. But you ride in the boat, and your riding makes the boat what it is. Investigate a moment such as this. At just such a moment, there is nothing but the world of the boat. The sky, the water, and the shore are all the boat’s world, which is not the same as a world that is not the boat’s. Thus you make birth what it is; you make birth your birth. When you ride in a boat, your body, mind, and environs together are the undivided activity of the boat. The entire earth and the entire sky are both the undivided activity of the boat. Thus birth is nothing but you; you are nothing but birth.”


“Life is, for example, like a time when a person is riding in a boat. In this boat, the person operates the sail; the person manages the rudder. Although the person rows with the oar, the boat gives the person person a ride and, other than the boat, there is no such person as a self. The person rides in the boat and the person makes this boat into a boat. We should make efforts to study this very moment. This very moment is nothing but the world of the boat. The sky, the water, and the shore; all of those become the time of the boat: it is not the same with the time of something else other than the boat. Therefore, we give birth to life; life makes us into ourselves.” 

“When riding in a boat, our body and mind, ourselves and the environment — all become the functioning of the boat. The entire earth and the entire space become the functioning of the boat.”

John Tan: Describing A+ emptiness (Total Exertion) using cooking as an analogy. 

(+A)

When you cook, there is no self that cooks, only the activity of cooking. The hands moves, the utensils act, the water boils, the potatoes peels …here there is no room for simplicity or complications, the “kitchen” went beyond its own imputation and dissolved into the activity of cooking and the universe is fully engaged in this cooking. 
Excerpt from: +A and -A Emptiness 

Toni Packer: Listening using the totality of perception. 

“When I talk about listening, I don’t mean just listening with the ear. Listening here includes the totality of perception—all senses open and alive, and still much more than that. The eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind are receptive, open, not controlled. A Zen saying describes it as “hearing with one’s eyes and seeing with one’s ears.” It refers to this wholeness of perception. The wholeness of being!

Another Zen saying demands: “Hear the bell before it rings!” Ah, it doesn’t make any sense rationally, does it? But there is a moment when that bell is ringing before you know it! You may never know it! Your entire being is ringing! There’s no division in that—everything is ringing.”” 

- excerpt from  Finding a New Way to Listen

John Tan: To study the myriad forms is to study the dependently originated appearance at this instantaneous moment. To study this instantaneous moment is to understand the full exertion of the 'interconnected universe'.

“Therefore To study the mind is to study the myriad forms. To study the myriad forms is to study the dependently originated appearance at this instantaneous moment. To study this instantaneous moment is to understand the full exertion of the 'interconnected universe' and this full exertion is expressed without reservation as this vivid moment of arising sound...this breath...this passing thought...this obviously clear scenery... and Instantly Gone!” 


John Tan: Seeing through the notion of a background along with pointers related to dependent origination leads to total exertion. 

“And this is the whole purpose of anatta. To thoroughly see through that this background does not exist in actuality. What exists is a stream, action or karma. There is no doer or anything being done, there is only doing; No meditator nor meditation, only meditating. From a letting go perspective, "a watcher watching thought" will create the impression that a watcher is allowing thoughts to arise and subside while itself being unaffected. This is an illusion; it is 'holding' in disguise as 'letting go'. When we realized that there is no background from start, reality will present itself as one whole letting go. With practice, ‘intention’ dwindles with the maturing of insight and ‘doing’ will be gradually experienced as mere spontaneous happening as if universe is doing the work. With the some pointers from 'dependent origination', we can then penetrate further to see this happening as a sheer expression of everything interacting with everything coming into being. In fact, if we do not reify ‘universe’, it is just that -- an expression of interdependent arising that is just right wherever and whenever is. 

Understanding this, practice is simply opening to whatever is.
For this mere happening is just right wherever and whenever is.
Though no place can be called home it is everywhere home.

When experience matures in the practice of great ease,
The experience is Maha! Great, miraculous and bliss.
In mundane activities of seeing, eating and tasting,
When expressed poetically is as if the entire universe meditating.

Whatever said and expressed are really all different flavors,
Of this everything of everything dependently originating,
As this moment of vivid shimmering.” 

John Tan: Seeing the relationship between dependent origination and emptiness in terms of non-dual presence is necessary to make total exertion a natural state. 

“If we were to breathe in and out, in and out…till there is simply this entire sensation of breath, just breath as all causes and conditions coming into this moment of manifestation.

If we were to focus on the sensation of stepping, the sensation of hardness, just the sensation of the hardness, till there is simply this entire sensation ‘hardness’ when the feet touches the ground, just this ‘hardness’ as all causes and conditions coming into this moment of manifestation.

If we were to focus on hearing someone hitting a bell, the stick, the bell, the vibration of the air, the ears all coming together for this sensation of sound to arise, we will have Maha experience.

...

However ever since incorporating the teaching of dependent origination into non-dual presence, over the years it has become more ‘accessible’ but never has this been understood as a ground state. There seems to be a predictable relationship of seeing interdependent arising and emptiness on the experience of non-dual presence.

A week ago, the clear experience of Maha dawned and became quite effortless and at the same time there is a direct realization that it is also a natural state. In Sunyata, Maha is natural and must be fully factored into the path of experiencing whatever arises. Nevertheless Maha as a ground state requires the maturing of non-dual experience; we cannot feel entirely as the interconnectedness of everything coming spontaneously into being as this moment of vivid manifestation with a divided mind.” 

John Tan: In total exertion one feels great without boundary, spontaneous and marvelous along with ‘interconnectedness’.

“In Maha, one does not feel self, one 'feels' universe; one does not feel 'Brahman' but feels 'interconnectedness'; one does not feel 'helplessness' due to 'dependence and interconnection' but feels great without boundary, spontaneous and marvelous.” 

Soh Wei Yu: “The universe is the action” describes the yogic taste of total exertion. 

“To say the universe is involved in this action as if differentiated entities is not exactly correct. Cause is neither same nor different from effect, like sun and rays. And in terms of yogic taste, it is more accurate to describe it in terms of “the universe is the action.” 

When you breathe, is the air in the environment, the nose, or the lungs and diaphragm that is breathing? The universe is the breathing. There is no “outside” to the infinitude of total exertion” 

Soh Wei Yu: Description of total exertion/’dharma body’ in terms of personal experience. 

“Total exertion is direct realization of each manifest activity as arising with all conditions in seamless interdependency, where one feels that the whole universe is giving its best to make this moment possible. 

I started having glimpses and insights into this about one or two years after my initial realisation of anatta (the direct realisation and penetration of the false dichotomy of subject-action-object through contemplating the verse in Bahiya Sutta) back in 2010. Anatta demolishes the background subject so that there is only the entirety of manifestation, and then you may penetrate further -- this entirety of manifestation is a seamless activity with no self-nature anywhere. When I experienced this I called it the "dharma body". When walking not only are the legs walking, the whole universe is walking, the whole universe is your body. To put it in laymen's term, it's like the universe as your body (but the word universe doesn't really capture the dynamic, interdependent and empty nature of it well).

Let me give you an example. Recently, I was sitting in meditation with my sister. Then as usual I entered into a blissful state. In that state, I saw that it's not me sitting here, like there is no I, no sister, no baby, etc, but it's really all these factors that is "meditating" plus much more... all the way back to the time of the Buddha! The living presence of Buddha and its sangha and the whole lineage is right here, same time and in communion. This breath is the universe. Suddenly some passages by Dogen made perfect sense* 

Also, I just visited a Zen temple earlier today to meditate. Something that the novice monk said after the meditation struck me - chanting as "together action". He didn't elaborate what he meant by that but I intuited its meaning and purpose. To me what this means is this - when we practice as a community, we are enacting "together action" so that it is not you that is chanting but the chanting as a whole arising seamlessly that is chanting. But "together action" is in fact every moment! This breath is together action with all the conditions, the whole community and lineage. Carrying your meditation cushion and waiting for your turn to place that cushion back to its original place -- together action, not 'you' action. 

Walking on the street, you look at the traffic and maneuver your way to reach your destination, the traffic and people walking are as much an inseparable part of the activity which you call 'your walking', each moment of walking is doing together action with all conditions. The same for driving a car. If you lose the "zone", if you get distracted and are not practicing "together action", watch out! Lives can be lost. 

When you are walking in the park, the legs moving arise in tandem with the whole universe moving. The tree in front is manifesting the way it is in accord with all other conditions like the wind, light, the way I am moving and looking, etc. The tree has no tree-ness in itself or apart from me and I have no me-ness apart from the interplay that is manifesting the tree. When I see and interact with others, it's not I interacting with others as I and others are empty and dissolved in the interplay. Truly it is like a node of Indra reflecting all other nodes, each node is not other than all others nodes, there is neither self nor others. 

'Self' and 'others' are learnt and is a result of the ignorance of our true nature. The structures of language or convention posits that when we encounter something it is always 'I' am touching/encountering a 'thing' as if there is a real subject interacting with an object. I am I and interacting or talking with a real other as discrete entities. 

Although in actual experience it's just all conditions in total exertion but when spoken in language it appears separate. The structure of language is dualistic.. which is not a problem in itself when taken conventionally or as dependent designation but instead we wrongly reified them into things with its own existence in and of themselves.

- Excerpt from What is Total Exertion? 

John Tan: The practice of anatta to empty clarity involves insight into dependent origination. 

John Tan: Let’s visit our last discussion. As i said,
There is no self, only a sense of self.
No seer, only a sense of seer.
Therefore no conflict with ur direct insight of anatta.

The SENSE of self is designated as “seer” that dependently originates when forms vividly appears due to the karmic tendencies of ignorance. Ascribing the phenomena “seen” to a non-existing seer, is the action, the act of seeing.

Ignorance is not "inability to know". Instead it is a very deep form inherent and dualistic knowing that sees in the karmic pattern of seer-seeing-seen.

Now the question: Is there a need to exhaust this karmic pattern of seer-seeing-seen by pacifying conceptualization?

If so then the practice of anatta to empty clarity:
1. In seeing, just the seen. No seer.
2. In seeing, always only the seen. Therefore no seeing.
3. In the seen, just the seen.

Where is the seen?
Where is this vivid lurid scenery?
No where to b found,
Spontaneous, empty and non-arisen.

So how does total exertion step in?
If there is no need to exhaust karmic patterning, then how should u practice? 

Soh Wei Yu:  The solidifying of what’s sensed into something truly there is a total exertion of karmic tendency, the appearance can seem very real but actually nothing real.

The sense of standing on this side as a seer is likewise itself the total exertion of karmic tendency, an activity and not an actual entity behind anything.

Seer and seen, grasper and grasped, liberated not through pacifying conceptualization but seeing the absence and total exertion of all afflicted and non afflicted phenomena.

John Tan: Well said. The self designated upon the aggregates was never there but felt to b solidly there. "Here" that is so undeniably "here" is nothing "here". Only sensations and thoughts forming the impression of being “solidly here".

As for this: "Seer and seen, grasper and grasped, liberated not through pacifying conceptualization but seeing the absence and total exertion of all afflicted and non afflicted phenomena."

Imo, buddhism non-dual is not the union of subject-object or seer is the seen but freedom from extremes. It liberates seer from seer and seen from seen by seeing dependent arising.

Also, the afflictive chain is released by the pacification of mental proliferation but not through dry non-conceptuality. Like what u said can b by:

1. Direct insight of anatta into empty clarity.
2. Total exertion.

However in total exertion, doing away with self is not necessary. It is fully embraced and fully authenticated by 10 thousand things. Most of ur articles seem quite persistent in trying to get rid of “self” even when expressing total exertion. In total exertion, emptiness and endless dependencies of dharma (including self) are a given otherwise total exertion is not possible. Every dharma is purified by its own endless dependencies.

Your expression of timelessness of total exertion is precious. The moment Dogen writes and the moment u realise is one exertion. Transmission is indeed heart to heart, timeless and intimate!

3. Persistently seeing of whatever arises dependently is free from extremes will eventually free the mind. Consistently seeing neither self nor no-self, neither arise nor not-arise, breaks the chain of mental proliferation.

Self and the ten thousands things,
Neither one nor many.
Not one, therefore no self nature.
Not two, therefore seamless.
One line of reasoning,
freedom from 2 extremes.
Dependent arising is the king of reasoning.  
 
Soh Wei Yu: Total exertion of a single thought. 

“While walking in the Singapore botanic gardens just now, the total exertion of universe walking, then the total exertion of a single thought is experienced, and the analogy arose - even a repetitive "discursive" thought is Maha total exertion, like the echo is the echo of the universe, but that thought is the echo of the three times. Of course at that point those are not discursive thoughts.”

Delma McConnell: Personal experience of total exertion. 

“Now Appearing: Everything, EveryWhere, and EveryWhen. Ta-Da 

In addition to the paradigm-shifting realization that there was no separate me to carry around containers called 'memories', 'hurts', 'accomplishments', or 'regrets, there were two more shifts I wanted to tell you about, dear reader. Why do I feel the need to document it? I'm not certain. It feels like it's time to let folks know what's happened here, especially those seekers who've come to me for pointers on anatta realization. I mean, this whole business of guiding people, whether for money or on a volunteer basis, is just pretty weird when viewed from a conventional perspective. Where are the credentials? At any rate, I'll tell you about a second shift. It had everything to do with the Bahiya Sutta and contemplation of each line. I'd been reading Soh Wei Yu's AwakeningtoReality blog and followed a rabbit trail of links to Alex Weith's journal on his own progress in working with the sutta. (I've since been unable to find the journal). In addition, I'd continued reading on in Wei Yu's blog, especially the sections where he'd gotten into ideas about realizing emptiness and interdependence.... although at the time I didn't realize it was called emptiness. 

The story: Relaxing by the side of a pool, I read and contemplated for hours, then glanced up to notice a snail sitting on the very edge of the lip, the place where water in motion rolls into a very sudden interruption, causing a wave. The snail seemed, in my mind anyway, to be struggling against what must have seemed like a relentless series of tsunamis. He teetered on the edge, each moment threatening to send him into the depths. (that's three feet of water to you and me). When I looked across to pool to find the source of this epic disturbance, I saw a woman sporting a sublime but bright smile brought about from basking in the glow of Sunshine and Saturdays. Despite her generous size, she appeared to delicately occupy her perch at the deep end. Thoroughly enjoy her afternoon, she lazily and delicately swished her feet back and forth, then sighed. It was then that the thunder of interdependence struck. Like some sort of special effects movie, I 'saw', all at once, the woman, the water, the sun, the breeze, the weather, her parents, her grandparents and ancestors, the earth, the universe. And from the other end of the spectrum there was the snail, his ever-growing shell, and every movement that had led him to the moment of finding himself at his poolside ledge. Then there was the pool, the workers who'd constructed it, the water which filled it, and the rain and evaporation that moved the water. Everywhere I looked, Everything appeared. For lack of a better way to express this, what I saw could be expressed as a complete and whole view of anything at all that ever existed. Not only that, but that it had to exist PRECISELY as it had in order for this very moment to be as it was. Ta-Da. It would increasingly come to me that this is seen not just in that moment, but all the time, everywhere, and in every 'thing'. Total exertion, and I do mean Total, is what This is. The simultaneous complexity and simplicity of this is absolutely mind blowing in the best sort of sense. What's more, it's not static and not inherent. It's what it appears to be right now, but not a thing there at all. Forget the nihilistic teachings that say there are no things for a second and just look at the experience of what appears. The Total Exertion still applies. That this blog post is being typed is It. The whole shebang. It's the appearance that contains the appearances of 'my entire history' which includes the history of existence. That it's being read by a you is the whole thing too. Everything that is normally thought of as "YOU" is right here. This also means that EveryWhen and EveryWhere is appearing too. Very much like examining a fractal, zoom in at any point, and it's All there. Amazing, isn't it?” 

Hale O'Herren: Different phases of total exertion. 

Hale OHerren: The diagram is a progress seeing of our relationship to the world. "a" is not "a", therefore "a" is "a" applied out.



The stick figure is a person, the small boxes are any/all dharmas, the arrows and lines show relationship, the big box in #3 is a representation of the whole world/universe, the huge box in #4 is all space time.

#1 is how most people see. They are outsiders looking in.

#2 is a beginning to see an interrelationship between you and the world. Without me, the flower would not be there, with the flower, I would not be here. This world makes me, and I make this world. The arrows point back and forth to show a mutual relationship.

#3 brings in a larger context, its seeing the wholeness of this moment. Not only am I and the world co created, but each and everything exists together like a web. Everything moving together in harmony, nothing separate… Not only #2 but also a more whole picture of the present moment. This whole moment is one seamless happening. Each piece, including you, is integral to the whole, and the whole is integral to each piece. A car (a) is nothing without a road to drive on, a person to drive, an earth etc (not a). But, this is looked at and seen in the moment and felt.

#4 is taking #3 and applying time. Each point is the "crux" or "fulcrum" of space time. Everything "hinges" so to speak on the bell ringing. Each "a" is empty (not a) because it only exists in context with all space time. Therefore, "a" is just "a" haha, which is all things all places all times. And all that is just "a". It's seeing the wholeness of each and every thing, indra's net real time. But this is just intellectual here, this is something that you feel.

A lot of this is about seeing context and relationship imo. The outline has good advice for incorporating view and particular practices to see this. The diamond sutra is also a good source for contemplation if interested. This link was particularly helpful for a friend of mine... The Logic of the Diamond Sutra: A is not A, therefore it is A

Checking out Huayan, Li and Shi, interpenetration and mutual containment and non obstruction might be interesting for view. Also, quite funnily, their fourfold dharmadhatu is very similar, I feel, to the drawing. A lot of this draws from flower garland sutra.

This is interesting too.. Treatise on the Golden Lion

But all of the words can be a source of confusion. Better to see and feel haha. Oh and ted biringers book called “zen cosmology”.


John Tan: Post-anatta it is advisable to integrate a practice, be it yoga, pranayama or qi gong or vipassana or chanting where you can focus your attention into an oceanic state of no-mind as if everything in the 10 directions and 3 times are all into a single action in order to access total exertion. 

For the metta question it is not for altruistic reasons but rather to further open up oneself into total exertion. 

Post anatta, one can access to the state of no mind easily and this state of no mind is "key" to opening up new dimension of the mind where experience turn maha, immense and great. If possible, it is advisable to integrate a practice, be it yoga, pranayama or qi gong or vipassana or chanting where you can focus your attention into an oceanic state of no-mind as if everything in the 10 directions and 3 times are all into a single action. 

Don't worry too much whether is it realistic, just don't place any limitation in the expansion in this practice. Just open up and connect as is presented in Hale's badly drawn diagram.😂

Choosing a practice is important for stability much like shamatha so that one can better integrate the body-mind into a stable state of evenness over a quality period of time. The state no mind from anatta in daily activity is a mini scale of the oceanic opening unless one has overcome our dualistic and inherent karmic tendencies sufficiently.

Breathing exercise is a good practice. Breathe into no-mind, just the inhalation and exhalation. Allow the whole body to fully engaged in the breath - the nose, the lung, the abdominal, the intestine are all fully participating in the breath. Extend beyond the boundary of the body into the air, the trees, the plants, the universe. See whether you can get all the masters of the 3 times to participate together into this moment of breathing (hale's diagram).😝

Like what Hale has described, it is a very deep feeling of being "connected". I think Hale described very well "this connection".


Zen Teacher Jundo Cohen: Differentiating between mindfulness meditation and shikantaza from the perspective of total exertion. 

"Modern "mindfulness" meditation is just sitting quietly, following the breath, accepting the moment, being mindful of what's happening in the moment. That's all good, and it is helpful to many. However, people sometimes call that "Shikantaza" these days, and even some teachers make the mistake. I cannot agree that such languid sitting is what Master Dogen meant as "Shikantaza."

Shikantaza in Dogen's expression is a way that sits as all timeless time and every atom of space sitting in our sitting, "dropping body-mind," dropping the self/other divide while still in this life and world of self and other and passing time. This sitting embodies the Wholeness that is Emptiness, in which our very sitting is Buddha sitting. 

One sits vibrantly, with sincerity and dedication ... yet there is nothing to attain. One is unentangled, though in life's tangled circumstances. One sits, in radical equanimity, letting thoughts go, not running toward yet not running away from thoughts. One comes to see the Light of Clarity and Wholeness which shines through both thoughts and no thoughts. One sits for a time, free of measures of time. Sitting sits sitting for sitting's sake. Sitting is the fruition of all of life in that moment of sitting.

Shikantaza is a Gateless Gateway to Liberation, not mere relaxation, accumulation, recreation or remuneration.

It is too easy to confuse "mindfulness" and "Shikantaza."

Soh Wei Yu: Important to see through afflictive dependent origination until maha total exertion becomes the natural state. 

"It is good you are seeing the fabrications working together to shape a dualistic experience. That is seeing the afflictive dependent origination, seeing that selfing-activity, duality, grasping as the very activity that dependently originates. Therefore there is no self/Self/agent, but there is the afflictive sense of self, grasping and reification in action. There is no actor but there is action, be it afflictive or non-afflictive.. it is not an agent giving rise to afflictive activities but afflictive activities giving rise to selfing through dependent arising.

As for total exertion and maha, that is more on the non-afflictive side of dependent origination, the general principle of dependent origination. You will see that the +A expressions are all over in Dogen's writings, whereas the Mahamudra/Tibetan tends to emphasize more on -A. (Update: There are always exceptions, such as Elias Capriles from Dzogchen tradition expressing Maha total exertion: Elias Caprilles interviewed by Vladimir Maykov on Ken Wilber's distortion of Buddhism and Dzogchen, and Zen Master Hong Wen Liang (洪文亮禅师) integrating total exertion with illusoriness in some of his expressions).

I started having mini glimpses of total exertionas early as 2011 but only had very clear experiences of it beginning in 2013 where I wrote about dharma body - Dharma Body -- where even the walking activity is as immense and boundless as the whole universe, a seamless activity of mind-body-universe.

John Tan used the word Maha and Total Exertion to describe this, it is about totality. Maha means great, but it is not big vs small, but great without boundaries. Immense as the universe. As he often said, be light as feather but immense as the universe.

Nowadays the infinitude of maha total exertion has become a natural, effortless state as an ongoing experience. When you are doubtless and stabilized anatta, you must mature your insight and experience in this direction.

That Maha total exertion must become a natural state, as written in On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection -

"A week ago, the clear experience of Maha dawned and became quite effortless and at the same time there is a direct realization that it is also a natural state. In Sunyata, Maha is natural and must be fully factored into the path of experiencing whatever arises. Nevertheless Maha as a ground state requires the maturing of non-dual experience; we cannot feel entirely as the interconnectedness of everything coming spontaneously into being as this moment of vivid manifestation with a divided mind.

