Some excerpts from a great Dzogchen practice book (which I highly recommend: 'The Cycle of Day and Night', which is about integrating the practice from waking to sleep) by a great Dzogchen master, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche.

"(5) The first of the three topics is understanding the practice. "Understanding" (rtogs-pa) is not just reasoning (brtag-pa) and analyzing (dpyad-pa), but it relies upon transmission. Our view (lta-ba) is a way of seeing or looking at things and it may include analysis and explanation. But "understanding" is fundamentally an entering into a knowledge of that view experientially. When we have no concrete knowledge of this sort, we are dependent upon the descriptions and interpretations of others, and these may change from day to day. Without real knowledge, all phenomena (chos kun) are merely false images (bden-med gzugs-brnyan); they do not exist in a real sense, but are like so many reflections in a mirror. A kitten, not knowing the image in the mirror is his own reflection, pursues it as if it were a real playmate. In Dzogchen, all appearances (snang-ba) are understood to be the potency (rtsal) of the energy of the Bodhicitta or the primordial state. These appearances are the qualifications or ornaments of that state. When we enter into knowledge we have no doubt of this. Thus we may conclusively determine (kho-thag-chod) that appearances are a magical display of the mind (sems kyi cho-'phrul).

(6) The Nature of the Mind (sems-nyid) is from the very beginning void or empty (stong-pa) and without any self or concrete substance (bdag-med). But we should not think of mind as being a mere nothing (med-pa) because it has the clarity and limpidity of the mirror. This clarity (gsal-cha) exists unobstructedly and without interruption ('gags-med), just as the moon is reflected in the water in various ways. Thoughts arising in mind are the way in which the Nature of Mind manifests itself. But just as we must understand the reflections in order to understand the nature of the mirror, so we must examine thoughts to see where they arise, where they abide, and where they go. However, when we look into this matter, we discover that there is no place where thoughts arise or abide or go. Nothing can be affirmed and what we find is void or emptiness (stong-pa nyid). This is the real character of the mind. Now, even though this may be the case, thoughts (rnam-rtog) continue to arise without interruption ('gags-med). Therefore, what we find is a primal awareness of pure presence (rig-pa'i ye-shes) where there is no duality of emptiness (stong-pa nyid) on the one hand and clarity (gsal-ba) on the other. This primal awareness is natural and spontaneously self-perfected (rang-bzhin lhun-grub). At the level of mind (sems) we do not find this nonduality because mind operates in time, while the state of pure presence (rig-pa) lies beyond the limits of mind.

(7) When we recognize that appearances are mere ornaments of the real condition of existence (chos nyid rgyan), these appearances which arise to our alertly relaxed (lhug-pa) six senses are self-liberated into their own condition (rang sar grol) whenever they arise. The six sense aggregates (tshogs drug) are the five senses plus the mind (yid). The presence of appearances prior to forming any conception or judgment is called "clarity." Appearances (snang-ba) refer to the external world, whereas the passions or afflictions (non-mongs) and the karmic traces (bag-chags) refer to the world of inner experience. The manifestation of the internal state of pure presence is primal awareness (ye-shes). The arising of pure presence (rig-pa) never lacks in spontaneous self-perfection (lhun-grub), that is to say, its essential qualities, just as the rising sun does not lack its rays. Our passions only grow powerful because we are ignorant of the state of pure presence, and so consequently we follow after our passions. But when we find ourselves in the state of the pure presence of the passions, they do not dominate us nor do we have to suppress them because they are like the ornaments of our primordial state. Thus our passions are self-liberated into their own condition (rang sar grol) whenever they arise.