The universe is this arising thought.
The universe is this arising sound.
Just this magnificent arising!
Is Tao.
Homage to all arising."

Soh Wei Yu: Descriptions of total exertion present within AF (Actual Freedom) teachings. 

Soh: “Even if you see the Actual Freedom teachings, there are two stages of actual freedom.

1) The basic, newly-free actual freedom is characterized by the lack of separative identity, feeling-being, magical and wonderful luminosity as actual time and form,

"On the woven table mat my attention was drawn to a dark blue plastic cigarette lighter, an empty glass, a tobacco pouch and other sundry items. All of a sudden, Richard’s phrase “the actual world of people, things and events” came to mind and I found myself acknowledging that the things on the table existed in actuality, i.e. did in fact actually exist, and this being the case, here I was waving my hand in front of “people”, in this case Richard, saying that I experienced him as if behind a veil, i.e. not actually existing. It took only a few more seconds of switching my attention from the things on the table and my waving hand for the whole illusion of a separating veil to collapse – along with my illusory self-centred identity as I was gradually becoming aware of.

The whole experience was like a seamless transition between two worlds – from being a feeling being trapped within an illusionary all-encompassing self-created and sustained bubble to being here in the actual world. There was no dramatic end for ‘me’, no death-like traumatic experience, no prior psychic events or escapades, no “wall of fear”, no “abyss” – rather there was a profound experience of sweetness, a ready acknowledgement of my destiny and a final understanding that the feeling of separateness was nothing other than an illusion of ‘my’ own making." - Peter

"There was no fear, no experience of death, no physical phenomena or changes, just the realization that I have always been here in this eternal moment in time, in this luminous magical world, more naked than I was born and utterly safe... ...The next morning was the real test – I half-expected that I had reverted back to normal but the world was just as brilliant, beneficial and wunderbar as I had experienced it the night before. I am still surprised how easy it all turned out to be in the end." - Vineeto

This is why I asked how thorough are you experiencing the 2nd stanza.. as well as the intensity of luminosity as vivid form, this is important as well in addition for the aspect of no agent. But from what you messaged me it you are already experiencing that aspect well at the moment.

2) The Fully Free actual freedom characterized by permanent experience of infinitude [not just glimpses] that comes soon after the loss of social identity (from what I understand from that website, that includes views, impinging on what actions to take and interpretations of one's pure experience including of that infinitude, sometimes subtly interpreting it wrongly or in terms of metaphysical essence based on the convo of Vineeto with a newly-free person) - to me what I see as more crucial is that the view aspect must be clear. This is also related to the example of the video by Leo on Actualized.org describes the Maha Total Exertion glimpses in 5-Meo-DMT trip, but he is still having view of inherent existence, and misinterpreting that infinitude in terms of metaphysicality in the same way that Vineeto discussed with another guy. With that social identity or 'shadow being' in place, it prevents the permanent experience of infinitude.

But that is how AF expresses or interpretes. For you, you just need to be clear on anatta and D.O., that will lead to effortless Maha/total exertion. There must not be a desync of view and experience, otherwise it will be a hindrance.

But the progression is quite similar -- means anatta in two stanza stabilized, then glimpses of maha total exertion, then a shift into permanent total exertion. But AF lacks emptiness.

As John Tan wrote previously, “Richard's experience is not different from total exertion. However his actual view will be restricting him imo.”

Another time in 2019, John Tan said, “AF is no different from affirmative negation. Firmly grounded in the actual world of PCE. There is deconstruction but the very insight that deconstruct is not clear. It is focused on PCE and the cause of deconstruction is not known. Focused on experience more than insights.”

John Tan (2015): Important to stabilize one’s insights and experiences in order to experience the full intensity of total exertion. 

The way you described has a lot of over emphasis, there is a lack of intensity but expressed as if you have realized and experienced the intensity of these insights and experiences...lol. You have to reverse the cycle of experiences and you stabilize both your insights and experiences. Even in AF (Actual Freedom teachings), there is such intensity. When practitioners expressed something like the universe doing the washing of the plates, they are having that experiences… not just to sound nice. In a simple breathing process, one too undergo deconstruction process to later end up in maha and total exertion. Like in experience, you say you become just the breathing and the universe is inhaling… conceptually you understand after anatta but the intensity isn't there.

For example I tell you to breathe in slowly and deeply for focus in placing your intention on the lower dantian to the chest and to the fingertip. Just this process, how do you enter into anatta and a state of total exertion? I mean a state of no-mind and into total exertion. You say that you think you can breathe in slowly and deeply but I can tell just this is enough for you to learn for sometime. To fully understand the whole mechanics, the whole DO into the seamless act of the pose -- the whole movement of breathing into the fingertip.

In energy practice you go by the "feel" and "taste", fully engaged and involved into it without discursive thoughts, the whole movement learning itself from moment to moment. But if you analyse, you will see the process of deconstructions - the chest, the air movement, the stomach, the tailbone, the tightening of the muscles of your abdomen, the holding of your breath at your lung … how you can deconstruct these into the seamless activity of breathing into your finger tip. If you go through the process of deconstruction, you too can get into the direct taste of maha and total exertion but it involves the conceptual mind until all these different events and related activity are deconstructed into a seamless flow. Though it involves the conceptual mind, your intellect is clear and knows exactly where the hindrances are… why the breath cannot flow smoothly …

So when I asked you can you breathe in slowly and deeply for those simple poses… you told me you think so... Immediately I know there is still a long way for you to go… lol”

AF (Actual Freedom) Vineeto: Describing her experiences of total exertion. 

As Vineeto (who has become almost like a successor or Richard at the moment, being the first fully free person besides Richard himself, and I think is currently living with Richard) wrote:

Vineeto: Yes, the definite moment of becoming fully free happened on October 12, 2010.

And yes, "the experiences and investigation around those interactions constituted the bulk of the ‘many more things’."

To refresh my memory I checked what I wrote to Tarin in November 2010 about this period after the abdication of the guardian –

[Vineeto]: Frequent interactions with Richard quite often resulted in glimpses of a greater depth to an actual freedom and at the time I called them windows into purity. Both Richard and I had noticed that when I described how I experienced myself, words such as the ‘immaculate purity’ and ‘pristine limpidness’ where not part of my vocabulary and, except for a few occasional glimpses, neither did I mention in my description experiencing the infinitude of this spatially infinite, temporally eternal and perpetually forming and changing universe, whereas Richard has described his experience of an actual freedom in such glowing terms like in one of my favourite excerpts from his journal –

[Richard]: "There is something precious in living itself. Something beyond compare. Something more valuable than any "King’s ransom". It is not rare gemstones; it is not singular works of art; it is not the much-prized bags of money; it is not the treasured loving relationships; it is not the highly esteemed Blissful States Of ‘Being’ ... ... it is not any of these things usually considered precious. There is something ultimately precious. It is the essential character of the infinitude of the universe … which is the life-giving foundation of all that is apparent. That something precious is me as-I-am ... me as I actually am as distinct from ‘me’ as ‘I’ really am. I am the universe’s experience of itself. The limpid and lucid perfection and purity of being here now, as-I-am, is akin to the crystalline perfection and purity seen in a dew-drop hanging from the tip of a leaf in the early-morning sunshine; the sunrise strikes the transparent dew-drop with its warming rays, highlighting the flawless correctness of the tear-drop shape with its bellied form. One is left almost breathless with wonder at the immaculate simplicity so exemplified ... and everyone I have spoken with has experienced this impeccable purity and perfection in some way or another at varying stages in their life. Is it not impossible to conceive – and just too difficult to imagine – that this is one’s essential character? One has to be daring enough to live it ... for it is both one’s audacious birth-right and adventurous destiny.

When one lives the magical perfection of this purity twenty-four-hours-a-day; when one has ceased being ‘I’ and is being genuine, one can see clearly that there is no separation between me and that something which is precious. The purity of life emerges from the perfection that wells up constantly due to an immense stillness which is utterly immense in its scope and magnitude. This stillness of infinitude is that something which is precious. It is the life-giving foundation of all that is apparent. This stillness happens as me. This stillness is my essential disposition, for it is the principle character, the intrinsic basis of everything. It is this universe at its genesis. It is not, as it might commonly be supposed, at the centre of everything ... there is no centre here. This stillness, which is everywhere all at once, is the be all and end all of life itself. I am the universe experiencing itself as a sensate, reflective human being." Richard’s Journal, 1997, Article Twenty-five

In the early months of this year [2010] I had plenty of opportunity to read Richard’s words describing the outstanding quality of an actual freedom while I was updating the website, replacing all footnotes with the new format of tool-tips and I became starkly aware of the vast gap of experiencing between his descriptions and my own experience of myself and the world around me."

After the abdication of the guardian I was one day ready to allow myself to fully (and permanently) experience the spatial infinitude of the universe. Here is the description of what happened –

[Vineeto]: "The next significant event happened a week after my completion [the abdication of the guardian]. It began with an eerie sensation in the head as if my brain was being operated on whilst being fully conscious. After about 15 minutes or so there was a sensation as if my brain was being scattered throughout the universe. When I recovered from the experience itself enough to find out what actually happened, I noticed that I had lost my centre of reference (a discovery that left me quite disconcerted for about 2 weeks). Richard reported that in the days before he was able to existentially sense me as being close, very close, right in front of his eyes, so to speak, but that after this event he has been no longer able to sense me existentially. The direct result of losing the boundaries of my localized reference during this ‘brain-scattering’ event is that I am permanently apperceptively aware of the infinitude of the universe as infinite space, eternal time and perpetual matter." Private letter to Tarin, November 29, 2010

I remember a similar profound disorientation (for a short period of time) after allowing to fully understand and experience the temporal infinitude of the universe.

So, lots of adventures and discoveries are still to come after becoming newly free."

Soh Wei Yu: The whole universe is the total exertion of all conditions in spatial and temporal infinitude, each activity is the exertion of all the conditions in ten directions and three times.

“Now it’s very clear that the whole universe is the total exertion of all conditions in spatial and temporal infinitude.. each activity is the exertion of all the conditions in ten directions and three times.”

John Tan: Conditions to experience maha (total exertion) as a ground [state].

“There are few conditions to experience maha as a ground [state] (Soh: means effortlessly experienced in all situations as always already so)

1. Mature in non-dual experience

2. DO (dependent origination)

3.  Experience and understand that 'interconnectedness' is the universe itself

Then 'self' and even non dual becomes quite irrelevant. In fact now presence is not understand as non-dual to me, but as dependent origination, where non-dual is already included” 

The Practice of No Cold or Heat vs Total Exertion

Some initial considerations: “What you lack now is feel with the entire body mind until body-mind is entirely forgotten, deconstructed and enter into total exertion all things. There is neither you, body, mind, environment nor super awareness... just fully open up and experience the Beauty of this total exertion of suchness non dually. No body, mind, self can still remain at pure awareness level. The measurement is to total giving up so that the experience of how immensely is this web of interpenetration is experienced as this moment of arising is important. You need to practice with the view in mind to see the interconnection, not non-conceptuality of whatever arises. 

There are two practices, one is feel the intensity of this moment of arise till there is no mind, body, self… directly right into the place where there is no heat or cold, the intensity of our luminous essence. The other is holding the view in mind till body, mind, self, universe is being deconstructed in this immense interconnectedness. They are different, yet both practices are equally important. One is total non conceptuality, one is full integration of the view interconnectedness. In non conceptuality of in hearing, just sound...there is no mind, no self, no hearer, just this sound. This universe is filled with the arising sound... Clear vivid and non-dual... you practice the intensity of luminous essence. But hearing sound, deep in you, you see the empty nature of arise, you see the stick, the drum, the eardrums, the sound ... This requires view... And not non conceptuality. If you continue to see this perpetually, then the mind, body, universe construct will also be dissolved and experience turn maha and dimensionless. Get it?” – John Tan

John Tan: Freedom from conceptualization is not merely to stop thinking or cling to non-dual experience, but eliminate intellectual obscurations of seeing entities, entity possessing characteristics, cause and effect, agent and movement, etc. 

"Without concepts, experience is naturally present and luminous is not exactly true imo. 

We can stop conceptualization or even have many episodes of sustained non-conceptual non-dual or no mind experiences, still intellectual obscurations of seeing entities, entity possessing characteristics, cause and effect, agent and movement... etc continue to haunt us. Non-analytical cessation is temporary.

So the freedom from conceptualization cannot simply be a stopping of "conceptualization", a clear insight that sees through the emptiness of conventional constructs must arise. 

Although the insight results in non-conceptuality, it also recognizes the cause of obstructedness is ignorance that obscures and blinds, not designations and constructs. 

When contemplating DO (though conceptual), not only does the sense of self not arise, it replaces self view. Non-conceptual resting is too a means to an end. The end is not a non-conceptual luminous state but the complete uprooting of ignorance.

Therefore when Dogen rolls the boat in total exertion, there are concepts, designations and conventions but there is no sense of self, no sense of boundaries, no sense of obstructedness between the sky, the boat, the oar and the sea...all inter-penetrate beyond their conventional boundaries into the act of rolling." 

John Tan: Right view is necessary to be fully integrated in one’s practice in order to realize total exertion rather than clinging to non-conceptuality. 

View must be fully integrated into your practice for you to understand what the maha experience is. Many do not understand the implication of right view yet. You do not go non conceptual and realize the maha experience of suchness. 

It also requires to penetrate into DO by deeper investigation of the nature of experience. Where does sound go? Is there a "going, coming", is there a "here and there" if sound, is there a voidness where sound return to? Then what does it mean by "no going anywhere" and seeing DO. Then we begin to understand the view of activities and actions and when we see everywhere the seamless integration and total exertions, then maha experience will become more and more obvious and effortless. At this phase there is no self, no dual... All these are already implied... They are the content of emptiness. 

You should look at few aspects: 

1. Seeing inherent object as a mere convention collating... If a practitioner keeps penetrating whatever arises this way, experience will turn groundless and illusion–like 

2. Seeing clearly in non dual mode but deep in us realize that this is merely a dependent originated manifestation, nothing ultimate and solidly real 

3. You see "no going, no coming, no here, no there" and penetrate deeply into the seamless interpenetration of activities leading to the maha experience 

Until this empty nature of whatever arises is intuited in our moment to moment of experience, you can then feel the total exertion and self liberating aspect of experience.” 

Non-Arisen Nature of Phenomena (-A)

This is not a matter of deconstructing physicality, objectivity, external universe, mind and body, etc. 

Can the entire non-dual non conceptual experience be treated like AN IMPUTATION and emptiness and non-arising is directly tasted as its nature? This is different from deconstructing ‘physicality’.” - John Tan, 2013

John Tan: Stanzas on observing how thoughts never truly arise. 

(-A)
30 years of practice and 23 years of kitchen life is like a passing thought.
How heavy is this thought?
The whereabouts of this thought?
Taste the nature of this thought.
It never truly arises.

John Tan (2009): On Emptiness and Illusionariness. 

“If we observe thought and ask where does thought arise, how does it arise, what is ‘thought’ like. 'Thought' will reveal its nature is empty -- vividly present yet completely un-locatable. It is very important not to infer, think or conceptualise but feel with our entire being this ‘ungraspability’ and 'unlocatability'. It seems to reside 'somewhere' but there is no way to locate it. It is just an impression of somewhere "there" but never "there". Similarly “here-ness” and “now-ness” are merely impressions formed by sensations, aggregates of causes and conditions, nothing inherently ‘there’; equally empty like ‘selfness’.

This ungraspable and unlocatable empty nature is not only peculiar to ‘thought’. All experiences or sensations are like that -- vividly present yet insubstantial, un-graspable, spontaneous, un-locatable.

If we were to observe a red flower that is so vivid, clear and right in front us, the “redness” only appears to “belong” to the flower, it is in actuality not so. Vision of red does not arise in all animal species (dogs cannot perceive colours) nor is the “redness” an inherent attribute of the mind. If given a “quantum eyesight” to look into the atomic structure, there is similarly no attribute “redness” anywhere found, only almost complete space/void with no perceivable shapes and forms. Whatever appearances are dependently arisen, and hence is empty of any inherent existence or fixed attributes, shapes, form, or “redness” -- merely luminous yet empty, mere appearances without inherent/objective existence.

Likewise when standing in front of a burning fire pit, the entire phenomena of ‘fire’, the burning heat, the whole sensation of ‘hotness’ that are so vividly present and seem so real but when examined they are also not inherently “there” -- merely dependently manifest whenever conditions are there. It is amazing how dualistic and inherent views have caged seamless experience in a who-where-when construct.

All experiences are empty. They are like sky flowers, like painting on the surface of a pond. There is no way to point to a moment of experience and say this is ‘in’ and that is ‘out’. All ‘in’ are as ‘out’; to awareness seamless experience is all there is. It is not the mirror or pond that is important but that process of illusion-like phenomenon of the paint shimmering on the surface of the pond; like an illusion but not an illusion, like a dream but not a dream. This is the ground of all experiences.

Yet this ‘ungraspability and unlocatabilty’ nature is not all there is; there is also this Maha, this great without boundaries feeling of 'interconnectedness'. When someone hits a bell, the person, the stick, the bell, the vibration of the air, the ears and then the magically appearance of sound -- ’Tongsss…re-sounding…’ is all a seamless one happening, one experience. When breathing, it is just this one whole entire breath; it is all causes and conditions coming together to give rise to this entire sensation of breath as if the whole of universe is doing this breathing. The significance of this Maha experience is not in words; in my opinion, without this experience, there is no true experience of 'interconnectedness' and non-dual presence is incomplete.

The experience of our empty nature is a very different from that of non-dual oneness. ‘Distance’ for example is overcome in non-dual oneness by seeing through the illusory aspect of subject/object division and resulted in a one non-dual presence. It is seeing all as just ‘This’ but experiencing Emptiness breaks the boundary through its empty ungraspable and unlocatable nature.

There is no need for a ‘where-place' or a ‘when-time' or a ‘who-I' when we penetrate deeply into this nature. When hearing sound, sound is neither ‘in here’ nor ‘out there’, it is where it is and gone! All centers and reference points dissolve with the wisdom that manifestation dependently originates and hence empty. The experience creates an "always right wherever and whenever is" sensation. A sensation of home everywhere though nowhere can be called home. Experiencing the emptiness nature of presence, a sincere practitioner becomes clear that indeed the non-dual presence is leaving a subtle mark; seeing its nature as empty, the last mark that solidifies experiences dissolves. It feels cool because presence is made more present and effortless. We then move from "vivid non-dual presence" into "though vividly and non-dually present, it is nothing real, empty!".” 

John Tan: Pointers on realizing sensory experience is illusionary along with unlocatable/ungraspable. 

“Snap your fingers, hear the sound.
Clearly heard but where?

Touch anything, feel them, feel the sensations dancing in zero dimension. Unlocatable, ungraspable.

Look around, look at the radiance of the color.
So undoubtedly "external" yet they are as "internal"!
Look at the scenery, clear, lurid and vivid.
But where? Outside? Inside?
In Soh's mind? In dog's mind, in everyone's mind?
Totally present yet absence!

All experiences are like that, like magic, like illusion.
So why look into space?
Look directly into the nature of experience.

Neither external nor internal,
Neither present nor absence,
Neither come nor go.
Unobstructable by being not here!
Indestructible by being unreal!” 

The Integration of Maha Total Exertion (+A) and Non-Arisen Nature of Phenomena (-A)

“At some point, after getting familiarized with the realization and experience of +A and -A, during meditation or practice the experiential taste suddenly syncs into one. That is, the taste of total exertion where a given phenomenon is a seamless exertion with all other interconnected phenomenon, and the non-arising, illusory nature of presencing syncs into one.

Dependent arising thus non-arising, non-arising thus dependent arising.

This is to see the unity of the two truths from the perspective of experiential insight.

When this is, that is. Neither this nor that arises. Dharma is - illusory, unborn, indestructible, and seamlessly connected, great and boundless activity.” – Soh, 2019

John Tan: Pointers on integrating non-arising/illusionariness with total exertion. 

“Yes Angelo, total exertion! I like your description of walking down a lighted hallway. Like while walking in a shopping mall, there is no self, just the full fluxing sensations forming the the appearance of the “shopping mall”. Then when entering the car park, the entire fluxing sensations turn into a “carpark”. The taste of this wondrous fluxing appearance is beyond description.

As for physicality and senses, they are simply conventional designations. In total exertion, all designated boundaries dissolved and the six senses seamlessly inter-permeate each other into one miraculous functioning. In the exertion of seeing for example, it is not only the eyes see; the ears see; the nose sees, the colors see. The entire body-mind-universe marvelously arise as this moment of vivid scenery. In this moment, there is no seer and no seeing, just the beautiful scenery.

Look, appreciate and dwell deeply into it in non-dual and ask,

Where is this scenery?

Unlike sound, taste, thoughts and smell that vanish like evanescent mist, the scenery is vividly and obviously there, but where is it?

Powerfully present, yet empty like reflection.
Integrate the two taste and happy journey!”


John Tan: One is still far from full integration if either total exertion (+A) or non-arising (A-) is missing from one’s personal experience. 

If either -A or +A is missing, one is still far from full integration. Years ago, John Tan told Soh, “Your writings are all full of illusions and -A. Missed all the +A. This forfeits the whole purpose of opening the heart and the ear… ...The moment is not only ungraspable and empty (-A), but alive and powerful, fully connected and intimate with all things and all times (+A). That moment when the self is gone, everything also becomes intimately connected.”

Soh Wei Yu: Appearances are completely empty and non-arising by nature, seeing this requires us to see the right relationship between experience, view and realization, and not skewing to one aspect.

“Dependent Formation, No Coming and Going, Release

Just like a movie, appearances are dependently originating as formation like burning flames and bubbles without anything coming or going, completely essenceless. Appearances are completely empty and non arising by nature. Seeing this alone liberates. There is no persisting Essence or self/Self anywhere, only dependent formations. Nothing is there, void of substance yet appearing like flames and bubbles. As with a movie, any sense of something or someone coming from here or going there is wrong. It is because we fail to see the nature of dharma (phenomena) as dependent formation that we conceive of phenomena as having essences, as having a life of their own, that could come and go, arise, abide and cease on its own. Has the burning flame came from somewhere, arise, abide, and cease, or is merely an empty dependent formation? You may not attribute some essence to characters in the movie coming from somewhere and going somewhere, but you attribute this to things and persons in “real life”. Rather see that all phenomena are like burning flame or bubble that manifest on conditions and cease upon cessation or conditions but without anything coming or going, arising or ceasing. If you try to find where they abide, where they go and come from, nothing whatsoever can be found. Appearing but nothing “there”.

Do you say the flame has some Essence that has gone somewhere else when ceased? Do you say some Essence has arrived from somewhere when fire starts burning? No, just dependent formations. All afflictive and non afflictive phenomena roll on in dependence without a persisting essence, agent, or medium. Yet based on yesterday’s events, certain thoughts or actions take place today, as the continuity of the chain of dependencies. Still it is dependent formation, no self/Self involved.

Clinging and afflictions subside in actualizing this as there cannot be any sort of grasping at what is completely without Essence or self-existence. But this liberation does not come from the illusion-like experience but from the complete release of any notion of Essence.. the taste is illusion like but it is the release of Essence that is liberating. Just like it is not the experience of PCE/pure consciousness experience or a state of no-mind (which can simply be peak experiences) that liberates but the release of self/Self from realization of anatta that is liberating.

Seeing this requires us to see the right relationship between experience, view and realization, and not skewing to one aspect.” 

Diamond Sutra: Verses on illusionariness. 

All conditioned phenomena
Are like dreams, illusions, bubbles, and shadows,
Like dew and like lightning;
One should contemplate them in this way.


Longchenpa: Eight Similies of Illusion.

The eight similes of illusion (Tib. སྒྱུ་མའི་དཔེ་བརྒྱད་, gyumé pé gyé, Wyl. sgyu ma'i dpe brgyad) are (in the order in which they appear in Longchenpa's Finding Comfort and Ease in the Illusoriness of Things):

1. Dream: like a dream, objects perceived with the five senses are not there, but they appear through delusion 
2. Magical illusion: like a magic illusion, things are made to appear due to the temporary coming together of causes and conditions 
3. Hallucination or trompe-l'oeil: like a hallucination, things appear, yet there is nothing there
4. Mirage: like a mirage, things appear, but they are not real
5. Echo: like an echo, things can be perceived, but there is nothing there, either inside or outside 
6. City of gandharvas: like a city of gandharvas, there is neither a dwelling nor anyone to dwell 
7. Reflection: like a reflection, things appear, but have no reality of their own 
8. Apparition: like an apparition, there are different types of appearances, but they are not really there



Longchenpa: External Apprehended Objects Are Non-Existent Emptiness.

IDENTIFICATION (OF THE BASIS) THROUGH (UNDERSTANDING THE) VIEW

The External Apprehended Objects Are Non-Existent Emptiness

(i) The appearances are unreal reflections like the eight examples of illusion. 

Every aspect of the five objects, such as form, included in the phenomena of the world and beings, are mere appearances with no true existence. All the appearances which have appeared to both the pure perceptions of the Buddhas and the impure perceptions of deluded beings are the percepts of wisdom and the mind. While the appearances are appearing to both perceptions, they are appearing with no inherent existence (Rang-bZhin), like a reflection in a mirror and rainbow rays in the sky. To the pure perception of wisdom the (appearances) transcend the extremes of existing and non-existing as there are no stains of apprehender and apprehended. As there is no creating, ceasing, and changing, all are free from the characteristics of compounded phenomena, the appearances of uncompounded emptiness-form, and are totally free from conceptualizations. To the perception of the deluded mind, (the appearances) merely appear as the object of apprehension of self (bDag-'Dzin), which have fallen into the extreme (concepts) of existing or non-existing, are detached from the characteristics of uncompounded (nature), and have strengthened the habituations of adventitious and circumstantial self-perceptions. So, here, one will understand that the objects, the delusory appearances of the mind, are unreal. Various external appearances, such as white and red, are merely the percepts of rigid habits, like a dream created by the drunkenness of ignorant sleep. There is not the slightest existence (in them) as the object in the (true) meaning. Also, those appearances are not mind from the very point of their arising, because their substantial characteristics, such as color, size, and distinctions, negate the character of the mind. At the same time, they are not other than the mind, because, in addition to their being merely the delusory perceptions (of the mind), no other object has ever been established as such. The appearances to the mind are just types of experience of rigid habits continuing from beginningless time. It is like dreaming last night about a magic show one has seen yesterday. Therefore, one should think that whatever appears are appearances of non existence, and are without foundation, abiding place, natural existence, and recognizable (entity). They are merely a clear appearance of the empty nature like a dream, magical display, mirage, echo, shadowy view (Mig-Yor), water-moon (reflection), miracle, and the city of smell-eaters (a spirit world). Whatever appears, self or others, enemies or friends, countries or towns, places or houses, food or drink or wealth, and whatever one does, eating or sleeping, walking or sitting, one should train in seeing them as unreal. One should devote oneself to this training in all its aspects: the preliminary, actual, and concluding practices.

(ii) The objects, if analyzed, are emptiness. 

If the appearances are examined from gross to subtle down to atoms, they are partless and non-existent. So form is emptiness. (Likewise,) by examining color and recognition of sound, it (will be found to be) emptiness. By examining the form and essence of smell, it (will be found to be) emptiness. By examining the aspects of taste, they (will be found to be) emptiness. Especially, by examining the sources (sense-objects), the emptiness of touch will be reached. Although they are different in appearance, they are the same in their nature in being emptiness, so the emptiness of various objects are not separate categories. Their nature, like pure space, transcends being either separate or the same. So the nature of objective appearances is emptiness in its essence.

The Apprehender Has No Foundation and No Root

(i) The consciousnesses are self-clarity without foundation. 

(There are eight consciousnesses.) The five sense-consciousnesses; arise as the five objects such as form, the mind-consciousness cognizes the general impression (of the appearing objects) and designates them as the objects, the defiled mind-consciousness is the sense of negating, accepting, hating and disliking (etc.), the mind-consciousness arises after the six consciousnesses (five senses and universal ground consciousness), ...and the consciousness of universal ground is self-clarity (Rang-gSal) and no thought and is unrelated to the objects: these are the eight or six consciousnesses. At the (very) time of (functioning of any of) those consciousnesses themselves, whatever consciousness it is, it is clear, vivid, and self-clarity with no foundations. Although they appear clear, there is no substantial entity. They are appearing without existence, like clear space and a breeze with no dust. Their clarity is present naturally like the sky without clouds. Their movements are like wind, not in distinguishable substances. From the (very) time of appearing, (the consciousnesses) as the apprehenders are self-clarity and unrecognizable. Watch them when they are arising and when they are abiding. Relax naturally and watch the manner of appearing of the apprehender. Thereby one will realize the apprehenders as having the nature of merely an appearance of clarity with no existence, emptiness with no bias, and self-clarity with no foundation.

(ii) (The subject), if analyzed, is emptiness without root.  

By analyzing (whether) the self-clear, baseless mind (exists) in the external appearances, inner physical body, or intermediate movements, or if the entity of the self-dwelling mind itself (can be) recognized in (its) design, color, birth, cessation, and abiding, one will realize that its nature is non-existence, baseless and free from the extremes of either existence or non-existence. In this training the devotion to the Lama is the only important thing.


John Tan: Necessary to first have right view before contemplating on the illusionariness of phenomena. 

Someone said all one has to do is contemplate on the illusoriness of phenomena and one realizes emptiness, but John Tan disagreed and said:

John Tan: Not exactly...that is experience...what is important is to realize what the YouTube about h2o (Julian Baggini: Is there a real you?) then the willingness to drop the inherent view becomes natural.  Coupled with the direct experience of anatta and luminosity, experience will turn illusionary naturally but in a different light.

John Tan: How is contemplating on illusion like phenomena [going to] lead one to such realization and not substantial non dualism?

Soh Wei Yu: Oic

Soh Wei Yu: Yes I think advaita also talk about illusory but returns to substantial

John Tan: Over intellectualizing is no good without a good balance of direct experience.  Right view then non conceptual direct experience of what the view is pointing.  But get the view right.”

Emptiness as Non-Conceptuality

Emptiness as Non-Conceptuality, first considerations: It must be understood that Emptiness is not the same as “dry non-conceptuality”, which we define as merely a state of the suspension of conceptual thinking. This is often the practice after a practitioner has a direct taste of the luminous Presence, or non-dual awareness. The tendency will be to drop all thoughts to rest in a state of naked awareness. However, this is not the same as the non-conceptuality of emptiness. Emptiness is non-conceptuality, but this refers to the emptying of false concepts from penetrative wisdom into the twofold emptiness of self and phenomena.

It should be noted that when “the disease of non-conceptuality” is spoken earlier in this document, it is referring to the aspect of coarse conceptual thinking and labelling. It is possible for example to suspend coarse conceptual thoughts and still perception is divided into a subject and object, in fact, one may experience oneself as a separate Witness of thoughts and perceptions. Or, even in a non-dual state, one can still reify an ultimate nondual subjectivity, or the objectivity of PCE.

As John Tan wrote, “The lingo is different. Like I said, for us non-conceptuality is not non-dual [and] is not non-inherent. For the Tibetan masters, conceptual construct implies duality and inherency and labeling.”

Soh Wei Yu: “In the Bodhicittavivarana (may not be a text from the same Nagarjuna who composed Mulamadhyamakakarika - see Nagarjuna Works), Nagarjuna explains emptiness to be the absence of conceptualization.” 

John Tan: “I think most Tibetan Masters understand that way [emptiness as the absence of conceptualization]

When Tibetans use the word conceptual, it means dualistic, it means characteristics, it means inherent, it means names and labels” 

Soh Wei Yu: “[conceptuality] refers to perceived, perceiver, characteristics and origination, substantive reality” 

“Actually the whole issue lies in how you understand mmk whether as:

1.  Freedom from self-nature" or 
2.  Freedom from elaborations/conceptualities

 Sad to say if understood from 2 then one is only restricted to silence or mysticism beyond speech.  If understood from 1, then it will include 2 (non-conceptual) as evident in ATR phases of insights, anatta into no-mind of pure empty appeaeance -A and total exertion of +A.  This is because freedom from "self nature" will trigger insights of non-locality, Intimacy, embodiedment and total participation as well. Why?

Because without self/essence? There can't be dual therefore non-dual and non-conceptual; there can't be locality/time as well as seamless intimacy of everything.

If you contemplate deeply you will know.

Soh Wei Yu: Even anatta insight is more of 1.. the 2 if divorced from 1 becomes disease of non conceptuality you warned more than 10 years ago, right?

John Tan: Yes.

John Tan: What Tibetan Buddhism meant by word “conceptualities”.

One of the biggest issue about freedom from all elaborations/conceptualities is the idea of what the Tibetan Buddhism meant by "conceptualities".  They don't actually mean by what western thoughts or how we commonly understand -- a symbolic layer over "something".   It actually meant imputed designation that is closely linked to self-nature. 

So when u hear "conceptualities" always link to self-nature.  That is y whenever explanations are made by Tibetan teachers, they always ended up explaining and relating to self-nature when they explain "conceptualities". 

Even Mipham or Longchenpa I realized they are actually talking about that. I just hope one day this can be made clear by teachers as well as translators as it is extremely misleading to separate "conceptualities" from "self-nature" in these (Tibetan) teachings.

Elizabeth Napper: Dissolving ignorance requires a realization of the truth rather than merely thought suppression.

The process of eradicating avidyā (ignorance) is conceived… not as a mere stopping of thought, but as the active realization of the opposite of what ignorance misconceives. Avidyā is not a mere absence of knowledge, but a specific misconception, and it must be removed by realization of its opposite. In this vein, Tsongkhapa says that one cannot get rid of the misconception of 'inherent existence' merely by stopping conceptuality any more than one can get rid of the idea that there is a demon in a darkened cave merely by trying not to think about it. Just as one must hold a lamp and see that there is no demon there, so the illumination of wisdom is needed to clear away the darkness of ignorance.

John Tan: On Freedom from Elaborations. 

John Tan: "Michael Hernandez that is another problem.  Let's take all 3 major representatives -- Mipham of Nyingma, Tsongkhapa of Gelug and Dharmakirti of Yogacara. Each has his own definition. To Dharmakirti, linguistic and inference cognition is conceptual, perception is non-conceptual.  Mipham has 3 categories of conceptualities if u studied them, I shall not elaborate here.  To Tsongkhapa, all cognitions both conception and perception are conceptual.  That is y Tsongkhapa sees everything as dependently originated and conventional and negation of intrinsic as ultimate as nothing isn't conceptual and dependent.

Yet the so called "conceptuality" they all agreed that when dissolved that will give rise to non-conceptual gnosis is actually "the very subtle tendency to dualify" which imo is no different from "inherent existence".

As for me, after all these years of sorting out I prefer to retrict "conceptual" definition to mental activities that relate to linguistic, mental inference and labelling which is closer to our daily usage.  I do not consider deep karmic tendencies as "conceptual".

For the ineffable beyond speech, there is nothing that can be said as it is the termination of all words and the way of leaping to that can be by koan or by way of negation and deconstruction.  We can also do somatic or energy practices.

…

John Tan: Why isn't Heart Sutra points directly to the Heart but instead points to freedom from all elaborations?

John Tan: Do you know why?

Soh: oic... malcolm just said basically inexpressibility is like pointing to the lack of inherent existence.

Malcolm:

“Dharma is not a via negativa. Dependent origination = emptiness.

Inexpressibility simply means that we cannot point to anything and declare “this is how this appearance is.” It means there is nothing behind the relative to describe, and it means that descriptions of appearances fail to capture the reality of those appearances. But there is certainly nothing behind nor beyond them, just as there is nothing behind a mirage, illusion, etc., but causes and conditions that lack inherent existence themselves.

There is no source, no pure love, or anything like it. The highest manifestation of consciousness is a person who has realized how things are 100%, in other words, a buddha.

Now, to the extent that Buddhas are motivated by love, the wish that sentient beings be happy, we can say they are embodiments of love. But there is nothing at all mysterious about that, just as there is nothing mysterious about a mother’s love for an only child.”

Soh: no inherent existence is the key to experience the heart as all appearance. so emptiness is form

John Tan: Yes

John Tan: Here, "ineffable" is in the same vein as our inability to communicate the "sweetness" of sugar or the "sourness" of lemon, not about any transcendental ground that is beyond. 


John Tan: Freedom from Elaboration vs Emptiness of Self-Nature.

John Tan: Imo it is different insight, different emphasis and and different praxis, but result is the same. Both will clear certain obscurations that r not easy to c.

For freedom of all elaborations is like insight of anatta extended to all phenomena where not only conceptual notion of self is deconstructed but also phenomena, events, cause and effect...etc. One comes face to face to primordial suchness (pure appearances). In order words, the full maturity of anatta therefore it is most intuitive and direct to ATR ppl and why I like Mipham in the first place.

But I when I started studying Tsongkhapa I realized empty of self-nature is different. Both conceptual and non-conceptual, imagined appearances and pure appearances share a single space-like taste of emptiness (essencelessness). Whereas for freedom from all elaborations, they r "irreconcilable".

Therefore followers of Tsongkhapa, they will have no such issue about Andre first point (and there r other issues):

"It feels odd, right? How can conceptuality or lack thereof have anything to do with the way things arise or manifest?"

Y? Because it is precisely this essencelessness that manifestion is possible. It is because of corelessness the dependent arising is possible.

Like what I wrote to u and yin ling:

In addition to having this taste, u may want to explore "empty of self-nature" from an experiential angle rather than analysis.

Be in anatta and while in the bliss of non-dual, see how radically different is the music and the vivid scenery; how thought is markedly different from sensations and smell; how a "shopping mall" can "transmute" into a "carpark"?

Ask urself how all these are even possible? So seamless and instantaneous is the "morphing", simply miraculous!

Ask urself again, how is this possible at all if there is essence? Let the insight of "essencelessness" permeates ur entire being and heal all ur clogged up energies.

Then look at thoughts and conceptualities. See how malleable thoughts and conceptual ideas are and see how they freely manifest. How are all these even possible if there is "essence"?

Next look at dependent arising. How is it possible to even originate in dependence so seamlessly? Feel the "essencelessness" and feel the "magic" and wonder. U must feel "essencelessness", not think essencelessness.

Then u will understand the intent of Nagarjuna. There will be no arguments. U will realize that only because of "essencelessness" are all these possible. U will understand it is precisely that there is no self-nature, there is causal efficacies; because it is dream-like, there is all these vivid appearances and happenings.

Anyway that is just my opinion.

John Tan: Don't go argue and over emphasize for each has their own path.

John Tan: One is like horizontal breadth to all phenomena of anatta while the other is like vertical depth of anatta.

-->>This can perhaps be summarized by saying that dependent arising and the 'aproximate ultimate' (emptiness as nisvabhava) are indeed synonymous (since they are conceptual equivalents), while the actual ultimate (emptiness as nisprapanca or 'freedom from elaborations') has no synonyms whatsoever, since it is not a conceptual object at all.

Yes. Only spontaneous presence and natural perfection. There is not even knowingness or apprehension.


John Tan: Difference between freedom from conceptualization vs non-conceptuality. 

Soh Wei Yu: it is freedom from conceptualization by seeing that growth and decay are not self-existent by its own side but but merely imputed. It’s like seeing sun and sunray as cause and effect, solid, separate, causal.. but when seen as dependently designated then both sun and sunray are just empty seamless exertion

John Tan: So what is the difference from non-conceptuality

Soh Wei Yu: one is a nonanalytical nonconceptuality which can be just a state like shamatha, the other type of nonconceptuality is like insight that leads to perception shift which you say is the tibetan version of nonconceptuality

John Tan: So do you understand the difference when you read non-conceptual as freedom from extremes, the middle way. From the normal shamatha non-conceptuality. One is non-arisen analytical and one is Non-analytical

Soh Wei Yu: ic..

John Tan: When does deconstruction stop?

Soh Wei Yu: analytical cessation

John Tan: How is it like?

Soh Wei Yu: the view of the essence, that phenomena exists on its own side and has its own causal powers must be penetrated then whatever perception is free from inherent self/Self/background, and foreground too is non-arisen like moon-reflections.. appearing but nothing existing by its own side, nothing there, just seamless exertion”

"Buddhism penetrates deeper and look at how the very idea of "real" and "existence" mean and how it confuses the mind. Vedanta’s idea of world is illusory is not as penetrative.

John Tan: How the mind reifies conventions in various ways on which self as a construct is most crucial imo.

If you start from phenomena and object, it may not be that obvious, direct and experiential.

Then one has to really look into the dual purpose of how deconstruction takes place and why emptiness is taught as in the chariot analogy. This part is not necessarily the intention of emptiness teaching but I find that it can't be just a coincidence for it to be taught that way. Anyway it is an excellent semblance of appearance is like conceptually 🤣.

Then you have to look into the depth of no agency.

No need to keep convincing ppl.

Refine your understanding and experience. There are far deeper depths to explore.

You don't have to go too deep into madhyamaka but there are certain aspects you need to understand. Then you will clearly see that the entire purpose is to cease reifications and free one from extremes.

However many can still land as affirmative negation. What you have to be clear is to understand the entire purpose is to see through conventionalities and free oneself from conceptualities naturally, not to affirm anything... their non-affirmative negation.  Once the mind understand essence is just a view, mind can never hold, then when one is introduced to presence, the understanding will be entirely different.

I have told you many times there are 2 levels, one is mind level release and the other is presence.  Both are equally important. In fact the mind level release and clear discernment of that level is very crucial.  Otherwise you have all these I AM misconception everywhere.

If we do not understand the meaning of non-conceptualities properly, then we will end up [having] the non-conceptuality in I AM, one mind, dualistic mind...

So you must differentiate the non conceptualities that arise from seeing through reifications and the rest.  It is like heaven and earth sort of difference. 🤣

So both levels require the wisdom that sees through constructs, otherwise non-conceptuality is not the non-conceptuality I am talk about and presence is the not presence I am talking about also.” 

John Tan: Non-conceptuality is not simply non-conceptuality as in freedom from labeling but a freedom from the blinding spell of seeing things in terms of 4 extremes from reified designations.

“Wonder why K sees "things" are only conceptual designations as an issue. In fact that is key to understanding prasangika madhyamaka and in fact only after insight of anatta can one fully accept this profound insight. But it is not how Mr. J explains and understands.

We must accept that all are mere imputations but from the insight of anatta, not from the insight of substantialist view. "Phenomena" is understood differently from our general English usage, "phenomenon" in Buddhism in general is object possessing identifiable characteristic and therefore having essence that is findable. However in Prasangika it is said that phenomena are merely names and imputations. But "mere" imputation in Prasangika cannot be understood apart from its dependencies. This dependency is key and is what dependent arising and emptiness are about.

When Prasangika says that things or phenomena are just mere labels, names, designations or imputations, it is not as we understood in common English terminology, rather, it is to be understood from the perspective of dependent designations, not just designations. Without understanding this dependencies, we are not understanding what is meant by "mere designations". That is, it is mere name/designation/imputation because the designated referent as an entity when sought can never be found apart from its basis of designation. This basic understanding must be there and must go into our inmost mindstream. And only direct insight of anatta can understand the significance.

Therefore the non-conceptuality is not simply non-conceptuality as in freedom from labeling but a freedom from the blinding spell of seeing things in terms of 4 extremes from reified designations. This extends to all phenomena be it conditioned or unconditioned phenomena. As for non-conceptuality, there are fierce debates between Gorampa and Tsongkhapa. There is also Mipham's view of non-conceptuality but these masters agree that the mode of non-conceptuality is a very specific and special mode of intuitive insight that relates to freedom of extremes, not just imageless bare mode perception.” 

John Tan: Necessary to uproot intellectual obscurations before one can naturally rest in appearances. 

Soh Wei Yu: What do you think, I think malcolm is saying like at the end of the analysis there is no more concepts and then rest in nonconceptual empty clarity

Soh Wei Yu: Its like andre view

John Tan: Yes that is dzogchen view

John Tan: That is also my view lol

John Tan: But to uproot the intellectual obscurations before one can naturally rest in appearances.

John Tan: One can have the view but to claim pre-maturely is a different matter.

Soh Wei Yu: I see.. ya i agree

John Tan: If one simply has a conceptual understanding of freedom from extremes via seeing dependencies, that is not uprooting ignorance.

John Tan: Read what Andre wrote...quite good. I think he shouldn't engage too much on conceptualization, if he already feels transparent, borderless and spacious,  should just practice resting in ease as dimensionless free floating appearances.

Soh Wei Yu: You mean the posts i posted in blog?

John Tan: Yes

John Tan: For you, don't try to experience more. You don't have to do anything, just relax and be natural and allow luminous appearances self manifest...feel the vivid sharpness and radiance, be light and free.

Nagarjuna: Verses on consciousness from Bodhicittavivarana.

“The cognizer perceives the cognizable;
Without the cognizable there is no cognition;
Therefore why do you not admit
That neither object nor subject exists [at all]?

The mind is but a mere name;
Apart from it's name it exists as nothing;
So view consciousness as a mere name;
Name too has no intrinsic nature.