(8) Appearances and pure presence are inseparable (snang rig dbyer-med). When we recognize (ngos zin) this and find ourselves in this state, then the discursive thoughts arising which grasp at the duality (gnyis su 'dzin-pa'i rnam-rtog) of subject and object, are liberated into their own condition (rang sar grol). We do not try to block or reject them in any way, but we simply remain aware in the presence of their arising. There are three procedures for self-liberation in this case, depending upon the capacity of the practitioner: 1. self-liberation through bare attention (gcer grol), 2. self-liberation upon the arising of a thought (shar grol), and 3. self-liberation as such (rang grol). The term gcer means "bare or naked attention." But this is not yet real self-liberation because, in observing ourselves, we are still applying some degree of effort. For example, when a thought arises, we look it straight in the face and it liberates into its own condition. The term shar means "to arise." At the moment the thought arise, we do not have to make the effort to look it straight in the face, but just as it arises, we find ourselves in the state of presence which is Rig-pa and it self-liberates. True self-liberation (rang-grol) occurs when this capacity is fully developed. At this level, we have arrived at the continuity of the state of Rig-pa.

(9) This verse gives the essence of the matter. The awareness (shes-pa) arising at the first sudden instant (thol-'byung skad-cig dang-po) of sense contact is that pure presence (rig-pa) which is manifested without modification or correction (ma bcos) by the mind and which is not created or produced (skye-med) by any causes. What is this state of presence? It is a condition of existence (de-bzhin-nyid) transcending the limitations of both subject and object (gzung 'dzin mtha' las 'das-pa); it is a natural and authentic (gnyug-ma) self-originated primordial awareness of pure presence (rang-byung rig-pa'i ye-shes). The term de-bzhin-nyid indicates the state characterized by both primordial purity (ka-dag) and spontaneous self-perfection (lhun-grub)."
Also see:

Genjo Koan: Actualizing the Fundamental Point

Flowers Fall: A Commentary on Zen Master Dogen's Genjokoan  

Realization, Experience and Right View and my comments on "A" is "not-A", "not A" is "A"  

"A" is "not-A", "not A" is "A"

From Bendowa, by Zen Master Dogen

Question Ten:

Some have said: Do not concern yourself about birth-and-death. There is a way to promptly rid yourself of birth-and-death. It is by grasping the reason for the eternal immutability of the 'mind-nature.' The gist of it is this: although once the body is born it proceeds inevitably to death, the mind-nature never perishes. Once you can realize that the mind-nature, which does not transmigrate in birth-and-death, exists in your own body, you make it your fundamental nature. Hence the body, being only a temporary form, dies here and is reborn there without end, yet the mind is immutable, unchanging throughout past, present, and future. To know this is to be free from birth-and-death. By realizing this truth, you put a final end to the transmigratory cycle in which you have been turning. When your body dies, you enter the ocean of the original nature. When you return to your origin in this ocean, you become endowed with the wondrous virtue of the Buddha-patriarchs. But even if you are able to grasp this in your present life, because your present physical existence embodies erroneous karma from prior lives, you are not the same as the sages.

"Those who fail to grasp this truth are destined to turn forever in the cycle of birth-and-death. What is necessary, then, is simply to know without delay the meaning of the mind-nature's immutability. What can you expect to gain from idling your entire life away in purposeless sitting?"

What do you think of this statement? Is it essentially in accord with the Way of the Buddhas and patriarchs?

Answer 10:

You have just expounded the view of the Senika heresy. It is certainly not the Buddha Dharma.

According to this heresy, there is in the body a spiritual intelligence. As occasions arise this intelligence readily discriminates likes and dislikes and pros and cons, feels pain and irritation, and experiences suffering and pleasure - it is all owing to this spiritual intelligence. But when the body perishes, this spiritual intelligence separates from the body and is reborn in another place. While it seems to perish here, it has life elsewhere, and thus is immutable and imperishable. Such is the standpoint of the Senika heresy.

But to learn this view and try to pass it off as the Buddha Dharma is more foolish than clutching a piece of broken roof tile supposing it to be a golden jewel. Nothing could compare with such a foolish, lamentable delusion. Hui-chung of the T'ang dynasty warned strongly against it. Is it not senseless to take this false view - that the mind abides and the form perishes - and equate it to the wondrous Dharma of the Buddhas; to think, while thus creating the fundamental cause of birth-and-death, that you are freed from birth-and-death? How deplorable! Just know it for a false, non-Buddhist view, and do not lend a ear to it.

I am compelled by the nature of the matter, and more by a sense of compassion, to try to deliver you from this false view. You must know that the Buddha Dharma preaches as a matter of course that body and mind are one and the same, that the essence and the form are not two. This is understood both in India and in China, so there can be no doubt about it. Need I add that the Buddhist doctrine of immutability teaches that all things are immutable, without any differentiation between body and mind. The Buddhist teaching of mutability states that all things are mutable, without any differentiation between essence and form. In view of this, how can anyone state that the body perishes and the mind abides? It would be contrary to the true Dharma.

Beyond this, you must also come to fully realize that birth-and-death is in and of itself nirvana. Buddhism never speaks of nirvana apart from birth-and-death. Indeed, when someone thinks that the mind, apart from the body, is immutable, not only does he mistake it for Buddha-wisdom, which is free from birth-and-death, but the very mind that makes such a discrimination is not immutable, is in fact even then turning in birth-and-death. A hopeless situation, is it not?

You should ponder this deeply: since the Buddha Dharma has always maintained the oneness of body and mind, why, if the body is born and perishes, would the mind alone, separated from the body, not be born and die as well? If at one time body and mind were one, and at another time not one, the preaching of the Buddha would be empty and untrue. Moreover, in thinking that birth-and-death is something we should turn from, you make the mistake of rejecting the Buddha Dharma itself. You must guard against such thinking.

Understand that what Buddhists call the Buddhist doctrine of the mind-nature, the great and universal aspect encompassing all phenomena, embraces the entire universe, without differentiating between essence and form, or concerning itself with birth or death. There is nothing - enlightenment and nirvana included - that is not the mind-nature. All dharmas, the "myriad forms dense and close" of the universe - are alike in being this one Mind. All are included without exception. All those dharmas, which serves as "gates" or entrances to the Way, are the same as one Mind. For a Buddhist to preach that there is no disparity between these dharma-gates indicates that he understands the mind-nature.

In this one Dharma [one Mind], how could there be any differentiate between body and mind, any separation of birth-and-death and nirvana? We are all originally children of the Buddha, we should not listen to madmen who spout non-Buddhist views.


Chinese translation:

道元禅师《办道话》-洪文亮老师(日中)翻译 (12/11/2009)


I was looking back at some posts by Thusness and found one that really summarizes the problems of many people (including me, once, and many others I see in forums)...


(31 October 2010)

Hi Geis,

I 'fear' commenting about other's forum because AEN will create havoc in that forum after

Jokes aside but 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.

Just my 2 cents. :-)
A friend asked me about the difference between substantial and insubstantial non-duality... so I edited a little from a post I wrote in the past and added a little more:


Our paradigm, view, insights, experiences, affect our every moment perception of life, self, the universe. Speaking from experience, this is what a seeker might go through:


Generally every normal non-spiritual person sees himself as a subject, self, perceiver, doer, which is a psychic entity conceived as locating inside the body - be it inside the head behind the eyes or in the heart or some other locations.

Because of the false view of inherency and duality, the view that there is an inherently existing self causes us to project and cling to the sense of self-hood.

This conceived self-entity causes a sense of alienation as 'I' am inside my body, looking outwards at the world through my eyes, ears, etc. I am self-contracted, separated from the world out there, and so experience is divided into 'inner' and 'outer'. Reality consists of three components: I, the seer, sees the world out there. (Seer, seeing, seen) I, the doer, does the deed (Doer, doing, done). All these actions, and perceptions, are felt to have occured by virtue of this psychic entity residing inside my body, which I call Me.