Either within or likewise without,
Or somewhere in between the two,
The conquerors have never found the mind;
So the mind has the nature of an illusion.

The distinctions of colors and shapes,
Or that of object and subject,
Of male, female and the neuter -
The mind has no such fixed forms.

In brief the Buddhas have never seen
Nor will they ever see [such a mind];
So how can they see it as intrinsic nature
That which is devoid of intrinsic nature?

"Entity" is a conceptualization;
Absence of conceptualization is emptiness;
Where conceptualization occurs,
How can there be emptiness?

The mind in terms of perceived and perceiver,
This the Tathagatas have never seen;
Where there is the perceived and perceiver,
There is no enlightenment.

Devoid of characteristics and origination,
Devoid of substantiative reality and transcending speech,
Space, awakening mind and enlightenment
Possess the characteristics of non-duality.”

John Tan: Long conversation regarding the differences between conceptual imputations and conceptualities.

Mr. AA posted: When all of these confused conceptual imputations dissolve, there is nothing more you have to do. To gain realization, there is no place you have to go to: When conceptual fabrications dissolve, that is realization. There is no realization apart from that. This is because what is to be realized is essential reality free of conceptual fabrications. So when conceptual fabrications dissolve, inconceivable reality is realized. And, although it is called “essential reality beyond concepts,” this essential reality does not truly exist either. There really is nothing to realize. - Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche

John Tan: Mr. AA, is there any difference between conceptual imputations and conceptualities?

Mr. AA: I'm not sure. Perhaps imputations are deeper and carry emotional involvement and identity, while conceptualities are mere functional thoughts. What do you have in mind?

Mr. R: John Tan, conceptualities are concepts like meanings of words which have functional value like Mr. AA said and allow us to have these conversations by understanding concepts. Conceptual imputations are when these are mistaken for reality and filter our sense experience assuming selves, inherently existing things, dualities and so on.

John Tan: Thks Mr R. So should one be free from conceptualization or free from conceptual imputations? And what do you think the "freedom" here means with reference to Gillies reply:

1. Not being affected and dissolve the grasping or

2. Completely eliminates that layer of imputation/imagination/conceptualization or

3. No longer see objectively independent reality out there. How does freedom relate to seeing through "objectively independent reality"?

Mr. AA: John Tan, you asked Mr. R, but let me explore it also. Imputations are to be abandoned because they actively fabricate and distort experience, they add symbolic and dualistic dimensions to the bare field of appearances. Conceptuality is a mere set of conventional meanings used for the sake of communication. However, in a realized mind, except for sheer communication, I'd say even concepts dissipate - there is no linguistic overlay established upon appearances. There's just the luminous insubstancial display. There is no notion of "thingness" and thus no subsequent notion of substance, function, name, etc.

First the grasping dissolves, but as solidity and thingness are seen through, all imagination and conceptualization dissolve too. An antidote may initially be applied, but it too is eventually dropped.

The freedom that sees through "objectively independent reality" is freedom from a sense of separation, duality, constriction and limitation. Because "a world out there" necessarily implies "a self in here", and that sense of embodiment ("I am body") and localization ("I am here and not there or everywhere") is constricting and limiting. When seeing through solidity, duality and separation, an intimacy (no space) and immediacy (no time) steps in, and experience is relieved both of internal splits (inner/outer, subject/object, mind/matter) and external splits (this experience / the rest of the universe, this experience / other experiences). No center, but also no edge.

John Tan: Yes Mr.AA, I agree with most of what you said, just 3 points:

1. Primordial state, original face.

What does it mean to to be without the imagined and imputed? It is simply one's primordial state, always and already so despite non-recognition. So sometime the mental mind can't get around, it can't see the relationship.😂

So the path can be directly pointing to one's original face or to rid from all imputed imagined artificialities.

But the direct leap out of the imputed layer is often not exhaustive and thorough, many blindspots and hindrances. Therefore a short cut can often turns out to be a longer cut.

2. Unmade, natural and spontaneous

I agree that without imputations, there is no boundaries. Therefore all experiences are open and spacious and without the layer of the imagined, whatever appears is pristine and pellucid, transparent and crystal.

In addition to that, purge of all imputed artificialities, whatever appears is also unmade and unconditioned, natural and spontaneous.

3. Seeing through duality and seeing through inherency to me is not the same and has different experiential tastes.

When we say "the lightning is flashing", there are no two parts - "lightning" and "flashing", the flashing is the lightning.

When we say "the mover and the movement", there are no two parts - "mover" and "movement", the mover is the movement.

Same for the anatta insight, hearer hearing sound. There are no 3 parts, no hearer hearing sound, the hearer is the hearing is the sound.

That is seeing through thingness, agency and action.

But seeing through duality like inner/outer, left/right, entry/exit, object/subject is different. When the line of demarcation that divides dissolved, experience turns non-dual but sense of "thingness" can still remain intact quite strongly imo.

So this teaching of exhausting "thingness" is quite unique, it is not just doing away with duality or conceptualities in bare attention or being naked in awareness or having pure conscious experience (pce).

Last question:

What if one does not go through the path of seeing through mental imputation and reification?

Any other ways to free oneself from the sense of agency-action, duality and boundaries?
Got to go, late for work. Thks for sharing!

Mr. AA: Any other ways..? I'm not sure. Contemplating conditionality perhaps? It's less conceptual and more experiential.

Yes, seeing non-duality is not the same as seeing no-inherency. The former is more about seeing through the characteristics of subject-object, while the latter seems to be more about seeing through all types of characteristics. What do you suggest to see through "thingness"? I may tend to fall into PCE's (pure consciousness experiences).

John Tan: I think you have explored and are familiar with the different deconstruction methods and yes DO (general dependent origination) is an excellent tool for deconstruction. It deconstructs without ignoring diversities. In DO, one feels the deep intimacy and connectedness with the diversities, yet everything dissolves into a seamless formation of a total situation. Everything includes the sense of self and others, hereness and nowness, time and space, mind and body, physical and materiality and so and and so forth.

But I am not looking at DO. In the Taoism YouTube (The Philosophy of Flow and Wu Wei) that Soh posted, Jason Gregory provides another perspective to look at the agency-action issue. The emphasis is more on habitual repetition into elimination of the agent from the action/activity.

But I am not referring to that as well. I am looking more on the non-attachment aspect, the freedom from gain/loss, success/failure, pride and fear in any endeavour. Practicing that way, the gap between the agent and action will also be gradually reduced to none, into the flow of actionless action.

As for falling into PCEs, there is nothing wrong falling into PCEs imo; just how uncontrived and effortless, how natural and spontaneous the PCEs are. More importantly, are the PCEs endowed with deep wisdoms that sees through:

1. self (anatta)

2. phenomena (chariot analogy)

3. characteristics (redness of a flower). The lurid redness that appears to stick to a red flower seems to be an inherent part of the flower. But is it? There is neither redness out there nor in here. at the flower, nor on the mind, nor...

4. the sematics/meanings of conventionalities

5. appearances (experienctial emptiness). Appears but not found.

To me over-emphasis of non-conceptualities (too early) is an extreme and can be a great disservice as it "bypasses" those valuable insights that see through reifications and semantic/meaning of conventionalities.

But seeing through "thingness" moderates this extremity, it is like the middle path between conceptual and non-conceptualities.

Eventually and gradually, everything too will be de-constructed; no thoughts and concepts, calmly and evenly into transparent pristine appearances in natural spontaneity.

Mr. AA: I don't understand why can't redness be in the mind - not intrinsically so, of course.

Mr. GG: I guess its because "redness" would be another "thing".

John Tan: Yes Mr.AA, I am referring to intrinsically and inherently. That said, you may also want to look deeper into point 4 and compare it with the de-construction of "thingness/inherent-ness" of my earlier message:

1. The very idea of "in", the very idea of "from" or the idea of "produce" are all sematics of conventionalities. We have mistaken "meanings" of these conventions as undeniable "reality" but they too are imputed. The mind thinks surely even without labels and designations, there is still the actuality of being "in" something, somewhere but this is not true. "In-ness" too is a formation formed from "mental constructions + sensations". They can similarly be de-constructed.

If a mind free from all these sematics of conventionalities or total exhaustion of conceptualities, what is experience like?

It is not "knowingness" nor a "not knowing mind", but just liberating all sematics of conventions and simply resting as mere clean, pure, pellucid sense of vivid radiance (in absorption)?

2. Seeing through "inherent-ness/thingness" which is what I said in my earlier message. 

If you are interested, you can explore into them otherwise just treat it as some blah blah blah..🤣

Mr. AA: Yes, redness as a concept is totally imagined. And yet, a mere appearance is present. We can't say, of course, where it appears, or what it is, etc. Those would all be designations. But conventionally, it is indeed an appearance in mind. And I've seen John and Soh talking about such example, but how they get to the "unarisen" insight always eludes me.

John Tan: All appearances are like a finger drawing a circle in thin air, mere occurrences. Even the solid vivid sensations of "hardness", appears (in zero dimension) but are no where to be found - unarisen.

Mr GG: The ultimate fairer is the free empty heart. And I am not being romantic but purely "technical". Where else are all burdens shed?

Mr AA: John Tan, I resonate very much with the investigation of our sense of localization, embodiment (feeling to be inside a body), physicality, direction / perspective ("I am here looking there"), etc. You seemed to touch it, when talking about "in-ness", "from" and existing "somewhere".

These are sensitive topics to me, as they relate to notions of space, solidity, etc. I like very much the line of inquiry "is experience happening anywhere?", for example. Can you explore it a bit?

Mr GG: At this point I find it quite useful to resort to "being awareness" (I think you call it PCE?). Such awareness is seeing through the luminosity of "things". But this is still a "doing", right? The "problem" with this is that there is a subtle duality awareness/stuff-being-awared. Then some may come up with the notion that awareness is not other then what is being awared. That there is only awareness. And here, I guess, is where inherency comes in. Fundamentally, is there an awareness at all? Or such awareness was also jsut a skillful means, a pointer?

If there is not such inherent awareness, then what is here? Is there any kind of measurable dimension that could be established? etc...

John Tan: Mr. AA, what I am talking about is the phenomelogy of day to day mumdane experiences, nothing transcendental.

I'm merely looking at how mental constructs created by our language structures and social conventions define and shape our moment to moment of experiences.

When we say our body is having such and such sensations, the mind really thinks in terms of containment. When we try to search for the referent we called "body", we realized there is no "body" apart from the dancing and fluxing sensations. So again, there are no two parts -- body and sensations; what we designate as "body" is just these sensations.
Once the mind sees through this "body construct", the sense of "in-ness" also dissolves. Sensations are simply present, no where, zero dimension. Same for "self/Self" as a background.

Just this experiential taste of thorough deconstruction is enough to take up my whole life. 🤣

As a side note, in Taoism there is the art of "sit and forget" 坐忘. To sit and forget the "body" is difficult, to see through mental constructs is much easier once we get a hang of it and it is more penetrating and insightful.

Ok Mr.AA, been chatting too much. Thks for the exchanges.

John Tan: Mr GG, to me to be without dual is not to subsume into one and although awareness is negated, it is not to say there is nothing.

Negating the Awareness/Presence (Absolute) is to not let Awareness remain at the abstract level. When such transpersonal Awareness that exists only in wonderland is negated, the vivid radiance of presence are fully tasted as the transient appearances; zero gap and zero distance between presence and moment to moment of ordinary experiences and we realize that "presence" has always only been a convention for these vivid ordinary experiences.

Then mundane activities -- hearing, sitting, standing, seeing and sensing, become pristine and vibrant, natural and free.


John Tan: Important to sort out and discern clearly between the conventional and the ultimate.

John Tan: André A. Pais, yes essencelessness as "antidote" for the mind in confusion.  Since conventional things are empty, they are neither same nor different but merely designated as same or difference.  So emptiness of the conventional is ultimate.  Hence look at the nature of the dream itself, not anything apart from the dreams.  So to the gelug, the conventional and the emptiness of the conventional are enough, why the need for the cessation of the conventional? 😝

There are 2 parts imo: 

1. The empty nature of the conventional is primordially free from notions of sameness and difference.  So no need to have another state other than realising the nature of the conventional.

2.  The implications and power of designations and its relationship with the mind.

The mind must clearly see both to willingly release and relief itself. Without this clear seeing, willingness does not arise and without this willingness, the mind can't let go. 

But there is another part of the story.  That relates to the unmade and unconditioned free from all conceptualities and notions that Mr.GG promotes 😝.  That must be clearly differentiated from "not thinking" or simply being "non-conceptual", nor is it a neutral state that immobilizes one's discernment. 

The unmade, is not lost in the conventional and not gained in the non-conceptual -- no entry nor exit point.  There is no training needed and no path to it; no ladder to climb and no goal to achieve, precisely as this is what natural spontaneity is not. Yet it is not a beyond state in wonderland, just the marvelous on spot appearances right in the relative and day to day mundane activities. In the realm of natural spontaneity, whatever seen, heard, smelled, sensed and tasted are all unique masterpieces of art, magic and miraculous beyond descriptions.

But this should not deny one from the conventional and there is no way to deny the conventional.  In the conventional and conceptual world, everything is "made" and "artificial".  Since they are conventional and "created", there is journey to travel, conventions to learn, goals to achieve and most importantly, one needs to arise the wisdom, that can help us navigate, sort out and discern clearly the conventional and the ultimate. 

So my last question, if ultimately you have to re-enter the conventional after transcending of the conceptual, do you end up like what the gelug says? 🤣

What emptiness is NOT

• Emptiness is not a substance
• Emptiness is not a substratum or background
• Emptiness is not light
• Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness
• Emptiness is not the Absolute
• Emptiness does not exist on its own
• Objects do not consist of emptiness
• Objects do not arise from emptiness
• Emptiness of the "I" does not negate the "I"
• Emptiness is not the feeling that results when no objects are appearing to the mind
• Meditating on emptiness does not consist of quieting the mind

(Source: Non-Dual Emptiness Teaching, by Greg Goode)

John Tan added:
Emptiness is not a path of practice
Emptiness is not a form of fruition

Kyle Dixon: Post-equipose one realizes that phenomena have been non-arisen from the very beginning.

“Right, because in recognition of dharmatā it is intimately known that phenomena have been non-arisen from the very beginning. Ergo, attempting to will phenomena to be empty is functioning through the presupposition that there is something which actually needs to become empty. In such an act, which is executed from the standpoint of mind, all that is accomplished is reification of a subject relating to an object, which means one has constructed a fixed reference point. In the eyes of Atiyoga, the view is stupid because it fails to recognize uncontrived dharmatā, and so the individual attempts to discover dharmatā through contrived effort. 

For example; Jigme Lingpa states:

"Here the external forms that are perceived are not designated as empty of self. When emptiness is made an intellectual object, the form and emptiness aspects of the object arise in the intellect. However since the perceived forms have no intrinsic characteristics, those forms should not mix with the intellect. Therefore the statement, 'Emptiness is not other than form, nor form other than emptiness,' should be taken as an axiom"

He also states that from the standpoint of vidya; "appearances are not cut with the razor of emptiness", rather, they are known to have been empty from the very beginning (although the definitive expression of their emptiness may not be ascertained until later in the path. Either way, the meditation of Dzogpa Chenpo is resting in uncontrived dharmatā). 

"In the gol shor tshar gcod seng ge'i ngar ro, Jigme Lingpa enumerates four mistaken approaches to emptiness, which he calls the 'four ways of straying [shor sa bzhi].' These are borrowed from the Mahāmudrā tradition, where they are to be found at least as far back as Dagpo Tashi Namgyal (1512-87), who enumerates them in his Legshe Dawai Özer. They are: (i) straying into the condition where emptiness is an object of knowledge, (ii) straying into taking emptiness as the path, (iii) straying into taking emptiness as an antidote, and (iv) straying into taking emptiness as a seal."- Sam Van Schaik”  


Greg Goode: Advaita ‘oneness’ vs Buddhist ‘freedom from dualistic extremes’.

“The most common connotation of "nonduality" is "oneness" or "singularity." Many teachings state that everything is actually awareness; those teachings are nondual in the "oneness" sense in which there are no two things.

But there is another sense of "nonduality." Instead of nonduality as "oneness," it's nonduality as "free from dualistic extremes." This entails freedom from the pairs of metaphysical dualisms such as essentialism/nihilism, existence/non-existence, reification/annihilation, presence/absence, or intrinsicality/voidness, etc. These pairs are dualisms in this sense: if you experience things in the world in terms of one side of the pair, you will experience things in the world in terms of the other side as well. If some things seem like they truly exist, then other things will seem like they truly don't exist. You will experience your own self to truly exist, and fear that one day you will truly not exist. Emptiness teachings show how none of these pairs make sense, and free you from experiencing yourself and the world in terms of these opposites. Emptiness teachings are nondual in this sense.

For those who encounter emptiness teachings after they've become familiar with awareness teachings, it's very tempting to misread the emptiness teachings by substituting terms. That is, it's very easy to misread the emptiness teachings by seeing "emptiness" on the page and thinking to yourself, "awareness, consciousness, I know what they're talking about".

Early in my own investigations I began with this substitution in mind. With this misreading, I found a lot in the emptiness teachings to be quite INcomprehensible! So I started again, laying aside the notion that "emptiness" and "awareness" were equivalent. I tried to let the emptiness teachings speak for themselves. I came to find that they have a subtle beauty and power, a flavor quite different from the awareness teachings. Emptiness teachings do not speak of emptiness as a true nature that underlies or supports things. Rather, it speaks of selves and things as essenceless and free.”

- excerpt from  Non-Dual Emptiness Teaching, by Greg Goode

Greg Goode: Emptiness and Awareness-based teachings are different and separate. 

Emptiness and awareness are separate teachings. There are cases, such as Dzogchen and Scott Kiloby’s Living Realization teachings, where they are combined. But this is not always done.

What I find interesting is that either one of these paths, awareness, and emptiness, can function just fine without help from the other. Neither one needs the other. Neither one can be reduced to the other. Neither one requires an external standard that reconciles them. They don’t need to be reconciled any more than French and German need to be reconciled.” 

– excerpt from The Emptiness Teachings

John Tan: Awareness and Emptiness teachings require separate pointings. 

“They [awareness and emptiness teachings] are separated as I said and require separate pointings. Dependent arising and emptiness is not pointing at awareness but we have to apply this knowledge to understand the nature of awareness. This is what I realized.”

Acarya Malcolm Smith: The term ‘non-dual’ has a different meaning in Buddhadharma vs other spiritual traditions. 

“Nondualism, as an ontological position, is foreign to all Buddhist teachings. Even the first verse of the rig pa khyu byug points this "The primal nature (prakṛti) of diversity is nondual." You cannot have a nondual nature of diversity if there is no diversity.

The nonbuddhist nondualism asserts that all phenomena are just one thing, "one without a second," and that all perception of diversity is a product of false consciousness. This ontological substance is called brahman, or shiva, whatever.

The term "nondual" in Buddhadharma refers to an absence of a pair, such as being and nonbeing, subject and object, pure and impure. Such pairs are not established. In absence of establishing existence, for example, there cannot be nonexistence. In absence of establishing a subject, there cannot be an object, and vice versa; and in absence of establishing purity, there cannot be impurity. But when we say these pairs are not established, we are not asserting there is some foundation or basis which itself established.” 

Kyle Dixon: ‘Non-dual’ in Buddhism pertains to emptiness and non-arising along with the nature of phenomena being free from extremes. 

Understanding “non-dual” in the Buddhist sense as pertaining to emptiness and non-arising is key.

If the nature of phenomena is free from extremes it is free from dual extremes hence “non-dual.”

Also dharmins and their respective dharmatā are neither the same nor different, hence “non-dual.”

As mentioned non-Buddhist non-duality is ontological because it concerns a single nature that is free of division... while “non-dual” in the Buddhist sense is epistemic because it relates to an accurate knowledge of phenomena. If that knowledge is absent then duality is perceived.

Soh Wei Yu: Emptiness is not an absolute and completely different from Brahman. 

Emptiness is not an Absolute. Unlike systems that teach an Ultimate Reality like Nirguna Brahman that is empty of all attributes except its own true existence as a changeless principle of consciousness, the emptiness of Prasangika Madhyamika does not establish emptiness to be inherently existing, let alone an Absolute. As emptiness simply means that any given conventional self and phenomena are empty of inherent existence by its own side (the import being that ALL self/Self and phenomena are only established via conventional imputation or dependent designation), it is merely a negation of the wrong way of understanding phenomena and not the positing of a certain position regarding how reality inherently exists as. Furthermore, emptiness too is empty: the emptiness of a cup depends on the conventional cup. Emptiness is not some singular inherently existing principle out of which all phenomena are made of or come from. 

Under the system of Prasangika Madhyamika, nothing is left unscrutinized - be it emptiness, Awareness, Consciousness, Brahman, and so on. It demolishes all grounds and leaves no existents to cling on to. Unlike how the Vedantins mistakenly think: the Shunyata or Emptiness of Buddhism is not the via negativa way to arrive at the same ground that adherents of a ‘via positiva’ approach takes.

Rana Rinpoche: The ultimate truth of Buddhism is diametrically opposite of the ultimate truth of Hindu Atman-Brahman/Advaita Vedanta.

The Buddhist ultimate truth is the absence of any such satta, i.e., and ultimately existing thing or ultimate reality. The significance of Shunyata is the absence of any real, independent, unchanging existence (svabhava) and that fact is the ultimate truth of Buddhism, which is diametrically opposite of the ultimate truth of the Hindu Atman-Brahman. So Shunyata or emptiness can never be via negativa, a negative way of describing the Atman-Brahman of Hinduism as Vinoba Bhave and such scholars would have us believe. The meaning of Shunyata found in Sutra, Tantra, Dzogchen and Mahamudra is the same and officially accepted by all four schools of Tibetan Buddhism (except those who adhere to the Shentong view) and that is the Prasangic emptiness of Chandrakirti, i.e., the unfindability of any true existence or simply unfindability (unupalabdhi).

...

Because the same language structure (be it Pali or Sanskrit) and the same analogies are used to express two different paradigms, many Vedantins or scholars of Buddhism with Vedantic backgrounds have been fooled into thinking Buddhist Madhyamika is a re-interpretation of Hindu Vedanta. For example, many like Vinova Bhave the guru revered by the late Prime minister of India Indira Gandhi, perceive Buddhism as a negative way to attain the same goal (via negativa), whereas Hindu Vedanta is the positive way (via positiva). Likes of Bhave and others argue that the Buddhists use negation, whereas the Vedantis use affirmation and therefore the Shunyata of Buddhism is a negative way of talking about the Brahman of the Vedanta.