This mentally conceived sense of alienation from a separate objective world resulting from the perceived existence of a separate self and psychic entity residing within this body-mind results in all manners of passionate feelings such as fear, anger, craving, malice, sorrow, and all forms of destructive undertakings endemic in our world: war, murder, torture, rape, domestic violence, corruption and so on.

Basically it comes down to this: craving (craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, and craving for extermination), which arises due to the view of there being an inherently existing self alienated from the world, whereby the self must always get away from unpleasant experiences and chase after pleasant experiences, in search for happiness and the attenuation of suffering, not knowing this process of craving is precisely what causes suffering.

Self-Realization, Partial Duality 

By the practice of contemplating on the Source of experiencing ("Who am I?", "Who is the Source?"), we trace the radiance back to the essence of mind-consciousness. At the moment where the seeker reaches the pinnacle of his self-inquiry, one has a non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate perception of the self-luminosity of mind's Presence. But it is not an experience or a mere perception - it is a discovery of Mind's luminosity by stepping out of the flow of conceptualization into the utter stillness of luminous Presence by tracing the radiance back to its origins (the 'quiescent mind' or 'mind of clear light' or 'natural mind') through self-inquiry.

The self-felt certainty arising from the non-dual, non-conceptual, direct, immediate mode of perception (NDNCDIMOP) of mind's luminosity leads to a self-felt certainty that results in utter conviction of having touched the essence of being and existence. As all doubts pertaining to the nature of one's identity can no longer linger, one's self-inquiry into 'Who am I' comes to a closing conclusion. Being absolutely intimate as a sheer sense of Presence, Beingness, and Existence, shining in plain view prior to conceptual sullying, it is nevertheless immediately reified due to the paradigm and view of duality and inherency, even though in itself it is a non-dual perception.

What it is reified into is a grander entity than the psychic entity conceived as locating in the body as previously conceived. Though the psychic entity located inside the body, aka. the ego, is now being released through seeing the falsity of a personal self, the Identity remains intact at large, now expanding to become a Metaphysical entity transcending space and time, the grand, impersonal, and universal Self that is birthless and deathless. Due to the view of duality still largely being intact - Presence and Awareness is also seen as the Eternal Witness, an impartial and unchanging watcher of all phenomena that passes. 'I' am God, the ground of being, the source of all animate and inanimate objects, the universal consciousness underlying all my manifestations which comes and goes like waves in the ocean of Being.

All along not knowing that what they have realized is simply an aspect of luminosity pertaining to non-conceptual thought, a manifestation of mind-cognizance, and is as such nothing ultimate or special (as compared to any other manifestations).

At this phase, one may progress by deconstructing that sense of personality, resulting in the sense that everyone and everything is being lived and expressed by some universal source or higher power - so effectively everything is experienced as an impersonal happening rather than through some personal experiencer or doer, but still the bond of subject-object duality remains. Impersonality should not be mistaken as non-duality, nor anatta.


Via the contemplation into the absence of a separate self or the seamlessness of awareness and its contents, a direct and experiential realization that the subject-object separation and dichotomy is illusory arises. Everything is experienced at zero-distance in the absence of the bond of dualistic psychic construct.

Nevertheless at the beginning, as the insight of non-duality arises but not the insight into no-inherency, one ends up falling into:

Substantial Non-duality

- truly/inherently/independently existing awareness/Subject subsuming subject-object separation and phenomena and sees everything as a display of itself or one’s Self (as the truly existing, unchanging and independent One Awareness)

- Subject-object dichotomy collapses, and everything (the various diversity and multiplicity) is subsumed, into inherent oneness, into One Naked Awareness. In other words, subject-object duality collapses by deconstructing and subsuming all sense of objectivity into being mere modulations of a single inherent subjective reality (One Mind/One Naked Awareness). Instead of “awareness seeing a thing over there”, it is realized that there is no “thing” other than the one awareness itself. One Awareness aware of itself ‘AS’ all its own modulations.

- subject/perceiver/experiencer, experiencing, and experienced, or seer, seeing, and seen, are seen as One Awareness, they are seamless and without boundaries. In other words, it is not realizing the absence of an agent (watcher/perceiver) but more on the seamlessness and inseparability of subject and object, where Awareness is just undivided and seamless beingness: in hearing, hearer and sound are indistinguishably one

- due to the view of inherency (that reality must have 'existence' located somewhere and somewhen, even if it is Here and Now), the vivid 'realness' of non-dual luminosity is being treated as something Absolute, as having inherent, independent and unchanging existence, and is being reified into Noumenon (in contrast to illusory phenomenon), and as being the ultimate non-dual Self

- the intimacy experienced via the collapse of subject-object dichotomy is being referenced to a grandiose all-pervasive Self ("I am Everywhere and I am Everything")

- all phenomena are seen to be illusory projections of a single underlying source, such that all phenomena are self-expressions of the single nature of Awareness, as depicted by the analogy of the mirror and its reflections - reflections as such do not have an objective, independent existence outside the mirror - and in fact only the Mirror is seen to have absolute, independent, inherent existence - only the Mirror is Real, and the appearances are only Real as the Mirror

- appearances are inseparable from the Source, and yet the Source is independent of appearances

Insubstantial Non-duality (The Emptiness of Self)

- effectively, in the steps above, the view of duality is progressively removed, but the view of inherency still remains, and this is where the Buddhist teachings of 'emptiness' comes in

- insubstantial non-duality is about the arising insight into anatta (aka emptiness of self, aka first-fold emptiness), it is seen that seeing, cognizing, awareness is precisely and only what is seen, heard, tasted, touched, manifesting

- view of inherently/independently existing awareness, awareness is deconstructed in direct experiential realization of mere manifestation without a Subject, thus without a basis for subject-object separation and all phenomena are seen as a non-referencing or self-referencing display of itself (as transient, self-luminous or self-knowing phenomena-ing/flowing, not subsumed to some source or substance)

- it is not merely the seamlessness and inseparability of subject and object where hearer/heard, seer/seen is indistinguishably one in Awareness, but that there is absolutely no subject, no seer, no hearer whatsoever. Without an agent, without a subject, there cannot be 'inseparability' or 'union' of subject and object, Awareness and content - it absolutely does not make sense to talk about the inseparability of an Awareness and its contents, such analogies break down when 'Awareness' is realized as empty of a self and completely deconstructed into its constituents of six consciousnesses (which dependently originate according to the the six sense faculties and six sense objects). If inseparability is being talked about, it must be understood like heat is to fire and wetness is to water or sweetness is to sugar, that kind of inseparability (and not the inseparability of an existing awareness with its reflections). As I paraphrase Jui, awareness is a quality of experience and does not exist independently or separately from each particular manifest sensation

- the intimacy experienced via the lack of separation has no frame of reference due to the lack of something inherent - in the seeing is just the seen, in the hearing is just the heard, there is no True Self of any sorts - the world of multiplicity and diversity only references itself without an agent, without a source or oneness - no more referencing back to 'One Naked Awareness' as if everything is the display or emanation 'OF' a common source - without a source from which things issue forth, there is no more reference as to 'where' or 'to whom' phenomena 'comes from' - awareness does not 'issue' or 'illuminate' phenomena but rather awareness is simply the phenomena itself, self-aware where they are without a source

- Awareness is simply understood to be a label, like the word 'weather' - it has no substantial inherent existence, but is simply a convention for a conglomerate of diverse ever-changing phenomena like raining, clouds forming and parting, wind, lightning, etc... likewise Awareness is simply mind's clarity in the various modes of manifestation (it arises in six modes via dependent origination: Dependent Arising of Consciousness) – as such, we free ourselves of views such as “everything is contained within awareness” or “everything comes from awareness” as if awareness is some inherently existing source or substratum, just as we understand awareness is a mere convention like weather (there is no ‘The Weather’ to contain, give rise to, things), we do not say the rain is inside the weather or comes from the weather