The issue here is not via negative or positive, but rather approaching two different goals based on two different paradigms, or addressing two diametrically opposed answers to the burning issue of mankind developed from diametrically opposed paradigms. In fact, the Buddha, after engaging in long years of Brahmanic as well as Sramanic meditations, found the concept of Brahman (an ultimately real, unchanging, eternal substratum [paramartha satta] to this ephemeral transient world) inadequate to solve the basic issue of humanity, i.e., suffering (dukkha ). He questioned the very existence of such an eternal substratum and also declared that a search for such an imagined Brahman ( parikalpita atman) was a form of escapism and, therefore, not really spiritual but “Spiritual Materialism”.

Since the concept of Brahman, the truly existent (paramartha satta) is the very foundation of Hinduism (as a matter of fact some form of an eternal ultimate reality whether it is called God or Nature is the basis of all other religious systems). When Buddhism denies such an ultimate reality (paramartha satta) in any form, it cuts at the very jugular veins of Hinduism and all other Theistic systems. Therefore, it cannot be ontologically, epistemologically, and soteriologically said that Buddhism reforms Hinduism.

The affirmation of a ground (asraya) which is really existent (paramartha satta) and the denial that such an existent ground (satta) can be found anywhere, within or without, immanent or transcendent, are two diametrically opposed paradigms, not simply variation or reformations of each other. The Webster Dictionary defines re-form as ‘to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuse.’ The example I have given above of an eternal base without which Hinduism in its own language would be called atheistic (Nastik). Therefore, the denial (without any implied affirmation prasajya pratisheda) of such an eternally existing unchanging base by Buddhism cannot be said to be a reformation, but a deconstruction of the very roots of the Hindu thesis. That is why Buddhism is not a reformation of Hinduism but a paradigm shift from the foundations on which Hinduism is based.

Hindu scholastic polemics assert that without an ultimate eternal reality (pramartha satta), there can be no liberation from the changing, transient Samsara which is an illusion. Therefore, even though the Buddha denied such an ultimate reality, he could have meant only conceptually really existing reality/relative reality, not the eternal ultimate reality, which is beyond concepts. Otherwise there cannot be liberation. The fault with this kind of thinking is that it is measuring the thesis of the Buddha (which is no thesis), or interpreting the Buddha from within the Hindu paradigm, within which, an eternal ultimate reality (paramartha satta) is a necessity for soteriological purpose, i.e., for liberation as Samsara itself is merely an illusion (maya) and cannot liberate us. However the Buddha saw this as a necessary dead-end. Since according to the Buddha, there is no Brahman, such a concept being merely an acquired fabrication (parikalpana) learned from wrong (mithya ) scriptures, hankering after or searching for such a Brahman leads nowhere, let alone liberation. Hence, the Buddhist paradigm if understood correctly, does not require an eternally existing something or other for liberation.

In Buddhism liberation is not about realizing such a ground but rather letting go of all grounds, i.e., realizing the “groundlessness” of Samsara which is not really an illusion per se but “like an illusion” (mayavat). As Nagarjuna puts it aptly in his Magnum Opus, Mulamadhyamakakarika ‘sarva drishti prahanaya yah saddharmam adeshayet.’ That is ‘the Buddha taught out of compassion the true dharma for the sake of letting go of all views.’ (Drishti Parikshya, Investigation of view, chapter 27 verse 30). In the Theravadin Majjhima Nikaya, Dighanakha Sutta and the Aggivacchagotta Sutta , the Buddha himself says that ‘all others leave one view only to hold on to another view but the Tathagata let goes all view and does not grasp to any other view.’ The Phenopindopama Sutra states very clearly that the five aggregates ( pancha skandha), which is the Samsara, is like a bubble, like foam, like an illusion. It does not say the five aggregates are an illusion but “like an illusion”. In fact, according to Buddhism, holding on to any ground is ignorance and is called innate clinging to the concept of a truly existing self (sahaja atman graha).

Therefore, in the Buddhist paradigm, it is not only ‘not necessary’ to have an eternal ground for liberation, but in fact, the belief in such a ground itself is part of the dynamics of ignorance. We now move to another major difference within the two paradigms...”


John Tan: Essence-view is incompatible with Buddhist practice and solving the nature of suffering. 

“To me, I'm a non-sectarian, so I am quite free not having prejudice for/against Theravada, Mahayana or Vajrayana. We get our experience and teaching to release, as well as to relief ourselves from our suffering from a great teaching.

To come to our understanding of what is the fundamental cause of our suffering, and the core teaching of Selflessness is not that straight forward. We experiment and test our paradigm to see if it works. It is a life experience and journey.

In my experience and journey, there is essential two paths. First is taking and seeking comfort in the ultimate and carrying it throughout, and the other, is looking into the fundamental core of suffering and understanding its nature. So there are basically these two - one relies on the essentialist practice that they need to have an ultimate, and the other says no... there is no need to, you just have to understand the nature of suffering. Therefore when we clearly see this, we realize that Buddhism is based on the latter, and the whole development of Theravada and Mahayana is based on such a system. Otherwise there is no difference from other (religions). As such it depends on an individual path and which core system one believes in.

For me, the essence view has in a certain sense proven to not be the way and I greatly appreciate the Buddha's path. To state otherwise would mean that Buddhism is using the view of an essence to solve suffering, which isn't true for me.” 


Recognition of Appearances as One’s Empty Radiance Clarity

John Tan: Important to distinguish between seeing “inseparability” of clarity and emptiness from seeing clarity alone. 

“You have to distinguish between seeing "inseparability" of clarity and emptiness from seeing clarity alone. That is when Mipham is talking about clarity, he is referring to empty clarity which is not the same as seeing Clarity as ultimate. Like when I tell you awareness is natural and free, it does not mean there is another extra awareness other than sound, thoughts, sensations, colors, smells… In other words, there is ongoing awaring in the form of sound, sensations, hardness, softness, coldness, emotions… etc. No awareness… As such we have the issue of saying it cannot be said to be clarity nor other than clarity. To refine and have deeper insight of clarity, therefore requires a paradigm shift. Nothing is being transformed from this to that. Rather it is under what condition, this arises. And understand dependent arising is non-arisen to realize the nature of clarity/phenomena.” 

John Tan: Post Stage 5 is about knowledge of Dependent Origination and Emptiness. 

As stated at the beginning and end of this guide, the 7 stages do not unfold in the same exact linear steps for everyone. For some, it is the reverse. For some practitioners, they may have certain insights into emptiness and dependent origination but lack the direct realization of appearances as one’s radiance clarity. And hence for these people, John Tan said, “...empty clarity is highest teaching. To me [that] is peak of [stage] 5. Post 5 [i.e. stage 6] is [about] knowledge of Dependent Origination and emptiness, which I think is more [of a crucial] key. Roaming in Conventional world in freedom requires deep wisdom that is not covered in the insight of clarity.”. However as John also pointed out, lacking the insights into 5, the understanding of dependent origination and emptiness tends to be intellectual. For these people, a separate pointing to recognise all appearances as one’s empty radiance clarity may be necessary.

John Tan: Journey from anatta to the natural state of spontaneous perfection. 

From anatta to the natural state of spontaneous perfection is essentially to understand the breadth and depth of what hinders and is meant by being "natural". The journey is effectively how an immature mind that is full of all sort of artificialities frees itself into its primordial natural condition that is boundless and free.

Why are there stages? There are stages because it is based on a proliferated mind. The fragmented mind creates stages as that is how it understands and works, it separates and re-connects what that has never been separated. Realizing the illusion of separation, there is no re-connection either. So the self is empty, the other is empty, the line that demarcates them is also empty.

As for investigation into the nature of appearances, perhaps you can elaborate more on what do you mean by appearances?

I think we must also separate direct knowledge of one's empty clarity from the relative conceptual knowledge of mind and how are they "linked". Can Madhyamaka bring about direct recognition of one’s radiance clarity? If not, what is the role of mmk (mulamadhyamakakarika)?

...

In my previous message, I mentioned about anatta and spontaneous perfection as returning to one's natural and authentic condition because I hope you can see it from another angle. 

To some, in the seen, just the seen sounded like a perfect state of concentration through long period of training and practice. To me however, the taste of anatta is the birthright, primordial and natural condition of one's clarity. 

Seeing is just seen, no seer; Hearing is just sound, no hearer. It is the gateway to realize that the mundane is precisely where one's natural radiance is fully expressed. Nothing hidden, nothing beyond and fully manifested. 

What does freedom from reification entail? It is to get rid of all "beyonds", all "backgrounds", all constructs so that we can recognize "face to face" of what's seen, heard, touched... etc as one's empty clarity, not to bring us to an unreachable la la land. So wherever and whenever I see dependent arising and emptiness, I see one's empty clarity.

Some can realize directly one's empty clarity through seeing emptiness, just like case of the insight of anatta, but some can't. If this isn't obvious, then separate pointing is necessary.

Lastly the true practice is in ceaselessly meeting conditions and situations, without that, there is no genuine actualization. Good luck!

John Tan: In phase 6, don't talk about presence.  Talk about the general dependent origination into emptiness.  In terms of experience, fully refine +A and –A (total exertion and non-arising).

"The understanding 'of arising as yuan (conditions)' must be factored to all aspects of our lives. Applying this insight to the six stages of my experiences, you must see them not as indications of stages at all. There are no higher or lower stages, all merely serves as conditions for ‘new insight’ to arise. A practitioner may start from training himself to ‘witness’ the empty nature of phenomena (stage 6) yet still having a clear distinction of observer and observed being dual; but the gradual loosening of ‘solidity’ of all internal or external phenomena having no inherent existence will slowly leads to the non-dual experience."

"Here the highlight must not only be the empty nature of ‘sound’ alone, that luminosity as ‘sound’ must similarly be emphasized. When we stripped-off the symbolic representation of ‘bird’, ‘chirping’, ‘outside’, ‘eyes-organ’, ‘ears-organs’, ‘senate reality’ and merely experience in bare, this is the meditative state of intuitively knowing that quality of being luminous in oneness. Oneness as there is nothing to divide when devoid of these symbolic layering. The depth of the crystal clarity of that pure experience – ‘chirping’ is not what language can convey. The point here is not to bring about a scientific study on the topic of qualia but to have a direct feel of the full absorption in the delight of that clear-luminosity of ‘sound’. It is the ‘depth and degree’ of absorptive-clarity yet non-staying that is most important; not the symbolic understanding of meanings.

John Tan: The mind has the habits of seeing whatever appears as entities and things.  So it first tells us that this habit and tendency must be overcome.  Then it talks about the nature of mind which is quite different from my usage as I directly and literally translate "nature" from the Chinese character 性 (Soh: Nature).  So nature of mind to me is emptiness 空性 (Soh: Empty Nature) and not "clarity".  

Second it spoke of we must realize and identify this "nature of mind" directly, so what it means here by "nature of mind" sounded to me like "明心" (Soh: Apprehending Mind) rather than 见性 (Soh: Seeing Nature).  Therefore when you read, you have to discern correctly.

Next is what has directly experiencing mind (referred in the book as "nature of mind") got to do with mistaking things as true existence and mistaking there is Self/self? Why are things perceived as illusion got to do with "nature of mind (明心) (Soh: Apprehending Mind) here? This is the first question to ask.  In fact post this experience of 明心 (Soh: Apprehending Mind), we become more attached to 心 (Soh: Mind).  So this part must be carefully addressed.

So how should we practice?  That is, is 明心 (Soh: Apprehending Mind) the way and is that wrong emphasis?  If it is then it becomes awareness teaching.

So there are three parts:

1. 明心 (Soh: Apprehending Mind)
2. 见性 (Soh: Seeing Nature) as 悟性空 (Soh: Realizing Empty Nature)
3. Integrate the two

The integration is empty cognizance.  You can never find a constant something somewhere called Cognizant.  So what and where is this cognizant?  

Why does it seems so evasive?

What has it got to do with non-dual experience?

Soh Wei Yu: Oic.. no cognizance in and of itself besides manifestation and aggregates, those aggregates are also empty, non arisen an illusionlike due to its essenceless nature.. not due to awareness

John Tan: Yes.  So anatta is the experiential insight of this and therefore the direct, effortless presencing of every moment.  The view and teaching must make this clear.”

It should however be understood that recognition of all appearances as one’s empty-clarity is not the insight of Stage 6. As John Tan said, “They [Gelugpas/Emptiness teachings] do not require a ground foundational consciousness, do not seek presence, what do they rely on to release?

Soh Wei Yu: The release of the sense of phenomena truly there that can be found when sought, existing with Essence, by itself or on its own side. The conventions are seen to be empty

John Tan: 👍 So in phase 6, don't talk about presence.  Talk about the general dependent origination into emptiness.  In terms of experience, fully refine +A and -A.”

John Tan: Purpose of dependent origination and emptiness is to negate any sort of inherentness and realize the primordial, unconditioned nature of whatever arises. 

Purpose of DO and emptiness is not to subsume all into mind but to negate any sort of inherentness.  That is to realise primordial, unconditioned nature of whatever arises.

Knowing mind (clarity) is not knowing the nature of mind and the nature of mind is not for knowing nor can it be known, learned or studied, that is why it is purging of all views.  It can however be expressed as a negation of all inherent-ness.  Free from all substantialities and extreme, there is just unconditioned expression in natural spontaneity.

Like the previous texts you posted about the "one life".  I think I have discussed this with you before in our early conversations.

We must differentiate and discern experience free from a background and source.

What happened when the background is gone? There is the non-doership aspect and the luminous clarity aspect.

Abscribing all as life is an extrapolation as I told you before.  There is no need to create an alternate source call "one life".  The experienced as being lived by and expression of life is just an experience of non-doership due to freedom from background source.  However one must still be able to discern correct what is unconditioned expression and what is karmic habituation.” 

John Tan: When engaged in the relative and conventional world, see everything as dependently originated.

“When you are free from all views, there is just natural spontaneity free from all elaborations. When engaged in the relative and conventional world, see everything as dependently originated, which is naturally balanced and perfected.” 

John Tan: Verses on overcoming reification and realizing twofold emptiness.

“In ignorance, there is hearer hearing sound.
In anatta, in hearing, only sound.
Yet sound has no true inherent nature (empty),
It is an activity and is that very activity called “hearing”.
Both “hearing and sound” are pointing to the same activity.
Only when seen to have true existence on either side does confusion arise.

In Madhyamaka Emptiness, reification is seen through.

Yet the experiential state of freedom from reification is not expounded.

However, one can have a taste of that freedom from arising insight of anatta since anatta is precisely the freedom from reification of Self/self (First fold Emptiness).

In anatta, seeing is simply the full scenery, in hearing only sound…
thus, always only lights, shape, colors, sounds, scents… in clean purity.

Emptying the object further (second fold) is merely dissolving subtle bond of “externality” that creates the appearance of true existence of objects outside. When “externality” is deconstructed, it is effectively a double confirmation of anatta…

…innerly coreless and outwardly empty, all appearances are still simply sound, lights, colors and rays

In thorough deconstruction, as there is no layer that reifies, there is no conceptuality. Therefore no complication, no confusion, no stains, no boundaries, no center, no sense of dual..
no sense of activity… just self arising.

All collapse into a single sphere of natural presence and spontaneous simplicity.

Whatever appears is
neither here nor now,
Neither in nor out,
Neither arises nor ceases,
In the same space…
non-local, timeless and dimensionless
Simply present…

John Tan: Freedom from duality in experience does not mean you are free from mind/matter duality and the relationship between them.

Soh Wei Yu: I explained i am already way past the phase of i amness realisation in spiritual enlightenment

There is no self within, awareness is just right there where everything is (something like that)

I was very expressive in explaining:
“In the seeing, just colors
In the hearing, just sound
Best of all i am free
There is no center within and no circumference without “

I also had a plan to explain to him that while i do not see essence in phenomena it does not mean i subsume everything into consciousness
Everything is like a chariot so besides the functioning and aggregation of dependent arising on display an “it” essence cannot be found within or without it

That does not mean therefore everything exists only inside some consciousness or some subjectivity

Nor does an essence reside outside in objectivity to be found

It just means besides these empty dependent aggregation in function/appearance/operation an essence cannot be found

So experientially everything is just very vivid and yet essenceless like a mirage or reflection 

Soh Wei Yu: [quoted a few pages from The Fearless Lion’s Roar: Profound Instructions on Dzogchen, the Great Perfection, on the Four Strayings: “The straying point of emptiness’s having the character of a knowable object, The straying point of taking emptiness as the path, The straying point of taking emptiness as a remedy, The straying point of superimposing emptiness.”] This just reminded me of what Mr. A wrote

Soh Wei Yu: From what Mr. A wrote he seems to take emptiness as a remedy

Soh Wei Yu: This seems intellectual.. rather than directly realising whatever appears as empty clarity

John Tan: Yes.  Whatever appears as empty clarity is the whole purpose the teaching imo.  How do you understand this with DO and emptiness? How does it help?

Soh Wei Yu: It’s like what i said about the chariot.. whatever appears does not exist in and of itself.. also doesn’t mean nonexistent.. but rather like chariot merely manifest and functions in dependence but ultimately unfindable. Phenomena may be reified as objectively existent before and even after anatta... but if one realises all directly perceivable phenomena is of the nature of being like chariot, essenceless and dependently originating, but not truly originating.. then whatever appears are vividly seen as a self luminous display of total exertion yet empty or free of the sense of existence and nonexistence, arising and ceasing, etc

John Tan: Yes. From experience, there are 2 effects like I always tell you, one is freeing the mind from essence and substance view, the other is the actual expression of the nature of whatever appears.”

John Tan: However if post anatta and non-dual, it helps one to penetrate further.  Like how it helps me to understand the nature of clarity.  But having an intellectual understanding of emptiness.  How to relook at phenomena and mind and meditate on them.  You will breakthrough further.  When you look at a sensation, hear a sound, taste or vision. When you know emptiness, you have deeper understanding.  When you go through mmk and understand more and more about chariot..

You see and directly authenticate more and more of mind and phenomena.

John Tan: It will loosen the coventional grip on us and deepen our understanding.

John Tan: Emptiness has another dimension if you practice diligently.

John Tan: It is not just walking in park and appreciate space like openness in non-dual mode.

John Tan: Now having non-dual experience or a state of no-mind does not mean finality. We must also free ourselves from many more intellectual obscurations.  other obscurations of cause.  Like having non-dual or no-mind may not free on from the notion of self.  Freeing one from the notion of self, may not free one from the notion of cause.  Freeing one from the notion of cause, may not free one from the notion of existence.  Freeing one from duality, may not free one from non-duality. The color you see is neither inside, nor outside.  It is inside, it is also outside.  It is private, it is also public. So it is neither too.

John Tan: So freedom from insight is different from a blank state.  So in addition to walking in a park, being anatta, borderless and open, non-dual and total exerted, you must also spend time to free up further intellectual obscurations that blind us. 

Soh Wei Yu: Oic.. through mmk?

John Tan: The chariot analogy is enough...but the diamond splitter, neither one nor many...all these ways of ultimate analysis that see through essence can help also. But simple looking and understanding the chariot analogy helps me a lot...it depends on individual. Then authenticate it with your actual experience in anatta.

John Tan: To me it is not to help resolve that appearances are just one's empty clarity but helps to refine my insight on the nature... Our conventional knowledge has cage used into seeing a separate, divided physical and mental world. The knowledge blinds and bind us to an assumed reality that is not easy to break.”

Clearing intellectual obscurity actually requires quite some shamata concentration that enables the mind to see clearly experience and how the conceptual mind process in a slow motion. It is like anatta but more complex issues are seen clearly in real time.

One can be free from subject and object division in experience, but one may not be free from mind-matter duality. There is intellectual mind/matter duality block despite experience being non-dual and anatta. Freedom from duality in experience does not mean you are free from mind/matter duality and the relationship between them.

…
 
John Tan: Yeah I read it. Reflection. Like chariot. Neither exist nor not exist.  Neither cause nor uncaused.  Neither here nor not here.  Neither arise nor not arise.

When you see that there is mind creating mental activities, you see deluded appearances as there is mind and there are mental activities. When you see through mind, you also see through mental activities. When you see through them, there is natural and pure appearances. In Buddhism language, we say mind is empty and so are the mental activities. Like in the case of seer seeing the seen. Hearer hearing sound.

Now what is important is the actual taste, emptiness is not enough, clarity also not enough, non-dual also not enough. It is not only non-dual, it is also not just emptiness, it is also not just clarity.  So most crucial is the wisdom to penetrate all these and taste directly pure appearance. It is all these characteristics... vivid, clean, pure, luminous, non-dual appearances that cannot be be found anywhere. This of course is non-conceptual but non-conceptual is never the goal. So when hearing sound, that sound must be tasted fully then the teaching becomes alive. You should not meddle in text but express in your own words the living experiences.

John Tan: Important to deconstruct subject-action-object and realize everything is just vibrant spontaneous presence but no subject or object, everything is the total exertion of appearance-conditions. 

John Tan: To me subject-action-object is just a structure to help articulate and make sense of the world. I do not see it that way. I see it as total exertion of appearance-conditions, not appearance and conditions.

Soh Wei Yu: You are referring to td unmanifest?

John Tan: Yes

John Tan: If you see object separated from subject or see phenomena apart from mind, no matter how you deconstruct, it is just knowledge. you won't have direct taste of anything.

Soh Wei Yu: But not all conditions are appearing right, some are simply intuited or inferred even when unseen.. so they are merely conventional

John Tan: Of course, there is no way to know all conditions involved.

John Tan: It is simply to say appearance do not just manifest.

John Tan: There is also the experience of spaciousness when you go through the process of deconstructing both subject and object...the experience is like mind body drop.

John Tan: When you say, the car is empty but you are sitting inside it...what do you mean?

John Tan: It is same as no wind is blowing...

John Tan: Or lightning flashing

John Tan: Or spring goes, summer comes...

John Tan: Means you apply the same insight to everything

John Tan: Only only the self...

John Tan: Even movement

John Tan: So your mind is perpetually seeing through constructs, so what happens?

John Tan: Tell me when you say car is empty yet you are sitting on it. you see through the cosntruct, then what happened?

John Tan: When you see through the wind that is blowing...what happened?

John Tan: When you see through summer or weather? What happened?

John Tan: Or I say lightning is flashing, when you really see through that lightning...

Soh Wei Yu: is just the mere appearance.. no reifications

John Tan: Don't think, experience it...

John Tan: you are force into non-conceptuality

John Tan: Like PCE experience...in fact very mindful and watchful when you begin ... you begin to feel the blowing...correct...

John Tan: When i say no lightning flashing... You look at the flashing

John Tan: Correct? Have you actually practice or pay attention, not just blah out a sentence...