- There is no ‘The Awareness’ that remains independent and unchanging, existing in and of itself, even when everything else dissolves, for we understand that even if there is voidness or awareness is self-aware in voidness, that aware-voidness (or I AMness) itself is an arising experience and not some untouched experiencer, for that too is ‘being known’ - in effect everything is manifestation only, awareness is manifestation only, the so called potential for arising is itself an arising/being known rather than being some unaffected knower

- there is no grandiose, universal consciousness, only individual bodies and mindstreams totally exerted seamlessly and interconnectedly due to interdependent origination, without any conceived 'underlying oneness behind multiplicity' - absolutely no identity remains, even the notion that "I am you and you are me" is seen as absurd

- as mentioned, there is no such thing as 'seamlessness of awareness and contents' or 'inseparability of awareness and its contents' - for awareness IS the process and activities of cognizance only, there is no such thing as 'awareness + its contents'

- seeing, cognizing, awaring never exists as nouns pointing to a noumenon but as verbs collating various activities of cognizance - what is seen, heard, taste, touch, are activities manifesting on its own accord with the presence of requisite conditions and factors via interdependent origination, without an agent, perceiver, controller, doer

- further penetration into anatta reveals that all phenomena are disjoint, unsupported, unlinked, bubble-like, insubstantial, dream-like, and self-releasing - there is absolutely nothing, not even an Awareness that underlies two thoughts, two manifestations - in fact there is not even two thoughts as such, just this thought, which spontaneously self-releases upon inception leaving absolutely no traces

- there is absolutely no collapsing of subject-object dichotomy into a base or oneness existing somewhere, even as a Here/Now - there is no linking base, oneness or source at all, only the experience of dispersed-out and de-linked multiplicity

- all manifestations are intrinstically luminous and vivid yet insubstantial and vanishes without a trace upon inception like drawing pictures on water manifests vivid appearances that does not leave trace - no existence of any sorts can leave traces when reality is momentary, popping in and out like bubbles but leaving no traces.

The Emptiness of Objects

- In addition to the emptiness of self in insubstantial non-duality, there is the emptiness of objects (second-fold emptiness) where all experiences, thoughts, and perceptions are discovered to have no independent essence - as such a core of appearance is unlocatable, unfindable, and ungraspable - the appearances shimmers vividly but no core can be found. They are like an empty shell, appearing due to dependent origination, and yet coreless.

- All appearances, due to being realized as empty of inherent existence, is seen to be like an illusion, like a magician's trick, like a dream - appearing and yet no-thing truly there. This is amazing and magical, and gives rise to wonder - like if you see a very clear mirage on the edge of the sea of an island, you may think it is wonderful, but this time your entire experiential field is seen to be like a mirage - vividly shining and appearing and yet empty. How wonderful is that!

- Experience becomes liberating as you are liberated from all views of 'is' and 'is not', ‘existence’ or ‘non-existence’ with regards to both subjective self and objects, so there is no-thing to cling to, only the ungraspable flow of unreified suchness of seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, tasting, thinking, all self-liberating upon inception leaving no traces, the trace being clinging to any views of 'is' and 'is not'. (With regards to views: The View)
-  Everything is the dynamic state of creation of interdependency, so it is always everything coming into being in a causal process, there is nothing with real existence that is inherent, independent and static – whether self or objects, as if there is a self or a thing already existing somewhere waiting for us to ‘discover or reveal it’, but rather the myriad dharmas are constantly ‘created’ or rather, totally exerted every moment in seamless interpenetration – complete and whole as it is. Hence there is simply this ever-dynamic, ever-advancing state of manifesting or self-actualization incorporating all causes and conditions