John Tan: When you say no summer, you are experiencing the heat, humidity...etc

John Tan: Means you see through the construct but you cannot just think

John Tan: When I say there is no car, I touch the car...what is it..must that ....the color...the leather, the wheels...

John Tan: If you constantly and perpetually into that ...what happened?

John Tan: You are talking about deconstruction of object and phenomena and I am telling you if you see through, what happens...if you only think, you would not understand...

Soh Wei Yu: everything is just vibrant spontaneous presence but no subject or object

Soh Wei Yu: like i dont see solid objects, but just shimmering vibrant colors as vivid empty presence

Soh Wei Yu: and sounds, sensations, etc

John Tan: Yes

John Tan: Then it depends on the depth of experiencing the sensation or appearances themselves

Albert Hong: Differences between ‘freedom from all elaborations/conceptualities -- representation’ and ‘freedom from all elaborations/conceptualities from without self-nature perspective -- presentation’

John Tan: What Albert said about representation and presentation is very apt. There is a big difference in talking about: 

1. freedom from all elaborations/conceptualities -- representation and 
2. freedom from all elaborations/conceptualities from without self-nature perspective -- presentation.

Albert Hong: I've heard teachings on the distinction between a presentation verses a representation. And it's a useful way to understand appearance. Appearance or Form is exactly itself. Exactly a presentation of itself. It isn't a representation like say a still life painting of an orange. There is the actual orange (referent) and the symbol/representation of the orange. This the traditional finger pointing to the moon analogy. But this is also incorrect because there is only ever presentation. 

So even the painting of the orange, which isn't the actual orange is itself a presentation of itself. And the orange is as well. 

When we focus on lets say the presence. then it isn't clear that presence isn't a thing but the very presentation of form. 

And form is nothing but constant activity. So form is forming. Presence is presencing. They aren't distinct. 

But when we reify presence. Then it seems presence is something and everything else is soemthing else. Then we have to naturally unify everything with this presence. 

But that is incorrect because everything is already exactly itself as forming/presencing. 

Albert Hong: So there is no need to emphasize presence as a thing. or even as something special. because it is exactly the forms. 

Albert Hong: If you reify a background. Lets say an absence of a background. Then you make that a reference point in relationship to everything else. 

So it feels and is experienced as an emanationist theory of sorts. Something arises from nothing. Even if it seems non dualistic. You are making a distinction in experience between the two. something and nothing. arising and non arising.


The Four Levels of “The Place Where There is No Heat and Cold”

In the Zen koans, the place of no heat and cold refers to the peak of no-mind up to total exertion. But in light of the understanding of emptiness, we can now delineate four levels of The Place Where There is No Heat and Cold.

1) No cold and heat as either nirodha samapatti or nirvikalpa samadhi (forms of non analytical cessation)

Nirodha Samapatti and Nirvikalpa Samadhi are different, but both belong to the category of non-analytical cessations. In Kevala Nirvikalpa Samadhi, all sensory input and mental concepts are shut, only a formless Awareness remains. With training in meditative absorption, one can abide in Nirvikalpa Samadhi ‘at will’ in the I AM phase, and if the I AM Presence remains uninterrupted even in daily living it is considered ‘Sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi’ (although some explanations of Sahaja implies it is the realization of One Mind). In my understanding, I AM realization fits the criteria for Sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi since there is no longer the sense that the I AM can be lost after Self-Realization, even amidst the chaos of daily life. The formless absorption in Nirvikalpa Samadhi merely serves to intensify the experience of I AM by shutting off other sensory input and concepts, but one’s realization of Self remains unshaken even without entering into a special state of samadhi after the I AM realization.

Whereas, in Nirodha Samapatti (an attainment discussed in the Pali Suttas and Theravada Buddhism at length), as well as MCTB Fruition/Burmese Style cessation, as well as John Tan Stage 3 (Entering into Nothingness), even consciousness is shut and any form of awareness of 'anything' is experienced only after emerging from that state. However, both are temporary forms of absorption and does not entail the liberation from one’s afflictions and causes of affliction (known as taints, kleshas, etc). 

These samadhi states - Nirodha Samapatti, Nirvikalpa samadhi, Fruitions, John Tan Stage 3, etc are various forms of non-analytical cessations.

What is the difference between analytical and non-analytical cessation? Analytical cessation (i.e. Nirvana) refers to the permanent cessation of the emotional afflictions, primarily passion, aggression and delusion, and their latent tendencies giving rise to these afflictions through the release and cessation of ignorance through prajna wisdom (the realization and actualization of anatta and emptiness). 

Here’s an excerpt from Cessation

“Cessation is of two kinds: analytical (Skt. pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha; Tib. སོ་སོར་བརྟགས་པའི་འགོག་པ་, sosor takpé gokpa, Wyl. so sor brtags pa'i 'gog pa) and non-analytical (Skt. apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha; Tib. བརྟགས་མིན་འགོག་པ་, tak min gokpa, Wyl. brtags min 'gog pa).

In his commentary to Mipham Rinpoche’s Khenjuk, Khenpo Nüden writes:

Analytical cessation

This is the unconditioned aspect of the permanent elimination of destructive emotions and other factors to be eliminated, through the force of developing realization of the undefiling path, such as the wisdom of discernment, within the mind.

Non-analytical cessation

This does not refer to the ceasing of latent habitual tendencies as a result of analysis and investigation, but rather to the absence of a given thing in a particular place due to an incompleteness of necessary causes and conditions, as in the case of horns on a horse’s head, for instance. Another example which is mentioned in the commentaries is the fact that other types of consciousness do not arise when the eye-consciousness is distracted by a visual form. This also includes all the various forms of non-existence (or absence), such as the absence of a vase in a particular place.”

2) No cold and heat as cold and heat is subsumed into Pure Subjectivity
 
In systems such as Advaita Vedanta, the objectivity of all phenomena are deconstructed and subsumed into the Pure Subjectivity of pure consciousness. However, Pure Consciousness remains inherently existing and unchanging substratum and substance of everything, just like gold is the substance of necklace. In Advaita, “The world is illusory, Brahman alone is real, Brahman is the world.” - Shankara. The world as a superimposition of name and form is an illusion, Brahman (pure consciousness) alone is real as its true source and substratum, and Brahman is finally revealed to be the only substance of reality/the world (the universe as Self is real). This is different from anatta as in 3). This process of deconstructing objectivity and finally the collapse of the Witness into one seamless awareness results in the realization of One Mind (see John Tan Stage 4).

3) No cold and heat as where cold and heat kills you and manifests its own radiance in anatta

As John Tan wrote in 2013 to Mr. J, “The place where there is no earth, fire, wind, space, water… is the place where the earth, fire, wind, space and water kills “You” and fully shines as its own radiance, a complete taste of itself and fully itself.” This will only become an effortless state after realization of anatta (John Tan Stage 5). Also see the Glossary section for “The Place Where There Is No Cold or Heat”.

4) No cold and heat where cold and heat are thoroughly deconstructed by realizing its non-arising

There is no cold and heat as ‘cold’ and ‘heat’ are completely devoid of essence, empty of existing [inherently] by its own side. Cold and heat are mere names, empty of substantive essence. When searched for, no ‘cold’ or ‘heat’ could be found to exist by its own essence.

“Here, O Sariputra,
all dharmas are marked with emptiness ;
they are not produced or stopped, not defiled or immaculate, not deficient or complete.
Therefore, O Sariputra,
in emptiness there is no form nor feeling, nor perception, nor impulse, nor consciousness ;
No eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind ; No forms, sounds, smells, tastes, touchables or objects of mind ; No sight-organ element, and so forth, until we come to :
No mind-consciousness element ; There is no ignorance, no extinction of ignorance, and so forth, until we come to : There is no decay and death, no extinction of decay and death. There is no suffering, no origination, no stopping, no path.
There is no cognition, no attainment and no non-attainment.”

Wrong Understanding of Emptiness as Nihilism (Everything Doesn’t Exist)

Soh Wei Yu: Having pure vision of all appearances in the midst of samsara and suffering requires post anatta and emptiness realization.

Soh Wei Yu wrote to someone else: Yes, all internal subjective perceiver and agent and external reality are exhausted upon maturity of insights.

John Tan: Appearances are not phenomena

John Tan: Exhaustion of phenomena means like the sense of observer being dissolved, the sense of object also dissapeared.

Soh Wei Yu: Yeah..

Soh Wei Yu: Malcolm also said exhaustion of phenomena doesnt mean no more appearance

John Tan: Yes

John Tan: you should not have that sense by now also

John Tan: A few years post anatta, I do not have sense of objects and physicality....objects are deconstructed by contemplating DO and total exertion. Therefore there is no seer, no seeing and nothing seen.

I am now compiling the different nuance of total exertion in taoism, zen and yoga...🤣

Soh Wei Yu: Oic.. yeah i dont have sense of solid phenomena

…

Soh Wei Yu: This however does not mean there are no more appearances. In fact, all sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touch, sensations, thoughts are no longer experienced in terms of reified self and phenomena but as the display of pure wisdom. The entire environment becomes pure land, as I wrote in the preface of AtR guide. Or as the Vajrayana (and even Zen) teachers say, "All appearances are the mandala of the deities, all sounds are the mandala of mantra, and all thoughts are the mandala of enlightened mind. The nature of all apparent and existing things—of this entire world and all its beings—is the great mandala of the manifest ground, our basic state."

That being said, if one truly realizes I AM and deepens one's samadhi, it can be incredibly blissful, not depressing at all. For example Eckhart Tolle and Ramana Maharshi just sat in parks and caves in Nirvikalpa Samadhi all the time absorbed in the transcendent bliss of formless Beingness after their initial Self-Realization. It is however directed only to the Mind sense door, unlike after nondual anatta -- all six senses becomes pure and luminous, nondual perfection. Hence the practice at the I AM stage is still dissociative. The I AM phase is blissful but not liberating, in fact even up to non-dual it cannot be said to be liberating from Buddhadharma POV. It can lead to even greater grasping. The passion for consciousness, the identification involved (even towards an ultimate identity) is what hinders the experience of liberation. Anatta is the beginning of the experience of liberation and further refined with twofold emptiness.

After nondual and especially anatta, one's path is total openness and integration, non dissociative. One experiences Buddha-nature in all senses and manifestations and all actions are totally exerted and actualized.

However having pure vision of all appearances is post anatta and emptiness realization. One should know that while not operating in pure vision, all phenomena experienced is simply samsara and not a source of happiness at all. They are appearances misperceived into phenomena -- objects with characteristics, and (mis)appropriated in terms of I, me, and mine, in terms of agent and action, perceiver and perceived, posessor and possessed. Whereas in truth all such conditioned phenomena are impermanent, unsatisfactory and non-self. If one seeks to find any happiness in terms of any conditioned and appropriated phenomena ('my cars', 'my billion dollars', 'my relationship', 'my ....'), one can never find any. Samsara is full of painful conditions, sickness, getting old, death, losing of loved ones and possessions, suffering happening all around in life, perhaps made more apparent by the pandemic recently, and especially if you live in poverty in a third world country. Be it a beggar or a billionaire, we are all equals in the face of death, which comes in a blink of an eye - with nothing we came and with nothing we shall depart. But not only are these painful conditions suffering: even pleasant experiences and phenomena are suffering, because according to Buddha they are the dukkha or suffering of impermanence. All conditioned phenomena, even pleasant ones, are ultimately transient and fleeting, subject to death, decay and cessation and of the nature of suffering. Your money, your youth, your beauty, your health, your relationships, your human life, very soon they will be all gone. All conditioned phenomena are fleeting and transient like a bubble, so how can they be any true source of happiness and refuge? The Diamond Sutra states, "A shooting star, a clouding of the sight, a lamp, An illusion, a drop of dew, a bubble, A dream, a lightning’s flash, a thunder cloud— This is the way one should see the conditioned." To think otherwise is to suffer from delusion, to falsely imagine that somehow finding the right things in samsara will finally offer us real fulfillment, which will ultimately only disappoint. It is a sign of true wisdom and maturity to finally realize that all conditioned phenomena are impermanent, suffering, non-self and are not fit for clinging. Samsara is only suffering. 

As someone posted before, "Garab Dorje Rinpoche said that, "Even with 5 Wisdoms, the Buddha was unable to find happiness in Samsara."

The Buddha himself said, ""Bhikkhus, all is burning. And what is the all that is burning?

"The eye is burning, forms are burning, eye-consciousness is burning, eye-contact is burning, also whatever is felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant that arises with eye-contact for its indispensable condition, that too is burning. Burning with what? Burning with the fire of lust, with the fire of hate, with the fire of delusion. I say it is burning with birth, aging and death, with sorrows, with lamentations, with pains, with griefs, with despairs."

Nirvana is the sole happiness and bliss, which the scriptures explain is not a feeling of perpetually blissful sensation, but merely the cessation or absence of suffering. But this is not implying that liberation is a state of dissociation which I shall explain further.

In a sense perhaps Buddhism sounds even more 'depressing' (although it really isn't -- only perhaps to those inclined towards theistic doctrine) than ACIM (A Course in Miracles) because it goes further than saying God doesn't create the world or even know about it, it questions the existence of God itself. Buddha didn't believe in a God or creator and in fact repudiates such an idea, and neither do I believe in a creator, so you can say that I am atheist (I've heard Kyle Dixon and Acharya Malcolm state the same). Buddhists simply have a totally distinct paradigm, one that doesn't need a God (and so do some other Indian teachings like Samkhya and Jainism, although Buddhism also differs from their view in many other areas). The question of suffering (why would a benevolent God create suffering?) -- a question that the Buddha similarly raised to repudiate the whole notion of a creator God -- simply does not apply to Buddhadharma at all since we in fact, being atheists, reject a creator God and assert that the suffering of sentient beings dependently originates based on ignorance, afflictions and karma without any real agent/agency (whether external or internal). This is however not a hopeless situation because nirvana is the end of that suffering and there is a path to end that suffering. And if you go further into the teachings of dependent origination and emptiness, then the very notion of a world as existing or non-existing vanishes. All phenomena are fundamentally empty and non-arisen and non-originating.

– further excerpts Exhaustion of All Phenomena

Kyle Dixon: For a Buddha, conditioned phenomena no longer appear. 

"To “exist” involves certain criteria that are undesirable in the sense that existent phenomena are conditioned by nature, and thus arise and cease.

Buddhas have fully integrated with a complete, non-conceptual experiential knowledge of the nature of apparently conditioned phenomena, thus for a Buddha, conditioned phenomena no longer appear, because they were rooted in delusion. Buddhas are completely free of delusion.

Therefore to address your question, since Buddhas do not conceive of or perceive conditioned phenomena, they do not conceive or perceive of existence in appearances.

This does not mean they are inert and unconscious, they are indeed conscious and awake, but they see appearances like a dream. We would not say the tiger who attacks you in a dream actually “exists.” The tiger does appear, but it is not a substantial entity. The same goes for all phenomena of even our waking, consensus reality. A Buddha sees all phenomena like a dream, and does not see phenomena as substantial entities that “exist.”

A Buddha himself or herself also cannot be said to “exist” for this same reason, but they appear nevertheless."

Kyle Dixon: In the actual natural state, objects no longer appear at all, but merely non-arisen appearances instead. 

“In the actual natural state objects no longer appear to be external. Objects don’t appear at all, just non-arisen appearance which is experientially ascertained to be the display of your own vidyā. Sems and sems byung are both arrested and the luminosity of your nature, zangtal, becomes the prevailing modality of consciousness.

That state is massively different in expression when compared to our relative condition.

It just seems to me that you are asserting that our relative condition, with functioning mind [sems] and mental factors [sems byung] which perceive objects is the natural state, but it is not the natural state, it is avidyā.

Thus, when a beginners trekchö practice is referred to as being in the “natural state” it is just a nominal natural state, not the actual awakened natural state.” 

Wrong Understanding of Emptiness as Nihilism (Everything Doesn’t Exist):

In response to someone, Soh explained that emptiness does not mean non-existence of phenomena/suffering, “Denying suffering and asserting that there is no end to suffering is nihilism. If you realize emptiness, you also see dependent arising and the four noble truths. Then you realize that four noble truths is the right view, that there is suffering, cause of suffering, the end of suffering and the path to end suffering, but all these are seen via dependent origination and not via the false view of essence, self, or agency. Meaning, you do not see suffering as existing in and of itself independent of the conditions that give rise to suffering. Nor do you think suffering arise merely via the agency of a Self or controller. Although suffering appears, it is both empty/non-arisen and dependently originating, and without self/Self/agent. Then, you discern clearly the causes and conditions for the arising of suffering and also the remedy. If you interpret emptiness in terms of nihilism and non-existence, then the antidote has turned into a poison and there is no cure.”

Kyle Dixon: Contrasting non-arising with nihilism. 

“Non-arising [anutpāda] is a synonym for emptiness [śūnyatā] and is the heart of Madhyamaka.

Nihilism [ucceda] is the negation of convention, the negation of appearance, or the reification of non-existence [abhāva].

Non-arising is not equivalent to any of those positions.

In his Madhyamakālaṃkāra, Śantaraksita states: 

Therefore, the tathāgatas have said

“All phenomena do not arise’ because this conforms with the ultimate. This ‘ultimate.’ in reality, is free from all proliferation. Because there is no arising and so on, nonarising and so on isn't possible, because its entity has been negated." 

John Schroeder (cross-referencing Jay Garfield): Nagarjuna critiquing misunderstandings regarding emptiness. 

“In the passages above, the Abhidharma opponent is saying that if Nagarjuna is right about "emptiness," then the very practices that make Buddhism soteriologically efficacious will be destroyed. That is, if it is true that the Four Noble Truths are "empty," then there is no such thing as the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha, no such thing as impermanence, "non-self," and nirvana, and the practices that supposedly lead to liberation will be destroyed. Nagarjuna responds to the opponent by saying that he has misunderstood "emptiness":

We say that this understanding of yours
Of emptiness and purpose of emptiness
And of the significance of emptiness is incorrect.
As a consequence you are harmed by it.
(Garfield 1995, p.68)

Because the opponent has taken "emptiness" to signify the nonexistence of the Four Noble Truths, he is "harmed by it"-in other words, he sees "emptiness" as destructive. But his reason for thinking of "emptiness" in this way is that he thinks that a "correct" meditation on causality, the aggregates, and the Four Noble Truths is necessary for liberation.

Nagarjuna responds to this assumption by reversing the tables and saying, in effect, that it is not "emptiness" that destroys practice, but the very idea that such things as causality, the aggregates, and the Four Noble Truths are "inherent," essential, or necessary:

If you perceive the existence of all things
In terms of svabhava,
Then this perception of all things
Will be without the perception of causes and conditions.

Effects and causes
And agent and action
And conditions and arising and ceasing
And effects will be rendered impossible.
(Garfield 1995, p.69)

Nagarjuna goes on to say that the reason essences militate against causal conditions, arising, ceasing, agency, and so forth is that the idea of essence entails independence, and if things are by nature independent then it is impossible for them to interact causally. If this is true then there is no "dependent arising," and without "dependent arising" it is impossible to make sense of the ability to cultivate a virtuous life. In other words, without the process of change the whole idea of cultivating the "fruits" of a Buddhist life is rendered nonsensical. Nagarjuna responds by saying that Buddhist praxis must be "empty" if we are to make any sense of the Four Noble Truths:

If dependent arising is denied,
Emptiness itself is rejected.
This would contradict
All of the worldly conventions.

If emptiness is rejected,
No action will be appropriate.
There would be action which did not begin,
And there would be agent without action.

If there is svabhava, the whole world
Will be unarising, unceasing,
And static. The entire phenomenal world
Would be immutable.

If it (the world) were not empty,
Then action would be without profit.
The act of ending suffering and
Abandoning misery and defilement would not exist.
(Garfield 1995, p.72)” 


Chandrakirti: Dependent arising/relativity doesn’t contradict emptiness. 

"If you regard things as existent by virtue of (a reified) intrinsic reality, you thereby regard them as bereft of causes and conditions. And thereby you are condemning effects, causes, agents, actions, activities, originations, cessations, and even fruitional goals. Whatever is relativity we proclaim that emptiness. Nothing whatsoever is found which is not relativistically originated. Therefore, nothing whatsoever is found which is not empty. So if all things were not empty, there would be no origination and no destruction.”

Khamtrul Rinpoche (The Royal Seal of Mahamudra, Volume 2): Emptiness Deviating to the Basic Nature - Timeless Deviation to the Nature of Knowables 

The meditation of inseparable phenomena and emptiness is called “emptiness endowed with the supreme aspect.” Not knowing how emptiness and interdependence abide in nonduality, you decide that emptiness is a nothingness that has never existed and that is not influenced at all by qualities or defects. Then you underestimate the cause and effect of virtue and vice, or else lapse exclusively into the nature of all things being originally pure, primordially free, and so forth. Bearing such emptiness, the relative level of interdependence is not mastered. In this respect, this is what is known as mahamudra: one’s basic nature is unoriginated and, since it is neither existent nor nonexistent, eternal nor nil, true nor false, nor any other such aspects, it has no existence whatsoever. Nonetheless, its unceasing radiance arises as the relative level of all kinds of interdependence, so it is known as emptiness having the core of interdependence and interdependence having the nature of emptiness. Therefore, emptiness does not stray to the nature of knowables. 

In the Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way it is said: 

Anything that doesn’t arise dependently 
Is a phenomenon that has no existence. 
Therefore anything that is not empty 
Is a phenomenon that has no existence.

And as said in the Commentary on Bodhichitta: 

“It is taught that the relative plane is emptiness, 
And emptiness alone is the relative plane.”

- Further excerpts from Equipoise and Post-Equipoise

Kyle Dixon: Dzogchen teachings on “clearly apparent non-existent” or “non-existent clear appearances”.

Reddit poster: We can’t say there’s non-existence because there’s still cognizance (wisdom)... but this cognizance has no substantial existence or basis, it’s empty

Kyle Dixon: That lack of substantial existence actually lends to the Dzogchen teachings and luminaries often referring to such things as med par gsal snang “clearly apparent non-existent” or “non-existent clear appearance.”

Thus don’t be timid to say these things are ultimately non-existent, the fact that we acknowledge that they appear means we avoid nihilism.

For example, Longchenpa in the chos dbyings mdzod auto-commentary:

Though there is nothing established as internal or external, the reflected appearances are understood through the eight examples of illusion. Though designated as dharmatā, dharmin, and so on, a great, clear appearance that does not exist is asserted in this tradition of the Great Perfection.”

Stage 7 - Presence is Spontaneously Perfected

What Stage 7 is about

Non-dual luminosity, anatta, empty nature, are spontaneously manifesting, self-arising and emerging naturally and every actualized sight, sound, form, experience blossoms into lotus (wisdom) on its own without dualistic effort.

“After cycles and cycles of refining our practice and insights, we will come to this realization:

Anatta is a seal, not a stage.
Awareness has always been non-dual.
Appearances have always been Non-arising.
All phenomena are ‘interconnected’ and by nature Maha.
All are always and already so. 

Only dualistic and inherent views are obscuring these experiential facts and therefore what is really needed is simply to experience whatever arises openly and unreservedly (See section "On Spontaneous Perfection"). However this does not denote the end of practice; practice simply moves to become dynamic and conditions-manifestation based. The ground and the path of practice become indistinguishable.” – John Tan, 2009

John Tan: Spontaneous perfection refers to the 3 tastes of my practice (Anatta, Total Exertion, and Non-arising). If we want to fully realize the inexpressible, be willing to give up all centers and point of references that manifests in the form of ‘who’, ‘when’ and ‘where’. Just give up the entire sense of self then instantly all things are spontaneously perfected.

“Spontaneous perfection to me refers to the 3 tastes of my practice (Soh: Anatta, +A and -A) that I mentioned are spontaneously perfected. It is just effortless and ongoing expression from there on.  Practice just take another form as I stated in the article - practice-enlightenment.

If we want to fully realize the inexpressible, be willing to give up all centers and point of references that manifests in the form of ‘who’, ‘when’ and ‘where’. Just give up the entire sense of self then instantly all things are spontaneously perfected.”

John Tan: Unless we see essencelessness from top to bottom, left to right, the unconditioned release and spontaneous perfection will not dawn as an actual taste. 

We can talk and talk and talk...but without seeing essencelessness from top to bottom, left to right...the unconditioned release and the spontaneous perfection will not dawn as actual taste....it is not necessary to do analysis like in the mmk but it does help a lot especially in this modern age where the mind is so sophisticated...lol....it is the recognition of the "essencelessness" that is most crucial, once we clearly see by way of analysis or by way of direct insight of the relationships between essencelessness, freedom, grasping, natural manifestation and spontaneity....and continue to authenticate the truth in activities… when non-dual essencelessness as it is dawn...everything and every action will be free, perfect and unmade.”

After certain phase, a practitioner must turn the view towards natural perfection but people don't like to hear that. Why after certain phase? Why create levels towards liberation? Since wisdom is perfect from beginning, why are we doing this and that, isn't that promoting and prolonging conditioning unnecessarily? It sounds logical therefore all the more it should be pointed out correctly. There is a way towards the natural state which may sound counter-intuitive… how can there be a way towards naturalness...lol. Btw I am not talking about Dzogchen but I am simply talking about the nature of our experience.”

When you say this way, you are unable to bring out the taste of appearance is clarity itself and it is tasting this absence of clarity/appearance without it disappearing. If it is realized that though manifestation appears, it never was truly there so even "disappearance" too is illusion.

Therefore I like "mere designation" so much because it completely brings out this taste.

But all these are just -A. Next is to look at +A. It is exactly the same again but this round non-conceptual appearance and dependent arising is brought to be seen and understood at the conventional level.

So it is understanding the nature of experience… not just directly experiencing awareness.

After this practice is no practice… just complete non-dual releasing… natural and spontaneous. When essencelessness is thoroughly seen through, the way of practice can only be spontaneous presence and natural perfection. Essence/inherent is what that prevents one from being natural and spontaneous. But don't link with Dzogchen… all these do not need Dzogchen… just thoroughness of knowing the habit and many faces of inherent tendencies.”

Acarya Malcolm Smith: Dependent Origination is natural perfection. 

Soh Wei Yu: Malcolm said dependent origination is natural perfection.. just that from like ultimate (forgot the term he used) its like all causes and conditions are empty and there is no distinction of cause and effect.. but its not contradictory. Like the madhyamika refutation of the 4 (diamond slivers) and the six something.. Lhun grub means not made by anyone, everything happens naturally. Dependent origination is not made by anyone and happens naturally

Soh Wei Yu: Malcolm said kyle is the first person to get his view completely

Soh Wei Yu: Also he invited me to join his santa fe dzogchen teaching next year, kyle will be joining

Soh Wei Yu: Kyle asked many qns about rigpa and dzogchen practice.. his main practice now is something like dorje drollo a teaching transmitted by malcolm

Soh Wei Yu: Btw kyle said his anatta insight happened in two phases

Soh Wei Yu: The first one which was very intense and he cried and felt death, no seer no hearer etc and he said something like his thought dunno what sinked below.. and he saw time is an illusion etc and you said thats the most intense anatta you have seen

Soh Wei Yu: Then years later he had another insight which is zero dimensional no distance etc

Soh Wei Yu: Then i mentioned is it related to your two stanzas of anatta he said yes

John Tan: 👍

John Tan: Yes I think you should attend Malcolm dzogchen teaching next year. (Soh’s comments: both John and I did attend Malcolm’s Dzogchen teachings online in 2020 which was great, if you’re interested check out www.zangthal.com) 

John Tan: But like what Malcolm said, DO is natural perfection.

John Tan: One just have to realize this.

John Tan: Then the mind will rest upon nothing, not even the One Mind.  Whatever appears, though a mere reflection, is entire and spontaneously perfect.

John Tan: One does not need to sink back to anything else.

John Tan: I think geo is clear about this from what he wrote to me. ...however still have have deconstructed "physicality".   That is the idea of "physicality" has not been sufficiently deconstructed to become just mere empty sensations dancing in zero dimension.

John Tan: If the "physicality" is there, one will b disturbed by the "idea" of interaction and locality.

André A. Pais: Poem on two truths and spontaneous perfection. 

A lil reflection:

Reality is naturally untainted by the three spheres of subject, object and action. As Maitreya said:

"Any thought of ‘subject’, ‘object’ and ‘action’ is held to be a cognitive obscuration."

There is no knower, known or knowing; no seer, seen or seeing; no perceiver, perceived or perception.

There is no knowing, seeing or perception, and yet appearances spontaneously radiate with a light of their own. This vivid clarity is the mind's nature arising as dependent origination. So, don't look inside seeking the nature of awareness - it is the moon itself, rising from behind the clouds.

It's like this that Dōgen is able to drop body and mind, and become actualized by the myriad things. Free from knower, known and knowing itself, there is no trace of awakening - for there is no sentient being to become awakened, nor insentient rock to remain asleep. And yet, this no-trace unfolds endlessly, for it is the nature of the natural state that its radiance spontaneously manifests.

John Tan: 👍

John Tan: Actually I thought Andre should already have such insight and experience last year

John Tan: I would say: If there is no knowing, seeing or perception and yet appearances spontaneously radiates, then it should not be dependent origination, should be spontaneous presence. If there is name and form (namarupa), there is consciousness then there is dependent origination.

André A. Pais: John Tan, I wonder exactly what the difference is between DO and spontaneous presence. In a way, DO seems more intellectual, inferential and more into the aproximate ultimate (emptiness as negation). That's been part of my difficulty with the term "total exertion" - it seems to invite a conceptualization of a whole web of causality that arises as "this moment."

On the other hand, lately DO (and by extension total exertion) is taking the shape of "vivid radiance," or "spontaneous clarity." DO means that there is clarity (origination), but it is spontaneous (dependent and thus empty - initially as negation, but finally as non-referentiality, beyond notions and "pure").

I've been trying to connect the dots between "nature of mind" - which feels rather sujective and "in here" - and the whole Madhyamaka enterprise of emptiness and DO - which feels rather objective and "out there." When investigating the nature of mind, one usually tries to look within, kind of turning the attention backwards; when investigating DO, one may knock on a table, drop a pen, etc., checking the inexorable "law of causality" - when this is, that is.

But what's coming up to me is that the "nature of mind" - as inseparable clarity and emptiness/unobstructedness - is nothing but the dependently arisen nature of experience/appearances. From the openness and referencelessness of mind, vivid appearances "naturally" manifest - and this is nothing but DO ("naturally" paradoxically means "when conditions are present").

Madhyamaka, when stressing the union of the two truths as inseparable union of appearance and emptiness, seems to be opening the same door that Mahamudra and Dzogchen seem to be opening with the nature of mind as inseparable emptiness, clarity and responsiveness/ expression/ compassion.

This is what I was trying to convey in a recent post in AtR:

The two truths meet everywhere.

    - Dependent origination refutes
    both extreme views of is and is-not.
    - Appearance and emptiness are united
    as the scent that is experience.
    - Clarity and limitlessness are inseparable
    as the nature of mind.
    
    Mind as clarity is nothing
    but experience as appearingness.
    Experience as emptiness is nothing
    but limitlessness as mind.
    
    Clarity-appearance is nothing but origination.
    Empty-limitlessness is nothing but dependency.
    The diving into the nature of mind is nothing
    but the embracing of dependent origination.
    
    A feather slowly floats its way towards the ground;
    The breeze makes the trees sway;
    A sound suddenly pierces the silence;
    That itself is the nature of mind.
    
    The very pulsing of dependent origination
    is the primordial face of the Tathāgata.
    Like blood and veins and heart
    - the two truths meet everywhere.

John Tan: André A. Pais, to me when spontaneous presence is expressed conventionally, it is expressed as dependent origination and emptiness.

I'm glad that you have understood total exertion this way. In seeing for examples, it is not only the eyes that sees, the ears, the hairs, the entire body-mind-enviroment are fully exerted and participating into the act of seeing. How is this possible if eyes, ears, nose, environment...everything are truly established and not merely conventional? If their conventionalities are not seen through, going beyond their designated boundaries into just the "seen" as the "lurid scenery" will just be another experience, not an insight.

Although integration of two truth is crucial, I think the difference must still be made on spontaneous presence from freedom of conceptual notions and DO and emptiness before integration. At least until certain experiential insights arise:

One is the supreme purity that relinquishes both pure and impurity, freedom from both notions. Without going through this process, it is difficult to "see" how notions create "things" and "existence".

When we affirm "internality", we are in fact affirming "externality" at the same time. This is what the mind can't see easily. Surely the mind thinks " 'internal and private and in here' are still undeniably true even without designated conceptual constructs". This undeniable conviction of "in here" is real and "undeniably exist" WITHOUT conceptual constructs is the "inherentness" that must be deconstructed. For without "externality", how does the sense of "internality" arise? If they are dependent, how could they exist truly? This is clearly elucidated in Mipham commentary on Shantarakahita's Madhyamakalankara, 71a and 72b:

71a
Production and the rest have no reality,
Thus non-production and the rest are equally impossible.

72b
Even "non-production," entertained conceptually,
Is relative and is not ultimate.

When how conceptual notions create confusions aren't clear, distinguishing mere appearances from added imputation on mere appearance will not be easy for the mind. Like why is the plant growing instead of decaying? At which point exactly is it growing or decaying? Same applies to cause and effect. Similar to analogy of the plant that grows and decays, the designated (Soh: designating?) consciousness determines that a cause has ceased and effect has come into "existence".

This emphasis of the thorough understanding of conceptual notions to be negated instead of creating "inherent existence" on top of the conventional is why Mipham said Tsongkhapa emptiness is notional emptiness. We do not empty the "inherent existence" of the vase, the entire conventional notion of "vase" is the "inherent existence" to be emptied, there is no "extra" inherent existence of something to be emptied. You can't retain the conventionality of vase and talk abt emptiness. So essentially it is freeing entirely from conceptual thoughts; however unlike mere suppression of thoughts or non-analytical cessation, the uprooting is deep, thorough and imbued with prajna.

But does freedom from conceptualities deny vivid appearances, deny regularities? No -- that is why it is dependent origination and emptiness. However after going through the process and back relooking at conventionalities, we do not see inherentness, agencies initiating actions, existence and non-existence and separations in the vivid non-dual display of causal functioning.

Next is the freedom from all notions will lead one into another taste -- unmade, unconditioned, natural spontaneity in contrast to artificially man-made mind constructs.

Once natural clarity, supreme purity, unconditioned natural spontaneity are realized via seeing through conventionalities, then I think integrating the two truth will be more fruitful.

John Tan: André A. Pais, is poem "the two truths meet everywhere" from u? Although the "meeting" everywhere is beautiful, don't forgot the "in between" process and that includes:- the formation, the deconstruction and the freedom from all notions. 

 
Kyle Dixon: Our nature is perfect, but we as practitioners are not. 

"Though the kun byed rgyal po is an exposition given from the perspective of one's nature. As it is a sems sde teaching that focuses on "byang chub sems" [skt. bodhicitta] which is the sems sde name for the basis i.e., the nature of mind.

So from the point of view of the nature of mind there is nothing to accept or reject, nothing to improve, no basis, no path, no result. But a Dzogchen practitioner is not the nature of mind. A Dzogchenpa only works with his/her knowledge [rig pa] of the nature of mind. And aspirants initially have no knowledge of that nature to speak of. And then adepts on the path have an incomplete knowledge that is refined through familiarization and practice. Finally at the time of the result that knowledge is complete. But the practitioner has much to do, extensive meditation, extensive practice. Our nature is perfect, but we as practitioners are not.

Not understanding these contexts properly creates big issues for people."

John Tan: One must be able to discern properly between unconditioned expression (free from inherency) and karmic habituation.

“Knowing mind (clarity) is not knowing the nature of mind and the nature of mind is not for knowing nor can it be known, learned or studied, that is why it is purging of all views. It can however be expressed as a negation of all inherent-ness. Free from all substantialities and extremes, there is just unconditioned expression in natural spontaneity. Like the previous texts you posted about the "one life".  I think I have discussed this with you before in our early conversations.

We must differentiate and discern experience free from a background and source. What happened when the background is gone? There is the non-doership aspect and the luminous clarity aspect. Ascribing all as life is an extrapolation as I told you before. There is no need to create an alternate source call "one life". The experience as being lived by and expression of life is just an experience of non-doership due to freedom from background source. However one must still be able to discern correct what is unconditioned expression and what is karmic habituation.” 

Soh Wei Yu: Union of empty appearance and dependent arising is spontaneous presence. 

Soh Wei Yu: Was meditating outside

Soh Wei Yu: Then I reached a state where mind body was dropped and tranquilized and numb.. then suddenly i entered a blissful state and suddenly it became very clearly apparent that the union of appearance and dependent arising is spontaneous presence.. the whole universe is spontaneously presencing and wonderful without a trace of self.. no effort or practice is required just complete dying to spontaneous presencing

Soh Wei Yu: Union of empty appearance and dependent arising*

John Tan: Very good

John Tan: The term "dependent arising" understood from direct experience as the manifestation of appearances. You don't have to think of the logic… MMK [Mulamadhyamikakarika] is simply negating the inherent way of understanding appearances. Obviously there are appearances, so what is this "arising without essence" called?

Soh Wei Yu: Spontaneous presence

Soh Wei Yu: Like tao

John Tan: The way of it

Soh Wei Yu: Dependent arising

John Tan: This arising, this merely occuring is neither caused nor uncaused.  That is why it is called DO. In actual taste it is the natural and primordial state that spontaneously arise. You must have enough rest and sleep...then experience will blissful, clear and natural.

John Tan: You must

Soh Wei Yu: Oic..

Soh Wei Yu: Now my pce state is suddenly very strong but with the aspect of spontaneous presence clearer

John Tan: When pce becomes solidly clear, strong with inherent view like AF, it cannot be spontaneous. It must be light and free. Without background, foreground or dimension.

Soh Wei Yu: Oic.. ya i dont have sense of solid inherent foreground

Soh Wei Yu: Hmm i see.. the solid inherent view prevents seeing union of dependent arising and emptiness as spontaneous presence.

John Tan (2012): Non-dual experience after going through the 7 phases.

"Has awareness stood out? There is no concentration needed. When six entries and exits are pure and primordial, the unconditioned stands shining, relaxed and uncontrived, luminous yet empty. The purpose of going through the 7 phases of perception shift is for this... Whatever arises is free and uncontrived, that is the supreme path. Whatever arises has never left their nirvanic state... ... your current mode of practice [after those experiential insights] should be as direct and uncontrived as possible. When you see nothing behind and magical appearances are too empty, awareness is naturally lucid and free. Views and all elaborations dissolved, mind-body forgotten... just unobstructed awareness. Awareness natural and uncontrived is supreme goal. Relax and do nothing, Open and boundless, Spontaneous and free, Whatever arises is fine and liberated, This is the supreme path. Top/bottom, inside/outside, Always without center and empty (2-fold emptiness), Then view is fully actualized and all experiences are great liberation." 

Soh Wei Yu: All dharmas, all phenomena, are fundamentally quiescent as nirvana, fundamentally non-arising and naturally manifesting as one's own state of radiance. However perceiving this requires anatta and emptiness insight as a pre-requisite. 

“There's absolutely no need to attempt to bring anything whatsoever, presence, witnessing, whatever, into sleep or any states (waking, dreaming, and deep sleep). Any dualistic effort is a form of doing. Bringing in a watcher is karma. All dharmas, all phenomena, are fundamentally quiescent as nirvana, fundamentally non-arising and naturally manifesting as one's own state of radiance. Therefore true practice is resting in the natural, spontaneous perfection of luminosity and emptiness. Practice becomes dynamic rather than technique-bound as the spontaneous unfolding or self-arising of all displays, activities, sounds, colors, sensations, gets auto-actualized as the wisdom of luminous-emptiness. Everything arises as the state of meditation, which is non-meditation. Yet this requires anatta and emptiness insight as prerequisite.” 

Soh Wei Yu: Spontaneous perfection is the result of deeply penetrating into the non-dual luminosity, anatta, and empty/non-arising nature of mind/phenomena as always already so, by nature so, spontaneously perfected.

“It is important to note here that spontaneous perfection is the result of deeply penetrating into the non-dual luminosity, anatta, and empty/non-arising nature of mind/phenomena as always already so, by nature so, spontaneously perfected. If one thinks that one can skip Phases 1 to 6 and enter straight into 7, they are almost certainly, 99.999% of the case deluded, are stuck in the lower stages thinking those are final, missing some crucial elements of insight (how many countless people I’ve seen that are stuck at I AM or One Mind thinking that is spontaneous perfection!), or have the calibre of very rare types of saints and sages that belong to the realm of legends and fairy tales.” 

Soh Wei Yu: Dependent Origination and Emptiness must be realized in order to reach spontaneous perfection. 

“Spontaneous perfection is not about negating dependent origination. In fact dependent origination and emptiness must be realised.

If there is the slightest sense that there is an experiencer and something to be experienced (luminosity, nondual, anatta, emptiness), then one has not realised and actualised spontaneous perfection. If there is the slightest dualistic effort it is not spontaneous perfection. However that does not mean you cannot practice concentration and mindfulness after spontaneous perfection, rather, you no longer practice dualistically in order to experience something separate from yourself in the past or future. It does not mean that there’s no need for practice or no need for right effort, but practice becomes dynamic actualization.

For example - the lightning just flashed and the thunder roars. If I try to recapture that lightning flash and attempt to experience more of it, more of its radiance and emptiness, then I have split myself off from the immediate experience, I have established an experiencer and experience, a meditator and object of meditation. This is different from practice-enlightenment where each activity is the total exertion of all existence-time but instantly cast off without a trace. This practice actualization transcends meditator and meditation, it transcends dualistic practice where one imagines oneself to be a subjective experiencer aiming to attain an objective experience in the far off future. In practice actualization the immediate is the ultimate. 

After realizing anatta, you see that there is no beyond. Nothing beyond this breath that is the total exertion of the cosmos. Nothing to attain, no beyond, only the utter perfection and completion of this actualized-form, where each step, each breath is none other than the utter perfection actualized in its immediacy. Awakening/buddha-nature/etc is not in some distant imaginary future, it is this actualized-form in its utter perfection.

Any attempt to be more nondual, be more “anatta” or be more “empty” is already the propensities of ignorance in action, and the lack of the deep realization and actualization that anatta is always already so, and that all dharmas are already fundamentally quiescent and non-arising in nirvana. The slightest attempt to bridge an imaginary gap is already a sign of ignorance. The slightest attempt to capture an experience is already a sign of ignorance that imputes intrinsic phenomena and characteristics. 

I wrote yesterday:

I do not experience an inherently existing physical universe, nor do I experience an inherently existing awareness/Self/Brahman. I experience a fourth alternative (to the normal, spiritual/metaphysical, physical). My direct experience is without a who, where, or when, and yet there is not just blankness or nothing. I think spontaneous presencing is a good term. That spontaneous and seamless presencing is not generated by a self/Self and yet is not ‘inherently there in and of itself’, rather it is spontaneously presencing via total exertion (conventionally expressed as dependent origination or conditionality), empty and luminous. It is not some self-existing metaphysical presence, Absolute or Being, nor is spontaneous presencing a formless entity - whatever arises is spontaneous presencing, always seen, heard, tasted and experienced. What that is not seen, not heard and not experienced, is merely our conceptual idea of what “Presence” is. Neither is spontaneous presencing an inherently existing universe, nor is spontaneous presence manifesting causelessly/randomly/by chance, rather that spontaneous presencing is none other than the Maha (great/boundless) total exertion of the seamless conditions of the three times and ten directions, however it is not a linear causality where cause and effect are strictly separate with an actor (cause) and acted-upon (effect). As Dogen said, “Cause is not before and effect is not after.” and John Tan wrote in 2013, “Do you feel being caused or effected? It is just a single flow. Now when we see one, the 10000 things arise”. You can say what I experience (there is no ‘I’) is a spontaneous presencing that is none other than a seamlessly interdependent, radiant and empty universe.” 

Possible Dangers and Sidetracks

~Thinking one is there when one isn’t. As explained earlier, you need complete maturity of non-dual, anatta and emptiness wisdom, without which all notions of ‘spontaneous perfection’ simply leads to swimming in a sea of delusion, laziness and apathy, letting one’s habitual tendencies and delusions run amok “spontaneously”, leading nowhere. Many people talk about spontaneous perfection even at Stage 1 or even prior to Stage 1. This only causes great harm to themselves and others.

~Nihilistic misinterpretation of spontaneous perfection: thinking that there is no practice after spontaneous perfection, a wrong understanding of non-doing. The correct understanding should be practice-enlightenment. It is not an excuse for laziness and inactivity or letting our habitual and karmic propensities run wild, mistaking that as a form of “spontaneity”. (Spontaneity is rather referring to the non-arising, empty nature and non-dual luminosity being ‘spontaneously perfected’ by its own accord in all manifest and actualized forms as there is no more trace of doubt that all arising are by nature so). Worse still, some people fall into the extremes of nihilism, thinking that “my lust is spontaneously perfected, my anger is spontaneously perfected, my malice and violence and other unwholesome behaviours are spontaneously perfected” and so on, thinking that because all manners of afflictions are already spontaneously perfected, there is no need for practice at all. 

It is important to understand that all vehicles and teachings of Buddhadharma, from Theravada to Zen to Dzogchen and Mahamudra is about liberation from sufferings and emotional afflictions, even if the exact means, method and approaches may differ somewhat. The actualization of the spontaneous perfection of wisdom will lead to the self-liberation of afflictions. The 84,000 dharma doors taught by Buddha are only for the sole purpose of the pacification and liberation of the three poisons of passion, aggression and delusion. If one does not experience this liberation, all notions of spontaneous perfection or emptiness or anatta is merely intellectual and conceptual (it does not mean that once anatta is initially realized all afflictions are immediately 100% gone all the time, but it should be the beginning of experiencing liberation in real-time). A wrong and nihilistic grasp of spontaneous perfection and emptiness is not only useless, it is worse than useless and often causes great harm and prevents progress. I have heard of people saying “earthly desires are enlightenment” as if they should be celebrated. I’m sorry, but this is plain wrong, no matter who said it or which master said it.

Kyle Dixon: A great deal of deliberate effort is required in order to reach the point of non-striving in terms of Dzogchen teachings. 

“Tregchö and thögal involve a great deal of intent and involve structured retreats.

Many people fail to understand that to get to a point of non-striving in Dzogpachenpo, a great deal of effort must occur in order to get to that point. 

The view of Dzogchen is simple in theory, but difficult in practice due to the presence of habitual tendencies which obstruct even the beginner’s ability to remain in equipoise. 

This is why for example, Jean-Luc Achard compares retreat to wetting a cloth. If we only wet a cloth sometimes it will dry quickly, no water is retained, however if you wet the cloth a great deal, and often, it will remain wet. The same principle applies to a Dzogchen practitioner, which is why retreat is indispensable for serious practitioners.

Tregchö retreats are meant to “wet the cloth” greatly so that it will not dry once the practitioner leaves retreat to engage his or her three doors and sense consciousnesses more actively in daily life. 

People who believe Tregchö involves no effort and no striving, and believe they have understood its meaning without extended practice should seek a qualified teacher and learn properly in order to bring some clarity to their understanding.” 

Soh Wei Yu: Non-meditation after overcoming subject-object duality (post-anatta). 

“We still have to meditate, but this meditation becomes directionless (or more accurately, aimlessness and wishlessness -- one of the three doors of liberation) and without subject-object (I'm here, trying to get 'there') but immediate practice-enlightenment or instant actualization in every encounter or activity, sitting, walking, working, encountering people. This effort is not the same as the dualistic effort of trying to attain a result in the future, or trying to sustain a subject/object structure by bringing in a dualistic form of watching.

There can and should be effort and focus in practice, but this effort and focus is applied in a way that completely dissolves the subject/object structure rather than retain or strengthen it, for example when being mindful of the breathing, the breathing is its own attention and awareness, there is no dualistic attempt to 'shine the spotlight of awareness on an object or a subject'. Effort and focus, and effortlessness becomes one. This is why Dogen's teachings are very useful here to counteract the nihilism of the wrongful understanding of non-action.  The kind of "doing" or "action" we should be rid of is not "don't have to make any effort" but "not being affected by results/gain/loss", for it is the attachment to the results that are karmic. Each step, each breath, becomes the ends rather than the means -- it is the actualization of enlightenment/Buddha-nature rather than a means to get enlightenment in the future.

And this, also happens to be true non-meditation and non-action, beyond the sense of there being a meditator-meditation and actor-action”. 

John Tan: Cautioning against having a nihilistic understanding of ‘non-doing’.

"People that have gone into the nihilistic understanding of 'non-doing' ended up in a mess. You see that those having right understanding of 'non-doing' are free, yet you see discipline, focus and peace in them. Like just sitting and walking... ...in whatever they endeavor. Fully anatta." 

John Tan: Insight is just the beginning. If you do not actualize your insight in practice meeting situations, you will not have genuine and deep understanding.

Soh Wei Yu: Ya some people like thich nhat hanh has a very peaceful feel even when walking etc

John Tan: Yes in whatever they endeavor. Fully anatta.

Soh Wei Yu: "Oprah Winfrey: Already just being in your presence for a short time, I feel less stressed than I did when I started out the day, because you have such a peaceful aura that follows you and that you carry with yourself. Are you always this content and peaceful?

Thich Nhat Hanh: This is my training, this is my practice, to live every moment like that. Relaxed, dwelling peacefully in the present moment, and respond to events with compassion."

John Tan: This is most difficult as it is actualization. Insight is just beginning.  If you simply just based on insight and do not actualize your insight in practice meeting situations, you will not have genuine and deep understanding.

Soh Wei Yu: Practice after anatta, emptiness, spontaneous perfection.

I think some discussions came up recently relating to spontaneous perfection and practice, and I have commented similar things before but I will say it again.

Even after anatta, emptiness, where everything is tasted as nondual luminosity that is empty like reflections, all spontaneously perfected without effort and action, it does not contradict the importance of practice but practice becomes dynamic actualization or practice-enlightenment. Practices are no longer done in order to achieve a future goal because the very act of practicing is the actualization of the spontaneous perfection in the here and now (only conventionally speaking - there is no here and now to be found). The act of breathing, that very breath itself, the chanting itself, the whatever practice you do becomes the total exertion of spontaneously perfected empty presencing... the practice brings forth the simultaneous qualities of shamatha and vipashyana and mind is at peace, still, attentive and sharp and focused not in a contrived way but in a natural state of no mind. Whatever practices that are done, are done for shamatha and vipashyana for this is the sole means of liberation, even if the object of meditation or non-meditation is simply resting as the nature of mind. 

Spontaneous perfection and non meditation thus is not the same as the nihilistic understanding of non action and non meditation as if literally one should not meditate or do any practices whatsoever. That becomes neo advaita teaching and unfortunately it seems that many people (the likes of Mr. J) interpret dzogchen and kunjed gyalpo that way turning it into something no different from neo-advaita. Such people will reason that a wild untamed mind is of no harm to some inherently perfect awareness like the clouds never hinder the sky, which in turns reifies a background awareness, negates the influence of karmic propensities and importance of practices and view, etc. Their inherently existing awareness is so ultimate and absolute that it is never touched, affected, harmed nor improved by karmic traces nor actions and efforts (hence they reason, why the need for practices?), but they will never understand that brahman is not more ultimate and cosmic than a single breath or act of sitting, that there is no mirror besides ongoing reflections, an empty presencing no where to reside (Residing as an unstained background or all subsuming ground is just more effort, not true effortlessness). Hence Just sitting, eating, shitting, sleeping becomes both ground and path, and not even a trace of subject and object, meditator and object of meditation arise in that moment of actualization. It is not that there is no practice and enlightenment but they are undivided. This is why I find the soto zen emphasis on practice-enlightenment a useful antidote to such nihilistic neo-advaitic view.

John tan also recently wrote, “It is how it is presented. It is important to bring across the point that realization is uncaused or "not made".  But the methods are effective tools and provide the necessary conditions.”

Even if you are a 10th bhumi or 12th bhumi on the verge of full Buddhahood (which is to say the least, very unlikely), practice is important. Heck, even the Buddha himself practices and goes for months long retreats regularly focusing on anapanasati (mindfulness of breathing) according to his own words and all the arahants do likewise even though they have “done what is to be done”. The buddha and arahants continue to benefit from practice and meditation. Their practice is practice-enlightenment, an actualization of true nature, not practicing for enlightenment. 

John Tan: Be very sincere in sensing all your sensations for pretense, blames, rejections and contractions... ...don't rush... slow down your thoughts and scan all your sensations for these... see all these traces... see all these come from the "I"s and "mine"s... develop a strong willingness to let go with your insights of anatta.

In my opinion many of our great aspirations and high views turn empty talks easily. After the direct insight of anatta, it opens the gate that allows one to experience effortlessly all sensations that arise without duality, without fear, without doership and without ownership. Many are unable to see the "Whys" and "Hows" of "directness" so don't waste your insights that have given the opportunity in this life. Train yourself to do that with sincerity and dedication first. Then you will be fully in touch with your original purity; you will be genuinely in touch with peace and openness.

If we want to experience fully and have genuine peace, be very sincere in sensing all your sensations for pretense, blames, rejections and contractions... ...don't rush... slow down your thoughts and scan all your sensations for these... see all these traces... see all these come from the "I"s and "mine"s... develop a strong willingness to let go with your insights of anatta. If you can for a brief moment be free from the conceit of I, the craving of mine and the background of I AM, that moment you are respectable even to the gods.

I do not want you to get into too high views and lose touch with genuine and simple practice.

Original Enlightenment/Nature/Liberation is a Wrong View

Spontaneous Perfection can be misunderstood or misinterpreted as “original enlightenment”, which is a substance view – a wrong view. Just because the terms sound similar doesn’t mean they are similar. They are completely unrelated.

John Tan (2009):  Conversation regarding Original Enlightenment.

Soh Wei Yu: icic.. ...  http://www.zenforuminternational.org/viewtopic.php?f=8 (dead link)

Soh Wei Yu: namdrol says there cant be original enlightenment as that wld be the hindu teaching or atman (Namdrol = acarya malcolm smith)

John Tan: yes because they see non-dual as enlightenment 

Soh Wei Yu: oic 

John Tan: you mean e-sangha ban them? lol 

Soh Wei Yu: yeah... alot of zen teachers and even moderators were banned during a period of time and e-sangha even received lawsuits thread etc 

John Tan: by the way, that is also not hindu teachings 

Soh Wei Yu: and members 

Soh Wei Yu: there were also other issues i think... some don’t believe in rebirth etc... and some other things 

Soh Wei Yu: im not exactly sure what happened 

John Tan: that is neo-advaita teaching 

Soh Wei Yu: oic 

John Tan: because we are already enlightened so why practice? 

John Tan: yet this will arise another insight so this is also necessary 

John Tan: first of all if this is not true, how is it that so many practitioners are claiming that? 

Soh Wei Yu: they have the view of an inherent consciousness? 

John Tan: there must be certain experience or incomplete realization that led practitioners to such a conclusion. it too is a koan. if one stops at One Mind, it will most likely end up concluding that way. yet it is also important that you come to the same conclusion.   

John Tan: just like I AMness 

Soh Wei Yu: icic..   the original enlightenment is realised at non dual ? 

John Tan: yes 

Soh Wei Yu: icic 

John Tan: i think i told you we do not have a perfect nature right?  we have a dependent originated nature 

Soh Wei Yu: oic..  but at the same time its spontaneously perfected? 

John Tan: however it is also important that you arrive at the same conclusion as those zen practitioners 

Soh Wei Yu: oic 

John Tan: that is different. i have already told you many times not to talk about spontaneous arising, liberation or perfection 

Soh Wei Yu: icic.. 

John Tan: only after the direct insight of anatta and DO can you talk about that. this I have emphasized many times to you and written many times 

Soh Wei Yu: oic.. 

John Tan: this is because after the insight of anatta and DO, you are already purified and clear of the wrong understanding. ignorance is the cause of suffering, when it dissolves, you are naturally and spontaneously perfected 

Soh Wei Yu: icic..  but even when there is ignorance, our nature is spontaneously perfected right, just not realised? 

John Tan: nope.. 

Soh Wei Yu: oic what you mean 

John Tan: to me yes, to you no. for i know what it meant


Acarya Malcolm Smith: Dogen rejecting Original Enlightenment.

Another interesting thing they do is try to show is that Dogen had a change of heart and rejected hongaku (original enlightenment) and BNI (buddha-nature of the insentient) late in his life.

Noriaki cites this example, from the Shōbōgenzō shizen bhikkhu, as presented in Pruning the Bodhi Tree, pg. 123:

Some people say that, because the enlightenment of the Buddhas and Tathagatas encompass the whole world, even a speck of dust manifests that enlightenment. Because that enlightenment encompasses both subject and the object, mountains, rivers, earth, sun, moon, stars, and the four illusions and three poisons express it as well. To see mountains and rivers is to see the Tathagathas, and the four illusions and three poisons are the Buddha-dharma. To see a speck of dust is to see the dharma-dhatu and each spontaneous act is a manifestation of supreme enlightenment. They say this is the great understanding and call it a Patriarchal transmission. In latter-day Sung China, those who subscribe to this view are as numerous as rice plants, hemp. bamboo, and reeds. Their [religious] lineage is unknown, but it is clear they do not understand Buddhism.

All and all an interesting book, quite relevant to the present discussion.

...

"Elsewhere, Malcolm also said with regards to hongaku ("original enlightenment"), "Definitely a wrong view, even in Dzogchen.", "Chinese Buddhism departs from Indian Buddhism in many respects. Still, the idea of "inherent awakening" is patently absurd and cannot be taken literally or seriously by any means." 

Questions about Spontaneous Perfection


Soh Wei Yu: Surrending is unrelated to spontaneous perfection. Before stabilizing stage 5 and 6, any notion of 'spontaneous perfection' is just going to add fuel to the fire of delusions.

Someone asked: "Like someone asked in another post about crazy wisdom, can't a guru perform some unskillful action and call it not his doing, it's just happening and asking his disciple to surrender/accept to what is. That it is spontaneously perfect and that is is just seeing/hearing?"

Soh replied: “Actually surrendering is unrelated to spontaneous perfection. Surrendering requires the sense of a self, and a higher power, and is the path that leads to impersonality -- one of the four aspects of I AM. If one is still practicing surrendering, one has not even realized anatta yet, but it is a path of practice in the earlier stages of practice. In anatta there is in seeing just colors, in hearing just sounds, there is no hearer or seer, no self/Self at all and nothing to surrender to.

Spontaneous perfection just means everything is fundamentally in quiescence nirvana, non-arising, and luminous by nature, already anatta and empty, and effortlessly so. This must be realized and actualized otherwise it is just a bunch of fanciful intellectual words, completely useless and detrimental in fact. Spontaneous perfection has absolutely nothing to do with labelling something as 'perfect', which is just another delusion because now you are imputing some inherently existing characteristic of 'perfection' to some truly existing 'self' or 'phenomena' or worse, some imagined ontological and metaphysical 'perfect nature' (and you will impute that until you get to stage 5, as stage 1 to 4 all have varying delusions of an inherently existing perfect nature), and all notions of inherently existing characteristics are delusions. So before stable 5 and 6, any notion of 'spontaneous perfection' is just going to add fuel to the fire of delusions.

This is why you cannot skip Stages 1 to 7. You cannot, for example, go straight to Stage 7. Nobody can do that, except for a few people that are in the realm of myths and legends. So Stage 7 is basically useless for a beginner unless they have already very deep insights into 5 and 6 and then they can breakthrough to 7, otherwise it is going to be very harmful to emphasize on that point as it will certainly be misunderstood, so it's basically meaningless. Spontaneous perfection means the nature of anatta and emptiness, as realized in Stage 5 and 6, are spontaneously perfected in all manifestations, as the nature of all manifestations or display are already anatta, empty and non-arisen from the beginning. So if 5 and 6 are not realized, well then, what the hell are you even talking about? 🤣

Hence, emphasis should rather be placed on giving rise to the correct insights, and then spontaneous perfection will come on its own when the conditions are right.

When actualized, there will not be unskillful actions driven by afflictions, as afflictions are liberated. This is why I am not into crazy wisdom (I am very cynical of any gurus of any traditions that act in ways that are interpreted as ‘crazy wisdom’, to me ‘craziness’ is just a sign of immaturity and ignorance and should not be given excuses. And why do we need to put gurus on a pedestal in the first place??? Why do people want to be blind sheep of some figure? All the abuse and corruption going on just makes me lose confidence in institutionalised religions and partly explains my distaste for the whole guru system and my anti-authoritarian inclinations. End of rant), as wisdom liberates afflictions and actions driven by afflictions. And anyone who still acts in an abusive and harmful manner to other fellow human beings are simply acting out of personal immaturity, and immaturity of their own insights and practice, regardless of whatever insights they’ve had.”

Soh Wei Yu (2019): On Guru Worship.

“I am not a fan of guru devotion. I personally think it is unnecessary and causes all kinds of abuse like what we saw in andrew cohen and mooji. Even papaji is not without his own scandal. 

To me, the job of the guru is to point, that is all. When the student realises their own nature it is their own direct seeing, not an act of faith or devotion. I do not advocate for any sort of blind devotion whatsoever, in fact I am quite against it. I am anti authoritarian. My attitude on this matter is probably closer to the two krishnamurties than certain forms of traditional buddhism.

And even the job of the guru is not restricted to gurus these days

if someone can point out I AM then just call it what it is - someone who can point out I AM.

There is no need to worship such a person. That doesn’t help. It is in fact far from the final insight, so why even make it a big deal?

If someone can point out non dual, just call it what it is - someone who can point out nondual.

There is no need to worship such a person. That doesn’t help.

If someone can point out anatta, just call it what it is - someone who can point out anatta.

There is no need to worship such a person. That doesn’t help.

If someone can point out emptiness, just call it what it is - someone who can point out emptiness.

There is no need to worship such a person. That doesn’t help.


Soh Wei Yu: Not a fan of guru devotion. Another example is Adi da samraj, who taught complete surrender to guru as the method to attain his realization (which by the way, is only at the level of one mind, not anatta or emptiness). How many of his students awakened to his realization? 0. Only abuses and trouble. There are far more effective approaches that results in realization much more directly and produces far better results (i.e. real life awakenings) without the need to surrender blindly and lose one’s rationality to some human figure.”

That being said, as Kyle Dixon (Krodha) pointed out here in his posts (2021 -https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/ociois/does_anyone_else_have_a_problem_with_guru_devotion/ ) and Acharya Malcolm Smith has pointed out in his own ways, the guru-student relationship in Vajrayana Buddhism is not an irrational kind, which means if it is properly practiced, it is of a different nature than the kind which I have criticised in the quotations above.

John Tan (2007): Only after a certain stage of insight can someone enter spontaneous perfection.

“Spontaneous arising cannot be taught first. You cannot tell people things just happen by itself. You cannot tell people to practise this way. Only after certain stage, when a person has seen non-duality, experienced the luminosity, experienced the passing and dissolving away, you can tell them. Because it is leading towards that already. But before that, if you tell them, they are being controlled by the momentum, merely swapped away only. It is very dangerous to tell people to just relax. Why does a person say that? Because they failed to see the strength of what I call, pre-consciousness, the strength of propensities. You see what I mean? When you tell or teach a person “just relax lah, just let everything manifest.” You can’t. A person that does this probably turns to being ultimate slacker. Didn’t do anything. {laugh} 

Rather than practising, he is digging his own grave you know, enhancing the momentum. Why spontaneous arising is for a person that is understood (reality)... especially that he has gone through non-duality. He can “do” spontaneous arising. He can practise spontaneous arising. Why is this so? Because once a person enters into non-duality, the bond of the Self is already gone. A big chunk of the bond, the Self-propensities are already gone. And when this self propensities is gone, the energy turning against itself is being released, and work for itself. It does not die, you know. It is just released and then works for itself, rather than turning against itself. So only a person that has understood and experienced non-duality, it is better for him to penetrate spontaneous arising, to practice this way. Because can see.. {inaudible} there is no need to respond anything. Do you get what I mean? But if let’s say you do not see it, like I said that everything is the Mind, but you did not see that everything is the Mind then you start to say “don’t need to do anything”, you are letting your momentum take [over]…” 


Soh Wei Yu: It’s absolutely useless to “try” to “be spontaneous” and mimic the zen expressions of spontaneity and naturalness without giving rise to the proper experiential insights, kensho, and satori.

It is very common and easy for someone without the realizations to mimic the expressions of naturalness and spontaneity, but such mimicry is never the real thing but a fabricated version that is ironically not ‘natural’. It’s absolutely useless to “try” to “be spontaneous” and mimic the zen expressions of spontaneity and naturalness without giving rise to the proper experiential insights, kensho, and satori. It is important to understand that mimicry will not get you there, just like trying to mimic or train a state of being emotionless is not the same as overcoming the emotional afflictions for the insights and actualization and causal conditions for such a liberation are not addressed. This is why we have to focus on emphasizing on the causes - the insights and wisdom that leads to “naturalness”, “spontaneous perfection”, “freedom from emotional afflictions” rather than mimic the states and deceive ourselves, thinking we are getting there where in fact we are simply training a pretense-state, a contrived state.

“as to buddhadharma, no effort is necessary. You have only to be ordinary, with nothing to do—defecating, urinating, wearing clothes, eating food, and lying down when tired.”

(Record of Linji, tr Sasaki, p 11-12)

'I neither desire heavenly realms,
Nor want blessings in this world.
When hungry, eat;
Tired, sleep.
Fools laugh at me,
But the wise know its wisdom.
It’s not being stupid –
It’s what we originally are.'

(Enjoying the Way by Nanyue Mingzan, aka Lazy Zan)

'You get up in the morning, dress, wash your face, and so on; you call these miscellaneous thoughts, but all that is necessary is that there be no perceiver or perceived when you perceive—no hearer or heard when you hear, no thinker or thought when you think. Buddhism is very easy and very economical; it spares effort, but you yourself waste energy and make your own hardships.'

(Foyan Qingyuan, in Instant Zen, p 70)

John Tan (2009): “Yes Zen is about ordinary experience, yet you must understand what is meant by ordinary mind. :) The ordinary mind is the mind of anatta. If we pretend to be ordinary and try to 'look' for expression of ordinariness then we are deluded. If we fail to realize that true ordinariness comes from the realization of anatta and mistaken the finger for the moon, we are deluded. Without the insight of anatta, how could we ever understand the essence of being natural, effortless and ordinary? This is what Buddhism meant by ordinary.

Yet I have seen people going after 'ordinariness', trying to be 'nothing special', attempting to look for expression of ordinariness.  That is why for (Soh: I believe he meant certain misguided/deluded) zen practitioners, they will not understand the seven phases of experience.  They are caught up by 'forms', by the stages of the ox herding and missed the insight. :)

Unless practitioners realize clearly how these insights lead to the ordinary and natural state, there is no meaning in looking for 'sweep floor and washing dishes' or 'chop wood carry water'. This is the next disease of Zen. These practitioners are actively looking for such expressions. They do not have the wisdom to discern. What you have to awaken is the insights into our empty yet luminous nature, then talk about ordinariness and the natural state. That is why I told you, don't talk about natural state or spontaneous arising. However people just like to talk about that. Once you realized anatta, ordinariness and the natural state mean something very different. You can breathe hard, you can breathe soft, yet both are considered natural and ordinary. You can take a deep breath or short breath, still as non-dual, natural and ordinary. Sincere practitioners can take many years to come to this natural state even after the initial glimpse of insight of anatta.”